Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTRICAL POWER PROJECT

Mr Ramsay: I rise today to make the members of the House aware of an ongoing hydraulic generating station project being built at the falls at the south end of big Chiblow Lake, just northwest of Blind River.

I received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of the Environment on 27 May of this year from the Chiblow Lake Cottagers' Association. They have some very real concerns that this project will damage the naturally reproducing lake trout lakes Denman and Chiblow, as any interference with the water levels could devastate the spawning beds there. Chiblow Lake also has a vein of limestone running beneath it which acts as a buffer against acid rain. This is a very unique characteristic for a lake in northern Ontario.

As the letter from the cottagers' association points out to the minister, the Ministry of Natural Resources' Blind River district fisheries management plan clearly states that the "activities of hydro power production facilities can also result in fish habitat destruction or degradation." The association met with the member for Algoma on 17 May of this year and its members are anxiously awaiting some action to be taken by his office. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time in this matter. As each day passes, we come closer and closer to potentially damaging these scarce natural lake trout habitats.

I ask the Minister of the Environment to cease government funding for this project until a full environmental assessment has been made.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Carr: For 10 years now, officials of the town of Oakville and the Ministry of the Environment have been concerned about possible chromium contamination of ground water in the vicinity of Pinegrove Road in Oakville. The Minister of the Environment was advised by councillor Ralph Robinson last October of the continuing delay in the resolution of this problem, and that it was time somebody accepted responsibility and had this problem resolved. Officials of her ministry advise that there is nothing that can be done to expedite this matter until legislative requirements are taken care of by the minister's office.

Our environment is all-important. It is paramount that this issue be resolved once and for all to the satisfaction of the people of Oakville South. It is the minister's job to meet with these people and initiate some action on this matter.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Ferguson: Last Thursday in my riding, Uniroyal Goodrich reconfirmed its earlier decision to close one of its manufacturing facilities. On that day, the member for Mississauga North, in a question to the Treasurer, misled the workers of my community by stating that this government had failed the workers involved. In 1987 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member withdraw that?

Mr Ferguson: Yes, I will. The member for Mississauga North was not factual in his statements concerning the workers of my community. In 1987 the company approached the Liberal government requesting assistance of some $20 million to $30 million, which was denied. According to the director of the domestic industry support branch of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Liberal government's response was to provide $10 million, providing that the company undertook over $100 million worth of investment. As a result, the company did not return to the table. If they had had $100 million to invest, they would not have been approaching the government of the day.

This government has met with all parties. As I speak, negotiations are taking place between the company and the United Rubber Workers of America representatives in order to ensure that they come to an agreement that makes sense for the company and for the workers. When we are asked by the member for Mississauga North what this government is going to do for the workers of my riding, let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that we are going to be working overtime to clean up the mess they created on that side of the House. That is what we are going to be doing.

CORNWALL COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL

Mr Cleary: It gives me great pleasure to rise today in the Legislature to note that Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School, located in my riding, will be commemorating 185 years of public education this weekend. This school, founded in 1806 by Bishop John Strachan, was popularly noted as one of the best, if not the best, secondary schools in Canada during the first part of the century. Originally know as an academy and then as the Cornwall Grammar School, ever-increasing attendance made additions necessary and the name changed to the Cornwall Collegiate Institute in 1925.

In 1937, further expansions were made and it was finally noted as Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School. To mark this occasion, a tremendous amount of organization and planning has gone into the CCVS reunion, which will start Friday 28 June and go right through to 30 June.

I encourage all CCVS graduates to join their former friends and colleagues in Cornwall for a warm weekend of rekindled and new friendships and memories alike.

1340

PATIENT TRANSFERS

Mr Jackson: Ontario patients, many of whom are senior citizens, regularly face long, frustrating waits for Ministry of Health ambulance transfers. The time has come in this province to offer these patients a more humane and less expensive alternative to the existing non-emergency transfer system.

Earlier today I was pleased to sponsor an outdoor press conference to unveil a specifically equipped non-emergency transfer vehicle as a solution to the inefficiency of the current emergency transfer system in Ontario. In addition to being more convenient to patients being transferred, such vehicles will save the Ministry of Health about $100 for each one-way transfer. This money could be redirected into other community health programs. For example, approximately 12,000 non-emergency transfers were made by ambulances in the Hamilton-Wentworth region last year. Under the new system this would represent a savings to OHIP of $1.2 million.

The alternative system would also allow ambulances to improve their response times for life-or-death emergency calls.

I call on the provincial government to act now to adopt this alternative system. It would be following the lead of British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This move will also enhance the development of a province-wide community-based health care system by establishing crucial transportation links between health care institutions and the patient's so-called hospital in the home.

Neither our health care system nor our geriatric patients should have to wait until a real emergency situation develops before this alternative system is implemented in Ontario.

OPERATING ENGINEERS

Mr Fletcher: I take this opportunity to note an important legislative milestone. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the regulation of operating engineers in Ontario.

Operating engineers, sometimes referred to as stationary engineers, are responsible for ensuring that boilers and other pressure equipment are operated safely. This type of equipment is found in apartment buildings, institutions such as hospitals, schools, recreation centres, power plants and most commercial and industrial sites, so it is important that the people who operate it are well qualified.

One hundred years ago, on 14 May 1891, the Act Respecting Stationary Engineers received royal assent. This act, requiring operating engineers to register with the government, was replaced in 1907 with the more comprehensive Operating Engineers Act, which is still administered by the pressure vessels safety branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Operating Engineers Act ensures that operating engineers are properly qualified for their duties and that plants containing pressurized equipment are adequately staffed by qualified operating engineers and operators. The regulation of operating engineers has contributed to a century of remarkable safety in and around operating plants, to the benefit of both workers and the general public in Ontario.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Grandmaître : Aujourd'hui, les Franco-Ontariens fêtent avec joie et enthousiasme non seulement leur langue, mais leur culture, leur patrimoine. Je suis très fier de dire, au nom de mes collègues francophones et anglophones du Parti libéral, que nous avons été le gouvernement qui a institué la Loi 8 en Ontario qui se valait l'épanouissement de la francophonie à travers la province.

Par contre, je dois dire que depuis les six ou les douze derniers mois, un certain recul est reconnu dans la communauté francophone de l'Ontario, qui s'inquiète de son avenir. Quant au Parti libéral, avec la Loi 8 nous leur avions tracé le chemin. Nous avions guidé ces gens pour qu'ils se fassent valoir en Ontario, qu'ils avaient leur place et qu'ils avaient des droits en Ontario.

Aujourd'hui, on rencontre des coordonnateurs, des coordonnatrices et des sous-ministres qui doutent de la Loi 8 de 1986, qui exige que chaque ministère offre des services qui garantissent la prestation de ces services en français. La francophonie en Ontario présentement n'est pas à son meilleur.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Arnott: Today I would like to review the serious concerns I have with respect to the NDP government's economic policies and the damage they are causing in my riding of Wellington.

During the past nine months virtually no new industry has come to Wellington county, due in part to a lack of business confidence. This government's one-sided preoccupation with socialist initiatives, the $10-billion deficit, which heralds ever-higher taxes in years to come, Bill 70 and rumours of draconian amendments to the Employment Standards Act have all served to weaken job-creating business confidence in Wellington county.

As an example, W. C. Wood Co Ltd, a quality manufacturer of appliances employing 700 people in Guelph, announced recently that instead of expanding in my area as had been planned, substantial new plant and equipment investment would be going to Ohio. John Wood, the company's president, was quoted in the Financial Post recently, explaining: "We can't blame the NDP for all the ills in the province because they've only been here a few months. But we can certainly be critical of the direction they appear to be heading."

The town of Harriston and the municipal officials in Centre Wellington have approached me with ambitious plans for new industrial and economic development, but this government has announced no new strategy for attracting industry to our rural communities.

I hope the members opposite will spend the summer recess reviewing and reflecting on how their socialist rhetoric and policies have played a large part in reducing job opportunities in Wellington county and rural Ontario. Hopefully they will return in the fall with a better understanding of how a market economy works and a willingness to undertake a concerted effort to restore business confidence in Ontario and attract new industry to rural Ontario.

SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Martin: Today I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Premier and this government for their faith and investment in my constituency, the city of Sault Ste Marie.

We as a government have taken initiatives to help boost the economy in Sault Ste Marie, rejuvenating optimism among our people. With the much-appreciated assistance of this government, we are now working hard at recovery. Let me just list some of these significant government initiatives.

The Algoma Steel task force: This task force continues its commitment to the company, the workers and the community to help maintain one of northern Ontario's largest employers.

The anti-recession program: This program brought $25 million to Sault Ste Marie. This investment will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Three million dollars in retraining programs: With this money, courses will be offered at Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology to help with the re-education of a number of laid-off workers.

Five million dollars to the Algoma Central Railway so that it can continue to be of service, promoting tourism and providing employment.

Last and certainly not least, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' latest initiative to look favourably at the community of Sault Ste Marie at a time when its major employer is unable to pay its taxes.

In sum, what we have realized is that Sault Ste Marie is a community worth fighting for. With the aid of the NDP government and my constituents, we will continue to make Sault Ste Marie one of the finer communities in this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, I invite all members of the assembly to welcome to our midst today the former member for Scarborough Centre, William Davis, seated in the members' gallery east.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I would like to request unanimous consent to make a statement on this, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY / LA FETE DE SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

L'hon. M. Pouliot : Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, comme vous le savez sans doute, c'est un jour très important pour la communauté francophone en Ontario et aussi partout au Canada. C'est notre Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Francophones number some 550,000 in Ontario and, as members are well aware, they have been here for over 350 years. The number keeps growing by virtue of a relatively new phenomenon where people from all over the world who express themselves in French add to the economic development and culture of Ontario.

1350

J'ai eu l'occasion en fin de semaine d'être à Ottawa, chez nous, parmi cette grande famille de Franco-Ontariens, d'observer un dynamisme peu commun. J'y ai aussi observé qu'on peut, collectivement, en dedans du contexte ontarien, dans notre province, regarder l'avenir avec confiance.

Depuis 350 ans, quand nous n'étions que quelques braves, quelques membres de cette francophonie qui allait aujourd'hui être représentée par plus de 550 000 personnes, j'y ai vu un dynamisme peu commun. J'y ai aperçu plus de 500 000 participants en une semaine. Prenez le spectacle qui était le clou des festivités et qui s'est déroulé mercredi dernier. Gilbert Bécault était la vedette de l'événement, et il y avait plus de 20 000 personnes. Les contributions au cours des ans, des décennies et même des siècles des Franco-Ontariens chez nous sont fort nombreuses. Elles se retrouvent dans la culture, dans l'économie de notre province.

I know that our party would wish to reiterate its commitment in recognizing on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day the contributions -- and there are many -- Franco-Ontarians and their communities are making to Ontario.

M. Grandmaître : Je suis fier de voir le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones s'adresser finalement aux Franco-Ontariens et aux Franco-Ontariennes.

La semaine dernière, la Semaine francophone en Ontario, du 16 au 23 juin, il n'y a eu aucune mention de la part du gouvernement, absolument rien. Alors, comme je l'ai mentionné tantôt, nous sommes très fiers d'être Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, et je crois que notre contribution à cette province va simplement s'améliorer et augmenter avec les années. Mais, par contre, pour garantir cette amélioration-là, je crois que le gouvernement doit être ferme, il doit diriger et il doit être reconnu comme l'outil qu'il était lorsque nous avons présenté la Loi 8.

Alors, je suis très fier de fêter notre contribution avec le ministre et tous nos compatriotes franco-ontariens et franco-ontariennes et tous les gens qui parlent français partout au Canada. Mais, par contre, je questionne le gouvernement de l'Ontario qui prend des petits pas en arrière, pas en avant. Depuis les six ou les douze derniers mois, nous avons perdu douze coordonnateurs et coordonnatrices. Nous avons été...

Hon Mr Wildman: You are so non-partisan.

Mr Grandmaître: It is not partisan. It is what you have not been doing. That is your problem.

Je crois que le gouvernement ne doit pas se présenter devant les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes et dire de belles choses mais faire peu d'actions.

I think this government has a commitment, not only to this House but to Franco-Ontarians, that Bill 8 will stay in place, Bill 8 will be reaffirmed and that services will be improved, but we are losing francophones as civil servants every day. I think it is their responsibility. They had all the solutions back in 1986, 1987 and 1988. Where are those solutions today?

Bonne fête aux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes.

M. Villeneuve : Il me fait aussi grand plaisir de dire «Bonne fête» à tous nos francophones à travers le Canada, aussi bien au Québec que partout ailleurs. Bon anniversaire à tous nos amis francophones.

C'est une fête qui est fêtée non seulement au Québec, mais à travers toutes nos provinces et toutes nos communautés qui ont de la francophonie, tout comme à Embrun, hier, où il y avait une grande célébration dans le comté de Russell, d'une grande participation francophone.

Aujourd'hui, de plus en plus d'études provinciales et canadiennes font face à l'avenir de la Confédération, une situation qui est inquiétante pour nous tous. Le rapport Silipo souligne que nous sommes un pays lié par des liens historiques, géographiques, linguistiques et commerciaux. Tous les Canadiens doivent dès aujourd'hui travailler pour un Canada uni et renouvelé.

Le Québec se prépare à un référendum lorsque le reste du Canada se prépare à essayer d'accepter le Québec tel qu'il est. Alors, il faut réellement faire face à une situation qui est très inquiétante. Les présents gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux doivent faire preuve de leadership et recommencer dès maintenant les négociations constitutionnelles visant le maintien du Canada comme nous l'avons connu.

We are all proud of our roots and where we come from. I live in an area where we have very proud people of Scottish origin, of Irish origin, of Dutch origin, and of course of French origin. First of all we must be, and remain, Canadian.

Bonne fête à tous nos Franco-Ontariens.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAXATION

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to inform the Legislature today of a change regarding the tax on fuel-inefficient vehicles. Members will recall the budget proposal to double the existing tax rates, add two new tax ranges, and include sport utility vehicles in the tax base. Shortly after the budget I met with representatives of the auto industry and the Canadian Auto Workers to discuss the budget proposal. The representatives, while supporting environmental objectives, believed the budget proposal represented a potential threat to jobs and investment. They asked that I review an alternative proposal.

Since we came to office, this government has said consistently that partnerships and consultation are the keys to creating new and solid policy directions. This exercise demonstrates that government, labour, business and interest groups can work together successfully for the benefit of all.

To review the issues around the tax and to examine the industry option, a series of consultations was held with the auto manufacturers, both domestic and import, the CAW, auto dealers, environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth and Pollution Probe, and officials of several ministries. We sought an alternative option that could be agreed upon and that would still carry a strong environmental signal. Using energy wisely and maintaining environmental integrity are, as I said in the recent budget, essential to achieving sustainable prosperity. We have developed an option that I believe promotes these objectives.

The new initiative is more comprehensive than the budget proposal. In recognition of its changed nature, the tax has been renamed the "tax for fuel conservation." It will take effect on 1 August.

The new policy has several features. As announced in the budget, it retains the doubling of rates on cars with poor fuel economy ratings -- those with ratings of 9.5 litres per 100 kilometres or worse. A new threshold will be added at the 9 litres per 100 kilometres level, with a tax rate of $250. In addition, cars that have fuel economy ratings in the middle range, from 6 to 8.9, will be subject to a $75 tax.

To complement this tax scheme, a rebate of $100, credited at the time of purchase, will be provided to purchasers who buy cars that have superior fuel economy ratings. This rating is defined as using less than 6 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres. This rebate program is the first of its kind in North America.

Finally, while the tax is extended to sport utility vehicles, the new rates will range from $75 to $3,200. These rates have been lowered from the budget proposal in recognition of the impact the higher rates may have had on the industry and dealers in what has proven to be a very difficult economy for the auto industry. The Minister of Revenue will be introducing amending legislation shortly that contains these changes.

1400

This comprehensive tax rebate scheme will send a signal to vehicle purchasers and manufacturers of the importance of fuel efficiency and energy conservation. This new policy also demonstrates the government's openness to new ideas and its willingness to discuss and implement alternative policy options.

This government has said consistently that new partnerships and new working relationships among government, labour and business are not only possible but in fact essential if our province is to successfully meet the changing realities of our time.

It is important to note that as a result of this co-operative effort, the groups involved in developing the consensus policy consider this new initiative to be an improvement over the budget proposal.

I am happy to put forward this proposal that keeps the environmental message of energy efficiency and polluter pay front and centre. Moreover, it is consistent with our fiscal plan.

I want to thank those who took part in the consultation process for their commitment and resolve in developing what I believe is a strong and sensible environmental policy. This clearly shows that the partnership approach to policymaking can work and work very well.

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE / FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

L'hon. M. Pouliot : Aujourd'hui, c'est le jour de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, une journée très importante pour les francophones de l'Ontario et de tout le Canada.

Je profite de cette fête pour annoncer la création du nouveau Conseil de l'éducation franco-ontarienne. Ce conseil s'occupera essentiellement de l'éducation de langue française en Ontario. Son mandat couvre l'éducation au niveau primaire, secondaire et postsecondaire et sa fonction consiste à conseiller la ministre de l'Éducation et le ministre des Collèges et Universités.

Le Conseil de l'éducation franco-ontarienne sera composé de représentants d'organismes de l'éducation de langue française et de membres du Comité consultatif des affaires francophones, du Conseil ontarien des affaires universitaires et du Conseil ontarien des affaires collégiales.

Le mandat du Conseil sera de trois ans. Le président du Conseil sera nommé par la ministre de l'Éducation en consultation avec le ministre des Collèges et Universités. J'aimerais donc remercier mes collègues la ministre de l'Éducation ainsi que le ministre des Collèges et Universités pour cette importante initiative.

Notre gouvernement s'est engagé envers les francophones et cette annonce vient confirmer notre volonté d'être à l'écoute de la communauté francophone. La Saint-Jean-Baptiste, c'est une occasion pour la francophonie de se fêter. D'ailleurs, une manifestation d'envergure a été organisée dans le cadre de cet événement. Je voudrais vous répéter ce que j'ai dit tout à l'heure, que ce festival franco-ontarien à Ottawa a attiré cette année plus d'un demi million de personnes.

This is a special occasion for francophones to celebrate their culture, and therefore I invite all Ontarians to celebrate with the francophone community. Please keep in mind that you do not have to be a francophone to share in our joie de vivre.

Donc, bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform the House that today I released the province's implementation guidelines for the Oak Ridges moraine within the greater Toronto area, or the GTA as it is commonly known.

The announcement was at the Lake St George Conservation Field Centre, operated by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Lake St George is a kettle lake in the moraine and the headwaters of the east branch of the Humber River. I was joined by my colleague the member for Durham-York, who is also the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

The implementation guidelines I released are interim and will protect significant features of the moraine and control development while we develop a long-term strategy.

I also announced that a two-year planning study leading to the development of a long-term strategy for the Oak Ridges moraine within the GTA is now under way.

The province will create two committees to undertake this work. A technical working committee will guide the planning study and development of a long-term strategy. A citizens' advisory committee will assist in the development of the strategy and will consult with the public on the strategy before it is finalized.

The implementation guidelines concentrate on protecting significant features and controlling development in the GTA portion of the moraine because development pressures are more severe there than in other portions of the moraine.

As part of that commitment to protect significant areas, I announced that the province is fully committed to the plans of the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to purchase the James Walker property. The Walker property is a valuable forested area on the south slope of the moraine and is part of the headwaters of Duffins Creek. We will assist the conservation authority in the purchase of this key property.

In areas of the moraine outside the GTA, municipalities will be strongly encouraged by the province to adopt and apply the principles of the implementation guidelines. The guidelines strengthen the commitment of the province made in July 1990 by the previous government with the announcement of the expression of provincial interest in the GTA portion of the moraine.

The guidelines set out eight key principles for determining if a proposed development may be allowed and clarify the province's role in land use planning there. These principles: (1) prohibit development in significant natural areas; (2) restrict scattered development; (3) encourage maintaining or enhancing ecological integrity; (4) encourage landform conservation; (5) encourage the protection and management of woodlands; (6) prohibit unacceptable development in and around watercourses and lakes; (7) restrict expansion of settlements on to highly permeable soils, and (8) prohibit development that has an unacceptable impact on ground water resources.

