Journal des débats 1988-nov-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to inform members of the House that today marks the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass. Fifty years ago, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a wave of terror that marked the beginning of one of the most tragic episodes human history -- the Holocaust.

On the night of November 9, 1938, scores of synagogues were burnt to the ground, hundreds of Jewish-owned stores were ransacked and vandalized, and thousands of Jewish males were arrested and brutalized in retaliation for the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris.

Symbolically referred to as the Night of Broken Glass because of the shards of shattered store windows that littered the streets of German cities, we commemorate this event to remind ourselves of the senseless slaughter of millions of Jewish citizens.

Racism, hatred and prejudice have no place in tolerant and just society. Kristallnacht teaches us that we must be eternally vigilant in ensuring that such a tragic and barbaric act never again be inflicted upon any member of the human race.

Ms. Bryden: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to add my comments to those of the minister, the member for Wilson Heights. Unfortunately, our leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), is out of town today, but I know he would have liked to share in observing in the Legislature the 50th anniversary of the Night of Broken Glass.

This anniversary reminds us of the night of persecution against the Jewish people and it is part of Holocaust Education Week in the city of Toronto, which is being observed by the Toronto Jewish Congress. We join with them in saying that this must never happen again, either nights of broken glass or the absolute tragedy of the Holocaust.

We think that the Legislature, by observing this commemoration, is sending out a message to the world that we will not tolerate racial discrimination, anti-Semitism and the sort of things that were accepted under the Nazi regime. The western world did not speak up loudly enough to oppose that kind of persecution, that kind of treatment of human beings.

We particularly feel for the Jewish people, who today commemorate a very black day in their history in Germany or in Poland. We suggest that, as members of the Legislature, we convey to the Jewish people our absolute repudiation of the Holocaust and that we also convey to them that we are dedicated to the elimination of any kind of anti-Semitism and any kind of racism in this world. We must seek world brotherhood.

Mr. Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, I would like to join my colleagues from the other parties in rising today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht. One can only imagine the horror that night when Nazi storm troopers rampaged through Jewish communities, shattering the windows of homes and shops and synagogues. In the process, countless lives were shattered too. The hate propaganda directed against Jewish residents of Nazi-occupied territory is a black mark on human history. The millions who died at the hands of the Nazis must never be forgotten. They will always serve to remind us of the absolute necessity for justice and equality in a civilized society. I know I speak on behalf of all members of this Legislature when I say thank God for those who survived Kristallnacht and the Second World War and the terror of the many other nights under Nazi oppression.

Thousands of those brave people came to our country and settled in Ontario. They have enriched this province and contributed to a tolerant and just society. I knew one of those people, Solomon Benyacar, who died several years ago. He bore the marks of being imprisoned during the war. His only sin was that of being a Jew. He had not done anything against society or against the government, yet he lost his wife, he lost everything except his humanity and his pride. Fortunately, in coming to this country, he found some of that again.

I am sure all Ontario residents of Jewish descent will spend a few moments today reflecting on that night 50 years ago. They will likely be asking themselves, “Could it ever happen again?” I suppose we can never give definite answers, but we truly must hope and pray that state-sponsored racism will never occur in western democracies like Canada.

However, persecution and oppression take place around the world every day. There are numerous countries where human rights are virtually nonexistent. We must be vigilant in our commitment to promoting human rights and in condemning oppression wherever we see it. The need to take an active role in halting state-sponsored terror is the most obvious lesson arising from Kristallnacht.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Hampton: Yesterday in this House, the government introduced for debate Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water. I really have to ask if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the government understand what kind of signal they are putting out.

The fact of the matter is that water transfer schemes on a grand scale have been proposed by the United States for quite some time. In 1963, the NAWAP project, or the North American Water and Power Alliance project, was first put out by an American consulting firm. Then we had the Kierans GRAND Canal proposal.

What was interesting about all of these proposals was that they talked about how much money could be made or they talked about how these things could benefit US farmers. One of the things they did not talk about at all was what might happen to the culture of the Nishnawbe-Aski people whose water would be transferred, or the people of Treaty 3 whose water would be transferred.

I wonder if the government really appreciates the signal it is putting out with this bill, which does not say there will be no water transfers, which does not say these things will not happen, and which can be read very easily by someone from the United States as legislation providing for and enabling the transfer of water. Has the government really thought out what it might be doing and the signal it may be sending out to those people who want the water?

1340

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Yesterday and today, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture presented recommendations to members of the Legislature highlighting the concerns and priorities of its 22,000 members from the farm sector. At these meetings, the organization made several positive suggestions regarding the future of the agriculture industry in Ontario.

These included proposals such as the implementation of a legislated farm organization funding mechanism, the continuation of 100 per cent funding for the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, the development of innovative farm credit mechanisms to deal with long-term financing and the adoption of a comprehensive approach towards waste management. The OFA also requested the strengthening of the Farm Practices Protection Act to ensure our farmers can continue to offer top-quality produce to Ontarians.

The Progressive Conservative caucus looks forward to working with the other parties in this House to achieve the goals of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations across this province to preserve and enhance Ontario’s agriculture industry.

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

Mr. Offer: I would like to use my member’s statement time to discuss the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht.

November 9, 1938, has come to be known as Kristallnacht. On this night 50 years ago, Jewish people in Germany and Austria were the victims of Nazi aggression and violence. On this evening 50 years ago, gangs of people roamed the streets throughout Germany and Austria smashing windows and burning synagogues. It was on the following morning that the activities of the night became visible to all -- to the men, the women and the children as they went to school.

The streets were littered with broken glass, which gave rise to the name Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass. For European Jewry, it was a realization that their country was rejecting them on the basis of their religion. I am told that in the morning, as the children walked the streets, they thought, “Nothing worse can happen to us.” We know, as events have shown, how wrong they were. Worse events were to happen.

This week has been designated Holocaust Education Week by the Holocaust remembrance committee of the Toronto Jewish Congress. The aim of the seminars, workshops and lectures is to ensure that no Ontarian forgets what happened during Kristallnacht and that we learn to create societies in which such bigotry and intolerance can never happen again to anyone anywhere.

AMBULATORY CARE CENTRE

Mr. Mackenzie: What has happened to the St. Joseph’s Ambulatory Care Centre in east Hamilton, or Stoney Creek in the Hamilton area? This centre, which the well-respected Dr. Robert Kemp has headed for more than 20 years, trying to promote it, was finally accepted by both the previous government and this government.

One of the conditions of the funding of the major renovations at the Hamilton General Hospital was that we would proceed with the east-end facilities, sometimes known as the east-end hospital or emergency care unit, now St. Joseph’s Ambulatory Care Centre.

One of the members in the House has sat on that committee and promoted that for a number of years. Now that we have two Liberal cabinet ministers in this House, the member for Hamilton Centre who is the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) and the member for Wentworth North who is the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), as well as the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins), who was so active on that committee for so many years, why is it that we now have, in the answer to the question I asked back on August 8, the care unit on the back burner again? “Normal planning processes will continue,” was the answer of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

Is it because we now have the largest number of Liberal members we have ever had in this House that all of a sudden the commitment that was made to this east-end hospital is not proceeding in the city of Hamilton? Questions are again being asked by the members and by the citizens of east Hamilton as to when we are going to see a start on that particular project, which has been clearly promised to the people. It seems to be delayed more now that we have more supposed clout in the government in power. It is time we started on the east-end ambulatory care centre.

GEORGE BUSH

Mr. Harris: I believe it is appropriate that we take a moment to congratulate George Bush on his election as the 41st President of the United States.

The pundits tell us that Mr. Bush’s victory was a vote for continuity, a reaffirmation of the policies of the Reagan era, which produced six years of sustained economic growth and a number of significant foreign policy breakthroughs.

In this country, and in this province in particular, where we depend on the American market for much of our national wealth, we wish Mr. Bush every success in maintaining the health of his nation’s economy. In the event that the free trade agreement with the United States is rejected, we trust Mr. Bush will counterbalance any growth in protectionist sentiments that could influence Congress and result in actions hostile to Canadian interests.

I find it ironic that we may have to depend on an American President to save us from ourselves.

We also look to Mr. Bush to take a more positive and active role in resolving the acid rain problem, which has long been an irritant in relations between our two countries.

I know all members of the Ontario Legislature would want to extend their best wishes to Mr. Bush and his family as he assumes the office of President, and I hope sincerely that the good relations between our countries will not be Turnered off.

DIWALI, FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Mr. Velshi: I wish to inform the House that today officially marks the Hindu festival of Diwali. The community has been holding celebrations for the last couple of weeks. In fact, thousands of Ontarians joined with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this past Sunday for one of those joyous occasions.

Diwali is also known as the Festival of Lights because it is marked by the lighting of lamps to mark the end of the dark month of Ashvina. There is also a custom of leaving a light burning all night long.

This festival is a time for family reunions, good food and the exchange of gifts. Diwali is also a time of thanksgiving, joy and happiness that our Hindu community shares with us all.

I am sure the members want to join me in extending best wishes to all those celebrating the festival of Diwali.

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

Mr. Wildman: I want to join my colleagues today who have mentioned the Kristallnacht and to say that we should all remember that this was not just a most serious Jewish tragedy, or for that matter even a German one, but rather a tragedy of all of our societies.

As Canadians, we should remember that after Kristallnacht, European Jewry sought refuge in other nations, particularly in North America and in Canada, and the Canadian government of the time carried on a policy which made it very difficult for many European Jews to emigrate to our country.

I think it is important, as all of us condemn racism and anti-Semitism today, that we recognize that in a sense, a very real sense, Canadians played an unhappy role in the events that followed after Kristallnacht, which was really just the opening of the most terrible period of the Holocaust.

We ourselves should ensure that whenever nations mistreat and use terror against their people and those people seek refuge in our country, we open our doors and welcome them.

MEMBER’S REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: A number of times matters have been raised around Queen’s Park reports and the use of Queen’s Park reports.

I do not want to make too much of this particular incident. People like myself have been exploitative in this fashion. There is a picture of my nine-month-old daughter on the back of my most recent Queen’s Park report and I know that some people’s reports are including prominent personages from their communities who just happen to be running in municipal elections and that sort of thing, and I do not have any difficulty with that. But the other day it was brought to our attention in this caucus that delivered to the doors in Downsview was the report of the member for Downsview (Mr. Leone) and included in it, at least in some doors, was this leaflet for Bruno Rea who is running in the municipal election.

We then tried to pursue the matter to discover just how this had occurred and where the fault lay. I must say that yesterday the member for Downsview was helpful in bringing forward the fact that Mr. Rea, the municipal candidate, had in fact paid for a postal walk on his own.

1350

It is no longer possible for us to discern just how this took place. Clearly, if it was just an individual postal worker or, in fact, was a mistake made at the postal station, this is something which is unacceptable.

I would hope that the Speaker might investigate this matter further and that if it is the post office that is at fault here, he will inform it that it is unacceptable to have a riding report and a political message for an election combined. If it was an individual postal worker who did it, that information must get down to those workers as well.

It is an unfortunate kind of connection, which I am sure the member for Downsview regrets and which all of us here would not want to see happen to us in our own local communities.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to indicate that, in the first instance, I share the honourable member’s general concern that that which is mailed in the name of members under the legislative frank ought to concern itself with the affairs of this Legislature and the members in their individual constituency responsibilities.

We have had a number of referrals to you, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to say in this particular connection that the member for Downsview did raise with me yesterday the concern that had been identified. The member for Downsview was emphatic with me. He said that his householder was sent from the government mail room and in no way was there any effort to entangle it with the literature of a candidate running in the municipal or school board elections.

The member for Downsview further indicated that he had receipts that made that very clear and that any confusion must have occurred in the possible fact that they were mailed from different places but to similar households on the same day.

At any rate, the honourable member is quite prepared to share all of that information with you, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that, as government House leader, I would be quite happy to have you investigate this and other matters that have been raised by a number of members in this connection.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we too would very strongly support the investigation by you or by whatever vehicle you deem appropriate. These instances are becoming far too numerous and far too serious, in my view, for us to ignore or to treat as, “Oh, yes, somebody must look at it some time.” Our party would also be very supportive of an expedient and thorough review of this matter.

Mr. Speaker: If I might just follow up on the point just raised, after listening to all members who have spoken, I certainly will take this into consideration. Because the Board of Internal Economy approves the newsletters or the sending of newsletters by the members, I will certainly send that immediately to the Board of Internal Economy for review.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and myself received a letter from the Provincial Auditor with respect to an investigation into IDEA Corp., which we have been advised has now been completed. The letter was addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). I would like to request through your office that the report be made available to the opposition parties immediately so that we can review the report in the same time frame as the minister.

Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point. I do not think the Speaker has any authority. However, I might suggest that we are coming to question period very soon and the member might --

Mr. Harris: On the same point, and I will be brief, what we are dealing with here is not a minister-ordered investigation, it is not an Ontario Provincial Police inquiry, it is not something that they can cover up for two or three years the way they do other things.

It is not a private consulting firm; it is the Provincial Auditor, who works for all members of this assembly and for all parties. In fairness, I think it is a strong point of privilege that when the auditor completes a review like that, it be available to all members of this assembly.

Mr. Brandt: At the same time.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the auditor sent this report -- and I have to tell members, and I am sure they know, that on Wednesday mornings cabinet meets. I was in cabinet all morning. When I got back to the office very, very briefly between cabinet and coming into this House, I saw the report. I have not had a chance to read it. I have no problem with tabling it immediately.

The point I am making is that to make the request that it should have been done, the auditor sent both leaders of the opposition parties notice that he had sent it to me. If he felt it was appropriate that the member should get it, he would have sent it. He sent it to me. I have no problem with tabling it, but I do not want to table it until I have at least had a chance to open it and look at it --

Mr. Harris: And vet it for problems.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Not vet it. I give the member my assurance that I will table it, possibly even today if I can get it over here, but certainly he will have it as soon as possible. I think that is quite eminently reasonable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, if it is possible to have the attention of the members. Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the government House leader in his capacity as the chairman of the cabinet committee on the Temagami crisis.

Could the minister indicate whether the government is prepared to commit itself to agree to the demand of Chief Gary Potts and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai to joint and equal control of logging in the area through the Temagami Forestry Council?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am quite happy to tell the honourable member that the government does not view the matter as a crisis. The whole question is under review and the committee I am chairing is looking at the current situation with a view to accommodating the concerns that have been identified.

Mr. Wildman: In that case, the minister has not really explained whether he will agree to joint and equal control on behalf of the government.

In the short term, though, until Malcolm Rowan reports on the long-term viability of the mill and the wood allocations in the area, is the government prepared to reallocate timber to the William Milne and Sons mill from the licences now held by the mills hundreds of miles from Temagami, in order to keep this mill in operation and to protect the jobs?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The government has given certain commitments it intends to keep. In respect of the supply of timber, those commitments have been indicated by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

Mr. Wildman: The Minister of Natural Resources has not indicated a willingness to reallocate timber. Would the minister please explain what steps the government is taking to finally settle the Indian land claim and to avoid this whole issue ending up once again in the courts in the new year? Is he prepared to give joint and equal control through the council?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I repeat to my friend that the cabinet committee is reviewing all of the issues. I can assure the honourable member that the government is very anxious to resolve this situation in a satisfactory fashion, and I will certainly be quite pleased to keep the honourable member and the House informed of progress in this connection.

DEFECTS IN NEW HOMES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can the minister explain how it is that now literally hundreds of homes have been built in Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Markham with substandard steel beams? How did that one defect go through our entire municipal and provincial process? Why did three ministries deny their responsibility for enforcing the building code?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I do not have the full answer to the question the member has asked, but I would like to look into that and I will certainly report back to him on that particular issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: I keep hearing from the extreme rump over here that this is the fault of some local building inspector.

The minister will know that three ministries of the crown and the Ontario Provincial Police were all made aware that substandard iron was used in this structural problem. His ministry is aware and his building inspectors are aware that there was a problem identified earlier this summer, that it affects the construction now of literally thousands of homes in those municipalities. Absolutely no one has been prepared to investigate, save and except a local building inspector in one of the municipalities.

Why is it that, when the ministers are informed that there is a severe problem of a structural nature in the construction of new homes, which cannot be identified once the framing is completed, they continue to ignore all of that? Is there no one in any one of the three ministries and the Ontario Provincial Police who is prepared to investigate a problem that apparently escapes all of them?

1400

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Our ministry provides a broad framework for the planning in these particular areas, and I might say that if there is a problem with the construction of homes I am sure that there is a municipal responsibility there. If the member would give me the specific reference, I will certainly look into that and he will hear back from me.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not intend to pay for his subscription to the Globe and Mail. I think he can afford to do that on his own. The Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations were all made aware that there was a problem, as was the OPP. Now people who have bought these homes will probably have to wait a year or so until the walls have problems with them, as do the floors, and a severe structural problem occurs. Who will bear the financial responsibility for this fault of government? It is obvious now that the home warranty program will not guarantee the use of structural steel that was substandard.

It is clear that the ministries were made aware that there were substandard building materials used and they did nothing about it. Will the ministries now assume the financial responsibility for problems that emerge in these brand-new homes when that is brought to their attention?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I will be pleased to look into the charge that the honourable member has made, and I will certainly report back to him on my findings.

MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the same minister, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on a different topic. Later on today, as the minister is aware, we will be undertaking an emergency debate with respect to some of the allegations and improprieties that have supposedly been undertaken in the northern part of Toronto, in the region of York.

I would like to suggest to the minister that there are problems apparently surfacing not only in York region but also in other parts of Ontario as well, and that all of these problems are not just simply Metropolitan Toronto problems.

I would call to the minister’s attention that in the community of Belleville, the ministry undertook a five-month review in that particular area to investigate allegations of conflict of interest against the mayor, among others, and upon completion of that report, one of the findings that came out of it is, according to his ministry, and I quote: “We did not look into conflicts of interest.”

Since the key issue surrounding the Belleville situation was a conflict-of-interest matter, can the minister indicate to the House why his report did not cover conflict of interest in this review?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are looking into the comments that were made by the petitioners in the city of Belleville. We had an independent consultant look into that, along with the people in our ministry. We have reported on it. That report is available, and I am sure the member has seen it. However, the conflict of interest is a separate opportunity for those people. If they have found a criminal charge, they can make that charge and that will be reviewed by the proper authorities.

Mr. Brandt: That is the whole problem with the process that the minister has undertaken. He has taken a very cursory review of the matter without digging into the substantive issues surrounding this particular case. It was alleged that the mayor of Belleville acted improperly, as the minister is aware. There is one specific incident wherein he attempted to purchase a piece of land owned by the province on three different occasions, when it was publicly known that that particular property was wanted by the community of Belleville for a park, as I understand it. The report goes on to state that if there are any improprieties, any conflicts of interest, these would have to be determined by the courts, as the minister has just indicated.

