Journal des débats 1988-mai-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the oldest Jewish congregation in Toronto, Holy Blossom Temple, whose roots go back to some 50 families in the 1850s in this city, is celebrating this year its 50th anniversary in its present building on Bathurst Street.

It was only after the 1880s, however, with the arrival of increasing numbers of Jewish immigrants from the United States, that the congregation began to adopt the reformist Jewish posture that has become characteristic of Holy Blossom Temple. It is perhaps noteworthy that the first steps in this direction came in 1888, when the women’s choir was permitted to sing at the high holy day services of that year.

The congregation has been active over the years in the development of such Jewish services as Associated Jewish Charities, the founding of the first Mount Sinai Hospital and other services for the Jewish community.

Holy Blossom, however, has been most notable for Jews and non-Jews alike in Toronto for its readiness to make common cause in attacking social problems, defending civil rights, encouraging exchanges with Christian counterparts and so on, and above all, for the outspoken and evident intelligence of its rabbis.

We remember Holy Blossom’s outstanding past, we salute it on the occasion of its anniversary, and we look forward to an equally distinguished future for it in the future of this city.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the May 12 Quebec budget provided an answer to the question, “What is the difference between a Quebec Liberal and an Ontario Liberal?” The short answer is about $1.3 billion in tax increases. The longer answer is the Quebec Liberal budget contained two things missing from the Ontario budget: fiscal responsibility and economic common sense.

The Quebec government, like its counterpart in Ontario, has benefited from strong economic expansion and significant revenue windfalls. However, unlike its Ontario cousin, the Quebec government has cut taxes to sustain growth and will reduce its deficit by controlling its expenditures. The Ontario government, faced with similar circumstances, resorted to a massive tax grab and will allow its expenditures to increase again at double the rate of inflation.

The Quebec government, to solve its population problems, is providing incentives for people to have more children. The Ontario budget, by comparison, was a new form of birth control. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) wants to make sure Ontario taxes are so high people cannot afford to have children.

The Ontario Treasurer deserves a tip of the hat from taxpayers in Quebec. The Ontario budget has done more to enhance the competitive position and investment opportunities in Quebec than they could have done themselves. Merci beaucoup, M. Nixon. La belle province is looking better every day. The only things we have been able to discover in David Peterson’s Ontario are chaos in the health care, housing and education fields, together with higher taxes and a bloated government.

CONSERVATION

Mr. Tatham: We should be working with nature. Who wants maple syrup on their pancakes? Who wants to decorate a real Christmas tree? Who wants to make some money selling firewood? Who wants to sell timber? Who wants to slow down the spring runoff? Who wants to help stop the wind from picking up rich topsoil? You do? Well, you have to plant some trees. Contact your local Ministry of Natural Resources field office or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. They will help you to work with nature.

William O. Douglas put it this way: “I hope they will come to love the continent, the most beautiful one in the world. I hope that before it is too late they will develop a reverence for rich soils, pure waters, rolling grass country, high mountains and mysterious estuaries. I hope that they will put their arms around this part of the wondrous planet, love it, care for it and treat it as they would a precious and delicate child.”

HOUSING ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Farnan: I wish to draw to the attention of members an advertisement that appeared in the Toronto Star, in the housing section, on Saturday, May 14. It is promoting the Green Briar adult condominium community and it offers a coupon worth $18,000. As some members will recognize, it is equivalent to the entire deposit required for a $90,000 home purchase. How upsetting for young families attempting to put together the down payment on their first affordable home. If this represented a real saving of $18,000, then we could hardly find fault with it.

The reality, of course, is that the $18,000 represents a come-on. Presumably at no extra cost this coupon will provide extras, which include a large, finished family room, log-burning fireplace, tempered glass doors, three-piece bathroom, modular shower, laundry room, furniture-finished cupboards, floor features, broadloom and vinyl. Interestingly, the $18,000 can be applied only to those models priced at $165,000 and above. Other homes are priced from $150,000 but with no coupon for $18,000. I urge the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) to review this type of misleading advertising.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Marland: Last week Metro council voted to close the Commissioner Street incinerator, a move that my party has been advocating for some time. The incinerator had been a major source of airborne pollution in east Toronto, dropping more than five kilograms of deadly dioxins into the air every year. While I applaud this move by Metro, there are still a number of issues that have to be addressed by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). This province has a serious waste crisis. Metro alone produces more than three million tons of waste per year and is running out of space at existing dump sites. Dozens of other municipalities are facing the same problem.

1340

I have some specific suggestions I would like the minister to consider. The Minister of the Environment should make waste disposal a matter of provincial interest under the Planning Act, as his government has done with housing in Bill 128. The province should give municipalities the authority to consider provincially owned land for waste disposal sites. Now surplus staff from the Commissioner Street incinerator should be used for stepped-up recycling programs. The minister should establish regional waste management councils to co-ordinate regional waste management strategies.

I hope the minister will show some leadership and seriously consider my suggestions as a way to solve the waste disposal crisis in a coordinated fashion.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Adams: I commend the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) for keeping the widening of Highway 115 on track in face of fierce competition for dollars which has resulted from years of Tory neglect of the province’s highway system. Highway 115 is a key step in the opening up of central and eastern Ontario. The improved highway will be further encouragement for the healthy expansion of Metro towards the east, thus relieving pressures on the magnificent and very special farm and escarpment lands of southwestern Ontario.

It will also improve the competitiveness of central and eastern Ontario. The minister’s plan of GO Transit rail service to the east end of Oshawa and of improving access beyond via Highway 115 is truly visionary. The entire province is eagerly awaiting completion of this GO Transit-Highway 115 system. I urge the minister to keep up pressure on this important matter. Highway 115 will affect the daily and weekend lives of millions of people in this province.

ZOO LICENSING

Mr. Philip: On Saturday I had the honour of addressing the convention of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. I was particularly pleased with the interest and support expressed by Nancy Erickson, president of the Canadian federation, and other delegates for my private member’s bill, Bill 129, which will empower the Ministry of Natural Resources to set standards and license zoos.

My bill has been endorsed by zoologists, veterinarians and humane societies across the province. Many private zoos in Ontario offer a definite danger to public health and safety by allowing for the transmission of diseases between animals and humans. Animals are also kept in inappropriate shelters, and improperly fed and sick animals are not receiving adequate veterinary care.

With the current vacuum in the law, there are no requirements to determine the educational, practical and financial capabilities of people wishing to operate zoos in this province. There is no method to ensure that educational programs are instituted, that facilities provide for conservation efforts or that valid scientific studies are conducted to aid in the welfare of the captive animals.

In introducing this bill, my bill comes to grips with these problems. On February 23 I wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and asked for his opinion on the bill. I have yet to receive a reply from the minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. I know that the Premier had a meeting this morning with Mr. Crosbie, the representative of the federal government with respect to international trade. When the Premier matched wits with Mr. Crosbie this morning, did he inform him directly that it was Ontario’s intention to challenge federal legislation invading the provincial jurisdiction legally in the courts? Was that his information directed to Mr. Crosbie?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes, it was. I would expect that some time this week there will be implementing legislation presented in the federal Parliament. I did not see copies of the legislation. As I understand it, the federal government is looking at various options at this point. We will examine that very closely when it is presented. My sense is that there are going to be some very serious jurisdictional problems in a variety of areas, and I do not exclude the possibility, I say to my friend, that other provinces may take up the same view.

Mr. B. Rae: I am a little surprised, given what the Premier has just told us, that he did not have a statement to make in the House today about Ontario’s position, but since he has not made a statement perhaps he can tell us, in response to my questions, what form this challenge from Ontario is going to take. I might add that up until now the government of Ontario has not indicated in any way, shape or form how it intends to challenge the federal legislation.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I contemplated having a statement for my honourable friend, but I honestly did not think there was anything specific to report, in the sense that we do not know the nature of the implementing legislation. As soon as we see that, perhaps this week, we will analyse it and share our views with members of the House on this matter, as I am sure the member will share his views. But it is impossible to tell the member specifically. at this moment, in the absence of the implementing legislation.

My honourable friend will know I have always taken the view that the operative document we will really be able to look at in detail is the implementing legislation, and that is coming along. I told Mr. Crosbie, and I share with members of the House, that I do not exclude or I do not dismiss the possibility of a constitutional challenge. I think it is a very real possibility.

Mr. B. Rae: I have asked only two questions and I already have two different answers. I asked the Premier in my first question whether it was Ontario’s intention to challenge the legislation and whether that is what he told Mr. Crosbie. His answer to me on my first question was that yes, that was what he told Mr. Crosbie and that was Ontario’s intention. Now he is saying he does not exclude that possibility.

I would like to ask the Premier again, can he tell us, did he tell Mr. Crosbie categorically this morning that it was Ontario’s intention to challenge the federal legislation with respect to provincial jurisdiction in the Supreme Court? Is that the information he extended to Mr. Crosbie this morning -- yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, it depends on what is in the legislation. Surely that is not difficult to understand. There are no verbal tricks in this, I say to my honourable friend. As I said this morning, I am clearly of the view that because of the potential constitutional ramifications, not just Ontario but also others will challenge this. As I said, if we can attend until we get the legislation some time this week, then we will examine it and discuss in detail the specific grounds for that constitutional challenge.

Perhaps my friend would like to do it in just a theoretical sense, It is our view, obviously, that we have to do it against a particular piece of legislation. So when we have analysed that and the member has had an opportunity to analyse it, he will look at the areas of provincial jurisdiction that he thinks are being trammelled and then we will share our views and proceed from there.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. I say to the minister that since raising the example of Mr. LeBel in the Legislature last week, we have now heard from many patients who are in a similar position. The minister’s advice to Mr. LeBel and to me was that he should shop around and get another opinion. These are people who are in many cases bedridden and in enormous pain, and the minister’s advice to them is that they should search around Ontario for a better deal.

I would like to ask the minister, has she herself, in the time since I raised the question of Mr. LeBel, had a chance to review the waiting-list situation around the province, and can she tell the House what she thinks the average waiting list is for an operation similar in seriousness to Mr. LeBel’s?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We are in the process, continually, of reviewing waiting lists. Waiting lists are not new and if the Leader of the Opposition at any time wants to mention specific individuals or cases, we are always pleased to do whatever we can to look into individual cases because we are concerned that people receive care when needed.

Mr. B. Rae: Since the minister says she is interested in acting as a kind of referral agency, perhaps I could refer to her and give her the following names:

Duncan MacDonald, who is 52 years old, lives in Brockville and has degenerative osteoarthritis. His operation has been delayed until October 24, 1989.

Gloria Stephenson is 39 years old and has a rare congenital form of arthritis. Her operation has been scheduled for February 1, 1990.

Maria Fecko is 81 years old and lives with her daughter in Downsview. She has been scheduled for March 7, 1989. She has had two hip operations done by Dr. Cameron, the latest one in 1980.

Alice Mitchell is from Scarborough. She is 59 years old and has rheumatoid arthritis. She has to wait until June 1990.

Harry Seeley has to wait until April 1989. He is also from Oshawa.

1350

I can keep bringing these cases forward to the minister. I would like to ask the minister, what is she going to do in response to what is clearly a critical problem facing not just one patient, but indeed many patients who are being told they have to wait until 1989 or 1990 to have a very serious medical condition dealt with in this province?

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

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The waiting lists, as I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, are not new. In fact, they have existed for some five to 10 years. I am very concerned about those waiting lists and we have already moved. This government announced an unprecedented capital program. Some 3,200 chronic care beds have been announced as well as over 700 acute beds, at a cost of over $850 million. We recognize that there is much to be done because of the neglect of the past, and there are no easy solutions.

Mr. B. Rae: I can say to the minister in response to her answer that in fact it is not true that nothing has got worse since she became minister. With respect to some hospitals, the situation has got considerably worse and the number of operations has been cut by as much as 50 per cent.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what she is going to do about the Wellesley Hospital in Toronto, where for a similar operation there is a four-month or five-month wait for a consultation and then a six-month wait for surgery; about the Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, where there is a four-month wait for a consultation and then a year’s wait for surgery; about St. Joseph’s Hospital in London, where there is a three-month wait for a consultation and up to a six-month wait for surgery; the Ottawa Civic Hospital, where there is a wait of two months to a year for surgery, depending on the surgeon; and St. Joseph’s General Hospital in Peterborough, where there is up to a 16-month wait for surgery, depending on the surgeon? They are booked up until September 1989.

Mr. Speaker: And your question?

Mr. B. Rae: This is not some theoretical, academic problem facing the planners and the Minister of Health. These are patients who are in pain, who are having to wait for as long as two years for an operation in this province for a very serious condition. Just what is the minister going to do about this critical situation?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said in the House in the last few days. I believe part of the solution to this is that we carefully plan and then manage the resources. If we do not do that, if we allow hospitals to independently do their own planning, we will see waiting lists grow. We will also not be successful in moving our resources into the community so that we can have a kind of mix and balance in our health care system.

We have moved to expand our chronic care beds and our acute care beds. We recognize this cannot be accomplished overnight. It will take some time. We are very concerned about those waiting lists, but I can tell the member that it is essential that the ministry be permitted to plan, to approve in advance and then to manage the resources that are given to us.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it is with respect to the question of Meech Lake. The Premier’s original position in regard to the Meech Lake accord was that Ontario would not accept any amendment to the accord prior to its being ratified by this Legislature. I wonder if the Premier can share with us if that is still his position, that no amendments will in fact be allowed or recognized by this province before ratification.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My view is that we should proceed with Meech Lake. I am sure the select committee on constitutional reform will have advice for the government and members of the Legislature with respect to other discussions that are going on. After all, in a sense, Meech Lake is just the beginning of constitutional reform, as my honourable friend would know. It is enshrined in that document that there would be meetings on an annual basis after that. It is my view, however, that it is very much in the interests of the country to pass that and I hope the other provinces take the same view.

Mr. Brandt: As the Premier is well aware, there are some very substantive differences of opinion within his own party -- I might add that cuts across partisan party lines -- in regard to the Meech Lake accord. I want to make it clear to the Premier that from our side of the House we are going to attempt to be as co-operative as we can in finding a common solution that is acceptable to all in regard to the accord. But it does appear that there are provinces -- namely, Manitoba, which I brought to the Premier’s attention and which he is aware of, and certainly New Brunswick -- which appear to be a little unsettling in terms of the position they are taking.

Would it be the Premier’s position that he will attempt to accommodate some of these differences of opinion by allowing some amendments to flow forward, either from this Legislature or from other signatories to the accord, in order to find a method of ratification that is acceptable to all?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s question and it is constructively put. I think the thing we have to ask ourselves -- it is not so much a question of whether Ontario, this government, will accept amendments, but whether they will be acceptable to all 11 governments. Really, that is the context in which we have to discuss this entire matter. You have to ask yourself whether the federal government, which I gather is going to be discussing the Meech Lake accord again this week, would accept those, whether Quebec would, whether the western provinces would. That really is the question we are faced with.

I agree with my honourable friend that this is an issue that cuts across partisan lines and it is an important issue for all Canadians. There are different points of view in all the political parties. That being said, charged as I am with the position of leadership, as are the member and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) in this particular matter, we have to come to some difficult judgements, as we always do on many issues, about what is in the national interest at this point.

I believe very strongly it is in the national interest to seize this historic opportunity to bring Quebec into the Constitution. As my honourable friend rightly points out, there are still two years in which the other provinces will have to deal with this matter. I cannot predict how it will turn out in New Brunswick, or Manitoba for that matter. Lots of discussions will ensue, but I think it would be presumptuous to assume we are in a position here to speak for all of Canada or in a position to break, shall we say, the logjam if in fact one develops.

I say to my honourable friend, because I am sure he would take the same view if he were in my position, that Ontario will do whatever it can to be constructive as discussions unfold, if in fact they do unfold, but at this moment it is my best judgement that it is in the national interest to bring Quebec into the Constitution and start a process that will, I think, move a long way to building a stronger Canada.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate that response on the part of the Premier and I want him again to know that we on this side of the House, as well as in many of the political parties across this country, are struggling for a comfort level, if you will, with the accord that will be acceptable to all the parties to that particular document.

My colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) provided what he felt was a constructive suggestion to this entire debate in that he proposed a companion document be aligned with the accord, which would not require a de facto amendment to the document itself but would be a companion document that could perhaps clarify some of those outstanding issues that are troublesome to a lot of people.

I ask the Premier this question: Has he raised this particular alternative, this suggestion put forward in a very responsible way by my colleague to my left in regard to this companion document, to see if that could not in fact break the logjam and assist in finding some common ground so that we can proceed to accommodate the best interests of Quebec in the context of the best interests of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We for the last year, and the government prior to that for two years, have been investigating all aspects of the Meech Lake document and the effects on our country, both long-term and short-term, both political and legal. I say with some pride that the best legal work done on the document was in the submission to the committee by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) a week or so ago. I hope people will read that particular submission because I think it puts to rest some of the fears that have been raised by some surrounding the Meech Lake document.

One of the views the government has is that we needed a full and open discussion of these matters with all members of the Legislature. From everything I hear, the committee has conducted itself in an exemplary way, getting the views of the public on this matter.

1400

The committee may come forward with a companion suggestion or suggestions -- I have no idea how they view the situation -- for the second round or the third round. As the member knows, there is controversy over the matters of fisheries and Senate reform and a variety of other matters. Obviously, I will take that very seriously and I will share whatever information comes forward with my colleagues.

But I think it would be, and I say this kindly, presumptuous to think that one of us in this House has the magic breakthrough to an inordinately complex set of discussions. I approach this in the same spirit of charity as do the member for Nipissing, the member himself, the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House.

Ultimately, I think we have to form a judgement about, bottom-line, what is in the interests of this country, and starting from there, go on dealing with this organic document that a constitution is, to deal with the second, third and fourth rounds. We have created in the process an expert body of opinion in this Legislature on constitutional matters, and I think that is important as well.

I think we should approach it in that light and my best advice is to proceed with the matter.

Mr. Brandt: I am still not sure whether a companion document will be accepted but I will read in Hansard the words of the Premier very carefully.

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr. Brandt: My second question to the Premier is with respect to the ruling that came down in November 1987 in regard to the question of wine and spirit pricing, the ruling that was brought in by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. As a result, Canada, I believe with Ontario’s concurrence, attempted to negotiate a 12-year phase-in period that was rejected by the European Community. Canada, as I understand it at the moment, accepted the ruling and now has until the end of this year to come up with a plan acceptable to the EC, as a result of the charges it brought against us.

My question to the Premier is, does the Premier accept the GATT ruling; if so, does Ontario intend to comply, and if not, does he intend to go to court over Ontario being forced to comply with the GATT ruling?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, it was not Ontario’s to accept or not accept. It was the federal government’s. The federal government was charged with those negotiations, not us. I say, without trying to be unkind, that had we been charged with the negotiations, we probably would have done it differently.

That being said, it is the federal government that was charged with this. Now the country has until the end of the year to go back to GATT with a response. That response is being discussed with all the various parties.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say, with respect, to the Premier that traditionally he has taken the position that beer, wine and spirits do come under provincial jurisdiction, that they are in fact a matter for provincial decision. If the Premier felt so strongly about the difference of opinion with respect to the 12-year period, I would think he would have shared that view with the federal government in a more forceful fashion.

Let me simply ask then, is the Premier holding to the position that it will be a 12-year settlement with respect to the EC charges for compliance with the GATT ruling, or is he prepared to accept the seven years that has been put forward as the compromise view, or something in between?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think my honourable friend’s view is quite right, that the seven years is a compromise. The reality is that under the free trade agreement, a seven-year phase-down has been ensconced in that particular piece of legislation, with the markups falling 25 per cent in the first two years. In our judgement, that free trade agreement, the bilateral agreement, would effectively wipe out the substance of our grape-growing, wine-producing industry, with all the farmers and all the productive land in that regard.

