Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Mr Ruprecht: We have a number of concerns on this side of the House about the insensitivity of the NDP government and its inability to come to the help and aid of the Kurds. We are reminded on a daily basis about the suffering and untold hardships of the Kurds. They suffer and experience hunger, disease and starvation. Hundreds of children are dying every day.

It was not long ago when the government mobilized millions of dollars to go to war in the Middle East. Then suddenly, when it comes to helping people, the roads are too bad, too steep, the mountains are rained on, the money is tight, the helicopters cannot get through. The Premier was in his chair when we were the government and announced help and aid to Mexico, to Italy, to Ecuador, to Colombia. What we are asking today is to ensure the same kinds of statements are being made and help is being provided.

We are asking this government, the Premier, the Minister of Citizenship to make a statement, because without their help and aid the Kurds are abandoned to their death.

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Witmer: I was shocked and appalled to learn that one out of every four women who seek treatment at the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital's detoxification unit, which is the only one in the region of Waterloo, is turned away because of a shortage of beds.

This government has an obligation to ensure that all people in this province have equal access to health care. The fact that a hospital has to turn away female patients because there are insufficient beds is unacceptable in a province which used to take great pride in its health care system.

I am very concerned that the shortage of beds is particularly affecting women. Of the 21 beds at the detoxification centre, only three are set aside for female patients. A representative of the Addiction Research Foundation of Waterloo region was recently quoted as saying: "The system has been less sensitive to the needs of women. In the development of addiction treatment, the system has been designed by men for men."

I strongly urge the Minister of Health to investigate this situation and ensure that the women of this province have access to the treatment they so desperately need. We must recognize that it is very hard for these women with alcohol problems to come forward in the first place and seek help, and to be turned away when they do so only makes their problem worse.

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

Mr Perruzza: The recession continues to cripple the numerous hardworking Canadians. This is particularly true for the people of Downsview, a predominantly working-class riding where an overwhelming number of families depend on the construction industry and branch-plant industries for their livelihood. As we have witnessed, the free trade agreement, high interest rates and the high Canadian dollar have virtually brought the construction industry to its knees.

Families have for the first time since the Great Depression seen their life savings eroded and their jobs moved south of the border. These families are fast losing hope and are looking to the government to regain any sense of dignity they have lost throughout these turbulent economic times.

I know our government has done its fair share in rebuilding the provincial economy by allocating $700 million in capital works projects which, by the time it is finished with municipal and local support, will have grown to well over $1 billion and created roughly 20,000 much-needed short-term jobs.

We know our government cannot pull us out of this recession alone. We need a concerted and co-operative effort from all governments in this country. It is incumbent on Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada to call a first ministers' conference on the economy and work with our Premier and the other premiers to map out an economic recovery strategy for this province and this country.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: Each day racism raises its ugly head. I am sure all members of the House are quite aware of the disturbing events taking place in Metropolitan Toronto's detention centres. Over the past years, employees at the Scarborough jail have been subjected to discriminatory behaviour on the part of their employers at the jail. I am well aware of these problems. In my capacity as the member for Scarborough North as well as the opposition critic on race relations, I receive many complaints from employees of the jail who have reported blatant racist and sexist incidents taking place there.

I have visited the Metro East Detention Centre myself in order to assess at first hand the impression of what the situation is all about. It is so bad that four jail guards have filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

On a number of occasions in this House, I have reminded the members of the tremendous backlog currently immobilizing the human rights commission. The process is so bogged down that it can take months or even years to resolve complaints such as these. What are these employees to do in the meantime?

So far in this administration, we have heard a great deal of rhetoric about eliminating racism. The Minister of Citizenship has announced a new anti-racism secretariat which will take months to set up. The minister herself said that "our government has the political will to confront racism head on." I call upon the Minister of Citizenship to prove that her government has the political will to fight racism by fast-tracking these complaints to the human rights commission and by imposing real sanctions, not like the ones imposed on employment agencies that we saw that discriminate, on those who perpetuate racism and sexism in our society.

1340

CHILD CARE

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to call the attention of all members of the House to the current day care crisis in Ontario.

The NDP announcement in January to commit about $50 million to child care funding in this province fell far short of the $250 million promised in its agenda for election. Rather than working in co-operation with all day care agencies to meet the needs of Ontario children and their parents, the NDP decided instead on a course of confrontation against the private centres by only providing pay equity enhancement to those working for public agencies.

The Minister of Community and Social Services openly discriminates against thousands of women employed in private day care. These women suffer the further indignity of hearing this minister say during estimates that while there is no money for them, the Treasurer in fact has funds in place to buy out the centres that employ them. So much for a co-operative approach to government.

The NDP is also forcing Metro Toronto to double day care costs to meet its $12-million shortfall for this year alone and to address the demands for 7,500 additional day care spaces. Prior to 1986, the provincial day care contributions stood at 80%. However, the NDP will say, as has become its custom, that that was then and this is now.

The working poor in Toronto now face increased day care costs they will not be able to pay. Thousands of women employed in commercial centres are being discriminated against, Ontario children continue to be vulnerable under this government and now is the time to stop the rhetoric. Children and the parents of poor families across Ontario want this government to undertake some action on their behalf now.

SAFE NEIGHBOURHOOD INITIATIVE

Mr Frankford: I would like to inform the House through you, Mr Speaker, that a building in my riding of Scarborough East has been designated under the safe neighbourhood initiative of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. That building at 3847 Lawrence Avenue East is part of MTHA's $5-million program to enhance safety and security in its properties.

Those of us who represent ridings in which there are MTHA units have a special interest in improving the living conditions for its tenants. Too often in the past, the level of consultation has been problematic. However, with the safe neighbourhood initiative the community will take steps to fix itself from the ground up, rather than waiting for it to be done from the top down.

I am pleased that this program has been undertaken. I believe this co-operative venture among MTHA management, tenants and the police is a positive step in the ongoing battle to make MTHA livable and, in addition, to give residents and other stakeholders a real say in effecting change on a series of issues that affect their lives directly.

MTHA's Jean Augustine and general manager Byron Hill introduced that program at a tenants' meeting last week. Those on my staff who attended the meeting tell me the proposal met with the strong support of all interested parties, and I applaud those who have undertaken this bold initiative. I wish them the best of luck and look forward to receiving updates on their progress.

VISITORS

Mr Callahan: Freedom and democracy are to be treasured by all people. They are only missed when they are lost, and the guardians of freedom and democracy are our young people of this country.

In that vein, I would like to welcome to the Legislature for a visit, for the purposes of acquiring knowledge and becoming the protectors of freedom and democracy, the class of Earnscliffe Senior Public School and their teacher, Mr Guiney, and some parents, who have come to the Legislature to learn about it.

I would ask all members to greet that rather large contingent that is sitting in the opposite gallery. They are here to protect, to observe and to make sure that freedom and democracy prevail. Who knows, up there in that gallery there may very well be the next member of the Legislature for Brampton South when this party becomes too old and decrepit to carry out that function. But I greet them and wish them well and hope they enjoy their stay here and their tour.

It is unfortunate that they cannot remain for question period in order to observe democracy in its essence, when the government across the aisle will be bringing in closure which will effectively muzzle the opportunity of the elected representatives in this House to debate issues as is their right, their obligation and their duty, having been elected to this Legislature. It is unfortunate they cannot stay to see that, but perhaps the government will recant and allow democracy to reign free again in this Legislature.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr McLean: My statement concerns a government that has reneged on its promise to be open and accessible to the people of Ontario. In the throne speech that opened the first session of the 35th Parliament of Ontario, the Premier said: "...my government will open Queen's Park to those who have never before had an effective voice in the corridors of power. It is a government that will listen to the people and respond to their needs to the best of its ability." I must underline "best of its ability."

The government has failed to live up to this promise. I would like to focus on the Minister of the Environment to show two of many examples of this government's failure to be open and accessible to the people.

First, Gordon Elder, president of Big Cedar Estates, a resident-owned community of 230 homes in Hawkestone, wrote to the minister on 12 December 1990 appealing to her to approve a self-operated water utility. It took the minister four months to reply to Mr Elder in a letter dated 9 April. The minister said she is concerned about the backlog in approvals and that initiatives would be implemented to speed up the approval process. The minister still could not make a decision after holding on to this letter for four months.

Second, I received a number of complaints from developers and municipal planners in my riding about the ministry's delay in approving public works subdivision projects. They were initially told it takes six months. Six months passed and then they were told to wait an additional six months. These approval delays will result in a significant expense to developers.

When is the minister going to speed up the process?

COMMUNITY JUSTICE WEEK

Mr Mills: I am here to rise today on a positive note, to inform the House that we are privileged to have with us today in the gallery high school law class students from City School and SEED School in Toronto and ASE II Scarborough Alternate Education High School. Last Thursday I was honoured to launch Community Justice Week in my home riding of Durham East. Today these students helped us launch the event here at Queen's Park.

They have just seen the official première of Just...For You. This video illustrates to high school students how the justice system works and the roles we all may play to make justice work. This video was produced by the ministries of the Attorney General, Solicitor General and Correctional Services. It is being shown and discussed throughout the province. Our guests today have demonstrated their interest in the justice system through their course of study. They serve as excellent examples of what Community Justice Week is all about and the importance of such public education programs.

I thank them for their interest and for their participation, and I thank the other students in schools throughout Ontario who are participating in Community Justice Week events.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I invite all members of the assembly to welcome to our midst today three elected members from the Belorussian Parliament, which sits in Minsk: Dr Zianon Pazniak, Uladimir Zablocki and Leanid Barshcheuski.

1350

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HOME SHARING

Hon Mr Cooke: I am pleased today to announce that my ministry has extended funding for the home sharing program for another year.

Home sharing is a locally run service which helps match people who need affordable rental housing with people who have accommodation available in their homes. Last year, home sharing services in Ontario helped more than 1,700 people find new homes.

This new money means that 16 existing home sharing agencies which provide this excellent service will be able to continue their good work. We will also have additional money available for a number of other communities that have shown an interest in starting a home sharing service. In total, we will provide $700,000 this year for home sharing agencies.

One of the home sharing program's most appealing features is its community-based nature. It brings together local groups interested in helping people -- whether seniors, single parents or students -- find affordable housing in their communities. Home sharing also helps households which rent space in their homes. For example, senior citizens enjoy the advantages of companionship, shared housekeeping chores and extra rental income. The program also boosts the availability of housing. Often the people who move into matched accommodation free up the housing they left. This creates a vacancy, allowing other people to move into their former homes.

Home sharing is a cost-effective, community-based approach to finding affordable housing for people who need it. We are proud as a government that we have decided to extend this program.

RESPONSES

HOME SHARING

Mr Elston: It is interesting today that we have the member for Windsor-Riverside, the Minister of Housing, standing in this place to reannounce a program that was begun by my colleague the member for Scarborough North. While he has some good words for the program today, he is really changing his view from the heights of his ministerial chair, perched behind a high stack of policy papers gathering dust on his desk.

This man has done very little indeed to assist in what has been described in the papers in the reports indicating a crisis in rental housing in Ontario, that there is in fact a $3-billion boost needed to construction for housing in this province. What he has done again, as the member from St Catharines has so rightly and ably pointed out time and again, is he has repackaged, reannounced and reaffirmed his commitment to programs which have been in existence for some time.

It seems to me the reason that the member for Windsor-Riverside was put in his post as Housing minister is quite clear. It is key because he and his party have reversed themselves on all the traditional party programs which they used to talk about in opposition. Where are the 20,000 units of the agenda for power that they ran on last August and September? Where are they indeed? They are but a figment of the imagination now, a gleam in the eye of some policy person who used to work in the member for York South's office on the second floor of the Legislative Assembly in 1990.

They are a figment of the imagination because the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, has taken away any of the flexibility that the Minister of Housing has had to build houses in a way that would answer the crisis, which is real and pressing in the province of Ontario. They have not done what they said they would do, and what is more, while the crisis grows day by day in the unemployed ranks of construction workers in this province, these people sit by and smile as they applaud a $700,000 extended program that has been designed to convert some houses that are already in existence.

We see nothing wrong with the fact that they are again reannouncing one of our programs, but what we do take issue with is the fact that they are patting themselves on the back at a time when inactivity is despoiling the very economic basis of development for the province of Ontario. While people cry out with needs that are real, these people are patting themselves on the back in such a way as to strangle their own initiative and creativity. We used to believe this stuff in the agenda for power, but again it is no longer to be seen.

Let's talk about a couple of the items which were to go hand in hand with the 20,000 units that are not coming on line. Let's talk about the 10.5% mortgages available so people could buy their new houses. Where are those people going to find this 10.5% money from the government program that he is not bringing forward to help in housing the people in the province? Where is that program? Where is the $1.4 billion? It is safely tucked away in the Treasurer's piggy bank which he sits upon day by day as people go to him to try to get him to release some money for the caring and necessary action required to help the poor people in this province.

It is very interesting indeed that while these people talk about the need to assist people in having affordable housing, they again have breached several of their commitments. One of those commitments is talked about in the news today issued by the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. It speaks very clearly to the issue of affordability of housing when they ask, who is to blame for the cost of rising taxes? There is a paragraph of which I would like to make people aware. It says:

"The provincial government, as an election promise, stated that it would return to funding 60% of educational costs. The latest general legislative grant figures reveal that in fact education funding has fallen from 41.5% to 40.8%. When decisions such as these are made federally or provincially, it is the home owner who bears the brunt of the cutback through additional property taxes."

While they indicate that this very limited response is addressing some needs, they have added to the crisis not only by failing to respond to rental housing, but also to the home owner. It is terrifyingly inadequate.

Mr Tilson: With respect to the statement from the Minister of Housing, I keep waiting for some sort of development as to where the minister is going with respect to his housing policy in this province. Clearly, if this is the start of it, it is probably the start of the greatest sham this province has ever seen.

Clearly, as I understand it, this is a renewal of the previous program initiated by the Liberals, the five-year program which ended in 1989. At that time, I believe $700,000 was put forward by the previous government, so if I read this particular statement by the minister it would appear that he is reducing the program, particularly if he is going to be expanding it to other communities, because I assume from that, when there are 16 existing home sharing agencies that are going to continue that he is going to expand it to the other areas on the same moneys. Clearly either those existing home sharing agencies are going to stop or the whole program is going to be downplayed, so it is clearly rhetoric on the part of the minister. He knows he has a problem with respect to his policies. He knows that the people of this province have come to the conclusion that he has nothing to offer with respect to solving a very serious housing program that has been put forward every week by different groups around this province.

This program does not do anything to deal with bringing back the initiatives that are needed to encourage housing to be built in this province. It does nothing to bring back the confidence of investors that has been lost by Bill 4. It does none of those things. I think all it is is clearly public relations grandstanding. I understand that 75% of the moneys are put up by the province and 25% by the municipalities. There is nothing new. I think that is the story with this government. There is nothing new.

Mr Jackson: I wish as well to rise to discuss the minister's statement. The minister will be aware that I wrote to him in early January on behalf of the VON in Hamilton-Wentworth and on behalf of Hamilton-Wentworth region. They had a basic question: When is this government going to announce whether it is going to extend the program? We are talking about senior citizens who are currently in apartment settings on a home share basis, and they were being warned, "Potentially you may have to vacate because the government won't give us a straight answer."

The minister knows that, because it was set out to him in a letter. In fact, the funding for this program expired on 31 March and this government had to run around and put its finger in a bunch of dikes that were splitting open because programs were collapsing. Some regions were saying, "If you're not getting the money from the province, you don't need the money from us," and they are not budgeted.

This minister is also the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He should know better than to hang out municipalities and their budgeting process by taking three and a half months to get something as simple as this approved by his cabinet. We are talking about no new dollars. We are talking about extending it one year. That is the extent of the commitment that we have in front of us.

1400

More important, there are those senior citizens who had to be warned that their tenancy agreements may not extend beyond 31 March. There are laws in this province under the Landlord and Tenant Act requiring notice. This Minister of Housing has flagrantly abused those principles in law because it is obvious that in Ontario tenants are protected under the law from a variety of people, but those senior citizens who were using this program certainly were not being protected by this Minister of Housing.

There is no protection from politicians who make late announcements like this and leave these programs potentially in jeopardy. The minister has extended this program for only one year, and it is not fair to the seniors, to the delivery agencies and, most of all, to the municipalities that are struggling to balance their budgets this year. Three and a half months late announcements from this minister are not helping the province plan for the future for the people of this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOCTORS' FEES

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Premier having to do with the government's agreement with the Ontario Medical Association.

As the incredibly effective investigative journalism of the Toronto Star brings forward details of this agreement day by day, I am almost tempted to recall the days when it was called the "Red Star" in the previous administration when there were those unkind enough to think that some of their more effective investigative journalism was assisted by the then Premier's spin doctors. I do not believe it happened then any more than I believe it is happening now. I see the principal spin doctor has gone out for a drink of water, for a spin.

According to the Toronto Star there are now further details of this agreement which will not be ratified, as far as we know, until about 8 May, when the members of the OMA have an opportunity to meet together with their executive and give the agreement their careful consideration. Is the Premier going to refer this question to the Minister of Health? I would be glad to put it to her.

Hon Mr Rae: Yes.

Mr Nixon: I will certainly do that. When I asked her yesterday, she felt inadequate to handle that matter and she gave it to the Premier. It is very difficult to follow the bouncing ball over there. Whoever chooses to answer the question is all right with me.

Are we now to gather that the long-sought arbitration has been granted, according to reports in the media; that the Rand formula closed shop, which I know would be difficult for the NDP to consider, has also been granted; that we have now what amounts to a 2% plus 2% plus 3.95%, a magic number that only a spin doctor could come up with, amounting to an increase of just under 8%? Can the Minister of Health indicate whether or not we in the Legislature -- representing the taxpayers as only we can with only 62% of them supporting us -- could perhaps know some of the details in these matters so that the money involved could be a matter of some substantial discussion, and other attributes of the negotiations which might be valuable to all concerned?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition understands that the OMA team, which negotiated with our representatives for three months on this tentative contract, now wishes to take that proposal to its membership and we feel it is legitimate that the OMA should have an opportunity to talk to its membership about that proposal before we disclose to other members of the public what the nature of the proposal is. In the fullness of time, and it looks to be about 4 May, the OMA will be able to have a sense of its executive council's response on this matter. By then we should be able to discuss exactly what is involved in the proposal.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister is treating this as if it were a labour negotiation and that, of course, would be her wont; she would understand that. From our point of view, we feel there are two parties to the negotiation and, while the minister and the Premier and their colleagues might very well be one, we really insist on being part of that as well.

Yesterday when there was a rumour of a 2% plus 2% plus 2% settlement, I said the cost might very well be as much as $400 million. There is every indication it will be about $380 million.

Far from having gone without an increase during the last two years, which the Toronto Star indicates, the doctors went without a change in their schedule, which is true. The actual utilization increase in transference from the consolidated revenue fund was substantial, amounting to well over 7% with an indication of a further 14% this year. The idea that the doctors unfortunately have gone without suitable remuneration is really something that should be discussed here. We are not fighting with the doctors. We have had fights with them in the past. But surely it is important that the House be informed of these matters as they become public.

