Journal des débats 1994-avril-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I was pleased to read in the April 13 edition of the Dryden Local Express that the Minister of Natural Resources has assured the residents of Dryden that they "should be optimistic about provincial funding for the local hospital project and the extended care home." The minister went on even further by saying, "The Minister of Health should be about to make an announcement soon."

The Dryden District General Hospital board and I have been pressing the Minister of Health to move ahead with the approval process for the next stage of planning in order to upgrade the hospital facilities and for the new long-term care building the residents of the Dryden area have been waiting for for so long. We are naturally very pleased and excited about the Minister of Natural Resources' comments and we await the government's funding announcement soon after the budget.

I would also like to take this opportunity to compliment the residents of Dryden and the Dryden area, the Dryden hospital board, the Dryden Extended Care Organization and the administration of both the hospital and Patricia Gardens Minimal Care Home, along with my municipal colleagues, for the work that has gone into these two projects. Many hours have been spent by all concerned in preparing for the projects, and I look forward to a very positive announcement that will be made by this Minister of Health in the upcoming weeks.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is directed to the Minister of Finance, and it concerns a threatened reduction to municipal road grants and base road funding. This 20% cut will mean a reduction of about $145 million from last year's road grants of $724 million. This represents a $73-million reduction in construction dollars and will result in at least 1,100 fewer jobs.

Municipalities normally match the $73-million provincial funds with local funds. If hard-pressed municipalities decide not to spend those matching funds, the negative employment impact will most certainly double. Road grants have traditionally been announced in January, but this year's allocation will not be disclosed until late April or early May.

For the second time in as many years, this government will announce major transfer cuts to municipalities after they have already set their budgets and their taxation levels. You are requiring municipalities to commit new money for projects under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. I suspect you are merely transferring funds from road grants to meet your commitment under that program.

Minister, on March 23, you affirmed your government's transfer payment commitments and you said you wanted to avoid "downloading our fiscal problems on to our transfer partners, as the federal government has so unfairly done to us. That carries too high a price in lost jobs and cuts to services."

Can the situation have changed that much in three weeks?

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): In many communities across Ontario, there are people whose lives depend on the kindness and understanding of strangers. These are the people who are waiting for a desperately needed organ or tissue transplant. Their only hope for a new life is agreement by a family to organ donation.

This is Organ Donor Awareness Week. In Ontario alone, there are close to 1,000 people waiting for an organ transplant and some will die because there is a critical shortage of donated organs. There are many reasons for this shortage, ranging from a decrease in brain deaths in Ontario to misunderstanding about the organ donation process.

In Ontario, about 100 out of every million people need a transplant but only about 20 out of every million people will ever be a potential donor. Last year in Ontario, there were 568 transplants, an increase over 1992, but there is still a critical shortage of donated organs in Ontario and people will die because of this.

Transplants not only save lives but can reduce health care costs. People waiting for a kidney can be treated by dialysis at a cost of anywhere from $40,000 to $75,000 for every year that patient is on dialysis. A kidney transplant costs about $40,000 and the costs for the years after that for anti-rejection drugs average $3,000 a year. A study has estimated that if organ donation could increase by only 10%, the health care system would save more than $12 million.

Ontario residents can show their support of organ donation by discussing it with family members and signing a donor card. When you sign a donor card, you sign for life.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to add my thoughts to the debate that's raging as a result of what's now called the Just Desserts incident. It has touched a nerve and, in our anger, all of us have to respond. We do run the risk of making things worse rather than better. My plea for all of us is to be sensitive.

Some thoughts: This isn't a crime committed by "the black community." The black community is no different than any other community. They are law-abiding, caring, compassionate, hardworking. It was a crime that was committed by four young criminals, apparently black, but to brand the entire black community obviously is clearly wrong.

My second thought is, this is really a time more than ever before when we need to reach out to our young people, not reject them. It is a fact, and I think an indisputable fact, that in the last few weeks our young black community has probably never felt as rejected as it has in the past few days. This is a time for us all to reach out to our young people, particularly, I must say, to our young black community, and ensure that they don't in any way feel neglected. I think all of us can do that in our own way every single day.

My last point is to urge caution in publicly reporting crime by race. The question is, what do we plan to do with that? If we are simply going to use it as a tool to somehow or other paint an entire community because of the actions of perhaps one out of 1,000 of that community, that's counterproductive.

So if we all want to do something, I'm just urging that we cautiously move forward as we try and deal with this very sensitive issue.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I stood before you a week ago to discuss the inflexibility and anti-development practices of the Niagara Escarpment Commission in my riding. It is certainly no secret how I feel about the commission and its uselessness. In keeping with this, I would like to relate yet another example of why this undemocratic body should be disbanded.

In November 1990 John Deboer, a resident of Sydenham township, applied for a development permit to establish the use of a stair manufacturing operation in an existing building on Niagara Escarpment land. The permit was issued.

1340

Over the next few years business more than tripled, warranting a move to a larger location. In October 1992 Mr Deboer moved his business into a building located only 350 feet from its original location. Since it was the exact same commercial operation taking place in the same rural area of the escarpment, Mr Deboer reasoned that it should continue to be regarded as an existing use as previously determined by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Mr Deboer was mistaken. A second development permit was rejected by the NEC despite its former approval. Even after receiving development approval from the Ministry of Transportation, the Bruce-Grey health unit and the township, the commission continued to deny Deboer's application and appeal on the ground that the proposed use did not comply with the permitted uses in the Niagara Escarpment plan.

I can only share in Deboer's extreme dissatisfaction with the treatment he received from the commission. How can a body of supposedly educated and logical individuals issue a permit for a specific use and then turn around and deny a permit for the exact same development less than 350 feet away? It is unanswerable questions such as this one that plague Grey county and will continue to do so until this undemocratic body is abolished.

WINE INDUSTRY

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is with a great deal of pride I'm pleased to report that Ontario wines are once again making headlines around the world. This time it's their gold medal showing in the international wine competition in Verona, Italy, last week, where Niagara's Cave Spring Cellars 1991 Chardonnay Reserve and Stonechurch's 1991 Icewine took grand gold, the highest honour possible.

Gold medals also went to Inniskillin winery of Niagara-on-the-Lake for its 1992 Icewine. Chateau des Charmes, also of Niagara-on-the-Lake, was awarded a silver medal for its 1992 Paul Bosc Estate Chardonnay. Meanwhile, St Catharines' own Henry of Pelham winery won a bronze for its 1991 Chardonnay Barrel Fermented, as did Pelee Island's 1991 Pinot Noir.

Competing against 900 wines from 16 different countries, Ontario wines took three of the top four spots in the Chardonnay category, winning grand gold, silver and bronze medals. Our icewines took two of the top four spots, grand gold and gold in the sweet wine category.

In addition to six medals, Ontario wines received 10 honourable mentions. Ontario placed second in overall medal totals, with Italy placing first.

Our vintners have once again shown the world that we make some of the finest quality wines anywhere in the world. As someone who supports wine -- and I hope everyone in this House does -- coming from Ontario, I hope we will all lift a glass to congratulate each and every vintner in Ontario for their good work.

FERRY SERVICE FEES

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have just become aware of yet another blatant example of Tory doublespeak that I would like to share with this House.

On December 16 Mike Harris wrote to the organizers of the anti-ferry-fee coalition in eastern Ontario. Here's what he said:

"Thank you for faxing me a copy of your November 26th letter to Premier Rae expressing your outrage with the NDP government's plans to impose tolls on transportation.

"My caucus and I have continually urged the Premier and the Treasurer to neither increase existing nor introduce any new taxes, which is exactly what such a toll would be."

Yet, Mr Speaker, guess what I read in a recent edition of the Kingston Whig Standard. Again I quote:

"A two- or three-tiered system for ferry fees at Wolfe Island and Glenora is a possibility under a Tory government, says Mike Harris."

That's a quote. These comments were made at a Conservative fund-raiser at the Ambassador Hotel in Kingston. I find it amazing that the Conservative leader can change his tune so dramatically within a short few months.

This issue is of great importance to the people in Kingston, Picton and surrounding areas. For sure, they will remember at election time the obvious Tory inconsistency and they won't be much impressed with a party leader who changes his position every month.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise again in this Legislature to urge the government to give final approval for the redevelopment of the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital.

In the last month approximately 8,250 Collingwood area residents have signed petitions that support my call for a redeveloped hospital in Collingwood. These citizens are both frustrated and concerned that the promised redevelopment has been studied to death and stalled for the past seven years. These citizens have had their faith in their hospital shaken because government funding cutbacks have forced the General and Marine Hospital to close beds and reduce staff.

They have also had their trust in government damaged by unkept promises made by successive Liberal and NDP governments. Since 1987 five Liberal and NDP Health ministers have announced and reannounced their intentions to approve the redevelopment of Collingwood hospital. To date, no sod has been turned and over $4 million in donations and pledges made by residents to help finance the redevelopment project sit idle in a local bank.

It is vital that the redevelopment of the Collingwood hospital be approved immediately. This green light will create construction jobs that are badly needed in the area. It may also restore the trust that has been lost between governments that have made promises and not kept them, promises that were made to the people of Ontario. They're sick and tired of politicians saying one thing and not taking action on what they've said.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I rise today to introduce a victim, a victim who is also a constituent and a victim of the workers' compensation system.

Mr Claudio Aiello, who is a constituent of mine, got hurt a number of years ago at General Electric. He hurt his hand, his shoulder and his back. He was productive, he was working a few years ago, he was ready to get married, he had a fiancée, the plans for the marriage were almost there ready to go, and then he got hurt. That's when his nightmare started.

It started when he made his initial phone calls to the adjudicator of the Workers' Compensation Board. That same adjudicator, a few years later, still giving him runarounds, still doesn't necessarily understand what he's going through as a human being.

The decision review board hasn't helped either in terms of responding to his letters dealing with his concerns, and of course trying to understand Mr Aiello's concerns. It's very difficult for me as a member to stand up here and not be compassionate when he talks about the decision review board and the lack of understanding they have shown as well over the last few years. The office of the worker adviser hasn't helped him at all.

I would ask this House, and of course the Premier, when the reforms come about, to look at these particular problems and help people, the future Aiellos.

VISITEURS

Le Vice-Président (Gilles E. Morin) : J'aimerais inviter tous les députés de l'Assemblée législative à souhaiter la bienvenue dans la Chambre à nos invités des parlements de la république du Bénin, du Québec, de la Suisse, de la France, du val d'Aoste, du Canada et de la Belgique qui sont assis dans la tribune du Président.

L'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario accueille la Commission de l'éducation, de la communication et des affaires culturelles de l'Assemblée internationale des parlementaires de langue française. Je vous prie donc de vous joindre à moi et de souhaiter la bienvenue à nos distingués invités.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUDGET

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1994 budget for Ontario to the Legislature and to my colleagues on Thursday, May 5, at 4 pm.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm looking forward to the budget on May 5. I guess I'd start by saying that last year when the minister and the Premier presented their budget, you may recall that jobs were the number one priority in that budget --

Interjection: Still are.

1350

Mr Phillips: The fact is, you haven't delivered. The member across said, "Still are."

What we now see -- this is now heading into the fifth year of the Rae government --

Hon Mr Laughren: Talk about your numbers.

Mr Phillips: -- is a record number of people out of work in the province. The Premier promised that things on the job front were going to get better. As this budget ended, the final three months of this budget, we saw 4,000 fewer people working in the province of Ontario than the year before. The Minister of Finance may shake his head, but those are the facts.

As we look in the rest of Canada, what's happening in the rest of Canada: 150,000 more people are working in the rest of Canada and 4,000 fewer people are working in the province of Ontario. That was the number one priority in the budget, and it's not working.

Among our young people there is a tragic level of unemployment. The reported number is approximately 20%, one out of five. The real number, when you look at the number that have simply dropped out -- they're not enrolled in colleges or universities -- is one out of three. So last year, as we looked at this budget, the number one priority was jobs and it has not worked.

I will say that on Friday my leader issued a report called Getting Ontario Working Again. I would hope that we would see, as this budget is prepared and presented, many of the ideas that are presented in this report that will get people working again.

The second thing that the budget promised was to get their fiscal house in order. I went back over the last three budgets. In the first Rae budget, taxes went up $1 billion. In the second budget, taxes went up $1 billion. Last year's budget, taxes went up $2 billion. Taxes have gone up dramatically.

Hon Mr Laughren: Are you talking about the Liberals?

Mr Phillips: What's actually happened is tax revenues have actually dropped, and so getting your fiscal house in order, Mr Premier, has not worked. You have taken taxes up dramatically and tax revenues have dropped. Something is fundamentally wrong in our economy.

The Premier's second key objective in last year's budget -- first was to get jobs created in the province; it's not working -- was to get our fiscal house in order. The more you've taken taxes up, the more tax revenues have dropped. If you go back three years, tax revenues have actually, as the Premier knows, dropped by $2 billion while you've taken taxes up by $4 billion. That is not working.

The third thing I wanted to say --

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Explain that.

Mr Phillips: "Explain that," you said? Yes, you should understand this. What you're doing is, you're taking the tax rates up and you're driving people out of the economy. If you don't understand that, you aren't listening to us.

The third thing I would say is that as we look at the budget, and I realize that for many this may not be a central issue, we will be looking at things like, is it your plan -- this year, the year that just ended, the government theoretically sold $400 million worth of GO trains. I gather that in the budget that's coming up they may very well "sell" our ferries, "sell" our planes, "sell" our heavy equipment and then lease them back.

They are taking a holiday from making payments against our pension funds. The unfunded liability in our pension funds is roughly $10 billion. It is growing at the rate of approximately $800 million a year, but we're making no payments against that.

I will say to the Minister of Finance, we will look at the budget on the basis of: When are we going to start seeing jobs created, and how will this budget help that? When are we going to get our fiscal house in order? The third thing we will want to look at is the numbers. Have we listened to our Provincial Auditor, and will the budget that is presented in fact, as he wants, reflect in an accurate way the finances of this province?

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I think everyone is anxious to see how this government is going to create jobs. In our pre-budget finance report we gave you about 19 recommendations, Minister of Finance, everything from taxation to what to do with the employer health payroll tax to what to do with workers' compensation to what to do with social assistance to what to do with regulations. We have given this government almost two and a half pages of recommendations of what needs to be done in this budget.

It starts very clearly that there cannot be any taxation increases in the province of Ontario. The difference between us and the Liberals is that we've been arguing that since the late 1980s, when we told you, "You can't continue to tax, spend and borrow like there was no tomorrow." Now tomorrow is here.

The last budget gave us the biggest tax grab in the history of this province, even bigger than the taxing of the Peterson government, which was at record levels. We had another $10-billion deficit in the last budget. We had another credit rating; it's been our third downgrading of credit ratings in three years. Over this year, we had the refusal of the Provincial Auditor to endorse the books, and we've had the start of a tax revolt with the underground economy, because people are saying that you don't spend their money wisely and they will do anything to avoid it.

The annual forecasts were off again. We were supposed to be getting the deficit down. We have not. We call it the deficit du jour. Each week that goes by there have to be other cuts. There is no long-term game plan.

In order to be credible, we laid out very clearly in our pre-budget report what we would like to see done in the province of Ontario. Two years ago, I sat on those hearings and we again gave recommendations to the Minister of Finance. He didn't listen on the issues of taxation, and had he listened, we would not have had to go through some of the measures we had, such as the social contract this year, because we warned you three years ago that you had to control government spending and that the only way we're going to create jobs is to allow the private sector to be successful. Instead, you did nothing but tax the living daylights out of every person and every business in the province of Ontario.

We gave our recommendations to this Minister of Finance. We hope on May 5 of this year you're finally going to start to listen to some of the ideas we've put forward for literally three and a half years.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Clearly, the Treasurer has gone about teasing the bears with this controversial statement here today, two pages to tell us the budget is on Thursday, May 5, 1994. It will be the fourth budget offered up by this socialist government in the province of Ontario. On May 6, the people in the province of Ontario will be breathing a collective sigh of relief, because more than likely, thank God, it will be the last budget offered up by the socialists in the province of Ontario.

I will also add, it is very true, the Liberal critic for Finance does mention the fact that by raising taxes they're generating less revenue. We know on this side of the House you could never accuse that Liberal government of that. When they raised taxes, they got a lot more money every time they increased those taxes. So if they want to give lessons, there's a crew over there who will listen very intently, because they got the raise in taxes part right; they just didn't get the getting more money part right, and that was the difference.

I will look forward to this next budget, because the Treasurer has promised, for the first time in a budget he has brought down, no tax increases. To the beleaguered taxpayers in this province, that is the first and most important thing that any Treasurer in this province representing any party could offer up to those taxpayers.

Never was it made more clear than yesterday, when this Treasurer went out and reduced the taxes on the brew-your-own breweries. That was reduced, and we know why it was reduced: because the speculation was that it would generate some $5 million in extra taxes and in fact it's come in pathetically below the $5 million, thereby proving the point we've been trying to explain to the socialists since September 6, 1990.

They're at the tax wall. Just because you raise the taxes just means you drive more businesses and more honest citizens underground, and that's not where they want to be in this province. They want to be paying their fair share, but you've pushed them to the wall, Mr Treasurer, and you've pushed them directly to the wall with your previous three budgets.

Lastly, in this upcoming budget, I would like the Treasurer to know that job creation is an important cog within this caucus and within this party and this province, but you must be cognizant of government spending, and this budget will be very interesting in how you delicately balance what you've claimed you are going to do for the people.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Finance. As our treasury critic has indicated, on Friday we released a report called Getting Ontario Working Again, and it is the report of our task force on jobs. In this report we set out a comprehensive framework for getting people back to work again.

The minister has challenged our Finance critic to talk about our numbers, and I do so with pride, because the goal we set out in this report is to get unemployment in this province down to 6% because this government's projections of 9% unemployment are completely unacceptable.