I would like to ask the minister: Has he, in fact, referred this matter in any way, by way of the responsibilities of his ministry, to the courts? Or has he at the very least discussed it with his front-bench colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to determine whether or not this is an actionable case that deserves his attention and the attention of the legal department of the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is clearly laid out in the present act how you deal with conflict of interest. I am going to say to the honourable member that I am not really satisfied with the conflict of interest act as it already exists. That is why my ministry for some time now, before this was ever discussed publicly, has been looking into strengthening the conflict of interest act. We will be reporting on that very soon indeed.

Mr. Brandt: Shortly we are going to have municipal elections in this province, as the minister is aware. There have been allegations of conflict in York region here in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Other parts of Ontario have had suggestions of improprieties and activities that are inappropriately being carried on by relationships between developers and elected officials.

In order to clear the air on this and to give the public the sense of confidence that I think it truly deserves and needs with respect to this upcoming election and the officials it is going to place in public office very shortly, will the minister petition the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to call a public inquiry into this entire matter, specifically centring on York region, so that the people of this province can have confidence in their municipal officials again?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think the Attorney General has handled the question very well and has discussed the commission of inquiry versus an Ontario Provincial Police investigation.

I want to say to the member that he should give us credit for the action that we have taken. Within a couple of months after I became minister, we introduced Bill 106, which is going to give greater credibility, greater importance to municipal government in this province, something that was never there before. There will be greater accountability in contributions and expenses and there is going to be a reporting system for those who contribute to municipal politicians. One can go to the clerk’s office and see who reported. That was not there before. We have taken some very clear steps to give greater accountability, greater importance to municipal government in this province. The member should give us credit for that.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier. Several years ago serious allegations were made concerning a number of mysterious infant deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. In order to respond to the need for a public inquiry, the provincial government established the Grange commission, which, upon its conclusion, helped to restore public confidence in the hospital.

The confidence of the people of Ontario is now shaken by the serious allegations being made about the planning processes in the province. I realize there are two major differences here when we are talking about children’s deaths and the planning process, but the government responded at that time to the serious concern about confidence in the hospital. I am now raising the whole question of the confidence the people in York region and around the province have about this important issue that has been raised through recent articles.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cousens: Therefore, I ask the Premier whether he is prepared today to finally establish a public inquiry to investigate the municipal planning process across the province, with specific reference to south York region.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to the honourable member that I understand his point of view. I say as respectfully as I can that I do not think his analogy with the inquiry into the Hospital for Sick Children and the mysterious deaths of a number of small children is appropriate at all in the circumstances. I say that as respectfully as I possibly can.

We have discussed this matter in this House on a number of occasions. The member’s leader has just asked my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) for his view on the situation. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has discussed it as well.

I just want to repeat to my honourable friend that we have all read those articles. We are aware of some of the allegations, some more or less direct, some more or less veiled. The member and I both understand that. Obviously, that gives rise to some concerns. That is why the OPP has been instructed to look at this in all of its aspects with respect to any criminality involved therein. That does not preclude any other investigation that should be necessary in the circumstances. It does not preclude the minister from looking into the planning processes in the various acts, and he is doing that in the ministry at the present time.

I assure my honourable friend that we have absolutely nothing to hide. We want all the evidence to come out. We want to make sure that if allegations that are incorrect have been made, that comes out. We think the police are the proper independent body to do that.

1410

When the investigation is over, should we come to the conclusion collectively that it is not adequate, I assure my honourable friend that we will deal with it in an appropriate and open way. I think the honourable the Attorney General has explained to the House the problems under the charter of going one way as opposed to the other way. Our judgement and the judgement of the law officers of the crown is that the most judicious, the most fair and the most expeditious way to go is the way the government has chosen to do.

Mr. Cousens: I thank the Premier for his answer. In relating the York regional concerns with the Hospital for Sick Children situation, the one thing that we have in common with both is the lack of confidence that developed through the incidents at the Sick Kids’ hospital and the increasing lack of confidence now by the people of York region. To me, when the government wanted to respond to that, that is when the government said, “We will have an official inquiry into it.” The last big one that was done was the Grange commission. There is a precedent for it happening while there is also a police investigation under way.

Last year, around November 25, the municipalities of Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill unanimously asked the government to review the system in York region. Each council sent to the Premier as well as to the Minister of Municipal Affairs a resolution which represented the views of 225,000 people asking for a formal review and restructuring of the political, administrative and financial framework of the regional municipality of York. Instead of responding to that request with any action --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cousens: -- the government has established three commissions: one looking at Niagara, which has little growth; one looking at Haldimand --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cousens: -- which is rural; and one looking at Ottawa, which is an urban community, but nothing to be done with York region.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member place the supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier act now to respond to the shattered confidence which the people of Ontario have in the municipal planning process?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We discussed the analogy with the Grange commission. As I said, I was uncomfortable with that parallel that the honourable member drew, but let me just say that in procedural terms there is a parallel because he will recall in those circumstances there was a criminal charge laid and there was an acquittal, as I understand it, at the preliminary inquiry stage. In other words, the criminal process ran through before there was a general investigation into that.

That was the choice of the then Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, who I think understood the same arguments that the present Attorney General understands. My guess is that if the member asked the former Attorney General or the chief law officer of the crown, he would be very comfortable with the process that we have adopted in these circumstances.

Mr. Cousens: It is a sensitive subject. Indeed, one would not want to have a commission in operation during the police investigation if they came up and started placing charges. During the Grange commission, it was agreed by Mr. McMurtry at the time that the commission would cease if criminal charges were laid.

What we are talking about here is a sense of how we approach the problem of addressing the concerns of the people of York region and the people of the province, because it goes far beyond south York region. It goes to the very crux of what the municipal planning process is all about. How can we as legislators respond to the concerns of the people? In the meantime, we have a comment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs who said --

Mr. Speaker: You have already asked two questions.

Mr. Cousens: I am moving --

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No. With respect, you have placed two questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The same answer, Mr. Speaker. I have no idea what the question was, but I assume, operating on the premise that it was the same question that was asked a little earlier -- but it may not have been. I have to plead with the Speaker to assist me in this matter because I am answering a question and I have no idea what the question is. You could say that is not atypical of what happens regularly in this House.

I do say to my honourable friend that the minister is reviewing the Planning Act and the processes. We have looked at a number of regional governments in the past. We are prepared to extend that. We have brought about major changes in the structure in a variety of areas. Certainly we have no problem looking at our processes, looking at our governmental structures, making them more adaptable as the things change and improving a situation. If my honourable friend has advice in that regard, then I can assure him it is extremely welcome to the government.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Attorney General. I want to bring to his attention what I consider to be a serious human rights case and ask his opinion on it.

Marilyn Youden works for the Ministry of Government Services as an inquiry officer. She is also the president of the University City Community Association. She was approached by a municipal candidate for endorsement and assistance in her campaign. Knowing that she did not have this right as an Ontario public servant, she reluctantly declined. However, in the past, other members of that same board of the association who are school board employees were able to provide endorsement and campaign assistance to municipal and federal candidates.

Does the Attorney General feel that kind of discrimination against public servants is continually justified three years after his government promised to end this kind of discrimination? Why does he not bring in legislation to end this kind of discrimination against public servants?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not familiar with the case and, as my honourable friend knows, it would be very foolish to make a comment on it until I find out what the facts are. I will be glad to look into it for the honourable member and report to him.

Mr. Philip: What the minister is aware of, I am sure, judging from his answer yesterday, is that the representatives of the public servants made a notice of motion in court on August 12, 1987, more than two years after the government had made a commitment in the accord to broaden the political rights of the public service and, indeed, one year after he had identified himself with the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which asked for a broadening of those rights.

Why does he not stop the wasting of taxpayers’ money on legal services and, indeed, the cost to the public servants in legal fees, and introduce the legislation now so that the court cases are no longer necessary, and give public servants the same rights as every other citizen in this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has not got the facts right. The reality is that the federal public --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, if he wants to hear them.

The reality is that the federal public servants applied in the Federal Court of Canada to quash the federal Public Service Employment Act and they won. At that point in time, we had been meeting with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union from time to time to discuss what the situation was in Ontario. Fired up by the successful result that their federal counterparts had obtained, they decided to commence proceedings.

It was not we who decided to proceed to commence them. They did. We indicated that if they would wait, we would be prepared to discuss either interim or perhaps more permanent arrangements with them. They thought they were going to win so they were all gung-ho to go right ahead, which is their perfect right to do. We agreed that if that was what they wanted to do we would co-operate with them so that the case would come on.

The bad news, from their point of view, of course, is that the case was lost by them and our Divisional Court concluded that the Public Service Act was entirely appropriate and did not breach any Charter of Rights and Freedoms entitlements. They are now appealing.

The government is anxious to get the views of the court on this matter so we will have some sense of what the ambits of our power are, if any, under the charter. The public service union says we have no power under the charter. The court has rejected that and we look forward to hearing what, upon the union’s application, the Court of Appeal has to say about it.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Philip: I don’t know why you want to mislead the Legislature like that. That is simply not true.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Take another vacation, Ed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will ask the member to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw it. Unfortunately, the Attorney General has driven so quickly –

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Order

MEMBERS’ ABSENCES

Mr D.S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That happens to be two days in arrow that the Attorney General had made a comment -- Mr Speaker, I would ask that you hear me out -- that a member of the Legislature was on vacation when in fact he and a member of the Liberal caucus and a member of the Conservative caucus were traveling on legislative business that happened to coincide when the House was in session. I think if the Attorney General had an sense of decency at all, he would stop making the comment and he would stand in the House and apologize.

Interjections

Mr Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr Scott: I believed that the honourable member was on vacation in Australia. If he was not, I of course withdraw the remark without the slightest reservation. If he was doing legislative work in, of all places, Australia with our colleagues, I am delighted to hear it and I withdraw.

Interjections.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the members this is question period.

Mr Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order -- is that what you’re recognizing me for?

Mr Speaker: I was really recognizing the member for a new question. I felt it was probably the right thing to do. However, on a question of --

Mr. Harris: Privilege or order, whatever the others were.

Mr. Speaker: Which is the member rising on?

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the same point: I think what we have heard the Attorney General say to us here today, that he has absolutely no idea what the committees and the members of this House are doing outside of his own little area of the Attorney General, if that is what he is saying, is a pretty disgraceful statement to make.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question concerning housing in Australia -- no, it is not housing in Australia. I have a question for the Minister of Housing, a matter to which I know the minister has devoted a great deal of her time since taking on the Housing portfolio. Very simply, can the minister tell us why, specifically, the existing system of rent review is not working?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am actually very pleased to be able to tell the member that, despite the fact that we have a complex and difficult system of rent review, in fact it is working.

One of the things I am glad to say is that over the past few months the work of the ministry, the very able and determined work of the ministry, with our new resources and with more computerization, has been working very actively to reduce our backlog and it has now been reduced from nearly 26,000 applications to, at the end of September, 21,000 applications.

I think our system works. I am very pleased that the tenants of this province are protected against unjustified rent increases and I think we have turned the corner.

Mr. Harris: I am very surprised to hear the minister stand in her place and say the existing rent review legislation in place is working. Section 83 from the 1986 bill still cannot be proclaimed because her ministry says the backlog of cases is too large for that requirement of the legislation to be implemented.

Virtually everyone in this province -- the landlords; the developers; the tenants; just about every member of this House save one, whom we just heard stand in her place and say she thinks it is working; the media -- I do not think there is anybody in this province other than the minister who thinks that legislation is working.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

1420

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: Even the Toronto Star says it is not working.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: We are all interested in helping. We are trying to find solutions. But unless the minister will admit to us that it is not working, it is difficult for everybody to come up with a solution. All groups want a better system; they want something in place that will work.

I would ask the minister what parts of the legislation are not working, as everybody but her says they are not working, and if she wants to say they are working, perhaps what parts are causing the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have said in this House many times that we are dealing with a very complex piece of legislation and that is one of the reasons our backlog has been as high as it is. It is a piece of legislation that was drafted in a unique way to deal with the concerns of the tenant community and also the concerns of the people who own apartment buildings and the concerns of the province.

I do not say the law is perfect. It is not. The member asked me if it was working. It is indeed working. We are getting results. We believe that those results are moving well through the system. I would be happier if it were faster; I would be happier if it were simpler. But I believe that with very significant resources and commitment on the part of this ministry we are turning the corner and resolving the rent review applications that we have before us.

MEETING OF MINISTERS OF CULTURE

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I understand that the minister recently took part in the annual conference of the provincial ministers of culture. I am sure there are many areas where an exchange of views and ideas with other provinces and territories is most fruitful in the area of culture and communications. May I ask the minister whether she can tell us what the main agenda items were of this conference and also whether there have been any significant conclusions that will influence the work of her ministry and our government over the next year.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: The annual meeting of ministers of culture took place about a month ago, with the Honourable Lise Bacon taking the chair. After a very fruitful day of discussion, every minister concluded that we would like to strengthen by deed and by word the interministerial co-operation involving not only provinces but territories.

There were many suggestions given, obviously, but several areas emerged as priorities: first of all, that we look at ensuring that native culture assumes a priority; second, that we take a look at the multicultural diversity of the entire country and share that information; third, that we look at cultural resources as being a tourism instrument, sharing people places with each other, and fourth, that we believe economic development can only succeed if we have a very strong cultural development strategy. In that light, we made a very significant statement on international development, especially since this is the World Decade for Cultural Development as declared by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations.

Mr. Daigeler: I find this information very interesting and I look forward to the progress that will be made in these areas the minister has identified.

I understand there also was some discussion on the 20th anniversary of the Ontario-Quebec Commission for Co-operation. She may know that last February I moved a private member’s motion on this matter. Given the fact that there was great interest on the part of the House in this, I would like to ask the minister whether there are any special plans to celebrate this event next year and, if so, what they are.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I am very pleased in the member’s interest in the Ontario-Quebec Commission for Co-operation. As he may or may not know, this minister is responsible for the cultural events which we will be celebrating in the 20th anniversary. Initially, Quebec and we as a province have agreed that we will take initiatives in the visual and performing arts, but we are already also exchanging information on shared library services and information. In addition, the Honourable Lise Bacon, for example, will be coming to Toronto in November to attend with me a performance of The Bourgeois Gentleman being put on by the Canadian Stage Company.

As the member is aware, both Quebec and Ontario make a very strong presence every year in their film festivals, one usually being held in Montreal and one being held in Toronto.

I can say that I will keep my colleague informed and will certainly involve him.

1430

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of Housing. The minister has often told the House of her intention to ensure that municipalities’ official plans provide for at least 25 per cent of affordable housing.

I want to tell the minister about a project in my riding by Rylar Developments that calls for 440 apartments and town houses. The city of Etobicoke approved the official plan last June. It has not yet been approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but despite that, the city has approved the zoning bylaw, the city has approved the site plans, the city has allowed demolition of the existing structures. All that is missing is the building permit.

When a project is allowed to get that far through the approval process, how can the minister realistically think that she is going to have any influence on the official plan?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is exactly the kind of issue that the member raises that led us to put forward our land use policy and our housing policy in August. What we are trying to do there is to tell all municipalities, especially in the regions where the pressures are very great -- and this, of course, is one of those municipalities -- that they must, in their official plans, designate areas and designate methods for making sure they reach our goal, which I think is shared in this House, of making sure that when new building happens, 25 per cent of that building is targeted for people who have needs for housing, low- and moderate-income people, that that housing is affordable.

We have not said that the only way to reach that is on a project-by-project basis. We have said that in municipal neighbourhoods, for example, designated by the municipalities, the municipality has to show the way in which it will make sure, through its official plan and through the other processes that the member has described, that the goal of 25 percent of the housing being built being affordable will be met.

The project the member is describing, if I have the dates right, in fact preceded our announcement to the municipalities about the land use policy. That does not mean we are not taking very seriously exactly that goal and ways to meet it, but I should say that we do not assume that the only way to meet the goal is on a project-by-project basis.

We want municipalities to tell us what methods they are going to use to meet the goal, because the goal is there and we are committed to it. We believe that one of the ways that will work is for municipalities to designate neighbourhoods within-

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Grier: That certainly is a policy that is more full of loopholes than it is going to be full of any affordable housing units. Does the minister not realize that in an area like Metropolitan Toronto or an older area like mine, we are going to be dealing with official plans on a project-by-project basis because all the existing land is already covered by something?

The project that I raise today is a commercial property that is being allowed, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) approves the official plan, to go to luxury housing. You can get a one-bedroom suite for $282,000 and you can get a two-bedroom town house for $1.2 million. Where is there any room for affordable housing if obsolete commercial uses are going to be allowed to revert to residential on that kind of basis?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Let me thank the member for bringing this case to my attention because I am, in fact, actively looking at the cases that come forward. One of the things we hope to be able to do with our land use policy as the approach that we have taken is that even when there is commercial building or there is mixed use of the sort that the member is describing, the affordable housing goals will be met, and I am prepared to look at this particular case as well, as the member brings it up.

FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Solicitor General. As the honourable minister is aware, there are some 21 municipalities in Ontario that have no firefighting equipment whatsoever. In the case of a fire, residents of these municipalities have to rely upon bigger centres to come to their aid.

Because most of these smaller municipalities are located in rural and northern areas of the province -- I have eight of them in Parry Sound riding -- it means that emergency firefighting crews may be coming from many miles away.

For some period of time, residents of these smaller municipalities have asked the minister for funds to purchase firefighting equipment. Her answer has always been no. May I ask the honourable minister again today if she is still refusing to protect the residents of these municipalities from fire?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, the fundamental responsibility for firefighting lies with the municipal governments.

However, I am very happy to report to the member that we are taking a major thrust now in fire prevention because we believe that in the northern communities -- and facts have proved this -- fire prevention indeed is the only way to prevent loss of life, and this is our fundamental thrust.

