The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the third group of pages to serve in the First Session of the 35th Parliament:

Christopher Bardon, Mississauga North; Njeri Campbell, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Thomas Castaldo, Oshawa; Ryan Christie, Simcoe Centre; Andrea Dadamo, Windsor-Sandwich; Joseph de los Reyes, Scarborough-Agincourt; James Evans, Beaches-Woodbine; Virginia Greer, Timiskaming; David Guest, Leeds-Grenville; David Han, York Centre; Naomi Johnson, Simcoe West; Sarah Lambert, Kingston and The Islands; Larry Leung, Wilson Heights; Keith MacDonald, Perth; Monte McNaughton, Middlesex; Nikisha Reyes-Grange, Durham West; Michelle Roche, Lincoln; Andrea Sackaney, Niagara Falls; Erica Sanderson, Brampton South; Peter Smiechowski, Parkdale; Eric Tam, York Mills; Janet Taylor, Parry Sound; Katherine Telford, York South; Sandra Wilson, Ottawa West.

Would you welcome them to our chamber.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JAMES HAMMOND SR

Mr Offer: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 1991 Mississauga Citizen of the Year recipient, James Hammond, Sr.

Mr Hammond received the Gordon S. Shipp Memorial Award in recognition of his extensive work spanning four decades. A father of five, this year's recipient has volunteered his time and talents on behalf of many local organizations, including the Streetsville Lions Club, St Joseph's school and church, Streetsville Musicorps and Royal Canadian Legion. James Hammond Sr, a Streets-ville resident, also served for many years as a volunteer firefighter for the Streetsville fire department.

I think all members of the House are well aware of the great contribution made by volunteers in our communities. These individuals give tirelessly of themselves, contributing in no small measure to the betterment of the areas we represent.

James Hammond Sr is one such individual receiving a very prestigious award in the city of Mississauga, but he is by no means the only one. Each community has individuals who share in the commitment of a James Hammond Sr. Indeed, as well as with Mr Hammond, awards were presented to three additional outstanding volunteers: Sherry Lee was recognized for her contribution in a variety of organizations, and Ethel and Harold Taylor were also recognized.

It is individuals such as these who make this province an example for others to follow.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Stockwell: I rise today to bring to the attention of the Minister of Education a very serious situation in my riding. St Gregory's separate school in Etobicoke is in need of immediate renovation and expansion to meet the demands of increasing enrolment.

I would like to welcome some of the representatives from St Gregory's school to the Ontario Legislature today who join us in the members' gallery. They have been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board for funding for these much-needed renovations since 1982 and had felt that their hard work and patience had finally paid off when they achieved the number two position on the priority list for funds in 1992. However, under new government guidelines, lists have been combined and have bumped St Gregory's to number six.

I personally visited St Gregory's school and saw at first hand the lack of facilities and overcrowded conditions of the school. For example: Two small sets of washrooms have to serve the entire student body. The undersized gymnasium, which doubles as an assembly room, barely holds one gym class, let alone the entire student body. Change rooms have to be used for storage, which leaves little or no room for their intended use. A storage closet has been converted to the French teacher's office.

The parents and staff at St Gregory's feel that the lack of adequate space is seriously jeopardizing the quality of education of the children. The students have suffered long enough and the parents and staff have been more than patient. However, their patience has now turned to frustration. They feel cheated, and rightly so.

I strongly urge the Minister of Education to take immediate action on their behalf to remedy this inequitable situation and to put St Gregory's school back to its rightful position for funding on the priority list.

WATERFRONT TRAIL

Mr White: It gives me great pleasure to rise and offer comment upon the initiation of a Lakeshore Greenway, a waterfront trail from Burlington to Bowmanville.

On Saturday, a meeting was held at Ontario Place which was truly in the spirit of Earth Day. It was entitled How to Achieve the Greening of the Waterfront and was introduced by David Crombie, commissioner, Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

A Waterfront Trail Membership Association, made up of citizens' groups, outdoors associations and volunteers, was established at this meeting to help implement the Ontario government-endorsed Watershed report recommendation of a continuous waterfront trail linking the GTA along its entire waterfront. The trail will be consistent with the Watershed principles of clean, green, usable, diverse, open, accessible, connected, affordable and attractive lands.

As a former presenter on these very issues before the royal commission, I find the establishment of the waterfront trail to be very exciting. It will encourage the formation of trails and greenways linking a province-wide network.

1340

ERINDALE CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Mr Mahoney: The Erindale campus of the University of Toronto is located in my riding of Mississauga West.

Since its founding in 1967, Erindale has made a significant impact on the community of Mississauga. Not only does it provide educational opportunities for our citizens of Mississauga and its environs, but the economic and cultural benefits to the community are considerable.

Erindale has an operating budget in excess of $35 million and employs more than 600 full- and part-time staff. As well, more than 300 part-time positions are available within the college to students. Five hundred of these employees are Mississauga residents and they generate over $18 million in direct spending in our community. Students of course spend another $7 million annually. Major construction and maintenance projects together with the purchase of supplies amount to an additional $2.2 million a year.

The former Liberal government recognized the valuable contributions of Erindale College educationally, culturally and economically and subsequently supported the college through its programs.

I am asking for assurance and I hope that this NDP government will continue to support this very important institution in Mississauga at the same generous levels as did the former Liberal government.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Jordan: The government of Ontario has long ignored the needs of eastern Ontario. Like the Liberal government before it, the NDP government has done nothing for the eastern part of this province.

With the resignation of the Ottawa-Centre MPP last Thursday, eastern Ontario has only one cabinet minister, the member for Frontenac-Addington, whom I sincerely congratulate.

Lanark-Renfrew, the riding I represent, along with ridings in the east, needs to attract this government's attention. We need special assistance to get our message into cabinet.

While other parts of the province, like northern Ontario and the greater Toronto area, have ministers representing special interests, eastern Ontario has nothing.

This government should know that the town of Renfrew has lost 1,200 jobs in the past six years. It should realize that Smiths Falls, Carleton Place, Perth and Almonte have been devastated by factory closures. Who will help us provide much-needed industrial incentives to eastern Ontario?

The government should appoint a deputy minister for eastern Ontario, set up a cabinet committee to discover the province does not end at Belleville and treat eastern Ontario with the care and respect now given the greater Toronto area.

EARTH DAY

Mr Hayes: Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate, with two of my sons, Michael and James, in Earth Day activities at the home of Greta and Keith Thompson, residents of the Essex-Kent riding.

Mr and Mrs Thompson have a beautiful piece of property with hundreds of trees, plants and flowers. They have donated many years to not only the survival but also the propagation of more than 30 species of rare Carolinian trees.

To celebrate Earth Day, they opened up their home to local residents, giving away hundreds of seedling trees to the young people in the area. The day's activities also included pottery demonstrations using the clay found throughout Kent county.

The Thompsons not only gave me a 12-foot silver maple, which is now planted on my lawn; they also asked that I present the Minister of the Environment with an 8-foot silver oak to thank her for her dedication towards a cleaner environment. The white oak is a symbol of strength. You can cut it down, but the roots will not let go.

Although the rules of the House would not allow me to bring the tree in, I ask the minister, on behalf of the Thompsons, to accept the silver oak for planting in her residence, Queen's Park or a place of her preference.

DONATION OF MEDICATION

Mr Henderson: Many honourable members will share my sense of the tragedy of suffering and poverty in Third World nations. Two Ontario-based, Canadian-owned pharmaceutical manufacturers have made a significant contribution to the alleviation of shortage and suffering in Third World Latin America through a donation of medications with a value of about $20,000.

Members will know that Latin American nations are reaching very actively to develop stronger economic, trade, cultural and other ties with Ontario and Canada. Besides satisfying our altruistic wish to help disadvantaged peoples, expanded ties can benefit Ontario as well. Since the United States is pursuing a trade deal with Mexico that many feel will disadvantage some important Canadian industries, there is a real opportunity for Ontarians to seize the initiative in broadening our interchange with Latin America.

The generosity of these two Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers helps strengthen the climate of trust which must underlie such expanded commerce. Especially, I want to applaud and salute the generosity of Leslie Dan of NovoPharm Ltd and Bernard Sherman of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. These two outstanding Ontario companies have demonstrated compassion, sensitivity and excellent corporate citizenship. We appreciate it.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Jackson: I call the attention of the House to the current funding crisis being faced by Ontario children's aid societies. Fully one half of the province's children's aid societies are experiencing budget deficits at a time when many are also reporting unprecedented increases in their child care case loads.

Metro area societies, including Halton, Peel, York, Durham and Simcoe, have seen their resources strained to the very limit, largely as a result of huge population growth throughout their regions. The Halton Children's Aid Society has experienced an 11% increase in its case load over that in 1989 in terms of monthly days of care. It also has 12.5% more children under its care than it had two years ago.

As my colleague the member for Markham said in this House on 27 March, the children's aid society has undergone review after review and each time the consensus has been that its base budget fails to reflect the reality of its needs. We are talking about children who are incest survivors, victims of abuse, who resort in record numbers to suicide. It is hard to believe that the Premier could say "no more funding" to these children and yet say yes to civil service employees, who receive a 6.1% increase.

I call on the NDP government to stop victimizing the children of Ontario, who are more vulnerable today than they have ever been. It is a time for this NDP Minister of Community and Social Services to deal openly and fairly with the children's aid societies of this province to address the needs of children, the modern victims of the NDP government's misplaced priorities.

HAMILTON REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Abel: Today being Earth Day, it seems appropriate to use this time to congratulate the Hamilton Regional Conservation Authority, which is this year celebrating its 25th anniversary.

Since its establishment in 1966 as the successor to the Spencer Creek Conservation Authority, the HRCA has assumed the responsibility for conserving, restoring, developing and managing the natural resources of its 479-square-kilometre watershed.

Conservation education programs are provided for children from kindergarten through grade 13 throughout the school year. In the summer, popular conservation camps continue the educational process. These programs, centred mainly in the picturesque 1,000-hectare Dundas Valley Conservation Area, teach the importance of conservation to approximately 12,000 children each year.

The lands managed by the HRCA range from quiet, passive, environmentally sensitive areas to the more intensively developed areas such as Christies, Valens, Fifty Point and Confederation Park. Each year an estimated one million people visit these areas to swim, fish, picnic, cross-country-ski, hike and simply enjoy nature. We thank the HRCA and extend our congratulations for 25 years of successful conservation.

1350

VISITOR

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce Dr Dave Mason, who is visiting here from the University of Alberta and sitting in the members' gallery today.

He is the first deaf person to graduate from a school for the deaf and he eventually earned his PhD from the University of Alberta. He is presently working at the Alberta School for the Deaf; he has been there for 25 years and is now a professor at the University of Alberta. We would like to thank him for being with us here in the House. I would like to present Dr Mason.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make a statement concerning Earth Day.

Agreed to.

EARTH DAY

Hon Mrs Grier: Today is Earth Day and the start of Earth Week in Ontario. Earth Day is a time for us to reflect on the state of our natural surroundings. It is a time for us to renew our commitment to the restoration and protection of the environment for the generations to follow. Special activities to celebrate the Earth have been planned for communities all across Ontario.

The activities in the Metropolitan Toronto area alone are a litany of commitment and creativity and are representative of what is happening everywhere. They include tree planting along the Don River. There is also to be a tree planting at the Humber Arboretum, followed by a nature walk. The Toronto Recycling Action Committee is collecting fine papers at Nathan Phillips Square for recycling. A giant globe was carried from city hall to Queen's Park as part of the walk with the Earth, and a native festival, Project Indigenous Restoration, begins with teachings and ceremonial dancing and concludes with a concert at the Royal Alexandra Theatre.

I have had an opportunity this past week to see at first hand some of the excellent work people are doing. Last Thursday I was on hand for the Recycling Council of Ontario's waste minimization awards. These awards honour the efforts of individuals, businesses, governments, schools and other institutions.

I would like to give special mention to the winners in the individual categories. B. J. Frid won the junior category for singlehandedly starting a recycling program in his grandparents' 10-storey apartment complex. Jeanette Anbinder was honoured for her lifelong commitment to the environment, beginning in the 1960s when she helped found the Unionville recycling depot. In fact, her station wagon was the town's first depot.

Last Friday I spoke to the students at West Humber Collegiate for their symposium on the environment. The students have shown a keen interest in the environment and, following their initiative, an action report has been sent to the Etobicoke Board of Education proposing to make West Humber Collegiate an environmentally focused school. The school's report recognizes the close relationship between the environment and all other disciplines and proposes to make environment an integral part of its entire curriculum. The board has appointed a full-time environmental co-ordinator for the school.

On Saturday 200 people joined the Citizens for a Lakeshore Trail, and David Crombie and I announced the proposed route for the waterfront trail along the shore of Lake Ontario from Hamilton to Port Hope. These and many other events and activities on Earth Day represent simple, hands-on approaches to environmental restoration and protection.

On a more fundamental level, though, many people have begun to address the root of environmental problems. Just this morning I met with more than 300 executives, academics, private citizens, native representatives and others at a meeting of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy. The purpose of the round table is to develop strategies to make environmental considerations a key component to all economic planning.

This approach echoes one of the four principles upon which this government is basing its environmental strategy: We are firmly committed to making environmental concerns part of all our policies and programs throughout all ministries and government bodies; we believe that everyone has a stake in the environment, including both the right to share in it and the responsibility for its protection; we recognize that to create an environment which can sustain our economic activities, we must transform ourselves from a consumer society to a conserver society, and we will implement action programs to clean up existing problems in our environment and develop stronger prevention strategies to head off further damage. We are moving from the traditional approach of "react and cure" to, instead, "anticipate and prevent."

This government has acted on its conviction that Ontario must become a conserver society. We have taken a strong stand by making the 3Rs, reduction, reuse and recycling, the cornerstone of our waste management strategy and efficiency in conservation the foundation of our energy policy.

I invite all the members to join me in honouring the considerable effort that has gone into today's public events. I hope as many of us as possible can take part in the continuing celebration of our planet throughout the balance of Earth Week.

Mr Ramsay: Today, Earth Day is an event being observed worldwide, and it is the global nature of Earth Day's concept that is its most important attribute. It forces us to recognize that environmental problems are in all nations and can and will affect all residents of this planet. But one seldom thinks of the effects of environmental impacts in this manner. It is most sobering to remember that this is the only planet in the universe that supports life. It is not likely we can just use this planet and move on to the next, so let's treat the Earth like we want to stay.

It is easy to point fingers and speak despairingly about high-profile environmental issues such as clear-cutting of the Amazon rain forest, the colossal damage which has occurred in eastern Europe as a result of the industrial discharges into the water, air and on to the land, the oil spills in the Mediterranean and to decry the practices in these nations. But Canada's track record on this issue is far from stellar and it has been said more than once that really enormous problems have been avoided here more by good luck than good management. We must be very careful and examine the impacts of our own lifestyles and, more important, change those activities where we can make some improvements.

There is a fundamental and important message in the phrase "think globally and act locally," which all of us in this House should constantly reflect upon. Public concern about the environment remains high. The fact that the environment remains so high on the public agenda as we are surrounded by these very tough economic times attests to the very real concern individual people have about this issue.

Once a year, Earth Day puts a focus on the environmentally friendly activities carried out daily across this province. The organizers and participants and all of the Earth Week and Earth Day events deserve our thanks and applause. However, we must not forget all of the people who work so hard to protect our environment and try to make Ontario a better and healthier place to live. The people who work the environment-related programs of ministries such as Natural Resources, Environment, Health and Energy do not get the credit they deserve, nor do the researchers in the private sector, trying to invent the processes or projects which will leave a lighter footprint upon the earth.

We must also recognize the contributions of citizen groups, whether it is a neighbourhood committee in a small town in Ontario helping to clean up and rehabilitate a river valley or a large organization asking the very hard questions about the effect of a project on the environment.

There are literally thousands of individual citizens in this province, young and old, volunteering their time and skills to help protect the environment. It is to these people, whether they sit on a local committee, march in a parade, fill a bag with trash from a ravine or plant a tree, that we all owe our greatest debt, and I am very pleased that we in the Legislature are recognizing Earth Day today and, more important, the people who not only care about but are actively trying to protect our environment.

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, I am pleased to stand in support of Earth Day and, along with pretty well every other politician who wants to get elected municipally and again in the future, to understand the value of Earth Day and what it means to the future.

It has been a great weekend, and in Markham we even handed out a few shirts to a few people: "Keeping the Country in our Town."

I would like to quote Oscar Wilde, who once said, "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." Given the state of Ontario's environment, this province must be very experienced indeed. Stop and think for a moment just what restraints our environmental carelessness has put on all our lives. Would any of us be so foolish as to attempt to swim in Lake Ontario? Of course not. It has been a very long time since anyone swam in that lake without fear of toxins and raw sewage.

What about the rivers that flow into that poor lake? The hapless Don River starts in the increasingly threatened Oak Ridges moraine. It flows over Lord knows how many garbage dumps, including Keele Valley, the largest, and then it goes down the Don Valley and dumps its contents into the lake. All the rivers in the Metro Toronto area are sick. It is really something when we must warn our children to stay away from the rivers and lakes because they are harmful. One can only wonder what insidious effects this has on the minds of our young, how they are literally taught to fear the natural landscape that my own children and the member for Durham East's and other generations' would have taken for granted.

