The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEGAL AID

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): People in Ontario who are disadvantaged thought they had a friend in Bob Rae. Now they know that Bob Rae, a captive of organized and powerful special interest groups, does little for the truly disadvantaged.

Another example is the removal of access to justice for the disadvantaged at Ontario's legal aid clinics. Clinic directors recently issued a release stating, "This government does not value the work of legal clinics and does not value the plight of the poor." Clinics are being forced daily to turn away clients, including injured workers with compensation claims.

Bob Rae is Robin Hood is reverse. He takes from the have-nots and gives to the haves. For example, the Attorney General, while starving the clinics, is giving raises of over 5% to the ministry's head office lawyers and 10.5% increases to retained Bay Street lawyers. While clinic directors are facing meltdown in their clinics, the ministry has just hired five new managers to work in its communications branch. We get spin doctors instead of substance.

Surprisingly, the Rae government, in its quarterly financial report, boasts that "significant savings were realized from the legal aid plan." Why are these savings being used to hire spin doctors and provide 10.5% to Bay Street lawyers while clinics serving the disadvantaged go into meltdown?

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns her so-called reasonable land use policy.

Minister, in your recent letter to your colleague the member for Simcoe Centre, you said, "Planning the location of a school to allow connection to a municipal sewage system would, in many instances, involve moving the school under five kilometres, which may add five minutes to the school bus routes."

This is a ludicrous statement. Your tradeoff between increased bus travel time and your reasonable land use policy will kill the traditional rural school in Ontario. Your policy effectively prevents school boards from expanding existing schools or building new facilities if they do not have sites of approximately 150 acres.

The county of Simcoe is essentially a rural municipality, and our rural schools play an important role in the formulation of a sense of community and the preservation of a traditional rural culture. Minister, for you even to suggest that rural schools will eventually be eliminated and that children should be bused to urban centres, only to take their lessons in a growing number of portable classrooms, shows a disturbing degree of insensitivity on the part of your government to the needs of our rural communities in Ontario.

I would urge you to work closely with the Simcoe County Board of Education to develop innovative waste disposal programs rather than focusing exclusively on killing off our rural schools. Minister, passing the buck to your local Ministry of the Environment office for its non-action is not satisfactory.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today I would like to share with my colleagues the success of Jobs Ontario in my riding, Sault Ste Marie.

Since August 17, we have seen 20 permanent full-time placements. Some of the positions filled are with small businesses where fewer than five employees exist and where duties range from purchasing and computer work to developing new techniques. In all these areas where jobs are being created, training is new. It is the type of training you couldn't receive at school or from a previous position, therefore allowing everyone the opportunity to be eligible.

Some 600 to 800 positions will be filled during the length of these three-year Jobs Ontario initiatives in the Sault. Our Jobs Ontario broker, the Sault Community and Career Information Centre, has been a great help. They have told me that the response to this government project has been tremendous, and both the ad and word-of-mouth campaigns have helped significantly in making these Jobs Ontario initiatives work.

I see the Jobs Ontario project as a benefit for people to access information about the job market: an added tool to job search. The participants are out there self-marketing, trying to get employers interested in the program. In terms of effectiveness, everyone concerned -- participants and employers -- is enthusiastic.

Most importantly, Jobs Ontario in Sault Ste Marie and area has helped to develop a good community partner relationship. The participants, the employees, the trainers and our broker, the Sault Community and Career Information Centre, have been remarkable in handling this important initiative.

BLOOD TESTING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The New Democratic Party government has ignored the needs of a group of people who are ill and who are dying as a result of a delay in the implementation of an appropriate blood screening program in Ontario in the early 1980s.

Three hundred and seventy-five people are known to have been infected with the HIV virus through blood transfusions, and 60 of those people have died.

Months ago, Hemophilia Ontario asked that the province participate alongside the federal government in a compensation plan that would ensure that those who contracted HIV through tainted blood transfusions have security for themselves and for their families. The government has refused to act or even to provide the courtesy of interviews. Now people are left in the position of having to sue for damages, at enormous personal cost and emotional strain.

Yesterday people who have been infected by HIV through blood transfusions called on the government again, this time to establish a public inquiry to determine why adequate testing and public safety measures were not put into place for months, and sometimes years, after the risks were known. Many people who contracted HIV still don't know that they are HIV-positive and may pass it on to others, including their own spouses and children. There are 41 people in the HIV-T group in Ontario, and only five of them had been notified in any way of the possibility of having been infected.

The government must act. There must be a compensation plan, and there must be a public inquiry. That is the right and just thing to do.

1340

DUFFERIN COUNTY MUSEUM

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise in the House to inform all members of the presence of an exhibit put on by the Dufferin County Museum in the Legislature's west wing.

The Dufferin County Museum was established in 1963. It is dedicated to preserving the social history of the county, the activities and lives of all of its residents. Most of its display items are everyday objects the people of the time would never expect to see in a museum: a pair of children's mittens, a blacksmith's ledger, a quilt embroidered with the names of its various creators. The stories these objects tell of are of working and raising children and everyday life.

Like all museums, the Dufferin County Museum is open to the public. What distinguishes it from many of the others is its approach to history. Fuelling that different approach is the museum's curator, Wayne Townsend, and a group of dedicated volunteers. His energy and commitment to the museum makes it a popular place with visitors from inside the county and out.

The museum's extensive archives are used to research family, property or community history. Perhaps its most important aim is to pass on an appreciation of our heritage.

The museum is presently housed in the tiny old registry office in Orangeville. There are plans to move it to a more spacious location. The museum is eagerly awaiting a grant from the Ministry of Culture and Communications to enable it to continue its good work.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today to bring forward an issue of great importance to my constituents in the town of Pickering. This issue is one that I have become familiar with, this being the issue of garbage.

I had occasion to attend a public meeting in my riding a few weeks ago. This meeting was sponsored by the Tory caucus to promote the concept of shipping garbage throughout the province.

This concept terrifies my constituents. They know well what it is like to have to suffer with someone else's garbage. The people of the town of Pickering have had to deal with Metro's garbage and incompetence for decades. The past Liberal government had decided that Pickering was to continue to take Metro's garbage, only this time without a full environmental assessment.

When I ran for office, the people of Pickering told me that they did not believe in the concept of export of garbage. They know they cannot in all conscience say that they don't want to be host to some other community's garbage and then say it's all right to force a less fortunate municipality to take theirs. That would be immoral.

That is why the Tory members who came to my community were disappointed. They fully expected to create a fury in Pickering and have the full support of the community. They didn't have it. They don't have it. As a matter of fact, the only support they had was from people who came to this meeting from outside my riding, people who don't have the many years of experience with garbage that the people of the town of Pickering do.

So I would like to thank the Tory members for an enjoyable evening. Perhaps I could offer one piece of advice: Know the history of an area before you come in and make all sorts of outrageous statements. Their definition of "willing host" is one that is not acceptable to my constituents.

TAXATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I want to bring to the public's attention the indirect taxation which the NDP government is inflicting on this province. Rather than come clean with the people of Ontario through legislated tax measures, the Rae government raises revenues in an underhanded and devious fashion by raising fees, fines and any other levy imaginable.

Over the last few months, I have received complaints on at least five substantive fee increases or new provincial levies. There is the new camping fee for seniors. Tough new tax collection measures have been put in place on the sale of used cars. This measure is especially hard on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. There is the $50 fee for simply updating one's business registration. There are the substantially increased traffic fines. The managed forest tax rebate program has been cancelled or seriously delayed, and the Ministry of the Environment now charges a 2% review fee for all certificates of approval for sewage and waterworks.

Because each individual tax measure affects only a limited group of people, this revenue grab has largely gone unnoticed. Collectively, though, this indirect taxation is making a significant dent in people's pocketbooks.

If the Treasurer needs the money, let him have the courage and honesty to raise taxes up front rather than by the back door and without public scrutiny by this Legislature.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Now that the provincial Legislature has resumed sitting after constituency week, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the recently concluded Holocaust Education Week. I don't think the importance of Holocaust Education Week to both the Jewish community and to the people of Ontario could be overstated.

In the 1930s and 1940s over six million Jews were systematically annihilated by the Nazis in virtually every town, village and city in eastern Europe.

The best means of ensuring that the atrocities of the Holocaust are not repeated is through education. Through education, hopefully, we can learn that racism is unacceptable and intolerable in any form.

In the past few weeks there has been an increase in neo-Nazi demonstrations in Germany. Right here in Canada a so-called historian was deported because he denies the authenticity of the Holocaust. Earlier this year, in the Toronto area, three synagogues were desecrated with racist, anti-Jewish slogans.

While it is discouraging to hear of events such as these in the 1990s, these events serve to reinforce the importance of Holocaust Education Week. So long as there are people who deny the facts of the Holocaust or threaten the rights of any race, we must redouble our efforts to educate the public about the importance of history and of the basic reality of human rights.

The generation of Holocaust survivors is coming to an end. It is important that we, the next generation, remember and deepen our understanding of this dark period in history. The goal of Holocaust Education Week is awareness. Our generation must ensure that the tragedies of the past are never forgotten. We must never forget.

VIMY BAND

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to bring to the attention of the House an issue that will have serious consequences for my riding. This is the proposal by the Department of National Defence to move the renowned Vimy Band from CFB Kingston to CFB Borden.

Information generously supplied by Sergeant K.W. Brown of the Communications and Electronics Museum of CFB Kingston says that the band of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was organized at the Vimy barracks in Kingston in 1952. In its early years it saw tours of duty in Korea, Japan and Germany. In 1968 it became the Canadian Forces Vimy Band.

Over its 40-year history, all of it while based in Kingston, the Vimy Band has become a much-loved institution. It has frequently entertained area residents and tourists and, on occasion, lent its unique sound to raising money for worthy causes. The band has enriched Kingston's Remembrance Day ceremonies through producing marvellous music in the face of bitter November weather blowing in off Lake Ontario.

As you can see, the Vimy Band is very much a part of our community. The members strengthen music-making in Kingston, both through their own performances and through association with the Kingston Symphony and the Queen's University school of music.

On behalf of my constituents, I urge the Department of National Defence to make the sensible decision here. Have the seven instructors in need of a band at CBF Borden move to Kingston to join Canada's finest military band, the Vimy Band. Don't uproot the band, disrupting the lives of its members and their families and causing a deep sense of loss in our community. Move the instructors to Kingston where they can join the Vimy Band in building on its outstanding achievement of the last 40 years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of order, the member for Norfolk.

SPEAKER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Mr Speaker, it has come to my attention today that I have some concern over the Speaker himself, this being the Speaker's 12th anniversary of his 39th birthday. I thought that I'd bring to the attention of this House that this is an occasion that would bring forward best wishes on the part of every member in this House. I thought I'd bring that to your attention today, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I don't think the member has a point of order. If it is anything, it is reminding the Speaker of something about which he does not wish to be reminded of. But I thank you for the kind remarks.

It is time for oral questions. The member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): This maybe is one of those days you can have your cake and eat it too, Mr Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In announcing the transfer payments to municipalities last January, the Minister of Municipal Affairs wrote a personal letter to everybody in the municipalities and told them: "In 1993 and 1994, the unconditional grants will increase by 2% each year. We have chosen to make this multi-year announcement to help municipalities plan their financial futures."

Given this personal commitment by the minister and given the fact that he has promised that municipalities will be able to plan over the various years, how does the minister think the municipalities are going to stand for the broken promise by both him and the Treasurer of this province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I didn't hear anything yesterday from the Treasurer that indicated that the promise was going to be broken. I heard from the Treasurer that in view of the fact that inflation in Metropolitan Toronto is about 0.5% and inflation in the rest of the province is about 1.2% and that in view of the fact that the recession continues to be very tough on revenues for this province, we have an obligation to control our costs. The only way we can control our costs is to look at all our expenditures. So this expenditure, like every other one, is up for review. I think that's appropriate and what you'd expect from a responsible government.

1350

Mr Elston: I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am when a minister of the crown stands here and says, "I promised this last winter but I'm reviewing all of my promises," just as Bob Rae did after the election of 1990.

The municipalities of this province understand how important the unconditional grants to them are. They've already entered multi-year cost-sharing programs with the province. They've already entered into contracts with various organizations in their municipalities. How does the Minister of Municipal Affairs expect them to live up to the commitments that they made on the basis of the 2% promises? How do they expect to live up to those commitments other than by raising local taxes?

Hon Mr Cooke: Last week the Treasurer and myself met with all of the regional chairs, and I think the regional chairs indicated very clearly to us that nobody should overstate the importance of unconditional grants in terms of the overall grant structure for the municipalities. Unconditional grants represent about 20% of the revenues that municipalities have. It's a very small portion of their revenues, and I don't think it would be fair or accurate to say that if unconditional grants went up 1% or 0% instead of 2%, that's going to have any impact at all on local mill rates.

Mr Elston: I think the honourable minister should file for this Legislative Assembly the impact of each of those scenarios on the municipalities and do it forthwith, because last year, when he was talking to these municipalities about their three-year planning scenario, he talked to them in the terms that, "Everyone's help and creativity to work out fairest ways to maintain services, streamline operations and preserve jobs" is needed.

After having had the councillors and staffs of municipalities around this province endeavouring to carry out that work, in fact receiving kudos from the minister and the Treasurer on various occasions for having done that and having reached this stage where the second year of your commitment is required, how do you explain your withdrawal from the commitments you made to those people if they showed creativity and ways of preserving jobs and services in their municipalities?

Hon Mr Cooke: What we will continue to do with the municipal sector, as well as all of the other sectors in the social service, health care and education fields, is to meet and work with our partners to make sure that our expenditures are under control and that we provide and maintain good public services from one end of this province to the other. But I find it strange that today the Liberal Party is saying: "Don't review your expenditures even though your revenues have dropped by a few hundred million dollars. Let the deficit rip. It doesn't matter." We know that next week they'll be saying the direct opposite.

I think the House leader for the official opposition should not overreact. The Treasurer hasn't made an announcement. All he has indicated is that this matter is under review. When the Treasurer and the government have come to a final decision, then that decision will be communicated to the House.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will address my question to the Treasurer. Last January the Treasurer told hospitals that their transfer payments would be 2% for the upcoming fiscal year and that their planning could be totally based on that. Yesterday the Treasurer indicated that he could no longer guarantee that the figure will be 2%, that a new announcement will be made before the end of the month.

The Treasurer should know that hospitals are required to file a full operating plan and budget within 12 days from today's date. That plan has to include details of how hospitals will control costs and live within the provincial cost requirements. It has to include details of how hospitals will preserve as many health care services and sector jobs as possible. The plans had to be developed in the context of collaboration with key stakeholders in the community. That process took over a year. It appears that the entire revenue side of the operating balance sheet is in jeopardy.

I see that the Minister of Health is now back, so I can redirect the question. Will she be changing the deadline for the submission of the operating budgets and plans, since every hospital in the province may well have to go back to the drawing board?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): It seems to me that the member's question is premised on an assumption and projection of what the announcement with respect to transfer payments is going to be. I think the Treasurer's been very clear that no decision has been taken and that the review that's being undertaken is certainly being done in light of the fiscal situations that have been put forward.

Any of the timing questions with respect to what we expect of the hospitals around operational guidelines, around any of those issues, are things that I'm certainly willing at any time to sit down and talk about with the hospital association as to what's a reasonable approach.

Mrs Sullivan: The Minister of Health knows, because she set the rules, that the hospitals have to have their plans into her office 12 days from today. She should have been in touch with them long before this. Hospitals have few alternatives if their payments from the province are lower than 2%. The Treasurer indicated yesterday that they may well be lower than 2%.

Hospitals' alternatives? They can cut beds, they can cut staff, they can reduce services, they can decide not to replace broken or damaged equipment. They will also have increased costs. The minister knows that full well. There are arbitrated settlements outstanding for 35,000 hospital employees, with 40,000 nurses yet to come, and the minister has promised that health care services will be preserved and that medicare will not be put at risk.

The Minister of Health should be telling the hospitals if she is going to be making the judgement, providing the guidelines, the directions and the instructions on where hospitals will have to cut to meet reduced revenues. Will she spell out to every hospital and to every person in Ontario what hospital services will be available and what hospital services must be eliminated?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises the issue with respect to changing the deadline on the submission of operational guidelines as if this is the first time it's been talked about or as if I'm unaware of the issue. I've had direct discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association about this issue. It was raised in the question-and-answer period at their annual convention, which I spoke to. I understand full well that if decisions taken by cabinet cause hospitals to go back to the drawing board, they will require more time to work with their partners, in terms of the unions and district health councils they have to consult with. That would be an obvious consequence of any changed decision.

What I've said to the member, echoing the Treasurer's statements here in the House and to the media, is that a decision has not been taken with respect to confirming or not confirming the projected transfer payment announcement. The question she's asking me is premature. I do, however, understand the concern she raised, that if that eventuality came about we would have to address those concerns.

Mrs Sullivan: There has not been adequate discussion with the hospitals on what would happen if the province were to transfer less than 2% to them. They have been planning, ever since the Treasurer made that announcement, for a 2% increase this year and a 2% increase next year. There has been no discussion about what would happen and how the province and the hospitals would deal with a transfer of less than 2%. That is nonsense.

Within the past couple of weeks the Treasurer met with the Ontario Hospital Association and told the hospitals that they've been doing a fine job over the past year coming to terms with the 1% transfer of last year and with the restructuring they've had to go through. I agree with that. I further agree that the hospitals have met, and are really attempting to meet, demanding planning standards that have been put in place by the Minister of Health to cope with service delivery for the coming year, including making wrenching decisions about staff cutbacks. They've worked with your government.

I'm asking the Minister of Health, what kinds of incentives will she provide to the hospitals to work with her again when she's changing the rules not only in midstream, but when the boat's already in port? How will the hospitals ever be able to trust this minister and this government again? There's no trust left.

1400

Hon Ms Lankin: The member, in the third supplementary, twists the answer I gave to the second supplementary. I specifically said we had had discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association about what would be an inevitable delay in the deadline for the submission of reports and plans from the operational guidelines if there was a change with respect to the announcement that the Treasurer is hoping to make near the end of this month.

I made no assertion that there had been full or lengthy discussions with the hospitals on how to plan for anything other than the projected transfer payment announcement that had come out, so it's nonsense to suggest that I said that and then to decry that's not true. It's not what I said.

I think the member acknowledges there has been a tremendous effort of all the parties in the health care sector to work through very difficult fiscal times and to have rigorous planning exercises, and to continue down that road would be my intention. I would obviously say if there is any change in the course of what we expect of hospitals, we would have to sit down and undertake exactly what the member suggests. She is premature, though, because no decision has been made.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Education. Today is the ninth time in two years that I've asked your government to coordinate a nutrition program in our schools. Six months ago, you said you'd be making an announcement soon. I believed you, so I waited and thousands of children waited. Over a month ago I asked the same question again, for the eighth time, and you said, "Very shortly."