Mr. Eves: I am afraid the minister’s answer is simply not good enough. The leader of our party met with some of the people who live in these municipalities this summer. They told him they are tired of being treated like second-class citizens in Ontario. One of the reeves, Kevin Hall, is quoted as saying, “At our meeting with Mrs. Smith in March, she, the Solicitor General of Ontario, suggested that if the residents of poor townships did not like the level of service they received there, they should consider moving elsewhere.” What kind of response is that from the minister to a very serious problem of residents in Ontario and when is she going to clean up her act and do something about it?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to report that that meeting was very well received by all the people involved, with the exception of the one person who made this report at a much later and more political time. On the other hand, the people who were there were very content with my response. We worked with them to provide services to them and training, a particular plan for their area which was put into effect and which they appreciated our responding to.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. South: I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Education. Many people in my riding believe that the schools of Ontario should be funded through income tax rather than property tax. They believe that funding through property tax is unfair because it has no bearing on the ability of the property owner to pay. Could the minister tell the House if there are any plans under way to shift school funding from property tax to personal tax in an attempt to provide a more equitable system of payment to the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I am sure members of the House are aware, the whole issue of the funding of elementary and secondary education in this province is under review. Some time ago the work of the Macdonald commission was completed and its recommendations were put forward. My ministry is actively reviewing those recommendations and considering other options. However, I do want to point out to the member a fundamental reality in the way education is delivered in this province: that is, that it is a shared responsibility between Ontario and local government. To that end, I do believe that funding on a shared basis is also appropriate.

Mr. South: Because of the great imbalance in the commercial and industrial assessment throughout the province, many of the people in the north part of my riding are facing extremely high education taxes now. I am wondering, then, if the minister has this as a high priority.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The way grants are allocated by the province to school boards does take into account that there may be great variances in the local wealth that can be generated through commercial and industrial assessment. As a result, the grant regulations that apply to each board throughout this province are designed to create a level playing field for each and every municipality on the basis of its own particular resource base.

1440

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Attorney General. Two weeks ago I asked the Attorney General a question about his announcement of the renovations to the Hamilton provincial court facility. In his initial response he suggested that he felt it was an adequate proposal in the short term, but in his supplementary response he indicated he understood that it still did not satisfy the long-term needs and that Hamilton would not be losing its place on that list. In a subsequent discussion we had, he indicated that, basically, the present proposal was as it is because that is all the money there is at present.

Since that time, the Attorney General has no doubt received resolutions from both city council and regional council. Local interested parties have been negotiating or discussing the situation with a number of different perspectives in mind, including Canada Post. It is our understanding that, in fact, there are much better facilities available for the same number of dollars he is proposing to spend over the next 20 years. Presuming that he wishes to best utilize the money he has now, will he take the time to sit down with those in Hamilton who have been having discussions and in fact see whether there is a potential, with the same dollars, to do something better?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very grateful for the question and I understand well how this member and the other members from the Hamilton region are very concerned about this problem.

One of the problems with the alternatives we have been looking at for some years is that, even in the case of the post office, it is not going to provide any significant relief for the provincial court (criminal division) until probably 1995 or 1996 at the earliest.

The post office building -- assuming it was a viable option in every other respect, and I think it is not -- will not be available for four or five years and will require, even if funds were available, the most extensive renovations to the two first floors. The third and fourth floors will probably be unusable, because the ceilings are too low.

So what we have in Hamilton is an immediate need. The premises that are there at present are completely inadequate in terms of dimension and in terms of their layout. The need must be resolved now. We frankly cannot wait until 1995.

The assurance I have given the honourable member and others who are concerned is that by following through with our existing priority list, as we hope to do, Hamilton will not lose its place on the supplementary priority list, which we will be reviewing again in two or three years, and on which a major project for a unified court is listed as one of the possibilities.

Mr. Charlton: We understand that none of the things being discussed at the present time will be absolute in terms of the long-term solutions.

On the other hand, those interested parties in Hamilton who have been concerned about the present facilities are prepared to see very minor revisions to the existing facility in the interim in order to get into better facilities sooner.

The Attorney General seems to forget that his proposal to add two courtrooms at the Main Street facility also includes the closing of three existing courtrooms outside of that facility -- two on Hunter Street and one on Jay Street -- at the end of their current leases. So either way we go, we are in the same bind in the short run. Neither of the proposals resolves that part of it.

All I am asking is, will the Attorney General just sit down and confirm that there has not been a change in status that might provide a better avenue?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have been meeting for over a year -- actually, a year and a half, probably two years; my first trip to Hamilton, when I looked at all the available options, was over two years ago.

I have continued to meet with representatives of the various users through our consultation process, which led to the priority list upon which this is listed as project number two or three; I have forgotten which. I have met with representatives from Hamilton as recently as two weeks ago, and I am prepared to meet again.

The reality is that a decision to act has to be taken, and indeed, my friend’s party presses us from time to time to stop consulting and start acting. That is what we are doing. What we face here is that in the provincial court (criminal division), the busiest court in the province and the busiest court in Hamilton by far, we have no young offenders’ facilities. We are short of courtrooms. We have them in three buildings, as my honourable friend notes, so people have to run back and forth at great expense and waste of time, and we have a building facility that is really quite inadequate to the purpose.

With the payment of $700,000 and a commercial rent, we can solve all those problems. It is a deal that, in the interests of users and the judges and everybody involved, I believe we have to take.

FUNDING OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I wonder if the minister is aware of the problems that are happening out in the public libraries as a result of her ministry not transferring the provincial funds to run those libraries until six months into the year, causing many of those small libraries to have to go out and borrow money and pay interest on that money until the grant comes through.

It used to be customary when we were the government that we put that out in May and June. It has been constantly sliding further and further ahead until this year it was August and late September when many of them got their grants.

Would the minister check into this and make sure that for the upcoming year this situation is changed around and those people do not have to go out and borrow the money and pay interest on it? They do not get enough as it is to carry out the valuable work that they are doing.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Yes, I am very much aware of the hardships that are placed on municipalities, particularly on smaller ones, by the transfer payments. But I think in our discussion we have been able at least to put forward the case that the transfer payments in many ways have at least not diminished in any way. What we have to do every year is to make sure that our representations to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) underline this kind of problem. I just have to assure my honourable colleague that we will continue to work with the municipalities to make sure that does benefit the smaller libraries and, indeed, also the larger libraries.

Mr. Wiseman: I wonder if the minister would consider sending half of their allotment to them as soon into the new year as possible. While she is at it, and I hope she will get the grants out more quickly next year, would she look into the furnishing, equipment and video grants, because they are even worse? They are taking eight to 10 months to be approved, and many of the libraries just cannot plan their activities and their work if the year is almost used up in which they ask for these grants. Would she check into that as well?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I will, of course, take the member’s suggestion to our officials. On the issue of video grants, one of the problems we are facing with many of our library grants is that they are simply too popular and so we have a bit of juggling to do. In addition, the library boards themselves in both the north and the south have to make certain decisions as to which libraries can be a repository for video collections.

All I can say is that the programs, the grants, seem to work. We obviously will keep the program category open and will try our best to make sure that the lead time is shortened considerably between the time of an application, the decision on which libraries get the grant and the receipt of the money.

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Elliot: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. He answered a question on Monday for me in which he showed himself to be very knowledgeable with respect to a proposed landfill site in the Acton quarry. I would like to ask him a further question with respect to this particular proposal.

I will fill him in on a little bit of the background. The proposal has already been rejected for such a purpose at least twice. Once in 1973 a Guard group successfully turned back such a proposal, and when the region started its current process for coming up with an acceptable landfill site, it was one of the first locations that was rejected.

My question is, how many times does the municipality have to go to the expense of having such a site rejected?

1450

Mr. Pope: That is a one-word answer.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) says a one-word answer would suffice on this, but I know the member would certainly want more than that.

I know this is a matter of great concern to people who live in the area. The mayor has for some time expressed his point of view in opposition to this. Again today at the Ontario Legislature, a group was here expressing in the very strongest of terms its opposition to it.

In Ontario, people have the freedom and right to make proposals to government for various initiatives including waste management initiatives. The difference today, a very proactive stance on our part, is that since our government came to office, we have now put under the Environmental Assessment Act even the private sector proposals for landfills of the kind that has been proposed in Acton. For that reason, it is a much more stringent regime that any proponent has to go through.

The member indicates that on two occasions this has been turned down, and that was not even going through this tough proposal regime we have at the present time, the Environmental Assessment Act. I want to assure the member that the proponents know they must go through the act. They have been told for some time now. They are proceeding as though they are following the act. There will be an actual regulation that is put into effect for each one of these --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly complete answer.

Mr. Elliot: I thank the minister very much for the detail of that answer.

My supplementary has to do with the fact that the location sits on the edge of an aquifer that is reputed by the experts to cover some 3,000 square miles. The water source feeds into both Sixteen Mile Creek and the Credit River. Does it make any sense at all to dump garbage in such a location?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a determination the Environmental Assessment Board will have to make when it makes its final judgement, if indeed it goes that far. What they have to do is go through the environmental assessment process first. Before you even get to a hearing, this is reviewed in detail by officials of the environmental assessment branch, the waste management branch and other branches of the Ministry of the Environment, to look into all environmental aspects.

In addition to this, the Ministry of Natural Resources, probably the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and a number of other ministries must comment upon this. They do so in a very critical sense. They put it through the very toughest of scrutiny. Every one of those considerations, including archaeological findings in the area, including cultural --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. In August of this year, a district court ruled that under section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord can secure vacant possession of his building and evict his tenants merely by listing the property for sale and serving an eviction notice, whether or not the property is eventually sold. This ruling removes tenant security for the 400,000 tenant families who live in rental properties with four units or less. Because these buildings are not covered by the rent registry provisions, it opens them up to substantial illegal rent increases.

Will his ministry apply for intervener status on the appeal of this case to assist with the arguments necessary to have this anti-tenant ruling replaced? Will the Ministry of the Attorney General assist in this case?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I assume from my honourable friend’s important question that the dispute involved is a private one between landlord and tenant and that is why he asks me whether we would intervene.

I am not certain about the nature of the case. It has not as yet been brought to my attention and I do not know the extent to which we are empowered under our statute to intervene in a private dispute. However, if the honourable member will permit, I will be glad to look at the matter and provide an answer to him as quickly as I can.

Mr. Hampton: It would seem that it is not only a private matter in a sense, but that it is also an important matter of public policy, since the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) tells us every day that she wants to protect the rights of tenants and that she wants to do something about the housing shortage.

Let me ask the minister this then: If the minister is uncertain as to whether or not he can intervene, can he say that the government will immediately amend the Landlord and Tenant Act to restore security of tenure for these tenants? In other words, if he is uncertain as to his capacity to intervene, will he amend the act to make it clear that this loophole should not be available?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not think there is any difference between my honourable friend and me in the importance with which we treat issues of this type. I am very anxious to ensure that there are no inappropriate loopholes in the Landlord and Tenant Act or indeed any other legislation for which I am responsible.

What I am simply saying -- I know it offends the question period rules, where everybody is supposed to know everything about everything -- is that I just do not have the details of this case. If my honourable friend will permit, I will look into it and see what the situation is and what the answer is.

Mr. Hampton: Do you not have the facts?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member asks me if I do not have the facts, and I do not have the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I did not request the honourable member to ask a further supplementary question. That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

MEMBERS’ ABSENCES

Mr. McCague: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which may take a little indulgence from you: I want to inform the members of the House of the passing of the father of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) earlier this week. I raise it today, knowing that you will want to convey the sympathies of this Legislature to the Villeneuve family.

I raise it for another point. We have a situation today where one member incorrectly accuses another, of, in this case, being on vacation. I have seen, in my 13 years or more years here, some embarrassing situations arise when in fact some of the members of the House did not know of the death of a close member of someone’s family.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consult whomever you think appropriate to see if there is not some way that when this happens with a very close relative of a member, you might have some means of communication of that fact to the members of this House early, at the time of sorrow. I ask that you do that, please.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the member’s request and I will certainly take it under consideration. However, this might be an appropriate time to tell all members that the tradition in most legislatures or parliaments is that members never, on any occasion, refer to the absence of any member. I know that has not been the full tradition in this particular Legislature for a number of years, but it certainly is the tradition in many other houses.

PETITION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and it contains 798 names. In essence, the petition says:

“We love our families. Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays. We do not need wide-open Sunday shopping.”

It is submitted through the Lansing Buildall company and I thank Howard Kitchen for his firm’s commitment to conveying these petitions to His Honour.

1500

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr66, An Act to revive Ariann Developments Inc.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LAPLANTE LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY LIMITED ACT

Mr. Velshi moved first reading of Bill Pr32, An Act to revive LaPlante Lithographing Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Cousens moved that, pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside so that the House can debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being this government’s refusal to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process; and, in particular, given the rapid and dramatic rate of growth and development in regions across this province, most notably Peel, Durham and York regions; and given that such growth has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process; and given that serious allegations have been made regarding the adequacy and integrity of this process in York region, the government’s failure to conduct such an inquiry diminishes public confidence in the municipal planning process.

Mr Speaker: I would inform the members of the House that my office received this motion in the proper time. Therefore, it is in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Cousens: Recently, after a series of articles appeared in the Globe and Mail, a number of politicians, developers, bureaucrats and staff people have been affected by the revelations and allegations that came from those articles. I know that everyone who is involved in any way with the statements that have been made would feel better to have the air cleared and to know that everything has been open and public, and the public would then be satisfied that the due process has been done.

May I comment that in the articles, it questioned the allocation of sewers; it questioned the inspection of houses; it questioned certain projects being fast-tracked; it questioned the participation of certain politicians in the process, as well as certain bureaucrats. It raised the whole question about some developers and some people being given preferential treatment.

The whole issue, as it relates to the news articles, has far more to do with the whole area of development in the province, and not just one geographic area. There are many areas and regions that are going through significant growth -- Durham, Peel, Ottawa, Kitchener -- and all operate under the same provincial guidelines, so when there are concerns raised in one or two or three communities, this affects all the communities in Ontario.

What I want to have, and I am sure the people of this province want to have, is a constructive process, so that there are no unnecessary delays in continuing the growth and development of this province. We want affordable housing. If there is anything that can be done through this study and evaluation and can help to find a better process that can streamline it, so we will have affordable housing more quickly, that would be good.

We want an open review, where the public can be satisfied about the allegations and concerns that have been raised, so they are put to peace, put to rest. We want to see that any development that is going to be put into place that affects the quality of life in our province should have an open process, so the people know what is happening and understand its impact. We want the very best for our province, the best for York region, and the best for those areas that are continuing to grow.

I disagree strongly with the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) when he said, “I do not think it is my job to baby-sit municipalities.” That is a simplistic approach to his responsibility. Three municipalities from York region unanimously asked this government last November 25 to come and have a review of the planning processes in south York region. Instead of doing anything in south York region, the province has got three other studies under way, one in Haldimand, one in Niagara and one in Ottawa.

What about the planning processes per se? I am not only concerned with what has been raised in news articles; I am concerned about our whole province, that we continue to develop a system and a process, and to refine it as required, so that it does meet the needs of all people.

I am dealing now with a government that has had a hands-off policy, such as the minister has said, on garbage disposal, a hands-off policy on Sunday shopping, and now I am seeing a hands-off policy on the problems and concerns being raised that affect the people of York region. A police investigation will not begin to address the concerns that my people and the people from my riding are raising. Up till now, there has only been one investigator working part-time on this study, as far as we know. This police investigation does not begin to get into the systemic problems that are part of the whole planning process in municipalities across the province of Ontario.

So I strongly urge the government to carry out a full and open public inquiry into municipal planning practices, with special emphasis on south York region and other high growth areas across this province. The province has a responsibility to the people of this province to ensure that our planning process is based on fairness and integrity. Until the air is cleared, this government has done a grave disservice to its residents. I trust that through this emergency debate this afternoon, this House will begin to rise to its challenge, and members will share in the concerns I am raising and bring pressure on the government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his cabinet ministers to begin a public inquiry without any more delay.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support the request for an emergency debate this afternoon because we think the case has been made, in the chamber and elsewhere, for investigations at several levels into the allegations that have been brought forward. I would like to quickly go through the arguments that, I think, make the case undeniable that we ought to have a debate this afternoon, and more than that, that there is a need to provide the public with a forum where the allegations could be dealt with.

Many members have said here that there are criminal investigations under way. There are. They have been under way for some time. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has simply expanded upon an existing police investigation and moved it into adjacent municipalities. There are allegations that appear, to me at least, to warrant a criminal investigation by a police force.

During a series of Globe and Mail articles published in the last little while, the allegations are fairly clear that people took favours, that people took money, that people got consideration in the purchase of their homes, that people who are entrusted to be public servants in a local municipality offered some advantage to some developers that was not available to others. There are allegations that developers, in particular, were given access to sewer capacity, which of course allowed their developments to go faster than someone else’s development.

1510

The allegations are not unknown to members here. They are not unknown to the public at large. In fact, people who have been following the series in the Globe and Mail will know that short of the kind of evidence which would be provided at a criminal trial, the allegations were pretty well expounded upon in that series. With some exceptions, there were not many names which were brought forward during the course of those articles, but there were some.

It is a tragedy, I suppose, in one sense, that if all the people who were named in the Globe and Mail article, particularly those who are now running for public office, are completely innocent of any of the allegations, by the time that decision is reached in some forum, whether it is here, in a criminal court or by means of a public inquiry, the election for the next three years for those people will be finished; it will be long gone. The opportunity for them in a public way to clear their names has been bypassed.

I note with interest that some of the people who were named in the Globe and Mail articles were among the first to call for a public inquiry. Of course, from their point of view, at that time they desperately wanted an opportunity in some public forum other than their municipal council chambers to present their side of the story. It is unfortunate that they have been denied that opportunity.

The opportunity to present their side of the case I think is just basic fairness, but the allegations which have been brought forward during the summer and the early fall months I think are substantive enough to warrant a public inquiry. I believe it is precisely that kind of inquiry which can deal with matters of this kind.

Let me make this distinction. Some of the allegations involved infractions of the Criminal Code without question: bribery, fraud, corruption. Those we understand. We have a process which can deal with that: a police investigation, charges being laid and a judicial process to deal with that. What we have some difficulty with, however, and perhaps they do not fit easily together, is the matter of ethics in government, of morality, of a code of conduct for public officials and for those who are elected to public office.

Many of the allegations centre not on criminal acts but on whether someone took advantage of who he knew, whether someone funded a political campaign and later on asked someone to do something not of a criminal nature but simply to bring forward his development proposals, simply to reassess the priorities of who gets the allocations of sewers and roads and things like that which make a housing development, for example, happen a little faster. There are allegations that a minister of the crown gave access to some member of a municipal council. All of that may have a valid explanation, but all of that certainly needs a valid explanation.

It is for that reason that we support the notion that in addition to criminal investigations now under way -- which appear to me to be, at least on the investigative side, justified -- there is a need for more. There is a need for a public inquiry to investigate fully and completely the allegations which are now a matter of public record. It is to this government’s shame that we have not had that. Perhaps this afternoon, during the course of the emergency debate, we can deal with some of that.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the motion of my friend the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens). I just want to say that throughout the course of this fall session, the government has entertained a wide range of questions and inquiries with respect to the motion which now stands before us in the name of the member for Markham.

