The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I believe that my privileges as a member of provincial Parliament have been seriously abrogated as a result of the NDP cabinet's closed-door decision to remove the Queen of Canada from the oath of allegiance which has always been sworn by the members of Ontario's police forces.

This move on the part of the government seems to me to have profound implications for all those who have sworn an allegiance to the Queen and especially for members of the Ontario Legislature whose duty it is to uphold the laws of this province and to defend the privileges of the crown and Her Majesty's representative in Ontario.

It is in the name of the crown that I, as a member of provincial Parliament and as a member of this Legislature, exercise my rights and privileges on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Simcoe West and on behalf of the people of Ontario.

I believe the NDP's decision has great and far-reaching consequences for all aspects of our legal and legislative institutions in this province. I shudder to think how the Premier intends to stopgap the very many broad questions the public, the media and perhaps even the courts will raise in the aftermath of what I can only call the most regrettable political decision, made in direct opposition to our best-established constitutional traditions.

I strongly believe that the government's decision calls into question the very legitimacy of this Parliament, this cabinet and this Premier, because unlike in a republican system, unlike in the United States of America, our authority as parliamentarians is derived from the crown. It is on loan from the Queen herself. In fact, as a distinguished member of the media, Michael Valpy, points out in this morning's Globe and Mail: "Politicians exercise power only on sufferance. The power is on loan to them."

I want to quote from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. In a state dinner on 26 June 1973 she states, when she talks about her role as the constitutional monarch of Canada:

"But it is as Queen of Canada that I am here, Queen of Canada and of all Canadians, not just of one or two ancestral strains. I want the crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to all. It is not only a link between Commonwealth nations, but between Canadian citizens of every national origin and ancestry.

"The crown is an idea more than a person and I want the crown in Canada to represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal. I will continue to do my best to make it so during my lifetime, and I hope you will all continue to give me your help in this task."

Finally, I would point out that this House, this Legislature is filled with symbols of the crown's authority. The mace which lies before you, Mr Speaker, the office of Speaker itself, cabinet ministers, and indeed each and every member of this House are symbols of the crown. I, as a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, am deeply shocked and offended that the NDP government would attack the one remaining great symbol of Canadian unity and identity. God save the Queen.

The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe West, I appreciate the matter which you have brought to my attention and I will be pleased to report back to you as soon as I can.

Members' statements, the member for Quinte.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: My statement today is also on the same matter. I hope the Premier pays close attention to what was just stated and to what I have to say.

I rise today to protest the NDP's misguided decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen for police officers across Ontario.

Our constitutional monarchy is the most important institution we have. Since the United Empire Loyalists came to Ontario from the United States more than 200 years ago, the monarchy has been a potent symbol of our provincial heritage.

Ontario's coat of arms reflects that heritage with the Latin motto that translates, "Loyal she began, loyal she remains." Our provincial flag depicts the Union Jack in the top left-hand corner, and our licence plates proudly depict the crown as the symbol of the people's authority over the government. The previous statement also mentioned many other areas. As Canada's head of state, Elizabeth II embodies centuries of tradition that have moulded the great country that we have today.

People flee oppression from all over the world to live in Ontario and participate in those traditions of freedom and opportunity. It is absurd for the NDP to suggest that newcomers to Canada object to the monarchy. They come here precisely because of the stable, tolerant society that is fostered by our constitutional monarchy.

Tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers have died fighting to preserve the way of life we have enjoyed under our system of government. They are remembered with great pride by all Ontarians, and particularly by members of the Royal Canadian Legion across Ontario who continue their fine tradition of also honouring the monarchy.

Our police officers put their lives --

The Speaker: Would the member for Quinte take his seat, please.

Mr H. O'Neil: I urge the Premier and the cabinet --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

1340

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Arnott: Today I want to call upon the government to review all regulations and legislation which affect small business in the province of Ontario. It is my opinion that the government should immediately strike a select committee on small business for this purpose.

Small business is the economic engine of this province, and a great deal needs to be done to support this vital sector of our economy. The government should be looking at ways to simplify existing regulations and legislation, to cut business taxes and eliminate the duplication in administrative government procedures and requirements, all of which inflict an unnecessary burden and financial cost on our small business operations.

This government has taken absolutely no initiative to solve the most fundamental economic problem facing Ontario's economy, which is its present inability to compete with neighbouring jurisdictions. So far the government's thrust in dealing with our serious competitiveness crisis has been to adopt superficial initiatives to cushion our economic decline. Instead, this government must undertake a well-developed strategy to reverse this decline by cutting taxes and excessive regulations to ensure the long-term viability of Ontario's small business sector.

I submit that this government is presently incapable of understanding what is needed. Maybe the work of a select committee would help to enlighten it.

ZYGMUNT SOJKA

Mr Hansen: I rise today to draw the members' attention to Zygmunt Sojka, better known as Ziggy, who has recently been nominated for an Ontario Senior Achievement Award for his work to improve our environment.

In the early 1980s Ziggy's eyes were opened to the provincial government's attempts to build a toxic waste facility in Cayuga, along the Grand River. His knowledge of the river's annual flooding patterns told him that this was the wrong place for such a facility, so he actively fought against its development.

After the Ontario Waste Management Corp was established in 1982, with its mandate to establish a huge centralized waste facility in Niagara region, Ziggy got motivated to educate and recruit other environmentalists in the province to explore alternative methods of waste disposal. Ziggy then became actively involved with the West-Lincoln Task Force Against Toxic Waste, Niagara Residents Against Toxic Waste Dumps and the Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition.

Ziggy realized that the only way to stop the OWMC proposal was through lobbying. As such, in 1987 he and other environmentalists formed an organization called Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal. He started as vice-president and now is president of the association. Under the leadership of Ziggy, Niagara Residents for Safe Toxic Waste Disposal has participated in everything from parades to demonstrations. As well, the organization has erected six billboards and set up many information sessions for the public at large.

Over the years Ziggy has volunteered thousands of hours of time and inspired many people to work to improve Ontario. This province is very fortunate to have such a dedicated individual working to save our environment.

ST CATHARINES STANDARD

Mr Bradley: This week is a very special one for the people of St Catharines as our community newspaper, the St Catharines Standard, is celebrating its 100th anniversary.

At a time when so many newspapers in our province are falling into the hands of newspaper chains, the Standard has retained its status as an independent daily with a distinct emphasis on community affairs. For this its publisher, Henry Burgoyne, should be commended.

The local emphasis and community involvement of the newspaper are best exemplified in the "Through the Sports Gate" column of Jack Gatecliff, who, as executive sports editor, has recounted for readers the sports exploits of thousands of St Catharines athletes and has provided encouragement and recognition to so many in our part of the province. Jack is part of a talented team of writers at the Standard who have received provincial and national recognition when newspaper awards have been presented each year and who have kept St Catharines residents well informed on the issues of the day.

The entire Standard team -- writers and photographers whose work is seen by the public and those responsible for the printing and production of the paper, its distribution and advertising -- can be justifiably proud of a century of service to the community, from the Standard's beginning under William Burgoyne 100 years ago to the publication of its collector's item, the Centennial Edition, on 21 April 1991.

Congratulations, Standard staff. St Catharines celebrates with you.

SOCIAL WORK

Mr Jackson: Yesterday I reminded the Premier that Ontario was the only province in Canada that did not regulate the profession of social work. In response to my question the Premier gave a rather glib answer, but it was not a straight answer, to the question as to when we can see a regulated social work act in this province. Yet before the election, in opposition, he could clearly state that a regulated act is an important way to prevent adverse psychological, physical and social consequences for Ontario consumers.

There are two victims of the Premier's inaction in the House here with us today. They attended a press conference earlier today. They are from the Kitchener-Waterloo area and they have received support from their member in the House, the member for Waterloo North. Both Rick and Laura are present, as I say, in the chamber today as living testimony to the fact that it is unacceptable that in Ontario any Tom, Dick or Mary can hang out a shingle that says, "I'm a social worker; I'm prepared to give counselling, for marriage counselling, for psychological counselling, for sexual counselling," and so on. It is inappropriate that this province persists in its inactivity, and I would like to quote the Toronto Star today which said "The public deserves protection. That can only be accomplished by regulation of qualified social workers" and that the Premier should keep his promise.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Ms S. Murdock: As members know, distances in northern Ontario make specialized medical treatment a luxury as well as a frightening experience. No longer will cancer patients in the north have to travel south for treatment, because last Friday the Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Treatment Centre in Sudbury held its official opening ceremonies.

We all know cancer as a devastating, debilitating disease and at such times contact with family and friends is more important than ever. The Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Treatment Centre will allow cancer patients to stay close to home for treatment and that is important at times, not only for the patient but also for the family. Our new state-of-the-art cancer centre provides patient consultation and treatment, counselling for patients and family members as well as nutritional counselling. It is estimated that it will serve almost 58,000 patients this year and it has already surpassed expectations in terms of service.

Four people have to be thanked for all the work that they have done, as well as the thousands of volunteers: Maureen LaCroix, who spearheaded it in 1972; Dr Bob Corringham, the director of the centre; George Walker, who is winning an Order of Ontario next month for the work he has done on this, and Gerry Lougheed Jr, who raised $9.1 million as our contribution.

OSCAR DEXTER BROOKS

Ms Poole: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to celebrate the achievement of one of my constituents, Oscar Dexter Brooks, who joins us today in the members' gallery.

Mr Brooks's life, at every turn, has shown him to be an industrious and creative individual. He has had a lifetime of accomplishments and last weekend he added one more to the list. Oscar Brooks is this country's oldest recipient of a Canada Council grant. At the age of 82, he applied for a grant to write a book. Upon receiving the funding in 1989, he went out and bought himself a computer and in only four weeks learned how to use it. The result is his book called Legs, which was publicly launched on 13 April.

Oscar Brooks has a grade 7 education. He has been a labourer, a farm-hand and a union organizer. He has owned and operated his own business and served as a hockey coach and professional scout. His book, Legs, is the story of wanderlust, a tale of Oscar's memories of the 1920s, when he was a young man striking out on the open road. For 35 years, Oscar Brooks has had the dream that one day his book would be published. He is a living testament that dreams do come true.

I would ask members to join me in congratulating Oscar Dexter Brooks on his latest achievement, the publication of his book at age 84, and thank him for serving as an inspiration to all of us.

1350

BICYCLING POLICY

Mr Tilson: It has become obvious that the Ministry of Housing should be taking lessons about the consultation process from the Ministry of Transportation. Recently, the Ministry of Transportation announced that it will be holding public consultation in centres across the province to review the ministry's bicycling policy. For $200,000, the Ministry of Transportation has hired a consulting engineering firm to survey 232 Ontario municipalities and to hold public meetings in five cities. No doubt, these public meetings will be conducted in an open and democratic fashion, where all relevant parties will have the opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions. The re-evaluation and formulation of the government's bicycling policy will of course reflect the true findings of these public hearings.

The senior project manager of the consulting firm has indicated that his firm will produce a pretty comprehensive look at cycling in the province. To do so, it will leave no stone unturned. It is this type of process that should have been applied to the Ministry of Housing's consultation process for Bill 4. It would appear that other government ministries are conscientious in following up on public policy regarding ministerial policy. The Ministry of Transportation study was apparently motivated by 32 letters received by the ministry last year. Yet the Ministry of Housing, which has been lobbying continuously since the introduction of Bill 4, fails to have such an enlightened approach to the consultation process.

The question remains, in light of how other ministries conduct public policy consultations, how can the Minister of Housing continue to justify his blatant neglect in addressing the multitude of voices concerned with the implications of Bill 4 which today still remain unheard?

LANDSLIDE IN SCARBOROUGH

Mr Owens: Yesterday afternoon I visited the site of the landslide which occurred in my Scarborough riding. This landslide took place on the Brimley Road, south of Kingston Road, section of the Scarborough Bluffs. I spoke to the local residents who were affected by the landslide and also further urged the year-round residents who live on the boats in Bluffers' Park that they should seriously consider leaving the location for reasons of safety.

I was impressed with the responses by the fire, ambulance, police and hydro services who managed to alleviate much of the danger by their quick and efficient actions. As I toured the site with Michael Price, commissioner of works and environment, as well as Jim Bamford, the 41 Division inspector, I was most impressed with the way that Scarborough residents had worked together to ensure a smoothly functioning emergency response. Special thanks should also be made to Jim McLellan, the Ashbridges Bay Yacht Club harbourmaster, who after my call promptly arranged three slips for boat residents to leave the area.

Attention will now focus on stabilizing the bluffs and a crack which has developed on the east side. Since the landslide occurred on the site of a former sanitary landfill, I have been in touch with the Ministry of the Environment to ensure the safety of the fill which has been removed and trucked to other locations.

It is hoped that such an event will never occur again, but it is gratifying to know that the response team is in place and does work.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I understand that the Premier will be making a statement in a few moments. He has heard the concerns that have been expressed by the members on this side of the House concerning his recent announcement to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen for police officers across Ontario, and I wonder if he would also make a statement concerning something where no one in this House or across the province has had any input.

The Speaker: The member will know that points of privilege are directed to the Speaker.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, members may wish to welcome to our gallery this afternoon a former member of the assembly, a former member for Lakeshore, Patrick Lawlor.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon Mr Rae: Yesterday, the member for St George-St David raised questions about certain members of my cabinet and their adherence to my conflict-of-interest guidelines.

As members know, the guidelines build on the Members' Conflict of Interest Act that governs all members of the Legislature and set out certain rules for cabinet members and parliamentary assistants in addition to those in the law.

When I released those guidelines last fall, I asked that they be referred to a standing committee for review by members of all parties. The committee held public hearings during the winter intersession, and I look forward to its report.

In the meantime, I have the responsibility to enforce those guidelines because the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, the Honourable Gregory T. Evans, is appropriately not involved in enforcing guidelines that are not part of the legislation.

Two members of the cabinet were mentioned yesterday as owning rental properties.

The first was the Minister of Citizenship who, with her husband, owns a two-storey building in her riding which she rents to one commercial and one residential tenant. Because of the commercial aspect of part of the building, I have asked her to now put that building into trust as is permitted by the guidelines.

The second was the Minister of Community and Social Services. She owned a residential rental property in Toronto and one eighth of a condominium unit in Oakville. The seven eighths are held by her husband and members of her family.

In my guidelines, following on Judge Evans's view that owning small amounts of rental property do not constitute a business interest, members of my cabinet and parliamentary assistants were permitted to continue to rent out rooms in their residences, rent apartments in their houses or own residential rental properties. Several do, including the Minister of Community and Social Services. I do not, nor does Judge Evans, consider this to put ministers in a conflict of interest.

As well, some own recreational properties, as indeed I do myself. This too is permitted under the law and the guidelines.

I want to stress that at no time did the ministers act improperly. The ministers made full disclosure of their properties. I accept responsibility for my news release of 2 April and I regret the error.

RESPONSES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: When the Premier was just Bob Rae and was in the business of heaping scorn on others who had responsibilities in government, he said this on 3 July 1986 as if he was speaking in the apostolic succession: "What difference does it make...what guidelines exist if the Premier is not prepared to do what is necessary to see that those guidelines are enforced?"

What we have today in this statement is a recognition, not that the ministers did wrong apparently, because they apparently made disclosure to the Premier, but that the Premier or the Premier's office granted them a private exemption which he did not disclose to the public as he undertook to do, or made an amendment to the regulations or to the guidelines which he did not disclose to the public at any time, or just ignored his obligation to enforce the whole thing.

Now the Premier has taken this responsibility on himself. He said that the press release in which he told the public and the media and the opposition parties that all was in order, that all ministers were in compliance, patently incorrect as events now show, was his fault.

I say to the Premier, he had better get a grip on his office. These are important responsibilities. These are his guidelines. This is a pedestal he has built for himself and upon which he has placed himself, and the people of Ontario, whether they approve of the guidelines or not, will expect him to do what he publicly has said he was doing.

Now the Premier has said he made a mistake. As a man of honour, I accept his word. I am not in the business of calling a Premier of the province a liar, no matter what political advantage may be found in that. I accept his word.

Mr Harnick: I read this with interest, what amounts to a three-paragraph statement that says virtually nothing. l do not think that the Premier even looked at the guidelines that he created when he wrote the statement. The statement is quite clear, or the guidelines are quite clear. It says: "Ministers are required to divest themselves of all business interests." Those are business interests, whether they are residential or whether they are commercial. They are business interests. They earn income; income is declared; it is a business interest.

But even if the Premier does not want to admit that it is a business interest, why could he not, in his statement, tell us exactly what we have to know based on what the guidelines say? The guidelines say that all business interests must be divested except where the minister satisfies the Premier that the interest has been fully disclosed. I do not see this in the statement.

He says that they do not have to divest if undue hardship would be created. I do not see anything about undue hardship. He says that if you can retain the interest and it is not inconsistent with the public interest -- I do not see anything about that in the statement. He says that the minister should give the appropriate undertaking to avoid a conflict in respect of the interest. Where are the undertakings? I do not see any undertakings. This thing is hooey.

1400

I will tell members something else. The statement also says that the Premier is now going to start putting things in trust. Well, he wrote this long letter, some five or six pages long, and he brought it to us at the standing committee on administration of justice and here is what he said about trust: "It is difficult to see how the blind trust is really a solution at all. Even setting aside the evidence at the Sinclair Stevens inquiry, it is hard, in conceptual terms, how generally blind a trust can be that is dealing with closely held family business." It seems that now the trust is back in vogue in this government.

The other interesting thing, and I just passed upon it when I found this lengthy letter, was that we heard yesterday about Mr Caplan, the lobbyist paid by companies, and there is the idea that he may have some access to this government through his wife or otherwise. But the letter refers to the idea of a lobbyist as well. It states: "The question also arises as to whether those individuals who have made it their profession to lobby or influence government should not be registered and their activities defined by law. There are obvious definitional problems, but these have been faced up to in many jurisdictions and it has certainly been my experience in my eight years in politics that the amount and scope of lobbying has increased dramatically."

I do not see anything whatsoever about that in the statement. It is interesting that the Premier says he is following on Judge Evans's view that only small amounts of rental property do not constitute a business interest. I do not remember hearing that, quite frankly. I was there, but I do not remember hearing that.

The other thing the Premier is ignoring is the fact that Judge Evans said divestiture is draconian, that it is not necessary. It is convenient that the Premier is not going to deal with that and it is further interesting that this aspect is conveniently forgotten. I think that, if anything, this statement is not responsive to what was raised in this Legislature yesterday and it is appalling that we cannot get the answers based on the Premier's own guidelines.