The moraine within the GTA contains the headwaters of 30 watercourses and major tributaries. Underground aquifers provide drinking water for 10 communities, including King City, Aurora and Stouffville. Abundant water resources alone in the moraine illustrate the importance of undertaking initiatives to protect the moraine.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will work in co-operation with the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Environment to ensure that any development allowed on the moraine is consistent with the implementation guidelines. The province will review development proposals and use its powers under the Planning Act to intervene where necessary.

The 13-member technical working committee will start immediately on the planning study that will lead to the development of a long-term strategy for the GTA portion of the moraine. The strategy will outline the natural systems and green corridors that will be protected, will identify levels of development acceptable for various parts of the moraine and areas where no development will be permitted.

The committee will be made up of representatives from the province, regional municipalities, local conservation authorities, interest and industry groups, and the citizens' committee we will create. It will complete the strategy within two years.

Public consultation will be one of the most important elements in ensuring that we develop a long-term strategy that works for everyone. That is why we are creating a citizens' advisory committee. It will help the technical committee develop the long-term strategy.

The citizens' committee will also conduct a process of public consultation on the long-term strategy before it is finalized. In addition, the citizens' committee will seek public input and comments, through a questionnaire, on a future direction for the GTA portion of the moraine.

It will play an ongoing role in providing public information on various studies that will be undertaken, in gathering public information on natural features of the moraine and in investigating the feasibility of a community-based trail system for the area.

The Oak Ridges moraine is a key feature of the natural environment in the greater Toronto area. The initiatives we are undertaking will ensure that any development allowed on the moraine within the GTA will be compatible with long-term land use planning goals for the moraine.

The guidelines will make the municipal land use planning system more sensitive to environment concerns and will help ensure that significant features and functions of the moraine are protected for future generations. These initiatives will reinforce this government's commitment to a more ecosystem-based approach to land use planning.

1410

RESPONSES

TAXATION

Mr Bradley: I am very pleased to be able to respond to the tax on auto workers and the withdrawal of this tax, which I consider to be ill conceived and certainly not thought out very well by the Treasurer and all of those on the government side.

It gives me some faith in the role of the Legislative Assembly and particularly that of the opposition that my several questions and those of my colleagues, my leader and the critic for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and the many speeches we have made on this side have obviously had an impact on the Treasurer, who has been forced to withdraw or at least recognize the lack of advisability of this particular tax. It does remain, however, a tax grab. If members look carefully at the details, he is still going to make money at the expense of auto workers in Ontario.

The Treasurer levied this tax in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, when the automobile industry is facing unprecedented competition from the United States and other countries, and he did it disguising it as an environmental measure. Surely everyone in the House recognizes that if the Treasurer wanted to put forward a reasonable environmental measure, he would not have levied this additional tax and extended it to other vehicles. Instead he would withdraw this tax increase and replace it with incentives to people in our province to purchase new vehicles which have better pollution control equipment and much better fuel efficiency.

At the same time he would have had the effect of stimulating the economy in this province as it relates to the automotive industry. My neighbours on my street in St Catharines and the neighbours of many people across the province of Ontario would have benefited immensely by this in terms of their jobs and the spinoff effect on other parts of industry in the province. The environment would have benefited by better fuel efficiency and better pollution control equipment.

Lastly, it speaks rather badly about the consultation process of this government that instead of consulting appropriately ahead of time to determine the effect of such a tax, this government would simply bulldoze ahead and then have to withdraw it. I think this measure is tinkering. It is helpful to a little bit of an extent, but it is unsatisfactory for both the environment and the economy of the automotive industry in Ontario.

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

M. Grandmaître : En réponse à la déclaration faite par le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, je veux lui dire merci. Finalement, le gouvernement réagit à quelque chose qui était dû. Par contre, je me sens offensé lorsque j'entends le ministre mentionner le nouveau Conseil de l'éducation franco-ontarienne. Le CEFO existe depuis 1972 en Ontario. Par contre, depuis les douze derniers mois il n'a pas été tellement actif.

J'aurais préféré en ce jour de fête que le ministre des Collèges et Universités annonce le nouveau site de la Cité collégiale à Ottawa ou même un nouveau collège dans le Nord et dans le Sud. Ce seraient des annonces nouvelles ; ce n'est pas de la répétition. Aujourd'hui, nous avons entendu de la répétition. Par contre, maintenant il faut que je vois le mandat du nouveau conseil de l'éducation. Il faut ameliorer et établir des normes beaucoup plus acceptables qu'auparavant.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Ramsay: We welcome the interim guidelines the Minister of Natural Resources has put into place. We certainly welcome them because they are based on the report Ron Kanter, the previous member for St Andrew-St Patrick, had proposed and John Sweeney, the former member and Minister of Municipal Affairs, had responded to in like kind.

I am a little concerned that it has taken nine months from this being all in place for this government to announce this protection. That is kind of sad for the people living within the Oak Ridges moraine. I would ask the minister what role the MNR is going to take, because we think from here the MNR should also be an advocate for protecting the Oak Ridges moraine.

Also I would just say to the minister, when he speaks of ensuring that endangered species, both plant and animal, are protected, it is very important that the endangered species list be updated. As he knows, it is woefully inadequate.

I think the best news of all to the people of Toronto, and especially to the municipality of Maple, is that obviously the Minister of the Environment would not now consider at all using her emergency powers to enlarge the Keele Valley dump, because looking east to west, the Keele Valley dump is smack in the middle of the Oak Ridges moraine. For that we would like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources for the guidelines and the advice to the Minister of the Environment for protecting that Keele Valley dump. I would like to ask the minister if maybe she would reconsider the Kirkland Lake proposal while she is doing that.

CONSEIL DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE

M. Villeneuve : Scolaire Seulement quelques mots en réponse au ministre des Affaires francophones : j'espère que ce n'est pas une création d'un nouveau conseil, pour réellement mettre les choses un peu de côté.

Nous avons déjà un Comité consultatif des affaires francophones, un Conseil ontarien des affaires universitaires et un Conseil des affaires collégiales. Maintenant, est-ce que c'est un regroupement de toutes ces différentes communautés pour essayer de faire de l'avant ?

J'espère que ce n'est pas une façon pour essayer de retarder ce qui s'impose dans nos milieux francophones. Nous savons que la Cité collégiale d'Ottawa opère très bien, même à surcapacité alors que dans le Nord nous avons besoin de certains éléments éducatifs en français ainsi que dans d'autres parties de la province. Espérons que le tout va être un acheminement à ce qui s'impose dans le moment.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr McLean: I want to reply to the Minister of Natural Resources. First, I want to ask why the Minister of Natural Resources is making this announcement when the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for the GTA. We must all ask the Minister of Natural Resources if extensive consultation was carried out between the ministries and the Office for the Greater Toronto Area before this statement was even drafted.

We find it interesting that the Ministry of Natural Resources has formulated another municipal land-use planning system when the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has already implemented a commission to study land-use planning on a provincial scale. We have one going on with John Sewell as its head, with $3 million of taxpayers' money being spent on a regional study. We hope the minister's citizen advisory committee takes into the account the interests of all concerned parties -- citizens, industries and the local governments -- while they are doing it.

In summary, we will follow this issue with great interest to ensure the Ministry of Natural Resources follows the principles for development set out in the announcement for the Oak Ridges moraine. I want to say how pleased I am to see the conservation authority taking up that property, with the help of the Ministry of Natural Resources, but I am sure the minister is tying the hands of developers on further development within that county.

TAXATION

Mr Stockwell: Before the Treasurer goes ahead breaking his arm patting himself on his back, he would not have had to resolve this problem if he had not created it in the first place. The fact is that what he has done here before the House today is cut the rate on mid-sized cars. He has cut the rate because Bob White attacked him. His auto worker friends were being bludgeoned by this ridiculous and silly tax, so the Treasurer broadened the base on mid-sized cars so he makes more cars applicable to his gas guzzler tax. He can change the words all he likes, but it is his gas guzzler tax.

By my calculations, cars that are getting nearly 40 miles to the gallon are gas guzzlers and the Treasurer is going to hammer them, and any car that gets potentially over 40 miles to the gallon gets a $100 rebate. I am almost sure some motorcycles would not qualify for his rebate under the miles per gallon he has used.

It is tokenism on the rebate side. The Treasurer is still tax-grabbing the public. It is a bad budget. Clearly, if he would have given this a little more thought and would have consulted beforehand, would done some real consultation, he would never have had to backtrack like this. The environmental side is nothing more than a red herring. The Treasurer knows it is a tax grab. He knows he needs the revenue and he is sucking every dollar out of this economy that he can possible suck out of it. It is purely political. It does not go far enough. It is hammering more cars, hammering more taxpayers when they go in to buy their cars. It is unreasonable and typical of this government. It is unfair for the consumers.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Cousens: It surprises me that the Minister of Natural Resources makes the announcement about the Oak Ridges moraine, and not the Minister of the Environment, who is the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. But I found out the answer in listening to the quips. Probably it was not picked up by Hansard and this is purely to help it. I overhead the Minister of the Environment say, "We tossed and I lost." The fact of the matter is that if this government is going to toss around this whole apparatus inconsistently, it is stupid in the extreme.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission falls under the Minister of the Environment. This is an environmental concern that people have. It falls into a host of areas that have to do with long-term planning for the area. They have come along and tossed and said, "Oak Ridges moraine will go to the Minister of Natural Resources." I think they are tossing up a lot of things just by rolling the dice and saying, "Hey, we're going to toss on this one or that one." This is far too important for the Minister of the Environment not to have a key role in it. It has been the environmental groups --

Hon Mr Wildman: She does.

Mr Cousens: Come on. This announcement should have been made by the Minister of the Environment, not by the Minister of Natural Resources. Everything is smattered around. It is no wonder people do not understand what is going on. I do not.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham will come to order. Now that we have captured everyone's attention, perhaps I can hear from the member for Ottawa West on a point of order.

1420

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, I am rising on what may be a point of personal privilege and ask you to investigate and determine same.

The matter relates to public statements made by John Kruger, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr Kruger made statements to the Ottawa Citizen which were published by the Citizen last Saturday, 22 June. The statements implied that I was attempting to influence the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the Ottawa Senators' Kanata Palladium site.

The Ottawa Citizen article states in part, and I am quoting: "OMB Chairman John Kruger said Friday he would prefer that the MPPs don't make any statements in the Legislature about the hearing in Ottawa. He can't stop them, but he is keeping a close watch." The article also shows Mr Kruger strongly implies statements made by me in this House were intended to influence the OMB hearing itself.

As a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Mr Kruger, a senior public servant with deputy minister status, is impugning my status as a lawyer, and he is making veiled threats to an opposition member of the Legislature and is stating that I not comment on the political actions and decisions of this government.

At no time did I ever suggest what decision the OMB should reach. I did, however, comment on the political decisions of the government to reverse the previous government's decision to prosecute an objection with unprecedented vigour and financial resources and to refuse to negotiate compromises -- all political actions of the government and proper subjects of debate in the House.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I believe the comments of Mr Kruger, chairman of the OMB, a quasi-judicial body, are a breach of my privileges as a member of this Legislature. I ask you to investigate this matter and take action in a way which maintains freedom of comment in this Legislature for opposition members.

The Speaker: The member may know that events which occur outside the assembly do not constitute a matter of privilege, in this particular instance for you as a member, but I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, I too have a point of personal privilege, and a very important one at that. I would ask the indulgence of the House for this.

You will remember that last Wednesday, 19 June, I asked a question of the Minister of Mines. I must point out that in my answer I really did not get a non-answer, but I did get a fantastic performance, what I would suggest would be an academy performance on behalf of this minister. As you will know, in the riding we often present certificates and I have never really had the opportunity to --

The Speaker: No. The member for Kenora will come to order, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Nixon: I have a question to the Treasurer. I listened carefully to his announcement of the adjustment in the gas guzzler tax. He has renamed it, and I have not got that just on the tip of my tongue yet. In his statement he indicated he had undertaken the sorts of communications and exchanges of views that led him to change his opinion.

I want to ask him about the possibility of the removal of, or at least a reduction in the 30.1% increase in the diesel fuel tax, which the honourable minister must realize is a very heavy additional burden on an industry that is already suffering. I understand the minister entered into consultation with people knowledgeable in this area just a day or two before the budget; after his reasonable reception, which we can all understand, they were very surprised indeed when he made this very large additional imposition of tax at a time when he must have been aware that the 200,000 people employed in this industry were already suffering from economic deprivation of a very serious nature in this recession.

Can the Treasurer indicate what sort of review he is undertaking of that particular matter, since it certainly involves many working people in this province, and the view was carefully expressed to him, which is factual and cannot be argued against?

Hon Mr Laughren: When I met with officials of the trucking industry prior to the budget, they did indeed express their concern about the state of the industry and the level of taxation, as I recall. Subsequent to that meeting, I had several discussions with the Minister of Transportation. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transportation was prodding me for the meeting rather than the other way around, as I recall, and at that time --

An hon member: Did he mention the diesel tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member will wait for the question to be answered, he will learn that answer.

Subsequent to that meeting, the Minister of Transportation did indeed respond to the concerns of the trucking industry by imposing a moratorium on the issuance of new licences. At the same time he launched a study into the entire cost structure of the trucking industry, and I believe that study is to be completed in the month of August.

I think, to be fair, the government did respond to some of the concerns of the trucking industry, although the member is quite right that we did not respond to its desire that there not be an increase in diesel tax, because we did impose that increase.

Mr Nixon: Representatives of the trucking industry have of course contacted us, as they have other political parties, and no doubt attempted to speak to the Treasurer again on this matter. They indicate they have had a chance to speak to some of his officials, which is not as satisfactory as it might be.

The Treasurer is also aware that the mayors of the border municipalities meeting with him and some of his colleagues put forward as their considered view that the difference in gasoline tax was one of the main reasons people were tempted to undertake cross-border shopping. Since this was the second clear indication to the Treasurer that the tax should not be increased, and as a matter of fact it might even have been considered to have been reduced somewhat, why would he fly in the face of that direct advice and lead the province into focusing on this cross-border shopping difficulty, when he had within his executive grasp procedures for assisting in this matter?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition should and probably does understand the problems concerning cross-border shopping and the problems within the trucking industry, since he has linked these two issues together between his first question and his supplementary question. He should understand very well that taxation is a component in both those issues, the problems in the trucking industry and the problems of cross-border shopping. But he should admit that long before the taxes were increased on gasoline -- as a matter of fact, long before this government took office -- there were problems in both areas. The problems in the trucking industry are primarily too many trucks and not enough business, and the problems of cross-border shopping were there and will be there regardless of the level of taxation on gasoline.

I have never said that the level of taxation in Ontario is not a component of the problem of cross-border shopping or, for that matter, I suppose, of the problem of the trucking industry, but I do not believe that in either case is the tax on gasoline the primary cause of the problem.

1430

Mr Nixon: I suppose there would be a difference of view on that, and we can argue it at some other occasion. It is generally considered by those people on the scene, both in the trucking industry and subjected to the pressures of cross-border shopping, that the gas tax was bad, admittedly, and that the Treasurer made it needlessly worse to the extent of a 30% increase.

This is the part that is difficult to understand. Without entering into a substantial debate on the matter, the honourable Treasurer knows it is the federal fuel tax that has escalated most rapidly, to the point where it is almost equivalent to the tax at the provincial level. Until the Treasurer adjusted the tax the federal tax was higher, and they built no roads at all.

Surely the advice that would come from the tax experts in the Treasury would not have recommended something of this nature, which would have such a negative effect on the economy, at least in the short term. The responsibility must lie with the Treasurer and his political advisers. In that regard, having made a virtue of consultation in his statement after a mistake is made, why can he not simply do the same thing: read the faxes that are coming into his office, listen to the calls that are coming into his switchboard and realize that making a virtue of the mess he has already made of the budget would involve removing at least a part of that tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am glad it is the Leader of the Opposition who asked that question because he knows better than anybody else the need to raise tax revenues in order to meet the ever-increasing demand for services across the province.

I assure the Leader of the Opposition I will look at those fax messages. I am not sure how long it takes to read the 160 fax messages I had received just before I came into the House this afternoon.

I think the Leader of the Opposition should make a distinction between the consultation that went on concerning the gas guzzler tax and what is being asked on the diesel tax or on the gasoline tax increase. In one case, people who are concerned about the level of tax, namely the gas guzzler tax, came in, sat down and made a proposal with the other stakeholders involved. We worked out a proposal and a new system of taxes that did not remove the revenues from the consolidated revenue fund. The Leader of the Opposition knows better than most how important those revenues are if we are going to deliver the services everybody in this province seems to want.

Mr Nixon: I guess what we need is a reincarnation of Jimmy Hoffa, but that may not happen.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Those of us in this House, such as myself, who are and have been totally committed to legislation on the environment are deeply disappointed in the level of inaction exhibited by the minister over the last nine months. On the formation of the government, I would say we had the highest hopes that this minister would follow in the traditions established by the Liberal government and move forward to correct problems.

In this connection, I want to ask the minister what she has done for these nine months, which the honourable minister would know is long enough to accomplish many great things. Under these circumstances, her announcements have not led to any kind of introduction of legislation nor regulation having to do with a comprehensive plan to achieve the 50% reduction by the year 2000 enunciated by her predecessor. We want to know in this House whether she is going to allow this to drift over into the next year or whether she is going to gather up her courage and introduce the sort of legislation that will lead to the sort of debate that many people had hoped would be a part of this particular session.

Hon Mrs Grier: It is hard to know where to begin. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has been seeking legislation. I thought it would have been obvious to someone with as much experience as the Leader of the Opposition has had in this place that legislation to protect the environment has been in this province for quite some time. What there has not been is any commitment to live up to that legislation, to enforce it and to make sure the environment is protected.

With respect to waste reduction, which appears to be the focus of the leader's question, it is not legislation that is required. It is regulations, the will to do it and the commitment to show leadership and persuade the people of this province that, instead of finding holes in the ground in northern Ontario for their waste, they should get serious about reducing, reusing and recycling. It is also having a Treasurer who is prepared to provide in his budgets for the funding to do just that, and that is what this government has.

Mr Nixon: I admire the honourable lady as she emotes for the benefit of her followers, but she did promise an environmental assessment bill and all sorts of regulations that would implement the goals, estimable though they are, that still really have not elicited anything significant from her.

For example, I well recall her saying, as an effective opposition critic, that our municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program was inadequate. Since she took office, the first thing she said was that she would review it. Evidently she is still reviewing it nine months later because absolutely nothing has gone on to move towards the elimination of toxic discharges into the waterways.

Her predecessor, with all sorts of debate and concerns expressed by environmentalists and others, had moved forward quite dramatically in this regard and we were very surprised indeed that this minister has done nothing about it. What can she say about that particular program as regards achieving its worthy goals?

Hon Mrs Grier: The leader says my predecessor had moved forward very dramatically on MISA. If that is the case, I regret to inform the leader that I have not yet been briefed on what those dramatic changes were. I have inherited a program that monitors what is happening. That monitoring has been completed. But the MISA program, as envisaged by the previous government, was to put controls on the ends of the pipes. The review I have asked my ministry to undertake is to try to find out what is going into the pipes and make sure we prevent that contamination, not merely control it as it emerges from the industries in this province.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister must be aware that the whole MISA program was developed by her predecessor and supported not only by the Liberal government but by most of the members of the House at that time. We wonder why the minister has abandoned a program that is so worth while that it will work only if the minister uses her authority and the goodwill she had when she came into office to promote it.

I simply ask her what she has done on updating regulation 308 under the Environmental Protection Act, which deals with air pollution. Certainly it is out of date. We were moving dramatically to improve it, and as a matter of fact there was a six-month consultation under way when the honourable minister took office. That was completed in February and we have heard nothing from her. It seems she has lost her will to act. What has happened to those regulations? Why is she not acting to move forward with cleaning up the air?