Would the minister not agree that it becomes irresponsible of her and the Premier and those associated with these negotiations to treat this like an ordinary labour negotiation, and they should instead recognize that this involves a $5-billion expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers of the province to pay for the services of the medical practitioners? This matter cannot be postponed, cannot be put off for another couple of weeks at the convenience of the minister. In fact the details should be put before the House without delay.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the information about the proposal should be put before this Legislature as it becomes public, and that is an entirely reasonable proposal. As the OMA takes a few days to inform its membership about the nature of the proposal, we are content on this side to wait. We will be very happy to share full information about that proposal if in fact it becomes a real proposal through the endorsement of the membership of the Ontario Medical Association.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, you are aware that the minister, particularly over the weekend, took the occasion during interviews with the media to indicate her view that this was a tremendous breakthrough and a new period of understanding and usefulness between the government and the people and the medical practitioners. We sincerely hope that is the case. We really do.

The last time we had that sort of an understanding was when Larry Grossman gave them an 11%-a-year increase. It was actually just like Chamberlain coming back from Munich. He certainly had peace in his time. I want to simply indicate to the minister our concern particularly with her own attitude in this regard. She says that it is great. There is a quote as follows that I think is interesting: physicians will be included "in future talks aimed at finding new ways of controlling costs."

Would it not seem appropriate, particularly for this minister and her colleagues, to make it clear that other aspects of those providing medical services would also be included? Not only the nurses, but those having positions of responsibility for hospital boards and many others who are part of our overall medical program. There are those in the past who have felt that perhaps the doctors should have had more to say about the matter. But I believe the minister and myself and others feel that all of these people providing services should be included and not excluded, as seems to be the aim of the minister in her recent pronouncements. Can she indicate how she is going to deal with this particular matter?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition is putting it exactly right. This government believes that all those involved in the provision of health care services, and there are 300,000 people in Ontario involved in the provision of health care services, should in fact be involved in discussion about the shape of our health care system.

We also very strongly believe that the public deserves to be involved and that the public deserves an accountability which we very much hope the proposal now before the Ontario Medical Association will in fact provide. We look upon it as a very important proposal for the very reason that for the first time the medical profession in Ontario, we hope, will be involved with the government of Ontario in determining the most effective and the most cost-effective kinds of health care delivery programs for this province.

All in all, what I have attempted to do over the last few days is to give a message to the public and to the physicians of this province that this government feels very optimistic and very positive about the negotiations that we have had, that the contract, we hope, is one that the physicians of Ontario will support. We hope very much to be able to report to this Legislature early in May and to share a good contract and the details of that contract with members of this Legislature.

1410

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier. My friend will be interested to hear that I am getting a lot of letters from alternative provincial representatives from various ridings excoriating my questions, but my question today again is for the Premier.

For a long time, he has been in favour of divestment for all his cabinet colleagues and parliamentary assistants, and I believe his party is on record in favour of that. With the kind of righteous unction that the TV audience is getting used to, on 12 December he announced his new conflict-of-interest guidelines, of which divestment was a major feature. He was coming to the legislative committee to discuss them and, just before his attendance there, he extended the time limit for divestment so nothing practical could be asked of him.

But the time for divestment has now gone by, and on 2 April the Premier issued a press release that indicated that three parliamentary assistants had been exempted from divestment. It said: "All ministers have met the guidelines as set out on 12 December 1990 and on 18 February 1991." I would like to ask the Premier what impression he hoped that press release would create in the minds of the media and the public.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I will wait for the supplementary question. I can only say that I look forward to the supplementary.

Mr Scott: The Premier, as is often the case, is not only righteously unctuous, but he has his wits about him. He was very smart to take that position because there is increasing evidence that his divestment guidelines -- I would not say yet that they should be judged a PR scam -- have not been complied with.

As honourable members will know -- we remember the ringing tones of the statement -- they required divestment by ministers and parliamentary assistants of all business interests and assets which could appear to cause a conflict of interest, and the minister on 2 April said all ministers had complied with that. It has come to our attention that a number of ministers who declared such commercial properties from which they were obtaining income in their statements to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner have not divested themselves. We have only been able to search title with respect to two of them, as of yesterday, and I want to ask the Premier if he is aware that the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Citizenship, the only two with whom I can deal now, have not in fact divested as the guidelines require.

Hon Mr Rae: I will have to take the question as notice, obviously, but I would say to the member for St George-St David that it was my understanding at the time I issued the press release that the information contained therein was correct. If I find that information was not entirely correct, obviously I personally will take full responsibility for that, because if there has been a mistake in fact in terms of the compliance -- I would just say this: All the information that the member is referring to is, as he will know, publicly available in the reports that have been filed with the commissioner and that are available downstairs.

Mr Scott: Divestments are not.

Hon Mr Rae: No, but I would say to the member that this information is publicly available. If there are any questions arising from the member's question, obviously I will have to look into it and get back to him as soon as possible.

Mr Scott: I understand that the Premier would want to take this as notice. I am grateful that he is going to look into it. I hope he will not restrict himself simply to the two ministers, because -- what do we call them? -- the minions of the Leader of the Opposition have been working hard searching titles, and we only have the titles with respect to the two ministers. There is evidence that some other ministers, whom I would not name in these circumstances, may not have divested as well.

I want to make the point to the Premier that one of the criticisms made of his scheme was that he was going to be the judge and jury of divestment, which is not a matter of public record. I ask him to be judge, jury and executioner. I want to know precisely, did two ministers or their representatives confirm to the Premier that they had made the divestment required by the statute? I think we are entitled to a yes or no on that. Who did the Premier speak to before he issued this press release that all ministers have met the guidelines?

Hon Mr Rae: Whatever record I had for unctuousness in opposition, it is obviously being surpassed by the member for St George-St David. I would say directly to the member for St George-St David that, again, I am sure he would want to be fair and entirely accurate with respect to the public record. To my knowledge, there were two statements issued by me. One was the statement I made in the House. The other was --

Mr Scott: Right here.

Hon Mr Rae: No, that is a third one.

Mr Scott: So we should ignore this?

Hon Mr Rae: No, I am not suggesting the member should ignore anything. I want to try to provide as clear an answer as I can, and I will be glad to answer the question in full tomorrow. But I would say to him that in addition to the statement I made in December, I made a statement in February, at which time we clarified the requirement with respect to divestment, with respect to real property.

Mr Scott: We asked your office for the guidelines today. They are the same guidelines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier just sit down. I suppose that many of us recall the age-old practice of addressing the questions to the Speaker and addressing the responses to the Speaker. That is a practice to which I think it would be nice to return.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to make one thing very clear in my answer to the member for St George-St David. I will endeavour to make a statement to the House tomorrow, if that is possible. I have a speaking engagement at noon, but I will try to be back in time for that. If I am not, I will certainly make a statement as soon as humanly possible.

I want to make it very clear to him that the ministers have been very clear with respect to their statements. They have gone through with Judge Evans, as have all members. If there has been a mistake made with respect to compliance with my guidelines as they were released in December and again in February, the mistake lies with me. I will be glad to share whatever information I have with the member.

1420

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. On 1 December 1990 the Premier's government awarded $5 million to the Algoma Central Railway in Sault Ste Marie. At that time the president of Algoma Central Corp, which owns the railway, said that as far as the railway knows, the $5 million was a grant, adding, "We have not been told of any strings attached." Can the Premier tell me today whether there were or are in fact any conditions attached to his government's decision to give Algoma Central this money?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I will pass that question to the Minister of Northern Development.

Hon Miss Martel: I am pleased to respond to the question raised by the leader of the third party. The $5 million that was given to ACR last year came from the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. It was authorized by the board in order to deal with a particular problem that had been raised with us, that it had to continue with the railway.

At the same point in time, we also made it clear to ACR that we were interested very much in entering into negotiations with ACR with respect to its future and ours, and the future of tourism in Sault Ste Marie and the future of Wawa, so there are discussions that have just commenced with ACR. They have been held up in some ways because of what is happening in Sault Ste Marie right now and the outcome of what is going on at Algoma Steel, but I can assure the leader of the third party that, very much, there were letters that went back and forth with respect to our interest, as a province, in entering into negotiations with respect to the future of that particular company and the province's role in it.

Mr Harris: Clearly the understanding that Algoma Central had -- and from the minister's press release there is no indication otherwise and from what she has just told me no indication otherwise -- was that there were no strings attached to the $5 million that was given.

I am in possession of what appear to be the minutes of the cabinet meeting of 14 November. According to these minutes, cabinet approved not only the initial $5 million; it approved up to $15 million in aid for three years. I quote from this cabinet document that says "in exchange for assets in the form of land, rail line and equipment and with the option to acquire all remaining ACR assets after 1993." In other words, those were the conditions that cabinet set down for flowing the money to Algoma Central. In other words, some six weeks after being sworn into office, the NDP government approved taxpayers' money to secretly purchase part of this publicly traded company, with an option to purchase the whole railway after 1993. Those were the conditions, according to this cabinet document.

Given the serious implication of using tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy the company, how can the minister possibly defend concealing this information from the people of Ontario, when the initial $5 million down payment announcement was made on 17 December?

Hon Miss Martel: It is my understanding, in conjunction with the press release, that it also said clearly that ongoing negotiations would be going on with the company with respect to its future and ours. When the member for Algoma and my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie made the announcement on my behalf in Sault Ste Marie, it was my understanding they made that very clear, that there would be ongoing negotiations with ACR with respect to its future and ours, and how we as a province could ensure that both for Wawa and Sault Ste Marie, the jobs with respect to the tour train could be continued in the future.

I do not think there was anything secret that was done. I think he made it very clear that we were entering into negotiations. I am not prepared today to outline the details of those or in fact the negotiating position that the province is going to take, but I can tell the leader of the third party that we made it very clear that there were going to be ongoing negotiations with respect to our future and theirs.

Mr Harris: The cabinet documents are very clear. They state that Ontario's NDP government has agreed to provide up to $15 million in financial assistance to the ACR, conditional -- it says "conditional." This is a condition that cabinet set down for flowing the money, "That ACC accept the transfer of assets in the form of rail line, equipment and land to the province in exchange for financial assistance over the period 1990 to 1993." Further, the document states this condition, "That ACC grant the province, with ONTC as operating agent, an option to acquire the remaining rail line operations, including all land and assets for an amount to be negotiated."

Now my question is equally clear, as the cabinet documents are clear: If the government is so bent on purchasing a financially troubled company with taxpayers' money, does the minister not think that taxpayers have a right to know about this? Why was this information of the strings that clearly were attached not made public when the $5-million grant was made and the announcement was made on 17 December?

Hon Miss Martel: My colleagues made it very clear when the announcements were made that we were entering into negotiations with ACR determining our position, our future and its future as well. We made it very clear that there were ongoing discussions with respect to this money and both their and our futures. I am not prepared today, nor would I have been prepared in December, to outline what may happen in the end and what our position as a government was going to be in those negotiations. I was not prepared to do that then; I am not now. Those negotiations will continue and when they come to an end and we have a final position, we will let this House and the public know.

Mr Harris: Clearly the cabinet authorization does not allow a cent to go unless those conditions are met, so obviously all those conditions were met, or the minister flowed the $5 million without them, which she has no authorization to do, according to this cabinet document.

For my second question, I would like to go back to the Premier, because the second aspect to the closed-door deal has major, province-wide environmental implications as well.

Two weeks ago the NDP killed a proposal to recycle and dispose of Metro's waste in northern Ontario and it called the plan "unthinkable." Last week, in yet another NDP flip-flop, the government approved the unthinkable for Kingston waste going to Ottawa. Can the Premier confirm today that as part of the Algoma Central Railway deal his cabinet actually approved yet another plan behind closed doors, and that it is a condition of this deal that he investigate sending southern Ontario waste to northern Ontario for recycling and disposal?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the member who has asked the question that I have no reason to believe this is true. I do not know what foundation he has for that assertion. I do not know what basis he has for the allegation. I have absolutely no recollection of any such conversations and I certainly have no recollection of any such decision.

Mr Harris: Then I can understand the Premier being confused about the garbage and what he has agreed to and what he has not. We have all heard the contradictions that are coming out from the minister and from the government, so to help clarify, I will read from his own cabinet document what the cabinet approved on 14 November:

"The province, with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology as lead, will (a) facilitate discussions with Dofasco, ACC and Algoma Steel Corp to determine if an agreement could be reached whereby Dofasco mill waste from southern Ontario could be shipped, in part, to the Algoma Ore division operations in Wawa for recycling and, in part, to northern Ontario for disposal."

That is what the cabinet approved, according to these documents, on 14 November. Can the Premier tell this House today how his secret plans on shipping southern Ontario waste to northern Ontario in this instance are proceeding?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I will obviously take the question as notice. The member is referring to an alleged --

Mr Sorbara: It is the Premier's cabinet's document.

Hon Mr Rae: The member says he is referring to a cabinet document. I have not seen the document that he says he has and obviously I will have to look into that particular document. I would only say, to elaborate a bit, that the future of Wawa, the future of the Sault and the future of the railway were of concern to us in the fall, as they are today, and that was the nature of the negotiations that we authorized in our discussions. But obviously I will have to look at the document the member is referring to.

Mr Harris: It is becoming more and more clear the government says one thing in public and then it does another behind closed doors. First it is yes, then it is no. First it is ship to the north, then do not ship; burn, then it is do not burn. Now it is send waste from Kingston to Ottawa.

Now we find out there is a secret plan in the works approved on 14 November by cabinet to ship southern mill waste to northern Ontario. The only garbage that is piling up faster than Metropolitan Toronto's landfill sites is the garbage that is coming from the Premier and his ministers day after day in and beyond the chamber.

1430

The cabinet documents indicate one of the cons of this deal, one of the downsides, that an environmental assessment may be required as a result of cabinet's ACR mill waste decision. Surely the Premier would agree with me that we are dealing with serious business. Listen, the proposal may even make sense, but if he is not going to tell us what he is doing, how can we judge that?

Can the Premier tell me why he and the cabinet concealed this important information when they went ahead with the first stage of the $15 million; that is, on 17 December he announced the $5 million according to the recommendations and the approvals of the cabinet, including this one to ship the waste from Hamilton to Wawa?

Hon Mr Rae: The difficulty I am having, and I want to be fair to the leader of the third party, is that when he asked his first question to me, because he asked it in the context of Kirkland Lake and he asked it in the context of Ottawa and Kingston, I assumed he was talking about municipal garbage. I had assumed that was the nature of the question and I honestly believed that, when he asked that question, that is what he was talking about.

He then turns to say that he is talking about a situation with respect to Dofasco, which is a company that owns a steel mill in Hamilton. It is the company that also owns Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie and the iron ore mine in Wawa. I do not want to be too argumentative, but I want to suggest to the leader of the third party that there is a slight difference in the question and a slight difference in the subject in terms of what he is talking about.

Second, with respect to the issue which he is talking about, which is so-called secrecy, I want to say this to the honourable member: Obviously in an issue of this kind, in which there are commercial negotiations between the government of the province and a company with respect to the future of the company, those negotiations have to be handled with some discretion if they are to be successful.

The press release makes it clear that there was a grant from the Northern Ontario Development Corp and then, in addition, that there were further negotiations that would be taking place. I do not think that one could possibly have negotiations taking place on any other basis than in a degree of confidence. I am sorry if the leader is shaking his head and disagrees. I do not honestly know how the government of the province could possibly conduct any form of commercial negotiation with a private company unless it was done on that basis.

GERALD CAPLAN

Mr Offer: I have a question of the Premier. As he knows, there has been speculation circulating around this Legislature for weeks that a close friend of his, a former principal secretary to the leader of the Ontario NDP, a former national director of the NDP, a representative of the NDP on numerous media panels and a member of the NDP election campaign and the government transition team, is now lobbying on behalf of major corporate interests. I recognize that the Premier cannot control any one particular person, but I ask him whether he will allow his ministers and in fact himself to be lobbied by Mr Caplan for these various private interests.

Hon Mr Rae: As I understand it, Mr Caplan is a consultant who gives advice to private companies on a range of issues with respect to public policy. If the member has any evidence, if he has the slightest evidence to suggest that Mr Caplan has acted improperly with respect to any of the clients he may have of which I am not aware, if he is aware of any special access which either these companies or Mr Caplan has, then I would suggest to the member that he state his case, state the facts, put them before the House and let us look at them.

If all the member is saying is that Mr Caplan is giving advice to Bombardier and other companies with respect to their public policy in this province and in other provinces, I can only say that we try to do business in this province by the book. That is the way we do things. The Bombardier process, the negotiations between Ontario and Quebec and the establishment of the interprovincial committee were carried out by the member's predecessor government, by my predecessor, Mr Peterson. As I say, if the member has any knowledge of any untoward access or influence, he should please let me know what it is.

Mr Offer: I am absolutely surprised by the Premier's response because that question, as I indicated earlier, is not about any one particular individual. Rather this is a question about personal standards, about the Premier's standards, standards that he has set for himself and his party, where he has stood on a pedestal. I read from the Premier's particular statement of 12 December:

"I consider it essential to establish certain fundamental principles. It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government."

Will the Premier ensure that there is some public record, as there is in Ottawa, of all lobbying activities undertaken by Mr Caplan with members of his cabinet and with himself on behalf of these private corporate interests?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the member in regard to the question of this issue with respect to dealing with so-called lobbyists of all kinds and consultants of all kinds from all parties -- and one could go through lists, members who are Conservatives, members who are Liberals, former members who are actively involved -- that this matter has been referred, along with other matters with respect to conflict of interest, to the parliamentary committee. I look forward to hearing directly from the parliamentary committee in that regard. It is obviously something the government will look at if in the wisdom of the parliamentary committee it is decided that that is the wisest possible course.

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: My question is for the minister responsible for disability issues. In response to a questionnaire from the Trans-Action coalition during last summer's election campaign, the NDP said:

"New Democrats know that accessible transportation is the only way for persons with disabilities to have equal access to employment, education and recreational activities, and this accessibility can only come from concrete action being taken to achieve accessibility."

I emphasize "concrete action."

On 19 June 1990, Rebecca Noble, a blind woman, was tragically killed when she fell off the Lawrence West subway platform and was struck by a train. A few days before her death, a coroner's inquest into another TTC death had recommended, "That a program be implemented immediately to install a clearly delineated yellow safety strip in each station across the system."

Can the minister tell the House how many TTC stations have been fitted with these platform-edge markers and what progress has been made with respect to other measures to make the TTC safer for blind persons, such as uniform train lengths, relocating obstacles like garbage cans and extending handrails at the top of stairways?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member for the question. I would like to refer it to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Philip: We have told the TTC that we endorse the TTC's choices for the future. The TTC is working on an elaborate plan of access. My ministry is also working with municipalities and the Ontario Urban Transit Association towards an effective, efficient and financially responsible manner of making all transportation in this province accessible. GO Transit has been asked by me to develop an action plan in terms of new and key rail stations, bus and taxi and elevator access. We are developing a number of plans and I will be making the announcement in the House in the not-too-distant future on a lot of details concerning some of these plans.