1400

I know that criticism comes easier than craftsmanship, but I cannot help but be stirred by the Minister of the Environment's promises. She has promised us a great deal, no less than an environment reborn, and I, more than anyone else, expect to see this promise kept. So far the minister has poked and prodded at the mess of the environment, but I am afraid to say that I have seen little of substance really done. She has pirouetted and backtracked on the philosophical position of where a given community's garbage is to be disposed of, for the benefit of a few groups who support her. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to come to terms with living on more garbage because we were not among the favoured to be allowed to ship it elsewhere.

What is missing is an all-encompassing plan, a roadmap we can all agree on and follow. For a party which once brought a bill into this House called the environmental Magna Carta, such a sweeping gesture should be second nature. Whatever she cares to call it -- an environmental budget, or perhaps her party's five-year plan -- it should address all the environmental concerns in this province and give us a comprehensive plan to solve them. This was long promised to us while the member was in opposition, yet as of late all we have seen from the minister are piecemeal and even contradictory solutions. The minister should do this, and do this soon.

Two generations have grown up in fear of their environment, and indeed nature itself. The Minister of the Environment should make a pledge to all of us that before the next Earth Day arrives, she will have a comprehensive plan for the environment for us to judge and support. To quote Oscar Wilde again: "Children begin by loving their parents; as they grow older, they judge them; sometimes they are forgiven." We have been judged and found wanting. Now let us work to be forgiven.

The Speaker: I appreciate members sending me notes from time to time inquiring about procedures in the House. Regrettably, I must inform the member for Durham Centre that I am not able to comply with his request to announce that the member for Frontenac-Addington is now a grandfather for the first time, as of Saturday 20 April, his first grandchild being Morgan Elizabeth Harwood. I cannot make that announcement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Hon Ms Ziemba: In the aftermath of the war in the Gulf, we have witnessed the human misery that results from war. I am sure all members will share my concern with the plight of the victims of war, of which the most recent example is the tragic situation of the Iraqi refugees, including Kurds and Shiites.

As members will know, the International League of Red Cross Societies has launched a worldwide appeal for monetary assistance, and its Ontario division has been sending the Ontario government status reports on its activities in the Gulf region.

In keeping with the province's practice of providing relief assistance in emergency situations like this, I would like to inform the House that the government of Ontario will provide a cash donation of $200,000 to the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross Society. The Canadian Red Cross has already sent help to Iraqi refugees, and we know that this donation from the government will help the Red Cross in its relief activities.

We should also acknowledge the efforts being made by other community organizations. It is very heartening and encouraging that individuals and groups have seized this initiative. Canadians wanting to make a contribution towards the Red Cross relief efforts should make a donation at any office of the Canadian Red Cross, earmarked "Persian Gulf Crisis." For more information they can call the Red Cross at 890-1000, or write to 5700 Cancross Court, Mississauga, Ontario.

ANGELINE DEL COL

Hon Ms Akande: For the past five years, my ministry, with the assistance of Volunteer Ontario, has been honouring volunteers, the backbone of our social service agencies in the province, with Community Service Awards.

Each year one person is selected from the list of 40 Community Service Award recipients to receive the minister's award as Volunteer of the Year. I am delighted to be able to introduce the Volunteer of the Year for 1990, Angeline Del Col of Windsor.

Today, Angeline -- or Angie, as she prefers to be called -- is seated in the east gallery along with her daughter-in-law Carol. Angie represents all the wonderful volunteers, young and old, from all sectors in the community, who are committed to improving the quality of life for someone in their community. She represents thousands of senior citizens who were volunteers while they were raising their own families and continue to be active volunteers in their retirement.

Angie has never said, "I've done enough; let the young people do their share." That is not her way. It is not her nature to rationalize that she has done her share of giving, especially when she can see the need of the children who come into the care of the Essex County Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society. These are the children who are the victims of neglect, deprivation and abuse, children who have become "unmanageable" because of their mental or emotional disabilities. Angie will step in and calm the child whom others have refused to transport or care for because of the child's behavioural problems.

Twice a month she provides respite care for the foster mother of a physically disabled, non-verbal child. Regardless of the weather conditions, Angie has driven this child for special treatment in London, Kitchener and even Brampton, over 350 kilometres from Windsor. There have been times when she has volunteered to drive seven days a week and sometimes 12 hours a day.

Angie is particularly sensitive to the children who have been sexually abused. Some of the abused teenagers came into the agency's care at age four or five. Over the years, while driving them to treatment programs, a positive, trusting relationship has evolved between Angie and these children.

In one instance the CAS professionals believe that this special relationship between Angie and a frightened, despondent teenaged girl may have prevented the child from taking her own life. On that day the Windsor region was in the grip of a winter storm that kept many people indoors. While driving this teenager back from treatment, Angie could see that she was terribly depressed. Instead of driving straight home, they stopped at a doughnut shop and they talked. That simple act was enough to convince the youngster that she was lovable and valued, especially by Angie.

This caring woman has worked with the children's aid society for nine years, and I am told that a number of her suggestions for the improvement of programming within the agency have been put into practice. But to listen to Angie tell her story, you would think that she was the recipient of special privileges at the agency.

Since 1981, every infant adopted through the agency has been picked up at the hospital by Angie and delivered to the adoptive parents. Up to now, nine years later, parents remember how Angie wept with happiness along with them as she delivered their new family member.

She is truly a remarkable person. A widow for 15 years, Angie is devoted to the families of her three sons, their seven children, and to her own mother, who is 94. Every day she visits the nursing home to assist her mother at mealtimes. However, last August Angie had to take time off for major surgery. Six weeks later, between her own therapy appointments, Angie was back helping at the agency, as well as caring for her mother.

Angie, you are a marvellous inspiration to all of us. I am deeply honoured to have this opportunity to say how proud we are of you and of the volunteers that you represent this day. On behalf of the people of Ontario, thank you.

1410

RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Mr Offer: It is my pleasure to respond to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship. First, I think it is important to underline our full support of this announcement. I think it is also important to recognize, and all members of this House should recognize, that it was the member for Parkdale who first brought this issue to the Legislature last week. In his statement, he asked the government and the Premier and the Minister of Citizenship to make a statement to this effect, helping the Kurdish people who are in such a terrible plight at this time.

I do not think that anyone in this Legislature is not moved by the news reports and indeed the pictures of the plight of the Kurdish people, especially the children, and the trials and tribulations that they are going through. Although, as I indicated earlier, we fully support this announcement, we also believe that there is another opportunity for this government -- indeed, if not an opportunity then an obligation, an obligation to do more.

In previous disaster situations, and I think back to the Jamaican and the Armenian ones, previous governments provided not just dollars, but where appropriate supplies. I believe it is fitting in this case for this government to take a look at whether there is that opportunity to provide not just dollars but supplies such as beds, tents and sheets. So many of those things which we take for granted are indeed things that are badly needed at this point in time.

I support this announcement. We harken back to the statement by the member for Parkdale and we ask this government not only to look at the forwarding of dollars to those who are so badly in need, but also to seriously consider the forwarding of supplies, tents, sheeting and transportation to those people, to those children, who are so badly in need.

ANGELINE DEL COL

Mr Beer: I want to rise and on behalf the official opposition thank Angeline Del Col for all of the work that she has done, and through her to thank the so many thousands of volunteers who work not only with the Ministry of Community and Social Services or through the various transfer payment agencies, but indeed the volunteers who work in programs throughout the province.

It was my pleasure a year ago to have the opportunity to meet the Volunteer of the Year and indeed to go around the province and meet with many volunteers who worked within the community and social service area. I think one of the greatest things for us as legislators is when we get out and we have that opportunity to meet the hundreds and thousands of people who work, like Angie does, with all the different community-based groups and organizations.

We realize that there is simply no way in which government would be able to provide all of those services. It is always very difficult to say thank you because it is a phrase which we use so often. But I think through honouring the Volunteer of the Year and indeed through honouring all of the volunteers who will be present at the four or five regional dinners at which the ministry thanks all those who help, that Angie would understand that in paying tribute to her and to all of her good works, we are also paying tribute to all of those other countless volunteers without whom this province would not be the kind of province that it is.

Again, on behalf of our party, I want to thank Angie for all her work and to thank all of the volunteers who have given so much of their time and effort.

ASSISTANCE TO KURDS

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, I would like to compliment the minister for the efforts that she is taking behalf of the government, for the concern that they are showing to the Iraqi refugees.

I think there are times in our society when we think we are hard done by, but when we see on TV the anguish and the suffering, the pain, the sorrow, the death that is going on among the Kurds, we just cannot stand by and not do something. I congratulate her.

I also commend the government for choosing the Red Cross as the distributor of the fund. The Red Cross was there first after the war to pick up some of the pieces, and so often we just take the Red Cross for granted. The fact that the government is allowing its money to flow through the Red Cross is again a good statement of how government and a community agency can work together to achieve their objectives without government trying to do it all by itself.

I hope that the people of Ontario who have the resources, as they have done with the food banks and other things, will help people who cannot help themselves. I hope that all of us who are in a position to do something to help the people who are suffering in Iraq and Iran and on the Turkish border, the Kurds, are doing what they can personally and sending their contribution to the Red Cross.

I was delighted that in her announcement the minister indicated the Red Cross phone number and I will repeat it. If someone wants to know how to give to this worthy cause, the Red Cross is at 416-890-1000. I thank the government and I compliment it. I am proud that both our provincial and federal governments are doing something to heed to the need of these people.

ANGELINE DEL COL

Mr Jackson: I am pleased, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to acknowledge the welcome presence of Angeline Del Col in the Legislature today and to congratulate her for receiving Ontario's Volunteer of the Year award.

We recognize from having met her and reading the résumé provided by the minister that we are dealing with a woman of great compassion and understanding for the needs of many of the vulnerable citizens in our society, and particularly those most vulnerable, who are our children. We agree that no more worthy recipient has been chosen.

However, it is important to note that Angie is here also representing the Essex County Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society as the fortunate association which benefits from her extensive commitment and her volunteering experience. It is worthy of note that there is a current crisis in this province with respect to the funding of children's aid societies.

With the increased demand of children who, as the minister has stated in her announcement, are victims of neglect, deprivation and abuse, children who have become unmanageable because of their mental or emotional disabilities, today in Ontario there are over 10,000 children on waiting lists for mental health services. We know that the deficits being experienced in our children's aid societies were projected last February at around $36 million, and some suggest it may be as high as $50 million as of this very moment. What that means is that thousands of children who are victims of sexual abuse and other emotional distresses are resorting to record numbers of suicides in this province, and that is a matter which has been raised.

If there is anything I have ever learned about human nature, if there is anything I know about the volunteer sector as embodied by the most worthy recipient today, it is that these people would willingly trade all of the wonderful acknowledgements and awards and all that recognition if we could finally get through to government that government has laws to ensure the protection of individuals, especially those most vulnerable, especially our children in need. The volunteer sector would willingly trade those accolades for the necessary funding to ensure that we remain a compassionate province and that we are there to help serve the needs of those children who are in such dire straits.

Although I cannot speak for the worthy recipient, I am quite convinced that, given her commitment to those children in the Windsor area, she very much represents the hope and desire that this government, like all governments, will put the appropriate priority on the needs of children in our society.

CABINET MEMBERS

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Before the next order of business, would you not agree with mc that it would be appropriate if the head of the government, on rearranging his cabinet just a couple of hours ago, might in fact make some reasonable statement to the House about those new arrangements? We could perhaps use time of question period to ask him about the usefulness of doubling up the responsibility of the Minister of Health with the Chairman of Management Board, but of course any difficulties in that regard remain to be seen. He has even arranged it so that we do not have an opportunity to express our congratulations and wish them well if that sort of a feeling were to surge to the surface.

It just occurs to me that while this is the second time this has occurred, and I am not looking forward to it happening again, it is useful if the head of the government, even though he has announced these things to the press and even though it is on something called e-mail, might very well indicate to the House what these changes are and what the justifications are for them.

Far be it from me to tell him how to do his job. I have never done it and never will. But it suggests to me, Mr Speaker, as a point of order, that it would be useful if all of the House were given the advantage of a formal announcement of the head of the government.

The Speaker: I appreciate the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. He may know that this is not really a procedural matter. It is at the discretion of the Premier to make announcements, indeed to make a statement in the House. That is at his choice.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Nixon: If I may direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who was in her place a moment ago or will be back in a moment -- perhaps as she is not in her place at this moment I will direct it to the Premier. Since the best efforts of the Minister of Labour and the Treasurer have resulted now in about 569,000 people in the province being unemployed, and just as important and perhaps even more tragic, 909,000 people in Ontario in receipt of social assistance of some form or another, can the Premier indicate what further efforts are going to be undertaken so that the money that is made available from the Treasury is going to be directed towards those communities where the impact of this recession, which seems to be going longer and deeper than expected, can be more effectively mitigated?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me answer very directly to the Leader of the Opposition by saying that, first of all, one of the things that has become clear to us is that our own welfare system has become a kind of secondary form of unemployment insurance for thousands of people in the province. This is not what was intended.

It is because of two things: first of all, the severity of the recession, which is the most serious recession we have experienced in its impact since the Second World War; and second the changes not to say cuts in programs at the federal level in terms of unemployment insurance, which have in fact -- and I can show this objectively to the people of the province -- substantially increased the expenditures we have to make.

We are making those expenditures, first of all, in the form of income support -- that is the first fundamental thing that needs to be done, and that commitment on our part is very clear; second, in ensuring that the system is working better. We appointed a committee as soon as we were elected to get the SARC reforms back on track, and that is something which we are looking at very closely as I speak.

Finally, it is important to stress that it is not widely known, but the ministry which spends more money on retraining than any other ministry within the government is the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which right now is spending $300 million-plus on training and retraining in order to give people the skills that they need in order to get back into the workforce.

Mr Nixon: If I may just reiterate my comments that the unemployment levels at over 500,000 and the welfare rolls at something less than 900,000 are matters that we would all agree, and certainly the Premier has indicated this, are matters of most serious proportions. I think the concern that I would like to put to the Premier in a supplementary question is, how can he explain why communities like Cambridge, where the welfare case load has increased by 80% and over 500 jobs have been lost in the last six months, received less than 0.5% of the special allocation of the Treasurer's funds that were designed to assist those most directly hit by the recession?

I cannot make that point any clearer than that, other than to say that the Minister of Community and Social Services was not involved, it appears, in any way in advising the Treasurer and the Minister of Labour in directing the money to where it was needed. I simply reiterate that all the statistics available from the government would indicate that the money is not sent to where it is needed but to where the press releases would have perhaps the most political impact.

The question is: Why did they really not give the money to the Minister of Community and Social Services so that the money would be directed to where her case load is growing most rapidly and is having the most immediate effect on the community?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that unemployment insurance rates and indeed welfare rates were two of the criteria which were very explicitly dealt with and very explicitly the criteria that the Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Chairman of Management Board and all those who were involved in making the decisions as to where and how the $700 million would be spent, dealt with. Those criteria were very explicit parts of the agenda, very explicitly dealt with, so when the Leader of the Opposition says they could not have been taken into account, he is simply wrong.

Mr Nixon: I certainly accept the advice offered by the Premier as correct and at face value, but the numbers simply do not support his contention that I am wrong. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers have provided us with a very capable research component and those fine young men and women have spent a good deal of time relating the very things that the Premier says have been carried out effectively by his ministers.

Our statistics show there is no relationship whatsoever with the allocation of the $700 million with the need in the community. As a matter of fact, if a person were perverse in his or her observation of these matters, you would think that the Minister of Community and Social Services had no part to play whatsoever and that the Treasurer somehow simply drew numbers out of a hat and sent the money around the province on that basis.

So I would say that Cambridge is not an isolated case. In Dufferin-Peel the welfare case load has increased 120%. In Brant county, God save us, the welfare case load has increased 71%. In Peel it has increased 91%, and in York region the increase is over 100%. In each instance the allocation from the Treasury has been in the order of 1% or less of the $700 million.

I would simply ask the Premier again to see that those statistics are reviewed and to indicate to the House why there is no appropriate relationship.

Hon Mr Rae: We think there is. For example, the Leader of the Opposition talks about the rate of the increase. I can tell him that despite the fact that the rate of the increase, for example in York region, is high, the absolute numbers in terms of the relationship between the number of unemployed and the overall workforce still is much lower in York region than it is in many parts of northern Ontario. Northern Ontario receives 30% of the allocation of the funds that were there. The Windsor area has been particularly hard hit, where there was not only a very substantial increase in the number but the absolute number is very large. We have tried to respond to need as effectively as we can.

I find it ironic that the Leader of the Opposition spent the first few months saying we were not doing anything, and now that he realizes we have done something, he says we have done the wrong thing. Well, there you are. We cannot please everybody.

Mr Nixon: The Premier obviously pleases some people but he does not please me, because his $700 million is going to create only enough jobs to compensate for the jobs lost in two weeks of the economic management that he has provided, and of course we are not pleased with that.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Nixon: I have an interest in another matter that is of special interest when we know what is going to happen to us or when we, let's say, look forward to what is going to happen to us a week from today at 4 o'clock in the afternoon if the Treasurer is permitted to present his budget.

He is aware that the constituency of Brant-Haldimand has a large number of tobacco growers. He is aware also of other associations with the tobacco-marketing business that are associated with my constituency.

I was interested in reading about the projected results of the large increase in the tobacco tax from the federal level, particularly since there is a possibility that there might be even further adjustments next week, although it is very difficult to imagine that that could happen. It now appears that there is a tremendous loss of revenue because of the sale of untaxed cigarettes and smuggled cigarettes. As a matter of fact, there is some indication at the federal level that the loss of revenue across Canada, federally and provincially, is something like $900 million. If this were to be prorated into this province, it is possible that that loss would be $300 million, but of course there is no way of the people knowing.