It is quite clear that last year's budget is going to fail to reach its job targets, and one of the reasons it's going to fail to reach the job creation targets is because of the $2 billion in job-killing taxes that were in that budget. It was made very clear to our task force that it would be necessary to reduce taxes in order to get people working again, and I realize the minister has finally begun to acknowledge that and we too were pleased to see that he had decided to reduce the taxes on the you-brews. That had been a vibrant and growing industry until this government put a tax on it in last year's budget, and we've since seen some 500 people laid off and some 40 businesses close.

I ask the minister: Given the fact that you have finally acknowledged that the you-brew tax was forcing people to lay off employees and to close their doors, can we now expect, as we look towards the next budget, that you are examining the whole host of job-killing taxes you introduced last year and that you will be taking steps to determine what other ones should now be cut?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the reference to the official opposition's task force on jobs. When I was reading it, I could not help but notice the numbers and even do a little bit of analysis of the numbers contained therein. I don't want to be mean to the leader of the official opposition or to tease the bears on the benches opposite, but I did want to tell her directly that she's wrong on the numbers in her task force on unemployment, she's wrong on the numbers on job creation and she's wrong on the level of deficit that would be achieved by the actions that you recommend in your task force report. Your task force report is full of holes, and I hope you will not ask me to use it as a benchmark for any future actions we'll take on this side of the House.

Mrs McLeod: I was very pleased about the fact that what we have set out in our jobs task force report has received independent confirmation from economic specialists that it is indeed balanced and realistic and would work. I say to this Finance minister that the clear evidence that his approach has not worked is seen in the fact that there are 4,000 fewer people working in this province at the end of March this year than there were at the end of last year. That is clear evidence of what does not work.

I take the Treasurer back to my question of whether or not they are prepared to look at job-killing taxes and remove them as he approaches his budget. I want to give him an example of one tax that I believe he should cut.

Treasurer, last spring you announced that you were going to put a new tax on ferries in eastern Ontario. The communities that were affected have argued long and hard that those new fees, a tax by any other name, will hurt tourism and that they will kill jobs. The Premier said the government would do a study on it, and the study was done, but it didn't look at the impact of the fees and it didn't look at the impact of those fees on the local economies.

In absolute frustration, the people in one of those affected communities, the people in Glenora, did their own study, and they found that the fees on the Glenora ferry alone will cause job losses and that the province will actually lose $48,000 in revenue as a result of those job losses.

So, Minister, I ask you: Given this kind of evidence of not only lost jobs but also revenues lost to your own budget, why would you proceed with these fees? If the fees are only going to lower revenues, why don't you cancel them and save the jobs that would be lost?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm glad that the leader of the official opposition at least now is calling them fees and not taxes. If you use the service and pay a fee for using the service, I don't think that's unreasonable at all. I see nothing unreasonable about that whatsoever.

When the leader of the official opposition talks to us about job-killing taxes, and in her report makes special references to the employer health tax as a job-killing tax, I want simply to remind her who it was that brought in the employer health tax in this province. It was the Liberal Party when it was in office. And if the leader of the official opposition doesn't like using herself as a benchmark, perhaps she could look to her cousins in Ottawa, who raised UI premiums by as much as 7% in January of this year. There needs to be at least a modicum of consistency when the leader of the official opposition puts her questions.

Mrs McLeod: We are at least prepared to deal with today's realities, and that's what our task force report does. I would suggest that people who are prepared to deal with today's realities stand here and look at what is happening in Ontario today. The leader of the third party would not be voting for the Frank Miller budget and the increase in personal income tax that was in that particular budget. Today's realities are different, and I take the Treasurer back to this very specific example of a tax by any other name that is going to cost jobs and cost him revenue in his next budget.

Minister, let me focus on what you're doing here. You hope to collect $190,000 with these new fees -- a tax by another name. It's going to cost you $68,000 a year to collect the fees. The Glenora study -- this is just on the Glenora ferry alone -- shows that the local tourist operators will lose $375,000 in business and this will cost you $80,000 in lost revenues. The pick-your-own farmers will lose $150,000 in business and that will cost you $33,000 in lost revenues. Added to all of that, 45 jobs will be taxed out of existence.

Minister, do you not realize that this is another case just like the you-brews where you are taxing away jobs and strangling the economic recovery? I ask how you can justify that kind of tax increase that is both going to kill jobs and cost you revenues.

Hon Mr Laughren: I suppose we could have a debate on the numbers contained in the question by the leader of the official opposition, but I would simply say to her that I do not think it's unreasonable for people to pay a fee for the services they receive on something like a ferry. I just don't think that's unreasonable. Whether it's riding on the TTC or whether it's riding on a ferry, I don't think that's unreasonable.

I know the leader of the official opposition wants everything to be free, to have no taxes, to have the deficit going down, to have job creation but no cost to anyone. Get real. It is not possible to do all that you want to do, given the promises that you try to extract from us for not increasing taxes.

You've just taken me to task for raising taxes in the last budget. At the same time, your critic is on his feet castigating us for the level of the deficit week after week, which is his job and he does it well, but at the same time, you cannot have it both ways. Where do you stand on the deficit? Where you do stand on the level of taxation? I can just say to you as the leader of the official opposition that I think it's time you put your positions in front of the people of this province.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My effort today, once again, is to try and find out where the government stands and what the government is planning to do, so I will again go to the Minister of Finance, on another issue.

Minister, in late March you announced that you will be keeping funding to schools, hospitals, colleges and universities and municipalities at last year's level in order to preserve essential services and to save jobs.

Municipalities greeted that announcement with pleasure, but they recognized that this particular program, the commitment on unconditional grants, is only 16% of the transfers they receive from the province. They're still waiting for the other shoe to drop. They're waiting to hear from you about your commitment specifically to road funding transfers, which are tied to billions of dollars' worth of local road capital projects.

I have in my hand a copy of a government letter which was sent out to all municipalities last week warning them that the province's road funding budget will not be finalized until May and that there will be "significant reductions" in road funding.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is concerned that you may be prepared to cut road grants by as much as 20%, which would mean a $73-million cut in maintenance funding and a $73-million cut in new construction funding. Perhaps even more significantly, according to the association of municipalities, that would mean 1,100 fewer jobs this year.

1410

Minister, can you explain why you have decided to break your promise to match last year's transfers to the municipalities and why road transfers would be cut and 1,100 jobs would then be threatened?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, I wonder if I could refer that question to my good friend and very competent Minister of Transportation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The dilemma: the impasse of having municipalities that are anxiously awaiting each and every year the base capital transfer payment, the money that flows from the province to more than 850 client groups.

Last year we were talking in terms of $714 million. That's money that left Queen's Park and went to 882 clients. Part of the money was used for maintenance -- Harry Smith, the grader operator during a snow storm; and part of the money was used for capital, fixing the potholes in a small and remote community: $714 million.

The announcement hasn't been made, but I know and I remain confident that the commitment of the province will make each and every recipient and partner proud of the money they shall receive. It is not our intention, never was, never will be, to unload, to make a transition in the negative from the province to the municipality. There's no shell game here. Let's wait and see, and you can look to the future with confidence when it comes to transfer payments.

Mrs McLeod: Do we assume, then, that the minister's response to that question is the Treasurer's response to the concerned letter from the association of municipalities that has been sent to the Treasurer today?

I would remind you that the construction season for road projects is beginning, that municipalities have to know now what they'll be receiving in road funding so they can firm their tenders, so they can sign contracts, that you're now making them wait until May to even start making those decisions.

I would remind you that last year, even with the social contract and the expenditure cuts, you were still able to tell municipalities what they would receive for road funding early in the year, because you recognized then that it was important. In fact, at that time you said you were protecting capital funding to help support jobs and economic growth. Why has the agenda changed this year, when you promised to maintain transfers?

While the Premier is going on boasting about his record on capital spending, you're playing hide-and-seek with the municipalities of this province. I ask you directly, why are you continuing to delay the announcements on road funding? Tell us exactly how many projects you expect to be cancelled and how many jobs will be lost.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I can appreciate the anxiety, but when we're talking about jobs, there's nothing phenomenal here. There's no hidden agenda. This isn't a shell game.

We're moving full steam ahead on four subway lines for public transit. The largest project in North America, Highway 407, is going full steam ahead. Let's talk about jobs: You're talking about more than 20,000 jobs. No work has been done on public transit vis-à-vis the subway in the past 10 years. We're moving not on one, not on two, not on three, but on all four lines.

We've formed a corporation. We're spending more money on highways than ever before. We're full partners in the provincial-federal-municipal infrastructure program: more money, more jobs, more women and more men going to work.

We've very much aware of the need at the municipal level to be able to set your budget. It wasn't too long ago that most municipalities took full advantage of their allocations under the "interim tax levy," 50% based on last year's figures. I too, coming from a small and remote community in northern Ontario, can relate directly: I have been there; I am still there. There will be more jobs than ever before, more money from capital transportation going back to the taxpayers via the municipalities.

Mrs McLeod: How can we believe what the minister has just said when there is a letter that has gone out saying there will be a significant reduction? What does "significant reduction" mean? This minister is playing games with municipalities in this province and he is playing games with 1,100 jobs that could be jeopardized by this delay and by this significant cut in funding. There is an absurdity to this, because the letter to the municipalities asks for supplementary grant proposals to be made. It says, "We recognize it will be more difficult for you to assess your supplementary funding needs without knowing your base allocation."

While this government is playing games with municipalities, it is quite clear that it is moving full steam ahead with its own capital project announcements.

Over the past few weeks we have watched the Premier conducting a kind of trial election campaign, handing out provincial capital grants while the municipalities are being left to sit on hundreds of millions of dollars in capital projects that could be starting right now. In fact, at the same time in one day last week that the Premier was handing out about $30 million in capital grants, the municipalities were being told their road funding would be cut.

Why is the funding for the Premier's pre-election campaign announcements ready to go while the road grants are being delayed? Are 1,100 road construction jobs being jeopardized because you can't put a Jobs Ontario logo on them?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect, I know, given the high office, that the Leader of the Opposition has better things to do with her time allocation, which is limited, and I appreciate and respect that, than scrutinizing and reading between the lines of messages that appear in a brown envelope from an anonymous source.

Let me reiterate what I have said before in a nutshell, in one-liners: People will be pleased when they see the cheque in the mail. You have the capacity to be positive.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The Leader of the Opposition keeps interrupting. I don't know if it's a matter of having had a difficult childhood or refusing to understand what I'm saying, plain and simple.

The work will be done. There will be more jobs than ever before, capital, rolling stock, highways. People will be working more than they ever have before. It's a success story. Why don't we share in it and resist the temptation of parochial and partisan politics? People are going to work. They're bringing a paycheque back home. It's good news for all Ontarians.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I appreciate the answers from the minister, who demonstrates on a daily basis that he's still in childhood, from what we hear.

I was intrigued with the suggestions of the leader of the Liberal Party, the party that in a very short, five-year period hiked more taxes and had a bigger bureaucracy and higher spending than in the history of the province of Ontario. To stand and have the gall to suggest that taxes are too high suggests to me a significant case of amnesia.

1420

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last year, Minister, you announced a 26-cent-a-litre tax on brew-your-own businesses. In eight months that tax killed 150 jobs and 30 businesses, and despite this devastating impact on the industry, you only collected one fifth of the tax revenue that you had projected.

Yesterday you said -- quite frankly, I congratulate you for recognizing and acknowledging it and I hope I'm quoting correctly from what I read in the press reports, because you didn't say it in the House -- that lowering the you-brew tax will actually increase your revenues to $3 million annually.

This is exactly what we have been trying to tell a succession of treasurers for 10 years in the province of Ontario. It is exactly what we have been telling you in your tenure as Treasurer for the last three years.

Now that you have recognized that we have hit the tax wall -- it's a wall beyond which, when you hike taxes you actually get less money, and if you will cut taxes you will get more money -- would you acknowledge and have you examined, two weeks before you present your budget, other tax rates that are at or in excess of the tax wall where you could actually get more money by cutting rates? Could you give us that analysis?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): If I might respond first to some of the comments in the leader of the third party's preamble in which he, I thought, was a bit unfair to the official opposition --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Wait for it, wait for it -- a bit unfair to the official opposition in making references to their tax increases. Does he forget that it was the Liberal Party of this province that promised to reduce the sales tax by 1% in the middle of the last election campaign? Give them credit for something. I think you're being too unfair to the official opposition.

I would say to the leader of the third party not to read too much or to generalize from the particular on the reduction in taxes on the you-brew establishments. I think a better example would be what happened when we lowered cigarette taxes in the province.

We know that with a dramatic decrease in taxes, revenues to the province will drop, even given the increased sales, particularly to young people, by about $500 million this fiscal year. I wouldn't want the leader of the third party to generalize and come to the same conclusion that Ronald Reagan did, that if you lower taxes your revenues automatically go up.

Mr Harris: No, I have not forgotten the 1% on the road to Damascus in the final weeks of the campaign. They seem to be hung up on this 1% solution; that we'll forget the massive billions of bureaucracy and spending and tax increases.

However, let me by way of supplementary deal with the issue at hand. The you-brew tax I assume you cut because you understood you were beyond the wall on that tax instrument, and that cutting the tax in half would actually increase the revenue and produce jobs and economic activity, get more people working, more people spending, more people investing in that area.

There are dozens of taxes, Treasurer, that we believe you can cut. You and the Liberals have hiked taxes 65 times since 1985 alone, and the result of those tax hikes is a $10-billion deficit and half a million people who are unemployed. Of those 65 tax increases, 11 were personal income tax hikes.

Given that you and the Liberals hiked personal income taxes 11 times, given that the personal income tax rate in Ontario now is among the highest of all the jurisdictions we must compete with, will you in two weeks' time in your budget cut personal income taxes on hardworking Ontario families so we can let them spend some of the dollars and create some of the economic activity and the jobs? Will you cut income taxes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would not want to pre-empt the event on May 5, which is the budget. I wouldn't want to write it by some kind of quirky committee system here on the floor of the Legislature.

But the leader of the third party has made references in both his question and his supplementary to the you-brew tax. I believe revenues will go up as a result of the tax decrease on you-brews, because that was a struggling, infant industry going through a real struggle as it tries to find a niche in the marketplace, so I do think that was the right decision.

But I also know that all of our revenues are hard-found revenues. The taxpayers obviously are making their contribution to the continuing provision of essential services in this province, and I would not want to mislead anyone into thinking that massive tax reductions can happen at the same time we preserve the essential services in this province, which everyone tells me they want to preserve.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer refers to an industry that was threatened and struggling. I want to tell the Treasurer that the middle class of this province, families, individuals, hardworking Ontarians, feel threatened, they're struggling, they're concerned about jobs.

One of the greatest barriers to job creation and why they feel threatened is the high rate of personal income tax. I want the Treasurer to know that. In addition to that, 85% of all jobs in Ontario are created by small business. In every community where our task force on small business visited we were told that payroll taxes were among the most punitive taxes on jobs -- the most punitive taxes for them and the most punitive taxes on jobs.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business told you earlier this year that "without question, payroll taxes are a deterrent to new job creation."

The Liberals introduced a whopper payroll tax for health care in 1989. Three years later, you increased that tax to include self-employed business people. For the sake of jobs and for the sake of investment in Ontario, will you eliminate the payroll tax on all small businesses in your upcoming budget two weeks from now?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party is correct when he indicates that the official opposition, when it was in government, did introduce the employer health tax. But to be fair, the health care premiums were abolished at that time. The leader of the third party knows that the total employer health tax means over $2 billion in revenues to the province, so in total that's a lot of money.

The leader of the third party, to be fair, I believe was referring only to the small-business aspect of it, which is already at a 50% rate of what large business pays as an employer health tax. I think the leader of the third party was asking if the small-business component could be eliminated. I appreciate all suggestions when it comes to dealing with the tax system, and I will certainly allow that suggestion to roll around in my head for the next couple of weeks.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'd like to read briefly from Hansard from the Minister of Transportation's statement yesterday with respect to the Highway 407 tendering process. He said: "I don't know if it was the lowest bidder. I understand that negotiations are still going on."

Minister, I'm rather alarmed by yesterday's answer, as you might suspect. If you don't know that the winning consortium for the 407 project was the lowest bidder, why have you chosen a winning bidder, and how can you justify leaving such important decisions in the hands of non-elected officials?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the follow-through on the question. First, you will allow me to help my friend the member opposite by saying emphatically -- not that it matters at all, but just a mise au point -- that I was not at the fund-raising dinner. I don't think it matters, but you had assumed, with respect, that I was there, but I wasn't.

Regarding the question, my understanding of the process is that the criterion was value for money. Which of the two consortia was to meet that crucial, that vital criterion in terms of getting the best shake for the dollars of the taxpayers? Not necessarily the lowest bidder.

1430

At the very beginning of the process, and it's important, cabinet chose to distance itself, because of the size of the contract and because of the innovation of the capital corporation, from the process, so the vacuum had to be filled. What they did, and I think in their wisdom, sir, was to appoint four deputy ministers to guide the process through and actually make the decision.

Today we have a winning consortium, a successful consortium. There are still three to four weeks of negotiations vis-à-vis the contingencies to tidy up the final package, for instance. We're not involved in the process. We have the jurisdictional capacity, the mandate, to appoint people -- that's what we did -- and to monitor the process to make sure that everything was aboveboard. We hired the reputable firm of Price Waterhouse and they're the people who can certify as to the integrity and the good flow of the process.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I'm reminded of Harry Truman who had a sign on his desk which said, "The buck stops here." There's no chance that any of your ministers, particularly you, sir, are ever going to have a sign like that on your desk.

You've just talked about value for money and the best shake for the taxpayer. The financial capacity of the winning consortium, CHIC, has been called into question. Matthews Group, which was one of the original members of the consortium, went bankrupt during the proposal process. Armbro Holdings Inc, the Brampton-based road builder, filed for restructuring under the companies' creditors act during the proposal call. What assurance can you give to the taxpayers of the financial capacity of this group to complete the project?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'll go back again to the monitoring done by Price Waterhouse. If you mention one, two, let's say, individual companies, you have to keep in mind that this is not a catalyst but those are components. They're part of a larger body which is the corporation, the consortium, and the consortium can have, with subcontractors, as many as 80 to 140.

