The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by members?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think the government is fulfilling its obligation to maintain a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Would the Clerk count, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1334

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today -- and it's interesting that on the day I rise there's no quorum in the House for the government. In any event, I rise to raise a hue and cry against the possibility of this NDP government attempting to stifle speech in this House, the very basis upon which parliamentary democracy is raised.

The backbenchers in the government perhaps don't realize that in fact this may have an impact on their ability to be able to serve properly the needs of their constituents. Thirty minutes now, next week 15, perhaps the week after no backbenchers will be allowed to speak.

In fact one expects to see that only in societies that are repressive, that have the jackboots and the tanks rolling into town. The tanks and the jackboots haven't rolled into town yet, but I wonder if the press, in the days when the jackboots and the tanks did roll into town, remained silent, as it does today, about eliminating or reducing the most fundamental item that's required in a Parliament, the right of free speech.

They're putting limits on this. This in fact is eliminating the effectiveness of all of us in this House, particularly the backbenchers, who now can't speak out against anything, since they seem to rise on every vote as though they're joined at the hip.

WOODLOTS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns what local writers are saying about his proposed changes to the Ontario Trees Act that would take control of farmers' woodlots.

In his column, Harvie's Hats, Harvie Johnstone writes:

"If bureaucrats tried to get away with it during the winter or any off-season, they'd face an awful mess of pitchforks on Queen's Park steps. Few farmers, busy with first haying and other activities, will have a say before the ministry shuts off griping time on June 19."

"Put it this way: Suppose some busybody rapped on your door and announced you had no permit to cut down a tree which you'd earmarked to help keep your family cosy next winter. You'd unchain your hungriest mongrel. 'Sic 'em, boy,' and that would be that.

"Would you have believed 20 years ago -- heck, five years ago -- ah, would you believe even a month ago, that the Ministry of Natural Resources wanted to require you to get a permit to cut down a tree -- on your own property?

"This is the same ministry that earlier this spring launched a giant campaign to encourage land owners to buy 300 saplings for $46 and the ministry would throw in as many more as wanted -- free. A great deal!

"This is the same ministry that a month later announced closure of a couple of tree nurseries, including Midhurst near Barrie. Not a great deal!

"So now this same ministry wants a thumb on those freshly painted trees, as well as other trees on your land. A bad, very bad, deal!

"Beware farmers: Big Brother may require that you get a permit to cut your lettuce next!"

This is a chip off the old block.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of the extraordinary efforts of Mr Jim Green, a resident of Smithville in my riding of Lincoln. Mr Green has been participating in the environmental assessment hearings that are considering a proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant, centralized toxic waste treatment facility in my riding of Lincoln.

Mr Green has spent countless hours of his own time at these hearings because he is concerned about the impact of hazardous conditions arising from emergencies associated with the proposed hazardous waste treatment plant. He wants to be assured that all precautions are in place before the plant is started up. He has recently prepared a report for the hearing board that summarizes his research and his findings.

Last week I circulated copies of Mr Green's report to all cabinet members and to the opposition Environment critics. I'm asking them today to read Mr Green's report and to respond to him with their comments.

Mr Green was recently recognized by his fellow citizens of the township of West Lincoln and was named citizen of the year, an honour he clearly deserves.

I agree with Mr Green wholeheartedly that public safety must be the top priority when planning waste management strategies. There is no room for compromise here. As I've stated many times in the past, my position on the OWMC is clear. I oppose the construction of this kind of facility on any scale. I have made a promise to the people of Lincoln and I intend to do everything in my power to see that this proposal is denied.

TIMISKAMING BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): In early March I met with the Timiskaming Board of Education, the Timiskaming Municipal Association and representatives of the teachers' federation regarding the problems the school board was facing in our area both this year and for upcoming years. At this meeting I was asked to set up a meeting for these representatives with the Minister of Education to discuss these problems.

On March 9, 1992, I wrote to the Minister of Education, the Honourable Tony Silipo, to make that request. On April 21, 1992, I wrote again with the same request. So far I have not received an acknowledgement or a date for this meeting. My office contacted his office on numerous occasions, the last time being May 26 of this year. At that time I was told that a meeting would most likely not occur until the fall, but so far still no date.

The Timiskaming board is facing serious financial problems. They have had to lay off 28 teachers' aides, 15 teachers and six office staff. The numbers may not be as great, but the percentages are as great as any of the layoffs in southern Ontario.

The parents are very upset about the lack of action from the minister's office. I have lately received numerous letters from concerned parents on this subject which I will be sending over today to the minister.

I am urging that the minister set up a meeting with the representatives of the school board, the Timiskaming Municipal Association and the representatives from the teachers' federation immediately.

This is a very serious matter. We are dealing with the future of our children. Nothing is more important in this day and age.

1340

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): From November 1991 to March of this year I have been distributing, in person, several hundred small business surveys in my riding of Wellington. I've received 161 responses. The results have been tabulated and I think the responses send a clear message that there is little investor or consumer confidence in this government's economic policies.

Of the small business people polled, 98% are against the government's proposal to amend the Labour Relations Act, 98% are concerned about the Ontario economy's ability to withstand additional taxes and 90% are opposed to the concept of employment equity which would allow the government to dictate job hiring quotas within the private sector.

It's time that this government, which prides itself on being a government of consultation, starts listening to the concerns of the small business community, which is such an important component of Ontario's economy.

I'd like to read a few of the comments from the respondents:

"The government needs to do a 180-degree turn to create an awareness that industry is welcome here and that they are on an equal footing."

"The government is putting us all out of business."

"This government is displaying a blatant disregard for fiscal and financial responsibility."

The messages from the small business community in my riding are clear, and I am certain that the mood reflected in this survey mirrors the mood of small businesses all across Ontario. Unless the provincial government changes its present destructive course, consumer and business confidence will be further eroded and there will be no hope for economic improvement and job creation over the summer.

APPRECIATION

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): It is a great pleasure and an honour to be here today and able to stand up and speak on behalf of my constituents of Oakwood. It is a great pleasure also to be able to thank all the friends who helped me through all these 18 very long months, especially members of my family and the members of my party.

I learned a lot during those 18 months and I think I acquired some kind of experience that was missing in this House. Being independent and being able to watch the work of all the other caucuses from outside, and also out of my own caucus, has given me something that I was never able to acquire without going through this personally.

It is with emotion that I want to be able to thank again all the people who elected me, who put their trust in me and who always believed in what I was saying to them. I want to be able to cooperate. As a matter of fact, I was also able to make a submission to a standing committee to change the rules of the House so that any future independent members will be able to represent fully the people who elect them to this place.

I hope I'm going to get the cooperation of all the members of the House. I will be cooperating with my caucus, the government and this House, of course, from now on.

BROCK UNIVERSITY ATHLETES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Brock University has established an outstanding reputation as an academic institution and has now extended that reputation into the field of athletics.

This year, 1991-92, the Brock University men's basketball team won both the Ontario and national championships, the first being held at the University of Waterloo here in the province of Ontario, the second at the civic centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They've brought considerable pride to the city of St Catharines, to the province of Ontario and, of course, to the university system throughout Canada.

The Brock wrestling team won the university's first Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union championship two weeks after winning its first Ontario wrestling championship. Brock wrestlers outpinned the defending champions, the University of Manitoba Bisons, 29 to 24 during the CIAU finals on Friday, February 28, and Saturday, February 29, 1992, at Brock University.

The team qualified eight members for the tournament and seven made the final round. All seven won medals. Richard Deschatelets, who was selected the CIAU coach of the year, was justifiably proud of his wrestling team.

Marty Calder, Luke Collison, Aaron Pomeroy, John Matile, Donovan Young, Brent Beauparlant and Dave Knowles won the outstanding medals in that particular tournament.

Congratulations to Brock University, both teams.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): As members will know, constituents in my riding of Grey are very interested in what goes on in the world around them. This attitude is exemplified by people like Bill Snarr of Durham and Jim Welch of Markdale, who were so concerned about illegal drug use, especially by our young people, that they formed a group called Grandparents Against Drug Abuse.

This association is an offshoot of drug awareness programs started by local Optimist clubs and it now operates in 12 communities in Grey and Bruce. They set up information booths in malls in both counties and thus far have petitions signed by more than 1,000 concerned citizens that ask for maximum sentences for those convicted of drug violations.

I realize that under our judicial system judges cannot receive direction from any level of government. I also understand it is federal, not provincial, crown attorneys who prosecute and present evidence in drug cases. Nevertheless, I feel it is important that both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are aware of the strong feelings expressed by this group and by those who care enough to sign these petitions. They have a deep commitment to address and cure what has become one of society's greatest ills.

I commend Optimist clubs everywhere, and in particular the Grey and Bruce organization of Grandparents Against Drug Abuse, for bringing this concern to public attention and for doing what they can to combat this serious problem.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Last week in my riding I participated in a very important function with students and professionals from across the Algoma district, including Sault Ste Marie. We discussed tobacco and its effects on people and our environment.

This was all part of a larger campaign called Give Kids a Chance. The intention of this campaign is to discourage the use of tobacco, particularly among younger people. They are asking the provincial government and the Ministry of Health for help in promoting their program of not smoking. I have close to 2,000 signatures from supporters of this campaign in the Sault Ste Marie riding. I will personally present them to the Minister of Health.

This group is sending out a strong message to publicly educate us, focusing on children, regarding smoking and its numerous hazards. This campaign concentrates on prevention rather than smoking cessation. We need to look out for our children's future, knowing that smoking is not a healthy choice.

I congratulate those who are taking part in this campaign and I invite all of you, as concerned colleagues, to support it.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION / TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Our government believes that all residents of Ontario have the democratic right to accessible and convenient public transit. Fully accessible transit is our long-term goal.

This means simply that we are working to make all transit systems accessible to people with disabilities and to elderly and frail people. "Accessible" also means making transportation convenient for the passenger.

Monsieur le Président, la population de l'Ontario veut et exige des transports en commun fiables. Des personnes de toutes les conditions sociales utilisent les systèmes de transport en commun de notre province. Pour plusieurs, ce service de transport en commun est le seul moyen pour se rendre au travail ou à l'école ou pour emmener leurs enfants à la garderie.

Today I wish to inform the members of the House of the adoption of a new policy to implement fully accessible transit services. We want transit operators to work with us towards our goal of an integrated family of transit services for people with and without disabilities.

I am pleased to announce today that all new transit buses purchased or leased by transit operators after July 1, 1993, must be equipped with both low floors and features to allow access to a broader range of users. Only low-floor buses meeting provincial standards will be eligible for funding from the Ministry of Transportation's municipal transfer payments. Also, all new transit terminals must be made fully accessible to qualify for a subsidy.

We recognize that each municipality has unique needs when it comes to public transportation. This is why our new policy also asks each municipality to develop an accessibility agreement with the Ministry of Transportation. This agreement will outline a municipality's specific accessibility requirements and how it intends to achieve its goals. These plans must be in place by January 1, 1994, for municipalities to continue receiving transit funding from the government. We will, of course, work closely with each community to help it define its needs and ultimately better serve all the people of Ontario.

These new policies complement our other accessible transit programs. By allowing more people to use conventional transit, we can better tailor other services to those who really need them. A mix of different transit services and vehicles will better serve each community. A family of integrated transit services will put the needs of users first. The services will be designed to integrate people with disabilities into the mainstream of Ontario society at long last.

There is a growing need for integrated transit services, due to such factors as an aging population and an increasing number of people with disabilities, a desire to help people live in their communities with dignity and safety, and a greater awareness of the rights of people with disabilities. We are looking at ways to meet these needs, which were so clearly described in the Action for Access report last year.

For example, low-floor buses make it easier for those with mobility problems to use regular transit services. At the same time, people with small children or someone with a cane will find it easier to use those same low-floor transit buses. Using low-floor buses for conventional transit will mean that specialized transit systems and accessible taxis will be able to provide service to more of the people who require greater assistance, lessening the demand for these more specialized services.

This government has demonstrated our commitment to accessible transit services by providing $42 million in the past year to help fund specialized transit services in 146 communities across Ontario. Through the ministry's accessible taxi demonstration program, more than $750,000 has been provided during the last two years to help private operators, entrepreneurs, buy wheelchair-accessible taxis. We're also participating in a $54-million program over five years to make 25 of the 63 Toronto Transit Commission subway stations fully accessible to the disabled. In addition, GO Transit has made important progress in its accessible rail strategy. More than $16 million will be spent this fiscal year for accessibility features at new and key rail stations, including Union Station in downtown Toronto.

Et ce ne sont là que quelques exemples des initiatives prises par le gouvernement pour améliorer l'accès aux transports. Mais nos exploits ne s'arrêtent pas là. Nous sommes en train d'élaborer de nouvelles politiques visant à souligner notre engagement ferme aux transports en commun et à les rendre encore plus accessibles à toute la population.

My parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, George Dadamo, has been given the responsibility for transit for people with disabilities. I extend my thanks and sincere appreciation to him for the hard and dedicated work he is doing and will continue to do in this important area, in this important dossier. He has made this dossier a mission, and I, for one, have learned long ago not to stand between a person and the goal, the mission. Thank you very much, Mr Dadamo.

This new policy demonstrates the government's strong commitment and support for a transportation system that is accessible to all people. We look forward to working with Ontario's transit systems to make this happen.

I would like to take a moment of the House's precious time to thank my guests, who took the time to come to the Legislative Assembly today to listen to this important statement, for it concerns all of us, but certainly first and foremost the people it serves on a daily basis. Their names are as follows: Lucy Costa, Mary Ellen Casino, Christine Miller, Sam Savona, Mel Posesorsky, Rob Trudelle, Paul Casino, Richard Decter, John Southern, John Feld, and of course from the Ministry of Transportation, Marilyn Lane and Tracey Fawcett-Bell.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise with some concern because earlier today a report and press conference was held on what is substantively something critically important to every member of this Legislature, which is a report, Time for Action, presented to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yet today we have no statement, and I cannot understand why, on this report -- and if you go back to May of 1990, when this was first announced, this is a matter --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I realize this is important. Would the member take his seat, please. Would the member please take his seat.

The member will know that regardless of the importance of the subject matter there is nothing in the standing orders which compels ministers to make statements in the House. Such a practice of making statements in the House to announce government policy is something which this Speaker and my predecessors in this chair have always encouraged. But it is not in the standing orders.

I understand fully the point that the member makes and would ask that we move now to --

Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, I respect the point of view you had set forward --

The Speaker: Point of order? The same point of order?

Mr Beer: I want to make very clear that what this House leader --

The Speaker: One moment. Would the member take his seat, please. Would the member for York North resume his seat.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): The report was received today. The report was made public today. There's no government policy that flows out of a report that we just received today. When there's government policy there will be a minister's statement announcing the government policy, but the report was just received and it's been released today.

Mr Beer: That makes no sense, and when you put this into context of the kinds of rule changes you want to make to this place, you know that is an arrogant action. It makes no sense.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I asked the member to take his seat.

It is time for responses from the official opposition. Start the clock, please.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just to carry on for a moment on the point made by my colleague for York North: The government --

The Speaker: Would the member resume his seat, please. The member for York Centre: A point of order was raised. It has been dealt with. It is now time for responses to the statement made by the Minister of Transportation. I invite you to take that opportunity.

RESPONSES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I'm pleased to take the opportunity to respond to my colleague the Minister of Transportation's statement. I'll begin by quoting from it. He says in his statement, "Fully accessible transit is our long-term goal." I think the emphasis there ought to be on "long-term," because this statement takes us not very far down the road towards an accessible system, let alone a fully accessible system.

There are a lot of platitudes in this statement but there really are only two issues of any substance. The first issue of substance is a determination to provide no more money to municipal transit systems for the purchase of new facilities -- that is, new buses -- after July 1, 1993, unless they are what is described as low-rise buses.

The second is that the government will undertake to enter into accessibility agreements with all municipalities. This edict to cut off funding to municipal transit systems is interesting, particularly in the context of a government which is currently discussing cutting off all transportation funding to municipalities under its disentanglement strategies, which are actively being discussed with municipalities as I speak.

Other than that, there is virtually nothing in the agreement that is going to further an accessible transit system in communities around the province. The minister talks about old announcements, "$42 million in the past year," and what is going on on an ongoing basis. Surely the minister isn't trying to stand up and take credit for that again.

1400

What is very significant about the announcement is that it comes in conjunction with the budget and the estimates provided just three weeks ago. In that budget and in those estimates the Minister of Transportation takes credit for the fact that capital funding in the province of Ontario for roads, subways, highways and expressways will go down by some $300 million over the course of next year. It's no wonder that the minister is now announcing that he's not going to provide any more money, he doesn't think, for municipal buses if they're not wheelchair-accessible.

I tell the minister, who is from a small community in northern Ontario, that he ought to spend some time travelling around the greater Toronto area. The degree of congestion on our roads, highways and subway system is unprecedented, but there is no rapid transit construction going on in the GTA at this time. The commitments made by the previous government to extend the GO network have been cancelled. There is no highway construction of any significance going on. It's no wonder: The minister presided over cabinet meetings that decimated his capital budget, and now today he brings forward representatives from the disabled community to participate with him in the celebration of an announcement of a long-term strategy that has two minor points, presented to this Parliament today.

I tell the minister words he used to use when he was in opposition: The minister too could be a hero. The minister could have fought for an enhanced capital budget, particularly when his Premier was up in Ottawa shouting at a government that he described as an absconding debtor, begging for more capital money to build the roads we need so our businesses and people can move around, particularly in areas of congestion, particularly in the GTA.

But that didn't happen. The minister failed in that debate. He failed to provide anything, not just for construction workers; we don't want to provide work just for the sake of providing work.

But it is urgent, and the Premier made the point as eloquently as anyone, that we begin to build new systems in our province right away.

What does the minister announce today? That down the road maybe he'll enter into some agreements with municipalities vis-à-vis accessibility, that next year he'll stop giving them money if they don't buy the right kinds of buses. Those municipalities have already made the commitments to buy new buses that are fully accessible. What the minister announced today amounts to nothing at all.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Quite clearly our party is pleased that the government recognizes that we have to move to accessibility of the buses. Unfortunately, this announcement is a great disappointment to us.

