Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: Today I would like to draw the members' attention towards the present situation in Algonquin Park. On Thursday 28 March the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park held a press conference, as I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources is aware. This is a recently formed grass-roots committee that has been formed because people are very concerned about the future of Algonquin Park.

This committee, like many members of this House, is very concerned that the minister proceeded with little or no consultation before his 18 January decision to allow unlimited hunting and fishing in the park and unlimited access for motorized vehicles and motorboats by the members of the Golden Lake Indian Band in Algonquin Park.

At the recent Toronto Sportsmen's Show the committee distributed over 8,000 leaflets petitioning the government to rescind this NDP initiative.

Today I would like to formally present to the minister on behalf of the committee this small portion of these signed leaflets. I am sure that many more have been received by the minister's office as well as that of the Premier.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: At 3:15 this afternoon at Queen's Park a coalition of victims' rights groups will hold a news conference to respond to the government's recent musings suggesting that it is breaking its promise to restore the right to sue to innocent accident victims. These organizations represent the concerns of accident victims who, through no fault of their own, have had their lives changed dramatically. Because of the Liberal no-fault legislation, they have no right to recoup their true economic losses and they have lost the right to seek compensation for future lost income.

Every member of our society has the potential to become an innocent accident victim. Currently the unfair and discriminatory insurance legislation created by the former Liberal government denies thousands of innocent victims the fundamental right to sue for pain and suffering. That is why the present government must honour its commitment to the people of Ontario to restore the right to sue for innocent accident victims.

Even more sadly, this government, which promised voters last summer that it was committed to restoring the right to sue, may break that promise. These victims were important during the election campaign, but now the government is choosing to relegate them to a vacuum in our society where they will be forgotten and denied their fundamental rights.

The Premier must ignore his no-tort troika on the front bench and exercise true leadership. He must restore the right to sue immediately for the innocent accident victims of Ontario.

ANNIVERSARY OF LAMBTON FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mrs MacKinnon: During the past weekend it was my pleasure to attend the 50th anniversary of the Lambton Federation of Agriculture.

The founding meeting of the federation was held in April 1941 and in the years to follow several of the county's commodity organizations were formed, such as wheat, hog, sugar, egg, honey and vegetable producer groups.

The early federation pioneered the Lambton Film Council that took a film projector and National Film Board movies to one-room schoolhouses between 1946 and 1969. To provide health care insurance to farmers, the federation was involved in the early formation of the Lambton Co-Operative Medical Services Organization. The county federation action in 1968 led to a decision by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to withhold property taxes, which in turn led to property tax rebates. This has saved farmers considerable amounts of income in the years following this accomplishment.

Currently the federation has 1,100 members, which amounts to about one third of the farm population in Lambton county. Some of the interests of farmers that the Lambton Federation of Agriculture is working on this year are the new tree-planting bylaw, presenting briefs to our local politicians, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture tent at the 1991 plowing match and the never-ending canvassing for members to keep the organization strong and effective.

The county of Lambton is very fortunate to have such a dedicated and productive organization working for the best interests of the farm community in Lambton and in Ontario.

TWINNING OF AURORA AND LEKSAND

Mr Beer: On 27 March the town of Aurora had the pleasure of welcoming some 61 residents of Leksand, Sweden. They are on a two-week friendship visit which will end this Thursday 11 April. The two towns have been officially twins since 1975, although they have been involved in a variety of exchanges for some 20 years, since 1971.

The visits combine social, athletic, governmental and business elements. This year, for example, a minor hockey team from Leksand has played a number of games with Aurora and other area hockey teams and, I might add, has done very well.

The Swedish group is led by the vice-mayor of Leksand, Lasse Nyburg, and last week he and Mrs Ingrid Sohlin of the Swedish delegation visited the Legislature in Metropolitan Toronto. While here, other members of the delegation are looking at how our system of local government works and at a number of environmental issues.

I want to congratulate Mayor John West, members of his council, members of the Aurora legion and all those who helped to organize this exchange. The twinning of towns and cities from country to country is an important way of building better understanding between peoples of different nations.

At the welcoming brunch given by the town on Easter weekend, it was clear that even after just a few days, new friendships were being made and old ones cemented. We must never underestimate the power of people to build strong bridges through programs such as the Aurora-Leksand twinning program. May they have many, many more.

RICHARD BRENNAN

Mrs Cunningham: I rise today to congratulate on behalf of my party the new president of the Queen's Park press gallery, Richard Brennan of the Windsor Star.

Richard was named new gallery president this morning by acclamation. This marks the second year in a row that the election for president has been uncontested, a fact which leads me and many of my elected colleagues in this chamber to wonder just why the press gallery is so afraid of a good, old-fashioned election campaign.

That aside, I think the change at the helm of the press gallery today is a significant one. Richard's election, following on the heels of outgoing, two-term president Leon Korbee of CKCO-TV in Kitchener and CJOH-TV in Ottawa, shows once again the importance of regional media outlets at Queen's Park.

While we have to admit that our regular question period committee meetings would be lost without our morning dose of the Toronto daily press clippings, I think we all recognize the role that the regional press at Queen's Park plays in lending a fresh perspective to the news around us. In fact, it is the regional recorders here at Queen's Park on whom many of us rely.

Richard, who it seems has left no newspaper unturned in his effort to put a Richard Brennan byline in every print outlet in this province, will, I am sure, bring his down-home Brantford good sense to the position of president.

I hope all members of the House will join me in congratulating Richard and other members of the Queen's Park press gallery executive, Randy Rath, Paula Todd, Jill Troyer and Emilia Casella.

1340

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mr Huget: The Chippewas of Sarnia reserve has recently completed a comprehensive substance abuse assessment under the direction of a local steering committee mandated by the band council. The Chippewas of Sarnia identified alcohol and drug abuse as a serious problem in their community and one that affected every aspect of community life. The band council decided that if it was to provide direction towards building a community which balances the cultural, social, physical and economic needs of all of its members, it must provide leadership in addressing the problem of substance abuse.

The council therefore is introducing a policy of limited tolerance with respect to the use of alcohol and drugs in its community. The policy will address the various aspects of substance abuse and will include intervention and treatment strategies, control measures, community awareness programs and the development and enforcement of appropriate bylaws and codes of conduct. In addition, band funds will not be used to sponsor or promote events where alcohol or drugs are available and band programs and community organizations will be encouraged to hold community events and activities that are alcohol- and drug-free.

I hope all members of this House will join me in congratulating the chief and council for taking this very important self-initiative and commend their leadership and commitment to improving the quality of life on the Chippewas of Sarnia reserve.

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

Mr H. O'Neil: I am sure the honourable members are well aware of the Canadian navy ships which sailed for the Persian Gulf, the CF-18 fighter aircraft which were deployed at Qatar and the field hospital Canada sent to Saudi Arabia.

However, a major and vital part of Canada's contribution may not be as well known to all; that is, the men and women of the air transport group at Canadian Forces Base Trenton located in my riding of Quinte. During the last eight months they mounted the largest airlift in modern Canadian Forces history. Some 2,000 men and women of the air transport group in Canada and more than 450 aircrew and groundcrew, principally from Trenton, were deployed to Germany, the Mediterranean and the Gulf. These people airlifted Canadian Forces personnel and equipment almost halfway around the world, sustained them with daily flights and are now completing their redeployment home -- nearly 15,000 flying hours in all.

These unsung heroes were literally the first Canadians into the Gulf and will be the last out. They worked extremely long hours under very challenging conditions: under threat of chemical and biological attack, were scudded and were required to fly air-refuelling, resupply and communications missions in a complex and difficult air environment, which as we know included thousands of combat sorties per day.

I am proud to represent the many men and women of Canada's air transport group at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, whose outstanding effort certainly contributed to the coalition victory and helped free Kuwait.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Jackson: As the member for Burlington South, and with the assistance of the member for Oakville South, we will today table petitions signed by the 550 workers at Tridon Ltd in both Oakville and Burlington before this House, but I would also like to send copies of the petition to the Premier and the Minister of Labour.

It is no secret that the prime reason for closures such as Tridon's is Ontario's weakened economic grip on the competitiveness in our marketplaces. Since the NDP came to power, with its determined unwillingness to assist companies with their heavy tax burdens, even more plants are now closing. For example, Tridon paid about $400,000 last year with the employer health tax, and in addition it spent over $700,000 in workers' compensation costs alone.

Where was this government with needed tax breaks and other forms of assistance for companies like Tridon? In his throne speech, this Premier promised co-operation with all sectors in society. What he has created, however, is isolation and confrontation with that sector.

Where is the government's program for job retraining? The labour adjustment committee, started just last week, seven months after the closure announcement at Tridon, amounts to less than $200 per worker; 75% of the workers at Tridon are women and to date only 10 of the 550 workers have found other jobs, and they are concerned that these adjustment committees are inexperienced and they should be asked to react quickly with specific retraining programs and skill linkages. It is in this climate in this province that this government must focus its energies and its resources towards stimulating these companies, not confronting them during these economic times.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: As the members are well aware from televised reports, a large rally was held last week in the centre of the town of Kapuskasing involving thousands of men, women and children. They were in opposition to a decision made by the management of Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. to shut down three of the mill's four paper machines and lay off 1,200 workers by 18 November of this year. Some 1,600 employees have been working without wage increases since 1 May, which leaves less money in the communities to be spent.

This past Saturday the Minister of Northern Development, along with the Minister of Mines, joined me in Kapuskasing where we spent the day listening to and consulting with the mayors and reeves of the 14 towns making up the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association about this situation. We also met with the representatives of the Spruce Falls Purchase Employees Group and members of a group called Friends of Kapuskasing. To finalize the day, we met with representatives of labour groups in Kapuskasing and surrounding area, as well as the local labour council. The community has shown complete solidarity in opposition to the massive layoff and has requested the Ontario government to do everything within its means to protect jobs in this small town under crisis.

I would like to thank the honourable ministers for their welcome participation, as well as other members of the cabinet, along with the Premier, for their ongoing efforts in finding a solution to this very serious crisis.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker: On Tuesday 2 April 1991, the member for Dufferin-Peel rose on a question of privilege. He informed the House that he had received a letter from a solicitor for a provincial civil servant concerning a 1 March 1991 radio broadcast of remarks the member made in a recorded interview with a reporter, and questioned whether the letter amounted to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House for obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member of the assembly, as prescribed by paragraph 45(1)2 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

I have carefully reviewed the member's submission, the transcript of the broadcast in question, and the relevant parliamentary authorities and precedents and I am now in a position to report to the House.

Section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which enacts the common law rule of freedom of speech, provides as follows:

"A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing brought by him by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said by him before the assembly or a committee thereof."

This most fundamental privilege of members allows members to express their views in proceedings in Parliament without fear of an action for libel or slander. Although what constitutes a proceeding in Parliament may encompass circumstances beyond the formal transaction of business in the assembly or its committees, I am of the opinion that I would be extending the definition of privilege too far if the remarks of the member made in an interview outside the chamber some months after questions were posed and answers made in the House and possibly in changed or different circumstances were included.

I have also considered whether the sending of the solicitor's letter arising out of the member's remarks on the radio broadcast constituted an improper means of interfering with or influencing the member in his parliamentary conduct. The solicitor's letter cited by the member referred to legal proceedings contemplated against the member as a result of further repetition by the member of statements made in the radio broadcast or similar allegations made by the member outside the Legislature. This letter does not relate to a proceeding in Parliament and does not appear to be calculated to affect the member's course of action in the assembly or its committees. As such, I am of the opinion that it does not constitute an obstruction, attempted intimidation or intimidation of the member in his parliamentary conduct.

Therefore, in the circumstances in this matter, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for providing me with advance notice of his concerns and trust that my ruling may offer some guidance to all members.

1350

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, on a very brief point of privilege for you to entertain: I noted yesterday that the member for St George-St David rose in the House with regard to an alternative provincial representative in a constituency, and I think it is unfair and certainly it affects my privileges that I am not informed who the alternative provincial representative is for the provincial constituency of St Catharines.