Suffice it that in most instances, they are reputable, they are solvent and they have a track record which will lead, individually and in the collective, to the ability to deliver the project on time, because it will be a contractual arrangement, within budget. You have the assurance that their shoulders are broad enough to bring in this well over $1-billion project. They will help us create more than 20,000 jobs.

I appreciate the interest. What is at stake here is simply the largest highway project in North America in 1994: 3,000 jobs this year, and by the time of its completion, gradually well above 20,000 jobs with a multiplier of two and half dollars for every dollar that is put in the project.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, every day that you stand up here, you demonstrate over and over again that you don't understand what you're doing. Let me assure you, and you can check with your ministry officials, that when you're in a consortium, you are not obliged to bail out other members of that consortium. Okay? Get that clear before you answer me this time.

As you correctly pointed out, this is a $1-billion project. It's a $1-billion project that is being funded by the public sector, not the private sector, as the Premier said when he announced it. Your lack of knowledge in this whole field indicates incompetence. We need full disclosure of all these details. You owe it to the taxpayer, sir: full disclosure of this very, very odious deal.

I want you to commit today to reveal the contents of the winning bid in all the details so that all the members here can examine how you are spending public funds.

Hon Mr Pouliot: There is no Pearson spectacle when we refer to the 407. There is no facsimile of the questionable deals at SkyDome. There is nothing cartelian or monopolistic. When the member above says that on a daily basis, whenever given the opportunity, I display a lack of knowledge which is obvious to all --

Mr Turnbull: And incompetence.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, I have been reading stock pages for well above 30 years, not always unsuccessfully. Maybe that's one reason why the member opposite is sitting there and I'm sitting here.

The member mentions that the public, the taxpayers of Ontario, will pay for the 407. We have established a corporation. The corporation will go to the marketplace. The corporation will borrow money. But borrowings have to be paid back, so when people give a loonie for their county, when they take a token out of their pocket and they put it in the slot before they drive on the highway, or electronically while they're using the highway, the money will be gathered in a pool. You'll go back to the banks and the financiers and pay your debt. The users will finance the building of the 407 over a period of 25, 30 or 35 years.

It is innovative. The cost of the project is reflected over the life of the project. It's a win-win-win situation to alleviate the oversubscribed traffic on the 401. We now have the 407. You have a choice. More than 20,000 people who are directly involved with the project sure appreciate the financing aspect of this project.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please stop the clock for a minute.

I would like to inform the members of the assembly that we have in the Speaker's Gallery today the consul general of Poland, Mr André Brzozowski. Please join me in welcoming our guest.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question today is to the Treasurer. You have called upon the opposition parties to make suggestions to assist you on improving your deficit position. My suggestion relates to the tourism industry, which as you know has been devastated over the last few years: large job losses, bankruptcies, a huge drop in the number of tourists visiting our province and a large drop in the tourism tax revenue to your ministry; in all, a Canadian travel deficit of $7.7 billion last year.

Over the last few years, our tourism marketing budget has been reduced from $25.5 million in 1987-88 to approximately $13.6 million in 1993-94. Of this $13.6 million, only $5.8 million is spent on marketing in the US and only $2.3 million in the overseas markets.

In Quebec, where they see the importance of tourism, they have retained their foreign offices to advertise and promote their tourism, and in their recent budget they have allocated an additional $10 million a year for each of three years to promote tourism. On the US market alone, they will be spending between $9 million and $10 million this year, versus our $5.8 million.

In your upcoming provincial budget, will you consider transferring from within your budget additional funds to the tourism marketing budget, a move I believe will greatly increase our tourism numbers and improve our tourism tax revenues, provide jobs and revive our tourism industry in the province of Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I would be the last person to undervalue the worth of tourism to the Ontario economy and to specific regions within the province, but I await the member's supplementary, because I'm sure he's going to tell me from which ministry or which service he'd take the money that he would put into tourism.

1440

Mr O'Neil: Of course, Treasurer, this really points out one of the real problems with you and with your government, and that is that if you're going to bring in tax revenues, you have to know where to spend the money and you have to know where to save.

What I'm suggesting to you is that, with the multiplier effect of spending additional funds in the Ontario marketing budget, you will attract millions -- maybe not millions, but hundreds of thousands -- of new tourists to the province of Ontario, giving you additional tax revenues, not only from what they spend but also from the jobs you will create. When we look today at the value of the American market and their economy improving, and when you're looking at the value of their money, there are millions of dollars in revenue for you and your government, yet you don't seem to be able to see that.

What I'm asking is, will you look at spending additional moneys in the marketing budgets which will give you a very large return? The tourism industry really needs it.

Hon Mr Laughren: As I said, I'm not quarrelling for a moment with the member's assertion about the importance of tourism and the revenues that flow to the province from it. But there is almost an unlimited list of projects on which we could spend more money and the argument could be made that more money would come back to us. At the end of the day, some more money will come back to us, but our expenditures will be going through the roof as well.

These are not the 1980s. I appreciate the fact that in the 1980s, when your party was in power, you were able to spend, spend and spend. That is no longer the case. We have put a lid on expenditure growth in this province and we're going to continue to keep to that commitment. It's up to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, of course, to allocate the dollars within her ministry.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, as a person who sits around the cabinet table. I read with interest last week a notice that you have sent to the people of Hastings-Peterborough. I'd like to quote from that notice, which is dated April 13 and is addressed to the people of Hastings-Peterborough. It talks about the selection of dump sites as being a municipal process. You say that "selecting dump sites is a municipal process driven by county government working within certain guidelines that were set up by the Liberals in the 1980s." Is this the policy of the NDP government?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member is quoting from a press release which was quoted in local papers in my riding. Yes, I was explaining to the constituents in my riding that the responsibility for the selection of dump sites was given to a committee which hired a consultant and it was through a process that was set up back in the 1980s in order to select the best site for a landfill site in Peterborough county.

Mr Tilson: Having said what you've just said, would you be prepared to tell the municipalities of Caledon, York and Durham why they don't have a similar process?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not responsible for Caledon and those other areas in terms of what goes on in terms of the GTA and finding landfill sites. I can speak with some assurance about what goes on in Peterborough county in terms of landfill sites on agricultural land. I'm sure the member knows that our ministry will be commenting on landfill sites in terms of whether or not, through agricultural land, we will have some input into that process.

I can't really comment on the IWA process. That's up to the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

FOOD LABELLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Recently I attended the annual Oxford federation of agriculture conference held with municipal, provincial and federal elected officials. The theme of this year's meeting was Oxford 2000 and how the local agricultural community is preparing for the next century. One of the issues raised that day was the question of food labelling. The cattle producers, who have lost a lot of market share to imported beef, are very concerned about this matter.

Minister, can you tell the Legislature what you are doing to ensure that when consumers purchase fresh meat in the grocery store, they can make an informed choice by having the meat labelled by its country or province of origin?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member raises a good point, because certainly all products that we normally buy in other stores are labelled with country of origin. In the province of Ontario we have responsibility for labelling of grades. One of the things we are looking very seriously at doing soon is to be able to grade fresh meat so that it will be labelled with the grade so we'll know whether it's grade A or whatever the grade labelling is, and we can bring that regulation into play hopefully very soon.

We are consulting with the industry, though, to make sure that we're doing something in terms of the retailers and the producers so that we're bringing in the right kinds of regulations that will not be an impediment to doing business in the province either.

Mr Sutherland: This initiative will not only have significant benefits to beef producers in Ontario but will also have significant benefits to consumers. It will allow them to make informed choices about purchasing fresh meat, particularly if the meat is from countries that do not have the same high standards of inspection as does Canada. When can both beef producers and Ontario consumers expect to see labelling of fresh meat by country of origin in Ontario grocery stores?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Unfortunately, perhaps, when it comes to having regulations to label country of origin, we have the federal government and the provincial governments with joint responsibility. That will require us talking to my federal counterpart, which I've already done by correspondence, asking that we do that, because it would be very important for the meat producers, not only the cattlemen but certainly the pork, chicken and other producers, to have country of origin labelling on all fresh products.

I have talked to my counterpart in Ottawa. We very much hope that we can get such regulations in place by this fall at the latest. I look forward to the cooperation of the federal minister on this issue.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for my friend the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. It's a matter that I raised with the Minister of Citizenship some days ago when the Tourism minister wasn't here. It concerns the public government funding of that writers' conference that the Writers' Union of Canada is convening that white authors need not, and indeed may not, attend.

Frankly, I don't care what organization organizes what meeting and I don't even mind if the organization chooses to say, "I'm sorry, no white people may attend this." What I get concerned about is when the state, the provincial government, indeed the minister's ministry, says: "We want to sponsor this. We're going to provide $15,000 worth of funding for this conference."

I just want to put it to the minister and ask her not to hide behind the notion that this is an arts council grant and it's independent and it has to make its own choices. I want the minister to tell me whether she thinks that it is a good idea, that it is good public policy that this kind of conference receive the sanction of the provincial government and funds from the taxpayers of Ontario in the form of financial sponsorship.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): First of all, as the member knows full well in his reference, the $15,000 was not actually a grant from my ministry; it was from the Ontario Arts Council. None the less, it is my position that it is not the position of this government to tell the writers' union just what they can hold a conference on and what they can't hold a conference on.

I understand the controversy and I understand the feelings around it, but what this reminds me of is my own days in the women's movement as we as women tried to grapple with, should we sit down and have conferences trying to explore our feelings around issues and how to empower ourselves and deal with issues that included men right within those groups, or did we need to have some time to be able to sit down and meet with ourselves and talk together? We often decided we needed to have some time to be able to sit down and meet and share concerns together.

It seems to me that's what the writers' union has decided to allow to happen in this situation. It doesn't seem to me that it's my position to tell them that's not for them to do.

Mr Sorbara: My problem is that the minister says this is good public policy, and I find that very strange. I remember, when I was very young, my mother telling me about public beaches in Toronto which said, "No Jews Allowed," and the politicians of the day said that this was a good thing, because it's important that people bathe separately. It's the same sort of thing.

1450

I want to suggest to my friend the minister that she pick up a little volume called The Disuniting of America, written by none less than a very pre-eminent American author named Arthur Schlesinger, who says that the ethnicity rage currently going through America -- I'm paraphrasing there -- "not only diverts attention from the real needs but exacerbates the problem, creating a society fragmented into ethnic communities. The culture of ethnicity exacerbates differences, intensifies resentments, antagonisms and drives ever deeper the awful wedges between races and nationalities."

I'm saying it's not a matter of one writers' conference. It's a question of whether or not, as the Culture minister, this separation, this statement that white authors cannot attend, is something that you publicly support and is the position of your government that it is deserving of support. Yes or no?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I don't accept at all the analogy of the writers' union's conference for writers, particular writers, as being equivalent to the days in Toronto when we had signs on the beaches saying "No Dogs or Jews Allowed." I was raised by my family to understand the horrendous discrimination that meant to powerless people in the society who needed to be able to have defence and to be able to be restored to power in this society.

It seems to me that there is a time for us, as groups, to come together and work together, and there are some times for groups that have been traditionally disempowered and are not enjoying the power that some of us do in society to be able to come together and to share perspectives themselves.

I don't think that the member for York Centre would be advocating that this government cease the funding to Italian associations that I know he very much supports. It seems to me that if this government should be helping to continue to further the funding to Italian associations, where groups for instance will speak together in Italian, which in itself can be somewhat exclusive, I support that funding. I would hope he would have some understanding of the value of these writers' conferences the writers' union is sponsoring and of their right to make their own decisions about what workshops they sponsor.

BUDGET

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. For the last year and a half, you've been standing in the House and indicating that you're now keeping comprehensive statistics on social assistance in this province. Perhaps part of that is because of the 1992 Provincial Auditor's report, which identified these weaknesses, and in particular in the "Maintenance and Child Support" section.

I'll remind the minister, in that report the auditor noted that the ministry procedures are not followed in maintenance cases. The ministry's policies requiring that child support cases are reviewed periodically to assess the status of support payments, waivers on support, should be reviewed if a parent is available and able to contribute, but this was not the case being followed by your ministry.

My question to you is: How many support-paying fathers are defaulting and now seeking social assistance in this province? And the corollary, of course: How many new applications for social assistance are we receiving from mothers because their ex-spouses are no longer making their child support, court-ordered payments?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't have those figures available with me, but I'd be quite happy to provide those to the member and to anyone else who would be interested. I can tell him in a general way that my understanding is that the situation has significantly improved as a result of the processes that have been put into place. But as I say, I don't have the exact figures to share with the member at this moment.

Mr Jackson: That is not what I am led to believe when I talk to various people around the province who are dealing with this matter. In fact, it certainly isn't the undertaking you took before the public accounts committee and the Provincial Auditor that you would pursue this case more vigorously.

I'm concerned about a case which I'd like to bring to your attention that I believe is more common than not. It involves a Mr Johnston from Hamilton who, before a unified family court judge, made application for a variance and had $20,000 of his accumulated arrears written off and his ongoing payments suspended. He too, like his ex-wife and their daughter, is now on welfare in the province of Ontario.

Minister, why are you not monitoring the cost implications of this growing trend, especially considering the fact that the Attorney General administers the family support plan? The Attorney General's office is involved through the decision, yet the Ministry of Community and Social Services is in fact the party in court seeking these funds on behalf of the Treasurer.

We're seeing this level of write-off occurring far too frequently. Will you please return to this House and give a fuller report as to the amount of these write-offs, which are increasing the cost of social assistance, in our view most unnecessarily?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'd be very happy to come back and provide both the member and other members of the House with more detailed responses I have undertaken to do. I will just again reiterate for the member that it's important that we keep in mind in this situation that I think the information I'll be able to share with the member will show that the situation has significantly improved since we instituted the family support plan. I'll be happy to share that information.

There are some things that continue to concern us, but I think all of this has to be done in the knowledge that if people aren't out there and aren't working, they obviously have to be given some leeway in their ability to be able to comply. But I think the efforts that we've undertaken in this area have vastly improved the situation, and it has meant that fewer people, particularly fewer women, have had to rely on social assistance in order to get what is legitimately theirs through support.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you are aware that in November of last year the Lambton county council passed a motion to allow the warden of the county to view the names and addresses of all welfare recipients in the county. That includes people in my riding of Sarnia.

Council's motion outraged many of my constituents, both those who receive benefits and those who don't. In spite of that, Lambton council had the opportunity to rescind the motion in March, but chose not to.

I am very concerned about this motion for two reasons: First, this is a blatant abuse of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and, second, this motion further stigmatizes and humiliates those people in Lambton county who find that they are in genuine need of assistance.

Minister, I know through writing to you and discussions with you that you share my concerns, but, frankly, concern is not enough. Something needs to be done. Everyone in Lambton county has a right to dignity and a right to privacy. This motion takes those rights away from people who are receiving welfare in my community. What will you do today to have this motion rescinded by Lambton council?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to thank the member for raising this question in the House, because I know that this is an issue that concerns him and, quite frankly, concerns me and the ministry as well very seriously.

We have been quite clear since -- I guess it was about December when the council passed the resolution that it did -- that we consider the actions they have taken to be contrary to the municipal freedom of information act and contrary to our directions under the General Welfare Assistance Act. We don't believe that the warden or any other councillor has the right to receive the names of people who are on social assistance and we've been very clear in that.

I can tell the member that, given the fact that this resolution is still on the books of the council, we are in the process of communicating again with the warden and indicating that if they do not take steps to rescind the resolution, we will take steps to discontinue electronic funds transfers to that municipality. We want to be very clear that we expect compliance with the legislation and we will take all steps necessary to ensure compliance is adhered to.

Mr Huget: Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you for your commitment on a very important matter. I only hope that Lambton county council will heed your advice, rescind the motion and this will finally be over. But I have one concern about discontinuing the electronic funds transfer. If council does not rescind the motion and the ministry takes this action, is there any chance at all that there could be delays in recipients obtaining their cheques?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think again that's also a useful point. Obviously, as we proceed in this situation we want to monitor very closely and we will monitor very closely what happens. We hope that the message we are giving to this municipality will be quite clear in terms of their understanding how seriously we take the issue of confidentiality of clients' records and that it is something that has to be respected in everything that all of us do to continue to manage the system.

We will obviously continue to monitor the situation to ensure that there are no delays in the payment to individual recipients who are eligible for general welfare assistance and we will take further steps, as necessary, to ensure that.

1500

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, last week you said that in measuring the effectiveness of your ministry and your programs, we should not just use money as the only criterion. You mentioned also bankruptcies. Maybe we should just set that record straight.

The Tories over here left their government with 356 farm bankruptcies in 1985. After five years the Liberal government bankruptcies were down to 18 in 1990. Now, after four years of NDP rule, you're telling us they're back up to 58. But then, you and the Tories are much the same when it comes to farmers.

But let's look at one of those non-cost initiatives the minister and the government say they support. Bob Rae and the NDP government have promised the AgriCorp legislation since they took office. The legislation is supposed to streamline and improve the delivery of crop insurance and stabilization. Bills 63, 64 and 65 were introduced in June 1992 and are still awaiting second reading.

Minister, you said on June 11:

"The idea for an agency to deliver safety net programs has been around a long time. The creation of the AgriCorp is another example of how this government is committed to working with the producers and others to ensure the long-term economic health of the farming community."

When can we expect to see this legislation? When will we have these three bills in for second and third reading, or, once again, are these not on the NDP's A and B list?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): First of all, I would like to make sure the member understands when she's talking about the number of bankruptcies that have occurred in the province of Ontario farm enterprises that if we give the fact that in 1990 there were 18 bankruptcies, which is the figure I have, over the five years, if you include 1990 as part of the Liberal administration, there were 359 bankruptcies. In 1991, 1992 and 1993 in total there were 58 in three years, whereas in five years there were 359, which is more than double, more like triple. We have to be careful when we're talking about the number of bankruptcies.