I too noted the fact that you talk about your long-term goal. I have some clippings of some of your election promises, and they say, "New Democrats are committed to retrofit programs to ensure that at least one car on all GO trains in the current system is made fully accessible and that all new vehicles will be fully accessible." I see nothing of that.

To date you've ignored your election promises, but that is typical of this government. You promised that you would spend more on capital programs. We've heard the Premier whining and snivelling to the federal government about the fact that they need money spent on infrastructure, yet as I asked you in a question yesterday afternoon, Minister, you are spending some $310 million less this year on transportation than you did last year. So much for your emphasis on infrastructure.

I view this, in light of the fact that you're not putting new funds through to these municipalities, as more downloading by this government. You've reduced the transfers to 1% this year, yet the cost of these accessible buses is $20,000 more on a typical cost of $195,000. Now I'm asking you, where are the funds coming from?

Talk about absconding debtors. You are the absolute epitome of absconding debtors. This is not government. This is an excuse for a government. You make these announcements and reannouncements, but there's no substance to it. Instead of spending money on the right things, you're spending money, you're giving grants, to have unions develop songs. This is not the way to be spending money. We should be spending money on accessibility.

Where would the funds come from? I'll tell you, Minister, where the funds could come from. There's some $80 million from the commercial concentration tax that your pals, the Liberal Party, put in and you promised to take away. You haven't taken it away but you're still pocketing it. That's $80 million which would be available for accessibility -- or at least take it off and keep that election promise. With that, I will pass it over to my colleague Mrs Marland.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I think what this Minister of Transportation fails to understand is that the disabled community is a lot smarter than he is. They are not about to be sucked in by this kind of non-statement today, a statement that says all new transit terminals will be made fully accessible. Well, how many new transit terminals are being built, for goodness' sake?

They list all the issues that have been addressed and begged for on behalf of the disabled community for the last five years and say, "We are looking at ways to meet these needs." Mr Speaker, we need more than a government that's looking at ways; we need action. It's time that instead of talking about these things, which are identified year after year in the report by the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped -- nothing they talk about is ever being done.

I challenge this Minister of Transportation to take a ride as a disabled person does in my city, the city of Mississauga, and try to get to downtown Toronto. First of all, they have to change Trans-Help vehicles three times, and that's if they're lucky enough to have them meet at the border, the big border between the city of Mississauga and the city of Etobicoke. They can't even interconnect timewise, and sometimes those disabled people in the winter are left sitting, waiting for the bus to come so they can transfer on to another bus.

The bottom line really is that if this government were really committed to the disabled community in this province, it would do what I've been asking it to do -- and the Liberals before them for seven years -- that is, to declare the Trans-Help and Wheel-Trans and all the other disabled transit services in this province an essential service so they do not have the right to strike and hold the disabled people hostage in their own homes, which we have had examples of in the last five years a number of times.

So don't talk about your commitment to the disabled. Do something about it, and declare their transportation system an essential service.

CORRECTION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I made statements in the Legislature which actually were erroneous, and I would like to correct that record. Yesterday, in Hansard, I said that the calendar provided that the House was to come back on March 8, and in fact the government delayed this by four weeks till April 6. When I checked, Mr Speaker, I found that March 8 was a Sunday; in fact, the calendar provided that March 9 was the date that we came back, and it was delayed by four weeks from that time.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I always appreciate it when members rise to correct their own record and not someone else's.

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): If I might, I have been asked on behalf of the Premier to table six copies of the report from Stephen Lewis, the adviser on race relations, with the House today and to indicate that the Premier will be giving a full response to the report on Thursday.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the matter the House leader has brought to my attention.

On the same or a related matter, the member for Bruce?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No, on a different matter, Mr Speaker. I rise to ask for unanimous consent to have the Minister of Community and Social Services provide us with a statement of material which she delivered to the public press today downstairs. I would ask that all members give her unanimous consent to advise the House of the nature of her statement.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? Agreed?

Interjections: Agreed.

1410

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr Speaker, the member opposite is mistaken to say that I delivered something. In fact, the advisory group that was put into place by the previous government in May 1990 gave its final report to me today, and we were receiving that report. It is the report of the advisory group. It has taken a lot of effort on their behalf and they deserve the congratulations of everyone in this House for the work they have done.

This government has taken no position on the recommendations that are included in that report at this time. We will continue to work, as we are currently, with the municipalities around disentanglement, which is a major portion of the work that committee was asked to do in terms of looking at how to put the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act together into one cohesive system with one cohesive deliverer, and we will continue that work. As we make progress I will be reporting to the House.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I ask, Mr Speaker, for unanimous consent for our critics of both the opposition parties to be able to respond to that statement by the minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Unanimous agreement for a response? No? There is no agreement? We do not have -- would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Should I place the question again?

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): We certainly would agree to unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Do we have unanimous agreement for a response from the two opposition parties? Agreed?

Interjections: Agreed.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to say at the outset, Mr Speaker, that I welcome the fact that the minister has told us that this report has been received. I quite recognize that the committee presented it.

My concern and the reason we felt it so important that there be a statement today is that we recognize that the government, as with ourselves, has not had time to digest the whole report, but over the course of the last five or six years I think all members in this Legislature have addressed this question of social assistance reform as being one of the most critical we deal with, because we know that out there today is a political climate which makes it very difficult to deal with these issues and all the more important then to build a cooperative working relationship as we set forth to deal with this report.

I want as well, on behalf of our party, to congratulate Professor Moscovitch and all those who worked with him. We spent a good deal of time some two years or more ago thinking about the need for such a committee, particularly to put something in place that was going to bring the two major pieces of legislation together. That had been recognized in George Thomson's report Transitions. Those who were working on the committee saw that as being critical and I was pleased to note at the press conference, in answer to a number of questions, that those on the committee underlined very clearly the importance of moving ahead now with that legislation.

I would only add, as I went back yesterday and looked at the debate that had ensued when we first announced the setting up of this committee back in May 1990, that there was a lot of concern expressed by the minister's colleague, the now Minister of Colleges and Universities, about the two-year timetable that was put in place to develop this report and to develop the legislation. I am interested to see that, in point of fact, the committee needed that time in order to come up with what appears to be a very thoughtful report and one on which I think all of us in this House are going to want to spend a good deal of time and thoughtful consideration.

The one thing I would want to leave with the minister as she goes forward in considering this report is that the fundamental problem I think all of us have in elected life in dealing with the question of social assistance is finding the balance, that sense of equity that everyone has in our society in terms of who receives assistance. Anyone who has spent any more than even a little time as Minister of Community and Social Services comes to recognize very quickly the depth of the problem out there and the number of people who really need help.

But we also recognize that that view is not necessarily accepted by large segments of the population, so as we move forward we have to be very conscious not only of those who require social assistance but those who are what we now term the working poor. How do we balance off the ways in which we are providing support to those who are not eligible for social assistance but who none the less are facing a very difficult time? Certainly in a recession we see that all around us.

I think one of the things the minister needs to be conscious of and needs to bring to her own government, to the Premier and to the Treasurer, is the importance, therefore, of getting the economy moving, because all the training programs in the world for those on social assistance won't work if there aren't jobs. We can train people, we can provide all kinds of new skills, but if those jobs aren't there, then those people are not going to get the jobs they require to start earning income and get off that social welfare cycle.

I would hope the minister will take this report and recognize, as the authors themselves have said, that it is time for action, that we do need to move. I think if we clearly debate the issues, if we set out what the problems are there and the fact that we end up spending money through our correctional systems, through a whole series of other mechanisms if in fact we don't make our social assistance system work in an equitable manner -- if we don't do that, then we are going to be spending increasing amounts of money, and people out in the communities are going to say: "Why are we doing this? Why is our tax money going there?"

We have a tremendous obligation. The members of this committee, I think, have assisted us in setting out what those issues are, and I want to say to the minister that we intend to work very closely with her and her colleagues in trying to make sure we have a fair and equitable social assistance system that helps the people who need it and is fair and equitable to the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I too would like to put on the record our concern that this is yet another example of a social assistance announcement where this government has lacked the courage to come to this House and deal with the issue in the presence of all the House, in the presence of the media and in the presence of the public through the television network.

The truth of the matter is that the SARC reforms have been widely circulated and discussed by all three political parties and were the subject of a considerable number of promises in the last provincial election. In fact I recall, with my colleague the member for Hamilton West, undertaking a review of the concern of the growing need for food banks and a whole litany of promises that were contained in the then government-in-waiting to poor people in this province.

I must take the minister at face value when she says, "This was just a report we've received; we haven't taken a position on this report." I ask the minister, if you say publicly you haven't taken a position, why is it that in the March 31 treasury board document which was circulated in this House the day before the budget, on page after page are references to cuts to this program for the poor in this province, cuts to this disadvantaged group?

Mr Moscovitch and his committee have spent considerable time and deserve better of a government than to have to open the front page of the Globe and Mail and read about cut after cut from a leaked treasury board document.

To refresh the memory of the members of the House, what was contained in that document was a cut approved by the minister as a member of that treasury board, that $8 million was placed on holdback pending review of options to offset a revenue shortfall related to first nations Back on Track initiatives. All the while, Mr Moscovitch and his committee were developing this report for first nations Ontarians.

It goes on and talks about a decrease of $12 million for the social service employment program. On the next page: "Approve a decrease of $5.8 million related to SARC initiatives that have not yet been implemented." On the next page: "An increase of $198,000, including $28,000 in salaries and wages for one staff, to support the development of new social assistance legislation" -- not approved by you in treasury board. "An increase of $1.5 million to develop strategic directions in children's services" -- again cut by you in treasury board. "A net increase of $1.4 million for special child care programs" -- again cut by you in treasury board.

You would have us believe that you and your government have taken no position on the poor in this province. What have Mr Moscovitch and his committee been doing if you're prepared to make these kinds of cuts and slashes to the poor of this province in this critical time during this recession?

1420

It goes on -- that was just the tip of the iceberg -- "Approve a decrease of $138 million in social assistance." Yet you did approve an additional 450 FBA staff employees. You're going to hire 450 people to assist with all these cuts, I would imagine. It goes on to say you've approved new computers to upgrade the computers for FBA.

Minister, it's very hard for us to take seriously your statement that you have taken no position on the poor in this province as it relates to social assistance reforms. The tragedy for far too many families and children living in poverty is that they're right up there on your priority list with Sunday shopping and auto insurance and all the other promises you've broken.

But the cruellest promise to be broken is to those children sitting in poverty situations who can't afford the accommodation they're living in and are denied access to day care because of your ideological approach to ensure that your made-in-Cuba day care plan works in this province while you've shut down thousands of day care spaces.

Madam Minister, it's hard to take you seriously, if not honestly, that you've taken no position.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It's time for oral questions.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I would ask for unanimous consent for the Attorney General to make a statement to the House with relation to the policy announcement he made today on legal aid.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement for the Attorney General to make a statement to the House? Agreed?

Interjections: Agreed.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): No.

The Speaker: No? There is not unanimous agreement.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday and previous days and through the Globe and Mail, the House leader of the New Democratic Party's government has provided for us a sense that the Legislative Assembly has not been dealing with the business of this place. How is it that we can be asked to deal with business that is not justifiably brought before us so we can examine these and comment critically or favourably thereon from time to time?

It bothers me a great deal to be accused of holding up legislation, when indeed we have had no introduction of bills in this House between the dates of April 30 and May 26, when in fact we have passed a goodly number of pieces of legislation, but of the 17 bills that have been introduced by this government, a full 13 of 17 have been introduced since May 26 of this spring sitting.

If we are not able to comment on the business of the House and the business of the government by having its statements, its public pronouncements, brought here to the chamber in time set aside for us, when is it, I ask you, that you are going to be able to protect the rights of the minority in this Parliament to provide a critical analysis of the public business?

Mr Speaker, under the standing orders --

The Speaker: Does the opposition House leader have a further point he hasn't mentioned previously?

Mr Elston: I was about to get to it. As I tried to say, under the standing orders the obligation of the Speaker -- and I put it as obligation because that's how the standing orders speak of it -- is to protect the rights of the minority.

I understand that you are unable to make the Treasurer attend the question periods. You are unable to make the Premier attend the question periods, as today. You are unable to make them give us truthful answers. As you have often said, it is not your business, you say, to delineate truth from untruth. You have told that to us from time to time as we stand to get the right story. In fact the member for Brampton North just last week stood to ask what he does when his version of the facts as written to him by a minister are different than the Minister of the Environment answered to her colleague in the House.

Mr Speaker, how is it and how can it be that your job as Speaker can be carried out fully and appreciatively if you are not allowed to deal with the business that is put before the public in a place other than the Legislative Assembly?

I ask for you to think about how you can protect the rights of the minority elected officials here in this House and here in the province. Although this is our meeting place, our entire province is our jurisdiction. The privileges of the members extend much beyond this place, and if we are to be protected against being overridden by the majority and being blindsided by a House leader who is intent on ramming stuff through this place, then we've got to know what role you have in guarding your obligation to protect us as a minority against the attacks that have been levelled at us, through the public press, by the House leader of this New Democratic government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Guelph. The member for Essex South is asked to come to order as well.

To the member for Bruce, the House leader of the official opposition: He approaches an old topic in a new and interesting way. Indeed I believe I've made a statement in this House on a number of occasions that it is preferable in a Parliament to have government policy announced here first. That assists in the orderly discussion of public business. I believe also that my predecessors who had the privilege of occupying this position have made similar statements and requests. Unhappily, they can be only requests because there is nothing in the standing orders.

Indeed members of the Assembly may wish to consider that if at some point they are discussing the matter and related matters in the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, which would be an appropriate place to address concerns with respect to procedures. It is something I think all members may wish to reflect on and may wish to deal with in that committee. I very much appreciate the member's approach to the matter and I certainly appreciate the way in which he has brought it to my attention as well.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Another point of order? The leader.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, in reference to your last point, though my House leader had asked for unanimous consent of this House to have the Attorney General make a statement on an issue that is of extreme concern to all members of this House, I would ask for your ruling as to whether or not we do indeed have that unanimous consent.

The Speaker: To the Leader of the Opposition, I had placed that before the House and there was at least one dissenting voice, so there is not unanimous agreement, and it is now time for oral questions.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Another point of order, the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I have just a very brief point of order arising from the fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'd be very pleased to be able to hear the point of order that the member wishes to bring to my attention.

Mr Sorbara: The point of order is just very brief. I noted that the government House leader tabled the report by Stephen Lewis today and made a statement to the effect that the Premier might be here on Thursday to make a statement about the report. I wonder who, in the absence of the Premier and in the absence of the Treasurer, is the Deputy Premier. Is there an acting Deputy Premier in the House who could have made a statement today on the making public of the report by Stephen Lewis or is there no acting Deputy Premier in the Legislature?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. I ask the member for Essex South to come to order. To the member for York Centre, I would like to be of some assistance to him. However, what he raises is not really a point of order. There was a statement made by the government House leader with respect to the report to which he refers and an indication that -- I believe he said -- the Premier would be addressing this matter on another occasion. It is time for oral questions and the Leader of the Opposition.

A point of order? The member for Parry Sound.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a bit more of a non-partisan and lighter note, I would like to honour four of our esteemed colleagues who today are celebrating the 15th consecutive anniversary of their election on June 9, 1977. They are the member for Carleton, the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for St Catharines and the member for Windsor-Riverside. I would like to point out that I'm not naming them in my order of popularity or effectiveness but rather in the alphabetical order of their ridings.

I think that all too often we forget how tenuous a position this is and I believe there are only nine members of this assembly who have served that length of time or longer consecutively. I would like to have added you in that group, Mr Speaker, but the annals of recorded history prevent me from doing so.

1430

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order about the powers of the Speaker and get a direction from you, if not today then at some convenient time.

You have ruled consistently that you prefer a minister who has to make a statement to make it in the House. I understand the importance of that ruling. On the other hand, you are a Speaker who is elected by the House. This is the first occasion, I think, on which a Speaker in this chamber has been elected by private ballot of all members in the House. You have said that you prefer members of the government to make a statement in the House. Yesterday, because we knew that the Attorney General would be making probably the most important policy statement of the year today in Ottawa, I asked in his presence and in the presence of the Premier if he would make it in the chamber in deference to your wishes. He did not respond at the time but we now know that he did not take accord of your wishes, the popularly elected Speaker of the House.

Mr Speaker, the question I have for you is, how you can expect to serve in the chamber as our delegate when a minister of the crown, the Attorney General no less, refuses, in the presence of the Premier, to defer to the opinion that you have expressed consistently? It seems to me that to allow yourself to be placed in that position is to allow a serious abuse of your capacity to take place. I'd like you to make a ruling on that point. This is a contempt of Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While I appreciate the member for St George-St David's respect for the Chair and the position the Speaker holds, I can assure him that I will discharge my duties to the best of my abilities. My duties include attempting to enforce the rules and the standing orders and the procedures. The matter to which he speaks is not something which is included in the standing orders. But I will make every attempt to enforce those standing orders to the best of my ability, obviously with the cooperation of all members.

Finally, to the member for Parry Sound, indeed, although --

Interjections.

Mr Scott: Why would you want to serve with him?

The Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David come to order, please.

Mr Scott: He paid no attention to you.

The Speaker: I asked the member to come to order.

Mr Scott: I withdraw. But Hampton won't do what the Speaker's asked him to.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for St George-St David to please come to order.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Parry Sound, indeed it's an important occasion on certain anniversaries to draw to the attention of members the special events that occur. I, at least, am one member in this House who understands the lack of job security in this profession. But I would like to add my words to those of the member for Parry Sound, that indeed to have survived political wars for 15 years is something about which all members who achieve that can be most proud. No matter what side of the House they sit on, they continue to serve the public to the best of their energies and abilities.

It is time for oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, may I say that I appreciate your patience. I'm sure from your impartial position in the Chair of this House you can appreciate the frustration we feel when so much important business is in fact conducted outside this assembly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GLOBAL WARMING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I want to ask a very specific question about what we consider to be this government's absolutely disappointing environmental record. In this particular case, my question is about the failure of this government to respond in any way to the impending threat of global warming caused by the continuous emission of greenhouse gases.