We do not accept that. We do not accept the federal government’s right to make a treaty in that particular area of provincial jurisdiction. The answer to my friend is that we do not accept that and I will not bring in legislation to implement that.

Mr. Brandt: I ask the Premier, in light of the comments he has just made, is he prepared then to accept retaliatory action on the part of other nations that are partners to or part of the EC and have brought these particular concerns before the GATT tribunal, with respect to the decision it made? Is he then prepared to accept that form of international trade retaliation that will affect not only Ontario but also all parts of Canada?

Is the Premier not aware of the fact that if Ontario stands firm on its position, without attempting to find some common ground for agreement, we could in fact be setting off some form of trade war or trade retaliation that will have a very negative impact on this province and on other provinces throughout this country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again I repeat, it is the federal government that has not accepted the GATT ruling. We are not in a legal position because as a province we do not have standing at GATT to accept it or deny it. It is the federal government that has turned that down and that is under the obligation to speak. Obviously, when they attended at Brussels, Ontario and other provinces were there giving their advice, but ultimately the decision was made by the federal government on how to carry on those discussions.

We put forward a plan that we think is sensible, reasonable and fair under the circumstances, a program that would allow for phase-down of markups in an orderly way, working with the grape growers and the wine producers to salvage what is possible out of that industry. We think our position is extraordinarily reasonable and we think that with effective leadership --

Mr. Brandt: But it’s not acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How does the member know it is not acceptable?

Mr. Brandt: Because they’ve turned it down, that’s why.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend -- I am not trying to be provocative -- is willing to capitulate now, lie down on the floor and wipe out 25,000 acres of grapes in this province.

Mr. Brandt: That isn’t what I said at all.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is what he is saying. That is the bottom line of what he is saying, effectively. I say to my honourable friend that I do not accept that view because we are going to fight for our Canadian industries and our Canadian farmers.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: I have in my possession several letters from residents of Cambridge who complain about the postponement of elective surgery.

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister an extract from a letter from Doug Coghlin of Cambridge who spent some three hours in the emergency department suffering from frostbite before he received attention. He notes in part of his letter, “The emergency department was full of others in need who had as much right to attention as I.”

He notes also: “I have always found them” -- the staff -- “to be caring, hardworking professionals who are now being pushed to the limit and beyond. It is, as I’ve said before, the system which is at fault and of course the bottom line is money.”

The questions I would ask the minister are the questions contained in Mr. Coghlin’s letter. It was received in January. They are as follows:

“Does the Ministry of Health not recognize that the city of Cambridge and surrounding area is expanding at such a rate that the current health care system is inadequate?

“Do they not believe that it is essential to have a health care facility capable of handling the volume of patients who turn to it for medical treatment?

“Do they not believe the citizens of this area have a right to expect reasonably expedient care and treatment?”

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have already asked three questions.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I note that the member opposite, and in fact the leader of his party, continues to support and champion the cause of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. Just last Friday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) said he supports the moves that Cambridge hospital is making. He says he is proud of them and he says they are doing the responsible thing. I find this doubly surprising because during the Canada Health Day debate, the critic in the New Democratic Party, from the official opposition, said he found the proposals to charge user fees and to shut down beds to be goofy proposals.

Mr. Farnan: Being a new member, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your indulgence. Am I supposed to get an answer from the minister when I ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the honourable member to ask a question through the chair to the minister. I cannot put words in either the questioner’s or the responder’s mouth.

Mr. Farnan: Woods Gordon reported to the Ministry of Health that Cambridge Memorial Hospital was an efficiently and effectively run organization and that no fault could be found with the handling of funds or the delivery of services by the hospital. Moreover, studies conducted through the Ontario Hospital Association had proven that, compared to 23 other Ontario hospitals with 200 to 399 general-care or long-term-care beds, CMH was among the lowest in cost per patient-day.

1410

My question to the minister is this: Given that the Cambridge hospital received the average unit cost for the mean of hospitals of equivalent size and service provided, the cost to the Ministry of Health would have been an additional $49 million over the past six years; and given that the Cambridge Memorial Hospital per unit cost is some $80 per day lower than the average hospital in its comparison group, will the minister acknowledge the excellent cost-effective performance of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and guarantee the Cambridge Memorial --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was well put and there was a lot of information previously.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Over the past five years, Cambridge Memorial Hospital has received base increases of some 41 per cent. Each year they ran a deficit and each year the deficit was picked up and the base was enriched.

Mr. Farnan: Less than Sunnybrook; less than Sunnybrook.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue is who plans, who approves and then how they manage. The Leader of the Opposition and his party have said that we have been unjustified in sending in an investigator under the Public Hospitals Act --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What I would suggest --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the member for Cambridge that he had 120 seconds to place his supplementary question. Please allow for the response.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to suggest that unless we plan well and manage well, we will have the unplanned, unmanageable system that the leader of the third party and his government were noted for when they had the opportunity to govern.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health, as well. Her predecessor initiated a policy of cutting back 40 hospital residency positions a year for some five years. This was to result in a net reduction of 200 positions over the five-year period. Hospitals say they need these positions to provide the services they perform. Does she agree with the hospitals?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Manpower planning in this province is something that I believe is extremely important. It is also an area that I think was not done well in previous years by the previous government. I have been meeting with the Council of Faculties of Medicine to discuss appropriate manpower planning in this province.

Mr. Eves: Although the minister did not answer the question at all, we will ask her a supplementary, anyway. Hospitals were originally promised somewhere between $100,000 and $120,000 per position eliminated per year to provide the services that these interns would have otherwise provided.

Now we understand that Dr. Barkin has told them they will not be receiving that funding after all. How does the minister expect these hospitals to provide the services? They were promised the money and now her deputy minister is reneging on the promise and apparently telling them they will not get the money to provide those services. How does the minister explain that and does she agree with that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Our goal is to ensure that health services are fairly funded in this province; as well, it is to ensure that our manpower planning needs are met in the future. We have been working very closely with the universities and the faculties of medicine to ensure that that is properly and appropriately done. I think it is important when we look at these kinds of issues to remember that it is the problems that were created in the past that we are facing and attempting to deal with more effectively today.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I have been approached by members of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, saying that they fear we are in danger of losing our natural resources, our forests and our wilderness more quickly under the proposed trade deal with the United States than we are at the present time.

Environmental programs to reduce pollution could be in jeopardy. They say that, especially if they include economic incentives, they feel the regulation of toxic substances, notably pesticides, could be weakened, as the Canadian evaluation and approval process would have to be similar to the system in the United States.

My question to the minister is, can the government of Ontario exercise any form of independent action, independent of Ottawa, in the protection of our environment’s future?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The question the member raises is one of great concern, I think, not only to the Canadian Environmental Law Association but also to many Environment ministers across the country, as it means we will have increased pressure coming from those who do not wish to see environmental regulations extended or expanded at a rapid rate. The excuse that will be used is that we now have or will have free trade, if this were to pass the federal House and the US Congress, and therefore there would be a great movement to have similar environmental regulations.

We in this province would not mind if those environmental regulations were indeed as tough as possible, but our concern is that in some of the jurisdictions in the United States they are not and that the same companies that deal with provinces in this country deal with states in the US and, therefore, will increase the pressure to eliminate environmental controls in some cases or at least to reduce the rate at which we are imposing new and more stringent regulations.

I want to assure the member it is not the intention of Ontario to move in that direction. It is our intention to continue to make ever more stringent the environmental regulations and legislation in this province to ensure that those who do business in this province do it under the environmental umbrella that the people of this province voted to have in place.

Mr. Owen: I know the minister has had the opportunity to discuss a number of environmental matters with the federal minister. What I would like to ask the minister today is, in his discussions with Mr. McMillan, has he raised this specific concern with Mr. McMillan, and what is the response from Ottawa with our concern as to the protection of Ontario’s future?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: At the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers conference in Alberta, I think it was two years ago, the issue was discussed at that time. The member may recall --

Mr. B. Rae: Tell us about that meeting two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Pardon? The member for the third party has a question as well, and he has disrupted my thought process, which is very difficult.

An hon. member: Start over.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It does not mean you have to start over.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to redirect my mind to the question that was asked.

Subsequent to the conference that took place in Alberta, there was a media availability and press conference and the matter was discussed at some length at that time as well.

In addition to that, in August 1987 I brought greetings to a group which was meeting in Toronto -- again, Environment ministers and others concerned with these issues -- and at that time took advantage of the opportunity, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and the leader of the third party would want me to do, to make very clear the concerns of Ontario as they relate to free trade and as to the effect on the environment. We believe there was not sufficient time, effort and energy provided in those discussions between Canada and the US.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On June 9, 1987, the previous Minister of Labour announced changes in the regulations under the Employment Standards Act, effective October 1, 1987, which were supposed to protect the 65,000 domestics in Ontario from exploitation in terms of hours of work and overtime.

We told the minister at the time that the hours off in lieu of overtime, when the domestics had no right to organize and no bargaining power, would render the move useless.

The minister is now aware that his government’s so-called protection has allowed continued exploitation of domestics, mostly low-paid, immigrant women. Can the minister tell this House what he is prepared to do to end this gross injustice?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I appreciate my friend the member for Hamilton East’s raising the question. I think he knows I was meeting earlier today with an organization called Intercede, the International Coalition To End Domestics’ Exploitation, whose responsibility it is, I think, to bring issues affecting domestic workers to the attention of government. At that meeting, representatives of Intercede suggested to me that the provision which provided for time off in lieu of overtime pay was certainly not being taken advantage of in the appropriate way by the workforce.

1420

I am not sure that the suggestion my friend the member for Hamilton East makes is the appropriate one. In effect, what that provision does is it says to a domestic worker who works overtime that if that worker prefers to have time off rather than to have the overtime pay, that worker can take advantage of that. If it is really a question of enforcement and whether neither premium pay nor time off is being granted, that is another issue, an enforcement issue, and I would like to hear my friend’s view on that and Intercede’s views.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will try very carefully to tell the minister so he understands. With no right to organize into a union, no maximum hours and no way to enforce the hours of work or payment of overtime, these immigrant workers have now been forced to go to court under the Charter of Rights. Is this the way the Liberal government looks after immigrant and ethnic minorities: passing legislation that allows continued exploitation, even when warned of it, and then arrogantly telling the delegation this morning, as he did, that he is not prepared to sit down with Intercede to negotiate changes in the regulations that might give them the protection?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I resent the tone of voice from my friend the member for Hamilton East and the suggestion that I was not willing to listen to Intercede’s point of view. Obviously, when a group comes in to me and says, “Listen, we would like the law changed,” I am not going to say, “OK, let’s sit down and negotiate a change to the law.”

I will tell my friend the member for Hamilton East there are lot of people who come into my office and say, “We would like to change the Ontario Labour Relations Act to remove the right to strike from certain groups.” Is he still telling me that when a group like that comes in, I should say, “OK, let’s sit down and negotiate it”?

Just to clarify the issue, let me tell members the point that is at issue here. The vast majority of the workforce, when they are working overtime, have only the right to say, “I have worked overtime; therefore I have a right under the act to time and a half.”

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, obviously they do not want to hear an answer to the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Most employees do not have the opportunity to say, “Instead of paying me the overtime pay, I would like time off.” The vast majority of the workforce do not have that opportunity. When we crafted those new regulations affecting domestic workers, we said, first, that after 44 hours of work, domestic workers will be paid time and a half for overtime work. Now, by mutual agreement, where the domestic worker prefers, instead of the premium time-and-a-half pay, to have time off at a rate of time and a half, she has that option.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier on Bill 108, the Rental Housing Protection Amendment Act. Given that the Rental Housing Protection Act has been in force for two years, given the fact that it was set out to be only an interim measure and given the fact that no one is happy with it, and now that we have had two years to come up with other plans to get rid of this highly flawed piece of legislation, can he give this House an explanation on why his government has not developed a strategy to address the problems of the Rental Housing Protection Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell my honourable friend that we are reviewing all aspects of housing policy, including that one.

Mr. Cousens: The Premier himself on May 6, 1986, some two years ago, said on Bill 11, which is, under a new guise, now the Rental Housing Protection Amendment Act, “The legislation was introduced as a short-term measure to combat the real crisis in terms of affordable housing in Ontario and will be replaced with a new housing policy after two years.”

The two years have now elapsed and the Premier is still giving just talk and no action. What has his Ministry of Housing done in the past two years? Who has he been talking to? What has he come up with? Why is it that he has to come back with the same piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker: That seems like three questions.

Mr. Cousens: What he is doing is delaying the inevitable and playing games with tenants and landlords.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have already asked three questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I stopped playing games the minute I assumed the office over here. When the member is going to stop playing games is the question.

PURCHASE OF CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Ferraro: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it is concerning the purchase of condominium units in Ontario. I should tell members this serious problem was brought to my attention by a fine lawyer in my riding by the name of Peter Giffen.

Specifically, the situation exists in Ontario whereby someone purchasing a condominium for whatever price, either conditionally or unconditionally, puts down a deposit. Let us assume, for example, $200,000 with an acquisition date in October. If, come October, the condominium is neither finished nor is the charter registered, the potential purchaser who wants occupancy can move into the condominium unit on specific request by the developer of the entire amount of the funds. In other words, unlike purchasing a house, whereby title is transferred when the funds are paid, the developer gets complete access to the funds without title transfer.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Ferraro: The seriousness, of course, is that some dishonest developer could take off with substantial amounts of money. My question to the minister specifically is this: Is he concerned about this problem? What is he doing about it and when?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will not ask my friend to repeat the preamble. I think I have the gist of the problem. There is a series of problems with these so-called interim closings and indeed with what are known as ghost mortgages. The ministry is aware of the problem that the honourable member refers to.

In our review of the Condominium Act, we have been looking at the issue of interim closing and the flow of those dollars on the interim closing, and indeed a concern that the honourable member is suggesting of a requirement that those dollars flow, and I expect that when we bring forward legislative amendments in the not-too-distant future, this among other problems will be addressed in trying to clean up the Condominium Act.

Mr. Ferraro: Could the minister indicate to the House whether or not, knowing full well that these moneys are not in an escrow account, there is any degree of insurance on behalf of the potential purchaser?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That certainly is one of the concerns that has been raised, and I would say that in the interim -- I suggest this to my friend and he may want to speak to the lawyer in his riding and indeed to all those getting involved in the condominium situation -- before legislative reforms come through, any flowing of dollars in the kind of amount the honourable member was referring to before title is made clear should be done only after very careful advice from a lawyer or an attorney, to ensure that the consumer is protected. We intend to take action in the longer term to ensure that the consumer is protected by legislative changes.

ST CLAIR COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I am sure the minister is aware by now of the announced layoff at St. Clair College of 88 staff, which represents 13 per cent of the staff at St. Clair College. Some staff having up to 20 years’ seniority will lose their jobs. There will be extensive program cuts and really a diminishing of the community college in our community.

I would like to ask the minister what she plans on doing to maintain the viability of this college and institute the promise she and her Premier (Mr. Peterson) made that every student who was eligible to attend post-secondary education would have a spot in Ontario. How can that promise be fulfilled with this happening at St. Clair College?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I would suggest that, again, the situation at St. Clair College is a situation in which the college has been experiencing declines in its enrolment over a number of years. It has had a significant decline in its overall enrolment, and this does necessitate that the board of governors of that college make some adjustments in its budgeting and in its programs. St. Clair College is in a situation, however, in which it is anticipating an increase in enrolment next year. The support it receives from this government will reflect the increase that is expected.

I think it should be pointed out that my understanding of the current planning of the college board of governors is that, although it is making some changes in current program offerings, it is also planning to expand some programs and, in fact, to add a new one. It is our intention certainly to continue to support the college board in making the adjustments that are necessary.

1430

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The college does not appreciate the minister’s support for laying off 88 people at our college. The fact of the matter is that the enrolment bottomed out in 1985-86 and has increased every year since, but the government’s funding formula is such that yes, next year we are looking at a 7.6 per cent increase in enrolment, but because we have lower enrolment this year, we do not see the benefits for two years.

What is the minister prepared to do now, not two years from now, to maintain the viability of this college before all these programs are eliminated and people with 20 years’ seniority are laid off?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: We do expect the colleges
-- and I believe they have always been expected -- to adapt their programs to the particular needs and, in fact, to the particular enrolment situations of that college. I want to point out that there are some very real realities that the colleges are having to deal with. One is the cutback in direct purchases for skills training programs by the federal government. In the case of St. Clair College, that is the equivalent of a 47 per cent cutback. That clearly necessitates some changes in programs.

There is another reality in terms of the fluctuating enrolments that the colleges experience, and in some cases the colleges are experiencing decline. I have indicated to the House before that in order to manage the fluctuating enrolments which colleges experience, we have instituted a method of slip-year funding. I have indicated that, for some colleges, that does buffer a declining enrolment situation until the enrolment pattern is determined.

In the case of St. Clair, as the honourable member indicates, the enrolment is beginning to increase. It does in fact have a surplus situation which can be used as an interim buffer. There is a requirement, however, that it must make some adjustments in its programming.

We are also providing support to the colleges in addressing some of the concerns they have identified in relation to funding. We have task forces specifically looking at some of the program weights that the colleges are concerned about. But I would stress that, overall, our support for the colleges is in a percentage increase with funding of some 35.6 per cent over three years. We consider this real support and support for accessibility.

JOSEPH BRANT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Thursday, after she was first notified four months previously, Brantwood Manor Nursing Home announced it will be closing its doors, necessitating the forced transfer of 129 residents and the loss of 129 nursing home beds in Burlington. There is a concurrent crisis at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital less than a mile away. Her ministry will be forcing the acceptance of some of the most chronic cases from Brantwood into Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital at a time when it is facing the worst overcrowding in its history.

My question is with respect to the minister’s ability to manage in this crisis. Will she today approve the proposal which has been sitting on her desk for the last six months for the expenditure of $161,000 for startup costs for 25 additional acute care beds at Joseph Brant hospital for its west wing, fifth floor?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very aware of the situation at Brantwood nursing home. My primary concern is for the safety and the wellbeing of the residents. The situation at Brantwood is a result of a unique set of circumstances and players. It is a privately owned nursing home. The licence, in due compliance with the Nursing Homes Act, is being turned back into the ministry. There are ongoing negotiations. However, I want to assure the member that the contingency plan that we have for the care of the residents in that home is in place and will not affect adversely or impact on Joseph Brant.

Mr. Jackson: There has been a conspiracy of silence between her ministry and Joseph Brant hospital on the Brantwood Manor issue. In fact, the very first day we were notified that the licence was being returned to the province, I asked her nursing homes branch about how they were going to handle the most severe cases, the most chronic cases at Brantwood. After weeks of playing telephone tag with the ministry, the minister’s staff member Brian Cowperthwaite advised the hospital that, “The reason you weren’t contacted was that you weren’t supposed to know. You would be told in good time.”

That was five weeks ago. As of 1:30 p.m. today, Joseph Brant hospital still has not been notified about what the ministry’s plans are for the residents and the impact on the hospital. It is moving people today and tomorrow.

Will the minister approve the proposal which will increase the number of beds at Joseph Brant hospital to deal with this problem, when she knows her options are limited in the greater Hamilton area in terms of the available number of chronic care beds?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry is making every effort to keep the residents as close to home as possible. The Joseph Brant hospital must go through the appropriate planning process. I understand planning is under way, and I want to assure the member that the residents who are presently in Brantwood nursing home will be appropriately placed in a sensitive manner, because I care about the residents. I also want the member to note that Joseph Brant will not be adversely impacted by the placement.