Hon Mrs Grier: Before I address the final question, let me first revisit the MISA issue. I think the Leader of the Opposition has missed the point that the MISA program, as supported by many of us and introduced by his colleague, was very much an end-of-the-pipe control mechanism. It did nothing to prevent those contaminants from getting into the environment. It was merely trying to control what was being discharged. It was not going back, as other jurisdictions and Europe are doing and as the federal government is even talking about doing, saying, "How do we prevent that pollution in the first place?" That is what our program is going to do and what I am doing.

With respect to regulation 308, the dramatic changes he said were coming related to a program which, during the consultation we undertook, nobody thought was a very good program. The environmentalists did not think it went far enough, and the industry feels it is far too complicated and not going to achieve the objectives. We have made major changes in the way the people of this province begin to look at waste in all its facets. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that even if his party does not recognize that, the people of this province do.

1440

TAXATION

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. My opinion is that he has cleaned up a very small part -- not even cleaned it up -- of a very big mess he made with his budget. However, auto workers and auto makers are not the only groups that have been hurt by his budget, as hundreds of calls and faxes to his office this morning from the Ontario truckers remind him and as the deteriorating conditions of Ontario tourism industry will attest to. In Buffalo the chamber of commerce reports that larger Canadian companies are now moving to that region. Does the Treasurer think tinkering with one small, ill-considered tax is going to make a dent in that problem? Which of the other taxes is he prepared to reconsider in order to make Ontario's business community more competitive?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly do not think changing the gas guzzler tax to a pure conservation tax will resolve all of the problems that are caused by a very serious, made-in-Canada recession. I do not pretend that. This change was designed after consultation with the auto industry, with the workers involved and with the dealers showed that this would make an improvement on the tax. I think we did the responsible thing. I hear representatives from the business community saying from time to time that we are not consulting. When we do consult, members on the other side do not seem to think it is a good idea. I wish they would get their story straight for once.

Mr Stockwell: If he wanted to consult, why did he not consult before the budget? Why did he not do the consultation before he announced the budget? He is trying to take credit for correcting a mistake he made that is embarrassing. If he never made the mistake, he would not have been trying to pat himself on the back correcting it. He has partially corrected this $45-million error in what is generally recognized as a $52-billion blunder that has done nothing to solve the problems of migration from Ontario. In western Canada his government has been described as the most spectacular western development program ever launched. They think he is tremendous in western Canada.

Now that he has recognized his error with the gas guzzler tax, can he tell the truckers and the tourism operators why they should continue to pay for his mistakes? It was his mistake he is correcting today. When can they expect some relief from Floyd's follies? Or does one phone call from Bob White count for more with this government than the hundreds of calls and faxes he gets from tourism operators and truckers? Is Bob White more important than thousands of people in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I must say the member for Etobicoke West puzzles me from time to time. I think he is happy that we consulted with the industry, the workers and their representatives, the auto dealers and the environmentalists, but on the other hand I do not think he is happy that we made a change. Maybe he is all in favour of token consultation. We are not. We are in favour of meaningful consultation, and that is why we sat down with all the major players. I think the member for Etobicoke West should get his story straight. Does he want us to meet with people and consult in a meaningful way or does he want us just to proceed in a high-handed way, the way his federal counterparts have been doing?

Mr Stockwell: He consulted before the government with union heads, and that is it. He did not consult with business. The story is very strange. The people from Ford did not hear from the Treasurer, the people from General Motors did not hear from him. The only reason he changed this is that Bob White flip-flopped. That is why the Treasurer changed this gas guzzler tax. Get my story straight? Why does the Treasurer not try getting his government's story straight?

The Treasurer keeps telling us the business community has confidence in Ontario, that he does not think it is fair to say it does not have confidence in this government. If he thinks they have confidence, then why are 3,000 people protesting on the front lawn of the Legislature? Why are 1,000 more expected this Thursday, protesting his budget? If having the province's credit rating downgraded by every major agency in North America, if having a plan to double the province's debt in four years, if comments in the press from Ontario business people saying they are not planning to invest in this province -- if the Treasurer thinks this is a vote of confidence by the business community, can he give me an example of any business leader, any business group or any business person who thinks he and his government are doing a good job?

Hon Mr Laughren: I assume the member is seeking a name other than that of Conrad Black, and I will try to think of one in a moment. I should straighten out the member's strange perspective. He should know that prior to the budget we consulted very widely, including with the business community and the automobile industry, so I do not know where in the world the member for Etobicoke West is getting his facts. I have no idea. I will stack up the credibility of this government with the credibility of his party's federal government any day of the week.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. She made an announcement on 11 June on long-term care, which was a disappointment to individuals and to groups that have waited since last September to find out what the government's new direction was, and she must appreciate how shocked these people and these groups were to learn that she made the announcement, yet she had not released publicly, nor was it ready, her long-term paper.

Thousands of seniors, persons with disabilities, people who work as health care professionals and their families feel let down by a government and a minister who yet again apparently has not done her homework. It is my understanding that Peter Clutterbuck was hired to draft the government's long-term care strategy and that it was completed last April. If that is true, will the minister please advise the House why she has not made that document public and will she undertake to release that document to the members of the press gallery, the members of this House and the people of the province who are interested in long-term care reform?

Hon Ms Akande: This will be a brief answer: The consultation paper was not completed by April, as the member has suggested, not to our satisfaction and in the way that it will be submitted when it goes out for consultation, and therefore it has not been put out for consultation.

Mr Jackson: That information raises serious credibility questions about the minister's timing of the announcement and just exactly how meaningful the consultation process will be if the government is to meet honest-to-goodness time lines. They do not have the document for public consumption.

It is clear, therefore, that the minister has no immediate plans to match the financial support requirements and actual care requirements of residents in homes for the aged and nursing homes with their actual needs. This is why I am particularly distressed to learn that a week ago in Ottawa, J. Kaufman, until recently the assistant deputy minister, institutional health, announced that the government intends to phase out chronic care hospitals. Will the minister please advise this House if that statement has any truth or basis in fact, as the assistant deputy minister of Health would have been in a position to make that statement. Would she please confirm if there is any truth to that, and what is the exact status of the chronic care role study which the government has been talking about for the last nine months?

1450

Hon Ms Akande: Once again the member has a few errors in his statement which he makes as a premise to his remarks, and they are not correct.

First, the consultation paper we are putting out this summer and subsequently through the fall was certainly not complete as of April and was not in a form where we felt in April that it should be submitted. It will be put out in the summer and in the fall.

The second thing is that the statement which was made concerning the chronic care hospitals is one that I would not have had announced at that time. However, the member is correct, it was announced, and we are not confirming or negating this at this time in this House.

Mr Jackson: That is an incredible statement for the minister to be making. It is bad enough that she does not do her homework, but the government is not even allowing her to make public what the lesson is going to be. Let's face it, we have blockages in our chronic care health delivery. We have cutbacks in homes for the aged beds, we have cutbacks in nursing home beds, we have cutbacks in the chronic care psychogeriatric wards and now we have word, as the minister has confirmed, that the government is considering cutting back chronic care hospitals.

There are going to be incredible blockages in the health care delivery system in this province unless we get on with the agenda of long-term health care reform. We know that Peter Clutterbuck's report has been completed and sitting on the minister's desk since April. Groups all across Ontario are anxious to get on with the reform, and the minister simply says she did not like what she saw in the report and she is not prepared to proceed with it. What is going to happen to those senior citizens who are now on three-year waiting lists for chronic care beds in this province as we see cutback after cutback? Where is the planning? Where is the time frame? When is the minister going to get on with it?

Hon Ms Akande: If the member is in love with Mr Clutterbuck's plan, then he should, of course, distribute it. It is not the plan, the consultation paper that we are putting in place. We did announce that levels of care funding will be coming in during 1993. In fact, we do have a plan in place which we described to the House at that time.

We are also quite aware that one of the things we are trying to do is to replace chronic care with the kind of facilities that are really useful in the community so that people can be served in the community and so that excessive expenditure does not go to support people whose needs cannot be met within chronic care and where chronic care is not necessary.

We did announce those things. Yes, I did my homework. The other problem is, though, that the member is a selective listener and has difficulty comprehending information that is given in more than one-syllable words.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF YORK REGION

Mrs McLeod: I also have a question for the Minister of Community of Social Services, this time on a different topic, although I think we are all amazed on this side of the House with the answer that was just given to the last question.

I would like to draw the minister's attention to a press release last week in which the minister indicated she was appointing a new children's aid society corporation and board in York region. We are all aware that the reason the minister took this step was that the previous board felt it had no choice but to resign. The board members felt completely unable to meet their responsibilities under the act with the inadequacy of funding provided by the ministry.

I was dismayed to read the comments of the minister in relation to the members of the new board when she said these members were keenly interested in how services can meet the needs of the area's children and families. Surely the minister would acknowledge that the members of the old board in York region were equally keenly aware of and keenly concerned to meet the needs of the children in York region. Would she also acknowledge that this whole fiasco in York region is a result of the attempt to find a board that would acquiesce to the government's requirements for cuts in spending? Perhaps she would tell us all what she has told the new board to do.

Hon Ms Akande: I welcome the opportunity to answer this question. It seems to me that it is a rather late and slow response to the needs of a children's aid society that have been growing for five years. It seems to me it would have been easier to address one's response to that deficit last year, when there was a surplus, yet that was not done. We offered $7.6 million towards that deficit, considerably more than what was offered by any previous government. We attempted to work with the board while we were altering the way in which we look at funding for the CAS. That was met with the resignation of that board.

We have a responsibility to see that children are not at risk and to see that the system is maintained so, in response to the resignation of others, we initiated a new board.

Mrs McLeod: As the minister will probably be aware, the previous government was concerned about the consistency of funding for children's aid societies and the previous minister initiated a review that the minister should be well aware of, to be able to address the funding concerns that were being presented by children's aid societies even then.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I also suggest to the minister that we would have been well aware that in a time of recession, as we tried to indicate in a question last week, it is children in families under stress who become even more at risk, which is why children's aid societies across this province are seeing more and more children come into care.

I raised this concern with the minister earlier and I was more than a little surprised to have her say in her response that direct services to children were always funded and that it was largely capital costs that were of concern. That was not the case in York region; I do not believe it would be found to be the case in any children's aid society across the province. We know that additional administrative costs as more children come into care are not being met. We know there are many areas in which preventive services are not being funded. We know that cash flow problems, as more and more children come into care, are becoming absolutely critical.

There are very serious concerns about the consistency and the rationality of funding for children's aid societies. The minister can change boards as frequently as she would like and that will not change the reality. I would ask if she would direct her ministry to acknowledge the real cost concerns of children's aid societies across this province and undertake to fund the very legitimate costs of mandated services.

Hon Ms Akande: I thank the member for the review of the costs that make up the deficit. It seems to me that a government that so strongly understands it might have addressed it.

I have to say we have attempted and are attempting to look in a comprehensive way at a new way of funding the CAS. We recognize the difficulties. Of course, the member is correct, the additional support costs were not picked up; some of the capital costs were not picked up. One would recognize long before five years came to an end that those costs would definitely be added when more service providers who work directly with the children are added. Nevertheless, those costs were not picked up. We have attempted and are continuing to attempt to find a better way of funding the CAS.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Villeneuve: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food is aware of the verbal commitment the NDP, his party, has given to fuel ethanol and to the great advantage that it would have towards cleaning up our environment. After all the verbal support we have heard, can he tell us today what support he, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and other ministers -- of Energy, Transportation, etc -- give to providing a cleaner burning fuel by mixing ethanol and other fuel?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am very pleased to have that question presented today. We are co-operating with our colleagues the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transportation. We hope to be able to have some pilot projects up and going the first of next year. We are working over the summer and the fall looking at what we can put together to start off, hopefully, with something that will be a small pilot project, something that can grow and be of benefit to rural Ontario.

1500

Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that pilot projects are great. However, we know it is working well in other provinces. It is working extremely well in the United States. More ethanol is being burned in the United States than all of the fuel in Canada. The Ontario Global Warming Coalition has reported that there would be great advantages to blending fuel ethanol with fuel. It also recommends a 10% ethanol blend, which would therefore reduce the amount of fuel we would need by 10%. That 10% would indeed be a renewable source of fuel. Above and beyond, we have to have a little better than pilot projects, because we know it works and it works well. When will the minister announce an industry that will help to clean the air and also help agriculture?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I do not know what the member is suggesting. The point is that we do support the use of ethanol, we support the 10% mix concept and we are currently investigating exploring ways of getting that going, starting with small sites for the production of ethanol, looking at what kind of agreements can be worked out with the fuel companies and so on, so that it can be brought on stream in an economical and a timely way.

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Mr Drainville: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Recently Victoria county's economic strategy steering committee reported that the county should consider focusing on four sectors of the local economy to develop long-term economic growth. One of these was integral to the economy; that is, the agricultural sector. Specifically, the report called for ways to add value to agricultural production. Could the minister inform the House of any programs or initiatives he has undertaken to address this fundamental issue?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think the best initiative that addresses the point the member makes is that back in January we announced Innovation Agriculture, a new group of professionals within the ministry that is looking into new initiatives as to how we can look into value added production, as the member says, and look at how we can market non-traditional crops and livestock commodities. Working directly with farmers and local groups and organizations, they are going to be exploring to see how we can expand on new strategies and value added production in rural Ontario.

Mr Drainville: I thank the minister for that, but one of the important things is that we are in a time constraint right now economically. We need some of these initiatives to take place as soon as possible and they need to be able to expand the economy. What are the time lines?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The hiring for the five positions I mentioned earlier started last week and hopefully will be concluded this week. The positions will be filled. We hope the program is going to be fully operational by September. There will be consultations going on around the province. This is a provincial program that is headquartered in Guelph. They will be going around and meeting various groups across the province starting in September.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Phillips: I would like to follow up the rather unusual announcement today by the Minister of Community and Social Services. As members know, we have been pushing very hard on the government's plans for long-term care reform. Then we hear today that the plans seem to be to close the chronic care hospitals. I think members can appreciate how the patients in those facilities will be feeling right now with the announcement by the minister today that she will not be confirming or denying. I wonder if the minister can be a little bit more specific, so that we can provide some reassurance to those patients now in those hospitals who must be wondering about their future.

Hon Ms Akande: There will always be chronic care hospitals. There will always be people who require that kind of care. However, we have announced that we are focusing on a shift of service into the community, not for everyone but certainly for those people who are now placed in facilities like that when that is not necessary. In order to do that, we have refocused funds so that we can in fact build up services in the community to take and to care for and support people appropriately there. Those who require chronic care will always have chronic care facilities.

Mr Phillips: Actually the minister has announced nothing. Believe me, she has spent eight months doing nothing, studying it and doing nothing. We still do not have her report, her consultation paper, after eight months. It is supposed to be coming out in the summer and then there is to be more consultation. She has announced nothing.

I wonder if I might follow up again on the answer she gave. I think she said, "We will be replacing" -- these are the words I think she used -- "chronic care hospitals with the kind of care that is useful." I believe those are the minister's words. I ask her what she meant by the remarks that she will be replacing chronic care hospitals with the kind of care that is useful.

Hon Ms Akande: I will be subject to check, but I do not believe I used the word "useful." However, what I do mean is that we will be replacing the extent of chronic care to put greater support within the community. With levels of care, only those people who are assessed as actually requiring chronic care will be given such in chronic care hospitals. Others who are currently using those services who do not actually require them will be directed to what are more appropriate community support services.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last month I made a statement in the House in respect to the fact that a company in Grimsby, Rieder Distillery, which purchases surplus grapes from the provincial government and then uses the surplus grapes to produce a quality brandy, has had no success in attempting to sell its brandy to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Instead, the LCBO purchases brandy from France and then bottles and sells it. Since we are talking about Ontario grapes, an Ontario producer and Ontario brandy, can the minister give us any reason why the LCBO should not purchase Rieder Distillery's brandy?

Hon Ms Churley: I do not have the answer for the member today. I was not expecting this question today. It did come up some time ago and it was not directed to me at that time, but I would be very happy to get back to the member tomorrow if he would like.

Mr Runciman: I made a statement in the House and I believe that when we are talking about the LCBO we are talking about the minister's responsibilities. If her staff were on their toes, I think at the very least they would bring this to her attention. Maybe I am being too harsh. This is perhaps reflective of this whole government's approach in terms of the economy. This may be a relatively small matter, but we are talking about an Ontario producer.

I want to put a quote on the record in respect to a letter I received from the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board in response to the statement. At least they were listening. They paid attention and they were commending my party's position. "Otto Rieder's brandies earn awards around the world, so there can be no questioning the quality of the product he produces." We are talking about first-quality products.

I would like to have some kind of response from the minister. When Ontarians go into a liquor control board store in Ontario and they see an Ontario crest label on a product, I think it is only reasonable they assume this is an Ontario product. Why can she not take steps immediately to ensure this is indeed the case?

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I must admit I had trouble hearing the question well because of the din around me. You may have noticed that yourself.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: Now it is getting louder.

However, I agree with the member of the third party that this is a very serious issue and one I am concerned about. I would like to point out to the member that I do have over 50 acts in my ministry, and although my ministry is not one of the ones that are in the media and questioned every day, there are a number of issues that I deal with daily. This is not an excuse. It just so happens that, as I said earlier on when asked a question, I hate to give fluff answers. I like to be able to answer a member's question properly. I have said I will do that tomorrow. If he will be just a little bit more patient and a little bit more understanding, I will give him an answer tomorrow.

1510

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Jamison: As most of the members are aware, an announcement was made by the Ministry of Labour in January that the government would be providing an additional $25 million in new funding to create new programs to assist laid-off workers and enhance existing ones. The Ministry of Labour programs which will benefit from this include community help centres and the Transitions program. When does the Minister of Labour expect a decision around the funding to the workers' support centres to be finalized?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In terms of the labour adjustment initiatives that we announced some time ago, we are up and running on all of them. We currently have regional committees assisting people in Milverton, Wawa and North Bay and we are working on Kapuskasing and Elliot Lake. We have made help centre funding to four communities. We have special initiatives funding to some six other communities. We have over 100 plant-level committees currently in place as a result of the labour adjustment funding and we have hired nine special advisers for community assistance and assistance where plants have closed. All of this is currently under way. We are looking at additional requests, of which there is a large number, for help centres. We are evaluating those requests as we receive them.

Mr Jamison: Upon allocation of the funds, what would be the expected time frame between application and review of the criteria and actual disbursement of funds?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The chief problem here will be which of the additional requests we have had we are able to meet, and that should be done fairly shortly. As I say, we have a number of cities where the funds are already in place and we have had a large number of requests for assistance which we are currently evaluating. I do not think it will take too much time to put them in place once we find out just how many additional centres we can fund.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Ramsay: I hope the Minister of Natural Resources is aware of the Pinegrove Forest site that is at the eastern edge of the Rouge Valley park land. It contains the last nesting colony of great blue herons in the Metro region. But this site is slated for immediate development.

The ministry recently completed a life science inventory of the site and recommended that a portion of this site be set aside as an area of natural and scientific interest, an ANSI. This classification would at least give this site some partial protection. Time is of the essence, though, because Pickering council tonight gives consideration to development of this site. As of an hour ago, when I checked with the planning department, it had not heard any word from the minister or his ministry as to provincial interest in this site. Will the minister be expressing his concerns to the city of Pickering today? Will he be following his ministry's advice that this area should be saved?

Hon Mr Wildman: The question is an important one. I appreciate the member raising it. The matter is under active review and we will be making a decision shortly.

Mr Ramsay: I appreciate the minister's concern but I hope active review will culminate this afternoon. We really need to have an indication of provincial interest to the council at Pickering tonight as it is going to be making a decision on this. As he knows, the Rouge Valley park advisory committee has sent him many recommendations as to how this total area should be managed.

This is only one of many threats to this area. I am sure the minister would be aware of the many golf course proposals being addressed for this site that have to be looked at. Now citizens' groups, not government, are basically being asked to take the lead in preventing storm water ponds being established in this particular site. As we speak, again, other condominium projects are being proposed not 10 metres from the edge of the Rouge Valley.