It has been quite clear to any objective observer of the legislative scene this fall that this government has nothing to hide in respect of these matters. We have been very candid with respect to what our responsibilities are. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has pointed out that there is a joint police investigation involving the York Region Police, I believe, who have invited in the Ontario Provincial Police. My colleague and friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs has also ordered an investigation into the administrative and planning practices in at least one of the municipalities involved, a report we expect, I gather, in the not-too-distant future.

We have no difficulty whatsoever in debating these questions, because we think we have been very frank and candid in dealing with the matters that have been raised in this particular connection.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, as you would want to me to say, speaking to the admissibility, I suppose, of the honourable member’s emergency debate request, I must be perfectly candid and say to my friends that I do not personally view this as an emergency, inasmuch as we have discussed it at some length over many days and weeks in the fall session. But I say to my colleagues in the House, as always I am a very reasonable and agreeable fellow.

Mr. Breaugh: A snippy little twit.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) just used words which if I ever uttered them would of course cause an explosion on the opposition benches, and I would never want to do that. I have such good ears that I listen very carefully to what is said on the other side, and I am sometimes amazed that those who offer some of the sharpest and most delicious barbs in the place are none the less highly offended when much tamer rejoinders are offered by those on the other side.

I have always liked the member for Markham. We do not agree on very much, but he is a native eastern Ontarian, the proud son of Vankleek Hill, a gentleman of the cloth, a gentleman of business and a very distinguished practitioner of this business of politics. If for no other reason than to maintain a very good relationship with my friend from Vankleek Hill, I just want to say that while the government does not view this as an emergency but as something that has been debated at some length and where the government has put its case, I think very effectively, particularly in the actions and in the comments of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we have nothing to hide and we are quite prepared to see this debate go forward this afternoon.

I want to say simply in conclusion that the government had planned, with the agreement of the opposition House leaders, to debate today a very important matter affecting the water resources of Ontario, where it is clear that this government has taken a strong position, and my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the Minister of Natural Resources, came here today to debate that question because it is an important part of the government’s agenda in the very important area of resource management and trading relationships.

In saying that the government has no difficulty in allowing this debate to go forward today, I want to make it clear that we none the less want the members of the opposition not to lose sight of the important government agenda and that we want to get on with that agenda as well, notwithstanding our desire to facilitate the concerns of the opposition and on this particular occasion the concern of the member for Markham.

With that observation and with the commitment that we will move back tomorrow to the water bill, I repeat that the government has nothing to hide. We have taken a strong position on these matters and we will be happy to see this debate proceed this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Members have had an opportunity to express their views on whether or not this debate should continue. I will, however, according to standing order 37(d), ask the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the member for Markham and advise all other members that they have an opportunity to speak up to 10 minutes until we run out of speakers or the clock strikes six.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr. Cousens: I would like to thank the honourable member for Oshawa and the New Democratic Party for their sharing of our concern and the need for this emergency debate. I would also like to thank the honourable House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), for giving us the opportunity to carry out this debate.

One thing that I have been very careful to do is not to challenge anyone with any allegations. I say that because of the sense in which the honourable House leader rose to say that his government has nothing to hide. I think we are far more interested in the whole process of municipal planning. I am not in a position to throw stones at anyone by saying he is responsible for what is happening:

Right now, we have a situation, and I believe it is an emergency. Certainly when you have the credibility of so many people being questioned by allegations, it is imperative that we do everything within our power to clear the air, remove that dark cloud from over their heads and allow all those who have been in any way implicated to have that chance to defend themselves and to come up with suggestions on how we can improve the system. I think that is fundamental to everything we are trying to say.

1520

We are not just saying it is something which is exclusively in the ridings of Markham or York Centre or York North or only within that one area. It is something which affects the municipal planning process across the province when there is growth and when there is development. That is the issue that really needs to be addressed and needs to be resolved.

I do not think it is an easy issue. One of the things that can happen is that everyone is going to say, “Stop development.” I am not saying that. I think the system we have in place now can continue, but in the meantime let’s have the opportunity to review it, investigate it and come out publicly so that whatever fine-tuning or whatever action needs to be taken can be taken to satisfy the public at large that there is nothing to hide.

If we do not have that public inquiry we are going to be relying on a police investigation. Quite candidly, you do not know, when a police investigation is going on, when it is finished or what they have done or what they have learned. It is a secret operation, by necessity, in the way in which the Solicitor General’s ministry operates.

I have confidence in the police system, so in asking for a public inquiry into this, I am not saying there is anything the matter with the police continuing their study. But in the meantime we are talking about a systemic problem which has to do with the growth going on within our province.

Last year York region, three municipalities representing 225,000 people, asked the province, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier, to agree to a review. I am reading from the motion which was passed by Richmond Hill council. It was the identical motion passed in Vaughan and Markham. “In the event that neither of the above actions...” -- which were calling for involvement by the province in the planning process – “that the government of Ontario undertake a formal review and restructuring of the political, administrative and financial frame work of the regional municipality of York to ensure that there is a fair and equitable distribution of local government services to all municipalities within the region.”

This did not happen. Instead of doing anything for the people of York, this government saw fit to look at a rural municipality with very little in common with the needs and concerns of York region. They are looking at a city that is purely urban -- again, not the development that is going on here -- and at another community where there is static growth. Why would the government not respond to that wish a year ago?

Now we are at the point where the question is being raised not just by the politicians as it was a year ago, not just by the media; now there is an upsurge of concern during the municipal elections. Watching our local cable last night, it is the one thing everybody is talking about. The people have been implicated, the towns are implicated, the whole area. People are starting to think, “Is there something the matter there?” I personally believe that everyone whose name has been mentioned and every level of government which has been referred to will feel better when this has been properly and duly aired.

I know the Premier took exception to my drawing a parallel with the Grange commission, when Justice Samuel Grange was appointed back in 1983 to look into the 28 mysterious deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. I was careful when I raised that question in the House to acknowledge that it is not a perfect parallel. Certainly the deaths of children are extremely serious and we were dealing with one hospital in that instance. What I am talking about here I know has one or two things in common with the Grange commission, with all due apologies to the people who would think I am trying to draw something out of that one.

There were people who did not want to have their children go to the Hospital for Sick Children. I suggest that we could well have businesses that are looking to establish themselves with their headquarters or operations in our communities, and now, because of allegations based not on publicly accepted points of view, might start saying, “My, I will not want to establish my business there.” So that lack of trust can have a contagious impact on a growing community that wants to continue to present the best face it can, to show that it is doing the right things for all people and treating people equally.

I also believe that there is another parallel. First of all, there is the parallel that, in fact, what is happening here goes right to the core of confidence. It also has many negative impacts if nothing is done on it. If this government is just going to say, “We’re not going to do anything about it,” then I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is the same as the way in which the government is dealing with the Sunday shopping issue, it is the same as the way in which it is dealing with garbage disposal; it is a hands-off approach, and that is not the way to deal with an issue that is at the heart of public confidence in the political system.

As for having a police investigation, even at the Hospital for Sick Children it did not bring out anything, and yet when they had the Grange Commission they were able to bring out a number of issues that set procedures in place for the future.

I am hoping that, through this kind of inquiry, we can come out with some refined ways in which the public can always be involved in knowing what is going on with some of the large developments going on in their community. There is something different that takes place when you have a very large development in excess of 50 or 100 acres, something that has environmental sensitivity to it, something that is going to involve massive local dollars in order to maintain and support it.

Maybe through this kind of inquiry we will begin to find new ways of refining the system to allow those to have that public review. Maybe there are other situations in which we can speed up the approval process. Maybe through the whole thing we can find ways of finding more affordable housing. If in fact the delays going on now, that are part of the planning process, cause property values to increase, then we can find ways of redressing that.

I have not yet taken a poll to find out if everybody really wants to have a public inquiry. I think some people are concerned that it could be a witch hunt that is pointing just to York region. I do not want that kind of thing. I think it goes beyond York region and cuts into the very system of how the municipal planning process works. It has worked well over the years. There has not been a study per se of this particular subject until now. The Urban Development Institute of Ontario has done some kind of study and has given that to the minister. It is not a public document, so I do not have that at my disposal. But there are a number of different groups that I know would come together and support the kind of public inquiry I am talking about.

If we have police investigation, which is what is pending right now, they are just going to be looking at the law as it is. We are not yet coming up with the long-term improvements we should be working for. This government has not achieved that perfection yet. No government will ever achieve that perfection. But if we can at least have a provincial inquiry into the process of development, we will be on the way to making it a better province for everybody.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to begin by saying that this is not the first time that allegations have been made here at Queen’s Park and elsewhere that someone, in the development industry in particular, courted favour with municipal governments or with ministers of the crown or with the provincial government as a whole by means of making political contributions to campaigns or granting favours to politicians at many different levels, and then somehow transformed that donation into a great advantage.

1530

Members will know, and I think members of the public will know as well, that the federal level of government does not escape this either. We have gone through, in the last three or four years, a wide range of accusations against members of the federal cabinet and members of the federal parliament on the government side that they in fact traded favours in some way; that they got donations from individuals; that they in some way influenced the issuing of government contracts or the purchase or the lease of government office space; that they curried the favour of the government with dollar bills and they did so with a good deal of extravagance. Most of us here would say that is wrong, and the public certainly does as well.

In part, the need for an inquiry into what has happened in the growth regions in and around Metro centres on that very issue. I do not think there is a member here who comes from those areas who does not understand very well that, with the best of intentions, a local council and a small planning and public works staff are struggling these days to cope with the development pressure that is on these communities around Metro.

There is nobody on a council who doubts for a minute that the decisions of a council and the planning reports that are prepared and the public works reports that are put together are the factors that go together to decide which of the development proposals will generate so much money for the private sector. There is absolutely no question that each week of the year, somewhere in one of those regions around Metro, some developer puts forward a proposal and the decision of that council on that night makes that individual literally millions of dollars.

We are not talking about someone taking a small favour. We are not talking about someone who makes a judgement call and the people on the other side of the judgement call protest that it is not quite fair. What we are talking about now, specifically this afternoon, is a rather detailed allegation that has been put together by one of Canada’s national newspapers. It has taken the time to send out its reporters and its staff. It has gone through records at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and in the municipalities that are named in the news stories, and has done a pretty thorough job of putting together what I guess many of us would consider to be the gossip on the street.

It is that research which has turned it from being the gossip that we all hear. There is nobody in any community who cannot repeat a story he heard somewhere of somebody at the golf club or the curling club who got a favour because he knows the mayor, who had some advantage from a local public works supervisor because he had a pot-hole and he met the guy at the corner store and he stopped the gravel truck and put it in there. That is clearly not what is being alleged here.

What is alleged in this series of articles, and it has been followed up by a series of questions in the Legislature, is that we are talking about multimillion-dollar deals. We are talking about people in the private sector who will make huge profits. We are talking about citizens who will buy homes at outrageous prices. When they do so, they have a reasonable expectation that the process works honestly and fairly. They have a reasonable expectation that when they pay $300,000 and $400,000 for a home, somebody did not pad his pocket on the side on the way through, and a reasonable expectation that when they pay that kind of money for a house, there will be a street and a road system, a transportation system, a health care system, a school system, a police system and a fire system that are worthy of that kind of price.

And they will not get it; they will know that. They will want to know, how did all of these plans of development get approved? These are going to be tough and legitimate questions, and this government may decide, at the end of this afternoon, that it will just kind of stay the course.

It is going to have this inquiry sooner or later. I do not care how long it stalls it. It can have all the police investigations it wants, but the scope of the allegations is much too large now to contain it.

They can say, and I am sure somebody will this afternoon, that the articles that were published in the Toronto newspapers detailing the donations that were made to the Liberal Party of Ontario have nothing to do with the approvals. They can remind themselves that they made those exact same allegations against the previous government and they did not let up on it either, because it certainly does raise the question in my mind that if somebody hands over a lot of money to your political coffers this year, are you going to give them a slightly better ear than somebody who did not?

The interesting thing is that, as I read the allegations and the names of the individuals who are put forward here, I seem to recall them in previous allegations as being prominent contributors to the Progressive Conservative Party. I think if we go back far enough back in the Hansards, we will find some ministers of the crown over there who made those exact same allegations from these benches not so long ago.

We are certainly talking about exactly the same lands, and we are certainly talking about exactly the same process, and we are certainly talking about whether that is right or wrong. I will not read into the record this afternoon whether the Liberal Party of Ontario thought this was wrong a few years ago. They sure did.

I think we deserve a process now which investigates -- not the criminal acts; that is not our job at all and that should not be the job of a public inquiry, and I accept that we have now a police investigation under way.

I will say that I really doubt that anybody who stands to make a million dollars in a real estate deal is going to be stupid enough to get caught in that process. I doubt that a lot. I may be wrong and they may be caught in a police investigation, but when it is all finished, I doubt that they are going to have handed over the money when anybody was standing around.

I do not know why they would be stupid enough to hand you the money under the table when they can hand it to you over the table. I do not know why they would be dumb enough to break the election expenses act, provincially or federally, when all they have to have is the brains to go around their office and say: “I have a limit on the amount of money that I can donate as a corporation to a political party. Why don’t the 12 of you who are working in my office all make the donation equally on my behalf?”

I will bet they found that loophole fairly quickly. I will bet they know more about the municipal elections expenses act than the minister does; I will bet they know more about the provincial election expenses act than the minister does. I will bet they have lawyers and accountants who advise them on a daily basis on how to do this.

As one of the newspaper stories alleged, they may well have given a senior public servant a shopping cart full of liquor, and he may well have been stupid enough to go back to the liquor store with the shopping cart full of liquor and try to cash it in. That may have happened, but I have to tell you, if you are paying someone in the public sector who would actually do that kind of thing, he deserves to lose his job.

Mr. Epp: If you believe that, I’ll sell you some ...

Mr. Breaugh: Herbie, you couldn’t sell me a piece of land in the middle of Rome.

I think there is a need to move to a public inquiry, and not just of the criminal allegations that have been made. I think there is a need to sort out now what is appropriate behaviour on the part of a local council, on the part of local staff; what checks and balances do we have to combat what is a vexing problem?

I will conclude by putting this: I do not know whether the mayor of Markham, in the purchase of a home, did something wrong. It does not look quite kosher to me, but I do not know whether any criminal problem occurred there. But I would put to any member here that if you are the mayor of Markham, it stands to reason to me you are quite likely to buy a house in Markham and you are quite likely to buy a house from a developer who continues to develop residential projects in your own community. So there is a bit of a problem.

I think that problem needs to be looked at by means of a public inquiry. I think it is only reasonable to give all those who have now been kind of slammed in one of our largest newspapers an opportunity to explain their side of the story. I think there is a need to look at whether the process is now appropriate or whether it has encountered some difficulties which indicate it ought to be changed.

As someone who spent some time in municipal politics, I do not doubt for a minute that there is every chance in the world that every single allegation that has been made in Canada’s national newspaper is true. What I would like is a chance to test whether, in a fair way, we can make that judgement at the end of a public inquiry.

1540

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to say that this government welcomes the opportunity to discuss the municipal planning process and to learn more about the opposition’s concerns regarding this issue.

I want to emphasize very clearly that this government and my ministry have not ruled out a commission of inquiry. I think the Premier has stated very clearly today that, on the advice of the Attorney General, the Ontario Provincial Police investigation will continue. It may very well be that following that inquiry of the OPP, a commission of inquiry will take place. I cannot forecast whether it will or it will not, but that has not been ruled out.

I want to say that this is not just a decision that was made in the last few weeks following the allegations which were made in the newspaper, but this was a decision that I made some months ago in the summer when I wrote to Wilfred Death, I believe, of Richmond Hill when he had written to me about a commission of inquiry some time ago. We took his letter very seriously. I wrote to him and said that because of the OPP investigation, I felt it was not appropriate to decide whether a commission of inquiry should proceed or not, but it is there. If it is necessary to continue, then I can assure the member, as the Premier gave assurance today, that can very well happen.

But I must tell the member about something that we were able to do because we recognize some of the problems that are taking place in York region. We found that we were not satisfied, for instance in Richmond Hill, that the administrative staff was able to deal with many of the problems that were confronting a fast-growing community, one of the fastest-growing communities in this part of the province.

What we did do, and what I did as the minister, was to order an inquiry into the planning and administrative practices of Richmond Hill. That is now under way. We have not waited for these allegations to surface before taking action. I want to say that when I assumed the office of minister, I took some very early action to give greater accountability and greater respectability to municipal government in this province; like when I introduced Bill 29 for direct elections to Metro council so the people who serve in this great metropolitan area would be able to give their full-time attention to the problems of Metropolitan Toronto. It was followed by Bill 106 to give greater accountability, because in the past there had been nothing in place in regard to contribution limits, expense limits and the reporting system in which those who contribute to anyone’s municipal campaign must declare the amount of money they contributed and the candidate they contributed to. Following this election, that information will be available in every clerk’s office across this province.

I believe the member must give us credit for the action that we have taken. He forgets to mention these things, I say to my friend the member for Markham. I also want to say that when I introduced these reforms, some said, “You are not moving fast enough.” Others said: “You are moving too fast. Why do you not slow down?” Let me tell members what some of the members said.

“I just think the minister would be doing the honourable thing if he were to decide to put off this bill and make it effective for the 1991 elections.” That was the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague). Here is another good quote from a member --

Mr. Cousens: You are saying it has been perfectly clean.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would feel not very responsible had I put these bills off until the 1991 election, let me tell you. Here is another quote from a member who is in the House.

“A great idea, that is municipal election reform for the first time, is going to be messed up and leave a sour taste in everybody’s mouth because the government has not heeded the request for taking a longer period of time to bring this in.” That was the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). Then we have the member for Oshawa, who said, “I believe that with the number of changes that are being proposed under this bill, it is not practical to try to implement it at this date.”

I feel that we took the appropriate action and moved ahead with this bill.

I referred today to the fact that I was not satisfied with the conflict-of-interest legislation. We are reviewing that at the present time, because it bothers me when I hear a municipal councillor challenge a constituent and say, “If you are not happy with what has taken place, then produce your money and take me to court.” I do not think that is right. I believe the conflict of interest has to be tightened up.

Then again, we do not have unanimous support among the opposition. The member for Oshawa thinks we should move very quickly but the member for Markham is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

“Donald Cousens, the Conservative Party Municipal Affairs critic, said yesterday he did not support changes to make it easier for citizens to initiate conflict actions, otherwise the courts would be filled with groundless accusations.” It quotes him as saying, “People better be prepared to face up to their responsibilities if they are wrong.”