EXPENDITURE SAVINGS AND CONSTRAINTS

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, and it concerns the budget. In reviewing the budget, I came across an entry for which I was able to find very little explanation. I am referring to the $500 million listed as expenditure savings and constraints. Seeing as this is surely a significant sum of money, I am wondering if the minister could explain for me where the $500 million will come from.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I note that there are really only about six minutes to go through this answer. Perhaps you could let me have more time tomorrow or something, since I could give a much fuller answer.

I am pleased to address the question from the honourable member, because the question of the $500-million saving requires us to do a great deal of planning with respect to our colleagues at Treasury and otherwise, but I can assure the member that in fact the exercise itself was started before the budget was finally set by having all of the ministers, in a very co-operative manner, review their entire ministries and advise us of places in which good management decisions, which all of these people are very capable of, would be made and would, in fact, result in actual savings to the government of Ontario.

It is in line with that, plus looking at the questions of implementation of policies and otherwise, and looking at the manner in which programs are taken up in the various sectors, that we expect to be able to find the $500 million which is set out by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in a very full and satisfying manner to the people at Management Board.

Ms. Hart: I am a firm believer in more efficient spending of government dollars, and I fully support such an endeavour.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the member to place the supplementary.

Ms. Hart: I worry about which ministries these funds will be taken from. Can the minister assure the House that the moneys will be found in a fair and equitable manner?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am having a considerable amount of assistance from not only the people on the other side of the House but also from my colleagues, who are telling me even now how fair and equitable they can be in helping me through the roll. But certainly there are a number of ministers who are already indicating that certainly they have within their own environments ways in which they will provide us with assistance in finding the savings.

Each one of the ministers, in his or her own submissions in the run-up to budget time, has indicated where he or she would be able to find, in a very real way, through good management decisions, a good part of the money that we are looking at. We are, of course, following up in the agency review process which the government has instituted and in which, over the last three years, there has been a considerable amount of effort in finding ways of being much better in management in the government. We will find the money which has been requested in a very fair and efficient manner.

Might I say also, in the light of the very considerable public interest in this question, that in fact we will be reviewing the input of the various members of the opposition and otherwise as they go through the estimates process.

1440

TORONTO ISLANDS

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Premier. Today is Toronto Island Day and the islanders celebrate today the fact that they can continue to live in their homes. I understand the member for Fort York, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), is going to celebrate with his constituents this evening.

Will the Premier tell the House whether he is sending a message along with the Minister of Energy to the island residents that he will finally honour his promise and bring in amending legislation to Bill 191 so that the islanders can continue to live there?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was not planning on sending that message today with him, but it is not a bad idea.

Mr. Reville: I am sorry to hear that and I am sure the islanders will be as well. The Premier earlier in question period said that he stopped playing games when he assumed this office. I am wondering if he will stop playing games with the islanders’ lives.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Reville: Everyone knows the legislation that was brought in, Bill 191, is flawed and needs to be changed. Will the Premier now honour his promises of 1985 and 1987 and undertake to bring in those amendments?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The mayor came to visit me a few days ago on this matter and made certain suggestions. I can tell the member that it is under active review at the present time. I do not have a specific answer for my friend today, but we are looking at it.

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Niagara College offers a dental hygiene program which is currently facing financial difficulty. This is one of the important advanced health and technology programs that this government encourages.

We have been made aware of the third year of this program being cancelled. Janis Staddon got in touch with us and told us that she would not be able to go to that college next year to complete her third year. Is the minister aware of this problem and has she been in contact with the college?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Yes, I am aware of that problem. The whole question of the dental hygiene program at Niagara is one which we are reviewing with the college board of governors and its administration.

Mrs. Cunningham: There are seven other courses that are not going to be offered at that college. With the minister’s colleges looking at technology and advanced health sciences, which is it: Is she going to fund them or is she not?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: There are two aspects in responding to that question. One is that the majority of the program cuts being considered by the board of governors at Niagara are in areas of declining enrolment. The issue of the dental hygiene program is not in that category and, as I indicated, it is a program decision which we are reviewing.

One of the requests that we have made of college boards of governors is that we look at system-wide needs in areas of particular program priority. Certainly the health sciences programs would fall into that category. It is also one of the reasons why we are looking at program weights for programs which colleges feel are perhaps more expensive to offer. These are all factors we will be considering in reviewing the programs at Niagara.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McLean: I have a petition with respect to opposition to Sunday shopping from concerned constituents from the Coldwater pastoral charge.

“Living in a resort area, we are aware of the necessity of certain businesses being open on Sunday. However, we feel that businesses that are not selling the necessities of life, and industry in general, should be closed on Sunday.

“We, the undersigned, strongly urge the government of Ontario to take on the responsibility and have Sunday closing enforced. Sunday is the Sabbath and has been the traditional day of rest and should be kept for the betterment of the family unit and community.”

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. McLean: I have another petition which is a resolution that has been adopted by council for the corporation of the city of Orillia, endorsing the resolution of the Association of Simcoe County Mayors, including mayors of Midland, Penetanguishene, Barrie, Bradford, Collingwood, Orillia, Stayner and Wasaga Beach, regarding the management of solid waste.

The resolution reads:

“Whereas most municipalities in the province are now or will soon be faced with serious problems with the management of solid waste; and

‘Whereas at the present time the Ministry of the Environment is charged with the responsibility for solid waste management; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment appears to be primarily involved with the enforcement of existing environmental legislation and regulations and seems unable by reason of its regulatory mandate to respond to the needs of municipalities for the provincial leadership required in this serious matter; and

“Whereas the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is the ministry responsible for municipalities and may be better able to co-ordinate and provide the provincial leadership required to solve waste management issues in Ontario;

“Therefore, be it resolved that the member municipalities of this association petition the province of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assume a co-ordinating role to assist the municipalities of Ontario to resolve the serious solid waste management problem now facing the majority of municipalities in Ontario.”

That is also signed by myself.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. I would like to inform the members that the House is proceeding in the usual manner with petitions.

This might be an appropriate time to also remind the members who are presenting the petitions that they certainly may make a statement in matters pertaining to the material allegations but, as I said on previous occasions, it is not necessary to read all the “whereases.” The “therefore” is the important part.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Swart: Pursuant to my questions and statements in the House in the last couple of weeks on Niagara College, I today want to table a petition to this Legislature. It is rather brief and reads as follows:

“Inasmuch as:

“(a) some community colleges are suspending high-cost programs;

“(b) the ministry funding mechanism does not fairly reflect the true cost of some programs;

“(c) inadequate tuition fees force colleges with a high percentage of costly health science programs into a deficit position;

“(d) the cancellations of programs within a community make them truly inaccessible to a large segment of students;

“We, the undersigned, recommend:

“(a) a review of the college funding mechanism;

“(b) a change in tuition fees to more accurately reflect the cost of individual programs.

To demonstrate the concern of the Niagara community, this petition is signed by approximately 2,575 people.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have another petition?

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: Yes, I have a second petition. This petition is more specific and says:

“As a student currently enrolled in the dental hygiene program at Niagara College I am aware of the proposed suspension of this program. Being a concerned student I would have been willing to pay substantially increased tuition fees in order to reverse this proposal. As it is the only one offered in Ontario south of Toronto and east of London, it is essential that this program not be suspended. It would be a great loss to the college, community and future students to eliminate this quality program.”

It is signed by approximately 60 students who are in that program.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr. Leone: I have a petition here from a group of concerned parents in my riding. It is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and this Legislative Assembly:

“We, being members of the Downsview Secondary School Parent Advisory Council, would like to register our objection to the proposed inclusion under the freedom-of-information act of school records concerning students 16 years of age and over. We believe that denying parents access to these records will be detrimental to the welfare of their children and that amendments to the act should be introduced immediately to exempt students from the provisions of the act for as long as they are in attendance at secondary school, up to and including the last year, or for as long as they remain under direct parental supervision.”

The petition has been signed by 19 parents and also by myself.

1450

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Eves: I have a petition signed by 2,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario which reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is there a mirror behind that?

Mr. Eves: No, there is not a mirror behind that, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member signed the petition?

Mr. Eves: Yes.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Elston: Before orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 103 and 116 standing on the order paper [see Hansard for Tuesday, May 24].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L’EDUCATION (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a pleasure to continue the debate on Bill 125.

When we adjourned the debate a week or so ago, I was mentioning the concern of the people in the rural areas of Ontario, particularly the riding I represent, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I was making some remarks pertaining to a motion that was moved by Roy Hastings and seconded by Graham Casselman regarding a request that the government of Ontario review and revise the legislation to guarantee the present number of trustees now serving our rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I know you represent some rural areas in your riding, as do many of our colleagues here in the Legislature. We have to appreciate the fact that rural Ontario tends to be overlooked many times whenever we are creating legislation, whether it is redistributing the provincial ridings, the federal ridings, or, indeed, the school board representation.

According to Bill 125, a number of these redistributions will occur in the rural parts of Ontario, reducing to some degree the representation from these very important sections of our province.

According to the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections, which of course include elections to school boards, I want to touch on recommendations 81 and 82.

Recommendation 81 is as follows: “The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not enact any legislation affecting the local government electoral process within the six months immediately preceding voting day, in an election year.”

As you know, we are less than six months away from the nomination time, and certainly Bill 125 has still to receive third reading and royal assent. I believe we are not only working at the 11th hour, but are working at the 12th hour and beyond the 12th hour.

Recommendation 82: “The committee recommends that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15th of an election year.”

Again, we are way beyond what were the recommendations of a committee to advise the government on a number of bills, including Bill 125.

I believe it is most important that this government pay heed to the recommendations of its own committee and also to the concerns as expressed by numerous people, not the least of whom are the people representing those rural areas of Ontario. I emphasize this to the government and I hope appropriate action will be taken when this bill goes to committee.

J’ai aussi eu certaines recommandations de l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario. Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, le projet de loi 125, qui remplace le projet de loi 76, amène des changements considérables à une situation qui se produira cet automne, nécessairement: les élections municipales ainsi que les élections dans le domaine scolaire.

« L’AFCSO a pris connaissance du projet de loi 125 sur la répartition des conseils scolaires, déposé à l’Assemblée législative le 26 avril 1988 par le ministre de l’Éducation. Ce projet de loi retire aux Franco-Ontariens des droits qu’ils avaient acquis avec la Loi 75. » Vous êtes bel et bien au courant de cela, Monsieur le Président.

« En conséquence, l’AFCSO ne peut pas appuyer ce projet de loi, et juge même que certaines des dispositions qu’il contient sont anticonstitutionnelles », quelque chose qui est très grave dans le monde d’aujourd’hui. « Nous réitérons ici les sérieuses préoccupations que nous avions signalées au gouvernement suite au dépôt du projet de loi 76 devant l’Assemblée législative en décembre 1987 », lequel a été remplacé par le projet de loi 125, comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président.

« Le gouvernement veut utiliser les données du recensement pour déterminer le nombre de conseillers scolaires dans les sections linguistiques des conseils scolaires. Ceci aura pour effet de diminuer le nombre actuel de conseillers dans les sections de langue française, alors que leur nombre est déjà un minimum avec lequel il est extrêmement difficile de travailler. Le nombre de conseillers scolaires francophones ne doit pas être inférieur à ce qui est prévu par la Loi 75. »

Deuxièmement, un autre problème que voit l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario est exprimé comme suit:

« Il s’avère extrêmement difficile d’informer la communauté francophone en si peu de temps au sujet de leurs nouveaux droits et de la nécessité de s’identifier lors du recensement. Il est tout à fait inacceptable que les données du recensement soient utilisées à d’autres fins que l’élection des conseillers scolaires, alors que la communauté n’est pas informée de ces autres implications. »

Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, la date limite du 12 mai est déjà passée, et nous avons encore à la radio et à la télévision certains renseignements provenant du gouvernement actuel qui nous disent de remplir nos formules et de les remettre au bureau du recensement.

Alors, je crois que ça indique, sans aucune controverse, que le public ontarien ne comprend pas ce qui se passe et ne s’y intéresse même pas. Ce sera la première fois que les Franco-Ontariens éliront, au suffrage universel, des conseillers scolaires francophones qui géreront les écoles françaises qui sont les leurs. Afin de pouvoir exercer ce nouveau droit, ils doivent s’identifier lors du recensement, qui se fait présentement. Le simple fait de s’identifier est aussi une première dans l’histoire des Franco-Ontariens.

Alors, c’est quelque chose de très important pour la communauté francophone de la province de l’Ontario, et je crois que le gouvernement, par le projet de loi 76, remplacé par le projet de loi 125, le prend un peu à la légère. On ne mentionne nulle part, ni dans le questionnaire ni dans la campagne publicitaire, le fait que les données obtenues serviront à déterminer le nombre de conseillers scolaires des sections linguistiques, ce qui est très important puisque, réellement, le recensement devient le déterminant des représentants aux conseils scolaires de langue française. Les données de recensement au sujet de la communauté francophone ne pourront pas être utilisées aux fins du projet de loi sur la répartition des conseillers scolaires puisque la version française ne contient même pas les mêmes directives que la version anglaise au sujet de l’énumération des occupants.

De plus, ce qui inquiète l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, c’est que le projet de loi 125 a retiré aux Franco-Ontariens le droit reconnu par la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario et par la Loi 75 de diviser le territoire et de répartir les conseillers scolaires de la façon la plus appropriée pour la communauté francophone.

1500

Je veux aussi exprimer les pensées de Marguerite Charette, présidente du comité consultatif de langue française de la région de York.

This comes from the York Region Board of Education and is signed by Marguerite Charette, president of their consulting group, and it reads as follows. Je lis en français:

« Suite à la réunion du comité consultatif de langue française de la région de York, tenue le 10 mai cette année, il a été résolu d’appuyer la démarche de l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, l’AFCSO, en ce qui concerne la position vis-à-vis le projet de loi 125.

« Ce nouveau projet de loi cause des préjugés aux francophones et enlève des droits déjà acquis par la Loi 75.

« Par conséquence, nous nous objectons, à l’unanimité, à ce projet de loi. »

Alors, cela renforce la présentation de l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario.

In summary, I believe a good deal of additional work must be done prior to having Bill 125 go to third reading and royal assent. I must tell the members that this weekend, even if May 12 was the final date for completing the enumeration papers, we still had some ads on radio and television telling the Ontario public that they should complete their enumeration forms and submit these to the enumeration office.

Quite obviously, the public of Ontario does not understand or appreciate the importance of these forms. I certainly would like to strongly urge the government to send this Bill 125 to full committee so that we can have a proper hearing throughout the province in order that people will not only understand this but will know indeed which school board, which trustees, will be representing them, particularly when the second official language is taken into consideration.

I look forward to participating in many other debates, and I do hope that Bill 125, in spite of its rocky beginning, will finally see the light of day and not be nearly as confusing as it appears to be to myself and to many members of this assembly.

Mrs. Cunningham: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill in this House today. I would like to tell the members about my conversations with the two school board chairmen in London as well as with representatives from all of the other trustees’ organizations. I should advise the members that they are extremely concerned about the election promise that was made last September, and that was that this legislation would not be enacted in an election year. It appears that this may be a possibility.

The trustees’ groups and the board chairmen are most concerned that people who are electing school board trustees across this province should have every opportunity to allow people to put their name forth, given the time, thinking and sincerity that it takes in order to let one’s name stand. That seems to be somewhat impossible, given the time frame.

It is clear that while the minister has been to bat three times for trustee apportionment, he has still failed. The joint committee’s final report was acceptable to most of the trustees across the province; however, in the usual way, he chose to disregard the work of this very knowledgeable and worthwhile committee and instead chose to heed the advice of the mandarins in the Mowat Block when he drafted the old Bill 76. That is of real concern and is very apparent to those of us who know how this government is operating.

In its new, improved form, Bill 125 is still fraught with errors. My major concern with the legislation is of course the time lines in place for its implementation, which I have already referred to. Why the government will not heed the advice of its own Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections and delay implementation of this legislation until 1991 is disconcerting. I quote recommendations 81 and 82 of the committee’s report:

“Recommendation 81: The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not enact any legislation affecting the local government electoral process within the six months immediately preceding voting day, in an election year.

“Recommendation 82: The committee recommends that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15th of an election year.”

There are a number of other concerns I have with this bill as well, and they were well articulated by my colleagues last week in this House. Specifically, my major concerns, besides the overriding concern with this legislation being in place for the 1988 municipal elections, are as follows.

First, I do not understand why the minister refuses to include cottagers in his definition of “electoral group.” It is ironic that in taking great strides towards the goal of the committee in providing representation by population, the minister is still leaving large areas of jurisdictions of Ontario school boards with inadequate representation.

Another major concern I have with this legislation is how poorly it augurs with the other two parts of the municipal package the minister is presenting. Members will be aware that under Bill 77, the list of municipal electors will not be provided until July 31. However, July 1 is the date the ministry has selected for the boards to determine their optimal size.

We believe school boards should have access to the enumeration data before having to make the decision to increase or decrease the total board size by one or two trustees. If the government insists on passing this legislation it must amend this date to September 1, otherwise boards simply will not know what numbers they should be looking at; they just will not be available to them.

My third concern is the one voiced by my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). He noted that in order to ensure that an adequate appeal process to the Ontario Municipal Board is in place, this bill would require amendments.

I would support an amendment to expand the right of appeal to include direct appeal by a board as opposed to the requirement that the school board has to request the council to make an appeal on its behalf. I would further support an amendment to expand the right of appeal to include direct appeal by an individual citizen.

While I am generally supportive of the initiative taken by the minister in removing trustee representation by assessment and moving to a form of representation by population, Bill 125 is still in need of many amendments.

The francophone trustees have further expressed concerns with Bill 125, as previously enunciated today. Although they support the previous concerns I have raised, they have two other concerns as well. First, they want the government to guarantee that the same number of school board trustees presently allowed to them under the Education Act will be maintained.

Their second concern is that there is a sentence that does not exist in the French enumeration questionnaire. I will quote it at this time: “List all residents and use second page as necessary.” It does appear on the English form, however. Because the sentence is omitted, it is unknown how many people live in the house and therefore the trustee distribution will be inaccurate. We must know the exact number of residents per house to make this bill work.

I am slightly concerned about the process, and I am not sure just how to deal with it. I would be generally supportive of amendments that would alleviate these problems that I have talked about. I think perhaps I should table them in some form this afternoon in order to fulfil my commitment to the trustee groups I have spoken with.

I expect this bill to be referred to committee; however, the specific amendments presented to this House would give the committee something to think about, if and when it begins or continues with its deliberations, which I hope would be very, very quick.

For me, the bottom line, of course, is that I can only support the implementation of this bill for the 1991 election.

1510

The specific amendments to Bill 125 that we will propose, after talking to the trustee groups, are:

First, paragraph 206a(7)6: “Where a board approves, by a resolution passed by an affirmative vote of three quarters of the members of the board in the year immediately preceding the year of a regular election under the Municipal Elections Act or before the 1st day of September 1988, an increase or decrease of either one or two in the number of members of the board, the number of members of the board shall be deemed to be so increased or decreased for the next two subsequent regular elections.”

This bill has long-term effects. This amendment enables school boards to have access to the enumeration data before having to make the decision to increase or decrease the total board size by one or two members. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect boards to make the decision to increase or decrease the total board size without first having access to information on the total board size, as calculated by the 1988 enumeration data.

That would be the first amendment I would suggest.

The second one is to subsection 206a(1), in definitions, “‘electoral group’ of a board means a category of persons that are qualified to be electors in the area of jurisdiction of the board.”

This amendment will include cottagers in the definition of “electoral group.” Exclusion of cottagers from the definition of “electoral group” means that they will not be included in determination of the total board size or the allocation of trustees within the area of jurisdiction of the board. The exclusion of cottagers from the definition of “electoral group” will mean that large areas of the jurisdiction of the board will have inadequate representation.