1440

Mrs Marland: We have just experienced a real copout. The minister to whom I directed my question is responsible for people with disabilities. I could have asked the question to the Minister of Transportation had I wished. We might as well do away with an advocate or a ministry for disabled people if she is going to refer questions to another minister.

I think this is a real copout today and I would like to say that even from the referral we still did not get an answer. I did not ask about GO Transit; I asked about the TTC. I asked a very simple question: How many of those stations are now equipped? Perhaps I can help the minister and tell him that there is only one out of 65 stations under the Toronto Transit Commission that is equipped.

If the conventional transit system of subways and buses is not sufficiently safe and accessible, then blind persons require alternative means of transportation. This is where it leaves his ministry incidentally and should be with the minister whom I addressed my initial question to. Perhaps he might have this answer since he did not have the other one. Can he tell this House why Wheel-Trans, Toronto's parallel transit service for disabled persons, will not provide rides for blind persons and what steps he would take to ensure that blind persons have access to parallel transportation systems? Perhaps an integration with accessible taxis? Now this is going to be really great, to get this answer from this minister.

Hon Mr Philip: The minister responsible for disability issues has never copped out of any answers. She referred the question to me because she knew that I was working with the TTC, which is responsible for developing these programs. I am sorry that the member did not want to know about all of the great programs that we are developing throughout the transit system. I notice that she did not want to know about the new Peel transit system, in her riding, which is accessible to the disabled people in her riding. She does not want to hear about that. We will be happy to tell her about it any time that she wants to ask either me or the minister responsible for disability issues. Both of us will give her the answers.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. The high level of interest in the chamber this afternoon is certainly appreciated. The member for Durham West is waiting patiently to place --

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, the disabled people of Ontario are shortchanged today.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South, I am sure, would like the member for Durham West to have an opportunity to place a question, as she was given an opportunity. Just one moment.

GERALD CAPLAN

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In an earlier question that I had raised with the Premier, the Premier alluded to the question of lobbyists being referred to a parliamentary committee. We are unaware of that particular aspect and I am wondering if the Premier, if not today then certainly later on, might be able to express exactly which committee that particular question has been referred to.

The Speaker: I appreciate the interest. It is not a point of order, as the member may know. He may wish to consult with the Clerk's office to determine which committee sees to that matter. The member for Durham West.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Wiseman: For the third time, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Over the last few days we have been subjected through a local newspaper to articles concerning the welfare system. We have seen welfare headlines such as "Welfare Madness." We have had "Pitfalls of Welfare System" articles written by Diane Francis concerning the welfare system. In these articles she has made some very serious allegations about the level of services available by the welfare system, making comments that it is valued at $45,000 a year and that people who do not live on welfare should quit their jobs and go on welfare. I would like to have some comments and responses to the accusations made by this reporter.

Hon Ms Akande: Actually, I think what is evident from the news coverage is that the writer of those articles is sadly in need of a research assistant. The information concerning social assistance and the rates that are available are certainly open to everyone and that information would be available to her. Recognizing that, one would notice there is a great inaccuracy. One of the things quoted in that article is that a family of four would be getting $45,000. Anyone who would research the information to which I have referred would recognize that this is grossly untrue, that the maximum would be around $22,000 in equivalency and hardly sufficient to raise a family of four.

Mr Wiseman: I have a supplementary question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I enjoy a lively crowd as much as anyone but, at the same time, I am attempting to hear the member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am sure there is a member towards the end of the chamber who does not wish to be identified at this point. The member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: I am just wondering if it is possible that the federal grants which the recipients are receiving are being piggybacked on top of the Ontario welfare system and the municipal welfare system so that these kinds of numbers are possible.

Hon Ms Akande: I see no such indications of generosity from this federal government. As a matter of fact, they have consistently pulled out in social assistance from the position they previously had held, and of course there is no piggyback on grants. Who among you would deny a mere sustenance to the people who are required to live on social assistance? Who among you would do that? Therefore, no. No, in fact there is no such program.

1450

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of the Environment concerning the question of transportation of garbage. With this issue, this minister has clearly demonstrated that she is the most inconsistent and policy-bereft minister on the government benches.

Last month I introduced legislation that would provide a province-wide framework for municipalities either to prohibit or control the importation of garbage. When I introduced this bill to help Ottawa-Carleton and other municipalities across the province, the minister dismissed it outright, stating, "It is not appropriate for each municipality in Ontario to pass bylaws on how garbage is disposed." She went further to say that she favours "legislation that would cover waste disposal for all municipalities, not just for those in a crunch, like Ottawa-Carleton." That is exactly what my bill does.

The minister has now done a complete flip-flop, an about-face, and has made a commitment to introduce legislation specific to the region of Ottawa-Carleton allowing this one municipality some measure of control over importation of garbage to help settle a lawsuit.

Will the minister bring forward legislation that will provide full control to all municipalities in Ontario so we can have a province-wide policy on the shipping of waste and not simply emergency, ad hoc reaction?

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish we never had emergencies. I wish that when I became Minister of the Environment I had found in place a long-term policy and strategy that would have dealt with municipal solid waste on a province-wide basis. Unfortunately, that was not what I found, but what I have done is put in place the foundations for a long-term province-wide strategy.

I regret that the members of the opposition seem unable to make the distinction between planning for the long term and a policy that involves reducing garbage and finding sites close to the source of generation, and short-term solutions that must be taken in emergencies.

The people of Ontario understand. The people who have phoned and written to me understand that what this government is doing is putting in place a strategy and a policy and a program that will avoid emergencies in the future.

Mr Sorbara: The difficulty with what the Minister of the Environment is doing during these seven months she has been minister is that every time she gets on her feet she loses credibility. She just stood up in the House and said that in the case of Ottawa-Carleton she is dealing with an emergency measure, and yet she and her ministry have just entered into an agreement with the region of Ottawa-Carleton in which she undertakes to introduce legislation in this House giving the region of Ottawa-Carleton special powers to control the dumping of garbage in the municipality.

Those special powers are not going to be available to Kirkland Lake, those special powers are not going to be available to Metropolitan Toronto, and most particularly they are not going to be available to the region of York. A few days ago she stood up in this House and said that she, in her own wisdom, had determined that York region would be the recipient of all of Metropolitan Toronto's garbage, without any study, without any environmental assessment, and she said that would be the case because her program would drive Metropolitan Toronto to become more active in the 3Rs; that is, reduce, reuse and recycle. The fact is that nothing has changed. Metropolitan Toronto has been dumping its garbage into York region for the past 30 years. So why is this a new policy?

My question to the minister is quite simple. If she is prepared to introduce legislation in this House giving special powers to the region of Ottawa-Carleton, will she at the same time introduce a bill in this House giving those very same powers to the region of York, yes or no?

Hon Mrs Grier: The recommendations and the agreements that were struck to which the member referred and implied was an agreement in negotiation with my ministry. In negotiations between the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and Laidlaw Waste Systems, an agreement was struck. We brought those parties together to assist in the negotiations and avoid a lawsuit. As part of that negotiation, we agreed to introduce legislation, not as the member has described it, to give special powers to Ottawa-Carleton to prohibit the importation of waste, but on the contrary, to give to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton exactly the same powers that exist in the legislation of other regional municipalities; in other words, the power to impose a surtax on municipalities from without their boundary to dispose of waste within their boundary. There is no inconsistency.

SOCIAL WORK

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will be aware that Ontario is the only province in Canada that does not have a regulated social workers act. The Premier should also be aware that I stood in this House on 21 March and advised all members of the case of a convicted child molester who was opening a child care and counselling service in Kitchener-Waterloo. I have already expressed shock and dismay to the Premier and to his government, that this single action alone should be grounds on which his government should be moving in order to ensure that there be a regulation of the practices of social work, and that it is a timely and absolute necessity for this province.

The Premier indicated in a letter dated 5 June 1989, while he was in opposition, that he had concern for the failure of the then government to act promptly. Would the Premier please indicate if he is still personally committed to the words he said in his 5 June 1989 letter.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say first of all to the member that I am familiar with the Kitchener situation which he has described, and I think anybody would share his view as to the very real problem that refers to. I would say to the honourable member that I do not think it is clear in my mind that there is any connection between the desire for a professional social work act and the particular problem he is referring to.

Since the member has referred the question directly to me, I will answer it as directly as I can, just to say to him that obviously this is something the ministry continues to look at. There are a number of interests that have to be reconciled. I know there are those who felt that it would have been better or it would have been appropriate if the act had gone ahead with the health professions legislation review. It was the view of the government that this was not the appropriate way to deal with it, and all I can say to the member is that it is something that continues to be under review.

Mr Jackson: I am shocked to learn that the Premier does not make any kind of linkage between the case I raised in Kitchener-Waterloo and the need for a regulated social workers act in this province.

I would like to further remind the Premier of another letter that he wrote on 27 August 1987 where he says: "New Democrats are fighting to protect Ontario's consumers of human services. This is an important way to prevent adverse physical, psychological and social consequences for Ontario consumers."

In the Premier's own letter he has described the kinds of circumstances that those children are probably going to be going through in Kitchener. Before the last election, he could clearly see the linkage for the need to protect citizens of this province. Now as Premier he does not. I am asking him again: Is he committed to bringing in a social workers act with regulations for the protection of human services for the people who require them, or is this just one more example of a betrayal of his conscience on these important human service matters in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I will try not to be as provocative in my answer as the member was in his question. I will simply try to answer him as directly as I can and say to him that the question of a separate social work act is something that is under review within the government. It is something about which we continue to conduct consultations and discuss with a variety of groups, the question of what is the best and most effective way to proceed. I hope the member would realize that there are a number of ways that one can do it, and obviously we are looking at it. I would repeat my point to him --

Mr Jackson: Would this be in your social contract with the Constitution?

Hon Mr Rae: I would repeat my point to the member, if he will simply allow me to answer, which is to say that the particular example of somebody offering himself up as a potential provider of child care in Kitchener, with respect, is a very different question from this particular one. I would say to the member that perhaps he should reflect on that and reflect on the fact that there are differing views on this.

1500

The Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Some hon members: Karen, Karen.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: My question is for the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I realize that the member for Perth is quite popular, which is, I am quite sure, quite gratifying to the member for Perth. However, she has not been recognized for her question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To your disappointment, I do recognize the member for Durham East.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mills: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Education. In my riding, the people are starting to get their tax bills and they are getting a little bit testy. They want to know how we are moving towards 60%, towards the education --

Interjections.

Mr Mills: What is the minister doing about it?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I thank the member for the question. There are taxpayers all over Ontario who are concerned about this issue and I would repeat to the member, as I have in this House before, and to all the trustees' groups that I talk to and the citizens' groups that I talk to, that we see this as a very serious issue. Our party remains committed to our pledge to remove the major cost of education from the regressive property tax base, move it much more on to the basis of ability to pay. That is the purpose of the education part of the Fair Tax Commission and the review of education financing that will go on through my ministry. That commitment absolutely remains.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjections.

The Speaker: One at a time. I cannot --

Mr Daigeler: I would like to move unanimous consent, seeing that the opposition on the government's side is so strong to muzzle the member for Perth, that we all agree to give her a chance to ask her question and to show that we on the opposition side are so generous.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs Haslam: I originally rose on a point of information, Mr Speaker, to let the members of the gallery know that I was third on the list again, so I do appreciate their allowing me this opportunity. I will continue to fight to be first, second and third on this list at all times.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have met recently on the weekend with a number of farmers' groups in my riding. I meet with them quite often. They are concerned, as the Hayes report does show, with long-term debt relief. I would like to ask the minister how he intends to move on this particular issue for long-term debt.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Just let me say how pleased I am that the opposition has seen fit to give the member an opportunity to ask her question. It is nice to see that Agriculture and Food is getting a sense of priority in this House.

The member is asking about long-term financing. We have responded to the short-term credit needs, interest needs, of farmers with a program we announced a week ago. We would like very much to have a long-term interest program in place, and that is one of the very first objectives of this government.

It was unfortunate that we could not respond this month or this year, but we are working on it. I have a group in the ministry working on long-term finance. We hope to have a program we can test out with the farmers and farm leaders over the summer and fall and have that long-term interest program in place for the coming year.

Mrs Haslam: I was going to do what the opposition usually does. I was going to give a long background about rural issues in my riding, then I was going to read from the National Farmers' Union about short-term solutions to the farm crisis, long-term financial requirements for family farms and then I was going to get into more of what the government was doing so that I could finally get to my question and say: If long-term debt relief was a long-term goal for us, why did we bring in the $50-million short-term program?

Hon Mr Buchanan: One of the things is that we certainly wanted to respond to the needs out there, and long-term finance is probably the second most urgent need in the farm community. It requires some thought. We are looking at putting some new initiatives in place; we are looking to have farmers in rural communities reinvest dollars from that area in their own communities. It will take a little bit of time to put a structure in place that will serve the needs of the agricultural and rural communities of Ontario. That took a little longer than we had expected, and that is why we went ahead with the short-term interest program in the meantime until we got the long-term program ready.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTORAL QUOTIENTS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (QUOTIENTS ÉLECTORAUX)

Mr Tilson moved first reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to Electoral Quotients.

M. Tilson propose la première lecture du projet de loi 72, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux quotients électoraux.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion number 16 on time allocation in relation to Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Mr Tilson: Yesterday, I had started to make some comments with respect to a press conference that was held this past week by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, talking about the housing crisis in the province of Ontario. Obviously I assumed the whole purpose of Bill 4 is to deal with the housing crisis or get a start in dealing with the housing crisis.

I think it has become apparent to us more and more that Bill 4 is not addressing that problem. We had hoped, certainly on this side, to raise more issues with respect to the whole presentation of Bill 4 and how we would hope to solve the housing crisis and offer suggestions through amendments. I had hoped that perhaps members from the government would offer further amendments too as time went on. That is one item I would like to emphasize before I get into the topic raised by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association.

It is regrettable that the government House leader did not argue or did not put forth in her motion a provision that would allow for new amendments that have been put forward since the committee introduced its report to the House. There have been two new amendments which have been filed, and those were filed by the member for Carleton. I hope the House leader would agree that if she had been at all concerned with a fair hearing, she would have drafted her motion to give amendments equal time within the allocated time. That has not been done.

The amendments that have been put forward by the member for Carleton are to a later section, and clearly the member for Carleton will be denied any opportunity to put forward his case on these amendments. The intent of the closure motion is to shut down debate and clearly appears to be ignoring any subject of fairness with respect to this legislation. I also emphasize that hopefully, as the debate proceeds, there could conceivably be new amendments that might even be raised by members of the government or by members of either opposition party with respect to this bill. If this motion proceeds and is successful, all members of the House will be denied that opportunity. That is unfortunate, considering the effect of this legislation on the economy of this province.

Last week there was a press conference held by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and the association produced a press release. Together with the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario, they produced a report which talked about the rental crisis in housing in the province of Ontario.

They pointed out that tenant income has failed to keep pace with rent increases in the past decade and that is what the study shows. They talk about real rents after inflation having risen 11% to 18% in major Ontario centres since 1980 but the real renter incomes having shown little or no increase. Cities such as St Catharines, Windsor, London and Hamilton have spawned a greater percentage of tenants than Toronto who are in a core, who spend more than 30% of their incomes on accommodation, the report goes. Based upon its findings on federal statistics, the report urges the immediate construction of 27,000 rental units in Ontario to achieve a 3% vacancy rate, which housing officials figure best creates an equilibrium in the marketplace.

It is difficult to know, if that number of units is produced, where in the world the moneys will come from to provide that accommodation. That is certainly one of the topics we had hoped to present to this House, to present information that did not come forward in the committee hearings. We asked for it repeatedly, to talk about the effect of Bill 4 on the economy of this province, on everything from the provision of housing units to job loss to investment, and we were denied that right. The report goes on to say that because of the population increase and dramatic rise in family and non-family households, Ontario also needs, in addition to the 27,000 rental units that are being suggested, 14,000 to 16,000 new units each year for the next several years.

Clearly we are in a severe housing crisis if this report is even close to being accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not. The annual requirements would drop somewhat during the late 1990s as population increases level off, the report also says. The report indicated that if the 27,000 units were built as non-profit and co-operative housing, the project would cost $3 billion to build from money raised through private lenders -- that is, of course, assuming we can find private lenders to get involved in this program -- and an additional $298 million in operating subsidies over the period of the projects from government.

That is another topic I have briefly referred to, but I think that in the proposed amendments of the two opposition parties, and hopefully members of the government, we would have an opportunity to get into that, and we are not going to.

The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association also spoke of: "The rate of household growth will decline as the 1990s wear on, but as we proceed past the year 2000 new strains will be created by factors like the changing housing demands on an aging population. The data paints a bleak picture. One can only imagine what it will look like if we continue to ignore the trends shaping Ontario's housing requirements."

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1518

Mr Tilson: I would like to read into the record some very important factors from this report on the state of housing of Ontario just to show to the House the importance of this subject and how there is a great need to debate this subject further at this time.

There are three comments actually, two comments. They talk about how, "Non-profit housing continues to evolve into a significant housing option, particularly if government continues the precedent set in 1988 with the progressive 'Homes Now program,' and commits to further support for non-profit and co-operative housing as a means to resolve the housing problems facing Ontario."

I believe that this bill clearly is intended to discourage private enterprise from getting involved in the housing market. There is no question the Premier has made that quite clear in his statements. We have asked him repeatedly. We have asked the Minister of Housing repeatedly, not only in committee but in this House. The whole subject of what this government intends to do with housing is becoming clearer and clearer. It intends to have the taxpayer pay for the housing in this province, and I do not know how we are going to do that.

The report continues. It talks about the predicted surge in population. Now, granted, Bill 4 is a two-year moratorium period, but surely it must show some initiative in starting to deal with the projected trends as to where we are going to go with housing in this province.

I would like to refer to a brief section that this report refers to: "According to conservative demographic figures from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, Ontario's population is expected to soar to 11.9 million by 2011.

"This, compared to 9.1 million individuals accounted for by the 1986 census, is an increase of 2.8 million persons over a 25-year period -- approximately the combined current populations of Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa.

"According to the same census, there were 2.3 million households in Ontario, of which 1.1 million were renters. These will increase by close to one million households over the next 25 years -- of which at least 350,000 to 400,000 will require rental housing.

"Just to keep up with the growth will require the construction of 14,000 to 16,000 rental units per year over the next two decades."

As I indicated previously, "this does not take into account the 27,000 units needed immediately to fill current rental requirements."

Bill 4 does absolutely nothing to encourage new development of housing units from the private sector, I assume, because the statements have been requested by members of this side to the Premier and to the Minister of Housing as to how the government is going to solve it, and it appears their answer is going to be to deal with non-profit housing -- in other words, subsidized housing from the government. All that is going to be paid for by the taxpayer of this province. As has already been indicated by the member for Durham East, people are concerned with their taxes in this province. The property taxes, all taxes, are soaring unbelievably, and yet this government appears to be intent and determined to improve housing in this province by injecting more government money into it and discouraging private enterprise. I think we are going to have even more crises than what we have now.