I would ask the minister that he make sure there is no longer the confusion of provincial government and municipal government working together. We need to have some co-ordination so that municipalities, planners, everybody involved in the Rouge Valley area, knows where the government stands and so we get a co-ordinated approach to planning in this area.

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, the protection of the Rouge Valley generally is a very high priority with this government, and the various ministries and agencies that are involved are co-ordinating their efforts to ensure that we protect the Rouge. I would say, in addition to what I said earlier, I have every confidence in the scientific work done by my ministry staff and I am very supportive of the program on areas of natural and scientific interest program, as I am sure all members are, including the member for Grey. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that the protection of the great blue heron rookery is carried out.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister knows Algonquin Park provides some of the finest lake trout and brook trout angling in Ontario. Historically and today, access and harvesting limitations have collectively served to preserve these heritage trout populations, which typically allow a harvest of only one-quarter to one-half pound per acre of lake per year.

These regulations are clearly necessary for the proper management and conservation of the park's fisheries resources. The park's lakes are small and natural populations are very low without access and harvesting limitations that are at least as restrictive as those in effect today. The ministry's own published research clearly indicates these heritage fisheries will be extremely vulnerable to overharvesting to the point of extinction.

Does the minister acknowledge that current access and harvesting limitations are essential to sustain Algonquin Park's outstanding fisheries?

Hon Mr Wildman: I am sure the member is aware that the reason we have the limitations is that they are considered necessary for sustaining the fishery.

Mr McLean: In the minister's response to the Algonquin Park management plan review, the minister has changed the Algonquin Park goals statement to place more emphasis in the future on protection and recreation objectives. I also note in the interim enforcement policy announced recently by the minister that aboriginal rights to fish for food must first ensure that conservation and resource management concerns have been satisfied, as required by the Sparrow decision.

Why is the minister currently allowing the Algonquins of Golden Lake to drive over logging roads that are closed to the public to gain access and fish throughout the interior of the park? Why is he allowing this when it threatens fisheries and destroys a higher priority resource, the wilderness recreation experience of other park users? Why is he allowing this when it is totally unnecessary, as the food needs of the Algonquins can be met entirely closer to their homes outside the park?

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very difficult question and one that I hope the member will agree is not easily resolved. He knows we are currently involved in negotiations that will attempt to deal with this issue.

I think it is important for all of us in this House to recognize that we cannot, on the one hand, say we support aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food and for ceremonial purposes, as guaranteed in the Constitution of this country under section 35 and as has been supported by the Supreme Court of Canada, and then on the other hand say we should not enter into discussions with the aboriginal people on how that right can be exercised while meeting our obligations under the Supreme Court decision to protect conservation.

These are not easy negotiations. They are a top priority of this government. We will be working as quickly as possible to resolve these issues and to come up with interim agreements acceptable to all to ensure that the rights of the aboriginal people are protected, as all members say they wish them to be, while at the same time protecting the conservation and park values of Algonquin Park.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs MacKinnon: My question today is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As everyone in this caucus is aware, I am sure, long-term care is one of my priorities, inasmuch as many of the residents in Lambton county are in that type of facility. Could the minister please tell me what ways the long-term care direction is different now than it was with our former government?

Hon Ms Akande: I am very happy to answer that question. Number one, we will significantly enhance the commitment to community and neighbourhood support services. As a matter of fact, we will pick up the deficits for all of the budget that the government approves, so that will be an increase and it will be unnecessary for those particular facilities to raise additional funds.

There will be no charge to consumers for services provided in the home, such as health care, personal care and homemaking. The Ontario government will pick up all those charges. The previous government was accepting only the health care charges.

We will make a substantial investment in supported housing programs, enabling seniors to live in the community. We are allocating funds from the hospital sector to long-term care services in the community -- the reallocation of an additional $37.6 million -- and we are creating new service co-ordination agencies. The communities will be involved in the development of those agencies.

1520

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As I am sure all members of this House are aware, senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to being defrauded by unethical business practitioners. Recently on CKCO television, several cases involving --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I am sure you can hear this. Several cases involving the defrauding of senior citizens were reported, including the case of an elderly widow who wound up spending over $40,000 on home repairs, subsequently valued by police at about $10,000.

Our Liberal government unveiled a comprehensive consumer protection code last July that was aimed at protecting vulnerable consumers, in particular seniors. This government has done nothing to implement this legislation. Meanwhile, the minister appeared on CITY-TV stating that Ontario needs a comprehensive consumer protection code. Maybe she is not aware that this legislation has already been drafted. Does the minister plan to do anything to protect senior citizens from these home repair and other frauds and is she ever planning on introducing the consumer protection code?

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly did not have any trouble hearing this questioner.

I am happy to say I am very aware of the code. I have reviewed it thoroughly and I hope to bring it forward very soon.

I want to tell the member that I am extremely concerned about the abuse that not only seniors but other consumers in this province are taking. However, the consumer code as devised by the previous Liberal government is not thorough enough. I have had the opportunity as the new minister to review the code, and it is inadequate. In the complex marketplace of today, it leaves out some components that are very important to bring into any new consumer legislation. However, I thank the member for bringing the concern forward. I can guarantee that the new consumer protection I am putting into the code will be brought forward very soon.

Mr Mahoney: I have a lot of concern about the minister's apparent flippant disregard -- not for the work necessarily of the former government, because it does not surprise me that she would take a partisan position on that, but the fact is that several stakeholder groups were involved in negotiating over months and months of consultation.

Mr Sorbara: Years.

Mr Mahoney: Years. The former Minister of Labour says years, because they were involved. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology was involved. We had parliamentary assistants who attended meetings on behalf of the ministries. We had the consumer associations involved. We had the small business community involved.

Mr Sorbara: We had the trade unions involved.

Mr Mahoney: We had the trade unions involved. I do not know who the minister needs to involve now or how she thinks she is going to solve this problem. In the meantime, we have senior citizens getting ripped off out there, with no alternative, with nobody to turn to, while this minister simply fiddles around with the legislation.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr Mahoney: I have noticed the minister has replaced the former minister's signature on all the elevators in the province. So at least she has accomplished that.

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Mahoney: I guess that takes a lot of time, with the white-out and the new pen, to go around and change all that.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: I have noticed that the birth certificates take longer than ever to get. When is the minister going to do something that will help the seniors? The minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs is ignoring them. We have a consumer protection piece of legislation where the work has been done. She is allowing it simply to gather dust. The minister should do something.

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

Hon Ms Churley: I hope I will be allowed at least half the time to respond to the very lengthy tirade that was just presented to me instead of a question, even though the question period is up. First of all I want to tell the member that I am not as flippant as he is about this particular situation. I think he has to bear in mind that a Liberal government was in power for some time and that government did not bring in new consumer protection legislation. I think we have to keep that very much in mind. In the meantime I have consulted with many of the groups he mentioned today. He might be surprised to know that I have a good working relationship with those groups. The consumers' organization, for instance, agrees with me that, even though it is anxious to have this legislation brought forward, there are some components, for instance, plain language -- we are looking at other kinds of issues -- that have been left out. So I just want to assure the member again that in fact I am working very hard.

In closing I have to say that of the 50 acts I have now in this ministry, a number need complete overhaul. Some have not been touched in years and years. Work on others was started by the Liberals but got nowhere. These need the attention of this government to make sure they are adequate for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

MULTICULTURALISM

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege on a non-partisan matter: I would just like to recognize that the Minister of Citizenship received a document today, Multiculturalism Alive, a resource kit. It is being distributed to all members of this House for their very careful consideration, which I know they will give it. I would just like to indicate very briefly that Carman Germano, who was chairperson for this particular document that seeks to build on our cultural diversity towards equity, and Brian Vrebosch, president of the multicultural council, are here in the gallery and have enjoyed the support of all members of the House in the past with respect to this particular message. I would like to acknowledge their presence and recommend that all members give this very careful attention because I know their feelings with respect to multiculturalism.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Hayes: I was always brought up to respect other people and their views, and even though some of our beliefs and things are not the same, I think in this House we should show respect for our colleagues regardless of what side they are on. On Thursday 20 June I kind of let my emotions get carried away and I did a more or less personal verbal attack on the member for Etobicoke West. I would like to apologize to that member and hope he accepts my apologies.

Mr Stockwell: I certainly accept the apology and I would like to offer mine as well because the personal attack was not one way.

The Speaker: As one who is often caught in the middle of the cross-fire, I appreciate the twin apologies.

1530

MULTICULTURALISM

Mrs Caplan: I would rise on a point of order on the statement that was just made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There are people here in the gallery. All parties should have had an opportunity to respond. What he said belongs more properly during ministers' statements. In fact, because of the significance of the document, it should have been a statement from the Minister of Citizenship. His conduct was out of order and I am offended as a member of this House that I have not had an opportunity --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. When I have everyone's attention I will address the matter raised.

Now that we are all relaxed and happy I can address the matter raised by the member for Oriole. Indeed, she raised a point which has been raised on other occasions and is a matter of concern because it affects all parties. There are occasions when members wish to introduce guests in the gallery. I suggest it would be certainly appropriate if, in advance of question period, the House leaders were consulted with respect to who might rise on a point and gain the unanimous consent of the assembly to make remarks. That perhaps would be a more orderly way to handle these types of situations.

Our orders do not provide -- and perhaps they are deficient in not so doing -- an opportunity to introduce a wide variety of guests. I realize members' intentions are honourable, that they wish to pay attention to, and have attention brought to bear for, special guests who appear here, but perhaps there is a little more orderly way of doing it. For the time being, I suggest they work through the House leaders to achieve what they wish to achieve.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, with respect, I think I have raised a legitimate point of order --

The Speaker: Yes, and I have responded to it. Would the member take her seat, please.

I beg to inform the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: A point of order was brought to my attention; I have dealt with it.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the Commissioners of Estate Bills with respect to Bill Pr70, An Act respecting The Royal Conservatory of Music.

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 84(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

PETITIONS

LAND REGISTRATION

Mrs Mathyssen: Today I am presenting a petition from 1,007 residents of the Glencoe area who respectfully ask the government of the province of Ontario to reconsider the closure of the land registry office in the town of Glencoe for the benefit of the town and rural community it serves.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition from many people from Oakville and Burlington which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Elizabeth II."

I have affixed my signature to the petition and concur with it.

PROVINCIAL COLLEGES

Mr Grandmaître: I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas Ontario provincial colleges are not required by provincial law to pay sessional teachers the 4% holiday pay that all Ontario employers are required to pay their employees, we request that the Legislative Assembly move to included these provincial colleges in the above-mentioned law."

PHOSPHATES

Mr Cleary: I have a petition sponsored by the resource centre in my riding. It has over 1,600 signatures and it says:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To ban the manufacture and sale of detergents containing phosphates."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE CAMIONNAGE

Mr Philip moved first reading of Bill 129, An Act to amend the Truck Transportation Act, 1988.

M. Philip propose la première lecture du projet de loi 129, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le camionnage.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to assist the for-hire trucking industry by placing a moratorium on new trucking licences within the province, and by regulating load brokers.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT, 1991

Mr Carr moved first reading of Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1991

Mr Mammoliti moved first reading of Bill Pr62, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mme Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Mr Speaker, this bill, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, implements the changes announced by the Treasurer in his statement today. The bill replaces the tax on fuel inefficient vehicles with the new tax for fuel conservation.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading on Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading on Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC ACT, 1991

Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Mahoney, moved second reading of Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of Bill Pr63, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MULTIMOBILE CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1991

Mr Offer moved second reading of Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Multimobile Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT, 1991

Mr Hope moved second reading of Bill Pr75, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS / TROISIEME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

La motion de troisième lecture des projets de lois suivants est adoptée :

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act;

Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act;

Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Assessment;

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act in respect of Liability for Tax on Transfers of Gasoline, Aviation Fuel or Propane;

Projet de loi 79, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence concernant l'assujettissement à la taxe lors de transferts d'essence, de carburant aviation ou de propane.

Bill 82, An Act to establish the Treasury Board.

Projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Conseil du Trésor.

1550

RENT CONTROL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CONTROLE DES LOYERS

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation.

M. Cooke propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 121, Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will be relatively brief on this bill and I look forward to the --

Mr Elston: That is a relief.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am not a lawyer, Murray.

I would like to very much thank the people who have participated over the last several months in the development of this bill.

The members will be aware that very shortly after we formed the government we brought in the temporary rent control legislation, commonly known as Bill 4, which was legislation put in place until we could develop, in consultation with the people of this province, permanent rent control legislation. The discussion document we produced and released in February resulted in this legislation.

I do think it is important to review briefly the extensive consultation we went through with thousands of people across the province to develop Bill 121. The green paper, the consultation paper itself, went out to 20,000 individuals or groups across the province. Many of them, of course, were requests to people who wanted to read the extensive document and wanted to comment.

A summary copy of the consultation document went to 980,000 households across the province, to every tenant household, because we wanted tenants to participate in the development of this legislation. Also, thousands of copies went out to landlords across the province as well, the summary document as well as the full-sized document, in order to facilitate the involvement of landlords in this consultation process as well.

There were 20 communities across the province that we visited, seven of which where we had public meetings, and over 1,200 people attended. There were approximately 500 submissions through those meetings.

I should also indicate that in response to the 980,000 summary documents that went out across the province, 17,000 people filled out the questionnaire and gave us their opinion on what they thought should be in the permanent rent control legislation.

Then, of course, there are many umbrella groups, or groups that represent landlords and tenants. We had 25 direct meetings with groups like Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, with groups like the Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development, the small landlords' organization, and the Metro Toronto Federation of Tenants, the United Tenants of Ontario and the Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Tenants' Associations, those types of groups that represent a larger number of affiliated groups that come under their umbrella.

All in all, we met with thousands of individuals and listened to their points of view in an attempt to come up with a piece of legislation that represented real protection for tenants in this province but also a system that was workable and responded to some of the concerns that had been expressed by the private sector, by landlords, in the consultation process.

Mr Tilson: Do you think you succeeded?

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, I do. I think we have found a piece of legislation that, sure, some of the tenant groups say does not meet all of their demands and some of the landlord groups say does not meet all of their demands. But if people take an objective point of view and look at this legislation they will see a product that is a result of a government that is listening and wants to develop the piece of legislation that will offer that real protection for tenants, both in terms of rents and in terms of maintenance, and also will be fair to the landlord community in dealing with the legitimate requirements of some money to deal with capital.

I have said all along, right from the beginning, that the permanent legislation would have to deal with the capital issue.

Mr Elston: Is that all along from the beginning?

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, whatever. I think it is important that people understand the components of the rent increases that are provided for in this legislation and some of the important components or features that I believe make this legislation very fair.

There are two guidelines in this legislation, and it is important that members of the Legislature understand it. This is the first piece of rent control legislation in the province that recognizes there are some differences between small landlords and large landlords. That is something we heard time and time again during the consultation process. I would suggest that the standing committee on general government, when it was examining Bill 4, heard that concern as well, that small landlords and large landlords have some different concerns and issues, and that government should try to treat small landlords in a different way from large landlords.

Previous governments said that was impossible. They did not respond; they did not do it. In this legislation we have brought out some very significant areas where small landlords will be treated differently from large landlords.

The guideline itself has two guidelines, one for the large landlords and one for the small landlords. The guideline is made up of inflation, to reflect the increased costs due to inflation, and also capital. I want to point out that it is the inflation guideline that treats small landlords differently from large landlords. The guideline reflects 66% of the inflation costs for small landlords. If this legislation were in place this year it would produce a guideline for inflation purposes of 3.4% for small landlords, and for large landlords it would produce an inflation guideline of 2.6%.

In addition to that, we have said we would build in an additional 2% in rent increases for capital. This is a very important aspect of the index, because I think it is fair to say that one of the arguments the Conservative Party has used, in particular, and landlords have used is that under the temporary legislation there was no provision for capital, but we are making it very clear, which has not been the case in the past, that the guideline includes provisions for capital.

That has been the case in the past, but there was somehow the perception by the landlords' community and by the Conservative Party that the 5.4% in the guideline under the Liberal legislation did not include anything for capital, and that if any amount of money was spent on capital in apartment buildings it had to result in above-the-guideline increases. That is simply not the case, and for the first time, this legislation makes it very clear. The guideline has two components, inflation and capital. We expect the rents being paid now, the $8 billion in rents being collected across the province, should include the responsibility of landlords across the province to properly maintain their buildings. I think the distinction in the guideline of inflation for operating costs and the 2% for capital is important.

One of the arguments the Conservative caucus has used is that 2% is not enough for capital, but I should remind members that this is 2% per year, so it develops over a very short period of time a significant amount of money from the rents being collected to provide for capital investments in our apartment buildings and will definitely provide adequate capital for the vast majority of landlords in this province. But we have indicated that for those landlords for whom the 2% is not adequate, because there is a range of financial conditions for apartment buildings across the province, there will be the provision of above-the-guideline increases, but we have put several conditions on the above-the-line increases.

I think one thing should be made very clear. There are only three ways that a tenant can get an increase above the guideline: municipal taxes, utilities, or necessary capital expenditures. Those are the only three ways there will be an increase above the guidelines for tenants in this province.

There is a complex formula that members will be aware of that describes what extraordinary increases in utilities or property taxes are.

Mr Elston: It is complex.

Hon Mr Cooke: It is complex, but the one thing I have clearly learned in dealing with this legislation is that on each of the issues I had to make a judgement of whether there had to be some complexity in order to be fair, and whether the additional fairness that is achieved is worth that additional complexity.

On that issue of extraordinary increases in operating expenditures for utilities and property taxes I believe fairness dictates that there be a little bit of complexity in it, so that landlords can be treated fairly and so that there can be a regional recognition in the inflation aspects to rent increases in case there is an abnormal increase in property taxes in a particular region or an abnormal increase in some of the utilities that could not possibly be recognized by one guideline that would apply right across the province.

1600

In addition to those two exceptions for operating expenditures, there is the provision to get capital expenditures passed through. Again I want to emphasize there can never be an increase above the guideline of more than 3%. We have for the first time defined what necessary capital is. We have talked about necessary capital being capital that is related to the integrity of the apartment building, that is for environmental reasons, for energy efficiency, for electrical, for plumbing, those types of capital expenditures that are absolutely essential to the integrity of the building and therefore the health and safety of the residents of the apartment building.

I think that is absolutely essential, because certainly one of the major complaints we have heard over the years about the previous rent regulation legislation in the province is that unnecessary capital was being spent. The example of marble lobbies was used. I think it is only fair that if capital is going to be allowed, if a landlord wants to put in a marble lobby in order to increase the value of his apartment building, increase the value of his investment, that is fine, he can still do it, but under our rent control system he is not going to be able to pass that cost through to the tenants.

It will be an investment that is the responsibility of the landlord, and his return on that investment will be in the increased value of the apartment building. I think there is pretty much a consensus with both landlords and tenants that this type of unnecessary capital should not be paid for by the tenants of the province. That is the type of capital that will be allowed.

There are other aspects to the capital expenditure issue that I think we can discuss and debate in the committee when there are public hearings across the province. I have certainly indicated to the landlords' groups and the tenants' groups that if there are improvements that can be made in this area in terms of definitions, we are more than willing to listen to people to try to improve the legislation through the public hearing consultation that will take place.

Another important aspect of this legislation is the provision for maintenance, because there is nothing I heard more about than the fact that some apartment buildings in the province are not adequately maintained. Certainly the landlords' groups as well indicate that they are not happy with the landlord who does not properly maintain his or her buildings. It is an embarrassment to all landlords when a building is not maintained and has work orders and so forth written against it by municipalities.

What we have done in this legislation for the first time is say that if a municipality has a work order against a particular apartment building, there are I believe 30 days provided under the other legislation for a building to come in compliance, to solve the issue, to fix the infraction that has resulted in the work order. If after the 30 days the problem with the building has not been repaired, then the ministry, through the rent control division, will automatically put in place a rent penalty and the rent penalty will be the guideline increase.

I believe the automatic nature of this provision of the legislation, this rather substantial improvement in the system that will result in a rent penalty taking place, will result in infractions of legislation that result in work orders being repaired much more quickly.