My third and final amendment is to subsection 206b(2), the appeal process: “An appeal under this section shall be made by the council of any municipality concerned or a board” -- and I should add -- “or an individual citizen.”

These expanded rights of appeal include direct appeal by a board or a citizen, as opposed to the requirement that a school board has to request the council to make an appeal on its behalf.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I would hope that later on today this bill will indeed be referred to committee.

Hon. Mr. Ward: In wrapping up, I just want to once again go over some of the history of this particular initiative.

As members know, the purpose of Bill 125 is to replace a method of trustee election in this province that for many years has been based on assessment or on wealth as opposed to one that is based on population. Back in the late 1970s, the trustees of this province recommended that we look at changing this methodology.

Subsequent to that a report was issued, called Representing People: Trustee Apportionment for Ontario’s School Boards. It was widely circulated throughout Ontario and received a tremendous amount of input from interested citizens as well as those directly involved in the governance of school boards in Ontario. Subsequent to that, the joint committee of the various trustee organizations was struck and it released its report last October.

I would remind the members of the House that shortly after the release of that report, Bill 76 was tabled in this House last fall; I believe it was in November. At that time I can honestly say the expectation was that, in recognition of the fact that 1988 was an election year, we would have some co-operation and that we could complete second reading and get the bill out to committee in very short order.

Unfortunately, because of other pressing issues that took up the time of this House, that was not to be the case. As a result, we relied very heavily on the written input that we received from many people in this province and many interested organizations, and also because we did have the opportunity to receive the recommendations of the Metropolitan Toronto school boards, the decision was made to withdraw Bill 76 and incorporate many of the changes that were suggested by various parties throughout this province, and at the same time to incorporate the provisions for Metropolitan Toronto. As a consequence, we now have before us Bill 125.

Much has been said about the issue of the representation of francophones. It is a concern that I hold very close to my heart, I want to assure members.

I think we all recognize that when Bill 75 was introduced it was done in recognition of the charter rights that francophones in this province enjoy and yet had never been able to exercise prior to the implementation of Bill 75. I think everyone in this Legislature -- I certainly would hope everyone in this Legislature -- recognizes that there were transitionary provisions. There were no mechanisms by which to establish and identify French-language electors prior to the introduction of the recent enumeration bill. As a result, school enrolments were utilized as the methodology for making the determination as to the number of French-language trustees to be put in place.

Since that time we have come a significant distance. We now have a process by which every francophone elector in this province will, we hope, be identified. Consequently, those transitional provisions that were utilized in Bill 75 are no longer necessary.

Frankly, I think it is far more appropriate that French-language electors in this province have appropriate representation, because it is fine in the school board jurisdiction where there are a number of French-language services, it is fine in the jurisdiction where there are well-established programs for French-language education, but my concern is that there are many parts of this province that are well behind others in terms of the provision of those services.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot make a determination on the basis of school enrolment and at the same time make a determination on the basis of population, and particularly a population with specific minority-language rights. Consequently, this bill, I think, is far more democratic and it far more appropriately reflects the realities of Ontario today. I think most reasonable people would understand that you cannot indeed have it both ways.

I would also like to comment on many of the references that have been made to representation in rural areas. During the course of the various committees that undertook a review of this particular issue over the years and in the report of the joint committee, it was strongly suggested that some provision be made so that communities of interest could be represented. Unfortunately, no one, to date, has been able to come up with an appropriate definition. How do we establish a community of interest? How do we ensure that small, sparsely populated rural communities have the kind of representation that they expect?

After a considerable amount of discussion, through the Ontario School Trustees’ Council and various other bodies and agencies, we came forward with a suggestion that any board could increase or decrease its population by up to two members. That perhaps does not identify a community of interest, but it does give boards a great deal of flexibility. It gives boards some role in self-determination in terms of structuring their particular organizations so that they do adequately affect the various communities that school boards must represent.

It has taken a long time to come this far. I would point out that the joint committee’s recommendation was that this bill be put in place for the 1988 municipal elections. The history of this issue has been one of procrastination from the outset. I would much prefer that we could have been further along in this debate, and I would much prefer that we would have in place all of the rules for the coming election much sooner than this, but I can tell members, having run in three municipal elections, that I do not see any difficulty whatsoever in ensuring that the provisions of this legislation are indeed in place later on this spring or early into the summer, and I believe it will provide representation on a much sounder footing.

1520

I also point out that in the absence of this legislation, significant amendments to the Education Act would be required, a process that would have to begin today rather than be completed, because of the implications of Bill 30 and Bill 75 and the great many inconsistencies that thus remain within the various statutes covering trustee elections. Not acting is not an option in this regard.

I urge all members to support passage of second reading of this bill, and I look forward to their co-operation. I intend to move, upon second reading, a referral to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ward has moved second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: In line with an agreement among the whips and the critics, Mr. Ward moves that standing order 63 be waived for the consideration of Bill 125 by the standing committee on social development and that the bill be referred to that committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Ms. Hošek moved second reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Rental Housing Protection Act.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Rental Housing Protection Act is due to be repealed at the end of June. When it was passed as Bill 11, it had a very important function, which it continues to have, which is protecting the rental housing stock of Ontario against unreasonable conversions, demolitions and other methods which would take our precious rental housing stock out of the housing market. Last month I announced our intention to extend the act for one more year. The reason for doing that is what I would like to talk about today.

The act was passed in the summer of 1986 because of a crisis in the rental housing market. It was a time in which many units were being lost either through being converted or demolished or through being extensively renovated. In fact, what had happened by the summer of 1986 was that this process, which had been going on all along in the province, was significantly speeded up. The pace of conversions and demolitions was going very quickly, and there was very serious concern in the community about what would happen to rental housing stock in the province unless a stop were put to this massive conversion. The Rental Housing Protection Act was introduced as a temporary measure in order to restrict this loss and also to come up with a good way of making sure that we could both protect housing stock and protect tenants and owners.

At the time, the bill was passed as an emergency measure. There were discussions about it, but I do not think the kind of extensive discussions that are required in order to get a much more effective law were held at that time. One of the reasons for extending the act now is to give us the time to have the kinds of conversations which we need to have with many affected parties in order to draft a stronger and better law.

Since the law has passed, it has worked reasonably well all over the province. According to its rules, it has had a different effect in different parts of the province because, depending on the size of a municipality and the situation for rental housing in that municipality, there have been a variety of methods taken for dealing with the question of conversion and demolition. However, as the numbers in our discussion paper indicate, the act has worked reasonably well. It has worked in fact remarkably well in those places where the pressure was the greatest. Members will be hearing a little bit later today about the effects of the act in Metropolitan Toronto.

We need, however, I believe, a more comprehensive and long-term policy for dealing with the matters that the Rental Housing Protection Act was meant to address and in fact does address. I think that our new policy must be more comprehensive, more practical and more creative. I think it must also do one very important thing, which is to reflect the concerns of the many people who have had to work with the act in the past two years.

One of the advantages we now have is a body of views of concerned people who have watched the act in operation, who have seen how it has worked across the province and who have contributions to make to our discussion about how to draft what I believe will be a more comprehensive and a better bill, a better way of dealing with the question of rental housing protection.

In the last while that I have been minister, I have met with many groups on a variety of topics of concern to people who care about housing. It is remarkable to me that almost every group I have met with, no matter what the main focus of our meeting, no matter what other issues we have discussed, has raised the issue of the Rental Housing Protection Act and the issues which the act was meant to address. They all have very strong views about what needs to happen now, they all have experiences to share about the way the law has worked and how it could be made better, and I think it is extremely important for us to take all those views into account and to learn from them in order to draft a stronger and better law.

The new act must protect both existing rental housing and the tenants who live there. At a time when people are finding it difficult to have the housing that they want and can afford, it is extremely important that people have as many options and choices as possible, and I think the Rental Housing Protection Act needs to address this concern. I think it must also provide suitable opportunities for home ownership, because the question about ownership of the stock is clearly of concern to significant numbers of people in the province. We must talk with them and see what they have to contribute to that debate.

In order to develop the legislation that we need, we need time to explore all the options that have been raised, and I must say that many and diverse and creative options have been raised by the many people with whom I have spoken about this act and the issues with which it deals.

We have issued a discussion paper. It is called The Rental Housing Protection Act: Future Directions. The paper is now being circulated to interested parties throughout the province, and what the paper does is deal with the variety of options we have available. It also gives people some information which all probably do not have, and that is the way in which this issue has been addressed in other jurisdictions, in other provinces, in other parts of the world.

We are not alone in having this concern. There are, I think, some things we can learn from the way other jurisdictions have looked at it and the kinds of solutions they have proposed, the kinds of things that have and have not worked elsewhere.

We are asking for written submissions on the options that are outlined in the paper, and any other views people have, by July 1. So we are really asking people to move quite quickly in gathering their thoughts and submitting them to us. We would like to be able to move quickly on this issue so that we have the kind of law that we need and enough time for discussion, but also a law to replace the Rental Housing Protection Act that is currently there in very good time. I consider that one-year deadline to be the most time that we would want, and I would like to move more quickly than that. That is the reason we put July 1 as the date for submissions.

One of the things I am cheered about is that, because of my discussions in the community and with the people who care about housing issues whom I have been meeting in the past number of months I am certainly aware that all of them have quite fully articulated positions on this. They really do know what they think they want to see and, therefore, are prepared to bring this forward to us.

I want, however, to make sure that groups that have not spoken with me or have not necessarily had access in this way are none the less able to put their views forward. I want to extend the act in order to give them the time to do that, and the July 1 deadline is very important to make that possible.

Based on this public response, which we will take very seriously -- because the views are quite divergent and it is extremely important to hear them and to see what we can come up with to deal with the concerns that are raised, the views that are divergent because people come at this from their own experience, from their own goals and values -- it is going to be our task to find a way to reconcile those goals and values in the very best way we can, while keeping in mind the basic principles, that are outlined in my transmission letter which accompanies the paper, that are the framework within which we want to operate to come up with a better act.

1530

Based on this public response, as I have said, we are going to draft legislation for introduction later this year. I want to make sure that this happens in a timely fashion. That is the reason we asked for the extension of the law and the reason I am going to ask for the co-operation of all members of the House in bringing forward a new law in as timely a fashion as possible.

Extension of the current act will therefore give everyone who is concerned an opportunity to contribute to the discussion and to help us formulate some good ways of dealing with the issue of rental housing protection. I think it will give us the chance we need to do a better job.

I would now like to move second reading of Bill 108, to extend the Rental Housing Protection Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the minister’s statement?

Mr. Cousens: I would like to ask a question. Who sets the time period when they have a challenge ahead? They had two years as a government and they made commitments to do certain things and now they come forward and say, because they want to give more people a chance to respond and ask questions and be involved, they have to have another year to do it. At the end of that year I have a feeling, not of great happiness but great sadness, that we are going to have the minister come in again -- it might be another minister, it might be the same minister; it does not really matter because it is the government that is at fault in this -- and say, “No, we have someone else to talk to.

The minister admits to talking to people. I do not think she admits to listening to them. She has had a chance over two years to do something and now she is saying, ‘We want another year to do it.” I have a sense of frustration for all the tenants and landlords who keep on saying, “One thing we get out of this government is talk and now we are getting the same old piece of legislation which is flawed and has lots of problems.”

I would love it if the minister could come forward and tell us for sure that something is going to happen in two years, because we heard this government, and it was the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling), two years ago saying the same kind of thing, “Two years from now we are going to have the word out.” Well, we are two years older, but also two years wiser, and have a sense of great sadness that the people of Ontario are being jerked around with Bill 108, which is really Bill 11.

Why does the minister not tell us who is really running the timetable? Are the people she is going to be talking to the ones who are doing it or is she really sincere in what she is trying to say?

The Deputy Speaker: Other questions and comments? If not, does the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think one of the things we are now able to do, as a result of the time that has passed, is to have a very clear sense of how the act we have in place has worked. I think we are richer by that experience, and as a result we are going to be able to draft a better and more useful law. It is certainly up to the ministry to make this happen in a timely fashion, but it is also up to the other members of the House, whose help I ask in making it possible for us to come up with a good law and do it in the time we had planned for.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Breaugh: We are going to oppose the bill. Much of what is in Bill 11 and is being extended in Bill 108 comes from discussions we had with the previous minister around a problem that began to occur about two or three years ago -- at least, it came to public attention at that time -- that is, a lot of the good rental stock in many of our communities was being removed from the rental marketplace.

Bill 11 was an attempt to address that. It was a bill that was put together in a minority House. There are some who would say that is one of the reasons it is flawed legislation, that in a minority House there is the opportunity, if I may say so, to kind of address problems from angles that the government did not exactly have on its agenda. So it is a bit of a blending of different ideas from different political parties, but I think the general agreement, the common ground, was very simply that it was true there was rental accommodation being removed from the marketplace and it was not being done in a way that was thought by many of us to be very productive.

There were concerns, and there still are concerns, about many older apartment buildings, for example, that are the last refuge of affordable rental accommodation anywhere. Of course sitting on downtown urban land they would make a very attractive profit consideration for anybody who wanted to develop a condominium project. There are those who argue vociferously that Bill 11, and now Bill 108, prevents them from maximizing their profits.

It has been a strange bill. Essentially, my call would be that in its workings to date the bill works where the local council wants the bill to work and it does not work where a local council does not feel inclined to carry its share of responsibilities under that bill.

It is interesting that in the minister’s own riding there is a kind of convoluted little project under way which is fairly typical, if I may say, of an older rental accommodation project where the person who bought it wanted to convert it to something else. The existing tenants were booted out on the street, new tenants were brought in and a proposal was made to them to go into a co-operative project. It is difficult to say who wins and who loses in this. I guess it all depends on who you are.

If you are the existing tenant in a building that is being converted to some other use, some other name, for the most part you are the victim in the process. You may turn out to be, if you happen to be the new tenant in that kind of place, a bit of a winner in that you may get some affordable accommodation. The clear winner is the developer, who has had his way in the process, is able to direct his financing and private property in a way he sees fit, makes as much money out of it as he wants and leaves. That is the good and bad of the experience I see in the previous Bill 11, and now it is being extended for a year as Bill 108.

It is a problem. Among those activists I have talked to, I will say quite frankly that most of them say they want the bill extended as a minimal protection, although the bill is currently full of a great many loopholes. There were many fears on their part that the bill would simply die and that there would be no protection anywhere.

If I could perhaps oversimplify a bit, to summarize their general feeling on the matter, that bill gave them something to hope for. It perhaps was not the best, most workable piece of legislation they had ever seen, but it was something and it addressed an issue that was very important to them. They felt, wrongly I guess now, that there was a hope the government would in fact move to exercise its options and put in place better legislation, but if that did not happen they made it clear to me that what they wanted was an extension of the bill.

In some ways, I suppose I will hear from some of them arguing that we should not be opposing this legislation, but I really have to say that in thinking through the process, it struck me that this government has had time to get its act together. It has had the time it needed to find out how people view this bill. I do not believe there are any secrets left. This is the somewhat ironic part of it: here we are in the middle of May and the minister is saying that by the beginning of July all written submissions on the proposals should be in; so they have 30 days to respond. K-Tel gives you better terms than that. The government could have given them a little bit more time.

She is right, though, in the sense that I do not believe there are a lot of people changing their minds out there about this. They have lived with this legislation for a couple of years. They know it, warts and all. They know where the loopholes are. Both sides do. The developers certainly do; they know how to exploit the bill.

There are some who would say there should not be any legislation of this kind on the books at all. If I could put the classic capitalist line here so that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), in his absence, will be represented in the chamber this afternoon, there are those who advocate that they have a clear right to do what they want with their private property and that tenants have no legal rights in the matter at all.

Of course, as a New Democrat that offends me somewhat. I believe tenants are people too. I believe they are constituents of Ontario and that they should have some legal rights and some protection under the law. That is what the original Bill 11 intended to do.

It is also true that many people are increasingly concerned -- I certainly am -- with the rental accommodation stock that is now available. As one goes around to tenants groups, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, one is really struck by the fear that is there that in a short period of time, if something dramatic is not done, there will not be a place anybody of modest means can rent anywhere in a city like Toronto. We are coming closer to that reality day by day.

I hate to drag the obscenity of the rent review system as it is currently operating in Ontario into the picture this afternoon, but it is certainly a part of the problem. The rent review process is badly bogged down, so there is a tendency, I suppose, on the part of many who own rental accommodation to simply say, “This is a hopeless mess and I want to sell this property and get out from it.” I know I have had a number of landlords say it in somewhat blunter terms than that, but that is what they meant, that they are fed up with all this and they do not want to have anything to do with rental accommodation anymore and they want out.

1540

It is ironic, but that is almost verbatim what tenants are saying at the same time over the same process. It really is quite strange to have both landlords and tenants looking at the rent review process in Ontario and to have both sides saying: “This is a hopeless mess. This is never going to work. This does not stand a chance of functioning.” I believe the importance of this kind of legislation then becomes even more critical.

Let me make one or two suggestions I really think should be followed. I am in no mood this afternoon to delay this legislation. If one looks at it, it would be kind of difficult to amend this act because it simply extends another act for a one-year period, but I do think there must be some openness to the discussion process.

I appreciate the minister would love to do this with her staff in her office, and having heard the arguments from both sides make up her mind on which option she would like to exercise. Somehow the Legislature must be brought into this. I do not really think it all that appropriate to send this bill out to committee for public hearings, but I do believe the position paper that was prepared by the ministry is ideal material to go to a committee for public hearings.

I suppose we could do that, if the ministry gets its act together, when the new legislation is brought forward; but let me make a suggestion for everyone’s consideration. I think it would be useful for the minister to get whatever considerations people have about this bill in writing.

I really hope she does not get all hung up about July 1. I just put the plea that there are many groups out there who would like to respond to that challenge she has put out and will have a little bit of difficulty putting together a position paper for her consideration. It is true they probably have their opinion clear, but it is also true that many of them are not professional organizations and have a little difficulty in putting together position papers. I would urge a little flexibility on that.

I would like sometime, probably early this fall, to have a committee of the Legislature take the position paper and perhaps whatever written replies the ministry gets to this bill, and sit down and consider them because I think Ontario needs to explore some options. I know there are other jurisdictions I have read about that have attempted to deal with the same problem of diminishing rental accommodation, particularly at the lower end of the market, and that seem at least on paper to have found some solutions that have certainly escaped us.

The only concern I have is that I have been in politics long enough to know it is very dangerous to base your opinion on someone’s article in a newspaper or on someone’s written description of how well their program works. I think there is a need to establish some lines of communication with other jurisdictions to see whether their legislative responses to the same problem have really been more effective than ours.

I would say that in Ontario we have not been terribly successful, in my judgement. In the city of Toronto, for example, this legislation has met with some success only because the city of Toronto council wanted it to, but in other jurisdictions, even in Metropolitan Toronto, it has not been as successful because the local councils really chose not to implement the bill. So I think we need to do that.

There is one other thing I think needs to be introduced into the discussion. I was at a little forum with the mayor of Toronto two or three weeks ago. He said at that meeting what has become rather common knowledge now. He said there are about 3,000 empty apartments in the city of Toronto -- 3,000. That is a little hard to imagine. How is it that in the middle of a rental accommodation crunch, there are 3,000 empty units?

Well, the mayor said at that meeting that he did not quite know exactly where they were, but his assessment people and his records people were running the computers to try to identify where they were.

Certainly, I know where some of them are. Certainly, I know that since 1975 virtually every building that has gone up has been registered as a condominium but is in fact rented out as rental accommodation. I know that there are problems in registering those units. I know there is difficulty in lead times there. I am aware, having driven around the city a bit, that there are lots of empty condominiums that could be rented but are not rented yet.