The report concludes with a topic called "A Formidable Challenge." It talks about heading into the 21st century. They say that the state of housing in Ontario presents a formidable challenge. Of course the big question is, and with Bill 4, is this government up to it? Is this government up to the challenge that is needed to take us into the 21st century, specifically with housing needs based on the information that this report has revealed?

The report states, "With skyrocketing costs and a dwindling supply of rental stock, the rental market is already unable to accommodate the current need for shelter." That is quite clear. There is no new housing being constructed in the province of Ontario of an appreciable nature to increase the number of units -- none. All we hear of is the intent of this government to use taxpayers' money to inject money into the economy to build new rental accommodation. That is unsatisfactory. The taxpayer cannot bear that cost.

"No one municipality is spared or favoured by these conditions -- across the province, towns and cities alike are in the same predicament." That is true. This is not a Toronto problem. This is a problem across the entire province, as we have seen from our own hearings that we have taken across this province, whether it be London, Hamilton, Windsor or Ottawa or whether it be the north.

They raised a couple of points I would just like to refer to, first, "Vacancy rates of 0.5% to 1.2% are well below the 'healthy' level of 3%." So that is what we have now: 0.5% to 1.2%.

They talk again. They emphasize how 27,000 units are needed now, are required immediately to reach this 3% vacancy rate. Then they speak about another estimate and, I emphasize, over and above the 27,000 units, 14,000 to 16,000 additional rental units "will be needed each year to keep up with population growth." Of course, this group is talking about the government putting in the money. It is not talking about private enterprise putting in the money. Yes, we need it, but we also need private enterprise, and this government is going to do it on its own.

They state, "Rental household income has failed to keep pace with rent increases." That is the real crisis we face. That is the real crisis this Legislature needs to deal with now. Bill 4 does nothing for the 30% of the existing tenants of this province who cannot afford any increases. Time after time we have heard from students and from senior citizens who cannot afford the increases that are in existence now. They cannot afford the increases that are being put forward by Bill 4. They cannot afford that. Yet this government is ignoring the very people whom it is suggesting to help. I have not heard any suggestions from the government side. The members sit on their hands. They sat on their hands during the committee and they are sitting on their hands now. There are no amendments that have been put forward by the government to Bill 4 to deal with this subject. In fact, the House leader is simply cutting off the debate. We are not going to be allowed to deal with that subject.

The report also dealt with the fact that, "One third of Ontario tenants pay more than 30% household income to rent, well above a 30% cost-to-income ratio: 477,000 households."

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I believe the member must have read very closely what the resolution is all about, and his debate must indicate this is what he is discussing. This is not what he is doing now.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, with respect, what I propose to do is to raise some of the issues that the time allocation is precluding us from debating, and I submit with respect that I have the right to do that. I have the right to list off why this motion should not carry. This motion should not carry because there is a whole slew of issues that we will not be able to debate. We are going to be given two days to talk about a very serious economic crisis in this province.

The final point that was raised in this report: They talk about provincial housing expenditures increasing since 1986, comprised of only 1.5% of the total budget. I have only mentioned a few sections. You are quite right, Mr Speaker, I do not intend to deal at great length with this specific report, but I think that we should have had an opportunity during the Bill 4 discussions to talk about the whole effect on the economy in this province.

Mr Thom came to the committee one evening; the members may recall or may have seen it on the television or read it in the Hansard. Mr Thom, as the members will recall, has worked on a two-volume report that was initially commissioned by the Conservative Party and followed through with the Liberal Party and never used by this Legislature. In fact, it was never presented to this Legislature and has yet to be presented to this Legislature. It cost over $3 million and many hours -- years, in fact -- to produce this report.

Again I am emphasizing the need to discuss the economic facts that need to be dealt with with respect to Bill 4. Mr Thom came forward at the committee level and referred to some items that spoke specifically about the return on investment, and we are not going to get an opportunity to deal with that subject because of this closure motion. Mr Thom specifically talked about the main reasons for the difficulty in devising appropriate rules and regulations, the difficulty that one is having.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What the member is talking about is not with regard to the motion that is before us today in the House, and I would like to hear that.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much for the advice. I have already advised the member for Dufferin-Peel to stick to the resolution.

Mr Tilson: I would refer to Mr Thom's thoughts on the subject of return on investment, because this is not going to be dealt with by this House. The members opposite do not care; they do not even want to hear it. Mr Speaker, I would just like to show you a small sense of the importance of this and how we should spend a considerable amount of time on this subject and how it is going to affect the economy of this province.

One of the key reasons for the difficulty the government is having in trying to devise appropriate rules and regulations is that landlords come in all sizes and shapes. There is the mom-and-pop operation. There is the single home owner who puts a couple of rental units in his house; this is very important to him. There is the smaller corporation which has perhaps two or three dozen or so units. Then there is the big, monster corporation. They all have one common factor. Now this is basically where the market comes into the picture, into play. This range of landlords have put into it a very substantial personal investment. They borrowed a lot of money which they have to pay back.

The mortgage companies have no qualms about collecting their money on the dot and according to the contract, and the interest rates have been very high all over. The landlords all have to meet a very substantial cost, and they hope to get some return on their equity. Bill 4 completely ignores that subject. Mr Thom is simply saying that the market is going to collapse unless they do deal with it, but we are not going to get a chance to introduce our amendments with respect to that.

1530

Mr Thom also referred to the subject, as I and other members have referred to, of what the government intends to do, and that is to make housing a public utility like Ontario Hydro. I would like to refer specifically to a section where he talks about that. He says, "Who is going to finance the costs of building, renewing, maintaining the rental units which are necessary to house the rental population of Ontario?" Bill 4 ignores all this matter, ignores all these topics. I think that is the question that hopefully we would have an opportunity to debate in the Bill 4 hearings, but the time allocation motion says, "No, we are not going to do that."

This province, this country does not have the money just to throw at the rental housing without the support and input of private landlords. The government should realize by now -- we have been trying to hammer away and I think we should have an opportunity to emphasize more -- that it needs private enterprise to make the housing system work. They cannot do it alone. They are in for a rude awakening if that is their intent.

"If you want to make rental housing a public utility, go ahead. Make it a public utility like Hydro. It will cost billions and billions of dollars. I simply do not think it can be done. I express now a personal opinion, but I think it is a fair one, that it is vitally important to the financial welfare of this province, let alone the welfare of the housing industry, that there be a very substantial input of private funds."

Again, we have requested information at the committee level and we request it now. We request the opportunity to put this information forward so that Bill 4 can adequately be debated.

Mr Thom continues by saying:

"The prevailing system of rent regulation since 1975 has been progressively to discourage continuing new investment of private funds and maintaining the current investment of private funds. That is a very serious question in my mind, and although you may feel great sympathy for tenants and the problems they have, which I will mention in a moment, it seems to me most important that if this province is to financially maintain its...double A rating and not have to borrow great sums of money to keep rental housing available, the private money is imperative."

That is the crunch of Bill 4. It affects the whole economic aspect of this province. Clearly, the people outside and inside the province do not have the confidence in this province to invest, certainly in the housing field.

Mr Thom went on to comment: "Private money is essential. If private money is going to stay in and come in in the amounts required, it has to have some expectation of return." What is the expectation of return? When one reads Bill 4, what is the expectation of return? Why would anybody get into the housing market? Why would anybody buy buildings? Why would anybody construct buildings to improve the plight of the tenant or to simply provide more housing? There is no logical reason for it.

Mr Thom says: "About a third of the tenant households in Ontario are poor. That is not the word that is very popular -- you can use 'economically disadvantaged' -- but they are poor." Clearly that is the group of tenants of whom I have spoken before that this government is ignoring. One third of the tenants of this province are poor; they cannot afford rent increases. Seniors who are on a restricted income, who only have so many funds and if the rents keep going up, have to move. They have to move to apartments that are perhaps of a less high standard and hence their quality of life deteriorates.

They cannot afford from their own resources, incomes, whatever they have, jobs, the rents required to pay economic rents to private landlords. That is one of the facts of life. It has been a fact of life and it will continue to be. Bill 4 does not address that situation and we are not going to have an opportunity to properly debate that.

"At the other end of the scale. . .10% of the tenant population are quite well-to-do. They want to rent because, well, they are older people who do not want to have the bother and hassle of a house. They are what they call empty-nesters, or were. They would rather be able to travel and go off to Florida in the winter.... They can pay rents of $1,500, $2,000 a month; it is perhaps 10%, 12% of their income." That is a real problem. This government is simply providing housing to the rich.

Mr Thom says, "I tell you quite frankly, it has never been clear to me why tenants who can afford to pay economic rents with no problem should have the protection of rent control." Does the government know why they should? Because its Bill 4 certainly does not. We would like an opportunity to discuss that and we are not going to get that. "In the middle, something more than 50% of the tenant population are tenants frequently because they cannot afford to buy a house.... But the category I am discussing is those who can afford to pay reasonable economic rents."

I am not going to refer any further to items that he raised, but they were a number of lists of topics that he summarized. He only had an evening to present a $3-million report, a report that he spent years on. The Minister of Housing did not even want to see him. He has not even requested that he see him. The committee did and that was after a great deal of effort by myself and the member for York Mills to try to persuade the government to hear Mr Thom. We finally spent a couple of hours one evening listening to his thoughts, but that is not the way to hear a $3-million report.

The Minister of Housing and the Premier have simply said they are out to get the big landlords. In fact, they are allergic to them. I find it amazing that this government, which is a government of all the people, or alleges that it is the government of all the people, would make these statements. The Minister of Housing has stated that the Ontario government will not give in to intimidation and pressure from big landlords who want the province's rent control legislation scrapped. Not all landlords are the big cigar-toting individuals with high hats and the types of individuals the Minister of Housing has painted. We have had landlord after landlord just like you or me.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to address these remarks, sir, not only to you but to all the members of the House. Let me read to you what the rules of procedure say: "Rules of Debate" -- section 23, page 8 -- "In a debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she directs his or her speech to matters other than the question under discussion." It is very clear, so you have to maintain your remarks strictly on the notice of motion, simple as that. That is addressed not only to you but to all of you.

Mr Tilson: I appreciate your assistance, Mr Speaker, and I certainly will try and keep my remarks addressed to that subject, because that is a concern certainly we have on this side. Both opposition parties are concerned that we are not having adequate time to address these concerns, and what I propose to do is to illustrate some of the items that we would hope to elaborate on through amendments and perhaps other amendments.

Both the Liberal critic and I have filed sets of amendments, and there may be other amendments that we would hope to raise as time goes on. As I have indicated through the small debate that has occurred, the member for Carleton has introduced two amendments, which I doubt will be reached as a result of the two days that are being proposed, but I certainly will keep my remarks addressed to that and to concerns that we hope will be raised that we are not being able to discuss during the debate.

I would like to refer to a demonstration that occurred last week where the Minister of Housing was burned in effigy on the lawn of this Legislature by a group of 500 landlords and contractors and people who had lost their jobs. He pledged at that time that Bill 4 would proceed and said that the complaints that it was putting business people in financial straits are exaggerated. I find that amazing. After what we heard during the weeks of hearings from people who would come to us and talk about the problems that were addressed specifically to Bill 4, he was simply saying that the complaints of the people who are going bankrupt are exaggerated.

They are producing documented facts. We are not having an opportunity to present that to this House in the form of an amendment. This motion precludes us from doing that. How he would dare to make that statement that these individuals are exaggerating the facts is simply intolerable.

1540

The Minister of Housing stated: "It's the determination of this government that there's going to be permanent rent control legislation in this province no matter how much money the big landlord organizations spend. That was a commitment that we made and we intend to keep it." I think that is clear from the very outset. He is ignoring the very people of this province that he is trying to protect. He is ignoring the small landlords, the small individuals. He is addressing his comments to the big landlord organizations.

Who says that some of these big landlord organizations are abusing the system? Clearly evidence can be produced that they are, but they are not all bad like he says they are. Not all tenants' organizations are bad. Clearly if legislation is going to be introduced it should be fair to all and not just one select group of individuals.

One of the people who spoke at that time was Martin Cash, who is an owner of Wind-O-Mart, which is a replacement window company based in Toronto that employs 80 people. He said he had lost more than $7 million of orders since the New Democratic government had announced plans for Bill 4. He said he is going to have to shut down his company if the Legislature approves the bill. We are not having an opportunity to go into those types of stories and to illustrate and try to persuade this government that the bill that it is producing to this House should not be passed. We are not going to have that opportunity. The minority is being trampled on.

We asked questions in this House with respect to the capital expenditures that were being lost by Bill 4. What is going to happen to the people who have spent money under the existing rules of Bill 51? What is going to happen to them? Our submission is that we would encourage the government to put forward an amendment. The government has not filed any amendments. They have filed absolutely no amendments to deal with the capital expenditures that are being lost under Bill 4. We have asked the Minister of Housing what he intends to do about that and he will not give an answer. I believe that we have the right to debate that in the House and to ask for an amendment to try to resolve that situation.

The Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario, in addressing that fact of capital expenditures lost, announced that they felt that there would be 2,000 people in a variety of trades put back to work immediately if the Minister of Housing either announced some plan or made an amendment to Bill 4 that would solve that situation. Of course, that involves the retroactive nature of this legislation, but the minister continues to be silent. He does not care, and this government does not care. This organization made it quite clear that the workers and their equipment were all ready to go back to work that the workers and people who have been providing services to the people of this province and providing housing accommodation who had lost their jobs because of Bill 4 should be able to continue.

We have heard a great deal about the loss of jobs as a result of Bill 4. We have heard that in committee and we have heard it in submissions made in this House. Clearly we have had financial institutions, we have had landlords, we have had contractors, we have had construction people, come to us and talk about the loss of jobs and we are not going to get an opportunity to adequately present amendments to resolve that issue or to make suggestions to the government. The government is not going to care. It has not filed any amendments.

It was made quite clear in the Toronto Globe and Mail on 10 April about the status of unemployment in this province. Clearly, in listening to the facts that we heard from this commission, that we heard during the committee hearings, job losses are occurring as a result of Bill 4. I believe that now is the time to deal with that. The government should not wait until two years have expired. It should not wait. Let's deal with it now. It should not wait until next year to resolve this subject. It should deal with it now.

This came out of the Report on Business of the Toronto Globe and Mail. It was an article by Drew Fagan, who stated: "The year-long recession is wiping out jobs in Ontario twice as fast as the 1981-82 recession did, Statistics Canada says. In almost every other province, the reverse is true," but not in Ontario.

"The number of jobs in Alberta and British Columbia has actually grown since the recession began last April, and the number of jobs lost in Quebec is less than half of what disappeared there in the first 12 months of the previous recession.

"The figures show that Ontario has really been feeling this recession much more severely than the other provinces.... The recession looks less harsh in Quebec this time than the last one, but the opposite is the case for Ontario."

Clearly the issue of Bill 4 and the effect that it has had on the jobs of this province is a factor that plays in these statistics, and yet we are going to be unable to present amendments -- and I would assume the government is going to be unable to present amendments -- to try to deal with this subject and try to alleviate the job losses that are occurring in the province of Ontario.

Clearly as a result of Bill 4, I would submit, and the whole impact of Bill 4, real estate is not a good investment in Ontario. Individuals have said that because of the restrictions that have been put on by Bill 4 they are not going to invest in Ontario. I would like to refer to a report that has been referred to at the committee level and in this House, and that is by Royal LePage. It is dated August 1989 and it is for the Ministry of Housing rent review policy branch. It made some interesting comments which illustrate the point that housing is going nowhere in this province and Bill 4 is not going to solve it and we do not have an opportunity to pursue it any further because of the closure motion of this government.

"Over the last 20 years, market values have increased by about 7.7% compounded annually. Considering an adjustment for inflation, real growth has been nominal or, in many cases, non-existent; and

"Compared to other investments, residential rent investment has performed poorly. Other real estate markets have higher overall capitalization rates and higher returns. Treasury bills, Canada savings bonds and corporate paper returns have also outpaced rental market returns over the last 20 years. A comparison of Toronto Stock Exchange, ScotiaMcLeod and Morguard property indices show that the rental market index did not perform nearly as well as the other investment markets." Clearly this report then and now shows that real estate is not a good investment, and it is because of this type of legislation that this government is accelerating.

We feel that if we had had an opportunity to present suggestions to this government -- and perhaps the government would offer further suggestions after hearing the discussions at the committee level and the comments that have been made by opposition members -- it would reconsider some of its positions and amend Bill 4, but we are not going to get that opportunity. The Ministry of Housing and the House leader are determined to slam this legislation through and will not listen to the people of this side or the people of the province of Ontario.

Of course, unless the government reconsiders, and I hope it does reconsider, there are several amendments that we will not have the opportunity to adequately deal with and we will not have the opportunity to adequately debate. One of them had to do with subsection 100e(1) of the bill. That had to do with the topic of extraordinary operating cost, and it was a very simple amendment we made at committee, and that was that the words "garbage tippage fees" be included as one of the extraordinary operating costs.

The Minister of Housing, when I raised this at committee, simply scoffed at that and he said, "Well, we couldn't handle that because of the building operating cost index formulas," and other problems that he had, but he said he would get back to us. He said he would get back to us before this House started and provide us with information so that that would be relieved.

We have not heard from him. This was before the House was to commence. It was not during the debate, and it certainly will not come up in this motion. We only have two days to discuss it.

1550

I referred specifically to a problem that is occurring, and we are hearing it every day, with the problem of waste and the increased tippage fees and the effect that is going to have on the rental accommodation of this province.

There was an article from the Toronto Star that spoke of a mandatory 20% cut in packaging that was announced by the Minister of the Environment for all products sold in the province. The announcement would include a requirement that municipalities charge the full cost of dumping garbage in landfills, a measure that could lead to increased tippage fees in many dumps. Toronto area dumps already charge high fees, but others in the province charge low fees or allow free use.

We know what is going to happen. We know perfectly well what is going to happen if this occurs: It is ultimately passed down to the landlord. How is he going to pay for it? This legislation does not deal with it, and we will not be allowed to deal with it adequately.

It was pointed out that since 1983, tippage fees have risen over 600% in the GTA. On average, builders are paying $300 per home to dispose of the approximately 2.5 tonnes of garbage. Clearly it is a very serious problem with the tippage fees.

The minister commented that as a result of this admission at the committee, "I would be willing to share that information with the opposition critics after the ministry has done some assessment of the problem." Further on he states, "And I just asked the member to take my commitment that this matter will be assessed, and we will share that information with the opposition critics between now and when the House comes back and see if there is any way that it can be addressed if the assessment shows that it needs to be done."

I accepted that as an undertaking. I accepted that as an undertaking by a minister of the crown to provide that information, as he said, "prior to when the House comes back," and we have not received this information. In fact, I do not know when I can actually ask the minister that question. I do not see anybody. I do not see the minister or the parliamentary assistant present so that we can even ask that question today. So dealing specifically on this resolution, we are simply not going to have an opportunity to do that. That is particularly after a minister gave such an undertaking, that he would provide that information "prior to when the House comes back."