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, that was shown to be completely incorrect.

Mr Bradley: You will find that right across the province of Ontario -- because the Minister of Natural Resources does intervene -- the calls are coming in from across the province of Ontario indicating who this person is. The reason I say this is that I would like to know how much of my constituency office salary I should allocate to this person, whether I should allocate some room in the constituency office and how much of the workload the person would like to share with me.

The Speaker: This is certainly a point of some considerable interest as generated from yesterday's discussion in the chamber. It is definitely not a point of privilege. Surprise.

Mr Nixon: I ask for the consent of the members so that the House may mark the passing of a former member.

Agreed to.

RICHARD TAYLOR

Mr Nixon: The death of Richard (Dick) Taylor in Bermuda on Sunday marked the passing of a great Canadian and a very useful resident of the province of Ontario.

He served in the Legislature -- and I was a colleague of his -- from 1963 to 1967, representing the constituency of Timiskaming, and brought forward in a moderate, well-informed way not only the issues from the north and northeast, but had a clear understanding of many of the issues that we face even today.

He had extensive experience in the school board locally and the hospital board, and also was a very successful businessman as president of Taylor Hardware and one of the business people who really founded and expanded the northern telecommunication system.

I was very pleased indeed when he decided to enter the Legislature, and found working with him a great pleasure. As a matter of fact, we had a very close personal relationship and at one stage he acceded to my request to be chairman of a campaign committee in preparation for the election of 1967.1 had only entered the leadership a few months before that election campaign, rather unexpectedly and, I assure you, Mr Speaker, reluctantly. Dick was one of the many friends I had at that time who were prepared to come forward and assist. While that is just of peripheral interest to most of the members of the House, it is an indication of how much confidence I had in his judgement and his capability.

I would just say that from my point of view his service in the community and this House was honourable and effective, and from my point of view, I have lost a very good friend. He and his wife and family were well regarded here and, of course, in their own community, and I know that we extend our condolences to them.

Mr Ramsay: I would just like to add my condolences on my behalf and also on behalf of the people of Timiskaming whom I represent. I would just like to add that I have been a personal friend of the Taylor family for the last 16 years and I would like them to know that we all share in their grief today.

Mrs Cunningham: The members of our caucus and certainly former members who served in the House with Mr Taylor would like to extend our sincere sympathy to Mrs Taylor and members of her family, and equally to Mr Nixon, who was his personal friend, at his loss.

I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage, as do other members of the House, I am sure, but I think it is very appropriate to perhaps remind the House of some of the interests of Mr Taylor as he worked so hard on behalf of his constituents from Timiskaming. So I would like your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to just read his words into the record as he himself read them in the speech from the throne on 10 February 1964, just to remind us that some things have not changed the way he would have liked and that it is our responsibility to continue on.

He said: "We in northern Ontario feel, and with considerable justification, that the rest of the province does not understand nor is it concerned with our development problems. We feel that only in so far as our natural resources can produce immediate revenues is the province as a whole interested."

He goes on in that throne speech debate to say, "We feel that the province listens only with one ear when northern problems are being discussed and, again, in Ontario it will only be by recognizing and understanding northern problems and encouraging northern development that our province will maintain its position as the leading province of our Dominion." The challenge is still there, and I think former members of this House and certainly Mr Taylor would be most appreciative of our ongoing efforts.

Hon Miss Martel: I had hoped that my predecessor had served long enough in this place so that he might have been able to relate to me some stories about Mr Taylor, but alas, the only person who can do that now is the member for Brant-Haldimand.

I would like to say, though, on behalf of our party, that we would like to extend our condolences to the family. In reading through the biography of Mr Taylor it was evident that he had a very colourful and exciting career in business, both in the telephone and mining sectors. I would suggest to all members that the four years that he spent here were, as we all hope, probably ones in which he dedicated a great deal of his time to the north and tried to make a contribution not only with respect to his own riding but with respect to dealings right across the province of Ontario. It is what we all hope we can do at the end of the day and I guess an expression that we all hope someone will pass on to us as well. So on behalf of our party, I would like to extend our condolences to the family at the passing of Mr Taylor.

The Speaker: The kind and thoughtful contributions by the members who have spoken today will of course be sent along with our deepest sympathies to the Taylor family.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. I understand that he met with the President of Mexico. He did not meet with the President of Mexico, he indicates by shaking his head, but may later in the day. In that connection I know that the House is interested, indeed, in statements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, reported this morning, that he is going to try to form alliances with various American interests who are opposed to trilateral free trade.

I wonder if the Premier could indicate what those alliances might be, what groups in the United States might be associated with efforts made by the government of Ontario and if in fact part of the budget of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology or of any other part of the government is going to be allocated in this regard.

Hon Mr Rae: I can simply report to the House, first of all, that as scheduled I will be meeting with President Salinas later on this afternoon and I will be accompanied by the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology. I anticipate a good exchange with the President. I am glad he has come to Canada and I am glad that he has come to have this exchange. I should also add to the Leader of the Opposition that over the next couple of weeks I understand the Mexican Leader of the Opposition is also coming to Canada and to Toronto, and if it is possible I hope I will be able to meet with him.

I think what is planned, quite simply, is that we will as a government express our views very clearly. We will obviously be listening and watching the debate as it unfolds in the United States Congress and our views will be expressed very clearly, alongside those many others who feel very strongly that given the experience we have had as a people with the first round in the North American free trade round, the protection of the interests of working people, of businesses that are working here, as they are elsewhere, is critical.

The question of environmental protection, the question of social standards, the question of labour standards: These are all issues which relate to the proverbial level playing field. I have met with various businesses. I have met with those who are in favour of this and we have met with those who are opposed. We will express very clearly, in every way possible, the views of the people of Ontario -- I believe the majority of the people of the province -- that the trade policies of the federal government and the approaches that are being taken are not at this point in the best interests of the people of the country.

1400

Mr Nixon: I noticed in the Toronto Sun for 7 February that the Premier said, "I'm not going to stand here and promise that I can stop something when I'm not convinced that that's exactly what I can do." Another quote from the Minister of Labour, in his own inimitable style, "I'm not sure what the hell we can do about it." Since the Premier and the minister's colleague the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology stated quite clearly that he was allying himself with American opponents to the trilateral agreement, I thought it would be appropriate if the Premier would tell us what those American forces are against the trilateral agreement are whom we are being allied, and indicate what resources are going to be put into a program which the Premier says nothing can be done about.

We can debate the efficacy of trilateral free trade, either now or on another occasion, but the question has to do with the minister's indication that somehow we are forming alliances with American interests in this regard.

Hon Mr Rae: This is going to be a debate across North America. Let me stress to the Leader of the Opposition that between now and 31 May, as he no doubt is aware, we have no means in Canada of changing the policies of the federal government, because they are carried out by executive fiat. In the United States, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, between now and 31 May the American Congress is seized of an important question, and that is whether or not the negotiating process will be fast-tracked. He knows that full well.

Finally, there is a debate going on in Mexico itself, which is entirely healthy, as there is here. We have, we hope, three open societies in which governments are free, as are people, as are interest groups of all kinds, to express their views with respect to this issue. The view of the government of Ontario is very clear. We are going to be doing what we can to advance the interests of the people of the province of Ontario and to work with those groups through our society and in others which share our view. I think it would be rather strange if we were to sit back and do nothing in the face of these developments.

Mr Nixon: The Premier, following the news as carefully as he does, would know that 50 workers at the Penetanguishene TRW seatbelt assembly belt have been laid off this week, as their jobs are being transferred to Mexico, and a Mexican GM plant recently was awarded a trim contract for Firebirds and Camaros to be produced in Quebec beginning in 1992. The contract was taken away from the GM trim plant in Windsor and affects 80 jobs. These things are similar in their impact.

I simply want to ask the Premier, who has strong views on this, as have many members of this House, to which organizations in the United States we are allying ourselves and, if in fact money is being made available to fight a battle that the Premier indicates cannot be fought here, that are we in fact allying ourselves with American interests specifically and, if so, who are they and what money is involved.

Hon Mr Rae: The member talks about American interests or US business interests or whatever. I have made it very clear. There are a variety of groups. First of all, let me answer his first question, if I can, as directly as I can. His first question was, is money being allocated and is money being transferred or something, innuendoes to that effect. The answer to that question is no, as clearly as I can state it.

Obviously the government, through its trade offices in the United States, through its representation which it makes as a government, as other governments will do, has expressed its views very clearly. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is conducting a great deal of work in this area. We are developing as much expertise as we can and we intend to share that information with the House as we develop it, with the public and with everyone, so people can see that the impact of this deal, if it proceeds in the way in which it is proposed to proceed both by President Bush and by Prime Minister Mulroney, this will have a very negative impact on Ontario's economy. I think we are entitled to share that information, to invest some taxpayers' dollars in protecting the interests of people. That is the extent of what we are doing.

Mr Nixon: The only information the Premier will not share with the House is the answer to my question, reiterated twice.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I have another question for the Premier that, once again, is based on a quote associated with his campaign, "It is wrong in a province as rich as Ontario that there even needs to be food banks," 4 August 1990; and another one from the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services, for whom I have a high regard, of 9 April, "To say that we would effectively end them during this term would be impossible."

Will the Premier indicate what the policy of the government is in this regard? Is it as stated a year ago when he was seeking election or is it as his minister has stated, which is really a rather weak approach to the situation, where she indicates that it cannot be solved?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Akande: I must say that certainly it is the goal of this government to eliminate the need for food banks, and to that end we have been working consistently. Since my appointment and since our arrival as the government we have done many things which seek to do that.

Mr Nixon: In the Legislature on 18 December 1989, not so long ago, the present Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, said, referring to the then Premier, "I want to know why he cannot set a target, why he cannot stand up in this House and say that, as far as the government of Ontario is concerned, there will be no food banks in operation after 1990."

It is not enough to say, "That was then, now is now." This is a need that is felt in this city and in this province and something associated directly with the election of the NDP. There were many reasonable people who responded to the criticism of the then Leader of the Opposition about the Peterson government, that although we were doing what we felt we could do, it was insufficient and they voted for them and voted against us.

For the minister to indicate that the solution is not apparent for the next five years is irresponsible of herself and the Premier of the province. What can she tell this House is going to move towards the solutions that all of us will support here, and not the timetable that she has indicated is slippery and without function?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, what I have identified for this group is that in fact this government has already begun to eliminate the need for food banks. I will be very happy to recount what we have done. We have in fact added the increases to social assistance which have resulted in the reduction of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Nixon: I think the minister would -- I am sorry, is the minister going to go on?

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Akande: If I may finish, we have increased those increases, which have resulted in a reduction of people going to food banks, which has been reported in the newspapers. We have added workers to make people much more quickly eligible for FBA, and that of course puts money in people's pockets.

We have in fact initiated in this House an act which would make people responsible for the support of their children, legislation which, by the way, is being held up in committee by the opposition. That would put considerable money in people's --

Interjections.

1410

The Speaker: Could I just have a moment. I appreciate that occasionally there are questions asked when the people who are having questions asked of them who are not particularly happy with the questions. Sometimes there are responses given and folks listening to the responses are not particularly happy. But what would certainly make me happy is if those who are receiving the questions could listen to them and those who are receiving the responses could listen to those. I take it that the minister was about to complete her response without being provocative.

Hon Mrs Akande: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, may I say that we continue to work. We have moved to make possible a great deal of responsibility and response by the municipalities, through our actions giving some assistance and some relief to them. We have just recently received the implementation report from Back on Track, which we are studying, and will bring things to this House.

Mr Nixon: As far as I can tell, the honourable minister has improved the payments for social assistance by about 2%. Our government had approved an expenditure of a 5% increase and she raised that to 7%, which is commendable, and the Treasurer is supporting her in that, but to indicate that is going to allay the problems in food banks is simply not appropriate. When she wants a timetable for doing this and a procedure, she need only look at the NDP minority report to the standing committee on social development with a task force on food banks. The whole Legislature at that time was extremely interested in this. They came forward with certain proposals, but the NDP had a specific four-year program to eliminate food banks. The main quote from their report was, "No strategy to allay hunger is acceptable if it does not propose effective action at the earliest possible moment."