We have been moving in a number of areas here. The member for Markham was talking about regional studies. He mentioned that York region had asked for a regional study.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: He ran away.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Did he leave? Some of the municipalities in York region wanted a review of their municipal government but it is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that some of them opposed that. If the York region council brings to me a resolution supported by the York region council asking for a review of its regional government, I will give it very serious consideration.

There are three reviews under way in the province at the present time: Ottawa-Carleton, Haldimand-Norfolk and Niagara. These regional studies cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400,000, so the reason we have not proceeded with a number of others is that we feel there will be some common threads from these three studies under way at the present and perhaps it will mean that we will not have to have in every region a comprehensive review. But we do not rule them out and we are willing to take a look at the various regions.

I must tell members also that we are reviewing the Municipal Act. We are also reviewing our county government. We are not waiting for problems to develop further in our counties across this province. We are taking action. Under a number of my colleagues in the Legislature, we are looking at the system of county governments in the hope of strengthening them to make them more effective, more accountable, and to give our municipal government greater responsibility.

I look forward today to hearing from members of the opposition some of the problems with the Municipal Act or the Planning Act. When they do, let me tell them, we have nothing to hide and I will look into that. But I have not heard that today. Most of the allegations being made are of a criminal nature, and they are being looked into.

In the other areas the honourable member mentions, one of the things he was talking about was the pressures of building. As I mentioned to the leader of the member for Markham last week, when he was talking about some of the infrastructures, the sewer and water system, this was determined back in April of 1983, I believe it was, by the former Premier of this province, Mr. Davis, who wrote to the chairman of the region, talking about being able to develop in the region. This is what the Premier wrote:

“If, through the program, it can be demonstrated that there is additional capacity which can be satisfactorily used, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be prepared to accept amendments to the local official plans to permit additional development.” An additional development proceeded on that basis. He said also: “The responsibility for this rests primarily with the regional level of government.”

If we are talking about the growth and development in the York region, the former Premier told them, “If the capacity is there, you can proceed and go ahead and build.”

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is endeavouring to improve the Planning Act and the Municipal Act. We have introduced some amendments to Bill 128, which I hope will be coming back into the House soon, and we will be dealing with those. We look forward to their support.

I look forward to hearing the comments on the particular concerns that the members have. I would like to stress the government’s willingness to participate in this dialogue. I believe that we have shown great leadership in establishing policies.

1550

Mr. Pope: It is my pleasure, on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, to join in this debate. I must say in response to the minister that he sprayed in all directions without addressing the essential point of the motion for emergency debate and the holding of this debate. He talked about everything else he had done on every other front in his ministry without directly addressing the concerns that have been raised in the newspapers of Metropolitan Toronto and, through them, in the rest of the province, and the concerns that have been raised by members of this Legislature through question period and through the moving of this emergency debate proposal for some days now.

It is not good enough to indicate that the minister has made progress on other fronts and that is the answer to the concerns that have been raised. It is not good enough to make reference to a former Premier as a way of sloughing off his own responsibilities to make decisions on this matter. It is not good enough to say that the accusations are only criminal in nature when he knows very well that they are not only criminal in nature but address themselves to the fundamental processes of planning and municipal approvals in this province, not necessarily just criminal activity but the whole approval process and how it is handled: whether or not developers and builders, big and small, feel that they are being treated fairly and equally by those responsible for planning and planning approvals in this province.

It is not good enough, as minister responsible to the rest of us in this province, as the minister is, to look to other fields of endeavour within his ministry and to other people or to other excuses for not addressing the fundamental issue contained in this resolution. The minister has not addressed the fundamental concern contained in this resolution.

His only response has been the backhanded promise that he might have a public inquiry at a later date. The allegations have been made, not just of criminal conduct but of conduct of the planning process in this province. Those allegations have been made. He has been asked questions in the Legislature. The Premier has been asked questions in the Legislature. Surely to goodness if the minister is prepared to say that at some future date he may have an inquiry based on what he has heard so far, he can then proceed expeditiously to have an inquiry now, while the concerns are there, while the people of York region are voicing those concerns and while this issue is current and on the minds of those who are involved in the planning process and in the development of affordable housing in this province.

Why would he wait when those concerns are there? Why would he refuse to address them? Why would he not dovetail a public inquiry along with all of the other processes of the government?

The Premier today said: “Well, we have an OPP investigation going on. We will leave it at that.” Then, later on, he said, “We wouldn’t rule out an inquiry.” Now the minister is saying that he might have an inquiry at a later date. He should just get on with the inquiry. He knows it is required; he virtually admitted that in his statement here today. He should just get on with it.

The OPP investigation of Wyda Systems Canada Inc. has gone on for three years and there is no indication of any end in sight. This situation, based on public concern and the problems of development in York region, cannot go on for three years while there is a pending OPP investigation. It has to be addressed now, and not just in the context of any potential criminal activity, which I am not going to address at all, but in the context of the planning processes of this province and how they reflect themselves in affordable housing for our fellow citizens.

Is that not the ultimate goal of the planning process, of housing development programs in this province, to provide to men and women and their families someplace acceptable to them that they can afford to live in? That has been the objective, I am sure, of this minister. I am sure that it is the objective of the current Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and of this government. Surely those kinds of issues and the effect of this process and the allegations that have been made, that effect on the cost of housing, the availability of housing, the perception of fairness in the planning process and in the development process can be and should be addressed in the public inquiry forum.

Vague assurances are no good. They are no good for small builders who want to get into the construction market. They are no good for small, beginning developers who see the allegations that you have to be a big shot to get a subdivision through. They are no good for people who want some competitive options for affordable housing in York region and across the province. Surely this minister and the Minister of Housing have both worried about and analysed the impact of these problems and many others on affordability in Ontario.

We have made allegations in the past that government programs accelerate the cost of land, accelerate the cost of housing and therefore accelerate the cost of home ownership in this province. The men, women and families of this province are paying for housing with after-tax dollars. It is tough to make mortgage payments. Housing prices are escalating rapidly in every major urban section and municipality of this province. Granted, healthy competition is fine. If costs of construction and costs of servicing of land are increasing, obviously that cost must be passed through and on. But if there are other elements to cost increases that do not directly relate to the construction and servicing of housing projects in this province, then surely the response of any caring government that worries about the ability of young families to get housing that they can afford now and in the future is to want to have a public inquiry into it and examine all of these issues and problems.

I say to the government that I think that would be a proper response. I said earlier that some of the public housing programs of this province have in fact ended up increasing the cost of housing and the cost of rent that ordinary Ontarians pay. I think that is clear, for instance, from the Renterprise project. In spite of the answers of the Premier of this province with respect to the project in Timmins, where he said that the Renterprise contract was awarded to a few property owners, it is clear that the Ministry of Housing’s announcement when this project was begun indicated that the awarding of that contract was not to the owners of the land but to Advance Property Management Consultants Inc. It is clear that that is what the press release was.

It is clear now from the searches in the corporations branch, the companies branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that two individuals from London were the secretary-treasurer, the president and directors and now, by admission in the newspapers of London, shareholders of that company. They got the approval; they got the contract. When you make your application for government subsidy, the application form clearly sets out the cost of land. The allocated cost of land in the Timmins project was $410,000; when they bought the land for $353,000, the difference was profit in their pockets. The operation of the Renterprise program in Ontario resulted in a net cash profit to the developers of this land, using the government approval.

If the government programs of this government are going to lead to inflationary increases in the cost of land which are going to be passed on to those people who need that housing desperately; if there is going to be no discipline or control over Renterprise projects or any other government projects or programs in the housing field; if there is going to be no proper administration to see that there is not that kind of rapid escalation or speculation on land based on government contracts, then how can we expect this government itself to do anything with respect to other speculative increases in land that do not relate to direct costs of servicing, do not relate to direct costs of construction or do not even relate to the direct cost of the planning process, with planners, lawyers and all else that is required?

1600

Therefore, I say it is not good enough to give a vague assurance. It is not good enough to spread the blame over previous administrations and try to work people’s names into his explanation. It is not good enough, as the Premier did on Thursday, October 27, to file written responses in the Legislature that are factually incorrect as a way of explaining what has become a disastrous housing project in Timmins. It is not good enough to try to avoid producing the documents, forcing me to bring an application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get what is the right of every member of this Legislature.

The government owes it to the people of this province, the working men and women and their families who want affordable housing, to be up front, to begin this public inquiry and to get everything on the table so that we can have more affordable housing for our fellow Ontarians.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to speak on this issue today with regret, for two reasons, the first being that I was really looking forward to getting up and talking about the water sales to the United States of the Minister of Natural Resources and his linkage with the free trade deal. I was really anxious that we could do an awful lot of lambasting of the member for Niagara Falls today. I regret that that has been overtaken by this particular matter. We will do this another day and we will tear our political strips off that member at that time.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Carrying on in a way that is not responsible is your goofy position.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister may call it a goofy position, but anybody who puts together a bill whose whole purpose is to license the sale of water and pretend that is going to stop the sale of water is a buffoon in this House. That is the minister’s role. We are not here for comic entertainment by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Well then, sit down.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We do not need a buffoon in the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You answer the description to a T.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Vince, if you cannot take the heat without turning around and pretending you have not sold out our water, sir, then that is your problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The second, slightly more provocative reason I regret rising on this today, is that I find it incredible that I do so before members of a Liberal reform government, a government that supposedly came into power to open up the walls that have been put up over the years, that argued incessantly when it was sitting here against a huge Tory majority that there needed to be a review of how planning was being undertaken, that we needed inquiries into all sorts of land deals. I remember time and time again Liberals rising to raise those kinds of matters.

Instead, today we have a minister who says there is no need for a review, who says the police inquiry is sufficient. This is the same minister, if I might remind him, who was quoted on January 14 of this year as indicating that it may still be necessary to have a public inquiry into land sales in Vaughan because investigations up to that point had not produced the results we had been expecting. That was last January.

Here we are now with this much Hansard and public statements in the press about questions of wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing in the speculation in land prices around this area. That is just the last month or so. This government says that some sort of police inquiry trying to discover if the very flawed legislation that it had been left by a Tory government of the past is enough, is all we need for an investigation at this stage. I say that is preposterous.

I also wonder why it is that this minister or another minister has not risen in this House to say categorically when the money that was given to the Liberal government by several of the land developers involved, some $112,650 that was given to this party by these men, was paid and why he has not answered the question rightfully raised by Mr. Volpe in the Globe and Mail as to when that money was paid.

Was it paid during an election campaign? These are the guys who used to fund the Tory party, members will recall, during an election, and especially between elections. Or did they pay them this money in the three months after they got their big majority? When did they get the bucks? I think the people deserve to know that.

I think the people also need to know about just what is happening in terms of the mix of speculation that is driving prices up like crazy in this province. Yet we have the Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) day after day, in response to questions from the member from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) about a speculation tax, saying this is just one of those sweet miseries that has to befall the people of Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding districts now because we are moving to world-class status.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: A market correction.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is just a sweet market correction. Is that all it is?

They do not want to look at the question of who is profiteering here. They do not think, as reform Liberals, that is worthy of a public inquiry.

I remember why I thought Tories in the past days would never allow that sort of public inquiry. They used to think that it would get a little too close to the bone, that some connections would come up which they really would not want to have brought forward.

I cannot believe that that could be the view of the Liberal Party, the reform party of Ontario; or is there a little nervousness about now with this myriad of municipal Liberal candidates who are running afoul of the much-vaunted Municipal Elections Act that the minister has just talked about? Maybe there is a concern that things are going to rub too close to the bone for those guys as well, because surely what is being asked here is not whether or not a nice point of law was broken. As the member for Oshawa said, these are clever people with lots of lawyers who know exactly how to find the loopholes in acts. That is not the issue.

The issue is, what is going wrong in our planning system that is allowing this huge speculation in costs to be taking place? How is it that, time and time again, questions of the kind that are being raised are being raised about townships like Vaughan or regions like York, about mayors and about where the housing is and whether they are getting special deals or not?

Why is it that this government, unbelievably, does not think a public inquiry into all this might be useful as they may be finally getting around to doing some major redress of the Planning Act, some major redress of the issues around speculation that is taking place now in Ontario?

This minister quoted me recently as saying I was opposed to his supposed election reforms. I tell him I am still opposed to them. I think they still favour wealthy candidates, especially people who got their money from developers last January or last December, incumbents who are already in there who are of some questionable connection in this way. They are very, very tough on anybody who is trying to run as an independent these days, as he will no doubt hear from people as they try to meet their debts so quickly following this election.

This minister, if members can believe it, was quoted as saying he is not the babysitter of the municipalities and that he does not see that as his role. I would be very interested to know just what role this minister thinks he has for overseeing the development of housing -- affordable housing, one might have hoped -- in this province, to make sure that those creatures of the province known as municipalities are not accountable just to their own electorate but are following the kind of philosophy that we want in the legislation that we have established for them to operate under.

The minister may not call that baby-sitting. He may want to call it monitoring, he may want to call it reviewing; but it is unthinkable to me that, as a minister, he would have the gall to get up here in this House today and say what he said, knowing the problems that people have finding affordable housing, that you need $86,000 or $88,000 a year to be able to afford the average house in Toronto now.

We know of the kinds of concerns, the broad, broad range of concerns that have been raised in the newspapers of late concerning the districts involved in the motion that is before us today, and all he thinks we need is a police inquiry, a police inquiry that will have to be incredibly limited to the niceties of our present law, which is a Tory law and which is a flawed law, instead of saying this is the time to open it up, this is the time to have a public inquiry to look at these issues in large terms, and if necessary to move quickly, as swiftly as possible, to redress the inequities in that legislation. It is the consumers in our province who want affordable housing who are being stuck with the problems.

I would have hoped that this minister would have been in favour of a public inquiry and would not just try to slough it aside.

1610

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to participate in this emergency debate. I must say I am not sure it is an emergency because it is some weeks now since those articles appeared in the paper, and finally, two or three weeks later, the third party decides this was an emergency. To add to the importance of the emergency, it has all of two members in the House today to show how important it is to them. I am not quite sure that really indicates the emergency aspect of it.

Nevertheless, it is the goal of this government to ensure a strong, effective and accountable planning process. We are always looking for ways to improve it, as you know Mr. Speaker, and to ensure that the Planning Act is one all of us can live with quite easily and one that effectively does what it is supposed to do.

This government is committed to an open planning process and is actively involved in a dialogue with the development industry and municipalities to improve the development process.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated, we have a bill before this House that proposes a series of amendments to the Planning Act to improve the effectiveness of that process. For example, in response to municipal and industry concerns, we propose that the zoning process be improved by reducing the minimum time for zoning bylaws to come into effect from 65 days to 41 days.

This bill is a priority of this government and clearly indicates our determination to take action on this issue.

The planning process we have today is essentially the one established by the previous government, and one we are working to improve. However, we realize that there are other matters concerning this issue which are outside the planning process itself, such as the rules affecting conflict of interest.

We must remember that the planning process allows changes in land use to occur. Each proposal is reviewed on its own merits and involves formalized public participation, municipal examination of future community objectives and a full provincial review. If there are any specific concerns with the planning process itself, we would like to hear them from the opposition.

We continue to improve the legislation and planning process ourselves to ensure that the process remains open and accountable. The public, whom we serve, is given formal opportunities to participate in the decision-making process. The public also has the right to appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board. The board makes its decision based on the merits of the application. We feel this process is vital to a proper and open land use process in Ontario.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak on the motion by my colleague the member for Markham dealing with this government’s refusal to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process, I must comment at the outset that I was somewhat amazed a few moments ago to hear the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) say that he wonders why this motion is today since the articles in the newspapers appeared some time ago.

Well, I hope that the member for Waterloo North is up to date with his reading because in fact it is not some weeks ago. This concern has been in the newspapers as recently as within the past week; not only that, there reason the two oppositions parties are now drawn not the only alternative we have left, which is an emergency debate, is simply because for the past week, both opposition parties have been asking this Liberal government to do just what this motion addresses.

We have been saying, “Have a full and open public inquiry.” Why are they not doing this, and do they have the answers and explanations for what has been going on in York region in particular, which has led to the newspaper articles? Because of the frustration the two opposition parties have, there has been no alternative left. I hope the member for Waterloo North understands why it is we are where we are today.

Mr Epp: Could you tell us why you have only two members?

Mrs Marland: I think it is very interesting that the member for Waterloo North has just asked me why we have two members in our House. I would like to point out that we have 12 Liberal government members in this House. I suggest to the member for Waterloo North --

Mr Ballinger: Right behind you, Margaret.

Mrs Marland: I counted him.

Mr Ballinger: Thank you.

Mrs Marland: That to have in this House two members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, which numbers 17 in total, is a far higher percentage than 12 out of 94 of the Liberal government.

I feel that if the Liberal government were concerned about this debate at all, certainly the previous speaker, the member for Waterloo North, might have spoken for more than four minutes. Obviously, it is an issue that this government is not concerned with.

I want to tell the members that the Progressive Conservative caucus of Ontario is concerned about this issue. We are concerned about the fact that the Liberal government fails to show leadership and direction when it is needed. The two statutes that govern municipalities in the area of development are obviously the Municipal Act and the Planning Act. When there are problems within the regions that have been addressed this afternoon that relate to development and relate to the function of the municipalities --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I understand interjections are not allowed when a member is not in his seat and I would appreciate it if you would address that to the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) who is not speaking from his own seat.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: We got 12 per cent; you got 11.

Mrs. Marland: Mr Speaker, if you could direct the member for Mississauga West to the rules of the House, it might be appropriate.

This issue is far more serious than obviously this Liberal government wants to realize. The fact that we have the flippancy of the comments that are ongoing in the House this afternoon is an indication that there is not a sincere interest in the problems currently being experienced in York region that have been addressed by the newspaper articles of the last several weeks, and as recently as this past week. The concerns that we have are the fact that people really get hurt.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order.

Mrs. Marland: When people get really hurt, Mr Speaker, it is generally the small person who gets hurt.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the member for Mississauga West. Could we hear your point of order.

Mr Mahoney: I am sorry to interrupt my colleague the member for Mississauga South, but I think it is unfortunate the member would suggest that this government is not serious. We agreed to the emergency debate, Mr Speaker. We are participating in that debate. The member has pointed out in percentages --

The Acting Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Mahoney: We have exactly 12 per cent; the Conservative party has 11 per cent. The member should stick to the issue and not be dealing in the frivolities she was mentioning.