I know of some other accommodations where people are getting a little ingenious about what actually is rental accommodation these days. I think most of our municipalities have had the occasion now to hear of somebody who bought a house in a neighbourhood and moved in with two-by-fours and four-by-eights over the weekend, and all of a sudden a single-family home became accommodation for five families.

We are all trying to grapple with that problem. In its gentrified term that is called intensification. On Adelaide Street in Oshawa there is a little different term for that. We are trying to work our way through that, to determine how apartments are created, how they are defined and how we handle those problems.

We are in a myriad of difficult situations, I would say, highlighted by the fact, and it is somewhat sad, that the government has been unable in a two-year time frame to address itself to this bill other than to extend it. I think we have some difficulty in settling the basic conflict around a societal need for rental accommodation, which sometimes runs contrary to the individuals’ rights to do whatever they want with their property. I know that is a difficult thing and I know the practical problems are immense.

People who are in those condominium units I just talked about are often not aware that they are condominiums at all. When they see a sign that says “apartment for rent,” they do not bother to get a lawyer and inquire as to the exact title of the property. They assume that the sign on the front lawn means that is an apartment building, and that if the apartment is for rent, it is rental accommodation. That may or may not be true. Many of them kind of shudder on a regular basis as they receive their notices that this is in fact a condominium and it is now up for sale.

I want to compound it just a bit because I think it would be unfair to go through this exercise this afternoon without at least mentioning that there are provisions in the Residential Rent Regulation Act itself that are kind of hooked into this. Very simply, the provisions in the rent review act for economic loss mean that there is a repeated market there. According to Royal LePage, in its study, that market is a rather closed circle. There are not a lot of people participating in speculation in apartment buildings, but the speculation is very active.

I think we would have been better served if we had been able to get the new legislation in place now, and I regret very much that in a two-year time period we have been unable to do that.

I now want a legislative committee of some sort to go through the public hearing process, because I regret somewhat that this is turning into a very private chat with the minister, and that should not be. There is a Legislature here. We have an established committee process. It is certainly not unusual to table a discussion paper, and I take it that the options that were laid out by the minister when she introduced this bill would be suitable material to be sent to a legislative committee. In an orderly way, perhaps at the beginning of the fall session, we could then have some public hearings where people could voice their opinions.

One of the problems we have with the process, as the minister outlined it today, is that it can be a very private process, and it should not be. There are issues here where there is a fiercely divided set of opinions on the matter, to put it politely. I do believe we need to hammer that out. We need to allow people the opportunity to voice, in a formal way before a legislative committee, what they think of extending this bill and what are the options that might replace it. I think we need to try, if we can, to search for some consensus on that. I think the problem is important enough that we should give it that much of an effort.

I also think that before the government introduces its new bill, it would be sensible for the government to make that a public process, to invite written submissions now, to provide for a public process whereby they can submit, discuss and argue a little bit with members of the Legislature before a legislative committee in the early fall and then proceed with new legislation shortly thereafter.

If the minister is asking for my cheap advice, and it is free this afternoon as it is most afternoons, that is what I would give her.

Mr. Fleet: It is worth what you pay for it.

Mr. Breaugh: The member has not paid for it yet and I doubt very much he will get a chance to in the future.

Mr. Mahoney: One way or another.

Mr. Breaugh: One way or another.

I think the bill, in one sense, is a minimal approach to a problem. I regret very much that the minister has not been able to do more than that in this time period. I do not believe it is because she did not have a chance to explore the options. I am sure that if she has had as much correspondence and conversation about this issue as I have, she understands fairly clearly what they are.

I would like to see us now get a little more organized in our response to that, so I would like to see us deal with this bill. I am not anxious that we go through it quickly, but it is a rather straightforward piece of legislation that should not require days and years of discussion here.

1550

We oppose it, basically on the grounds that we anticipated there would be a better response from the minister than what we have here. It is minimal and I know there will be many groups who are grateful that, at least, the bill did not die and was extended in this form for another year. Many will look at this and say, “That gives us a little breathing space here.”

But I am aware that the problem gets worse day by day. It does not get better, it gets worse and we, as a government in Ontario, are stumbling around a bit for a response to this. We are searching for answers. Other jurisdictions seem to have found some ways of preserving rental accommodation that is suitable for lower-income groups particularly. I guess the classic is this one: in my community, and in every other community, when developers look at an older apartment building, they very often look at it as a piece of land to be developed and to maximize their profits. That is still legal in this country and they still do that a lot.

But that is their perspective on the matter. Somebody who is a single-parent mother with a couple of kids may look at that as the only place in town where she can afford to pay the rent on that apartment. So that is the classic argument and councils are struggling with that because many councils, of course, believe in redevelopment, particularly in the downtown core of their community. They have these great schemes for redevelopment proposals that will renew the whole inner-city of whatever community they are in and they very often get caught in this kind of a conundrum.

In order to develop something that everybody thinks is wonderful, what do we do with these people who are living in that accommodation now? Many of us who are politicians by trade and have kind of knocked on all of these doors are sometimes appalled at the conditions under which people live. It is difficult, I suppose, for many of us to get some understanding of why anybody would want to live in an apartment like that. But the truth is that for many of them that is the only kind of reasonable accommodation they can get under any circumstances. So if we demolish that building, they are out on the street.

I suppose one solution that I have certainly been given by a number of people is that if the government of Ontario would only kind of fulfil its responsibilities and provide more financing for different kinds of non-profit housing, we would be able to kind of accommodate these people in better accommodations. The truth is, even with this year’s budget, there is not much of a move or much of an inclination shown on the part of the government to really do that in a substantive way.

So we are not having theoretical discussions about what the most desirable way is to develop a particular block in anybody’s downtown core. We are dealing with the very practical problem of where these people live. That was the impetus for the beginning of this legislation, that there was a need to protect rental accommodation, that it was at the stage where it really was in crisis proportions in many of our communities and something had to be done to enforce that.

It is no secret, of course, that the legislation came out of considerations by various city councils as they dealt with the practical problem of a development proposal by someone in the private sector that would have a very negative impact on some of the people in that community. It is one of those things that is not easy to resolve.

The bill which Bill 108 replaces was not an ideal bill, not by a long shot, and I think anybody who has had any contact with the legislation would admit that. For starters, I guess the best way to put it is that it was a theoretical approach and a recognition that there was a problem there. The problem still exists. The problem will still exist for the foreseeable future, so extending this bill does something, but not very much.

I wish it had done more. I think the opportunity was in place here for the ministry to take a bold step. It is obvious to me that they are not really interested in bold steps these days and they have made a very tentative one in extending the bill. If the ministry had done a bit more, perhaps we could now proceed to exercise some of the options that we are aware of, to consider what other jurisdictions have done or tried to do and to attempt to examine how successful they have been in addressing the same problem.

I am just going to close with a simple plea. We oppose this bill for reasons that I have stated. I think it is now important that the issue itself gets out in public. I believe it is important that people be given the opportunity to make written submissions, but it is also important that a committee of the Legislature be charged with the responsibility of examining those options. I think we have identified most of the options that I can think of that might respond to the same particular set of circumstances.

I would like to see a legislative committee now take up the discussion paper or the policy paper, whatever you want to call it, hold a set of public hearings and compare what we are trying to do in Ontario with what other jurisdictions have done, to see what can work; because the basic problem is one that is getting worse instead of better.

Although there will be in the next little while a glut of luxury condominiums for rent in downtown Toronto, that is of little use or comfort to somebody who is on a limited income. To be a little more precise about it, the problem really is that there are many senior citizens, for example, in older apartment buildings here and all over Ontario who are quite happy where they are. It might not be the world’s greatest accommodation, but it is their home and they have lived there for some period of time.

Through a variety of means, either through initiatives on the part of someone who has just bought the building or through rent review, their home is being threatened. Although they are living in rental accommodation and although they understand they do not own the joint, it is where they live. They have lived there for a long period of time, they are on fixed incomes and anything that kind of jeopardizes that scenario threatens them.

They are probably the people who are least able to defend themselves, because if they are on a fixed income they are not in a position to go to war over what has happened to their apartment building, and that really is what is demanded. If there is a major flaw that is being extended here now, I would identify it as simply that.

This bill extends an act which essentially demands that people who are affected by it go to war. They have to get organized, they have to go and appear in front of their city council, they have to be prepared to do battle for some lengthy period of time. For some of them it involves the expenditure of moneys to hire lawyers and people to advise them, because they are in an unfamiliar set of circumstances now.

The extension of the bill has a bad side. It extends that process for another year. As the minister said in her opening remarks today, and I take her at her word, I hope it does not take a year to see the government’s response to it. I hope it can be finalized in a more open, accessible way. I am making that pitch and I hope she would expedite it as quickly as she can.

In my personal timetable, if she has set out that by July 1 she wants the written submissions, I would like to see a legislative committee take up the matter in the early fall and see a legislative response by the end of the fall session.

I wish her well in her endeavours. I know that this is not an easy problem to resolve, that it has been around for a while, but it is one of those things that is at crisis proportions in some communities. I wish her response to it had been a little bit more than to simply extend a bill that has some very serious flaws in it for a year, perhaps less. I hope that she would now move to expedite that process, to get it out into the open, to let us have the arguments, to argue out the different points of view and to come to some solutions.

I suspect that on this kind of legislation we are not going to get consensus between a developer who wants to tear down the building and a tenant who wants to live there. That is unlikely, but we can at least hear both sides of the argument and see if there are any solutions that are a little more workable than what we are proposing here. The problem is a serious one and, unfortunately, the response has not been a very substantive one.

Mr. Cousens: The bill we are reviewing is one that was reviewed and discussed two years ago. It is odd that two years have passed and nothing has happened, except that the problem has become worse. We now have 1,000 units available for people who want to rent accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto. It is no better anywhere around the province.

It is worse for a number of reasons. It is worse because we are talking about a government that has lost the trust of the developers and private investors, those who might otherwise put dollars into rental accommodation. The private money is important money when it comes to building accommodation. Yet now, what with government interference, government meddling and a breach and breakdown of the faith and trust that can exist between those private investors and government, we are seeing the problem becoming worse and worse.

I do not think the government has much choice but to introduce this bill again, and next year it might introduce it again, and again and again. I do not have the confidence that the government and the minister have that in fact this is the last time we are going to see this bill, unless the government comes in with an omnibus bill and it is there as another segment of it.

1600

Unless it has a strategy and a long-term plan to meet the housing needs in Ontario, as a government it is going to continue to do things this way: it is going to be done piecemeal and it is going to be done at the expense of everybody, because there is not a winner right now in Ontario when it comes to housing.

We need to have a spirit of co-operation that exists between the government and private investors. There needs to be a spirit of cooperation and trust between the government and the tenants. That has deteriorated to such a low level now that I have great fears we are not going to see it reversed. I do not see anything happening that the government is now doing that is going to change the vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto, now at 0.1 per cent, and I do not see any strategies or plans that can help rectify the problem.

All we have to do is go back a very short period of time and we have great quotes from the Premier (Mr. Peterson). On May 6, 1986 -- that is just over two years ago -- he said to the Toronto Star: “The legislation was introduced as a short-term measure to combat the ‘real crisis in terms of affordable housing’ in Ontario and will be replaced with a new housing policy after two years.

What is his word worth? He said, over two years ago, very clearly, very precisely, that within two years a new housing policy would be developed. It is now 24 months later and there is still no housing policy. We have a document and there is some thinking and talking going on. The premise on which this government was elected last September 10 has a lot to do with the commitments and promises which were made that led up to that election, and here is one of them in which it is a total failure: a failure in trust, a failure in action, a failure in realizing some steps.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only myself who is disappointed. I think everyone who is involved with the housing crisis now in Ontario shares in that disappointment. I have with me a statement that was made and it explains it rather well. This person makes his money on the housing problems we are having, but he does it in a way which really merits the respect of anyone who is watching what is going on within the industry. He puts out a regular monthly analysis on Canadian housing problems. It is Clayton Research Associates. Mr. Clayton also has a PhD, but Dr. Frank Clayton, president of Clayton Research Associates, asserts in his April edition:

“The current rental housing policy thrusts of the Ontario government, e.g., the continuation of rent control, the prohibition of removal of existing rental buildings from rental stock and the provision of subsidies to stimulate rental construction, are not effective responses to the two most important rental housing problems facing the province; that is, insufficient new rental housing construction and the existence of a significant number of renters paying an excessive proportion of their income to secure adequate accommodation.”

If the Ministry of Housing could do something to address those two major concerns, we would not need to have this kind of legislation coming forward again and again in the House. If the Legislature could look at some bills, meaning legislation, that will help increase the stock of affordable housing in this province, then we would be doing something worth while.

I think that has to be one of the biggest frustrations any legislator could ever have; that is, just to be doing the same thing over and over again with the problem getting worse at the same time. I have no fun in being here today to talk about a bill which is just a repeat performance of two years ago.

If, in fact, there was something happening to build that rental stock, to build a relationship with those who have the money which could help build it, so it is not just the province that is doing it, then we would be on our way to a road to recovery for those people who are in crisis right now because they do not have a place to live. Then the rights of those who own the property, those who are the landlords, would not necessarily be taken away through Bill 108.

We are stuck with Bill 11; we are stuck with Bill 108; we are stuck with it because we are stuck with a government that does not have a plan or a vision or a dream to take us forward out of the slump the housing market is in right now for renters in Ontario; and it is serious. The single most serious crisis in the province today is our housing crisis.

The second part of the problem that Dr. Frank Clayton refers to is where renters are paying an excessive proportion of their income to secure adequate accommodation.

I know the Ministry of Community and Social Services has also delayed coming out with its report that is going to address the needs of many people who are living on welfare and home support, but at least I am confident there is going to be something coming in the near future, because the minister has had some good people working on it.

The problem with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) is that I do not know who is going to work on this report once she gets it. I am sympathetic to the view that the Legislature could well form a committee to sit down and analyse and assess some of the options that are open to us, because even though the Minister of Housing says, “Yes, we are doing a lot of listening and we are trying to gather all this input,” I am not satisfied that she really understands or is prepared to take the kind of action of a government that cares and a government that has made a commitment and is really doing something about it.

So we are faced with a situation where there are no winners. The government will push through this legislation in spite of opposition, yet we have to face up to some of the real pitfalls that are part of what is the Rental Housing Protection Act.

First, let us just look at some of the problems that are part of this bill. Bill 108 makes it mandatory for all municipalities with populations of over 25,000 to deal with all changes to rental stock, whether or not a problem exists in that municipality. There are some places without rental problems, but unfortunately they have other problems. They have huge unemployment and they have situations that are very difficult for them to handle. When you have a government that just comes out with blanket legislation that touches on every municipality over 25,000, it just adds to that overload, that bureaucratic red tape that some municipalities should not have to be cutting through or bothering with.

If only the government could bring some common sense to its legislation. They have had two years to at least look at this bill and to make some changes to it, but it comes out identical. All we have is a new date on it, so that Bill 108 is just a continuation of Bill 11.

During two years, you would think they would have had a chance to improve some of those bureaucratic nightmares for some of those municipalities. They live with it, they add a little of their own bureaucracy in each of those municipalities and there is someone who spends a certain amount of time every week who has to make sure the municipality fulfils the terms of what Bill 11 was and now Bill 108 is, that is the cost of government.

If a business ran that way, by saying everybody has to get a free this or everyone gets something of that, it makes no sense. There is already a tremendous workload for everybody in this province who is working in different levels of government. but here you have legislation that just continues to add to it, and there is not a need for that.

Why does the act treat both legal and illegal units in the same way? It treats legal units and illegal units equally, which can result in municipalities supporting the retention of rental units that are guilty of zoning violations. Here we are talking about a government that has had two years to do something. They have not even looked at the impact this is having in some of those municipalities.

Bill 108, with its sole focus on salvaging Ontario’s rental supply and protecting tenants, denies individuals, including those who have been good tenants for several years, the right to buy their own apartments or their own units. There are many people in this city who would like to be able to buy that stock of accommodation in which they are now living. We should try to find ways of making that happen, if we can. That is part of the whole failure of the government to come up with a comprehensive plan to address the needs of people who have a housing concern or a housing interest in this province.

1610

Some people do happen to have the money to buy one of those units. I was at a session a couple of weeks ago in which I saw at first hand more and more of the problems that these people are having. There are many people who are paying less than 25 per cent of their income towards rental, and some of those people have stored up enough money that they could buy their place, if it were allowed to be put on the market.

Why does Bill 108, or Bill 11 as it now is, not have that option in it for them? There should be rights for people, and what we are seeing here with the government is again an abrogation of rights. It is the government cutting into the rights of landlords to do with their own property what they want to do and the rights of tenants who are renting property from those people to do what they want to do.

Bill 108 does nothing to really address the crisis in affordable housing. It only perpetuates the housing crisis by discouraging private sector involvement in the rental housing market and by encouraging the deterioration of existing rental stock. I wonder how many of us have seen some of those units that have not had any meaningful repairs for a long time. The garbage chute does not work, the windows do not close tightly, there is vandalism in the building, there is a stench to it and the garbage is not picked up on a regular basis. Some of these problems can be addressed through the complaint process, but may I suggest that the problem is a far deeper one?

It is one in which those who own the properties have lost interest. They have lost interest because they know that the government is going to continue to push them around. Who suffers in the long term? The tenants. And the housing crisis begins to take on a scale of problem that this province has never seen. It is a crisis.

The government has not done anything to deal with the conversion problems and has only passed the issue to the municipalities for them to solve. The government could and should find solutions, rather than a scapegoat, to ease the housing crisis.

I know that very recently the Minister of Housing met with some of the mayors of the Metropolitan Toronto area and surrounding region and was trying to pass the buck on to them. Hopefully, everyone will respond to this. I know that municipalities are doing everything within their power, but they too share the kinds of feelings I have, that there is not much hope that there will be co-operation or help from this government.

The words are good, but not the acts that follow up. It is like the words when the Premier said, two years ago, “Within two years we will have a policy.” We are still waiting and we are bringing in the bill again. Those are the kinds of words that people are getting sick and tired of. That is one of the reasons this government really is, I think, starting to slip. Certainly the bloom is off the flower. People are starting to realize that the words and the talk have been cheap but the actions and the follow-through have been nonexistent.

In his 1988 budget statement, the Treasurer said that housing is not just a government responsibility but that the private sector must also do its part in meeting affordable housing needs. Yet by retaining this bill, by retaining the kind of intent that is behind it, what this government is doing is turning off the housing market. It has had a huge negative effect on private sector involvement in helping to address and respond to the housing crisis we have. The government has not done much, and now the private sector, which could do much, has been totally and furiously upset.

This bill is an inadequate piece of legislation because it has not effectively preserved decent rental housing, nor has it added to the supply of rental stock in Ontario. It has had the reverse effect of forcing property owners to utilize loopholes to convert rental units to more profitable ventures.

I was surprised today. I came and I thought the Premier was going to look at this as a chance to defend why nothing had been done for two years. I could not believe how flimsy an answer he gave, how fickle an approach he took to the housing situation we have with the Rental Housing Protection Act. All he says is, “We keep reviewing.” I quote: “I can tell my honourable friend that we are reviewing all aspects of housing policy, including that one,” the Rental Housing Protection Act.

It is talk, talk, talk, and there is no action. I am not satisfied that this government will act on it. I am not satisfied that, within two or three years from now, the accommodation rate in Metropolitan Toronto will be any better than it is today.

One wonders what one can do. First, many municipalities in Ontario feel the bill should be allowed to sunset and that the Ministry of Housing could set up a joint -- it could well be members of the Legislature in a committee or it could be the Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- planning group to organize and develop effective ways to preserve rental stock in Ontario.