The honourable minister has indicated that because of the recession the Treasurer is not supporting her adequately in this because he has no money, in spite of the fact that I believe that this in fact is not true. If there was ever a time to do something about food banks, it is when the recession is on, not after the recession is over and the Treasurer returns to a proper cash flow.

Would the minister not indicate that because of her important position in the cabinet as Minister of Community and Social Services and her undoubted influence on her colleagues, she can loosen something up in this government and come forward with a plan, even the famous NDP four-year plan which it put before the Legislature, and begin to keep at least this important promise?

Hon Mrs Akande: I must say that the member's interpretation that the recession has in some way prevented the Treasurer from easing something up is indeed liberal and creative, if not accurate. Let me say, however, that one of the things that we have done which of course focuses on long-term solutions is putting people back to work through the $700-million recession package. We have also looked at fairer taxation rates. If the timetable is one the member is focusing on, one of the things one must consider in being responsible is the conditions at the time, the recession which is here and the deficit which we inherited, might I say, unexpectedly.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. It has to do with how the NDP has already run up a $3-billion deficit even before the Treasurer has tabled his first budget. I know the Treasurer will blame Ottawa, he will blame the recession, he will blame the last Liberal government -- I have a little sympathy there -- and very soon, I presume, he will start blaming Mexico. In fact, it seems everyone and everything and everybody is at fault for Ontario's deteriorating fiscal condition except for the NDP government that is actually doing all the spending.

Since the government is so broke -- we have heard today that it is too broke to fulfil its commitment to eradicate food banks, it is too broke to live up to most of the election commitments in the agenda it brought -- I wonder if the Treasurer can tell me, if the government is this broke, what new spending controls he has put into place to control his own government's spending.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party, being the fairminded person I know him to be -- at least he was when we were in opposition together -- would acknowledge the fact that the deficit we are now dealing with for the fiscal year just ended, 1990-91, $3 billion, was caused totally by the recession. It is not difficult to sort out the numbers, when our revenues were falling and, as a result of revenues falling, our expenditures were climbing, in many cases because of a statutory obligation we have to look after people who find themselves unemployed and on the welfare rolls. I do not think it is appropriate to simply say that the NDP is responsible for the deficit. That is simply not accurate.

I would say as well that this government has not abandoned its determination to see the end of food banks. We remain convinced now, as we always have been, that it is not appropriate in a wealthy province to have food banks, and we will be working to that end. That has not changed.

If the leader of the third party would be fair, he would acknowledge the fact that if we were to start implementing, right now, on a fast track, all of the promises contained in the Agenda for People, he would be the first one on his feet condemning us for not controlling expenditures in the province. So I think that the leader of the third party should get his story straight.

Mr Harris: What I am interested in finding out -- the Treasurer gave me not one single control mechanism. That was the question. He had an opportunity, he took five minutes and he did not come back with one.

Obviously we know that $105,000 for the map downstairs was not part of his expenditure control program; either that or that was the top priority for the province: $105,000 to put some little lightbulbs on the map downstairs. That was the Temagami one, if the Treasurer will recall.

Nor did controls seem to apply to the 6% salary hike the NDP gave to the public service at a time when thousands in the private sector are jobless. I think the figure we have all agreed on is that 1,600 per day are taking a 100% cut in pay, on average, since this government assumed office, across this province.

I would like to ask the Treasurer a specific question, since he could not give me any general answer. Some 22,000 employees come under the umbrella of the Legislative Assembly who are not in the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, as I understand it. Their increases ranged from 5.5% for management to 5.8% for administration. I believe those are the settlements that were agreed on there.

Could the Treasurer tell me, over and above that, what is the percentage or the dollar figure that will be spent for the up to 8% merit pay each and every one of those individuals who is not at the maximum is entitled to this year, on top of their 5.5% or 5.8%? Can he tell us that?

1420

Hon Mr Laughren: I cannot give the leader of the third party that specific number. I would be quite happy to find out what it is.

But I think it is not appropriate, either, for the leader of the third party to indicate for some strange reason that there are new lightbulbs in the map downstairs and that we are responsible for that. He should speak to his colleague the member for Parry Sound, who sits on the Board of Internal Economy, I believe, who helped make those kinds of decision. I think he should be more fair-minded about these things.

I can tell the leader of the third party that we are indeed very serious about controlling the expenditures of the province. We went through an exercise with the estimates, approving the estimates for 1991-92, and when the budget is brought down, the leader of the third party will see that we are indeed serious about expenditure control. We will wait till that document is delivered, and I think the leader of the third party would agree with me.

Mr Harris: Yesterday the Chairman of the Management Board, when we asked about merit pay or reclassification, said: "I don't have a clue. We just give it; we don't know how much it costs. We don't know." Now we have the Treasurer who does not have a clue about the up to 8% everybody is eligible for who is not at maximum in the 22,000 staff there. We have 66,000 OPSEU members and the 22,000 here.

The Treasurer brings up the member for Parry Sound, who sits on the Board of Internal Economy. On average over the past few years, this has been an extra up to 3% over and above the 5.8% cost in total. When you exclude the ones who are already at maximum, that means on average people getting merit pay increases or reclassifications are getting about 5%, plus COLA of another 5%, and we are into double-digit increases for all of these employees at a time when the private sector is laying people off and they are becoming unemployed.

What concerns me is the fact that the Treasurer does not know, that it is all so open-ended. I cannot believe that neither the Treasurer nor the Chairman of Management Board know. They obviously have no spending controls on the programs, and they do not even know how much it is costing in dollars or in percentage terms for these increases in this year. Is that not true, or does the Treasurer have some figures that he has actually budgeted?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member of the third party is not being fair. Of course we know what those costs are. Because I do not have them in my hip pocket as I sit here is no reason to pretend that we do not have any control over what they are and that we are not serious about controlling the expenditures in the province. That is simply not true.

Mr Harris: The member for Parry Sound knew and he voted against every one of them at the Board of Internal Economy, because they could not provide the costs. They have no controls, and that is obvious.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Premier. I am sending the Premier a copy and I have in my hand a copy of CUPE 1000 News dated March 1991. This is a newsletter to the membership of CUPE put out by Ontario Hydro employees' union, CUPE Local 1000.

As I was flipping through it, I noticed a very flattering photo of the Premier's Minister of Energy following a meeting with CUPE's executive. I would like to quote the union president in the accompanying article: "I'm totally convinced that being affiliated to the NDP gave us opportunities we would never have had otherwise."

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I think the response from the Premier's back benches confirms that this is part of the strategy.

Yesterday outside the House the Premier said there is no inside track at Queen's Park. Given that affiliation means contributing your union dues, a percentage thereof, to the NDP, I would like to ask the Premier if he does not call this the inside track that CUPE now has because it donates to his party.

Hon Mr Rae: The reality of our time and of a democratic society in this province has been for, I would think, the last 50 or 60 years or so -- I am trying to recall which was the first trade union to affiliate to a political party, but I believe the mine workers' union in Cape Breton was the first union to affiliate to the then Co-operative Commonwealth Federation some time in the 1930s. It has been a tradition of our democratic society that trade unions, first of all, are democratic organizations, that they are entitled to affiliate to the New Democratic Party, and as a result of that affiliation are entitled to send delegates to a convention. That is the way it has been in the New Democratic Party, in power and out of power, and we have been out of power far longer than we have been in power. There are steelworker locals that are affiliated, there are auto worker unions that are affiliated, there are many trade union members who are able through their trade union to become part of the New Democratic Party. The fact that people can participate in the life and work of the New Democratic Party is a fact of which I am very proud.

Mr Harris: On 6 August, when we still had the old member for York South running around this province talking about government integrity, here is what he said of the insurance industry and the Liberal government. He said, "They are a clear example of powerful business renting a political party."

We called CUPE. We asked them what they had to do to rent the Bob Rae government, and they told us that as of last September, the union stewards began to pay a per capita membership to the NDP from the union dues. It is as simple as that, and now they say they have "opportunities we would have never had otherwise."

Is this what the Premier meant last 6 August when he talked about open government?

Hon Mr Rae: I literally cannot understand the difficulty that the leader of the third party is having with the principle that is involved here, and one that has been in place for a long time. They receive money as a political party from banks and from companies and from individuals. We receive contributions as a party from working people and from ordinary Canadians, and yes, it is a matter of record, a well-known fact, documented -- you can read it in any paper, you can read it in any financial return that is ever filed anywhere -- union affiliation per capita dues are paid to the federal New Democratic Party as a matter of course. That is not news, it is not different and it does not lead to any difference with respect to the policies and directions of the government of Ontario.

Mr Harris: Yesterday we discovered that the party faithful had special influence with the Bob Rae government. Earlier we found that others had to pay $800; that was the price for others who were not part of the faithful. Last month, since the member for Simcoe West has never received an apology, we found out that riding presidents have a special place, a special access to this government, and now we see that by financially affiliating to the NDP, unions too can be part of this élite.

Maybe the Premier does not see anything wrong with this. I am not questioning the right of unions to affiliate. What I am questioning is this: The union stewards affiliated and they have clearly indicated in this brochure, in this document, which is a campaign document, to convince all of the members of Hydro to affiliate, that it will give us opportunities we have never had otherwise. There is going to be a vote among the members of CUPE whether they will all affiliate; in other words, check off their dues to go to the NDP so it can propagate nuclear power.

Does the Premier agree with the stewards who are telling their membership it should affiliate so it can get special access, as opposed to just donating to a political party?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: In the preamble to his question, the leader of the third party has made several allegations with respect to special access, allegations which are totally unfounded; they are completely false. Now he is saying he does not object to the principle of affiliation with the party of one's choice. I am saying to the leader of the third party that there is no special access involved in any way, shape or form. There is only the traditional right of people to decide to join and participate in the political party of their choice, which is a fundamental, democratic right in our society today.

Mr Curling: Strange things happen on the way to power, don't they?

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: My question is to the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Last week the minister announced an anti-racism strategy, and today I want her to follow through on her government's stated commitment to combat racial discrimination. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is concluding an investigation into racially discriminatory practices by two well-known employment agencies. The minister is aware that section 26 of the Human Rights Code of Ontario states: "The commission is responsible to the minister for the administration of this act."

Will the minister use this legislative authority and call upon the Ontario Human Rights Commission to reinvestigate this matter and effect a settlement that is not merely a wrist slap for agencies which practise systemic discrimination?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to thank my honourable opponent and critic for this question, because we are very concerned about the discrimination that faces many people in our society. That is one of the reasons we did implement and bring in the anti-racist strategy. As the member probably is aware, since his government implemented this procedure, I have an arm's-length relationship with the commission. I also have to tell him that the settlement he is discussing right now is not complete, so I cannot appropriately say I will enact anything until we have a final resolution to the settlement. When we do have that final resolution to the settlement, as any court case has in any legal jurisdiction, we will then comment on it.

I thank the member for his concern and I too am concerned about this. Again, I must reiterate that this is a high priority for our government, to eliminate racism in all sectors.

Mr Curling: I want the minister to understand, and I know she does, that this issue is a moral and a legal responsibility of hers to stand against systemic discrimination.

As the minister will also be aware, the Ontario Human Rights Commission's handling of this issue so far has been severely criticized by a former commission member as being pathetic. As she knows, today the Toronto Star editorial points out the differences in her handling of this issue and that of the New York City Human Rights Commission, which is seeking more than $1 million in damages for three employment agencies alleged to have practised discrimination.

If, as the minister stated, she is unprepared at this moment to call for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to effect a more stringent settlement in this case, a settlement which I feel, and I know the people feel, would send a very clear and unequivocal message to employment agencies across the province, will the minister today commit to establishing clear mandatory guidelines and ensure that these guidelines will be adhered to by all employment agencies in Ontario? Will she also commit to work with the Minister of Labour and develop legislative amendments to the Employment Agencies Act, which will provide for meaningful sanctions in case of discrimination?