Mr D.S. Cooke: Sit down, Steve.

An hon. member: Good point of order.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Oshawa.

Mr Breaugh: Mr Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order: I am not quite sure whether you will rule it a point of order or not, but I have noticed on several occasions when the House rules indicate that members are allowed only a set period of time -- this afternoon, it is ten minutes to speak -- we are regularly hearing points of order that really are not points of order, but do have the net effect of deducting time from a member who has already got a compressed time period.

I would simply ask you, whatever your ruling is, to allow the member to speak for her allotted 10 minutes no matter how many points of order are raised. I think that is not an unreasonable thing to do.

1620

The Acting Speaker: That would take a motion for unanimous consent.

Mr. Breaugh: I so move.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow additional time to the member for Mississauga South? Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga South has the floor for an additional two minutes.

Mrs Marland: That outburst by the member for Mississauga West is singularly significant because of his own personal sensitivity. I want to say that because this Liberal government is living in such fear and peril of the truth coming out, its members stand in this House and play the kinds of games the member for Mississauga West has just played. Because we have 10 minutes of debate of this issue, I feel it is very unfair --

Mr Mahoney: You got the extra time. You want a fight, maybe you’ll get one.

Mrs Marland: He is continuing to froth at the mouth and interject.

I feel it is very unfair. It is a democratic process here of 10 minutes per member, but this member chooses to interrupt because he does not want to hear the truth. It is indicative of this Liberal government today in Ontario, which professes to be a wide-open government. In fact, it is not. They cannot even tolerate a 10-minute speech by somebody from the opposition who might just happen to reveal something, if they would like to listen, which they might benefit from knowing.

What the people in the Liberal government seem to forget is that they represent people in the same way we do. Why do they not do it with some conscience and some commitment instead of playing games where they limit the opportunity of opposition members to speak? It is too bad, if you are a lowly backbencher and you do not get a chance to speak, you decide to defeat everybody else’s opportunity.

I want to tell members the reason behind this debate. The people who sit on this side of the House in the two opposition parties are concerned about the little people who get hurt in the kind of situation going on today in York region. Also, we are concerned about equity. Certainly, the developers and builders are in business, we recognize that; but we also recognize that in this whole process the people who really get hurt in the end are the people who are involved with the building industry, the tradespeople, the bricklayers, the carpenters, the suppliers, and in the end the home owners.

In the end, the delay caused by the insinuations that have been made against the municipalities and the elected members of those municipalities only cost -- guess who? -- the poor home owner who is trying to buy an affordable house in this province today. It so happens that in the fastest-growing regions around Metropolitan Toronto, that is a very severe problem, the escalating prices of those homes, and anything which causes a delay means the homes cost more.

If we are talking about employment and equity for people who get to build those homes, then I would think this Liberal government would say, if there is a problem with the Municipal Act and the Planning Act in this whole process, “Yes, we’ll have a full and public open inquiry.” What is so wrong with this world-class Liberal government, which boasts about being wide open, in having a full public inquiry?

Is it not rather significant that this afternoon the member for Victoria-Haliburton, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, said there may be a public inquiry at a later date? Is that not exciting? There may be. If he has already made that assessment, then my question is, why not now? Why not at least put it to rest if there is nothing in those regions that is a legitimate cause for concern? It is rather like accusing somebody of molesting little children and not doing anything about it. That person who has the accusation at his head is guilty; unfortunately, because of the system we are in today, that person is guilty by association and insinuation.

If members opposite believe in truth and justice as a Liberal government, why would they not do everything within their power to show leadership in this government to eliminate the kind of insinuation that is damning all of those people? If it is without feet, if it is without truth, then why would they not want to hear it as leaders in the Ontario Legislature? Why would they not at least owe it to the people of York region that they hear it too? It is too late now, obviously, because the municipal election is next Monday.

Ms. Bryden: I am very glad that we are having this debate and calling for an inquiry, because I certainly think the development process in this whole Golden Horseshoe area is a public scandal, and the provincial legislation in both the Municipal Act and the Planning Act is much too weak in this field.

The proposal of the Minister of Housing to bring in an amendment to the Planning Act that would make housing one of the subjects that can be declared a matter of provincial interest is still not passed and does not have any guidelines in it as to what she would consider the kind of housing policies that should be permitted for municipalities and regional governments. If we just say that they are able to appeal it to the cabinet, assuming that it is declared a matter of provincial interest, we will have no guidelines as to what is appealable and what is likely to be rejected by the cabinet.

I think we have to have some guidelines that would indicate when an appeal is justified, but I think the province is going to have to take responsibility for turning down some of these shockingly exploitive developments that are going through municipal councils.

We do not know whether they are influenced by the developers being friendly or financially aiding the councillors. I hope that is not happening, but certainly the stories in the newspapers make one very sceptical. It indicates the need for much stronger provincial legislation regarding political contributions for both municipal and provincial elections.

The present legislation for municipalities is just ridiculous. The period in which one has to report contributions is from January 1 till the election date. Seeing that date, most people, if they wish to make contributions that are not reported, will, of course, make them before January 1. I am sure that is what has happened this year.

It has left our incumbents, presumably some of them anyway, with donations that are much greater than those the nonincumbents will have. The nonincumbents have been denied any sort of a tax rebate from all but two local governments. One is a school board and another is a municipality. This puts the incumbents in a very strong position vis-à-vis those who are challenging them. We have to get an amendment to the election expenses part of the Municipal Elections Act.

Whenever pollsters ask people in the Golden Horseshoe what are the most critical issues facing them, they almost unanimously say housing and pollution. “Increases in house prices in this area lead the nation,” according to the Hamilton Spectator of October 13, 1988. In Hamilton, they rose 12.1 per cent from August 1987 to August 1988. In Toronto, they rose 16.2 per cent. In Durham region, a recent survey of community needs conducted by the social planning council of Newcastle, Oshawa and Whitby found affordable housing topped the list, according to an October 7, 1988, article in the Oshawa Times. But just moments before this finding was reported to the regional council, the councillors approved an amendment to its official plan, allowing 50 single-family homes to be built in a Whitby subdivision originally allotted for up to 124 town houses.

1630

This illustrates the extent to which the regional and municipal governments are listening to the urgings of the Minister of Housing to stop building high-priced houses on huge lots sometimes exceeding an acre and worth over $1 million. This illustrates the regional and municipal governments’ willingness to set aside official plans, presumably at the urging of developers. This also illustrates their unwillingness to encourage increased density and affordable housing.

Another example is the city of Scarborough, which has forced its own housing company to stand at the back of the line for surplus Metro lands that might best have been used for low-cost homes. Instead, Scarborough is encouraging development of what is known as a Millionaires Row in one section of the city.

In downtown Toronto, huge developments are being passed by the city council, which will produce more office space than affordable housing. Under the bonusing plans being approved for these mega-developments, they can get extra height -- up to 57 storeys for the Bay-Adelaide development -- if they promise to build nonprofit housing units somewhere else. In the case of the Bay-Adelaide development a quickie overnight deal with Sears Canada Inc. produced a building which might be converted into housing, but the lease does not allow them to even start looking at its convertibility for another five or seven years, and in the meantime they pay rent on this warehouse.

This was accepted by council as a suitable alternative for providing affordable housing as part of the Bay-Adelaide project. This kind of distortion of the official plan is only too common among other municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe area and possibly in other parts of the province, and the Planning Act seems to be powerless to stop this kind of manipulation.

I even questioned whether all the provisions of the act were followed when this atrocity went through in the city of Toronto. Was adequate notice of public meetings given to allow ratepayer groups and housing advocates to appear to make their case against such a rape of the official plan, especially in the middle of an election campaign when a lot of the people would be involved with trying to upset the council?

Is it legitimate for municipal councils to consider such applications for development in the midst of a municipal election campaign, when some of those voting may not be re-elected? Yet they are binding the future council to giveaways of hundreds of millions of dollars to those developers, and they are denying future councils land that might be available for affordable housing if they give it away in the middle of an election campaign.

In fact, the lack of land for nonprofit affordable housing, certainly in the Metropolitan Toronto area, is largely a result of the bidding up of land in the city and the Metro area and the lack of a land speculation tax to stop that bidding up. As a result, there are all sorts of nonprofit groups ready to build. I think they have their plans in to the Minister of Housing and they have been approved but they cannot find land. The Minister of Housing does not seem to be able to find it for them; or if she does, she finds it in great megaprojects like the St. Lawrence Centre announcement, where we still do not know whether there will be any affordable housing as part of the deal. We just know that there is a block of land to be set aside for development.

There are no guidelines as to whether they will allow some of the land to go to private developers who will then produce possibly single-family or multiple-family dwellings, but there will be a bonus to the person who gets the first unit, if the province subsidizes that purchase. But as soon as the unit is passed to a private owner, he will be very much tempted to take advantage of this housing speculation that is going on in Toronto and sell the unit, so all future users of these units will not be any better off than those competing in the housing market in Toronto right now.

I think the Municipal Act or the Planning Act should prohibit decisions on major development proposals during the two months before a municipal election; nor should councils be able to give notice of the necessary public meetings for changes in the official plan or the zoning prior to the end of the election period. I think this would perhaps slow down some of these very expensive deals that have gone through with almost no publicity and very little opportunity for citizens to express their concerns about what is happening to housing in the major cities of the Golden Horseshoe.

Mr. Beer: I believe the issue we have before us this afternoon is certainly one which I and my colleagues treat most seriously, because whenever accusations of one kind are made about how matters of public policy are handled, particularly in the area of development, this has to be of serious concern.

At the same time, because of that fact, I think it is incumbent upon the government, incumbent upon all of us, as legislators, to be extremely careful how we then proceed in dealing with the issues that come before us.

It seems to me, in looking at the motion which our colleague the member for Markham has put forward, that there are two elements, each of which really needs to be dealt with in a separate way, the one from the other.

One element is the planning process, of course, and concerns that we, as members, and that municipalities, nonprofit groups and developers may have with how that process works. The second element relates to the phrasing of the serious allegations that have been made and how those should be handled.

I think it is here, in looking at the motion in terms of those two elements, that we must be very careful, and I want to begin by looking at what we, as a government, have done in dealing with the question of allegations.

One of things which we state very clearly, as a country which is in part governed, if you will, by the common law, is that we feel it is very, very important to work by due process. We say that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that we must, as we proceed, ensure that the individual rights of people, of whatever background, are protected.

So in this instance, as in the case of some others, what the government has done is ask the Ontario Provincial Police and York Regional Police to go in and look at several matters; and if, in their judgement, criminal charges should be laid, then those will be laid.

But that, as an issue, is separate and distinct from the broader question of what we should be doing with the overall planning process and how we should handle that.

We have to make the distinction, because we have seen from time to time that broad general inquiries without a specific and clear-cut mandate can, in effect, lead to fishing expeditions where people can be unduly harmed and where reputations can be ruined for acts which they did not commit but simply the statement of it can lead to all kinds of problems which we have to protect against.

I think the other thing that emerges from this sort of approach can be that -- if we look, right now we are in the middle of municipal and school board elections in York region, as we are in other parts of the province. Many good people have come forward to present themselves to run for these positions.

1640

As they go from door to door and as they talk with the electorate, I think these are people like those of us in this House, in other municipalities and in Ottawa, who are seeking to be elected so they can do good things for their communities. They want to help their communities. That is the motivation for why they got involved. It needs to be underlined that there is no difference within York region, Peel, Durham or any other place in the province in terms of the motivation that brings those people forward.

The first thing we have said, and the minister and the Premier have said it clearly, is that if there are criminal acts, if there are illegal acts that have taken place, they will emerge through the Ontario Provincial Police and the York region investigation, and charges will be laid.

On the second issue, in proceeding with a public inquiry on the municipal planning process, we would want to make sure that it in fact concentrated on that process. It may well be that following these other investigations, we will decide that is what we ought to do. There has been no suggestion, and no one has stated that this has been examined and ruled out. It is the timing, the order, the way in which these things are done to ensure due process is followed that becomes terribly important.

As the minister and others have stated, the ongoing process of dealing with the Planning Act, of dealing with the planning process, is not one that is not being addressed and is not being dealt with. There are a number of things that have occurred to improve the planning process in response to communities, in response to nonprofit organizations, in response to municipal councils and in response to regional councils.

Indeed, during this past year, this government through the action of the Premier, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Housing have tried to come together with the councils in the rapid growth areas to try to define ways to improve the planning process, so that the affordable housing we need can be brought on stream much sooner. By bringing it on sooner, it means we are going to bring it in cheaper.

Those actions have been, and with reason, roundly applauded by all involved in the housing area, regardless of whether one is a developer or trying to set up a nonprofit co-op. We know that the sooner we can take an idea for a project through the system and get it built, the better will be the availability of the housing we require.

There are a lot of things we have said we want to change in that process, in cutting municipal red tape and in cutting provincial red tape. Those are things we do not need to wait to do. We can proceed to deal with those as they arise. That is the way the government has been proceeding.

The focus has, of course, been on housing and the focus is in the areas where the population is coming. If we look at York region, we know that the population in that region is growing by some 25,000 or 26,000 people this year, which represents approximately a quarter of the immigrants and migrants who come into our province. Those of us living in that area have to be terribly concerned about how quickly we can bring in new housing projects.

The fact that we try to streamline a system, the fact that we try to ensure there is a system whereby nonprofit organizations and municipalities can work closely with the provincial government to speed up that process is, it seems to me, terribly important and worth while, and does not suggest any kind of illegal activity in and of itself.

In looking at this issue, and in looking at the motion the member has brought forward, one recognizes that there are problems, that there are difficulties in the process we are addressing, and at the same time that there are a series of other issues which are linked to the possibility of illegal acts and there is a way of addressing those in a proper fashion.

To proceed willy-nilly with a wide-open inquiry will not necessarily bring us the information we require in trying to deal with these ongoing issues. For the people in York region, we want to ensure that if someone has broken the law, if someone has committed an illegal act, he will, after the OPP-York regional investigation, in fact be brought to justice.

In looking at how we can improve the planning process, that is something we have to deal with separately outside the context of what has been happening here, so we can ensure that when we bring about changes they are brought about to make for a much better and more effective process, so we get the housing and development we need to ensure that all residents and all citizens in this province have the housing they need.

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to a note you passed to my colleague. I want to indicate to you that although I do represent a rural riding, before I enter the House I make sure I clean my shoes. Only you and my seatmate will understand that.

I want to offer a different perspective in terms of this debate. It does deal with the fact that my riding is essentially a rural riding. It is a bit of a different perspective. At the same time, I want to compliment my colleague the member for Markham for introducing this resolution and ensuring that this matter is debated in the Legislature today because of its urgency, an urgency that certainly has not to this point been recognized by the government of the day.

One of the things I think should be discussed at length, in terms of this whole debate, is the question of the land use guidelines and the development of policy in respect to land use for inclusion in the Planning Act.

Our caucus met today with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which met yesterday with the cabinet and I am sure with the New Democratic Party caucus at some point this week. One of the things we talked about was the land use guidelines and their concern and the concern I think of most members of this House: the problem of rapidly disappearing quality farm land in this province.

It is certainly not a new issue. This is something which has been talked about for many years, decades perhaps, but we certainly do not seem to be coming up with any resolution to the problem. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area but I know from driving in the Markham area and areas surrounding Metro the alarm I have felt in seeing how this quality agricultural land is being gobbled up by developers.

My leader has raised the question, as has the leader of the official opposition, in respect to the development in Richmond Hill, where I think approximately 1,000 acres of class 1 land is being opened up for residential development. When that matter was raised in the House by my leader, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) indicated that he was not supportive of the proposal at cabinet but that he lost the battle, he lost the day in cabinet.

I think it would be interesting to know, as the Minister of Agriculture was so forthcoming in respect to this matter and that particular approval, just what the position of the Minister of Municipal Affairs was when that was before cabinet. I think it would be relevant to this debate and relevant to this whole question of fast-tracking certain proposals which come before cabinet.

1650

We talk about cabinet secrecy, and to some extent that is changing in this country. I know the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Claude Bennett, recently appeared in a civil case in Toronto dealing with questions about Minaki Lodge. I think other cabinet officials were subpoenaed and testified before that hearing as well. In the Donald Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia, Premier Buchanan did agree to allow members of the executive council to appear before that inquiry under oath and give testimony about deliberations of cabinet with respect to the Marshall case.

This one certainly ties into this whole question of the cloud hanging over what is happening with respect to York region and how this particular development -- and I think we can relate it to other developments taking place there -- was dealt with within cabinet itself. The fact is that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has clearly pointed out in this House that he was opposed but was overruled.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to make a clarification. Following that statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, he told the press outside that it did not come to cabinet, and that was clarified at that time.

Mr. Runciman: I did not read of that. Certainly that did not get the coverage it obviously would have merited. However, the minister obviously is confused and was advised by members of the Office of the Premier, apparently, in a speedy fashion, to correct that when he left the safety of the chambers. Obviously something happened. I think this raises even more questions.

The fact is that the minister has indicated that in some way, shape or form he was overruled by his cabinet colleagues, perhaps by the Premier’s office, perhaps by other influential forces surrounding or within the Premier’s office. I do not know. As I said, it simply raises more questions than it answers, with respect.

Again, I talked about cabinet secrecy. Obviously if this debate did not take place within cabinet, there should be no difficulty whatsoever. If indeed we accept the proposition of the member for Markham and our party, and I suspect the official opposition as well, that a public inquiry be held as quickly as possible, the minister should have no problem. He would be called upon, I am sure, to testify before it as to how this decision was arrived at.

Obviously this is something I personally will want to pursue with my caucus. If the minister has taken a different position than the one he took in this House, it is something that should be pursued very actively and vigorously within these chambers at the next opportunity.

I want to talk about a couple of things. I do not have very much time.

We talk about urban sprawl and how we are going to deal with this whole question of development within this province. I know the Ontario Federation of Agriculture brought to our attention when the minister -- and I am not sure what minister was responsible for this; it may have been the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- made the announcement that there was a new severance policy being developed.

Since that announcement was made, governments across this province have been inundated with severance applications. I know this is a dicey question in terms of severances if you live in a rural area. There are lots of farmers out there who do not want to lose the right to have one or two severances. At the same time, I think when the government makes announcements like this, it has to look beyond the publicity to the ramifications of this kind of announcement.

I think that when we are dealing with prime agricultural land, we are dealing with a reaction on the part of many people right across this province: “Well, let’s make sure we get in there and get the goodies out before the government can do something to stop it.” When they make an announcement like this, perhaps it would be appropriate to apply some sort of freeze, some sort of process whereby municipalities across the province, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, etc., were not going to be inundated with innumerable severance applications.