That is just one of the topics that we are not going to be able to debate if this motion carries. I would like to refer to a principle that the minister had announced back in the early part of this year, that he was obviously concerned with the subject of capital expenditures. Now, I know the Liberal Party and certainly our party had intended to bring motions dealing with the whole subject of capital expenditures and how that subject was going to be dealt with. We are not going to get an opportunity to adequately deal with that. It is quite clear. We spent some time during the committee level, and I would hope that all members would have an opportunity to contribute to that subject. We have spent some time on the issue of retroactivity, but clearly the subject of capital expenditures is an item that has not even been touched and it will take some time, I feel, to adequately deal with the problem.

Back in January the Ontario government announced that it would pour an extra $35 million into a variety of housing projects this year as part of an anti-recession effort, including $15 million to help private landlords carry out major repairs on low-rise buildings. Now, of course, this is something that has gone on before and yet it is sort of like the announcement today. No new incentive is being put forward, nothing is being put forward, and we would challenge the minister during this debate to put that forward. But we are not going to be able to do that.

Going on in this newspaper report, which comes from the Globe and Mail, 23 October, he stated: "Money is not intended to mollify landlords who are angry over the government's proposed rent control law, which prevents them from passing on the costs of major repairs to tenants. The purpose of this is to create jobs." Can members imagine? "The purpose of this is to create jobs," yet previously he said that everybody was exaggerating the problems, that the jobs were being exaggerated, that the bankruptcies were being exaggerated. He said: "The purpose of this is to create jobs. I do not necessarily think there is a connection between the $15-million program and the landlords' concerns over Bill 4, as the rent control legislation is known."

Clearly, as one of the landlord groups referred to, this is reaching a new height of hypocrisy as far as the Minister of Housing is concerned. Clearly it would be bizarre for the government to announce funds to encourage repairs on the one hand, while pushing forward with legislation that will discourage landlords from doing so. So if he says on the one hand he is going to initiate this funding to encourage repairs, yet Bill 4 is silent on it.

We will not have an opportunity to debate that and to add an amendment which would provide for capital expenditures to be made during this moratorium period. We are not going to be allowed to do that because the wording in the motion talks about a time frame as to submitting amendments and clearly, as debate goes on, if there are any new amendments that would occur or that members would think of, we will not be allowed to deal with those.

We think the whole process that the minister is continually trying to force this legislation through -- it took us a great deal of effort to have this committee go to different cities in the province of Ontario. One of the cities we had hoped to go to was Thunder Bay, and that was not allowed. Just to show members the unfairness, this is a letter to the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Housing, and it comes from Shelley Martin from Port Arthur: "It has come to my attention that the standing committee on general government, which is at the present time considering Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986, will not be meeting in Thunder Bay." That was a concern that we had: Why did it not go to Thunder Bay? "I am greatly disappointed," she says. A copy of this letter went to the Attorney General, it went to the Minister of Mines and it went to the Chairman of the committee.

She says: "I am greatly disappointed. We must allow residents of northwestern Ontario an opportunity to express their position on this legislation. We will be seen as cutting off the political process. This is very damaging to our government." I will say it is damaging to our government. They do not even want to talk about it. They certainly do not want to talk about it in Thunder Bay, and we are not going to be given an opportunity to talk about it in this House.

"As I understand it, the ad, of which a copy is attached, appeared in a local Thunder Bay paper on 3 January. I draw to your attention the last sentence in the ad, which states, 'Requests for appointments to appear before the committee to make oral representation should be directed to the clerk of the committee no later than Friday 25 January 1991 for consideration by the committee.' I feel this is very clear and urge you and your committee colleagues to reconsider holding the hearings in Thunder Bay."

The NDP members of the committee felt that was not needed and we did not meet in Thunder Bay and we did not meet in Peterborough. We did not meet in a number of cities in which representation to hold meetings was requested.

We have not adequately heard from the people of this province. We have not adequately heard from at least 100 individuals and groups that wanted to address the committee and we are not going to be allowed to debate Bill 4 because of this closure motion.

There were some concerns that some of the groups put forward as to the need for housing in this province and we feel that it is all relevant, that it should be put forward in Bill 4 legislation, because Bill 4 is silent on many matters. We had hoped that we would be able to introduce the amendments that we have filed and possibly, with further debate, to introduce further amendments, but we are not going to have that opportunity.

One of the groups that did speak to us, the Association For Furthering Ontario's Rental Development, commented that "the current government is ideologically committed to pervasive and extensive government control of and involvement in the rental housing market in Ontario, both for short-term political reasons and because in principle they prefer government control to private enterprise." That is a concern that we have. We think that is a wrong process, to proceed to more government control and less assistance from private enterprise. But with this motion, if this motion passes, we will not be able to put that forward.

They talked about six objectives that we should be looking at with respect to Bill 4. I would have hoped that we would have an opportunity to elaborate on some of these items and I would like to briefly refer to them without going into great detail, because I suppose there is always the chance that the government could change its mind and withdraw this motion or hopefully defeat it.

1600

The six objectives that were put forward by this organization were as follows:

First, "That we need an adequate supply of rental housing at all price levels." I would hope that all three parties of this House would admit that as one of the objectives. In fact, I would hope they would agree with all of these objectives.

Second, we "need to keep Ontario's aging rental housing stock in good and usable condition."

Third, "That we want a rental housing market that is fair." Of course, that is a subject that I have asked the Premier, I have asked the Minister of Housing, I have asked the parliamentary assistant about, and I would hope that I would have further opportunity to discuss with this House and to raise issues with this House as to whether the legislation is fair, but I am not going to have an opportunity to do that.

The fourth objective would be that, "Those in financial need should have reasonable and realistic access to clean and safe rental housing." Do we? Does Bill 4 deal with that? We would hope that amendments would come forward in the Bill 4 discussions that would provide that or provide a suggestion to move in that direction. But we are not going to hear about that.

Fifth, "We must...strive for the most cost-effective possible use of taxpayers' money." Clearly we are not going to be in that position as well, because of this resolution that was put forward by the government House leader.

Finally, the organization spoke of the need for a "renting partnership" in Ontario, so that "landlords and tenants can work more positively and co-operatively together than they have in the past because both have direct and legitimate interests and concerns that must be addressed if we are to find fair and effective solutions."

This government is only interested in one party. They are not concerned with all of the people of this province. I am not going to speak for the official opposition, but I can certainly speak for ourselves. We are in support of all of the people of this province. We are concerned with this economic situation. We are not just restricting our thoughts to one particular group. We are being fair. Is the government?

"Bill 4 eliminates the 'capital improvement' basis for rental increases over and above the basic inflationary increase of 5.4%.

"With this bill, the NDP will remove the provision that permitted landlords to apply for increases, phased over the useful life of the capital improvement, for major repairs to rental buildings."

That is all gone and we feel that we should be able to put forward an amendment and properly debate it, not with the restrictions that are put forward by this government to discuss that subject.

"Bill 4 also eliminates the provision for rental increases over and above the basic guideline increase in cases where the building is losing money." That is what exists now. Bill 4 does away with all that and that is one of the items, of course, that is causing the bankruptcies. Bankruptcy after bankruptcy has been documented and this government refused to deal with it at committee and it is refusing to deal with it now. They are simply putting forth closure and saying: "That's it. We won't discuss it any more."

The organization that I am referring to asked the simple question, "What impact will these two changes" -- the two that I have just referred to -- "have on each of the six objectives for rental housing in Ontario that I believe we all agree upon?...Bill 4 simply will not work to help Ontario reach the rental housing objectives we all share." I cannot believe that this government will believe that it will.

Therefore, we, all members of the House, should have an opportunity to put forward amendments to attempt to solve problems that have been created by Bill 4. If passed, they will have a dastardly effect on the economy of this province.

"What impact will Bill 4 have on the supply of rental housing in the province?" That question has been asked and we all know that it will not have any effect, absolutely nothing to encourage the supply of rental housing in this province. I would just like to read a brief statement from this report that was submitted by this organization. This is referring to the government, of course:

"What they will most certainly do will be to eliminate new private sector investment in rental housing in this province. They have an immediate and direct negative impact on the viability of rental housing businesses and on the asset value of rental buildings.

"For virtually everyone who bought a building in the last four years, the Bill 4 changes means the owner will be locked into a negative cash flow position in perpetuity." For ever.

We have not had an adequate opportunity to debate that subject. It has not been adequately dealt with. In fact, it has been very rarely referred to. The report goes on to say:

"Not surprisingly, this has translated into an immediate fall in the market value of apartment buildings: on average, we estimate the value of these investments has fallen in the order of 25% as a direct result of Bill 4. This drop in value means that, even where landlords want to do so, their ability to borrow to finance repairs or improvements is diminished. There is no incentive for investors to own apartment buildings, to buy apartment buildings or to build apartment buildings."

I submit that we in the opposition, and even government members, should have an opportunity to put forward facts that would show the government what it is doing to the investment of this province, what it is doing to the apartment buildings of this province, not only the capital expenditures that are required or the lack of supply of rental housing in this province. We are not able to do that. With this resolution, we are not able to do that.

The report goes on to talk about the preservation of Ontario's rental housing stock. Clearly there is some reference in the section that talks about necessary improvements, but it is very minor. I have given one example as to where that should be amended, but we are not going to get a chance to debate that, or at least debate it adequately.

Will the changes in Bill 4 keep Ontario's aging rental housing stock in good and usable condition? The statistics show that 75% to 80% of the buildings of this province are 20 years or more old, and clearly it is going to be impossible, with this Bill 4, to keep those buildings in a good and stable condition. It will actually do the opposite. It will have an opposite effect, because no work is going to get done at all. I feel that that, along with the retroactive aspect, is a subject on which we need to put forward some constructive amendments and we are not going to get an opportunity to do that.

This report commented that:

"In Ontario, most engineering studies conducted for condominium developments recommend that 20% or more of operating revenues be retained for major repairs. The legislation governing condominiums dictates that a minimum of 10% of fee revenues be set aside for major repairs. The rent review formula prevents any such planning."

Well, there is nothing. Bill 4 does not deal with this, and yet we are not going to have an opportunity to even put forward an amendment to suggest that this topic be dealt with.

"The current capital improvement provisions" -- that is, those that are in existence now -- "were added to rent review to ensure that where normal maintenance and repairs were sufficient to preserve the housing stock, rent increases would be limited to the inflationary level and where major repairs were needed to preserve the building, there was a controlled and monitored mechanism to permit the costs of those investments to be recovered from the renter over time.

"This provision did not, in general, result in significant rent increases in Ontario. Ministry of Housing statistics show that -- for the 22 months ending last October -- almost three quarters of all apartments in Ontario experienced no increase over and above the 4.6% inflationary increase for any reason. And these same statistics show that the average increase for major repairs was less than 3% above the guideline rate....

"So, this provision did not lead to soaring rents, but it did make it possible for landlords to make these investments with reasonable confidence that, over the useful life of the new roof or new furnace or new elevator or new security system or new plumbing, they would be able to recover their costs. The provision made it possible for landlords to negotiate loans to pay for these improvements, because it provided a repayment source."

1610

Now I do not know where this government thinks the money is going to come from to solve these problems, because Bill 4 is silent on that. I know the Liberal opposition and certainly the Conservative Party have suggestions to deal with that subject and I think that we should be given an opportunity to debate it and try and persuade the government to change its mind on a very serious mistake that it is making. Where is the money going to come from? How are our buildings going to be maintained? How are we going to stop the quality of life of the tenant from sliding? We are not going to get a chance to debate that. This government is just determined to slam this legislation through and the heck with the tenants, the heck with the landlords, the heck with the people.

"Bill 4 removes that repayment source" that exists under the current legislation "and removes the reasonable expectation of recovering costs," a process that the people of this province, landlord, tenant, contractor, employer, employee, grew to understand and realize was a bad system. But you do not make it retroactive. You do not let them make the expenditures, do the work and then cancel everything, because that is only going to cause bankruptcy, it is only going to cause losses in employment, it is only going to cause a deterioration in the quality of life of the tenants of the province. But we are not going to be able to talk about that.

The report goes on, "The business people who own rental buildings will seek to avoid, cancel or postpone these investments." That is what is happening, and hopefully the government members, as time goes on -- I can understand the minister and the House leader trying to ram this legislation through, because more and more horror stories are occurring all the time and naturally they want to get the legislation out of the way so they can get on to other things, so that these facts will not be revealed before the legislation is passed.

"The lenders who have provided the funds for capital improvements have already indicated that they are no longer willing to make such loans." We never really adequately presented that information or had that information presented to us at the committee. We had hoped that we, through debate, would be able to introduce comments from financial institutions that would show that they are no longer willing to invest to improve the capital expenditures, capital improvements that are so badly needed for the apartments of this province.

The report goes on to say that:

"Bill 4 will not work to help preserve Ontario's rental housing stock. On the contrary, it will accelerate the deterioration in our aging rental housing by discouraging investment in needed major repairs."

Now the report gets on to a subject which I have attempted to raise with the Minister of Housing, with the Premier, with the parliamentary assistant in this House, in this committee. Clearly I can understand why this motion is being put forward to restrict us from debating it, because I intended to raise that question again: Is the government being fair? Is Bill 4 being fair? That talks about the issue of fairness, of the issue of achieving rental housing markets that are fair, and we are not going to be able to debate that.

The report talked about that for some length, and I would like to refer to some sections where this is referred to, just to show members the importance of this subject and how, I submit, we are not going to be able to properly put this position forward to the government members and hope that they would reconsider their position. Speaking of the fairness, of achieving a rental housing market that is fair:

"This, of course, is the main motivation the government has claimed in proposing these changes. Throughout the recent election campaign" -- and this report, I might add, was back in January -- "and since, the NDP repeatedly assert that the rental housing market in Ontario is rife with abuse."

Yet they will not allow us to talk about the abuse that they are handing the people of this province. They will not allow us to debate that. They are going to put restrictions on us to debate that subject. They will not allow us to debate the very issue as to why they say Bill 4 was introduced in the first place.

"The Premier and his Minister of Housing have talked of 'loopholes' in rent review, of 'gouging landlords,' of 'flips' designed to defeat the intent of rent review, of 'unnecessary repairs' designed to push up rents. The Premier has even spoken, on several occasions, of 'rent increases of 100% or more' as though these were daily and consistent occurrences in Ontario."

That, I submit, is the "big lie," and I put that in quotation marks. I am not saying that the Premier has lied, but I am saying it is the big lie. It is the creating of a situation that simply does not exist. They have put forward statements and they are not giving us adequate time to respond to those statements, to prove it, put facts forward to this House to refute what both the minister and the Premier have stated.

The report goes on:

"There is only one real problem with all of these statements; they are not true....

"The facts show that the rental housing market in Ontario has not been rife with abuse. And we're not suggesting you take our word for it. Instead, let's look at the figures provided by CMHC and by the Ministry of Housing in Ontario.

"According to CMHC, the average rent for privately owned apartments in the city of Toronto is just over $600 and that average rent increased by about 5.8% between October 1989 and October 1990. That's not exactly a portrait of a rental market running out of control or rife with so-called gouging."

So again, the facts have been created to show a crisis that exists in housing, but not in this particular area, and we are not given a chance to refute that.

"The Premier has spoken of 'increases of 100% or more' as though that were the pattern in Ontario. But how many of these 100%-plus increases actually occurred?

"Well, there is a total of about 1.2 million rental units in Ontario. According to the Ministry of Housing's own statistics, a grand total of 154 -- that's one out of every 13,000 suites in the province -- experienced increases over 100% in the 22 months ending in October 1990. Those same Ministry of Housing figures tell us that almost 888,000 units, or 74% of the total, experienced rent increases at or below the guideline level of 4.6%."

Now, is that gouging landlords? Are there gouging landlords there? We are not going to be able to show facts to the contrary, because we are only to be given two days to put forward amendments on the whole subject. That is all we are being given.

"Some renters did face increases higher than 4.6%, primarily resulting from rent review decisions relating to capital improvements or operating losses. But were those increases excessive or out of control?

"Let's look again at the Ministry of Housing statistics. They tell us that there are just under 269,000 units, about 22.5% of the total, that experienced rent increases between 4.6% and 14% over that 22-month period as a result of rent review decisions relating to capital improvement or operating loss."

They talk about two points with respect to this issue that has been raised:

"The first is that any increases over and above the guideline level were granted only where rent review was convinced that the increases were necessary to cover the costs of needed major repairs or to offset demonstrated financial losses. Renters were informed and they had an opportunity to object if they wished. These were not automatic increases by any means at all."

They were not automatic. They were approved by the rent review legislation. Now, that is not what the Premier said. So we are not getting a chance to go into detail and to cross-examine the three members as to why they made those statements, and we are not going to be given an opportunity to make amendments to counteract what they are saying.

1620

"The second point we should keep in mind as we look at these numbers" -- these figures that I have just read to members -- "is that the majority of increases for capital improvement or operating losses were far lower than that 14% level. The average increase for capital improvements and for operating losses was less than 3% above the guideline rate over this period."

I would like to just briefly refer to a final section in this report on that subject, where they cite an example, to give the members here today a sense of what was normal under the rent review rules that this government intends to scrap. The report speaks of a building with 200 units where the roof leaks. It is an old building. The landlord, the report indicates, got three quotes for a new roof and the low bid was $150,000. Naturally, the legislation says, "You do the work first and then we'll talk about it." So once the work was done, he could apply to rent review for an increase. How big would the increase be?

"Well, the assumption that rent review would make was that the roof would have a 15-year life, so the increase would be designed to pay off the costs over 15 years.... The rental increase in that case if rent review approved it would be about $9.25 per suite per month. That's a 1.5% rent increase.

"And that, unlike the alleged '100% and higher' increases Mr Rae and his colleagues speak of, is characteristic of the kinds of levels of increases that have been occurring in Ontario's rental housing market."

Clearly there have been abuses of the system, but you do not destroy the whole system just to try and deal with those one or two specific individuals. You do not destroy the whole system.

"The fact is that a grand total of less than 4% of all rental units faced rent increases greater than 14% over this 22-month period, and any increase greater than 4.6% was granted only after extensive examination by the Ministry of Housing."

The report stated that they did not know where the 154 units whose rents went up by 100% or more are located, but they do know that:

"It would be far more effective, and far less disruptive of the rental housing market as a whole in Ontario, for the Ministry of Housing to investigate each and every one of those 154 units, or indeed to examine the 4% whose rents went up by 15% or more, than it is to scrap the rent review system that existed in Ontario until the announcement of Bill 4."

We are not getting an opportunity to do that. We are not getting an opportunity to tell the government that is what it should be doing, it should be scrapping this legislation and dealing specifically with the abuses that clearly have existed, and there are ways for it to do that. There are ways for them to amend the legislation, if it does not already exist, to deal with those terrible abuses.

Certainly we had situation after situation come to us at the committee level by tenants who described unbelievable treatment they have had from landlords, and there is no question that those landlords should be apprehended and treated accordingly, but the ministry is not doing that. Instead they are scrapping everything and they are putting forward a system that is going to cause great abuse on everyone: tenants, landlords, employees, investors and the entire housing market.