Minister, we now know that 1.1 million children in this country live below the StatsCan definition of the poverty line. Our children can't afford to wait any longer for you to get your act together. When will you be announcing that all Ontario children will have a nutrition program in their schools?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I appreciate the question from the leader of the third party. I want to say to him that we continue to work on this, together with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which has lead responsibility for this issue within the government. I remain very much committed, as we all do on this side of the House, to proceeding with this as quickly as possible.

We have been holding some discussions with school boards very recently to look at the experiences where programs are already in place. I know that through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, discussions have also been held with a variety of other groups within the last little while, and I expect all of that information is going to come together over the next little while. I realize this is taking longer than any of us would have wanted it to, but I can tell the member opposite that the commitment is there and the will is there to proceed with this as quickly as possible.

Mr Harris: It's been two years since I started raising this issue and I've been getting the same answer for two years. Over a year ago, I put forward a resolution in this House calling for nutrition programs, which received all-party support. I have visited schools in Toronto that already have a nutrition program. I've met with teachers, nutritionists and parents on this issue. My caucus included it as part of A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, which was New Directions, volume two.

I have done everything I know to push your government to act on this issue and you have done nothing. Why is it that a higher priority is more power for Bob White, a higher priority for your government is casinos, a higher priority for the NDP is developing and implementing new lottery games, a higher priority is 62 new ways to rip every last nickel out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this province? You've got all those studies, you've got all that time, but you have done nothing for hungry children going to school. Can you explain that to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I disagree fundamentally with the comment opposite that we've done nothing for hungry children. I think we would all agree there is a lot more that could be done and I think we're interested in doing that. I think, however, that through the work my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has been undertaking, in fact a number of significant improvements have already happened outside of the school sector. There is very clearly an interest on our part in moving on this.

We know there is also disagreement out there. I think this is something the leader of the third party would also acknowledge, if he were to put partisanship aside, that there are also disagreements out there about how we should proceed with this, and in some cases, whether we should proceed with this. But I think we've been clear in saying that we want to do that, that we want to proceed, and what we are trying to do is to find the best way to make this work.

Mr Harris: This government seems to think that before anything can be brought in, it needs an interministerial committee, a study, a task force, and that you have to throw more money at it to solve the problem. We have more than a million people now on welfare, we have more and more people depending on food banks and more and more people living in shelters. Minister, government handouts or more money or more bureaucracy is not the answer to every problem.

There are parents, there are teachers and there are private sector businesses willing to help and donate. My program, which I gave to you two years ago, could have begun that day. It could start tomorrow at little or no cost to the taxpayer with a little cooperation and a little leadership from the Premier and from all 130 of us in this Legislature.

What I want to know is why your government has, obviously, with all the other hundreds of priorities, reneged on its promise to help feed hungry children in our schools.

Hon Mr Silipo: Trying very much to stay above the partisan fray in this one, because I think I agree with those comments the member opposite has made that indicate the seriousness of this matter, I think what I would say to him is that he knows full well that there really is nothing that prevents people from continuing to work on this issue and continuing to develop programs.

The issue he's put before us is how we can be of assistance in helping this kind of initiative develop and be entrenched throughout the province. I think we've said very clearly that we are in favour of doing that and we are continuing to work on the best way to put that in place. I for one am not particularly happy about the fact that it's taking us as long as it has, but I think we're sincere in our efforts to try to put this together in the best way possible.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding market value assessment for Metropolitan Toronto. Mr Minister, on November 3, I asked you in the House to begin public hearings on this issue immediately. Now it's over two weeks later and you still haven't begun public hearings. In fact, you haven't even given a commitment that you will have public hearings. I understand you plan on introducing this legislation either today or tomorrow. Will you also announce now that you plan to begin public hearings immediately?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): First of all, I will be introducing the legislation today. The House leader for the third party will understand that when Metropolitan Toronto passed the resolution with its interim tax plan, that was simply a resolution. Then a formal request had to be made to the province. That was into the Thursday of the following week, so that was a week. Then a policy discussion had to ensue and the announcement was made and the legislation was drafted. Legislation is not drafted overnight; it takes some time to go through the approvals process. In fact, on what is a subject that is very controversial, the legislation is ready in very quick time.

I have indicated to the House leader for the third party in House leaders' meetings that this government will not stand in the way of public hearings. We never have and we never will.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This issue demands public hearings. The interests of the taxpayers, whether residential or commercial, are at stake. They deserve the right to have their say on the issue. The hearings that were held at the municipal level were not on this plan. In fact, according to the media reports, what you intend to do is to introduce a lot more than enabling legislation. Minister, we demand public hearings immediately. Just tell us when you will begin and how long they will last.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll be discussing the matter with the House leaders tomorrow. I've already had one discussion. It's not as if we haven't talked about this at all. I certainly think we should get second reading of the bill dealt with as quickly as possible and have public hearings before the House adjourns at Christmas. Then this matter will go back to Metropolitan Toronto, because all this bill does is give Metropolitan Toronto the same power that every other municipality has in the province. It's their decision. It should be their decision. That's what this bill will do, give the power to Metro Toronto, just like every other municipality in the province already has.

1410

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The Municipal Affairs minister knows full well it's not the same power everybody else has. Why do you say that? If it were just the same power as everyone else had, you wouldn't have to bring legislation forward to amend it. Why are you telling me it's the same power as everyone else has? It's not the same power. It's not the same deal. You know it's not the same deal. You know it doesn't fall under section 63 or section 70. It's different.

You should be bringing legislation before this House, and you know full well that while you've been dilly-dallying for two weeks, you could have had public hearings. The public knows what the deal is. We know what the deal is. You're simply drafting it up in legal form.

The question that needs to be put to you, Mr Minister, is, why can't you have public hearings on this issue, beginning immediately? This committee doesn't have to travel. All those concerned citizens are within the Metro region. It can be held here, in this building, in a very short period of time. It's not special powers. Everyone knows what the deal is. We know what your position in opposition was. Why can't we do that in the very near future?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I'm about to say scares the heck out of me: I agree with the member. I hope that between the three House leaders, we can get this bill dealt with for second reading and begin the public hearings on this next week.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, in January of this year, your colleague the Treasurer issued a statement. In that statement, referring to all the major transfer partners of the province -- hospitals, schools, colleges, universities and municipalities -- he said, "To help plan the reform and restructuring that must take place in each of these sectors, I am today announcing their funding levels for the next three years... For each of the two following years" -- to the one we're in now -- "transfer agencies will receive a 2% increase."

I say to the minister, you served on a school board. You were a chair of a school board. You know the need for proper planning. You know the need to be able to count on the province to provide the funding that it has promised. You also know of the tremendous pressures school boards are under today. My colleague from Nipissing has noted the need for a nutrition program. You're going into destreaming, junior kindergarten, a whole host of programs that need funding.

Minister, will you commit here and now that the school boards of this province are going to receive a 2% increase in transfer payments for next year?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the Treasurer has answered that question already, when he was asked yesterday. It's interesting and useful that the rounds are being made of all the ministers in the sectors. Obviously, the announcement will be made by the Treasurer in due course. What I can tell the member opposite is that all the concerns he's outlined today are all concerns that clearly we are aware of and that clearly are part of the discussions we're having and will be reflected in the decision that's made.

Mr Beer: It's a delight to know that you're talking, you're concerned, you're consulting, but what boards need to know, what parents need to know, what the school population of the province needs to know is, will the educational system be adequately funded for next year according to the promises that you and your government have made?

If you're not prepared to commit to the promise on the transfer payments, then what about capital? It has already been noted that you had made commitments around a nutritional program on many occasions. I have risen in this House and in estimates to ask you, on at least three or four occasions, when you were going to announce the next capital funding allocation. As recently as October, you said by the end of October. Again, Minister, school boards are waiting, and by waiting, it means that kids are still in portables, that plans can't be done.

Minister, will you commit to a specific date before the House rises prior to the Christmas recess when you will stand in this House and tell us what the capital allocations will be? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Silipo: The capital announcement is scheduled for tomorrow in this House.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm going to follow up my colleague the member for York North's question to the Minister of Education. Mr Minister, you've just announced that the capital grants will be announced tomorrow to the school boards, and that's good news because school boards are in the business of planning and this government isn't.

I would like to ask you, with regard to the questionnaire that you sent out on implementation of debenture financing, whether any of the information that you did receive from the school boards in this regard will have any impact on how you're going to make that announcement tomorrow and whether or not you're going to do it in a new manner.

Hon Mr Silipo: No, there have not been any decisions made with respect to the issue that the member raises with respect to any possible move to debenture financing, so the announcements will be made in the normal course of events. Obviously, they're subject to any changes that we might make in the way in which we might fund projects, but I think what's clear and what I want to be clear about is that there has never been any intention in the process to do anything other than continue to fund projects.

In other words, even if we were to go to a debenture system, we would be, through that system, continuing to pay the borrowing costs and the costs on an annual basis that would be the equivalent of the provincial grant. So there is no reduction in any way, whatever format we would use, of a commitment of funding from the provincial end.

Mrs Cunningham: With regard to the response that the minister has just made and the servicing costs that his government is prepared to pay, he should know that any announcement that he makes tomorrow, because he has waited so long -- traditionally we would have these announcements in the spring of the year -- that no school board will be able to get through the process of approvals so that they in fact can build new schools by next September.

I am going to ask the minister right now if, because of the statement coming so late and these announcements being made so late in the school year, he will be making recommendations to his staff that the approvals process could be speeded up so that schools can be built and opened in September 1993 for the students who have been waiting for so long.

Hon Mr Silipo: I think the member would know that the announcement that we are talking about, the funding that we're talking about, relates to the 1995-96 allocations, and certainly there are approvals that would have to be carried out. I don't see any problem in looking at whatever we can do to speed up the approvals process. I think that would make absolute sense, and certainly we would do that.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It's been about two years since the GATT negotiations were scheduled to end. They were scheduled to end in December 1990. For nearly a year now, the GATT negotiations have appeared to be in a state of complete deadlock because of a failure of the European Community and the United States to resolve their differences in regard to agriculture and subsidies. Recent press reports indicate that the EC and the US are now close to resolving the differences that they have.

I would like to know what chances there might be, and what changes there might be in the chances, of resuming those negotiations very shortly, or are we headed, as some of us fear, into an all-out agricultural trade war? I wonder what you could tell the producers in my riding of Norfolk to let them know what the feedback is that you're getting right now from the federal counterparts at this point in time.

1420

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I want to thank the member for his question. Indeed I get that question from a number of farmers across the province: What is the future of the GATT negotiations?

First off, I would like to reassure the members in the House and the farmers in the province that Ontario and Canada indeed still have the same position in terms of the GATT negotiations. We still support supply management, the clarification of Article XI, and we still support the reduction of export subsidies for grains.

We have some concerns about what the United States has done in imposing tariffs on some European Community products in terms of wine, rapeseed oil, wheat gluten which they intend to bring in on December 5. We are concerned that may lead to an all-out trade war.

We do have reason to be optimistic in terms of the GATT talks. One of the reasons -- notwithstanding what's in the newspaper, because there's some optimism being expressed in newspaper stories -- but the fact that Mr MacSharry has returned to be part of the GATT talks would suggest to us at least and the federal minister, whom we met with yesterday, that there's some optimism about having a successful conclusion to the GATT talks.

Mr Jamison: I know we're all very hopeful that these kinds of concerns that deal directly with the welfare of our rural communities, the future, the whole economic fabric of our rural communities indeed -- but we have the federal government negotiating, and if I look at history, I don't have a great reliance in the federal government negotiating any trade pact.

My question is, how would Ontario in fact respond if the GATT agreement on agriculture is signed shortly?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's difficult to respond to an agreement where we don't know what's in the agreement. But it is useful to let everyone know that there is in fact a plan. The ministers of agriculture from across the country met in Toronto in the last two days and that was one of the issues we talked about: What if there is a GATT agreement, and how will we work on implementation?

All the ministers agreed on four or five principles that we would start to work on right away. One of the things we agreed to was that provincial and federal governments would assess jointly the impact of the GATT agreement that's signed. We agreed, again jointly, to develop a set of principles we would use to design an implementation process. We also decided to work on efforts to define or decide on opportunities we would have to export as well as open up our markets and, finally, we agreed to assess the support programs for farmers jointly between governments.

We believe that by working with the farm industry, the farm leaders, the food industry and other levels of government we can implement any GATT deal that's brought in successfully and will be good for agriculture here in Ontario and in Canada.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the minister -- actually for the Premier, but he's not here, he's off in Asia -- so I have this question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The minister will remember that in the latter part of 1991 I brought to the attention of the government the fact that there was a good possibility there would be a closing of General Motors operations somewhere in the province of Ontario, and I mentioned specifically the foundry and engine plant in St Catharines.

He will know that in February of this year, General Motors announced that the foundry would be closing and that one of the engine lines would be closing down, and there had already been an announcement of 750 indefinite layoffs, which usually means permanent layoffs. That's 3,000 jobs lost in the auto industry in one community, the community of St Catharines.

With the purge of corporation executives that has taken place in the United States, it is clear now that this means that the proposed cuts General Motors had announced (a) will come faster and (b) will be more drastic than those announced by Mr Stempel.

Would the minister tell the House what personal representations the Premier of Ontario has made to the top executives of General Motors in Detroit in an effort to persuade them to keep all of their operations in Ontario open so that workers in St Catharines, Oshawa, London and Windsor can be assured that the top gun in the province of Ontario is personally handling this problem and trying to prevent those job losses?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): We've appointed a full-time person, my former deputy, Mr Tim Armstrong, to work with the auto industry --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): All the Premier does is leave town.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, it's very hard to be heard over the member for Oriole. If she'd at least like to listen, then I'll give an answer.

We've been working closely with Mr George Peapples, the chairman of GM of Canada, who also serves on the Premier's advisory council, and I'm also a member. We recognize that there are some 5,500 auto jobs in the St Catharines area and we're concerned about those jobs. We have been doing some very specific things to make the auto industry more competitive, things that should have been done under the Liberals.

For example, my colleague the Minister for Skills Development announced an $18-million program --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: -- on skills development to make the auto industry more competitive. That's the kind of thing that will go a long way when it comes to GM deciding where the plants are going to close and how it's going to rationalize its operations.

Mr Bradley: I have a list of plant closings in the province of Ontario which goes several pages and indicates clearly that whatever policy you are developing so far hasn't worked.

The minister will know that when the Premier visited the city of St Catharines this summer, it was reported in the St Catharines Standard, an impeccable source, that he told a group, including the Save the Foundry Committee, and I quote the following:

"Ontario Premier Rae said, 'It is an illusion to think General Motors will change its mind on closing its St Catharines foundry and killing 2,300 jobs. No company in the world could lose $4 billion like GM last year and not make changes. This idea that somehow government can solve the problem or that we can get General Motors -- or any government can get General Motors -- to do something totally different is an illusion.'"

Given that General Motors will be aware of what the Premier had to say, given that General Motors will be aware that the Premier appears to have rolled over and played dead on saving the foundry, will the minister place a telephone call to the Premier of the province of Ontario today and ask him to come home from the Far East to deal with what is obviously a genuine and real and immediate crisis in the auto industry in the province of Ontario so that we can be assured, not that a deputy minister or a former deputy minister or a minister is dealing with this, but that, as in the United States, where the governors deal with this, in this country the Premier, the top person in this province, will deal with the top person in General Motors to save those jobs?

Hon Mr Philip: I think what the people of Ontario want is the truth and that's what the Premier of Ontario has told the people of Ontario. He's been realistic in his assessment. His assessment is consistent with other analyses done of the auto industry.

Mrs Caplan: You have to do something. You can't let this happen.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please come to order.

Hon Mr Philip: What the people of Ontario want is the truth and I think the Premier told the truth to the people of Ontario and told them exactly the state of the auto industry, and that's what the people want. They don't want the doom and gloom, the foam and fume of the opposition that we hear day after day.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: Are you going to bring order so that I may answer, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: It would be helpful if the members in the opposition would allow the minister to complete his response, and I'm sure he can do it quite succinctly.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for St Catharines said that all he hears about is closings. He doesn't mention, though, that Ford Motor invested $2 billion, the largest investment of any auto company anywhere in the world in one place, and it invested here in Ontario. He doesn't mention that GM on July 13 announced that its Oshawa 2 plant had been awarded production of the 1994 Chevy Lumina.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: He doesn't mention that GE is moving a number of its major operations into Ontario, because he doesn't want to hear good news. He only wants the doom and gloom for his own partisan, political purposes. That's what he wants to hear, not the truth from the Premier.

1430

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services, I must say at the outset. In September I raised issues about the Syl Apps centre and about overcrowding at closed- and open-custody young offender facilities in this province. I direct the minister to the November 2 Hansard in this House.

It has come to my attention that York detention centre here in downtown Toronto, which is rated with 36 beds for young offenders, had 47 children in that facility on the weekend, of which quite a few have been forced to sleep on the floor in that facility. The boys' unit, which has been a boys' unit for many years, has 19 beds. Of the 27 who have been jammed into that one unit, six young girls are also in that unit.

As a result of this serious overcrowding situation, even though there are 18 empty beds at Syl Apps in Oakville, a decision was made under the cover of darkness last night to move four young offender girls into an adult women's prison here in the city of Toronto. I ask the minister, are you aware of the decision that was made, did you approve of this decision to put these young girls into your jail and, if you're not aware of it, what are you doing about it?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm aware, obviously, of the overcrowding issues that exist across the system and in particular in the Metro area. With regard to young offenders, we have a surplus of beds in the overall system, but, again, in specific locations, particularly in the Metro area, we do find ourselves with a shortage. We are dealing with that as best we can. We are looking at moving people more often to other facilities.

The honourable member will know this is not something that is done lightly and it's not something we like to do, because it does move young offenders further away from their homes, from their communities, from the centres, from the courts and from services.

The specific incident that happened last evening I am not aware of. I will follow up and I will get back to the member.

Mr Jackson: Minister, for your information, these four young offenders were transferred to the Vanier facility here in Metro Toronto at 7:15 last night. I've had several conversations with staff and others associated with this transfer, and what is completely distressing here is that they failed to advise you and your office of this incident and that the child advocates, who are allegedly, under the law, there to be able to protect these individuals, have been denied access.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: I'd appreciate it if the former Correctional Services minister would allow the minister to receive this question. It's a serious matter.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I'll bet you would.