Hon Ms Ziemba: In fact, that is what we are actually doing right at this moment, discussing with the Minister of Labour for very clear and definite guidelines. We are also going to implement in the very near future mandatory legislated employment equity which also will clearly break down those systemic barriers we see happening, not only in employment agencies, but in all sectors. We have appointed an employment equity commissioner who is out there right now consulting with all the various groups so that we can get the best-defined legislation in place.

I have said simply yes, we are looking into all of those effects and that we will have a good, clear guideline, both in the Labour Relations Act and also within our mandatory legislated employment equity. We are working very quickly to make sure that we break down those systemic barriers, as the member said, because it is very important. I share his concerns and I thank him again. As he has said, he will be assisting me in making sure that we break down all of those racist barriers that face us today.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. This morning, we witnessed on the lawn of the Legislature the frustration of those caught in the injustice of what is essentially only a temporary piece of legislation, the dreaded Bill 4. The consultation process which has taken place to provide options for permanent rent control legislation has been unbelievably biased, so it is no surprise to me that the minister's green paper does not deal with the issue of capital expenditures under Bill 4.

As the minister is well aware, numerous landlords across this province have begun, in good faith, capital expenditure work on their buildings, but are now caught in the Bill 4 freeze. All capital expenditure work in the province has ground to a halt until the minister makes clear his intentions on this matter in permanent legislation which he intends to table before the end of June.

Obviously, if the minister intends to have this legislation on the table by that time, a preferred option for capital expenditures lost during the moratorium period must exist at this time. Would the minister please tell us what he intends to do about the moneys lost by landlords during the Bill 4 moratorium for capital expenditures.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question. I would say to the critic for the third party that he is aware that the whole issue of capital expenditures in apartment buildings is dealt with in the green paper. He will also remember that on 18 February, when I tabled the green paper in the standing committee on general government, some of the members of the committee criticized me for having some preferred options and some other members criticized me for having any preferred options, that decisions had already been made.

What we have decided is that we spelled out the range of options on capital. We have gone out and sought the opinions of landlord and tenant groups across the province and it is a meaningful set of consultations. In fact, in most of the public hearings we have had there have been more landlords making presentations than there have been tenants. It has been very helpful in determining government policy. I would suggest to the member, if he has any specific suggestions, as a critic, of how he feels we should be dealing with the capital issue, I would be more than willing to listen to him. To date, all he has talked about is deregulation, elimination of rent controls, and that is not on for this government.

1440

Mr Tilson: My first suggestion is that the minister read his own green paper, because it does not deal with the capital expenditures lost during the Bill 4 moratorium period; it does not even refer to it. So read the green paper. That is the first suggestion.

Last week the Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario announced the Minister of Housing had in his power to send up to 2,000 people, in a variety of trades, back to work in the time of the recession. As the minister is well aware, the unemployment and welfare lines are increasing at an alarming rate. The snow is off the ground, construction can begin, but the workers and their equipment lie idle.

How long will the minister continue to ignore the plight of the workers, and how long is it going to take for him to put them back to work in this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: The argument the critic for the Conservative Party has been using all along is that the only way capital can be spent in this province is if there is a pass-through system. The critic knows as well as I do that under the Liberal rent review system the majority of renovations carried out in this province in apartment buildings were not carried out through the rent control system or the rent review system.

Mr Tilson: How are you going to put people back to work? There are unemployed people in this province.

Hon Mr Cooke: In fact, in any given year the maximum amount of capital that was passed through under Bill 51 was $122 million. Now, even he would agree that more than $122 million has been spent on capital, but many landlords in this province believe the upkeep of their apartments should be out of the rent tenants pay. That capital can still be spent in this province even under Bill 4.

While he continues to hold up Bill 4 and does not allow us to proceed with the temporary legislation, on the other hand tenants are being penalized and do not know what is going on. I would just ask the critic for the third party to please allow us to proceed with Bill 4, so that tenants can be properly protected and the $54 million the tenants will save will happen, but he continues to filibuster on Bill 4. We would like to see it proceed.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Lessard: It is a great pleasure to be able to finally ask my question of the Attorney General with respect to case flow management in the city of Windsor.

As he may be aware, case flow management is a system that was introduced in the city of Windsor and another city in the province by the then Attorney General some time in September. Its purpose was to enable cases to move along more quickly through the civil court system, which is something that nobody could disagree with.

I am advised by lawyers in Essex county that the rules for case flow management are flawed, that they are too complicated and difficult to change and that because of that, additional pre-trials, motions and filings are required. In fact, they are telling me the system is not working very well, and at a meeting last Wednesday passed a motion that goes as follows, "The Essex Law Association forthwith requests the dismantling and discontinuance of the case flow management system in Essex county as soon as practical."

My question to the Attorney General is whether he is prepared to comply with the motion of the Essex Law Association.

Hon Mr Hampton: There is some misunderstanding among members of the bar as to exactly who is advocated and who is in control of the various civil case flow management pilot projects around the province.

For the record, and this applies not only to myself but to the former Attorney General as well, the case flow pilot projects were in fact advocated by members of the bar and by members of the judiciary. They got together and asked if three case flow pilot projects could be attempted in the province. One is now on schedule in Sault Ste Marie, a somewhat more complicated one in Windsor has been attempted and one is about to get under way in Toronto.

I am aware of the difficulties with the program in Windsor. In my visit to Windsor earlier this year, I asked advocates of the system to consider simplifying their local rules. That is something over which control lies at the local level. I have no control over the pilot projects. We have supported them in terms of computer facilities and additional staff, but if the bar in Windsor wants to change the pilot programs it has going, that is within its control to do. I do not have control over that pilot project.

Mr Lessard: With respect to amending the system or making some changes with respect to the system, it has also been brought to my attention that one of the problems is that the system applies to cases that are from 1985. They are all going through the system right now and that is where some of the backlogs are concerned. Would the Attorney General agree to changes if they were recommended, with respect to removing those retroactive cases from the system or any other changes?

Hon Mr Hampton: I indicated as well when I was in Windsor that the Ministry of the Attorney General would be prepared to meet reasonable requests; for example, for additional computer time or for additional staff.

I say again that we have no control over the rules that are used and we have no control over, for example, the retroactivity of the program that has been instituted in Windsor. That is very much within the control of the local bar and the judiciary in Windsor. If they want to change those rules they can. If they want to ask for additional resources in terms of computer time and computer facilities, we will do everything reasonable we can do to meet those requests.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mrs Fawcett: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The minister will be aware of the recently announced plant closure of the Cooper Tools-Nicholson File facility in Port Hope, with production being transferred south of the border to the company's plant in Cullman, Alabama.

Nicholson File is a historic part of our community and has been an efficient and competitive company for decades and, I might add, continues to show a profit.

This closure will result in just under 200 people losing their jobs, adding to the growing flood of people laid off due to plant closures since the NDP took power. This is very serious for the people of Port Hope, who were taken completely by surprise, with little or no time for preparation.

Why does the minister think this plant is moving to the USA when it is making money here in Ontario, and what is he going to do to save these jobs?

Hon Mr Pilkey: It is indeed unfortunate that Cooper Tools group, which has been a long-term employer in the town and a corporate citizen here in Ontario, has taken a very unfortunate decision to leave. A consultant of my ministry did meet with the company on 27 March to discuss the situation. We will try to effect a change in decision as best we can, but unfortunately we are not in a position to make those corporate decisions for those companies. We regret it and we wish that it would not happen. Our consultant is trying to see if there is any possible way to alter the circumstance. We join with you in regretting that corporate decision.

Mrs Fawcett: I did not really hear much in the way of solace in that answer or very little comfort for the workers of Cooper Tools.

I remind the minister of something he would probably rather forget: the Agenda for People. I quote: "A jobs protection board would establish whether plant closures are justified." Since his party took power, over 50 plants have closed permanently in Ontario. The toll is mounting daily.

Before the election, the NDP had a lot of ideas, and since then it has had a lot of bluster. Other than fed-bashing, what is this minister doing today to save those 200 jobs in Port Hope and thousands more like them? Is the minister going to do something and honour his party's previous commitment to a jobs protection board, or will he sit idly by playing Dr Do-Nothing and watch the exodus from Ontario of numerous industries?

1450

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have indicated already that this is a corporate decision, certainly not of the making of this government or of this province. We have officials of our ministry dealing with the company. If we can effect an alteration to that unfortunate decision, as I said, we will.

I regret quite frankly, though, the comment from the member that this ministry is not doing anything with respect to corporate Ontario and the companies resident therein. I had the pleasure of first meeting the member for Northumberland in a community in her riding, in Cobourg as a matter of fact, where she welcomed me as I announced a very substantial grant for the acceleration of an industrial plant and facility in her riding. I know that fact has probably just temporarily slipped her mind, but she does know of our interest in that and all companies within her riding. I will close by suggesting that if there is anything we can do for the employees of Cooper Tools, this ministry will use its best efforts to do so.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I have a letter in my hand here that was sent to the solicitor for the Carleton Board of Education by the Ministry of the Attorney General. I am sure she is aware of it. It indicates that the Ministry of Education will accelerate progress towards the goal of integrating exceptional pupils into local community schools wherever possible, according to parental choice.

Currently the laws states that the IPRCs will be responsible for placing children. The government, which originally acted as a co-defendant with the Carleton Board of Education in a case initiated by the parents of Alexandra Hysert, a 12-year-old Down syndrome child, decided to change its original statement of defence, which supported Bill 82. By the way, this process last week cost us some $71,000 in legal fees.

I would like to know why the minister's government has changed the policy in regard to integrating special students or exceptional students in this province without bringing the long overdue amendments for special education, Bill 82, to the house.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I thank the member for the question. This was a very distressing situation in Ottawa, as the members can imagine. The member is quite right, and the member and the critic from the opposition have expressed numerous times their anxiety for our special education initiatives to come forward. I can assure the members that they are going to do so within this session. We will have a consultation process attached to it. We are committed, as our party has been and as this government continues to be, to the notion of parental choice and to the notion of parental choice within a context which offers integration within a community school wherever possible.

The situation in Ottawa was particularly unfortunate because of positions that had been taken there among the various school boards. It was really important for us as a government to take this action to indicate our commitment to the whole notion of integration of students.

Mrs Cunningham: During the election campaign in response to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation questionnaire, the Premier stated, "The NDP opposes the Liberals passing the buck to the municipal level." He went on to state, "A New Democratic government would provide 100% funding for appropriate specialist staff." I underline provincial funding. This would ensure that hard-to-serve students have an equal opportunity to reach their potential regardless of the strength of the local municipal taxation base. We know we are probably looking at one-to-one instruction here. The minister is aware that integrating students is expensive. My question would be: How much will it cost to integrate students across the province, because we have a policy change here, and when will the minister be allocating 100% funding to the local school boards?

Hon Mrs Boyd: This very issue will be part of the consultation we are having. At this particular point I cannot give the member a figure that would say exactly what it would cost because we do not know how many students would be designated or how many parents would choose the integrated route. We do want to have a choice element there and so that would be important.

The other part of the member's question in terms of the downloading is a very important one. It is part of our entire concern about downloading on to municipalities both in terms of responsibility and accountability and in terms of funding. I can assure the member that that issue, particularly with respect to special needs students, will be part of our work in terms of integrating children's services across the province. We do not see all those costs as belonging necessarily in the Education portfolio, and it will be important for us to find a way to integrate those services more effectively within the community.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Drainville: I would like to address a question, if I might, to the Minister of Housing. Last week we had a situation in our riding where two representatives, one a Ted Starr, who represented the Victoria County Tenants' Association, and Michael Lockwood, who came from 155 Lindsay Street South in Lindsay, went down to the ministerial hearings in Oshawa to ask a question about the reality of how the new legislation is going to be formed. They were concerned about the problems they had been having as tenants with those situations.