I have a copy of the brief that has been released -- The Rental Housing Protection Act: Future Directions -- and there indeed will be opportunities for people to respond to it. There is going to be a chance for this government to do something if it wants to. The question is, why do they not involve the whole Legislature in that process? Why not have a committee of the Legislature which can begin to assist the minister in responding to this crisis?

I would like to see a statement come from this government and from this minister that talks about some of the traditional rights of property owners. What are their rights? When are their property rights going to be returned to them? If property owners or private investors knew they had some rights before the law, the government of this province, then we would be inclined to see more of them putting money forward.

The minister should come forward with a statement and a policy and maybe some way of proving to them that this government is prepared to work with the private investor to build that kind of stock we need. There is nothing more important than to have a government that creates an environment for both private enterprise and government to be working effectively together. That is what the government should be doing: working with the private sector to come up with solutions and ideas to improve and build rental housing stock in Ontario.

If the government continues to work alone to come up with solutions, we will continue to have a second-rate, government-run industry that excludes housing professionals and experts. The government is heading towards monopolizing a business it really does not know. Why not let those qualified in the private sector, the builders and the contractors, who know the housing business, do their job and assist in solving housing problems?

That would then mean the government has to listen, the government then has to be involved, the government has to somehow have a trusting relationship that begins to lead in new directions.

In the meantime, we stumble. We continue to stumble over the same mistakes and the same promises and the same words we heard two years ago. I look forward to the day when we will begin to see some action that begins to put some real truth into the words, when people hear the Premier of the province saying, “In two years from now, our government will come forward with a comprehensive housing policy.” He said that and he has not done it. Now the Minister of Housing says, “Well, we’re going to talk some more and we’re going to listen some more,” and that is no guarantee that they are going to act some more and that they are going to come up with some comprehensive plan.

How does one measure success like that? There is not a measurement low enough to really describe the pain and anguish of those people who cannot find housing stock in the larger urban areas. That is where it is painful. When one sees them, talks to them and understands what those problems are, then one knows that the policies this government has enacted are not working.

The fact that this government does not have a vision or a dream for the future is further grief for those people because they have no sense of knowing what is going to be done or how it is going to be done, or if in fact there is a solution at the end. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

1620

For many people right now who are in search of that kind of housing, there is no solution in sight. So what we have today is a bill we are stuck with. When our party votes against it, assuming we get to it some time because I know we are going to have more words, the fact is that it will carry. It will be in effect, and in two years or a year from now, we are going to be doing the same thing again.

I have zero confidence in this government to fulfil the commitments that are being made now that by next year we are going to see something different. It just will not happen unless the government involves all parties in coming up with a solution -- all parties being the builders, the tenants, political parties. Take out the partisanship and get on with the real job.

We have had great hopes from this government on housing and they have not materialized. Out of the election promise of last year, the Premier said, “We will have 102,000 new, affordable rental units for people in Ontario by the end of 1989.” Where are they? We get promises of a few here and a few there but we are not even close to having them in place by the end of 1989. Meanwhile, people are suffering.

People will continue to suffer in this province when all they get is words and they do not get the kind of action that results in the construction of new units, the construction of affordable units, the creation of opportunities for people to be able to raise their families and to live in peace and harmony in communities. They want to work in the community and they cannot do that now. They have to commute from long distances.

It is not a problem; it is a crisis. I do not hear anything that is being said in this House by the Minister of Housing or by this government that gives me a sense of hope for the future that we will see a solution to the housing crisis in this province. So we will wait and we will see, we will talk and we will look, and a year from now we will be back doing the same kind of thing. It is not a happy moment for Ontario when we are doing again this year what we did two years ago.

Yet we will find pleasantries to make, such as “Oh well, we are doing something.” But all the efforts this government has made have been words, not action. Actions do speak louder than words.

Mr. Callahan: We’ve got to rectify what you guys didn’t do all those years. It has taken two years just to clean things up.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mr. Cousens: Madam Speaker, we have touched a nerve. Some people just suddenly woke up. It is amazing that the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) has suddenly come alive. The member is here so that his constituents know he has participated. What have you done to help with the housing crisis and the housing problem in this province? Sweet nothing. All you can do is come into the House and object when someone is trying to come up with some of the solutions that are being looked for. It starts with having a working relationship with people. It starts with building a trust.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I remind all honourable members that they are to let the member who has the floor continue without interruption, and the honourable member who has the floor should address his remarks through the Speaker. Please continue.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t get side-tracked by the keys to the Don jail there.

Mr. Cousens: That is right. One has to understand.

The Globe and Mail editorial board on May 7, 1986, said, “The sense of proportion that should accompany any such intrusion falls to Ontario’s shortsighted fixation on controls.” What they were talking about there is that here is a government that, instead of coming up with a strategy and a plan, comes up with a shortsighted view, as it did two years ago with Bill 11. Since then, the housing stock, the rental stock, in this province has deteriorated. There is less and less.

They are fixated on the idea: “We will maintain rent controls. We will do the very things that Dr. Frank Clayton talked about.” But they are not prepared to do the two things that really count, that is, increase the number of affordable units and do something about the people who are paying in excess of 25 per cent or 30 per cent of their income towards their rental accommodation. So we will continue to have bills like this.

I will oppose this bill. I oppose the lack of spirit and thrust for the future that is forthcoming from this government and this Ministry of Housing. I can only hope that the day will come when we will see a new government that will come forward with new policies and a new thrust, and that will start building a relationship between private enterprise and government and not just shut the door on it and tell it to disappear and go away.

Mr. Mahoney: I find it curious, listening to the honourable member and to the member before him, that they have decided, obviously as a party -- I guess it is another free vote on that side of the House -- that they are going to oppose the extension of this bill. The logic, the reason for it seems to be that they feel there should be time to take this bill out to a legislative committee. That is on one hand. On the other hand --

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order: That is not it at all.

Mr. Mahoney: I am sorry, I heard it suggested by the honourable member. Hansard can be checked.

They want to take it out to committee, on the one hand; on the other hand, they want an opportunity for the private sector. I believe the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) talked about involving the private sector. Obviously, the private sector has to be involved. Obviously, housing is not something that can be unilaterally solved by one level of government.

I would like to read, for the honourable members’ interest, from the Toronto Star of May 15, from an article entitled “Housing and the Feds.” I quote:

“More than a year ago, Queen’s Park announced its ‘housing first’ policy and urged the federal government to respond in kind. Under that plan, all surplus provincial lands are considered first as sites for affordable housing, then, if determined to be inappropriate, are sold at market prices. That money is placed in a special housing fund and used to build low-cost housing elsewhere.

“By continuing to sell federally owned parcels on an ad hoc basis ... Ottawa makes a mockery of its claims that it is helping to build ‘record-breaking numbers’” of houses in this province. Clearly, we need the co-operation of Ottawa, of the cousins of the member for Markham in Ottawa, who are totally ignoring their responsibility to work with this government, with the private sector and with the housing corporations.

The housing crisis, I would add in my six seconds remaining, is in social housing. It is the community of the member for Markham that does not even have a social housing program, not Peel.

Ms. Bryden: I felt when the member for Markham was telling us about the inadequacies of Bill 11 that he was also telling me about what is happening in my own riding. I am discovering the same inadequacies and the same attempts to wage guerrilla warfare on tenants under this bill in order to get them to depart and leave a vacant building when the Rental Housing Protection Act will not apply. That is why Bill 11 has become a failure in stopping the erosion of affordable housing and that is why amendments will be needed.

But we must have what I think my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) suggested, a thorough study of the amendments that are needed, and the loopholes must be closed through a legislative committee in the next year. We do not want just another stopgap bill again next year, if this one should go into effect.

I have had housing units where the owners obtained vacant possession by the most reprehensible and illegal methods of intimidating tenants, leaving the houses boarded up while tenants still lived there and things of that sort. That is why we need a study of the whole question of how to stop this conversion and demolition that is going on.

I sat on the planning committee when the Planning Act went through in 1984 under the previous government and we were not able to get strong enough demolition and conversion rules in that, so it is time to review that as well.

1630

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I just want to speak briefly to make a couple of comments.

First, I want to support the member for Markham and his very thoughtful presentation. I listened in my office with a great deal of interest. That member has kept our caucus fully informed of all the housing developments in this province. He has brought to our attention the fact that the Thom report was presented, but the minister has not had the integrity to bring it forward and have it discussed in detail. There are many items in that report that would be of interest. I wonder why the government appoints a commission. If they do not like what they see in the commission’s report, then they forget about it. That is not the way the minister usually acts, as a member of cabinet, is it?

I would just like to say that the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) seems to be knowledgeable in all fields of expertise, and in the housing and social policy fields especially. I wonder how they are able to survive back in Mississauga without him. Maybe after the next few years he will consider going back there, because he would certainly be better off in that environment than here.

I would just encourage the members opposite to pay attention to our critic, the member for Markham, because there are a lot of good points to be made on the housing problems we have in this province.

Mr. Villeneuve: But they’re not listening.

Mr. Callahan: I always listen to the member for Markham, because he is constantly reminding us, in his very positive speeches and the way he addresses this whole issue and asks the minister and the government to join hands in co-operation with him, and yet his speech is totally full of statements of doom and gloom. One would think that a positive attitude, first of all, is required.

In addition to that, he appears to have a view of conservatism that is much like that of his cousins in Ottawa, who create a $500,000 capital-gains shelter that in fact has assisted people in flipping houses and increasing the price of them. The Minister of Finance in the federal party in Ottawa has really just fuelled the flames.

When he speaks about Peel region, I would stack up Peel region’s approach and its success in terms of creating housing against any one of the ridings in this province; so the member for Markham does not know of what he speaks, as is -- I would not say as usual, but certainly he is misinformed about the facts of Peel region, because we have contributed to it.

In the final analysis, I have to gather from the member’s comments -- and it must represent his caucus’s view -- that we should eliminate rent controls immediately, tomorrow, and leave all these people who have been protected by them out in the cold. If that is what he is suggesting, then I certainly do not subscribe to his view of conservatism, which does not look after the people who need the protection most.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to thank the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) for his kind remarks. He really touches on one of the major truths, and it has to do with the Thom report and the failure of this government to deal with that report and to come forward honestly with some recommendations through public discussion, where there would be a full opportunity for people to understand ways of dealing with this whole problem, the affordable housing crisis in Ontario. I commend the senior member of our caucus for his words, and I respect very highly what he has to say.

I was also very impressed by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), who talks about the guerrilla warfare that goes on within Metropolitan Toronto. I think the guerrillas are opposite us; they really are. The guerrillas happen to be the government and the Liberal MPPs who are closing their minds to what is going on within Metropolitan Toronto and within those areas where people need housing.

I hear the kind of gobbledegook that comes from the member for Brampton South. He talks about me having gloom and doom. Well, I sure do. As long as there are people in this province who do not have a roof over their heads, then we have to fight for them. If the government is not going to fight for them, we will.

I think that is where it all starts from. You do not just take it lightly; you do not just cast it aside. You come in here and you just think it is all nice and rosy. We have a roof over our heads in the Legislature, but there are many people in this province who are looking to us in this House to come up with that solution, and the government is not doing it.

I hear the member for Mississauga West. I have not heard him speak so stupidly before, because what he started referring to from my speech, I did not say.

This legislation will pass today, but what needs to be done is that there needs to be a real focus on housing in this province. Why does the minister not then open it up so that there is legislative debate on it, so that we will have a committee of the Legislature and we will go and look at the problem and together we will come up with some solutions?

I am prepared to work with anybody, even those guys, to try to find that solution.

Mr. Kanter: I rise to support Bill 108, which extends the Rental Housing Protection Act for a one-year period while the minister consults on improvements to this act.

I heard the member for Oshawa, a member of the New Democratic Party, a party which sometimes purports to speak for tenants. I heard him express a number of concerns, many of which are quite valid. He suggested that there was a loss of affordable housing and that the loss of affordable housing was a major problem, not just in Ontario but in other jurisdictions as well. He admits that the Rental Housing Protection Act is a response to this problem. He concedes that the bill has been quite effective in those municipalities that have taken it seriously.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Oh no, he doesn’t; that’s not true.

Mr. Kanter: Those are the words. I would remind the honourable member, who may not have been present, that it was his colleague who said, “The bill works where the local council wants it to.”

He admits that most activists want to have the bill extended -- and I presume he might speak to some tenant activists from time to time as well as to other activists -- and he predicts that there may be a time where no person of modest means can rent within Metro, which are all good, sound, valid reasons for extending this bill.

But what is the position that he takes? He takes the position that he is opposed to the bill. Why is he opposed to the bill? Well, perhaps he did not like the consultation process. Perhaps he did not like some technical, theoretical detail of the legislation.

Let me tell the members the practical consequence of the position adopted by my colleague opposite. In opposing this bill, and if this bill were not to be extended, then hundreds of thousands or millions of tenants in this province would be at risk.

I heard his colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine suggest that amendments will be needed, and yes indeed, amendments may be needed, but let me tell members that you need a bill, you need something in place to have amendments to; and if this bill lapses at the end of June, as it is now scheduled to do, there will be nothing, there will be no protection. There will be no protection for tenants, be they in Metro or be they in the rest of the province.

I heard the comments of the member for Markham. I see he is not here at the moment but --

Mr. Cousens: I’m here, watching.

Mr. Kanter: He is watching? OK, I am being watched.

I heard the implication of his comments during question period that no one supports Bill 108. Let me tell the members that the tenants in my riding and 70 per cent of the constituents in my riding -- 70 per cent of those in housing units in my riding are tenants -- support this bill. They are very concerned about the problems that occurred before this bill was passed.

1640

Let me assure the members that the city council of Toronto supports the extension of this bill. I have a report here from the housing action committee recommending that the committee recommend that city council request the provincial government to extend the Rental Housing Protection Act for at least one year beyond June 30, 1988.

I point out that a number of members of Toronto city council -- not all of them, I would hasten to add, of the New Democratic Party persuasion or even of the Liberal persuasion -- are in support of extending this bill. I would point out, particularly to the member for Markham, that Alderman Michael Walker, who is the chairman of the rental housing protection subcommittee of the city council of Toronto, has called for the extension of the Rental Housing Protection Act. Not only does Michael Walker identify himself as a Progressive Conservative; some might say he would be to the right of some of the existing members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, and he is strongly in support of retaining this bill.

I notice that both critics referred to this as a housing crisis. Let me assure you, Madam Speaker, this housing crisis would be much, much worse if this bill were defeated and tenants were abandoned. Perhaps some members were not here several years ago when this bill was introduced. I was not here in this forum. I was a member of the council of the city of Toronto. I know my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) was on the city of Toronto council as well.

I would like very briefly to review three of the kinds of problems we had. There was demolition of rental housing buildings, as in the Bathurst and Eglinton district of what is now my provincial riding of St. Andrew-St. Patrick. There was the proposal to convert many thousands of residential units in the city of Toronto. There were schemes called “equity co-ops.”

I happen to be very familiar with one of these, where people were sold units or interest in buildings that already had tenants in them. Sometimes they were extremely surprised and sometimes quite angry to find there were, indeed, tenants in possession of those units who expected to stay there. The tenants who were in possession of the units, paying their rent quite legally and quite lawfully, were even more surprised that, under the legislation then in place or without the Rental Housing Protection Act, there was no protection against these kinds of difficulties. There were very great difficulties caused in the hallways of some of these buildings as a result of some of the things that occurred before this bill was introduced.

It has been suggested that this bill has not been effective. My experience is primarily in the city of Toronto, and I would say that in the city of Toronto, the bill has been quite effective. It has been effective in slowing the rate of loss of moderate-rental housing in this city in a very substantial way.

From December 1980 through June 1986, some 11,900 rental units -- on average, on a yearly basis, 2,160 units -- were removed from the city’s moderate-rental housing stock through demolition, conversion to condominiums, equity co-ops and furnished, short-term rentals masquerading as apartment-hotel units and luxury renovations, all of which required the eviction of existing tenants.

During the 20 months since the Rental Housing Protection Act has come into effect, the city of Toronto has received a number of applications. They have resulted in the removal of 225 moderate-rental units and in almost all cases these were transitional units, where the application was made before the act came into effect. In other words, the act has been very effective, at least in the city of Toronto. in slowing, almost entirely stopping, the loss of rental housing.

I would also point out that this bill has had a positive impact in many other ways. There are a number of creative proposals which have been put forward that would allow the demolition of existing rent-control units, but would include replacement, which would include additions of new buildings, which would include the benefits in some cases of conveying a building in a complex to a nonprofit co-op.

I think this bill has had the desired effect, not only in the city of Toronto but also in other parts of the province, of preserving the existing rental accommodation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask all members to keep their conversations down as much as possible. I am having difficulty hearing the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Kanter: Madam Speaker, I will try to speak more loudly.

I rise in support of this bill because I think the preservation of existing rental housing is an important component in a housing strategy, along with the other components the minister mentioned. I think this bill has played an important role for the time being. I think it is important that it be extended so that we can pursue methods of improving it. I would not suggest for a moment that the bill is perfect in this form.

I suggest it is a very important part-component of our housing program, and I urge those members opposite, who I believe are pursuing very irresponsible courses of action, to reconsider. I urge that all members consider supporting this bill while we pursue methods of improving our means of retaining rental accommodation, which are extremely important to many constituents, not just in my riding, of course, but throughout Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Just very briefly, I must say, after listening to the member, it is with a bit of regret that I hear these members from Toronto, who think that if something is effective in Toronto, the rest of the province should just follow suit and the rest of the province is the same as Toronto.

There are other communities in this province, there are other city councils in this province, and there are very clear examples in other communities where this legislation has not worked, where perhaps some members of city councils are not as informed of housing issues as some members of the Toronto city council are.

It really bugs me when I come to Toronto to the Legislature and hear members from downtown Toronto make assessments of legislation and programs that should apply all across Ontario, as if we are all the same. I do not think the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has any idea how this legislation has worked outside of Toronto. I doubt very much whether he has looked at my community, the city of Windsor, where city council has actually converted more rental units to condominiums than have been built in that community. That is exactly what has happened under Bill 11 and under this bill that he wants to extend without strengthening to protect tenants in this province.

I point out that one of the people who has been crucial in the conversions and the kicking-out of tenants from reasonable rental accommodations in Windsor while they are being converted is the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray), who was a member of city council and voted in favour of condo conversion when he was on city council before he came to this place. I suggest to the downtown member from Toronto that he might want to talk to his colleague and find out why people like the member for Windsor-Walkerville did not understand Bill 11 and did not follow the principle of Bill 11.

Mr. Cousens: It is good to hear from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. He is consistent, because two years ago he was in support of this. He is quoted in the Toronto Star.

Mr. McCague: He still does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Cousens: He still does not know what he is talking about.

I would like to know what else he has to offer. Does he not have any suggestions to make to the Minister of Housing? He is one of the leading bright lights of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh no, you better retract that.

Mr. Cousens: No. He is first out of here every day; he leads the pack to get home fast to serve his riding. And he is bright, because -- let’s face it -- he knows how to get around town.

The honourable member has an opportunity to give leadership in the party. What has he suggested to the Minister of Housing? Has he been one of those who are saying, “Hey, keep doing the same old thing,” because maybe he can get the Minister of Housing kicked out of her job so that he can become Minister of Housing? I think there is a little bit of sneakiness here.

I would like to see this member, though, take a moment to tell us in all candour if he can come up with one thing that his government should be doing on housing in addition to Bill 11. What is one housing initiative that he would suggest? He did not have anything new to say in his speech. I do not think he really had a chance to think about it, but he should give us one suggestion as to what his government should be doing to address and respond to the housing crisis that we have in Ontario right now. I will even clap for him, a one-handed clap for the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

1650

Mr. Reville: The member for Markham is obviously unaware that the lights have been removed from city hall because they made it look like Coney Island and were destroying the building. So his remarks on behalf of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick are not appropriate.