This will result in Ontario's apartment stock being maintained more quickly and landlords being more responsive. The landlords who are the consistent offenders will pay a heavy price. As a result, I think there is a real incentive to repair buildings quickly, which has been met with a general positive response from the landlord and tenant community.

I should just go back for a second to the provisions for capital expenditures, the above-the-guideline increases, and point out that we have provided in this legislation for a carryover of capital expenditures. In other words, if there is an application for an above-the-guideline increase and the capital expenditure that is resulting in that application is, say, 5% of the rent, then what will happen is there will be a provision for a carryover. They will get 3% the first year and 2% the second year.

For small landlords, there is the provision for two years of carryover and for large landlords, one year. That is another example in the legislation where we have tried to be sensitive to the different demands on small landlords as opposed to larger landlords.

Another important feature of the legislation is the five-year exemption for new apartment buildings. The attempt in this section of the legislation is to eliminate some of the complexity that was in the previous legislation. Currently, if a new building opens up in this province, there is a rather elaborate exchange of paperwork to try to determine what the legal rent is. It is very complex and it is very discouraging to some people in the private sector. We believe that a five-year exemption will allow a new landlord who is building a new building to get to the break-even point and then to carry on from there, register the rents and be covered by the rent control legislation.

I want to make it very clear that at the end of five years there is absolute protection for tenants, their buildings are registered and they come under rent control. Before that, obviously the market will have some bearing on the rents that will be charged because the rest of the units in the province will be covered by the rent control system. But I do believe this will provide for some additional flexibility for the private sector and will result in new rental units that are desperately needed being built across the province. I think there is an honest attempt by this government to reach out and respond to some of the concerns that were expressed by the financial community when we were consulting on the permanent rent control legislation.

The administrative decision-making features of the legislation, I believe, are streamlined and will provide for quicker decisions to be made, which is in the interests of landlords and tenants across the province. There was clearly a concern, and rightfully so, about the time it took for the decisions to be made under the previous legislation. We have tried to the best of our ability to come up with a system that is simpler and will result in quicker decisions.

It is clear that the number of cases should be decreased because the number of ways that you get to the rent control system are limited under the permanent legislation. I believe very strongly that it will result in a fairer system and a system that delivers a decision for landlords and tenants more quickly.

I look forward to the debate that will take place over the next number of hours and I look forward to the public hearings that we will have on this legislation. We have indicated right from the beginning that we will have public hearings in a standing committee of the Legislature and listen to landlords and tenants and municipal officials and people from the financial community to see what suggestions might be made to improve the legislation further.

I believe we have come up with a series of recommendations in the permanent legislation that will result in a fairer system and will deliver very clearly on the promise that this party made that tenants were going to receive protection against the kind of rent increases that were provided for under the previous system.

It is clear that under this system there will not be any 15%, 20% and 25% rent increases. There is not a provision for economic loss. Landlords will not be funded by tenants when they flip buildings because we believe very strongly that if a landlord is going to buy a building and if the current rents do not support the price he or she has paid for that, it should not be funded through increased rents, through a rent control system.

The economic loss provisions or financial loss provisions under the previous legislation were one of the most unfair aspects of the previous rent review legislation brought in by the previous government. I believe that we have come up with a system that will predict rents for tenants across the province -- there is real predictability in the legislation -- and will provide real protection for tenants. At the same time, it responds to the legitimate needs for capital reinvestment in the apartments across the province.

I do look forward to the debate, but I feel that the government has come up with a solution that is fair to all parties concerned. Any suggestions that are made by the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus to improve the legislation will be listened to by the government.

1610

Mr Elston: It is a relief to actually hear that the minister himself is going to join the debate that will be had at the public hearings to be held this summer. It has been the practice of that minister and several other of his colleagues not to be available at the public presentations, and it will be a relief on this occasion to the people who will be making their presentations in open forum to have the minister confirm that he actually will be there for all of the presentations.

I invite him to make that commitment to the people who are very much concerned about that particular possibility here this afternoon so everybody will know that he himself will be present and in the committee for the four weeks of public hearings that are to take place. He has made very much of the fact that he is looking forward to these debates, looking forward very much to the consultation, looking forward very much in fact to people coming forward and providing some insight into his legislation.

The concern always comes across my mind when the minister stands and says, "We are looking for improvements to the minister's legislation," that what he really means is, "Don't tell me anything more that there is to be said about this particular issue, because this is the best we have done." He confirmed in his opening remarks on second reading this afternoon that he believes this is the best they could have done, but he is still looking forward to the improvements, he says, which might come from the hearings.

He can only decide if the improvements are real if he himself is available for all of the hearings, and I want him to take about two seconds this afternoon to confirm that he will be attending all of the hearings which will be held this summer on this bill.

Mr Tilson: During the Bill 4 hearings, there was an issue raised with respect to mobile homes. There was great concern around this province that mobile homes were included as part of the rent review system. They felt that under the special circumstances of the mobile home trailer parks they should be exempted. The minister during that time -- and I can specifically recall one comment he made in Windsor -- said there would be legislation forthcoming to deal with that subject of mobile homes. Now clearly it appears from a cursory view at least of Bill 121 that the whole subject of mobile homes is indeed still in this act and would appear to be subject to it.

As well there is a subject that was raised in Bill 51. As I understand it, hotel suites were exempted under subsection 4(2). This appears to be left out of Bill 121. I would like the minister to confirm at this time whether they are exempt.

Finally, in regard to the whole subject of when the rent control guidelines will take effect, it appears they must be published before 31 August of each preceding year. If this legislation is not passed until some time after that time, will the setting of the 1992 guidelines have an effect in that they will not have been published by 31 August?

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, I would indicate to the Conservative critic that I think if he takes a careful look at the record, in Windsor I did not say there was going to be legislation on mobile home parks. I said an interministerial committee had been set up, actually, I believe, by the previous government, and we were expecting its report and would respond to the report. I would not want to prejudge any recommendations that were going to be made by an interministerial committee, so I think we should await that report, which I believe is coming later this summer or early fall. Let's wait for that report and take a look at what recommendations are made to see how we can best protect tenants in mobile home parks.

I would indicate to the House leader for the Liberal Party that I will be doing the best job I can to get to as many of the hearings as possible. I am not going to stand here and say I am going to be in committee four or five days a week for four weeks, because I know exactly what would happen. I would be missing the opportunity to meet with municipal groups -- because I am also Minister of Municipal Affairs -- and I would start hearing criticisms from the Municipal Affairs critic for the Liberal Party, saying: "You are not available to meet with municipal politicians. You did not go to AMO." Well, that is simply not the case.

I have to meet with a whole range of people, but I am proud to say we have some incredibly capable people who served on the standing committee on general government for the government caucus, led by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, who will be at every one of those hearings, listening and responding and working very closely with the ministry and the government to respond to legitimate recommendations made during the public hearing process.

Ms Poole: I am pleased to enter the debate as Housing critic for the Liberal caucus.

First of all, I am really pleased that the minister has said he will welcome suggestions, improvements and amendments to the bill. I think it very important that we try to work co-operatively on this most important of issues, and I do not think there are too many issues more contentious in the province of Ontario than rent review or rent control. It certainly has proved to be the case in the past, and I suspect it will be no different than with Bill 121.

When I first sat down to make a few notes for today, I thought I would run through some of the press clippings to see what the press had to say about this bill. The headline from the Toronto Star is "Jeers From Tenants, Landlords Greet NDP's New Rent Review Law." That appeared on day two. On day two also, from the Windsor Star, we have, "'Betrayed,' Landlords and Tenants Cry."

The next day, 8 June, a Peterborough Examiner headline reads, "Landlords, Tenants Angry with Rent Plan." From the Financial Post of 7 June, "Ontario Rent Rules Blasted." Now we go all the way to 9 June, "New Rent Rules Anger Landlords."

The Hamilton Spectator, even prior to the introduction of the legislation, headline says, "Landlords May Start Fight Against Rent Law -- Can't Make a Living, They Say." So they were somewhat anticipating what might happen.

Toronto Sun, one of my, of course, all-time favourite papers, 9 June, "This Policy is Condemned"; Ottawa Citizen, 7 June, "Cooke Hands Landlords a Nettle"; Ottawa Citizen, 7 June, "You Betrayed Us, Tenants Tell NDP"; Hamilton Spectator, "How NDP Rent Controls Will Hurt All of Us" and finally the Hamilton Spectator of 7 June, "Tenants, Landlords Blast New Rent Bill."

With all those wonderful precedents before me, members could understand if I succumbed to the temptation as opposition Housing critic and entered the fray and the lineup to automatically oppose and villify this legislation. Quite frankly, I think this issue is too important to let passion and emotion and rhetoric hold sway. I think we have to take a very impassioned look at this legislation, a very rational, reasoned look at it, and decide whether it is good for the people of Ontario.

1620

When I looked at the goals that I think any rent review legislation should have, I came up with four off the top of my head. The first was that there should be rent stability for tenants. The second was that the legislation should preserve our aging housing stock; that is of utmost importance. Third was that landlords should be allowed a reasonable return on their investment. I hesitate to use that dreaded P word, "profit." I do not know; is that allowed in the Premier's Ontario any more? I better stay away from that one. The fourth goal is that the rent policy should not be complex. It should be simple. It should not be confusing. It should not be riddled with bureaucracy.

As the minister found out when trying to walk this tightrope of rent review, it is not easy to balance these competing demands. I would like to take a look at what the tenant groups represented in these press clippings objected to.

The first thing they said was that they felt betrayed that the NDP had not kept its campaign promise. Of course, my by now very well worn An Agenda for People, the NDP campaign document, said that New Democrats would bring in rent control. "That means one increase a year based on inflation. There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital or financing costs. It's simple, it's fair, and it avoids the bureaucracy which has frustrated both tenants and small landlords."

I think when members take a look at this legislation, it is quite clear that this legislation is not the campaign promise. But I am not going to criticize the minister for not keeping the campaign promise. I would criticize him for making that promise in the first place, because I very strongly believe as a member it is important for us to keep our promises. We should not make promises just to get votes. We should not make promises if we do not have all the facts. We should not make promises if we do not intend to honour them.

So I do not criticize him for not keeping the promise. I perhaps would levy the criticism that the promise should never have been made in the first place, because it is not feasible to keep to a guideline of inflation only and nothing else. We could try that, but I would predict we would have bankruptcies, we would have deteriorating housing stock, and it would ultimately not be to the benefit of either the tenants or the landlords in this province.

The second thing the tenant advocates and the tenant leadership complained about, the second point they raised -- and I make a very important distinction there; I am not saying all tenants feel this way -- was this is not rent control; this is rent review.

It is actually quite an astute comment that they have made, because this is rent review. I personally am not opposed to that. I think many good things came from our previous rent review system, and many of the tenant protections that were contained in the Residential Rent Regulation Act that the Liberals brought in a number of years ago are still contained in this legislation. Rent increases are still allowed only once a year. Above-guideline amounts still require government approvals. The rent registry is continued; in fact, it is expanded and the landlord must file the maximum rent. Notice must be given to tenants or there will be no rent increase. If there is no notice given as required by the law, new tenants will not have to face a rent increase for two years. Finally, key money is continued and enhanced. Those are all things in the old rent review system that are continued in this rent review system. I think those are all very good things for tenants.

The third complaint that tenants had about this legislation is that it does not contain a reserve fund. This was by far, I think, the preference of many tenants across the province, but quite frankly, I sympathize with the minister. Once upon a time, back in the 1985 election, the first time that I ran, when I was somewhat younger and more naïve than I am today, I said in an interview that I thought it would be a really neat idea if we had a reserve fund for rental buildings set up, the way they did for condominiums. I was not too sure of how it would work, but I thought we should explore it.

Having a lot more experience in the field today, I see a number of major problems with the reserve fund concept. For one thing, the majority of our buildings in this province are very old. A reserve fund that you start up when a building is 20, 30 or 40 years old has no opportunity to provide for the catch-up. It is different for condominiums, where on day one they have their reserve fund for new buildings and they can build up over the years. We do not have that luxury for older buildings.

Another point is that the system right now simply does not even allow for reserve funds. We would need a change to federal legislation in order to allow that.

The fourth complaint I have heard tenants voice is that this legislation will guarantee an automatic 8% increase every year. Again, on the surface of it, this is perhaps a valid point. One could see this happening. I do not think it will happen because unless the provisions for the capital repairs are reasonable and suitable, we will find landlords will not be going to rent review at all. They will simply boycott the system. That is something we will have to work on.

Those were the major tenant objections. Then I looked at objections from the other side to see what landlords were saying.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Your friends.

Ms Poole: First of all, they said it was even more restrictive than the RRRA -- and I would suggest to the Minister of Mines that he might want the co-operation of the Housing critic for the opposition, so perhaps he should be very kind to me. It may not do any good, but I would just suggest that as a starting point.

Second, the landlords have a --

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Just briefly, I think it is important, because the ministry that I represent -- I have a great deal of difficulty resisting when a certain member takes leniency with the truth --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I do not accept that type of wording in this House. Would you please withdraw it.

Hon Mr Pouliot: "Leniency" is a degree, sir. If I may draw your attention to Webster or Oxford, which will give you an opportunity to Oxfordize or Websterize, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat.

Hon Mr Pouliot: There is nothing wrong with "leniency."

The Deputy Speaker: I have asked you to withdraw. I am just asking it of you.

Hon Mr Cooke: Let's not get carried away.

The Deputy Speaker: You said that the member was not speaking the truth. That is what you said.

Hon Mr Cooke: No, he didn't.

The Deputy Speaker: This is what I heard.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect, sir, I did not say that, sir. With respect -- no, no, let's be civil, sir. I did not say that, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You are an honourable member. I want you to tell me what you have said, then, if I did not hear properly.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Hansard will attest to the following -- and thank you for your tolerance, your patience, which will begin to border on the proverbial -- I mentioned, sir, verbatim, that the member was taking "leniency with the truth"; ie, synonym, "shying away from the truth."

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I accept your word.

Ms Poole: I am not quite sure what that was all about, but if I could continue, I was going over the objections that landlords would have to this legislation.

The second objection is that the cap is inadequate, that all buildings are treated identically, regardless of age, regardless of the financial circumstances. Landlords said, quite frankly, that there is not much of an incentive to put major money into buildings when they are only getting 60 cents back on the dollar for anything they put in.

The third objection landlords have put forward is that the provisions in this legislation for non-compliance of work orders are far too dramatic and far too drastic. They say it is an avenue for every tenant who has a petty grievance to eliminate rent increases. To this end, they say that "neglect" and "adequate maintenance" are not defined in the act. I think that is something we will have to take a look at, because I think that complaint is quite valid. If we are going to have rent penalties for things such as "neglect" and "inadequate maintenance," surely we are not going to leave it to the bureaucrats to define those two very important terms. I would suggest that definitions for them should be included in the glossary at the front.

Both landlords and tenants have said that the new legislation is too complex, that the double guideline is confusing, that it will mean increased bureaucracy, and they have raised objections to the fact that there is no appeal. They have also both stated, for different reasons I believe, that they believe non-profit homes --

Mr Mammoliti: Who has stated?

1630

Ms Poole: They: I said landlords and tenants, the tenant leadership and the landlord leadership have both said -- the member can find quotes in these newspaper articles if he would care to take the time to look -- on numerous occasions that they feel non-profit housing should be included in the rent review process. Those are the major objections that have been filed with this legislation, but I believe this bill can be salvaged because there are a number of very positive things about the bill.

From the tenants' perspective, I think many tenants feel that some of the most contentious issues such as financial loss have been removed. Second, I think tenants are most relieved that there will be cost pass-through only for necessary repairs. I think there has been very little disagreement with the list that is in the legislation for necessary repairs. In fact, much of it is similar to an amendment the Liberal caucus filed on Bill 4 with regard to necessary repairs. "A capital expenditure is eligible" -- that is, is considered to be a necessary repair -- "if it is necessary to protect or restore the physical integrity of the residential complex or a rental unit in it," or, "it is necessary to comply with municipal or provincial standards to protect the health or safety of persons or to protect the environment."

Mr Mammoliti: That was Bill 4. You are talking about amendments to Bill 4. Relate it to this.

Ms Poole: This is Bill 121. For the information of the member for Yorkview, I am quoting from Bill 121, which is the bill before us. These are amendments that are in this bill, amendments which I heartily approve of, and I would think as a member of the NDP caucus he should approve of them as well, so I find it strange that he seems to be finding objections with it.

The third one is that "it is necessary to maintain the provision of a plumbing, heating, mechanical, electrical, ventilation or air-conditioning system." Fourth is that "it provides access for persons with disabilities." Fifth is that "it increases energy conservation," and then it goes on to talk about some of the other requirements for eligibility.

I do not think there should be anybody in the House who has objections to those qualifications for necessary repairs. I think that is a very positive part of the act. The second thing I consider to be a very positive part of this bill is that there has been provision made for capital work for our aging housing stock. That is very important. I know it may not be the NDP campaign promise, but I think it is very important they realize that these types of repairs are crucial to our aging housing stock. We cannot preserve it unless capital repairs are made. Money has to be put into the buildings.

There were some quotes I had given the House some time earlier about the state of our aging housing stock, but I think it bears repeating because it is very important: 80% of our housing stock was built prior to 1976, so 80% is 16 years old or older; 62% was built prior to 1970; 36% was built prior to 1960 so we are now getting to over 30 years old; and then almost 10% was built pre-1920.

When you look at those statistics, it is obviously important that this work be done. I am not talking about repairs caused by neglect; I am talking about major capital repairs that need doing because the housing stock is aging, because the cement has corroded, the electrical system has failed, water has penetrated the caulking and the roofing, balconies have disintegrated, because our underground parking garages have fallen victim to corrosion, elevators have worn out and plumbing needs to be replaced. It is very important we now have the protection that this work will be done under Bill 121.

Much of the debate, I would suspect, under Bill 121 will focus on, what should the cap be? The minister has said he wants to accept amendments and improvements and suggestions, so I am very glad to hear that because I think this debate is crucial. If the cap is too high, tenants will not be protected, but on the other hand if the cap is too low, I would say to the minister, tenants will not receive that protection. The reason is that tenants want a decent place to live. They want to have a well-maintained home, and if the landlords do not put money into capital repairs, they are not going to achieve that goal. So I think from both perspectives, it is very important that we make sure the cap that is selected is the right one.

The third thing I am pleased to see in this bill is the provisions for maintenance. The minister knows I have been very concerned about maintenance for many years and that it was one of the shortcomings I found with Bill 4, that there was no provision to assist with maintenance.

I have a quote here from the president of the Federation of London Tenants Association, Leo Bouillon. Mr Bouillon said: "If there is one thing tenants complain more about than rent, it is building maintenance. Everybody wants a decent place to live." That is very true.

When I looked at the provisions here, they did cause me some concern. While I agree with the intent with non-compliance of work orders, I am quite concerned with the way it has been put forward in this act. The Liberal caucus put forward amendments under Bill 4 which mirrored quite closely what is in this act. We had two changes that were not mirrored here.

The first was that we felt only substantive non-compliance should be considered. If a landlord did not change a lightbulb, we did not think that was cause for a rent penalty, saying that every unit in the building was subjected to not having a guideline increase. We wanted it to take care of the really substantive problems.

The second thing was that when we put forward our amendment, and we did it after a number of talks with the Residential Rental Standards Board and with building inspectors, it was that the landlord be given 30 days to make reasonable attempts to comply, because quite frankly the government cannot treat lightbulbs in the same way as an underground parking garage.

There are many things that can happen that are what I would call extenuating circumstances that would result in a work order being put on a building. For instance, a work order could be put on in December for exterior wall work, yet the landlord cannot do it until the weather changes in May. That type of thing would result, I think, in inequity, and that is what the government wants to avoid, the inequities.

That is why I think what it should say is the landlord should make reasonable attempts to comply within the 30 days. That means in the case of the exterior wall work that the landlord would obviously have to get quotes, perhaps sign the contract, be ready to go as soon as the weather changed.