Mr Sterling: I would just like to add one more thing. I find it passing strange that on page 1 the Premier correctly says the Honourable Greg Evans has nothing to do with these guidelines, but on page 2 he refers back to the same individual to build his case on what a business is or is not. It seems very inconsistent in terms of what he is trying to do in justifying two ministers who have not lived within his guidelines.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In January, right at the end of the month, she announced $52.8 million in funding for our child care programs in Ontario, and in the announcement she said that part of that, $30 million, would be provided to enhance salaries only in the non-profit sector, quoting her, "recognizing their current low wages."

Statistics from the ministry indicate that the salaries in commercial centres are approximately $15,000 a year and in the non-profit sector average $18,000 a year, both, I would say, inadequate and both needing correction. Can the minister explain to the House why the government has decided not to provide even a part of that additional funding for the commercial sector of day care, which is associated with fully 34% of the services provided.

Hon Ms Akande: Actually, of course, this government, like the previous government, has stated a preference for non-profit child care. It has the opportunity to have community boards, to have parents sit on those boards and therefore to bring their influence to bear on the kinds of programs that are implemented within the child care centres.

It also has a system where the books are open, and therefore the non-profit child care is totally accountable to that community and to those people who use that centre, which is, of course, another way of effecting the decisions of parents around the programs in those centres. Therefore, for that reason, we have found that government funds would be more appropriately used at this time to give a down payment on pay equity for the workers within those child care centres.

Mr Nixon: The difference in the situation, which the minister well knows, is that the previous government did provide funding for commercial child care, with the understanding that there was not enough money in the Treasury to simply replace it with the non-profit which, the minister knows, operates at a substantially higher cost.

I am not sure whether the policy of the government is simply to treat the profit-making or commercial child care centres as if they were the kulaks of the child care industry, but apparently the honourable minister is unaware that her policy has forced the closure already of approximately 18 commercial enterprises in Metropolitan Toronto. Last Saturday in my constituency office I was presented with information from people involved in the commercial child care sector in Brantford and Brant county, with the situation they face, which is similar, which really will inhibit the possibility of continuing their service.

What plans does the minister have, recognizing that the full replacement of commercial with her kind of child care -- non-profit, government operated -- is relatively more expensive and would be an additional $780 million a year, to see that the communities are going to be provided with this service until the nirvana she envisages is achieved?

Hon Ms Akande: Once again, I do not accept the premise upon which the member's question is based. First of all, I am quite aware that the previous government provided only 50% of the direct operating grants to centres that were in place by December 1987. That is only 50% of the direct operating grants. To all other commercial centres that came in after that time, there were not operating grants presented. So the premise that the previous government did fund the commercial sector is in fact not correct.

The other thing that I would like to say is that certainly it would not be --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I realize that this topic brings with it quite a few different questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition is patiently waiting to ask his question. There are a number of other questions, I take it, and perhaps members would wait until they are called upon to actually ask those questions. Had you completed your response?

Hon Ms Akande: No, I had not.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could incorporate other details when the supplementary comes forward.

Hon Ms Akande: I will be that courteous to the member.

1410

Mr Nixon: My supplementary is normally based on the minister's answer, but failing the completion of her answer, I will have to refer to some notes in this regard. Rather than have a debate about the funding, she would know that we maintained the viability of the commercial service. The federal government's reducing of its support in this regard did apply pressure, but we did not.

The honourable minister, I sense, is under perhaps unusual and probably unwelcome pressure, from her point of view, from some of her more advanced colleagues in this regard. She must be aware that it is her responsibility to see that day care services are provided, and even if the provision of funding for the commercial aspects runs against the grain of some of her colleagues, she knows that at least this service is excellent and well-inspected and that we cannot get along without it.

I think the concern, really, here is that the minister's program was late in being announced and it meant that a number of municipalities could not accept even the service and assistance that she proffered because their budgets were already complete. I think Peel region is a case in point, where welfare case loads have grown by over 90%. It has notified the ministry that it is not in a position to take advantage of the additional 243 subsidized spaces because it cannot raise its 20% of the amount.

The subsidy announcement has come too late for many municipalities to take advantage of it because of the restrictions on their budgets in this yearly process. Waterloo region is a case in point, where welfare services and case loads have grown by 80% and the unemployment levels have soared to 12%.

The management in this regard is the responsibility of the minister. Can she explain what she is going to do to correct what surely is a mistake in applying this undue and deleterious pressure to the day care system, and what she is going to do to apply proper funding and to make up for the damage that she has already caused?

Hon Ms Akande: Let me assure the member that I am very aware of my responsibilities and very responsible to operate in this area. The ministry staff has always monitored the service that is provided by the child care operations and offered support where we were in danger of losing the services of those particular facilities, because it is our interest and our determined responsibility to provide sufficient child care in this province and to provide it at a cost which promotes us to pass the subsidies to people.

It was many of these municipalities which informed us that they required subsidies, so in response to their needs and their demands and the needs and demands of the parents, we did in fact pass those subsidies to the municipalities. Many of them have picked them up and are beginning to pass them to those clients. We have continued to assist municipalities in many ways in order to make those subsidies available and we are still working at the table to do that, to offer to the municipalities the help they need to serve our and their clientele.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier. It is sooner or later going to be the case that the Premier will have to come clean on the subject of the guidelines. His statement today did not do that and I hope in question period, in the interests of his government and in the interests of the public, he will do so.

As he knows, because presumably he wrote them, his guidelines require all ministers to divest themselves "of any assets which cause or could appear to cause a conflict of interest and all business interests, except where the Premier has granted a publicly expressed exemption with the reasons therefor."

Yesterday I referred to the case of two ministers. I made plain that there were others, but I was not able to document that they had failed in divestment. The Premier very cagily just responded to the two cases. I really want to ask him today about the case of the Minister of Transportation.

The Minister of Transportation has declared that he has assets from which he receives income or which represent a business and, according to a search of title, has apparently not divested himself of those assets. Has an exemption been given? Is an exemption going to be given? What is the story here? Do we have to pull these teeth one by one, or are we going to get an answer about whether this Premier is prepared to enforce his guidelines, Rae's rules? What about the Minister of Transportation? We will deal with the others in time.

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure the member will. I have given to the member who has asked the question a statement, a copy of a memorandum that I sent to members of the cabinet, caucus and parliamentary assistants, dated 12 February.

Mr Scott: But not to the press or the opposition or anyone else.

Hon Mr Rae: The substance of the document was fully discussed with people. I want to say to the member that I have shared a copy with him and I will share a copy with the House. I should also say to him that I made it very clear in that statement, as I did today with respect to the statement that I made in the House, which I will simply quote again to him:

"In my guidelines, following on Judge Evans's view" -- which he has expressed again -- the member is shaking his head.

Mr Scott: It won't wash.

Hon Mr Rae: He says it will not wash. All I am saying to him is, Judge Evans's view is that owning small amounts of rental property does not in fact constitute a business interest. I have also stated very explicitly, on 12 February, if the member wants, with respect to the clarification:

"I will say that I will then allow to be held as assets property consisting of a single-family dwelling, condominium or other such dwelling in addition to an owner-occupied dwelling. This in no way affects the prohibition of members acquiring an interest in land in Ontario except for personal residential or recreational use or where there is an existing farm or additional working farm land."

The situation of the Minister of Transportation is covered explicitly by the 12 February memorandum, which deals directly with this question. The former Attorney General should know that. He says, "When are we going to come clean?" I would suggest to him that while mistakes may be made, we have made it very clear what the rules are, as clear as we possibly can. If I may suggest to the member, and he knows full well, the guidelines which we have laid down and the rules which we have established are clearer and tougher than any introduced by his government or any introduced by the previous government. I think the rules are very clear indeed.

Mr Scott: The Premier is not going to get through this impasse by heaping ridicule on me. I am not the issue here. I am a private member. The issue is, as the Premier has said on previous occasions, whether he has the political will to enforce his own guidelines. Now what does he say in answer? Every member of the House and you, Mr Speaker, will want to understand this:

"I held a session of the Legislature, announced the guidelines to the public, took all the kudos from the press, circulated copies to them, had them printed in the papers and then on 12 February I sent a notice to my caucus which in substance says: 'Don't worry about all those guidelines. You won't have to do all the things that are in them. I didn't tell the press. I didn't tell the Legislature. We have it from Judge Evans.'"

1420

He did not tell him, and now he allows these private guidelines to excuse the divestment requirement of his own publicly released guidelines. That is the state we are at. There is nobody outside the Premier's caucus who has seen this amendment. It is addressed to them; it is not addressed to us. There is no member of the press who has ever seen it.

The question I want to ask the Premier is this: His guidelines say that when an exemption is permitted so that an income-producing asset does not have to be divested, that asset shall be placed in trust under section 8 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. Those are the Premier's words.

The Minister of Citizenship has been required to put her asset in trust and, I understand, has done so. The Minister of Community and Social Services, who owns an income-producing asset, a building on Avenue Road which is rented -- I know because I phoned and spoke to the tenant, Robin Taylor of the CBC -- and which has a mortgage interest of $320,000, is not required to be put in trust under section 8.

Why is the Minister of Citizenship required to put her asset, which is trivial by comparison, in trust and the Minister of Community and Social Services is not required to put her asset in trust? Why have a guideline that says you "shall" put it into trust if you do not mean "shall"?

Hon Mr Rae: To put it as simply as I can, because I have understood Judge Evans's view to be, with respect --

Interjections.

The Speaker: There was rapt attention to the question, and I assume that those who asked the question want to hear a reply.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Oh, the members do not wish to hear a reply. That is fine.

Hon Mr Rae: I will just try and repeat the answer as clearly as I can, simply because the view has been expressed to me that this kind of holding does not constitute a business interest as it has been defined by the person who is given the responsibility for interpreting the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

I say to the member that obviously we feel the rules that have been established are fair, they are open. The holdings that members have are open or are a matter of record. If the members want to know anything about our financial affairs, all that information has been disclosed fully to Judge Evans and it has all been made fully available.

Mr Scott: I have given one quotation from the Premier when he was plain Bob Rae and thought he could impose standards on others that he did not have to live with himself. Here is another: "One of the things we would like to see is certainty of enforcement. This is not a problem with the guidelines; it is a problem of political will." I repeat that to the new Bob Rae who is the Premier of Ontario.

He issued his guidelines. He made a great public display of it. Our staff went around today to the Premier's office and asked for the most up-to-date copy of the guidelines with any amendments that there were, as any member of the press or public might do. What did we get? We got the guidelines the Premier read so solemnly and so unctuously -- I know he does not like the word -- in the House.

Now what are we produced? We are produced a memo, dated 12 February, which goes to the cabinet -- I do not get that -- which goes to parliamentary assistants -- I do not get that -- and to the NDP caucus -- we do not get that either. What that says basically is:

"I'm going to make some changes in these rules that I announced so you won't have to do all the things we said to the public and the press that you would have to do. Ed and everybody else won't have to actually divest. We said that but we're not going to actually ask you to do it. Now, don't tell anybody, don't put this before the parliamentary committee, don't tell the media and for God's sake don't tell the opposition and that troublesome guy who is getting under my spurs all the time, the member for St George-St David, because he will only ask a question about it."

If the Premier is making changes to the guidelines, if he is changing, as he has said, the exemption provision, if he is changing the divestment provision, if he is changing for the Minister of Community and Social Services the trust provision, if he is changing any or all of those things, will he please take the guidelines away, rewrite them and bring back guidelines to the House that he is actually in fact, from day to day, prepared to enforce for himself and his colleagues. All this paper being shipped into the press gallery, which has nothing to do with reality, will do us no good. When is the Premier going to introduce his new, complete, revised, unabridged, up-to-date guidelines with an asterisk, "These are the ones I will actually enforce"? When is that going to happen?

Hon Mr Rae: I am at something of a disadvantage because the member for St George-St David has said, on the one hand, that he wants to know what are the rules or what are the criteria that I use or that are developed in order to deal with the question of divestment. I tell him what they are and I show him where and when I said it, and the member then says, "Well, that's not good enough."

Mr Scott: I say it is secret. Tell the public.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David, I think, knows better than to get quite as exercised as he appears to be getting. I would simply say to the member first of all, in answer to the second half of his question, he will know full well that I asked the committee and --

Mr Elston: Blame the committee.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I am not blaming it on anybody.

Mr Elston: Yes, you are. If Judge Evans is not enough, the committee will do.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I went to the committee in the middle of February. I spoke to the committee at that time. I said to them that I was interested in their advice, interested in hearing their advice with respect to new legislation.

My own personal view, and I expressed this view to the committee in the middle of February, is that additional legislation would be a good idea. I hope the committee will share that view. I will be very interested in seeing whether the members of the opposition parties and members of my own party feel that stronger guidelines are needed with respect to members of the cabinet. I look forward to hearing the views of the member for St George-St David with respect to what the law should be.

My views are very clear. They have been made clear in the statement that I made in December and in the statement that I made on 12 February, which indicated to members the criteria that I was going to be applying with respect to requiring divestment of rental property. I made it clear at that point that I felt that to require the divestment of rental property, in light of market conditions, would cause undue hardship. I stated that explicitly in the memorandum and I said further that it could not be considered to be, in technical terms, a business interest.

1430

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Harris: My question is for the Premier. We are not a republic. We are not governed by a republican system of government. Whether the Premier and his cabinet like it or not, we as Canadians live in a constitutional monarchy. That is why I am deeply offended by what I consider to be an underhanded, secret decision -- with no debate, no discussion -- that was taken by his cabinet to replace the oath of allegiance to the Queen by police officers in this province. I would ask the Premier if this House is to interpret his cabinet's decision as an objection to Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy.

Hon Mr Rae: I first of all want to say to the leader of the third party that as the Premier of this province, I feel very strongly that the oaths which have been proposed in regulation and put forward by regulation with respect to new members of the OPP -- let's see what it says. It says that whoever is taking the oath will swear that they will be loyal to Canada and that they will uphold the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution of Canada provides for a country, under the patriated Constitution, in which the Queen is the head of state of Canada and the Constitution provides for a clear constitutional monarchy. It is very clear that in expressing --

Mrs Cunningham: Stand up for what you believe in. You may have to say it out loud.

Mr Stockwell: Stand up for what you believe in. Name the multicultural groups that asked you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am beginning to wonder if there is something in the water.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Important, serious questions are raised, and I take it that when you ask a question, you wish to hear a response.

Mr Bradley: Not that kind of response.

The Speaker: We may not like the responses we hear and we may not like the questions we hear, but we still have a right to both hear the questions and the responses. If we would now just settle a bit, the Premier can continue.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps I could continue, and say to the leader of the third party that the fact that we had a new Police Act, which was passed in the previous Parliament and proclaimed in this Parliament, meant that a new regulation had to be brought forward. It is the view of the government -- obviously we are listening very carefully to the views that are being expressed, but I would say to the leader of the third party that we regard an oath in which the person who is swearing the oath swears that he will be loyal to Canada, as that he will uphold the Constitution of Canada, very clearly accepting the Constitution of the country and all that that entails, including, obviously, our continued loyalty as citizens of the country to Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr Harris: The Premier in his response said "proposed." Perhaps he could explain whether "proposed" means that we are going to have some debate on this, as we have not had before. The Premier also mentioned the new Police Act. He will recall, I hope, our party's strong objection to the fact that we did not see any of the regulations when we dealt with this act. I would ask him to explain "proposed," if he is going to allow some debate on this regulation or if in fact it is a fait accompli.

As well, I want to suggest and point out to the Premier that the decision strikes at the heart of Ontario's justice system. Police forces are sworn to uphold the law of the crown. Charges are laid and prosecuted by the crown. Sentences are determined by the crown. If the police no longer swear allegiance to the crown, in whose name are they acting? Is it the Premier's? Is it Brian Mulroney's? Is it some politician?

Mr Runciman: Is it Bob Rae?

Mr Harris: Is it the Premier? Surely if they are to be prosecuted by the crown, if the sentences are to be determined by the crown, police forces should be sworn to uphold the law of the crown.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member is stating that there is some conflict between the words "Canada" and "the crown," or that there is some conflict between the Constitution of Canada and the crown. I do not accept for a moment that when one takes an oath to Canada, the reality -- when one takes an oath to Canada, one is taking an oath to the Queen. When one takes an oath to the Constitution of Canada and when one states one's loyalty to the Constitution of Canada, we are taking our oath to all that includes and implies, and that is precisely what we have done. The notion that people would somehow, in choosing Canada, be doing offence to Her Majesty the Queen is an illogical idea. The logical idea is that in choosing Canada we are choosing the very best of our traditions, which includes the monarchy.

Mr Harris: I would like to quote from today's Globe and Mail where it says: "The politicians exercise power only on sufferance. The power is on loan to them. Thus an oath of allegiance to the Queen is a vow of allegiance to the people themselves" -- not the government of Canada, not the government of Ontario, but the people themselves, through one person who represents that, one titular head, if you like, the Queen -- "and to all laws enacted in the Queen's name -- but never to the country's political authority."

I swore allegiance to the crown when I took my place in this chamber; so did the Premier. In fact, I have a picture right here of him swearing that allegiance. The allegiance that the Premier swore to enact the laws was, "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II," and then he would enact laws and we would empower police officers to uphold those. Now the police are going to have to be resworn. Does the Premier expect members of this chamber to be resworn?

Hon Mr Rae: No, of course not, and the member knows that. He knows it full well.

Since he quoted from Mr Valpy's column, let me again ask the member to listen to the words of the oath which police officers are going to be swearing, "swear that I will be loyal to Canada" -- not the government of Canada, not to any political leader, but to the country called Canada, whose head of state is the Queen, the Queen of Canada -- "and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada" -- not the government of Canada, not the government of Ontario, not the Premier of Ontario, but the Constitution of Canada.

The leader of the third party may see a conflict between the monarchy and the Constitution of Canada. This government sees absolutely no conflict in that regard.

1440

Mr Harris: My second question as well is to the Premier. He sees no difference, but many people do see a difference, including the police officers of this province, including the hundreds of phone calls that are coming in to my office and continue to come even as I speak. If he sees no change, why then did he make the change under the regulation?

Hon Mr Rae: When the Constitution was patriated in 1981, we dropped the words "British North America Act" and we accepted the fact that we had a Canadian Constitution in which it was clearly understood by everyone that the head of state was the Queen. I believe that when you swear allegiance to the country, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution of the country --

Mr Stockwell: To the Queen; so say it.