About three years ago, Ontario was actually in the position of taking a leadership role on this very issue. People in the private sector and in environmental groups were working together with a view to looking at how there could be agreement reached on effective ways of reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide, which as the minister well knows is the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect. There was to have been a white paper released in December 1990, which was to outline the kinds of initiatives that could be taken in transportation and in the industrial, commercial and residential sectors to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in these areas. There has been absolutely nothing seen of any of these initiatives since then.

I ask the minister why she has ignored the progress that was being made on this important issue of global warming. Why has she failed to act on any subsequent reports that have urged her to develop a comprehensive policy in this regard? Why has this whole issue been simply put on a back burner?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Mr Speaker, I disagree profoundly with the Leader of the Opposition. A number of ministries in this government are dealing with the issue of global warming. The lead ministry is the Ministry of Energy and my colleague the acting Minister of Energy will respond.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): The leader of the official opposition has raised a question about global warming and about nothing having been done. I can't disagree more profoundly with the leader of the official opposition. This government has taken the approach that to sit around and continue debating, as the federal government has chosen to do, targets and theoretically the ability to reach those targets, is a waste of time.

We've proceeded to implement a whole range of programs which are targeted directly at reducing emissions, making electricity conservation Ontario Hydro's number one priority, expansion of the Energy Efficiency Act in the Ontario Building Code, the phase-out of CFCs in Ontario, public transit initiatives that have been announced by my colleague the Minister of Transportation, and restrictions on electrical heat use in social housing in Ontario. Mr Speaker, that list is a lengthy one that goes on for several pages here. This government has taken aggressive, specifically targeted action on global warming and will continue to do so.

Mrs McLeod: The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy may both wish to profoundly disagree, but it was just at a news conference this morning -- incidentally a news conference that was legitimately held outside the assembly -- that the Ontario Global Warming Coalition announced that it was cutting off its consultation with this government, because of its inability to take action in setting a target for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.

The minister has begun to read into the record the list, which I understand his government is circulating, the 15-point list which outlines the kinds of initiatives that they say the government is taking on global warming. But as the coalition itself noted this morning -- this is the coalition speaking and not me -- a number of those initiatives were not the initiatives of this government; they were the initiatives of the previous government. The Energy Efficiency Act, the Let's Move transit program, which has already been referenced today, the CFC reduction initiatives, were not the initiatives of this government, even though they form a part of your record.

The coalition notes that other items that are listed in this list of actions from this government are either of debatable significance or simply don't have the kind of CO2 reductions that are contended. So having asked the Minister of the Environment why she has completely failed to address this very critical issue, I would ask the same question of the Minister of Energy. Why have you completely failed to follow through on any of the initiatives which were begun? Why have you completely failed to provide any kind of policy to address the issue of global warming?

1440

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is just fundamentally wrong. I'm not going to put some kind of analysis on the coalition's reasons for its comments this morning, but I should make a couple of interesting points to the official opposition.

First, the Ontario Global Warming Coalition was in fact commissioned by this government to do a report. Now the coalition has put out a press release saying it will refuse to consult with us on the specifics of that report and its implementation. If that's the position the coalition wishes to take, that's perfectly appropriate. Unfortunately, in the report we commissioned from them and which they delivered to us, they did not prioritize the actions which they listed, or cost them. We are proceeding to consult with others and to have work done on the implementation of those measures. Further, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, for example, the Energy Efficiency Act, which the opposition party when in government implemented, but it forgot to put in place the standards in the regulations, which this government has proceeded to put in place over the course of the last 18 months.

Mrs McLeod: This government is going to be in increasing difficulty if it won't even consult with those whom it chose to consult with in the first place.

If the minister does not want to deal with the statements made by the coalition this morning, I would take the minister back to the statements that were made by his own party at an earlier time. I'd like to quote from the New Democratic Party social paper of June 1990 entitled Greening the Party, Greening the Province, in which it is stated: "Since one third of Canada's carbon dioxide emissions originate in this province, Ontario" -- not Canada -- "must take the lead in fighting global warming." It was during the election campaign of 1990 that the NDP wrote to environmental organizations and promised to cut carbon dioxide emissions in Ontario by 20% by the year 2005 should it be elected.

I would simply ask how this government after stating so boldly and so clearly its intentions to deal with global warming and carbon dioxide emissions can simply retreat from all those promises.

Hon Mr Charlton: To put the answer as simply as I possibly can, again the Leader of the Opposition is just fundamentally wrong. This government has done more in terms of specifically targeting emissions that affect global warming than any other government on the continent. Second, on every single initiative that the coalition on global warming has proposed, this government has either already taken some action or is pursuing initiatives, developing initiatives around it. This government at the end of this decade will have by far the best record of any government in Canada in the fight against global warming.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): There are so many avenues these questions might well take that I don't really know where to start, but let me start by asking, why does the Premier decide to leave this place so often? Why is the Deputy Premier not here, but --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom are you directing your question?

Mr Elston: Let me ask a question to the acting Deputy Premier, the government House leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Elston: When we speak factually in this place the New Democrats like to yell us down. That's the way business gets done here. I want to ask --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Bruce could place his question to the Chair and identify to whom he wishes to direct his question.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, last Thursday you will have noted that the government party dropped on the House two pieces of business, one which we knew was coming through the public press, that being the Ontario Labour Relations Amendment Act; the second piece of business was tabled without our knowledge and that deals with the changing of the rules.

I note for the government House leader to whom I'm going to pose a question that in the interim communication strategy associated with the Ontario Labour Relations Act and the consultation going on last year a leaked document indicated quite clearly that there were going to be pains taken to "neutralize the business opposition." I can ask the government House leader why it was he chose also to try to neutralize the dissent in this House with respect to the Ontario Labour Relations Act by bringing in these new and stifling pieces of standing order amendments, particularly at precisely the same time as the labour act appeared in the public.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I think it's been very clear over the last number of weeks that progress in the Legislature has just been very difficult to proceed with. I find it a little strange that the opposition parties would talk about the fact that they weren't given advance notice or anything like that about rule changes. I've been talking to the opposition House leaders about the possibility of rule changes for weeks, in fact months. I didn't get any advance notice from the Conservative Party last week that it was going to hijack the Legislature all last Thursday as it did with its introduction of private members' bills. They didn't give any advance notice. They sure didn't give us --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): What about when Kormos spent hours?

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Cooke: They didn't give any advance notice last year when they did that for weeks on the budget at thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars of expense to the public.

It's quite obvious that the Legislature is not working very well. All one had to do was to look yesterday. When I tried to lead off the debate on the rule changes I was shouted down and not allowed to speak. Then we were entertained by two hours of a speech from the member for Renfrew North, which was the most personal attack on members of the Legislature ever in the history of the Legislature.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): It was an attack on you, not on the Legislature or the other members, and deserved.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce has the floor.

Mr Elston: I just lost my notes, but that's okay; a lot of this stuff is etched in my mind. We have gone through listening again to how this House does not work. In the government House leader's own press release, this press kit which came on the spur of the moment, well-orchestrated over several weeks and months, he has said they want to introduce up to 121 pieces of legislation.

There is nobody who prevents anybody from introducing legislation. I have here, for everybody to see, the 17 bills that were introduced by this group of people since April 6, 1992. As I said, 13 of the 17 pieces of legislation have come since May 26, very late in the session, which by our calendar is now known, obviously, to end on the last Thursday of June.

How can the government House leader stand in his place and condemn any of us for not doing the government's public business when in fact they won't introduce it so that we can consult the public that needs to be consulted about the ramifications concerning their business? Why has the government House leader chosen to lead the public to believe facts that are not correct?

Hon Mr Cooke: The facts are very clear. If you want to take a look at some of the pieces of legislation we've dealt with in this Legislature, when we came back last fall, in the first six weeks of the Legislature not one piece of legislation passed. We came back this year, several weeks went by and no legislation passed. The opposition wouldn't let us pass tax bills from the 1991 budget until this year.

There's no way the opposition parties can make any case other than that they obstructed the progress of this place. It's the determination of the government -- not to do anything out of the usual: We're bringing in rules that are in line with the other provinces in Canada and with the federal Parliament. There's nothing radical. Even Liberal governments in other provinces have brought in rules just like this.

Mr Elston: I might well remark, for the public's interest, that the last time unilateral activity was taken with respect to the standing orders was by Brian Mulroney, with whom I know the current Premier, Bob Rae, has been spending a lot of time recently and is obviously learning the same skills that His Highness in Ottawa has foisted upon the public Parliament there.

I ask the government House leader how he expects us to believe in his word with respect to the conduct of public business, when we had assented to establishing an ad hoc committee -- one representative from his party, one from our party, the member for Mississauga West, and one from the third party -- to conduct an analysis of the rules, which would then be sent out to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for vetting before they come back to this House. How does the government House leader expect us to have any trust in anything he puts in front of this House when he usurps the very strategy which was put in place agreeably among the three House leaders just in April of this year?

1450

Hon Mr Cooke: I first raised this whole matter with the opposition about how we could proceed to review the rules of the Legislature and introduce the idea of parliamentary reform last fall. I've had to deal with three or four different House leaders for the official opposition, which has made it somewhat difficult, but then we finally came to this idea that there was going to be an ad hoc committee, one from each party.

There has now been an attempt on three occasions to have meetings -- the representative from the Liberal Party knows this -- and those meetings have been cancelled because they haven't been able to be attended by one of the members of the committee. I don't know what the message to anybody else is, but it's clear to me that the opposition parties are not interested in trying to proceed with parliamentary reform.

We are going to proceed with parliamentary reform. We're proceeding with parliamentary reform which will finally bring the Ontario Legislature in line with the other legislatures in Canada and the House of Commons.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Despite attempts by your government House leader to bury the issue of the labour legislation with the diversion of draconian rule changes, let me tell you, Mr Minister, that no one in this province I have been talking to has forgotten last Thursday's disastrous, one-sided bill you introduced into the House.

Least of all, it seems, has your own party forgotten this. I have a copy of the most recent NDP propaganda mailout on this very issue. It says, in bold print, "In tough times, a government has to stand up for fairness." This is part of your propaganda document.

I'm wondering, Mr Minister, if you can tell me how scaring investment and taking away the jobs of thousands of Ontarians is somehow or other standing up for fairness.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think the comments of the leader of the third party are totally ridiculous. We're not scaring thousands of jobs away at all. What we're trying to do, very clearly, is make it clear that the working people in Ontario also have some input into the decisions that are made that affect them.

Mr Harris: This minister has tried to make this House and Ontarians believe he was actually working with someone other than Bob White when he drafted this bill. But Mr Speaker, I would ask you and members of the House to listen to what his New Democratic Party is saying outside of the House. They say: "Big business lobby tactics are scare tactics. They've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on phoney studies."

I wonder if the minister could tell me if it was the Ernst and Young study, a firm his government has hired on numerous occasions, not the least of which was to settle the Kapuskasing mill affair. Could you tell me, is that the study you are saying was phoney, or is it -- I guess the only phoniness we've seen so far -- the fact that you refused to do any studies?

I would ask you this, Minister: If you think all the studies that have been done, independent and otherwise and by business groups and coalitions, are all phoney, why is it you haven't done one of your own?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The coalition campaign that was on, early on, was based on the early Burkett report, which was not the direction of this government. I think the leader of the third party knows that by now, but from the way he keeps repeating the question I'm not at all sure. If he doesn't believe in my position of trying to improve labour relations in the province, I can't help him.

Mr Harris: The only phoniness is that you've not done one study on job loss across this province and you attack everybody who has. You say their studies are phoney. No matter how well your highly paid spin doctors try to package this, the bottom line is that this legislation will kill jobs, destroy investment and close factories.

Minister, you say as well in your propaganda piece that government, business and labour have to work more cooperatively together. We all agree with that. Do you think this malicious NDP anti-business propaganda attack on the business community is going to bring business and your government closer together?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are clear indications that much of the business community does understand exactly what we're trying to do now. I think the comments from the leader of the third party are unfortunate, because he's doing more to hurt business in the province than anything that's in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Mr Harris: Don't put words in my mouth. These are your party's comments, Mr Minister. This is what your own party is saying, these malicious attacks.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Does the leader of the third party have a second question?

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I do, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, I understand from my colleague the member for Simcoe East that as many as 21 employees of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre have received layoff notices. These employees are considered front-line workers in a maximum security facility that houses high-risk patients.

Can the minister explain these layoffs after workers were assured, when they ratified a 1% and 2% agreement for two years, that no front-line workers would be laid off? Can you explain these layoffs right on the heels of that and can you assure us that neither patients nor the community will be at risk as a result of 21 fewer employees?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I can assure the leader of the third party that the kind of cost-constraint exercise we are undertaking within the ministry, very similar to what we have asked our transfer partners out in the community to undertake, is one in which we are trying to work with front-line workers and managers to find all ways of eliminating waste before we affect direct services.

With regard to the notices of layoff, I want to correct him in his indication; at least I think he implied that these people had in fact been laid off. Layoff notices have been received, but under the collective agreement which he referred to they will be provided with opportunities of redeployment, and we will take every step we can to try to minimize any displacement and find appropriate replacement work.

With respect to the provision of maximum-security services in this area in terms of psychiatric hospitals, I want to assure the member that we have gone from about 300 beds to 120 in the Oak Ridge area. We are at this point expanding forensic services in other parts of the province. The highest-priority need we have, however, is for medium-secure beds. Within the next six months we will be expanding in a number of areas and there will be transfers of further patients who are now inappropriately housed in maximum-security beds to those minimum-security beds.

Mr Harris: The bottom line is that once again the brothers and the sisters -- this time in OPSEU 307 -- have had to turn to me and my party to speak on their behalf.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party with his supplementary.

1500

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, while these 21 layoffs were being announced last weekend, I understand the minister had an opportunity to visit Thunder Bay. It seems she had a busy weekend speaking to the province's mental health advisory boards, some from Penetanguishene.

According to my itinerary, out-of-town delegates had their travel and accommodation costs picked up by your ministry -- the same budget envelope that is laying off 21 workers -- for three days, Madam Minister. That in itself is not my complaint, but conventioneers, according to my copy of the agenda, went wining, dining, shopping and cruising.

I wonder if the minister can tell us how much this weekend in Thunder Bay cost, and how does she justify that at the same time as 21 workers are being laid off at the Penetang hospital?

Hon Ms Lankin: The leader of the third party is incorrect to suggest that I attended the conference and spoke there. He may be looking at an early, proposed agenda, I'm not sure. However, I wasn't in attendance. What I can tell him is that the conference was held for members of the community advisory boards to psychiatric hospitals. There were approximately 130 delegates, who are local community members, volunteers who work very hard to advise CEOs and administrations of psychiatric hospitals with respect to their programming and their relationship to the community.

In terms of costs, I can give you a preliminary response, and I don't mind giving you more detail if it's required. I can tell you that, following on various instructions that had been given to the ministry to attempt to keep costs down, excursion rates with respect to flights were achieved for people attending. It was about $211 per seat for the individual delegate attending, which is considerably less than most flights to Thunder Bay that were arranged. Accommodation was at a standard rate.

Overall, I believe the cost of the conference to the ministry was about $38,000, which in comparison to previous years is a substantial reduction in the cost of bringing people together to try to promote and empower community involvement and input into government processes and delivery of service.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary, I am truly disappointed the minister wasn't there, because the one thing I thought may have justified this conference was an opportunity for the advisory committees, the 120 of them across the province, to pass on their views to the minister. However, now you tell me even that didn't take place. That now leaves the agenda for the delegates: a welcome ship cruise, then a luncheon without the minister where they enjoyed trout meunière and blueberry pie, they dined on the Voyageur buffet at Old Fort William, and when the seminar schedule got too gruelling they jumped aboard hospital vans for a little shopping trip.

Minister, how can you condone this spending spree of mental health dollars when hospital workers, such as 21 in Penetang in the riding of the member for Simcoe East, are losing their jobs?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the leader of the third party does an injustice to the large number of community volunteers who are involved in this process, who dedicate many hours over the course of the year and have come together for what I understand was a very productive conference in terms of reviewing a number of issues that are outstanding with respect to the administration of psychiatric hospitals and their relationship to community programs.

I understand that in fact the delegates worked very hard. The conference resulted in a number of recommendations from the community advisory boards that will assist in the development of mental health reform. I look forward to being in receipt of all of those recommendations, and I'm sure that when I share those with the leader of the third party he will see that the kind of work these people are doing is of great value to the province and that the cost we have paid for this conference is certainly a real bargain when you look at what we get back from these people over the course of a year.

LEGAL AID

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Since the Attorney General refuses to enlighten us about the statement on legal aid which he made outside the Legislature today, I would like to ask a question of the minister responsible for women's issues. According to what the Attorney General announced today, the government is considering setting up pilot family law clinics, which would mean family law clients could not choose their own lawyer. As the minister is aware, over 70% of legal aid family law clients are women and children, often financially vulnerable, abused and powerless.

We have a situation where what the government is proposing is to set up a system where murderers and rapists have the right to choose their own lawyers but women and children do not. This is the government that, first of all, purports to defend the interests of women. This is the government that says it stands for freedom of choice. This is the government that said it appointed 10 women to cabinet so they could speak for women, and yet we have this policy.

My question for the minister responsible for women's issues is, what have she and her female cabinet colleagues done to ensure that the Attorney General is not trying to save money from the legal aid system on the backs of the women and children of this province?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member is quite well aware, I am sure, that over many years the women's movement has had a great deal of difficulty with the issue of the provision of legal care and assistance, particularly to abused women and their children, and that one of the major thrusts of the work that has been done is an attempt to improve the access of women to legal aid. Part of the problem is that many lawyers do not accept legal aid and that in fact those who do very often find their case loads growing at an enormous rate and are unable to provide the kind and level of service that is required by women in these circumstances.

There have been many proposals put forward over a large number of years by women's groups suggesting that one of the possibilities in areas where there are very few family lawyers who will accept legal aid might be the possibility of a clinic specifically for those family law issues. There is no question but that some of the opposition that is currently against this is based on the level of choice. In the discussions we have had we are convinced that, whatever the pilot projects happen to be, they will not interfere with the basic right of choice. It is the issue of not having a choice because lawyers are not available that makes us want to support this as a pilot project to see what happens.