I would like to put a question to the Minister of Revenue and ask her if she has any information as to what the effects not just of the federal budget but the cumulative effects of the increase in taxation and the reduction of sales would have on our revenues, particularly as we see evidence, and it is reported day by day, of cigarettes without taxes paid being on the market very readily.

1430

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I am very much aware of the impact of a tobacco tax and also the impact of tobacco smuggling. I am very concerned about this problem and the impact it is having on our lost revenues right now in the province. As the member is aware, these revenues are essential for funding for health care programs, as an example.

To combat this problem of tobacco smuggling, the Ministry of Revenue recently has begun a retail inspection program and the sanctions provided by the Tobacco Tax Act will be enforced. As well, the ministry is working with federal law enforcement agencies to investigate the larger-scale evasion schemes.

Mr Nixon: Since there is some indication that the loss may be $300 million during this coming year, which is much more than significant since if applied to many of these programs that are referred to day by day in question period it would be very useful indeed, and since the province of Ontario has introduced a rather expensive tobacco package marketing scheme, would the minister explain why there has been no inspection and no enforcement that is perceived in the community in any way? Can she explain why her revenue officials have not taken any action in this regard, and if it is possible, perhaps she might indicate if there have been any charges laid on the basis of the new marking procedure.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: My staff are made aware of smuggling that has happened only when somebody has informed them or when they know about it. They are out there doing inspections, but they can find out about particular ones only when they are reported. When it became obvious and apparent in the newspapers that there was smuggling going on, my staff were on it right away and are investigating some of those instances now.

Mr Nixon: I am aware the Ministry of Revenue has spent advertising funds encouraging people to report on any retailers who may be selling tax-free or unnaturally low-priced cigarettes. I know all smoking members of this Legislature would be quick to report if they found a place where they could buy them at reduced cost. But it may be that the minister and her officials are somewhat naïve in this respect, and for her to have a campaign asking people to rat on their retailer -- I think that is the slogan or something like it -- in my view is a waste of money and probably accounts for the reason the amount of money the honourable minister is losing is mounting up very rapidly. Can she assure the House that we are going to have an enforcement and inspection program that is going to reduce this possible $300 million in loss for the benefit of the Treasurer, who is in such dire need these days.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Like the Leader of the Opposition, we are very concerned about our revenues and we will do what we can to make sure we do not lose revenues, particularly through the tobacco tax.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harris: My question is to the Attorney General. I was shocked this weekend to learn that a manslaughter case had been stayed as a result of last October's Askov decision. I was also shocked that there was no statement from the Attorney General today expressing his viewpoint on this case or explaining to us why this was allowed to happen, either the time it took to get the case there or the lack of action on his part.

I know an appeal has been launched, but quite frankly that response is just is not good enough. A man has died. His family deserves to see justice done and quite frankly the integrity of the justice system, as the minister knows, is deteriorating daily when the threat of deterrence is diminished. Will the Attorney General tell this House why he failed to instruct the crown attorney to bring forward a motion to preserve this charge?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not know in what context the leader of the third party has concocted a motion to preserve the charge. The fact of the matter is that crown attorneys around the province are scheduling trials as soon as they may be tried. They are scheduling the most serious cases as soon as they can be. The fact of the matter is also that the charge in question was a very complicated charge. It required at least nine days of hearings: it required some 80 witnesses and trying to find time to schedule such a complex matter is somewhat difficult.

The crown attorney who is responsible for the prosecution of this charge in Ottawa has placed all of that information on the public record and that is where the matter stands at this time.

Mr Harris: We are not talking here about a minor offence, we are talking about a brutal beating. The Attorney General's own crown attorney says that it is just this type of case which really affects the public's confidence in the justice system.

Over five months ago, the Attorney General promised that the more serious charges would be advanced to earlier hearing dates. Clearly, he is to blame for the fact that this did not occur in this particular case. He is the one who made the commitment, he is the one who made the statement; he is the one who made the promise and he told us this would happen.

Quite simply, I would ask the Attorney General, did he have any knowledge of this case prior to last Friday and if he did not, why did he not?

Hon Mr Hampton: To point out to the leader of the third party again, all charges in the province were reviewed to move as many serious charges forward as could possibly be moved. However, even in the Askov judgement, and I invite the leader of the third party to read it, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges there will be complex cases which may require greater than eight months to bring to trial. I would suggest to the leader of the third party that a charge which involves some 80 witnesses and which requires at least nine days to hear is such a complex case. In fact, we will look at appealing this charge on exactly the basis that it is a complex case within the criteria set down in the Askov judgement.

Mr Harris: Clearly, as I asked the Attorney General in the first question, if he felt time was becoming a problem, he could bring a motion before the judge asking to move this case up. I asked him in the first question why he did not do that. He did not appear to understand he even had the power to do that, but it is the Attorney General who made this promise and it is his department that is to carry out this promise.

The Speaker: Is this the second question?

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, it is the Attorney General's responsibility to make sure the serious cases are being heard. The quote from the defence lawyer himself in Saturday's Globe and Mail says it all. He says, "If there's blame to be attached, it's squarely at the feet of the Attorney General's office."

The Attorney General's promises of last November are clearly not worth the paper they are written on. Victims and their families certainly do not take much comfort in them. The Attorney General is responsible for the justice system in this province. Since assurances of five months ago are obviously out the window, what assurances can he give us that we can have any faith in that system, because quite frankly we have seen nothing so far to give us any kind of encouragement?

Hon Mr Hampton: The leader of the third party seems to place a lot of faith in the comments and opinions of the defence counsel in this case. To set the record straight, and I recognize the third party might not want to hear this information, on the date that the Askov judgement came down, there were some 212,000 charges outstanding in the system. Some of those charges were over two years old. In fact, the Askov judgement itself relates to a date when there was a Conservative government in this province. That is how old the backlog is.

Interjections.

1440

The Speaker: I am quite confident all of us remember our quest from last week that we want to get a lot of questions and responses in and keep them succinct.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I intend to be able to hear both the questions and the replies. Would the Attorney General respond?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I was saying, on the date that the Askov judgement came down on 12 October, there was a backlog of some 212,000 charges. Since that date, the court system in Ontario has been able to deal with 117,000 charges in six months.

The leader of the third party asks what confidence people can have in the justice system in the province. I want to point this out to him. Since the Askov judgement came down, which is approximately the time that we became the government, 98.8% of all charges that have been laid are scheduled for trial within eight months. That is better than his government ever did and better than the previous Liberal government ever could have done.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Cousens: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. There is some degree of disappointment today on this side of the House. Today we in this province join hands with people around the world in commemoration of Earth Day. The Minister of the Environment, while obviously sincere in her remarks earlier, has missed an excellent opportunity to bring forth substantive initiatives by her ministry.

It has become very clear to us that the range of issues she has wanted to tackle has been reduced dramatically. Therefore, will the minister tell this House which of the following projects are today, at this very moment, currently under consideration by cabinet: the environmental bill of rights, amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, regulations on pesticide use, a Safe Drinking Water Act, amendments to the clean air program and regulations on waste reduction?

Does the minister not think she owes it to the people of Ontario at least to let them know what her priorities are? Does she have at least one piece of legislation that is before cabinet today, yes or no?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the member realizes I am not able to tell him what issues are before cabinet or on the cabinet agenda, but let me assure the member that all of the issues he has enumerated are very much on the agenda of this government and of my ministry.

Mr Cousens: When teachers mark tests, if you say, "Yes or no, is any one of those initiatives before cabinet today?" -- the minister did not answer it. They are all on the government's agenda somewhere, but they are not before cabinet and that is the problem.

I would like to refer to the minister's announcements regarding waste reduction and the whole issue of waste disposal. This minister has flip-flopped on which community can transport its garbage outside its boundaries, this minister has ruled out incineration as an option for dealing with solid municipal waste and this minister has told us she will meet diversion targets by 25% in 1992 and 50% by the year 2000. And yet this same minister still has not introduced one measure that indicates how her ministry plans on dealing with the waste crisis.

During estimates I asked a number of questions, along with the member for Renfrew North, which were supposed to be answered by 12 March. That is over a month ago. Most of those questions were answered. However, one in particular was not answered at all. My staff has called numerous times to get an answer from the minister's department regarding this question.

Today I will ask her the same question in the House that I asked her in estimates well over a month ago. Which communities, most notably in the greater Toronto area, will run out of landfill capacity in the next year, the next three years and the next five years? If you cannot answer me this specific question, how in the world can we believe that you have a credible strategy on waste reduction?

Hon Mrs Grier: I have a very credible strategy on waste reduction and, in fact, I am disappointed in the tone of the member's question.

He has stood in this House and called upon the government, whether it be that government or this government, to get serious about waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling. I think he does know that we are more serious and we have taken more action and we have made more progress on waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling than any other government before us.

Mrs Marland: We had really hoped that at least on Earth Day we might have had an answer from the Minister of the Environment, and it is a big disappointment that we do not have that.

When this minister talks about an agenda and when she talks about a credible strategy, she had better start looking at her cabinet ministers and the rest of her government members because we have a situation in this province which is no longer just a garbage crisis; it is emerging into a number of other areas.

An example I will give her is the land freeze around the region of Peel Britannia landfill site. That land freeze is now causing at least one million labour hours lost, so we are talking about a labour crisis as a result of this minister's inaction. The more they delay the development of land adjacent to that site, the longer it will be before we have approximately 5,000 units for housing being built in that proximity.

My question is that this minister has one policy and it seems to be inconsistency. Will she explain to this House her policy on shipping municipal waste outside of the municipality in question? Is the GTA no-shipping decision her policy? Is the Kingston ship-to-Ottawa decision her policy? For that matter, does she have a consistent policy, or does she plan to compound the confusion by deciding each case on an ad hoc basis?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me try once again to make very clear the waste management policy of this government.

It starts with the 3Rs, and I have enumerated on countless occasions what we have done and how we are moving and how effective that policy is being and how very popular that policy is and how very environmentally sound that policy is.

We recognize, no matter how much we reduce, reuse and recycle, there will be a residue, and for that disposal sites are required. Instead of taking easy, out of sight out of mind solutions, we are looking for long-term answers. We have said in the case of the GTA that the long-term disposal site will be within the boundaries of the GTA.

The crisis did not start on 1 October; it was there when we took office, and we are indeed, as the member says, having to look at each particular crisis and make the best environmentally sound decision to deal with each particular situation in the short term. That is what we have done; that is what we will continue to do.

TERMINATION AGREEMENT

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Premier of the province. It concerns a copyright article in the Kingston Whig-Standard entitled "Secret Bonus Muzzled Fired NDP Staffer," written by Michael Woloschuk and Bill Hutchinson, and it deals with an issue surrounding the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, who was quoted as saying that he has an issue which "Bob Rae is going to find quite a concern."

Mr Speaker, can you get the Premier back -- oh, there he is. "Peekaboo Bob" is doing his stuff.

I am sure the Premier will know that the Premier's chief assistant, David Reville, has negotiated on behalf of the Premier and the NDP caucus a secret legal agreement to silence a disaffected constituency worker in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. When asked about the agreement, Mr Reville is quoted as saying, "It's a mystery that you'll have to live with."

1450

Will the Premier release the contents of the agreement so that the taxpaying public can find out what they are paying for?

Hon Mr Rae: No. The member, I am sure, would recognize that there are situations which everyone is involved in from time to time in which there are employment disputes and in which people, after negotiations and after a period of discussion, agree that employment will be terminated, and there are certain discussions which take place and a settlement was arrived in this situation.

I can say to the member that it happens with his members, it happens with Conservative Party members and it happens with our members. There are situations, I am sure, where people have left his employ and there has been an agreement that a settlement will be arrived at and that the terms of the settlement will not be discussed by the parties. That is not an unusual situation. It is a very common situation in public life and in private life, and it is not the least bit unusual.

Mr Elston: I thank the Premier for his answer. It is what we are beginning to expect from him and this group of people when it comes to dealing with taxpayers' money. The Premier's secret agreement carries a hefty price for the taxpayer, and this is a price that the MPP for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings described as being exorbitant. One finds that if you are fired from the NDP caucus after working for only three months plus a few days, you can make between $10,000 and $15,000 in severance and vacation pay. According to a labour management specialist at Queen's University, most workers in Ontario would have to work for 15 years to get that much severance.

Given the desperate financial situation that many people find themselves in in the province of Ontario, can the Premier tell us that he finds the size of the payment and the reasons for the payment acceptable to him?

Hon Mr Rae: I am not going to get into the details of every employment agreement that is reached by members, any more than I would dream of doing so in his case. I find it ironic: The Leader of the Opposition says that he is more worried about the state of the economy and about what is happening about the big picture than anyone else. Perhaps it might be reflected in some of the questions coming from members opposite with regard to this.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The rules of the House clearly preclude members like the Premier, although he slips day by day, from imputing motives and doing things like he has just done with us there. His small-mindedness is becoming very difficult to accept when we all have bigger issues to deal with, but when he wants to cover up taxpayers' money being spent on hush deals, that is a big problem.

The Speaker: I listened very closely, and the language was not tempered. The member will also realize that that is not a point of order.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. On page 1 of the NDP report entitled Highway Robbery, which he co-authored and presented to the Osborne commission in 1987, he stated, "We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

On page 17 of the same document, the Premier wrote that, "New Democrats are opposed to the loss of individual legal rights" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I suppose when we have the weekend off we come back well-rested, keen and eager, ready to jump into the fray, but the honourable member for Willowdale is patiently waiting to place his question.

Mr Harnick: On page 1 of the Premier's report entitled Highway Robbery, he stated, "We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

On page 17 of the same document, the Premier wrote that, "New Democrats are opposed to the loss of individual legal rights entailed by such thresholds, just as we are opposed to the wholesale elimination by so-called pure no-fault arrangements."

It is now clear, as indicated by statements made by the Treasurer at a no-fault symposium a week ago Friday in Sudbury and by the Minister of Financial Institutions when he met with a group by the name of Physicians Against the Insurance Nightmare, that the NDP is preparing to turn its back on its own policy. It is now clear that the government will break its promise and implement a pure no-fault system, complete with a tribunal and a meat chart, in which innocent accident victims are reduced to the status of supplicants who must take what the tribunal offers with no chance for individualized compensation.

My question for the Premier is this: Taking into account his total hedging on this issue in recent weeks, can he confirm that legislation to this effect has already been drafted and is simply awaiting cabinet approval?

Hon Mr Rae: I will be glad to answer that quite emphatically and clearly. I can tell him that no legislation to that effect has been drafted at all. I can tell him that he is jumping to conclusions which are quite unwarranted. I want to give him that assurance on my part, and I want to tell him, as I have said before in answer to previous questions from him and from the member for Leeds-Grenville, that this matter is under very active consideration, in terms of ensuring that we have a plan which ensures safety on the highways, which ensures access to compensation, which ensures a driver-owned plan which will be the most efficient plan available, and which ensures that innocent accident victims have access to the best possible system of compensation. That is the determination on the part of the government, and that determination still remains.

Mr Harnick: I am dismayed because the Premier talks about "access to the best possible." Well, before he was Premier, "access" was access to the courts, and one group that may be angered by the pending betrayal is the Ontario Teachers' Federation. In their submission to the standing committee on general government on 17 January of last year, the federation stated: "The right to sue is a fundamental right and is the appropriate method of seeking compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. It should be preserved for the citizens of Ontario."

On 8 February of last year, the St Catharines and District Labour Council stated that, "We also believe just as strongly that people must retain their right to sue."

In November 1990, after he was the Premier, he stated, "There will be fair access to the courts."

My question to the Premier is this, and he has been asked this question numerous times before, will he keep that promise? Not the best possible access to whatever tribunal: Will there be access to the courts for all individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents, as he promised before he was the Premier and as he has promised since becoming the Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to have to ask the member for Willowdale to show a little patience in this regard. He has a commitment from this government that legislation will be discussed fully in the House and that there will be ample opportunity for debate and discussion in the province. I will say to him again and repeat in answer to the question which he asked previously when he said, "Has legislation been drafted?" that the answer to that is emphatically no.

1500

EDUCATION POLICY

Ms Haeck: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Education. I have been meeting with groups in my area and they are very concerned about the issue of destreaming. For these groups destreaming appears to be the one way of eliminating the inequity in educational outcomes experienced by disadvantaged children in the community. My question is, how will the minister address the issue of streaming in the Ontario school system?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I thank the member for the question. This is a matter of great concern to all stakeholders in the education system. We have been in consultation on the transition years for some time and have received many responses that indicate concern. They range from those who would like us to examine the whole issue of streaming right from the very first years, right through school, to those who are very concerned about the effects on class size and on curriculum material and teaching methodology if the target set by the previous government of September 1992 is adhered to too strongly by the ministry.

Because we are in the course of those consultations and because there has been so much interest raised, we are basically telling our stakeholders that we too are committed to the notion of destreaming as one way of ensuring equity of outcomes, but that until we can be sure that we have a system that is going to operate effectively and that we are assured of successful destreaming in a way that will not be sabotaged by too large a class size or too little training in terms of teaching in that situation, we may well consider extending that deadline at the advice of our consultants.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Treasurer, and it relates to election promises. I think everybody in the province recognizes that his party's leader, during the election campaign, promised the moon. I have to agree that the government did deliver on that promise.

Hon Mr Rae: How long have you been waiting to tell that?