Mr Jackson: I am asking the question. I wanted the undivided attention of the minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member place his question through the Chair, please.

Mr Jackson: I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that under the protocols in your prisons, those girls were denied access to the phone call of the advocate. These girls, in tears, have talked to one advocate. They've been threatened and they want out of that facility. One of these young ladies has never been in closed detention before. The Attorney General of this province and the police will not put adult offenders and child offenders in the same holding cell in a court --

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Jackson: -- and you have them locked up in a jail in this city. I ask you, Minister, to get on the phone and get this resolved today, and get those four children out of that facility. When you have 18 beds at Syl Apps in Oakville sitting there doing nothing, no wonder the Minister of Community and Social Services isn't in the House today.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Obviously, I will of course discuss the matter with my colleague from Comsoc. But let me say once again that obviously an issue like this that's raised in the House will be followed up.

Let me also say that it is not unusual for an incident that happened last evening with regard to transfers of individuals. That's an operational matter and I think the honourable member would know that, with 50 institutions across the province, it is the policy that these decisions are made by the superintendents and it is not possible for a minister. I think the member knows that. I will take what he has said, review the matter very promptly and get back to him.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. My riding of London South is located in a university city. This is one reason I want to ask you, Minister, about our government's outlook on the income-contingent repayment plan. I understand that this is a plan to amend the student loan plan so that a student's repayment of financial assistance is determined by the student's future income level.

I also appreciate that under a contingent repayment plan the means test for receiving a public subsidy is shifted from the student's parents to the student as graduate. The rate of repayment would depend on how high a level of income the graduating student will earn in his or her chosen field.

The Council of Ontario Universities has spoken of contingent repayment plans as a way of promoting greater access to higher education and maintaining excellence in an affordable university system. Minister, how actively is your ministry considering implementing an income-contingent repayment plan?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): It is not just the Council of Ontario Universities. As recently as yesterday, a new student organization in Ontario, holding a media conference in this very place, made reference to its interest in an income-contingent loan repayment plan, which can be otherwise interpreted as a progressive way of debt management for students upon graduation.

Certainly there has been a need for some time to have a better way for students to be able to handle the debt they build up in post-secondary education. The research that has been done to date indicates this can be a viable plan. Indeed, our own ministry has been very active over the past year in funding some research on simulation models to see how well they might be applied in the Ontario case. Two principal difficulties face us.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Allen: The question of debt management is always an important matter for any one of us, and I think it's important to address it for students. The difficulties facing that kind of plan are, first, that the upfront money required to put it in place is very expensive, and, second, that you have to have access to income tax techniques and revenues in order to get a repayment system geared to income going.

Mr Winninger: The opposition may not be entirely interested in the future of higher education in Ontario --

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Tell him it is our plan, Mr Minister.

Mr Winninger: -- but I wonder, Minister, how soon a contingent repayment plan, such as guaranteed Ontario assisted loans for students, might replace our current Ontario student assistance program.

Mrs Cunningham: Come to my meeting on the 28th, David.

Hon Mr Allen: The member for London North is very interested in this question because the same university that the member has in his riding is also very close to hers. The answer to that question as to how soon is not exactly in my hands. In order to implement this, as I said, it's important to have access to the Department of National Revenue and its income tax computer system as a means of collecting the repayment plan from students. To be able to control the federal dollars that go into student loan programs today is also a necessity. It is necessary to work this out with the federal government.

Currently, I have a working group which represents my ministry, the Treasurer's ministry, the Department of National Revenue and the office of the Secretary of State federally working on this very project. It will require the recruitment of some other provincial ministers to come on board, but at the end of the day I think we can devise a progressive scheme. If other people will support it, we can get on with it. But I can't make that answer unilaterally.

1440

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the acting --

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member for London South imputed a motive to the caucus of the Conservative Party vis-à-vis the issue of the income-contingent loan repayment plan. I would ask him to withdraw that. At the same time, I would ask a page to send over New Directions.

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader take his seat, please. The member does not have a point of privilege.

Mr Harris: Page 22 will tell him and the minister how to implement an --

The Speaker: Would the leader please take his seat. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I suppose now that my question and the answer from the minister are going to have to use up the remaining eight and a half minutes.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation regarding a bill I think he's become very familiar with over the past couple of days, Bill 92, the private member's bill I put forward, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

I've heard rumours flying all over the hall. I heard yesterday that the House leader received clearance -- I'm not sure whether it was from the Orient or where -- to proceed with this. I heard today that the bill would be introduced for second and third reading tomorrow. Then I heard that the minister was on a media show today saying that he was thinking of changing the age in the bill from 18 to 16 and that perhaps it could be done by regulation instead of legislation.

I don't know what's going on here, but I can only tell you that every phone-in radio talk show in the province is talking about this, every media outlet is talking about this, every parent is talking about this, every retailer is talking about this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And your question?

Mr Mahoney: They want to know --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you have an opportunity to do something about this, and all the House leader can do is act like a smart-aleck about it.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Look who is talking, for God's sake: Mr Steve Ego.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: My question to the minister is, are you prepared to grant unanimous consent today to bring Bill 92 on to the floor of the Legislature this afternoon so we can stop kids from spending their lunch money on gambling in their corner stores?

Hon Ed Philip (Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Only that member would have such an ego to think that the most important thing in the world is his private member's bill.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Look who's talking.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, stand back. His head may explode.

Mr Eves: No wonder you don't wear a hat, Ed. None will fit.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You are too much.

The Speaker: Order. Surely the last thing we want to do is to compare egos. Would the minister please respond.

Hon Mr Philip: I've always been nice to him. I sent him a can of moustache wax for Christmas last year and he doesn't seem to appreciate it.

We are prepared to move ahead with this bill. There are ways in which legislation moves ahead. I've asked that we deal with the bill before the House adjourns. I think that it is up to the House leaders to schedule the bill in an orderly way.

There are some concerns which I think we should debate openly, as with any bill and as with any private member's bill; namely, should it be, as some people have suggested, age 16 or age 18? I haven't made a decision on that. We have had legal opinions as to whether or not there could be a charter challenge. The legal opinion by the Attorney General is that the bill would be in keeping with the charter. There are a number of issues like that which we are looking at.

We're also concerned about how you implement the bill. Should it be implemented in a different way than we presently implement our regulations concerning the fact that you're not allowed to sell to young people, or are there other ways in which we should implement it? We do not want to have a bill that will impose an unnecessary, excessive reporting system on merchants.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Philip: Those are issues which I'm sure the member would want to discuss in private members' hour, or whenever the bill is introduced.

The Speaker: Could the minister please take his seat.

Mr Mahoney: I'm not interested in this going to private members' hour. We and the public in Ontario, more than on any issue I've ever seen, are interested in this becoming law immediately.

Don't give me all this cockamamy stuff about charter challenges. If some lawyer wants to challenge a kid's right to gamble in the corner stores let him do so, because that leads to challenging his right to drive a car before the age of 16 or to buy booze in a bar before the age of 16 --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Or 19.

Mr Mahoney: Whatever, 19, that's right, or to buy cigarettes. I said this before: Maybe what we should do is lower the eligibility age for cabinet. Maybe we'd get somebody with some brains over there who would deal with this.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Mahoney: Even the kids understand how serious this is. The kids understand.

Minister, don't start dithering on this. This is not a personal problem. This bill should have the names of 130 members of this Legislature on it -- not my name; every member of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: I hope you're going to bring this bill in by unanimous consent and have a recorded vote and support the bill.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat. Does the member have a supplementary? If so, please place it quickly.

Mr Mahoney: Minister, will you support this bill being brought in with unanimous consent this afternoon so we can stop kids from gambling their money away in this province?

Hon Mr Philip: I'm sure the member, who never made it into a cabinet when his own party was in government, has a lot of ideas about the qualifications for cabinet ministers.

We will proceed with the bill.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

We've been watching for some time now the frustration, at least on this side -- I know the member for Leeds-Grenville has been observing the answers given by the Solicitor General on the problems of increasing crime in this province, the lack of funding to the police, the increasing sexual assaults that are taking place and the violent crimes that are increasing.

Madam Minister, you are the minister who is in charge of the Ontario Film Review Board. The Ontario Law Reform Commission released a report last week recommending that the Ontario Film Review Board change its role to one of only classifying films and do away with censorship. Do you agree with the law reform commission's views of stripping the power from the Ontario Film Review Board to censor or prohibit certain films from being shown in Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, it's important to remember -- I just read the report a few days ago myself -- that the commission does not suggest that restrictions of certain types of pornographic materials aren't necessary. They are saying that they've made a whole series of suggestions, and you can't take any one of those out of context. They all have to be dealt with in context.

My view is that the report says there may be more effective ways for government to restrict these images than through the film review board. I believe that although the report provides examples, several of them, as to how that may be done, we have to have a very careful analysis of whether or not it would work. The law report did not specify and did not do an analysis of its ideas, whether or not they would be better or worse or about the same.

Mr Tilson: The commission is simply saying that all it is going to do is classify films. They're essentially doing away with censorship, and that is the question I asked of you.

Violence in Ontario is spiralling upwards faster than the police or anyone else can do to control it. Certainly, your government and the Solicitor General are doing absolutely nothing to solve this problem.

My question to you is, when are you and when is the Solicitor General going to show some leadership in this province and become part of the solution instead of ignoring the problem?

Hon Ms Churley: Certainly, I've already said in this House that some of the recommendations made in this report have already been suggested by me to the film review board. They are going to be reporting back to me in the very near future about some of the very recommendations that were made in this report. That involves more information pieces, the information pieces being larger, and we're looking at labelling, particularly the pornographic material.

I certainly will say categorically to you today, no, I don't support at this time just adopting this report. We have to do an analysis of the suggestions in it. I'm not about to do anything that drastically changes the mandate of this board without analysing if another system would work better or the same or what.

Certainly, we don't want, I don't want child pornography out there, slasher films, the kind of horrible stuff that comes to the board. So, no, of course, at this point we have to do an analysis, and we're not about to make drastic changes. We are in fact in the process of making information to people more available at this time.

1450

PETITIONS

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they should unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security;

"Whereas the proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of citizens and the communities the police officers are sworn to serve and protect;

"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and

"Whereas we in the union, with the spouses of Ontario police officers, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province;

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

"That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and

"That this NDP administration, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I've also affixed my signature to this petition, which has got thousands of names on it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to introduce a petition on behalf of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. It states:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here expressing opposition to Bill 38. It has 72 signatures of people from my riding in Mississauga East, from Etobicoke and from Toronto and surrounding areas.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region;

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many constituents of mine and to which I have also affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 40 residents of the county of Middlesex, including the villages of Lambeth, Dorchester and Thamesford, who petition the Legislative Assembly to set aside the report of arbitrator John Brant as it relates to the greater London area annexation, because that report does not reflect the expressed wishes of the residents of Middlesex for a reduced annexation and will jeopardize the agricultural land and viability of the county of Middlesex.

I have signed my name to this petition.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, which reads:

"Whereas the Ontario Lottery Corp has introduced the Pro Line sports lottery; and

"Whereas our young people are being encouraged to gamble on professional sports games; and

"Whereas this gambling has turned all lottery outlets into bookie joints, thereby legalizing gambling on professional sports;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the province of Ontario should immediately pass private member's Bill 92 to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to children."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereto.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metro Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region; and

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a second petition here from seven members of the riding of Middlesex who ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside Bill 38 and return Sunday to the list of legal and business holidays.

I've signed my name to this petition.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): This petition is now particularly important since the government has announced it's going to introduce the dastardly market value assessment plan.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metro Toronto council has passed an ill-conceived plan to bring in market value assessment in spite of the solid opposition of the city of Toronto; and

"Whereas we believe market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Metro Toronto is the wrong tax at the wrong time in the wrong place; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas, if the province changes legislation to deny the city of Toronto the right to determine our own method of property tax reform, Toronto home owners, tenants and businesses will in future be left to the mercy of regional government; and

"Whereas Toronto businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and our small businesses will be devastated by further increases; and

"Whereas city of Toronto residents account for 29% of Metro's population but Toronto taxpayers foot 40% of Metro's bills;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on the city of Toronto against the wishes of the people of Toronto and to allow each local municipality in Metro Toronto the autonomy to determine our own method of property tax reform in our own municipality."

I have signed this petition, both in accordance with the rules and because I wholeheartedly agree with it.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario.

"As a citizen of Ontario, I give my full support to our police officers in their stand against the NDP government's new regulation, use-of-force reporting, and therefore request the immediate resignation of the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, Ms Susan Eng. This petition is for the safety of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and its police officers, also regarding Ms Eng's lack of support for the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the chief of said police force, William McCormack."

I have signed and fully endorse this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature "to reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, to condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by residents of the county of Middlesex. I affix my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed my name to this petition.

1500

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I present a petition on behalf of the Hellenic Canadian Community of Ottawa and District.

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and will cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I present the petition, Mr Speaker.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed NDP use-of-force legislation requiring police officers to write a report whenever they unholster their pistols in anticipation of a situation of danger poses a potentially serious threat to their safety and security; and

"Whereas this proposed legislation also poses a grave threat to the safety and security of the citizens in their communities the police officers are sworn to serve and protect; and

"Whereas the police officers themselves are not being consulted in a meaningful way by the Rae administration concerning this proposed legislation that so seriously affects their safety on the front line of service to the public; and

"Whereas the union and the spouses of Ontario police officers support the health and safety concerns of the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: That Premier Bob Rae undertake to invite immediately representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns without setting any preconditions for such a meeting, and that this NDP administration, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, determine to exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I've affixed my signature, Mr Speaker.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "Whereas the Ontario Lottery Corp has introduced the Pro Line sports lottery; and

"Whereas our young people are being encouraged to gamble on professional sports games; and

"Whereas this gambling has turned all lottery outlets into bookie joints by legalizing gambling on professional sports;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the province of Ontario should immediately pass private member's Bill 92 to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets to children."

I have affixed my signature to this.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition is to the government of Ontario, specifically to the Premier and the Solicitor General.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police associations across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite" -- this is what it is -- "representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns." It's hard to believe you have to put a petition in just asking for a meeting.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have signed this as well because I believe that when you have to petition for a meeting it's a pretty sad day in this province.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the proposed imposition of market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto will result in increased business bankruptcies and job losses and will undermine economic recovery in the region; and

"Whereas it will cause a decline in commercial investment in Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the proposed market value reassessment value plan is an unfair location tax;

"That the provincial government declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the property tax assessment in Metropolitan Toronto until all alternatives to market value assessment have been studied and the results reported to the public."

This is signed by many members of my constituency and to which I affix my signature.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I also have a petition to the government of Ontario and it's signed by many thousands of people.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, support the health and safety concerns of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and other police officers across the province.

"We therefore join with the spouses of Ontario police officers in petitioning Premier Bob Rae to invite representatives of front-line police officers to a meeting to discuss their legitimate concerns.

"Surely this government, which in the past made health and safety one of its primary concerns, will exhibit the same concern about the lives of the men and women who police our communities as it does about the people who work in factories, offices and elsewhere."

I have also signed this.

ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The other day -- and I appreciate that you were not in the chair at the time -- the member for Ottawa South and the member for Parry Sound asked the Speaker for some direction in dealing with the standing committee on resources development and the witnesses who were supposed to attend there.

The request was essentially that the Speaker rule about whether to issue Speaker's warrants to compel witnesses to attend before that committee. That committee begins its deliberations after routine proceedings today, and we therefore need some direction so that these hearings can proceed properly and so that witnesses will attend and make these hearings realistic and accomplish the purpose that was set out as requested in standing order 125.

I wonder if you might be able to provide us with that direction or call upon the Speaker who was in the chair so that we can have this resolved before 3:30 today and so that we can begin our hearings properly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): As you know, the Speaker yesterday reserved his decision and he will deliver the decision as soon as possible.

Reports by committees.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Another point of order?

Mr Harnick: Yes, if I may. "As soon as possible" is really not very much help for us today because the committee is about to sit, probably in 25 minutes. I wonder if we could impose upon the Speaker who was in the chair to provide us with some direction now, because that committee is about to start sitting.

The Deputy Speaker: As mentioned before, the Speaker has the prerogative of doing all the research and then come out with a decision. He doesn't have the authority to tell the committee when to sit and where to meet. Perhaps I should not make a recommendation to you, but I believe I've said enough to you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 18th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Runciman presents the committee's 18th report. Do you have any comments to make?

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REASSESSMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES NOUVELLES ÉVALUATIONS DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

On motion by Mr Hampton, on behalf of Mr Cooke, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 94, An Act to amend certain Acts to implement the interim reassessment plan of Metropolitan Toronto on a property class by property class basis and to permit all municipalities to provide for the pass through to tenants of tax decreases resulting from reassessment and to make incidental amendments related to financing in The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin de mettre en oeuvre le programme provisoire de nouvelles évaluations de la communauté urbaine de Toronto à partir de chaque catégorie de biens, de permettre à toutes les municipalités de prévoir que les locataires profitent des réductions d'impôt occasionnées par les nouvelles évaluations et d'apporter des modifications corrélatives reliées au financement dans la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto

1510

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA

On motion by Mr Murdoch, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 95, An Act to revise the Law relating to the Protection of the Niagara Escarpment and the Surrounding Wetlands / Loi révisant la loi concernant la protection de l'escarpement du Niagara et des terres marécageuses environnantes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member have any statement?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): The bill repeals the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. The bill provides for the designation of the Niagara Escarpment and surrounding wetlands as a natural area. The designation can only be made if it is approved by each municipality within the area to be designated. Development in the natural area is prohibited unless approved by the municipality where the land is situated and assembled. If the natural boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment and the surrounding wetlands change, then the boundaries of the natural area can also be changed. The changes to the boundaries of the natural area must be approved by the municipalities affected and by this assembly.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Because of major concerns with respect to Bill 74 and its companion legislation, I'm going to request unanimous consent of the House to place a motion that would enable reconsideration of the House's motion of May 28, 1992, which required time allocation in committee of the whole House. I can put that motion to you so that unanimous consent can be considered. My motion would read:

"I move that the House reconsider its motion of May 28, 1992, with respect to Bill 74 and companion legislation and the consideration of Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110 should proceed according to the regular standing orders of the assembly."

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: Yes.

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: There's no unanimous consent.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Etobicoke West, you have the floor.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Interjection: No more.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, there's more. There's a lot more, as a matter of fact, Mr Speaker. Those lucky members across the floor are probably going to hear a lot about this sweetheart deal they cut with the islanders, probably more than they're going to want to hear, because you've just cut a deal where you've given those people on the island a deal for a house in the park that Metro pays for, for a buck a day. For 100 years they get a buck a day as their rent.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You said that 10 times yesterday.