The report went on to talk about access to housing for those in financial need, and of course that is one item in the bill which is completely silent and to which we had proposed to put forward amendments, but we are not going to get that opportunity; in other words, an amendment to protect the poor of this province. This government does not care about the poor of this province. They do not care about the 30% population of tenants who cannot afford any increase. The government has suggested that the purpose of Bill 4 is at least in part to protect the poor. Does it? We do not have a chance to discuss that because of this resolution that is going to go through. We are not going to have an opportunity to adequately deal with that whole subject.

I would like to specifically refer to some facts that are referred to in this report:

"It is a fact that the vast majority of any rent savings produced by Ontario's rent control system are enjoyed, not by the poor, but by middle- and upper-income tenants. CMHC statistics show that more than half of all rental units are occupied by middle-income people, and because they occupy the higher-quality, more expensive rental units, they benefit disproportionately in dollar terms. And we all know from our own experience that in many cases these apartments that are the biggest 'bargains,' whose rents have been kept artificially low relative to the market because of rent controls, are occupied, not by the poor, but by the middle-income renters."

The legislation is silent on the very people this government is attempting to help. They are not going to deal with it. They are refusing to deal with it. We attempted at the committee level to put forward amendments to deal with it, but they were silent. They sat on their hands. We had proposed to put forward amendments and to debate this subject in an intelligent way to show that this is the real crunch of the problem: What are we going to do with the poor people? What are we going to do with the people who cannot afford the increases that this government is forcing upon them?

"CMHC tells us that the average Ontario renter spends only 18% of gross income on shelter costs, including utilities and parking in most cases.

"That there are renters -- significant numbers of renters -- who pay more and who are in financial need is undeniable. In fact, about 28% of renters in Ontario pay more than 30% of their incomes for shelter.

"Will these people benefit from Bill 4?"

Will they? Will they benefit from Bill 4?

"On the short term...they may to the extent that Bill 4 permits them to avoid rent increases that they might otherwise have had to face."

There is no question about that.

"But Bill 4 will do nothing," the report goes on, "to attack the fundamental problem these people face. Their problem is not a rent problem, it is an income problem, and it requires specific and targeted measures to provide income support and opportunities for these individuals."

Bill 4 will not do anything with respect to that, and we will not have an opportunity to adequately debate that in detail, because that is one of the major problems that is being caused by this legislation. It is not addressing the people who cannot afford the rent increases that are being put forward by this legislation. We want to deal with that. We want to deal with that in the form of amendments and debate, but we are being muzzled by this government.

The report goes on to say,

"The way to help these individuals is not to impose new restrictions on the rental housing market as a whole in Ontario, but to provide with the income they need in the form of more generous social assistance, including rent subsidies where it is deemed useful, and enhanced training and employment opportunities."

What is this government doing to solve that problem? Think about it. What is it doing? Absolutely nothing. We want an opportunity, we want the right to debate those issues and we are not being given that right.

The report goes on:

"Instead, by reducing the supply of rental housing in Ontario, Bill 4 will offer more and more of those with the lowest incomes nothing better than access to waiting lists for public housing. Bill 4 will not work to achieve real improvements in the situations of those with the lowest incomes in Ontario. Instead, in the medium and longer term the provisions in this bill will, if they do anything, make the situation of those in need worse, not better."

Clearly you do not need to be a smart individual to realize that when you look at the rent increases that are being put on top of rents 30% of the renters are saying they cannot afford now.

We are not being given an opportunity to debate that. We are being given two days, a day in this committee to put forward amendments and debate them. I do not think for one minute we are going to be able to debate all those amendments adequately, and we are certainly not going to be given the right to introduce new amendments as time goes on where issues may be raised. Hopefully we are raising some of them now, which would spur some of the members on to introduce more amendments, because clearly Bill 4 needs more amendments.

The report indicates on the effective use of taxpayers' money. I think that Bill 4 is silent on that subject. The report states that:

"Because of Bill 4, more of the taxpayers' money will be spent to provide housing for fewer people in Ontario.

"Today in Ontario about 85% of all rental housing is provided by the private sector, by Ontario's 100,000 landlords. The cost to the taxpayer is virtually nil.

"By contrast, let us look at the cost to Ontario's taxpayers of that other 15%, of public and so-called not-for-profit housing in this province. The costs to the taxpayer are huge and they, unlike rent tenants are paying in private apartments in Ontario, are soaring." The increases will increase and will continue to accelerate, and we will not have a chance to deal with that because of this resolution. We will not be given any opportunity. I can assure the members that one day will not adequately deal with this and the other issues that were raised. Four days we discussed in committee. Since then, more items have been put forward, certainly to members of the opposition and I hope to members of the government, on issues that were not raised in committee.

1630

The report goes on to say:

"There is not enough money to provide public housing or co-op housing solutions to all those who need them. By picking these high-cost alternatives, government is in effect choosing to favour one group over another. A few thousand get housing...but far more get access only to waiting lists."

That is the pitch that this government has. They are not going to give you housing; they are going to put you on a waiting list. They are going to put you on a waiting list for housing that does not even exist because it does not have the money to put forward the 27,000 units immediately and the 14,000 to 16,000 units that are needed each year. They do not have the money unless they completely bankrupt the people of this province.

The report goes on to say: "Government has its existing investment in public housing, and that housing must be maintained." I agree with that. I believe there should be a mix between private and public enterprise with respect to housing, but you do not put it all into public housing. You do not take over the housing industry, as the Premier of this province is suggesting. We are not going to get a chance to discuss that. We are simply allowing his statement to stand uncontradicted, undenied by the members of this government.

Government has its existing improvement in public housing and that housing must be maintained and improved where possible. If it is necessary to spend more and ensure that these communities are safe and secure, then more must be spent. Clearly, the writing is on the wall. If they are not going to allow private enterprise to get into the housing market, they are not going to allow them to continue into the housing market, they are going to have to spend more and more and more of the taxpayers' dollars until we are all broke. We are not going to be able to debate that. We are not going to be able to put forward amendments and adequately debate that subject either.

The report also talked about a subject I have raised in the past and other members of this House have dealt with in the past, and that is the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. I referred to a situation yesterday, a report from the Toronto Sun which talked of the antagonism that Bill 4 had created between a landlord and his tenants. It is all because of Bill 4.

I do not think it is too late to reverse some of the problems that have been caused by Bill 4. Clearly, Bill 4 has created uncertainty. It has created a situation where people do not trust this government, do not trust the province of Ontario. It is not too late to withdraw Bill 4 and make amendments to it that would at least soften some of the terrible things the government is creating for the people of this province.

The report talked about the renting partnership in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): I know the member has been reminded before and I shall read again standing order 23 regarding speaking unnecessarily "from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document." Please refer to the motion which deals with the resolution of closure.

Mr Tilson: Madam Speaker, I thank you very much for drawing that to my attention. Clearly, as I have tried to do, I am trying to show topics that I feel need to be debated further in this House. There is a list of them, and I listed quite a number of them yesterday. These topics are not going to be dealt with if this resolution is passed. We are going to be shut up, we are going to be told to sit down. "You do it our way and we are not even going to allow you to talk."

But, Madam Speaker, I appreciate your thoughts and I will try to speak to the resolution. Again, I say that one of the topics this resolution will preclude us from speaking to is the renting partnership that is needed in Ontario. We need a partnership in Ontario between the tenant and the landlord. We need that to have a successful industry. We need that to have co-operation between tenants and landlords. This legislation is discouraging that, and we are not going to get an opportunity to get into that whole subject.

In fact, Bill 4 has gone the other way, and the report speaks of that. It says what we need is an "establishment of better and more positive working relationships between landlords and renters in Ontario.... Bill 4 will not work to encourage or support such a partnership. Instead, Bill 4, from the rhetoric that has accompanied it to the specific measures included in it, presents landlords and renters as adversaries and landlords and governments as enemies." That is the problem Bill 4 has created. It has made enemies between landlords and tenants. It has made enemies between the people of this province and the government.

I am sure that this government was most sincere during the election campaign, that it wanted to help the people in the housing industry. I am sure its members believed that, but they are not doing it. In fact, they have created an adversarial system.

I think that we in opposition have the right to debate that subject. We have the right to suggest amendments that would alleviate that problem. It would create a better atmosphere in the province of Ontario with respect to the relationship between tenants and landlords, because clearly I believe that with Bill 51 that situation existed, and I think the members from the government would admit that. I think we need to spend some time on that, because these are serious problems. We are into a recession. Hopefully, we are finding our way out of it, but there needs to be more co-operation between everyone, not just between the tenants and the government, but between the landlords and the tenants, the landlords and the government, the employees and all those involved in the housing industry.

You just do not pick one particular group because they may have more votes. When you consider the legislation as a whole and how it affects the overall economy of this province, we are all going to lose: the tenants of this province, the people of this province, the landlords of this province, the employees of this province. I believe we should spend some time on this subject, and we are not being given that opportunity as a result of this resolution. We are going to be shut off from that subject.

I will not refer any further to that report. From the very outset we really have not had adequate time to properly deal with this legislation, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation that this government will introduce. The committee was promised five weeks of public hearings and this was cut back by the NDP members to three weeks. The NDP controls the committee, of course, and it controls the votes and it refused a Conservative motion to have a witness called from the Trust Companies Association of Canada. We simply were not allowed to do that.

I think facts such as that were needed to study the whole situation. There is still time to present that information to this House. It is out there. We were precluded from doing that by the government members at the committee level, but it is not too late. If the minister withdraws this motion or members vote against this motion, we will have an opportunity to properly discuss that subject.

I have referred to the number of speakers and delegations that wish to speak and were not allowed the right to speak. I think that is something we repeatedly asked for. We offered that we would be prepared to meet in the evenings, on Mondays and Fridays, to enable the people of this province to properly put forward their concerns, but the NDP controlled the committee and refused us that right.

1640

There is still time to discuss these things because these people who have put forward written submissions were not heard by the committee. They were read, I assume. I read them and I assume government members have read them and I am certain the Liberal members have read them.

I question whether the government members have read them because of the silence that is going on in this House. Either they have read them and they have ignored them or they have not read them, but clearly we have an obligation, I believe, as legislators to hear from many, if not all, of the people of this province who are concerned with legislation as important as this. This resolution precludes us from doing that. We simply will not have an opportunity to present those concerns to this House in the form of an amendment or in the form of debate, simply to illustrate how this bill should be amended or even withdrawn.

There has been discussion by various groups, and I have referred to one, where they went into some detail on the problems of Bill 4. We could go on at some length with some of those concerns and I believe that we have an obligation to go on at some length with some of these issues, particularly the issue of retroactivity, particularly the issue of capital expenditures and some of the issues that were raised by both parties with respect to amendments.

We did not have an opportunity to discuss the whole purpose of the bill. We have been made quite aware that we have two days for amendments, for debates, and one is not allowed to put so many amendments in after a certain time has passed, I believe after 4 o'clock on the day the resolution is passed. So I think we have to look at the task of this Legislature, this committee, in determining whether in fact these problems that have been suggested by the Minister of Housing and the Premier existed. Did they exist to the degree proposed by the Minister of Housing, if at all? Did these exist at all? If they did not exist at all, then the bill should be retracted, should be withdrawn or defeated. But we are not going to have an opportunity to do that because I suspect that most of our time will be spent on several of the major issues such as retroactivity, capital expenditures, and that we will not have an opportunity to get into some of the issues that were raised by the Minister of Housing and the Premier.

Second, I believe we must evaluate whether this legislation targets an actual problem, and if it does so in a fair manner. In other words, why is he doing it? We should discuss this at great length.

The Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario made extensive remarks to the committee, and of course has been one of the leaders in opposing this bill, but I think it should be listened to. I think they should be at least considered. I do not believe this Legislature has adequately listened to some of the issues that were raised by this and other groups.

They state in their brief to us that, whether out of ignorance of the facts or political malice, the government has grossly exaggerated any problems in need of redress. They have purposely avoided simple and reasonable means of addressing the concerns which exist in favour of drastic and far-reaching legislation and they have done so in a way which unfairly and illegally discriminates against thousands of citizens whose only crime is to have invested in the Ontario economy.

That is a basic statement we should spend some considerable time on, but we are not allowed to do that. We are not allowed to debate the whole myth that has been created by this government. Fair Rental discussed this: it discussed the topic of myth versus reality. I believe that we too should discuss the subject of the big lie, and we are not able to do that.

They state: "In examining this proposed legislation, it is first essential to establish a common fact base for discussion. So many myths have been promulgated about the rental housing situation in Ontario that reasoned discussion cannot occur until these are corrected."

The government keeps talking that it has a game plan, that it has a green paper and that it has permanent legislation in mind. I suspect the permanent legislation has already been drafted because of their conduct with respect to the green paper debate, which the committee has not even discussed. The committee has read it but we have not discussed it, even though this Legislature put forward terms of reference for that committee to discuss it.

The report proceeds by stating: "The popularity of such myths should not be surprising given their constant repetition by prominent figures. In an attempt to justify and defend Bill 4, members of the Ontario government have mounted a virtual campaign to promote these fictions."

There is clearly a housing problem, but when you think about it, what is the problem? There is a whole series of people in this province who cannot afford the rents they are paying now. Does Bill 4 deal with that? No, it does not even come close to dealing with it. It freezes rents at specific increases. The government has continued to allow the increases to the very people who cannot even afford those increases. I believe we should spend extensive time on that. It may be a subject that should not even be in the Bill 4 legislation.

In other words, some of the items that are referred to in Bill 4 perhaps should be taken out of Bill 4 and put into some sort of social legislation. That whole concept, I believe, should be debated, and we are not to be given the opportunity to do that.

The report continues by saying, "The elements of this 'big lie' program are the classical tools of propaganda: distortion and avoidance of the facts...." The report goes on to state that "the administration has even gone so far as to politicize the normally objective information services of the government." They give an example, an extract from the circular produced by the Ministry of Housing to describe Bill 4, which states: "Tenants will no longer be required to pay rent increases to finance luxury renovations or the flipping of apartment buildings. As well, tenants will not face rent increases arising from capital expenditures."

I demand to debate that in this House. I do not think this government should be allowed to perpetrate that big lie because the facts have been put forward in the committee of this government that say that just does not exist, that those are myths. I think the minister and his government should be held accountable, and we are not being allowed to do that. We are not being allowed to debate that.

The report goes on to say, "To the uninformed reader, this would clearly convey the message that" -- and I am referring to this quotation -- "(a) luxury renovations are a widespread problem." Are they a widespread problem? We do not think so at the committee, but I think we should have an opportunity to discuss that, and we are not being given an opportunity to discuss that because of the resolution.

The report continues, "(b) either all sales of apartment buildings are 'flips,' or only flips are prevented by this bill." Now, if flips are a problem, is that the sole reason why Bill 4 is being introduced? That subject was hammered away at by the minister. I can recall when he first introduced his legislation. I believe we should be able to debate that, and we are not being able to debate that as a result of this resolution.

To continue, "(c) capital expenditures are a minor concern which will incidentally be affected." Well, now, really. After report after report and delegation after delegation has come to us, the committee members from the government who sat on that committee obviously were deaf or they did not hear what was being said. I believe that the members of the opposition and indeed perhaps members of the government who have heard from their constituents -- and I cannot believe that they are not hearing from their constituents on this subject -- should be given an opportunity to put forward their views in this House.

But no. The Minister of Housing and his House leader are saying, "No, that's the end, we're not going to discuss it any more," even though constituent after constituent in all of our ridings has discussed this subject with us. None of the above is true, yet no citizen will learn the facts from the material being circulated by the government. We have not learned that during the committee hearings and we are not being given an opportunity as a result of this resolution.

"Given the narrow focus of these hearings, discussions of some of the most widespread myths -- that all tenants are in need of subsidization, for instance, or that controls have no impact on the supply of rental housing -- will have to await the committee's deliberation later this winter. In setting the stage for the current discussion, though, it is important to recognize that rents in Ontario are not excessive and rental housing is not beyond the reach of the average tenant."

1650

Clearly, for some tenants it is; clearly, for some tenants it is beyond their reach. They do not have the money to pay the rent; they do not have the money to buy food; they do not have the money to clothe themselves. What is this government doing about that? Yet they put all the tenants, they put all the landlords, they put everybody in the same kettle and they say that everybody is the same. That is not the way you solve the problem, and we are not being given an opportunity to properly deal with that subject.

"The average rent in the province is in the order of $550 per month," this report says. "Even in the most expensive market, Metropolitan Toronto, the average rents for bachelor, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments are $456, $556 and $683 per month respectively." The report shows a number of schedules that state that.

I think we should be spending time on that. I think we should be spending time on what is a fair rent, what is a reasonable rent, for the people, the tenants of this province, to pay and what can they afford to pay, because that would assist us in how we are going to deal with the poor of this province. But no, we are not going to be allowed to do that. This resolution says: "That is it. You cannot talk about it any more."

The report goes on to say: "A rent of $683 would require a gross annual salary of just under $28,000 to stay within the 30%-of-income ceiling for housing expenditures. This is well under the average income of $32,298 for an Ontario tenant family in 1989. The difference would be even greater if a 1990 figure for Toronto alone was available. Indeed, the income needed to afford an average-priced apartment in Toronto is below the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council budget guideline for a family of four. And this is only the average rent, not the lowest level available."

When one looks at all this information, the problem is that it is a matter of poverty, but we are not being allowed to deal with that. Clearly, when we look at these facts that are being put forward to us, I think that we in this House, whether members of the government or members of the two opposition parties, have a right, under the democratic process, to put forward some of these facts to try and persuade the government to change its mind on either implementing Bill 4 or indeed making amendments to Bill 4. But we are not being allowed to do that.

"Another measure of affordability is the average percentage of gross income spent on rent by tenants. Less than 17% according to the available data." That is the figure that is given, at least in this report. "Clearly, on the whole, tenants are not being priced out of apartments." Now that is the overall picture of tenants. There are clearly tenants that are, and I think that is the problem. The minister has got tunnel vision. He is looking at the whole problem, but he should be dealing specifically with the poor of this province. He is not doing that.

I question when these issues were raised at the committee level and they are being raised now that members of this government will not take that into consideration. They will not even consider amendments that have been made at the committee level, and I doubt if they would make it now. Surely we have the right to debate those matters and try to persuade the government members to change their minds, but we are not going to get that right if this resolution passes. We are not going to get that right.

"This is not to say" -- the report goes on -- "that there are not those with affordability problems. Almost one third of tenants spend more than 30% of their income on rent, not because their rents are too high but because their incomes are too low to afford even the most reasonable housing. These people are desperately in need of income assistance, something we will deal with at length."

Of course, they did deal with it at length, and I submit that we should be allowed to deal with it at length. I really do. We are talking one third of the renters of this province and they are being ignored by this government, They are preventing us, members of the opposition and presumably some of the backbenchers who speak occasionally, from discussing that subject. It is not going to get discussed. It is going to be slammed through this House. We will not get a chance to debate it, and I submit that we should.

Now they list a number of myths which, I submit, we should look at, and we should look at --

The Acting Speaker: Again, I feel it is necessary to draw your attention to 23(d) which says "reads unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document." If you wish to move on, fine, keeping that in mind.