There were some bad numbers also back in the early 1980s, which I'm sure the member is alluding to, back in the recession in 1981, 1982 and 1983 and the fallout from that recession. I think everyone would agree there were a number of bankruptcies due to that particular recession. But even though we've had hard times in terms of the 1990s, the bankruptcies are down to a reasonable level. They are up from 18, but there were only 22 in 1993.

On the other point, the member's question about legislation, obviously the formation of AgriCorp is important to the government. We could go ahead and introduce and finish this legislation. However, I want to point one thing out to the member and to the farm community. We now have a government in Ottawa that's talking about a whole farm safety net program, which means that there is a chance that in a year or so the gross revenue insurance plan programs are not going to be necessary in this province. We may have to look at new programs and new administration.

At this point in time, I'm kind of weighing the options of whether to proceed with the AgriCorp legislation or to wait and see the whole farm proposals that come forward and put something in place that would satisfy the needs of whole farm policy as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd just like to remind the members, once again, that the questions are too long and the answers are too long. Try to make it more to the point. Brevity is really the answer.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 53, and that Mr O'Connor and Mrs Akande, Mr Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt) and Mr Ruprecht, and Mr Beer and Mrs McLeod exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken courses and/or hunted for years; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and require only future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety courses or examination."

I have also signed that petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's signed by a significant number of constituents of mine as well as of the greater Toronto area. My petition goes something like this:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto," -- and that is astounding, that number -- "and whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student (based on 1993 estimates, MET published statistics);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in small towns, villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to a shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis. If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and want the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately.

"We have attached our names and signatures to this petition."

There are literally hundreds of names on this petition. I thank you very much and I'll attach my own.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, just so you know how important this is, I have yet another petition from Twin Elms folks in the riding of Middlesex who petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I have most certainly signed my name to this petition.

1510

JUDGE'S COMMENTS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition signed by 570 names from the people of Northumberland:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We request that the Attorney General, the Honourable Marion Boyd, reprimand Mr Justice Jack Jenkins for his misuse of judicial power in making discriminatory and abusive comments towards a victim and her mother in a recent child sexual abuse trial. These comments occurred while instructing the jury in an Ontario Court (General Division) at Cobourg, Ontario, dated February 23 through February 25, 1994. In so doing, we feel a public apology to the victim and the victim's mother is both appropriate and necessary."

I realize this really should be directed to the federal Attorney General because Judge Jenkins is a federal appointee, but I have spoken to our Attorney General, Marion Boyd, and she has assured me that this will get redirected to the federal House.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas the current dialysis system is discriminatory because some patients have dialysis machines and are treated in-home, while others have to travel long distances to receive care, and one local patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem even though they've known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

I've signed this petition, along with several people from the Collingwood area.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition from the area of Fort Frances, Burriss, Barwick and Devlin, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have dozens of petitions from people in my riding, which read as follows:

"I have just received notice that the NDP government in Ontario intends to kill child care reform. Families in Victoria and Haliburton counties will be affected dramatically by this decision. I urge you to act now to reform child care. Child care keeps taxpaying parents working and helps other parents return to work and training. Ontario's children and families deserve fair treatment from your government."

This is signed by dozens of parents in our community.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Metropolitan Toronto council has passed bylaw 95-93, prohibiting cross-boundary accessible taxi services; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been requested by Mr Ron Cowan to amend the Municipal Act to reflect open borders for accessible taxis throughout all of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Municipal Act states that a municipality may exempt taxis from outside municipalities engaged in transporting of the disabled,

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to protect the rights of the disabled in Ontario through the recognition of various disability programs, such as accessibility to public buildings and the accessibility to taxi program, and that the government of Ontario amend the Municipal Act to reflect the exemption of all restrictions involving the transportation of the disabled in Ontario."

I affix my name thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a petition signed by several of my constituents living in such places as Micksburg and Round Lake and Pembroke and Killaloe, which petition reads --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): All holiday destinations.

Mr Conway: My friend the speaker knows these places very well.

The petition reads:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae and Solicitor General Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I'm pleased to endorse and sign this petition and present it on behalf of these constituents.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring local school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the required funding to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high,

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

I support this petition entirely and have signed it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have yet hundreds more names from the great riding of Elgin with regard to Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario. They're asking that it provide 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in these small towns and villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to the shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis. If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We have attached our names and signatures to this petition."

I have attached mine as well.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is about Bill 21, which is an important bill for many people in my riding who live in the Subway trailer park.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord,

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to final and third reading of Bill 21" in the interests of those constituents.

1520

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition, from a number of people in my constituency and other constituencies, that I've been asked to read by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It reads as follows:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"I/We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Ms Gigantes, on behalf of Mr Charlton, moved government notice of motion number 25:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property, the standing committee on general government shall not proceed further with consideration of the bill and shall report the bill to the House on the first available day that reports from committees may be received following passage of this motion. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That one further sessional day be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on that day. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on that day. At 5:45 pm those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment.

That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

Debate. The honourable Minister of Housing.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you could help me on this. Is this what you refer to as a closure motion, preventing further debate? I just wanted to get that clarification. Is the motion a closure motion?

The Acting Speaker: I'm sure it's up to the member to draw his own conclusion.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): It's my understanding that there is agreement among the House leaders that there will be a division of time in the debate on this motion. I am therefore proposing to speak first for 20 minutes and to reserve for the member for Kingston and The Islands the further 10 minutes of our time in the debate.

This motion is what is known politely as a time allocation motion, as our friend the member for St Catharines knows very well, and he knows the reason why the motion is necessary.

Bill 120 is a bill which represents an improvement in residents' rights in Ontario. It is a bill which has stood before this Legislature in debate and in committee for many months now. It warrants urgent attention because it provides rights for residents who have not had rights before in the province of Ontario.

The way in which it has been treated by members opposite in our attempt to move it forward has been one really of, to put it kindly, reluctance; certainly deferral. For example, in the clause-by-clause portion of the committee work which has been done on this bill so far in the standing committee on general government, we have had over 22 hours of discussion, but in the clause-by-clause work we haven't got beyond discussion of clause 2, nor have we completed discussion of clause 2. It indicates to you, Mr Speaker, the kind of delay that has been provided by members of the opposition as we tried to move this bill forward.

1530

It's a bill which has wide support among members of the public in Ontario, for very good reasons. It's a bill which provides rights to people who have not had them before, and they are people who very much need those rights. Unlike other tenants in the province of Ontario, those tenants who live in apartments which did not have appropriate zoning, and those apartments were in houses, did not have coverage and protection under the legislation which is designed to provide protection and coverage to tenants in all other rental units in Ontario.

Further, the bill addresses the rights of people who live in care homes in Ontario, those residences which, though permanent, provide elements of care service, which may be living supports, which may be food, which may be help supports of various kinds. These people too have not had rights that other tenants in Ontario have been able to use for many years, rights contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act, for example, rights contained in the Rent Control Act of Ontario and, for those residents of care homes, rights that are provided in the Rental Housing Protection Act of Ontario.

To speak first to the care homes situation, when our government was first elected, we asked Dr Ernie Lightman to follow up on some of the very tragic circumstances that had befallen people who live in care home settings in Ontario and to do a report for the government. He found that there are almost 50,000 people who live in what have been called unregistered care homes in Ontario. Many of those are living in retirement homes which provide a very comfortable, secure and generally excellent living style for people who have retired. But in other cases, the places where people are living are places where they have been subject to great difficulty with their living situation, where they have been frequently evicted without due cause, where they have been living in unsafe conditions, where there has been inadequate care, where there has certainly been a lack of privacy. They've been denied the right to have visitors. There have even been instances of sexual abuse and real health and safety problems.

These problems Dr Lightman dealt with in very poignant detail in the report he provided to the government. He recommended most strongly that the government should take action to provide protections for people, many of whom are frail elderly people who may not feel in a position to exercise rights easily, people who have physical disabilities, people who may have developmental disabilities, people who have had experience in psychiatric treatment, people who generally are quite vulnerable to a living situation in which their rights are not protected and have not been in the past.

In the past, there have been exemptions for care homes under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act. We intend to change that as a result of Dr Lightman's recommendations. Residents in care homes will have full security of tenure and privacy rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Rent Control Act will apply to that portion of the monthly charge they pay which covers their living space, their accommodation.

The amount they pay for care services, for food, will not be covered by rent control, but we will insist that those charges, first of all, be known and well spelled out to people who are entering care homes; that they cannot be changed, except once a year; that they must be registered, once this bill is proclaimed, in the rent registry system of the Rent Control Act; and that they will be monitored over time by the government so that we can ensure that there is a situation in which people are not being charged outrageous rent increases.

Care home operators will be required to register with the rent registry, as I indicated, and this will enable municipalities and inspectors, both provincial and municipal, to ensure that maintenance standards are being kept up and to improve living conditions in many of the care homes.

As I indicated, most care home operations in Ontario provide a very excellent service, but the instances in which people have suffered abuse and indeed died in care home situations in Ontario have brought us to a situation where we feel it is urgent to take action.

The Rent Control Act will mean that operators of care homes will provide a full package of information to those living in care homes, outlining what services are provided at what prices, when increases will be allowed, and also describing staff qualifications.

Before there are any increases in care service charges -- I had previously indicated that could happen only once a year -- there will have to be 90 days' notice. It will also be the case that in order to change the use of a care home, an operator will have to abide by the elements of the Rental Housing Protection Act.

The second group of people to whom I referred are people who live in apartments in houses. We estimate that in Ontario currently there are somewhere near 100,000, maybe 110,000, units of apartments in houses which are illegal because of their zoning. They may also be quite unhealthy and unsafe. We have seen instances recently where there have been tragic deaths in two cases of mothers and young children in basement apartments which did not provide adequate egress in an emergency situation. They couldn't get out when the place caught fire.

We're very concerned about the safety and the health of these tenants. We're also concerned that there should be access in Ontario to the kind of affordable housing that is provided by apartments in housing. There is a market there, clearly, which is being met illegally as far as zoning goes. What we want to do is to remove that element of the situation in which apartments in houses exist, bring those apartments in houses out of the underground economy into the light of day and have them meet health and safety standards, which will mean there will be an end to the kinds of conditions which created hazards for tenants in the past.

We're very anxious to see this happen now. We feel that the amendments to the building code which were undertaken last year, in July, particularly designed to deal with standards associated with apartments in houses, and also the draft regulations to the fire code of Ontario, which again have been developed and consulted upon widely among experts in the field to ensure that standards are being created within apartments in houses which will address fire separation standards, emergency exits, the need for properly working fire alarm systems -- all these things now need to be brought to bear so that people who live in apartments in houses will be safe.

We know that the passage of this legislation is not going to mean that overnight, as if with a magic wand, every apartment in every house in Ontario which had previously been illegal because of zoning will suddenly become safe, but we do know that if we bring them out into the open economy, those property owners and tenants who have in the past been absolutely unwilling to get in touch with the appropriate officials to discover, for example, what the fire safety measures should be in that apartment in the house will now come forward. Tenants will be able to do that feeling assured that they won't be evicted simply because the apartment is in a zone which is inappropriate.

1540

There's been a lot of discussion around this legislation and there's been some misunderstanding about the legislation. We've certainly made every effort to clarify as far as we could, particularly with municipalities, what this bill will actually do. The bill says that a property owner who wishes to install an apartment in the house has a right to do so. The property owner must go to the municipality, get a building permit and build an apartment which meets both the building code and the fire code requirements, and it will be inspected.

The municipalities have been reluctant to give up their zoning power and in some cases I think have misunderstood the degree to which this is a change in their zoning authority. The only element which is changed by Bill 120 is that municipalities will no longer be able to designate zones in which it is illegal to build an apartment in a house. In all other matters of zoning that affect a particular property, including the setbacks, the yard plans, the site plans and all the normal kinds of zoning and planning requirements, municipal authority will remain, including reasonable standards for parking requirements.

So we're not proposing a total removal of municipal responsibility and interest in this area. We are simply saying that in order to bring these apartments out from the underground economy into the light of day, where we can hope to begin to institute a situation in which health and safety matters are being attended to properly, we have to remove that power of a municipality, which has been widely used in Ontario, to say that "In these zones there shall be no apartments in the houses."

We have also provided in the legislation increased powers for municipalities to enforce standards within apartments in houses. Previously, if a municipal inspector were to enter a property, that inspector would have to indicate to a justice of the peace what evidence he or she intended to seize in an inspection. That requirement has been removed. It will now be much simpler for municipal inspectors to enter. In fact, we expect that the really critical element that will improve the situation for entry of municipal and fire officials in the future, after passage of Bill 120, will be the fact that they will be welcomed by tenants. And there will be many property owners who will also welcome them and who are very anxious to make sure that the apartments which currently exist within their houses are brought up to standard.

The bill also provides power for municipalities to enter into extended agreements with property owners for the placement of what we call a garden suite, commonly known as a granny flat, on a property. That must be a building which is dependent for its services on the main building on the property and which can be removed. We've given municipalities the discretion. They can choose to do it or not to do it as they please, to enter into 10-year agreements with property owners where previously they could only enter into three-year agreements. That will provide, both for municipal purposes and for the property owners, a much more stable situation in which granny flats can be developed in Ontario.

The act also provides that for zoning purposes, it will be the case that unrelated people who share living accommodations in a single housekeeping unit will be treated the same as the traditional family. This goes back to ancient arguments, and we seek to clarify it in Bill 120.

What we have done here is to provide for two groups of tenants in Ontario, those in care homes and those in apartments in houses, rights and access to rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act providing security of tenure and also, under the Rent Control Act, providing some discipline of cost increases and access to mechanisms for making sure that maintenance is kept up to decent standards. This will be the first time these two large groups of people who rent their homes will have access to those rights.

Both these bills have been through extensive consultations, and there have been some changes in the bill that was originally introduced as Bill 90 in June 1992, which affected only those tenants who live in apartments in houses. We, as ministers, Ed Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I met with numerous representatives from municipalities, and the ministries received large numbers of briefs and met with groups, and we did make changes to the draft legislation.

Rural municipalities had been concerned about the fact that apartments in houses would be developed where there were septic tanks and that might place a strain and an environmental problem might arise. We have adapted the bill to say that apartments in houses will not be as of right where a house is dependent on a single septic tank.

We also heard from building and fire officials that it would be reasonable to have changes done under the Fire Marshals Act and the Ontario Building Code rather than through the Planning Act, and we've acceded to those recommendations.

The office of the fire marshal, as I mentioned, did set up a task force to develop new standards for fire code provisions within apartments in houses, and, as I mentioned also, the Ontario Building Code was amended last summer to provide for standards for apartments in houses. Public support for these two pieces of legislation, which we've brought together under the familiar title of residents' rights, has been very strong.

The Ministry of Housing undertook a survey back in the fall of 1991 which indicated that when you asked people in Ontario, and this was throughout Ontario, whether they objected to having a neighbour develop an apartment in the house, 70% of people said no. That finding was borne out time and again by surveys which were undertaken by municipalities themselves in the context of their work to update their official plans, to bring them in line with our housing policy statement in Ontario.

We found that even in suburban areas, such as one you're familiar with, Mr Speaker, the Kanata area of Ottawa-Carleton, when people were asked, "Do you object if your neighbour develops an apartment in the house?" roughly 70% of people said, "No, we don't mind."

It makes sense, from all kinds of points of view, that that would be the case. People understand that there is a market for apartments in houses. They feel very strongly that they should be made safe for the people who live in them. They also understand that for older people, or for younger people just purchasing a home, the development of an apartment in a house can provide both a source of income, which may be very welcome indeed in the household, and also a sense of security of knowing that there's somebody else in the home.

It makes sense from all those points of view and also from the point of view that once we have a requirement for a building permit for the establishment of apartments in houses as of right there will be increased use of contractors and builders, and we will see increased economic activity as a result of the passage of this legislation.

1550

On the care home side, not only Dr Lightman but hundreds of people around this province have been in touch with us over the measures that are proposed within this legislation. Among the most vulnerable people in our province are the people who live in care homes in Ontario.

There has been a very sad history of lack of standards and lack of rights for people who live in care homes. Dr Lightman made it very clear when he did his report that the key to providing a better future situation for people in care homes was to provide them with rights that they could use. He said it was critical that we address the fact that there was no protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act and no protection under the Rent Control Act for people in care homes.

There has been some misunderstanding of this legislation. We've had numerous letters from care home operators who operate what are commonly known as retirement homes, where people can afford a fairly good price to find a comfortable place to retire and have good social surroundings and a good level of services and feel very content. Some operators have determined that they don't care to have this kind of legislation developed and have encouraged some senior citizens to feel anxious about the passage of Bill 120.

I would like to take this occasion to assure you and to assure any senior citizens who may be watching this debate that their lives will continue in the comfort and in the manner to which they have become accustomed. What Bill 120 will be doing is ensuring that they, like other tenants, have access to rights that exist for almost all tenants in this province under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act.

The Acting Speaker: The government party will have approximately six minutes to sum up. We now go to the official opposition.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I am very unhappy that I should rise on this occasion to have to deal with what amounts to an effort to do away with democratic procedure in this House.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Twenty-two hours for two clauses.

Mr Cordiano: The minister is sitting in the House. It's unfortunate because just as we were beginning to see the light and just as we were beginning to make some headway -- in fact, the minister gave me every indication that she was beginning to understand the position that our party had put forward and that we had discussed at great length in committee, but certainly did not do justice, nowhere near the kind of time that was required to even begin to examine this very detailed omnibus legislation.

I would remind everyone who is observing today that this, after all, was an omnibus piece of legislation, two distinct pieces of legislation, one dealing with accessory apartments and one dealing with residents' rights in care homes, brought together in a very convenient fashion in order to expedite the government's legislative agenda.