Mr Bradley: I have been waiting all weekend. I have a different question for the Treasurer that is near and dear to his heart, and I have a couple of quotes to go with it that I know will make the Treasurer happy. The first is from the Minister of Northern Development, who wrote a letter to the Minister of Mines in 1990 and said, "Your decision to allow Falconbridge to refine their ore offshore for the next 10 years is totally reprehensible."

The Treasurer himself said this in 1981: "To this day, every pound of ore taken out of the ground by Falconbridge is shipped to Norway for refining, for almost 50 years. That is simply outrageous."

I want to ask the Treasurer this question, which was asked by the Premier on 19 December 1985, the exact question. Why will the Treasurer "not change section 104 of the Mining Act, refuse Falconbridge any further exemptions and insist that if it has the money to buy a mine in Timmins and not add a single new job to the economy, it ought to be adding jobs to the economy by refining enough and upgrading the ore it produces here?"

Hon Mr Laughren: I am glad to see that the member for St Catharines has figured out a way to allow his leader to get him on the question period list.

I would say to the member for St Catharines that for many years I thought Falconbridge should be refining its ores, at least in Canada and preferably in Ontario, and preferably in the Sudbury basin, because it still ships those ores to Norway for refining. I was disappointed when the former government -- and members know that I am not wont to put blame on the former government for anything. However, the former government did pass an order in council that, for 10 years, gave Falconbridge the right to continue to ship its ores unrefined to Norway. I can recall thinking at the time, "Gee whiz, I hope that order in council isn't binding." Having investigated the matter fully, I find out now that it is.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer would want me to use yet another quote, and it is the Treasurer then asking a question of another Treasurer. This was 7 December 1987. He says: "All you have to do is stop the exemptions. You do not even have to amend the act, Treasurer. You do not even have to amend the Mining Act. Just enforce it and stop giving exemptions."

But that is not the question I am going to ask. The question I am going to ask on the mining industry is the following: At the 1988 NDP convention, there was a resolution that came forward that is near and dear to the heart of the Treasurer and many other members of the Legislature with an NDP background. It says, "Be it resolved that the NDP of Ontario support the immediate nationalization of Inco in Ontario; and be it further resolved that an NDP government will bring the Ontario resource corporations of Inco, Falconbridge, Rio Algom and Denison Mines into public ownership as part of the industrial strategy."

Could the Treasurer inform us when he intends to implement this NDP policy?

Hon Mr Laughren: I should tell the member he has to be patient on matters like this. I can recall very well that debate, that convention and that particular resolution.

Mr Bradley: And he supported it.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, and I can tell the member that just as I feel about the processing, I have always felt that the resources that are in the ground actually do belong to all the people and --

Mr Bradley: Now that he is in government --

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member would let me answer the question, that the maximum return should be returned to the people, particularly for those non-renewable resources. I still believe that as strongly as I ever have believed that. I would simply put to the member that we have --

Mr Sorbara: They are for sale now.

Hon Mr Laughren: In the free market, I would assume that they are for sale. I would just say to the member that as we try and cope with the very serious problems in this province, for the moment that is not one of our priorities.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As the minister is well aware, the Ontario trucking industry is experiencing severe financial difficulties. As we speak, truckers are once again feeling forced to blockade border points with the United States, because of provincial government inaction.

In recent months there has been a 156% increase in bankruptcies in the trucking industry in Ontario. Each month approximately 15 trucking companies close their doors in this province. Nine per cent of these companies are relocating to the United States. Hundreds of jobs are being lost every time a trucking company shuts down or moves to the United States.

As NDP opposition critic, the minister always expressed grave concern over the plight of Ontario's trucking industry. I ask the Minister of Transportation, is he still so concerned about the plight of Ontario truckers in this province, and if so, why has he in the past eight months since he has been in office done nothing to assist Ontario truckers?

Hon Mr Philip: It is incorrect that we have done nothing since we have taken office and I will be happy to spell out to the member exactly what we have taken.

But the transporter blockade this morning was taken by the truckers, according to their statements, for the following reasons: They said they were protesting the deregulation by the federal government, that they were protesting free trade by the federal government, that they were protesting high interest by the federal government and that they were protesting the exchange rate by the federal government.

It is no accident that the blockade is at the border. It is a transborder problem. I have indicated to the truckers that I would be happy to meet with them if they can elect some representatives to meet with me and I have said that I would be happy to speak to the Honourable Jean Corbeil, who is the new federal Minister of Transport and has some jurisdiction over this.

Mr Arnott: The minister continues to blame everyone but himself for his own failure to act. There are things that he can do. This government has been in office for eight months. How long is it going to take before the minister sheds his opposition mentality and starts to act as a responsible minister of the crown?

Hon Mr Philip: This government has acted. For example, we have recently arranged for quarterly payments of licence fees, which are helping with the cash flow of the trucking industry. We have stepped up enforcement, and indeed since I have been the minister there have been some 2,000 new charges laid against truckers who are breaking the Ministry of Revenue and fuel tax problems. We have hosted forums to deal with the transportation programs, which is exactly what the trucking industry asked for. We have accelerated programs of enforcement.

For a Conservative to cry over the state of the trucking industry is the equivalent, after what they have done, to a murderer crying at the funeral of a victim. That is what it is.

1510

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Morrow: My question is of the Solicitor General. Police in my riding of Wentworth East have been frustrated by federal legislation which requires the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime to the federal government rather than being distributed to the police force that retrieved the proceeds. Given that the police forces across the province are experiencing fiscal constraints, what is the Solicitor General going to do to enable police services to retain money and goods confiscated?

Hon Mr Farnan: This issue is of significant concern to municipal police forces across the province, and at the bottom of this issue is a basic unfairness. Proceeds from most other forms of crime are under the jurisdiction of the provincial Attorney General. However, Bill C-61 requires that the proceeds of crime related to drug offences be forfeited and disposed of by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

The significant contribution of our excellent policing service in the province of Ontario has not been recognized by the federal government. The work that they put into this area of drug enforcement has not been recognized by the federal government. If we want effective drug enforcement, then the federal government better recognize this and supply some of the funding to our municipal police forces.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Mahoney: My question is of the minister responsible for -- bear with me, it takes time to read this title -- citizenship, race relations, human rights, the disabled and senior citizens' affairs. While I call her the mother of all cabinet ministers -- I think it is appropriate with all that work -- let me try once again to get the minister's attention on behalf of senior citizens in this province.

As she is aware, the senior citizens are being discriminated against in Ontario, and frankly it is legal. The Ontario Human Rights Code does not protect them from mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement is discriminatory to all seniors and it especially disadvantages women seniors, because in many cases they have not been able to build up the financial resources to which most men have access. The majority of women have not held jobs which entitle them to private pensions. They have earned in the past only 60% of what their male counterparts earn. Also, they receive only a fraction of CPP benefits as compared to men.

Furthermore, women's work history has often been sporadic because of the demands of childbearing and childrearing. Surely the injustice of forcing seniors into unemployment simply because they have reached their 65th birthday is obvious. My question is whether the minister will end this shameful force of age discrimination which affects all seniors in this province and is particularly devastating for older women.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much for the question. I share the member's concerns about women, especially women who have come to retirement and have not been able to accumulate the pensions that men have.

I think what we have to look at is that we want to make sure that all people -- and our government is committed -- can retire in comfort and dignity with independence. One of the things that we must do and we have started to do is to make sure that pay equity is in force so that women are not earning 60% of the income that men earn. We also are making sure that we have employment equity so that all people, whether it is visible minorities, women or persons with disabilities, are able to again have income that is suitable for retirement in the long run. We are also making sure that we do have opportunities for all, in the form of making sure that pensions are looked at, and we are looking at pension security and income security as well.

The issue is very broad and very concerning and I do share with the member those concerns of the people who are now, unfortunately, reaching retirement. It is very unfortunate that no other government considered those problems of women and immigrant women and people of disadvantaged groups. We are trying to make sure that that does not happen in the future. I thank the member for sharing those concerns with me.

Mr Sorbara: Bring us the bills.

Mr Mahoney: I did not hear an answer. As my colleague says, bring in some legislation. It is fine that the minister shares the concern, but I would like to take her back to our delightful time in estimates when I asked her about this issue. I asked her if she was prepared indeed to attempt with her government, convince her colleagues, to amend the Human Rights Code to prohibit the mandatory retirement that is there now as it particularly affects seniors and female seniors.

I just would quote to her where she said in answer to my question: "Yes, I am interested in amending the Human Rights Code. The code does not reflect today's society in many cases and in many areas." She went on to say, "Perhaps my advocacy role is working if I am able to bend the ears and to have people look at different arguments for mandatory retirement." Is the minister in fact acting as an advocate at the cabinet table for this? Is she prepared to bring in legislation that will indeed amend the code, and when will she do it?

Mr Sorbara: Not just nice words.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The member does not want nice words. I will try to answer the question very succinctly with some nice words, though. We are concerned, yes. As I said before and previously, yes, I am an advocate at the table and I am prepared to do that. We are concerned and it is a big issue. We are looking at redefining the code because it has not been addressed in a very, very long time. That review is coming up and we will be continuing to look at when we will be reviewing the code.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week the federal government responded by providing funding for the net income stabilization account program. The Premier has told our farmers that he does not intend to implement the NISA program. Now that the federal government has reduced the premium to both the province and the farmers, will he change his mind and look at this in a positive light?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think the question probably has two parts to it. The member talked about reducing the premium for the province. The federal government offered to reduce the provincial share for next year; it did not offer any reductions for this year, so in terms of what moneys we have available at this time, the answer is still the same as it was before.

Mr Villeneuve: I am sure the minister knows our farmers are very disappointed. They are facing another year of reduced commodity prices, and the federal government -- and he has attacked it many times -- has reduced the premium. They have reduced the cost to both the farmer and the province. Will the minister not reconsider when times are as tough as they have ever been in farming? Will he not reconsider and at least give them a little break?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to draw the member's attention to the fact that immediately upon becoming the government we did a review across the province and we talked to farmers about what their needs were. We had a financial review team put together that brought back recommendations. I would remind the member that the first thing the farmers wanted was some short-term relief in terms of interest rates. The second thing they were looking for was some long-term interest-rate relief. We have delivered $50 million of provincial money -- short-term immediate relief for farmers.

If we had looked at funding the NISA program, that would have been significantly less than $50 million. We have given the farmers their number one priority and we think we have really gone a long way to helping farmers in this province.

CHILD CARE

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I think the members of the Legislature are well aware that the Metropolitan regional council is considering an increase in child care fees in order to meet the rising costs of child care.

I wonder if the minister would give an indication of whether or not she is concerned that any proposal to increase parental fees for child care in Metropolitan Toronto will in fact render child care in Toronto unaffordable and, if so, how she would respond to this?

Hon Ms Akande: Actually, the member is quite right. We are in fact very concerned about even the possibility that Metro would implement an increase in fees, and we have conveyed that message to Metro as well as to several of the child care centres. We are continuing to work with Metro towards looking at some solutions which might make it possible for it to solve its situation and at the same time not increase fees to parents, which would make child care very difficult for some of them to access.

1520

Mrs McLeod: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to share with the members of the House what her definition of "affordability" in child care might be. If we were looking at housing and affordability in housing, there is a definition by which we establish what is considered to be affordable.

Would the minister share with us her definition for affordability in child care and indicate to us whether or not, if that definition of affordability cannot be met, we are likely to face a crisis of access and affordability in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Ms Akande: The member knows, of course, that affordability is relative to income and we recognize that as the member did in the previous government. We have looked at affordability in a general sense as being available to people who make an income so that they are not discomforted in any way, or have to go without child care in order to pay for it, or do without other things. That, of course, makes it necessary for us to discuss with Metro how, in effect, that relationship and that funding relationship might be better effective, so that the services to parents are affordable and accessible. In order to do that we have focused on a redesign of the way we provide child care within this province.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 16.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 408 citizens of the town of Parkhill who respectfully request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any proposals to close the OPP detachment in the town of Parkhill, abandon the plan for community policing, approve an increase of the complement of officers from four to five to ensure a 24-hour police presence, and that a sergeant in charge be appointed to the Parkhill detachment. I have signed my name to this petition.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Brown: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced, and without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake, any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro, which is ultimately responsible to this government, made commitments to Elliot Lake and its mining companies which resulted in the community's rapid and widespread expansion in the early 1980s; and

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To fulfil that promise to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium requirements from within the province of Ontario, namely Elliot Lake, until economic diversification efforts in the community are successful."

I have a number of constituents who have signed this petition and I have affixed my signature.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Stockwell: I have a petition signed by approximately 900 residents of the city of Etobicoke which reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the St Gregory separate school in Etobicoke has been petitioning the Metropolitan Separate School Board for funding for much-needed renovations and expansion since 1982; and

"Whereas under new government guidelines, the list of new schools to be built and schools to be renovated were combined; and

"Whereas the combining of these lists has resulted in St Gregory being bumped from the number two position for funding in 1992 to the number six position; and

"Whereas our children are being denied equal opportunity for modern education because of a building that cannot support the size and needs of the students;

"Therefore, as concerned parents from the St Gregory area, we respectfully request that further consideration be given to St Gregory separate school in Etobicoke for immediate funding to rectify this inequitable situation."

NURSING HOMES

Mr Brown: I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it addresses the underfunding of provincial nursing homes, and again I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Resuming consideration of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Section 9:

The Chair: Pursuant to the special orders of the House, call in the members for the deferred divisions on Bill 4. I would remind members that this is a five-minute bell.

1532

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to subsections 100b(1) and (2), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes-33 Nays-67

The committee divided on Mr Tilson's amendment to subsections 100b(1), (2), (3), and (4), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Tilson's amendment to subsection 100e(1), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Ms Poole's amendment to add clause 100e(2)(f), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Tilson's amendment to add clauses 100e(2)(f) and (g), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add clause 100e(2)(g), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add clause 100e(2)(h), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add clause 100e(2)(h), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add clause 100e(2)(i), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add subsections 100e(8a), (8b) and (8c), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add subsection 100e(8a), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add section 100ga, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to add section 100ia, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to section 100n, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative amendment to section 100n, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add section 100ta, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to add section 100tb, which was negatived on the same vote.

The Chair: Shall section 9 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 9 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

1540

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Mr Cooke moved third reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to split the time for third reading among the three parties.

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: Since there is agreement that the time will be split, rather than making extensive opening comments, I think I have the opportunity to sum up at the end of third reading and I will make my comments then.

Ms Poole: I am pleased to participate in the debate on behalf of the Liberal caucus. When the minister introduced this legislation he said that this legislation had the purpose of protecting tenants. Today, in this Legislature, we have to ask whether this bill has accomplished that goal, and I will say unequivocally that I do not think that Bill 4 protects tenants.

The minister may say that tenants are pleased right now because of the rent freeze, and initially he is right. Of course tenants are going to be pleased by the fact that their rents will be frozen for the next year or two, but there will be a price paid by tenants down the line because what this government has failed to realize and failed to understand is that tenants care for more than just their rent increases.

Of course rents are important to tenants, but of equal priority is the fact that tenants want a decent place in which to live. We are talking about tenants' homes here. They do not want to live in a building that is in a sad state of disrepair and they do not want to live in a slum, yet Bill 4 totally fails to address concerns about declining maintenance and ongoing neglect of our buildings.

The NDP has made absolutely no provision for major capital repairs even if the structural soundness of the building is in jeopardy, even if the health or safety of the tenants is in jeopardy and even if large numbers of the tenants agree. This is a myopic viewpoint which will not serve tenants or our aging housing stock well.

Bill 4 totally ignores the state of our aging rental housing stock. We have heard in this House before that 80% of our buildings in Ontario today are over 15 years old, and when we take it to the 20-year mark then almost two thirds of our buildings are 20 years old. When they get to that age, boilers start to give way, roofs need to be replaced, plumbing has to be redone, underground parking garages are deteriorating, balconies are corroding and electrical wiring needs to be replaced, and yet Bill 4 has made no provisions to continue these major repairs.

The Liberal Party put forward reasonable, sensible amendments which would protect tenants in the important areas of repairs and maintenance, even during the period of the rent freeze, but they have been rejected by the minister, who has said that he does not want to "gut" his bill. That is a quotation. Now I will tell members about our amendments regarding repairs and maintenance and leave it to them to decide where his bill would be gutted.

First of all, we said that there would be a provision for major repairs if they were necessary, necessary to the structural integrity of the building or to the health and safety of the tenants, or if two thirds of the tenants in the building agreed that the work should be done. On top of that, we capped it so that there could only be a 5% increase above the guideline. At the same time, we said that if they were neglecting the building the rent increase could be reduced, or in fact eliminated altogether, and we followed this up with a provision that the quality of the repair had to be considered. Surely the minister cannot report that this would gut his bill.

Or look at our amendment on maintenance. We wanted to enforce maintenance by broadening the powers of the standards board so that when landlords ignored work orders tenants can automatically deduct the guideline amount without having to go through the cumbersome rent review process. I cannot see how this government can claim to be pro-tenant and yet vote against these amendments which protect tenants.

Another pro-tenant amendment rejected by the government related to costs no longer borne, and to explain costs no longer borne I will give an example. Under our amendment, if the cost of a new fridge or stove was included in a rent increase, when those appliances were finally paid off then the amount of the rent increase would be deducted from the tenant's rent, again a very strong tenant-protection measure. I cannot comprehend how this minister and this government can claim they want to protect tenants and vote against this amendment, and yet they just did.