Ms Poole: I can't believe I just heard that answer from the minister responsible for women's issues. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers for women to choose from if they can get that legal aid certificate. Many of them are female lawyers who are in the family law bar, so to say that is simply not correct.

What we have here is an Attorney General who, on the one hand, has said he's going to save money on the backs of women and children. I read to you from the press release. The ministry is interested in "legal aid pilot projects in family, refugee and young offenders law." What three groups could you find more vulnerable: women, refugees and children? Sure, why not experiment, why not let them be the guinea pigs? Not only assaulted women's shelters but also the family law bar and judges have spoken out and said this will discriminate against women. Is this minister going to stand up with her cabinet colleagues and defend the interests of women in this province once and for all?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is simply not correct when she says the choice of private practice lawyers will cease to be possible. It will certainly continue, and in fact part of the Attorney General's announcement included an announcement that we will be increasing the family law legal aid tariff. That has been one of the barriers to family law lawyers from going ahead with this program. In effect, what we are providing is more choice. If people have access to a lawyer whom they trust and who will accept legal aid, they will be able to choose that, but there now is an additional choice -- a choice of those who choose to practise family law in a clinic setting.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Has the minister completed her response?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is important for us to recognize that this whole notion of having a clinic specifically geared to offer the kind of support that women require when they're in this kind of situation is one that is favoured by many women's groups. Yes, there are some women's groups who do not favour it on the ground that they think it would become a total system that would forbid them choice. That is not our intention. Our intention is absolutely to increase the choice.

1510

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, you and your colleagues have consistently argued that your package of changes to the Labour Relations Act are nothing to be concerned about because they exist in other jurisdictions. However, the fact is, in no other jurisdiction are the labour relations laws so heavily slanted towards unions. In no other jurisdiction are all of these provisions found in one package.

Minister, the entire package of changes you have announced will tilt the delicate balance of economic power between labour and management towards unions. Can you name a single jurisdiction in which the complete package of pro-union measures which you introduced last Thursday exists?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Everything that's in the package exists in the federal authority or in one province or another. All together, no. It is a very important package, put together to improve the relations between business and labour in the province of Ontario, and that's exactly what it will do.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, that is a story you have been spreading throughout the province.

I'd like to point out to you that despite your best efforts to convince the media and the public that there is nothing new in this package, the reality is that there are several provisions in this bill, which you introduced last week, that do not in fact exist in any other Canadian jurisdiction: the provisions regarding protection for union organizers, the purpose clause giving the Ontario Labour Relations Board the mandate to encourage union formation, organizing and picketing on third-party property, the rules for automatic certification in cases of unfair labour practices, combining part-time and full-time bargaining units in a single bargaining unit, just-cause protection for striking workers, and contracted services. All of these do not exist in any other Canadian province.

Minister, will you finally admit that the complete package you introduced is unprecedented in any other jurisdiction and that, indeed, some of your reforms giving unions the kind of sweeping powers which your bill will give them are not in existence elsewhere? Will you finally come clean with the public?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the honourable member that we've been up front and clean with the public on this issue right from the beginning.

I think it might be advisable for the honourable member to stop and think of the kind of slam she's constantly giving to workers in this province. What's wrong with workers having some input in the decisions that directly affect them?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question. The member for Oxford.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I noted with some degree of anxiety that the Minister of Labour basically suggested the member for Waterloo North said things that were not what she'd said at all. He's leaving the impression that she is putting forth a position that is not correct. She is not endeavouring to put down workers in this province.

How can members protect themselves against assaults like that when they lose the opportunity to respond to that type of activity by this minister? It happens all the time and it's one reason our privileges are being violated.

That member is not of my caucus but her position is my position, that we should be fairly treated by ministers of the crown. Just because they have the last word on a question shouldn't allow them to allege certain states of events and facts which do not exist. This government has been doing that far too much.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. As always --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the member for Bruce, as always, I listened very carefully to both the question and the response. There was no unparliamentary language used. There was nothing which was out of order. There certainly was a difference of opinion on both sides of the House. I understand the member's concern and that concern is voiced often on both sides of the chamber. Other than there being unparliamentary language or language which leads to disorder, members will choose the words they wish to use.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Madam Minister, as you know, Ontario's library community plays a very important role in many communities throughout the province, including in my riding. The role of libraries has been changing over the last couple of years. Particularly during the recession, the use of libraries is up substantially, over 20%, and people are turning there as a cheap, effective resource centre.

Madam Minister, I don't need to tell you that if libraries get a cutback in their funding, this may mean layoffs and branch closures. Some libraries are already looking at that. Can you please tell the House when the libraries will know what their transfer payments are going to be, and will there be an increase?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I can. I have no trouble giving the information. I agree. I think our province is extremely lucky in having a resource like libraries. The member for Oxford has picked up a very important fact: People do turn to libraries to help them look for jobs and to research employers.

We at the Ministry of Culture and Communications do recognize this need. In answer to the member's question, there will be no cutbacks to libraries. In fact, they haven't been affected at all by the budget constraints: 1,400 provincial libraries will get a 1% increase to annual transfer payments. That totals $32.1 million in library expenditure operating funds. Grant recipients include public libraries, first nations libraries and county libraries.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You haven't paid them yet. You're five weeks overdue.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Regarding cheque releases, the operating grants will be paid in one instalment so that libraries receive the funds within the next two weeks.

Mr Sutherland: Madam Minister, there's also a concern about the smaller libraries being able to keep up in automation. Of course, in terms of providing a level of service throughout the province, this is very important for smaller libraries that exist in my community. What I'd like to know from the minister is, when will the ministry recognize that small libraries are just as important as the large ones?

Hon Mrs Haslam: We do recognize that small libraries are very important in the system. Small libraries, like the larger ones, carry out work within their communities and contribute to this government's province-wide initiatives to improve access and remove barriers.

The Ontario Library Consortium, which is made up of a number of county libraries, will be receiving a $300,000 grant to finish the final step in its automation plan. As I mentioned, this will affect 18 county and public libraries in southern Ontario with over 200 service points. This new system will give members better control over their books and provide users with better access to all of the collection.

1520

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. On April 14 I asked the Minister of Labour why the Workers' Health and Safety Centre decided to use the Queen's Landing Inn at Niagara-on-the-Lake as the site for its retreat. It had come to our attention at that time that the Ministry of Labour's Workers' Health and Safety Centre had sent almost its entire staff on a two-and-a-half-day retreat at the Queen's Landing Inn at Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware that on May 27 I rose on a point of order wondering where the minister's reply was, because in reaction to my first question he had said he would get back to me. Now it is June 9 and still no response. I wonder what has happened. After two months, can the Minister of Labour tell this House why the staff at the Workers' Health and Safety Centre took an all expenses paid trip to Niagara-on-the-Lake when at that time there were perfectly good facilities available in Toronto for those meetings?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I apologize to the member. When I checked it, after he raised it a second time in the House, I thought the question was being prepared to be sent to him. I thought myself that I had responded to it. But I can tell the member that almost a third of the workers who were at that conference were not from the Toronto area. They were from around the province of Ontario. They had done costing for the conference and found that the price was as cheap or cheaper in Niagara-on-the-Lake as it was here in Toronto. They made that decision and it was their right to make that decision.

[Applause]

Mr Offer: I'm pleased to hear that the members of the government side have applauded that type of response. The Minister of Labour has again not responded to my question. I'm wondering, if the work by the centre was so important that it had to have been done at Niagara-on-the-Lake at the Queen's Landing, why, according to our information, were these hearings, these particular consultations, these meetings cancelled for the Wednesday session of the two-day conference so that the centre's executives could play golf? I am wondering, Mr Minister, whether you can tell the House whether you consider the cancellation of the centre's full afternoon session of a two-day conference so that public officials could play golf a good use of the taxpayers' dollars.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell the member very clearly that the word I got back after raising the question he raised in the House was that it was an excellent conference, of value to the people who were involved. I think it's important that we bring these people together and not insult them when they're trying to do a job for the health and safety of the workers in Ontario.

LAKELANDS TOURISM GROUP

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The Lakelands Tourism Group is an umbrella organization composed of four active tourism associations representing the vibrant and concentrated tourism regions of Grey-Bruce, the Georgian triangle, Huronia and Muskoka. But according to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Lakelands Tourism Group does not even exist. Lakelands Tourism Group has been excluded as a listing for the public in five important ministry publications, including Travel Ontario.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation spends approximately $27 million in marketing efforts to promote Ontario tourism locations, yet in its directories there is no contact listed for one of the most important tourism regions in the province. The Lakelands Tourism Group is not asking for funding from the ministry. Collectively, this group spends over $1.65 million in marketing without provincial government assistance. The Lakelands Tourism Group is only asking that it be included as a contact in ministry travel publications and that it receive ministry information in a timely way.

Would the minister please tell me why Lakelands Tourism Group is not listed as a travel consultant in these five ministry publications?

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Last year, during the course of the year, there was a choice made by the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association that it no longer wanted to be part of the Ontario Travel Associations' program, and with that would go the funding and the types of resources the member has talked about.

We continued to have discussions with the groups that are within the Georgian Lakelands group and tried to work with them to continue to support in any way we can, through our consultants and through our ministry, their efforts in tourism in this province. That commitment has been made by our ministry and will continue to be made by our ministry, and we hope that in the future we can have an association there that will be part of the Ontario Travel Associations' program.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I find the minister's answer quite curious. Minister, you've met with members of the Lakelands Tourism Group who represent the tourism operators in the Georgian Lakelands and the Georgian triangle. You know the lakelands association exists because your May 14 press release, which launches a campaign to promote Ontario to US markets, features one of the lakelands area attractions, and the press release says, "The world's longest freshwater beach isn't in Australia, it's at Wasaga Beach," which is in the lakelands catchment area.

Minister, simply because the Lakelands Tourism Group has refused to play your game, your response to date has been to take your ball and go home. You've not been cooperative with that association. You've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars printing up five brochures. You mention "Area 3 Lakelands" in the brochures and then you leave them blank. In a couple of the brochures you mention "Lakelands" and you put, "Contact not available."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Jim Wilson: When my constituents call your 1-800 Ontario tourism line, they're told Wasaga Beach doesn't exist. You go to the bother -- final point, Mr Speaker -- of spending several hundreds of thousands of dollars --

The Speaker: Would the member place a supplementary?

Mr Jim Wilson: -- advertising Wasaga Beach in US publications, newspapers and magazines, but you refuse to tell people where they can get a contact.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please? I have asked the member twice if he would place a supplementary.

Mr Jim Wilson: Very quickly then, Mr Speaker, my question is, Minister, will you agree today to stop playing games and restore the reference to the Lakelands Tourism Group in all your ministry's promotional brochures, or will you continue to play ball without one of your key players?

Hon Mr North: I'm disappointed in one of the statements the member made. I find it factually incorrect and I would appreciate it if the member would relate that this probably is factually incorrect, and that is that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has not cooperated with members of the industry in that area. I find that factually incorrect.

As I said earlier, we continue to try to work with groups all over the province that are involved in the tourism industry. We work through the Ontario Travel Associations' program, which is a program that was set up by travel associations and the ministry across the province. It's something that has been a cooperative effort both with the travel associations and with the ministry across the province for some time.

There has been a choice made in this particular area that these gentlemen speak of that is contrary to what the program is at this time. As I said earlier, we continue to try to work with all members of the industry in the province. It's our job as an advocate for the tourism industry to try to promote all parts of the province.

The member across the floor noted that we speak of, very clearly, Wasaga Beach. When people ask us, "Where's the beach," we tell them where the beach is. It's at Wasaga. We continue to work to try and answer the questions that need to be answered around this issue to try and work this out.

1530

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the minister responsible for the GTA. As you know, my riding of Durham West is the home --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could barely hear myself. I'll have to start all over again.

My question is for the minister responsible for the GTA. As you know, my riding of Durham is the home for millions of tonnes of Metro garbage at the Brock West landfill site, the Brock North landfill site, and on the boundary of Pickering and Scarborough there is also the Beare Road landfill site.

Last Thursday my constituents in north Pickering received a list of candidate landfill sites. They are painfully aware that they are not the only community that has received this dubious pleasure. They are still reeling from the shock of seven candidate Durham sites and one candidate York Metro site all identified within extremely close proximity of each other.

Under the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee the decisions were made behind closed doors to arbitrarily pick a site known as K1 to accommodate Metro's garbage. SWISC cut off the people's right to participate in the process. My constituents voted in September 1990 to put a stop to that. Now there are eight proposed sites around Whitevale.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: Could the minister explain what is different about this process? My constituents are having a great deal of difficulty understanding, as it appears to them that this is in fact worse than what they were threatened with before. Also, could the minister assure my constituents that these sites will have a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): The process that has been put in place by this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The rules prescribe an order for questions to be placed, a rotation. That rotation includes both sides of the House. Every member recognized by the Speaker to place a question will have the opportunity to place that question, and every minister to whom the question is directed will have an opportunity to respond. I would ask for the cooperation of the House so the backbench member for the government side can place his question and the minister will have an opportunity to respond.

Hon Mrs Grier: The process that is being put in place by this government to establish --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- a landfill site within the greater Toronto area is very different from the process that was in place before. We've established an independent crown corporation, the Interim Waste Authority, to go and seek these sites according to criteria that are developed very publicly and very openly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask again for the cooperation of the House so the minister can respond. Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: What's primarily different about the process is that it's fair, it's open and it's independent.

I recognize, having said that, that it is no less painful for somebody who finds that one of the farms or areas in his particular neighbourhood is designated as a candidate site. But in response to the member's question, it is under the environmental assessment process, which means every alternative site will be examined, will be weighed and there will be every opportunity for people to participate in that review, to have the ability to review the technical documentation that has gone into the decision --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That's not true, Ruth. It's under Bill 143. It's not the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre is asked to come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and I know very well that all his constituents and this member, who has served them so well, will take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr Wiseman: My supplementary has to do --

Mr Sorbara: Tell them to tell the truth.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. Perhaps in a quiet, more reflective moment, the member for York Centre would have selected different words than what he just used. I would ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Sorbara: What remark was that, sir?

The Speaker: The member knows full well what he just said. You cannot accuse another member in the House of not telling the truth.

Mr Sorbara: The Minister of the Environment said the assessment would be done under the Environmental Assessment Act and that is simply not true.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The volume was such that unfortunately I did not hear the words. If the member did say, "I withdraw," I didn't hear that. I would ask the member if he would withdraw the remark.

Mr Sorbara: What I said was that the minister said the assessment would be done under the Environmental Assessment Act. I reiterate that that is not true. It will be done under Bill 143, which is a different piece of legislation.

The Speaker: I must caution the member that --

Interjection: Throw him out.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection: No respect for the House.

The Speaker: I ask all members in the House to come to order. I ask the member for York Centre -- he will know that he has used unparliamentary language. I would ask the member to reflect for a moment, a member of long standing in the House, a member who I know respects Parliament -- I would ask him to withdraw the remarks which were deemed by the Chair to be unparliamentary.

Mr Sorbara: I cannot withdraw -- I'm perfectly willing to leave the chamber now, but I do not consider it unparliamentary to say that what the minister said in her response is not true. I'm not accusing her of anything else. I'm just saying the statement is untrue. I've said that in a million speeches -- not in a million -- in several speeches in this House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre: As your Speaker I will try to be helpful, but I must tell you that what was said by yourself was that the minister was not telling the truth. The Chair cannot determine the veracity of statements, but the Chair must not allow unparliamentary language.

Mr Sorbara: I will withdraw the comment that the minister was not telling the truth. I will replace it with the comment that what the minister said --

The Speaker: No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate the fact that the member withdrew the remarks. The member for Durham West with his supplementary?

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My --

The Speaker: A point of order?

MINISTER'S COMMENT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's an important point of order because several of us over here heard a remark from the Minister of Health, who is also the minister responsible for the anti-drug-abuse campaign of this government. In chastising one of our members, she suggested he should get some new drugs. I think that's a totally inappropriate remark. They're laughing on that side of the House, but when one of the ministers of that government stands up and criticizes this side, and we have a minister responsible for the anti-drug campaign in this province making a comment like that, I think it's totally inappropriate and should be withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Leeds-Grenville, the member will know that language --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David, please come to order.

I did not hear the alleged remark. As is my practice, I would invite the Minister of Health -- if indeed she believes she made such a remark she has the opportunity to withdraw it if it has offended a member on the other side of the House.

1540

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): Mr Speaker, I'm not sure whether you're indicating that it was unparliamentary or you're just offering me the opportunity to withdraw if I've offended the member. I think the member who rose and spoke perhaps was offended. The member about whom I made the comments suggested that he doesn't need new drugs, that the ones he has are fine. However, if my comments have offended anybody, I will withdraw them.

The Speaker: It's nice to know everyone's trying to assist the Speaker.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): In this lighter moment I would like to return to the question of landfills. My constituents are particularly concerned about all the issues around landfills. Tomorrow, a joint meeting of the Metro Toronto works committee and the management committee will meet to discuss tipping fees at the Keele Valley and Brock West landfill sites owned and operated by Metro. They are considering lowering their tipping fees. Some members of the public believe the province sets tipping fees. I would like the minister to clarify who sets tipping fees, the role of the province and the likely implications of these lower tipping fees in terms of recycling and the whole program of waste reduction.

Hon Mrs Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm happy to clarify the jurisdictions for the honourable member and other members. Municipalities are responsible for delivering waste management programs in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take her seat, please. I once again ask for the cooperation of all members in the chamber so the minister can make her response to the question.

Hon Mrs Grier: If a landfill site or a facility is owned and operated by a municipality, such as Keele Valley or Brock West, those municipalities set the tipping fees for those facilities. The province, through its policies, encourages the municipalities to set the tipping fees at a level that will provide an incentive for waste reduction and cover the costs of waste reduction as well as reflecting the true costs of disposal.