After all, there is really no reason why we should be dealing with this matter in a closure motion by the government. All members of the committee were quite involved in the proceedings and were actually very informed and very cooperative and had become quite knowledgeable about the very difficult and complex issues that we were beginning to deal with on that committee with regard to this piece of legislation.

I see that the parliamentary assistant is here in the minister's place, sitting in the Legislature. I would remind him, and he was a member of the committee, that at the end of the day even the members on his side of the committee had every reason to question the details in the bill that was before us. In fact, they did question various aspects of the bill. Mind you, we only got to the second clause of the bill and we had not completed that.

I think it speaks to the very importance of this legislation and the degree of complexity with which this legislation deals that you need ample opportunity to examine to the fullest the details around the legislation. After all, we're talking about legislation which affects many thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people actually. I say to you that when that many people are involved, I honestly believe the Legislature must complete its process of examining legislation in its fullest and give voice to democratic expression, give an opportunity to people to come before the institutions that govern them and to have the input that's necessary so that, at the end of the day, no one can stand up and say that this government blocked their voice, that this government did not want to listen to the very real concerns people had expressed before the committee.

In fact, that's what ends up happening, and I say to my friend the parliamentary assistant that at the end of the day there will be people who will come forward and suggest that they did not have an opportunity to come before the committee. I tell you that because we even restricted the number of people who did come before us, who did appear before the committee, so as to expedite the legislation. I believe that at the end of the day, out of a list of 230 requests to appear before the committee, in fact only 150 actually were invited to appear before the committee.

Dealing with this legislation, I point out again that this was omnibus legislation, two disparate pieces of legislation which had very distinct and very detailed matters before each of them, dealing with sectors that are really unrelated, the home care sector and people living in rooming houses, people living in homes for the aged and rest homes, trying to deal with their concerns around residents' rights, and throwing them or lumping them into a bill which deals also with accessory apartments and includes a variety of acts, the Planning Act and various other acts, changes to the building code, amendments to the fire code.

We're talking about a series of complex matters that had come before this committee to be dealt with in a fashion that I thought was very appropriate, and that was to deal with each clause in a meaningful way, to have debate in a meaningful way.

I would say to the minister that at the end of the day Bill 120, the legislation making accessory apartments legal as of right, leaves a lot to be desired for our party. We have repeatedly suggested to the minister -- in this House and in committee I have tried to suggest to her -- that this legislation is indeed flawed, that at the end of the day, because you legalize accessory apartments and make them possible as of legal right, that does not make them safe places in which to live.

We've said this repeatedly and our leader has on many occasions, in this very Legislature, asked that the minister seriously consider our amendments to rectify the situation that currently exists in Bill 120 and is now going to be dealt with in a guillotine fashion before this House.

We are deeply concerned, and this is a serious matter, that accessory apartments, in particular basement apartments that are below grade, underground, that have inadequate fire safety provisions, have inadequacies that do not make them live up to safety standards, and there are thousands of those. Over 100,000, by the minister's estimate, basement apartments currently exist in an illegal state. Of those, it is estimated that perhaps half do not meet the necessary requirements for safety, do not meet building code requirements, do not meet fire code requirements, current codes.

1600

I say to the minister that to simply suggest that by passing legislation, as she has, making these units legal as of right, permitted use, and removing the exclusions as a result of zoning that currently exist do not make those units safe.

We have had repeated examples come before us, and I don't want to bring this up in a negative light, but I am concerned that because the minister cannot ensure that all these units will be brought up to the safety requirements, will be made safe, that these units will meet safety code, fire code and building code requirements, then in fact these places will not be safe places to live. I am concerned that the way in which the minister explained this will not result in the further completion of those units to be brought up to safety standards. It simply will not happen.

I think it's a fallacy, it's a myth the minister puts forward that because these units will now be able to exist as of right, tenants will no longer feel that they're living surreptitiously or have to hide behind some fear that they're living in a unit that is illegal, they'll come forward now, after Bill 120, to demand that their particular unit be brought up to those safety requirements, and that they will meet the building code, that landlords will now go out as a result of Bill 120 -- this is where the argument really breaks down and this is why I cannot accept the minister's proposition that after Bill 120 these units will in fact be made safe.

Landlords will now be expected to go out and renovate their units to bring them up to standard, in some cases costing anywhere between -- some estimates were $5,000 to $7,000 per unit to bring those basement apartments up to standard; that landlords now will have some incentive to go out and spend this kind of money to bring their units up to those code requirements; that there's a willingness on the part of landlords to do this -- that's the first assumption -- secondly, that if landlords aren't willing, tenants will somehow be made aware of the fact that they may be living in an unsafe condition in a basement apartment which requires a number of renovations to be made to be brought up to standard.

I ask the minister: How is it that a tenant will become knowledgeable in fire code requirements, knowledgeable in the fire code, knowledgeable in the building code, that he or she will be able to make a determination that they're living in an unsafe unit and then go out and report this, call the fire marshal's office and ask that the fire departments around the province come and make an inspection of the unit so as to make this determination about whether a unit is safe or not? That's quite a leap, I've got to say.

I would submit that most members in this fine Legislature of ours, being as knowledgeable as they are about a number of matters, would not be aware of what's in those codes, and that the average person could not be expected to be knowledgeable enough to make a determination about what is safe and what is not. Of course, there are some elementary factors, such as smoke detectors; everyone would be able to make that determination. But there are other things, such as the size of a second opening, in a window. To expect the tenants are going to be knowledgeable enough to even question whether their unit is safe or not is a giant leap that I believe is impossible to make.

I say to the minister, and I've said this over and over again, that to leave this circumstance to the chance that a tenant will recognize that he or she is living in an unsafe unit, even though that unit may be cosmetically pleasing -- the unit has been nicely renovated, there's excellent carpet on the floor, brand-new carpet, all the walls have been renovated etc, but at the end of the day that unit could still be an unsafe place to live and could be a firetrap.

Simply, for example, the height of the unit, from the floor to the ceiling, may not be sufficient to meet the code. I've already suggested that the opening in windows has to be of a certain size to meet those code requirements. Failing that, that unit is still unsafe.

Just as I was preparing my notes for the committee meeting on Thursday of this week, we were still dealing with the clause around registration which we have put forward.

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: Yes. My good friend and colleague the member for Don Mills will be standing up to speak on this matter; he was on the committee as well.

Just as I was getting ready to do that this week, to make further elaborations and to try and extend an opportunity to better the legislation that was before us, down comes that cold, cold -- I could almost feel it on my neck -- action by the government which cannot be described other than as a guillotine dropping on the very thing that we so much cherish around here, and that is democracy.

I believe this government has lost every democratic principle that it ever had, and the ironic thing is that this party that now governs uses that word in its own name, the New Democratic Party. I think that's an oxymoron. I would describe it in that way because the way this party has been governing bears no relation to that word "democratic," and I think it's getting further and further away from that.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Twenty-two hours for two clauses.

Mr Cordiano: Absolutely not. I might say that at no time did the minister indicate that she was perturbed by the debate that was ensuing. In fact, she engaged me in debate over these very substantive matters. Her responses were quite lengthy and I was prepared to sit there and listen. At no time did she say, "I should remove myself from this debate." No, she encouraged it, and I thought we were reaching some mutual understanding about this section when it was cut off, to my immediate surprise.

1610

I was shocked to learn this morning that we were dealing with a time allocation motion because I thought, just as we were beginning to quite frankly see eye to eye on the matter before us -- we didn't agree on everything, of course; that could never happen -- there was this automatic motion by the government to deny any further debate.

I find that is a shame, particularly, and I say this in all seriousness now, because we did not reach that part of the bill which dealt with Dr Lightman's recommendations in the main, and that most of those parts of the bill have simply been brushed aside and we will have to deal with them as we deal with everything else around here, after it's passed by this government pushing it through with its majority. We'll have to deal with them on the hustings, to talk to the people of the province who are interested in this legislation.

I might add that many, many people were interested in that part of the legislation. I, myself, had suggested to the minister that many of the recommendations put forward by Dr Lightman were very much appreciated and well received by our caucus. In fact, we felt that many of those recommendations should be proceeded with. There was some general understanding of that and some general agreement on the part of all members of the committee. Unfortunately, that was not given the kind of fulsome debate that was necessary --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Ah.

Mr Cordiano: I say, we only dealt with two clauses. The minister was very much a part of those debates and it certainly could not fall on us to disengage her from the debate, certainly not. I would not ask her to leave the room so that we could expedite the process. Surely to God, she did not expect us to do that. I say to my friend the member for Don Mills, certainly she could not have expected that --

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Absolutely not.

Mr Cordiano: -- that we should just simply not make commentary on this legislation and allow the bill to proceed without any kind of debate.

Mr David Johnson: With all the opposition to it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: A little value added for your pay.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, that's stretching it a little far. I think we have made constructive amendments to the legislation thus far and we only got through two clauses -- we didn't even get through two clauses.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You didn't tell that to your constituents: 22 hours for two clauses.

Mr Cordiano: What's 22 hours in the life of a Legislature, for a bill that is as significant and of such tremendous interest that was expressed by the residents of Ontario? I will repeat that: 230 requests for appearances before the committee and the committee could only accommodate 150 of those submissions for public appearance. So that already cut down on the number of people who made presentations.

This was not unusual or abnormal; it was not. I think that giving people their due, giving people their democratic opportunity to express their views on legislation, as I say, that is of such importance and significance to all the people of the province, and was demonstrated as much by this government having put forward this legislation in what amounted to an expedited fashion, given the way that it combined the legislation and made it an omnibus piece of legislation.

At the end of the day, they can't have it both ways. They can't say: "This is important legislation but we don't want to discuss it. We want to just get it through the House, ram it through, so that we can say we pass legislation." I say that's not good enough. There are certain matters in this legislation that need to be looked at with great detail. We started to do just that and I think that great progress was made. We, I think, had several areas --

Hon Ms Gigantes: We didn't finish clause 2.

Mr Cordiano: We didn't have a chance to finish it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We didn't finish clause 2.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, I say to you, you didn't even get a chance to read the rest of my amendments, which I'm sure you would have found delightful and acceptable.

Mr David Johnson: Almost as good as ours.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member has the floor.

Mr Cordiano: Well, Mr Speaker, I was just trying to tell the minister that there were certainly a number of other things she would have found interesting and it's unfortunate that we couldn't discuss them in committee.

Hon Ms Gigantes: So funny.

Mr Cordiano: A little humour isn't going to kill anyone, Minister. I say to you that what we're talking about is serious, but at the end of the day, you're telling us that it wasn't serious enough to be dealt with by elected members of this House, and I take that with great offence, because what input was given by members of the opposition was done with a great deal of thought, was done with a view in mind to be constructive, and I say to the minister, I think we did that and I think she would want to admit that. I think at no time did we try to obstruct and at no time was there any element or intent to attempt to foul up the process. This is why I found this --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Say that with a straight face.

Mr Cordiano: Well, I am saying it with a straight face, because I absolutely believe that. I spent a lot of time and effort, and so did all those hundreds of people who came before the committee, and if the minister wants to tell me today that this is unacceptable that we have our say, that it was unacceptable that we make constructive, value added, as she liked to put it earlier, positive amendments -- and in fact she accepted one of our amendments.

This is why I find this situation so startling, in fact so shocking. I think we made some very positive contributions to the legislation. We dealt with it in the spirit that it deserved. A great deal of seriousness and a great deal of thoughtfulness went into the suggestions we made, and I think for her to try and deny that would be less than truthful.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, I will turn to my colleague in just a moment, but I would like to say to the minister and for those who are listening that we have serious concerns with the matter of safety. We always have made this the issue around basement apartments, and in fact we have made constructive suggestions for amendments.

We have repeatedly called for the registration of these units so that they be properly inspected, because failing to inspect these units would mean -- and I think this is what we find so disturbing, failing to ensure that all of these units are inspected. After all, they currently exist.

But, firstly, we don't know where they exist, and that is why we've called for registration under the act, that all of these units be registered so that we can identify where they are, and that all of these units then be inspected so that we can ensure that they meet the codes, the code requirements, to ensure that they are safe places in which to live.

After all, it's unacceptable to have even one unit that is unsafe that exists out there because there was a failure on the part -- and I would say this -- of the government to ensure that these units have gone through a proper process for proper inspections to be made, because then, and only then, can we guarantee that these units are safe.

Failing that, I would say to the government that it is negligent, that it is acting in a negligent fashion, leaving to the mere whim and happenstance, on a chance, that at the end of the day, as I have described earlier, these units will be reported by either a tenant, a neighbour or someone else to the fire department because this tenant was aware of what was in the code and made a determination that his or her unit was unsafe. And that's preposterous, to expect that a tenant would have that kind of knowledge about a building code or fire code and be able to make an assessment that his or her unit was unsafe, and therefore put the burden on the tenant to be that knowledgeable.

Now, the minister has said in committee that they're going to introduce an educational program to educate the public about what is in the building code and the fire code. I think that's absurd. They couldn't spend enough money, and this could not be done in an appropriate and timely fashion to ensure that these units are safe. Years will go by. Those units will still exist out there in an unsafe fashion; legal, as of right, according to zoning bylaws, but certainly not safe. That I find to be unacceptable.

1620

At the end of the day, our amendment dealt with that. Our amendment was a constructive, positive suggestion to the minister designed to deal with safety first, because we put the lives of people and their concerns around safety as a priority in all of this. As we heard from fire chiefs across the province, the kinds of fires that occur in basements are much more difficult to fight than fires that are above ground. Fires below grade are much, much more difficult to get to and much, much more difficult to put out. For those people living below grade, we must ensure that their units are safe.

That's why I cannot understand why this government has refused to look at a simple registration process which would allow for cost recoveries on the part of municipalities. After all, AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, suggested that there be registration of these units so that they can then go about the business of inspecting these units, so they can make these safe places in which people could live in their own municipalities. This is what we heard from AMO, representing over 800 municipalities across the province. To suggest that these ideas came out of thin air is incorrect. To suggest that they weren't based on some thoughtful process is incorrect, is untrue.

At the end of the day, I say with a great deal of concern that Bill 120 will pass and that some time down the road there will continue to be the existence of -- legal now, as I said before -- accessory apartments continuing to exist in an unsafe condition.

That is our biggest concern and that is why at the end of the day I cannot accept this time allocation motion, this guillotine action by the government to cut off debate around a matter which is of great importance to not only those people who live in basement apartments and the people who live in rest homes, retirement homes, homes for the aged and rooming houses. It is important for all of us, particularly around Dr Lightman's recommendations, because after all, these were vulnerable adults. To suggest that this was to be dealt with in an expeditious fashion without real thought being given to this --

I'd like to get into discussion around the recommendations made by Dr Lightman and some of the concerns we have. We've put forward amendments and I'm hoping that the government will still accept some of these amendments when we get into committee of the whole, because they're necessary. They speak to a variety of issues, a variety of concerns which have been expressed throughout our hearings. I suggested earlier that one of our amendments was accepted. It was an exemption dealing with an 18-month provision, having extended it from six months, during which homes that provided care would be exempted from provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I don't have enough time to get into the details of that, so I will turn to my colleague who awaits his turn to speak next.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words today with regard to the time allocation motion that's before us. Once again, this government is using the undemocratic process of invoking closure on any form of reasonable, logical or decent debate that's taking place. We wanted to discuss more of Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property, but this government tends to fall back on closure far too often to deal with its own legislation rather than taking the time to listen to the very real concerns and the very real problems facing the people of Ontario.

I remember standing in this House on different occasions speaking on closure motions. I remember when the government was in opposition. The Treasurer at the time, Mr Nixon, wanted to present his budget and the members of the NDP put up a real fight and caused chaos within this Legislature. Mr Nixon ended up presenting his budget outside the doors. These are the very people you would never think would want to bring in closure motions. Could you imagine what they would do if there was another party in power bringing in closure motions?

Once again we have a case here in which many members of my party wanted to participate in the Bill 120 debate, wanted to bring the concerns and views of their constituents to the attention of the government, but they are being denied the opportunity to work effectively on behalf of the people who elected them to represent them here at Queen's Park.

This government has used closure to cut off debate on important legislation like Bill 120 today, and photo-radar; they used it last year on that. They choose to put a lid on free speech, so to speak, and set about to overregulate the people of this province. This overregulation takes the form of Bill 40, the job-killing bill which amended the Labour Relations Act. It's another example of a government that has no regard for the social and economic consequences, and it is symbolic of the anti-business, anti-job, anti-worker, anti-prosperity agenda that has prevailed with this government.

This is the same government that just doesn't care that thousands of jobs will disappear because of the negative impact of Ontario's labour laws on CN rail's plans to abandon a number of short lines in Ontario. I'm certain the closure of these lines will have an adverse impact on millions of dollars worth of investment and thousands of jobs throughout the county of Simcoe.

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you could remind the speaker what the motion is that we're debating.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind all members that we are dealing with government notice of motion number 25.

Mr McLean: I'm glad the minister is listening. She didn't talk totally about the motion either. She talked about Bill 120 and some other aspects of planning in Ontario. For her to get up and say that I'm not dealing with what's before the House today -- I certainly am. If she wants to talk about jobs with regard to the closure motion, I want to discuss it. I want to talk about the 80 jobs at Stepan Canada that are being lost because of their anti-business agenda. I want to talk about the potential that the provincial government can cause an impasse with the stroke of a pen by amending labour legislation. Instead, the government chooses to run roughshod over the opposition parties by invoking closure on a piece of legislation that many people are clearly opposed to.

Frank Johnson of Brechin is clearly opposed to Bill 120. He wanted me to bring the following information to the attention of a government that wants to ram through a piece of seriously flawed legislation. His concern is: How will a basement apartment be made legal and be fire-protected? Will all homes on water and sewage be able to have a new apartment?