I should say to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick that there are members of city council, and he knows this, of the New Democratic Party persuasion and otherwise, who think that Bill 11 and now Bill 108 are not strong enough.

Whereas the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, while he was on city council, managed always to ride the fence successfully -- in fact, I do not believe he was ever on the losing side of a vote in the whole time he was there, which is a fairly good balancing act -- I think he would agree that there are problems with this bill, would he not? In fact, it does not apply, in the view of his government, to buildings that are vacant. When he was a ward alderman he knew well that landlords were wonderfully successfully at emptying out buildings and then taking them down.

He knows that it does not apply to fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes or single units, and in the triplex and fourplex category that is 78,000 units his government has not seen fit to protect. He also knows that the bill is so vague as to be almost meaningless in jurisdictions that do not have quite the gumption his former council has, and that objective, measurable criteria for when it might have an adverse impact on the housing stock have not been provided for in the regulations or in the bill itself. That means the bill is a lukewarm, wimpish kind of instrument that this government would do well to improve.

Mr. M. C. Ray: I would like to respond to what appears to be a personal attack on me in my role as a member of the city council of the city of Windsor by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke). It is true that I --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Your comments are to be directed towards the comments that were made by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick and I would request that.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. M. C. Ray: I would like to point out that the New Democratic Party mayor of Windsor also voted in favour of a condominium conversion in Windsor. I think that is a reflection of the fact that Windsor had a very strict set of guidelines for the conversion of rental units to condominiums. Those guidelines included the fact that there must not be any significant financial or social repercussions upon the tenants.

It is also interesting to note that my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside seems to ignore the fact that the council of Windsor was prepared to live with the view of the majority of the tenants living in the building, and it was the majority of the tenants who came before the city council and argued in favour of the condominium conversion. But it is not always characteristic of the New Democratic Party that it wishes to abide by the will of the majority when it plays out its doctrinaire approach to problems.

Mr. Kanter: I just want to respond very briefly to some of the comments from members opposite, particularly the member for Markham and the member for Riverdale.

The member for Markham has asked about other initiatives of the Minister of Housing. There are a great number of positive initiatives from the Housing minister. One that I have been particularly pleased with is her initiative on nonprofit housing. In conjunction, there are initiatives of other ministers of this government; for example, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), who has initiated new funds for student housing.

Working with both of these programs, I have been working with students and administrators at the University of Toronto to create new student housing on that campus, which I might point out to members opposite -- I believe the member who was interested in this particular subject might be interested to know -- will be the first new student housing at the University of Toronto campus in approximately 25 years.

I think this is a very fine initiative that the Minister of Housing has begun in conjunction with the Minister of Colleges and Universities. That is one small example of the kind of initiative that has a positive impact in my riding, a downtown urban riding where housing costs are very high. That is a program which is effective and which I believe will work.

Secondly, in response to the comments of the member for Riverdale who was also a member of the same municipal council as I was, and who expresses some concerns that this bill does not cover certain types of housing units -- I believe he mentioned fourplexes, sixplexes, whatever -- I would simply ask how the situation will be better by voting against the bill when we will have no protection if we follow their approach. There will be absolutely no protection for any of the tenants of this province against conversion or demolition of any type.

Mr. Philip: This particular bill has a very interesting history, if we look at it. If we look at the introduction which the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) gave to Bill 11, he stated at the time that Bill 11, the Rental Housing Protection Act
-- that is the act that is in identical form before us today was designed to preserve Ontario’s affordable rental stock while the government’s long-term housing policy had a chance to take effect.

That was July 2, 1986. All of us were in the House and we heard that promise. The government was going to do something. It had to get a window through which it could deal with the problem, but in the meantime then, it was introducing some temporary legislation. That of course is the reason the bill, the Rental Housing Protection Act, had a sunset clause in it that said it would have to be reviewed and in fact introduced again at this time.

On January 7, 1988, I asked the present Minister of Housing about the fact that in my riding alone almost 50 per cent -- in fact the exact number comes out to 47 point something or other -- of the rental units in the riding that I represent were in fact registered as condominiums. At this very time, at this very moment there are evictions. Indeed, also back on January 7 -- at that time a number of people in my riding were being evicted as those units were being sold off.

If we look at the minister’s answer at that time, she said, when I questioned her, “Under the Rental Housing Protection Act and under its review we will undertake to look at that issue very closely and to make sure that the tenants are protected.”

Madam Speaker, if you asked those tenants who are living in my riding in those 47 per cent of the units whether they are protected by this act, they would say no. They are being evicted at the present time; they are being evicted in some of the high-rise buildings on Armel Court; they are being evicted, indeed, in buildings on Kipling Avenue.

So the minister then, on January 7, said they were going to look at it and that the tenants were going to be protected.

When I again raised the issue with her on the date of April 27, about 15 weeks later, I said that the minister’s legislation was coming up and that she had promised me on January 7 that she was going to undertake to look at the issue and was going to make sure these tenants were protected. I asked whether they were going to be protected.

Her answer then, of course, was that “the commitment I made was that we would consider the whole issue.” She had not said that. Her words had been very clear; her words were: “and to make sure that the tenants are protected.” They are not protected by this bill. Forty-seven per cent of the tenants in my riding can at any time, on 90 days’ notice, be evicted from their apartments when those apartments are sold as condominiums.

If we look at the price that they are asking for those, a large number of the people who are living in those units simply cannot qualify -- and one can ask any real estate agent -- to purchase those units, even if they so desire. Those units are selling at prices that would require a family income upwards of $40,000 in order to qualify to purchase, assuming they had the down payment to begin with. Many of the people living in those buildings are newly married. They are setting up their family for the first time and either they just do not have that kind of family income or they do not have the down payment to purchase the unit.

1700

The fact is, I first brought this to the minister’s attention way back in January 1988. I pointed out to her that a majority of the apartment rental units built after 1975 -- and, more particularly, after 1978 -- in Metropolitan Toronto were condominiums or were registered as condominiums. A lot of the people who moved into those apartments had no idea that what they, in fact, were doing was renting in an apartment condominium rather than an apartment rental building. They were not told so by their landlord. They saw that it was a rental building. They had large “For Rent” signs outside with the rents that they were asking and some people moved out of buildings where they were covered by rent review at that time -- and, in fact, they were covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act
-- and where they could not be evicted under the present legislation, into buildings where they are not protected.

This bill just does the same thing. It goes back and makes the same promise that the original Minister of Housing, in introducing the bill, made, namely that he was going to study the problem. One has to ask, “How long does it take to study a major problem when there are so many people who are actually being evicted?” I can tell the minister that there are at least three high-rise buildings in my riding now where the tenants are facing evictions as the units are sold. Gradually, if the real estate market continues to heat up, we may be sure that a number of the other buildings will be sold off one at a time. I ask the minister how long she wants to study the problem.

Her predecessor said he needed two years to study the problem. That was on July 2, 1986. Then this minister, in turn, in January 1988 said, well, she needed to study it, but the tenants would be protected. Now she introduces this legislation today and says she needs even longer to study it.

This minister should apply for an Ontario student assistance program grant because she is undertaking more studies than any graduate student is. If she wants a study, fine, she can give up her job, go back to university and study, but do not do it at the taxpayers’ expense, and do not make false promises to people when they will not be kept.

All I can say is that this minister is as big a disaster when it comes to protecting tenants as her predecessor. Maybe she should do some studies. Maybe she should resign and go back to university, because she certainly is not doing anything as the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Cousens: I keep on looking for something from the socialist party that is going to lead to some of the solutions and all I ever hear is more criticism. We are talking about an age in which we want to see some kind of working together and all they can do is condemn and criticize and not come forward with any kind of constructive ideas. I just get sick and tired, as we all do, of the same kind of speech. I am sure, if we went back in Hansard and listened, or read -- one cannot listen to it because they did not have it on tape and so on at the time -- it would be the same kind of words that came.

I am going to ask the member if he can give us some comment as to when he is going to start changing his views and start trying to work together and try to come up with some recommendations to help solve this problem.

Mr. Breaugh: Now that we have heard from the rump of the Liberal Party, I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to elaborate just a bit on what happens when this bill does get extended, because I have some concerns that people have put some drivel on the record here this afternoon, that the extension of this piece of legislation will, in fact, solve a lot of problems.

I think people should be aware that the extension of this bill is OK by me, and we have tried to establish that, but this bill has some very serious problems in it. There are tenants in many parts of Ontario who will go unprotected for a substantial period of time. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) has put on the record this afternoon that in his part of Metropolitan Toronto -- that is to say, not downtown city of Toronto -- there are real problems and the problems are caused by this bill. The extension of the bill for a year puts those people in some considerable jeopardy.

If members want us to elaborate somewhat on types of alternatives to housing programs that ought to be done, we can do that and would be happy to do that at some length. The problem is that we have done that in this chamber for many years. There are those in the conservative aspects of the Liberal Party who have now taken over the reins and they do not seem to be much more receptive to those same positive proposals than was the previous administration.

So I would just like the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to put on the record once again what will really happen to tenants across Ontario by the extension of this act which to some, I grant, sounds like a positive step. There is no argument from me about that at all, but I want him to put on the record once again that what this will do for others is take a difficult situation, compound it and extend it. If the government thinks that is offering protection to anyone, it is crazed.

Ms. Poole: I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding the New Democratic Party position in this --

Mr. Breaugh: I wouldn’t be surprised at that at all.

Ms. Poole: -- even though I have a capacity for understanding which the member for Oshawa does not realize.

For one thing, we have the member for Riverdale, who says that he will not support the extension of this bill because it is not strong enough. This is our opportunity to make it stronger. I, for one, intend to take the minister up on her offer to contribute to this discussion paper and help her fine-tune this bill so it is a very strong measure of tenant protection in this province.

Quite frankly, I then cannot believe the NDP member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who seems to be against public consultation. I really think this is what we need to make sure this piece of legislation is effective and is protecting the tenants. I want consultation from the public and from all legislators in this building.

I agree totally with the member for Markham -- and I welcome him to our party -- who says that it is time to be very --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms. Poole: I apologize and I withdraw that comment. But he is absolutely right: It is time we approached this on a very positive level. This is our opportunity to offer our recommendations to the minister, and I suggest that every member of this House take her up on that offer. We can make this a very strong piece of legislation, but first of all we have to extend it in order to have that opportunity.

Mr. Philip: In response to the member for Eglinton, the government has had two years to study this program. I do not know how much longer it wants to study a problem. The then Minister of Housing, when he first introduced this legislation, said that he was introducing it as a temporary measure to have some time in which to deal with the problem. He was supposed to have been studying it, he was supposed to have been consulting out there for two years, and now the government wants another two years to study it. One has to say that either they are very slow learners or very poor listeners, that they have not been able to get their act together in two years.

The other point then is that the member for Eglinton might like to look at -- and perhaps, being a new member of the House, she does not know how the rules affect bills around here, but if she had even taken the time to read the bill, she would see that the bill cannot be amended in its present form. It is a fairly straightforward bill. It simply reinstates the previous act. So you can have all the ideas in the world that you want; you cannot amend this bill in its present form. If the member does not believe me, then maybe she could consult with some of the people who have been elected a little longer than she has or indeed speak to the Clerk of the House.

1710

With regard to the comments of the member for Markham, he of course comes from a community that has done a great deal for subsidized housing. Those are the very people who have done everything they could to keep poor people out of their neighbourhoods, and now he has the audacity to come and ask the government what it is doing.

This is the man who belongs to the same party which opposed even this very simple and very restricted kind of protection for tenants. They were the ones who opposed it. I can remember David Rotenberg saying, “Under no circumstance will we go along with Bill Pr13,” which was the city of Toronto anti-demolition bill. That is where the member for Markham and his party stand.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will be very brief. I just want to go back to the experience we have had in our community with this piece of legislation.

When Bill 11 was first brought in, I had high expectations that one building in particular in my riding was going to be protected, and the tenants in the building, primarily senior citizens, retired people, would not be put in the very awkward position of having to either buy their units or move out of their units.

This bill was being debated. Our own city council had a local bylaw that was supposed to restrict condominium conversion, and the guidelines for that local bylaw were very similar to the guidelines which were followed in Bill 11. However, what happened was that the basic criterion our city council followed was what the majority of tenants wanted to do.

While I can understand the position of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M.C. Ray), that if the majority of tenants want condo conversion, then council will look at that, one has to look at how a landlord can get the majority of tenants onside for condo conversion.

This one particular building in my riding is called Bayview Tower Apartments. At the beginning, almost 90 per cent of the tenants were opposed to condominium conversion. That was in February 1985.

What the landlord did was meet with the tenants. He would not allow the tenants to have legal representation at the tenants’ meeting. He would not allow any outsiders to come to the meetings and he considered the press and the local MPP to be outsiders. He just took the position: “This building is going to be converted to condo, and either you can be on the train and agree to condo conversion or you will have to find another place to live.”

Obviously, that converted a lot of individuals; they did not want to have to move. Some of them had lived there for 15 or 20 years. They signed the document and they were then in favour of condo conversion.

If any units became available for rent, he made the tenant sign a lease, and the lease said: “I understand that this building is going to be converted to condo, and I promise that I will not oppose condo conversion.” Or else he would allow them to lease on the condition that they signed an offer to purchase a unit.

By the time this finally got to city council in September 1986, it is true, as the member for Windsor-Walkerville said, that the majority of the tenants had in fact signed on the dotted line and agreed to purchase their units, not because they originally supported condo conversion but because they were put in an intimidated position: they either bought the unit, supported condo conversion, or they felt they were going to be out on the streets.

The alternative this landlord had offered was that they would be able to move into another one of his apartment rental units in the area. This developer, Mr. Docherty, is a big developer in our community. The fact of the matter is that the vacancy rate at the time was 0.4 per cent, and the only way he would have made units available to the tenants who did not want to buy a condominium in Bayview Tower would be as a unit became available and vacant, and then he would move somebody over.

That did not create any new housing. He did not agree, as one of the criteria on the conversion, to set up the same number of units at the same rental rate. He did not agree to that. He did not have to do that.

Instead, city council went along and broke all three of the criteria, whether it was the vacancy rate or whether it was the building of new units at the same rate. He did not agree to those criteria, but city council just ignored that.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville is quite correct. The mayor of our community broke the tie in that particular vote and voted to convert. I condemn him and criticize him in exactly the same way that I criticize the member for Windsor-Walkerville, and I did at the time. Whether it is a New Democratic Party mayor, a Liberal mayor or a Tory mayor, it was the wrong thing to do. These older people were intimidated by the landlord.

This process that Mr. Docherty followed was a clear example and a clear demonstration of why we do not need just guidelines that council has the opportunity to opt into or opt out of, we need a piece of legislation that says there will not be conversion under the following circumstances. If it had not left the decision solely up to city council and just imposed some guidelines that did not need to be followed, we would not have had this conversion.

Now, as a result of that building being converted, this same developer has converted another building and he is presently applying to convert two more high-rise buildings in my riding and there is another high-rise building downtown that will be converted.

The fact of the matter is there have been more condo conversions in my community than there have been new rental units built in the entire city of Windsor.

It demonstrates very clearly that Bill 11 did not work, the extension of Bill 11 will not work in my community, and our city council does not have the gumption, the intestinal fortitude, the foresight to properly enforce a ban on condo conversions until we have an ample number of rental units at affordable rates in our community, and that simply is not going to happen.

The comment of the minister’s own regional office about our city council is, “Why should we bother putting nonprofit housing money into the city of Windsor when city council converts so many units?” I tend to agree with her ministry officials that city council cannot have it both ways and say it wants to convert to condominiums and then say at the same time that it wants the province to come in and bail it out by putting money into low-income housing.

It has to be a planned strategy that involves both a ban on condo conversions and an increase in the supply, but it is not going to work in a community like mine because many of the council members did not understand the supply issue, did not understand that to convert these low-income units -- these units were at very reasonable rents, because they had been under rent control and were units that were 20 years old or more -- was absolute craziness, that you cannot allow people to buy their units and take them out of the rental market without having a very adverse effect. In a city the size of Windsor, 150 units is a large number of units that were converted under these circumstances.

I think one of the tests of where the tenants really stood on conversion was when the last provincial election was held. Even though all of the tenants, and now owners of these condos, knew very clearly that I was opposed to the condo conversion, I won that poll in the last provincial election after the conversion. I think the reason we won that poll was that a large number of the tenants, even though they bought their condominiums out of fear of losing their place to live, really did not support the condominium conversion.

I ask the minister to move very quickly on this issue. We are opposed to this extension because we do not think it solves the problem. We think the minister and the government have had ample time to study this problem and we should not be dealing with an ongoing extension, we should be dealing with the real solution.

These kinds of bills remind me of the Assessment Act, which was amended every year for many years because of a freeze, and the Wine Content Act; there is a whole bunch of legislation that we have to extend year after year after year on an annual basis because governments do not have enough guts to bring in the proper long-term solutions. That is why we in this opposition party are not prepared, as the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick obviously is, to take a half-baked measure.

The Liberal Party, in government, has been all public relations and nothing in terms of real long-term solutions. Instead of bringing in a long-term solution, they extend Bill 11 and they extend the lie to tenants that they are really being protected when the reality is they are not. It is all public relations. It is not reality, it is just to give the tenants the impression that the provincial government is really protecting them when the reality is it is offering them no protection whatsoever.

1720

The difference between now and before Bill 11 in my home-town community is zilch. Every application for condo conversion has been approved, and every application for condo conversion will continue to be approved by our city council until the government is prepared to act, to say: “No, it’s bad planning. It’s inappropriate. It doesn’t increase the supply of housing and it hurts the tenants and people in middle- and low-income families in this province.”

Until the government is willing to do that, people in my community are going to continue to be hurt, and that is why we are not supporting the bill. We do not want to continue with the government’s public relations effort, which has nothing to do with solving the real problem.

Mr. Cousens: I think the member for Windsor-Riverside is really trying to come up with some kind of challenge for the Minister of Housing. He has obviously been very involved with the housing problems as they are within his own riding and as he has experienced them through his own party.

I thought there might be some comment from the member for Windsor-Riverside on the activities of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who obviously lives in the same general community. I was expecting him to make some comment on them, because what we are seeing here is a government that has fallen into the trap of doing nothing, of not coming up with a long-term plan, of just sort of carrying things out the way they are, and then the member ends up having to solve all the problems of housing of the people who are looking for places in his own community. I am wondering how he sees the Liberal member from down his way responding to these things.

Mr. Haggerty: Which side are you taking now?

Mr. Cousens: I am interested, because I see the whole problem coming out here. The member for -- I keep on getting all these Windsors mixed up -- Windsor-Walkerville was looking for a bit of an excuse to make a few comments earlier, and I would just like to see if the member for Windsor-Riverside has anything to say about the fact that maybe there is a different kind of statement being made by the back-benchers of the Liberal Party down Windsor way, or are they able to defend the actions of this government down there? Maybe he could give us a little insight as to what is really going on in the real world of Windsor.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I appreciate the comments of the member for Markham. He brought back some of those old memories as to the position the member for Windsor-Walkerville has taken on these important housing issues.