I feel that one of the saddest things about Bill 4 is that the NDP's heavy-handed approach has alienated major sectors of the housing industry -- not only landlords but workers in the trades, suppliers, renovators, investors and financial institutions. Hostility between landlords and tenants has deepened to such an extent that I have never seen the like before. This does not bode well for tenants in this province. Already some landlords are threatening to withdraw services and maintenance because of their extreme bitterness over Bill 4. Trust in government has never been lower. The retroactivity of Bill 4 has put yet another nail in the coffin of trust in government and individual rights.

I am going to quote from a famous democrat who happened to be a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, and I hope that the minister will pay heed to this. Abraham Lincoln said:

"If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

What this minister and this government have done with their very controversial Bill 4 is jeopardize their credibility on the long-term legislation. In my own riding we had a meeting recently where the police had to be called in to prevent a riot, a riot because landlords and tenants could not even communicate in the same room without their bitterness overcoming their common sense.

1550

I feel that Bill 4 is symptomatic of what is wrong with this NDP government. The first thing is that, being socialist, they will not be content until they have completely destroyed the private sector. We will start with housing. When the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, he said publicly that the private sector had no place in the housing arena. When asked how he was going to get the one million units out of private hands, he said: "Well, we'll tighten up the restrictions. We'll make it so tight that the landlords will squawk and get out."

That is exactly what they are attempting with Bill 4. 1 think that it is shown that the Premier still feels that way today. This Premier exempted his ministers who own rental property from the conflict-of-interest guidelines because he did not feel that apartment buildings constituted a business interest. I think that tells members where the Premier is coming from.

But they are not going to stop at trying to force the private sector out of housing. They are also now trying to force out the private day care operators, in spite of the fact that they make up 34% of this province's day care units. They are trying to force them out and leave us in even more devastating straits with our child care system. Take auto insurance, another policy where this government's intent is to get it fully into the hands of the public sector, one more attack on the private sector.

It is not going to stop there. They will be after the nursing home industry. What is next? The financial institutions? Where is this government going to stop? Will it be able to stop? Will it be willing to stop before it has destroyed the private sector in this province? I sincerely doubt it.

The second reason that Bill 4 is symptomatic of what is wrong with this NDP government is that socialists do not consult. They do not need to consult, because they have all the answers and they are always right. In Bill 4 they said they would have public hearings, but what a mockery, what a sham. There was no consultation. They did not listen, they cut off the lists, they turned away groups. They did not want to hear from the people of Ontario, because this is the NDP's, the socialists' version of consultation: "We tell you we're consulting, therefore it is so."

But they did not listen and they did not open their minds, and they are not going to stop here, because the consultation for the long-term legislation is just as much a mockery: six weeks for the consultation period with the public before they went ahead, sending out a million questionnaires across the province, and yet at the same time well into the draft legislation, even before the consultation period had ended.

I will tell members their attitude on consultation is not limited to Bill 4 and the long-term legislation. We have seen how they consult just recently, when they abolished the oath of allegiance for police officers. No consultation, no debate, sneaky, backhanded, behind the scenes, with no regard for tradition. It is utter hypocrisy to approach it in this way.

The final hypocrisy was when the news carried a story of the Premier on Friday night at a citizenship court, reading out the same oath of allegiance to the Queen that he had disbanded this very week for police officers. How he could do that and retain any integrity, I do not know.

Mr Mahoney: He's got principles. If you don't like them, he's got others.

Ms Poole: That is right. The Premier has principles. If you do not like them, he will find some others.

A second example of the hypocrisy is when the Premier announced his conflict-of-interest guidelines with much fanfare, with much media attention. However --

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I can recall a speech made on this side of the House a few months back, where the word "hypocrisy" was used and where the member for Bruce got up and raised a long point of order, on the use of the word "hypocrisy" and having accused people of hypocrisy and that this word was considered to be unacceptable in this House at that time. I would hope that consistency would reign and that this word would not be allowed in the House at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: Just for your information, the word "hypocrisy" is not a word which is taboo in the House; the word "hypocrite" is.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, would you please have one minute restored to the clock because of their intervention?

To go on with the hypocrisy of the Premier, who announced with much fanfare his plans for conflict of interest and yet on 12 February sent a quiet little memo to the NDP members saying, "Don't worry about that statement I made publicly. You really don't have to do what I said you had to do," he changed the rules, but that is what Bill 4 has done, changed the rules in midstream without notice, without fairness, without decency.

The third way in which the socialists have problems is that they feel they are acting for the common good. Now I hasten to add that it is their definition of the common good. In their charge to act for the common good, under their terms, of course, they are quite willing to ignore the rights of the minority. They are quite willing to trample on the rights of the individual, because they do not count. They are acting for the common good.

It is interesting to compare how acting for the common good by the unions has resulted in massive layoffs in this province. The unions, with Stelco, with Algoma Steel, with others, they went to the wall for their people. They got the best deal possible. They got a wonderful deal for the union, but once the negotiations were over, were settled, lo and behold, hundreds of workers were laid off because the company could no longer afford to pay these wonderful benefits. That is the NDP acting for the common good. Unfortunately, when acting for the common good they also tend --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you stop the clock for a minute. I just want to clarify something so that abusive words are not used too frequently.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, with respect --

The Deputy Speaker: Let me finish, please. So that words are not used to raise the ire of the members, one has to be very careful. Let me explain. I said the word "hypocrisy" was acceptable; "hypocrite" was not. But if you say, "Hypocrisy on the part of the Premier," in my opinion this is offensive. If you say, "That is hypocrisy against the member for Yorkview," this, in my opinion, is offensive. I hope that is clear. What I want you to recall, or to keep in mind, is that whenever you use a word which is offensive, the Chair has the prerogative to say, "I don't like it," as simple as that. Please do refrain from using these words.

Ms Poole: Do the members know the most bitter irony? It is the fact that they call themselves the New Democratic Party. It should be the non-democratic party, because socialism has never borne any relationship to democracy. I will tell members, this government is proving that it still does not bear any relationship to democracy.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: I will give members an example of how this government treats democracy. The Minister of the Environment for this government said that even if Metropolitan Toronto has a deal with a northern Ontario municipality, even though both parties are willing, even though the deal will be beneficial to both parties, Metro may not ship our garbage to Kirkland Lake. It did not invoke this same provision for any other municipality, but just to Metro. Metro must do what this government dictates, no matter what the democratic situation is.

But then socialists have never tried to look for fairness and balance. In fact, this very minister, in this very House, was very upset with me back when we gave our initial speeches on Bill 4. He said, "You're arguing points on both sides, points for the landlords and points for the tenants." He said, "Get off the fence." I said to him, "I will make no apologies for being balanced, for looking at the holistic picture, for saying we can protect tenants and at the same time protect the stability of the housing industry." I do not see those two points as being mutually exclusive.

1600

But then again, the socialists never let respect for the law and respect for tradition get in their way. Those are just things that are out there. They have no meaning to people as far as this government is concerned. With their retroactivity they have said to people: "We don't care what the law was. We don't care that you were acting within the law at the time that you spent money on the capital repairs and were assured of being reimbursed. We are now going to bankrupt you. We are going to put the small landlords out of business, because we have decided that the law will change and that the law will change retroactively."

As one of our presenters, the clearing house, the Housing Help Centre for Hamilton-Wentworth, said, "Retroactivity is always dangerous and rarely justified." Yet this government has tried to justify it by saying: "Well, it helps a large group of people. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we have trampled on the rights of the minority."

I do believe it matters. I believe that in this House we have a right to protect the rights of the individual and the rights of the minority. I believe that we have a right to be fair, that we have a right to be balanced. I believe that even though this is interim legislation, there should be justice in this legislation, and there is not.

I wind up my comments with a quote from Winston Churchill, another great democrat. He wrote: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." This government will not be satisfied until this whole province is steeped in misery.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was asked by the government House leader to indicate and remind the Chair that there will be no questions after this, we have divided the time equally.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Just for the benefit of the member for Oriole, no questions or comments after the member has spoken.

Mr Turnbull: We have indeed spent a lot of time debating this issue, but relative to many important pieces of legislation that have come before this House, historically it has not been a great amount of time.

When this legislation was referred to the standing committee on general government, it was agreed that we would have five weeks of public hearings. This was successively cut back to three weeks of public hearings, even though we had 150 delegations wanting to make presentations with their views. These were both tenants and property owners.

We found that during the committee stage, I made a motion to have a representative of the Trust Companies Association of Canada come forward and speak to this legislation and explain the kind of impact this would have on values of properties and the impact on mortgaging. We have indeed seen the ravages of the collapse of the savings and loans in the United States and we are beginning to see some of the cracks that are occurring in our financial system.

This piece of legislation has wiped off 25% to 30% of the value of property, but the issue is not just whether values have been reduced. The issue, the core issue that indeed I think the New Democratic Party thought it was addressing when it brought forward this bill, was the issue of the need for affordable housing, and I think we must all be fair to the party inasmuch as it honestly had put this forward as its platform in the last election. The thing that we must strenuously disagree with their party on is its solutions and the implications for what this will do in the province for affordable housing.

We recognize that 30% of all of the tenants in Ontario cannot afford the rent they are paying now, and there is nothing in this bill which does anything whatsoever to address that issue. I see in my own constituency office people coming in who are in dire straits, and yet every day we read in the newspapers about abuses of the welfare system.

There seems to be a strange contrast between these two issues, but the reality is we are not addressing the core issue of housing, which affects everybody. It affects the question of people going to food banks. The solution will certainly not be this approach to affordable housing.

We have seen time allocation put on this bill, which means that we are denied the chance to fully debate the various amendments the Conservative Party put forward and the Liberals put forward, and we have seen that at all turns all of these amendments have been voted down by the governing party.

This is a party which ran in the last election on a platform of open government, of consultation. Well, we have seen the kind of consultation there has been. There have been meetings set up where our party has been allowed to come but not participate in the meeting; they could not speak at the meeting. This is consultation. That is not the kind of thing that I understood under consultation.

We know that the housing stock in this province needs approximately $10 billion worth of renovations, and at least $7 billion of that should be spent by the year 2000, but we are not getting this renovation done because the landlords have stopped doing any renovations because they cannot afford to do this. Clearly there are some property owners who can afford to do renovations, but there are a great deal of them cannot.

In the depositions from the Ministry of Housing officials, it was very clearly put forward to us that indeed the legislation, right back to the time that the Conservatives brought the first rent control legislation in, never contemplated that major capital costs would be included in the basic rent. It would always be an amount that would be assessed after the fact and added on. Many landlords had been encouraged by the existing legislation, Bill 51, to go forward with major and much-needed renovations, and they had expended literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and the only way that they could get that money back was by first substantially completing the work and then making an application.

I would suggest that this is a fraud that has been perpetrated against the property owners. They had been promised that they could get this money back if they did the work, and now we see retroactive legislation.

The existing legislation was indeed flawed. We know that. But I do not believe in just totally ignoring the benefits of the legislation. You try to improve it. This party, the NDP, has done nothing to improve it. They have just tried to gut the legislation.

Yet the total contradiction of what they are doing is that they are saying landlords who have spent money under Bill 51 will not be able to get their money back that they expended, and yet we are being told at the same time that under the permanent legislation they will be able to reapply. So the tenants who thought that in some way the NDP was protecting them indeed see they are not. All they are doing is they are playing political games, and the political games are going to cost the life savings of many small investors.

1610

We heard during the committee hearings that many of the landlords in this province had put their life savings into small apartments, where typically there were only four or six units, and indeed these people have their life savings, all of their pension fund, tied up in it, and they are now being told: "Forget the money you've spent. You will lose it." We have seen the Premier go on record as saying that there will be a huge squawk, that they will reduce the housing values, and that if they do not like it, the NDP will buy them out. Yet when they have been asked to buy the landlords out, at substantially reduced prices, the government refuses to do that.

We have seen defaults on mortgages on a massive scale, and indeed this province has never seen the number of power of sale transactions on apartment buildings as we are seeing today.

There has been no move by the government to eliminate the backlog of those tenants who are waiting to find out whether they are going to have an increase with respect to previous applications. The very thing that the NDP used to say was reprehensible: They have done nothing to get the Ministry of Housing to get rid of that backlog.

We have seen that in fact the average renter in this province only pays 17% of his household income on rent, and yet we have the situation that we have this total, all-embracing legislation which seeks to protect every single tenant and at the same time blocks renovations to buildings at a time when we would never have a better opportunity to have inexpensive renovations. Workers are out of work. People who have been doing renovations for years are now laid off, the very people the government says it represents, and indeed it is denying them the ability to work, the workers.

What is the Conservative solution to housing? The Conservative solution is to make sure we help the most needy, that 30% of people who are paying more than a third of their total household income, who cannot afford the rent they are paying now. We would address that as a matter of urgency instead of trying to help people who are paying only 17% of their household income, and in order to arrive at an average of 17%, given that a large number of people, 30%, are paying more than a third of their income, we know that many households are paying substantially less than 17% average of their income. How can you possibly say these people are in need? Let's address the true needy of this province. At a time that we have more and more people attending food banks, the NDP is trying to get some political points at the expense of the property owners instead of addressing the true needs.

This is very disappointing legislation. This is the only major piece of legislation that the NDP has brought in in the six months that it has been in power, and it is totally flawed. Even the Liberals, who never know whether they are socialists or what, are complaining and saying this is wrong.

How can they bring such legislation forward? Shame on them, and shame on them over the fact that they do not address the needs of tenants who are in need. We believe that they should urgently address this, instead of destroying the whole of the private housing sector, and that is indeed what they are doing. The message that this sends overseas and to the United States and to other provinces as to what this government will do to the private sector is awesome.

This indeed is a strike at the very way we govern people, because retroactive legislation has been brought in before, as we have heard, but it has usually been one or two or three months retroactive. There are aspects of this legislation which are retroactive four years. How can anybody order their business affairs if they can see that retroactivity can reach back four years? They will drive all investment away from Ontario, and indeed we are already seeing this. This is socialism at work, and speaking as someone who escaped the ravages of British socialism, I do not want it to happen here.

Ms Harrington: I would like to briefly address three different aspects that have been raised in this House in the last while: first, the need for Bill 4; second, the proposal I have heard over and over, "Let's have a market system"; and third, the question of fairness.

I have with me a report, the annual report from the Rent Review Hearings Board, and at the top of this report it says, "Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him or her who has care of the community."

I would like to let members know what the author of this report is saying very directly to this government and also to the previous government with regard to rent review.

"Neither landlords nor tenants are enamoured of the legislation." This is dealing with the RRRA. "This observation is not a figment of the imagination of this chairman, it is publicly acknowledged reality. The infinite complexity, inadequacy and inconsistencies of the act are a daily staple for the board members" who have to deal with it. This law resulted in a "horrendously convoluted, time-consuming and confusing program that make both the parties and practitioners unhappy....This high level of dissatisfaction cannot be allowed to continue....When a piece of legislation intended to be an instrument of common good results in an uncommon level of anxiety, anger and accusations, there is no option but to resolve the issues" without delay.

This is from the chairman of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

I would like to comment further from this paper as to what the chair has said. If members listen carefully it says it all:

"Out-of-town, offshore, nameless, faceless landlords are not exceptions. Neither all investors nor all property managers are concerned for the buildings' or tenants' wellbeing....There is a concern that tenants are paying off a building for a landlord and subsidizing flip transactions, while not being considered at all when the profits from sales are taken." Every person in this House or across this province who owns a home knows what we are talking about. If you put money into the property, then you get that money out when you sell it.

I would like to go on and possibly translate that into language that might make you understand a little bit better. This is from one of the tenants who came to appear before our committee:

The RRRA, what we arc talking about, why we have Bill 4, "was supposed to solve the problems of the previous legislation...but it became an instrument of social injustice," if members can understand that, "one of the most glaring examples of that injustice, the financial loss provision." When a building changes hands, what happens? The rents escalate "and become unaffordable while the neglected building continues to deteriorate. With each passing year of iniquitous phase-ins, the tenants pay more and receive less. This is downright wicked." This "provision is tantamount to a licence to steal. This moratorium...has, in effect, revoked the licence to steal and if there is any justice left in this world, it will remain revoked for all time."

That is why we have brought in Bill 4. Let me go ahead to discuss the question I have heard raised by the previous member, "Why not have a market system, the answer to all our woes, a market system?"

First of all, the United Nations declared that housing is a right -- and this was way back in 1948 -- it is not merely a market commodity. I believe all the members of this House understand that. People will say, and I have heard it said, "It is a business." I ask members, what percentage of other businesses fails in the first five years? I think members would agree that a substantial portion of businesses, whether they are clothing stores, a corner dry cleaner or a convenience store, runs a risk in the first few years of failure.

In this particular business, if you call it a business, a person is guaranteed not to fail through the existing legislation we have had in place.

1620

I also have heard from various people. They were talking about the housing supply. If you look at the history of how government has been involved, it is not widely recognized that government has played a very large role in housing for the past 40 years. Through tax expenditures and direct subsidies, billions of public dollars have been pumped into what some call a business, into private housing markets. I am saying it is not a business, it is not an open market, it has not been for the past 40 years.

In the last 25 years, more than 200,000 units of private rental housing have been built directly through public subsidies and tax expenditure programs. They created housing for middle-income earners and offered trust benefits that flowed to the upper-income earners. If you think back over the last 10 years and the amount and direction of subsidies from the federal level, etc, members can understand what I am talking about, that these private markets were subsidized and that the benefits of that go to those who have.