I hate to do this again, but I want you to think back to the news release issued by Bob Rae on August 19, 1990. This news release was about a document titled An Agenda for People, and the second paragraph reads: "This is a great province. But how much greater it would be if it truly belonged to the people. Instead, we have a government today driven by a narrow and self-interested agenda, ignoring what needs to be done."

He should have at that time said, "If I want to get legislation through, I'm going to invoke closure." But no, he didn't say that. He didn't talk about that. Bob Rae wanted to talk about the former Liberal government, but he didn't talk about the current NDP government. It's really getting difficult to tell them apart. I must be thinking back to the old Liberal-NDP accord days.

1630

The government is trying its hardest to stifle the voices of people like Frank Johnson, the townships of Oro-Medonte and Severn and Tay and the town of Penetanguishene and the city of Orillia by cutting off debate. But I was elected to present the concerns of my constituents to this government, and I'm going to try to be right up front with regard to the views that have been presented to me.

"In late November, the Ontario government introduced Bill 120, legislation of concern to you because it proposes to make retirement homes subject to housing legislation, specifically, rent control and the Landlord and Tenant Act....

"For the last few years, we've been trying to warn the government that putting retirement homes under housing legislation would cause serious problems in the day-to-day running of retirement homes and for the residents living in them....

"The government, however, has ignored our warnings and Bill 120 will become law this spring. The following is a brief summary of the major problems created by the legislation:

"The legislation will not allow us to move a resident out of the home if that person does not want to move, even when a speedy move is necessary to protect that person or other residents. The legislation would cause problems if a resident requires more care than we can provide or becomes a threat to other residents.

"The legislation does not allow for temporary stays, for example, while a resident is recuperating after time in the hospital, while receiving outpatient treatment, or while the family is away or unable to provide regular care.

"There are a range of other problems that would affect how we operate our home and how we provide the services and setting to which you are accustomed."

"Retirement Homes Calls For Amendments To 'Misguided' Bill 120," January 18, 1994. "Bill 120 is a misguided approach to regulating the residential care sector and will create problems for residents because the bill's housing legislation does not recognize situations unique to care-based retirement homes, the Ontario residential care association today warned a government committee reviewing the bill."

The township of Severn is so opposed to Bill 120 that it approved the following resolution:

"Whereas Bill 120, as introduced by government of Ontario, is in blatant disregard for the rights of citizens in Ontario who have purchased homes relying on the protection of municipal official plans and zoning bylaws; and

"Whereas it is the opinion of this council that such disregard will bring about a reduction in property and assessment values with such 'R1' zones; and

"Whereas it is the belief of the council that the rights of individuals owning properties within such 'R1' zones should be preserved and protected and continue to be subject to the due process of zoning amendment procedures; and

"Whereas this municipality has recently experienced near fatalities due to fires in basement apartments, it would be detrimental to public safety to follow through with Bill 120;

"Be it resolved that this council register its strong protest to Bill 120 to the Premier, the Minister of Housing, AMO, all urban centres in Ontario and...MPPs...and that all interested citizens be encouraged to take similar action."

The township of Oro-Medonte also wants you to know there's opposition to Bill 120 in that municipality, and that council passed the following resolution:

The council, at its regular meeting of February 16, 1994, said:

"Be it resolved that the correspondence from the town of Tillsonburg requesting endorsement of resolution expressing opposition to Bill 120 which permits two residential units within a dwelling be received and the council of the township of Oro-Medonte support the said resolution and, further, a copy of the same be sent to the Premier, the Minister of Housing," myself, "and the town of Tillsonburg."

I wonder if the minister ever got those. From what I gather within the committee, there certainly wasn't a lot of debate with regard to the opposition to the bill.

On March 9, the township of Tay passed the following resolution because that municipality too has serious reservations about Bill 120. The council of Tay "at its March 9, 1994," just a little over a month ago, "regular meeting passed the following resolution with respect to the above-noted matter:

"That the township of Tay supports the resolution from the town of Tillsonburg in opposition to proposed Bill 120 and support for same be forwarded to the Premier, Minister of Housing," and the same as the ones before.

"Tay council trusts you will consider these comments when Bill 120 is considered in the House."

I have some other comments here with regard to the government. They want to cut off debate. After election officials informed the staff of the town of Penetanguishene, and they reviewed Bill 120 very carefully, they reached the following conclusions:

"Since the enactment of Penetanguishene's 'accessory apartment' policy, things have worked quite well and no problems have arisen. Therefore the phrase 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' seems appropriate, because Bill 120 proposes to expand the 'two residential units per house' principle to semi-detached dwellings and row housing.

"As the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has indicated in its policy response to Bill 120, the inclusion of row houses will only arouse public anxiety, raise expectations for would-be converters and force municipalities to go through excessive administration to ultimately exclude them.

"The AMO policy response also points out that despite the government's position that the two parts to Bill 120 (ie, care homes and apartments in houses) are related issues, they are significantly different and it is inappropriate to combine the two of them."

Many, many municipalities have raised issues with regard to Bill 120. Yes, this government wants to stifle free speech and informed debate on a piece of legislation that elected officials and staff at the city of Orillia, the Sunshine City, found sadly lacking. A committee of council for the city of Orillia reached the following conclusions about Bill 120:

"That council endorse the expression of concern by the town of Tillsonburg and, further, that the Minister of Housing be advised of the following concerns of the city....

"(1) The proposed legislation represents a significant encroachment by the province on the traditional planning responsibilities of municipal government. The changes to the Planning Act proposed in Bill 120 represent a major, unilateral revision of local policies and how they are applied. Such revisions are being made without regard to local conditions and without recourse to an independent body which the planning process has traditionally provided for in this province.

"(2) While recognizing the need for the provision of adequate, affordable housing, municipalities must be able to have some control over all types of land use, including accessory dwellings. Otherwise they will be unable to mitigate the impacts on adjacent uses and on services and facilities, including the provisions of water and sanitary sewers and treatment, parking, schools, parks and recreation facilities....

"(5) The nature of the 'municipal approvals' required for the demolition, conversion, repair or renovation for a care home should be clarified, as the application of the process under the Rental Housing Protection Act, if similar to the process for the conversion of a rental building to condominium ownership, would be onerous, particularly where a small number of events (even just one) is involved."

We have small villages like Coldwater and Elmvale. Coldwater has a sewage system that needs to be upgraded. They cannot proceed with further subdivisions within that municipality. Yet what this government is saying through Bill 120 is, "Yes, you can have an apartment in each one of your residences within that village."

Is that what the ministry is saying? Is that what the ministry is going to allow to happen? If it does, what's going to happen to the sewage system? Who is going to have control over the planning of that village? Is it going to be the municipality or is it going to be the province?

1640

Elmvale village put in a new water and sewage system for expansion. If every one of those homes in that village adds to or approves every illegal apartment, but adds to mainly, is their water system then going to be up to standards? There are a lot of concerns here with regard to making them legal, but also allowing them to add an apartment in every home.

There is some background with regard to the report with regard to the Joseph Kendall inquiry. He was a resident in an Orillia rest home at the time of his death. I attended that coroner's inquest with regard to the causes of those deaths in homes that were unregulated, where nobody was really monitoring what was happening there, so I see some aspects of some regulations to effect that those homes are regularly inspected, regularly under some control of a ministry. But to have that part of this legislation with Bill 120 I don't believe was an appropriate thing to do. I think it should have been some separate legislation under the health act that would have allowed inspections of those facilities, whereby some of the deaths that have taken place, because of unsanitary conditions or because of some of the problems within those homes, would have been looked after.

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this motion for closure and on Bill 120 that this government want to ram through the Legislature. My constituents want me to tell you that they are opposed to Bill 120 because it concentrates more on security of tenure over the security of care. This government won't let the people in Simcoe East speak any longer so they've asked me to be their voice at Queen's Park. It is an honour and privilege to speak on their behalf, but I hate to have to speak on their behalf when we're facing closure motions in this Legislature.

I remember when one of the NDP members one time spoke for 17 hours. I don't think anybody needs to speak that long. I think speeches can be short, but I do think that all members should the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents, and I was pleased to have that.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm very pleased to join in this discussion on the time allocation motion. I follow upon a speaker who questions the amount of time that is needed here. I want to point out that we spent 22 hours on getting to the second clause in this bill, Bill 120, and I just wonder where the member for Simcoe East was when we were going through this exercise, which was getting us nowhere.

Certainly there are residents in his constituency, because there are residents across the whole province, who are benefiting from this bill and who have told us in the vast public consultation that we carried out both before the bill was drafted and then through the public hearings -- remember, on top of the 22 hours of clause-by-clause that we were working on in this bill, we still had four weeks of public hearings into the bill.

There has been a vast amount of public consultation on this bill and we know a vast amount of public support for it. In fact, the people of Ontario want us to get through this bill and this is why we are taking this measure now of time allocation. As I say, I'm disappointed that the member for Simcoe East wasn't there pushing the committee to get this done.

What I would like to do is to focus on two specific areas just to highlight them, following the minister's very comprehensive discussion of the bill, and I'd just briefly like to say how much I appreciate the minister's commitment to this bill, the vast amount of time she's put into it. The two areas I would like to talk about are, first of all, the public consultation that went into the development of the legislation and what this bill means to the people most directly affected by it, the residents in care homes and apartments in houses and the providers of the accommodation.

As far as the public consultation goes, as members are aware, draft legislation and regulations on apartments in houses were released for public consultation almost two years ago, in June 1992. Starting in the summer of 1992, the ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing consulted extensively with the public. The two ministries received and studied over 1,500 briefs from individuals, municipalities, public sector organizations, ratepayers' groups, and tenant and advocacy groups across the province.

Staff from the two ministries met with more than 60 groups. The ministers also met with municipal councillors from Windsor, London, Stratford, Hamilton, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Etobicoke, Whitby and Kingston, and the greater Toronto area mayors.

In regard to the care home provisions of this bill, it's worth noting that this government announced the establishment of the Lightman commission of inquiry in 1990, just two days after the release of the jury's report on the unfortunate death of a care home resident in Orillia -- just two days after that inquest report.

The commission's work -- that's the Lightman commission's work -- lasted 18 months, during which Dr Lightman received more than 230 submissions from interested groups, organizations and individuals. The commission also released a discussion paper, followed by public consultations in several communities across Ontario and private meetings with stakeholders and others interested in the issue.

During the hearings of the standing committee on general government, the committee received more than 300 submissions from interested organizations, groups and individuals on various aspects of the bill. About 60 of these submissions related to the care home provisions of the bill. Of this number, about 40% supported it while another 40% expressed qualified support. Those voicing qualified support were not opposed to the principles involved, but wanted to see some specific concerns addressed.

Of the submissions to the standing committee relating to apartments in houses, 69% were in favour of the bill while 39% were opposed. It's important to note that the people most directly concerned, the landlords and the tenants in these apartments, supported the bill's objectives. Again, the people most directly concerned, landlords and tenants, supported the bill's objectives.

I should also point out that the government went a long way to accommodate the real concerns it heard and made amendments at every step in the process to address these concerns.

There is one crucial fact that I can't emphasize enough: This has been a most inclusive process, providing sufficient opportunity for public input and listening to what people told us. The Minister of Housing has already referred to some of the changes we've made to reflect this point.

The bill has come through a very stringent public scrutiny, and today we can say there is widespread support for it among the people of Ontario. The reason for that support is that, as the minister has outlined, it's an idea whose time has come.

Let's look briefly at what this bill means to the people most directly concerned, the residents in care homes and apartments in houses and the people who provide these forms of housing.

First, as the short title of this bill clearly recognizes, this bill is about residents' rights.

With regard to care homes in particular, Dr Lightman found that residents in these homes are very vulnerable to abuse: eviction without notice, with one's belongings stuffed in a garbage bag; physical and sexual abuse; unsafe living conditions; inadequate care; lack of privacy; routine denial of visitors; and other health and personal safety problems. These are things that strike at the heart of the most basic human rights: the right to personal safety and dignity and the right to choose where and how one wants to live.

This bill will put an end to these types of abuse and care home residents will be able to enjoy the same rights and protection that all other tenants take as a matter of course today. This bill gives them the choice of where they would live and guarantees their safety, security and dignity.

In his report, Dr Lightman wrote about care home operators for whom "it was a spiritual obligation to care for vulnerable adults, regardless of the personal or financial sacrifice."

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired.

Mr Gary Wilson: Finally, I'd just like to say, on behalf of the government, that I join with him in expressing our admiration for their commitment.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for his contribution.

Mr Gary Wilson: This bill will strengthen the hand of such people by establishing some ground rules for everyone.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I wanted to speak briefly to this yet another unfortunate time allocation motion. I have been approached on the topic of this bill by a number of organizations in my riding that have expressed concerns about aspects of the bill and wanted some amendments put forward. In the committee our critic has moved some of those amendments and was planning on moving and introducing -- and may in fact have introduced; I believe he did -- many more.

Unfortunately, because the government has decided that while it went out and had public hearings, it doesn't want to now take the opportunity to use those public hearings to improve the bill. They're shutting the process down. I want to get some of those concerns on the record.

1650

Hon Ms Gigantes: Twenty-two hours and we didn't get through two clauses.

Mr Murphy: I see that we've teased the bears again. There's a caterwauling from the government benches.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members, come to order.

Mr Murphy: I see the government benches react unfortunately when they see the truth.

But I did want to mention Terry McCullum, the executive director of Anglican Houses, who has written quite a lengthy letter on behalf of his organization along with Julie Mancuso, the manager of adult programs, and expressed a concern specifically about two areas of the bill. One of them is the length-of-stay provisions and the other is the "principal residence" definition.

My understanding is that the committee has voted to change length of stay. I see the minister in the House and I hope she will ensure that modification stays in place. I appreciate those members of the government who did vote in support of the Liberal amendment.

Let me say there was also some concern about the "principal residence" definition and the impact on rehabilitative housing. I'm sure the minister is aware of that and I hope they will take that into account as well.

I also got a letter from a number of organizations jointly -- Houselink Community Homes, the 90 Shuter Street Homes First Society, which is in the member for Fort York's riding, and Streetcity, which is a very innovative housing community in one building in my riding -- which expressed some concerns about the operation of the bill. I wanted to pass those concerns on.

In particular, they outlined concerns in four areas of the bill itself, which amends the Landlord and Tenant Act so that they will now come under its operation. Particularly, they were concerned about how threats of violence were going to be dealt with, as well as time delays, which, as I mentioned, has been to a certain degree addressed; reliance on the police for the eviction process -- there was a concern about how that is going to be cumbersome and not very workable in that environment -- and the balancing of the rights of community residents. I think there are some fairly valid concerns. I know this letter was sent to the minister in February directly, and I hope that she will respond to them.

I also want to note, finally, Toronto Psychiatric Survivors, which is a wonderful organization in my riding. Martha Gandier is involved and I believe made a presentation to the committee as well. They do some very wonderful work in my community, a community which I'm proud to represent. I've been in and seen them. She is pleased to be included in the Landlord and Tenant Act for three reasons, related to privacy concerns and the protection the Landlord and Tenant Act provides, coercion issues and eviction, and the protection of due process. I wanted to recognize her efforts and as well the presentation she made, which I think is an excellent one.

I do think it is unfortunate, given the fabulous quality that I see, actually, taken in all these presentations which were put before the committee, that we have not had an opportunity to really work at the bill longer. I know the government says we spent 17 hours, or 22 hours, or whatever it is. Let me just say that from the public's perspective, I think they'd understand if we took a little while longer and got it right, rather than taking the hammer. I think democracy may not be a perfect process, it's sometimes messy, but I think it's better for all of us if we let it move through the process. We get a better result at the end.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I want to start out this debate on closure on Bill 120 by reading some words from Bob Rae, who is now the Premier of the province, but we'll look at what he said in opposition. This is Mr Rae to, I believe, the Speaker on December 9, 1982:

"...and because we are concerned with preserving the rights of opposition and with preserving the rights of each and every individual member to have his or her say with respect to this piece of legislation, and because we are concerned to see that each and every member of the Legislature has a right to put his or her view with respect to this legislation, we are firmly and strongly opposed to this motion being put at this time and in this way."

A further quote from Mr Rae, and this was February 15, 1983: "Can the Premier say if it is now the intention of the government to introduce closure whenever it feels it is not getting its way, or debate is not going in the direction it wants, or it is under some pressure from its own backbenchers?" We've got lots and lots of quotes from Mr Rae in opposition; that H-word that we're not allowed to use here in the Legislature comes to mind.

Mr Rae said on February 15, 1983, "It has become clear that this government has drunk deep and long the heady wine of the guillotine and simply cannot get enough of it." Am I making my point, Madam Speaker? Then on January 19, 1989, once again Mr Rae said, "...it will be open to any government, notwithstanding the standing orders, to come down in April or May and say, 'We want to have three days for this bill and two days for that bill, and if we can't get agreement from the House leaders' -- the argument from the government will be -- 'we are going to do it by way of standing order.'" Well, we know that the government has done this.

"If you allow that to happen for more than one bill" -- let me read that again; this is Mr Rae in opposition: "If you allow that to happen for more than one bill, the clear implication will then be that literally anything goes in terms of how governments allocate time. The only protection we have in this regard, Mr Speaker, in terms of the appropriateness of that notice of motion, is your ruling on what governments are entitled to do in this House."

Well, this is a government that has used closure many, many times. They used it on Bill 79, employment equity; they used it on Bill 47, photo-radar; they used it on Bill 143, the Ottawa-Carleton act; they used it on Bill 40, the labour bill; they used it on Bill 150, creating venture capital corporations, and they used it on Bill 4, the rent regulation act.

Now let me just once again refer to what Mr Rae said. "If you allow that to happen for more than one bill, the clear implication will then be that literally anything goes in terms of how governments allocate time." This is a very serious matter. It's a matter of the opposition parties, who represent the majority of people in this province because the government --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Why don't you let us govern?