Mr Stockwell: I said that 10 times; I'll say it 50 times. I'm going to keep saying it in committee, I'm going to say it in this House, because it's one of the most unbelievable affronts to the taxpayers in this province that you can suggest, considering you won both polls on the island, that you can pay these people off for 100 years, to give them rent on a house in a park on the island for a buck a day for 100 years.

In Metropolitan Toronto you can't even get on the bus and go to work for a buck a day, but if you happen to vote NDP, you happen to live on the island and you happen to want to live on an island in a park paid for by the taxpayers, your rent will be a buck a day for 100 years. Now that has got to be one of the sweetest deals that any government has ever cut with any citizens. I had a lot of phone calls about this, believe it or not, from yesterday --

Mr Mills: So did I.

Mr Stockwell: -- and a lot of the people who phoned me said, "I can't believe it, Mr Stockwell."

Mr Mills: You should hear what they say about it.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, do your best to control the member from Durham. I understand he's got a very intense interest in this. But what they told me was --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): How much is a lot, Chris? Is one a lot, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: Oh, there's Drummond. It's good to see you've opened your eyes. Good. Thank you.

They said to me: "How can I get one of those houses? What do I do to go about applying for one of those houses that costs a buck a day for 100 years that I can hand down to my children and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren?"

Some of those people were single mothers, some of them were seniors, some of them were people who were looking for a place to live and they're paying $500, $600, $700; some were presently paying upwards of $1,000 for their three and four children.

They said, "How do I go about getting one of these units?" I said, "You can't get them, because the only people who can live in those units are the people who happen to be living there at the time."

You know what else I did? I wanted to go through this list and I wanted to come up and just let all those people opposite and all the people in the province know exactly who's living on these islands, exactly who's going to be paying a buck a day, $30 a month, for 100 years.

You know, it's kind of interesting. I won't give any names, but I went through the assessment rolls and I found out some of the occupations. You have doctors living on the island for a buck a day for 100 years. You've got lawyers. Lawyers living on the island will pay a buck a day, $30 a month in rent, for 100 years. You've got councillors in the city of Toronto with NDP affiliation who are going to live on the island for a buck a day, $30 a month, for 100 years.

Mr White: Any Tory councillors?

Mr Stockwell: Funny, there weren't. There are teachers in the public school system who are on the island paying a buck a day, $30 a month, for 100 years. School principals -- and we all know how well school principals are paid these days. There are school principals on the island who are going to pay a buck a day for 100 years; never increase the rent. Funny enough that both these polls overwhelmingly voted for the sitting NDP member. You'd think that would have had something to do with it. I'm not sure.

Get this: academics. We've got university professors who are going to live on the island for 100 years, and their children will live there for a buck a day for ever. This is the tough, hard-nosed negotiated settlement that Mr Cooke --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): How many people are there, five million?

Mr Stockwell: Some 650 -- can you get that? -- 650 people live there. This is incredible: 650. I'm just listing you some of their occupations.

Hon Mr Pouliot: How long have they been there, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: There's another question coming from the Minister of Transportation: "How long have they been there?"

1520

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'd just like to remind the members, there's a period of two minutes afterwards given to you to address the debate and ask questions. In the meantime, I would ask you to refrain from heckling.

Mr Stockwell: I couldn't help but hear the last question, chiding me as if they've all lived there a long time. He said, "How long have they lived there?" I got the assessment rolls, Mr Speaker. Do you know that some of those people have lived there less than a year? Some of those people have lived there two years, three years, some a few months.

How come they got to live on the island? How come they get this deal? They were in the right place at the right time, because they were Johnnies-come-lately and they were squatters in our park, in the middle of a park. They arrived some few months earlier and they've got a lease for 100 years for a buck a day, 80 cents American. This is what it comes down to.

But I'm not finished. There are some other people on this list. The university professors I'll tell you about. University professors living on this island making very good money pay a buck a day for the rest of their lives as a rent. Civil servants who work in this province, whose income is guaranteed by the taxpayers -- now get this one: The taxpayers guarantee their wages and the salaries and then they're also going to guarantee their rent to live in the middle of a park at taxpayers' expense for a buck a day.

Therapists live on the island. Alpha Consultants is based on the island, which this group opposite tried to hire during the Constitution meetings, and you called them animators. You said they were animators, not consultants, and they would help you facilitate. These people live on the island and they're going to live there for a buck a day for 100 years. You'd think they had an in up here. Now, I wouldn't be so abrupt to say that they had an in up here, but you'd think they would, considering the deal they got: a buck a day for the rest of their lives, 100 years.

Psychologists, several businessmen, engineers, architects, all these people. We've got children who don't have a home; we've got single mothers; we've got seniors; we've got families in the streets, but we better house doctors, lawyers, teachers, consultants, therapists, civil servants, university professors on a buck a day for 100 years. That's Bob Rae's Ontario. That's his socialist Ontario at work. There's Bob Rae's Ontario. There's Floyd Laughren's Ontario. There's the socialists' Ontario: "We'll house these people for a buck a day for 100 years and we'll let all others be damned, stay on the streets. We don't mind."

So we've now had a government so morally and socially bankrupt that owed a debt of gratitude to two polls on the island. It had two polls help to elect one member and you're paying them off in spades. You're giving them thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars.

You know what I did? I went to my accountant and I asked him, "Gee, what would it be if we present-valued this rent?" He said that if you took $600 a month as an average rent, which I consider reasonable in a city the size of Metro Toronto, and said just assume the inflation rate of 4% a year -- they're still going to be in these homes in 2092 -- take that rent at $600, add 4% interest, you know what the rent would be in 2092? Their rent would be $28,000 a month. What will this government's action charge them? Only $30, a buck a day. If you took the $600 and factored in a 4% increase due to inflation, it would be $28,000 a month.

But these people voted NDP. So, since they voted NDP, we got a government that had to pay them off. No matter how socially corrupt, no matter how morally bankrupt, no matter how unfair and twisted this kind of decision is, they had to pay them off. Boy, they paid them off, I'll tell you. They paid them off as well as anybody's been paid off. I don't think anybody's been paid off like this by a government. Nobody.

I dare anyone to go out and find a house in the middle of a park with all the services provided that would rent to you for 30 bucks a month for 100 years. That's unbelievable.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): On the waterfront.

Mr Stockwell: On the waterfront.

They say this is an equitable and fair and rational decision to make on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. Shame on you, the deputy parliamentary assistant to the minister. You accepted this deal. This deal's a ripoff. Shame on you. You say you care about seniors. Why don't you fill the houses with seniors who are in need of rent, needing a place to stay for a buck a day? Shame on you. Because these people, the doctors and lawyers and teachers --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, these doctors and lawyers and principals and professors and therapists and consultants and psychologists and businessmen don't need --

Hon Mr Pouliot: And car dealers.

Mr White: Car dealers.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Curbsiders.

Mr Stockwell: This isn't funny, Mr Speaker. This isn't funny. It is unbelievable that you people would accept this. This is not funny. These people don't need a subsidy. These people --

Interjection: Stick to the truth then.

Mr Stockwell: The truth? What is the truth then? Let's hear you stand up and give me the truth. Get back to your seat and tell me the truth then. Go ahead.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind you to address your remarks to the Chair and perhaps you'll have less of a response from the --

Mr Stockwell: I apologize to you, Mr Speaker. It really infuriates me when I get heckling from the other side of the floor about such a despicable act as this. This underhanded backroom deal that you cut with the socialist élite on the island when people are dying for places to live, looking for accommodation, you could cut a deal like that with the socialist élite on the island for a buck a day, a buck a day for 100 years, and they say this is equitable and they say this is fair.

The people who called my office today after seeing the debate yesterday on television didn't think it was fair, didn't think it was equitable, didn't think it was reasonable. They thought it was a ripoff. They also thought that if they were going to spend this kind of money, they should spend it on those in need.

When I told them those people that were on the island included lawyers and doctors and teachers and professors and consultants and businessmen and psychologists, they were absolutely overwhelmed. Absolutely overwhelmed. This is at the very crunch of the issue. This is at the very basic underpinnings of the issue.

I am astounded, absolutely astounded, that these people would have the gall to heckle. I would be so embarrassed, absolutely embarrassed, if I were them that this was the deal that they cut when they claim at the same time to have a social conscience, looking out for those in need, when they've just given away 250 homes for 100 years for a buck a day.

The other fact that must be mentioned is that the same people that are on this island, the same people that are on this island that they just gave away these homes to, haven't paid rent since 1981. They haven't even paid their way since 1981. They've lived there for free and you've rewarded them for being squatters, for living there for free, with an agreement for 100 years at a buck a day.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Don't be so disrespectful to the islanders, please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, there are islanders who have been there from the beginning that I have respect for, but they're very few and far between. Most of those people since 1953, when this reared its head, have long since left. Most of the people who were there in the 1960s have left. Most of the people who were there in the 1970s have left.

This is a whole new breed of squatters who moved in when the opportunity provided itself and they've won the lottery at the expense of the taxpayers in the province of Ontario. That lottery says, when this minister announced his decision, that you could have this house on this property at great expense to the municipal taxpayer with fully serviced schools and policing and ferry and fire service for $30,000 for 100 years.

This is called the fair and equitable social conscience of our new socialist government. This is Bob Rae's Ontario. Don't worry about the single mothers. Don't worry about the families. I tell you that the difference between my province and the province you're running is that I wouldn't give lawyers, doctors, councillors, principals, professors, civil servants, therapists and businessmen a home on the island for a buck a day for 100 years.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Yorkview, order please.

1530

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I ignore them. I truly ignore what they have to say. I'd like the member for Yorkview to go back to his constituents and explain this deal to them. I understand the member for Fort York. These are his constituents, and he just got them in to win the lottery. I want you to go back to your constituents and explain this deal to them. How come they can't have this kind of housing for a buck a day for 100 years? Why don't you answer that to them? Why can't we give it to the single mothers who are looking for space? Why can't we give it to the senior citizens who need assistance? Why can't we give it to the unemployed or those on welfare? Why don't they deserve the opportunity? Why don't they get the opportunity to live on the island for a buck a day for the rest of their lives and sign a lease for 100 years?

You know, they don't want to debate the issue -- typical socialists. They want to talk about some federal program or they want to blame somebody else, but they don't want to talk about the issue of the day. And the issue of the day is an agreement you made with the islanders that is one of the most warped and dishonest agreements that has come down from this provincial Legislature that has benefited few at the expense of many. That's what this legislation does. It takes away parkland from three million citizens so you can pacify 650 vocal socialists on the island. That's what this issue does.

Don't talk to me about other governments. Don't talk to me about other programs. Talk to me about your legislation and the way you've benefited these 650 people like no one's been benefited before. Tell me about it. Tell me about the explanation as to why. Explain to me how these people got picked, these doctors, lawyers, and all those people who got picked to have this excellent treatment. Tell me how come it just so happens that on that special day, when some of them had only been there for months, they got to win the lottery and stay there?

Why are they allowed to transfer? Why are they allowed to sublet the houses? If they really wanted to live on the island, why do they need to sublet? Why? Because they want to live there, shouldn't they live there? Now they sublet and move off. Why do some of the people on the island treat it like a cottage? They don't even live there year-round. They treat it like a cottage.

This government today is allowing doctors and lawyers to have a cottage on the Toronto Islands subsidized by the taxpayers for a buck a day for 100 years, and they say that's fair and equitable. With all the people who are homeless, with everyone who needs a place to live, with single mothers, seniors and people on welfare, do you think it's reasonable to give a cottage to a doctor on an island for a buck a day for 100 years? That's a reasonable, socially motivating decision? I think not.

I don't think they even investigated this. I think they got this from Mr Johnston. Most of them didn't know the issue, and they just bought into this. They just said to themselves, "Oh, this must be a good idea."

Mr White: Eighty cents American.

Mr Stockwell: Eighty cents American, a buck a day Canadian, and they just bought into this. They just said, "Oh well, it must be a good idea." You didn't even think about who you mandated to do this study. You mandated Richard Johnston, an ex-member of this House, who was always in favour of the islanders staying, who was never respected --

Mr Mills: He was respected by everybody.

Mr Stockwell: -- never, ever respected by the Metropolitan Toronto council, which owned that land; never, ever respected in his position on the Toronto Island. Don't pretend he was, because he was never respected for his position on this issue.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You don't get a political hack to solve this problem.

Mr Stockwell: And this was a political hack, exactly. They brought in a political hack and gave him a very defined mandate, because he wanted them to stay for as little as possible, and told him to bring in an unbiased third-party report. What a joke. An unbiased, third-party report from the man who is on the record as a member of this government when in opposition as opposing any park-like setting for the Toronto islanders? This was supposed to be a reasonable approach to resolving this issue.

They suggested that Mr Johnston solve this problem in 60 days. Well, of course he solved it in 60 days. He gave the farm away. I could solve every problem in 20 days if I gave the farm away. That's no solution. That's a public ripoff. That's robbery without a gun. Of course he solved the problem in 60 days. Who couldn't? He gave these people houses in a park on the island with ferry, police, fire and school service for a buck a day for 100 years. You'd have to have rocks in your head to turn this down. Of course he solved it. Who couldn't solve it when you were going to give them this kind of deal?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I notice they're not here today.

Mr Mills: They're disgusted.

Mr Stockwell: Do you know what? You're embarrassed. You're absolutely embarrassed about this. You should be embarrassed about this. Your cabinet should be embarrassed and your backbenchers should be embarrassed that this is the kind of deal you did. This does not smack of the socialism and the fairness I heard NDP governments speak about. This smacks of exclusivity, this smacks of deal-making, this smacks of preferential treatment, this smacks of nothing but a government that is paying off a group of people that it felt it owed a debt to. That is what this smacks of.

The other part about this is that these are not needy people. These are not people who are in need. These are doctors and lawyers and so on. To really add insult to this whole debate, for goodness' sake, at one point in time during this island issue the leader of the New Democratic Party lived on the island. He lived there. He was your leader. He wasn't short of money. He didn't need a special place. He didn't need to be subsidized. For goodness' sake, he lived on the island, the leader of your party, and you're telling me people like him deserve a subsidy at the expense of the taxpayers for a buck a day for 100 years. Go sell that to your constituents.

It's a sham. They're not here. I'll tell you why they're not here: They're embarrassed. And you should be embarrassed.

This really bothers me. Of all the decisions you've done, this really bothers me, because I had people phoning me who have told me that the Toronto Islands should be park for everyone to use, for all three million constituents to use. Nobody should be able to have an exclusive right to live on that island, to use that island as his home. No one should ever be allowed to use a park as his home at the expense of millions and millions of constituents.

They said those people shouldn't be there. They never were supposed to be there. In 1953 they were being evicted by Metro, and most of those people left. All these people we're talking about today came later, and in some cases as recently as a year ago.

Mr Mills: He's full of it.

Mr Tilson: Come on, Gord.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham East --

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you, please, to address your remarks to the Chair. This is the third time I've asked you this.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, Mr Mills, the member for Durham East, suggests I'm full of it. It's really frustrating when something is as blatant as this ripoff. You tell the members opposite -- and you, Mr Speaker -- what these people do for a living, you tell them their professions -- you could probably give them their income levels -- and you tell them what a 100-year lease at $30,000 breaks out to per month -- $30 a month. You tell them they're in the middle of a park, you tell them about all the services the taxpayers will have to supply, you tell them it will cost $1 a day for them to live in this place, you tell them about all the people looking for housing in this city, and all you get back is, "You're full of it."

Clearly, this is not a chamber for debate, this is not a chamber for information, this is not a chamber to tell you or ask you to reconsider, considering the information that's brought forward. This is a place where you come in close-minded, regardless of the deal that's been cut, and tell other members they're full of it when the facts are staring you right in the face.

1540

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): What's frustrating is such blatant falsehoods.

Mr Stockwell: Blatant falsehoods? I challenge the member for Scarborough West. I'll go to Scarborough West, okay? We'll have a public debate about this in Scarborough West. I'll bring in my assessment rolls, I'll bring in the job rolls and I'll bring in the financing packages, and we'll go to Scarborough West and we'll have a debate in your riding. What I'd like to know is whether the people in Scarborough West, whose Metro councillors, I might add, voted en masse to make this a park, really believe that by giving doctors and lawyers and city councillors and teachers and principals and university professors and civil servants rent in a park on an island for a buck a day for 100 years is a good use of taxpayers' money. I'll be happy to.

Ms Swarbrick: And I guarantee you when I present the truth I'll have support.

Mr Stockwell: We'll see about the truth. I've been debating this issue for about 10 years now. I got the assessment rolls as they moved along. I got the assessment rolls year after year. I know who's moved in. I know who's moved out. I know how long these people have lived there. I have all that information. I also know what they're doing. They've applied and come before committees and told us what they do for a living. I've seen that. I have the building permits as to what improvements they've made in the homes because I sat on council when they needed our approval. I'll be happy to. I think this would be a really interesting debate.

I think it would be really intelligent for us to go out there and talk to the people directly and tell them exactly what benefits these people are getting, and then we'll let them decide. We'll let the public in Metropolitan Toronto which is going to have to pay the bill for these islands decide whether they think it's a good deal. You know what, Mr Speaker? These people are going to think it's such a good deal, they'll want the same deal. They'll want to move on to the islands. They will take this --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): What does your leader think?

Mr Stockwell: My leader doesn't support this. God. Mr Speaker, I think they've been in government about two years too long.

It's hard to believe, but that is a really encouraging thought. It's a really exciting thought that I will be allowed to go to Scarborough West and debate this issue with the member. I'm really excited about that because I think that'll be a really interesting debate. I think what you'll find is, most people don't know about this deal, and when they find out about the deal, they stare at you in shock. They don't believe you. They don't believe that someone get a 100-year lease for 30 bucks a month, a buck a day. They don't believe you.

Ms Swarbrick: And so they shouldn't.

Mr Stockwell: Let's hear from the member across. Unless I read the bill incorrectly, unless Mr Cooke announced it incorrectly, it's $30,000. As far as I know, it's $30,000. As far as I know, the top price is $40,000.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It's $36,000.

Mr Stockwell: Thirty-six thousand. That breaks down to about 30 bucks a month, or a buck a day.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's a lot of money where I live.

Mr Stockwell: It's a lot of money where you live. Thirty thousand dollars is a lot of money where I live, except that $30,000 is an investment to get you a place to live for 100 years. They'd call that a thief in Metropolitan Toronto. If you can get a place to live for $30,000 for 100 years, you've just fleeced somebody. That's a steal. You've just ripped them off.