The question I would like to address to the Housing minister is about the consultation that is taking place. We know the consultation is an important one. Would the minister indicate the extent of the consultation in the province of Ontario and whether that consultation will be reported on in the near future?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: I can understand why the opposition does not want to hear about the extensive consultation we have had on the permanent rent control system, because the fact is that this is the most extensive consultation that any opposition party has had in many years on a piece of legislation. We have attempted to develop a partnership with landlords and tenants and others in the community to develop this permanent legislation. We went to 20 communities across the province. We had public meetings. We had individual meetings with landlords' groups and tenants' groups. We even invited the opposition to participate through a standing committee of the Legislature and, Mr Speaker, do you know what the opposition said? They were not interested. This government is interested in consultation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am so glad I showed up today. What a lively group. Now, I take it that the member for Eglinton had a point of order or privilege.

Ms Poole: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Housing just made the statement that it was because of the opposition that the standing committee did not get a chance to look at his long-term legislation. This is not true. This is simply not a true statement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will find out. I intend to listen to alleged points of order and privilege, and I intend to be able to hear them, and I will allow the member for Eglinton to succinctly put what she claims to be her point of order.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I will tell you that the minister has said that the opposition did not want to participate in the process. The minister's idea of participation was to let an opposition critic or the Conservative Housing critic sit on the stage but not to speak and not to comment. That was his idea of participation. They have not made any effort to bring this matter to the standing committee on general government and we, the opposition parties, would have been pleased to take a look at it.

1500

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's bringing to my attention something which she believes to be a point of order. It is not a point of order, but I do appreciate your concern.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: During question period, in answer to the Conservative critic, I indicated that by holding up Bill 4, $50 million of rent reductions covered by Bill 4 were being held up. I should have said $45 million.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: As long as you are inviting members of the House to speak on the point of order and as long as you are allowing my friend the Minister of Housing to correct the record, I think it should be pointed out that in this democratic assembly there is a trend developing among government ministers and indeed government members, and that is to accuse those of us who do our work in committee of stalling government legislation.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I have more to --

The Speaker: I have heard sufficient. The point of order was originally raised by the member for Eglinton. If you have new information which she has not brought to my attention, then I would appreciate your succinctly doing so. If however there is no more information, then we can move on with the regular business.

Mr Sorbara: The new information I want to bring forward is precisely the information that I was about to bring forward, and that is a trend by the government to misrepresent what we as parliamentarians do in the committees on which we sit. We are there to deliberate on the bills that the government brings before us.

A few days ago the Premier accused us in question period of stalling on Bill 17, a bill to change support and custody orders enforcement. Let me put a little bit of information before the Legislature on the question of the support and custody orders enforcement bill. In fact, today the Minister of Community and Social Services once again reiterated the allegation that we were holding up some $350 million in support orders.

[Applause]

Mr Sorbara: The members opposite are clapping, including the member for Algoma, the Minister of Natural Resources. I say to the Minister of Northern Development, let's have the Attorney General stand up in this House and tell the people that his own ministry is not planning on proclaiming that bill until 1 January 1992. Who is holding up the SCOE bill?

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre take his seat, please. What the member raises is not a point of order. What the member raises is something which quite naturally he may wish to consider as the subject material for question period on another occasion. Now, let's proceed with the routine proceedings.

PETITIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr Brown: I have a petition appropriately addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is from residents of the nursing home at Gore Bay, Manitoulin Lodge, and it says:

"We, the undersigned, are most concerned about what we consider to be inadequate provincial funding to Ontario nursing homes. We urge immediate action to correct this problem."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

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

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

"Whereas, the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas, the current government disputes its self-serving select committee findings, intends to encourage increased used of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that Bill 8 is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas, the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of Bill 8; and

"Whereas, the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board.

"We, the undersigned, request that Bill 8 be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately, and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in government, institutions and services."

That is signed by 63 members.

Mr Runciman: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by a number of my constituents imploring the House to repeal the French Language Services Act, Bill 8, at the earliest possible moment.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Jackson: I have a petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly signed by 550 Tridon workers who will lose their jobs on 31 May and states it as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As victims of a plant closure (Tridon Ltd) we ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forth immediately new legislation which will provide increased statutory protection and compensation for the workers of Ontario who are being laid off because of plant closures."

That petition has my signature of support and I submit it to the House.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 22, An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GENERAL ELECTIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES ÉLECTIONS GÉNÉRALES

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 69, An Act respecting General Elections.

M. McLean propose la première lecture du projet de loi 69, Loi concernant les élections générales.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr McLean: The purpose of the bill is to establish the timing for general elections. Generally, elections should be between four and five years apart. An election would be held sooner than that only if the government has been defeated in the assembly. The bill would also establish a maximum 60-day period between the date of the writs of election and election day.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

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

Section 9:

The Second Deputy Chair: Dealing with the member for Eglinton, section 9 of the bill, subsections 100b(1) and 100b(2) of the act, are there any questions or comments?

Ms Poole: Yes, Mr Chair. I do not think any members of the House, or not very many of them at any rate, were down at the rally this morning that was held outside Queen's Park. There was a large group of renovators, suppliers, tradespeople and small landlords there to protest this government's action on Bill 4, specifically two areas of it: the retroactivity and the lack of provision for capital repairs. These measures were ending up in many, many people losing their jobs, companies closing down, bankruptcies.

I have the comments from one of the people who spoke at that rally this morning. His name is Marty Cash and he is the vice-president of Wind-O-Mart. Some of the members may remember that his name was raised in the House back in the fall. In the first week of Bill 4 he had $5 million worth in cancelled contracts for his window manufacturing company. Mr Cash spoke very eloquently today. He addressed his remarks to the minister.

He said: "You have created an atmosphere of unpredictability which is anti-business, therefore discouraging instead of encouraging small business and entrepreneurs at a time when employment is rising at an alarming rate. You have developed an atmosphere of distrust by implementing retroactive legislation."

That is the point I wish to address right now, the atmosphere of distrust that is out there. In all the times that I have been to landlord and tenant meetings over the last five or six years in this province, I have never seen tempers at such a fever pitch as they are today under Bill 4.

This bill has driven a wedge between any landlords and tenants who ever hoped to have a co-operative attitude.

Despite what the government will imply, many tenants and landlords do want to reach some type of accommodation. They are not all bad landlords, as the NDP is implying, who are out to skewer the tenants at all costs and not listen to what they have to say. But right now that communication between landlords and tenants in this province is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. The lines of communication are being broken daily and the feelings are escalating.

I do hope that the minister will reconsider some of his positions on this bill and try to bring some semblance of sanity back to the housing market. It is not only the instability; it is the trust in government. It is also, as I mentioned, the deterioration in landlord-tenant relations.

In his remarks this morning, Mr Cash went on to say: "Mr Cooke, you must be aware that with your procrastination and with your proposed legislation, all renovation companies will go bankrupt, causing a tidal wave of job losses. Mr Cooke, do you want a businessman such as myself to leave this province? Why would you discourage me from being in business in Ontario and providing jobs and much-needed tax revenue? If you don't act quickly and judiciously by considering small businesses and entrepreneurs, we will be forced to leave this province as economic refugees."

Again, tempers ran very hot at that meeting this morning. I understand they ran to such an extent that they actually burned an effigy of the Minister of Housing. I do not condone such dramatic incidents, but at the same time I understand the frustration and the feeling that there is nothing they can do to halt this government's decision, which many of those people out there today -- in fact all of those people out there today -- felt was unreasonable and very prejudicial to their businesses, their livelihood, their rights as individuals to get through this recession in good shape.

The response of the government time and time again was, "It's not our legislation that's creating this economic difficulty; it's not our legislation that's creating the job losses," but I can tell the members very frankly that many of the job losses these people are undergoing are directly attributable to bill 4. When we had one union representative who came before our committee we asked him the point-blank question: "How many of the job losses in your particular sector in the construction area is due to the fact that we are in a recession? How much is due to the fact that it is a seasonal occupation so that the middle of winter is the worst time for jobs and that people are laid off quite often at that time of year, and how much is directly attributable to Bill 4?" Their answer, very unequivocally, was that at least 60% of the job losses in the construction industry were directly related to Bill 4, to the retroactivity and to the lack of any provision for capital repairs. So they have put a stop, an utter halt, to much of that work that would have gone on and that, quite frankly, tenants are going to suffer from because they do not have that work done.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: As a matter of interest, when you asked for questions and responses to the previous speaker, the member rose. I thought there was a rotation in this debate and that we would be next. The member for Essex South was the last speaker. You asked for questions and responses in respect to the member for Essex South and the member stood and now she has gone on beyond five minutes. I am wondering if something has happened in terms of the rotation.

The Chair: The member for Essex South, as you know, is not here. He will possibly have the privilege of addressing the House again when he comes back. In the meantime, I asked if there were any questions or comments, any members who wanted to participate. The member for Eglinton stood up and I recognized her.

Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, what you normally would say is, "Any other member wishing to participate in this debate?" I do not recall you offering that to the other members of the House.

The Chair: I understand very well what you are experiencing. This is not a debate. It is questions and comments, and this is the way we will proceed.

Ms Poole: Just to answer the honourable member's concern, the Chair did ask for other members who were willing to, or anxious to, participate in the debate, and after waiting at least half a minute to see whether somebody from the other caucuses was going to stand up, I did stand at that time.

I need just one second to get my train of thought, which got somewhat interrupted.

Mr Mahoney: You had better start over again.

Ms Poole: Start over? The member wants a repetition?

Mr Daigeler: It was so good that we would like --

Ms Poole: I have had numerous requests to repeat my former dissertation, but I think some of the members may have missed mine from yesterday as well, so maybe I should repeat that in addition.

The bottom line is that we have lost jobs in this province, we have lost opportunity, we have lost trust in government, we have lost faith in the process that this government is undertaking, yet I do not see any willingness on the part of the NDP to change this.

Do the members know some of the names they were calling the NDP this morning? In fact, I think I will have to insert a different word for one of them because it would obviously be quite unparliamentary. But they called the NDP "no darn good." They said that NDP stood for No Darn Principles. They said things such as the NDP had no guts. All very unkind, unflattering things. They do not think very much of the government's policies. I have to tell the government, I know that it thinks it is a government of the people, but it should listen to what the people are saying to the government and what they said out there today. These are not any rich fat cats. These were workers, some of them construction workers. They were from the trades, they were renovators. They were small landlords. Some of them were in a fury, some of them were just utterly frustrated and could not cope with it.

These were the real people and they are the real people that the government did not talk about. They are the real people that the government does not talk about, but I can tell the government that as members of this assembly they have a right to your representation as much as any other group.

When I was elected as a member in this Legislative Assembly, it was my understanding that I would act as a representative for all the people, that I would bring their interests forward, that I would act on their concerns, and that I would not just go to one interest group or two interest groups and let them dictate my time. That does not mean you cannot have groups that you support very strongly, particularly if they are disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society.

1520

But I ask, in the name of fairness and balance, what is there in the government's mandate that has said that NDP members do not have to represent landlords, do not have to represent the workers if they do not happen to like what the government is doing at the time, do not have to represent the investors, do not have to represent the financial sector, do not have to represent the interests of middle-class Ontarians? There is nothing in what we do as members that says that the government should concentrate all its efforts on one particular sector.

Many times in this House I have stood on behalf of tenants to fight for their rights because I have felt that, as a group, there were times when they were disadvantaged, that they were vulnerable and that they needed that support in this Legislature. But I can tell the members that the day that I stand up in this House and represent one sector to the exclusion of all others and say that fairness and balance does not matter any more is the day when I no longer have any pride in myself as a member.

I would say to the government that it does still have an opportunity to rethink not the original premise of its bill, not the fact that it wants to have a pause, as the parliamentary assistant said time and time again in committee, a pause to take a look at long-term legislation -- I have no problem with that -- not the fact it has said that it wants to limit outrageous rent increases -- I do not have a problem with thai anyway; I support it wholeheartedly -- or in its attempts to make sure that flipping -- whatever it is; we have never quite had a definition, but whatever it is -- is stopped.