Mr Turnbull: -- and I am not denying the government the right to govern --

Mr Mills: You are just bitter that you lost.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Turnbull: -- but the fact is, it won its mandate with 37.8% of the vote, so therefore, the opposition parties represent the majority of people in this province. My point is, is it not reasonable that we be allowed to express the concerns of our constituents when they come to us and say, "We are concerned with legislation"?

In the case of my own constituents, overwhelmingly I have had comments that they are against Bill 120. I have had some of the constituents who have said they're in favour of it, and I will not present an unbalanced picture. It is a fact that there are some people in my constituency who are in favour of Bill 120. However, the majority of people who have communicated with my office and the ratepayer groups that I have communicated with in meeting after meeting after meeting have said they're against this legislation. They have asked to be heard by the legislative committee which looked into this bill after second reading; overwhelmingly they were turned down. They were not allowed to present to that committee.

Mr Gary Wilson: Come on, we heard over 200 people on that.

Mr Turnbull: Now, my friend across the way says, "Well, we had over 200 people at the committee." The fact is, this is very controversial legislation. In bringing in this legislation, the government tramples over the rights of municipalities to set zoning, and zoning is set in concert with the residents of a neighbourhood, and that zoning is there to protect the residents of the neighbourhood.

1700

Indeed, if you move into a single-family area, you pay typically more money to buy into that area. Now what does the Minister of Housing say? She calls it "snob zoning." These were the minister's words in committee on this bill. She thinks it's snob zoning, so therefore she says: "I couldn't care less what the people in the municipalities are saying. I'm going to push this through."

In the hearings, we had AMO suggesting that it was against this legislation. We have had the fire chiefs overwhelmingly saying -- not overwhelmingly, totally have said -- that this is bad legislation and they're concerned. They're concerned because of the right of entry into these potential death traps.

Now, the minister argues that in fact this legislation will improve the lot of people who live in basement apartments. There may be some instances where that is true, but the problems that people who live in single-family areas have if they allow the municipalities' right to set zoning to be usurped by the province is that the people who own those homes may never be able to get the tenants out again. If you go to sell your house and you try to get somebody who's living in a basement apartment out because you want to deliver vacant possession to the new owner, who wants the total house, you may not be able to do it. So there will be an effect on property values.

Infrastructure is put into areas consistent with the zoning that is in place when you build an area. You put in schools, you put in fire service and in fact you put in things like trunk sewers in consideration of the density that will be in that area.

This government says it couldn't care less. They are going to force the municipalities to accept basement apartments wherever anybody wants.

Mr Gary Wilson: Come on, that's not true, David. You should come to some of the hearings.

Mr Mills: Isn't he ridiculous?

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Of course it's true.

Mr Turnbull: I'm somewhat surprised by members of the government heckling that it isn't true. I don't think they have followed this legislation themselves --

Mr Mills: When he speaks, truth is abandoned.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Mr Turnbull: -- because, inescapably, you cannot draw any other conclusion than the fact that any area that is single-family zoning, if you don't want to have that turned into double-family housing, then quite frankly you have no protection. One developer can move into an area, can buy a single house, can divide it into two apartments with this legislation and use that to block-bust that street. You can have whoever you want. You can have the so-called tenant from hell.

Now, I want to emphasize that the vast majority of tenants are good, decent people who should be protected, but the fact is that tenants from hell can be literally hell to the owner of a house who wants to get them out, and it's very difficult, and in addition, developers can use this as a play to block-bust, to get their foot in the door and slowly take over the block. That is a very serious problem.

If we allow this legislation to go forward with only one hour of third reading debate, we are not doing our job as legislators in expressing the legitimate concern of the majority of people who came before this committee, and no matter what heckling the government may make, the fact is inescapable: The majority of the people who came before the committee said they were against this legislation. I see the Minister of Housing, as usual, nodding her head. Well, Madam, you obviously weren't listening. Of course, obviously, if you cut off the number of people who can come and make depositions, then you can control the process to some extent. My own tenants were not allowed to come before this committee.

To use Mr Rae's words in opposition, "We have a government that has drunk deep and long the heady wine of the guillotine and simply cannot get enough of it." Whenever this government runs into anything which is controversial where the government is not getting the support of the public, as evidenced by the committee hearings, then what we see is the guillotine coming down.

Where does democracy go from this point? Why bother having a Legislature if you are not allowing proper debate? I will say to the governing party, there can be no doubt about it, you will not be the governing party after the next election and you will rue the day you pushed through so many of these changes which will allow any future government to ignore any complaints you may make about limiting debate on anything.

We've read what Mr Rae said in opposition. He said if it was done more than once, it would show that the government wasn't interested in the democratic process. It hasn't been done just once, it's done so often. And we're not talking about a couple of bills at the end of the session, we're talking about a whole body of bills.

Mr Mills: You won't let us govern, that's why.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for Durham East to come to order.

Mr Turnbull: We came back just a few weeks ago, and this is the second time allocation we've had since we came back from the winter break. We are subverting the democratic process.

Let's look at some of the difficulties that care homes and the residents of care homes will have as a result of this. This legislation is such that if a resident of a care home became dangerous and violent or needed a higher level of care, the operators of the care home would not be able expeditiously to get the resident out. That is a very serious issue.

What happens if you have a loved one in a retirement home and one of the other residents has become very dangerous and aggressive because their condition has deteriorated quickly? Is it fair to the other residents that they should have their wellbeing put at risk because the government is saying, "No, we're going to put you under the Landlord and Tenant Act"? More appropriately, that aspect of the act should have been completely separated and should have been handled as separate legislation.

Mr Gary Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd just like to ask a question of the --

Mr Turnbull: Come on, that's ridiculous. Madam Speaker, I would ask you to add some time on to the clock for that. It's very clear that he's just trying to take up our time, which is further proof that this government doesn't want the words of the opposition heard. You can gag us in terms of time allocation, but it isn't washing out there. The people I speak to detest your government. People who voted for you last time detest it because you are ignoring what the people are saying.

The minister uses some statistics of how many people are in favour of allowing basement apartments. I would suggest to the minister, put that to a referendum. Allow each municipality, even broken down by ward, to have a referendum about whether they want this incursion into the zoning within their area. Let the people decide, not a bunch of politicians.

The people who've bought their homes, who were protected by existing zoning, are now being denied that protection. I believe it's appropriate that we listen to the people. That's the reason so many people are rather put off politics today: because of governments ignoring the wishes of the people. I can tell you that the people in my area overwhelmingly are saying they don't want this legislation. They bought into a single-family zone and they want to keep it that way.

1710

There are circumstances -- I mean, there was a widow who died, unfortunately, a year ago who was a neighbour of mine; she lived on the other side of the street. She was somewhat lonely and she took in a policeman who was living there, illegally had an apartment in the house. Did anybody say anything? Of course not, because we believed it was in her best interests. It provided some companionship to a very dear lady and gave a little income, and the community turned its back on that.

But the community does not want, holus-bolus, the neighbourhood of single-family homes that people have worked very hard to be able to afford turned into an area of duplexes, and that is in essence what we do with this. We have some serious problems with the implications for zoning and for municipalities to protect the tenants in residential zones.

Also, we have some very serious concerns about how we will protect residents in these care homes if one of the residents becomes dangerous and cannot be moved expeditiously because of the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Additionally, there is a very interesting question which I believe has not been handled adequately by the committee because of the fact that the committee hearings have been cut off in clause-by-clause. If a tenant were to pay for the rent component, which is now under this legislation being separated out from the care component of what they pay to that home, but did not pay for the care component, what rights would the owner of that home have to remove them under the Landlord and Tenant Act if they continued to pay their rent? This poses some very serious problems for the operators of care homes, be they profit or non-profit, and potentially affects the financial viability of these operations. In the end, the residents can be the victims: that they will suffer because of the injustices and the financial difficulties that could potentially be caused by this.

I've touched briefly on the fire safety concerns which were expressed by fire chiefs, and it is a very serious concern. We have seen a number of people killed in basement apartments, and there has been very little this government has done to address this very serious problem. It is a problem that could be addressed by reasonable amendments to the bill because, unfortunately, I know the government's going to pass this bill as soon as they bring it in. They have a majority. They're going to pass it. But they haven't listened to the people, they haven't listened to the presentations.

I was very attentive to what was presented to this committee and very concerned about the implications for York Mills, the area I represent. I believe there are ways the bill could be improved, although I believe it is an inappropriate bill. Most of all, it should have been brought in as two separate pieces of legislation: one handling the housing aspect and the other the care homes.

With that, I have put some of the concerns of the constituents of York Mills on the record. It is something I believe the government should think long and hard about, as to how it goes forward in the future with cutting off very legitimate debate and questions from the opposition who, as I've said, in fact represent the majority of Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Offer: In the time permitted, I want to put a few points on record. I understand that the time we've got now is evenly allocated, and this just happens -- excuse me, Madam Speaker, I think we have to get an understanding as to the time which is permitted on this.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: Okay, thank you very much.

I obviously have some very strong concerns about what the Bob Rae government and the Minister of Housing have done today. I think what they have done is nothing less than slap the face of the people of the province of Ontario. It is incredible to me that on a bill as important, in terms of its opposition, the government would stop all debate on this legislation, and effectively that is what it has done.

I am looking at a motion which was introduced today by Bob Rae's Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, which states that this bill, which deals with basement apartments, notwithstanding the many concerns that have been raised from municipality to municipality, notwithstanding the many concerns that have been raised by fire chiefs across this province, notwithstanding the concerns raised by individuals in municipalities, will have on third reading all of 60 minutes to be debated.

That is 60 minutes which, I would expect, would most likely be divided between three parties. In other words, a bill which has caused great concern throughout this province is going to be allowed for debate 20 minutes per party. I believe that is a terrible disgrace to this Legislature. I believe this is an act of irresponsibility, of tyranny that this Legislature has never seen before. I do not believe that I am overstating this case. I cannot believe --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): You are.

Mr Gary Wilson: You are.

Mr Offer: The NDP members who will, on third reading, trundle out and vote in favour of this bill, think that speaking for 20 minutes on a piece of legislation is sufficient. Well, I have received letters and telephone calls from my constituents. When I've been out speaking to them at community events, one of the issues that is brought forward to me is that around basement apartments, and they are concerned.

They care not a whit about the politics of the Minister of Housing or about Bob Rae. They care about safety in their community. They care about people who live in basement apartments. They care about the fact that the NDP government is, without doubt, ramming a piece of legislation through that does not address the issues of safety that are so important, crucially important to the people of this province.

In the hearings, the fire chief for the city of Mississauga, Fire Chief Cyril Hare, brought forward the fact of the safety issue. I am not going to recite everything that the fire chief of the city of Mississauga stated except to say that he clearly articulated the issue of the need for safety.

We clearly understand that this bill is negligent in this area, that there will be a problem, that there are safety issues which have not been addressed, that the government, notwithstanding that, is going to be ramming through the legislation with but one hour of debate for everyone in this Legislature, not individually but collectively, that probably each party as a whole is going to be allowed 20 minutes. It is nothing less than a slap in the face for the people, not only in my riding of Mississauga North but indeed throughout the province of Ontario.

I have letters from individuals in the city of Mississauga who are pleading with Bob Rae, who are pleading with the Minister of Housing to read their own legislation, saying that it doesn't meet the needs of the safety criteria we would expect everyone to have.

1720

The bill is bad. There are maybe 10,000 basement apartment units in the city of Mississauga. We do not know because there is no way in which we can know. We have received estimations from the fire services department that it could be upwards of 7,500, to maybe 10,000, maybe beyond, and this bill will say upon its passage that those 10,000 units are legal. That's what it says. It will send out a message to those living in basement apartments, those 10,000 units, that they are now living in legal units. But what does that mean?

The minister and members of the government will trundle out that there are certain regulations or things of this nature that will attach to basement apartments, but there is no method for municipalities or fire services departments to know where those 10,000 units are. So just as a matter of common sense, of rational thinking, how is it that one can ensure that a unit is in fact safe if you don't know where that unit happens to be located?

These are the concerns that people in my riding have been calling me about. They are saying, "How can the government say that those 10,000 units are going to be safe and that the people living in those units are going to be living in safe conditions if there is no provision under the legislation which allows the government, the municipality or the fire services department to find out where they are?"

The bill is negligent. The bill is deficient. The bill is irresponsible. The actions by the Bob Rae government in ramming through a bill are, at very best, tyrannical. I cannot understand how a government can pass a bill which is going to put so many people, and I am just speaking about some numbers in the city of Mississauga, not the province of Ontario, at risk.

The Minister of Housing has a responsibility to shuck aside her political ideology and look to safety. You have an obligation. The members of the NDP government have an obligation to say to the Premier of the province, their leader Bob Rae, to the Minister of Housing, Evelyn Gigantes, that we cannot allow a bill to be passed which jeopardizes people. When a bill is passed, such as this, which does not allow a municipality to find out where these basement apartments are, which does not allow a fire services department in your own city to find out where these units happen to be, it puts those people at risk.

My letters, I have no doubt, will continue. I have no doubt that not only will they continue, they will increase, because they are absolutely certain, as I am, that the government is totally wrong in what it is doing. In my riding we have different communities, just as in all other ridings -- the communities of Malton, Streetsville, Meadowvale, Meadowvale Village, East Credit -- all of which have basement apartments, all of which are concerned about the safety aspect of the basement apartments in their area.

We have received and read in the newspapers the tragic consequences of what can happen, and that transcends all politics. The government should get that through their heads, that what we're talking about are lives. We're talking about safety. We're talking about a bill which doesn't address those concerns. We're talking about a government that doesn't care, that sees this as nothing more than some further political exercise that they have to use in terms of making this bill law.

This is a motion which basically shuts the door to this Legislature. It says to our constituents and to the constituents of all members, "What you have to say about this bill, as important as it is, just is not going to be listened to by the government." I believe that this is a message that this government will continue to rue the day that it has introduced a piece of legislation which limits debate for this whole Legislature to but 60 minutes.

Mr David Johnson: I'm going to talk about a number of sectors that have come before us through the Bill 120 hearings. The minister has indicated that there were certain misunderstandings by certain people about Bill 120 and that now they've had discussions and consultation and everybody has been set right and everybody has been told that it's okay after all. But I can tell you that in being involved in the discussions I know that there is a lot of opposition, a great deal of opposition to Bill 120.

For example, the Ontario Residential Care Association represents some 600 facilities, retirement homes, across this province. Over 35,000 seniors, disabled and post-psychiatric residents, average age of 83, live in their facilities. That's the Ontario Residential Care Association. Representing some 35,000 people, seniors, across the province of Ontario, what do they have to say about Bill 120?

Bear in mind that one of the onerous aspects of Bill 120 is that it imposes the Landlord and Tenant Act on these care facilities. The Landlord and Tenant Act was intended to regulate tenants but not care homes. So the point that the Ontario Residential Care Association is making is that the Landlord and Tenant Act "was never intended to regulate specialized labour-intensive service delivery." The Landlord and Tenant Act "is legislation geared towards tenants, not towards assisting elderly and post-psychiatric residents."

What is the outcome? I'm sure that the minister is not concerned about this, but the outcome, according to this organization representing 35,000 residents, senior residents, average age of 83 -- and I might say that some of those residents appeared before us in opposition to this bill as well; not only the operators, but the residents as well.

One consequence is that a resident who requires more care than a retirement home can provide is at risk. What happens is that a person will come into a retirement home, need a certain level of care, but as that person ages, a higher level of care will be required. Retirement homes are only able to give a certain level of care, and as that person progresses and needs more care, they really should move to another facility, a home for the aged or a nursing home or some other facility. As it stands today, without the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, if a resident objects to moving -- and some residents do not wish to move -- then provisions can be made to move residents into a proper facility where they can get the proper care.

Under Bill 120, if the resident chooses not to move, then the Landlord and Tenant Act says that you cannot move that resident; that resident stays right there. Then what happens?

Hon Ms Gigantes: You have to follow a process.

Mr David Johnson: Then there's a process. The minister says there's a process. The operators that came before us said the process does not work. So not only is the resident in jeopardy, but it's interesting in terms of where the operator stands, what sort of liability the operator incurs.

What about a resident who is a threat to the other residents or themselves? They say, "An important distinguishing characteristic of retirement homes is their communal nature" -- that means that people are living together, sharing dining facilities, sharing other aspects of their accommodation -- "and close day-to-day interaction of all residents." Consequently, if one resident becomes aggressive -- and this happens; we were told this happens -- then of course it diminishes the quality of life for all the other residents in the facility.

With the provision of the Landlord and Tenant Act --

Hon Ms Gigantes: There's a process.

Mr David Johnson: There is a process. The minister says there's another wonderful process. If you've got six months to a year to go through a process, you may be able to deal with it. What happens to the people who live in that facility who are being threatened or abused or whatever in the meantime? "It's not the government's problem; there is a process."

1730

It's interesting that you may think there is only certain people who are opposed to this bill and that perhaps it's just the right-wing Tories and right-wing Liberals, if the Liberals are right-wing; I don't know where Liberals are in this day and age, but wherever they are.

Mr Offer: We're over here.

Mr David Johnson: Oh, there they are over there; okay. I have a letter from the Honourable Stanley Knowles. You may wonder, what does the Honourable Stanley Knowles think about Bill 120? Guess where the Honourable Stanley Knowles lives. He lives in a retirement residence. He lives in Rideau Place in a retirement residence. The minister undoubtedly knows what Mr Knowles thinks about Bill 120. He says:

"For the past few years, Rideau Place and other retirement homes have been trying to warn the government that putting such retirement homes under housing legislation" -- this housing legislation, Bill 120 -- "would cause serious problems in the day-to-day running of such retirement homes and for the residents living in them."

The minister says the Honourable Stanley Knowles is wrong. He used to be right, but he's no longer --

Hon Ms Gigantes: They just don't have the full information.