Hon Mr Rae: -- there should be no question in anyone's mind as to exactly what that means. It means that one is swearing allegiance to the country, to its institutions, to its Constitution, as well as to the Queen, as the member for Etobicoke West said.

Mr Harris: This morning my office contacted the public affairs department of the Metropolitan Toronto Police. We were advised by the constable we spoke with that in his 30 years with the force, not one constable has refused to take the oath. To the best of his knowledge, the police department has not been lobbied by any community, by any ethnic organization, to have the oath changed.

Will the Premier not come forth with us, stand in his place and admit that this decision is a crass attempt on the part of the government to avoid embarrassing his personal choice as chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board?

Hon Mr Rae: I am happy to tell the leader of the third party categorically that it has absolutely nothing to do with that at all.

Mr Eves: Oh, you are changing all the other oaths then.

Mr Harris: All the other oaths are going to be changed; is this what he is implying?

I think the Premier's answer really does test the credibility of every single person in this province. I gave him an opportunity to come forth with what is obviously obvious.

Let me ask the Premier this: Ontario's tradition is dictated by its relationship with the crown. Here in this venerable institution, we hold the Lieutenant Governor in high esteem as the crown's representative. This building itself is known, I suggest not for a very odd reason, as Queen's Park. Take a short walk up the street to the Royal Ontario Museum.

By no means do I question the cultural diversity of Canada's many communities, but the Premier is jeopardizing the very foundation upon which this country was built, upon which this province is governed. We know we were promised a change when the Premier took over. Will he tell this House if he meant by that change that he promised to wipe clean the slate of Ontario's heritage?

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, would know me well enough to know the profound respect that I have --

Interjections.

The Speaker: You did not think I would stand?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Oh, I can tell, you are now waiting patiently to hear the answer and you would like me to sit down. Okay. Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I hope we would never see the day when one would think that by swearing an oath to Canada, one was in any way expressing any form of disloyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. The most profound expression to the Queen of Canada that one could express is to swear that one will be loyal to Canada and that one will uphold the Constitution of Canada.

CONDUCT OF PREMIER'S STAFF

Mr Mahoney: My question also is to the Premier, and frankly this question would be almost funny if the incident were not so despicable. I understand that the Premier has a number of rather new, inexperienced people in his caucus, in his cabinet and on his staff, but I have sent him a copy of a letter that is addressed to the Toronto Sun from a Mrs Ruth Wiche. Mrs Wiche tells of the incident and I will just read this. It has to do with the demonstration of landlords, trades, business persons, workers and tenants opposing Bill 4 that was conducted in front of this building. She says:

"During the speeches of the opposition leaders, the Honourable Mike Harris, Liberal MPP Dianne Poole and representatives of trades and commerce, an obscene male stood from the second-floor window (the Premier's office), dropped his trousers and mocked the taxpayers below with his bare bottom."

Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh!

Mr Mahoney: The Minister of Health does not think it is disgusting?

Mr Elston: She thinks it's funny.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't believe it.

Mr Mahoney: I think it is pretty disgusting. She goes on to say:

"This kind of disgusting conduct shows a total lack of respect and illustrates the contempt toward the taxpayers who indeed foot all the bills. Further, it proves to me that Mr Bob Rae, our Premier, has very immature, ignorant people on his staff, with which he tries to govern this province. How disgraceful to use our House of Parliament for such foul behaviour."

She says other things in the letter, but that is basically the bottom line.

[Laughter]

Mr Mahoney: Well, members can laugh. I do not find this funny at all. I hope the Premier does not.

Is the Premier aware of the incident, has he identified the individual involved and what disciplinary action has he taken?

Hon Mr Rae: To answer the member's question very directly, the first I heard of this incident was when the member very kindly sent me over a copy of the letter which is directed to the Toronto Sun and of which a copy was addressed to me. I had not seen this letter.

The allegation is of conduct. I would share the writer's view when she says "How shameful," followed by four exclamation marks. I would certainly share that view. All I can say is that this is the first I have heard of it. It is an allegation that comes right out of the blue as far as I am concerned. I do not know what window it was, I do not know who it was or where it was, I do not even know whether it happened or whether there were any other people who saw it. All I know is that this is the first I have seen of it, and there were a number of people at the demonstration as well as a number of cameras. I will obviously have to consider the nature of Mrs Wiche's allegation and precisely what she thinks she saw.

Mr Mahoney: I would like a little more definitive answer from the Premier. We have a government that talks about banning sexist ads in beer commercials and even gets a cabinet minister fired for talking about that; yet the allegation would suggest a new level of conduct in government in dealing with legitimate protesters in front of this building.

We have talked to the lady who has made the complaint and we have strong assurance that indeed it did happen. In fact, the Premier has a member on his staff who has shown a disgusting level of respect, or lack thereof, for the taxpayers and the people demonstrating. I would like to know from the Premier, number one, will he thoroughly --

Hon Mr Cooke: Who is it?

Mr Mahoney: I am asking the Premier to find out.

Interjections.

1450

The Speaker: This appears to be a day where very few people are happy. The member is entitled to ask his question without interference.

Mr Mahoney: I am delighted that the backbenchers think this is a joke and not of any serious concern. I am sure if the Premier finds out in his investigation that there is truth in these allegations, then he should be ashamed of himself. I hope he will investigate the matter, and if he does indeed identify the individual, I hope he will fire him. Will he fire him if he finds out who it is?

Hon Mr Rae: Before we jump to any conclusions, let's find out what happened. I will certainly endeavour obviously, in light of this letter and in light of the question that has been asked -- it is a very serious allegation with respect to conduct, and I certainly share the view that it would be shameful. She says she saw something from the second-floor window, and then she says the Premier's office. Well, the only person in the Premier's office on that corner --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I have started the investigation and I have ruled out one suspect.

Let me say quite seriously to the member that this is obviously a serious allegation. He was the one who said in the House that it was a member of my staff. He said that in his second question. I think that is a bit of a leap from the letter. I do not know what window, I do not know where and I do not know who. All I can say is obviously I will make inquiries, and when I have an answer, I will deliver an answer to the member. I just say how much I appreciate the question.

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will he finally release the Algonquin Park management plan that he has been holding since the fall of 1990, and does he agree with the position paper on Algonquin Park and the Golden Lake band that was sent to him by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists on 8 April 1991?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member will know, we have received the plan and it is under review. It will be sent out for comment, and when we receive those comments back, we will be acting on them. We will be sharing in the decision-making through consultation with many groups, including the group that he mentioned.

In response to the second question that the member asked with regard to the Golden Lake band, we have consulted widely with many groups, as I have indicated in the House, including the group he mentioned. We are taking their views into account in the discussions with the Algonquins, and we hope to have the interim subagreements completed and announced publicly by the end of this month.

We are looking forward to further consultation as we proceed in negotiating the land claim, as we have indicated, which we hope to begin by 15 June. We have invited the federal government to participate. It is very important that all interested groups be involved and that we have input from them. We value their views.

Mr McLean: I thought the consulting process had been done with regard to the master plan. I thought it was completed and it was ready. The minister tells me he is now still consulting. Perhaps he should tell this House when he deems that the consulting process is going to be completed and when we are going to have the plan. I have sent over to the minister a copy of a photograph that was taken in Algonquin Park in 1955. This is a photo of a very young fellow feeding a deer by hand. Will we see this kind of park activity continuing in the future after the minister has finished with his native claim negotiations?

Hon Mr Wildman: I notice that the very handsome young fellow feeding a deer in the park is somewhat lighter than he is today.

This kind of activity, which I do not think is advised, feeding deer in the park, is something that could certainly be continued, although I would not advise it. As the member will know, the subagreements we are negotiating now will include in them times and seasons when hunting activity will take place, remote areas of the park where hunting will take place, the prohibition of the use of certain types of vehicles, the protection of conservation, total numbers of allocations and the protection of public safety. I am sure that the observation of wildlife and the interaction with wildlife will be able to continue.

I want to point out one other matter, in closing. Since this picture was taken in 1955, approximately the time the two townships in the southern end of the park were added to the park, the member will know that the hunting of deer in those two townships has always been allowed in Algonquin Park.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mrs MacKinnon: My question today is to the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food. As an MPP who represents a border area, I have constituents who travel many miles to buy food in the USA. Farmers in my riding of Lambton tell me that if more were done to promote Ontario food, some of this cross-border shopping could be stopped. This is also the theme I heard as a member of the agricultural finance review committee. Could the Minister of Agriculture and Food say if he intends to act on recommendation 7 in the agricultural finance review committee report, which calls for initiatives to raise the consumer awareness of Ontario food?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Let me first of all thank the member for serving on that finance review committee and spending a number of hours on that committee. The member raises a concern around one of the recommendations, which is to spend money or raise consumer awareness. We certainly intend to do as much as we can in that area. The Foodland Ontario advertising campaign will be getting under way very soon and will be a very aggressive campaign. It will stress the freshness and the importance of purchasing Ontario produce.

The budget for that advertising and promotional campaign is about $5.5 million. We are going to be very aggressive in promoting Ontario agricultural products because we think in doing that we will be helping agriculture. We will also be helping to cut down on the problem of cross-border shopping.

Mrs MacKinnon: I thank the minister for his answer. In addition to consumer initiatives, can the minister say whether he intends to do anything to raise the overall awareness of urban people about farmers in the agricultural sector.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. I would like the member to know that I believe agriculture in the classroom as an initiative is very important. We will be putting more emphasis on it and we will be stressing that initiative to make sure our urban cousins are more aware of the importance of agriculture and the importance of purchasing Ontario-grown food, both fresh and processed.

We are also looking to work with industry and the private sector to see what initiatives we can do in co-operation with and working with them to promote to the general public the importance of agriculture in the economy of Ontario, and we look forward to that kind of co-operation in the future.

1500

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: My question today is to the Minister of Natural Resources. It is not about the deer that are being fed there; it is about the moose that he is allowing to be killed in Algonquin Park.

With regard to his withdrawal of the fish and game charges against the Algonquin band of Golden Lake, the minister recently wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in many of the Ottawa Valley newspapers. I would like to quote from that letter. The minister stated, "In future, charges will only be commenced against the members of the Golden Lake band for hunting in Algonquin Park if the activity poses a threat to conservation or public safety." Does the minister still stand by this statement and, if so, what is his definition of "conservation?"

Hon Mr Wildman: The agreements that we are negotiating, after consultation with groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Friends of Algonquin Park, will be based on the determination of the size of the herds and what the moose herd can sustain.

The member will know that a few years ago the Ministry of Natural Resources determined that there were so many moose in Algonquin Park that it could afford to transfer moose to the state of Michigan in exchange for wild turkeys. So there is evidence that the moose herd can sustain a significant amount of hunting.

However, there have been suggestions raised by some scientists that there may not be as good reproduction in the moose herd in Algonquin Park as we originally thought, and we have indicated to the scientist involved that we would be interested in his becoming involved in research to determine whether in fact that is the case. But right now there will be limits set, probably between 80 and 100 moose. That would be at the top limit that the Algonquins could take.

Mr Ramsay: I am very concerned about the data the minister quotes, because he quoted some old data. Now he is starting to say that recent studies are starting to question the viability of the herd in the park. As the minister knows, Dr John Taberge, a world-renowned biologist, has recently completed a report that now says moose hunting is not viable. I would like to quote from that. He says in his report, "Moose hunting adds another stress disturbance of unknown long-term consequence to the Algonquin large mammal system, and thus from a biological perspective, I recommend against moose hunting by anyone in Algonquin Park."

This data that has been financed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the World Wildlife Fund is shared widely. It really goes against what the minister is saying and looking at in his subagreement with the Algonquin band that the band may harvest, if you will, up to 80 to 100 moose. So we have to question the minister's conservation ethic.

If one looks at those numbers, and I would ask the minister to do that, this could be eliminating up to 19% of the moose herd in the eastern sector of the park. I would ask the minister, I would implore the minister with the revelation of this new data, would he please revise his kill figures for moose in Algonquin Park.

Hon Mr Wildman: Discussions with regard to conservation are ongoing; they are not static. The decisions from one year to another with regard to the numbers of tags allowed for the moose hunt outside of the parks of Ontario are determined on the basis of ongoing data collection and analysis, and that will continue and that will apply in this case as well. The member should know that we have had discussions with Professor Taberge. He has indicated his figures are preliminary, and we have indicated to him that we would finance further studies on his part which would be helpful to us in this exercise.

I just finally say that the member will know that for some time there has been a subagreement on deer hunting with the Algonquins of Golden Lake which set a limit of 175 that could be taken. As we have best determined, they took no more than 60 last year. There is no evidence that the Algonquins have abused the rights they have been given.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Mr White from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

M. White du Comité permanent de l'administration de la justice présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption :

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

Projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION REPEAL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 ABROGEANT LA LOI INTITULÉE THE JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ACT

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill 73, An Act to repeal The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965.

M. Marchese propose la première lecture du projet de loi 73, Loi portant abrogation de la loi intitulée The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Marchese: The repeal of this act is an administrative matter. The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation was created by an act of this House and received royal assent in 1965. The foundation was given the mandate of preserving Wolford Chapel in Devon, England, the burial place of John Graves Simcoe, the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, and his wife.

By the early 1980s the income generated by the John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation's assets was insufficient to ensure the preservation, maintenance and repair of Wolford Chapel. The Ontario Heritage Foundation, on behalf of the people of Ontario, was requested to assist in ensuring the preservation of the chapel. At the John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation's request, the Ontario Heritage Foundation assumed responsibility for all known John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation assets and liabilities in 1982.

Among the assets transferred to the Ontario Heritage Foundation was title to Wolford Chapel, the Simcoes' burial place. As part of the transfer the Ontario Heritage Foundation agreed to preserve the chapel in perpetuity.

The Speaker: Normal procedure is to simply read the introduction to the bill, which I believe you have already accomplished.

Hon Mr Marchese: It was only my intent to give some background so that the members would understand.

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: We spent some time yesterday with respect to our concerns about the lack of debate that we have felt, at least on this side of the House, that we have had with the issue of the unfairness of retroactivity and the need to spend more time on that. Clearly this resolution before the House will preclude us from exploring more alternatives to that or indeed persuading the government to withdraw that portion of the bill. As well, we discussed at some length the issue of the legality of the bill and our concerns about the constitutionality of that question.

There was a further point that I believe has not been adequately explored in the committee hearings, nor in this House, a point that was raised by the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. That had to do with the subject of proportionality. Clearly if this resolution carries we will not be able to deal with the question as to whether the means which are employed in this bill are proportionate to the ends which the government is seeking to achieve.

Just as a comment on that, I would like to refer to this report by this organization because this is a subject that clearly needs to be explored, particularly with the whole issue of the concern not only of the government, but of the Progressive Conservative Party on the bureaucracy created as a result of Bill 51. Our concern, of course, is that they are going to be replacing one bureaucracy with another. In this day of recession and a continuing increase of taxes, if this resolution is carried we will not be allowed to deal with that. In other words, we feel it must be determined whether there are alternative, more narrowly targeted approaches which could achieve the desired purpose without regulatory overkill and I would believe that the government is trying to do that.

The Fair organization made a statement in its report which I would like to refer to on this subject: "These questions are important regardless of whether the law is retroactive or purely prospective. The removal of retroactivity would address one set of concerns, but there would remain the issue of utilizing an approach balanced in relation to the need.

"In simple terms, the government has an obligation not to use a neutron bomb to destroy a gnat."

That is, of course, what this government is attempting to do, and we believe through the parliamentary process we have the right to debate further and to deal with that subject.

The report goes on by saying, "That we are indeed dealing with gnats here is clear" from the statistics referred to. "If, as the government has said, the intention is to eliminate 'flipping,' which they have never shown to be a significant problem, and large rent increases, which are equally uncommon, then this bill very definitely takes the neutron bomb approach."

I dealt with that yesterday, the whole subject of flipping, and the subject of large rent increases. Clearly, this government has very flippantly dealt with it and I know on this side we want further time to canvass this whole subject.

Mr Speaker, I do not believe we have a quorum. Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: I wish some members sometimes would respond to the same call when I ask them to follow the orders and remain on topic. A quorum is present.

Mr Tilson: One subject, of course, on which we spent some time at the committee level and on which we feel further time should be spent in this House, and which this resolution will preclude us from dealing with, is with respect to the subject of financial loss.

The bill simply removes any provision whatsoever that we have had with respect to financial loss, rather than to try to address the issue of flips or multiple sales. The Fair report does go into that and talks about how a small investor who has owned a building for 30 years and wants to sell to recoup his retirement savings is treated exactly the same as a speculator selling the same building for the fourth time in a year, if such an example exists.

The report goes on to say:

"It is not difficult to estimate the impact of this change on the value of apartments, both by direct observation in the marketplace and by economic analysis... The unarguable conclusion is that this bill will devalue residential rental buildings by at least 26% to 30%, indiscriminate of whether the building has ever been sold before. Thousands of individual small investors will see their retirement savings slashed to correct a minor problem of which they have never been part."

Because of that fact, and we had a considerable number of presentations made to us, I believe we should be able to present more of that information and try and persuade the government to reverse its position. This resolution, of course, precludes us from doing that.

The report goes on to say that this does not have to be the case; what the government is doing does not have to be the case. In other words:

"If the government is concerned about the small number of building flips which they constantly cite, it would not be difficult to address this problem directly. The speculation tax which formed part of the NDP election platform would itself remove any incentive to sell a building in less than five years."

Of course, that is one issue I am sure they canvassed and I hope they do not pursue that. But on the other hand, "A simple regulatory change under the Residential Rent Regulation Act could achieve the same goal for whatever period of time was felt reasonable."

The report goes on:

"Indeed, new regulations introduced last spring had already removed any possibility of alleged fix and flip practices by discounting the allowance for capital improvements if a building is sold within five years after a rent increase for capital is granted."

Now, we did not canvass that in the committee. We did not canvass that fact, and I believe that we should have an opportunity to debate that subject there, the fact that regulations were introduced last spring. With this resolution we will be precluded from doing that.

The report goes on:

"We are not only dealing with a gnat here; it is a phantom gnat. In the case of capital improvements, the same sort of overkill is readily apparent. If the need is, in the words of the Minister of Housing 'to stabilize the market'" -- and those were his words -- "by restricting large rent increases while a new system is developed, that could be easily accomplished without cutting off all capital improvements as this bill would do."