As I have indicated in response to questions in the House before, what is needed in the province is a comprehensive waste management system that will deal with where their power ought to lie and what the financing of our waste management system should be. That kind of consultation is part of the work the waste reduction office is doing and part of the consultation papers that have been initiated. We hope to have a comprehensive look at the province as a whole in the financing for our waste management later on this year.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. On a point of order, the member for Bruce.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've been on my feet several times today with respect to the announcement of government programs and policy decisions here in the Legislative Assembly. On many occasions they have not been announced here and we have taken issue with the government.

During question period, a time when a member is able to rise in his or her place to ask questions of pressing, important business of the day, you have allowed the member for Oxford to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Communications. It allowed that minister to make what amounts to a government statement with respect to county library consortiums and the fact that they will be receiving some $300,000 as grant money and that there are cheques in the mail which will arrive in the constituency in some two weeks' time from today's answered question.

It seems to me the minister could have stood in her place and provided that by way of statement as opposed to reading her reply to the question by the member for Oxford. I only ask that, if these people are going to announce the things they are doing for the public in this province in these surreptitious -- that's easy for you to say -- backhanded ways -- I am a little bit confused because I am a little bit upset with the way this business is proceeding.

I have not stood in my place very often, although from time to time I have stood in my place to remind the people that the public business is to be announced and done here, so we can do certain things in a critical and analytical way which allows the people of the province to know that this House is dealing with public business.

We have announcements of government things outside this place. We have announcements of government policies and programs by way of answering questions of their members. I am beside myself as a result of the assault on the opposition by the member for Windsor-Riverside yesterday and by the written materials which appeared in the Globe and Mail on a couple of occasions which suggested that we were holding up business, when in fact neither the Premier nor the Deputy Premier seem to wish to be here very often, when in fact the ministers choose to be outside this place and make announcements, when in fact the Attorney General, the member for Rainy River, made his announcement in Ottawa and was here in this House in time to make a statement to us with respect to important government business, all because they will not allow us to be critical.

Mr Speaker, how are we to have our rights protected and how are we to believe that important business of the day will be allowed to be questioned in this House through the members' question period when you allow ministers of the crown to make important announcements in answers to the backbenchers? I am frustrated by being criticized by that man the member for Windsor-Riverside.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce --

To the same point of order, Minister?

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not make policy statements. I did not make any major granting statements. I made statements regarding the budget that has just come down and the fact that --

Mr Elston: You said the cheque would be out in two weeks and that they're getting $200,000.

Hon Mrs Haslam: No, no. This was in the announcements that went out about my budget. I announced that there was a 1% increase to all the library operating grants; that's what the member asked me. He asked me about operating grants for the libraries. They have been held up through the process. I answered his question and said to them that the operating grants were now final and that the cheques were in the mail.

The Speaker: To the House leader of the opposition and to the Minister of Culture and Communications: Both of you have spoken to a matter which I made a statement on a little while back, and I believe in that statement I mentioned the fact that it is virtually impossible for a Speaker to determine whether or not a response to a question is an announcement of new government policy or a change in policy. I listened very closely, as I always do, and this time to both the question and the response. I could not detect from that response that this was an announcement of new government policy.

The member for Bruce may recall that in the earlier statement I made I indeed invited ministers to choose the opportunity of ministers' statements as the time to make policy statements, but I must say to the member for Bruce again that it is virtually impossible for the Speaker to determine at an instant whether a response to a question is an announcement of new government policy. But I am certainly mindful of the point which he brings to my attention and I appreciate the explanation which was offered by the Minister of Culture and Communications.

1550

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier today in question period, in response to a question by my House leader, the government House leader implied that the reason changes to the rules were submitted in the fashion they were submitted was that a committee had been struck consisting of a member of his caucus, a member of the Tory caucus and myself. That committee's role was to get together and discuss some form of parliamentary reform. That was not a standing committee or a special or select committee or anything. It was simply -- I would think Mr Sutherland would agree with me -- a voluntary committee the three of us would get together.

The unfortunate problems we all experienced with regard to scheduling led to two or three sessions that had been scheduled having to be cancelled, primarily due to the schedule of the member from the Tory caucus. I don't say that in any form of criticism; it was just simply unavoidable due to other duties and responsibilities. We all know that members of this House have very onerous duties and responsibilities and that meetings continually have to be rescheduled.

The House leader for the government -- this point was raised yesterday actually -- has suggested that, as a result of the inability of that committee to get together and meet and have some informal discussion about parliamentary reform, he has now found it necessary to unilaterally introduce amendments to the rules in this place. Where I believe that my privilege and the privilege of all members, but specifically mine as a result of his reference to me being a member of the parliamentary committee he referred to -- he's implying that it's due to that committee's lack of activity or ability to meet that he's had to bring in these changes unilaterally.

Where I think he has clearly violated all our privileges is that if you look on page 42 of the standing orders of this place, under section 51 it says, "All notices required by the standing orders of the House or otherwise shall be laid on the table or filed with the Clerk of the House before 5 pm and printed on the Orders and Notices paper for the following day." So at 5 pm on Thursday you would lay with the Clerk on the table the order that would then be printed on Monday.

Then if you go to section 53, it states, and please bear with me, "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader" -- not some member of the government; the government House leader specifically -- "shall announce the business for the following week."

What actually happened is this: It's clear that he has lived up to the letter of the standing orders, because the government House leader submitted the notice to the Clerk before 5 o'clock on Thursday. You will recall, sir, that the House extended sittings to 11:45 that Thursday, at which time Hansard shows that the government House leader rose and said, in effect: "I'd like to announce the business of this House for next week. On Monday I will tell you what we're going to be doing on Monday, and on Tuesday we'll deal with the opposition resolution" -- which we will deal with shortly -- "Wednesday, Thursday etc." He announced the business for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but told this place that he would tell us what we were going to do on Monday when we all arrived here on Monday. We, of course, found out with our early edition of the Globe and Mail that in fact he had tabled with the Clerk these reforms to the rules.

My point, sir, and where I think my privilege has been violated as the member named for our caucus as the member of that parliamentary committee which has yet to have an opportunity to meet -- through no one's fault, I suggest -- is that I believe what the House leader has done is he has simply snuck the order on to the Clerk's table and intentionally failed to tell the members of the House. If you go to section -- I believe it's 23, which refers to the traditions in this place -- it would be very clear to me that the tradition and the reason for section 51 under the standing orders would be so that members are informed of the business that is to come before the House in the following week -- not the Clerk, not the staff, with respect, not even the Speaker, but the members. He failed to do that and he's trying to suggest that the failure of our committee to meet was why.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. There are essentially two points and I'll deal with them both very quickly, the first point being the committee to which he referred, and that is a point of information. Obviously the member is indicating that he was prepared to meet and the meetings did not occur.

The second point is one which he raised in this chamber previously and it was ruled upon by the Acting Speaker. Upon consultation with the Speaker and the Clerk and others, the Acting Speaker, of course, delivered the correct ruling, and the Chair was absolutely right. I simply reaffirm that there is nothing out of order.

Last, I will say that, aside from the alleged point of privilege, I think I may have mentioned to the member previously that I believe the Legislature functions best when it operates without surprises, but there is nothing that happened which was out of order.

It is time for motions.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that the order of the House of Wednesday, April 22, 1992, referring the matter of the appointment of the Provincial Auditor to the standing committee on public accounts, be amended by striking out "June 8, 1992," and substituting "September 28, 1992," therefor.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have a total of 26 petitions that comprise 390 names, the vast majority from the riding of Prescott and Russell.

"Whereas child care is not an essential public service;

"Whereas the proposed child care reforms for Ontario do not address the rights of the child;

"Whereas these proposals realistically eliminate choice of child care for the majority of parents;

"Whereas these proposals dilute parental control and responsibility for the wellbeing of their children;

"Whereas these proposals strongly and unfairly favour, without just cause, working parents over a parent who stays at home to care for their children;

"Whereas the government is increasingly unable to fulfil its current financial obligations to existing essential services, for example, health care and education;

"Whereas the profit status of a child care service is not indicative of the quality of care given;

"Whereas these proposals are not financially sound or justifiable;

"Whereas these proposals limit the ability of parents to obtain child care which will reinforce their social and cultural heritage,

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

"(1) Enhance the current child care system by concentrating the available resources for low-income families;

"(2) Abandon initiatives towards a universal child care system;

"(3) Guarantee that future child care initiatives will give equal recognition to traditional child care options, for example, a stay-at-home parent or care by a relative."

I have signed these petitions and I'm glad to congratulate Mrs Lauren Forgie and her team from Orléans for having collected so many names. There will be more this week and next week.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that was sent to me by the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Committee, which is headquartered in the city of Barrie. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario, believe the constitution of any genuinely democratic society truly belongs to its people and that our views on any changes to Canada's Constitution must be heard and final approval of such changes must be given by the citizens of Ontario;

"Whereas up to this time there has been very limited opportunity for input from grass-roots Ontarians,

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution, and/or any amendments thereto, will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final 'say' by the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 52 residents of the county of Middlesex, particularly the township of West Nissouri, the township of London and the township of North Dorchester, who petition the Legislature of Ontario to set aside the Brant report because of the massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London, and further ask the Legislature to set aside the report because of its disregard for public input and the concern that this annexation will fundamentally change and destroy the rural way of life in Middlesex. I've signed my name to this petition.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a similar petition from the greater London area, and it reads as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundaries issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have signed the petition.

1600

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT, 1992

Mr Cleary moved first reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Motion agreed to.

PORT ELGIN SPORTSMEN'S CLUB ACT, 1992

Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill Pr41, An Act to revive Port Elgin Sportsmen's Club.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

HOUSING POLICIES

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion 5:

That, in the opinion of this House, given the misallocation of taxpayers' money during seven years of Liberal and NDP government, and given that this has resulted in the closing of hospital beds, the laying off of hospital staff, an ever-increasing deficit and the constant increasing of taxes, it is essential that every possible means of reducing government spending and redirecting of funds for priority services be examined, in particular the complicated, expensive and misdirected housing policies.

Therefore, this House calls upon the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the housing policies in Ontario including the following specific areas:

1. Recognizing the role of non-profit and co-op housing, but given that the present government's commitment for non-profit construction is in excess of $1 billion and monthly government subsidies per non-profit unit are often in excess of $2,000, the government should seriously examine its involvement in non-profit housing.

2. The government should institute a program of shelter allowances which would address the need for affordability and accessibility by housing families and individuals in current and future private sector units, thus advancing the goals outlined in the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee.

3. Revise and implement a more timely regulatory approvals process which will facilitate greater social and economic opportunity through home ownership.

4. Improve planning of the infrastructure necessary to ensure safe, secure and affordable communities.

5. Given that rent control policies lead to a deterioration of quality, affordable and accessible housing, this government should replace rent controls in Ontario with new forms of tenant protection.

6. Promote the involvement of the private sector in all aspects of housing development in Ontario.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to say a few words in support of the motion. I hope that all members of the House will endorse -- perhaps not the whole motion; I understand there may be some concerns with part of it, but that they will address those parts they have difficulty with. I know I talked to a number of Liberal members and they said that, with the exception of the preamble, they thought there were things here they could support, so I suggest to them a couple of things.

One, item 5, scrapping rent controls completely: I would be very interested in hearing specifically of the Liberal Party's support for that policy; of their understanding, of their recognition that it is, with all their efforts to revise rent control to make it fair and workable and now the efforts they've seen from the New Democratic Party -- that the Liberal Party would, once and for all, recognize that in fact it is not workable and that the more they try to revise and change and alter, in fact the worse the problem is and the less we are helping tenants, particularly helping those most vulnerable in society today. So I invite the members of the Liberal Party to comment specifically on section 5 if they have difficulty with other parts.

Second, I want to mention the preamble. I want to mention what happens to legitimate social spending when government gets involved in things it has no business being involved in, when it tries to supplant the private sector and pretends that somehow it can be all things to all people and can do things more cheaply, more efficiently than the private sector. What happens is that taxes go through the roof, deficits balloon and the government does nothing well. In fact, what happens is that legitimate social priorities, health care spending, priorities that all of us support, regardless of where we come from, which party or philosophy -- we are most distressed to see cutbacks in a number of areas.

This is what happens specifically when government gets involved in spending billions of dollars in areas that it has no business being involved in, because time after time it has been proven around the world in states, in provinces, by the federal government and indeed here in Ontario that the more billions they spend, the worse the problem is and the fewer people we actually help. So the preamble is important.

There are many other areas I could have mentioned, but I wanted to mention and tie in the fact that legitimate social policy needs get scrapped, even by so-called caring New Democrats. What a hoax that was, perpetrated on the voters of this province when we listened to all the rhetoric for all these years and then in the campaign versus the action. Legitimate policies get shunted aside and programs get shunted aside as the appetite for these programs that are not working accelerates.

I want to address a number of areas. I have raised the non-profit and co-op housing for years in this Legislature with the Liberals, who put all their eggs into this basket. They put hundreds of millions of more dollars every budget, every throne speech, every election, "We're going to spend this new billion and that new billion on non-profit housing," and every new billion they spent, there were more people on the waiting list. More and more people who needed help the most didn't get it.

The second objection we have with non-profit housing is the horrendous cost when government gets involved. I don't object to co-ops, I don't object to non-profit housing, but when government funds 100% of it, then the waste starts, then the ripoff starts. There's big profit in non-profit. That's why the non-profit units many times are 50% to 100% to 25% -- take your pick, because I've got examples of them all -- in excess of the marketplace for the cost of bringing some of this housing on stream.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): According to Mike Harris. Which is it, Mike? Is it 50%, 25%?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Downsview, would you please take your seat?

Mr Harris: We get examples where the taxpayers are on the hook for $1,500 a month, for $2,000 a month to subsidize units for 35 years -- that's before any rent-geared-to-income is paid -- in some of these things. Then we get government ownership, and then we get some of the other expenses.

After having spent all that, we don't know if the right people are in the units. We don't know if those who need the most help are getting the units. Third, we ghettoize those who are seeking support.

1610

That is why, for all these reasons -- cost certainly is one, but more important, to help the 53,000 people who are now on the waiting list who cannot get into the lifeboat. I talk about government programs and try to give an analogy. If you think of them as lifeboats, who gets into the lifeboats when the ship goes down? The strongest swimmers get there first and the most vulnerable in our society, the homeless, the poorest of the poor, are not getting help. They're not getting assistance and there are more and more of them as every year goes by.

That is why we talk in number 2 about bringing in a program of shelter subsidies to replace the horrendous waste of taxpayers' dollars, the ghettoization that takes place by the government building all these units in one place together, the stigmatization that takes place when they're all in one unit in one neighbourhood.

I'm critical of the Liberal Party because it abandoned this approach and went willy-nilly down the non-profit route. The only thing that changed when the New Democratic Party took over was that it said, "We care more than you do because we're wasting more billions than you did." My gosh, if the measure of caring is who wastes the most dollars, then we're in big trouble in this province. The time has come to speak out unequivocally and clearly about rent controls, which have been a disaster in this province, about government ownership and the massive subsidization of bricks and mortar and builders and developers. Instead, helping tenants has got to be advocated and brought forward in a forthright way.

Many of my colleagues wish to speak and will point out some of the individual examples, but the reality is that the area we've moved to of tighter rent controls, of more billions being spent in government ownership or government-subsidized bricks and mortar, has not worked. There are more and more people who need help, particularly the most vulnerable.

We believe the same number of dollars, or even fewer dollars, quite frankly, will help more people and will help those who need the help the most. There is no need for one person, let alone 53,000, to be sitting on a waiting list for decent, affordable and proper housing for themselves and their children or their families. There is no reason for a single mother to be out in the cold or to be in substandard housing, none whatsoever.

We are calling on the government now -- as it recognized when it finally studied things like Sunday shopping and when it finally studied things like government-run auto insurance and got to the facts -- to analyse the record, look around the rest of this country. Look at British Columbia when you're dealing with section 5 on rent controls. They scrapped rent controls in 1985. They have had a hotter housing market than we've had. Their vacancy rates are lower than ours in Ontario, and if you analyse from 1984 through to 1992, their increases in rents were less than ours. You know what happened? The marketplace worked. The marketplace provided lower rents for tenants, more choices, more options than all of these billions of dollars of government housing, control and having to hire consultants. All the money that is spent on lawyers and consultants to comply with this legislation did not work as well as the marketplace worked in British Columbia.

I say to the government, put ideology aside. Look around the world at all the interventions into the marketplace that government took on. I have no doubt the motive was right, you truly thought you were going to help people, but analyse. You're not helping those who need help the most. In fact, those who need help are getting help the least with your policies. Under our proposals for shelter subsidies, we would provide more help for less money to those who need it most, with less stigmatization, if you like, and with less ghettoization. I do not understand why caring, decent people elected out of a sense of compassion and wanting to help will refuse, for some ideological reason, to analyse what works and what does not work.

In sections 3 and 4 of this motion we also talk about the regulatory approvals process and the improved planning of the infrastructure that are necessary. I don't want to reread the motion, but the reality is that there are ways you can intervene to assist the marketplace and there are ways you can intervene that cause the marketplace not to work very well. Governments in the last -- and you can pick 10 years, if you want, 12, 15; let's be non-partisan about it. My own party has certainly made some mistakes in the planning process and in the control process and the intervention.

Let's examine those areas that have caused the marketplace not to work as well as it can: the planning process, the desire for consultants, the lack of response from ministries, the time -- sometimes seven years to get raw land out there in the marketplace for housing, whether it be for multiple-unit or single-family homes. These are areas that government should analyse and say, "How can we now intervene to make the marketplace work even better than it did in British Columbia, than it did in Vancouver and than it does in other areas?" We're in a recession now; we want to put people back to work. Should we not be investing now in the infrastructure of sewer, water, garbage, roads and transit, those areas that could allow us to have a surplus of serviced land?

Why is it that even municipal governments -- and I hope municipal governments are paying attention. I've seen philosophy after philosophy and it says: "Oh, you know, we've got to be careful here. We've already got 1,000 serviced lots, so we don't want to have too many." Why not? Why do you want anybody to make a buck on land? If you look at jurisdictions, if you look at Florida, for example, except where it's in short supply on the gulf or the ocean, a lot is worth today about the same as it was 20 years ago because there's an oversupply.