I would like to leave with members that we do have a regulated market. It is not regulated for the benefit of the business community, it is regulated for the benefit of the

consumer, just like any other consumer protection legislation, for instance, environmental regulations, the Building Code Act; all of these are regulations to help the consumers.

I would like to go on to the question of fairness. This has been said a lot: "Bill 4, we understand what you're trying to do, but it goes too far. It is not fair." That is what we have heard.

I would like to quote from one of our presenters: "To be honest, my first impressions of the retroactivity were that, no, it was not fair. However, as I began to think about it," and I ask you to think about it, "neither is it fair for tenants to be faced with huge rent increases based on unnecessary repairs." Is it fair that legislation "gives women and minorities precedence for government jobs"? Is it fair that there are minority hiring quotas for the police force? "It doesn't have to be fair; it has to be just." We all agree, life is not fair. "In order to right a wrong that has been allowed for several years, the scales of justice may have to be weighted" the other way.

Fairness: I would like to quote from one further presenter. "A million tenants have had their lives and their pocketbooks trashed by this abomination known as rent review, so tell me if that is fair. Is it fair that children go hungry so the rent can be paid? Is it fair that the beleaguered taxpayers of this province are being asked to subsidize the greed of landlords through the rising shelter cost in the social assistance programs? The least unfair thing of all is any government action that will bring a speedy and permanent end to this travesty with which tenants have been beset for so long."

There is one further consideration I would like to mention just briefly, and that is shelter allowances. We have been told that shelter allowances are what we need, and I would like to let members know what the outcome of that would be. Let's provide tenants who experience affordability problems with direct government assistance to pay their new fair-market rents. The cost of such an approach would be enormous. Based on the 1986 census, implementing a universal shelter allowance at that time would cost $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion.

Okay, the replacement of new units is approximately three times higher than average current rents. To make investment viable, existing rents would have to be raised substantially. As rents increase, the subsidy cost has to increase, and also, as the rents increase, the number of people affected who would therefore be needing a rent subsidy would also increase.

Conservatively, the estimate would be the current cost for the shelter allowance system: between $3 billion and $4 billion annually. That is what you call an ever-growing financial black hole and that is what the Conservative Party would be advocating.

Mrs Caplan: As I rise to participate in this debate today, I would note that I believe there is insufficient time for me to fully represent the interests of my constituents. In the riding of Oriole, over 48% of the people are tenants and live in rental accommodation and I would say that my constituents are concerned. They are concerned because of this Housing minister's defensive position, one which I would say still has been in an opposition mentality mode, as over and over again he has spoken about widespread abuse of the existing system. I would just like to set the record straight in the few minutes I have.

It is interesting to note that the minister constantly quotes rental increases of 150% or 200%, when the facts are that those increases of over 100% under the existing system have been one twelve thousandth of 1%. Yes, there have been some. Those are of concern and I believe things could have been done to address that, but for the minister to stand in his place day after day and speak of abuse suggests that the minister is perhaps being a little defensive and his rhetoric is not speaking to the interests of the people of this province.

A fact: Under the existing rent review system, 5.8% was the average increase across this province last year. The average increase for those rental buildings which went to rent review was 11%, and I know that was of concern to some tenants, but it was not 150%; it was not 200%.

I am the first one to say that the existing rent review system was not perfect. As a member of this House who sat on the committee that reviewed that legislation, then called Bill 51, at some degree of intensity, I can say that during those committee hearings and after, we were the first ones to say that legislation required a review after five years to ensure that it was achieving its goals and its objectives. What did we find after five years? We found on average each year that 80% of the tenants in this province received rental increases that were at or below the guideline under the existing rental regime. I would say to the parliamentary assistant, who sits opposite and nods her head, that 80% is considered in our school system as first class honours. That is an A, but it is not perfect, and I would agree with her much has to be done to improve a system which is only working at 80%.

I would also point out that Bill 4 does not do that and that the constituents in the Oriole riding are feeling deceived. They are feeling deceived because in the Agenda for People, which we have been referring to as the agenda for power, the people had expected something very different from the NDP government and from this Minister of Housing. I would say his credibility is at stake.

1630

They also are extremely disappointed that this NDP government and the Minister of Housing did not accept the very reasonable -- extremely reasonable -- amendment proposed by our very able critic, the member for Eglinton, the Housing critic for the Liberal caucus. She knows, as the Minister of Housing knows, that 80% of the rental buildings in the province of Ontario are at least 15 years old, and almost two thirds of them are over 20 years old. In my riding of Oriole, many of those buildings are in need of repair, and what I hear from the tenants over and over again is that they are concerned. They are not only feeling deceived by this minister and by this government about what their housing policy is as it affects rent control and rental buildings; they are also feeling deceived and concerned because they know that their buildings need to be maintained.

Over and over again we heard the concern of tenants who said: "We want a clean and decent place to live. We want a well-maintained building." I am concerned about my right to fully represent my tenants and the people in my riding, landlords as well, because of the closure motion that has been brought forward by this minister. I am concerned about that because in fact this NDP government talked about openness. It talked about its open-door policy, and when I tried to attend a meeting in my very own riding, the door was closed and I was denied the right to represent my constituents at a meeting that had been billed and had been advertised as a public consultation process.

I was not surprised when this government brought forward closure, because I had experienced what it meant by open-door and what it meant by public consultation. To be denied the right in this House to fully represent my constituents saddens and pains me. Once again the people of my riding and the people of Ontario have been deceived by this government that speaks about public consultation and open-door policy, because that is just simply not true.

Not only are the landlords in this province feeling deceived because of the retroactive nature of this bill, landlords who obeyed the previous law and in good faith began the needed renovations to the apartment buildings that they owned; the tenants are also feeling deceived, not only because of the Agenda for People, the agenda for power. The tenants in my riding --

Mr Owens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Oriole is accusing the government of deceiving the public. I would respectfully request that she withdraw that remark.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole did not accuse any one individual. The member for Oriole, I believe, is in order.

Mrs Caplan: I know there are some members of the government caucus who are very sensitive on this issue, because they are ashamed when they go back to their ridings and have to stand up and be accountable to their own electorate, who know what they said during the election and who know what they are doing now. But as we say in this House, that was then, this is now.

I would say that my constituents and the tenants in my riding have a number of concerns. I want to put them on the record, and then I will yield to my colleagues who wish to speak.

They are concerned about the hidden agenda of this government. Their concern is that this government wants to force out the private sector from many aspects of life in this province. Members heard the eloquent words of my colleague the member for Eglinton, who said it very well. Child care is another example, auto insurance another example and housing another example. People are concerned about building decay; yes, building decay. They are concerned about having hostile landlords made angry by this government and taking it out, unfortunately, on their tenants. Tenants are concerned and worried about that.

I do not believe that there is any landlord who would do that, but my tenants are worried and concerned that this might happen to them. But do you know what they are most concerned about, Mr Speaker? They are concerned about being forced, because of the housing policies of this government, to live in government-run housing. They are concerned about being forced to live in slums. They are concerned, and I am here today to put their concerns on the record.

Not all of the tenants who live in Oriole riding want to live in government-run housing. They do not want to live in government-owned housing. They do not want to live in government-operated housing. They do not want the government of Ontario, the NDP government, to be their landlord. They want the right to choose. They want to live in well-maintained buildings. They want fairness for themselves and for their landlords. They want fair rents. They want a clean and decent place to live.

As I sum up, I will say on behalf of the constituents in the riding of Oriole that they do not believe Bill 4 is fair to landlords. They do not believe that Bill 4 is fair to tenants. They do not believe that it is in the public interest.

Mr Carr: I would like to add a few comments, if I could, in the limited time that we have available. I will try to be fairly brief in my remarks.

I want to cut through a lot of the rhetoric that has taken place over the last little while and cut right to the very heart of the problem, which I think is really to try to see how we are going to get more rental units in the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, this Bill 4 is not one way of doing it. In fact, Bill 4 is going to make sure that there are no more private-sector rental units built.

I want to get away from the rhetoric. I know there was a lot of rhetoric that came out as a result of some of the meetings. I know that the Housing minister said that he was allergic to landlords, and so on. I guess they must have interesting cabinet meetings, though. I suspect the Transportation minister, the Community and Social Services minister and the Citizenship minister must sit at the other end of the table from the Housing minister. Either that or there is a lot of sneezing and hacking going on during cabinet meetings. But I want to get away from the rhetoric, because I think that is not productive.

Unfortunately, Bill 4 destroys the ability to produce any more rental units in this province, and really that is what we need. We need more rental units in this province and we do not need legislation that is going to take more out of the marketplace.

I will reflect on what the Premier said in opposition, and I quote: "You make it less profitable for people to own it. I would bring in very rigid, tough systems for rent review. Simple. Eliminate the exceptions and the loopholes. There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community, and then you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, I will buy you out.'" I suspect that is what the agenda is. They want to take over and have the entire housing being run by the government, as opposed to having private-sector involvement.

In spite of the rhetoric, the Premier, when he was elected, went down to New York and said, "We'll be good and we're not going to move too fast." Then, whammo, he comes in with retroactive provisions, the like of which we have not seen since the federal government under Trudeau did the same thing under the national energy policy.

I had a chamber of commerce that, when this government was elected, a socialist government, said: "Well, we're not going to worry. He's a bright guy. He won't move too fast." Now they are saying to me, "If he'll do this to one section of the business community, what will he do to us?" Retroactive provisions scare them, because money is very fluid. I know some of the members in the government side will not understand this, but money runs to the area of least resistance.

I can tell members, there will be no more money going into building any rental units in this province as a result of this bill. The government will have to do it. It is now going to be thrown back on to its shoulders to build the rental units that are needed here, and this is at a time when the Treasurer says we are broke, we have no more money. We are broke in this province. We have a deficit. We have no more ability to get any more revenue. We are completely flat broke in this province. Yet we are now taking a section of the community that could build some rental units and it will no longer be a part of it. It is going to fall back on the government, a government that is broke and in fact is worse than broke. We are now in debt, and that is climbing up.

How are these rental units going to be built? Well, I guess the money is going to have to fall out of the sky. We have competing interests. We have the Community and Social Services minister here who said we need more money for social programs. This is going to cut into the money for housing. We need more money in education. The 60% funding is going to go out. We have no money now. We have colleges and universities that need money. Some of the groups are asking for $450 million over four years. All of the money is being squeezed.

1640

As the Premier said in the throne speech, we have to set priorities. So where are the priorities going to be with this government? "Throw out the private sector, and we're going to build them all." Well, I can tell the members, there is going to be no money to build and unfortunately the people who are going to suffer are going to be the people whom they really want to help the most. The tenants who are out there, the tenants who are hurting, are going to be further squeezed because we are going to have the situation where there are going to be no rental units built in this province. In the larger cities, we are going to have situations -- it is already tight -- where the market gets worse and we are going to have no place for people to live as a result of bills like this.

Unfortunately, the program under this bill is going to further kill the already dramatic situation that we have got. It is kind of ironic that when the government talks about the amount of increases that are needed, when it comes to government programs the subsidies that are needed are in the range of well over $1,000 per unit. We are going to be in a situation where we are not going to be able to afford to build any more rental units. We are squeezing out the private sector, which could, and should, be part of the solution.

Instead, what we do is we bring in the sledgehammer and knock them all out.

So unfortunately and I guess as politicians it is always easy to do, we look for short-term fixes to problems instead of long-term. Instead of planning and looking to the future and saying, "How are we going to create more rental units to alleviate the problem?" we are doing nothing to alleviate that problem and in fact we are looking at short-term -- I suspect for political gains with one segment of the population -- over long-term planning in this province.

What I say we need is to get away from the short-term fixes, which have not worked, and create more rental units which in the long term will help the very people that all three sides want to help. Make no mistake about it: all three sides -- the government side, the two opposition parties -- want to help the tenants. They want to make sure that there is safe, affordable housing in this province. Unfortunately, what Bill 4 will do is make it so that the only thing that is going to be built will be the government.

If we look at all the areas that the government gets involved in, whether it be the workers' compensation which gets backed up, the present rent review situation gets backed up, anything the government gets involved in unfortunately costs more and gives the people of this province less. As we reflect on this bill, unfortunately we are going to be in worse shape as a result of it.

I wanted to take a quick minute to talk about some of the small and medium landlords. These are the people who I think are most affected. I think even the Housing minister must be moved by some of the submissions by some of this group, because we are not talking about the very rich organizations; we are talking about some of the small people similar to, I guess, some of the cabinet ministers who are in the same situation.

There are a few of the people who came before some of the meetings I went to who talked about how they are virtually going to be destroyed as a result of this. I had one submission from one of the chaps in my riding whose father was about ready to retire. He is a small landlord who had this little piece of property. As a result, he is not going to be able to do that. The situation was that some of the rent was going to be passed on through. They had already gone and made plans upon that and now it is changed. This poor fellow is now in a situation where he is not going to be able to retire comfortably, and has had to go back to work in fact, and he is in the construction industry.

So with all the pleas and with all the talk about fairness, this legislation does not do anything for fairness. I guess when you reflect on it, my file in housing from the people is now getting rather large. I think it is my biggest file. When you read through it now, you read the submissions that are coming in from people who are saying they are being destroyed; they are basically going to be put out of business. You hear remarks that this Bill 4 is like a Scud missile or it was a stab in the back. There is a chap in North York who says he will lose his building. Another owner of one of the buildings now says his units are in a loss position as a result of the high financing costs.

So here we are looking at a bill that will do nothing to help these individuals. So unfortunately, instead of doing long-term planning, which I think is what the people want the government to do, we are looking at short-term cynical fixes to problems in order to appeal to special interest groups which in a lot of cases are the vocal minority. The strong leadership that needs to be taken is over the course of four years, saying, "Okay, long-term, how are we going to solve this problem?" Unfortunately this was a very bad first step with Bill 4.

I do not think we are going to change very many minds. I do not see anybody standing up over there with any revelations prepared to vote against this bill. But hopefully we will learn for the next process as we go around, that when you take a course of action there are going to be some fallouts from people. If they are still in business when we get into the next round, these are the people, the small and medium-sized businesses, who have been affected. I hope and I think most members on the other side will try to listen to their input because it is very moving testimony and it has been on all sides. We have heard from some of the tenants who have had tremendous situations. What we have got to do is come up with some balance that is going to bridge the gap between the two. Unfortunately Bill 4 does not do that.

So let's learn our lesson from this. I do not think we arc going to be able to change the minds of the members opposite, but let's learn for the next go-round that now that we are in government we have to look at everybody and how these implications in a bill are going to help or hurt some of the various segments of the population. In the end, what we need to do is have some long-term planning to really make sure that we have enough affordable rental units in this province so that the people of this province can be assured of having some safe and affordable housing. That is the goal. I think we sometimes lose that in the rhetoric. All three parties want that; all three parties want to be fair to the tenants. Let's, as the next process takes place, make sure that we look at everyone and try and really, which is what the government is supposed to do, take a long-term planning process and make sure that we do the right things.

So those, in the short time that we have, are a couple of my preliminary thoughts, and hopefully they will add to some of the discussions.

Mr Drainville: I must say that I do appreciate very much the comments made by the honourable member for Oakville South; very reasoned comments, albeit we are philosophically at different ends of the spectrum, but they were well reasoned and well presented. I cannot say the same for the honourable member for Oriole. I wish she was here, because when I was listening to her comments I was reminded of the statement by Mark Twain, who once said that you should find out the facts before you begin to distort them. It seems that fact after fact that was put forward was questionable. The position that she put forward indicating, for instance, that the tenants of her riding and of Ontario are ill-used and perhaps even abused by Bill 4 is just wrong, blatantly wrong.

I had the honour to sit on the committee of general government as we reviewed this legislation, and there is no question that there was great emotion on behalf of many people who came, and the tears that were shed were not just on the basis of those who were landlords, but the very real emotions that played across the faces of those who lived in inhuman living conditions in apartments was also there for us to see. No one should have to feel the need to come before a committee of this Legislature and feel that somehow he has no recourse left. So I felt terrible at those periods of time, as did every member on the committee.

There is no question that we come at this issue from a different philosophical standpoint and that our view is that tenants in the province of Ontario have been ill-served by the rent review legislation that has been in effect. Bill 51 was not a helpful piece of legislation. It did not prevent tenants from -- dare I say it? -- economic eviction.

Bill 4 will not solve that problem totally; I agree with the opposition. But it will ensure that a certain number of tenants will not have to see an increase in the immediate future in their rental increase. Now, for instance, we know that 330,000 tenants have been hit with increases above the guideline in recent history; 330,000 tenants.

Rent review, for instance, has contributed to more speculation. In 1989 there was a study done in the city of Toronto that indicated that 11% of the total rental stock had been sold twice or more in the period of 10 years. Now, when people have said that there was no flipping involved -- they did not like the word "flipping" -- there was flipping involved. There were people who were taking advantage of the system that was there and it was not illegal for them to do. It was not illegal, yet one questions the morality of it when it affected the daily lives of people who were living in those buildings.

1650

The opposition, in its discussions in the general government committee and in this House, has indicated -- for instance, the member for Oriole just a few moments ago indicated that the Minister of Housing talked about those extreme cases of 110%, 120%, almost indicating, by implication, that that was our only concern. That is not our only concern. When the honourable member said that 11% was the average, if you are in poverty, if you are a sole-support mother, if you are a pensioner on fixed income, you cannot afford 11%, nor 15%, nor 20% or 25%, which was often the case in Ontario. That was untenable to this government. We did not accept it and we needed to implement immediately a moratorium on rent control.