That of course is our second concern. We have dealt considerably with the issue of retroactivity but this whole subject, the fact that capital expenditure is completely removed from the bill, is the overkill that we should be spending more time in debating as a result of the introduction of Bill 4, and the resolution that has been introduced precludes us from doing that.

The report goes on with respect to the issue of the effects of Bill 4. I think that is something that we have really never had an opportunity to speak of. I know the member for York Mills introduced a resolution at the committee to ask the Trust Companies Association of Canada to come to the committee to give a presentation on the financial aspects of this bill, and that was turned down as a result of the NDP majority on the committee.

I am sure that members of this House -- I know the member for York Mills specifically -- would like an opportunity to debate that subject and perhaps provide information to the House to show the effect on the economy that this bill has, but we will be precluded from doing that.

The report says if Bill 4 is passed, every Ontarian will suffer to some degree as a result. They list some of the things. I think this list should be elaborated on by further debate in this House. They talk about the quality of building stock that will deteriorate. They talk about how jobs will be lost. They talk about how investments will decline, regardless of how the government might dismiss such warnings.

One of the great introductions to this bill was made by the Minister of Housing. He talked about how he was going to save the tenants of this province. Clearly we agree with him, except the difficulty is that he has not done anything for that 30% of tenants that I have referred to who cannot afford any increase. Nothing has been done. We want time to debate that because this government has no interest in the tenants of this province and we on this side do.

This report asks why any tenant should be concerned about this bill when it may save him some money on rent. If I were a tenant, and I am, and it would save me money, I would be quite pleased with that as well. "The simple reason is that landlords will be unable to provide the quality of accommodation which tenants deserve." Members have to look at that and I think we need to debate that. Yes, there will be some saved money, there will not be any increases other than the statutory increases, but we have to look at the other effects. We have not adequately debated that.

1520

The report comments:

"When a major building system needs replacing, the landlord will have to patch it up as best he can. Even if he wants to replace it, he will not be able to borrow the money, since financial institutions will be well aware that there will be no increase in revenue to repay the loan."

That subject needs to be canvassed. We need to go into a great deal of detail with that, if anything, simply to protect the quality of life of the tenant in this province.

The report speaks further on the impact of Bill 4 with respect to tenants and it says another result of Bill 4 will be a greater degree of tenant inconvenience.

"A leaky roof which needs replacement" -- and I referred to that as an example in my own riding -- "can be patched for another season, but the chances of further leakage and resultant damage to personal goods and other building systems like plaster walls is significant. Ultimately, the costs will be that much greater if further deterioration and subsidiary problems result."

In many cases, we cannot wait for this moratorium period to end. The people of this province need to have capital improvements made to their buildings, because clearly the landlords do not have the money to do it under the system that is devised by this government. We need to debate that and we are not being given the time to debate that by the resolution put forward by the government House leader.

We had a presentation made to us at one of the hearings on concrete rehabilitation, and this report deals with that. I think that is a separate subject that needs to be debated further, and we are not being given time by this resolution to do that. Concrete rehabilitation, as I am sure members know, is a result of salt corrosion in garages, as referred to in this report, and balconies. It is probably the largest single category of capital improvement today. That is what we heard in the hearings and, certainly if any members have received letters, that is one of the major issues that has been dealt with. We are not dealing with it in this House; we are simply glossing over it.

This report talks about this type of work:

"An additional year or two of deterioration while the government ponders its alternatives will mean bigger bills down the line when further concrete flaking and corrosion penetration into reinforcing rods and supports has occurred."

We cannot wait while this government waits another two years. We cannot wait and we need time to debate that now, to point out to this government that we cannot wait. We need to deal with capital improvements now; we cannot wait for two years down the line to deal with that. The buildings are falling apart.

This report continues with this whole subject by saying that, "There is also a substantial element of paternalism in the bill in that capital increases are not to be allowed even where tenants have agreed to or even requested the work." They give an example. I submit that we should be allowed to give these examples and we are not being allowed to do this as a result of this resolution.

The report refers to "landlords like Jim Buirds, who agreed to perform $3,865 worth of renovations in one tenant's unit at the tenant's request and with his approval." He cannot recover that money. He did it at the tenant's request, he did it willingly and it has been done, but he cannot recover it. "Nor in the future will any tenant be able to request improvements in his own suite and pay the cost through a small increase in rent." This bill will not allow that and we should be allowed to bring to this House examples such as the Jim Buirds situation and hopefully be allowed to persuade the government to allow amendments to its bill or to indeed even revoke or withdraw it.

These people are the very people whom this legislation, as alleged by the members of the government, is supposed to be protecting but is not protecting. If the government had listened to the hearings which had gone on throughout this province, which we conducted in various cities and here in this House, in this Legislative Building, it would not be taking the position it is, so obviously it has not heard anything. Because they have not heard anything we on this side have the right to bring forward further examples to hopefully get them to change their minds.

The report says that this bill also will not help tenants who collectively support improvements in their building to be able to have this work undertaken "despite their willingness to pay the resulting increases." They refer to another example at 1000 Huron Street in London. In that specific situation, all 56 tenants signed a letter to the Premier. The report quotes that and I would like to read that into the record to show the type of problems we have that this government is ignoring and to show that we need to bring this information to this House to hopefully get the government to change its mind.

The letter to the Premier states:

"We recently had the leaky roof replaced, new carpets installed in all apartments, new counter tops and taps, new hall carpets and a beautiful new lobby installed... All of the work was carried out in a proper and legal fashion, all tenants in our building were agreeable to a 17% increase in rent, which our landlord legitimately applied for. We are now led to understand that you, sir," -- of course that is the Premier -- "are not going to grant our landlord his increase in rent, and we would suggest that you rethink this decision."

We on this side of the House want the right to ask this government to rethink its situation because clearly it needs to hear more examples.

One of the items that the Minister of Housing specifically seems to be flippant about is the problem of job loss. We have spent some time on that, but obviously more time needs to be spent than was spent in the committee. This time allocation resolution clearly will not allow us to introduce further amendments or indeed debate that whole subject, which is one of the many issues that this bill affects.

The report talks about the issue of job loss and it says:

"One of the most amazing statements in the public debate so far has been" -- the minister's -- "remark that no jobs have been lost as a result of this proposed legislation. To say to the workers who protested at Queen's Park that they were losing their jobs as a result of the recession is ludicrous" It is ludicrous. Can members imagine the Minister of Housing saying that Bill 4 has no effect on the job loss when he sees contracts have been cancelled, he hears example after example of contracts that have been cancelled, contracts, even work that was in the middle of process that was being done, and that work has been cancelled?

"They had contracts for work on 28 November and these were cancelled on 29 November." Facts have been introduced to our committee to give that. There can be no doubt about the cause of job loss and yet this government, because of this resolution put forward by the House leader, does not want to hear any more information, any more facts to be presented with respect to job loss.

The report continues and talks further with respect to job loss, and that has to do with representatives of the renovation industry. They told the minister, "This is not a particularly recession-sensitive industry." I am referring specifically to the renovation industry. Buildings in this province -- when you have 75% of them that are 20 years old or more, that is exactly the type of industry that is needed. We need to spend some time on that and we are not being allowed to do that.

The report goes on to emphasize the fact that this renovation "work is important and the need for it does not disappear with an economic downturn." We do have an economic downturn. Hopefully, we are turning the corner, but we need to have our buildings renovated. We need to have the quality of the life of the tenants improved and maintained.

The report states: "While landlords have greater collection problems in tight times, they are not impacted to nearly the same degree as manufacturing or retail sales, since people still need places to live. Thus, they tend to carry on their necessary work program regardless."

The Fair Rental Policy Organization continues by stating: "It is readily apparent that Bill 4 will put an end to virtually all capital improvements in apartments for the period it is in effect. Already, landlords have put a halt to work that was in progress, since they will now be unable to attain increased revenues to pay for this work. This had already begun even before Bill 4 was introduced, once the new government had made it clear that they intended to proceed in this direction."

1530

The organization put forward a survey of its membership and it looked to the "overall population of the landlords" and "calculated that $500 million in work had been suspended." That is a lot of money and we need to debate that effect on our economy, the effect on the apartment industry, but this resolution precludes us from doing that.

It said "that $500 million in work had been suspended, putting more than 16,000 jobs among suppliers, contractors and trades at risk," and the organization put forward statistics in a chart, which presumably members of the committee have shown to all members. The Minister of Housing was questioned with respect to this information, and I think he should be further questioned by this House, but the resolution precludes us from doing that.

"The Minister of Housing has criticized this total, stating that only $122 million has ever been ordered in a given year." He referred specifically to 1989. "However," this report states, "what has been ordered is substantially less than what landlords applied for, since there are still thousands of applications backlogged with the ministry." They are still there. They are just sitting there, because naturally this government has said, "Well, they are all going to be void anyway, so don't worry about them." We want the right to debate that, and we are not being given the right to debate that.

"As well, capital applications have been increasing every year as landlords became more familiar with the system and comfortable that it was not going to be changed without warning." That is the important issue: change without warning. There is nothing wrong with government changing a system. There is nothing wrong with changing a system, but surely they are going to give their constituents and the people of this province some warning as to what they are going to do. But there is no warning given, and this resolution precludes us from doing that.

This resolution of time allocation: Two days is certainly not enough to deal with this subject and the many other subjects that I have been referring to.

Dealing specifically with renovation work, the report continues by saying it is "extremely labour intensive." The Fair organization states: "Clayton Research Associates has calculated that for every 1,000 direct jobs created by renovation work, an additional 840 indirect and induced jobs are generated. Thus it is not only the jobs of concrete workers, window installers, carpenters, plasterers, etc, which are at stake; it is also the employment of a whole host of others in many different parts of the Ontario economy."

That is one of the problems that we have in this province. We need to talk about the job loss. Yet this government, by introducing this motion, precludes us from spending sufficient time in debate to deal with that or indeed to introduce new amendments that would perhaps provide some solution to it.

I have referred to the effect on financial institutions and how Bill 4 has serious implications for those financial institutions. Again, I emphasize the fact that the committee certainly did not have the sufficient information that was required to study that whole matter. I believe that members on this side, and the government members if they wish, should have the right to submit further facts to this House, to study that issue, the fact of institutions that have come to us and said that Bill 4 is having an implication for them.

The report says: "Bill 4 will also have serious implications for a number of financial institutions that have substantial loan portfolios in the rental housing sector. These institutions will be affected in several ways." I am going to list some of them just to show that I think this time allocation motion should be defeated to enable us to spend time and elaborate more on those subjects.

The first item that is referred to: Those institutions that "have made loans for the purchase of rental apartments will now find the value against which they loaned drastically reduced." They give the example of a purchase price of $1 million. "A trust company might have required 25% equity from the purchaser and loaned the remaining $750,000, leaving itself what would normally be a sufficient cushion against the drop in the real estate market."

We have had individuals come to us, not sufficient numbers but some who have come to us and have said that Bill 4 will have an effect on the value of buildings in this province. The report states: "government action alone has cut 30% off the value of the asset, as well as locking the owner into an ongoing loss situation. If he cannot carry this monthly loss, for which he never budgeted since he had a government order entitling him to rent increases to bring him to break even" -- and that is a fact, where government orders were given to allow people to carry on with their financing -- "he may well forfeit the property. The financial institution will be left with an asset worth less than the loans they provided against it, and the tenants will be stuck with an absentee landlord whose interest and expertise is not in the operation of buildings."

We have a landlord who has been put out of business and we have an institution that really does not care, that does not have the expertise to manage these buildings. That whole subject needs to be canvassed, and yet this time allocation resolution, if passed, precludes us from debating that further.

The second effect on institutions that needs to be canvassed further in this House, and which we will not be allowed to do if this resolution carries, is that "these financial institutions have provided funds for landlords to undertake capital improvements," and clearly facts have been provided to do that. This is based on the provision in the law for receiving increased rents to repay these loans. That is what the existing law states.

If that law, Bill 4, passes and retroactively changes the rules, "landlords who do not have other lines of business to subsidize this work may go bankrupt," and that is a whole subject, the issue of bankruptcy, that this House needs to spend some time on. The committee did not spend any time on the subject of bankruptcy and this House has not spent any time on the subject of bankruptcy, and if this resolution carries, then that item will go untalked about. It will just be ignored. It will be referred to, because we have had people come and say they are going bankrupt because of Bill 4.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars involved in this matter. "While these might be a pittance if it were spread widely among all the banks, trust companies and credit unions, the fact is that a small number of firms specialized in this field." A small number of financial institutions clearly specialized in this field. "Some of them have already had to write down large portfolios related to other real estate sectors, and the wholesale changes initiated by Bill 4 may push them towards more serious problems."

It will be the "depositors and the taxpayers who ultimately pay the costs" if you follow this line of reasoning all the way through and the effects that Bill 4 has on the people who loan the money; finally the taxpayers and finally we the people. But we have not had a chance to discuss that. We have not had a chance to debate that, because there may be various alternatives that can come to light as we are debating it.

Even the introduction of amendments is being precluded by this resolution. After a specific time, according to the wording of the resolution, no further amendments will be allowed. We will only be allowed to debate those specific resolutions. It is another example of how this government is trying to ram this legislation through. They simply do not care.

It is like when we first agreed in committee. We agreed to have five weeks to discuss Bill 4, and ultimately that withered away to three weeks. We ended up with three weeks and the same process is continuing. We now have a resolution that is going to stop debate, and that is what happened at committee and that is what is happening now.

On those and other items, we certainly need to spend some time. Certainly there are other topics. There is the whole subject of objectives that I believe this government needs to study, and that has not been done. I believe this government would need to look at a number of objectives with respect to common interests with all the landlords and all the tenants, as opposed to simply picking the tenants or one particular group. I think we need to look at the effect on everyone -- the landlords, the tenants, the investors, the workers, the people who are losing their jobs, everyone -- and that is not being done.

1540

In light of that, I believe that we should have an opportunity to present comments made by individuals who have not been heard, and even some to emphasize some of those who have during the hearing debates. We are not being allowed to do that as a result of the time allocation motion.

We received submissions by a Phil Sweetnam, who is from the Ottawa-Carleton area. He suggested five objectives of common interest to the landlords and tenants in the rental housing market. Those five objectives, I believe, need to be canvassed by this House, which may lead to amendments, and we will not be allowed to do that.

The first one -- I am referring to Mr Sweetnam -- which was filed on 15 February, is "to strive towards the most cost-effective use of the taxpayers' money." The second is "to keep Ontario's aging rental housing stock in good and usable condition." The third is "to provide an adequate supply of rental housing at all price levels." Fourth, "to provide realistic access to clean and safe rental housing to those in financial need." Fifth, "to find solutions to the housing needs and challenges that face us in a spirit of 'renting partnership' between landlords and tenants."

Clearly, some of these arguments, I would hope, will be dealt with by the permanent legislation, but they also need to be dealt with in the interim legislation, and we are not being allowed a chance to do that as a result of this resolution.

Mr Sweetnam commented as to the first objective, and that has to do with cost-effective provision of housing, "The first goal is to strive towards the most cost-effective use of the taxpayers' money to provide housing for the people in Ontario." Mr Sweetnam says that "since the 100,000 landlords, who now provide 85% of the rental housing, cost the taxpayer nothing, it would be cost-effective to have Bill 4 brought forward as legislation in a form that respected the rights of tenants but still permitted the housing industry to attract sufficient capital to meet most of the housing needs for Ontarians."

That is an excellent point and it has never been raised. It has never been raised once in the committee or in this House, and yet we will not be able to canvass it further. We will not be able to explore that further in this House because of this resolution.

Mr Sweetnam said that "the cost of Ontario's 144,000 rent-geared-to-income units has led to a substantial escalation of the Ministry of Housing budget." That is something we need to look at. He went back and referred to his statistics of 1985-86. The total budget of the Ministry of Housing in that period of time was $243 million. That increased in 1989-90 to $537 million; in 1990-91 to $647 million. Therefore, Mr Sweetnam points out, across the province the budget has increased 266% in six years, or compounded annually, 22%.

Is that where we want to go? Do we want the taxpayers of this province to be funding that proposal? I think we need to study that, because private enterprise certainly should be a partner in this area and it is being discouraged by this government. We need to debate that and the time allocation resolution of two days prevents us from adequately getting into that.

Then Mr Sweetnam gets into local statistics of subsidized rents, and that can be referred to another time hopefully, if the resolution is withdrawn. We could get into that and study that further. He says, "From the above information it is obvious that whatever can be done to encourage the private sector to provide rental housing is prudent financial management of your provincial resources." This government cannot do it on its own; it needs private enterprise. The taxpayers cannot do it alone; they need help. This government says it does not need that help.

Mr Sweetnam states:

"When I wear the hat of the chairman of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority I observe that projects in which the province can participate have always been limited by the availability of funding. In contrast to the Ministry of Housing budget, which has been increased annually at 22%, the budget of the 39 conservation authorities has not increased in the past seven years." That is a fact that needs to be studied further.

"In fact, the $45-million annual cost of rent review administration is only a little below the province's $50-million total funding of all the conservation authorities of Ontario." Now that is a startling fact and we need to study that. We need to see what is wrong with the system, but this government obviously does not want to hear of that; it does not want to listen to those facts at all.

Mr Sweetnam talks about how: "Excellent projects have to be phased in over many years to receive the provincial contribution. It is obvious that public funds are required in many institutions such as schools, hospitals, environmental projects and these needs cannot be met by the private sector."

His second objective that he has referred to and very briefly refers to, which I think this House has not spent adequate time on and will not if this resolution is carried, is keeping Ontario's aging rental housing stock in good condition. Mr Sweetnam says:

"Our experience, as the owner of a 65-unit mobile home park for 22 years, is that the return of investment is about 4% per annum, similar to the provincial average of 3.5% (1989 Ministry of Housing study)."

Mr Sweetnam states:

"During those 22 years we have always accepted the ministry inflationary guidelines for rent increases. We have held to this guideline even in the years that we installed municipal water or have had extensive septic tank repairs. I'm sure you would agree that this entitles us to the reputation of responsible and co-operative landlords.

"With 165 people in 65 units on 7.5 acres, the time has come when municipal sewers must be installed."

Of course, we did spend some time with respect to mobile home parks and, hopefully, as a result of that, the government will have a chance to reflect on the comments that were made and withdraw that section from the bill.

Mr Sweetnam states:

"During August I took out the permit from the township of Goulbourn. With the cancellation of rent increases for capital expenditures and the high cost of sewer installation, we have cancelled this project."