Mr Tilson: That's better than rent control.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: The member suggests that's a lot of money where he lives, but I would even suggest that where he lives, in Manitouwadge, if you got a house to live in for 100 years for $30,000, I'm certain there are some residents who would jump on that deal as well.

Ms Swarbrick: What about the fact that they already own the homes?

Mr Stockwell: They don't own --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Will you stop the clock, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: No, I won't stop the clock. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I just heard from the member for Scarborough West that they own the homes. They don't own the homes. Every court in the land has said they don't own the homes. That's how much you know about this issue. Every court in the land has said it's Metro land. They can do what they want with it. There's no ownership. There's no ownership of the homes. That's the issue at issue here. That's why they spent 20 years in the courts fighting about this, because Metro Toronto said it owned the lands and therefore, if it owns the lands, it has the right to remove the homes. That was approved by every court, every level.

Shake your head all you want, but you can go check the minutes in Metropolitan Toronto council. Those are the decisions that were rendered by courts.

Clearly we have a disagreement here, and I'm going to be happy to go to Scarborough West to air it out. I think it'll be exciting. I think it'll be exciting for the member to find out exactly how her constituents feel about this issue and I think it'll be exciting for the constituents to find out just how out of touch the member for Scarborough West is with the real world and the real difficulty of finding a place to live for 30 bucks a month for 100 years.

This sickens me. I'll go on the record: This sickens me. It sickens me that a deal can be cut like this in the back room at the expense of the taxpayers and a 100-year lease can be given to people who are professionals and they can have it for a buck a day for 100 years.

I wash my hands. There's no getting through. Let this be on your heads. When people come looking for housing from you in your constituency office, you refer them to the island and tell them, "If you're lucky, you might get a house for a buck a day for 100 years."

The Deputy Speaker: Now is the period of questions and comments; now is the time to air your opinions. Are there any questions or any comments? The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I just want to advise my friend opposite, the member for Etobicoke West, that I don't intend to address all the things he has said in this two-minute allocation. However, I do intend to have a lot to say in my wrapup period.

Just to get him thinking, I'd like to refer to the fact that in the last election Mr Harris said: "I'm pleased that you have reached a satisfactory agreement with the city of Toronto. The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party" -- and I believe the member for Etobicoke West is a member -- "has always supported the concept of an island community and I can assure you that we will introduce enabling legislation to put this agreement into place." That's that party over there, and that's the member of the Progressive Conservative Party who said not 10 seconds ago that it's not the position of the leader of the Conservative Party. I say to you, can you believe anything he says?

Mr Elston: I think it's interesting to listen to my friend from Etobicoke West; he is very entertaining. But in this particular presentation he has cut right to the very substance of the issue. It's not that there are people who are concerned that everybody should be removed and that the communities on the island be totally displaced, although my friend from Etobicoke West might be able to extend his remarks to that extent; it is in fact that there should be, if there is to be any understanding of fairness in this world, when it is difficult in downtown Toronto, let alone on the islands, to find a reasonable price for housing anywhere approaching $30 a month -- surely the issue here is not whether the community survives, it's not whether in fact there should be rent paid, but the level at which this rent is paid does cause a whole series of problems for people who have other issues pressing them.

I agree with the member for Etobicoke West when he says it is difficult to understand how people who are well employed and well paid would be allowed to receive a benefit of this order from the public purse when in fact there are people who are without jobs, who are without access to housing even of a decent level and who are paying substantially more per month as a result of their inability to access housing at any other level.

It is difficult to understand that we would want to allow people to pay this little rent per month when the coffers of the province are eroding daily with a loss of revenues inspired by a recession that is cutting every person in this province in terms of their substantial --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Why didn't you guys take care of that when you had the time?

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, if I can have just a couple more minutes to finish up, or seconds to finish up. They have lost their attempt --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time is over.

Mr Elston: -- to feel that the economy is going to provide them with a way to make a living for their families. Why are you giving away so much?

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I think we all owe -- we should all be thankful that the member from Etobicoke has made the presentation he has. The member from Etobicoke of course has described very accurately the history that has gone forward on this from the beginning. I must say, on the issue of $1 a day, I don't think the members on the government side ever dreamed that this unfair issue had surfaced until today. Just watching their faces, I think the shock that it exists -- particularly with all the unemployment that exists in this province and that people are looking for housing. The Minister of Housing is jumping up daily talking about the cooperative housing issue in this province, how she intends to increase the non-profit housing in this province, all of which is costing the taxpayer unbelievable amounts of money.

1550

This whole venture -- members over here are talking about we're going to bulldoze the houses down. What this bill is going to do, of course -- they're going to expand it. They're going to build more cooperative housing, non-profit housing, on this island, on a park. There are jurisdictions all across this world that fight like hell to keep their parks. There is a park in the middle of the city of New York and the fights that went on to preserve that park, and here we are destroying our own beautiful park.

Now they say it's a Metro issue. This is a provincial issue, because all of us across this province feel we have the right to go to the city of Toronto and share in the parklike setting that exists on that island. When I see it being destroyed by this province, by this government; when I see it being destroyed, and the expansion -- of all the places, why would you put a cooperative, non-profit housing venture on the Toronto Islands? What a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Ms Swarbrick: The issue of the $36,000 to $46,000 that people will pay for their homes on the island can't possibly be compared to the cost of any other housing; it's a totally different issue. The $36,000 to $46,000 is in addition to the homes they already own. The homes are clearly, uncontestably owned by them already. That was stated very clearly by David Peterson; it was stated very clearly by Michael Harris in the last election; it was stated very clearly by the candidates for both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the last election. Nobody denies that, with the exception of the fact that a past government -- and I believe it was the Conservatives -- put into place a rule, a loophole, that allowed the courts to end up making the decision that they didn't own the land, which effectively meant that the land was stolen from them by a legal loophole and that corrective action needed to be taken, as stated by the leaders of both your present party and the Conservatives, and David Peterson as the past Premier.

The issue of taxes which has been referred to: It's been alleged that they haven't paid their taxes. The people on the Toronto Islands have constantly paid their taxes like any other responsible Metro residents.

The issue of community services: They don't get the same community services the rest of Metro residents do in spite of the fact that they pay their taxes. They built their own community centre with money they raised entirely by themselves. They provide a stewardship to our parklands on the islands. They only live on 5% of the islands; that leaves plenty of parkland for the rest of us. The stewardship they provide there has been everything up to and including saving lives of park enthusiasts visiting the island.

The $36,000 to $46,000 payment for the lease on the land also can't be compared to anything to do with the normal market price for land, because they have limited equity in that land. Not only is it limited for 99 years; it's also limited in that they can't get the same speculative price for that land when they sell it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Time's expired. The member for Etobicoke West. You have two minutes.

Mr Stockwell: Perfectly up front from Scarborough West.

(a) They don't own the land. Metro owns the land. Every court in the land said Metro owns the land. Oh, don't shake your head: yes, they did. So take the structures off the land. It's Metro's property.

(b) Your suggestion is that it's not a fair comparison to say for 99 years you can sell it for $30,000. I challenge this government to go into the open market and say, "These houses are for sale for 99 years." I'll guarantee you that the lowest bid will be a heck of a lot more than $30,000. They'll sell for six figures plus, if you got to live on the island and you could have that lease for 100 years. Absolutely guaranteed.

As usual, the member for Durham East was absolutely and totally off base in his accusation with respect to us agreeing with you on this piece of legislation. If you read the city of Toronto's recommendations, you would have read (f) and (g), which I luckily happen to have with me: "Annual rent: Payable monthly in advance, to be based on the average of three independent evaluations of 1987, updated by the commissioner of city property. These annual payments will increase at the rate of inflation, as per the CPI."

That's what the city of Toronto said. They said they were going to charge them market rates and increase it every year to CPI. What have you said? You've sold them the $30,000 for 100 years.

Mr Mills: What did Harris say? What does your leader say?

Mr Stockwell: Don't tell me we support this. My leader said that he supported the city of Toronto's recommendation. Now I may finish.

Also included in the city of Toronto's recommendation is that "back rent or occupation charges from 1981 for those not now living on the island be pursued by the city solicitor from those who occupied houses from 1981 on."

If this is the recommendation you brought forth you might get some support, but I'm not supporting anything that lets doctors and lawyers live in a house on an island for a buck a day for 100 years.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): As the member of this Legislature representing the Toronto Islands community, I'm pleased to speak in support of Bill 61. I hope you will see, through me, a voice of reason, fairness, justice and common sense.

I was going to recognize the presence of the island residents who were here with us for the last two days in the members' gallery, but I think Mr Stockwell and other members of the opposition must have frightened them away. I hope they will recover and come back soon to hear the debate. But none the less, I would like to commend them for their patience and perseverance as we work to secure a stable, viable future for this community.

I was going to recognize the presence of Luis Schoenborn, who was here for the last two days, and I hope people will have an opportunity to see her, who is a senior and who has lived on the island since 1951.

Yesterday and today, the member for Etobicoke West insulted her and the members of the community by calling them socialist squatters. I'm convinced that many of them would resent the terminology as being socialists that was attached to them and particularly reject being called squatters.

The member for Etobicoke, in my view, and some other members I've heard today demean themselves and insult the intelligence of the electorate, particularly Mr Stockwell with his simple-minded, simplistic, repetitive, reductionist argument that we were bought off by winning two polls. It's insulting.

Ms Schoenborn lived on the island long before the member was a Metro councillor. In fact, she lived there before Metro even existed as a government. Like all of us, she paid for her home and has lived in it ever since. The island community originated, like any other neighbourhood in the city, based on the purchase of lots created by the city for dwellings.

So the community has a historical precedence dating back to 1867. What I accept is a history here of a community that's been there for a long time, which the Tories and the Liberals clearly reject. To the city government, to the citizens of Toronto and to the islanders, the island was a community as well as a park.

The member for Etobicoke West represents the dying embers of the hostility towards this community, which was to be embodied by the newly created Metro government from the 1950s onward. Metro's policy was to create a park. They decided to destroy this community, with its long history, to implement this policy. They could have chosen Rosedale. They could have chosen the member's own neighbourhood in Etobicoke, but instead they chose the isolated island community. Metro chose not to listen to the findings of the province's Swadron commission appointed by the Tories in the early 1980s, where a broad spectrum of citizens overwhelmingly supported the retention of the island community.

Swadron even suggested the expansion of the community. By 1980, Metro had bulldozed over 600 island homes, including hotels and stores. The community was erased from Hanlan's Point and Centre Island. It was clear that Metro would not listen to anyone except its own parks commissioner.

It was ironic that soon after Metro destroyed the community on Centre Island, after its parks commissioner repeatedly chanted, "There shall be no structure in a public park," Metro authorized the construction of the Centreville Amusement Park, which created an artificial village on Centre Island.

1600

Metro's policy was never to remove the islanders through attrition, as the member opposite from Etobicoke has indicated on a number of occasions. He should know better. He was a Metro councillor, and I believe he still is a Metro councillor disguised as an MPP.

In 1980, Metro sent the sheriff to the island to evict the remaining residents on Ward's and Algonquin islands. This is hardly attrition. Residents told the sheriff when he arrived: "We have 700 people, 200 children with no place to go. We're getting no compensation. We're in a desperate situation. We're simply asking you to wait 24 hours."

Ironically, at the same time, Metro was in the process of approving new 25-year leases for three private island yacht clubs.

This is where the Tory government steps in. Together with the islanders, Conservative MPP Larry Grossman, who represented the riding at the time, requested the province to help. Anyone with a sense of electoral history should know that the island community has supported all three political parties at different times in its history.

Even when the Conservative government in 1981 passed Bill 191 to preserve the island community, Metro continued on its path.

The member for Etobicoke West claims that islanders have refused to pay land rent to Metro since 1981. Having been a Metro councillor himself, he should know that islanders came to Metro with their chequebooks to offer payment, but Metro refused. Islanders never received a bill from Metro on land rents, because Metro knew that receiving payment would be an acknowledgement of the community's legitimacy.

How can you pay a bill you have never received? How can you make a payment of rent when the landlord won't take it from you? It's no surprise that there is bad blood between Metro and the island community. But I think it's time we moved on.

I believe that Bill 61 will help secure the island community once and for all after nearly 40 years of senseless assault on its residents by Metro Toronto.

This legislation is not about protecting the property rights of a few individuals, as some would like us to believe. It's about preserving the community itself. As the Toronto Island Residents Association said back in 1980, when the Davis government was urged to intervene in the Metro island dispute, "The province seems to have missed the point that it's the community that we are trying to preserve, not our own individual rights to live here." Bill 61 responds well to this sentiment. It secures the community and does so in a way that protects the public interest.

Like all communities, the island residential community is worth preserving. The question is, how do ensure that we do not replace the existing community with a fundamentally different kind of community?

Bill 61 ensures that the transition to long-term security for the community goes hand in hand with compensation to the city and Metro for their costs, that community land remain in public ownership, that no windfall profits will be reaped from the sale of the island homes, and that a long-term plan for the management of community lands and the creation of new affordable housing will be developed using an innovative community land trust model.

This legislation affects only the residential portion of the island, and that is only 5% of the whole island. The rest will remain, as always, traditional parkland. I might add that if Metro were really serious about making island parklands accessible to people, it would have expanded its use beyond the summer months. If Metro is so desperate for parkland, why is the island park only used intensely for eight weeks of the summer? Metro has never built one skating hut or sold one cup of hot chocolate at the island park during the winter. Hundreds of acres of parkland sit idle over there.

Metro has never understood that parks and communities and a high level of activity can coexist. Instead, I think the Tories and possibly the Liberals want a cemetery.

Under Bill 61, the public spaces within the island residential community will be open to the public. The community land trust will ensure that public spaces within its boundaries will remain for the continued enjoyment of all.

Mr Tilson: What do you mean? You're expanding it.

Mr Marchese: Exactly.

The land trust model allows communities to take on some responsibilities traditionally associated with governments, such as the provision of community services, as an example. In this way, land trusts can help reduce the stress on overburdened governments by providing their own services. So islanders, far from being socialist squatters, as some have portrayed them, will take on the job of property manager for their community under Bill 61. This is a big job.

But those who persist in calling islanders "squatters" say: "Look at the house prices under Bill 61. It's a giveaway." Both the Liberals and the Tories are saying this.

The fundamental consideration here is that Bill 61 places the island community in the non-profit housing sector. It won't be Rosedale, nor should it be. We are creating affordable housing, not market housing.

Like all non-profit communities, there will be limits placed on the rights of residency, and as I've just pointed out, islanders will be responsible for ensuring the provision of open spaces, which will be accessible to all.

They will also carry the costs of providing certain community services, such as the operation of their community centres. Taxpayers on the mainland receive these services as a matter of course through the taxes they pay, and in addition they receive accessible health services, public transit and other public services. Islanders, however, live far from these services we all take for granted. Yet they pay taxes for these services just like the rest of us.

Somehow the term "socialist squatters" just doesn't seem to apply.

To a reasonable person, it would seem fair that island leases should be priced in a way that reflects the additional burden of residents associated with the land trust. And remember, the lease price applies only to the land the islanders live on, not the homes that they built themselves, paid for themselves and maintained themselves.

This is clearly a form of limited ownership within a non-profit framework, and it's crucial that we understand this if we are to understand Bill 61.

The cost of this housing will be capped to remain affordable. Its value will be based on a depreciation formula. Every time ownership is transferred, money will go back to the province. When islanders purchase their 99-year ground leases at $36,000 and $45,000 on Ward's and Algonquin islands, respectively, this money will be used to compensate the city of Toronto for island rents that the city paid to Metro, approximately $12 million, on behalf of islanders during the 1980s.

It's important to realize that Metro has never gone without. It has been the city that has been compensating Metro all these years, because the city supports and supported the retention of the community.

These moneys will also go towards paying the ferry deficit. Even though the island community is not the only user of the ferry services, islanders will pay down its deficit.

Other than the ferry and a firehall, there are few municipal services on the island. The community centres were built, paid for and maintained by the residents themselves. While this is a sign of self-sufficiency and resilience on the part of the community, the member for Etobicoke West will acknowledge that it would be unfair for me to argue that he should exclusively bear the cost for the bus line that stops at his front door. It just goes against the principle of how we fund municipal services. If the member pays his property taxes, he knows he will receive services.

The islanders have always paid their property taxes and their income taxes, but where are the services? They're on the mainland. To get those services, islanders, like all ferry users, pay to board the ferry. They also pay property taxes to support this service, and on top of this, they will be paying for the ferry deficit through the purchase of their ground leases.

The critics of Bill 61 say the 99-year ground lease is too long. They seem to believe that we should only create affordable communities for a limited period of time. Either we want long-term affordable housing or we don't. I personally applaud the 99-year lease because it ensures that island housing will remain in the non-profit housing sector. This will help maintain the stock of affordable housing in this province.

The community land trust model fits well with the demographics of the existing community.

1610

Those who subscribe to the socialist squatters theory will be interested to know -- if some of the other members haven't heard this -- that 20% of the island households are low income versus 13% Metro wide; 16% of the households are single-parent led versus 12% Metro wide; 20% of households are home to retirees; 65% of residents have lived on the island for 15 years or more and 22% have lived there more than 35 years.

These are important statistics that we should remember, because it speaks to a community that I'm sure is very similar to Etobicoke and many other places. The transition to security under Bill 61 will enhance the community and will give it new life.

As the member for Fort York who represents this community -- as with my Liberal predecessor Bob Wong and his Conservative predecessor Larry Grossman -- I believe that in resolving the island dispute we must ensure that we not only save island homes but that we preserve the social mix of the island community.

The member for Etobicoke West, particularly, opposes this notion. He says the few wealthy islanders should be subject to a means test. I'm hearing others from the opposite side say that too. Perhaps his party has been out of power so long he's forgotten the principles upon which the Ontario governments fund non-profit housing. Co-op housing and other forms of non-profit housing help to maintain a mix of income levels in communities.

Does the member for Etobicoke West and other members of the Liberal Party advocate a return to public housing ghettos where only the poorest of the poor may live?

Bill 61 will ensure a good social mix on the island. It will help support the community in its efforts to remain a model community, one that is safe, healthy, clean and vibrant.

I'd like to quote urbanologist Jane Jacobs when she said about the island community: "It shouldn't be destroyed, because it's lovable. It's unique. It's a lovely thing. It's wicked to destroy lovable, unique and lovely things. When people defend a place the way islanders are defending their community, that's the greatest argument of all. It says: It's worth saving."

I'm proud that this government, unlike its predecessors, has answered this call with concrete action.