Economic eviction is the free market at its worst. It is a human rights issue. We know, for instance, that right now in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, even though there is volition on the part of levels of government and on the part of people across the country that housing should be a protected right, it is not. It is not a protected right. Shelter or food or clothes or opportunity of employment are not rights in this country. There are no economic rights in the charter as such. The problem with that is that we will perpetually have the problems that we have in ensuring that the needs and aspirations of all Canadians and Ontarians are taken care of until we are able to change that charter to ensure that there are those kinds of rights.

I want to say also that the opposition has spoken often about the fact that the problem is not that we have high rents, but that we have low incomes. Let's be clear about that. They have said on their part that the means by which we can redress these problems is to ensure that the government gives shelter subsidies. These shelter subsidies are going to cost a fortune and the suggestion is given to us by the very party which in Ottawa is cutting back on social program after social program. There is no room for that kind of subsidy.

One has to question also where that kind of idea comes from. It comes from an understanding that there should be no controls, that there should be no reviews, that the free market system should thrive. The question is, who is going to receive the benefits of that thriving? Not the poor, not the sole-support mothers, but rather those who have money, have influence and have apartments, and they are landlords. That is not acceptable any more.

I rest on that point and just say that the people of this province and the tenants of this province will be well served not only by Bill 4, but by the future legislation which is to come through from this government.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Bill 4 is simply bad legislation. Bill 4 is a bad bill. It is a bill that is not fair, a bill that is retroactive, a bill that has had incomplete public hearings, more people denied a hearing than those we heard, a bill that is indeed controversial and has been the focus of two major marches on this Legislature.

Bill 4 is a bad bill because it will no doubt cause a wave of insecurity throughout private-sector investment in rental housing. In fact, we have already seen, in the few short months since its introduction, loan defaults and bankruptcies among owners of rental properties across this province. Indeed, many investors are placing their capital outside the borders of our province of Ontario.

Bill 4 is a bad bill because it will accelerate the eventual decay and deterioration of Ontario's rental housing stock. Yes, affordable housing supply. Bill 4 makes it almost economically impossible for landlords to perform needed repairs and preventive maintenance.

Bill 4 is a bad bill because it will cause and has caused massive layoffs and perhaps permanent job losses in the related industries of construction, repair, renovation and related industries. These are already challenged by our tenuous economy.

Bill 4 is a bad bill because in the long term it will hurt the very tenants it proposes to help by creating a shortage of affordable accommodation for tenants and, in some cases, threatening the very structural integrity of their homes.

Bill 4 has driven down the value of many properties with affordable rents. Bill 4 has stolen many people's retirement incomes. Bill 4 put lenders at risk of default because of losses landlords cannot pay. Bill 4 has destroyed trust in legislation and in government. Bill 4 is not the kind of message I want to send to the people of Ontario who are searching for economic stability.

This bill has, as a very possible spinoff, the deepening of the recession whose effects are already being felt in many apartment-related sectors, and it will contribute to reduction in the quality of the existing housing stock of future tenants and of present tenants.

I do not believe that the interests of government, tenants and the rental housing industry are irreconcilable. I do believe, however, that long-term solutions to this challenge will only be found by soliciting the active participation of all of the partners of housing -- tenants, landlords, suppliers, contractors and government -- consultations begun in an atmosphere of trust.

This government has not really listened or heard the small landlords of this province. They have not listened to the employers and workers in the renovation-restoration industry. They have not really examined facts and statistics.

The Hamilton Spectator, on 26 March in the midst of our hearings, said: "It was disappointing that the NDP used its majority in committee to reject a number of constructive Liberal amendments. The Liberals suggested, among other things, that landlords be entitled to pass on capital costs (subject to a cap of 5% above the guideline) if the work was needed to ensure the structural soundness of a building, protect tenants' health and safety, or where most tenants agree."

This positive suggestion was rejected outright by the NDP government. This government has not even considered the negative messages that have been sent to the business community by passing retroactive legislation on matters financial. The predictability, the ability to forecast in our housing market is quickly slipping away. This government seems to be trying to ensure that the building and the building industry of rental accommodation quickly becomes an endangered species in Ontario. Investors are even now placing money outside of the housing market and/or beyond Ontario's borders. Bill 4 destroys business confidence in the rental housing industry. The present environment is not conducive to meaningful dialogue or full partnership in an industry that feels that it is being raped.

Yet you know, Mr Speaker, as I do, that the housing industry is essential to the prosperity of this province and the individuals in it. It is with regret that I see the rent control consultation paper, Issues and Options, out for comment, indeed when 5 April, the deadline, has passed, while we are still working on a bill in an environment of confrontation, uncertainty and instability, and when so many people in this province have so much to share with us on this important topic.

1700

Mr Tilson: We have in the gallery this afternoon a person who has asked a number of very simple questions with respect to Bill 4. I would like to refer to some of them, because I think it sets the whole issue with respect to which the member for Oakville South talked and the concerns that he has. Those questions are: Why would a government pass such strict legislation to solve such simple problems as luxury renovations and high rent increases -- that was the issue that was raised by the Minister of Housing -- and why would it pass such strict regulations if that is what it is trying to solve? The second question that he asked is, why would a government knowingly eliminate thousands of construction and renovation jobs, why would a government knowingly bankrupt property owners?

On the surface it certainly does not make sense as to why a government would do these sorts of things, and the government certainly knows full well that by eliminating thousands of construction and renovation jobs it will hurt the economy of this province and it will put many, many more out of work who are even working now. The real question is, why would the New Democratic Party government destroy the very people whom they are trying to help?

I think it was all said by the member for York South in 1989, when he spoke his famous words, which have been said, and I would like to emphasize these words: "You make it less profitable for people to own it," which of course is rental property. "I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review. Simple.... There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community, and you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, we'll buy you out.'"

So there is the hidden agenda as to what this government does, because the Premier further stated, in this same interview, "You can't talk about rent review till you talk about the structure of ownership." Then he goes on to say, "We need a government program of purchase."

We have seen the start of it. We have seen the start as to what this government intends to do. They are going to make housing in this province a public utility.

These statements have been asked many times in this House, they have been asked at the committee level, they have been asked of the Minister of Housing, they have been asked of the parliamentary assistant, and the statements have gone undenied. There has been no qualification, there has been no retraction, so I assume that is the hidden agenda of this government.

With the Premier's quotes in mind, and the NDP hidden agenda when it becomes more apparent, the NDP does not seem to believe in private ownership of rental property. Clearly that is their intent. Uncompromising rent control legislation may have been designed to bankrupt property owners; the NDP's hidden agenda would have the tenants and the provincial government buy out the owners at fire sale prices. I submit that is what they are trying to do. They are going to force the values of land down and they are going to buy them out at fire sale prices.

Let's look again at the Premier's statement that he made in 1989, because I think this is very crucial as to the whole philosophy as to where this government is going, not only in Bill 4 -- and it is not too late to vote against it -- but in the permanent legislation. "You make it less profitable for people to own it" -- that is, rental property. Mission accomplished. It is already accomplished, and this government has done it.

Comparatively, rental property values have decreased 25%, and there are statistics out on that. The member for York South said, "I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review." Well, that is almost done, and we see the lack of consultations that the member for Oriole referred to, because that is certainly where we are going to go.

Again, the emphasis that, "There will be a squawk from the speculative community, and you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, we'll buy you out.'" Who will buy these people out? I will tell members who is going to buy them out -- the taxpayers. The taxpayers have had enough of governments like this trying to tax them on large rent increases.

As a new member, I find it just a terrible thing that we have been forced to be muzzled by this government. I have about 12 summary objections to this. I am going to start, and I suspect that a last-gasp attempt to persuade this government to withdraw its bill or to vote against it will go unheeded, but I am going to try.

The most important factor that the people who came to the hearings were concerned with was the issue of retroactivity, and in our amendments we have suggested that that legislation should be on royal assent. This government appears to be, by some of the bills that it has been legislating, bringing in more and more retroactive legislation. Well, it is not fair. The people in this province have relied on the rules set by the previous legislation. Now it is broken. It is broken as a matter of contract and, I submit, will be broken as a matter of law, as will be proven in due course. Job losses and bankruptcies are prevalent as a result of what this government has done.

Now at first blush you would think it is retroactive to 1 October 1990; however, it is in reality retroactive to at least June 1990, when the applications for October had yet to be filed. In addition, all applications claiming financial loss since 1986 are subject to change retroactively because the balance of the outstanding phase-in orders is being voided, as are of course the conditional orders.

So this bill makes certain facts that have been consented to by the previous government, by the people of this province, void back to 1986. That, I say to the parliamentary assistant, is not fair and that is what the people of this province are saying, "Your legislation is not fair."

The second objection to this legislation has to do with the phase-ins. Financial loss allowances certainly have to be phased in over time, at no more than an extra 5% over the annual increase amount, until the loss power is entirely phased in. That, through the previous legislation, adopted by the people of this province and by the previous government, sometimes takes over five years. There are many buildings that have the orders that were issued some time ago, and they have not received full compensation for the benefit of those orders because the losses have not been completely phased in yet. They relied on the rules, and it is not fair because this government is making them void. The proposed Bill 4 voids all outstanding phase-ins, and that is not fair.

Third, this bill does nothing with respect to dealing with the problem of chronically depressed rents. It does not take into account the many rents that are already, as proven by the facts presented in this hearing, far below the fair-market value, as has been going around this province. Even though a purchaser may acquire a building for a fair market value, he will not be allowed to increase the rents to enable him to support the fair cost of the complex. That is not fair.

The whole subject of devaluation has been referred to many times in the speeches of this House and during the committee level. However, with the proposed amendments, no purchaser will buy his building and no bank will finance against his building more than the current net income of the building multiplied by a capitalization factor. Therefore, many of these landlords will lose the equity they built up over time because the building will only be worth as much as their rents. That has been the problem, that people have to come us because the buildings are being devalued as a result of Bill 4. They cannot get any further money to put into capital improvements, because the banks will not give it. They cannot raise money for it and they cannot sell their buildings, because no one will buy them. So again, remember what the member for York South said in 1989, that he is going to buy out all the housing in this province. That is the plan. That is the hidden agenda.

This Bill 4 is creating slums in this province. Already, we have had, as has been referred to already this afternoon, the reference to substandard accommodations that have been all around this province, and we have heard of that specifically in the city of Toronto. When a landlord is faced with expensive work orders from the municipality on the threat of closure for failing to do the work, the landlord will waive the cost of complying, which is no longer recoverable through rent increase, with the cost of continuing to operate the building. In many cases, it will make more financial sense to allow the municipality to shut the building down.

It is the tenants who will suffer in this scenario, because the landlord is being discouraged from meeting standards, and landlord after landlord after landlord has told us they do not have the money to meet these standards that have been set by the province or set by municipalities, so the buildings will be shut down and there will be no accommodation because of Bill 4.

The subject of higher taxes has to be addressed. Certainly Bill 4, I submit, will result in hardship for the taxpayer. Eventually, since no buildings are being constructed and older buildings will continue to deteriorate, it will be necessary to provide an alternate source of housing. The Minister of Housing already realized this when he made announcements for capital grants to low-rise buildings, so he acknowledges the problem. I will bet that this Treasurer will put in his budget all kinds of money for non-profit housing. That is going to be paid for by the taxpayer, and yet there is nothing in this bill which will encourage the private enterprise to build new buildings, absolutely nothing. Eventually, all of this will be paid for out of the tax dollars and none of these matters will be paid for by itself.

The seventh objection has to do with the discrimination to the landlord. The proposed amendments, as I believe litigation will prove, are discriminatory against landlords. They introduce socialist measures by requiring services to be provided without a profit. However, unlike other socialized programs, such as OHIP, the cost is not being borne by the general taxpayer public yet. For the next two years, landlords are being forced to pay for this new system alone. It is similar to telling doctors, when OHIP first started, that they could not charge for their services.

1710

Landlords as a group are being penalized for investing in rental income properties. In other words, landlords are being asked to pick up the problems of this province with respect to housing, as opposed to spreading it around over the entire system, and that is not fair and that is discriminatory.

The whole subject of capital expenditures was not dealt with adequately, either in the public hearings or in the committee of the whole. We tried to debate that subject and we were forced by closure to stop debating it. The proposed amendments do not allow for a landlord to improve the building. Capital expenditures have been disallowed entirely. There is nothing in Bill 4 that allows landlords to put forward capital expenditures. Tenants cannot even offer to contribute for improvements that they would like to see made to the building. For example, if tenants would like to have a security system, intercom and parking lights added to an older building for their own protection, the landlord cannot provide it unless he is prepared to give it as a gift. Not only are the tenants not allowed to contribute to the cost, even if they wanted to, but the landlord cannot even justify the expense as an improvement that will increase the value of the property itself, since the value of the property will now always be determined by its rents, not the fair market value of the physical asset.

Investment, both inside and outside this province, has been discouraged. We have had individual after individual come to us at the public hearings and say he is interested in investing in this province with respect to housing, that he has lost faith in this province, he has lost faith in this government. There will be job losses, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and worse yet, absentee landlords as a result of foreclosures and other ways in which individuals who have no interest in housing will be taking over the housing industry.

The next objection I have is the windfall benefit to tenants. The proposed Bill 4 does not allow a landlord to provide additional services to the tenants for the building. For example, if a landlord must upgrade the Hydro service to an older building to comply with a work order, the utility commission usually insists on providing only one service to the building rather than the original separate meters. This means the landlord will have to take on the full cost of Hydro, which used to be paid by the tenants. Under the current legislation, the Bill 51 legislation, the landlord could simply obtain an increase that would maintain the status quo by adding the average monthly cost of Hydro to the rents. Under Bill 4 this is no longer possible and the tenants would get a windfall benefit at the expense of the landlord. I say to the parliamentary assistant, that is not fair either.

Finally, landlords are restricted in that Bill 4 restricts the landlord's ability to recover the rent money that is due. Under Bill 51, the current legislation, once an order is issued by the rent review services, all the moneys found due are payable as of the effective date of the order. The effective date is usually some time previous to the date of the order, is actually issued because of the delays in processing the application. This means that the landlord frequently goes for months with the tenant paying the old rent for the minimum increase on the old rent when he is supposed to be getting compensated for his improvements or losses. Under Bill 4 the tenants will be given 12 months interest free to pay any money that they owe to the landlord. That is not fair.

There is the whole subject that I raised with respect to extraordinary operating expenses, and that has to do with one subject that I raised, garbage tipping fees. That simply seems to be going completely unnoticed or proceeded with respect to the Minister of Housing. We have asked him at committee, we have asked him at the committee of the whole level to deal with this subject, and he simply refuses to. Therefore, we have seen the policy of this Ministry of the Environment as to where it is going with garbage and how the whole subject of waste is going to be put on the buildings. The tippage fees are going to increase, and there is no question that will not be allowed to be passed on. The landlords will be forced to pay for that. Where are they going to get the money for these sorts of things? Where are they going to get it?

Then finally there is the whole subject of economic eviction, and I emphasize this as my final comment as to why Bill 4 should be defeated; 30% of the tenants of this province cannot afford any increases at all, and yet this government continues to perpetuate that problem. They do nothing for those people. They do nothing for the poor of this province. They are allowing those people to be forced to pay the rents that they have stated over and over -- the seniors, the students of this province, seniors who are on a fixed income and who simply cannot afford the increases -- are being put forward under Bill 4, yet there is nothing to assist those people, and yet they are literally going to be forced out on the street.

Those are the people who with Bill 4, at least when I listen to the Minister of Housing, when I listen to the parliamentary assistant, this government is trying to help. They are trying to help the people who cannot afford to pay the rents, and Bill 4 does nothing with that. They are trying to help the people, with respect, who are losing jobs. Bill 4 causes a loss of jobs. Bill 4 does nothing with respect to that. Yet the members sit and the government sits on its hands and simply says, "Sorry, we're not going to do anything. We're going to deal with it in the green paper and we'll be able to consult with that," even though, as the member for Oriole said, we are not allowed in many cases to speak, are not allowed to offer suggestions and there is no consultation process at all by this government, none whatsoever.

Mrs Caplan: It's a sham.

Mr Tilson: It is a sham. The member for Oriole has said it is a sham and that is an understatement. It is a sham.

As I indicated the other day, I was invited to attend one of the green paper hearings, but it was made quite clear to me that I was not allowed to attend and speak. I was allowed to go but I could not speak, and that is not fair.

When are we going to be able to offer a contribution to this government? We certainly have been closed out of these debates and we have been closed out of the green paper. My guess is that the final bill has already been prepared and there has been no debate whatsoever through the green paper process to offer suggestions to this government.

There has been no consultation. This bill is going to destroy the economy of this province and I recommend to all of the members that they vote against it. There is no logical reason why they do not vote against it, because fact after fact after fact has been submitted to us that this bill should be defeated. More evidence has come forward, and I am talking about hard, cold facts of all of this information, and we simply are not allowed to debate this any further.

I notice that my time is up. I have much more to say and I regret that under the rules I am not allowed to say that and the opposition is being muzzled.

Ms M. Ward: I rise to speak in support of Bill 4 and on behalf of my constituents. I believe that Bill 4 was necessary and is necessary to protect tenants from the deficiencies of the Residential Rent Regulation Act. That act has been a disaster for tenants, and that was no surprise to tenants. They predicted it when it was passed in 1986.

The increases that tenants have been subjected to, I believe, could almost be called criminal. In my riding of Don Mills, about 60% of the constituents live in rental accommodation. The increases that they have been subjected to are far in excess of their ability to pay in most cases.