That is what we hear time and time again: As the result of Bill 4 projects are being cancelled. If that is not getting through to the members of this government, then we need to spend more time with them. We need to spend more time and hopefully they will change their minds and reflect on some of the things that we have been saying. But this government wants to ram through the legislation with respect to this resolution.

Mr Sweetnam states:

"The major detriment to the industry is caused by the retroactive deletion of awarded rent increases. Although I have been able to stop my project and escape the problem of retroactivity, the change in rules has undermined my confidence in government consistency. I do not believe it is beneficial to delete the capital improvements cost pass-through provision. This direction from the Ministry of Housing in Bill 4 seems more of a response to the rhetoric of 'gouging landlords' than to the reality of the marketplace."

That subject, to date, has been relatively silent in this committee and will remain silent when this resolution is passed.

Mr Sweetnam states:

"According to the Ministry of Housing's own statistics, only 154 apartments out of a total of 1.2 million in Ontario experienced increases over 100% in the 22 months ending October 1990. The same sources indicate that 74% of the total rental properties experienced increases at or below the guideline level of 4.6%."

That is another subject that we are not being able to discuss. We are not being able to get into that at all.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If you want to hold a conversation you can do it outside the House, but not inside the House. The member for Dufferin-Peel, please.

1550

Mr Tilson: The third objective that Mr Sweetnam refers to, which I believe this House needs to spend some time on, is the subject of supply, and not only supply but adequate supply of rental housing at all prices. Clearly by the very fact that the Minister of Housing keeps announcing that he is going to be putting so many units into the system when no other units are coming from other sources, he is acknowledging that we have a problem. We need to debate with him and question him more on that problem, but this resolution precludes us from doing that.

Mr Sweetnam refers to the Ottawa Citizen report of December 1990. That report is enclosed, and if time permitted we would deal with that report, but we are not going to be able to deal with that report. From that report Mr Sweetnam sees that the vacancy rate in October for Ottawa-Carleton was at 0.5% for town houses and apartments, in contrast to Hull across the river where rent review provisions permit agreement between landlord and tenants about the amount of rent. There is agreement between tenants and landlords across the river with respect to rent. In Hull rents are lower and the vacancy rate is at 4.2%. That is an alarming fact and needs to be discussed by this House, but we are not going to be able to discuss it.

The report from the Ottawa Citizen that is referred to illustrates that 75% of the new rental units built since 1982 are condominiums. They were sold as tax shelters to investors who rented them to tenants. Upon the termination of condominiums as tax shelters, this supply of new rental units has dried up. In other sections of his presentation Mr Sweetnam talks about keeping a moderate return for investors so that they will continue to provide these units as rental accommodation. Why in the world would people get into the housing market with legislation such as this? They cannot make a dollar at it; they cannot make a dime at it.

How in the world are we going to encourage people to get into the real estate market to build new housing accommodation, to buy new housing accommodation and improve what is already there? How are we going to do that? We are not allowed, as a result of this resolution, to discuss that. For the life of me, there has been no sign from this government as to how it is going to encourage the private sector to do that.

Mr Sweetnam continues with respect to the mobile home community -- I believe he refers to it as Fringewood -- which was developed under a plan of subdivision. They were able, therefore, to sell the lots.

"As the original leases became shorter, we have had many requests for extensions to the lease to permit longer amortization of mortgages on the homes. This housing stock has been a significant portion of the low-cost housing units in the Stittsville area. Condominium owners, who have the option to sell, have been withdrawing from the market due to the lack of consistence and reliable policies from government."

That is the problem. The people in this province have lost faith in the province of Ontario as a result of Bill 4. We have had person after person come to us and state that, yet we cannot deal with that in our debate in this House because of this resolution, if it carries.

Mr Sweetnam states:

"This further reduces the supply of rental units and affordable housing to the region. Likewise, we have decided to sell the sites as the leases shorten. Since 1983, we have reduced our supply of rental lots from 130 to 95.

"It is difficult to make a financial commitment to provide market value accommodation when the expectation is that the subsidized rent is the market rent."

That is a factor that has never been discussed, the policies of the government and the effect that they are going to have on the private sector. That is another fact that has never been discussed in the committee hearings, and I hope that we would have an opportunity to discuss it in this committee.

"Without the supply of rental accommodation by the private sector, the queue for public housing gets longer, while a select few get the housing. In Stittsville, it took about 1.5 years to fill the Poole Creek Apartments, which had approximately 60 units at approximately 1.65 times the rental in the subsidized seniors' apartments."

The fourth item that Mr Sweetnam refers to on which some time should be spent, I would submit, by this committee, which the resolution precludes us from doing, is the subject of access to housing for the financially disadvantaged. I have referred to that somewhat, but Mr Sweetnam speaks of the fact, and I agree with him, that, "Landlords and tenants would agree that those in financial need should have reasonable and realistic access to clean, safe housing." This was a comment that was made constantly by all members of the NDP representatives, and I would agree with them.

"While on the surface it may be that Bill 4 will reduce rental increases to the poor, the reality is that the vast majority of any rent savings produced by Ontario's rent control system is enjoyed not by the poor but by the middle- and upper-income tenants. CMHC tells us that the average Ontario renter spends only 18% of gross income on shelter costs, including utilities and parking in most cases."

Mr Sweetnam speaks of that, and it is a subject that needs to be discussed. He states:

"The best way to help the 28% of renters who pay more than the 30% of their income for shelter is to provide them with income in the form of social assistance and better training opportunities so that they may rent their own apartments. This would not only cost less but would give these people a wider range of accommodation."

We had many, many delegations come to us at the committee hearings which spoke to us of how they were having great financial difficulties as a result of rents, and they indicated clearly all rents. There was a group in Ottawa that was quite clear. They had a serious problem paying any rents. Certainly they have trouble with the statutory amounts that are being suggested by Bill 4. Yet this bill does not assist those people, and there do not appear to be any other bills that are coming forward from any other ministry to deal with it. I think we need to debate that in this committee, and this resolution precludes us from doing that.

The final item that Mr Sweetnam refers to, which clearly has been raised by other delegations to our committee and which I believe time should be spent on, is a subject with respect to the partnership that is needed between the landlord and the tenant, because this bill and its effects have created an animosity never seen before in the housing industry in this province between the landlord and the tenant.

Mr Sweetnam states

"The rent control system in Ontario has promoted an adversarial relationship between landlords and tenants rather than a spirit of co-operation. There is a suspicion that any rent above the guideline is reprehensible even when justifiable costs have been incurred.

"The best way to provide subsidized housing is to disperse it through various communities rather than providing subsidized housing ghettos. If tenants have the income, then they can select a convenient community in which to live. Most landlords would commit between 5% and 10% of the units to subsidize tenants."

Now this may or may not be a good solution that is being offered by Mr Sweetnam. I think we would need to canvass that further and need to discuss it further, but we are not going to be able to do that. I think it is imperative that it be done in the moratorium period rather than wait for the permanent legislation. I would hope it is going to be dealt with in the permanent legislation, but clearly it needs to be dealt with now. This resolution precludes us from doing that.

Mr Sweetnam says, "These suggestions would encourage the continued participation of the private sector in housing the people of Ontario," but I think we need to look at that, and the resolution does, as I say, stop us from further debate on that subject.

With respect to other problems that this bill has caused, examples have been given by some delegations to us at the committee. I have also been making some submissions here and I think we need to talk about it more.

1600

For example, this submission I do not believe was filed as an exhibit, but it was given to, presumably, some members of the House, and it was an article by Ted Stella on the topic "Residential Rent Review in Ontario." He raised a number of questions which I do not think the committee adequately got into in its deliberations over amendments, and clearly this House is not going to be able to do it as well as a result of that resolution. He talked about, "What has this legislation achieved, other than to provide employment to a new set of bureaucrats and to reallocate our collective tax moneys to a cumbersome and unwieldy bureaucracy." In other words, he is asking the question, "What is the legislation doing?" This is what he said:

"In my scorebook it has:

"1. Resulted in automatic minimum increases instead of allowing market forces and competition to establish proper price levels;

"2. Brought the creation of residential rental housing (except subsidized units) to an abrupt halt (governments have been trying to coax the industry back to this field with various schemes and incentives but without any appreciable success);"

Of course with this bill it has stopped. It has come to a dead stop, and we need to debate that, but the time allocation resolution precludes it.

"3. Contributed to the slow decline in the quality as well as quantity of the existing rental housing stock;

"4. Forced former major creators of good housing stock into other, less irksome investment opportunities and some, in fact, have just left the country for that purpose."

That will take years to correct. Hopefully, if this bill were withdrawn, no further investors would leave and we would have an opportunity to address that subject.

Mr Stella states, "Just count how many former residential builders have quietly stopped building rental apartment units and have shifted the emphasis to commercial development."

I challenge the government to produce facts as to the residential development in private enterprise -- I am not speaking of the government-inspired development but the private enterprise system -- that are now in process and have been in progress since this government took office.

"5. Singled out one specific business group -- namely, those who have chosen to invest in residential rental units -- to unreasonably and unfairly subsidize tenants, who are not in need of subsidies in the first place, by making it a price-controlled industry."

I referred to that yesterday. I referred to the fact that there are very wealthy tenants in this province, that there are middle-class earning people in this province, and it has affected those people as well. It is legislation that has benefited the rich, but meanwhile, and I emphasize that, the whole subject of the poor who cannot afford any increase has not been dealt with, and we need time to deal with that subject, but this resolution precludes us from doing that.

"6. Subsidized tenants to the point where they have absolutely no incentive to own. Any simple calculation shows clearly that they can rent for a fraction of the cost which would apply if they owned comparable premises under standard terms of purchase."

Finally, Mr Stella states, it has, "Forced various levels of government to either enter or expand their direct involvement in the housing business -- again adding to the cost borne by the taxpayer." He concludes these items by stating, "Most of us will agree that governments are not the most astute or economic producers of housing." I of course challenge the government on that fact.

There have been other reports that have been given to us which I believe we need time to elaborate on and to spend time on in this House, and this resolution of course says that we cannot do that.

There was a presentation given to us in northern Ontario. It was given to us in Sudbury, and it was a man by the name of Ken Kaltiainen, who is a senior architectural draftsman with a local architectural firm in Sudbury. He made comments, not as a landlord, not as a tenant, but as another party. We need to study those types of comments that were made by Ken Kaltiainen. We need to study more positions taken by this as to the effect that this legislation is having on the economy, because clearly, if this resolution carries, the time allocation carries, we will not be able to do that.

Mr Kaltiainen came to us and talked from his perspective as to the effects of Bill 4 on him and specifically on the consulting technical industry. He made it quite clear that he did not represent the architectural industry, that he did not represent any legal association. He said that he graduated in 1975 from Algonquin College in Pembroke as an architectural technologist and then returned to Sudbury to look for a job in his field.

He could not find a job in Sudbury, for two reasons stated by the local architects: First, he had no experience in doing concrete or steel buildings, which left only one other option, and that was to do wood frame construction, which is basically single- and multiple-family housing. Then he states that the next reason he was unemployable in Sudbury was that no housing was being built at this time. The reason stated was that the developers were not building multiple-family housing property due to the temporary freeze put on multiple-family housing by the then government on multiple units.

At that time in Sudbury there was a vacancy rate of 10%, and also in Sudbury, which he claims was in financial ruins due to a mining strike that had crippled the Sudbury economy, it did not have any help from either the federal or provincial governments. To make matters worse, the mining industry laid off a number of individuals from the mining staff. Over the next 14 or 15 years, Sudbury had a negative population growth, so therefore there was no need for housing, for his services, at that time. He had to go to Edmonton, and he did go to Edmonton, to gain experience in his field because of that economic situation. He had to leave his home and a province where he was born and he says that he travelled 2,500 miles to get something that he could not get in the largest, most powerful province in Canada, Ontario.

I ask the question: What has happened to Ontario? What has happened since this government has taken office? Why are people saying these things about the province?

He states that once out there, he had to make a decision as to what types of construction experience would enable him to return to his home town to find employment. The three areas that he concentrated on were the housing industry, the commercial industry, which covers retail and office buildings, as well as educational types of buildings, such as high schools, colleges and universities. As proven by his return, it was the best type of experience and it did increase his chances of obtaining employment with a northern Ontario architect.

With this he returned back to Sudbury and he realized that all construction was in the private sector. He states that there was very little construction in the multiple-family sector, which was non-existent; there were no new schools, colleges or universities being built, the renovation jobs in the education industry are few and far between, and once he realized what was happening, he sat back and evaluated why there was no housing being built in Ontario. The bottom line, according to him, was that if no housing was being built, one third of his technical capabilities was literally wiped out. He realized that the commercial and education sectors would not last very long.

"Today there is very little commercial work produced in northern Ontario for the simple reason that in Sudbury alone we have a 5% retail vacancy rate."

He then mentions the three areas of construction involvement relating to architects' offices: First is the boom time, being office and retail construction. The next phase would be the slowdown or cool-down. Residential construction would enter at this stage for the simple reason that most contractors are now out of work and their prices are far more aggressive. The last phase he calls the economic bust.

"This sector, which is the only sector remaining for draughtsmen such as myself, is projects funded by government at all levels."

1610

The Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind you of what I said yesterday, that you have to stay on topic.

Mr Tilson: The reason why of course we are proceeding with this type of thing is to show an example that needs to be canvassed further by this House, and this resolution of course precludes us from doing that and that is why I am giving this as an example as to why we need to spend more time on this subject, because this individual cannot find any work. He is highly qualified. He submits it is because of Bill 4. I am getting to see that.

He asks that very question. He asks how Bill 4 affects him and he states that: "If no new commercial or educational facilities are being built, that leaves only the multiple-family sector. With Bill 4, who in the private sector would take their money and invest in a multiple-family dwelling with all the headaches, as well as an average 3% return on their investment?"

Would they do that? he asks. "Most clients we know would much rather take the capital that they have and secure it in a financial institution with a guarantee of at least a 10% return on their money, not to mention the headaches they will not go through." Clearly, with this legislation, they are going to have lots of headaches, so why would they get into it?

He states that from monitoring the proceedings in other cities with the legislative committee -- and I believe that people in this industry did who had no connection to the landlords and no connection to the tenants but were in between, were people looking for jobs -- he felt that he had quite an independent view on the situation.

He talked about the present scenario in Ontario, and he asked the question which I believe we need to ask this government in this committee, and of course the resolution precludes us from doing that. He asks the question, "How are we going to build investor confidence?" How are we going to do that? "It makes it so difficult to produce effective, affordable housing for all sectors and financial groups."

He states that building multiple-family units, he can count 38 trades, not to mention unions, financially related personnel and building material suppliers that will be without jobs, including himself. He states, "With Bill 4 and the rent controls, not only will I be unemployed, but I will stand beside thousands and very well hundreds of thousands of jobs that are constantly being lost every day."

He emphasizes the fact, and we need to emphasize the fact in this House, that: "From public figures available, there is a shortage of 110,000 units in Ontario. If the average draftsman can produce a 20-unit in one month, this relates to 458 years of employment for architectural draughtsmen alone, not including subsequent draftsmen...engineers, financial people."

This is a whole slew of other people we have not discussed. We have talked about the carpenters and the electrical engineers, but this is a whole slew of other people who the committee and certainly this House have not had an adequate time to discuss and debate and to submit resolutions, but the time allocation resolution precludes us from doing that.

He states, "If government was to build the 110,000 units, at approximately $78,000 a unit," and that of course is what it costs in Sudbury -- which is a whole other subject of debate that we have around the province, which I think we need to challenge the government on, the cost of building government-sponsored units as opposed to private enterprise units and who can do it more efficiently. That is something that we have never really got into and which we need to get into, and this resolution precludes us from doing that, but he states that if you took a unit at approximately $78,000 a unit in the Sudbury area, this would put a tax burden on the people of Ontario at approximately $8.5 billion.

His first question is an obvious question, but it is a question we need to deal with. We need to deal with it in this House and we are not going to be able to deal with it as a result of this resolution. His first question is, "Who is going to pay for the $8.5-billion burden?" From the feedback that he has received in his area -- and I can assure members in all areas -- he states, "We are overtaxed and overburdened from this situation."

He states that it is his experience that:

"It would be far more economical to have the private sector build a majority of these units, as private people have proven that they can build the same unit for 30% to 35% cheaper, and in the private sector the burden of financing these units would not be transferred to the taxpayers who no longer have additional funds at this time."

Those are two issues we need to debate in this House. We asked the Minister of Housing when he was in Windsor about this whole subject of whether cheaper housing could be provided by non-profit or private enterprise. He challenged the speaker, a delegation who was there, "Well, you produce the facts to us." It is up to the government to produce the facts. If that information is wrong, then they should provide it.

More important is the second statement this individual made. He stated, "The burden of financing these units would not be transferred to the taxpayer." We have tax problems in this province. We should be trying with every bill to alleviate the tax problems that are going on throughout this country.

We hear of tax revolts all across this country, and this is another example where taxes could be saved by allowing the private investor to get into the housing market, which would result in the government's not getting into the housing industry and making it a public utility, as has been suggested by this government.

He goes on to state:

"When Premier Rae visited Wall Street in order to reassure the international investor that Ontario was still a good place to invest, I do not recall Premier Rae mentioning to these investors in New York that they could invest anywhere that they like but not in the housing industry."

That is why we need to fight this bill, but we are not being allowed to fight the bill. We are not being allowed to fight the bill adequately by simply providing us with two days and limiting us to the number of resolutions or amendments we can put forward in debate.

That is what he is speaking about. We need to fight this bill. Hopefully we can do it in a persuasive fashion, producing facts and reasoned arguments that would persuade the government to change its mind on some of the positions it has taken. I am sure they want to solve the housing industry in this province. I believe them when they say they do. That is one of the few things I do believe them in, but I think we need more time to help persuade them on their position.

He talks about another item that hits home for him, "that northern Ontario is not like southern Ontario." In other words, Bill 4 applies willy-nilly across the whole province. It is a valid point and we did discuss it at some length in places like London and I believe Windsor, but that subject needs to be canvassed further. That subject needs to be canvassed in this committee and we are not being allowed to do that because of this time allocation resolution.

He talks of northern Ontario as being a very friendly and a very helping, caring community. He says:

"We don't have the social and crime problems to the extent of southern Ontario, even though we are not as large. Yes, we have our share of bad landlords and we have our share of bad tenants, but what I can't understand is why northern Ontario is paying for some of the problems that southern Ontario has."