Another example is an underground parking garage, which can take extensive periods of time, particularly with the cap suggested under Bill 121. Under Bill 121, with a 3% cap and even considering the 2% that is included from the guideline for capital, there simply would not be enough money to do that underground parking garage in that first year, possibly not even in that second year, depending on how widespread the work needed to be done.

There are underground parking garages that cost $1 million or $1.5 million to repair. That kind of thing cannot be done overnight. What is a landlord to do if he or she gets a notice from the rent control directors saying, "You have 30 days to comply"? I think events like that show this needs some reworking. The intent is good, but in its present form I think it would have a very negative effect.

My fear is that if it is too inflexible, the inspectors will not issue work orders. It will be that simple. If a building inspector knows that the landlord, if he issues a work order, will only be given 30 days to comply and if he does not think that is fair or right, then he may not issue the work order, and that is the last thing the government wants to happen.

1640

The fourth thing I like about this bill is that it does -- when I use the word "like" I use it advisedly. As members can tell, although there are things that on the surface are very good, there are flaws in the bill that have to be corrected. The fourth thing is rent stability, very important to tenants. That is something that a cap, whatever number it is, will provide, certainty that their rent is not going to go up by an overwhelming amount in a single year.

The fifth thing is that there has been some streamlining of the legislation and of the process. The forms in particular that have been developed by the Ministry of Housing are quite good, much easier to read, much more simple and straightforward.

The process itself, I guess you could say, would be simpler in the fact that many of the contentious sections have been taken out. I was saying to my staff the other day that anything the NDP did not understand or could not comprehend it just took out of the act, and that took care of that.

By the same token, while there has been some streamlining, on the other hand I think there has been a lot of additional confusion built into the act by the fact that we now have two different processes, a double guideline and I think an increase in the bureaucracy. I myself had a lot of difficulty, for instance, with removing and eliminating the standards board, which I think was one of the excellent things about the previous legislation. Any time you put more power in the hands of the bureaucrats, it makes me very nervous. To abolish the standards board and now put the whole issue of maintenance and non-compliance directly into the rent review system I think is going to end up with more bureaucracy.

One issue that has to be dealt with when we go into committee -- I think I as a member certainly and perhaps even the minister would like some guidance in this regard -- is the fact that there is no longer an appeal unless it is to the Divisional Court on a matter of law only. There is only going to be one level. Either the person can choose an administrative tribunal or a hearing, but there is only one level, without that avenue of appeal. I think this is a victory for the bureaucrats.

I do not know if members would realize this, but back when they were formulating the Residential Rent Regulation Act, the bureaucrats came to the Liberal government and said: "We have a really neat idea for you to streamline the process. We'd like you to have just an administrative review and to have no appeal, to only have the one level but no appeal." Our government rejected that, because we did not think that was one of the tenets of democracy, to deny that type of appeal.

I have a number of other concerns about it that are perhaps a little more on pragmatic lines. For instance, if you have a choice between administrative process or a hearing, I can assure members that by and large most people are going to choose the hearing. It is going to be much more lengthy, much more time-consuming, much more confrontational. Just think of it. This is going to be your one shot at it. If you blow this, you are out of the ballpark, because the only appeal you have is to the Divisional Court, and that is only on a matter of law. If it is a matter of fact, that does not count; only a matter of law. That is a fairly strong onus on having the hearing determine what is going to happen.

The other concern I have with the fact that the Ministry of Housing is now going to be the sole determinant of what happens, without an appeal process, without a quasi-judicial, arm's-length body to have any opportunity to rehear the case, is that the Ministry of Housing sets policy, and now we are going to have it administer the same laws it effects. What is going to be the effect on the Ministry of Housing bureaucrats if they think politically that the minister's office wants a certain thing? Their interpretation will no longer be at arm's length and take into it any kind of independence, but would lean towards whatever the politics of the moment dictate.

I do not think that is going to be good for tenants and I do not think it is going to be good for landlords. I do not think it is going to be good for the process. I think there is somewhat of a conflict of interest in having Ministry of Housing bureaucrats decide everything.

The other question I have about the whole process concerns the pre-hearings, how they would work, whether they would be binding. Why bother going through the process if, after the work is done and the landlord comes back, it can all be second-guessed? I would like some sense of certainty as to how that will happen, because I think certainty is very important to the process.

The other thing I noted is that it said the rent officer will make findings, but it did not mention that he or she would give written reasons. That again is an important part of the process. Would anyone like to go through a hearing and then just be told at the end that he had lost or won but not given written reasons as to why this determination was made? I think the least the people of this province should be entitled to is something that gives them some assurance as to why the decision was made. I think that is a protection.

One thing we may want to take a look at is whether the scope for appeals to Divisional Court should be larger, for instance, whether in addition to appeals of law, you can also have appeals based on fact. That is one thing. I do not know the answer, but it certainly is something people are talking about, and they are wondering how this is going to affect them, having just one level, no right to go beyond that, unless it is a very small avenue of appeal based only on law and precedent.

I just have a couple of other comments before I wind up. One is on the scope of rent review. I will call it rent review because indeed that is what it is in this bill. The minister has excluded new buildings for five years. While I think the intent was good and it was a positive step forward to try to get the building industry on its feet again and to get more accommodation built, I am not sure it is going to do the trick. The industry is still feeling very vulnerable after Bill 4, and I am not sure the trust and goodwill towards government is there to make this a meaningful exemption.

There are several other things the minister might have considered. For instance, there are some areas in the province where the vacancy rate is quite high and there really is not a problem. They have hundreds and thousands of vacant units. The market is determining what the rent should be. The rents are quite low and reasonable. If tenants want to move, they find they can move quite readily because of the high vacancy rates. Maybe a consideration should be to exclude those types of areas from rent review. I think it would cut down on the bureaucracy, and it would be a blow to the myth that everybody in Ontario is the same.

Rent problems are basically focused in the major urban areas -- Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London and Windsor. You do not have the same type of problem in Cornwall or in Sudbury or in some of the smaller towns in southwestern Ontario, so why is the minister trying to make everybody fit the one shoe? I hope the minister will take a look at that.

I saw a few problems when I was reading through the legislation. For instance, I noticed that if there is a decrease in municipal taxes, there is a provision to pass this on to the tenants. I certainly welcome that, particularly in areas like Metro, where we are now unfortunately undergoing market value reassessment. While there are tenants in the suburbs, particularly in Scarborough and outlying areas, who are going to very much benefit from market value reassessment and get reductions in their rent, at the same time, in Toronto, North York and other parts of Metro there is going to be a devastating increase. We are not talking about an increase that can be settled with a 3% cap; we are talking massive increases.

Tenants already pay around 25% of their rent to municipal taxes. I do not think most tenants know this. If the minister puts on top of that the fact that there may be very dramatic increases in municipal taxes and yet makes no provision for it, in a time of crisis we may well find that we have to go back and amend the act. That is something I hope the minister and his staff can take a look at.

The other matter relates to conservation. I was very pleased to see that when the minister was talking about necessary repairs, he put in a provision about conservation. That is very important -- protecting the environment, conserving energy and other matters -- but there is a flaw in this legislation in that a landlord can go to rent review to get reimbursed for costs that he or she has put forward for environmental consideration, such as if the landlord put in all new windows and major changes to the building; however, if the landlord then has a decrease in the heating costs, the tenant can go ask for a decrease in rent because the heating costs are extraordinarily low. This sounds fine on the surface, except I think one will find in many cases that the landlord will not be able to recoup his or her costs through the cap if the cap is too low, which means the landlord will be penalized by the fact that he cannot get his costs recouped, and then the knockout blow will be that the rents are reduced further because of the fact that there is a provision in the act for these types of decreases.

1650

While I think it is a very positive thing that the minister has provided for the decreases as well as the increases, that is an area where there could be some problem, and I think if we really want the conservation area to be explored and enhanced, we want to make sure landlords are doing those things, and in doing so, we have to make sure the cap is adequate.

To sum up, I see a number of very positive things about the legislation; I also see a number of flaws. I am not convinced at this time that the cap is adequate, particularly when we are talking very major work that needs to be done such as underground parking garage rehabilitations. I am concerned that if the cap is inadequate, if the landlord is getting back only 60 cents on the dollar, he will not do the work, and that is the last thing we want.

I am concerned, as I say, about the non-compliance with work orders but I think they can be remedied, and if the minister is truly interested in taking suggestions, I think we can certainly work together to make sure there is something that protects tenants and makes sure they get adequate maintenance and, at the same time, makes sure the system works and is not too draconian.

During the hearings I hope to hear from tenants and from landlords and from other people in the housing industry about what they think about the fact that there is no longer an appeal, whether this is important to them. The grass-roots information I have to date has told me that it is an item of concern, so I would like to explore that and find out what people across the province think of that.

I would also like to take a look at whether we are going to end up with an increase in the bureaucracy through this. I tend to believe we will. I have looked at a number of things in the act that are going to increase the bureaucracy, yet I have seen very little that is going to decrease it, and I do not think that is where we should be spending our money, in increasing the bureaucracy. There may be ways we can streamline that.

In closing, Catherine Thompson in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on 8 June -- the title of it is "Tenants Gain From Rent Control Bill Despite Its Flaws" -- says: "Tenant groups cried betrayal while landlords snorted incredulously as they learned they would have to pay all capital costs, including replacing $500,000 crumbling underground garages, with the 3% increase. But despite the rhetoric from tenant groups, there is no question renters will benefit from this bill. No longer will they have to fear increases of 30%, 40%, 50% or 100%. This bill also gives tenants greater assurances their homes will be reasonably maintained.

"The bill hits negligent landlords in the pocketbook. Any landlord who has ignored city or provincial orders to do basic repairs on his property won't be allowed to charge tenants even a basic increase.

"But the bill is flawed in several key areas. By allowing a small increase for repairs, Cooke claims he has recognized landlords' legitimate capital costs, but for someone like Kitchener landlord Robert Eby, whose 18-unit building needs a new $20,000 roof, a one-time 3% increase just won't do. Landlords everywhere may decide, like Eby, to do whatever work 3% will buy, and tenants will simply have to wait longer for repairs.

"Secondly, the old rent review system was condemned for complexity that baffled and scared off tenants and small landlords, but the new bill adds complications to replace the old, creating three separate categories of buildings, to which different types of increases apply. It cuts down the appeals process, but some tenant advocates say that just means tenants will have fewer chances to make a clear case at the Rent Control Board."

I think Catherine Thompson has quite well summed up some of the very positive things about the bill but also some of the things we want to work to ensure are remedied when we finally get to the hearings.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the minister, not for not keeping promises he should never have made, but for taking a second look at it and making, I think, some worthwhile changes. At the same time, I truly hope he means what he said about trying to work co-operatively together with the Conservative and the Liberal caucuses to try to make some meaningful changes to this bill. It is a good start, but I think there is a long way we yet have to go, so I look forward to a very productive summer. I hope that when we come back in the fall we can have a bill that all three parties in this House can support. Thank you.

Mr Mammoliti: It is always a pleasure to hear the member for Eglinton talk, and I want to thank her for her comments. I am just a little curious about a couple of things, but before I get on to that, I want to say that during the election, we New Democrats prided ourselves on our ability to listen and communicate and consult. I think in this case the minister should be proud of himself and the committee should be proud of itself, because that is exactly what we did. This bill just proves it. We have changed a number of things, and that is because we consulted, we talked, we communicated, and that is what we are proud of.

The two things I am concerned about are questions actually. The first one is, the member for Eglinton talked about the five-year clause for new buildings. I am a little curious why a builder would not take advantage of the five-year clause. It is an incentive. We talked about it during committee, where people came in and said, "Give us the opportunity to build. Let us do that. Stimulate the economy," and we have done that. I cannot understand why builders would not take advantage of it. Perhaps she can clarify that for me. I am not sure whether she knows whether the builders would or not, I do not know. I think it is just something she said here today.

Second, the cap: I am still not clear whether or not she is in favour of the cap in the legislation. I ask the member to forgive me if I am naïve and to forgive me if I did not hear. I did walk out halfway through her speech, not because it was not any good, but because I had something to do. I would like verification as to whether she agrees with the cap.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, I want to thank the Liberal critic for her very positive comments, although I do remember, when we were debating Bill 4 on second reading, that there were some positive comments as well, and I think there was an actual registration of support of Bill 4 on second reading too, so I would not want to go too far beyond today in predicting where the Liberal Party might stand in the end.

I want the critic for the Liberal Party to understand that we will be looking in the committee to her more detailed comments, and on section-by-section, and we will try to respond where we can, but I want to make it very clear, in case I did not in my leadoff comments, that there are some principles in this legislation that we will want to stick to, that are not up for grabs, and those principles involve tenant protection, which is the whole reason for going through this exercise. I hope the whole thrust of the Liberal critic's speech was one of co-operation, and I agree, co-operation is going to be essential, but the government is not going to compromise on the principles of this legislation of real tenant protection which were so lacking in the previous rent regulation legislation in the province. It simply did not provide that. I also heard the wish of the Liberal critic that in the end all three parties would be able to support the legislation. I have not heard the comments from the Conservative critic yet, but I suggest strongly that is really wishful thinking. We know the position of the Conservative Party traditionally has been not to support tenant protection and to leave tenants to fend for themselves.

1700

Ms Poole: First I would like to answer a few of the questions of the member for Yorkview. I thank him for his very kind comments. I look forward to being on committee with him again.

Interjection.

Ms Poole: I am. That was the nicest I can get. First of all, he said the reason there were changes here and the government did not keep its campaign promise was that it communicated, listened and consulted. Generally speaking, formulating a policy for one's party one is supposed to listen, communicate and consult. I think it should have been done prior to the making of the promise. I will just leave that with the member.

The member asked why builders would not build with the five-year exemption. As I said in my comments, it comes down to a matter of trust. Are the builders going to build when they know there is a possibility that after Bill 4, three or four years down the line, something can be changed retroactively? I tell the member that is something a number of builders have said to me, so it is not something I am manufacturing.

The member has asked whether I am in favour of the cap. Yes, I am in favour of the cap. I am concerned that 3% may not be enough to make sure that our aging housing stock is taken care of. I think that is quite important. When the minister talked about the principle of tenant protection, which was not up for grabs, I agree with him. I guess we might differ in the definition of tenant protection. I do not think keeping the rents low but at the same time ensuring that money will not be put into the buildings so that the tenants end up living in slums is tenant protection. I think several of the parties can try to work together to make sure tenants are protected and that we have true stability in our housing industry at the same time. I hope we can work together.

Mr Tilson: There has been some suggestion made by the member for Eglinton that all three parties would be supporting this bill. I think our party gave some sort of hint when we voted against the introduction of this bill for first reading, which is rather unheard of. I can tell members that we will be fighting the whole philosophy this government has been putting forward with respect to rent review. It has not worked in any other country on this planet and it is certainly not going to work in Ontario. Evidence has been given over and over of how it has failed, and I do not think the government has properly studied the whole subject of rent review from the various jurisdictions. Whether you are talking about jurisdictions in the United States or Europe, it simply has not worked. I will be speaking to that in a few moments.

Certainly one of the main planks of the New Democratic government from the outset has been housing. It has been quite clear that we have a housing crisis in Ontario, and of course the government did move fairly quickly with the introduction of Bill 4 and we have seen the devastating effects it has had on the housing industry. We were promised at that time that there would be a moratorium and that the permanent bill would clear up all of the uncertainties created by Bill 4. We have now seen the introduction of Bill 121, and quite frankly I have not seen much improvement from the issues that have been raised from the public hearings going around the province with respect to Bill 4.

Many of the problems that were raised by the tenants and landlords during the Bill 4 hearings I am certain will be raised again both by tenants and landlords. Hearing from the various tenant and landlord groups, it has been quite clear no one likes this legislation. I am simply amazed that the member for Eglinton is even hinting she might support this legislation. The Liberals, of course, voted in favour of Bill 4 on second reading and subsequently voted against it on third reading, and they voted in favour of it with the introduction of Bill 121 on first reading. I think ours has been the only party that has been consistent in opposing the principle of rent review and all the bureaucracy it contains.

I take exception to the Minister of Housing saying we are not interested in the interests of tenants. We are interested in the problems of the tenants. We are interested in how their quality of life is deteriorating. Statements have been given during the hearings of the great need to rejuvenate many of the older buildings in this province, and I submit that Bill 121 does not address those problems.

The whole issue that has been mentioned by the member for Yorkview and the minister has talked about how there has been much consultation that has gone on in this province with respect to leading up to Bill 121. I cannot agree with that. The consultation has been negligible. I think it has been a tremendous sales job. A great expense has gone into putting forward the green paper and into sending the various government members around the province. Members will recall that this House indicated as the terms of reference that the committee that was to review Bill 4 was also to review the green paper, the consultation paper the minister has spoken about so often. The committee never dealt with that. We attempted to deal with that and it was just put away in its place.

The member for Wentworth North, the member for Niagara Falls and the Minister of Housing went to various sites in this province and conducted so-called hearings. Our party was invited, the member for Eglinton and I were invited but we were not allowed to speak, a most remarkable situation. We were invited to go to these hearings, but we were not allowed to speak. That was made quite clear to us. The member for Oriole attended one of the hearings and I do not think she was even allowed to go in. Finally that was clarified and she was allowed to go in. The difficulty was that it was not exactly the consultations we all hear of in trying to develop legislation.

Bill 121 does not deal with many of the problems that were raised in the Bill 4 hearings. As a result of Bill 4, which was indicated to be temporary legislation, the whole issue of rejuvenation of buildings, the capital improvements, was postponed. Landlord after landlord would come to us at the Bill 4 hearings and tell us their projects were going to be postponed. Hence, thousands of jobs were lost. Evidence was given to us at the hearings that contracts were being cancelled by landlords who had relied on the previous system or the previous government and who were now cancelling plans they had undertaken for the future. Suppliers lost a substantial amount of income as a result of these same contracts being cancelled.

Bankruptcies had been promised at the Bill 4 hearings. Small landlords in particular, just average people with a very small number of units, indicated that as a result of the retroactivity, the lack of planning for capital expenditures and their not being able to proceed with capital expenditures, they would be going bankrupt. At least one has been referred to in this House and I think the minister spoke on Radio Noon with one of the individuals who has gone bankrupt. That individual, who was trained to be a carpenter, as I understand -- I believe it is in the Peterborough area -- has now said he cannot be a carpenter any more because of the lack of work. He is going into yet another field to be trained.

1710

It is the domino effect. One leads to another: lack of job; lack of contract. I suspect the government will blame a lot of this on the recession, but I think if it studied the issues before it and the overall effect of Bill 4, the whole lack of confidence of the financial institutions in investing new housing stock, the government will realize that Bill 121 has not dealt with all of those issues adequately. I will be getting into that.

The minister has indicated that Bill 121 does deal with capital expenditures and I will be providing my comments with that in a few moments. The whole housing testimony has been given; letters have been sent to many members in this House, to the Minister of Housing and certainly the two critics, on how the housing stock is falling apart and that a moratorium legislation and the Bill 121 legislation are not going to stop that.

More important, there is the whole issue that antagonism has been created by this government between landlords and tenants. It is an adversarial system where before the escalation of rent review, the increasing of rent review, antagonism did not exist nearly to the extent it is occurring today. We saw it in the Bill 4 hearings. People were mad, landlords were mad, tenants were mad and everybody was mad. Rent review is not going to work and it is creating an adversarial system. I think this leads to a number of things. We have seen it occurring in New York and I will be referring to that shortly as well.

I would like to refer very briefly to the promises this government has made and specifically the pre-election Agenda for People. It has been referred to but more important, I think we must emphasize what this government has promised and what in fact it is producing, just to show that I believe there is a whole lack of confidence by investors, landlords, workers who are counting on jobs out of this industry, by the suppliers, by the concrete people and by everyone who is remotely connected to maintaining the housing stock. They have lost confidence in this government because the Agenda for People stated that the New Democrats would bring in rent controls. That means one increase a year based on inflation. There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital financing costs. It is simple, it is fair and it avoids bureaucracy, which has frustrated both landlords and tenants.