It is not unlike the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), who, I am sure the members of the Legislature will remember, wrote a letter recently to the Minister of Housing saying approval should not be given to senior citizens’ housing in his neighbourhood, which gets down to the bottom-line problem. If people in the community do not understand the housing crisis and are not willing to stand up for middle- and low-income housing, and if members of the Legislature and members of city council are not willing to do that, then obviously we cannot look to a solution.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville certainly did not demonstrate an understanding of the long-term housing needs of our community and certainly did not understand the issue of condo conversion when the matter was dealt with in front of city council. Instead, he decided to side with the developer -- a developer who is well known in the community, a developer who donates to large numbers of council members when they are running for re-election to city council. I have no idea whether he donated to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, either provincially or federally. The developer also got $6 million in an interest-free loan from a federal Liberal government, so who knows what kinds of deals have been made over the years.

All I know is that because of the position that the member for Windsor-Walkerville took on this issue
-- and it was a tie vote; if he had taken the appropriate decision, the tenants in Bayview Tower and in some of the other apartments that were converted would not have seen condo conversion, and Bill 11 would have worked in Windsor. Thanks to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, it did not work.

Mr. Reville: It gives me pleasure to offer a few observations on the occasion of the return of Bill 11 under a new disguise called Bill 108. It is a little different, actually: it has a different date at the end.

I first want to make some remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole), who either disingenuously or ingenuously wonders about the position of the New Democratic Party in this regard. I will have to say this at somewhat more volume than usual because the member for Eglinton is not listening, which is tragic, because I listened to her when she was making her ingenuous or disingenuous remarks earlier.

The fact of the matter is that the New Democratic Party does not support this bill because it does not provide adequate protection of our housing stock. If any of the members of this Legislature who were not able to be with us during the hot days of July of 1986 took the trouble to refer to Hansard in the debates on July 2, 3 and 10, which I just happen to have with me -- in fact, I go nowhere without these Hansard debates. I keep them in my trousers, so that I can refer to them often.

Any members of this Legislature who would care to inspect these Hansards will see that they are spotless. However, it was not a spotless day in the history of this Legislature. In fact, I was required to make amendments to sections 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the bill brought forward by the then Minister of Housing, who has had the good taste to absent himself from the Legislature today. Clearly, he is cowering in shame beyond this precinct.

Through the combined wisdom of the New Democratic Party and, I must say somewhat quietly, the Progressive Conservative Party, we were able to amend this bill in several places. The member for Markham is probably shocked to know that.

We managed to add rooming houses to the bill. We managed to require approval for severances, so that the members from Ottawa and area would not see their housing stock lost. We managed to add fiveplexes. We thought we had added fourplexes, but the Minister of Housing tricked us: he agreed to fourplexes and then went and monkeyed with the regulations somewhere else. That was a shocking situation. I might say it was a doublecross, but I do not think I should say that. so I will not.

We failed in some areas, and these are the suggestions, member for Eglinton. through you, Mr. Speaker, that we have already made to the Minister of Housing, should she care to consult Hansard.

We suggested that vacant buildings should be covered by this legislation because we know how successful landlords can be at intimidating people out of their housing, rendering the building vacant and therefore saving them, harmless, from this vicious legislation. We suggested that there be measurable criteria. We suggested a vacancy rate of four per cent. knowing well that this government’s housing supply program would never attain that happy day. We suggested that fourplexes be included in the legislation. I should say to the member for Oakwood (Ms. Hošek). the fourplex capital of the world, that it would have saved her plenty of trouble had that particular amendment been accepted.

If I may say so in my most pointed, I-told-you-so voice, I moved this amendment, which would have saved us all a lot of boredom: “This act... is repealed on the 30th day of June 1988, or on the day an act whose purpose is to further protect rental housing receives royal assent, whichever day comes later.”

When I moved that amendment, I was confronted with protestations from the Minister of Housing that the government could surely shift its shape within two years and come up with a permanent housing protection policy. What is happening here today? It is hard.

1730

I tell members, I relish this moment. Here we have the Minister of Housing. regrettably -- well, perhaps not regrettably; perhaps we should say we have a delightfully new version of the Minister of Housing coming forth and saying: “Please, would you just extend this legislation? We could not quite get it together to get something better.”

Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker -- and I know I cannot ask you, so I will have to tell you. I think this is really an embarrassing day for the government. It had two years and plenty of suggestions for how to make its legislation have a little bit of oomph. Basically. it could not sort out which side of the fence it was on, although we are familiar with that kind of Liberal posture. We even notice that some members of the cabinet fall off the fence and break their legs.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The cast was on the wrong leg.

Mr. Reville: Where did that come from? I hope he is feeling better too. I notice the cast is off. Perhaps that is a good sign.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, those are my observations, and I certainly did enjoy putting them. I will vote with some delight against this bill, because it does not do enough to protect our housing stock.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Riverdale has been most eloquent, and we thank him for being very short as well in the time it took him to deliver his speech.

I would have been interested in hearing what the member has had to say in the past in trying to help establish a working relationship between the government and the free enterprise system, to try to build new rental accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto. It is one thing to keep on encouraging this government to strangle the whole industry so that it is tied up in a huge knot and it ends up doing the wrong thing.

Mr. Pouliot: Isn’t that too bad.

Mr. Cousens: It is too bad, in the sense that you are so close to this government from the days when you had this coalition between yourselves and the member for Scarborough North and were working so closely in trying to bring in Bill 11.

What, on the other hand, has the member done to try to look at ways of building new accommodation, of building a relationship between this government and those private enterprise people who have the money and who could invest in new housing stock of rental and affordable accommodation in Ontario? What was he doing to encourage that kind of thing’? Does he not want to see that? Is he encouraging this government to carry on in its absolutist attitude of trying to do everything by legislation, or does he have some common sense to offer to the solution?

Mr. Philip: Since the member for Riverdale was very active in proposing specific amendments to the original Bill 11, I wonder if, for the sake of historical purity and those of us who take an interest in the history of this House, he would like to refresh our memories as to exactly what proposals, suggestions, amendments or improvements to the original Bill 11 were proposed by the member for Cadillac Fairview -- I mean the member for Markham -- and his colleagues in the Legislature at that time.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there other questions and comments? If not, does the member for Riverdale wish to respond?

Mr. Reville: Absolutely. First, I want to say very clearly to the member for Markham that I see my job as absolutely providing no encouragement to this government whatsoever. In fact, I want to encourage the people of Ontario to get rid of this government at the first possible opportunity.

I also want to point out that I have not viewed this government as being out to strangle free enterprise. Quite the contrary, I find this government panders to free enterprise.

I also want to say that I do not believe the private sector is going to solve our housing problem, and I am sorry that the member for Markham does believe that. It is clear that the private sector has no interest in building affordable housing. Not that it cannot build housing: It can build excellent housing, but it is not going to be affordable housing.

To the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I do not want to go too deeply into the history of the amendments I moved, because in fact I did list them in my earlier remarks. I might point out that the amendments that were moved by the Conservative Party at that time were very few in number. They were moved by the former member for High Park-Swansea and they were designed to ensure that tenants who lived in buildings for which a condominium application was proposed could in fact buy their units, which of course undercut the whole point of the legislation and were fortunately voted down. So, in fact, the Progressive Conservatives on that occasion in July 1986 did not take a proactive role in the legislation and, in fact, took a proactive role in almost no legislation of that period. As we can see, they have paid the price for that.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise today and discuss Bill 108. I might, for the benefit of those in the House, remind members that the former member for High Park-Swansea was interested in allowing something that both the owner of the building and all the tenants unanimously wanted. It is a sad day in Ontario, in my view, at a time when some of us are talking about property rights, when the owner of a building and all the tenants in the building wish to do something and the Ontario government comes in with legislation to say, “No; that may be what you want, you may own this property, you may rent in this property, but that is not what this government wants,” in spite of the fact that everybody agrees.

That really is one of the tragic fallouts of this type of intervention into the marketplace. I guess when we look at whether it is appropriate to override an individual’s rights, to override property rights, to override rights of people in this province, to intervene in that way into the marketplace, to stomp on an individual’s rights, there has to be a corresponding benefit to society as a whole that says, “Yes, it makes sense in this case for the government to stomp on those rights.” That is what this bill does to many, many people, to many, many tenants who wish to have the opportunity to purchase affordable units and, of course, to the property owners themselves.

We had two years with this bill, of this intervention, with stomping on individual rights of both landlords and tenants. Has it worked? That is what we have to ask ourselves. Is the situation better now for having had this legislation in place for two years, this massive intervention into individual rights?

In my view, it has not worked. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. In my riding in Nipissing, in North Bay, I recall very vividly one example. Many members will say, “Oh, this example is exactly what the bill is supposed to do.” We had an owner of a building who wanted to convert the building to condominiums. The proposal that was offered was that they would not change the use of the building. I think it was about 40 units; I might be out five or so, but approximately 40 units. The owner of the building offered to guarantee that every tenant could stay in that building under the same conditions and terms that he already had for his lifetime. I think they then put into place 20 years with an option, the tenants’ option, to renew for 20 years. That is 40 years.

There was one objection to that. The city of North Bay approved it; the North Bay council said yes. It makes no difference who owns this particular building if it is going to continue to operate as a rental unit. The owner of the building would have stayed on as manager, and all of those commitments were underwritten into the proposal that came forward. It had the support of the city of North Bay. It had one objection by a lady who I think was about 75; so presumably 40 years would take her to 115. She was concerned about that unit; or you might suspect that some activists prompted her to object to it on some principle, that if something makes sense, that is not what we are looking at; we are looking at the threat of an owner converting this building to condominiums.

1740

The net effect of the legislation in that case was that it went to the Ontario Municipal Board. I am not afraid to stand in this place. I do not know what went on behind the scenes, but the owner tells me that from talking with a number of Liberal friends he has in the riding -- he is a well-known developer in the city of North Bay -- there was strong pressure brought from Liberal sources, by cabinet ministers or the Premier (Mr. Peterson), from somewhere, to influence the OMB decisions that any time before an election they would not want to see a condominium conversion of an apartment building.

That sent a signal to this developer who was active in my market in North Bay and to everybody in the community, because we are not a large enough community that everybody did not know what went on. Now when you talk to them and say: “Are you going to be building any apartments? We still need more apartments in North Bay,” they say: “Are you crazy? Do you think I’m going to build apartment units when the government is going to intervene and tell me what I can do and what I can’t do now, five years from now, 10 years from now or 20 years from now?”

There is total distrust on the part of the private sector with regard to government. The government says it is surprised and criticizes the private sector for not wanting to build affordable housing, but the private sector does not trust government, and with a great deal of justification. That has the net effect that the private sector is now out of building apartment units. They do not want to build apartment units because they do not trust us. They would trust us if they saw some consistency, if they saw programs that actually worked. Since this government has come in we have seen Bill 51, Bill 11 and this bill to extend Bill 11; we have seen these interventions into the marketplace and the problem is worse.

They ask themselves: “Does this government just want to intervene for the sake of intervening? Are they that politically hungry that they want to just do something so they can point and say: ‘What good people are we. We’re going to stomp all over the developers. We’re doing this in your name.’?”

But the problem is worse today. I can tell members that, in spite of the fact that it is much easier to say to tenants, “This is a piece of legislation to protect you.” That is easy to sell. I understand that argument. The government can sell that argument in Toronto. I could probably sell it in North Bay. It is an easy argument to sell as opposed to what really happens when the government does this.

What really happens is the government takes the private sector out of the housing business. It takes out the little investor and it takes out the moms and pops who try to save enough money and want to build a six-unit or eight-unit apartment building. It takes the competition out of the marketplace. Then the only option left is for the government to build it.

If, instead, the government was willing to look at Bill 51 as being a disaster and at Bill 11 as being a disaster and say, “We took these massive interventions into the marketplace and the problem is worse,” and was really willing to look at how you help people, I think it would come to the conclusion that there has to be a better way.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why governments do not start to look at what the combination of legislation has done in this province and here in the city of Toronto. You see statistics that indicate the majority of people in rent-controlled buildings where rents have been held down, where they are below market for comparable value, where they are below what they would be if it were not there, do not need that benefit. They can afford to pay significantly more. So we are not truly helping those people who need the help. We are in fact compounding the problem again and compounding the supply problem again.

Why would we not, as a government, start to look at helping those people who need help; in other words, putting them in a position, by subsidizing them, so that they can afford to pay what is a reasonable market rent and returning the marketplace back to some sense of sanity? I think governments should at least look in that direction.

If I were the private sector, I would be very dubious. It would take a commitment because you cannot build these types of buildings or apartment units without having some kind of 20-year, 25-year or 30-year commitment as to what is going to happen.

Members can tell me I am defeating my own argument if they like, but the biggest problem in doing that now is with developers saying: “Well, that might be what you sons of guns say today, and maybe you actually mean it this year. But what about next year? What about the next election? What about when the quick fix is easier to sell, to stomp on us and drive us back out of the marketplace again?” It is going to take a long period of time, in my view, on behalf of governments to get the credibility back of all those who are involved in the housing industry.

This is a stopgap measure, as we know. It was a stopgap measure two years ago, and in my view the situation is worse today, so I question why we should be going stopgap again for another year or another two or three years. The government, it appears to us, really cannot address the problem that is facing Ontario, the lack of affordable housing.

The fact that we are stuck with the Rental Housing Protection Act for another year is a telling sign that this government refuses to recognize that pronouncements and rhetoric are not going to solve the housing crisis. They might make some people feel good, saying, “I made this wonderful speech and I said I was going to do this and I was going to do that and I met with this group and I met with that group.” But the crisis in the direction this government is proceeding is getting worse.

Members will recall that the old Bill 11 was intended only to be an interim measure to preserve Ontario’s supply of rental housing by requiring municipalities to approve all proposals to convert, demolish, renovate or alter the use of rental housing. It was based on one of the principal tenets of what appears to me to be Liberal philosophy, that boom and bust can occur simultaneously. It created a boom in the condominium market. I mean, why would anybody build anything else? We would not, knowing what the rules are out there and what the rules are likely to be. It retained a bust in the affordable rental housing market.

By determining the right to convert to condos by vacancy rates -- the lower the vacancy rate, the fewer the approvals -- the government in my view has ensured the support of one group that I can think of, that group of people who sell condominiums in Ontario. What has happened? When we see the mass of advertising in Toronto papers on condominiums for sale, that business is booming. At the same time, people will not build rental units of any kind. Even if you are going to rent the things for $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 a month, you are crazy in this province to build them as rental units under the existing rules. You must build them and start them out as condominium units and perhaps give yourself a little flexibility down the road, although who knows, with this government’s willingness to intervene, whether it makes sense or not and what will happen.

On the moratorium on condominium conversions in low-vacancy areas, the only competition for existing condo owners is new condominium places, and they are being built. Unfortunately, the members of this House, I believe, should be painfully aware of this government’s refusal to promote new building construction. All the actions they have taken have discouraged new building construction. If they are going to do that, they must be prepared then to build them all themselves.

1750

They cannot say to the private sector: “We are going to stomp on you. We are going to take you out of the marketplace. We are going to do everything we can to discourage you,” and then ask, “Why are you not building units?” If they are going to take that step, they had better be prepared to build them themselves. That is where the bust sets in. There is no incentive to build new buildings for rentals. In fact, there is a strong disincentive.

A second prophecy of the Liberal vision was fulfilled. Not only do the Liberals make rental housing less affordable for the renter but they make it less affordable for the purchaser as well. Maybe that is the Liberal vision, what we call equitable injustice. “If it is going to be unjust for one group, we will make it unjust for everybody.”

This bill and its predecessors live up to another principle of the Liberal government, and that is the principle of legislation without consultation. Bill 11 and Bill 108 both rely on the municipalities to alleviate the housing crisis. The act imposes additional planning requirements on all municipalities with a population over 25,000 for all changes in the use of rental housing, whether or not a rental shortage exists.

The legislation also interferes with the planning functions of regional and area municipalities in that condominium approvals are in many cities delegated from the regional municipality to the local municipality. In a cabinet submission, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario stated that some of the applications that regional and local municipalities would have reviewed prior to Bill 11 will now be overlooked under the provisions of the act. However, the government was too busy drafting what I believe is a flawed piece of legislation to listen to the concerns of those it would affect the most.

Again, in its 1988 submission to provincial cabinet, AMO reiterated its concerns. They gave the minister a second chance, and again the minister has overlooked the consultative process.

In a similar vein, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, in January 1988, not only condemned the hopelessly flawed Bill 51 but properly placed Bill 11 in disrepute as well. It noted that enacting one piece of ill-conceived legislation to remedy the mistakes of another piece of ill-conceived legislation is not the answer to Ontario’s rental housing crisis. Who can argue with that? The problem is worse day after day, month after month, year after year, as the government continues to intervene in this way.

The Minister of Housing has, I suppose, lived up to the philosophy of consultation in one small way. Now that she has introduced the bill and she is saying this is it and it is going to be this, she is opening the door to suggestions, which must be made by July 1, 1988, on how to really deal with what she sees as the problem of condominium conversion.

If the minister really believes that Bill 108 solves the problem, why is she inviting submissions now, after Bill 108 is introduced, to solve the problem? Obviously, she knows that this bill does not solve the problem. It did not when it was Bill 11, it does not now and, in my view, it is not responsible to be proceeding this way.

Beyond the loss of property rights, Bill 108 is forcing municipalities to deal with the headache of condo conversion applications in the face of a host of conflicting municipal bylaws and local pressures, which have rendered this legislation totally inadequate and totally unworkable.

Bill 108 also raises another familiar theme of this government, the government’s commitment to breaking its promises. This was to be a short-term solution, an interim measure to the housing crisis. The Premier, in his former life before his massive majority, convinced this House that Bill 11 “was introduced as a short-term measure to combat the real crisis in terms of affordable housing in Ontario and will be replaced with a new housing policy after two years.”

Since that time, the Liberal government has promised at least 30 different housing initiatives. In 1985, the minister’s predecessor, the member for Scarborough North, promised some 350,000 new rental housing units between 1985 and 1990. Furthermore, the Liberals promised an additional 60,000 units during the 1987 campaign.

The promises keep coming. The cold reality of the housing crisis is that less than 40,000 units have been created since 1985 of that 350,000 plus the 60,000. That represents, I guess, about a 25 per cent success rate in the last three years.

That is part of the problem. This legislation is built on a premise that we are going to do something to take the place of the private sector. The government is going to do something: it is going to ensure that these units are built. They are not built, and the problem is worse.

In addition, this government has backlogged more rent review orders than the number of rental units it has provided. That is an astounding figure. That is not a promise that they made.

Bill 11 might well be providing for the Liberal vision of Ontario, but it is not providing affordable rental housing units; it is not a panacea for the problems that are plaguing the rental housing crisis in Ontario; and, in my view, it is a step in the wrong direction.

For that reason, I will be opposing continuing this charade any longer and I will be opposing this piece of legislation.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to make some closing comments. First, I would like to thank all the members of the House who expressed their views to me with such pleasure and relish in their ability to give me so much good advice.

The first time Bill 11 was passed, there was not the kind of consultation around it that I think is appropriate. Now that we are going to extend the bill, which I hope we will be able to do, we intend to speak with a variety of people, to listen to a variety of people and to benefit from their experiences with the bill that we have and with the issues that were raised in this House as well as we develop a long-term policy.

I would be very pleased to be moving very quickly on this as we pass the bill, so that we can move on to develop a long-term policy in ways that are appropriate to respond to the concerns that I have already raised, that are raised in the discussion paper and that have already been raised in the House today and on many other days.

People have asked about our housing policy, and I want to indicate again that this is only one part of our housing policy. Various other parts of it have been articulated so far, including an extension of nonprofit housing all over the province; including the use of our government lands in order to get housing built that is more affordable; including working with municipalities and the regional governments in order to make sure that the private sector as well as the nonprofit sector finds it more possible to get housing built that is appropriate and affordable for the people of this province.

I am very pleased, for that reason, to ask for second reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Rental Housing Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.