The other thing that evades him is "why perhaps 10% of the people truly affected by the situation are punishing the other 90%." Why is that happening? He states that from his investigation, "Sudbury could use in excess of 1,000 housing units and, according to CMHC's reports, in the next few years that 1,000 units will become 5,000 units."

He does not see, and I agree with him, how "with the present legislation, let alone the government building cooperative housing units, we will ever resolve the housing crisis," in northern Ontario, and I go further, in this province. We need time to debate that. We need time in this House to debate that and this resolution, if it passes, will not give us that time. That is a very serious subject.

How are we going to do that? How will Bill 4 ever resolve the housing crisis in the province? I suppose the minister will say, "It is not intended to resolve it; it is interim legislation." But we cannot let some of the effects of it sit for two years. We have to deal with them. Either that or the minister should bring in the permanent bill and withdraw Bill 4.

He goes on to say, "It is known fact that 80% of the housing stock in Ontario is over 25 years old and with this present legislation the property owners will have no legal way of paying for the fire code and building code upgrades required," which also form part of the field that he is working in. Here is an expert who is talking about regulations from this province and from municipalities that landlords need to deal with, and they need to deal with them now. They cannot wait for two years for this legislation to expire. They need to deal with it now and we need to debate it now. We cannot allow this legislation to carry on and create the problems that will result if fire code and building code upgrades are not met by the landlords of this province.

1620

Existing buildings, he states, "over the next years become firetraps, the buildings become unsafe, you are also eliminating the capabilities of maintaining safe dwellings for people to live in." The subject of safety has been dealt with in this respect. We had a presentation by the Concrete Restoration Association, but we are not able to discuss it in this House because of this dreaded resolution and we need to discuss it. We need to prevent unsafe dwellings from being created by this bill and we need time to debate that, but we are not going to be able to debate that.

I am going to stop trying to pronounce his name, but one more time Ken Kaltiainen has added experience which I have found very useful. I think this committee would like to hear this and other comments such as this from other provinces, experiences we have heard in other provinces, because the province of Ontario, this government certainly, has not provided that information. There has been some information brought forward to us by various groups. There was even a presentation that was held in this building, which I referred to yesterday and which only the parliamentary assistant attended. The Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party were represented, but the government was not.

In other words, we need to compare this whole subject that Bill 4 is getting us into. We need to compare that to the other provinces; we need to compare that to other jurisdictions in other countries. I submit that given the opportunity in this debate, if this time allocation motion were defeated, we would be able to do that and hopefully that would have a persuasive effect on this government to change its mind on either the entire bill or major portions of it.

He refers to the fact that while in Alberta he monitored the rental housing markets as that was part of his daily living.

"There were no rent controls and there were always vacancies. Out there, I had a choice at any given time, whether it be in the boom or the bust as to where I can rent, what I want to pay for rent, what kind of rent and amenities I want to pay for at any given time. The market was basically controlling itself. If I didn't want to pay for amenities or an apartment that I felt was not part of my needs, part of my financial structure, I had the choice by not renting that apartment and the landlord knew that I wasn't going to rent his apartment for those particular reasons."

"Now back in Ontario tenants do not have the choice as to where they can rent and how much they're going to pay for rent and where and what and how they want to pay for it. Here the only thing that tenants know is that when an apartment comes up for rent, there may be 100 people or more chasing that same apartment. Also, the tenants know that in good times or bad their rents are always going to go up."

Even with this legislation the rents are always going up. The poor people of this province are not going to be able to pay those rents, and we need to discuss that. We need to compare what is going on in other provinces and in other countries with what is going on in Ontario. We need experts. We need expert reports to be given to us, but that has never occurred, and with the time limitation that was put forward by the NDP members of the committee, we were precluded from bringing further witnesses to do that. Therefore, this is the last hope. This is the last hope we have, for members of the opposition and members of the government, to provide this information to this House to hopefully persuade the government to change its mind.

He said since 1983 all three government parties have proven that the existing Band-Aid legislation does not work and never will, and I think all three parties, including this party, have to accept that responsibility. But this bill makes things worse. This bill goes even further than either the Liberal or the Conservative governments even dreamt of going. The private sector has been telling the government that rent controls do not work. The private sector reports have been telling officials that rent controls do not work, and nobody seems to be listening. Our housing problem is going in one direction and it is only going to get worse.

People in the north who buy and build rental property are doing it basically for one reason, and that is to secure a future pension income. There are those who do it for other reasons but they are few and far between. These northern Ontario pension seekers, known as landlords, are a minority, and their industry is being choked to the point that they are being forced into bankruptcy.

Have you noticed how this word keeps popping up, Madam Speaker, the word "bankruptcy"? It keeps cropping up time after time after time, yet we do not have a chance to debate that. This time resolution says that we are given two days. But we are not going to be able to get into the whole subject of bankruptcy and the effect it has on the people of this province and the industry of this province and the economy of this province.

He states: "By taking away this portion of the industry, you are also sending me into bankruptcy." He is going to go bankrupt. He says, with his workload diminishing, "my value to an architectural firm becomes less and less important, and the work that I love to do so well throughout my career is slowly being diminished." He asks, "Therefore, what is the resolution to solve all these problems?" We need to talk about that, but we are not being able to talk about that because of this time allocation resolution.

He states:

"On the one hand, we have tenants who claim that they are being nickel-and-dimed to death, with no repairs or maintenance being performed to their buildings, and they can't afford to live anywhere but in the apartment that they have, if they have one at all."

That is a fact. There is no question that there are tenants from all walks of life who are talking about how their rents are going up and their quality of life is deteriorating. The quality of their buildings is deteriorating because money is not being put into them. That is a fact and we need to study that fact and the causes of it. Will Bill 4 solve that problem?

"On the other hand we have the building investor" -- or the landlord -- "who makes a 3% profit, is limited in funds available for improving his or her building or building new ones, and then to the far right we have the government" -- he is saying "to the far right"; I am sure he meant the far left. However, he says, "To the far right we have the government trying to please all parties and offending everyone." I am sure it is a typographical error. I am sure he meant to the far left.

He concludes by saying that in his opinion, the first thing that must be done is "through the government and their co-operative housing programs, shelter those who really need it." Now do we need to help people over here? There are people in this government who are in co-operatives. I am not saying to do away with co-operatives, but let's take a look at that. Let's take a look at the cost of housing this government is getting the taxpayer of this province into.

Second, "Eliminate the geared-to-income for those who do not need it. People who earn in excess of $35,000 to $45,000 do not need subsidized housing." That fact is debatable as well. I am not saying I agree with these recommendations or these thoughts he has, but I am saying they raise questions. It raises questions we need to debate in this House and we need to debate at this committee level, and this time allocation resolution precludes us from debating these issues.

Third, "The next option we may have is to offer developers an incentive to create new housing. It is a proven fact that developers may build the same structure for 30% cheaper than the government housing." We have to deal with that. I am sure that in the budget that is going to be coming down we are going to be hearing of all kinds of money being poured into the non-profit housing sector, even though we have facts that have come from these hearings that have said that private enterprise can do it for 30% more cheaply. We have not had an opportunity to deal with that and we will not have an opportunity, because clearly, with this time allocation resolution, there will be no new resolutions allowed.

Fourthly, "Bill 4, with all its tenant supportiveness and all its landlord objections should be eliminated completely." That of course has been our position from the outset; not this party's, of course. The Liberal Party voted in favour of it at the second reading but we voted against it. We have been consistent, and we believe it is bad for the people of Ontario. We believe it is bad for the tenants, bad for the landlords, bad for the unemployed, bad for the investors. It is bad for everyone. It is bad for the economy and we want to spend some more time on how bad it is.

1630

Fifth, "The government should provide shelter allowances to the tenants and not be in the construction business. Tenants should have accessibility to a shelter allowance so that the $1.4 billion spent annually by the Ontario government is better distributed to those who really need it."

Sixth, "The government should work with the private sector to create new housing with the government allowing the private sector a fair return on their investment."

These are just a few that this individual suggests and I am sure that if further time were allowed, with the time allocation motion defeated, we would have an opportunity to get into other areas and perhaps improve this bill further.

The last item he speaks about is that "this is a perfect opportunity for the elected NDP government to create housing, also create jobs and perhaps, with this creation of new housing, new jobs, this may very well turn the economic times of this province in a positive direction."

Those are our words. Those are the words we have said from the very dastardly day on 28 November. That is what we want to do. We want to improve jobs. We want to improve housing. This bill goes the other way. But we are not going to have a chance to do that. We are going to be cut off. It is going to be rammed down our throats, with no further time to debate this.

He states: "If this government is unsure of these particular suggestions or any other suggestions offered during the time of this committee's investigation, why not use northern Ontario as a test area and monitor the results? It would not be difficult to set up an organization involving landlords, tenants, government and any other party affected in this housing crisis to monitor the tested area."

I am not saying I support that, but at least it is an area that we could canvass in this House, that we could discuss to determine whether or not it is possible for such a proposal to come forward. It may not work, but I know one thing. Bill 4 is not going to work, and we need more time to persuade this government that this cannot take place.

We had all walks of life at our hearings. Clearly there were over 100 delegations that asked to be heard at the committee and went unheard, even though, I believe, if the additional two weeks were allowed to be spent on Bill 4 as was originally agreed upon, we would have had time to hear those delegations. Certainly that was denied by this government. I think, as I have stated, that that is the continuous thread, the common thread that goes out through this entire proceeding, culminating in this resolution to end debate on perhaps the most serious economic venture this government has got into.

There was a small group of people. This is just typical of one. It is very brief and I will summarize what they have stated. These are the types of groups that I believe we should talk about in this House.

There is no question that if resolutions and amendments are put forward by any member in this House -- the amendments that have been filed by the member for Eglinton and by me on behalf of my party are the only amendments, and I think there were two more amendments that were filed by the member for Carleton. If this resolution is carried, there will be no further amendments allowed, not even to be introduced. That is unfair and that is what the whole process is all about. The whole process is unfair. I therefore hope that members of the government would stop the unfairness they have been dealing with throughout this legislation debate and specifically on this specific resolution.

This is a group from Toronto that calls itself Nu-West Businesses and Properties. They filed a submission to us that talks about the effects of this bill on them and the effects on their financial loss. I think that this and others should be emphasized to other members of the House who perhaps did not have an opportunity to hear them at the committee level, because this gets at the real root of the problem, the financial loss, the unfairness of Bill 4.

The specific report is filed by a Gurnam Kundhal, who is the chairman of this group. They are a group who call themselves 15 ordinary Canadians who came to Canada about 20 years ago. They state that they all work ordinary jobs. They have average yearly incomes of approximately $35,000. Throughout these years they have tried to save every penny they could so that they could afford some financial security in their old age and also provide for their children's education. This group of 15 people, 15 ordinary Canadians, ordinary people from Ontario, put all of their savings together to form a partnership. It is an incorporated numbered company and the name of the company is Nu-West Businesses and Properties.

The purpose of this company was to invest their savings for growth and return. They had the right to do that. That is what people have been doing in the housing industry, and we seem to be veering away from that whole concept with this specific legislation. That seems to be the tone that is being set by this government. I think we should spend some time in debate in this committee on that subject. Because of the time allocation motion, we will not be able to do that. This whole veering-away of philosophy needs to be debated further because the whole system is being changed and we submit it is being changed for the worse.

They state: "We looked at many options such as buying a business, a commercial property, or a residential apartment building in Ontario, or in other provinces of Canada or in the United States. After a lot of thought and research we decided to invest in residential real estate in Ontario as the Ontario laws encouraged investments in apartment buildings by allowing landlords a fair return on their investments and by allowing for fair rent increases to cover financial losses and capital expenditures."

Not any more. Not any more is that going to happen as a result of this legislation. That is the end. People are not going to invest in this province because of this dastardly bill. We have the right to come to this House and debate it, but we are not being given that right because of this resolution.

Mr Kundhal states: "We employed services of competent real estate brokers and started investing in residential real estate in Toronto area in 1986. Our investment strategy and planning was based on the existing laws of Ontario as per the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986." They came to Ontario, they looked at the existing laws, they trusted this province, and that is where they invested their money. And this is what this government is going to do to them.

They talk about their holdings. These are not, the big gouging landlords the Minister of Housing has talked about. These are average people, and we have the right to assist those people by debating, in this House, this whole problem. This time allocation resolution says, "No, we are going to ram it through and we won't allow you to debate that any further."

They go on to state: "We purchased four small apartment buildings (totalling 225 residential units), one in 1988, two in 1989 and one in early 1990. The total purchase price of these buildings was approximately $13.8 million with existing mortgages approximately $11.4 million. The financial loss on these buildings as calculated per the rent review regulations is as shown," and they attach a schedule. "In addition we have a loan of approximately $600,000 (which was acquired over the last few years to finance the yearly cash flow shortages due to the financial loss)."

The members can see the development of this, and there are more stories that I think should be brought to this committee. This resolution says, "No, let's not talk about it any more." I do not blame the government for not talking about it any more because it is embarrassing. The fact that they have introduced this bill is embarrassing.

Nu-West states: "For two of our buildings we have rent review orders given as phase-ins" -- and they show attachments of those orders -- "while for the other two the rent review applications were filed on 28 September 1990 requesting rent increases of approximately 5% over the guidelines to provide for the financial losses. On the two buildings on which we have orders for rent increases, the rent review services increased the 1989-90 rents by approximately 9.5% to an average rent of $550 per month for a two-bedroom apartment."

They state, and this is the problem that has been repeated to us in the committees, that if these additional rent increases are not allowed, they will not be able to carry on with these buildings because they lack the financial ability to cover these shortfalls. If two years go by, people like this are going to go bankrupt. We have an obligation as legislators to stop these people from going bankrupt. But this time allocation resolution says: "No we're not going to talk about it any more. To heck with them. Let these people go bankrupt.

1640

Then they summarize the effects of this bill. They state they are unable to pay for cash-flow shortages created by financial loss. "We are finding it difficult" --

Mr Harnick: Turn them away at the door.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): The member knows if he wishes to voice his opinion he should be in his own seat.

Please continue. I remind the member for Dufferin-Peel that under order 23(d) he is to refrain from reading at length from verbatim reports.

Mr Tilson: Madam Speaker, with due respect to you, I am quoting from statements. I am not reading. There is a distinction. With all due respect to you, that is the distinction that is being made. I have every right to debate this resolution and I have every right to show that this government is wrong in trying to slam this legislation through. I have every right to quote from statements that have been made by the people of this province.

They go on to state the effects of this bill on these people. They state that they are finding it difficult to refinance their mortgages, and that is the problem that has come forward many, many times and needs a debate. When are we going to deal with the people who are having trouble refinancing their mortgages? The mortgages run out. What are we going to do? They need more capital to put capital investment into their buildings, to keep the quality of the buildings up. What are we going to do with that? We need to debate that. This resolution says, "No, we can't debate it any further."

They say that they are having difficulty refinancing their mortgages "as the building prices have fallen by more than 30% since the rent moratorium announcement." That is not an isolated fact. That fact has come to us time and time again as to how apartment buildings have depreciated in value by different amounts, depending on the area around the province that you are speaking of.

They go on to say: "This fall in prices has made our buildings financed more than the current building prices. We cannot even sell these buildings as the current prices do not even cover the mortgage amounts." What are these people going to do? The buildings have depreciated to such an amount that it is below what the current mortgages are on those buildings.

Fact after fact has been presented to us. We should be debating that. That is an important fact that needs to be discussed. Bill 4 is going to go for two years and we need to stop that. If that is the problem, are we going to let the problem go or are we going to do something about it? How do you do something about it? You make an amendment to the bill or, better yet, you withdraw the bill. But this time allocation resolution precludes us from doing this.

The third effect on these individuals states that their building "will be forced into power of sale at prices lower than the mortgage amounts, which means we will have to pay for the difference personally." As you may or may not know with proceedings, the power of sale proceedings take place and the building is sold for a lesser amount and they are still liable to the mortgagees as a matter of contract. They are liable to those people, so they are still on the hook. They have no building and they have a tremendous debt they have to pay to the previous mortgagees. They have lost the buildings and probably to individuals who are not going to be as conscientious as they are in maintaining those buildings. Hence the quality of life of the tenants is going to go down. What are we going to do about that? The time allocation resolution says, "Sorry, we're not going to talk about it."

As mentioned earlier, they state that their means are very limited and they have no alternative except to declare personal bankruptcy. Here is yet another statement of people saying that if Bill 4 passes they are going to go bankrupt. These are the types of requests that these individuals are making. This was made to us time and time again on the subject of retroactivity and the subject of phase-in orders.

It may well be that rents can be frozen for a short period of time. It is all the surrounding matters that go with it, the issue of retroactivity, the issue of the fact that no capital expenditures can be made. We are completely opposed to the bill, but there are people who, if certain amendments could be made, would still not be content but would not be quite as enraged and certainly would not be quite on the verge of bankruptcy or indeed going bankrupt. But we are not going to be allowed to debate that.

Their suggestions are: Allow previously ordered rent review phase-ins to be implemented; allow the processing of the rent review applications filed prior to the announcement, in other words, the introduction of Bill 4, to proceed according to the law at the time of the application; for buildings purchased prior to the date of the moratorium announcement, allow all existing mortgage amounts to be considered towards calculating the financial loss.

Those are the comments that were made by Nu-West Businesses and Properties, average people trying to make a living and trying to improve the housing market in this province. If Bill 4 continues and the implications from it, they are going to go bankrupt.

That leads me to a subject that we need to spend more time on in this House, time that may result in amendments, time that certainly would result in debate from members on all sides of the House. Of course, the time allocation resolution, if passed, precludes us from doing it. That is the subject of bankruptcy.

We have had individual after individual and groups. We have had people break down in tears at the committee level. That has been repeated by both the Liberal Party and by ourselves. People have broken down and cried because they are going to go bankrupt and the terrible effect it is going to have on their families and everyone connected with them. It is a terrible thing to go bankrupt. This government does not seem to have the compassion to stop that.

David Simmons was one such individual who has put this government on notice that if this bill passes he is going to go bankrupt. We need to spend time on that. He wrote us on 5 February and filed this letter with the hearings. I would like to briefly refer to some of the comments he makes on the subject of bankruptcy.

He states, "Bill 4 and a permanent rent control system will have and has had a devastating effect on myself, my suppliers, my employee and my tenants." That is the point: Bankruptcy affects everyone because commercial transactions are entered into, commercial contracts are entered into, with all kinds of people, aside from the effect it is going to have on the tenants, the individual, the landlord, the banks, the institutions, the suppliers and everyone else. It is a serious matter that needs to be debated but this government is not going to allow us to debate it with its closure motion.