That was the simple statement. I think if you study that statement, there is no way in a million years this government is going to be able to honour that promise. I think they found that and the minister has even made acknowledgements before the press that the government is not really going to be able to follow to a "T" the Agenda for People. Why make the promise in the first place? Why not think out what the government is going to do before it makes that promise? This statement has indeed proven to be simplistic and it has proven to be naïve prattle. That is the simplest way of describing this statement from the Agenda for People.

The minister has not brought in rent controls as he has promised. He has expanded the existing system of Bill 121. He has expanded rent review with all of its bureaucracy, confusion, uncertainty and lack of confidence of everyone who is involved.

Second, Bill 4 has now created two increases instead of the one increase the government has promised. One is for necessities and the other is for capital expenditures. Bill 121 has a complicated set of increases that exceed inflation. If you look at the rate of inflation and at what can be allowed, clearly that promise has been shattered. Tenants' associations that have indicated they relied on this government voted for this government, and it is not honouring its promises. There is no way you can get around that; the government has not kept its promise. The tenants' associations are just furious with the government and for voting it in and counting on it to honour its promise to them.

There are some allowances for capital costs and, as I have indicated, even the minister has realized there is no provision for such things as financing costs, and I will be speaking about that shortly. In other words, we all know that mortgages fall due, whether in one year, two years or five years; that interest rates go up and down like a yo-yo in many cases and have for the past number of years. Landlords, of course, need to account for that.

This government has not allowed for it. Mortgages are going to be continually falling due and yet it is out of the landlords' hands. They simply must take those increases from financing out of their so-called profits the minister has spoken of. Again, I can assure members that if they look at this legislation very carefully there is no room for profit.

There is no reason why anyone in this province should get into the landlord business. If any of us in this chamber or in Ontario decided to invest and obtain a small building or a large building, it is a terrible investment. There is no room for profit with Bill 121, and the whole suggestion that new buildings will not be subject to rent increases is a hollow promise for new structures.

Landlords will not get into that. In many cases it takes them five years to put the whole package together, then after five years they are back into rent controls. So, again, why would anyone get into the housing business? That is the important question people should ask themselves if we are trying to increase the housing stock in this province.

Certainly it is not simple. The Agenda for People has indicated that the proposal of rent control is simple. No one can figure it out. If members start listening to the calculations suggested by the minister -- and we have not really sat down; I am really looking forward to the committee hearings to have explained to us how we are going to calculate these things. It is far from simple. You will need to be an accountant, a lawyer, or a consultant; you will need to be a whole slew of things to understand what is going on.

I asked the minister, I guess last week, to define the whole subject of neglect that has been mentioned. There is a whole slew of very vague words and terminology used throughout the legislation. The minister was silent on that, so I assume he has no definition of "neglect." I expect he will say: "That will come later in the regulations. We'll have to pass the act first and then we'll tell you what 'neglect' means." My guess is that the ministry has not even the slightest idea what the word "neglect" means and that will make it very difficult to adequately debate that subject.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: It is not fair. The Agenda for People says the government is going to put forward fair legislation. No one likes it. Have we heard any groups, other than the members of the government, who like this legislation? Tenants' associations do not like it, landlords' associations do not like it.

They are only going to start to hear from the people who are losing jobs. Wait until they start saying: "We had a moratorium period during the Bill 4 hearings. Jobs have been postponed." They are going to say: "No more capital expenditures. We are not going to do any more."

People losing jobs, who are normally in the supplier business, contract business, concrete business, all of the businesses related with maintaining housing stock are very upset, and if it has not hit the government yet, it will. They will find some very irate members of this province who are going to come to the Bill 121 hearings to discuss this with them.

Bureaucracy is rampant. To suggest the bureaucracy is going to be down as a result of Bill 121 is simply preposterous. I would like to make a bet with the minister -- I do not know how much, perhaps a loonie would be appropriate -- as to the number of bureaucrats we --

Hon Mr Cooke: You are the one who suggested it.

Mr Tilson: I will suggest I make that honest bet with him and after a year's time we will count the bureaucrats we have now in the whole rent review system as opposed to what we are going to have a year from now, and we will see who has the higher number. My guess is we will be simply shocked at the increase in bureaucrats in the next year.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: It is not simple. We now have two systems of rent review. We have a rent review system for small landlords and a rent review system for large landlords. It seems to be a more complicated system than we have been accustomed to, which we have not liked.

1720

The whole issue of rent review should be thought out. I do not think the minister has thought it out; I do not think he has looked at all the jurisdictions around this country, around North America and Europe, that have tried rent review and say it is simply not working.

One of the issues raised during the Bill 4 hearings was the whole philosophy of this government to make the housing industry a public utility. That has been made quite clear. Questions have been asked both of the minister and the Premier, specifically the question of the interview of Michael Melling. I know the NDP members do not like to hear this, but I am going to refer to some of these clauses again because the minister has yet to stand up -- as the Premier has not yet stood up -- and deny that what has been said in this interview is not their grand plan, the big picture they have for the housing industry in this province. I am going to read those again, and if the minister has an opportunity to stand up and deny it then I hope he does, because it will certainly clarify things. We have asked him several times in the House, we have asked him in the hearings, yet he will not deny this is the plan.

Hon Mr Cooke: That is not true.

Mr Tilson: He says it is not true. Let him put on the record that what the Premier said, or the then Leader of the Opposition said, in an interview with Mr Melling back in 1989. I am going to read this. I know this has been put into Hansard, but I am going to read portions of it again because I think it is quite crucial to realize where this government is going with respect to Bill 121. The puzzle is starting to fill in and the grand picture the then Leader of the Opposition described is becoming clearer.

Mr Melling indicated: "Your party has certainly been appropriately critical of the government's failures with respect to rent review, but I guess what a lot of people would be interested in is the solution. Where do you see rent review going?"

The member for York South said:

"The whole premise behind rent review and rental increases is the structure of ownership. You can't talk about rent review till you talk about the structure of ownership, and that to me is what needs to change in the rental housing field. As long as large corporations own land and own apartments, and there's a speculative element in that ownership and sale of those apartments, we will have profound problems with the size of rents and the cost of rents, and increase in rents in Ontario.

"The key, I believe, is to do more to create larger pools of non-profit housing. The way the market is structured now and the current system of rent review plays to this, it encourages speculation, it encourages flipping, it encourages transfer from one numbered company to another because of the rules on financing, because of the way that financing costs can be passed along. I don't think we're gonna solve the rent crisis until we deal with the ownership problem and the flipping problem. You want to provide encouragement for a non-profit model of ownership."

There it was. That is how it started in 1989 and we are now hearing ministers' statements as to where we are going with non-profit housing. Certainly our party supports non-profit housing, but not the entire industry. There is no private sector investment in housing stock in this province, it is all government ownership. I think that is the grandiose plan.

Mr Melling went on, "How do you get the current private rental stock out of the hands of the larger owners and into the hands of non-profit organizations or even into the hands of tenants themselves?"

This is what the now Premier stated: "You make it less profitable for people to own it. I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review. Simple. Eliminate the exceptions and loopholes. There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community and you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, we'll buy you out.'"

Is that not astounding? He is saying the entire housing industry is going to be government run. "We're going to buy you out. We're going to get rid of private enterprise in the housing industry." Taxpayers cannot afford it.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Deny these statements. I challenge the Minister of Housing and the Premier to deny these statements, that what he was saying then is not correct.

Mr Melling then continued, "Your Housing critic had proposed at one point that there would be a first right of refusal for tenants whose landlord was selling the building." The member for York South stated: "That's an important first step. I also think we need a government program of purchase."

That is the scary thing I see next, that slums are going to be created and the government is going to take over the existing system of housing in this province, like what happened in the city of New York

Michael Melling then asked the question, "Over the long term, you'd like to see Ontario" --

Hon Mr Cooke: I just think you are sounding more like a fringe candidate every day.

Mr Tilson: If the members do not like these statements, for heaven's sake, they should say they are wrong. I offer that challenge to them.

Michael Melling then stated, "Over the long term, you'd like to see Ontario, and perhaps Canada generally, moving to something more like the Swedish model where there is a very small percentage of private ownership and a very large percentage of non-profit ownership." I am going to get into the Swedish model and how it has not worked there. It has become quite clear the Swedish model of non-profit housing has not worked. Why would this government, when it sees the whole ambit of government-run housing failing in other parts of the world, consider driving the nail into the province even further?

The member for York South then stated in response to that question of Michael Melling: "Yes, that makes a lot more sense to me. What we want to try to do is to eliminate the unproductive speculative element in the economy as much as we possibly can. My model would be one where you have a very substantial non-profit rental sector which would be dominant." So there it is. That is what the Premier of this province said in 1989. Our entire housing stock is going to be non-profit housing.

Michael Melling then continued with another question: "I have a perception that rent review is going to always be an issue, but that it is going to become eclipsed over the next decade or so by maintenance concerns. How do you address that problem and provide some hope for those tenants who are currently living in buildings which are below standard?" The member for York South said: "Well, that's why we have to change the system of ownership and management of a building. If you lived in a non-profit building, where the money went was public knowledge and everybody knew what's at stake and everybody knew what the cost of financing the building was, you knew what the cost of the renovation was, and over how much time it would be paid off, and how you build that into construction, I don't think people would object to saying in a non-profit building, 'Well, look, we've got no way around this, we've got to improve plumbing, we've got to improve the exterior, whatever it may be.'"

Guess what? The government is going to do all the capital expenditures in this province. That is what he says, that only the government is going to do this. There is no encouragement for the private sector to get in and make these capital expenditures.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: The members should deny the statements.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not what it says.

Mr Tilson: I have read it word for word. I would like to make a few brief comments because the Premier has indicated he supports the Swedish model and it clearly has not worked. The Swedish model of course goes back to World War II when it started. I understand it was introduced in Sweden in 1942 as a result of what they felt was an emergency regulation that would be abolished as fast as possible after World War II and it was believed that wartime inflation would be followed by a deflation with sharp declines in prices after World War I.

There are articles written on this subject, one of which is written by Sven Rydenfelt, called The Rise and Fall of Swedish Rent Control. I am not going to pursue the whole article but it becomes quite clear if you look at what is going on in Sweden today, rent controls have not worked. He says of course, as has been said in this province, it is easy to introduce but it is hard to abolish. I do not think this government has the slightest intention -- it talks about its consultations and its green paper consultations. I do not think that possibility ever occurred to them. They had one thing in their mind and that was to engrain the whole rent review system that was not working before and is not working now.

I am just going to refer to a couple of sections. He talks about what has happened in Sweden about property standards bylaws. That is something, of course, the government really has not referred to, that we do have property standards bylaws in Ontario. If there is no capital money of any substantial amount being put into the housing stock, municipalities are going to be obliged to retain more and more property standards bylaw enforcement officers, more downloading -- the very thing this government talked about in the last election. They chided the Liberals, saying, "How dare you raise our property taxes by the downloading?" They are doing the very same thing. I can assure them the property standards bylaw enforcement officers will increase unbelievably as a result of the great need to maintain these buildings. As the member for Eglinton has referred to, it is very old housing stock; 70% of the buildings of this province are 20 years or more in age and are clearly deteriorating.

1730

This article by Mr Rydenfelt, who is a lecturer in economics at the University of Lund in Sweden, commented on the deterioration of the housing stock. He stated:

"It is well known and documented that rent controls result in poorer maintenance, fewer renovations and modernizations and, therefore, in the long run in a serious deterioration in the quality of buildings. Because some requests for rent increases have been granted, the defenders of control have persistently contended that deterioration and slum development have not occurred. This argument is fallacious."

Hon Mr Cooke: Do you support the entire Swedish model?

Mr Tilson: I am simply saying I am opposed. Obviously, they tried it in Sweden and it did not work. That is why I am referring to some of these articles. Obviously, the government has not taken the time to study rent control in Sweden. I am going to draw some things to their attention.

He proceeded with respect to the fact that rent control breeds slums. We have seen it in New York and we have seen it in Sweden. He carries on with respect to that subject by saying:

"As a result of control and lower rental income, owners' ability to maintain their apartment houses has declined. In particular, their incentive for such upkeep which is motivated by an aesthetic or a comfort point of view has dwindled."

We have always seen that in the Bill 4 hearings, where landlords say: "Why bother? How can we afford to do it?" This government is trying to put in the very thing that happened in Sweden 50 years ago, a system that did not work over there.

"In a free market there is always a surplus of dwellings and flats to let. If the owner in such a market does not keep his property in good condition he runs the risk of losing his tenants and being left with empty flats and losses in rent income. In a controlled market with severe shortages, the owner is under no such compulsion. However badly maintained his property, there are always long queues of homeless people willing to rent his shabby, poorly maintained flats.

"Since there is no economic incentive to encourage the owners to repair, even basic upkeep, which in the long run is necessary to prevent serious quality deterioration (ie slums), is neglected. A development of this kind is difficult to describe in qualitative terms."

I implore members of the government to read articles such as this. They seem to be convinced that rent review is the answer. All they have to do is to look at other jurisdictions around the world, such as Sweden and New York. We even had them come to the Legislature. An individual from New York and an individual from Sweden came to the Legislature. I think the only member of the government who bothered to attend was the member for Niagara Falls. She sat there and listened to it, but no other member of the government attended. It is sad when we hear other examples being offered to describe what is going on around the world.

This article proceeds with respect to the fact that rent control has not worked. "In the seventies there has been something of a housing revolution in Sweden. The gradual abolition of rent controls since 1958 -- when council houses were exempted -- has meant a gradual reduction in the housing shortage, and in the seventies the shortage has been replaced by a surplus. In the face of a growing surplus the rate of construction has decreased from an all-time record of 110,000 dwelling units in 1970 to 70,000 in 1975. The last remnants of rent control were removed in 1975."

It did not work in Sweden. The Premier said he was trying to put that system in Ontario and yet it did not work in Sweden. He is trying to put a system of rent review, of rent control, in this province even though it did not work in Sweden.

Mr Rydenfelt continues and speaks of the role of the Swedish tenants:

"About 650,000 Swedes are members of the Tenants' Association, from the beginning fanatical defenders of rent control. But the experiences of the controls were so disheartening that some 10 years ago the association changed its policy and began lobbying for the repeal of controls.

"Rents in Sweden -- like wages -- are now decided after negotiations between the Tenants' Association and the Landlords' Association."

I will bet this government never even discussed that in their discussions. I certainly did not see it in the green paper. I certainly did not hear about it. I am not saying it is something that needs to be advocated, but it at least needs to be pursued. I do not think that has been pursued. Maybe it is something that should be raised in the Bill 121 hearings, as to why that whole philosophy has not been pursued here in Ontario.

It is stated in this article, "Rent control has in certain western countries constituted maybe the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision." They have studied the western countries which have gone into rent control and they say it is "poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision." It is the worst example and yet this government insists on proceeding with that. This statement was made by Gunnar Myrdal, who was the co-winner in 1974 of the Nobel prize in economics. I would recommend this paper to be looked at and read by members of the government and anyone else in the House.

There have been newspaper articles which have referred specifically to the Swedish system, mainly because of Mr Melling's interview with the Premier, and how the Premier appears to be supporting the Swedish system. In April of this year there was an interview given to the Toronto Star by Ingemar Stahl, who is a professor, as I indicated, with the school of economics and management at the University of Lund. He reiterated some of the things that were said in this article.

He stated: "The low rents have created a housing shortage. People with the rent-controlled apartments don't let go of them." That is a subject I think we will pursue. Do members know that in New York City these rental apartments are so beneficial they are actually bequeathed to people in the next generation? That is how valuable they have become.

He was asked, "Although rent controls don't seem to work in Sweden or New York, might they not be beneficial in Ontario?" This individual, who has studied the whole subject in Europe and in North America, stated: "As soon as you introduce rent control, private construction for rental houses drops quickly and almost vanishes over time. Government must then jump in and subsidize social housing, such as you have in Ontario, or provide general subsidies for all construction, as has been the case in Sweden."

That is where we are heading. The government is going to have to finance it; it is going to have to own it; it is going to have to buy it. I do not think the taxpayers of this province will stand that sort of government spending. We have not got it. We are taxed enough.

"All of these things start very innocently...and then it starts its own dynamic. It becomes very difficult to abolish rent controls because there is much vested interest with tenants, private landlords leave the market, and government will be deeply involved in social housing projects with enormous budget costs."

That is something, of course, that the minister has never discussed in his indication as to how he is going to increase unbelievably the amounts of co-op housing and non-profit housing in this province. How are we going to pay for it? What is the annual cost for the various subsidies to these buildings? What are they going to be? We have not heard that.

Mr Freedman then asked, "Has rent control not helped Swedish tenants in any way?" Mr Stahl replied: "Only the tenants with the first contracts. They can't leave their flats because the only way of getting the value of the flat is by staying." That is what has happened in New York. It pays to stay. No one goes anywhere. Why would you? Why would you go out and buy a house? It simply does not pay. That is where this province is going to go. There are people who are making large amounts of money, the so-called rich. Why would they leave their apartments? There is no logical reason for them to do that, because of the inexpensive housing this government will have created.

1740

Mr Freedman asked, "How is the Swedish government reacting to its experience with rent control?" Mr Stahl responded: "Most parties, even the Social Democratic Party now in power, are in favour of loosening up rent control.... Direct housing allowances for low-income people and pensioners will probably be increased."

Again, that is a subject that has never been addressed in this legislation. I will be looking forward to the Bill 121 hearings to hear the minister make his comments as to what he is going to do with the large numbers of people who cannot afford any housing, who cannot afford any rents. That is a subject. There is a large number of people who cannot afford any rents, who cannot afford any increases. This legislation gives increases whether you are poor or whether you are not poor.

Mr Freedman then asked, "What kind of legislation would you recommend to the government of Ontario and the tenants of Ontario?" Mr Stahl said:

"Just now, with the downturn of the trade cycle and the vacancy rates going up a little, it's the right time to abolish parts of the rent control system because there will not be such considerable rent increase in many places. Be very, very aware of the dangers of starting social housing that Minister Cooke is talking about now, such as the 20,000 units a year (the government plans to build). This is a very costly thing. It's always very dangerous to build special houses for the poor. In the market, it's the upper-middle class that moves into new houses. They leave apartments behind them that (others) can move into. What people try to do here is build dream housing for very poor people and that will not be successful. This just creates new slums at the taxpayers' expense. The second-best option is to give people cash as rental allowances or direct income allowances."

Here is Ingemar Stahl, the noted professor from the school of economics at Lund University, commenting on rent controls in Sweden, which the Premier of this province has advocated.

The comment was made during the Bill 4 hearings, and certainly there will be comments made during the Bill 121 hearings, by this party that if anything, the rent controls that are being implemented and are continuing to be put forward under the rent review system in many cases help the rich. I do not think the government has properly addressed that, because certainly when it is so wide-ranging, when it covers all tenants -- not all tenants are poor. There are tenants in this province who can well afford to pay large increases. There are tenants who cannot. But this government has not considered that at all.

I would like to refer very briefly to the Ontario Real Estate Association, which in June 1990 prepared its housing policy study on this whole subject of rent regulation and how it affects the rich. It states that:

"Rent regulation controls the rental of units irrespective of the occupant. Thus there is no capacity to target the benefits produced by rent controls to those most in need. The Institute for Social Research at York University reported in 1989 that there is no relationship between the age of the unit and the income of the occupants. That means there's no evidence that the older, less expensive units that have been regulated longer are occupied by persons with lower incomes.

"Because of its inability to target benefits, rent regulation tends to produce windfall benefits to higher-income tenants." I submit that is exactly what this government's legislation is going to create. There are going to be major windfall benefits to higher-income tenants. "It is argued further that the extra time consumed in the search process and the high cost of available apartments result in reduced mobility and the need for more rental units to serve the population than would be the case without the program.

"From the landlord's perspective, rent regulation in Ontario reduces the value of the capital asset by decreasing its rental revenue. This loss to the landlord is also accompanied by an additional loss of tax revenue to the government." That is a subject that a great deal of time has not been spent on as a result of the facts that have been presented to the Bill 4 hearings and I believe the green paper discussions as to how the private sector rental structures are decreasing in value and the overall effect that is going to have on the tax revenue to the municipalities of this province. That is something that hopefully will be debated.