Those are good things that the government wants to accomplish, but by the same token it does not gut the bill, it does not gut it at all, to make provisions that make it responsible and that make is fair and balanced. I will come back to those words "fair and balanced" time and time again, because the government sets a very dangerous precedent in this House when it adopts and pushes forward with a bill that it knows is causing considerable hardship and is not fair and balanced.

I do not want to belabour the point. The Conservative critic no doubt will have a few more comments. He always prefaces his remarks by saying, "I want to speak for a few minutes," and then as a typical lawyer goes on for several hours. I just had to get my dig in there. But it is okay; I have said before, I am married to a lawyer and have been for 20 years, so I feel compelled to say these things from time to time even in my own household. So with that I will yield the floor to my honourable colleague. I know the Conservatives are quite eager to put in further thoughts they have on the retroactivity of this bill on the record, as our caucus has and will continue to do.

Mr Tilson: I do thank the Liberal opposition critic for her very kind words. I do have a few comments to make with respect to her amendment, which I am supporting, as my party is. We are supporting it in principle, as we did at the hearing. We do not feel that it probably goes far enough, but we are prepared to support it as a matter of principle.

The NDP members sought at that time to defeat it, and hopefully in hearing the recommendations that are being made here and listening to the stories and listening to some of the demonstrations such as today, they will reconsider their position, a position with respect to retroactivity which, in my opinion, after listening to comments such as have been delivered to us by Gardiner, Roberts, who are the solicitors for the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, is unconstitutional. Of course, I have asked in the committee that the Minister of Housing reveal to us the legal opinion of the Attorney General and the legal opinion on this issue, because there is no question that this organization intends to challenge the legality of what it believes is very illegal legislation. It is discriminatory.

Specifically, the letter we received is quite a lengthy dissertation. It goes on for some 13 pages. It is prepared by a Robert G. Doumani, and members of the committee have referred to it, and I would like just to refer to a couple of sections specifically dealing with subsection 15(1) of the charter, which is one of several arguments that this law firm refers to as this legislation breaching the Constitution.

Subsection 15(1) of the charter states, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

The solicitors point out that the sections of the bill dealing with retroactivity are discriminatory sections that violate this section. They clarify the word, I might add, "retroactive" to be "retrospective," and we discussed that at some length at the hearings. They talked about, of course, the provisions of Bill 4 being retrospective and that they give a different and more onerous rent review outcome to actions taken and expenditures incurred in good faith at a date prior to the enactment of Bill 4. They cite a number of examples in their letter and state, "These examples show that there are actions which would have been taken and expenditures incurred in many instances before the last provincial election had even been called."

They state specifically that:

"Bill 4 creates two distinctions

"(a) one between those persons who sought or obtained rent increases greater than guideline and those who took guideline increases only;

"(b) another is between those persons who sought or obtained rent increases greater than guideline for which the effective date of first intended rent increase was on or after 1 October 1990 and those landlords who sought or obtained rent increases greater than guideline for a first effective date before 1 October 1990."

This legal opinion has been made available by the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario to the Ministry of Housing and to the committee and has simply gone unchallenged. The NDP members at the hearing simply received it with blank looks on their faces. The minister says he has a letter which says that what they say is not correct, and we have never seen that letter.

I made an application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that ruling of the commissioner is currently under review. I intend to proceed with that because I think the people of this province, before this bill is passed, should know whether this law is constitutional or whether it is not.

The solicitors refer to a Supreme Court of Canada decision made in 1989 in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia. I am not going to go into that, but after referring to that decision in support of their submissions that this is a discriminatory law, they start to refer to burdensome impacts that Bill 4 has, specifically with respect to a person who on three different occasions "obtained a phase-in order months or years before the election of the present government but has a phase-in certificate with an effective date on or after 1 July 1990 is burdened by the loss of that rent increase found justified under the law at the time the application was made."

Second, "on the strength of the RRRA," which is the current law, "undertook capital improvements many months before this government was elected will not recover the cost of the work if the first effective date of the increase is 1 October 1990 or later."

1530

Finally, where a person "obtained conditional approval for capital expenditures months before this government was elected and on the strength thereof incurred the expenditure and filed an application will not obtain a rent increase if the first effective date in the application is 1 October 1990 or later." Of course, that is the intent of the second portion of the amendment that has been made by the official opposition, and I assume that is exactly one of the reasons why that amendment has been made and why we are supporting it, because we feel that in the other situation it is discriminatory and illegal.

The solicitor states, "Depending on an arbitrarily selected date which, effectively, is at least two months before the election was even called, a person who owns rental property may suffer the catastrophic personal consequences detailed above." Of course, they go on and list some examples where with this retroactive legislation individuals have sustained major losses. Those examples have been given to us in this committee and at the committee of the Legislature that reviewed it around the province, where we had individual after individual who came to us and told us the terrible effect that this discriminatory legislation had on them.

Therefore, the law firm indicates that under those circumstances it believes that there has been a violation of the equality provisions of section 15 of the charter.

I am sure that the parliamentary assistant has read this opinion. I assume that the parliamentary assistant has discussed it with the government solicitors. My question to the parliamentary assistant is, is there any substance in this opinion after reviewing the opinion of the government?

Ms Harrington: At this time I do not think it would be appropriate for me to give my personal opinion, but I certainly would like to tell the member that the minister has gone on record as saying he believes that will not affect the bill. If the member would like to hear further expert testimony on this, I could arrange to have someone answer his question in more detail.

Mr Tilson: Well, that is the first most encouraging piece of information. We certainly heard at the committee that the Minister of Housing said unequivocally that information was not available. I am glad the government has reconsidered its position. Perhaps I would accept the parliamentary assistant's offer for us to review that information. Perhaps at this present time she could summarize that position so that we could all hear what that is.

Ms Harrington: I said I would get someone if the member was interested.

Mr Tilson: I do not know whether I am being answered or not.

Ms Harrington: I believe I stated quite clearly that if the member wanted detailed answers from our legal people, I would ask them to come forward and do that.

Mr Tilson: I cannot understand why we went through weeks and weeks of committee. I asked this question at the committee, I was refused this information, for whatever reason the minister had on his mind that particular day, and now the parliamentary assistant -- I am asking you as the Chair, because I am a new member and I do not know the procedure -- has informed us that we can hear comments from the solicitor. I, as I am sure members of this committee, would like to hear those comments. Is there a process in this committee that we can have the solicitor come to us and advise us?

The Chair: It is not my responsibility to help you in that case. I think the answer should be very clear and should come from the parliamentary assistant, to clarify the matter. Does the parliamentary assistant wish to reply to what was being said by the member for Dufferin-Peel?

Mr Tilson: I am quite prepared to assist the parliamentary assistant. I will send someone over to her office, if she has no one available, to escort the solicitor here because I think that we would all like to hear what the solicitor had to say on this very important matter. This is the whole crunch of what the opposition to this bill is saying, that it is illegal and discriminatory. Now for the first time -- and I am encouraged by that -- the government is saying, "We will make this information available to you now." I am ready, right now, to hear this information.

Ms Harrington: The minister, at the committee hearings about a month ago, made quite clear his position on this, which is what I stated to the member and what the member originally stated as well, that he believed that this was not a problem, that he had consulted with our people. That position is still there, that we believe that this legislation can go ahead, and we would not be doing this if we did not believe that.

Mr Tilson: I thank the member for that, but I do accept her offer to make this information available to us this afternoon. She has indicated that this information would be available. Hansard will be quite clear on that. She has not denied that she would do that, so I think members of this committee would be quite pleased to receive this information and review it. It is available to us. The parliamentary assistant has said it is available to us. Let's hear it and let's hear it now.

Ms Harrington: I did not say it was directly available to the member. What I said was that I would consult with our legal people if that was the request of this committee.

The position of the minister was quite clear four weeks ago, how he felt about this. If the member wishes at this particular time, if he would like myself and my staff to go back -- if it would make him feel clearer about this -- to consult with the legal people again, what I am saying is that I have not spoken to them just recently about this but the minister did make it quite clear before, but I am willing to go and speak to them again.

Mr Tilson: I have a lot of trouble with this process that is going on right now. There is no question that the member for Niagara Falls made it quite clear that this legal information is available to us right now, that a solicitor could come and perhaps not speak to the House -- I gather that cannot be done -- but certainly can speak through her or she can speak on his behalf as to information that he has available on whether or not this bill violates the Charter of Rights of this country, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982. That has been made quite clear by the parliamentary assistant this afternoon. I gather that information is still available and I accept her offer and I hope that information will be made available to us right now. I think it is that important and that everything should stop until this information is available to us, because she said that it is available to us and that she will give it to us.

Ms Harrington: I do not believe that I have the people here to answer this question for the member at this time. I will consult with them and, as soon as possible, bring him back the reply. I could even speak with the minister and verify his position again for the member, but I think he will understand that it is quite clear that the reason this government is proceeding with this is that we believe that there will be no constitutional challenge, that we are quite firm in our belief that we can go ahead with this legislation.

Mr Tilson: The issue of retroactivity is perhaps the most important issue in this entire legislation. We have spoken against it and the members of the official opposition have spoken against it. I am sure that there are other members of my party who wish to make some comments on the retroactive issue of this legislation and to speak in favour of this amendment. I am sure the member for Eglinton has a few more comments with respect to the issue of retroactivity. Obviously this is going to go on for some time. It cannot take that long for a solicitor to come here and relay his or her comments to the parliamentary assistant. In light of that, we can go on to other aspects of the issue of retroactivity, because we have several things that we can talk about. While we are doing that, I ask the parliamentary assistant to make that information available to us this afternoon.

1540

Ms Harrington: I have just received a note from my legal people.

Mr Tilson: My, how things can fly.

Ms Harrington: I made a request and since they were not sitting here with me, they provided this note.

This probably will jog the member's memory to that afternoon when we discussed this previously. The written opinions were prepared for the minister in contemplation of the litigation and therefore should not be discussed at this time. The word that is underlined here from the legal person is that this is "privileged" information. I would like to thank the legal staff for getting this to me right away. So what is written here is that the opinions were prepared, and we have every confidence in them, but because they are prepared in anticipation of any challenge, they are therefore privileged information.

Mr Tilson: I find this doubletalk unbelievable. I think that is the whole problem with this entire bill, that this government has not properly prepared for this legislation. I mean, we have got interim legislation, we have got green papers, we have got imminent, pending permanent legislation, and none of this has been properly researched -- none of this, the retroactive aspect of this legislation, the consideration of how it is going to affect the unemployment condition of this province, how it is going to result in the lack of investment in this province. People do not trust this government; our side does not trust this government; I have a feeling the official opposition does not trust this government because of its actions.

Even this afternoon, information was agreed to be given to us, then seconds later there is a little note that is passed in front of the parliamentary assistant and she says "Oh well, I was just kidding. I'm sorry. I'm not going to make that information available; it's privileged."

Those are my comments with respect to the legal aspects of the retroactivity of this amendment, and I will be interested in hearing from other members.

Mr Drainville: I would like to rise and make a few comments about this clause on retroactivity, this amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal Party. I will not go into all the rationale and reasons why we put forth this bill with this retrospective or retroactive part to it. If they wish to do so, any member of this House or any member of the public could read what has gone on in the standing committee. We discussed it at some length.

But in terms of this retroactivity, yesterday the member for Essex South indicated a number of things that were inaccurate in the picture he painted of the standing committee and the work that has been done by all the members on that committee. For instance, he indicated that around the discussions of retroactivity most people who came and spoke wept. Two or three people did, and that was of concern to all of us on the committee. It is not easy to see people who are obviously moved and touched in such a way, to see them weeping. It is difficult to take that in, and there was solicitude on the part of all the members of the committee to those people, but to paint a picture that somehow everyone who came in was treated in some cavalier fashion and not heard would be totally wrong and erroneous.