He, therefore, requests that his "views, concerns and circumstances be heard and submitted before the committee for consideration." That is what I intend to do right now because I do not believe we gave him a chance to be heard and we are going to hear him, because this is the type of individual I think this House needs to hear. Further debate, information and facts can be brought to this House to show the economic seriousness that is being developed with Bill 4.

Like a lot of people in this province, he is 30 years old, he is married and has two children. In 1989, he purchased 24 units in an apartment building in Brantford. The rents were low and he realized that he would lose some money in the first couple of years. He looked at the current legislation and he went to the government, got the rent review guidelines and he studied that and studied the rent review system. With some hard work, he was prepared to absorb, by his own personal efforts, the time spent in renovating these buildings. So he says he was "prepared to absorb by occupying a unit and contributing my family's labour for free, and two or three years I had no doubt in my mind that I would have a very nice, well-maintained building with good tenants, fair rent and breaking even." All he wanted to do was to break even, and his family worked along with him. His family and friends worked along with him.

1650

He studied the rent review system and he relied on it to help raise the rents legally so that they would cover the building expenses, so that they would be breaking even after the first two or three years. He hoped, as did many individuals who came to us, to own this building as a long-term investment as well as trying to find a secure future for his family.

He was not one of these landlords that the government side talks about who is gouging the system. All he was doing was trying to build an investment, like what we are hearing about today; even some of the government members are trying to do it.

He says it has been two years and he has a "very nice, well-maintained building, with good tenants. The rents have not changed accordingly and are still not fair. My costs have increased and I am far from breaking even. We are not looking at making a profit off of the tenants but as a businessman, the rental income must at least provide some percentage of a return on our investment of labour and money. All that we are hoping for is to break even this year, and with the phase-in and a little bit of repayment for our capital expenditures, we would have."

That is the story we heard in many situations and we need to tell the members of this government of these situations that were not relayed to us in the committee, because there are other stories like this that a time allocation resolution precludes us from getting into.

He goes on by saying that in 1989 he lost $32,423.50; in 1990 he lost $25,239.19, and to date this year, 1991, and that was as of the early part of February, he has lost over $6,000, so presumably he has lost even more as 1991 has proceeded.

In September 1990, which was about the time this government took office, he was issued a rent review order, "allowing me a 5% phase-in for April 1990, another 5% for April 1991 and so on until my loss in the first year was brought down to zero. In March 1990, I had to do some major repairs to the roof' -- and that is the story when you get buildings in this province, 75% of which are 20 years or older. You have to do that; you cannot let them run down. We need to discuss that and of course this government will not let us, if this resolution is carried.

He had to do some major repairs on the roof in March 1990. That was at a cost of $18,300, and at the same time he painted all the apartments. This was not a man who was allowing apartments to turn into a slum. He wanted his building to look nice. He wanted the tenants of his building to live in a fair and reasonable way. He said he painted all the apartments that were not all painted in five years or more at a cost of $3,023.43.

Now he gets to Bill 4 and he starts to tell his story. He states that, as he understands it, he will not get his 5% phase-in and he will not get anything for these capital expenditures based on the existing rules of the day, based on the existing rules that were established by the province of Ontario, that he relied on until this government took office.

"With Bill 4, we have been stripped of our phase-in and capital expenditure costs, which work out to $8,000 cash out of our pocket. A person such as Bob Rae might word it a little different and say that he kept the $8,000 from going into my greedy landlord hands. Well, with Bill 4 he is definitely keeping the $8,000 from going into my hands. But let's not forget that I am in a negative cash flow position already. That means that another $8,000 has to come from my pocket to carry the building, or simply reduce the quality of accommodation, or convert it to another use."

In other words, he is considering taking this out of the residential market and putting it into something else, and we need to debate that subject, when landlords are coming and stating that to this House. We need to debate that, but this resolution says, "No, we can't debate that."

He continues: "As for why we do not set sell the building, that was never the plan for the near future. We are trying to hang on through this in hope for better times ahead" -- and of course, he is suggesting that the government will come to its senses and withdraw Bill 4 "when maybe we can see a little return on our investment. Besides that, the fact of the matter is that we cannot afford to sell it."

Here is another man who cannot afford to sell his building or he is going to go bankrupt, so the whole subject of bankruptcy needs to be discussed by this House. We cannot do that in two days, along with all the other matters that are being put forward by the two opposition parties, because there is inadequate time. The time allocation resolution clearly will preclude us, because there are no amendments that will come forward as a result of that resolution, if it carries.

He states: "Because of Bill 4, I have already had problems with refinancing. My second mortgage came due and had to be paid off. I tried to increase the first mortgage. At first they were going to incorporate a good portion of it, but by passing Bill 4, I lost my phase-in and the mortgagee held back $33,000." And so would you, Madam Speaker, if you were a mortgagee. You would do the same thing. You are trying to protect your interests. We need to look at that. We need to study that. But we are not studying it. There is no debate whatsoever on this subject, no debate whatsoever as to how we are going to resolve this matter during this two-year period.

He states, "I have arranged a new second mortgage at extra cost to bridge finance the $33,000 until the holdback is released from the first mortgagee." He emphasizes that "unfortunately, if Bill 4 goes through and I will not get my phase-in, my first mortgagee will not release the holdback and I will not be able to raise this $33,000 or continue the expense of bridge financing or will lose the building, and the tenants will lose their homes as they know it."

There are several issues in that statement that we need to discuss further, because we have not discussed it. I think it is becoming quite apparent that if two days are allowed to deal with the amendments, and no other amendments, we will have not have time. I would recommend that all members vote against this resolution.

He then talks about his expenses, and that is something of course that will come forward in the amendments I referred to, the subject of necessary expenses, an amendment that my party was suggesting and which has not been discussed. We need time to discuss that. There may be other areas as time goes on, but with the resolution there will be no more amendments allowed. "Take it as it is. We are not going to listen to anything else that you have to say. We're not even going to listen to our own backbenchers," even though I am sure they have people coming to them and telling them the problems they have in their own ridings.

He says:

"In addition, expenses are rising higher than the guideline rent increase. My hydro went up 8.84% plus 7% GST; my water went up 16%; my sewer charge went up over 55%; garbage removal costs went from $27 per lift" -- and that is something the government will not allow us to introduce, that is the purpose of our amendment -- "to over $41.52 per lift and GST now, which is a 64.56% increase; my property taxes are being reassessed and with the mill rate increase, they have a potential of going up by 20%; most of my supplies have gone up 6% plus GST; the interest rate on my second mortgage has jumped from 10% to 14.5%, and my total increase of financing has increased by 6%.1 have payments of $579 per month on a personal loan which was obtained to pay for the roof repairs and the painting."

1700

The government may say that some of these items are in this "necessary expense" clause that it has -- and it is true that some of them are -- but that means the rent is going to go up. The rent that the government is alleging is going to be frozen is not going to be frozen because of these things. The rent is going to go up. Even with this bill it is going to go up.

Not only that but some of these items are not in that clause that is being proposed by the government. We have the right to put forward an amendment to that section and be allowed to debate it. But this time allocation resolution says, "No, we've talked about it enough, we're not going to talk about it any more;" even though we have not talked about it.

He says:

"In short, none of my expenses have increased less than the maximum guideline rent increase which Bill 4 will limit me to. The above percentage increases average out to an increase of 19.49%. When compared to the 5.4% guideline increase there is a difference of 14.09%."

We have a problem on the one hand of how these expenses are going to be covered, and on the other hand the tenant obviously has major problems in paying for these. Some tenants have major problems dealing with these; a lot of tenants do not, and we have talked about that. But this government does not want to talk about that issue. This government has said, "We're going to force this time allocation motion down your throats and we're not allowing you to talk about those subjects at all."

It is a very complicated issue as to how we are going to deal with that subject. The government has come along and said, "Oh well, we'll deal with it with our permanent legislation," whenever that comes. That is after the green paper debate, whenever that comes. l do not know whether we are going to have any more consultation on that. At one point the committee was going to discuss it, but there does not appear to be any sign that the committee is going to discuss it.

In regard to the so-called consultations that the minister has described with respect to the green paper -- some of which were in private, some of which were in public and most of which had no debate between the minister and the constituents -- I assume that process has ended, whatever that process was. I have never seen a process like that described in this province. I do not know what it was. I think it was a scam. The whole process is a scam when you think of it, how we have been stopped at every point from dealing with this whole issue, even up to this current resolution.

He says: "I am very lucky to have a full-time job so that I can support my building. But who is going to support my wife and kids?" That is something this government has not thought of, and we should talk about it. "If I don't or can't do maintenance and repairs, what happens when the property standards board comes around and tells me that I have to comply with the property standards bylaw or I need major repairs done? I do not have a reserve fund set up nor can I afford to set one up in the near future."

The government has given hints about that. They talked about that, and who knows what they are going to do with their permanent legislation, which I suspect is already drafted, I suspect it is already drafted even though we really have not gone through an adequate consultation process. The whole subject of reserve funds did crop up. It is a subject that could be canvassed in this debate, but we are not going to be allowed to canvass it. If the government feels that there should be a reserve fund set up, then let it make an amendment now. The resolution says no more amendments. That is the end of it.

He says:

"I am not the only landlord affected by the devastating effects that Bill 4 will have. Rental legislation of this kind will annihilate the rental stock in Ontario. Bankruptcy, layoffs and foreclosures will result in the deterioration in the quality of those buildings that survive. Most of us will abandon rental premises and tenants will be forced to buy or go out into a shrinking market to find similar rental accommodation which will likely be new housing not yet strangled by the rent control noose."

It is a very dismal outlook that we have in this province. There is a golden opportunity for this government to do something about it. Yet the government says, "Do it our way, but we're not going to let you talk about it, we're not going to listen to your suggestions." Therefore, they are going to ram this time allocation resolution down our throats. We will not be allowed to introduce any further suggestions that might stop this pessimistic outlook that is developing in the housing industry.

He states: "I really need that phase-in. All of the tenants were expecting it and didn't complain about it." That is another factor. What happens when tenants agree with these types of things? What happens when tenants even ask for them? They want items to be done to their building. They want capital expenditures to be made to their building, capital renovations. They asked the landlord and they agreed to it.

We have an amendment that we are prepared to put forward. It was defeated in committee; the government defeated it in committee. Hopefully they have reconsidered it since and we will have an opportunity to provide the facts that we had then, as well as new information that we have, to this committee, to persuade the government to allow for that. But the time allocation resolution says: "No, you've got two days to debate what's on the floor and that's it. No new resolutions. That's the end of it."

He states: "My rents are $379.11 for a large two-bedroom and $347.78 for a large one-bedroom. If rent controls or the guidelines were abolished I would raise my rents to $550 for a two-bedroom and $475 for a one-bedroom, and not have any difficulty in getting or keeping existing tenants." That seems to be a going rate that we have heard. Clearly his rents are far below what the average rents are in his area, and facts have been produced on that, but unfortunately, because of this legislation, he is stuck.

He states: "Even my tenants are regretting Bill 4 because they are not getting their new carpets or new appliances now. Just about every one of them is willing to pay a little extra." He has spoken to his tenants and they are prepared to pay a little extra to get these items. Bill 4 says: "No way. You can't get them. You can get them but you will have to find some other source of paying for them because you cannot get them through increased rents."

We should be allowed to debate that subject, because that is a factor that Bill 4 does not deal with. We have an amendment that we are prepared to put forward, that we are prepared to introduce. It is on the table and we are prepared to discuss that, but this government does not want to hear it. They will not allow us to debate it.

He lists his bare minimum costs to operate his building. That "does not include the standard accepted amounts for 1% for vacancy, 1% for legal and audit, 3% for management and mainly does not include 9% for a return on investment." These are items that Bill 4 does not deal with. Yes, Bill 4 lists off necessary expenses. We believe there is room for amendments to that section. We should have an opportunity to make those amendments as time goes on in the debate, but the debate is not going to take place if this resolution carries. It is not going to be allowed, because it is going to end. Closure is going to come in, and that is the end of it.

He states: "I have 12 two-bedroom apartments and 12 one-bedroom apartments. The proportion of the total rental income for the two-bedroom apartments is 54.5043%, leaving 45.4957% as the one-bedroom proportion."

Using the costs that he has listed -- costs for utilities, insurance, property tax, garbage removal, snow, grass removal, maintenance, mortgage payments, loan payments, those sorts of things -- at a break-even point, at the above one- and two-bedroom proportions, he will need a rental income of $76,987 from the two-bedroom apartments and $64,263.15 from the one-bedrooms. This works out to a monthly rental of $534.64 for a two-bedroom and $446.27 for a one-bedroom.

Remember what he is paying. He is paying $379.11 for a large two-bedroom and $347.78 for a large one-bedroom. That is just to break even. This is not a gouging landlord whom this government has talked about. All he wants to do is break even, to develop an investment through time. He is prepared to work at it. He is prepared to use his own sweat, his family's own sweat and labour, to maintain this building. We need to discuss that type of landlord. We need to discuss it, but we are not being allowed to discuss it because of this time allocation resolution.

This means that he is absorbing the difference of $36,578 between the tenants' cost of accommodation and the rental income. That is a lot of money, $36,578.88, and that is all just in one year, this year, 1991. He feels that he probably ranks "right up there with the Brant and Brantford Housing Authority or some other government agency for supplying subsidized housing." He ranks right up there.

1710

Clearly, these people have the government behind them. The government will cover this loss, at the cost to the taxpayer, but if the private enterprise guy has losses, that is tough. He is out of luck. He has to go bankrupt, and there is the devastating effect it has on the employees and the workers and the banking institutions and the suppliers and everyone else who is involved. But if you are involved in subsidized housing, there is no problem. That is a problem we need to discuss. We need to canvass that whole area, and this time allocation resolution says we cannot do it.

He says, "This is not fair, because most of my tenants have a higher gross income than I do."

We heard that a lot, landlords who came to us and said that they are working personally on these buildings, are doing their own labour, are providing their own funds, are sticking their own necks out, are mortgaging their houses, and the tenants are making more than they are.

That is not fair, and again it gets back to that question I have been asking the parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Housing and the Premier, who shuffles off to the Minister of Housing. I have been asking that question. Is this bill fair? Is the whole concept of it even fair? We need to spend time on that, but this government has had enough. They do not want to talk about it, because it is too hot. They cannot stand the demonstrations they have been receiving. The minister has been burned once. He does not want to be burned again.

He states, "If your response" -- and of course his response is the response of the committee, or indeed the Minister of Housing -- "is to provide affordable housing for those who cannot afford to pay a market value, why don't you identify those who need such assistance and provide it directly, rather than providing an economic advantage to all persons?"

Do members notice how we get back to this in almost all the submissions that are made to us? This keeps coming back, and yet this government will not debate it. They are helping the wrong people. They are not even helping the people who they think they are helping. They are not even helping the 30% of the tenants who cannot afford any rent increases. They are helping the rich. They are helping the people who can afford the rents. These people think it is great. Their rents are frozen. They can go off and they can have fancy cars and go away on trips that the landlord, a small landlord, never thought of doing. It is not fair.

He states that, "The average rent in Brantford in 1990 was $485 and the vacancy rate in Brantford is 0.8%." He states that: "It has been on a steady decline since the Residential Rent Regulation Act was introduced. This is directly related to the decline in the building of rental accommodations since the act was introduced."

This government slammed the Liberal government for having that legislation, Bill 51. It spent many hours slamming it, and this is what it can come up with. It is even worse than Bill 51.

Mr Fletcher: That's right.

Mr Tilson: But this is what they contend, "It's right." Is that their answer? Is that what their solution is? After hearing response after response as to how people are going bankrupt, they are saying it is right? The member for Guelph should listen more and read some of the Hansard as to the terrible stories that have been going on in this province.

He goes on by saying, "Just because a few landlords have taken advantage of some tenants is no reason to make my life miserable."

That is what is happening. This government does not care. It is a government that does not care, and we need to hold it accountable. We need to hold them accountable, but we are not being given the opportunity to do that.

"You don't see marble lobbies in my building, but what you do see is a new carpet in the halls at my expense."

That was not allowed through rent review, but he put new carpets in his halls anyway. That is the type of man this is. He put in a recently repaired roof and every apartment is freshly painted, hallways, windows, laundry rooms, etc, are cleaned weekly, bathrooms caulked, maintenance current and complete.

There is no question we have heard a lot of very sad stories of tenants who are already living in slums. Bill 4 does not deal with them, but Bill 4 deals with this type of person. Bill 4 says: "You're out of luck. You can go bankrupt."

This man says, "Everything that a landlord is supposed to do, should do and more," he has done. "I have followed, abided by and in some cases surpassed all of the rules, regulations, bylaws and standards. Now the rules have changed after the fact."

That is what we in this party do not like. The rules have changed after the fact and we want a chance to debate this with this government as to how wrong it is and how the retroactive provision should be withdrawn. We have an amendment that we would like to have an opportunity to debate, and clearly the time allocation motion will not allow us to adequately deal with that.

He states: "Someone made a good comment the other day. It went like this: If you are going to stop a few people from poaching animals you don't kill all the animals. That's what is being done to us landlords. We are being killed because a few landlords were taking advantage." We all saw there are a few landlords who took advantage of the situation. This government's solution to it is: "Kill all the landlords. Do away with all the landlords, all the fat, cigar-smoking landlords."

That is the image that they have been painting and it is unfair and it is untrue. It is a myth that needs to be corrected, and this party over here is prepared to do it, but the government will not give us the chance to do it. They are going to introduce a time allocation resolution and they are going to cut us off. They are going to muzzle us.

He proceeds to say: "Rent review legislation is cumbersome and impossible for the layman to understand. Tenants and landlords get frustrated with the confusing and repetitive allocation increase system. I admit that the rent review system needs some work, but to stick Bill 4 in stopping everything retroactively while a new system is worked out is very damaging and unfair and increases uncertainty."

Now that is a valid statement. The government has said that the existing system is unfair -- we have said it is unfair -- and it says it needs some time to study it, although it had lots of answers last year in the election. Well, we need to debate that. We need to debate why, if they had an idea last summer, where did that idea go? We are already six months into their term and nothing has happened. We have a devastating Bill 4 and we have seen a green paper which we are not allowed to debate. Public hearings and semipublic hearings and private meetings are being held with the Minister of Housing, but we are not being allowed. Question after question has been raised in this House, and that is an example, and this resolution caps all of that. It caps the discussion. The discussion is over. We think that is wrong and we think that is unfair, as is Bill 4 and all of the proposals put forward by this government.