Your target, the government target -- municipal, provincial, particularly in the regulatory process -- should be to have a surplus of land for town houses, for apartments and for single-family homes so that if somebody wants to make a buck in this province -- and I hope they do; unfortunately not as many think they can do it as well here as in almost any other jurisdiction in North America -- they don't make it on the land because government has created an artificial shortage of supply; they make it because they built a quality product and a product that is attractive.

When we look at jurisdictions that have done that, we see housing prices half the price of housing here. We see, instead of governments talking about bringing in a new tax on speculation, that there is no speculation, and the fact that there is some speculation on land -- or there used to be; there's not now in the recession -- is because it can be laid pretty much squarely at the feet of government and government interference with allowing product to get to the marketplace.

Sections 3 and 4 say we're in a recession and that we have high vacancy rates. There's no better time, now that the marketplace can work at the same time, so when we talk about phasing out rent controls and replacing them with shelter subsidies and replacing them with a working marketplace, there's no better time. If you want to have make-work programs -- and I think there is a need for some -- they should be in the areas that will benefit us in the long term, not in the billions of dollars of this government-owned housing that's going to cost us for ever and a day.

I call on all members of the Legislature to support a new direction different from one which has been pursued in some areas by my party in the past, certainly by the Liberal Party and now in fast-forward by the New Democratic Party. I call on everybody to come forward in a non-partisan way and say: "Don't point the finger so much at the past. Let's learn from the past. Let's learn from the mistakes that we all made in the past and move forward in a new direction."

I call on you to do that and I suggest to the members of this Legislature, of all parties, that the proposals we are advancing will indeed substantially reduce the cost of housing. There is the promotion of home ownership, which is also in this resolution. I didn't spend as much time on it as I wanted to. The goal, surely, of home ownership is a tried and proven goal for people. This government in fact has stated that that's not one of their priorities at all. I recall reading, when I saw their top four priorities, it talked about rent controls, more government legislation, supplying non-profit housing, and consulting on how to create a better quality of life in public housing.

1620

I'll tell you how: Provide shelter subsidies in all units, in all regions, all across the province. Don't ghettoize them and then wonder why you have problems in those areas, where you put them all into one neighbourhood or one project. Adopting a policy for making greater use of government land for housing: Speed up the approvals process. There'll be more private sector land out there for housing than you can shake a stick at. There'll be an oversupply and the prices will come down.

Promote and encourage the goal of home ownership, and the pride, and restore the dream to Ontarians who aspire to own their homes. Recognize that even though a recession is on, there has still been no proven better value than home ownership in this province, and no greater goal or desire in my view for property that is your own. When you own it, the pride of ownership and maintaining it and keeping it in good repair supersedes and creates more jobs than anything government could possibly do.

This is why we have suggested a package of directions different from what has been followed in the past period of time, completely different certainly from government in the last seven years. I encourage members of the Legislature to come forth and speak their minds. If they disagree with one or two of the aspects, say so and tell us why. If they agree with others, I hope they will come forward and say that as well.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): This is a resolution which is well laid out in terms of the elements, in terms of what the member, the leader of the Conservative Party, wishes to address in housing policy. The pity is that he doesn't understand that it is this government which has really set a standard in terms of bringing the elements of a good housing policy together in the history of this province.

On all the items he has addressed in his ramble through the rather well-ordered points he's put out here -- not that I agree with them but they are well ordered -- in his rambling address to them, he never once mentioned the fact that this government has in fact, since it came to office in September 1990, developed a housing policy framework which has gone to consultation around the province. It has developed a policy on use of government land for housing which has gone to consultation around this province.

He did mention that we have brought in and finally passed a rent control bill which will provide for the first time that tenants in this province will have one rent increase a year which is predictable and which has a final cap on it. They will know what it will be. It will never again be in the range of double-digit inflation, which we've seen in the past. It also provides for a supply of funds through the rent control system to landlords so that they're going to be able to maintain those apartment buildings.

We are also about to begin to address the question of the quality of life in public housing, a subject which has been a matter of delay in terms of government action for over a decade in this province. We will be beginning that process within a matter of weeks. Those people who live in Ontario Housing Corp apartments, whom the leader of the Conservative Party refers to as "them," those people will be joined in a process of planning the communities in which they live.

We have gone through a review, preparatory for the budget, of our whole non-profit program. We have told our non-profit partners, both co-ops, municipal non-profits and private non-profits, that their operating expenditures will be funded at an increase of only 1% this year. We have also adjusted their funding, so we have cut $20 million from the overall expenditure on funding for non-profits and co-ops. It is not that I'm particularly proud to have squeezed this sector as we've had to squeeze other sectors, but I want to tell you that we have gone through a very careful review of the way we spend money in this non-profit program.

The Conservative leader's resolution refers to a $1-billion budget for non-profit housing in Ontario. In fact, the whole Ministry of Housing budget will be around $1 billion this year. He refers to the problem this creates for areas such as health, but the Housing budget in total, which includes programs directed at the private sector, co-ops, non-profits and municipal non-profits and all our other programming including rent control administration, is 1.5% of the provincial budget. It's not as if this is a monster eating up health care. Au contraire.

We have looked very carefully at the way we are providing funding within the non-profit sector, a sector that very much upsets people of the political persuasion of the leader of the Conservative Party. He really feels that housing is not a legitimate social policy area. He almost said that.

I'm going to suggest to you that it seems to work only on one side, because although he thinks we shouldn't be building, as he puts it -- we shouldn't be building. We don't build non-profit housing. It's the construction firms and developers of Ontario who build non-profit housing.

Interjection.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, indeed, it's done by the private sector and it's the private sector which has written to us in many letters and encouraged us to keep up the level of building that we do in non-profit housing, because they have not been able to get work in the private sector during this recession and are very grateful for the work we are doing now in non-profit housing.

The leader of the Conservative Party suggests that it's all right for us to take public money, give it to tenants and let them go and pay it to private landlords, but that it's not all right for us to take public money and invest it in building by the private sector, which provides a long-term affordable housing supply. He neglects to note that within the expenditure we make on an annual basis to provide all the financing within our non-profit housing program, $300 million would be spent by the Ministry of Community and Social Services if we weren't providing the funding in non-profit housing.

The leader of the third party, the Conservative Party, does not understand the financing of our non-profit program. He does not understand it at all. This resolution suggests that we should start a rental shelter program in Ontario, that we should provide subsidies that go to the private market. In fact, the Ministry of Community and Social Services provides $2.5 billion a year for shelter allowances in this province. Is that a large enough program of shelter allowances for the leader of the Conservative Party?

On top of that, the Ministry of Housing puts another $80 million into the very kind of program he thinks should overtake all our housing policy, which is to provide subsidies for people to rent in private apartment buildings. We work out five-year leases with apartment building owners and we provide the difference between what a rent-geared-to-income tenant can pay and what the cost of the accommodation is. We spent $80 million on that this year.

1630

It is not at all accurate for the leader of the Conservative Party to suggest that we don't have shelter allowance programs. We have $2.5 billion in the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We have another $80 million through the Ministry of Housing. But he wants us to drop everything else and just pour it all into private equity.

I believe that if we are gathering together public resources, it is fair enough that we should use those public resources to create public equity that will assure that over a long period of time people in Ontario will have access to affordable rental housing, that is, housing that stays in the community for the purpose of housing those who need help to find affordable housing in the community, that is long-lasting, is a public resource and is something that is creating jobs as we go, at a time, right now, when we desperately need them in the construction industry.

The leader of the Conservative Party talks about 53,000 people on waiting lists. The waiting lists are long, Mr Speaker, but we will not solve the waiting lists problem by saying we're going to pour tens and hundreds of millions of dollars more into asking those people to find private rental accommodation and we'll provide the difference between what they can pay and what the landlord is asking. As soon as we do that on a huge scale -- totally ungoverned by regulation is the way he'd like to do it, and the way the Fair Rental Policy Organization has been promoting it around this province -- we would be asking for inflation in apartment prices. Where would we find that number of affordable rental units? We've got to build them now, because they're not getting built.

When he talks about the British Columbia experience, in British Columbia, with no rent controls, rental accommodation wasn't getting built either during this whole period. The reason is that in large urban centres the cost of land and the high interest rates we've seen over the last several years have made the construction of affordable rental accommodation impossible. It has not been possible for a private developer to go into the market in a large urban centre, find land and find interest rates and building costs over the last five or 10 years that would have allowed rents to be set that would provide affordable accommodation for people. That just hasn't been possible. We've seen some higher-rent accommodation built, mainly through the vehicle of the condominium, but we have not -- and we have not seen it in British Columbia either -- seen the development of affordable rental accommodation.

The fact is that unless the government is involved in helping to finance affordable rental housing construction and development, it's not going to happen. The leader of the third party had better understand that, because what he's saying is: "Get out of non-profit. Get out of co-op. It's not the government's business. The government shouldn't be involved." He doesn't understand that if that happens, there will be no new affordable rental housing coming on to the market.

There are various other points in the resolution that has been put forward by the --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): That is very close to a misleading statement, very close to it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I find it really distressing to have these half-veiled insults coming across the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I want to remind all members that you will have the opportunity to participate in the debate when your turn comes, so please refrain from interjections. The honourable Minister of Housing.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The resolution of the leader of the Conservative Party suggests that it is fair to say that most of the accommodation being created through our non-profit and co-op housing program is "in excess of $2,000" in terms of monthly government subsidies. That's not the case, and I can give him accurate figures.

In 1991 the average subsidy was $950 and that includes -- for the benefit of the Housing critic of the Conservative Party, who never understood this -- the cost of the land, it includes the cost of the financing, it includes the cost of construction and it includes the cost of the subsidy for those RGI, rent-geared-to-income, units.

I just want to make that perfectly clear to the Housing critic for the Conservatives, who has stood in this House and said it doesn't include the land costs and the construction costs. In fact, the range in terms of subsidies for those units which were committed in 1991, which were undertaken in 1991, is a subsidy rate of between $690 per month and $1,250, and it depends very much on where the land is in large urban centres, whether it's a higher-priced piece of property, and the size of the development and who is being housed there. If we have people who are looking for accommodation who have really not had access to the housing market at all independently before and we are providing subsidies so that they are paying $90 a month, obviously the subsidy from the government is going to be higher, but the average is about $950.

I'd like to touch just quickly also on points that the leader of the Conservative Party has raised in his resolution and which he addressed very briefly.

He talked about the need to beat back what he calls an artificial shortage of land. I don't know what's artificially short about serviced land. I think the natural state of land is unserviced. In order to service it, we've got to take a positive action. In many instances that means not just speedup of approvals, it means investment in water and sewers, it means heavy undertakings of public expenditure, and that is hard to do at a great rate when you're in a time of recession, obviously.

Nevertheless, this government has taken action through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to try and find those areas in which approval delays really have been the result of tangled-up processes and lack of attention perhaps. We don't know all the answers, and we are getting answers now from the provincially appointed facilitator, Mr Dale Martin, who has been working to try and get approvals for various projects in communities around Ontario. So we have addressed that question and we'll see how much difference we can make. That announcement was made in April, and Mr Martin is on the job and beginning to report to us. He's also been hard at work.

Another item which was mentioned in the resolution is the question of infrastructure and safe, secure, affordable communities. As members of the House are well aware, one of the early moves by the Minister for Municipal Affairs, when this government took on responsibility in Ontario, was to appoint the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario headed by John Sewell, Toby Vigod and George Penfold. They will be reporting this year.

We have worked with the private sector. It is always suggested by the Conservatives, number one, that we don't like profit, that "profit" is a dirty word to members in the New Democratic Party, that we don't like talking to people in the private sector, we don't like helping people in the private sector. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Minister of Housing -- and my predecessor in the Ministry of Housing, Dave Cooke, did the same -- I've met with developers, I've met with the home builders' association representatives, I've met with representatives of the construction industry, I've met with representatives of the mortgage lenders and banks, and as this House and the Ontario public are well aware, leading up to the federal budget, we did a lot of work with those representatives to help convince the federal government to lower the level of down payment required for a private home purchase to 5% and to allow the use of RRSPs in the purchase of homes. We had also hoped they would allow the use of RRSPs in the renovation of private housing, but they did not choose to do that.

1640

This government also has continued a program which was begun during the Liberal administration, which is the Ontario home ownership savings plan. It provides a tax deferral scheme, a tax rebate scheme, for people who enrol to purchase a first home. Since 1988, 180,000 plans have been registered through the Ministry of Revenue and in fact 85,000 households have purchased their first homes with the assistance of that plan.

So we have indeed worked with the private sector partners in housing and we will continue to do that.

Just as a final comment, I'd like to point out to the leader of the Conservative Party that were he to get his way and were we to withdraw our rent control legislation, the one third of tenants in Ontario who pay over 30% of their income in rent would be lost. If he thinks the waiting list for subsidized housing is long now, I shudder to think what it would look like if he got his way on rent control.

Further, we have figures now on the construction industry and employment in the construction industry which indicate that the level of employment is at its lowest, relatively speaking, since the early 1980s.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Oh, the recession's over; that's good news.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The level of employment, I said; get it straight.

That means construction workers around this province are in desperate straits for work. We are currently involved in construction on 28,683 units, and those units represent 48,187 full-year jobs. Those are important jobs and they're doing an important task for Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on opposition day motion 5, Mr Harris's motion?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): There are a number of things that are unfortunate about this particular resolution. Mr Harris starts out by saying, "That, in the opinion of this House, given the misallocation of taxpayers' money during seven years of Liberal and NDP government," and then he goes on to put forward six suggestions for change. He's trying to tie the seven years of Liberal and this government's record of spending money on housing to therefore not spending it and not allocating it into health care and other issues.

This is a tactic. This is a tactic by the Conservative opposition, the third party, to try to put forward some reasonable ideas but couch them in a framework that makes it impossible for the Liberal caucus to support.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What party did you say?

Mr Mahoney: The third party, the Conservative Party, I say to the --

Mrs Marland: The Liberals.

Mr Mahoney: No, the Conservative Party, and that's their tactic. If you take a look, every time they put forward a motion, they might have a couple of good points that otherwise, you never know, even members of the government might support some of the ideas, but then they couch it in a way that makes it impossible to go along with it.

In so doing, they then also, as the leader of the third party did, get up and suggest we should all be non-partisan. I find it rather curious that he stands there and in about a 15-minute speech he tears a strip off the government, tears a strip off the former government and then invites other members in this place to stand up and be non-partisan and simply embrace his ideology and his ideas. I have a bit of a problem with the credibility of the leader of the third party because he's simply playing a political game, I say particularly to the folks at home watching. He plays a game by putting forward some suggestions but wrapping it in such an unacceptable package that no one in this Legislature could support it.

Having said that, I want to take a moment to address the concerns of the Conservative Party and the response of the government with regard to non-profit housing. I spent nine years on the board of a non-profit housing corporation in the region of Peel. For the final year of that tenure I was the president of the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. I think this Housing minister and many others in the past would admit that Peel Non-Profit is one of the finest organizations in delivering a quality product that is a home. We have to think of it in terms of what they're delivering.

The attitude of the Tories is that it's just bricks and mortar and nails and wood and dollars. They don't think that we're actually building communities and homes. Who do they think builds these non-profit housing projects? Their leader's comments and his resolution would give you the impression that this is, I believe the words were, "government housing."

I'll tell you what government housing is and was. It's the Ontario Housing Corp, started by the Tory government, that has created a number of ghettos around this province and serious difficulties, prior to the implementation of a comprehensive policy of the federal government feeding down some subsidy dollars through the provincial government to, ultimately, local regional authorities. That involves really a tripartite agreement with Ottawa, Queen's Park and, in the case of my community, the region of Peel.

In Ottawa there is an excellent housing corporation that develops non-profit housing. They're all over the province. They've been developed in cooperation with the community. Yes, they cost money. No one can argue that.

Interjection: Taxpayers' money.

Mr Mahoney: Taxpayers' money, you're darned tootin'. They serve taxpayers.

In fact, when you think about the money that is generated from a non-profit housing development, think of it in terms of the construction jobs; think of it in terms of the building products; think of it in terms of all the soft services and the planning and the consultants and everybody who gets involved in delivering these homes to the marketplace; think of it in terms of fridges and stoves; think of it in terms of laundry equipment; think of it in terms of families moving in and actually furnishing their units and buying their furniture etc from the businesses in the community. The financial spinoff to any kind of housing project is really quite astronomical.

What the leader of the third party is attempting to do is to suggest that this government, or the former Liberal government, should abandon unilaterally any concept of working with community groups. I would refer you to Sampaguita Village, a community in my own area built with the help of the Filipino community; there's the Mississauga Italian Canadian Benevolent Association; and I have a group of people in the Polish community who are meeting with me now, attempting to get the minister to assist them with some allocation. There are many different people who benefit from a good non-profit housing program and a co-op program.

Having said that, you wind up in this debate with the Tories on the right side of the issue saying, "Abandon it all and allow the private sector to deliver all housing." You wind up with the socialists on the other side of it saying: "We're going to socialize everything. We're going to put people out of the rental housing business. We're going to bring in the most draconian rent control legislation that any government has ever delivered. We are going to force landlords to wind up with devalued apartments so that in essence they lose all of their equity." That's what happens, they lose all of their equity.

This government, according to the Premier -- he was quoted as having said that if they don't want to be in the business, we'll buy them out. That is clearly the plan of this government. They're doing it in other areas. The unfortunate part of it is, what you really need is a comprehensive program where I could agree with the leader of the third party and some of the statements with regard to the problems in rent control. They were introduced by his government and they were exacerbated by our government. I clearly admit that and have said so publicly. But they are being ensconced at totally unacceptable levels by this government with the ideology that it wants all private sector rental accommodation to be converted to public housing. So I could agree with some parts of the leader of the third party's resolution if he weren't attempting to couch it in such political terms and then suggest that we should all be non-partisan. It is extremely unfortunate that this happens.