Mr Tilson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I think that it illustrates the concern that I have that a number of these issues require a great deal of debate. I appreciate that in discussing the issues one can go beyond the resolution, but I am trying to list the issues that are not going to be adequately discussed. I will try to limit my discussions to those.

There was the issue raised by this government that very large rent increases, 100% and greater, are a common problem in this province. That has been stated over and over by the Minister of Housing and other members of this government. I submit that we have the right and the duty as members of the opposition to challenge them on that statement, if that is one of the reasons why they are putting forward Bill 4. But we are not going to get that right. That myth is discussed in this report, and I will not read it all, but I do feel that I should read some of it to illustrate the concern as to why more time should be spent on that.

The report states:

"It is not surprising that this myth is widespread, since it is actively promoted by some elected officials, among others. On introduction of Bill 4, the minister referred to 100% rent increases on the very first page of his announcement. Tenant spokesmen have publicly claimed that thousands of tenants are being economically evicted by huge increases."

Now that is an issue that I believe deserves a great deal of debate. Is the minister exaggerating? If he is, we should hold him accountable, and we are not being able to hold him accountable because of the restrictive nature of this resolution. We are being shut down. We will not have that right.

The report states that dispassionate facts from the Ministry of Housing's own statistics tell quite a different story, and I believe we have the right to challenge the minister on that, to invite him and the Premier and the parliamentary assistant, because they are all the ones who have specifically raised this subject, to explain their actions, and we are not being given that right.

The Ministry of Housing's own statistics tell quite a different story. "Of Ontario's 1.2 million private rental units, in a given year more than 86% receive rent increases of under 5%. Less than 1% receive increases of 30% or more and only 7/100's of 1% -- 84 apartments out of 1.2 million -- fall into the 100%-and-over category." Now, why can we not debate that? Why are we being shut down? Why can we not debate that, if that is the reason why Bill 4 is being introduced? Why can we not do that? Well, it will come to light why we cannot do it, and I think it is shameful.

The report goes on. It states that members will have been convinced that there are many thousands of apartments facing triple-digit rent increases each year. That has been put forward. Some of the speakers from the government have cited examples in their own ridings, even though the rent review statistics show no such increase in their entire region of this province for the last two years. Statements have been made. Why can we not as the opposition hold the government accountable for these statements? Why can we not challenge them on it? We are not being given the right to do that. That is how myths are created. That is how this government has created myths with respect to Bill 4.

1700

The report goes on to talk about large increases that are the result of greedy landlords ripping off the system. Now, that is true, there are some. But are all landlords like that? Is that what the members of the government are saying? Do they have facts to substantiate that? I believe that we should spend some time on that, because if it is being a responsible government, it cannot flippantly make statements like that and not expect to be held accountable. I do not see how the government could possibly do that. We have the right to hold them accountable, to ask them questions and to make statements to encourage them to say, "No, you are wrong," in which case they should allow amendments or withdraw the bill or vote against the bill. We have the right to do that.

"The few very large increases which do exist are almost always the result of a combination of at least two out of three important factors: extremely low base rents" -- and I think we should spend some time on that. We have talked to some degree on that, but we should spend a great deal more time on that -- "a requirement for extensive structural renovation due to age and deterioration, and small building size, often under 10 units.

"Why can we not discuss that? What is going to happen to these buildings? How are they going to be repaired? How are they going to be renovated? I do not know, because the landlords are saying they do not have the funds for it. I believe we have the right to question this government on why it is doing what it is doing.

The report goes on to state: "To anyone with an understanding of the system, the age and extent of repair factors would be obvious." You would think that with members of this government, who claim they are experienced, they would realize that.

The report states: "To anyone with an understanding of the system, the age and extent of repair factors would be obvious since to generate a very large increase in a building with average rents would essentially require reconstruction of the building." Facts have been presented on that.

We have had testimony from all walks of life and from all types of groups. I believe that unless all members of this government have studied those submissions very carefully, we have the right to emphasize and to summarize some of those reports that were given to us in committee because it has a very serious effect on the economy of this province. But under this resolution, we are not being given that right.

They given an example, "To generate a 70% rent increase in a unit with a current rent of $550 would require capital expenditures of at least $30,000 per unit, equivalent to stripping the building to a shell and refurbishing." So what kind of game is the government playing over there?

Size is also a major consideration, and we should be discussing that: "Size is a major consideration if an expensive structural component must be replaced. A new roof on a six-plex may be half the size of the roof on a 60-unit high-rise, but since the costs cannot be as widely spread, the resulting rent increase will be five times as great."

I believe that we have the right to give examples with respect to this, and a number of examples, because obviously the examples that were put forward on the committee did not affect this government at all. We have the right -- and I demand the right -- to be heard. I demand the right to be heard and members of both opposition parties demand the right to be heard and not silenced by what the government is proposing to do.

They give an example of a type of situation generating a very large increase. They talk of a 14-unit building in Sudbury and Mrs B. Carpenter. We have heard it to some extent at the committee level and I think it has been referred to in this House. This is a 14-unit building in Sudbury and it is formerly owned by the municipality. I am giving this example because I believe that there should be a number of examples to show why the government should consent to amendments. If we have the time allocation that the government is suggesting, we will not have an opportunity to do that.

This building was formerly owned by the city of Sudbury. It was 75 years old and it was "desperately in need of major improvements, including a new roof, modern plumbing and new flooring to replace wood so rotten the ground showed through in several places."

Mrs Carpenter "borrowed money to complete this work and she filed for the rent increase to which she was entitled -- some 150%. This is the type of situation in which some would automatically cry 'economic eviction.'" I believe that we should spend a considerable amount of time on that and we should not be shut down and not allowed to talk about economic eviction. Yet the new rents after the increases in this particular building would have reached the staggering level of $400 per month, still at least $100 below market levels. That is the type of gouging that this government is referring to.

The summary goes on by stating, "Despite the fact that every bit of work which Mrs Carpenter completed was badly needed" -- and again, we are talking about improving the quality of life of the tenants of this province and I believe we have the right to debate that and this resolution will not allow us to do that. The quality of life of the tenants of this province is deteriorating and will continue to deteriorate. All you have to do is to look at the slums of New York.

We had people come. One of the groups produced someone from Sweden and someone from New York to talk about rent controls in other jurisdictions and I believe that was not made available to the committee. I believe we should have the right to bring forward that information that was relayed to us, because only the parliamentary assistant from the government was present. There were not any other members of the government who even bothered to show up. One person from this government showed up to hear that very important piece of information in fact, that all of the members of this House should hear. I believe we have the right to bring that information forward, but we are not being allowed, as a result of this resolution.

Mrs Carpenter preserved, as the result of her work, "14 apartments which were otherwise quickly approaching the point of becoming uninhabitable," and both the city of Sudbury and the tenants all supported the work. They all supported it and they all supported the resulting increases. But Bill 4 says, "Tough, you can't do it." Why can we not discuss that? Why can we not debate that?

One should ask the Minister of Housing and ask the government House leader, because they have introduced a resolution that says we cannot.

The report goes on to say, "Clearly it is ludicrous to attack large increases without considering the rent level to which they are being applied." I have asked the Minister of Housing to produce his analysis, his impact studies to show why he is introducing this legislation. It has never been produced. I think I received a letter that had half a page of figures. It really did not adequately put it forward. I believe we have the right to debate that. If he is not prepared to put forward his own impact analysis -- the government has not studied this -- I believe the opposition has the right through debate of Bill 4 to bring forward reports and facts that can show that this bill should not be implemented. We have that right, but we are being shut down by the government, because clearly it is going to show how foolish it is in implementing this legislation.

"In buildings with chronically depressed rents, necessary work may generate enormous percentage increases even though the resulting rents are still more than affordable."

In the case of one landlord, and I am referring to this report, the justified increase for one of his units would be 587%. Clearly I would agree and obviously members of the government agree -- I think we would all agree -- that this is outrageously excessive, and some would say, without considering that this was on a starting rent for a one-bedroom apartment of $40.

I have example after example after example that I could bring to this House to show that the government is wrong in implementing Bill 4, dead wrong, but as a result of this resolution, we are not being allowed to do that. I believe that we should be allowed to discuss the myth that has been created by this government that capital improvements are just luxury renovations carried out to justify higher rents. That is a myth that this government has created. We have a right to challenge them either in the form of an amendment or in the form of debate. We have the right to challenge them. We have the right to state that that is just not the case.

1710

I am sure we could all provide examples. We have seen examples where luxury renovations were carried forward to justify higher rents, but I can assure the members that is not the trend across this province. That is not why we have the housing crisis that we do.

The report goes on and states that, "When asked what statistics were available on the impact of various types of capital work on rent increases, the response from the Ministry of Housing was that there were none." None. How are we going to hold the government accountable when we are not allowed to debate that?

"Rent review services does not keep records of application or orders containing claims for particular types of work. In other words, there is no factual basis for claims by the minister or anyone else that luxury renovations are a significant cause of rent increases." But we are not allowed to debate that.

There have clearly been a few, a very few, and I think we have the right to show what the information is that we have to state what those few are and to challenge the government to bring forth the vast number of examples that it has to show why it is stating that capital improvements are just luxury renovations carried on to justify higher rents. I believe that we have the right to ask them to do that, but we are not being allowed to do it.

"Certainly there have been a few, a very few, examples of landlords making what some might call questionable improvements, but they are hardly significant." I believe that we should debate that. Because the government, because the Minister of Housing has made such a big deal of this subject, I believe we should spend time on it, that we should hold him and his government accountable for the statements that he has been making in this House. We are not being allowed to do that.

The report talks about a survey of the membership concerning the type of capital work that had been undertaken. "Not one owner had installed microwave ovens." That was a favourite trick. Remember that one, microwave ovens? "Two rent review consultants, whose clients collectively completed almost $100 million worth of capital work this year, knew of only two buildings where either microwaves or dishwashers had been installed in buildings other than on a replacement basis."

Why can we not challenge the government on those facts? Why can we not challenge them on the myths that they are creating? We are not being allowed to debate that if this resolution carries. We are not being allowed to debate that.

"The rent increases generated by the so-called 'luxury renovations' are usually minor. Though 'marble lobbies' has become such a catchphrase for some, in a typical high-rise building the installation of marble panelling in the lobby would only add 0.6% to each unit's rent, or $3.30 per month for the average apartment."

If the problem is that there have been abuses by certain landlords, surely you do not scrap the whole thing and surely you deal with those abusive landlords. Surely we are allowed to debate that. Surely we are allowed to challenge the government and say: "Are these the reasons? How can you deal with them? Do you scrap the legislation or do you take those individuals who are abusing the system and deal with them appropriately?" We are not being allowed to do that.

The report states, "Since marble flooring costs approximately 40% more than ceramic tile, but is ruled by the ministry to last 20 years as opposed to 10 years for ceramic, the use of marble may save tenants money." If the government is going to raise that subject, maybe we should be introducing facts that talk about that subject. Do you install some sort of capital expenditure that is going to break down after a year or do you put forward a capital expenditure that may last five years or indeed 10 years or 20 years?

We are not being allowed to produce facts. We can produce facts by representatives who were not allowed to come to the committee hearings. We can produce facts that challenge the statements made by the Minister of Housing. But we are not being allowed to do that by this resolution.

The report goes on to speak of the fact that, "The vast majority of capital improvements are both necessary and far from luxurious: concrete repairs to balconies and garages, replacement of plumbing risers, exterior cladding, roof repairs and replacement, electrical lighting upgrading, replacement of single-pane windows and so on."

Surely when we have had facts presented to us at the committee level that talk about how buildings are becoming unsafe because of certain conditions in buildings that are 20 years or older, we have a right and surely the people of this province have a right to listen to debate on why these expenditures should be allowed. This government says, "Sure, we will allow them, but you can find the money from somewhere." They do not say where the money is going to come from. I suppose their public utility will deal with that. We are not being allowed to debate that subject either.

The report goes on to state: "The ministry has records on every application to rent review, including details of the type of capital work completed. If it was felt to be important, it would not be difficult to take a representative sample and separate how many include claims for 'luxury' components. The problem is, the government may not like the results."

They will not like the results that we are planning to introduce, and that is why they have introduced this resolution to shut us down. They are not allowing us to bring this information forward. Clearly we were not allowed at the committee level and we are not being allowed in this committee. I feel that the government is wrong in introducing this resolution to preclude us from bringing forward these facts, facts that I would hope would change its mind.

Another subject that we are not going to be allowed to debate is the myth that capital expenditures would not be required if landlords conducted regular maintenance. This was a subject that came up time and time again with the New Democratic members of the committee, who said that if landlords did their job properly we would not have the problems that we have now. I believe that we should have an opportunity to debate that. That should not go unchallenged. We should be allowed time to spend time on it. I would be interested in hearing facts.

Mr Winninger: Well said.

Mr Tilson: I hear a member over there say, "Well said." I would like him to debate that. I would like him to debate that fact. I would like the right to debate with him and I challenge him to debate that at any time.

The report goes on to say that, "This type of argument was typified by the member for Yorkview in his comments during the second reading debate that if major capital work is required on a building 'chances are it is because of neglect.'" That is what we heard during the committee hearings. We should spend some time on that, but this government does not want to talk about it. It has put forward a resolution that precludes us from debating statements that are made as little as two seconds ago by a member of this House, and we are not allowed to debate that.

"Such a statement ignores the reality that normal, day-to-day maintenance cannot stop the effects of age, weather and progressive deterioration. How can a landlord stop salt from rising in the atmosphere and corroding concrete balconies, or draining off cars and weakening garages?" We should spend time on that, and we have information. The Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario was given a limited time to make a presentation to the hearing. They have more information to present, but we are not being allowed to present that information. Debate has been cut off because the government says, "Whatever you've got you should do in a day."

"How can a landlord stop salt from rising in the atmosphere and corroding concrete balconies, or draining off cars and weakening garages? How can she maintain appliances that are so old replacement parts are no longer available, or indefinitely patch boilers that break down continually after 20 years of service at internal temperatures of 1,000 degrees?"

1720

There is a landlord in my riding who has a building that is 20 years old. They have patched the roof and they have patched the roof. It needs immediate attention, they cannot patch it any more, but because of this bill, it cannot be repaired. The water is coming down and it is gradually moving down floor by floor, destroying people's apartments. Why can we not discuss that? Why can we not spend some time debating that? Why are we being restricted by this legislation from debating that?

"As manufacturers," the report goes on, "consulting engineers and standards associations all state, every building system has a specific life expectancy, beyond which maintenance becomes insufficient to address deterioration, impractical or uneconomic in comparison to replacement."

The report states that, "Sometimes components which still have some useful life remaining must be replaced because of changing regulatory standards."

We were allowed some time during the committee level to discuss that, but I think that is a recurring problem. Municipalities are continually changing their property standards bylaws, putting more and more requirements on landlords to improve their buildings. The requirements are coming from the health people, the fire people and all kinds of agencies in this government. Yet where are the landlords to get the moneys to do these things? Where are they going to do it?

I believe we have the right to debate that. I think it is required that we debate that, but this resolution says: "No, you can't debate it. You're given a day to put all four of your amendments and some debate." So we will not be able to produce information that we were unable to introduce at the public hearings, and of course we will not be able to introduce comments that were made by applicants or people who we were not able to hear, almost 100 of whom say they were not allowed to be heard.

The report goes on. It states that, "Sometimes components which still have some useful life remaining" -- I referred to the regulations of municipalities and other such standards, and I deal specifically with balconies, the balcony railings. Municipalities are changing the heights because of the tragic accidents that are occurring. There is example after example where landlords are told, "Replace all the railings on your balconies because they're too low." Landlords have to do that (a) for the protection of the tenants and (b) because the law says it.

But we are not allowed to debate that. We are not going to be allowed to put forward and spend some time on amendments such as this and the hardships that are being put on landlords who are trying to meet the law of this province and are trying to keep the situations of the tenants safe.

That deals with "garage and stairwell light upgrading, installation of smoke and fire alarms and so on." It goes on and on. How are landlords going to be able to maintain these requirements that are being forced on them by governments, and quite rightfully so, because standards do change? We should be allowed to debate those.

"These required changes have absolutely nothing to do with the landlord's standards of maintenance" -- absolutely nothing.

So there are different categories that we need to spend some time on and we are not being allowed to spend some time on because of the time allocation motion that is being put forward by the House leader. We are not being allowed to do that at all. I submit that simply in the time that has been given we do not have the time to talk about the examples that are recurring and to show why we believe more amendments should be put forward to Bill 4 or indeed Bill 4 should be defeated.

The report goes on. It talks of, "All levels of government have recognized that provision for major capital improvements for buildings is essential to the long-term preservation of the existing affordable housing stock."

That is an important factor, and we need to spend time on that, but we cannot. The government is not allowing us to. They are putting forward a resolution, and sure, they have the votes for it. They can do whatever they like, unfortunately, and unfortunately we are going to --

Mr Cousens: It's an abuse of power, that's what it is.

Mr Tilson: It is an abuse of power, and unfortunately I hope this is not a sign of the future.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: The report refers to the city of Toronto --

The Acting Speaker: Order. In all deference, I am finding it more and more difficult to hear the speaker, and I do believe it is some of your own colleagues who are making this difficult. I would ask that you allow the member to continue so that all of us can listen.

Mr Tilson: Members of my caucus are concerned with the fact that they are not able to debate this legislation. They are not being given the time, and it is very frustrating for us. We simply need more time and we are not being given the time that is needed to discuss these many issues that are being raised by Bill 4.

The Minister of Housing talks about Bill 4 as if it is a very simple bill that has no effect on our economy. I say it does, and I say that all members of our caucus and all members of the Liberal caucus and all members of the government caucus should have the right to debate these items, but we are not being allowed that right.

Specifically there is a report that was given by the city of Toronto's Preserve or Perish study, which was made in 1986. They made a point with respect to this subject that I would like to refer to. It is specifically an exhibit that was included in this report and it states:

"Though conservation may, in due course, cost hundreds of millions of dollars, it still appears to be the most economic method of maintaining the supply of affordable rental housing.... The cost of conservation of existing buildings will be several times lower than the cost of replacing them by new ones, despite rent increases that may be required to offset the amortized cost of rehabilitation. Post-conservation rents in existing buildings will most likely still be substantially lower and more affordable than rents in new buildings."

This is a report from the city of Toronto.

Mr Stockwell: Can you understand? A socialist bastion.

Mr Tilson: That is right.

I believe all members of the government have the right to put forward information that we were unable to bring forward at the committee level. We are not being allowed to do that because of this resolution. This is one of them, and there will be others, but we are not going to be allowed to do that.

The report that I am referring to talks about a major study for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, and they talked about the need for conservation for their current rental housing stock. They reached similar conclusions as the city of Toronto did, and they pointed out the direct link between successful conservation strategies and reasonable rent regulation. These are just two examples that I believe should be studied at length by this committee, but we are not being allowed to do that. The government says, "That's it."

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp states, "As the rental housing stock in Canada ages and becomes obsolete, a significant increase will be needed in real spending on maintenance and upgrading. However, the extent to which this increased spending arises will largely be determined by the presence of rent controls through the 1990s, the provisions of these rent controls for allowable rent increases in older buildings and the rate of return allowed on renovation investments."