He states, "If Premier Bob Rae is troubled by some landlords doing luxury renovations and passing the cost off to the tenants that don't want them, then define luxury renovations and put a clause in the current act disallowing any reimbursement or recognition of those types of renovations."

What is a luxury renovation? Those guys seem to know what it is. Why do they not tell us? Why do they not let us debate it with them? They do not know, and that is why they are cutting us off, because they do not want to talk about it. They have raised the issue, but they do not want to talk about it any more.

"But if a fridge stops working or a carpet wears sooner than expected, allow the landlord to recover their expenses." That is all he is asking.

"Someone may ask the question, what other industry is guaranteed a yearly increase? Well, if the cap was taken off the rents, leaving them up to the market to decide, we wouldn't need the guideline increases. People would build rental accommodations and tenants would pay what they felt was fair for rent for a particular unit or not rent it." That whole concept needs to be debated further, but, no, that is the end of it.

"Someone may ask the question, what other industry is guaranteed a return on their money?" He says: "I'm not getting a return on my money. The only return that I'm going to see on my investment is the return of my building to my first mortgagee." That is his return. The building is going to the first mortgagee.

1720

Sure, there are some bad things going on out there and some bad landlords. The government should not take this out on all the landlords. Why can we not talk about that? Has the government taken account of how many tenants have taken advantage and skipped out without paying their rent or after causing damages? Clearly, there is a problem in the whole housing industry and the whole rental accommodation. There are bad landlords and there are bad tenants. Why can we not have legislation that is going to deal with everyone? Why are we going to put the landlords out of business? Why are we going to force them into bankruptcy? We need to debate that and we are not being allowed to debate it because of this resolution.

"If the NDP is concerned about flipping, then define what you mean by 'flipping' and write something into the act to disallow it." That is a reasonable request. Why can the government not put forward an amendment to do that? This legislation says: "No more amendments, not even our amendments. We're not even allowed to amend." That is what they are saying. I hope the government does not mean that everyone who owns a building must now keep it and no one else can ever buy one, or else they may be labelled "flippers."

He states:

"Also, this payment of money owing to the landlord by the tenant as a result of an order by instalments if passed will be another damaging thing. I could see this only being fair if the amount owed to the landlord is a large one like $300 or $400. This would mean that I'd have to wait even longer for the needed extra money by having it paid in instalments. And to have it legal for a tenant to still owe me instalments even though they have left the apartment, province or country is just ridiculous."

That is another subject that needs to be debated, but this resolution says: "No, you can't talk about it any more. You can't even make amendments on that subject."

He says: "I can just see them piling up in a limo" -- sounds like government cabinet ministers -- "from out of town and lining up at my door to pay their instalment. Oh, but let's not forget, I get to write this off as a bad debt." I have news for him. He is wrong. He cannot write it off as bad debt. That was established by the housing staff who said, "No, you can't write it off as a bad debt." So he is wrong. We need to debate the fact that landlords cannot write off their losses. "Just what I need: another expense to write off. I'd rather have the cash, thanks."

He says in conclusion:

"In brief, and with a God-like stroke of a pen, my family is on the verge of bankruptcy; my mortgage financing is in jeopardy; my rent review order is now void and the time invested in formulating is wasted; my approved phase-in is cancelled; the value of my building is reduced as a residential complex; I have increased the standard of living for my tenants with over $21,000 in non-recoverable capital expenditures for free; and am now in a new ballpark playing a game without knowing the rules, and because of retroactivity find that I have just struck out before going to bat."

This shows the frustration of the landlords in this province because of the retroactive nature of this legislation. Clearly, if the government has not understood what the people of this province have been saying and what the opposition members are saying, we need more time to do that. We need more time to talk about that. Clearly they need more time. The facts that have been given to them appear to be not enough.

The issue of retroactivity is probably the most damaging of all the clauses in the bill. It has an effect, as I have indicated, on a whole slew of things: an effect on the subject of unemployment; an effect on the subject of contracts that are broken; an effect on the financial institutions; an effect on safety; an effect on research and development. All of those items were presented to us in a brief, a joint submission by the Steeplejack and Masonry Restoration Contractors Association and the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172, restoration steeplejacks. That was made to us in January.

They talked about the short-term concerns of Local 172 regarding this legislation. I think we need to listen to unions such as this. We need to listen to unions such as this because obviously this government is not listening to the unions. They talked about the problem of unemployment and they state:

"On 1 December 1990, Local 172 had a 3.2% unemployment rate. As of Monday 14 January 1991, we were experiencing an unemployment rate of 60%. This represents an increase in unemployment of 1,875% in less than two months. That is all related to job-site shutdowns and cancellations" It is not the recession that the Minister of Housing has spoken of; it is a result of job-site shutdowns and cancellations.

They state:

"I expect the unemployment rate and the restoration sector to soar to 85% by the end of January. In addition to these already staggering unemployment figures, there is a ripple effect even within Local 172. The related industrial sector...companies that manufacture and rent suspended access equipment have traditionally never had layoffs." They are suggesting that because of Bill 4 they now are.

They state:

"In the past week, for the first time the industrial sector went from zero unemployment to 7%. These layoffs were directly related to lost jobs in the restoration sector. More layoffs are expected in the industrial sector. Because both the restoration and industrial sectors are skilled tradespeople with families to support and rents and mortgages to pay, a layoff beyond March of this year could see these valued workers lost to this industry for ever."

So not only are we talking about unemployment, but we are talking about the destruction of the restoration industry and how it is going to be gone. These skilled people are going to be gone for ever. They are going to go into other industries and it is all because of Bill 4. We need to discuss that topic in detail. We need to provide more information to the government to try to stop this from happening.

The second point that was raised was the subject of finance, and they state: "A reduced workforce puts a financial burden on the local, while a lost workforce threatens the local's viability. Programs and activities will have to be reduced and/or cut entirely."

We need to discuss that. This is a union that is raising these issues, the union that this government claims has its support. They talk about their apprenticeship program and the effect it has had on that program. Due to the lack of major. funding or sanctions of the program, it will have to be eliminated. So the building up of skilled workers, the training of the skilled workers, the keeping up with the industry, keeping the industry alive, all that is going to stop. Why would the restoration industry continue with this if nothing is going to happen for two years? They cannot keep these people on. They cannot train people to get into this business. Why would they do that? We need to debate that, and the time allocation resolution says that we are not going to do that.

The fourth point they raised deals with organizing. They say that "Local 172 has had to put its organizing efforts on hold, thus losing the momentum and cost of the campaign." That is a sad thing. This union is in trouble because of this government, because of Bill 4.

Safety is a subject that unions are concerned with, the landlords are concerned with, the cement people are concerned with. That is a subject we need to spend a great deal of time on, because they say that because of these cancelled contracts the structural integrity of the buildings is at risk, thus creating a safety hazard.

We cannot have a safety hazard, and amendments would need to be put forward in this bill that would allow landlords the ability to stop the safety hazards from arising. But we are not going to be allowed to debate that. This is being rammed through. They have had enough. They do not want to talk about it any more. They created a situation of uncertainty. They have created a crisis and they do not want to talk about it. They brought this crisis forward and they say: "That's it. We've left you with a crisis but we're not going to deal with it any more."

Sixth, they have talked about the research and development issue. They state: "Ontario's temperate location has made it ideal for research and development of materials and procedures. Manufacturers and suppliers will feel the ripple effect of unemployment and lack of contracts in the restoration sector. Ontario could lose the research and development for which this industry has become world renowned." All this because of Bill 4. There is a need to debate this subject. The time allocation resolution says no, and we need to debate it.

1730

This report from the union comments, "Although the short-term effects that the recent legislation has had on Local 172 and its membership has been costly, the long-term effects would be disastrous."

The items I referred to are the short-term effects. They do not want to talk about the short-term effects. Well let's just issue some of the long-term effects and whether they are prepared to do that.

The union talks about the amendment of the rent review process. Their members have had 15 projects stopped, cancelled or put on hold indefinitely. To this union this has meant the permanent layoff of 60 men. Employment among the companies of their association on 17 January 1991 was only 36% of what it was on 17 January 1990. This represents only the work carried over from 1990.

The comment that has been made by the Minister of Housing that this whole issue of unemployment has been caused by the recession is inadequate. These people are relating it to Bill 4. Naturally, the government is finding it embarrassing, so therefore, put closure, shut us up. We are going to raise examples as to how devastating this Bill 4 is going to be on the employment of people such as this Local 172, and therefore let's stop talking about it. Let's not hear from groups such as Local 172. Let's shut them down.

Now, the union says that this is only the beginning of 1991, and not all the work to be done this year would have been tendered, but already members of their association know of almost $10 million worth of work in the rental sector which had been scheduled and is now cancelled because of Bill 4. This $10 million, it says, "translated into human terms represents 206,000 lost man-hours of work, 5,150 lost man-weeks of work, 103 lost man-years of work." This was only on 17 January 1991, less than two months since these amendment had been introduced.

"Another very important point that must be put into perspective is the fact that our association and Local 172 are only a very small segment of the restoration sector." So this is only a small portion. We have an obligation to listen to everyone. This is only one small sector that is affecting the unemployment of this province. If there is one, there are two, there are three, there are four. The Progressive Conservative Party wants to talk about that and about how this bill is causing unemployment in this province, but this government does not want to listen.

The lost jobs that Local 172 talks about here are highly skilled, well-paid jobs in a labour-intensive service industry that simply do not have to be lost. But Bill 4 is creating job losses in this specialized industry. Not only that, they are not training to keep the industry alive. The union states that there are hundreds of buildings in the province that require major restoration work done to them. When we hear facts like this, why will this government not let us talk about it? Why are they shutting us up? Why are they asking that this resolution be passed to shut us down? We were not allowed to talk about it in the committee. We were cut off in the committee. We could not allow for it any further.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. There are a number of interjections from members who are not even in their own seats. Of course interjections are out of order, particularly when they come from members who are not in their own seats. The honourable member who has the floor may proceed.

Mr Tilson: Continuing on with the concerns of Local 172, it states, "When I think about these lost jobs, I reflect upon what Premier Bob Rae said on 11 January while addressing the Financial Services Institute." They quote the Premier, who said on 11 January, "Everybody, including the financial institutions, must understand that jobs are important." The Premier said -- and here they are paraphrasing -- that the government of Ontario was not going to stand by and allow jobs to be lost during the recession, even if that meant a higher deficit. He later went on to say that he expected the financial institutions to pull together with the government in saving jobs -- and again they quote the Premier -- to "play an effective role in fighting the recession." He also said, "I am stressing the importance of partnership."

Here is the Premier of this province mentioning the issues that this side of the House wants to talk about, and yet the resolution says no. The Premier has raised the issues, but he will not let us talk about it. They have shut us down.

The union concludes by saying it "would also like to 'stress the importance of partnership.' We have to work together and find a way to put these men back to work." Bill 4 certainly is not doing it and I believe with the appropriate amendments and possibly even the withdrawal of Bill 4, that we can develop a solution. "Whether this means allowing the landlords to capitalize the cost of structural restoration work through the rent review process, or some form of tax credit, or a type of granting process, it matters not to us how this is worked out."

They are offering some suggestions. They are offering suggestions such as a form of tax credit, a type of granting process. I believe that with further debate, we would be able to raise this and perhaps make suggestions to the Bill 4 legislation or even suggest that Bill 4 should be defeated and that the government should get on with the permanent legislation and allow solutions to this housing problem to be created. But no, they will not allow us to talk any more.

The union continues by stating: "It matters not to us how this is worked out. But it's absolutely imperative that we work in partnership to find a solution so that we may put these skilled trademen back to work without delay" and to develop, to encourage more people to get into the restoration business and train them.

I would like to conclude --

Mr McLean: Conclude?

Mr Tilson: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: No.

Mr Tilson: I would like to conclude by one final statement that I believe should be considered by the members of this House as an example of other statements that could be introduced to show the problems that have been created by Bill 4 and how we need more time to introduce further information and facts to this House.

This came to us from Alfred Diesner from Scarborough.

"I own a rental property in Scarborough which contains 50 suites and I have owned this property for 20 years. I have attempted to offer better than average maintained accommodation for my tenants and have only applied to rent review when major expenditures were required.

"I made application in 1982 to recover the cost for replacement of plumbing risers, appliances, installation of an updated fire alarm system and installation of a compacter. All these costs were incurred to improve the standard of living for my tenants."

That is the type of information -- because obviously this government has the wrong impression that all landlords are bad. Most of the landlords who came to us want to improve the situation of the tenants, they want to maintain their buildings. They do not want them to turn into the slums of New York. They do not want that to happen.

Mr Diesner says: "For the past eight years I have been taking the allowance provided by law annually, and have maintained the building on that basis. This past year, once again the building required more major work. I commenced the work in September of 1989 and completed the work in July of 1990.

"This work entailed replacing the roof, replacing the windows and doors, repaving the entire parking lot, replacing the chimney, replacing the intercom as well as replacing the railing to comply with bylaw changes." These are not the marble foyers that this individual is trying to do. This is trying to make his building look better for the tenants.

1740

He concludes by saying:

"Upon completing this program, I applied to rent review to recover these extraordinary costs. While awaiting the decision from rent review services, I was informed that my application would not be processed and that a moratorium on all rent increases will be applied retroactively to 1 October 1990, even if capital expenditures were completed and paid for long before this government came to power."

This is the very amendment that we are debating currently in this House, the amendment that is put forward by the member for Eglinton, about which this resolution says: "No more. Let's stop talking about it."

The minister has repeatedly stated that he wished to protect tenants from financial hardship. As the government for the people, I find it hard to believe this same concern would not be extended to the landlords. He wants fairness and we have a right, we have an obligation to debate fairness in this House, and this government says, "No, we're not going to talk about that any more, even though we're unfair."

"I have incurred a debt of approximately $225,000 to improve the quality of my tenants' homes according to the laws in place and now this retroactive legislation will place me in financial hardship. I invested in this property in the hope that the revenue will provide me with a retirement income and at the same time I will be providing over 50 tenants with a reasonable place to live. The major setback would eliminate the possibility of providing for me this retirement income.

"I have also read that the minister suggests that if we are having difficulty, we have the alternative of selling our building. After owning this building for 20 years, barely managing to make ends meet through the years when I was losing money, and managing to provide decent accommodation when my mortgage interest rate reached 15%, I find it outrageous that the minister would recommend selling this property today at a value far less than its value in 1986; that is, if I could find a purchaser."

We should be discussing this. We should be discussing and debating this in detail and this government says no. Mr Diesner concludes by saying:

"The average three-bedroom apartment rents for approximately $635 per month. My average two-bedroom apartment rents for approximately $530 per month and the average one-bedroom rents for approximately $460 per month. These rents are far below those charged for similar units in this area and are certainly affordable for my tenants. I find it difficult to see the equity in depriving me of justified rent increases after I have incurred such a substantial debt in good faith.

"In this circumstance, I believe Bill 4 will not help my tenants have a better-maintained accommodation and will certainly hurt my ability to finally retire on a moderate income."

Those are just some of the stories that have been told to the committee and that have not been told to the committee. Those that have not been told to the committee we believe that we have the right and the obligation to bring forward as examples of why this bill should be defeated.

This time allocation motion precludes us from doing that and I therefore ask the members of this House on all sides to defeat this resolution and allow us to get on with the debate to try to solve the housing crisis in this province.

Hon Mr Cooke: This is the third day that we have listened to the opposition and particularly the Conservative Party in its deliberate efforts to prevent Bill 4 from passing and to prevent tenants from being adequately protected in this province.

Bill 4 was introduced on 28 November 1990. It is a temporary piece of legislation and it expresses the desire of this government to adequately protect tenants and to set the time frame whereby we as a government can develop, in co-operation with the people of this province, the permanent legislation.

As temporary legislation, clearly the four months that it has taken to get to this point by trying to pass Bill 4 is unacceptable to us as a government and, I believe, unacceptable to the people of this province.

Clearly, the parliamentary process has to be allowed to work, and the tactics that have been used by the Conservative Party in this Legislature are clearly in line with the tactics that have been used by Fair Rental and by AFFORD. Whether it is the kinds of advertisements that were taken out in the Wall Street Journal or whether it was the extreme tactics that were used by the landlords' group out in front of the Legislature a couple of weeks ago, those kinds of extreme tactics are being used by the Conservative Party in the Legislature as well.

There are 100,000 apartment units in this province that will be protected by Bill 4 that were not protected in any way under Bill 51, the Liberal legislation.

The temporary bill, as I said, was introduced on 28

November. We had a good, lengthy second reading of the bill and discussion in this Legislature. We had public hearings in the general government committee where many people were listened to and the Legislature had an opportunity to deal with the bill clause by clause.

We then had a report back to the Legislature from the committee and the report from the committee was debated for two days, which is an unusual procedure in itself and was part of the delay tactics by the Conservative Party. We then had discussion in committee of the whole House, and it was clear in committee of the whole House that no progress was being made because of the delay tactics by the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party forced the government to bring in time allocation. Then the time allocation motion gets to be debated and we have now had three days on the motion to set out the time frame to deal with this bill in an orderly way in the Legislature.

I find it very strange that the Conservative Party has the nerve to come into this place and tell us that we are not consulting, when right from day one their position is, eliminate rent controls. How did they come to that conclusion? They did not consult the people of this province. We are interested in developing a permanent system of rent control in this province that will work.

Bill 4 is a temporary bill and must be put in place now. The Conservative Party is putting thousands of tenants at risk by delaying this bill. It is up to this Legislature to act. It is absolutely essential that the Legislature act. We have had adequate discussion on the time allocation motion and therefore, under the standing orders of this Legislature, I move that this question be now put.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the question be now put.

1801

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 60

Abel, Akande, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 34

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Harnick, Henderson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Scott, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, rllson, Turnbull, Wilson, J.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Miss Martel has moved resolution 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it. Call in the members.

1809

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Could all members take their seats. There has been a request that the time allocation vote take place on Thursday 18 April at 3:45 in the afternoon. A vote on time allocation will therefore take place on Thursday at 3:45 in the afternoon.

CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LES LOIS RELATIVES AUX OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House for the order for third reading of Bill 17 to be discharged and the bill to be referred to committee of the whole House.

Agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plenier de la Chambre.

The House adjourned at 1811.