1650

I heard the minister talk about how careful they are about the way they spend money. The reality is that no one in this province believes this government is careful about the way it spends money. We have seen record deficits. We have seen a complete commitment to the ideology with the labour reforms that are going to drive people out of work.

The reality is, Mr Speaker, I suggest to you, that housing is really a poverty issue. It's an issue for the jobless; it's an issue for single women who have to spend so much of their money on rent that they can't afford food and wind up in food banks, so it's a poverty issue. It's a women's issue, it's a minority issue, it's a young persons' issue, and clearly it's a business issue that says this government should recognize that it needs a comprehensive housing policy where it should back off its rent control, it should continue to work with regional housing authorities to provide non-profits and co-ops, and it should continue to work with charity groups and other non-profit groups to deliver senior citizens' homes and communities for families. But at the same time it should not institute the Sewell commission, which is just another layer of red tape.

I never worked with Mr Martin on council, as some of the former Metro politicians around here did, but I know his reputation. To pay Dale Martin $100,000-plus a year to expedite development so that he can speed up the planning process in some way is just laughable. You are creating --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's working.

Mr Mahoney: It is not working at all. What's happening is that you're creating levels of bureaucracy that are going to slow down the planning process. Believe me, the municipal people in many of our cities and towns across this province are sophisticated enough to understand what's right for their communities. They don't need Dale Martin coming in and telling them how they should be processing development applications when he doesn't know the first damn thing about it. In fact, his claim to fame was that he stalled development and became an expert on how to muck up the system at the Ontario Municipal Board. This is the kind of mentality we're dealing with in this government.

So I say to the leader of the third party that it's unfortunate, when you write these resolutions, that you don't perhaps sit down with us. If you truly believed in putting forth an alternative from an opposition perspective, maybe we could have worked out something together. Some of our policies would align themselves against the socialist hordes that are destroying the private sector and have only just begun, I would suggest. We're going to have to do everything we can to stop them from totally eliminating the private sector from the housing industry.

In closing, because I know my critic needs a substantial amount of time to respond to the minister and because the other member of the committee that dealt with rent controls wants to address the Legislature, I would just ask this government that when it makes these decisions, whether it's on rent control or any aspect of dealing with the private sector, to think in terms of the snowballing effect that occurs. When you put people out of rental housing, we're talking about a lot of moms and pops who bought their rental apartment unit and who have suffered and who do all of their repairs on their own. We're not talking about big conglomerates that own thousands of units and don't care about the people who live in them. We're talking about real people. It all creates jobs.

What we need is a comprehensive housing policy from this government that says it's going to support the private sector in rental housing, that it's going to support the private sector in developing low-cost, affordable housing and that it's going to continue with a comprehensive policy of non-profit and co-op housing with all of the very many worthwhile community groups who deserve their support.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the motion from Mr Harris? The honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I'm very happy to rise in the House today and speak in support of the motion by my leader, Mike Harris. Today's debate is primarily about the housing policies of the NDP government and the changes advocated by the Progressive Conservative Party to ensure that all Ontarians have safe, affordable and decent housing.

On a broader level, though, our resolution is about the failure of the Bob Rae socialist government to set priorities in terms of human need. As members of provincial Parliament we all spend a great deal of time trying to help people who have problems with the provincial government. For instance, we see constituents who are in pain and require surgery, but because their operation is considered elective they have to wait several months. We have constituents with Alzheimer's disease who are on long waiting lists for nursing home beds. These people have urgent needs that are not being met by this government.

We also have constituents who have been on waiting lists for non-profit housing for years because the government cannot afford to build non-profit housing for all needy Ontarians. Yet for selfish ideological reasons the Bob Rae socialist government refuses to consider direct shelter allowances because such a system accepts capitalism and the private sector. The NDP chooses to ignore the evidence that for no more than we now spend to house 68,000 families in non-profit units Ontario could fund a shelter allowance program that would help all of the 250,000 Ontario families that spend more than one quarter of their income on rent.

This socialist government has misdirected taxpayers' money towards expensive government-funded housing which is not helping enough needy families and is preventing the government from meeting other pressing needs. The NDP has also ensured that the provincial government will have to build all new rental housing in Ontario because of its punitive rent control bills which have frightened off potential owners since they will be unable to receive a fair return on their investment.

As well, this government has committed tenants to living in run-down housing because the NDP rent control legislation makes it impossible for property owners to afford necessary repairs.

In light of this serious situation, we call on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of its housing policies in order to do the following: to examine the government's involvement in non-profit housing; to establish a shelter allowance program that will give all needy Ontarians the means to afford decent shelter; to promote home ownership; to improve infrastructure planning; to replace damaging rent controls with other forms of tenant protection; and to promote the involvement of the private sector in all aspects of housing development in Ontario. Together, these six steps will ensure that the people of Ontario are properly housed and get the best value for their taxpayers' dollars.

Starting with the first step, our party recognizes that non-profit housing has played an important role in providing affordable shelter. As a past board member of the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp I have had firsthand experience with the non-profit developments administered by the region of Peel. They are well-managed, pleasant communities which provide an excellent quality of life to the people who live in them. As an alternative to the Ontario Housing Corp projects, non-profit housing is superior because of the income blending and the smaller scale of development, both of which have prevented the ghettoization that has marred many of the Ontario Housing projects.

1700

Unfortunately, non-profit housing has become unaffordable as a means of solving our shortage of affordable housing. Last year, when the standing committee on estimates reviewed the Housing ministry's estimates, I asked for and received a breakdown of what the province spends to subsidize each non-profit housing program, including projections for the next five years. By the end of the current year, we will be spending $664,000 to subsidize just 94,000 units. Not including the additional units that were promised in the last budget, we will be spending over $1 billion a year by 1995 and housing only 115,000 families.

Some of the subsidy levels for recent projects have been shocking. One was $2,500 a month, enough to carry a mortgage on a house worth $245,000. Another was $1,900 for a bachelor apartment, an amazing amount considering that in Toronto the average rent for a bachelor apartment is $490 a month.

We must find a way to help more people with less money. To do so, our party advocates a system of shelter allowances. A shelter allowance is a government subsidy that is given directly to people who are in need based on an income test. The most recent Ontario study of shelter allowances was prepared by the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. Using FRPO's most conservative model, which would help all 250,000 Ontario families that spend more than a quarter of their income on rent, a shelter allowance system would cost the province of Ontario $410 million. That works out to an average of $137 per month for each assisted household.

Here's an example of how the system could work. If a family in Toronto has an income of $30,000 a year, it is spending more than it can afford if its rent exceeds one quarter of its income, that is, $625 a month. If that family, based on its size, requires a two-bedroom unit, the average rent for such a unit in Metropolitan Toronto is $724, $99 more than it can afford. The family would therefore receive a subsidy of $99 a month, which it could use to rent an apartment of its choice.

This is the most important point of all. The real advantage to direct shelter allowances is that you don't decide for that individual where he's going to live. They have a choice of where they live, the community they want to live in, the building they want to live in. We don't put them into buildings that have a label of "government subsidy." We no longer would have this stigma of living in subsidized buildings. We would be able to eliminate that completely and look after four times as many people.

Marion Steele, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph who has written a study of shelter subsidies, says that a shelter allowance is "a way of helping low-income households avoid the psychic and monetary costs of a move. It is an instrument to increase security of tenure." Professor Steele points out several other beneficial goals of a shelter allowance program as follows: reducing the pressure to construct more public housing, lessening the inequity between low-income households that are public housing tenants and those that are not, and reducing the pressure to continue and tighten rent control.

Professor Steele's study concludes that a housing allowance does indeed deliver assistance to the neediest and only to the neediest. Her study also found that there was not a noticeable increase in housing consumption in those provinces that have implemented shelter programs.

"So," you might say, "a shelter allowance system sounds great, but where do we find $410 million a year without increasing taxes?" I suggest we cancel the non-profit housing that has been planned but has not yet come on stream. Between fiscal 1991-92 and 1993-94, the amount to be spent on non-profit subsidies will increase by $445 million a year, enough for a shelter subsidy program. Yes, we would have 37,700 fewer units of non-profit housing, but a shelter subsidy program would put 250,000 needy households in existing vacant apartments and help stimulate a recovery in rental housing construction.

There is a lot more I could say about shelter subsidies, but I want to consider the next point in our resolution: the need to "implement a more timely regulatory approvals process which will facilitate greater social and economic opportunity through home ownership."

During the review of the Ministry of Housing's estimates last fall, I pointed out that home ownership never appears as a priority in the NDP socialist government's consultation paper, A Housing Framework for Ontario. In estimates, this Minister of Housing made statements such as, "In my view, there is nothing wrong with living in rental housing all your life," and, "Now people can make a choice. They can rent money from a bank or a trust company and call themselves home owners, or other people will decide in preference to rent a house, if they have the money, even though they might own it and pay the bank." This socialist government has discounted the dream of most Ontarians to own their own home.

As Morley Kells, president of the Ontario Urban Development Institute, said about the minister's comments:

"It would appear that as a matter of principle, Gigantes (the NDP) dislikes the interest amounts people are forced to pay on mortgages. It also seems that they neither understand nor value the equity that can be earned in a home through the process of appreciation."

For most of us, buying a home is a way of gaining equity which, combined with RRSPs and pension plans, helps ensure that when we retire we can look after ourselves and not be a burden to the government and future generations of taxpayers. Such independence is of a great benefit to our society and our economy.

As well, the home construction industry is one of the driving forces of Ontario's economy. However, as our resolution says, there is an urgent need to revise and implement a more timely regulatory approvals process.

The NDP government has recognized the urgent need to improve the regulatory approvals process, as evidenced in the plans outlined by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in April to speed up the decision-making process for development proposals. However, these are just interim measures until the report of the Sewell commission is delivered. It remains to be seen if Mr Sewell will be able to produce recommendations that will speed up the wheel of the planning process and meet the demands for housing while protecting the environment.

Moving to the next point in our resolution, I will spend a few moments discussing the need to improve the planning of infrastructure in order to ensure safe, secure and affordable communities.

Most of this province's infrastructure was built under the 42 successive years of Progressive Conservative government. Sadly, this NDP government and the previous Liberal administration have neglected to maintain and renew our infrastructure. As a result, we have decaying bridges, gridlocked highways, burst watermains and schools that consist primarily of portables. Even the major Liberal and NDP funding commitments, such as the Let's Move transportation program and the Jobs Ontario capital fund, are just a drop in the infrastructure bucket.

1710

Like a house, a community needs a sound foundation, and the infrastructure is that foundation. If we neglect our infrastructure work rather than keeping up with the maintenance and renewal, the costs could bankrupt us, especially when we consider the new infrastructure that must accompany growth. The infrastructure working group that provided input to the report GTA 2021 identified $35 billion worth of transit and road improvements that will be needed in the next three decades, plus another $14.5 billion for water and sewer mains and other development infrastructures, and this is just for the greater Toronto area.

The next point in our resolution calls on the government to replace rent controls in Ontario with new forms of tenant protection because the NDP rent control policies lead to a deterioration of quality, affordable and accessible housing.

I spoke at length on the problems arising from rent control during the recent debate on Bill 121, and as I said then, Ontario's tenants, property owners, construction workers and rental housing stock have been dealt a staggering blow by the Bob Rae government. As a result of the NDP's rent control bills, Ontario's existing rental housing stock is deteriorating because property owners cannot recover the costs of necessary repairs. There has also been a virtual halt to the construction of rental housing because financial institutions are loath to lend money when the borrower cannot guarantee a steady income due to the new provisions for rent reductions. The market for rental housing renovation and construction has therefore dried up, resulting in a loss of at least 25,000 construction jobs.

My party recognizes that tenants need protection of their rights, but rent control is not providing that protection. A shelter allowance program which ensures security of tenure in decent housing would help those tenants and property owners maintain a stock of quality, affordable and accessible rental housing in Ontario.

Finally, as the last point in our resolution suggests, the Bob Rae government has refused to recognize the significant role the private sector should play in all aspects of housing development in Ontario. The NDP housing policy shut out the private sector. Property owners and the construction sector have been dealt a death blow by Bill 121, while government-funded non-profit housing is the only new rental housing that is being built. Developers are still facing a regulatory obstacle course. Our infrastructure is falling apart for want of money, yet this socialist government can find $1 billion a year to spend on non-profit housing. Clearly, nothing short of a comprehensive review of the NDP government's housing policies can save Ontario from a bleak housing future.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate on Mr Harris's opposition day motion 5?

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): It's a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak against this resolution. I think anyone who had all their faculties and was examining this resolution would certainly give some very strong consideration to not voting or supporting this resolution, and that's certainly the position I take. I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, I have all my faculties, and I won't be supporting this resolution.

I want to speak to item 6 of the leader of the third party's motion, and that says, "Promote the involvement of the private sector in all aspects of housing development in Ontario."

If there's concern about the involvement of the private sector in non-profit housing in Ontario, let's make one thing perfectly clear, and that's the fact that the private sector develops, the private sector builds and in many cases the private sector even manages non-profit housing in Ontario. If that's not involvement, if that's not allowing them an avenue to be involved in non-profit housing, then I don't know what is. The only thing it doesn't do is own the housing. It is owned by the community, and I think that's very positive. In fact, non-profit housing has been the mainstay for many contractors and professionals offering services to the building industry.

It may not be a well-known fact in this Legislature, but I was the part owner of a construction company and I know what is involved in the building of homes. I had employees and I had all the problems and all the good things that go along with having employees working for you. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that when you build a home, there isn't just one person who benefits from that. When non-profit housing comes into a community many people benefit from that. Contractors like plumbers benefit, contractors like electricians, the people who operate the machinery to dig the hole for the basement, the people who come in and pour the basement and, indeed, those plumbers and carpenters who come in and build the house all benefit.

So all the dollars that are invested in non-profit housing end up in the community, and if you think the community doesn't care, you should be in your community when a non-profit housing situation opens up. The mayors come out. Recently, in my part of rural Ontario, in Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, when some non-profit housing opened in Picton, Warden Dick Evans came out, Mayor Charles Hepburn came out, all the contractors came out. Reverend Beaudrie, who managed the whole organization to develop and build the non-profit housing, came out. Many people from the community came out. They saw it as a positive thing.

The members of the opposition, at least the members of the third party -- I'm not sure who they're consulting, but they're not consulting the people this government consults, and this government consults widely. We heard members from the Liberal Party speak today who said they're not going to support this motion. We're not going to support this motion. I wonder, are the members of the third party going to have the opportunity for a free vote in this or are they going to be whipped, are they going to collectively get behind their leader and vote to support this resolution? This will be very interesting indeed.

Where are the apartments the member for Mississauga South speaks of that will house all those people in need for a $130-per-month subsidy? I'd like to know the answer to that question.

Mrs Marland: You could read the newspaper ads.

Mr Johnson: But I'm not directing a question to that member, Mr Speaker, I'm directing it to you.

Mrs Marland: I'm answering his question. They're in the Toronto Star.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order, please. I'd ask the honourable member for Mississauga South to please come to order.

Mr Johnson: As I said before, non-profit housing is a very important and valuable asset in any community. A Thornhill kitchen cabinet manufacturer says: "Our company employs more than 120 tax-paying citizens. The fact is that co-op and not-for-profit housing makes up more than 80% of our production."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York Mills will please come to order.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I was just trying to help him, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings has the floor. Please continue.

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A Toronto architect says: "Our industry is on the brink of collapse. Private sector construction has virtually stopped and we are in danger of losing the human machinery and structure of a vital manufacturing sector." So architects too benefit from this provincial government's investment of $1 billion in the province.

Project and construction management people are very concerned and they know the dollars invested by this government go into their respective communities and make their communities viable. Indeed, if we were to withdraw the dollars invested in non-profit housing it would be very detrimental to any recovery we could imagine. In fact, I would like to think that the dollars invested have contributed significantly to making sure that the recession this province is in hasn't gone lower and been more drastic than we're in fact having to deal with today.

Clearly I won't be supporting this motion or this resolution.

1720

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought the member would like to know that I was not talking about withdrawing the money that's currently invested. I simply said not to spend any.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Johnson: It's in every community across this province that the dollars invested in non-profit housing have helped. Certainly we know that in the Toronto area, which has been very drastically hit by this recession, there are some statistics here that suggest that "multiple-unit starts increased, by a very strong 273%, to 1,654 units, compared to 444 a year ago. Assisted rental housing contributed most to the increase in starts, reaching 1,181 units. 'Assisted housing has been a mainstay of the Toronto construction industry in 1992,' said Willard Dunning, senior market analyst at CMHC's Toronto branch office. During the first five months of this year social housing has contributed 44% of all starts in the Toronto CMA."

Clearly there are experts in many fields who see that the dollars invested by this province, by this government, have a very valuable and important role to play in maintaining jobs. Often the opposition says, "Where are these jobs?" They want to know where these jobs are. The jobs are in the construction industry where we, the government of Ontario, have invested dollars to create construction in Ontario, to create jobs, and that's very important during this very difficult recession.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I guess it's a pleasure. You're always supposed to say that, anyway, when you stand to speak in these debates.

Interjection: It's a challenge.

Mr Brown: It is a challenge today because this is a resolution that in my heart I would like to support.

Interjection: Or at least parts of it.

Mr Brown: Or at least parts of it. But we have, as members know, "That in the opinion of this House, given the misallocation of taxpayers' money during seven years of Liberal and NDP government...." We all know why that line is in there. That line is in there so that Liberals cannot possibly vote for this resolution even if they so choose. It's just one of those little political prankster things that my friends to the left -- but really to the right -- like to do, and so I would like to start by indicating that of course I cannot support this resolution.

But looking down, the first point the leader of the third party makes concerns non-profit and co-op housing. I recall two years ago, or perhaps three now, being in Mr Harris's riding and opening a not-for-profit housing unit. At that time I thought I heard the leader of the third party make very complimentary remarks concerning that particular facility. As a matter of fact, people in the community praised Mr Harris for his help in bringing that facility to North Bay. I shared his views at the time.

The issue is not whether we should have non-profit and the issue is not whether we should have co-ops; it's a balance. It's an issue of value for money. If we are talking about an issue of value for money, certainly I can understand the concerns and the resolution presented here. It is not something that we can do as legislators: waste public dollars or not get the most bang for the buck. I say to you that if this is what Mr Harris indicates by this first point, I can agree with that.