Mr Tilson: Some 150 people tried to be heard and were not heard; 150 people and you wouldn't hear them.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Drainville: I hear the honourable member across the way saying that people were not heard. In fact, yesterday the member for Essex South again indicated that there were far more people who were not heard than were heard and he said this is the first time in the history of this Legislature. In my discussions with clerks of committees and other people, that is not so at all. There have been many times, on contentious issues, where the ability of the standing committee to deal with such a contentious issue was limited by time, as it always must be in the legislative process.

Again, what are the pictures that are being painted, and who is actually going to listen to these debates and understand the true dynamics of what went on and what the motivations of the various members were? We can hear all these comments being made by the opposition as to the retroactivity and how awful and draconian the government is. The reality is that we as a government were having to move on an issue that is of major importance to the tenants of Ontario, and we did so in a way that we thought we had to in a short-term period of time, putting in a piece of legislation which would bridge us over the establishment of new permanent rent control legislation. So that is what we did.

I am reminded, as I hear the kinds of comments and the statements that are being made by opposition members, of the old adage that a great many people think they are thinking when actually they are only rearranging their own prejudices. When you hear time and time again about the kinds of arguments that are being put forward, you see the truth of that old adage, so I want to bring that up.

Also, in terms of the legality, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel indicated that this legislation, Bill 4, is illegal. He surely has a right to have a legal opinion. Of all people in the House, I would offer that right to that gentleman. But to say that it is illegal is totally a fabrication on his part. He does not know whether it is illegal. The courts may decide whether it is illegal, but it is not for the honourable member to say that it is illegal. Again, that is a certain, if I might say, misrepresentation of the reality. He cannot say that, and yet he has.

In fact, as we have looked at the many things that have been said lately, we see that time and time again the picture being painted is quite other than the reality we experienced on the committee. So I say that we need to be careful to look at the public record, to hear the things that are being said here and to compare it with what happened in the committee on general government.

I also want to say at this time about the kinds of opinions that we heard from many people. You know, we hear talk all the time about how the government is somehow listening only to the responses of tenants. I know in my own riding that I have had many discussions with landlords, in my office and in other places, about retroactivity and about the difficulties they find with this bill. In fact, it is the role of the member to ensure that he or she has the opportunity to speak with all people on these issues and to receive information that will help him to make a judicious and appropriate decision in terms of Bill 4.

The whole view that somehow the government is responsive only to the needs of tenants has to be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, as we hear the constant outpourings, the reading of letters, the reading of memorandums, basically addressed to the opposition members, not by tenants, most of those things that have been read out, but rather by landlords, it gives one a certain picture, and that picture is that perhaps the opposition members are just as partisan or perhaps, dare I say it, even more partisan than the government is on this particular issue. I must say I am totally unmoved by the litany of woes brought forward by members of the opposite side.

I have to say also that there is no question in my mind that there are times when a responsive government has to establish legislation which is difficult, which does not solve all the problems, but which is going to deal with major problems that have to be addressed. We have done that with Bill 4 and we will continue to do it with other pieces of legislation.

1550

Mrs Sullivan: I am just speaking really in response to the remarks from the member for Dufferin-Peel in his interchange with the parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls. I did not sit on the general government committee, and I was actually quite interested in this exchange, because the question of the retroactivity of this bill and the nature of that retroactivity is of great concern to people in our party.

The member for Dufferin-Peel has indicated there is legal opinion, not only his own but other legal opinion, that indicates the retroactive clause in this bill may in fact violate the charter.

When the parliamentary assistant rose to respond to those comments, my sense, from listening to her, although I do not have the exact words because we do not have Hansard in front of us at this point, was that in fact she appreciated the point of the member, that indeed there may well be challenge to the retroactive nature of this bill.

She also indicated that she could make legal people available -- I assume that means counsel to the ministry -- who could come to discuss this with members. We know in the House that legal people cannot come to the floor of the chamber to discuss these things with members. None the less, we assume, through her second response, that the legal people, counsel to the ministry, would possibly provide her with a response.

When that question was asked by the member for Dufferin-Peel, the parliamentary assistant responded that the information was privileged.

Frankly, the parliamentary assistant herself noted that indeed there might be doubt about the question of whether there was a violation of the charter. No information has come before the House since to assure the members that the retroactive nature of this bill does not violate the charter.

We have to understand, of course, that the Charter of Rights was to protect people, was introduced in 1982 as a part of our Constitution to protect the rights of people throughout our country.

I expect the parliamentary assistant to come clean with other legislators here. I insist, and I think other members of the opposition parties will agree with me, that she must put on the table the legal opinion that counsel have prepared to ensure that this bill does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the people of this province.

The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, do you wish to reply? The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and at the outset I want to apologize to you for taking you to task earlier when I suggested that you should have been calling for other members. I was reminded that when we are in committee you are following some rigid requirements in respect to the wording you have to use in questions and comments, and indeed I apologize for chastising you for not doing so.

I want to say at the outset that it is interesting. We talk about the constitutionality of this particular matter of retroactivity, and we have the member for Victoria-Haliburton chastising us and then the parliamentary assistant furiously backpedalling on a commitment she made to our member in respect to making the legal opinions available and indicating that because there is the possibility of litigation, this material is now, based on information she received during this discussion, deemed to be confidential.

I recall going through the debates on Bill 68 and the member for Welland-Thorold and the NDP member serving on that committee being very adamant indeed about the fact that there were legal opinions within government, the Liberal government of the day, in respect to the possibility of challenges to Bill 68, the auto insurance legislation. The member for Welland-Thorold and others were challenging the government representatives on a daily basis to make those opinions available, that it was incumbent upon the government to ensure that all members of this Legislature were as well informed as they could possibly be in respect to this important piece of legislation.

Now that the NDP has formed the government of this province, we are getting the same sort of words being mouthed by the NDP as were mouthed by the Liberal government of the day. I find that certainly disturbing, and I would suggest that it should be disturbing to the people of Ontario generally in respect to the attitude being adopted by the government.

I have a great deal of difficulty, as indeed my party, our critic and, I gather, members of the official opposition do, with respect to the retroactivity provisions of the legislation. I do not think there is any question about them being draconian, and I think that it is a reflection really, even though we have expressed concern and others have expressed concern about the impact this is going to have on landlords across this province, of the message it sends out to a host of interests, not only in Ontario and across Canada but I would suggest to the investment community worldwide, when they take a look at the initiatives of this government, the kind of heavy-handed approach to dealing with primarily small business people, people who are in the landlord business, if you will, in this province, and the attitude it has adopted that, "We don't care about you guys."

We had a speech given by the Minister of Housing some time ago, where he was dealing with a landlord group, a development group, and he said: "Look, I don't care what you guys say. We didn't get along, you're not going to support us, you're never going to support us, so I'm going to forge ahead with whatever I want to do and whatever this socialist government wants to do in this province, despite what you may say, despite your protestations. I don't care if you think they have merit. You guys can yell all you want, all you wish to, but you can bet your bottom dollar that we're not going to listen." And indeed that is what has happened.

We have the member for Victoria-Haliburton suggesting, "Well, we heard from 150-odd witnesses who appeared before the committee." They may have heard, but they certainly were not listening. I guess the problem that all of us have, and certainly I suspect the majority of Ontarians have, is that we are dealing with ideologues here, and the Minister of Housing is one of the strongest ideologues in the current government, and there is no flexibility whatsoever. He is very rigid in his approach to matters such as this, and we are all going to pay a very heavy price indeed.

A number of years ago I was a landlord for a brief period of time. I owned a 12-unit apartment building, and I want to say that after having that experience for a couple of years, I would not want to be a landlord again in this province. There is a host of problems that you have to confront on a daily basis with tenants. The Landlord and Tenant Act is so heavily weighted in favour of tenants that there is simply very little, if any, encouragement left in this province for anyone -- any business, any individual, any family -- to invest in rental accommodation. It is simply a very negative thing to do if you have some investment dollars.

What this government is intending to do is make it even less attractive, and this retroactivity provision is another very clear message to anyone contemplating investment in this area of the economy, "Back off, back off, back off." The Ontario government is currently the largest landlord in North America, and it wants to grow even larger. They want to discourage any apparently private sector investment in this part of our economy.

I am very concerned about this initiative, and I know that it is a politically dicey issue. It is a tough one for all of us who have concerns about rent controls or impact on housing, the availability of rental accommodation in this province. I know I did a straw poll, if you will, in my own riding a number of years ago, and I do not have a lot of tenants in my riding, but there was strong support for the concept of rent controls. That is a tough one for those of us who have closely witnessed the impact in this province, how we get the message out that what we really need in this province is a system of shelter allowances.

We have to get away from rent control and the concept in Toronto -- I know this, Mr Chairman, and I am sure you have experienced it yourself -- where people earning six-figure incomes are living in rent-controlled accommodation while we have people lining up for food banks in this province. We have people who cannot find appropriate shelter, and we have people earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year living in rent-controlled accommodation. People earning $25,000 or $30,000 a year are subsidizing people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in this province.

I ask members, is that fair? It is a message that all of us who have grave concerns about rent control and its impact on this province are having difficulty selling. We have not been able to get that message out there, but we certainly have to make every attempt to do so.

Another element of this, I think in the last fiscal year, is that we spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $41 million in taxpayers' dollars to administer rent control or rent review in this province, whichever terminology you wish to use. I must say again, when members take a look at that $41 million in taxpayers' dollars being expended to continue this heavy-handed approach to provision of rental housing in this province, they should just think what those dollars could be used for, given the tough economic times we are facing.

1600

In question period today we talked about food banks and the fact that the Minister of Community and Social Services has said: "We can't meet our commitments. We can't eradicate food banks in this wealthy province. We have to live with them." At the same time, they are pouring at least $41 million of taxpayers' money down the toilet, flushing it down the toilet on an annual basis while people are going hungry in this province.

I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant and I would like to hear the Minister of Housing stand up in this place and say, "This is the appropriate thing to be doing while people, children, families are going hungry in the province of Ontario."

I know in the past there have been difficulties with certain landlords in the province who have not indeed treated tenants fairly, but I think there are regulatory means of dealing with those kinds of individuals or companies. I do not think we have to take this tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush approach. It does not work, it has not worked and it will not work in the future. It will not work. We are getting farther and farther into a quagmire.

We are going to see more and more of these initiatives coming from this socialist government. I do not think we stand up in this House often enough and remind the people of Ontario that we are now dealing with a socialist government. They want government interfering in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. That is the way these people really feel. They are going to continually misuse taxpayers' dollars. They are going to flush all of us down the toilet unless we are very vigilant in this House, from the opposition, on a daily basis.

Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is my understanding that the remarks are to be addressed to Bill 4, and I do not believe the member is doing so.

The Chair: All the remarks should be addressed to the amendment.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Chair. I believe I am addressing the amendment and the question of its impact on this province and certainly what is going to happen over the next four years, unless we in the opposition, the limited numbers that we are, can curtail some of the ideological pursuits of the socialist government in this province.

I want to point out that we are having this sort of initiative undertaken by a socialist government that received approximately 38% of the vote in the general election last September. I am not sure how many voters cast a ballot; I think it was in the neighbourhood of 65% to 70% of eligible electors. This government received 38% of the eligible voters who cast their ballots. They are committing themselves to this kind of initiative, obviously with not a significant support within the province for the government.

Again, I say it places an increasingly heavy burden upon us in opposition to make sure that on a daily basis we are carefully scrutinizing every initiative of this government and ensuring that we do the best job we possibly can to ensure that in the four years this socialist government is in office, it does not ruin the economy of this province, so that when the Progressive Conservatives assume office four years hence, we are going to be able to get this province back on its feet.

I want to say these are dangerous days indeed for all of us in this province, when we have to look across the floor at this ragtag group that is currently governing the province of Ontario, when we have ideologues like the Minister of Housing, who brings in an initiative like this with a measure as draconian as retroactivity, with no concern for capital investment. We have people crying in testimony before the committee, and the member for Victoria-Haliburton has the gall to get up and say: "Well, we were concerned. We were bothered." Well, how bothered were they? Certainly, the legislation, the amendments being brought in do not reflect any genuine or real concern on the part of the government, none whatsoever.