Bill 4 does not deal with that. Why can we not deal with it? Why can we not introduce amendments that would allow us to explain to the government that perhaps Bill 4 should be amended to alleviate this problem that it is creating? Why can we not do that?

The report goes on by saying that:

"Over 80% of Ontario's rental housing was constructed before 1975. Government studies have estimated that at least $10 billion worth of capital investment is needed to conserve the existing stock."

Where is it going to come from? Clearly they are not going to allow the private enterprise people to do it.

"If landlords cannot make these investments," the report goes on, "because they will never be able to recover the funds they would have to borrow, there are only two choices: Either the work will not get done, to everyone's detriment, or the long-suffering taxpayers will pick up the bill."

The taxpayers will pick up the bill. I believe our party states that we are sick and tired of this government's intention to tax the people of this province even more. That is their plan, to make housing a public utility. They plan to tax, tax, tax, and we have the right to debate that in this House, and this resolution precludes us from doing that.

Another myth which this government will not allow us to talk about, will not allow us to challenge because it has created another myth, is that, "Landlords don't need 'extra' money to do major repairs and renovations because this is provided for in the rents already."

Members of the New Democratic Party, the government members in committee repeatedly said that already: the landlords have got lots of money; that they have been ripping off the system, over and over and over, and they have got lots of money to do these capital expenditures. We have the right to debate that and challenge that. I would challenge the parliamentary assistant or the Minister of Housing or any other member to debate that fact they have been forwarding to us, because it is simply wrong, what they are saying is wrong. We have the right to debate that.

1730

"The formula for calculating the annual guideline includes provision for normal maintenance, defined as work such as snow removal, janitorial services and minor appliance repairs." I am reading from the report, of course. "It also contains a 1.0% increment for 'small capital,' meaning those items for which it is not realistic to apply to rent review because their total value will never generate a rent increase sufficient to overcome that 1.0% penalty for applying."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: It is a bit too noisy. I cannot hear.

Mr Tilson: The report states: "There is no provision in the guideline for funding major capital." That is one of the major concerns that our party and I know the official opposition has with respect to this legislation. We expect and demand a substantial amount of time to debate that subject and we are not being given that time.

There is no provision in the bill for that. If there were, every tenant would be paying the cost regardless of whether capital improvements were actually conducted in his or her building. It was for this reason that during the development of the current rent review regime, the Bill 51 matters, that both tenants and landlord representatives endorse the concept of a separate justification system to provide for higher rent increases to fund capital improvements. Clearly, the system we had did not work. It needed improvement. But this government does not seem to care. They have one thing in mind. I think they are thinking of votes. That is all they are thinking about. I am not so sure they can go so high, but they are adding wrong, because they are forgetting how Bill 4 is going to have an unbelievably detrimental effect on the economy of this province. We in the opposition have the right to debate that and we are being prevented by this resolution.

The report goes on by giving an example which can show how normal rent increases cannot possibly finance capital improvements. I am referring, of course, to the statutory items that arc being suggested in Bill 4. More time should be spent on this, but of course the government is simply saying, "You've got a day to do everything, including this topic, and that's all you've got."

How can we adequately discuss this subject of how we are going to finance capital improvements in a day? How are we going to do that? "The mandatory upgrading of balcony railings in a building amortized over the lifetime of the component would generate a rent increase of 5.01% in a unit with the provincial average rent of $550."

In other words, the report states that this single expenditure alone could more than consume the annual guideline rent increase, not even considering normal operating cost increases. So the whole subject of these rent increases that are being suggested by Bill 4 needs to be discussed, needs to be analysed. They certainly were not analysed at the committee level. We believe that we have the right and the obligation to bring information forward to challenge the government on those figures. They clearly picked those figures out of a hat.

I say that we need more time and the time allocation motion that is being submitted is insufficient. The report goes on and comments that, "An argument that is sometimes made is that landlords should be setting aside money each year for the time when capital work is required." That sounds reasonable and I think that was canvassed during the committee. I think we should spend some time at this debate discussing it, because considerable time was spent during the committee hearings on that and I believe that we should discuss it in this debate with respect to Bill 4, but we are not being allowed to as a result of this time allocation motion.

That would be a reasonable assumption if rents were unregulated at market levels. The report goes on to state that, "With artificially low rents, low profitability and no allowance in the guideline for increases to generate funds for this purpose, this approach simply is not realistic."

Mr Stockwell: That is an understatement. The whole party is not realistic.

Mr Tilson: This government thinks money grows on trees; it really does. I think we should be able to provide economic facts, because we were not allowed to during the hearings. We can get these facts but the government does not care. We repeatedly asked the Minister of Housing for an economic analysis but he would not produce it to us. The only time we have to do it is now.

We asked for experts to come to the committee levels, and the NDP said: "Sorry, we do not want to hear about that. We are only going to allow you three weeks." That is instead of the five weeks that were originally promised to us. Now is the time to introduce these facts but the government House leader's resolution says we cannot do that.

The report says, "A reserve fund approach has been advocated by a number of tenant organizations," and it has. I think we should spend some time on that because that was raised during the hearings. It may be necessary that this government, even for its moratorium period, consider an amendment. Maybe they do. But I think we should have an opportunity to debate that because of the issues that were raised during the hearings.

The report states:

"These groups do not seem to recognize that there is a huge difference between trying to establish a fund for a new structure like a condominium, with large upfront levies on the initial residents, compared with existing apartments with widely varying ages, capital needs, tenant profiles and existing rent levels."

That is not to mention that rent reserve levies would have to be twice as large due to the federal income tax treatment, and I am sure the government is considering that.

Why can we not debate it? Because we are not being allowed to. This time allocation motion says: "No, you are only given a day to debate any resolutions that are on the floor now, and if there are any other resolutions we are not going to debate them. We are not going to hear any more."

The report goes on to state, "Whether or not one believes this to be a reasonable alternative for the future, it is an incontrovertible fact that no such system has been in place in the past, nor have the higher rents needed to fund it been charged." We should spend some time on this subject, but we are not going to be allowed to.

The report gets into the subject of flipping. I believe, with the remarks that have been made by the minister and other government members in this House, in this committee, in and outside this House, that we should have an opportunity to challenge the members of this government on their statements when they say the flipping of apartment buildings has been a common occurrence which has been fuelling large rent increases. I believe we have the right to debate that, but this government says, "No, even though we have said it, we are not going to give you a chance to challenge us or to debate it."

The report says that although "the Ministry of Housing could easily develop the statistics if they were likely to be supportive of this case, they have never tried to do so." There have been some figures, but not to justify the facts we have been led to believe by the Minister of Housing.

The city of Toronto did conduct such a study in this jurisdiction where the large majority of abuses were alleged to have occurred, and clearly there was some flipping. Again, if flipping is the problem, perhaps legislation should be implemented to deal specifically with the flipping, to prevent the flipping. You do not stop the whole system, you do not cause the economic crisis that this bill is going to do. We should have the right to debate that, but this government says no.

There is another issue this government has raised. Members have stated that apartment owners do not need the rent increases for capital or for financing costs because these can be absorbed out of their excessive profits. I really challenge any member. I would love to debate that topic with this government because I do not think it has the facts to substantiate that. I think that is just a figment of their imagination and it is part of the big lie, it is part of the myth, the many myths that have been created as to why this terrible legislation has been introduced.

1740

The report talks about this, and I think that we have the right to bring that information forward, and other facts similar to it, to show that the government is wrong. It may result in amendments to the bill. It may even result in the bill being withdrawn as a result of very concrete facts that have been presented to us and which we believe we could present to this House.

The report I am referring to goes on. It states: "Even in larger buildings with professional management, the returns are modest. In 1989, the Ministry of Housing commissioned a study to examine this issue. This study found that average returns on equity to investors in residential rental real estate decreased from 7.9% annually in 1970 to only 3.4% in 1989; that operating costs were substantially higher at the end of that period than at the outset; and that even when long-term capital gains are combined with short-term operating returns, profits are low."

We spent a great deal of time during the committee reports pleading with this government to allow us to bring economists in to discuss this subject, but we were denied that. This is the only forum that is left for us to deal with that, and yet, if this resolution is passed, we will not be able to do that. We will not be able to present those facts in the form of reports that would adequately explain the situation, because of the time allocation resolution.

The report goes on. It states, "Despite the popular perception that capital appreciation provides for major returns to owners when buildings are sold, this definitive report reached quite a different conclusion." Then they quote from that report, and I would like to read that, because this is the type of information that I believe members of our caucus, and I am sure the official opposition, could bring forward to show why Bill 4 is wrong and why amendments should be allowed and we should allow debate on that.

This quoted report talks about how: "Many people claim that while annual rates of return are low, capital gains offer long-term potential. However, this was not the case in the past 20 years. The residential rental market increased at a modest 6% to 8% average annual growth rate which, adjusted for inflation, translates to minimal or non-existent gains. Therefore, residential rental investors must be satisfied with low annual returns and relatively minimal capital gains."

This is not what the government has said as to why it brought forward Bill 4. These facts should be brought forward to this House to persuade the members of this government to change their minds. They are wrong, and these are facts that show they are wrong. The study clearly showed that for any investor, whether a small landlord trying to build a retirement nest-egg or a major corporation, the rental market did not perform nearly as well as the other investment markets.

We have referred at some length to that in this House. We have talked about Canada savings bonds, Treasury bills and other forms of real estate, and I did refer to the report of Royal LePage that says it does not pay. Now, I believe that more information could be brought forward by members of this House, but we are not being allowed that. We are not being allowed that by this resolution. We are not being allowed to bring forward any of these stats because we will not have time. We are only being given two days to bring the amendments, and only existing amendments. We will not be allowed to bring any new amendments. We are only allowed two days to bring those amendments and debate these very important economic issues and to bring these economic facts to this House.

The report goes on by saying: "It is interesting to note that the NDP in the past several years supported the complaints of public sector unions that government-managed pension funds were being shortchanged by governments borrowing from these pools at less than market rates. If apartment investors were guaranteed even the insufficient returns offered by government...which the NDP was criticizing, they would be earning two to three times the rates the ministry study concluded they have been receiving."

That is an important fact. The whole issue of this matter is that there are many small landlords in this province whose whole purpose is to create a pension, and that is fair game for that, and you need those people. They are not abusing the system. There are no facts to put forward that these people are abusing the system. In the past, tenants and landlords in these situations have worked hand in hand. Clearly we have a very difficult economic situation, but that has all ended with this government, and I believe that we have the right to bring all that forward.

The report talked about evaluating the government's response. I think we should be doing that. I feel that members of the opposition -- because we are certainly not going to hear from the government members to evaluate these myths and these situations that have been described by government ministers, the Premier and others. This report talked about this, that it is clear from this review of myth and reality in the rental sector that the rationale offered by the government for intervention was grossly exaggerated. I honestly believe we should have time to talk about that. Government ministers, the Premier: they simply cannot come forward and make these statements. They just cannot make them up. They have to have facts. We have asked for facts, and if they are not going to provide the facts, we will.

How are we going to do that with this time allocation motion that says we only have two days to do that? How and when are we going to be able to do it? Bill 4 will be passed and we will have no opportunity to adequately put forward new resolutions or to debate the resolutions that we feel we should be persuading the members of the government to approve.

For the sake of argument, the report goes on, it is accepted that something has to be done to address the limited problems with large rent increases and multiple sales of buildings. Clearly, we need to look at that. We need to look at the flips. We need to look at the abuses. There may be others that have not even been thought of. How can we do that when we are being put on a time restraint to debate these very important issues?

"Public policy has been defined as the legitimate use of coercion by government to achieve societal goals. The key here," the report emphasizes, "is 'legitimate,' which means far more than that the government must be duly constituted and that the goals must be just and defensible. It also means that the degree of coercion employed must be proportionate to the problem; that it be no greater than required to achieve the stated goals; and that the decision for its use fairly balance societal interests with the rights and freedoms of individuals."

That is the whole question: the freedom of individuals. I do not think we have talked about that at all. I do not think we have talked about the freedom of the landlords, landlords who have played by the rules with the retroactive issue. They have listened to the government officials. They have renovated their buildings. They have gone and got loans or they have put mortgages on their homes.

Mr Stockwell: And they are out of luck.

Mr Tilson: That is right. They are out of luck. They are out of luck because of this government. I believe that we have the right and the obligation to talk about that, because the government has not been listening during the committee stage. This means that this committee is faced with determining whether the provisions of Bill 4 are fair. I have tried to raise that specifically with the parliamentary assistant, the Premier and the Minister of Housing. I would like to spend some more time on it, because I do not think this legislation is fair. I think we should be spending some time on it as to whether it is fair and whether it is legal.

We have legal opinions submitted to us, albeit for a landlord organization, that say that it is not legal. We know that there are some legal opinions flying around the government that the government will not produce and that we are trying to have produced through an appeal through the freedom of information process. We need time for that, but we are not being given time. Two days. That is it. We cannot discuss fairness. We cannot discuss legal matters and we cannot discuss "properly targeted" in proportion to the concerns the bill is alleged to be addressing. We are not allowed to do that at all.

With respect to retroactivity, that is a subject that we did spend some time discussing the current amendment that is before the House by the member for Eglinton.

"One of the simplest tests of fairness of a statute is to question" -- this report states -- "whether a law-abiding citizen could have been aware of a law to be capable of complying. It is fair for the state to say that as of tomorrow it is illegal to make a right turn at a red light, and it is the responsibility of all drivers to be aware of this change."

In other words, you have got to have a crystal ball in your head. I believe we should have the opportunity to debate that, but the motion before the House precludes us from adequately doing that. We should spend considerable time on the whole aspect of retroactivity, because we are seeing the subject of retroactivity creep into all of the legislation that this government is introducing.

1750

This report states that it is patently unfair for the state to say that this change is retroactive to last month and that because you made a red turn at that time, you will be penalized under the new law. Why can we not discuss that? We are clearly not being allowed to discuss that, because of this time restraint that is being placed on us by this government.

The report goes on to say:

"The latter" -- that I have just illustrated -- "is exactly the situation in which landlords find themselves today. They have obeyed the law as it was in the books and they have relied on the legislation to guide their investment decisions. In some cases, they have even received binding orders, government orders that authorize them to do what they are doing, from the government stating the rent increases to which they are entitled. Now they are being told that the rules have been changed after the fact and that such previously issued building orders on which they based business decisions are void."

Our party is more concerned about this issue than any other issue with respect to Bill 4, and we have not spent enough time on it. We have the right to debate that issue because of the unbelievable hardships that are being placed on the people of this province, the bankruptcies that are being caused and the jobs that are being lost. This report confirms that it is misleading to claim that the effective date of this legislation is 1 October 1990.

It is clearly misleading. In fact, the effects stretch back months and years before that time, both in the case of capital improvements and financial loss. We have spent some time on that fact. It is unbelievable that this government would introduce legislation that would in fact be retroactive years -- not 1 October, not months, but years -- where orders have been made to phase in payments over a number of years, because those are all void as a result of this legislation.

I believe we should put forward a number of examples, because they certainly did not listen during the hearings of this Legislature. They did not listen at all, and I believe that we have the right to submit those examples to this House in an attempt to persuade them to change their minds. This report says, "The capital improvement program on Rob Herman's 70-year-old building began in November 1989." I am referring to the report. This is one of several that I believe should be brought forward to the House. "Because the work involved a complete interior gutting and modernization of the interior as well as exterior upgrading, the work was spaced over a period of almost a year. Both the tenants and the city of Toronto supported the work." The city of Toronto and the tenants supported the work, and not only that, "The Ontario government provided financial assistance for what it considered a classic example of downtown, low-rise conservation." So you have the tenants, you have the Ontario government and you have the city of Toronto approving this. We believe that these are the types of examples that should be brought forward in debate, because this government will not listen.

The report goes on to describe what happened in this situation. It talks of the work being completed in the fall of 1990 and an application being filed in September for a rent increase effective April Fool's Day 1991. "However, under the new rules introduced by the NDP government, Rob's application is treated as falling under the moratorium date of 1 October 1990, even though workmen were on the site 11 months prior." Why can we not discuss situations like that? Why are we being cut off?

The report says: "Rob Herman's situation is not an isolated example. Of all applications filed as of 30 November 1990, there were 1,570 applications representing 91,405 units with effective dates for rent increases of 1 October or later. Every one of those examples represents an owner who initiated work in good faith from 3 to 12 months."

They acted in good faith; they believed in the province of Ontario -- that was before the New Democratic government was elected -- and were fully in accordance with the law as it stood but they will be arbitrarily shut out from ever recovering the money they spent. Because of this legislation, they are never going to recover it. Before they could recover it. That was then, and this is now. They cannot recover it. Why can we not discuss that? Why can we not discuss these problems?

In 275 of these cases the landlord actually had an order in hand before the legislation was even introduced. I believe -- they will not listen to it in committee -- that we should go through those applications to show how unfair this government is.

There is some question with respect to conditional orders. We did spend some time on conditional orders and I believe that more time should be spent on conditional orders because many people are going to be bankrupt and that is a subject that we, as an opposition, and I believe the government members, have an obligation to discuss.

This report talks about Joe Pemberton and four partners who together own a 20-unit building on Robina Avenue in Toronto. Mr Pemberton is a carpenter who was well aware of the need for major work in this 75-year-old building. So was the Ontario government.

Here is another example where even the Ontario government was aware of it and yet we are not allowed to list these examples and to try to persuade the government officials. We know what the Minister of Housing is doing, we know what the House leader is doing, we know what the parliamentary assistant is doing. They are not going to listen. Their ears are closed. But maybe there are some backbenchers back there who would be prepared to listen to some of these examples and to show the hardships that have been created by their bill.

Mr Pemberton is a carpenter by trade and "was well aware of the need for major work in this 75-year-old building. So was the Ontario government which provided assistance under the low-rise rehabilitation program for the required renovations." Joe and his partners are working people. They are working people of this province and they had to borrow against their own homes to raise the money required for this work.

They sought an advance ruling as an assurance that the money would be repaid over time from increased rents. "A conditional order was obtained in June 1990 for a 25% increase effective 1 January 1991. The new rents for the renovated units would still be affordable, ranging from $440 to $595 per month." These are the types of examples that we demand the right to bring to this House to discuss.

With his order from the government in his hand, Mr Pemberton mortgaged his house. He completed the work, "only to have a new government" -- the New Democratic government came along -- "which was not even elected until three months after he obtained his ruling change the rules on him. He and his partners are now trying to cope with a $4,000-per-month carrying cost for his investment solely because of this government's reversal." There is still time. There is still time to debate in this House to try to persuade the government members to reverse their position to help the Joe Pembertons.

"There were approximately 50 other landlords who also had conditional orders and are caught in the same situation as Joe Pemberton." I demand the right to hear from these 50 other landlords because we certainly did not hear from them in committee. I want to hear from these people.

There is another topic that should be discussed and we are not given the opportunity to discuss it as a result of this time allocation motion. We are not being given the time. That has to do with the financial loss phase-in subject. The report talks about this and I would like to refer to it in some length.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members take their seats, please?

The House adjourned at 1800.