I know that my colleagues across the floor will remember, despite their unsavoury comments about Bill 61, that their party leaders gave their support during the 1990 provincial election campaign to a resolution of the island dispute based on the community position adopted by the Toronto Island Residents Association in August of that year.

It's on the basis of these same principles that this government introduced Bill 61. The NDP has followed up on its commitment to resolve this matter. The opposition, however, seems to be dragging its feet, especially in light of its campaign promises.

Let me just refresh their memories, if they will pay attention for a moment, by quoting letters written by the leaders of the opposition parties to the Toronto Island Residents Association in the summer of 1990. Mr Elston should hear this, but he's not paying attention. Mr Elston? He's not hearing it.

David Peterson wrote in a September 3, 1990, letter on this subject:

"I would like to confirm my government's commitment to the long-term preservation of the Toronto Island community. The Liberal government's position on this issue has consistently been that we will bring forward the necessary legislation to enshrine homeownership in the hands of those with proper documentation.

"I view the continued viability and stability of the Toronto Island community as an extension of my government's commitment to the provision and maintenance of affordable housing throughout Ontario.

"The Liberal government remains committed to implementing appropriate legislation at the earliest opportunity."

That was Mr Peterson.

Given this enthusiastic support for the preservation of the island community by the Liberals during the 1990 election campaign, I'm surprised -- not entirely, but surprised -- at the concerns being expressed yesterday by my friend the member for Ottawa East. It seems he has abandoned his party's commitment to resolving this issue in the manner described by his former leader. Perhaps it's because of his government's inability to follow its promises with action that it went down to defeat just a few days after this letter was written.

The then member for Fort York, Liberal Bob Wong, also wrote to the committee, on August 29, 1990, saying: "I am prepared to present the principles outlined in your community position, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As your MPP, I feel that these principles are something I can support." Mr Bob Wong. I ask the speakers of the opposition, where is your commitment to these principles today?

But the doublespeak does not end with the Liberal Party; it continues with the Progressive Conservative Party. Leader Mike Harris has written to the community supporting the principles of the community position, the same principles which are contained in Bill 61. Mr Harris wrote:

"I was pleased that you have reached a satisfactory agreement with the city of Toronto. The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has always supported the concept of an island community, and I can assure you that we will introduce legislation to put this agreement into place."

Mr Harris was supported and seconded by the 1990 Progressive Conservative candidate for Fort York, John Pepall, who said, and I quote him as well:

"I believe the basic principles of the community position can be the basis of a final resolution of the long-standing island homes dispute. I shall work with you to see that legislation is passed early in the first session of the Legislature to implement it."

Bill 61 represents the kind of resolution to this long-standing issue that both other parties have been asking for for quite a while. But where's their support today? Where is their commitment today? They have abandoned their commitment to community preservation in this specific instance and in the larger sense of the word as well. Instead the community they spoke so favourably of has now become an NDP enclave not worthy of their support.

This is the side of their message I fear, and which all Ontarians should fear. The message I'm hearing is this: Communities are not worthy of preservation based on their own intrinsic worth; they're not worthy of preservation when affected stakeholders like the city and Metro are fairly compensated; they are not worthy of preservation when the provincial interest is protected; and they are not worthy of preservation despite the commitment of Liberal and Tory leaders to do so. Based on the comments I've heard from the opposition, under their leadership, communities in Ontario should not expect protection.

Let me be clear: This is not the intent of this government. We are committed to resolving this issue once and for all. We are committed to working in full partnership with the stakeholders, especially the island community itself, in implementing a fair resolution. Bill 61 represents the commitment of this government to do this.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for his vision and leadership in seeking to implement this bill and I would like to recognize Mr Richard Johnston for developing the framework of this legislation in his capacity as special adviser to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Most of all, I would like to thank the island community itself for continuing to uphold the principles of community during these last difficult 40 years.

I would like to quote the former Toronto mayor, John Sewell, whose sentiments spoken during the darkest days of the island dispute in 1980 still ring true today as we move second reading of this historic bill. He said:

"The Toronto Island community is here to stay.

"This is a fight that we're all in. It's not just people who live on the islands. It's not just people who live downtown. It's not just people who live in the city of Toronto. It's everyone in Metro.

"It's a fight we all have to pay attention to because we know that you can't go around destroying communities" in the way the Tories would like. "If they destroy this one, they'll destroy others -- they may destroy yours."

I'm pleased to support Bill 61 and look forward to continuing to work towards its full implementation in the near future.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): As you know, I don't represent a constituency within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto and I frankly don't care how people on the island vote. My view is that those people should receive just but not preferential treatment.

There are people in my constituency who cannot find housing. There are people in my riding who cannot find non-profit housing. There are people in my constituency who are associated with projects that are being put forward for non-profit housing and that sit on the shelf. The member is defending a massive giveaway to a protected, preferential few who will be housed at $30 a month. The rest of the cost of their housing will be subsidized out of the pockets of people in my area of the province who cannot find affordable housing for themselves.

The member has made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible, and it simply does not wash for people who come from Halton Centre who cannot find affordable housing and certainly not affordable housing at $30 a month.

Mr Stockwell: I think the member for Halton Centre said it very well with respect to the issue on the Toronto Islands. I want to address a couple of points the member raised.

The suggestion that Mike Harris supports the deal you cut is a total misrepresentation of the facts. What Mike Harris said is that he supported the city of Toronto negotiated settlement. Let me say this again for your edification: The city of Toronto, if you read the recommendations, recommended that three companies go in there, survey the market value of each house and put a value on it. The median would be selected and applied as rent, upwards in some cases of $600, $700 and $800 a month, and then the CPI inflation rate would be added each and every year afterwards to increase the value of those rents.

The islanders know that's what the city recommended. The islanders know that's what the city adopted. I don't understand why you can confuse the issue so terribly and suggest that we supported this half-baked backroom deal concocted by an ex-member of your party, Mr Johnston, and endorsed by your Municipal Affairs official.

That was never, ever contemplated as the deal. No one ever suggested that they would get the houses for 100 years. Nobody ever suggested they would get them for $30 a month or a buck a day. Even the islanders think they've won the lottery, I'm certain, because never was this kind of guarantee ever given to them by any other previous government or this opposition party. I want those things to be very clear.

Finally, the position I've consistently taken is never to kick anyone off the island. I never said to bulldoze the homes. I said that as those houses come available, the property will revert back to Metro. I wouldn't kick a single person off the island, but in the end I would create a park and not displace a single person. Suggesting anything else but that is truly misrepresenting my position.

Mr Mammoliti: Hopefully I won't be as stiff as the member for Etobicoke West. I am standing now to congratulate both the islanders and my colleague Rosario Marchese, first of all the islanders for protecting their rights, for showing the guts as a community to fight three different governments in an area they feel was worth fighting for. Somebody wanted to take their homes away. Somebody wanted to bulldoze them away. Somebody wanted to take those children, those mothers, those fathers away from their homes. They had enough guts to say no. I congratulate the islanders for the guts it took to win the battle and, yes, they won. They convinced a government that they're right, and I'm proud to be a part of a government that has done that.

I congratulate Rosario Marchese for the wonderful work he's done for his constituents. I remember a conversation that took place between myself and a few others in this caucus with Rosario Marchese when we first got elected. We talked about what we wanted to achieve as members and what we wanted for our communities. I can tell you this, I remember that Mr Rosario Marchese did say: "The islander issue is at the top of my list. The islander issue is something I want." Rosario Marchese, good job.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I have had an opportunity to sit in the Legislature now for some hours yesterday afternoon and for a period of time this afternoon listening to the important debate taking place over this piece of legislation which will allow the islanders to stay in their homes for the next 99 years at $1 a day rent. To me, that is the issue at hand.

I don't believe anyone in this chamber has said we must send bulldozers over to the island, bulldoze the homes down and kick every man, woman and child out on the street. That has not been the debate which has taken place over the past couple of days and it's unfortunate that the previous speaker puts it in those terms. What we are debating is whether or not the public policy put forward by the socialist government of Ontario is correct in this instance.

They believe it's correct to give an élite group of people special status by allowing them to live in a park setting, in a park location, that was to be used by all of the people of Metropolitan Toronto and all Ontario citizens and visitors to this province. They believe it's fine to allow those people to live in that setting, not for this year, not only for next year, not for the next decade, not for the next 20 years, but for 99 years at $1 a day.

I know for a fact in southwestern Ontario there have been people who've been asked to move out of provincial parks and have not been given the courtesy of 99-year extensions and have not been given the courtesy of $1 a day rent. This is élitist and it's wrong.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York, you have two minutes to reply.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Sorbara: I regret that my friend the member for Fort York didn't take the opportunity of using his two minutes to respond to the comments made by, for one, my friend the member for Essex South. I hope to be relatively brief on this topic. I note that in the members' gallery east there are members of the island community. I'm glad they're here listening to the debate.

I think if anything can be said in this debate with absolute surety and confidence, it is that the residents of the island community are going to get what the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, has promised them by way of Bill 61. Of that there is no doubt. That is the way this place works. The NDP have a majority as a result of the election of September 6, 1990. When they bring a bill into this House, if they determine that they want it to be the case, that bill will pass.

So the only real issue in this debate as we consider Bill 61 in second reading is whether or not this is fair legislation. I think if the island residents and the people watching electronically this debate, and the other members of the House to the extent that they listen to the debate -- if they allow themselves and you allow yourselves and you, Mr Speaker, allow yourself to cut through all the rhetoric, that really is the issue. Is this a fair piece of legislation, given the circumstances that we, as a province, find ourselves in in Ontario in 1992?

There's no real debate as to whether or not the Tory party or the Liberal Party or the NDP wants to continue to have an island community. That's not an issue. Each of the three parties, at some time or other, has put its position on the record, made it quite clear that, whereas Metropolitan Toronto believes there ought not to be any island community, the city of Toronto, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, all of those organizations and entities, believed that there should be an island community, that there was something unique and special and wonderful and appropriate and enlivening about the fact that on Ward's Island and on Algonquin Island, amid this great, massive metropolitan area, there was a small community of homes which constituted one among many of the neighbourhoods in this city and this metropolitan area and the province.

1630

Hon Mr Pouliot: I bet you can't recognize those prices.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the Minister of Transportation, as usual, makes an irrelevant comment, so I'll just try to ignore the insults.

There's no issue there at all. History shows that we are all in agreement about maintaining the island community. So let not the words of your MPP for the time being or the words of the parliamentary assistant or the words of the member for Yorkview or Downsview or any other member, or particularly the member for Scarborough West, try to convince you there is some dispute there as to whether or not there ought to be an island community.

Personally, and I think I speak on behalf of my caucus as well, we continue to believe that it is a good idea to try to maintain that community. It's a neighbourhood. The only question for debate here is whether or not the proposals to maintain the island community are fair and just ones, given the economic circumstances of the province, for one, and given the economic circumstances of everyone else in the province who is searching for a home or in the process of paying for a home or in the circumstances, more to the point, of actually losing their home.

I try to explain to you how offensive it is for us to be passing this legislation at this time, when so many of our own constituents are suffering the most trying, the most difficult, the most depressing economic circumstances they have ever faced.

Every MPP in this Legislature operates a constituency office, as does your MPP. I know it's not on the island, but it's there somewhere in the constituency. The great thing about a constituency office, other than being able to provide some level of service or other to the people whom you represent in this Parliament, is that it represents a barometer. It represents an ongoing poll of what's happening in the community that you represent. In my case, the riding is called York Centre. It's made up of the town of Richmond Hill and the city of Vaughan.

In the minds of most people in the province, when you think of Richmond Hill and you think of the city of Vaughan, you think of a relatively affluent, hardworking, middle-class community. Both of those municipalities have grown dramatically over the past 10 years. I represent over 200,000 people in this Legislature. It's the largest riding, if you measure by population, in the entire province.

My constituency office is like a barometer, because the people who call there and the people who come to visit there are not just asking for a service; they're often just trying to unburden themselves of their problems. Frankly, over the past two years it has been a depressing experience to regularly go to my constituency office and listen to the problems.

Hardworking people, over and over again -- it happens every week -- come and plead for help trying to find a job. They come and tell me, "I don't want any of your staff; I have to talk to you privately." They break down and they say: "I'm losing my house. I've put everything I had into it. My wife is working -- or was working -- my children were helping, and now she's out of work and I'm out of work and I'm losing my house. I spent $250,000 and I mortgaged myself and I thought I was going to have a job and I thought I could make it." They say, "Mr Sorbara, how can you help me?" And I say I can't help; there's no power that I have to help.

Then you go and you listen to the Catholic school board say: "We are $29 million in debt. We are theoretically breaking the law because we have a deficit of $29 million, and we have no idea how to cope. Would you make a plea to the Minister of Education to give us special assistance?" And I say I'll make that plea, but frankly, the Minister of Education isn't listening these days. Then I say, "By the way, the province has a notional deficit of $10 billion, and by the time the final figures come in it's going to be probably $12 billion or more, and the province, in comparison to other times, is itself on the verge of bankruptcy."

Then you go to the hospital and its plea is the same. Then you see the empty stores along Yonge Street, then you see the going-out-of-business sales, and as a politician you really understand what the second depression of the 20th century is all about. It's not macroeconomic figures; it's the pain and suffering that are felt in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in every corner of the province.

Then you come to work yesterday, November 17, and the government House leader says, "We want you to debate this bill, Bill 61." You look at the bill and you ask yourself what it's about. Then you realize that this government is trying to solve, like other governments in the past have, the island community issue. The first thing you think is, "Oh, good, we're finally going to put this one to bed," and then you look at the terms of the deal.

Having heard the Treasurer, through days and days of question period and debate, say there is no money for anything any more -- there's no money to build schools, there's no money to honour our obligations that we made to municipalities, there's no money for new road construction -- the Treasurer says we have to realize that the spending days are over -- you read this bill, Bill 61, that's going to solve the island community crisis, and you find that a very small group of people are basically being given a residence. The sum that is being paid is almost a nominal sum. It's like the skill-testing question that you have to answer to get the prize when you enter a contest and you've got the right number. We all know about that: "Prize winners will have to answer a skill-testing question." Island beneficiaries of Bill 61 are going to have to pay a buck a day to live in these houses; $36,000 and it's theirs.

1640

It's not that we wish you ill. It's not that we don't want you to continue in your homes. We just say that under the circumstances, this is so out of keeping with the reality that virtually everyone else faces in the province: small retail store owners getting evicted because they can't pay the rent; home owners losing their house because the mortgagee has come in and sold it under power of sale; people getting evicted from apartment buildings because they can't pay the rent. Even those who live in socially assisted housing, in rent-geared-to-income housing, don't have a deal like this. The most unfortunate and the most in need in this province have never received a deal like this.

We ask ourselves as opposition members, is this the time to be making this sweetheart deal with the island community? Surely there's a fairer, more equitable way of resolving this issue.

Mr Marchese: What is it, Greg?

Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Fort York says, "What is it?" If you were asking me, I would tell you now that the price to maintain those homes would in some measure reflect the fair market value of those residences, independently determined. You might want to modify that, and if there are people living in those homes who need to live in rent-geared-to-income homes, then you would provide perhaps some measure of assistance. But my God, the government is just about to legislate fair market value assessment for Metropolitan Toronto, and I say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So my own response, without having studied it, would have been at least a measure of fair market value, because everyone else in the province living through these disgustingly difficult economic times goes to the marketplace and is told that he or she or they have to pay fair market value.

Then I ask myself, how did we get here? This issue, if you look at the history, has gone on since the year this nation created itself, 1867. This goes back to Confederation. In 1867 the city of Toronto acquired the island property. I guess there were communities over there already, and even then it was a lovely place to live, but having acquired it, the city planned to use it, as the history goes, as an island park and began discussing the termination of private residences in 1894 -- I mean, almost 100 years ago, 98 years ago. Then in 1954 the island property was transferred from the city of Toronto to Metropolitan Toronto. Then really the big battles began to heat up. In 1970 Metropolitan Toronto decided, having acquired the property, that it wanted to use the entire land for parkland and it started to try to terminate leases and demolish residences. Perhaps that was a mistake; perhaps not. I don't think we need to revisit that part of the history. Then a Tory government in 1980 appointed a commission to try to solve the problem and that solution wasn't implemented. Then in 1985, yes, the Liberal government of the day was looking at solutions but never really brought forward any proposals in the form of legislation.

Then another party came to power in 1990. One of the people who didn't run, one of the members at the time of the dissolution of the House in 1990, the former member for Scarborough West, Richard Johnston, a very competent member, now the chair of the Council of Regents, the body that governs community colleges -- Richard Johnston didn't run again. His party was elected, and suddenly he was called upon to undertake a task for the new NDP government in power. They asked him to bring forward proposals to solve the island situation, and this work here, this bill we're discussing, emerges from Richard Johnston's solution.

Well, I say to Richard Johnston that it was a nice try, but you've got a critical component wrong. You're giving over to the island residents one of the greatest gifts anyone can give anyone else: a roof over your head, a shelter, a home in perhaps the most quietly beautiful area of the city of Toronto. I mean, this is the place to live, if you ask me. If I were moving to the city of Toronto, it would be my first choice to live on the island, and you're basically giving it away. You're doing it at a time when hundreds of thousands of other people don't have the money to put bread on the table. You are giving these homes away -- "A dollar a day, $36,000, and it's yours."

Frankly, having looked at the deal, I become a little bit suspicious, so I go to the polling results for Fort York and I see that the two provincial polls in the riding of Fort York voted overwhelmingly for my friend Rosario Marchese, the member for Fort York. I mean, these numbers are astonishing.

Mr Mammoliti: It's called representation.

Mr Sorbara: Listen, people can vote however they like. I just wonder out loud whether the government would have been so willing to legislate this marvellous giveaway and couch it in the language of maintaining a community and use statistics about how many people are single with children and how many people are elderly if this riding had voted predominantly Tory. The figures are rather outstanding.

Poll 153, which is basically Ward's Island, voted, in respect of Rosario Marchese, 137, the Tory got four votes and the Liberal got 15. Those are outstanding numbers, Rosario. You are well liked on the island. In the other poll the results were Marchese 88, the Tory got nine and the Liberal got 12. There was a fourth candidate; he got one vote on the whole island.

I don't want to suggest that these figures impacted in any way whatever on this decision, except that I know how politics work. I know that, had this community been of a different political persuasion, perhaps more affluent than it is, perhaps of a different view than the socialist intelligentsia that now governs this province, perhaps there wouldn't have been such enthusiasm, I'm not saying for maintaining the community, because I repeat: Everyone except Metro Toronto agrees that the community ought to be maintained. It's the particulars of the deal. It's the giveaway. It's the price that's set that so offends.