I look at the second point. It talks about shelter allowances and it's one of the things I believe in. I believe it could help to solve the problems in this province. I think it's a very rational way to spend the public dollars and get the people who really need housing into the housing. It makes perfect sense, so I can support that.

Who could not support looking at ways to "revise and implement a more timely regulatory approvals process"? I think anybody who couldn't support that shouldn't be in this House.

I look at improving the planning of our infrastructure. That's the fourth point. I can support that.

We get down to the fifth point, which is about rent control, something that is now near and dear to my heart, because I have suffered through the Bill 4 and Bill 121 deliberations of the standing committee on general government as a member, and latterly the chairman, of that committee. I can tell you that what this government has done in the area of rent control is totally counterproductive for everybody's concern.

I want the members of the government to realize what they have done here. Not only have they confiscated some private sector people's money -- and we're not talking about the Reichmanns; we're talking about immigrants who came to this country and thought that making investments in a small apartment building might be the right thing to do so that they could have a pension. Because of Bill 4, because this government had a better idea, they have lost their investment, their life savings.

If I look at it from the tenants' point of view, they were promised by this government one increase tied to inflation. That was it. "Zip. That's what you're going to get." What have they got? What they have is the potential of a 9% increase this year. That is almost six times the rate of inflation. That is what this government is providing to tenants across the board.

If you look at real dollars and increases, landlords should be somewhat happy these days in that they don't have to justify six per cent, which is four times the rate of inflation. At the same time landlords aren't happy. They can't be, because necessary repairs to buildings aren't going to be done. They have made that abundantly clear, and the record shows that very clearly.

What we have here is a government that is trying to address yesterday's problems. They're not fixing what's happening out there today. What's happening out there today is a vacancy rate in Toronto and other centres that is rising. It's higher than it's been for a long, long time in Toronto, and it's because of the economic situation.

I am angry, as members of this Legislature should be angry. When the government put its case to bring forward Bill 121 and Bill 4, it did so on the basis of people being economically evicted from their apartments. They could never supply us any numbers. We knew that it happened to at least some small extent and that it had to be remedied. But the government decided that was the reason it needed to do this, because there was economic eviction. Well, I'll tell you, there are just as many people in Toronto today as there were then. There's a rising vacancy rate. I can only suggest to you that one heck of a lot of people have been economically evicted. We had contended that the reason for economic eviction was the loss of work, the loss of jobs. This government has failed miserably in addressing that problem.

I'm trying to figure out, when I look at point 5, who won. It certainly wasn't the tenants who are paying six times, or potentially six times, the rate of inflation. It is not the landlords, who are not able to make the necessary repairs to keep those apartments livable, to make them real homes. I don't know who won. It's because we have a government that's fixated with fixing yesterday. We need a government that looks at the future, and this group seems totally unprepared to look forward. Their eyes are clearly fixed on the rearview mirror and they cannot understand why things in this province are as bad as they are.

I will indicate to you today that I cannot support this resolution, for the most part because of the silly introduction, but I will say that much of this resolution reflects my thinking.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Tilson: I have a few brief moments to congratulate our leader, Mike Harris, who introduced this resolution to the House today and, second, to congratulate the critic of the Progressive Conservative Party, Margaret Marland, the member for Mississauga South, for her excellent presentation.

As we've observed through the various hearings that have gone on through Bill 4 and Bill 121 -- and it was as a result of those pieces of legislation that this resolution was made -- we have seen in every jurisdiction in North America and in Europe that rent control, like socialism, doesn't work. Rent controls have produced slums, and tenants have suffered. Books and papers written all over North America have shown that rent controls produce homelessness and all the social problems that go with it.

Why in the world are you getting into something created by the Liberals that's been made even worse by your government? The bureaucracy alone no one can understand. The bureaucracy and the cost of the bureaucracy is absolutely unbelievable. Considering the cutbacks we're having with respect to hospitals and education, where in the world are your priorities?

This resolution put forward by the leader of our party is most timely at the passing of a dreaded piece of legislation, Bill 121, and I urge you all to vote in support of this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It's a great pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon. I come at it from a couple of different perspectives. One, I'm a proud member of a co-op; I live in a co-op. It's my home and it's where my family was raised. It's also a community. I'm very proud to live in that community and I'm very proud to continue to live in that community.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Duignan: There's one particular point I wish to concentrate on in the leader of the third party's motion this afternoon, and that's dealing with the whole question of the rent supplements.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague is making a worthwhile contribution in this debate. He's not allowed to. He's constantly badgered by the third party and I wish it would stop.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Halton North has the floor.

Mr Duignan: My colleague the member for Etobicoke West would have difficulty getting into a co-op. He wouldn't be able to live in the community because of his inability to get on and live with the people in that community.

In an article in the Toronto Star dated late last year, there was an article in relation to rent supplement that came about because of a TV debate around the mayor's race last year. There are a couple of interesting paragraphs in this particular story that I would like to read into the record to set the record straight in regard to rent supplements.

"The rent supplement option was debated thoroughly some 10 years ago and the overwhelming evidence against it and its bad track record is convincing. I have yet to see any credible study that recommends rent supplement programs over social housing supply programs."

It goes on to say: "A rent supplement program is attractive to landlords in soft markets and to landlords with less desirable, poorly located, hard-to-rent units. It's also attractive to groups who oppose social housing supply because of political grounds. They prefer rent supplements because they keep people in housing units in the private sector.

"It seems that politics, not experience, not evidence or rational debate, drives the lobby for rent supplements. When a committee of the Ontario Legislature debated this issue some 10 year ago in 1981, for example, it recommended that the program be gradually phased out because rent supplement housing is more costly than non-profit and government-owned housing. In tight rental market conditions, private landlords do not renew their rent supplement agreements."

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Here's a perfect example. This guy's making 70 grand a year and you're subsidizing his rent.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West is well aware that the honourable member for Halton North has the floor. If he would only restrain himself, we could get on with the debate.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just pointing out to the Minister of Housing that this member here, earning $70,000 a year --

The Acting Speaker: Please sit down. That's a point of information; that's not a point of order. The honourable member for Halton North has the floor.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was looking forward to speaking on this, even giving an input, but for a minute --

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The member for Yorkview will please be seated. The honourable member for Halton North has the floor.

Mr Duignan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could reply to the member for Etobicoke West, but there are some very important points I want to read into the record about rent supplements.

Again, "Financial benefits of rent supplements accrue primarily to the landlord. Tenants do not have the same security of tenure as in public non-profit or cooperative housing because a landlord can terminate rent supplement programs, and it's difficult for the government to project subsidy costs in rent supplement housing."

There was some reference made to studies in North America. There were a series of independent studies, several focused directly on cost-effectiveness, undertaken in the United States following the Nixon administration. They switched to a massive rent supplement program from social housing programs.

The major studies, by the Congressional Research Service in 1976, the Congressional Budget Office in 1979 and by the General Accounting Office in 1980, all concluded that over the medium and long term there is no question that the direct provision of social housing through rehabilitation or new construction is much more cost-effective than rent supplements. The result of the switch to rent supplements in the United States is now recognized to be a financial and social policy disaster, and that's the type of program the third party is advocating for the people of Ontario. People want a decent, affordable place to live. The leader of the third party does not want that to happen in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I think the resolution brought forward today clearly indicates where this would take the province of Ontario. Without question, it would take us forward into the past.

It wasn't all that long ago when the Conservative Party was the decision-making collection of individuals in this province, and at that time, I don't have to remind the House, they came up with their giveaway to reward their friends in the development industry. It was called the Ontario rental construction loan program.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Ferguson: Back in 1985 they came up with the Ontario rental construction loan program, and this was a way of rewarding their friends in the development industry. In fact, not only did they reward their friends but they assisted their friends at public expense, at the public trough.

1740

The giveaway the Conservative Party participated in on that date amounted to $149 million. That was the giveaway. Not only did they lend money out to their friends in the development industry under the guise of building affordable housing; they lent it out interest-free for 15 years. In fact, in this province they created the Million-Dollar Club among the developers. That was their solution to providing affordable housing to those most in need in Ontario.

We don't want to see this province go forward into the past. We don't want to see this province any longer engage in those kinds of practices. We are doing something I think is most responsible: We are taking capital dollars, putting them into projects, and at the end of the day those projects will be paid for and those projects will be around for years to come to benefit all the residents of the province. We won't be putting money into the Million-Dollar Club that they put their dollars into that we're still paying for today with no benefits at all. No benefits are being accrued to the ordinary resident of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am pleased to join in this debate today, particularly since the Tory opposition day motion highlights the NDP preoccupation with rent control and non-profit housing to the exclusion of any of the other options in housing.

The Liberal caucus agrees that the NDP has no vision to meet the province's housing needs, but I must say that I was quite surprised at the wording of this motion. As several of my Liberal colleagues have pointed out, the Conservatives do not want the support of the Liberal caucus on this motion. They start out, "That, in the opinion of this House, given the misallocation of taxpayers' money during seven years of Liberal and NDP government...."

Not one word of their speeches has substantiated that there was any misallocation of taxpayers' money during seven years of Liberal government.

Interjection: Five.

Ms Poole: Sorry, five years of Liberal government. It just seemed longer than it was.

When you go into their first point about non-profit and co-op housing, I now find out from the Conservative Housing critic that she wants all future non-profit co-op housing projects cancelled. To use the words of a former Conservative member, Sam Cureatz, I find this passing strange, because, Mr Speaker, if I can be heard over the din, when I looked through Hansard to see what their previous position on non-profit housing was, the Tories seem to have conveniently forgotten their record from 1985 to 1990. In fact they were extremely critical of the Liberal government for not building enough subsidized housing. The Tories forgot --

Mr Mills: Tell me what Sam said.

Ms Poole: What Sam says? "This is passing strange." That was his favoured expression. And this is passing strange, because the Tories have forgotten that during the last decade and a half of their administration, housing assistance and infrastructure renewal came to a virtual standstill.

I had the pleasure of leafing through some quotes from Hansard. Many of these members are still in the Conservative caucus. We have the member for Markham, Mr Cousens, who was Conservative Housing critic. On November 5, 1987, he said:

"Through this crisis maybe there now is hope if this government -- having recognized in an election pledge of August 22 that 102,000 homes were needed in two years -- knows what is needed. It knows why it is needed. Now what we need to see coming from this government is when it is going to have some solutions coming to the fore....When are those 102,000 homes going to be available for people who need them?"

He goes on and on and talks about how he hopes the Treasurer will give the Minister of Housing the money for 102,000 subsidized homes.

This goes on. November 23, 1987: Same story from the Conservative Housing critic. December 7, 1987. May 19, 1988: He says that the building of 30,000 non-profit units in the next three to five years is a minute drop in the bucket.

We go on to June 21, 1988, where he criticizes the government for not building enough new units. We go on to December 14, 1988, where the Conservative critic says: "Let's see it" -- the government -- "work a little harder, because it has not begun to reach its election goal of 192,000 rental units by the end of this year. So far, the government is still a failure."

Finally, on February 16, 1989, Mr Cousens talks about how the minister is not building enough and calls for the resignation of the Minister of Housing. Because she could not build 102,000 in the two-year period, he wanted her resignation. That is just the member for Markham, who was the Conservative Housing critic at the time.

Then we have the member for Mississauga South. Despite what she said today, Margaret Marland, on May 21, 1987, said: "We have a housing crisis in this province. Albeit it's been with us a number of years since the inflation of the 1970s and high interest rates of the 1980s, however here again, because of the special nature of our city and our unprecedented growth, our need for non-profit housing is tremendous."

Then she asked for more non-profit housing for Peel. She does the same on November 17, 1987. She says: "The Premier promised 102,000. Now the government's only committing to 66,000. When's the rest of it going to come?"

June 6, 1985. July 7, 1986. These are all requests from the member for Mississauga South for more subsidized housing. We have October 21, 1986; January 22, 1987; January 26, 1987; November 1987. That's it for the member for Mississauga South.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member please take her seat for a moment. The honourable member for Eglinton has the floor now. There are several members in the House who have been speaking for the last five or 10 minutes, calling across the floor. You know it's against the rules of the House to do that. I ask you please to respect the honourable member for Eglinton, who's making her speech on this very important issue.

Ms Poole: Actually, a member of this House whom I quite respect, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, Mr Villeneuve, carried on the cry for more subsidized housing from the Liberal government. He said: "First, there's a growing shortage of non-profit for seniors in rural Ontario. In my own riding, for instance, we've identified a need for senior non-profit housing in three areas."

Then we have the former leader, Andy Brandt, the member for Sarnia, who said on November 9, 1987, "It simply is unacceptable to those of us on this side of the House" that the government has not built 102,000 non-profit housing units.

I've saved the best for last: The leader of the third party, the leader of the Tory Party, Michael Harris, the member for Nipissing. On November 5, 1987, he complained that not nearly enough new units were being built. He said:

"The current supply of rental housing in our urban centres has reached unacceptable levels....The waiting list for socially assisted housing is longer than it has ever been....The number of new units constructed is less than what is needed just to keep up with the year-over-year increase in demand, let alone any move on the backlog."

Those are the Conservatives for you, Mr Speaker. They talk a good storm, but they've changed their policy in midstream.

But when we're talking about non-profit housing, what does disquiet me about what the government is doing is that it's made no move to reassess the need for non-profit co-op housing but instead keeps turning out huge numbers of potential allocations and yet there is no reassessment of how the program's going. It is turning out these 30,000, but last year it promised another 10,000. This year's budget promised another 20,000. Yet there is no review of this to ascertain that the taxpayers are getting value for money, and that is something I want to see from this government.

I also want them to show us that those most in need are the ones getting the non-profit and co-op housing, not their rich friends in the NDP who are taking advantage of the system.

1750

The second point is that the Tories have called for shelter allowances. I can support that. I think there should be far more subsidized housing in existing units. This is something called in situ placement that was developed by the Liberal government. I would like to see that magnified because it is a way we can get a lot of money for the taxpayers' dollar. I encourage this government to look at that option.

Then the Conservatives called for infrastructure changes and improved planning. Of course, that's something we want. The Liberal government did provide infrastructure planning and gave large sums of money for it. The Tories may feel that the money we spent on infrastructure was a waste of money, that it was misallocated, but we as the Liberal government felt it was important to make up for the loss during the period of growth which preceded the recession to make up for that lost ground on housing infrastructure needs the Tories left behind.

On April 25, 1992, there was an article on real estate in the Toronto Star by Warren Potter. He talks about the high cost of land and the high cost of building. He says:

"We tend to blame the current politicians for these problems but the lack of developable land cannot be blamed on New Democrats or the previous Liberal administration.

"The blame should be placed at the feet of the Conservative government that ruled this province for more than 30 years."

Saul "Merrick told me the former Tory government is responsible for the high prices of land.

"'In the 1960s and 1970s they should have been putting in trunk sewers all over the Metro area for land to be serviced,' he said.

"There wouldn't be a shortage (now) and our kids would have been able to buy a house at a reasonable price."

This is the Tory opposition day and that's exactly worth the paper it was printed on.

The other thing the Tories have implied is that the Liberals have misallocated the dollars and that they have not fostered good housing programs. Just looking at the Liberal programs can take your breath away, there are so many of them: convert-to-rent, Renterprise, rent geared to income; low-rise rehabilitation; Housing First policy for provincial lands; Ontario home ownership savings plan; the new community of Seaton for 90,000 people -- this government's done nothing about it -- development of a 25% affordable guideline for municipalities; the Homes Now program; the Rental Housing Protection Act; the amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act giving rights to roomers and boarders and also giving rights to tenants about protection so they could keep their pets, and policies to give victims of family violence first right at the Ontario Housing Corp.

But one thing the Liberal government recognized was that the private sector must be involved. The private sector does have a role. During the five years of Liberal government the private sector produced an average of over 10,000 rental units per year. Can this government say this now? No, because their policies have stifled building, have stifled free enterprise and have stifled any opportunity to get our housing policy off the ground.

The fifth item the Tories have on their agenda is that they want to disband rent controls with new forms of tenant protection. I have heard this before. I heard this when the Tory leader was running in the leadership race. He said, and he won the Tory leadership on this platform, "If I am elected leader, there will be no rent controls in this province." But I ran in the 1990 election and the Conservatives had changed their tune by then. They said: "Oh no, that wasn't what Mr Harris meant. Mr Harris just meant that really we were going to protect tenants, but in a different way." When we asked them what this different way was they didn't know, and they still don't know but think it sounds good. But the tenants aren't deceived. That party has never stood for tenant protection. They don't now and likely with this leader they never will.

The other question I have to ask is if the people of this province are going to trust the Tories to bring in tenant protection. This Tory caucus is the one that had its act together so much on the housing program --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Eglinton has the floor. There is far too much noise in the House. The Chair can't hear the honourable member speaking at this point, so please be respectful.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I was almost yelling with my passion, but the Tories are very noisy. I don't think they liked what I had to say. I would not trust this Conservative caucus. This Conservative caucus is so inept that when it came to rent control legislation it voted against its own amendment. Can you believe it? They didn't even know what their amendment was and they voted against it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Stop the clock. The honourable member for Simcoe West will come to order.

Ms Poole: In other words I wouldn't trust the Tory caucus to fight its way out of a paper bag, it is so inept. How can you understand a group that would vote against its own amendments?

The last part talks about involvement of the private sector. That is something we need. We need a balance. We need non-profit co-op housing. We need the private sector. We need the involvement and partnership of all sectors in dealing with the housing problems that face us today. There are parts of this that the Liberal caucus could support, even though it's a joke that it's coming from the Conservative caucus, but we will not support any motion which is put forward by the Conservatives specifically designed --

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, thank you.

1804

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 16

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harris, Jackson, Marland, McLean, Murdoch (Grey), Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 79

Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard.

Mackenzie, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, McLeod, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, O'Neil (Quinte), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Ramsay, Rizzo, Silipo, Sola, Sullivan, Sutherland, Ward (Brantford), Ward (Don Mills), Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1808.