A 39% increase is not a normal increase. This is a typical example, one of the apartment buildings in my riding where last year they had a 39% increase. In that building, I see dead mice in the stairwells, an elevator with lighting so inadequate that you can hardly see someone on the other side of the elevator with you. They were certainly not getting adequate maintenance for this level of increase.

That building -- no surprise -- had recently been sold. I think that is the worst situation that Bill 51 created. It encouraged flipping of buildings. Investors were encouraged to buy at a high price and they could pass that increase on to the tenants, and the tenants did not have the ability to finance the purchase of that building when the average wage increase, if any, might be 6% or so.

1720

One of my main concerns is with the seniors in my riding, which consists partly of East York. I share the borough of East York with my colleague the member for York East, and the other part of my riding is Don Mills. There is a very large number of seniors there on a fixed income. They certainly are not able to pay these increases of 20% to 40%.

There was much made of the fact that increases of 100% were not common. During our hearings we heard that frequently. Increases of 100% occurred only in some very small numbers of cases. I think the emphasis is on the wrong thing there.

An increase of 20% is too large. When you consider these compound year after year, even the average increase of 11%, which I understand is the average increase that went through rent review, over three years you are looking at a major payout. If we look at a 20% increase on a rent of $700, that is $140.

When these increases are unpredictable, people are not able to plan for them. They do not know what increase they are going to get. Another deficiency of Bill 51, the RRRA, was that it was so complex that even landlords were not able to understand it. Certainly tenants did not generally have access to the legislation. It is not something the average person keeps in his kitchen.

Landlords generally have to go hire a rent review consultant, and the cost of that is passed on in their rent increases. The tenants have to rely on volunteers, and I think we should commend the people who volunteer their time to chair tenants' associations. I have met many of these people. They are providing a great service to their community in helping to organize the tenants to fight these large rent increases.

I realize Bill 4 is not the answer to all our problems, and it is not meant to be. It is meant to give us a breathing space until we can bring in new legislation which will be fair to tenants and to landlords. I do not believe the current system could be allowed to continue while we are developing that new legislation, because people were hurting too much. I think a two-year moratorium will give us time to develop a decent system if we can get on with it without too much further delay.

I am not sure how my time is here. One comment I would like to make is that the rent crisis we have in Toronto is not uniquely a Toronto problem. I know that and I speak as a person from Metropolitan Toronto, and I know the situation is different in some parts of the province. As the members know, we toured with the standing committee on general government. We went to various places in the province and heard presentations there. The same situation existed in many of those communities. In Metropolitan Toronto, I would be prepared to say with a great deal of certainty that our rent crisis is a major cause of the growth in the use of food banks.

To wrap up, I would like to say that I strongly support Bill 4 and urge all members to do the same.

Mr Mahoney: I wish I did not have to rise to speak about this somewhat draconian legislation -- so do my colleagues, actually -- but I must put on the record serious concerns. I was very interested in the previous speaker's comments about Metropolitan Toronto because I have said throughout the committee hearings that this is not the province of Toronto. If the government feels there is some requirement to bring in legislation to deal with the Parkdale Tenants' Association or other groups that came before us, then why does the government not simply do that instead of passing legislation that goes right across the province, that affects the smaller communities where the minister and others know full well there is not a serious problem. In fact, we had people coming before us as a committee in Sudbury, we had people coming before us in Hamilton and in London who were saying that this bill is hurting them and forcing them into bankruptcy.

I was particularly interested when the parliamentary assistant spoke. I think I have said before that individual should be the Minister of Housing rather than just the parliamentary assistant. I know her husband agrees with that assessment and thinks that is an excellent idea, but obviously the Premier does not agree with that opinion. I think she would do a much more capable job, frankly, than the current minister who handles two portfolios, Housing and Municipal Affairs.

But I was very interested in her reaction when she used the phrase "nameless and faceless landlords." The reality is they were not nameless and they were not faceless when they sat before us in committee around this province. Once we got outside of the city of Toronto they took on real names and real faces, and they pleaded with the parliamentary assistant and the other members, some of whom are here: "Please don't bankrupt us. Don't pass this legislation." I saw the sympathy.

Mr Mammoliti: Talk about the tenants.

Mr Mahoney: We will talk about the tenants. Everywhere around the province I asked the question, as did other members of that committee: "Other than a cap to the tenants, what does Bill 4 do for you? Does it help you with cockroaches and rodents in your buildings?" The answer was no, it did not do anything to solve that problem. "Does it help you by having the landlords repair problems, holes in the walls, broken appliances? Does it address that problem?" The answer was no, it did not address that problem.

But does the minister care? Obviously not. The minister's reaction was just to ignore it. In fact, over 150 groups were turned away from having an opportunity to come and --

An hon member: Open democracy.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it is a joke. It is a joke from a government --

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am embarrassed.

Mr Mahoney: The Minister of Mines says he is embarrassed. He should be embarrassed representing the government that he represents. It is a disgrace, what this government is doing and the member knows it. That is why he is leaving. I understand that.

They ignore the problems of the damage this bill has done to the economy. As a matter of fact, I remember watching the night of 28 November, when this minister stood up and announced it and announced it was retroactive to 1 October, which in essence meant it went back as long as 18 months, doing a serious amount of damage, causing people to go broke. Announcing it was retroactive to 1 October was the first step of closure. The government brought in closure and did not even hesitate, but it did not need to because the bill is retroactive, therefore the retroactivity means: "We are not going to listen to you, we are not going to care what you say. It is simply retroactive legislation. Go ahead and debate it. You are just wasting your time." To the opposition members: "Go ahead and put amendments. Because we have made it retroactive, we are not going to listen. We have already made up our minds."

It is clear. This government made up its mind in advance. The damage to the economy, the lost jobs in this province -- it is absolutely unbelievable for a party and a government which supposedly care about contractors. Some members in the government are actually contractors themselves and supposedly they care about the people they are putting out of work. But do they?

Mr Brown: They don't care.

1730

Mr Mahoney: They do not care. I thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin very much. They obviously do not care about the people they are putting out of business. I remember watching the news that night, when all the contractors were loading up their vans and their trucks, and they were closing the doors and saying, "That's it, we're out of work." Does that matter to the NDP? No, it does not matter one bit.

Let me just address very briefly the comments about the ultimate plan.

Mr Curling: Take your time.

Mr Mahoney: I do not have enough time.

The ultimate plan is to turn rental accommodation around in this province, is to destroy the value so that the NDP socialists can simply take it over. The landlords think they want to buy them. They are wrong. The NDP does not want to buy them. They want them to go broke so that they can take them over for nothing. That is what they want to do. It is the same policy as the Ministry of Community and Social Services has with regard to private commercial day care: "Let them go broke, then we'll just take them over. We'll make them all non-profit."

Mr Mammoliti: Talk about the tenants.

Mr Mahoney: The member for Yorkview knows that is the hidden agenda. The trouble is, it is not hidden any longer. The jig is up. We know what the government wants to do. We know it wants to bankrupt the small landlords. They are not nameless and faceless, I say to the parliamentary assistant, and she knows it. She heard. She was embarrassed. I saw her embarrassed when those people came before our committee, but she had her marching orders. There was nothing she could do. They were totally muzzled. They were told what to do. They did a good job. There will be a little extra fish in the back for all the seals as soon as this is over.

Hon Mr Cooke: I believe that wraps up the debate from the opposition parties. I first of all want to say that I appreciate the participation of the opposition parties as well as members of my own caucus. Members will remember that this legislation was introduced on 28 November, and very quickly after that the debate on Bill 4 focused on three items which the opposition has focused on as well: the date the bill was to take effect, how capital could be dealt with, and how economic loss could be dealt with. I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk on each of those items.

I have explained before that choosing the date this law would become effective --

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Housing started his speech a moment ago by saying, "I guess that wraps up the opposition comments." I simply want to correct the record. We have been forced to wrap up our comments. I had a great deal I wanted to say and simply did not.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. This is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: As I was saying before my former friend interjected, the effective date to this bill was very much a difficult area of the bill when we were putting it together and making policy decisions. But as I have said before, no matter what date we chose, whether it was 1 October, whether it was 1 November, whether it was 1 December, every single one of those dates presented in itself difficulties and objections by members of either the opposition parties or landlord groups.

I believed then and I believe now that 1 October was an appropriate date for the effectiveness of this bill. It came into effect and will be effective tonight for the day that this party formed the government. I can certainly appreciate some of the concerns that some people have expressed during discussions on this bill, but I believe that no matter what date we had chosen there would have been objections from some folks in the landlord community, and had we chosen other dates there would have been more tenants who were not entirely happy with the date either. Even under the date that we have chosen, over 100,000 apartment units across this province will go through rent review under the old rent review system, the rent review system that was put together by the Liberal Party, which is full of loopholes and does not offer real protection for tenants.

The whole issue of capital, I understand, is an important issue, but I think that some of the arguments that the opposition parties have used in terms of capital expenditures are completely and totally inaccurate. There is $8 billion spent on rent yearly by tenants in this province. Given the information that our ministry has, approximately 50% of the rent dollar goes to operating costs. That means the balance of the rent dollar is available for things like debt servicing and capital.

To simply let landlords off the hook by saying that the only way capital expenditures will be carried out in this province will be with additional rent increases is, I think, inappropriate and unfair and does not reflect the real situation out there.

I must say that the capital argument that has been used by the critic for the official opposition and by the critic for the third party, that somehow legislation like Bill 4 or whatever permanent legislation we bring in is going to result in Toronto becoming a New York, is completely inappropriate, and I must say that it gets me quite agitated.

I was born in Windsor and I grew up in Windsor. I look across the border to Detroit, where there is no rent control, and I think it is a pretty simplistic and silly argument to say that rent control somehow is the reason that big-city USA has the problems that it has. It is quite a bit more complicated than that, and I think it is inappropriate, but those are the kinds of arguments that the opposition and some of the landlord communities have used.

On the other issue, that of economic loss, I want to make it very clear that this is one area I think the permanent legislation must be very tough on. We cannot have rent review legislation that rewards investors for buying buildings when the rent will not even supply the financing cost of those buildings. That is simply the wrong message for rent control legislation to send to landlords and investors across this province. It encourages flips; it encourages the purchase of buildings when the rents will not support the borrowing for those buildings. It sends the wrong message, and that is what Bill 51 did. It sends the message that you can buy an apartment building for whatever you want to pay for it, whether the rents will support that building or not, and then you can go to the rent review system and raise the rents to support that price, whether the price was valid or not. That is not the kind of permanent rent control legislation or temporary legislation that our party wants to encourage.

I guess the basic approach that we have taken as a government and as a party, which is different than that of the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, the basic underpinning of our philosophy is that decent, healthy housing is a basic human right. That is the philosophy that our government has enunciated. No other party, no other government in the past has been willing to put that principle in writing. Our government has put that principle in writing because we believe in it and we are going to do our best to deliver on that philosophy.

There were a few areas in Bill 4 that allowed for some flexibility. That flexibility dealt with property taxes, the renewal of a mortgage, and utilities -- those types of flexibilities in the operating costs. I certainly want to, through the discussion paper and the green paper, look at those kinds of flexibilities that need to be in any type of guideline for rent increase purposes.

Rather than dwell on the particulars of Bill 4, because we have had several months to do that, I would like to talk a little bit about the committee process and perhaps about the contribution that the opposition parties have made to this debate.

First of all, I would very much like to thank the critic for the Liberal Party, the member for Eglinton, and the critic for the Conservative Party, the member for Dufferin-Peel, both of whom, I think, have played out their roles appropriately in the opposition parties. I would also like to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, and the member for Wentworth North, who were both on the committee, as well as the other committee members. But these two members played a particularly important role during the debate on Bill 4.

1740

I guess I should also mention that the interest groups in the province, whether it was Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario or the Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development or the various tenants' organizations, have all played a very lively role in this debate, some of which I appreciate, some of which I think might have gone over the edge of good taste, but none the less is all part of the process in a democratic society. I encourage them to participate in the next step of our consultation in developing permanent legislation.

On this legislation the Conservative Party has taken a principle point of view. Their point of view is clear. They believe -- and they fundamentally disagree with our point of view -- that rent control and regulation of rents is wrong and that the rental market should be deregulated. That is their point of view and I happen to fundamentally disagree with it. The government fundamentally disagrees with it. They have come to that point in their history as a political party, after supporting rent control in the mid-1970s and after supporting Bill 51, the Liberal rent control legislation, in the mid-1980s, and every piece of rent control legislation up to this one, they have supported. But now in 1991, they have decided to go back to their roots and support deregulation and let tenants fend for themselves.

This is a principle point of view, and we have a fundamental difference of opinion, but I respect the point of view that the Conservative Party has taken. I think there are some basic flaws in the position that the Conservative Party has taken. They argue that if you deregulate somehow the private market will take care of all of the difficulties. It will mean that the private sector will build and that competition will take place in the market, and that will keep rents low. That is not the experience elsewhere, it is not the experience in British Columbia, and it differs from the reality of the situation here in Ontario.

The reality is that it is not rent control that causes low vacancies. It is low vacancies that cause rent control. That has been the history in Ontario, that has been our experience, and that has been the experience in other jurisdictions as well. Currently 33% of the tenants in this province pay more than 30% of their monthly income on rent. That means that some tenants in this province are paying 40%, 50% and 60% of their monthly income on rent. That means some seniors in this province are having to pay 50% and 60% of their monthly income on rent and that food is not adequate for those seniors. That has an effect on our health care system, and there is a whole bunch of consequences from a system that does not adequately protect tenants.

The Tory solution is to eliminate rent control and bring in rent subsidies. The result of that is clear. Deregulation would result in rents going up, and we would have to also bring in these rent subsidies which would cost the taxpayers of this province hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, it is not unrealistic to say that the concept that the Conservatives have put forward would cost the taxpayers of this province billions of dollars over the years.

I do not believe, and this government does not believe, that we should take billions of dollars of taxpayers' money and subsidize the private sector. That is not the approach that this party is going to take.

However, I congratulate the Conservative Party for having a principle position, a position that I fundamentally disagree with and no doubt a position that we will be able to debate in the future as well.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We came up to this House this afternoon to hear the government talk about its position, not the position of our party in opposition, and I would appreciate it if the minister stayed on topic.

The Speaker: No doubt a point of irritation for the member; not a point of order. Perhaps the minister would find it acceptable to address his remarks to the Chair.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, Mr Speaker, I have been trying to do that but I will shift gears now. I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about the very valuable if confusing contribution that the Liberal Party has made to this discussion.

On 28 November, when this legislation was introduced, the critic for the Liberal Party got up and said: "On the one hand, we criticize the New Democratic Party government because it's not doing exactly what was in the program for people. On the other hand, we say that you have gone too far and that you're going to turn our apartment dwellings into slums."

I have said before that you could take those responses on 28 November and cut them in half and you could send one half of them to the tenants of this province and the other half of them to the landlords of the province, and that is the kind of position the Liberal Party has taken on this issue.

Then we had our debate on second reading. We had an extensive discussion on second reading, and what happened on second reading? The Liberal Party said, "In principle, we support this bill." They read the principle as being support for tenants. Well, they are quite correct. One of the major principles of this bill is proper support for tenants in this province, but obviously fundamental to this bill is the moratorium on rents.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask you to remind the minister that in fact we are hearing the wrapup of a debate on a piece of legislation which has been proposed by the government. What we have heard from the minister, with all due respect, is a speech from the official opposition, or what we would have heard from him when he was on this side of the House. He has used all of his time to give an opposition speech. He has two minutes left to speak about the merits of his legislation and I ask that you ask him to do this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Whoa. Can we stop the clock for a minute, please? I realize that this topic engenders a great deal of enthusiasm, interest, even irritation, but it would certainly be helpful if all members would just relax, listen to the windup and then we can get on with, I understand, a vote.

Hon Mr Cooke: As I was saying, on second reading the Liberal Party voted in favour of this legislation. They said that the principle of this legislation was protection for tenants. I agree and this party agrees that the principle of this legislation is protection for tenants. We promised before the election, we promised during the election, and we have delivered after the election on real rent control and real protection for tenants. But the question this afternoon is not where this government stands on the principle of protection for tenants. The question this afternoon is not where the Conservative Party stands on protection for tenants. They have outlined their position very clearly. They voted against the bill on second reading. They have been consistent in their opposition. The question this afternoon is: Where are the principles of the Liberal Party of Ontario? That is the question that will be answered this afternoon.

It is absolutely clear to me that in about the next 10 or 15 minutes there will be a vote in the Legislature, and those who supported the bill on second reading when we voted in principle will be called upon again to decide where they stand and whether they still have those principles, and in a very few minutes we will have the opportunity to see whether the Liberal Party of Ontario is consistent in its principles of better support for tenants in this province or whether they are all over the map. I know that when I was elected in 1977 one of the principles of the Liberal Party was that it was all over the map. In about five minutes there will again be the opportunity. The Liberals can stand for their principles or they can play politics, and I, for one, will be looking to see whether the Liberals will stand for their principles.

The Speaker: Mr Cooke moves third reading of Bill 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, I will be conducting the vote when I have the attention of the members. Those in favour --

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are all relaxed and we are enjoying the afternoon.

An hon member: No, we are not.

The Speaker: No? Okay.

1756

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion for third reading of Bill 4, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes-62

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

Nays-36

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Murdoch, B., Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Witmer.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor awaits to give royal assent to a bill in this chamber.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon Mr Alexander: Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present meetings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 1806.