My friends in the government have, in this matter, made offence a skill. The skill has been to couch what they've done in this glorious and marvellous language of being socially progressive, and I take offence. I take offence at the approach of the member who, in his speech, suggested they were doing something the other parties would have done. That is not the case. Our commitment, as I repeat, was to maintain the communities. I don't ever remember a commitment, on the part of my party when we were in government or the Tories when they were in government, to give these properties away.

1650

I differ with those who say the houses should be bulldozed down. I disagree. I think there's a valid argument there. I know of people who have made it. I know a number of people of good will and good faith who take that view. We do not differ on that. We want these homes to be maintained. We want a community over there.

But I'll tell you, when I see three and four and five people a week who are sometimes on the verge of suicide because life is so bad right now in Ontario -- construction workers who two and three years ago worked 100 and 150 hours a week whispering in my ear that they go to food banks now -- and I participate today in passing a law that gives homes away in the most exclusive part of the city of Toronto for $36,000, I take offence. I think it's wrong.

Mr Mammoliti: Where would they be if we kicked them out? Would they be going to the food banks?

Mr Sorbara: My good friend Mr Mammoliti says, where would they be now? If you are going to have a law that gives away homes, then pass a law where everyone in the province has an equal shot at the homes. Look at the law. Listen to the explanatory notes. The law we're going to pass says that the present residents, those who voted overwhelmingly NDP in 1990, as identified in the 1992 assessment rolls, will have ownership transferred to them. I would like the government to pass a law saying that some of my constituents who are on the verge of being evicted under a power of sale will have the government step in.

Okay, just do it for 40 of them or just do it for 50 of them. That's all I ask. We have hundreds of powers of sales in my riding every month. Take 50 -- I don't care which 50 -- pay off their mortgage, ask them for $36,000 and tell them they can keep their homes for ever.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please.

Mr Sorbara: What is good for the city of Toronto and a small, exclusive community ought to be good enough as well for the people of York Centre and the people of Downsview and the people of Yorkview and the people of Scarborough West. It's the way in which this government differentiates between its treatment of some people in Ontario and other people in Ontario that is going to drag this government down, its arbitrariness, its inability to legislate and govern evenhandedly that will destroy it.

We already know about this in my own riding. Your friend the Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, has singlehandedly lost you any potential whatever to win a seat in the greater Toronto area in the dump site areas for the next 100 years as long as the islanders are going to keep their homes as a result of this bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Sorbara: The thing that so outraged people was Ruth Grier's arbitrary determination to say, "I, Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, hereby appoint that York region will be the situs for Metro's garbage." It's that lack of evenhandedness, that lack of fairness, that lack of governing on the principle of equality, that has the people of Ontario just ready and anxious to get back to the polling booth to undo what they did in 1990.

I'll tell you, as my friend the member for Downsview laughs, you just have to go out on the street and you feel it everywhere. They say to me, "How can we get rid of this government?" They say, "How can we get rid of them?" I say, "Look, don't blame me, I voted Liberal." The fact is that it's this lack of evenhandedness, it's the fact that somehow under the previous conflict-of-interest guidelines --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Don't ask me about philosophy on the Liberal --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We are wasting time under time allocation. Please, government members, there will be time for questions and comments. The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I wish the viewers at home could hear the cackling coming from the government members as I remind them of why it is they are going to be defeated.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Political vultures. No social conscience.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The interjections are out of order. Please, the Minister of Transportation. The member for Durham West is not even in his assigned seat; he's interjecting. Please, let's have some respect and some decorum here.

Mr Sorbara: My final example of lack of equity and fairness and evenhandedness: My friend the member for Oxford is out of the cabinet. Unfortunate, but he's gone, yet the member for Sudbury East --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): He was never in cabinet.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, the member for Elgin is no longer in the cabinet; an unfortunate series of circumstances. Yet the member for Sudbury East slanders a doctor in public and she's there. It's this lack of evenhandedness. It permeates every single thing they do.

It has the people of Ontario so upset, as I said, that from what I hear, the people can't wait to get to the ballot box. I'll tell my friends quite frankly that I don't see a consensus yet to re-elect the Liberal Party. I don't see a consensus yet to elect the Tory Party again. But there is in the province of Ontario a growing consensus that this government, the NDP government, that unfortunate experiment that we started now over two years ago is seeing its one and only term in Parliament.

I'll conclude my remarks, speaking again, if my friend the member for Etobicoke West can just indulge me for a moment, to the people who are going to be living in these homes on the island under this bill. Forgive us, I guess, if we cannot join with you in this celebration. We are glad that your community is going to be maintained. But given that you have been the beneficiaries of the most special kind of treatment from a government that is ignoring its obligations --

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Don't the rules of this House require that the member speak directly to the Speaker?

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

Mr Mills: I take exception to him speaking to the people in the public gallery.

The Acting Speaker: Order. It's not a point of order but it's very, very good procedure. Please address the Chair.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, through you to the people in the gallery and the people watching this debate, this bill will pass. These homes will be transferred into the possession and ownership of the island community. But let us remember, as the government drives this legislation through this Parliament, that there are hundreds and thousands of people in this province who take offence, not because they do not want the island to benefit, sir, but simply because they are not sharing in this benefit.

The Acting Speaker: Now is the time for questions and/or comments.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): When I came to this House I was not particularly aware of this issue and I had sympathy for the islanders. I have found that in fact the islanders predominantly are people who've only lived there for a short period of time. They are very affluent people, by and large. We have architects and we have apparatchiks from the NDP who live on the islands.

The idea that these units, with waterfront, adjoining the largest city in Canada, are going to be made available for $30 a month, that's $1 a day, is absolutely obnoxious. In London, England, land leases are not unusual and many times apartments with desirable addresses will trade for hundreds of thousands of pounds with only a 50-year or 60-year land lease left.

These people are being given this gift at a time when we have an awful lot of people who are on welfare, and we have single mothers who cannot get apartments for $600 a month. The other obnoxious thing about this is that I have heard the heckling from the NDP benches suggesting that we don't care. The Conservatives have always cared. We have always put in place legislation which has protected people. The NDP, on the other hand, are doing so little to help the poor today. They're driving jobs out of the province, but at the same time they are giving affluent people accommodation with water frontage in the most desirable place in Canada for a dollar a day. This is absolutely unacceptable. Indeed, when you consider the tax grabs that are going on in Metro at this time, it's obnoxious that they would be giving this kind of giveaway to their NDP friends.

1700

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Ms Swarbrick: The member for York Centre referred to the great need there is for affordable housing in our communities right now, and certainly the need is no greater than throughout Metro Toronto. I used to be very active in the Affordable Housing Action Group and I'd like to make a couple of points with regard to some of the good points that he did raise on the need for affordable housing.

The first, in terms of the island issue, is that the settlement we're dealing with here takes absolutely nothing away from anybody else. I'd like to also remind people of our point that we've made in terms of the fact that the islanders already own their own homes.

The issue we're dealing with here is the $36,000 to $46,000 purchase of the land leases. It's true that those are not equal to the market value for other land that would be comparable. The reason the land is not equal to normal market value is because the conditions under which this land is being purchased are not the same as normal market conditions. The people on the islands cannot sell their property at market value later on either. They have opted for a non-profit, limited equity model to prevent the seniors, the single parents and the working poor who live on the islands from economic eviction.

I'd like to point out that if people are genuinely interested in the plight of the poor and the need for affordable housing in our communities, what we need to look at is the kind of model the community land trust provides, as we're showing on the Toronto Islands through this legislation. This is a model that will create a wonderful precedent I hope you would join us in urging our government to repeat in other places.

It's something that's become tremendously popular in the United States, where there are now 700 such community land trust models in existence. It's something we need to learn from here, to allow people to be able to remove the speculative cost of land from the cost of housing. That's the only way we'll get affordable housing, by removing that speculative cost of land from housing.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Mancini: This debate has nothing to do with land speculation. It has everything to do with paying a fair price for leasing land. I say to the member for Scarborough West, who just finished speaking, I would like you to find out from the Minister of Housing what the average land lease is for land in southwestern Ontario where trailers are allowed to be placed in accordance with zoning practices.

I have at least two or three modular home parks in and around Essex county that I'm familiar with, two in my own riding. These tiny parcels of land are leased to these individuals, most of whom are not in great financial shape, very few of whom have professional jobs, even fewer of whom make more than a medium family income. I know for a fact that these people pay anywhere from $200 to $400 a month for the privilege of putting a 20- by 40-foot trailer on a tiny parcel of land. That is what is being charged in small communities.

It could be smaller. It could be 12 by 30; I've seen those too, I say to my colleague across the floor who wants to question the size of the trailer or the cost of the land. Check with your Minister of Housing to see what is being charged these individuals. It's unconscionable that you think that is okay and you don't want to do anything for those people, but you're prepared to give this valuable land at $1 a day. That's the debate.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Stockwell: The arguments that the government uses to defend its decision are bordering on the hilarious. To suggest for a moment that it's an unusual situation because they own the house and not the land would augur well for some constituent to build a home in High Park and say: "I own the home in High Park. Now you, the government, force the local councils to sell me the land for $30,000." In essence, that's what the statement is saying. Islanders don't own the land; Metro Toronto owns the land, and they want to create a park. If you're suggesting that they have some movement to do away with that because the ownership of the house is on land not owned, I don't agree.

Secondly, "The affordability argument takes away from no one." What a load of trash. If you gave these people a means test on the island, a goodly number of them would not qualify for subsidized housing, yet they subsidize for $30 a month for 100 years, or a buck a day. Of course people suffer, people who don't have a place to live and who don't have any money, and the people on the island who have money have a house for a buck a day. Don't tell me no one suffers. Of course they suffer. That's insulting.

Thirdly, the insult from the member for Scarborough West to start comparing this analogy to the land trust fund in the US is a joke. I challenge the member to show me any land trust fund in the US where they've rented the land to the people for a buck a day for 100 years. It does not exist. It doesn't exist. It's market rent on those land trust funds.

So the analogies are a joke, the legislation's a joke, and your defence is indefensible. If you're going to come forward with some analogies, make sure they're applicable, not the land trust fund in the United States. That's a joke.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Centre has two minutes in response.

Mr Sorbara: I regret to say that the comments, particularly from the government members, were not really very helpful.

Let's go back to the essence of this deal. The essence of this deal is that, as the legislation says, the present residents on the island, in the island residential community, get a piece of land at well below market value. It's basically a giveaway. A dollar a day is what they're going to pay for the property that they are being given by the people of Ontario -- not by us, not by the New Democratic Party, but by the people of Ontario. This bill says that the people of Ontario hereby give to the island residents a home for 100 years at a cost of $1 day. That's what this bill is all about.

They talk about fairness. I simply say to you, sir, that if you want to be fair, particularly in these economic times, you do one of two things. Either you charge a price that approximates the fair market value -- not determined by some former member of Parliament, namely, Richard Johnston, but by independent arbitrators -- or you set the price very low, like you've done in this legislation, but say that the people who have a right to buy this land at this price shall be chosen at random from a list compiled of everyone who would like an opportunity to apply.

Either you do it that way or the other way, but this giveaway orchestrated by Richard Johnston and now given the imprimatur by the member for Fort York, whose constituents on the island voted overwhelmingly for him, smacks of something that the people of Ontario say is unfair, unacceptable and indeed intolerable. If I were you, sir, I would be encouraging people to vote against this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tilson: I don't profess to have the knowledge of some of the Metro members of this Legislature on this subject, having come from Dufferin-Peel. I listened to the member for Etobicoke West, who is obviously quite knowledgeable, and the facts that he has put forward have yet to be challenged by the members of the government.

1710

I wish to speak on three topics that I think are of most concern to not only the people of Metro but the people of this province: first, the whole subject of the preferential treatment being given to the current residents of the island. Why are they being given preferential treatment as opposed to treating everyone else the same in this province?

Second, there's the environmental aspect. All of us in the past, including the members of this government, have spoken on the preservation of parks, the importance of preservation of parks, the importance to preserve these areas, to keep development off these areas. It is most contradictory the way this government is proceeding with enlarging the number of residents that are going to live on these areas.

I would correct some of the members of the government who are saying that the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are simply saying, "Take a bulldozer to that." We're not saying that at all. We're simply saying that as these houses become available, it's appropriate to revert to the parklike setting this island is obviously intended for, to be used by the people of Metro; in fact, the residents of the province of Ontario.

Finally, the third topic I wish to speak about is the inappropriateness of putting non-profit housing and co-op housing on an island such as this, as beautiful as this, just as inappropriate as it is to put non-profit housing just a block from here, over on the corner of Wellesley and Bay -- most inappropriate. I will be spending some time on that subject.

Dealing with the first item, I must say it is rather strange listening to the facts that have unfolded today and yesterday as to what has happened over the years. I gather this goes back to 1955, and I don't propose to repeat all that. The fact of the matter is that we now have a bill creating a very strange circumstance in this province.

As I understand it, unless contested, the province will transfer the ownership of the existing houses to the present residents as identified by the 1992 assessment rolls, notwithstanding how long they've been there, notwithstanding how long those residents have lived in those houses. It may be last year. It may go back to the 1950s, and I'd believe there are some people there from the 1950s. Again, that's not the area. We're talking about this windfall that has occurred to many of these people.

The fact that Mr Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West, has put forward is, all it is going to be costing these people is $1 a day. That fact has not been challenged by the members of the government when you look at the figures being paid over the 100-year period of time.

The other shocking fact revealed to us today and yesterday is that the people who are in there now have never paid rent. They haven't paid rent since 1981 -- rather an astounding fact. Again, we're looking at the whole subject of unemployment, the problem of housing. The Minister of Housing, whether Mr Cooke or Ms Gigantes, has spent a great deal of time on the whole issue of housing and the need for housing: the need for housing for the poor; the need for housing for the unemployed; the need for housing for the single mother; the need for housing for the abused woman.

All of this is very serious material, all of us agree, but how it's being handled is rather astounding when we read this bill, what these people are benefiting from and the preferential treatment they're receiving. It is, in fact, discriminatory to the remaining people of this province. It's discriminatory.

I also submit it's a breach of trust. You are holding lands in trust for the people of this province and this is what you're doing. It doesn't make any sense. It's unfair, it's discriminatory and it's a preferred treatment of these people.

I'm not going to get into the political suggestions with Mr Marchese about how he got elected and how he came to this place. Some of it may be fair; some of it may be unfair. But the fact of the matter is, these people are receiving preferential treatment.

As I understand it, a 99-year lease will be offered to these residents, who then may lease the lots at a price of $36,000 and $46,000, depending on where they are. Once they have acquired that interest on those lots, they then can do anything they like with it, because that is a windfall to these people. When you start averaging out the figures as to what they're paying over the next 100 years, it's a windfall, no matter how you look at it. It's as simple as that. And what can they do? As I understand it, they could sublease. Why would they ever get rid of it? Why would they ever leave? They can leave it to their heirs. They can bequeath this property.

I gave facts during the Bill 4 debates and the Bill 121 debates of the unfairness that's developed in New York City because of the rent controls that have existed in that city and other cities similar to that, but specifically New York City, where the wealthy have acquired lands and buildings they are renting from landlords, and because of the restrictive rent controls that are being placed on these people, they really have very little rent to pay. They're bequeathing it to their families as they pass away. They're never going to get rid of it. Why would they? It's worth a gold mine.

Why would these people ever get rid of this? It's an unbelievable investment. It would pay them in fact to own another place in the city or outside the city or a condominium on the waterfront and live in these places as cottages. It would pay them to do that. I mean, what a wonderful thing. Instead of travelling up north and spending three or four hours in the awful traffic and the wearing it out, all you have to do is get on a ferry you don't even pay for and ride to your cottage.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and Acting Minister of Tourism and Recreation): What do you mean, you don't pay for it?

Mr Tilson: Well, of course, they're not paying for it. The whole issue of travelling to the north -- it's cheaper. Mr Stockwell is perfectly correct when he says you spend $30 on gas to travel to Huntsville or wherever you're going to travel up north, as opposed to a dollar a day. It's a rather astounding fact of information.

I think the member for Essex South made an interesting observation, and it would be interesting to hear some facts about leasehold interests and what is paid around this province for leasehold interests. I'm told by the member for York Mills, who has had some experience in the real estate business in the past, that places such as Hazelton Lanes, where there are leasehold interests, are valued at $1 million.

Conceivably on the island -- these lots are fairly large lots -- they may choose not to keep them as cottages. They may choose to build on to them. They may choose to build larger homes, permanent homes. They could do any number of things. They could increase the value of these places unbelievably. They've got 99 years to do it, or 100 years. I guess it's 99 years. They've got a long time to do all this, and all of this will increase the value, all at this initial cost of $36,000 to $46,000 -- a rather astounding windfall.

There's no question. I can't believe that any of them would ever sell. They may sublet it, because they can sublet it, and the details haven't been advised by the government as to whether there will be restrictions on whether they can sublet it for whatever amounts. I suspect they could sublet it for rather substantial amounts of money.

This is indeed a windfall to these people, so it is unfair. It's a preferential treatment that I'm surprised at, coming from this government and listening to its philosophy since the New Democratic Party was formed and listening to its philosophy of life. I'm rather shocked, in fact, that this type of bill is coming forward in the way it has.

It'll be interesting to see whether there'll be any challenges to the developing of the non-profit housing. As I understand it, there will be 110 new housing units that will be built on this land, which will be an expansion of the number of people who are going to be using this area. This is an open space, as I understand it. It's a parkland setting. It'll be interesting to see whether anyone demands an environmental assessment. I will be most surprised if someone in Metro doesn't make that request, because it doesn't make sense as to the direction in which they're going.

The whole subject of parking: If I live in the downtown area, what does it cost me to park in this area of downtown Toronto? Certainly a lot more than a dollar a day. I think Mr Stockwell, the member from Etobicoke, made that comparison.

Most unusual, the calculations that have been put forward, the valuation of the $36,000 to $46,000.

1720

I understand that the councillors of Metro have made some comments in the past as to what they're receiving for this; I believe it's $12 million that it's hoped will be raised by the leasing of these lots, which will go to the city of Toronto as a means of compensating them for the 10 years of investment on these islands. But it'll be very interesting to hear their observations as to whether they have been fairly compensated. This was their land, which is, all of a sudden, going to be owned by the province of Ontario.

The whole use of this property, the ferry service, the schools, it goes on and on as to what's going to be required, all at a very nominal cost for living there.