I do not know how we deal with this question, but something has to be done and done, I think, in the very near future. British Columbia had an approach a number of years ago about applying some sort of freeze in terms of agricultural land and I think to some degree it has had success with that. It was brought in by, in all fairness, an NDP government in British Columbia, and I do not believe it has been disbanded by subsequent Social Credit governments. Obviously there is some merit to the program, and perhaps it is something the current government should be looking at.

In any event, we have some difficulty with simply waiting for an OPP investigation. I am sure others have talked about the Wyda investigation; we are still waiting for a report on that. There are countless other numbers of OPP investigations. The OPP is seriously understaffed in a whole range of areas across this province, and we are not going to get the answers and we are not going to get them quickly.

We have left a cloud of suspicion over a great number of people in York region. The planning process across the province is, as my colleague suggested earlier in question period, unsettled to say the least. I think the government has a responsibility to address this and to address it quickly. The best way to do it is to accept my colleague’s suggestion and act quickly.

Mr. Philip: I was reminded this morning, when my colleagues and I in the New Democratic caucus met with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, how times sometimes do not change.

In 1975, when I was an employee of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, we were calling for some of the same things they are in fact expressing concerns about today -- about land use policy or the lack of land use policy and about any kind of reasonable planning that will protect certain communities and certain farm industries. Thirteen years later we are still faced with the same kinds of issues, and the federation of agriculture is still appearing before politicians expressing concerns, perhaps in a different form but none the less expressing similar concerns.

The issues we are debating today go beyond what can be covered by a police inquiry. The focus of a criminal investigation is fairly narrow and the courts are restricted to a very polarized situation, one that has to deal with right or wrong, with guilt or innocence; one that does not deal with solutions and in fact on many occasions will not even deal with causes unless the causes are of a criminal nature.

You have a situation where some of the greatest abuses can be committed, but unless you can find somebody’s hand in the cookie jar, stealing, then the conclusion is one of innocence. I do not think that solves the problems that have been coming to light in the particular region that has stimulated this debate but that are not new to this House or indeed new to this government.

The arguments used by the Liberal members are, I think, somewhat the same arguments that were used by the former Conservative Attorney General, Roy McMurtry, at the time Liberals and New Democrats were arguing for an inquiry into Re-Mor/Astra Trust.

At that time, the statement was: “All is well. There is a criminal investigation. For heaven’s sake, you stand the chance of becoming sub judice. You stand the chance of interfering in a criminal case. You stand the chance of interfering in a criminal investigation. You stand the chance of interfering in the legitimate objective evaluation by our courts.”

We had that inquiry, and of course none of those things happened. There was a court case subsequent to that, there were charges laid and people went to jail, as I recall. The courts were not in any way frustrated by our inquiry.

What we are really dealing with goes beyond criminal matters and deals with the whole problem of policy. I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that his solution is simply and plainly inadequate. In his press release of November 4 he said he was going to give grants to municipalities to conduct an information workshop for official plan review and then announced that Metropolitan Toronto is getting some $6,275. Well, whoopee! They are going to do one heck of an inquiry for $6,275.

1700

If you look at the situation described so well by Jock Ferguson and Dawn King in the Globe and Mail, you see that they have given, I think, a fairly good analysis of some of the major issues. They point out in their article written on November 3:

“The Ontario government bears much of the blame for real estate developers taking over effective control of the planning process in the fast-growing Metro Toronto area.

“That was the conclusion of a 10-month investigation by the Globe and Mail into relationships between municipal politicians and real estate developers in York region north of Metro.

“The Globe found evidence of conflicts of interest, breach of trust, campaign financing irregularities, cash payoffs and outright corruption involving politicians and several people in the development and building industries.”

What we are dealing with is two separate issues. We are dealing with an allegation of possible criminal wrongdoing, criminal acts, but we are also dealing with the problem of omission by this government in the planning process or in setting up the processes that will lessen the kinds of objectives that planning needs if we are going to have a systematic, fair and as incorruptible a process as possible.

A number of the constituents I have had over the years have moved into this area. They come back to see me from time to time, and indeed some of the people who have businesses in the riding I represent have moved up into this area. For the last couple of years they have been coming to me and saying: “You know, there’s something wrong here. It just doesn’t feel right. We need an airing. We need a public inquiry. We need something.” I have been saying to them, “Give me some more information so I can go to the Attorney General, to the Legislature, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to the Minister of Housing and to my own caucus and justify some kind of public inquiry, an airing of what’s going on.”

There is an unease out there that only a public inquiry will cover. Some of the allegations we look at may not be of a criminal nature, but that does not mean they are not of a serious nature. There are not just the errors of omission by the government in terms of the planning process; indeed, if you look at some of the articles, you see allegations that may not be of a criminal nature but may certainly be of a serious nature.

I give the instance of the allegation that inspectors who laid too many complaints against builders were moved into other projects, they said, without discussion or warning. That kind of allegation against a public servant working for the government of Ontario would result in an inquiry by the Provincial Auditor, with a resulting public inquiry by the standing committee on public accounts and a full airing of the issue.

That same kind of allegation, if it happens to exist at a municipal level, is no less serious, is no less open to scrutiny, is no less important and is no less open to the need for some kind of recommendations to correct the situation, if this is what is happening, and indeed to see that it is not repeated in other municipalities.

What we have seen over the years is a great deal of apathy or lack of action on the part of both the Conservative government and the present Liberal government in terms of land use policies, in terms of setting up the parameters for the development of land, which can make people an awful lot of money, and directly relates to the high cost of housing in the general Metropolitan Toronto area.

When we get into questions like that, we are dealing with more than somebody making a buck under the table in an illegal manner. What we are dealing with is a process that clearly is not working. What we are dealing with is a need for a public inquiry which will air that process, find out what is going on and come up with solutions.

Those who are innocent, those who are diligent, those who are working hard in the development industry or as municipal public servants in some form have a right to a public inquiry which will clear the air. A criminal inquiry will simply say that some people have been found guilty of a serious offence, but that in no way clears the air for all the others; they are still under suspicion. People will go away and say, “They didn’t catch them, but there’s still an impropriety.”

A public inquiry will deal with that. It will deal with the processes and it will also help those diligent public servants at municipal or other levels who are working out there and who are frustrated, who want their names cleared. But also some changes are needed so they know what the rules are and they can enforce them and so we can have a systematic system of planning land use and housing in this province.

Mr. Brandt: I am delighted to have an opportunity to engage in this debate, which we in this party feel is a very --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It’s the turn of the member for Durham York, (Mr. Ballinger) isn’t it?

Mr. Brandt: Perhaps I can just explain, Mr. Speaker. The agreement of the government party allowed me to go in this position at this time due to other time pressures I had. With your consent and agreement, I will proceed.

We have called for a full public inquiry into the matter of planning and more specifically some of the activities which have gone on in connection with York region, because we feel very sincerely -- and I am pleased the minister is in the House today to hear our comments -- that what has occurred up until now is inadequate in terms of a government response.

As I indicated to the minister in the questions I raised in the House earlier today, we feel it is also most important that we restore public confidence in the system of planning and development in this particular province. We say that not because of any allegations or charges that have been levelled by members of the opposition but quite frankly because of a number of news stories which have been released recently indicating that there is a tremendous number of people who are currently very frustrated, very concerned and, I might add, very annoyed about the way the process is working, not only in York region but in some other isolated but important parts of the province.

When you have a fast-growing region like York, the situation is entirely different than it is perhaps in my own municipality, where I spent 10 years in planning. I spent many years on a planning board, as a member of council and as a mayor of that community. In many of the communities represented by the members in this Legislative Assembly today, their problem is attracting an adequate amount of growth to keep a viable and sufficient assessment base in their community. It is an entirely different ball game than the sort of thing which is being experienced in what is perhaps the fastest-growing sector of the entire country.

What has happened in that particular area is that we have, by all accounts, a tremendously focused concentration of development among a very few people. That raises some serious questions in our minds which perhaps the government can answer, but if the government cannot answer them, we are frankly left with no other alternative, we are left with no other avenue of approach to use in this assembly but to ask it to consider an inquiry as a method by which we can get to the bottom of what we consider to be some very important matters.

Let me tell the minister some of the questions we want answers to and some of the things we feel are of importance to the opposition. Certainly they should be of importance to the government. As well, they are of very real importance to the people of Ontario.

Through a series of questions we have raised with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, we have been advised by the responses of the respective ministers that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food rejected the application in Richmond Hill for development there because it did not comply with the guidelines of the government in connection with the Food Land Guidelines that are supposed to be followed. In some fashion, this was overturned by cabinet.

1710

It raises a question in our mind as to whether those --

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: If that is incorrect, I am only telling members that is the impression I received from the minister.

Mr. Polsinelli: That was clarified earlier.

Mr. Brandt: If it was clarified, it certainly was not while I was here, but that was the impression that was left. There was a lot of confusion around that. If, in fact, there has been a clarification, it raises a whole series of additional questions such as how this particular development could have been approved when one recognizes the very stringent guidelines of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I want to move off that for a moment, and if time allows, I will come back to that because I think it is an important matter.

I also want to have a question answered in connection with the way in which the capacity of the York regional trunk line is being allocated. There have been public allegations made, which have not been answered, which indicate that some developers, through some methodology that is being used, are able to get allocations of capacity in that area where other developers have to wait for many years and question the process. Again, I am not making any unfounded allegations. I am simply saying that there are people who are frustrated by the fact that others seem to have moved more quickly to the front of the line while others sit and wait with their nose pressed to the window for seven or eight years with a development and cannot seem to find capacity in that same line.

I have more than a modest and passing interest in the York line because I was the Minister of the Environment when it was originally constructed. It was constructed for the precise purpose of opening up that region to development. What is happening there is not something that is accidental, unexpected, or in some fashion a surprise. It was expected to happen and it is happening. The question is, is it happening in a planned and orderly fashion, and is it happening in a fair and equitable and balanced way for all of the players, all of the municipalities, and in a way in which the government of the day can be satisfied that all of the rules of the ball game are being adequately followed?

I have some concerns, and I think very real concerns, by way of my third question, and that is the overall planning for the region. I look at it just as an interested participant in the political process. When you start getting into the leapfrogging of developments, when you start leaving undeveloped lands and start reaching out into other areas further removed and developing those lands, it raises a question in my mind as to whether that development is -- recognizing the size and the scope of these developments -- happening in a way that is appropriate to the planning process of Ontario. We are talking about hundreds upon hundreds of homes that are under construction or have already been constructed.

Mr. Polsinelli: Under your plan. whose responsibility is it?

Mr. Brandt: I will come to that. I will be very happy to respond to the member, but I only have three minutes.

With respect to estate lots: is it in fact appropriate under the Food Land Guidelines that low-density estate lots be established on prime farm land? One of the criteria that we have is that should not be allowed to happen, that you should look for alternative land or have higher densities. I raise that by way of question.

I raise the question, should there be a provincial responsibility in certain select instances -- and I would cite Belleville as an instance or perhaps even York region -- under the Planning Act and under the process that we follow within our current legislation, amended to allow charges to be brought where there are indications of conflict of interest by municipally elected leaders or, I might add, municipally appointed officials, because they are sometimes much more involved than the elected people are? They actually come up with the engineering studies that determine what the allocations in that trunk line are going to be.

I am speaking to seasoned politicians here. They know how the process works. They know how it can be bent at times to accommodate certain circumstances, not necessarily in an unfair, illegal fashion, but in order to do what you think is right for the community. All I am saying with respect to this matter is that these questions are not being answered.

I would call to the minister’s attention two recent editorials, one in the Globe and Mail and one in the Toronto Star. I am sure that his clipping service has provided these editorials to him, but what they have said essentially is this: Either call for an inquiry to clear the air on this matter -- which is what my party is proposing in the context of this emergency debate we are holding this afternoon -- or, alternatively, there must be more involvement by his ministry in the direct affairs of some municipalities.

The municipalities operate under permissive legislation. They do not operate in any sort of removed fashion from provincial control. It is the legislation that the minister provides them with that allows them to do certain things. Whether it be planning, the approval process, the committee of adjustment, all of those things are allowed by the province.

As well, I think, in the minister’s case, it would be more than welcomed in terms of a response, if he were to move towards having a heavier hand where it is necessary and where there are indications of a problem and perhaps -- I say perhaps -- move on conflict-of-interest charges when those are justified. I do not say that he should do that without due consideration of the circumstances at hand, but I say there are situations where I do not think it should be left totally in the hands of private citizens to bring charges against elected officials.

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

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, if I may be given just a few seconds, I say with respect that we are not doing this for political reasons but to attempt to work with the government co-operatively to improve the process so that there are no questions out there in regard to how fair, balanced and equitable that process is.

Thank you very much for your indulgence.

Mr. Ballinger: I am pleased to be here in the House today to participate in this debate. I did not think the honourable leader of the third party would be quiet long enough so I could jump in, but I am pleased to be here.

One of the things that I have learned since my attendance in the Legislature from last September is that from time to time the opposition members, at their sort of whim, believe that they should get involved with emergency debates or what they believe are emergency debates of the day.

I would like to say to all members of the House that today I find it very interesting that we are doing an emergency debate on the suggested inquiry for the three regions of York, Peel and Durham. I represent the riding of Durham-York so since my riding is involved in that, I certainly want to participate in the debate.

I cannot believe that we are even doing this today. Yesterday, we were doing an emergency debate on free trade and tomorrow I am sure we will doing something on something else.

One of the things I find is that it really causes the legislative process in the House to break down. I can recall that we have gone through bell-ringing here, we have gone through endless readings of petitions, and when we get to the legislative process to get involved with specific pieces of legislation, we never seem to have the time to debate those specific pieces of legislation. I can recall the stacking of the bills on June 29; we stacked all the bills so that everybody could leave this fine institution for our summer holidays.

What bothers me as a new member of the Legislature is that during that process, had we not gone through a lot of wasted time, we could have spent the time on those bills necessary to do what each and every one of us as a party has to do to get our positions across.

Now, we are discussing an inquiry into the region.

Mrs. Marland: He is not speaking to the bill.

1720

Mr. Ballinger: I am coming to that. The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) has a lot of nerve, accusing me of not speaking to the bill. If there was ever a member in this House who does not speak directly to the bill, to any bill, it certainly is the member of Mississauga South.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are not on a bill.

Mr. Ballinger: Thank you, member for Windsor-Riverside.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ballinger: The specific resolution from the member for Markham relates to the three regions surrounding the Metropolitan Toronto area. I am surprised, if he really believes that, why he did not just throw in the entire Golden Horseshoe. I cannot believe, if he really believes what he is saying, that we should only be discussing York, Peel and Durham regions.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is for tomorrow.

Mr. Ballinger: I figured that, and then the next day. I can say that we will all be here, working through Christmas because we have wasted so much time in this Legislature, when we should be dealing with good, positive legislation, rather than just dealing days at a time with particular resolutions like this, because they happen to be the crisis of the day.

I cannot wait, as a member of the government, to be in here next week to see what crisis might arise out there; one of the members from either of the official opposition parties will believe it is so worthy that we must have an emergency debate.

In Ontario we should be very proud of the fact that we have one of the most open planning processes of any province in Canada. All of the debates that are talked about, with official plan amendments and rezonings, are all done in public. None of that stuff is done behind closed doors. All of the accusations that are being made in here by the opposition, and the innuendos that are made by some of the press, are simply not true.

There is a planning process in place in this province. As a mayor of a municipality I have participated for a decade in that planning process. It is a good process. It is effective and it does work. One of the problems that we have as a government, is that the opposition is saying that there is a whole bunch of terrible things happening out there in Ontario, and we, as a government, are not doing anything about it. That is just not true. The opposition would like us to have an inquiry, when in fact we do not even know what the results of the police investigation are yet. Why do we not spend a whole pile of provincial money, taxpayers’ money, and have a big inquiry? Why do we not inquire into the whole province of Ontario, if all these bad things are happening out there?

In this province we have people duly elected at the local level, and they have the right to plan under the Planning Act for their own municipality. They are open to the public. They are accountable to the public. Everybody here in the opposition says, “They are not accountable. They are local politicians, you cannot trust them. They are doing something wrong. They are all in the pockets of developers. They are all a bunch of bad guys.”

Maybe we should do away with municipal government altogether. Why are people not asking about us in here, at this level of politics? I, as a member of the Legislature, do not believe for a second the accusations. With one broad brush every local municipality in Ontario has been pasted up as the bad guy. That is absolutely wrong. Some of the greatest people that I have ever worked with in my entire brief life have been at the local level, hardworking, dedicated, interested, caring about their communities. What are we doing in here today? Slamdunking them, the opposition is, every opportunity they get. “Let’s slamdunk another mayor in Ontario. Let’s ruin their reputations. Let’s spoil their families.” The simplest thing one can do in the opposition is bang the living daylights out of everybody one can get one’s hands on.

Some of the most dedicated politicians are at the local level. They are not in this forum right here. The most accountable politicians in this province are at the local level. They are not in here.

It is really interesting. The other day in this Legislature, the leader of the third party got up and asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food about a phone call he received from a mayor. I want to tell the folks in here, there is not a mayor in Ontario who, at one time or another, has not phoned almost every minister of the crown -- for his community, not for himself; in the best interests of his community. What they are doing is for their communities, not for themselves. The innuendoes and the accusations whereby we broad-brush everybody are not fair. This government has the police investigation under way.

Mr. Mackenzie: Do you have high blood pressure?

Mr. Ballinger: Not at all, I do not have high blood pressure. I am sick and tired of people at the municipal level, on a constant basis, being banged around and slamdunked because nobody believes them.

I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for this note. It is the nicest note that she has ever given me.

In closing, I would like to say that, as we are all here today, I look forward to Christmas-time, when we all will want to get home to our families. We will not be able to do that. We will have run out of time, because each day in here we deal with something that does not relate to the legislation that is currently before us.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: In his opinion.

Mr. Ballinger: That is my opinion. The member is absolutely right. Based on the past year I have been here, it happens to be an actual fact. As the member for Durham-York, whose riding is split between both regions, I will gleefully await the police investigation.

Mr. Laughren: I will attempt to slow down the pace a bit and deal with the issue as I understand it. I do understand why the Conservative Party has moved this emergency resolution; the problem is truly serious. What bothers me about the resolution, however, is that it deals with the symptom of the overall problem. Until the government understands that as long as it sits on the sidelines and watches the price of land and the price of housing skyrocket and does nothing about it, then we are going to have these problems occurring and recurring. I think it is inevitable.