The Ontario Real Estate Association talked about the legislation treating "all landlords like large corporations. This is manifested by the complex administrative systems that require expertise and recordkeeping beyond the capacity of the layperson." Again, when you start talking about rent registration, which is another subject that this legislation deals with, if a tenant asks for one unit to be registered, that unit must be registered. That is going to create bureaucracy. I am quite serious, back to the minister, as to the amount of bureaucratic staff that is going to be required. The rent review, the rent registration, the whole process of the expansion of Bill 51 into Bill 121 and the expansion of what is going to be required by the government to administer this program, to say anything, from the fact of the tenants' association and the landlords' associations are going to have to hire substantial amounts of expertise to tell them what the heck the legislation means. It is very, very complicated legislation. The average layperson will simply have no idea where to go, so the people who have the best staff in the private sector are the ones who are going to survive. The average little landlord will simply wither away.

It also talks about the transfer of benefits from the small, non-affluent landlords to better-off tenants. "Finally, the legislation is intrusive in that it substantially redistributes property rights from landlord to tenant."

So it makes certain recommendations and it talks about the phasing out of rent regulations. I am disappointed the government is not talking about that, having seen how rent review is failing in other parts of the world. It states: "The phasing out of rent regulation will: allow the housing market to function more efficiently; reduce the $40-million cost of administration...." Of course, that figure will jump unbelievably. It will be interesting to see, in my bet with the minister, a year from now what the $40 million will be. My guess is that it will at least double the cost to the government of housing in this province.

Third, it will "increase incentives for investment in privately financed rental housing; remove an ineffective and inequitable subsidy; make unnecessary a range of associated legislation intended to plug gaps in the rent regulation system; provide government with greater flexibility in the housing policy area by releasing large amounts of money committed to rent regulation; enhance the ability of the market to respond to changes in demand/supply conditions, and thus improve vacancy rates and residential mobility, which, over time, will result in reduced rents for tenants."

The government, in its consultations, obviously did not review proposals that would be put forward by the Ontario Real Estate Association or other associations similar to it. They have gone with their blinders on. They have seen what they want and that is it. The fact that they made consultations simply is not acceptable.

1750

I would like to spend some time with respect to comparing what has gone on in the city of New York, because obviously this government has not considered the problems that have occurred in the city of New York. We have made comments to the government, we have tried to encourage it to look at it, and I have had no response from the minister or his parliamentary assistant or other members of this government as to why the situation in New York could not occur in Ontario.

I am going to refer to it. I am going to take up a little bit of time talking about the problems in New York.

William Tucker, who is an authority on the whole subject of rent control in New York City, was here in this House, in one of the committee rooms -- and, of course, only one member of the government took the time to go to it -- and he has charts, he has statistics, which show that rent review, rent control lead to homelessness. I do not think the government believes that, but if members read this book or books like it, they will see that clearly that is something that needs to be considered.

Certainly rent control does influence homelessness, when you read some of the statistics that are put forward by Mr Tucker and were reiterated to him when he spoke to some members some months ago. He states in his text, which is entitled The Excluded Americans: Homelessness and Housing Policies:

So what is rent control and how does it influence housing and homelessness? "To economists, the answer is a straightforward one. Rents, like all prices, are determined by the laws of supply and demand. Any attempt to manipulate prices can have only one of two consequences. It can produce surpluses or shortages. If the government holds prices above market level, the result will be a surplus. If prices are held below market level, the result will be a shortage."

Guess what this government is trying to do. They are trying to hold the whole subject of prices with respect to rental accommodation below the market level. That is quite clearly why there is a shortage of housing in this province. They seem to have it in their heads that they are going to solve the whole subject by putting in non-profit housing. Their whole answer is co-op housing and non-profit housing, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr Lessard: What is wrong with it?

Mr Tilson: There is nothing wrong with non-profit housing. You just do not make the entire housing structure non-profit housing. You have a mix. The government is going to do away with private enterprise in this province. There are not going to be any new initiatives with respect to private housing being built. Can the member tell me one, because if he can, I would like to hear about it.

He talks about how you set prices with respect to rents, and generally the theory on prices, because the comparisons are very similar. He states: "The important thing to realize about a free-market economy is that neither buyers nor sellers can set prices all by themselves. Prices are not dictated by anyone, but set by negotiations between buyers and sellers."

That is an important statement. This government is doing away with that whole theory. They are simply saying: "We're going to set the prices. We're not going to allow any negotiations between tenants and landlords. We're not going to encourage any new housing, so therefore the government will control all the housing. The government will control all the prices."

Mr Tucker goes on by saying: "They are the result of the great mass of private transactions, on which each individual transaction has only very little impact. This may make each individual buyer and seller feel powerless, but this is only because there are so many other buyers and sellers in the market.

"Unfortunately, throughout history the majority of people have labored under the illusion that if prices can be fixed at some favourable level by the government, an unlimited amount of the desired commodities will be available at that price. This is not true. Prices cannot be forcefully moved away from market levels without throwing supply and demand out of alignment. The real effect is to foul up the flow of information between producers and consumers. If buyers and sellers cannot communicate through prices, neither can tell what the other wants to do. The result will be a surplus or a shortage."

Mr Tucker is not just making this up. He has statistics that go all through the city of New York. Most of his figures are based in various cities around the United States that have tried and have failed at rent control. So he is not making this up. I would encourage members of the government to study this as to how what they are proposing with Bill 121 is not going to work.

He talks about how there is a low vacancy rate in every city in the United States which has experienced rent controls, and he has studied every one of them and has made graphs as to where they were before, during and after rent controls have been experimented with. He states at page 159 of the text: "Rent control produces an identical housing shortage. The most obvious evidence is the remarkably low vacancy rate in every city with rent control."

When we hear these statistics, we wonder why the government would put forward that philosophy. We wonder if they did consult. Did they really consult? Did they really study all of the alternatives that have occurred in North America and in other parts of Europe? Did they really study it? I doubt if they did, because if they did we would have heard about it.

Mr Tucker continues by saying: "With rent control, there are several possible holes in the market. One is new housing." I refer to this subject because of the proposal by the minister to exempt new housing for a period of five years and the downfalls of that. I suspect that will not encourage people to get into the housing market. Why would they, as I said earlier, when they know perfectly well that in five years they are going to be right back with rent controls or rent review? So Mr Tucker commented on this. He said: "With rent control there are several possible holes in the market. One is new housing. Realizing that developers do not want to build in a rent-controlled market, cities will often exempt new buildings from the controls (unless, of course, they don't want new construction, which is why Berkeley and Santa Monica have not allowed this exemption). Sometimes smaller buildings are also left unregulated. Often these holes in the market develop spontaneously -- as when Berkeley home owners started renting out spare bedrooms to students desperately seeking housing." We have seen that going on in this province, too, and the government has yet to deal with that in some of the university towns.

"To people who are forced to shop in these holes in the market, prices will be higher than they would be in a free market. This is because the excess demand spilling over from the regulated sector is chasing after the limited supplies in the hole-in-the-market sector. Often this unregulated sector will be a 'black market,' where a premium must be paid for underground dealings. In any case, people forced outside the regulated sector by shortages will end up paying more than they would at market prices." So I would encourage the government to study that factor if it is insisting on putting rent controls back on buildings after they have been up for five years, and the problems that it will create by that policy.

He has provided a considerable amount of data as to how rent controls, in fact, push people out into the streets. There is nowhere else to go. There is no way this government, through its non-profit housing and co-op housing, will be able to house all of the poor. There is no way. There is just not enough money in the pot to do that.

Mr Tucker comments on this when he states: "Rent control is very much like exclusionary zoning and growth control. The present residents of any community can vote themselves handsome benefits, while the adverse effects are pushed on to outsiders and future residents. In the suburbs this technique usually means pushing housing problems into a neighbouring town or back into the cities. In the cities, however, it means pushing people into the streets.

"One of the initial appeals of rent control is that landlords are in certain ways captives of the municipality. They cannot move their buildings to the next town to avoid the regulations." This is one area where there will be no cross-border shopping. The landlords, unfortunately, are prisoners. They cannot go to other jurisdictions. They are stuck with this government, at least until it is turfed out of office.

They also talk about affordable housing and waiting in line. That is a subject the NDP government has never really dealt with when it talks about its non-profit housing and co-op housing as an alternative to private enterprise housing: the waiting lists that are going to be created and are in fact created. The waiting lists are unbelievable, it has been referred to, to get into non-profit housing.

1800

Mr Tucker refers to that at page 164 of his text where he states:

"Economists have long noted that prices are a rationing system whereby scarce resources are allocated according to people's ability to buy. When prices are prevented from functioning, another system of allocation must take their place. In wartime, for example, ration cards are usually used to ration goods in conjunction with price controls. In socialist countries, a first-come, first-served basis is substituted -- often called 'waiting in line.' Today's restricted suburban municipalities are allocating affordable housing units by lottery.

"Without any of these systems, however, rationing is likely to take place through inside information, good connections, informal agreements, bribes or other under-the-table arrangements (often called the 'black market'). In a rent-controlled community, favouritism, friendships and insider connections usually become the principal means of distribution. People with networks of family or friends can usually find housing. Those without connections cannot."

I hope this government is not going to be creating the type of society that has been experienced in other jurisdictions such as the society Mr Tucker has described in New York, where these types of arrangements are made with respect to people in the know. I hope, if they are confident that this legislation is going to pass and is going to work, that type of problem will not exist. I hope they will look at how it did not work in the city of New York, at how people take advantage of that type of system and how the poor and those who do not know people as much as some of the more wealthy tenants will be downtrodden perhaps by people in the know.

Mr Tucker also talks about how rent control causes relationships between the tenants and the landlords to be adversarial. I mentioned at the beginning of my comments the type of arrangements that can cause, the whole fact of tenants saying, "Such-and-such a condition exists in my building. There is neglect. Landlords come and try to fix it up. It's not done adequately," the whole debate back and forth in that type of arrangement.

This system has been tried in other jurisdictions and it has failed miserably. All we have to do is look to New York and we can see the problems Ontario is going to encounter if Bill 121 is passed with the suggestions that are being put forward by this government. Mr Tucker said at page 204:

"In an ordinary city without rent control, tenant-landlord relations are usually invisible. 'Believe it or not, I've seen tenants and landlords in Berkeley who were absolutely best of friends until the rent board came in and destroyed their relationship,' said Gregory McConnell, former director of Berkeley rent control."

We have already seen that. During the Bill 4 hearings, we have seen where tenants and landlords came to an arrangement with respect to performing capital expenditures on their buildings and then the dreaded Bill 4 came in. Even though their deal had been struck, Bill 4 declared that void, and tenant after tenant said, "That's not fair when we came to an arrangement." That is what this type of legislation is going to create.

Mr Tucker goes on to state on the next page:

"In a normal market, landlords make money by offering reasonable housing at reasonable prices. Rents are set by supply and demand. If housing is scarce, landlords will be able to charge higher prices. If the market is glutted, they will worry about securing tenants.

"One thing a landlord can do about attracting tenants is to keep his place attractive and clean. If a landlord lets his building run down, he risks losing tenants. Likewise, if tenants don't like an apartment, they can usually look for another one."

There is the catch-22 that has been created. Landlords have simply said that what is being set under Bill 121 will not assist them in improving their buildings, even at the lowest level of small maintenance. But there is no other place for them to go. There are no other structures being built. So what is going to become of the tenants of this province as a result of the policies of this government?

Mr Tucker continued by saying:

"One recent study in Baltimore found that even in the worse slums there is generally a three-tier system of rents. Tenants who are well behaved and pay on time, pay below-market rents. Those who are average in their behavior pay market rents. Tenants who present behavioral problems generally pay rents that are above market. Setting a rent level is an important means of social control, and landlords serve as informal policemen, maintaining order in their buildings.

"Under rent control, however" -- and that is what this government is trying to put forward -- "all these things change. Landlord-tenant relations become completely adversarial." That is what has started in Ontario. "Landlords turn into greedy villains who seem to want nothing except let their buildings run down and get rid of tenants. Meanwhile, tenants are in a constant state of agitation, see themselves as helpless prisoners of a voracious landlord class. Only the heroic efforts of the rent control authorities keep them from being eaten alive.

"What is it about rent control that sets off open warfare between tenants and landlords and seems to turn landlords into exactly the heartless monsters that tenant activists claim they are?

"The key point to recognize is that rent controls turn a voluntary exchange into a coerced transaction. Regardless of how much griping tenants or landlords may do in a free market, the fact remains that nobody is able to force anyone into a transaction they don't want to make." But we will in Ontario with the legislation this government is going to put forward.

"But rent control is purely and simply an attempt by tenants to use the power of the government to set prices. As we have already seen, this effort inevitably produces a shortage. But what it does for tenant-landlord relationships -- and eventually for the entire civic order of the community -- is an entirely separate story.

"Forced to sell at a price below market, any merchant will do one of three things: (1) he will withdraw the product from the market; (2) he will try to circumvent the regulations; or (3) he will let the product deteriorate to the point where its value matches the legal price."

That should be considered by this government before it goes forward with this legislation. Is it possible that can happen? If they are honestly convinced after looking at what goes on in jurisdictions that this cannot happen, then so be it. But I think if they study what goes on in Sweden and what goes on in New York and what goes on in some of the other American jurisdictions that have experience in what this government is going through, they will have second thoughts in putting forward this legislation.

Mr Tucker continues by saying;

"The first and most obvious response to rent control is to get out of the business and invest in something else. This is easy enough if you are a builder of houses -- you just stop building. This is why, sooner or later, all rent-controlled communities eventually see new construction all but disappear -- even when they try to exempt new housing." The minister should remember that. That is what has happened in New York and what could happen in Ontario.

Mr Tucker goes on to state:

"If you already own rental apartments, however, getting out of the business is not such an easy matter. This, in fact, is what makes rent control so initially attractive. As the author of The Cities' Wealth put it, 'Housing can be controlled far more easily than other forms of wealth which are movable and beyond the scope of legal regulation by the city.' If Berkeley tried to set prices on food or stereo equipment, the stores would just relocate across the border in Oakland. But a landlord does not have that option."

That is what has happened in the United States. Landlords in these various cities got stuck and the slums of New York and other cities were created. I believe if this policy continues in Ontario, it could happen here.

I believe also that with the small amounts of capital increases that are being suggested by the minister with respect to capital expenditures, landlords will simply stop making capital expenditures. They simply will stop because they will not have the money themselves and the banks will not. The banks and the financial institutions that fund these things simply will not do it.

So is the Premier's plan really moving along as scheduled? Is the grand plan unfolding? Is he going to take over the housing industry of this province because the landlords cannot afford the capital expenditures?

1810

Mr Tucker did talk about landlords stopping making repairs, and I would like to throw that out to the government to consider. He talks about "what to do when the landlord stops making repairs in the hope that his tenants will decide to leave. Having created this new kind of landlord, the municipal government must now protect tenants from him." Of course in the United States they have individual rent control systems in each individual city, as opposed to states, as most members know.

He states: "The solution is always the same. Sooner or later, someone will come up with the bright idea, 'Why don't we let tenants enforce the housing code by giving them power to withhold rent, or even receive permanent rent reductions, if the landlord doesn't maintain his building?' And so, procedures for rent reductions and rent strikes will be formalized." Do members see how the antagonism can develop? It can mushroom into something that I do not think we want in this society of Ontario.

"What political leaders do not want to acknowledge is that, in both the short and the long run, tenants are generally far more interested in not paying rent than in worrying about the overall condition of the building. Tenants will demand rent reductions for the most trivial complaints."

Again I ask the minister: What does neglect mean? He will not tell us what neglect means. What is neglect? Is it a crack in the wall? If a tenant makes an objection about a crack in the wall, which may or may not be a trivial complaint, does that result in rent being reduced?

Mr Tucker continues by saying: "Since the rent board is almost always loaded with tenant activists, the whole process soon becomes a kangaroo court. (When Berkeley landlords finally elected one property owner to the rent board, the board decided she was not allowed to vote because ownership was a 'conflict of interest.')" Sounding familiar, more and more, to Ontario.

Mr Tucker continues by saying:

"Finding building code violations soon becomes a sport -- one that rich and poor alike can play. The affluent will form committees and comb their buildings with righteous indignation. The poor may just continue to break things out of habit. Either way, the rent reductions mount up. When trivial violations can't be found, it is always possible to create a few. A broken window, a damaged mailbox, a missing smoke alarm -- all may be worth sizable rent reductions in what becomes known as the 'violations game.'"

It cannot happen in Ontario? Just watch, I say to the minister.

Mr Tucker concludes that particular section by saying that such rent --

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that the standing orders forbid lengthy readings, but quotations alone or excerpts from readings are appropriate. It seems to me that the member is reading extensively and far beyond a simple quotation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. That is a matter of opinion. The member is quoting extensively, but I believe he is in order and he is right on topic.

Mr Tilson: I do not think the government has looked at other jurisdictions. Since they have not taken the time to look at other jurisdictions that have experimented with rent control and rent review, they are going to hear about it right now, because I think that is something that should be dealt with by this House and the committee. That is why I am spending some time with the situation in New York and how it failed in New York and is continuing to fail in the city of New York and in other cities across the United States.

Mr Tucker continues by saying: "Such rent reductions are usually supposed to be temporary -- removable when the violation is corrected. But now comes the next level of play, known as the 'access game.'" All of this sounds very silly, Mr Speaker, but if you follow the process that is being created by some of the sections in Bill 121, I think you can see it is possible. If it is not possible, then fine, proceed. But if it is possible, hopefully the government will have a second look at its legislation before it proceeds.

Mr Tucker continues by saying: "Having been awarded a $45-a-month rent reduction for a small crack in the bathroom wall, the tenant now says to himself, 'Do I really want this crack fixed or would I rather keep the $45 a month?'" The answer, of course, is obvious. So when the plasterers arrive two days later to patch the wall, the tenant refuses to let them in." That is called the access game in the city of New York. Can it happen in Ontario? I believe it can.

Mr Tucker continues by saying:

"This scenario is repeated over and over again in rent-controlled cities. Landlords make appointments, tenants make sure they are not at home. Landlords catch them at home, tenants say they can't be disturbed. Landlords send registered letters setting up appointments, tenants send them back. 'We've had to call the police several times where tenants were physically threatening workmen who were trying to make repairs in their apartments....'"

This set of facts, these scenarios I have been referring to, actually happened in various cities and in the city of New York, and yet there is nothing in the legislation that deals with trying to avoid those situations. I hope the government will have substantial amendments prepared for the committee hearings to resolve that type of situation, if indeed it does not simply withdraw some of the sections in the act that will create these problems.

Mr Tucker proceeds by saying:

"The further their rents descend, the angrier tenants become. 'The rents here are so great,' they will say, 'but the landlord is a complete scum. He never fixes anything. You have to drag him into court just to get him to change a lightbulb.' When confronted with the idea that their below-market rents might have something to do with this, they will cry out: 'Market rents? Are you kidding? This place isn't worth the money we're paying for it now.'" That is awfully similar to some of the statements that were made during Bill 4 and how this government has failed to address those situations.

"And so it goes on and on, until it becomes one of the ugliest spectacles in America, landlords and tenants fighting in hand-to-hand combat over housing that is falling down around their ears." Cannot happen in Ontario? I believe it will.

"And so homelessness mounts," Mr Tucker proceeds. "By blocking new housing and destroying old, rent control leaves a swelling number of people without any place to live. The poorest will be first let out in the cold."

I have referred to situations in New York where rents are so low in the private sector, as a result of rent control, that they bequeath them, they make bequests in their wills of apartments they have access to. They do not go anywhere. Why would they? It is the best deal in town. Mr Tucker devotes an entire chapter to this subject, chapter 19, where he talks about "The Best Deal in Town."

I am going to refer to a few sections in this just to show members some very well known people who you would think are extremely well off and are taking advantage of the rent --

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum in the House and I think the government members should realize that it is their responsibility to keep a quorum in the House, so I would like to call for a quorum.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

[Report continues in volume B]