Keeping the island as a park, I guess that's my real purpose for standing in this House today. Much has been said of the preferential treatment. I think we should look at how we should be fighting. We should be doing our darnedest to preserve areas from development. Parklands are for all of us and yet the parkland concept is withering away on Toronto Islands. It's a most unusual philosophy to take. I don't understand it. I simply don't understand it and it gets to the third issue that I will be talking about, and that is the whole concept of putting non-profit housing.

I have expressed my views in the past on the whole subject of non-profit housing. I think that's an inappropriate way to solve the housing problems in this province. But even accepting what the government is doing with its philosophy of non-profit housing, why would you choose a park? Why would you choose an island as beautiful as the city of Toronto to put 110 new housing units on, of which 80, as I understand, will be managed by a housing cooperative? What a strange thing to do.

It's like the announcement made by the Minister of Housing a week or so ago: It's going to put a non-profit housing development just a block from here, over on the corner of Bay and Wellesley. What a strange place to put non-profit housing, with children. They seem to be obsessed with this subject; they're going to put non-profit housing anywhere. There's no real plan.

So even accepting your view of non-profit housing, which I do not, the least you could do is to have some plan as to where you're going to put these things and how they're going to affect the overall economy of this province. So I find the environmental rationale very strange indeed.

Of course, Mr Cooke, the minister who introduced Bill 171, stood in his place and said that this legislation is innovative, creative and fair. We've listened to the debate and I think it is not; it is far from that. It is preferential. It is discriminatory. It is not well planned. It is not environmentally sound. Every aspect of it is a mess and I think that the government should reconsider its position on this subject.

You listen to the history of where this has come from since 1955 and it's rather an astounding history. Mr Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West, has adequately explained that. It really is an amazing history. But notwithstanding all that, we're now in 1992. The government has now introduced Bill 171. It doesn't matter what the Liberals have done or what the Conservatives have done; it's what you're doing. Is it sound? Sure, it's very easy to criticize the Liberals. It may be very easy to criticize what some of the members of the Conservative Party did 20 or 15 years ago or whatever. The question is, is Bill 171 -- the principles -- sound?

As I understand it, the provisions include that the residential communities will remain as public lands, though the province will assume ownership rights instead of Metro Toronto. The residents will have a limited right of ownership of their homes. I'm not sure what that means. I hope the parliamentary assistant will rise in his place and explain that.

The 99-year lease will be offered to residents, who may lease lots at the price of $36,000 and $46,000 on Ward's Island and Algonquin Island respectively. I think that is the most contentious of all, that it does give preferential treatment to one group of people in this province. There's no other way of looking at it. I'd love to be able to present that to people in my riding, to give them such a deal. It's a very strange deal.

Residents who cannot afford the lease of their lots may join a new island housing cooperative. We'll talk about cooperatives in a moment and how that whole philosophy of the Minister of Housing has changed the whole theory of cooperative housing. The whole philosophy of cooperative housing has become very preferential. The Minister of Housing has essentially taken over who gets those applications and who doesn't, whether it be non-profit housing or whether it be cooperatives.

I would therefore like to finally speak on the third issue of concern that I have, the fact that 110 new housing units will be built on this location, 80 of which will be managed by a housing cooperative. I've already indicated that I think it's most inappropriate that they are building these buildings on Toronto Islands. It really contradicts all planning policies of open space on the waterfront. All policies have been set aside. Most strange.

With respect to the subject of non-profit housing -- and I would like to spend some time on that, because I think this government is still convinced that this is the solution -- the Progressive Conservative Party has indicated that our policy recommends extending the use of shelter allowances, which would provide a government supplement to be used towards rent at an average cost of just over $137 per month per needy family. More and more facts are being put forward as to who is receiving the benefits of co-ops, who is receiving the benefits of non-profit housing. It's not the fair concept. It may have been initially, on paper, a concept that was going to help the poor, but that isn't how it's turned out.

Recently, and it's been reported of course, the expensive Woodgreen community which is on Coxwell Avenue was opened last April by the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ms Churley, who, of course, is an ex-co-op dweller herself. There are 11 bachelor apartments there, each subsidized by the neighbouring taxpayers to the tune of $1,924 per month, while the average rent for a bachelor apartment in Toronto is $490. Again, when you're introducing these policies of co-ops and non-profit housing, think of the reality, think of what the taxpayer is in fact paying for these things. These buildings are being subsidized by the poor, the taxpayer, the very people whom you're trying to assist.

The Social Assistance Review Committee, which is chaired by the now Deputy Attorney General, George Thomson, has stated that only 18% of social assistance recipients get to live in publicly subsidized housing. Again, this is what we're trying to put over on Toronto Island.

Another internal government study shows that only 20% of poor people in deep need of assisted housing get into government-assisted co-ops. Instead, more than 60% of co-op residents have salaries ranging from $35,000 to $50,000 per year and, again, it's getting back to Mr Stockwell's comment about who's living over there now, and yet we're going to put another series of housing which isn't working, the non-profit and co-op housing. It's not working. We keep grinding these things out. Almost every other week something is announced.

This same Social Assistance Review Committee says that many of the families getting provincial welfare benefits spend more than 50% of their welfare cheque on rent, and 70% of recipients are single mothers who must then rely on food banks to feed their children.

The other interesting thing is that the Minister of Housing is playing a large role in this whole plan of co-ops and non-profit housing on the Toronto Islands or whether it be over on the corner of Bay and Wellesley. Shortly after taking over her portfolio as the Minister of Housing, she changed the system of allocating who gets hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of government-assisted housing.

1730

I can say that because I, believe it or not, happen to have been on a committee, a non-profit housing corporation in the town of Orangeville, and I saw the other side of the coin. I've seen how this works, but all proposed projects in the past went through a rigorous process of review by ministry officials to decide which ones would get approved, and communities all across this province were following those principles.

The Minister of Housing, Ms Gigantes, has changed all that. She now approves all projects. So what we're looking at is that all of a sudden these two areas have jumped up the list. What about all the other applications? Assuming that your policies are correct, and I don't agree with them, but all these people -- it's like the municipal board jumpings. They've all jumped up the list. She approves all projects. Her office deletes projects that have gone through the normal channels and adds others that have not. One official, we've been told, has said that people are turned down by the ministry and they simply laugh at them. The ministry offices simply laugh at them when they try to get approved.

There's another issue that I must talk about: the integrity of this government, which really troubles me. Minnie DeJong, who is the special assistant to Ms Gigantes, participates in decisions about funding allocations to build government-assisted housing. A major recipient of this funding in the form of sector support fees is the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario. Guess who is the manager of the policy and program development of the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario? Her husband is. It's all getting very clubby as to how all this works. It's very strange as to the Premier's policy on conflicts of interest, which even he isn't following with respect to the development in his riding.

I think that whole concept needs to be reviewed by the Minister of Housing. It's fine to say we're going to put co-op housing and non-profit housing on the island, but let's talk about the planning. Let's talk about who gets what allocations, and where and why and when and who's got the inside track. That appears to be the issue: Who's got the inside track? I've given one example and it's very troubling.

The other issue I am concerned about on this expansion of the non-profit housing and co-op housing to the Toronto Islands is that there's no question that prices have crashed in the real estate market. They have, but the government doesn't seem to have noticed that. Where are apartments being built? Why would you build an apartment? The non-profit housing people are going under them. They're putting them out of business. The affordable housing monster is chaired by our current Minister of Housing. She's plowing ahead and putting non-profit housing all over the place, whether it be at Bay and Wellesley or whether it be on the Toronto Islands.

I must say there's a concern that there will be no further developments. This has been going on certainly since this government took power through the whole process of Bill 4 and Bill 121 and now into this. These are just more examples of the developers, private enterprise, who normally put up the money to build private buildings, and they're not doing it. The government has taken over the housing industry and it's expanding on to the Toronto Islands at a cost that is rather astounding.

Since October 1988, Ontario has approved 66,000 units of non-profit housing, and the cost of these units will be at least $100,000 each. That's a total of $6.6 billion. At this moment, an estimated $260 million will be paid to consultants, architects, lawyers and mortgage brokers before they even dig a shovel in the ground.

With regard to this concept of non-profit housing and co-op housing that they're going to have over on Metro island, they won't be able to proceed with the application unless they hire a consultant. They're going to have to hire a consultant to tell how you wade through the myriad forms and mysterious documentation in the Ministry of Housing simply to get there.

It's going to cost a lot of money just to hire a consultant. Does private enterprise hire those types of people? No, but the province of Ontario does. In fact, the government of Ontario used to have its own in-house people, but now there are consultants, whether it be lawyers, architects, consultants, who are making unbelievable amounts of money before you even put a shovel into the ground to develop these areas.

Again, we're talking about solving a social problem, solving a housing problem. This government's going about it the wrong way, because it's costing the taxpayer of this province unbelievable amounts of money, as opposed to the subsidy program that's being suggested by our leader, Mr Harris.

The biggest non-building cost uncovered in the information that's being made available by the government on the first 6,140 units built since 1988 is the fees of more than $10 million being paid to organizational consultants. That's $10 million which normally isn't spent. When private enterprise puts up this sort of thing, it doesn't spend that, but this government is spending, just to date, $10 million before it even digs a shovel into the ground. By the time all 66,000 units approved by the government are built, these consultants, these lawyers, these architects will be costing the taxpayers more than $105 million. The Toronto Islands, the co-op housing and non-profit housing, is just part of that.

This isn't bad work for just paperwork, because that's really all it is. It's a complete waste of time that should be going to the needy of this province, the unemployed of this province, the people who are having trouble being fed in this province through food banks.

The whole concept as to how you're doing it is dead wrong. The member for York Centre is right. One of the best questions, the most-asked question that is given to me is: "How do we get rid of you people? You come up with these ideas that don't make any sense. Why would you put non-profit housing and co-op housing in a park?"

The whole plan of this bill is faulty and I would recommend that all members of this House vote against it. Who ever said there is no profit to non-profit housing? There's all kinds of profit being made at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to participate this afternoon in this debate. I hope that the members of this House, particularly the members of the government, will reconsider what they've been saying on the three areas I've been speaking of. The preferential treatment shows that it's unfair to the taxpayers of Metro Toronto, that it's unfair to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

I hope you will look at the environmental aspects and what you will do. You will recall what members of your party have said over the years of trying to preserve our parkland, because you're not doing that by this policy. You're building buildings on parkland. Finally, it's inappropriate to build non-profit housing and co-op housing on parkland, particularly on the Toronto Islands.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate? Seeing none, would the honourable parliamentary assistant have some words to wrap up?

1740

Mr Elston: Don't be provocative.

Mr Mills: I'm going to be provocative, because I find it quite awful that we've listened to the member for Etobicoke West call some very fine citizens of the province of Ontario socialist squatters. I don't think that is very fair. They are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens and they expect to be treated properly in this House, the House of the people of Ontario.

Having said that, I would now like to respond to some of the questions that were posed here. This problem of the residential community located on the Toronto Islands has baffled provincial governments for years. You've all tried to solve it and you couldn't. Peterson tried to solve it, Harris tried to solve it and he couldn't, and their candidates in the last election in that riding expressed their commitment to preserving the Toronto island community by legislating home ownership in the hands of those with proper owner documentation.

The acknowledgement of home ownership by the island community is the key to understanding why the opposition claim that the island residents are getting a bargain, $30 monthly rent, is a total distortion of the truth. The truth is that the principles of this legislation, as proposed by the government's appointee, Richard Johnston, for this settlement, are totally fair to all parties concerned, including the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and the province.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The accusation that was just made by the honourable member, while unbecoming of him, is also unparliamentary in asserting a distortion of the truth. I ask you to ask him to withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear the honourable member mention any individual members.

Mr Mancini: He spit at all of us.

The Acting Speaker: He actually mentioned the opposition. He may want to withdraw. In my opinion, it is not unparliamentary. The honourable parliamentary assistant.

Mr Mills: The people of the islands own their own homes.

Mr Elston: The government members are. How's that --

Mr Stockwell: The government members are a bunch of liars.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: And David Peterson and Michael Harris and other prominent Liberals and Tories have long acknowledged --

Mr Stockwell: You're a bunch of liars.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not parliamentary. I'm sorry.

Mr Elston: What's the difference?

The Acting Speaker: Would you please consider withdrawing what I have just heard from both the member for Bruce and the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Elston: What is the difference? Mr Speaker, I will withdraw --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Elston: -- but I ask to have a written ruling that says what's different between what I said and what he's just said.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. There has been a withdrawal.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for your ruling on that.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Etobicoke West, would you consider withdrawing?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the member for Durham East --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I asked for a withdrawal, unconditional, please.

Mr Stockwell: He said that the opposition was distorting the truth, misrepresenting the truth, Mr Speaker. That, to me, is unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: I asked for a withdrawal. Is the honourable member prepared to withdraw?

Mr Stockwell: When I say the government members are liars it means exactly the same thing. Mr Speaker, if you took offence to that, then I will withdraw that comment, on the proviso that I get a ruling from the Chair as to whether the member for Durham East can suggest that --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I heard the honourable member withdraw, and I asked for unconditional. Would the honourable member for Durham East also reconsider what he has said?

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, if it so offends the member for Etobicoke West --

Mr Elston: And me.

Mr Mills: -- I will unequivocally withdraw the fact.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Please proceed.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It offends all of us, Gordy.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member for Durham East please proceed.

Mr Sorbara: Now hold on a second, Gordy.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, let me include the members of the Liberal Party too, okay?

Mr Sorbara: You're one of the best speakers. Put down your written notes and tell us what you're saying.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The parliamentary assistant has the floor. Please proceed and address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Mills: Usually, Mr Speaker --

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Does the parliamentary assistant have to read that drivel that's prepared for him by the ministry officials? Can't he just give us a speech?

The Acting Speaker: Order. That's not a point of anything. The Minister of Transportation, on a point of what?

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's obvious, with the highest of respect, sir, that the opposition is testing the patience of yet the most congenial --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I know it's close to 6 of the clock and there's a lot of testing going on on all sides. I would ask the honourable parliamentary assistant and member for Durham East to proceed.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, in the interests of time and we're trying to push on, I'm going to -- I usually speak without any notes at all, but I can't concentrate when everyone keeps jabbering and giving it to me.

We heard comment about the ferry service. The people on Toronto Islands pay $2.75 a day for it and then they pay their TTC fares on top of that. The ferry --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We're getting close to 6 o'clock. Please allow the parliamentary assistant to proceed.

Mr Mills: Ferry services would still have to be maintained whether they lived there or not for park visitors, workers, mainland students.

I'd just like to talk about the schools. The island school serves not only the children of the islanders but 170 children who live in the Harbourfront area and it serves the city of Toronto. Hundreds of grade 5 and 6 students stay for a week to go to the school.

As I said, island residents have always paid their full share of taxes. They've always owned their own houses and all of Ontario's political parties have long been committed to returning their homes to them. The main issue that had to be resolved was how to arrange payment of the use of the public lands on which their homes sat. They constantly tried to pay rent for the land. They could never get anyone to tell them what to pay. That doesn't mean they got rent free any time. That issue has been factored into the land-lease payments required by this legislation.

The opposition tells us the land-lease purchase price of $36,000 to $46,000 for 99 years amounts to $30 a month. Again, this is a total -- oh, I almost said it. This isn't true. As I mentioned, the residents have long ago paid for their homes, so the purchase price doesn't include consideration of the value of the actual homes. They already own them and it doesn't represent the normal purchase price of land because what they are buying gives them very limited equity in the land. They won't profit on the sale of the land like any other park. Any profits on the sale of the land will be tightly controlled by a formula designed to eliminate speculation and maintain the affordability of these homes.

Mr Stockwell: I'll give you $55 for every lot and I'll be a millionaire tomorrow.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think I could stand you as a millionaire.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. This does not help in the debate one bit. Could the honourable member for Durham East continue with his participation?

Mr Mills: The clock is ticking away. During the debate yesterday and today we heard umpteen questions pumped at the government: Why are you doing this? Why are you doing that? This is unfair. That's unfair. I've risen on my feet this afternoon in an attempt to address those issues and they won't listen. They don't want me to address them, they keep shouting at me, so I'm going to give up.

I'm not even going to try to explain to you the issues because it's a shame that in this Legislature you don't want to listen to reason; you don't want to listen to the people. There's an 80-year-old woman sitting there who escaped Nazi Germany. It's a disgrace that that woman was called by the member for Etobicoke West a squatter, and a socialist squatter. That's a disgrace.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Could the members please resume their seats.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I take great exception to what that member just said. He knows it to be untrue. What I said during the debate -- there are a handful of people who lived on that island since the beginning of this debate. I wasn't speaking about them. I said I'm not speaking about those people and to suggest that is maligning me and what I said in this House. You should withdraw it, sir.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. On a point of order, the honourable member for York Centre.

Mr Stockwell: You should withdraw that, Mills. That's an unfair shot and you know it. You didn't even listen. I told you the ones who had been there -- I wasn't speaking about them.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for York Centre is on a point of order.

Mr Stockwell: That's unbelievable.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I simply want to join with the member for Etobicoke West in suggesting a withdrawal of the remarks would be appropriate.

I do want to congratulate the parliamentary assistant for abandoning the drivel that the ministry wrote for him and indulging in his own drivel.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The parliamentary assistant and member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, thank you. In closing, this is not only a fair deal for the island residents; it is a fair deal for everyone.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want that comment withdrawn. It maligned me. It maligned what my speech was, and it is absolutely untrue. What do I need to say to get this member to withdraw it? If he's going to stand by those comments, then I ask him to make them outside.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. If the honourable member for Durham East wants to withdraw, he is the only one that can correct his record. The honourable member for Durham East, please proceed.

Mr Mills: As I said, this is not only a fair deal for the island residents; it's a fair deal for everyone. The island residents, in my opinion, are to be commended for their vision in developing a community model to maintain the sustainable carless community through piloting the use in Ontario of a community land trust.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We are now moving to proceed with second reading of Bill 61.

Mr Cooke has moved second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship --

Mr Stockwell: Go read Hansard and make sure. You're lying, Gord. Just say it. There's no relation to what the facts were. This is disgusting you should say that. It was nothing of what I said -- nothing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I know it's getting close to 6 o'clock and the members are restless.

Mr Cooke has moved second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands.

Shall Mr Cooke's motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Cooke's motion please say "aye."

All those opposed to Mr Cooke's motion please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A 30-minute bell -- a maximum of 30 minutes.

The division bells rang from 1754 to 1807.

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker has received a note dated November 18, 1992, addressed to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly:

"Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion by David Cooke for second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands, be deferred until after routine proceedings on November 19, 1992," that being tomorrow. It is signed by Frank Miclash, MPP, deputy opposition whip.

I therefore declare that the vote will be held tomorrow pursuant to routine proceedings.

It now being past six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1809.