Given the fact that we live in a more or less free enterprise system, there is nothing wrong with the ethic that is out there now in the minds of most people that there is nothing wrong with making a profit on the sale of land or the sale of homes. That is the prevailing ethic out there. It is espoused by this government and it is espoused by the party that has moved this emergency resolution.

Until we get at the problem of speculation on land, we are going to have irresistible temptations given to people who are in a position to benefit from the escalating costs.

It is not just those of us in this party who are aware of the problem. Last April in Time magazine, a United States publication, the following was stated: “Canada’s major metropolis, Toronto, is on its way to becoming the hottest real estate market in North America....” There are “nearly 1,000 new residents every week.... The odour of profit also carries. Says developer Terry Martel, ‘Where else can you put $40,000 down on a $160,000 investment and sell it two years later for $250,000?’” As long as there is a situation where those kinds of obscene profits are possible, we are gong to have people jumping into that market and taking advantage of it. I would say that the government is responsible for allowing that to happen, for allowing those irresistible temptations to continue to be there.

1730

Mr Reycraft: Profit isn’t a dirty word.

Mr Laughren: We are not just talking about profits. We are not just talking about free enterprise. We are talking about speculation in the housing market. That is what we are talking about.

As long as the government allows those obscene profits on land development, it is gong to get these problems again and again and again, and it will wonder why it cannot do anything about it, why it does not stop and why there are emergency resolutions in this place.

So the government has a public inquiry. How will a public inquiry resolve the problem the next time? Is it going to have a public inquiry every time? We support it because there is nothing else in its place. But in the long haul, the solution is not a never-ending series of public inquires. In the long haul, the answer is an end to the speculation on land and homes. Until the government reaches that conclusion and does something about it, it has no reason to believe this will not continue; absolutely no reason at all.

The amount of profit that is available is absolutely incredible. There is one development north of here where they are building 3,000 homes and they anticipate there will be a $300-million profit from that development -- a $300-million profit from 3,000 homes. Do some very simple arithmetic. That comes out to a $100,00 profit per home.

Mr Reycraft: What is the capital investment?

Mr Laughren: And why is the capital investment so high? Because the government has allowed the land to escalate through speculation. That is begging the question. Why should there be $100,000 profit on a home? They should answer that question. It makes no sense whatsoever. Here there is a developer who is going to make $300 million net profit from the development of land for 3,000 homes; $100,000 per house for 3,000 houses come out to $300 million.

Mr. D.S. Cooke: They don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Mr. Laughren: As long as the government thinks there is nothing wrong with that, then there are going to be problems like this. The temptation is irresistible because the amount of money is so much. That is why the government is in this pickle and that is why it will get into this pickle again and again.

Sure, farmers are being made instant millionaires, but are the farmers the ones who are really making the big bucks? No, it is the developers who are making the big bucks. Some day, the government is going to have to explain to me what it is that justifies that increase in the price of a home. It is the same home, with no additional services added to it, no additional sewer and water services, with simply an increase in price. There is no value added whatsoever, just an increase in price.

How, even under the government’s precious free enterprise system, does it justify that, when we are talking homes where people want to live. As long as the government sees nothing wrong with that system, then it is asking for an increasing number of examples such as this. It is asking for it because the prices and the rewards are so rich.

We have talked to the Treasurer on numerous occasions about bringing in some kind of land speculation or housing speculation tax and he will not do it. I do not know why he will not do it. In 1974, when the Treasurer was the leader of the Liberal Party, this is what he said when the Tories, of all people, brought in a land speculation tax.

He said, “Mr Speaker, I want to speak in favour of the principle of this bill, which is to tax unconscionable profits in land speculation....I support the principle of this bill in that it will tax that quick profit, with these two reservations: I believe that the tax should be 100 per cent on these unconscionable and speculative profits and I do not agree with what the minister has set forward as his designation of a profiteer or a speculator.”

At that time, the Treasurer was complaining that speculators were turning over houses and making a $10,000 profit. The speculators would turn up their noses at a $10,000 profit in today’s market in Metropolitan Toronto. The whole thing is ridiculous. What does the Premier say? He says it is a sweet headache. He says, “Well, the problem’s probably peaked,” or he says, “Well, we think it’s going to level off and perhaps the level of increase will go down.”

The other point about the land speculation tax, of course, is that it is not designed to increase a lot of revenues. It is not a tax grab. It is designed to cool off the market. In 1973, the average Metro Toronto house price increased 24.9 per cent. In 1974, it increased 30 per cent. The speculation tax was brought in and in the following two years, in 1975, increases were 9 percent, and then in 1976, 6.6 per cent. From 25 per cent and 30 per cent during the two previous years, after the introduction of the speculation tax, it dropped to 9 and 6.6 per cent respectively, so it does work. It is a deterrent to speculation. It is not meant as a tax grab.

Until this government understands that having those kinds of speculative increases going on out there is an obscenity, it is going to continue. Why would it not continue? Why would all those developers not be out there making money as fast as they can and turning over their property as quickly as they can? That is the name of the game. They are not breaking the rules in most cases. One company is paying the developer a $7-million bonus. I ask what kind of system the government is trying to put in place in this province, where it is encouraging that kind of speculation in land and in homes? It is fundamentally wrong.

I will conclude by simply saying to those members that they should not come whining into this place about everybody being smeared with accusations of wrongdoing. As long as they are prepared to sit back and allow the speculation on land and the speculation on housing to continue, they deserve every broad brush they get from anybody in the public.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to take part in this debate. There are a few things I would like to put on the record. One of my major concerns is the disappearance of prime farm land in this province. I have heard it stated that from the CN Tower you can see a major block of prime farm land on a good day and already 37 per cent of that prime farm land is lost. This statement was made two years ago, so I imagine now it is up to 40 or 45 per cent because that is where the major development is taking place in this province, in York region, out in Mississauga and those places. As I say, it is a major concern to me.

The talk has been about politicians at the local level not being concerned. They are concerned, but basically those people are concerned about their own municipalities. When you get people in the Madoc area or in the Bancroft area seeing some of this prime farm land going for development up here, why should they be concerned about class 4 and class 5 land going for a house when there is nothing being done about using up the prime farm land right around this major metropolitan area?

I was a local politician at one time and I might just say that both my brothers are running for office on the local level in the municipal elections coming up, and I hope they are successful. I certainly hope they make out all right.

1740

Mr. Mahoney: Are they Tories?

Mr. Pollock: What does the member think? I mentioned this fact that they are using up the prime farm land around Toronto. Some of these developers and some of the politicians around this area say, “Where are they supposed to build?” I can tell members where they can build. They can build down in Prince Edward-Lennox. There are literally thousands of acres of flat rock there which have not got two or three inches of topsoil on them. There is no reason why they cannot build on that. Sure, they might have to be subsidized, but there is no reason why they cannot build on some of that land. The climate is excellent, and as I say, there is no reason.

The city of Belleville has been mentioned here a few times this afternoon. Well, I can tell members that the city of Belleville has an industrial park and that industrial park is built on some of the crappiest land in this country. Let’s face it, the city of Belleville has done some pretty good planning.

Mr. Reycraft: The mayor of Belleville will be delighted to see that.

Mr. Faubert: Did you say it was crappy?

Mr. Pollock: No, do not mix me up or mix up the statement. I said their industrial park is built on some of the crappiest land in this province. It really is. It is built on nothing but flat rock, and I am sure the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr MacDonald) will back me up on that. That is where some of these great big, sprawling plants should be built, on some of that flat rock.

Mr South: Crappy land.

Mr Pollock: The member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr South) knows there is all kinds of crappy land -- that is what we usually call it out in the boondocks – and they could build on that kind of land and not on the prime farm land around Toronto here or some of the other big cities.

I just wanted to put a few of those things on the record. I think that there should be some wise planning done to protect our prime farm land and instead, build in these areas where there is all kinds of flat rock, sandy land and rough land, and use that kind of land rather than our prime farm land.

Mr. Mahoney: I am delighted to rise and speak to this --

Mr. Reycraft: Do you have crappy land?

Mr. Mahoney: No, we do not have any of that kind of land in Mississauga, not even in Mississauga South. It is all beautiful, prime, developable land, I should tell the member.

Mr. Faubert: How about the bog?

Mr. Mahoney: Well, the bog; that is another issue. The member does not want me to get into that, does he? He is supposed to be on our side. What is be bringing up that one for? Boy, some people get confused. Why does he not move over a little bit and beside the member for Markham and then shoot that question? I do not want to bog down in this debate, because I would like to move on.

One of the reasons I am delighted to participate in this is my sincere feeling about the importance of municipal government and the importance of the planning process in this province.

I did not know when the member for Durham-York spoke whether this was a bill, an act, a motion or a movement, but whatever it is, I have it here and it refers to setting aside the business of this House. The opposition parties have been very successful in accomplishing that today. They have managed to delay very important legislation and to send this House off into a debate that they know full well, in contrast to what the honourable leader of the third party said, is purely a political charade on their part.

In fact, what is really being attempted here, and I do not think anyone would kid himself, is simply an attempt to delay other important legislation currently at committee that should be coming in here, perhaps even to delay Bill 113 and Bill 114 dealing with retail hours. I am not sure if that is part of the strategy of the members of the third party, in cahoots with the official opposition, but I suspect, given the broad-brush nature of this particular resolution, that the real agenda is not on the table for debate today.

In fact, if you read the resolution, it is so broad. We have had some unfortunate articles, press reports about unfortunate accusations, and I am sure we all hope, including the members opposite, that those accusations turn out to be false.

Mr Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought it was against the standing orders of the assembly to attribute motives to other members and I have just heard a considerable amount of that. I am somewhat surprised, since all of his caucus, as I was hearing the vote, voted for the emergency debate this afternoon and the government House leader spoke in favour of it. So I believe --

Mr Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully. We all have different points of view.

Mr Mahoney: We are getting wonderful advice over here. I thank the member for delaying my time for 30 or 40 seconds. The point is well taken. The honourable member for Oshawa is always quick to rise on what he perceives to be points of order and is usually quite knowledgeable in most instances about whether they are or are not.

I would suggest that if you read the resolution, in reality the members of the third party and the honourable member for Markham are really not looking for an inquiry, but rather for an inquisition. They are broad-brushing. He has even gone to the extent of including regions that were not mentioned in any of the press reports.

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take strong exception to the allegation this honourable member has made. That is not true and I am not calling for an inquisition.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wish all members would remember that each member has only 10 minutes to speak.

Mr Mahoney: I do not mind that they get upset at my statements. I get upset at theirs. I was quite upset earlier at the venom that came across from the other side from my good friend the member for Mississauga South. I find it rather unusual and certainly not in keeping with the usual class and deportment that member shows, particularly in relationship to myself, who happened to serve on a municipal council with that same member for seven years. I consider myself a very good personal friend. I was a little taken aback. However, I have had about an hour and a half to calm down and allow that to roll off my back and not to be too concerned about it and simply to consider the source.

I suggest that if you look at this resolution, it really does include regions that have not been investigated, that are not under any allegations by anyone. The member throws in the region of Peel. I do not understand that. I suggest the member for Mississauga South would agree with me when I say that in the region of Peel, we have without a doubt one of the finest planning processes in the entire province.

I am proud to say I served as chairman of a planning committee in the city of Mississauga for almost seven years, when we had that city grow from an original population of 120,000 in 1974 to a population today of 410,000. We did that by working hand in hand with the developers. How else are you going to develop? But anyone who knows, including the developers, the politicians and anybody in the business community in our city, will tell you that there is not a more difficult, more time-consuming, more thorough process to go through in the entire province than to try to bring land to development reality and to build in that particular city. We involve the community totally. Public meetings are held every night of the week. I held them when I was there. The honourable member opposite held them. The mayor holds them. All members hold them. We do our homework, because we have learned in our city what the planning process is all about.

The honourable member for Markham has impugned my community with this resolution by suggesting, inadvertently hopefully, but clearly, that the region of Peel should be included in some form of investigation they are recommending for a particular area of this province under allegations laid by a reporter. I take exception to that. We have a fine community that has been developed with great integrity through a very thorough process over the years.

I would just like to tell members a little about what is considered to be one of the finest development areas on the entire continent of North America, the community of Erin Mills. It is a community that has been developed through many years, going back to 1969.

1750

I must point out an example, by the way. The honourable leader of the third party -- I wish he were here -- said there was some question about lands being released outside of the process and that hodgepodge kind of thing. In 1969, it was the Conservative government under the Honourable Bill Davis that approved release of land in the city of Mississauga to develop the Meadowvale community in the northwest quadrant and the Erin Mills community in the central west quadrant.

Both of those communities, I suggest, in 1969, were released totally out of context. It wound up that we had a problem to deal with in the early 1980s where we had some development here and some development there, and we had to try to tie it together. We were successful in tying it together through the residential development program, which is one of the most comprehensive documents ever drawn up in the history of this province to deal with the future of residential growth in a particular urban area. We have an official plan that is second to none in Ontario. We have constant reviews of our secondary and tertiary plans, and the members know it.

By suggesting that we should be going into some kind of inquiry on the planning process -- because that is what this says, that the planning process in Ontario, not York which is the fouled area that is under some suspicion, the entire planning process for the province should be discredited and investigated. If that is not an inquisition, then I do not know what is. It is a disgrace, it is irresponsible, it is a waste of this House’s time and it would be an utter and complete waste of the taxpayers’ money in Ontario.

The honourable member knows it, his colleagues know it and they understand clearly that what they are doing is simply trying to bog down the proper administration under an open, accessible, hardworking government that understands the importance of municipal government in Ontario, that respects our municipal elected leaders and looks forward to their election on this Monday coming.

Mrs. Grier: I cannot hope to emulate the display of outraged indignation to which we have just been party. One is tempted to say, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”

That indignation is the very reason we ought to agree to the resolution that is before us today, and is why I regret that this government does not see fit to have the kind of public inquiry that is called for by that resolution. The cloud of suspicion that the previous member says has been cast on all municipal politicians would be lifted if we had an open inquiry, if we had an opportunity to examine what has been happening and how the planning process, as it works in this province, has contributed in a very real way to what has been happening in the regions of rapid growth.

There is a very real public cynicism about politicians at all levels and particularly about municipal politicians. That cynicism is only increased by the kinds of stories that have come out of York region. It is increased by the sight of rampant development on agricultural land and it is increased by the recognition by the public that one developer gets approval and that another developer is held up, and that there does not, in many cases, appear to be real, rational planning reasons for those particular approvals.

It is very important not only that any legal or criminal aspects of what is happening in those fast-growth regions be examined, but that we have an entire opportunity to review the planning process.

Nobody has denied that there are problems in York region, but there appears to be a real reluctance on the part of the government to examine why there are those problems, how they came about, and far more important, what we can do to change the process to make sure they no longer continue to happen.

My colleague the member for Nickel Belt has put his finger on the primary reason we have problems. That, of course, is the enormous profits to be made from land development, not only where there is raw land to be developed, but where there is redevelopment, such as in areas here in Metropolitan Toronto.

There is the case I raised today with the Minister of Housing of an old motel that has been there for a long time. It is being redeveloped into 440 luxury condominiums selling for over $1 million each, a planning process that happened very quickly in the absence of a review of the official plan for the old established area where the development was occurring. Everybody wonders how it is happening so quickly and nobody begins to guess at the enormous profit to be reaped by that developer.

Time is money in the development business, as the member previously has said. There is great pressure on the developers to be friends with the planners, to be friends with the municipal politicians to try to get their projects through the pipeline faster than the next person’s project. That inevitably leads to an appearance of many conflicts of interest, if not, in fact, real conflicts of interest. It is accepted as normal.

I remember once returning a bottle of liquor to a developer when I was a municipal politician and he was stunned that I should think there was anything wrong in accepting a bottle of liquor.

He assumed that was part of the process and that I should be glad to have his bottle of liquor. It was Cherry Heering and I cannot stand it, anyway.

What has to happen is a look at the planning process and a broadening of our understanding of what planning is, a broadening of definitions of the whole question of planning so that we talk about for whom we are planning, we talk about the kind of communities we are planning. We get away from the traditional aspect of assuming that because you own land, you therefore have a God-given right to the highest and best use of that land, otherwise translated into the most profit you can make on that land.

Sure we get concessions from developers, but we never demand too much because, after all, they are the land owners and that somehow gives them inalienable rights to do things with their land, regardless of what the long-term impact of what they are doing on that land may be; regardless of the kind of community that is ultimately going to be developed; regardless of the effect on the people who will live in that community.

We are not using a planning process that allows us to effectively plan for future generations. We do not have a planning process that allows us to do what this government says it wants to do, integrate social-planning decisions with land-use planning, integrate environmental decision-making with economic decision-making. We have the Brundtland report and lipservice paid to our acceptance of it. We have round tables set up with all stakeholders involved to talk about policies whereby we can integrate economic and environmental decisions, but when it gets down to brass tacks, when it gets down to looking at somebody’s development, do we live up to that grand rhetoric and do we apply those principles? Of course we do not.

How would a public inquiry facilitate that? It would, as I have said, open up what has been happening, bring public scrutiny to bear not only by the newspaper, and I think the Globe and Mail has done us all a service by producing those articles, but it would allow the public to begin to gain some understanding of how the process actually works. It would allow us to perhaps address the question of public participation.

The member for Mississauga West says there are meetings every night of the week in his community. That is fine, but there are a lot of communities where that does not happen. The process by which we advise people of planning decisions is very obsolete for the 1980s -- everybody within 1,000 feet by letter. Surely there have to be better ways of involving people in that process and perhaps the kind of review that is being looked at would lead us to find those answers.

The whole question of election contributions, gifts, codes of conduct for municipal politicians and for their employees, an inquiry of the type that is contemplated here might lead us in that direction. Surely it is time for this government to recognize that the tools, the mechanisms and the processes that governed planning in the past in this province are now obsolete and outdated. Let’s move into the 1990s and let’s really put in place a planning process that will make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. It is no longer good enough to regard planning as just a question to be decided by negotiation.

The current Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs said he was going to put an end to planning by negotiation. What happened to him? He quickly got moved out of the portfolio of Minister of Municipal Affairs and we have heard no more of that fine sentiment.

I urge the government members to think carefully before rejecting the resolution that is before us today. Maybe they have strong concerns about York and they do not like the way and how it has come about, but I urge them to consider whether or not the kind of inquiry that is contemplated might not in fact be the first step on a road to really making some improvements in the planning process in this province. That is why I am supporting the resolution.

Mr. Speaker: We have run out of time. That completes the emergency debate under standing order 37.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, just simply for the benefit of the House I would indicate that the order of business tomorrow will be the 40th order, the second reading of Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

9 novembre 1988