Mr David Johnson: They just didn't have the full information. Everybody who disagrees with the government does not have the full information. That goes, then, for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They don't have the full information either, because they certainly don't agree with the government. The minister says, "We have talked with all municipalities, we have consulted, we have heard all their problems and we have made changes," sort of implying that now all the municipalities are happy.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We never said that.

Mr David Johnson: Oh, you didn't say that? Okay, there was that implication. Let me tell you what the association of municipalities thinks of Bill 120:

"Bill 120 contains virtually the same changes to the Planning Act and the Municipal Act which were contained in Bill 90," which was the previous bill. "The association is very disappointed that after all the opposition and discussions surrounding Bill 90, the sections of Bill 120 pertaining to apartments in houses are essentially intact, with minor housekeeping amendments."

They're saying you did nothing. They're saying you may have consulted and you may have allowed a few people to talk, but you didn't make any changes. You didn't hear. It didn't sink in. Their same objections that they've had all along are still there. They go on to say, "This is an unwarranted intrusion and interference with municipal zoning authority."

What I'm speaking of here -- first, I'm talking about the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, representing probably about 80% of the municipalities or more in this province; and I'm speaking about a bill that would allow, as of right, an accessory apartment, most often a basement apartment, in every house in this province, in violation of all the zoning and official plans of all the municipalities of the province of Ontario, save and except where they have septic tanks.

The association of municipalities is saying it's an unwarranted intrusion into municipal zoning. "The legislation works contrary to the many active and progressive housing intensification efforts already under way." Of course, the minister says the municipalities are not toeing the line; they are not listening to her housing policies. But the association of municipalities says that's not true, and I'll give you a few more instances a bit later.

They say, "The legislation overrides local planning to ensure the provision of the necessary hard and soft services in communities." If you're really interested in what the municipalities think, they do not like the legislation and you recognize that.

Is that just the association of municipalities? What about everybody else? We hear there's broad support across the province of Ontario: 75% of Ontario, I think I've heard.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Seventy.

Mr David Johnson: Seventy? Seventy per cent of Ontario loves this bill. I can tell you, here's the village of Hastings. I have their resolution in opposition to Bill 120 from the people from Hastings.

I have the town of Ajax. What do they say about it? They're in opposition. "The province should not proceed with this legislation" until all the questions they've raised, questions which have not yet been dealt with, are answered. The town of Ajax is in opposition.

The city of Belleville: The city of Belleville objects to Bill 120. It says so right here in the resolution.

How about the town of Lindsay? In the town of Lindsay, it was a topic of debate. They're opposed to it too. You recognize that. Where is this 70%?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): What about Mississauga?

Mr David Johnson: The Minister of Transportation asks about Mississauga. Mississauga will support intensification, as most municipalities will, if they're allowed to do their own planning and impose their own conditions in context with their own residents and their own needs. What you're doing -- you're hearing this over and over again, but I guess you don't care -- is imposing, right across Ontario, one planning system to address a problem that you perceive. All municipalities are having this one planning process imposed on them and they're saying it doesn't fit all needs, municipality after municipality.

There's the town of Lindsay. The town of Lindsay expresses its "continuing opposition" to this legislation. The town of Tillsonburg says, "Bill 120 is in blatant disregard for the rights of citizens." The town of Haileybury is opposed to it. The city of Niagara Falls --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Have you got any in support?

Mr David Johnson: I looked for those in support. I can't find them. It's 70% of the province of Ontario, but I can't find anybody; I don't know where that 70% has gone.

The city of Niagara Falls is in opposition.

Here's the city of Cambridge. The city of Cambridge says, "The proposed Bill 120 represents a significant provincial intrusion into municipal land use regulation and represents a compromise in the local planning power." The city of Cambridge is in opposition.

The city of Sarnia objects to the provisions of Bill 120.

Minister, here's an interesting one from the city of Burlington. The city of Burlington shares the basic objective of the province regarding encouraging residential intensification. They share your objective and they're in support of housing intensification. However, they oppose the legislation you're bringing forward, "an extreme and arbitrary" way, they say, in terms of dealing with intensification.

The city of Ottawa supports intensification, but not your bill, not your way of doing it. They have their own particular problems.

Mr David Johnson: Madam Speaker, can we have a little order over here? It's very noisy.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Don Mills has the floor. That means we would like to be able to hear him.

Mr David Johnson: I've got municipality after municipality after municipality.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the minister, the city of Ottawa has a plan for intensification. I think you would agree, coming from the Ottawa area yourself, that that city, among all cities, has been very responsive in terms of the housing needs of its citizens. I hope you would agree with that; I think that's so. Yet you're imposing your own unilateral approach, overriding all municipal authority in this regard, imposing on the city of Ottawa your approach. They say it's not right for Ottawa.

The city of London is another municipality that has taken initiatives in housing, that has established areas for intensification. They've consulted with their own residents, they've planned their communities with their own residents, and now you have thrown that out the window. All the planning they've done in the city of London you've thrown out the window with this bill. You've imposed your own Queen's Park solution over local planning.

1740

The city of Hamilton has taken another approach to intensification and it fits the needs. In the city of Hamilton there are houses with different structures. Many of the houses have cellars instead of having basements.

The city of Waterloo has a unique problem, because within the city is the Waterloo campus, and they have taken an approach with regard to student housing. The mayor of the city of Waterloo says your bill, Bill 120, which you are imposing right across Ontario, will have a dire impact on their neighbourhoods and on their student housing, because they have planned with their people their needs and you are overriding that, you're throwing that out the window. That's the city of Waterloo.

The minister says: "Okay. All the municipalities are against them. The municipalities are in favour of snob zoning."

Hon Ms Gigantes: There are four in favour.

Mr David Johnson: Oh, you've found four: four municipalities out of 800. I hope you have a better betting average than that, or else the next election you will be out.

It's interesting. When you quote the average person and what the average person thinks about this, it depends on how you ask the question. The city of Scarborough has conducted a poll. They sent out 5,400 questionnaires to the people of Scarborough and asked them about basement apartments. You say 70% of the people support. What they found was that 37% of the people support basement apartments, 33% oppose basement apartments, and another 30% are what they call the middle ground: they support basement apartments under certain conditions. That's how you get your 70%. Some people, about half, will support them under any circumstances. Other people will support them if there are certain conditions.

For example, one of the most popular conditions was that many people think that accessory apartments should be permitted if they are owner-occupied. What the city of Scarborough found in its questionnaire is that 76% of the people who are in the middle ground, who would support under certain conditions, would indeed support a basement apartment if the owner lived in the main residence, if the unit was owner-occupied. That is one of the conditions that many of the municipalities have asked. The minister says you can't do that.

We had a delegation from the city of Etobicoke. The solicitor of the city of Etobicoke was before us and she said that it was her view that you could do that. It would require a change in legislation, but indeed basement apartments could be limited to owner-occupied residences.

Because my time is running out, I would like to shift to the issue of the care homes. We know that this bill, which unfortunately is going through closure today, will impact not only on municipalities with regard to basement apartments and accessory apartments but will impact on care homes. I mentioned retirement homes. This bill will also impact on other kinds of care homes.

For example, I give you the case of the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs. They run about 100 agencies with accommodation for people who need assistance.

Madam Speaker, can we have a little order? Is it possible to have order?

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask members to take their seats, please. The member for Don Mills has the floor. I would like to be able to hear him, thank you. Go ahead.

Mr David Johnson: I was just saying that the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs operates over 100 accommodation residences for people who need care and who also need a place to live. The Landlord and Tenant Act, under this bill, would apply to their residences, and they say that it is their view that their rehabilitation and recovery programs of a transitional nature should not be dealt with under this act.

They go on to say that they are concerned that the amendments as written would cause fundamental changes in the nature of their programs. People will no longer be in a rehabilitation or recovery program; they would simply become tenants. In other words, the care they provide in these programs would be lost over a period of time.

They give an example. For instance, if in one of their alcohol recovery programs a resident was permitted to bring alcohol into one of their units, you can imagine what would happen. People living together, close surroundings, recovering from alcohol abuse: If one of the residents is permitted to bring alcohol into the program, it puts the other residents under severe stress.

The way it operates today is that the facility would have the right to control this situation. If a resident did not stay on the program, then that resident would simply have to leave, because they can't ruin the program for all the other people who need the program. Under Bill 120, the facility would lose the ability to remove that person. That person would be able to stay there, would be able to drink openly, and it would be a very stressful situation for the other residents who would be accommodated there. It would, in effect, cause the failure of the program.

Time is running out. I have correspondence from the Society of St Vincent de Paul. They run a transitional home for men recovering from alcohol addiction. They say exactly the same thing: You apply the Landlord and Tenant Act to their program and there will be serious consequences. The programs could well fail, programs that are required in the province of Ontario.

Anglican Houses were before us. They have serious problems, 29 rehabilitative and transitional houses in Ontario. They're dealing with people who have histories of violence, suicide, theft and disruption. They need authority to deal with the situations. Bill 120 will take away their authority.

We had the Massey Centre for unwed young mothers before us. Their main need is for safety. Young mothers who have been abused come into this program. They need security. Bill 120, by imposing the Landlord and Tenant Act, would remove that security. It will have dire consequences. The young mothers themselves have come before us to plead, "Don't do this." Not only the operators but the young mothers.

We had the Community Occupational Therapists and Associates. They have a number of projects with over 700 tenants.

Group after group have come to us, municipality after municipality, citizen after citizen, objecting to this Bill 120, and the fire chiefs -- to throw it all on top in the last few seconds -- have said that this bill will not solve their problem, that they cannot get in and ensure safety within the basement apartments.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate, the member for Mississauga West.

Interjection: Hazel's man.

Mr Mahoney: Well, Hazel's man, he calls me. I'm proud to say that that's probably true, one of those who supports the mayor of Mississauga who at least understands, I might say to the member opposite, the responsibilities of an elected person to represent the views of their people. I'll tell you: That's what she understands and that's what this minister doesn't understand.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1750

Mr Mahoney: I think the thing that bothers me more than anything about this bill -- let me admit, by the way, that there are some aspects of the bill that make sense, and indeed some of the regulations make sense, but they clearly sit like an island without the ability for the municipality to enforce those regulations.

But I think what bothers me more than anything is the arrogance of the minister and her absolute refusal to listen to the people's concerns as they were expressed at committee and have been expressed in countless numbers of letters to the offices of members of the opposition and I suspect, as I see the former mayor of Oshawa taking his leave, to people within the caucus of the minister's own party.

I cannot believe for one minute that anybody in this party who has had any municipal experience or any kind of a relationship with a municipal council or a mayor would not understand their frustration and their concern.

Mr Bradley: Most of them haven't and that's why they don't.

Mr Mahoney: Well, maybe that's the issue. The member for St Catharines says most of them have not had the opportunity to have any municipal experience. I guess that's perhaps true, that most of them came from the shop floor, or wherever, or even perhaps were unemployed, I don't know, when they secured probably the best job that they'll ever have in their life for the shortest period of time, because let me tell you, you folks are gone. You will be a footnote in history, and this arrogant minister will go with you.

We'll make the changes in the areas that are required to provide safe accommodation for people living in basement apartments -- but the absolute arrogance and the refusal of the government to listen to the concerns that have been put forward, in many, many cases in a non-partisan way to say, for goodness' sake, take a look at some of these ideas.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What about the tenants?

Mr Mahoney: You can talk about the tenants. In Mississauga we experienced two tragedies: Two mothers and their babies died in basement apartment fires. Don't talk to us in Mississauga. Both of those tragedies in my riding, to the Minister of Transportation, were forewarned by the fire chief and by the mayor and by members on this side of the House, and this government did nothing.

Mr Mills: What a bunch of baloney.

Mr Mahoney: It is not a bunch of baloney. It is fact. They were forewarned in committee --

Mr Mills: Why didn't the fire marshal do something about it?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: There were comments made. There were absolute --

Mr Mills: If you say he was forewarned --

Mr Mahoney: You wouldn't listen to him.

Mr Mills: If he was forewarned, why didn't he go in there and do something about it? If the fire chief was forewarned --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, interjections are out of order. I would ask the member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, thank you. The member opposite says if the fire chief forewarned it, why didn't he go in and do something? You just don't get it. You just don't understand. That's what is so frustrating about all this. We have tragedies occurring in our community that could equally occur just as easily in your community. Why don't you listen? We have put forward --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: We have said that the problem is very clear. The problem is safety. The minister has introduced regulations that would require smoke detectors in basement apartments. Congratulations. The minister has introduced regulations that would require a proper exit, either through a pop-out window or a door to the outside. Congratulations. The minister has said in the regulations that if the exit access is not provided safely and easily, there can be a requirement for a sprinkler system. I again say congratulations.

They are all ideas that were put forward by Fire Chief Hare and by other fire chiefs and municipal politicians and other people in this place to tell the minister that these safety precautions in basement apartments must be put in place. They're there in regulation.

Question: How do you enforce them? The minister has admitted there are over 100,000 basement apartments existing illegally. She seems to think, and everybody falling in line like a bunch of trained seals seems to think, that by simply saying they're legal, you'll all of a sudden have them come out from under the basement apartments and say: "Here we go. I have a basement apartment." It's just not going to happen. The fact of the matter is, there is nothing to compel anyone.

You can pretend, if you want, that the tenants are all of a sudden going to feel this great surge of power and come out from the basement apartments and say, "We demand protection." I tell the minister, the members over there, the reality is that they're not going to do that. The home owners are not --

Mr Gary Wilson: So you keep them illegal?

Mr Mahoney: No, there's a solution, if you would only listen; it's a very simple solution. Instead of putting in place some kind of regulation that is impossible to enforce -- if the municipalities even had the right of entry, they couldn't afford the staff to go in and do it under the current situation. The solution is -- listen to this -- home owners' insurance policies. Exactly.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You had five years to do it.

Mr Mahoney: Listen to this: You simply put in every renewal for a home owner's insurance policy, or in every new application for a home owner's insurance policy, two questions. One: Do you have an auxiliary apartment in your home, yes or no? Two: If yes, is it registered with the municipality? It's all they have to do, those two simple questions in every renewal application and in every new application. Now follow this; I know it's difficult. If I had a bouncing ball, I'd show you. Follow this. If they answer no to the first question but in reality they have an auxiliary apartment, they would run the risk of invalidating their home owner's insurance. Why would they want to do that?

You might be interested to know, Minister, that on Thursday the 21st I have a meeting with people from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the mayor of Mississauga and a couple of members of council to explore their interest in doing this. They're very, very interested in doing this.

The minister knows that; the Premier knows that. I have told the Premier personally about this idea and asked him to instruct his intransigent minister to at least look at the issue to see if it makes sense. The fire chiefs have said it makes sense; the municipal officials -- I don't know why you can't think about this. You just simply put it in the policy. If they lie, they invalidate their home owner's insurance. Who would risk it?

Very simply, when they fill out and they answer the question, the municipality would have an agreement with the insurance bureau that the information would be made available to them. Then the municipality could arrange for an inspection to be done at the request of the insurance company and to be paid for by the home owner.

Now you would say, "Well, why would we put the home owner in a position of having to expend money?" Let me tell you why. A basement apartment is a revenue-producing business within a residential component. It's a business. If you were allowing someone to open a business along Main Street in your town, you would require them to pay for inspections for fire safety. There's absolutely no doubt about it. A basement apartment is a business. It's not unreasonable that someone who wants to open a basement apartment and, indeed, become a landlord and earn revenue which would help them pay for the costs of running that overall home should pay a few hundred dollars to have an inspector come in. In fact, you would think they would want it.

I can tell you -- and I've talked to the owners who owned the homes where the fire tragedies occurred in Mississauga -- they feel awful. In one case, they were reasonably new immigrants to this country who didn't understand that there was a requirement for a smoke detector in our municipality. Nobody told them. When they bought their home the real estate broker didn't inform them of this and, in fact, the home was purchased on the basis that it had a revenue-producing basement apartment that would help them pay for the acquisition of the home. But nobody informed these people that there were safety requirements in the municipality and yet they're made to feel like criminals; they're made to feel like it was their fault, the tragedy that occurred.

The reality is that when they bought that home they would have to apply for a home owner's insurance. There's a mortgage on the property. The mortgage company would not grant the mortgage without insurance. It's basic, fundamental common sense. So the mortgage company would want to know if they had insurance. To get insurance they would have to answer the questions I've suggested to this minister. When they answered those questions, then you would know where the basement apartment was. You see, it is so simple. It is such common sense. It is absolutely beyond me why the members of the caucus, who I believe would be concerned about the safety of their constituents, don't go to this Housing minister and, if she won't listen, go to the Premier and say: "Bob, for goodness' sake, listen to what they're saying. Take a look at this."

If you can show me why it won't work, I'll listen to the reasons why, but I've heard none. All I've seen is arrogance, a refusal to look at good, sound options.

The insurance bureau has admitted their first reaction to this idea when I called them was: "No, we don't want to get involved. it's government regulation."

I said: "Just a minute. It seems to me if you're insuring a property you would want to know if there were cooking facilities in the basement, if there was proper ventilation, if there was a smoke detector, if there was an exit for the people to get out. You would want to know what it is you're insuring. It just makes sense."

He took it to a meeting and they came back and said: "You're right. It does make sense. We think it's a good idea. We want to get together and talk about it."

In the few seconds left let me tell the minister this: Regardless of her stubborn, intransigent attitude on this, we are going to pursue this idea in the city of Mississauga, and it may well be that we can implement this idea with the home owner's insurance policy, without the government and without the minister. It's unfortunate that this minister won't show some leadership and see that this idea is implemented right across the province.

The Acting Speaker: Time for debate on this motion has expired. Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1803 to 1811.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could I ask all members to please take their assigned seats.

We will now be voting on government notice of motion number 25, standing in Mr Charlton's name.

All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion will rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Grandmaître, Hodgson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morin, Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 56; the nays are 29. I declare the motion carried.

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, April 20, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1814.

19 avril 1994