In summation, I want to say that hopefully we, over the next period of time, are going to be able to raise the levels of awareness among the people of Ontario. I think the demonstration here today helps. There is growing sentiment among the population of Ontario that this kind of initiative is harmful in the long run to all of us and we are certainly going to continue to do our job. Certainly I want to commend our critic, the member for Dufferin-Peel, for the outstanding effort he has been undertaking on our behalf and I believe on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

Mr Drainville: Mr Chair, a point of privilege, please: As I look at the good turnout of our members in the government and how hard we try to look official for the people of Ontario, the term "ragtag" -- there must be a place where that is considered to be unparliamentary.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is not a point of privilege, but it is a point of view and we appreciate that.

Mr Mahoney: I do not think the government members are too ragtag. I think they look pretty sharp today. I am more concerned about the quality of their understanding of the bill and the process than I am about their clothing.

Having sat through about four weeks, I guess, and having travelled with the committee to some parts of this province and having listened to people, I have serious concerns about the six weeks of the committee process, and I have a lot of concerns about the fact that the government, the parliamentary assistant, the minister who chooses not to be here during this very important debate, and other members of the committee seem to just want to ignore the concerns that were expressed.

One of the things that really bothers me is that during question period and other debates in this House, we have had people stand up and say that the opposition is holding up the government's ability to bring forward some business because we are delaying Bill 4. That really concerns me, and I want to give credit where credit is due. When the critic for the third party demanded that it go out to committee, there was general agreement. As a matter of fact, I was quite surprised at the reaction. It seems to me, looking at it today, the reaction was simply intended to perhaps throw the third party off. With respect, I do not think it worked, but he stood up and he said --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I recognize the efforts of the critic. I think he took a few lessons from our critic, but I think he did an admirable job. I was impressed with his efforts in committee. But the minister stood up and said he was delighted to have this bill go to committee. It seems to me that the issue on retroactivity we are debating here today is so vital to this, because really what the minister said was: "We'll let it go to committee. The bill's going to be retroactive, so therefore it doesn't really matter when we pass it," because any landlord out there who did not realize that as of 1 October this bill was in effect, was coming into force, was not paying attention and was not listening. Therefore they agreed with its going to committee, not really caring about the committee process, because the bill was already pre-determined to take effect on 1 October.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that that generally is not a very democratic process. They say to someone: "We're going to let this go to committee so that there can be full, public consultation. However, the starting date for the bill is six months ago." Now, does that make sense? Can anyone show me in any way that there is any fairness?

I asked the minister with the very sharp tie, who is a bright young guy, if he could tell me, does that make any sense? Would the people in Elgin, where there must be a few apartments, think it makes any sense to send a bill out to committee -- that minister would not do it -- and then tell everybody it does not matter that it is going to committee, that it does not matter that we are going to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars taking the staff and the members and Hansard and the translators and everybody around the province to London and Sudbury and Hamilton and Ottawa? "It does not matter. The bill comes into effect six months ago." The minister should explain this to me.

1610

I do not understand how the member can look at his constituents in the face and tell them that is democratic or even in the slightest way fair. It seems to me, when the minister comes forward and suggests that the members of the opposition are holding up the government's ability to govern, that we get no ministers' statements in this Legislature -- nothing.

The Attorney General brings in a couple of AG bills that were left in the top right-hand drawer by the former Attorney General. He happened to open the drawer and say: "Oh, what are these? A couple of bills that the Liberals had." He dusted them off and said: "They look pretty good to me. I think I'll introduce them in the House. We'll fool the people. We'll make them think we're working." But other than that, well, one must admit the only legislation they brought in that has had any substantial effect at all has been Liberal legislation.

Mr Cooper: Bill 1.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, Bill 1. They jumped right on to the bandwagon of the GST with Mulroney. That was just after the government announced it was going to fight a revolution -- amazing.

Here we have this bill with the retroactivity attached to it, and the government comes forward with the unmitigated gall to try to perpetrate a fraud on the people of this province -- that was tough to say -- that it is bringing in a bill in a democratic process and the minister, and even the Premier, stands up to answer in question period and says, "We can't bring in any new business because you people in opposition are delaying Bill 4 and the SCOE legislation in justice." Shame on him. Really, that is absolutely shameful.

The government makes announcements, it sends out orders in council freezing development around landfill sites. It throws all the landfill sites in the province that were ready for environmental assessment off the table. It throws the entire province into a tizzy. It throws the people in northern Ontario into bankruptcy. It does not allow them to restart the railroad with more jobs. That is all the government does. It makes announcements, no legislation.

An hon member: In other words, we're not happy.

Mr Mahoney: They might be getting the impression that we are not happy. They bring in legislation like Bill 4, send it out to committee, make it retroactive and then try to pretend the opposition is holding it up.

I will tell the members what it is. It is an attempt to blackmail and hijack the democratic process in this House and it is intolerable. This minister has no right, particularly this minister, to tell an opposition party or parties that because the ministry is concerned about aspects of his legislation, because it is fighting on behalf of its beliefs, because it is standing up for its principles, because the opposition is saying that this minister is wrong and this legislation is wrong, he accuses the legislation of stalling. This minister owes every member of this opposition and the third party an apology for making such an absurd statement.

Mr Fletcher: Sorry, sorry.

Mr Mahoney: I would like to accept the apology from the member from the back benches, but it is not good enough. We would like it from the minister. He should know better, because I sat over there and watched him sitting over here -- if members want to see stalling, let me tell them -- with no reasoning, with no justification, with no backup. We have the backup. We travelled in this province. Members should just let me share with them some of the concerns.

Now that they understand our concern about the attempt to hijack the committee process, they should not agree to send it to committee in the first place if they are going to make a mockery out of it and the minute there are legitimate concerns put forward by members of the opposition they accuse us of stalling, of hamstringing their government. If their government is truly hamstrung because of two committees and two pieces of legislation, one of which is retroactive in the first place, then maybe their government should resign. Maybe the members opposite are incapable of governing. They should bring some work into this House. They are doing nothing.

Mr Hayes: Quit holding it up.

Mr Mahoney: We are not holding anything up. The government does not even understand the democratic process. I was elected, as were all of my colleagues, to come here on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of all the people of this province to debate in the democratic process, in the parliamentary system: to oppose where necessary, to be constructive where it is possible, and to discuss and debate issues and put all of the pros and cons. What does the government want? What it wants is just to slam dunk the legislation through, never mind the debate, not bother doing its job, make it retroactive to last October and to hell with the consequences.

I am sorry, but this really does make me angry. I can put up with our philosophical differences. I can live with the socialist hordes because the members opposite were elected, and frankly they have four years: They will be a one-term government, and most of them will never see the inside of this place again except maybe on television.

I am going to tell the members opposite that they are not being fair to the people of this province when they try to jam retroactive legislation through the House, when they totally attempt to hijack the committee process and when they attempt to blackmail the opposition by suggesting that they will not bring any other legislation forward dealing with food banks, dealing with garbage, dealing with recycling, dealing with other aspects of the environment, dealing with affordable housing. They will not bring anything forward in this Legislature because the opposition is debating and arguing two bills in committee. It is unbelievable. It is truly unbelievable.

I want to share with the members that as we went into the city of Hamilton with our committee and we were talking and we heard -- I think it is important that people understand we heard from people from all walks of life deal with the issue of retroactivity and the entire constitutionality, which has been a matter of some discussion and in my view will continue to be for some time, of Bill 4.

One of the things that puzzled me was that the types of people who came before us in many, many cases were people that you would expect a New Democratic Party government would listen to. Let me give the members the first example. Here is a gentleman who represents a group of 40 people. They started an investment club, and they invested in some small rental projects. This is not some big, foreign-owned company. This is not some big numbered corporation. This is not some tax dodge. This is 40 people in Hamilton in an investment club. Sounds like a good idea. They are people who work at Stelco. They are people who work in local industry. These 40 got together with some of their savings and they pooled them. The fellow who spoke for them was a Mr Mate, and he says, and I want to quote from Hansard:

"I am not a politician. I work in the steel industry. As a matter of fact, talking about the steel industry today, the government supposedly is listening to our fellow workers at Algoma in Sault Ste Marie. Whether anything will come of that is unknown to me. I would like to think that these hearings that are progressing -- although I did hear on the radio this morning that the green paper presentation will come out on 18 February and we still have not finished all these hearings. So I am curious why the government would even propose such a situation at this time."

This is one of the government's people. This man works at Stelco. He is a steelworker. He is supposed to be part of the government's constituency.

The parliamentary assistant asked a question of Mr Mate, talking about senior citizens and his tenants. I will go on to quote her: "If they are on fixed incomes, basically they might get a cost of living allowance increase every year which is maybe 5%. How can they then afford a 10% increase each year?" That is in reference to the average increase in their units. "Of the tenants you have, how many have had to move out because of the increase of 10% a year?"

1620

Mr Mate -- the member's constituent, her friend, the steelworker in Hamilton, part of a 40-person investment club -- went on to answer:

"I do not believe we have had so many people move out because of the increase. I think it is just basically economic situations for various people. People have lost jobs. They just cannot afford to pay the rent. Maybe they will share with somebody else. We have tried to look at every case individually, not just as a whole. We have one building where we have some senior citizens, right here in the city of Hamilton. We have directed them to the self-help group, and it has been very helpful. We are willing to work with our people. The key thing is to have a full building, 100% occupancy, and in one case we have even reduced the rents to keep the tenants."

I ask the parliamentary assistant and the members of the socialist government, how can they look a man like this in the face and tell him that they are going to pass legislation that is retroactive, that, in essence, is going to bankrupt him?

These are the types of people we are dealing with. We even had people come forward as another example and give us some alternatives. I want to share with members the testimony of Arun Pathak. Mr Pathak came forward and said he would like to ask the committee to seriously look at a proposal that he had to the current bill, an alternative. He said:

"To try to justify this reckless legislation, the minister and the Premier are fond of quoting three things: 100% or 150% rent increases, luxury renovations and flip after flip after flip.

"First, the 100%-plus rent increases: They have affected one in 14,286 units, and if any person tells me that this problem cannot be solved by a cap or a phase-in of capital expenditure, he is a fool or a liar and should withdraw from this debate." Those are not my words; those are the words of one of the witnesses, Mr Pathak in Hamilton. He goes on:

"Luxury renovations have also been exaggerated out of all proportion. No figures are available, but they can be solved in one of two ways. Either define luxury renovations in the legislation and disallow any of them, or give tenants a veto on renovations in their apartments." It is a suggestion. Would the government look at it? It just ignores these good suggestions.

Regarding the flipping of apartment buildings, Mr Pathak's suggestion is that this "can be stopped by a speculation tax, about which there has been some discussion. Again, no figures are available with regard to flips, and a change in management can lead the tenants to think the building has been flipped....

"These three things would stop the perceived problems without stopping capital expenditure. The effects on the economy would be minimal; job losses would be minimal. Landlords would not face hardships and possible bankruptcy, and I expect all parties in the Legislature would show general support, as would landlord and tenant organizations."

The man put forth what I consider to be some viable discussions. Whether or not members agree with everything he said perhaps is a moot point. But the reality is he put forth some constructive ideas that this government has ignored. Instead it is steamrolling ahead with its head in the sand, making the legislation retroactive and playing political games.

We even heard, Mr Chairman, to share with you, from a number of tenants' associations, the Federation of London Tenants Associations, Mr Boullion. He comes forward and he says, "My initial reaction to the proposed bill was that of great delight." He then goes on to say further down in Hansard:

"My fear is that although the bill is meant to protect the tenants against large rent increases, the wording in many areas is vague. I feel this could be used by landlords as a loophole to prevent them from even keeping up necessary maintenance. If it were possible to strike a balance between landlords and tenants, it would not be necessary to implement any legislation."

You know, common sense says a lot in this world, and that is what the tenants in London, Ontario were telling this committee and our parliamentary assistant; that is what they were trying to tell this government, but once again they are being ignored.

Other people who came before us -- very interesting -- included a Mr Schnurr representing Marshall Resources (Ontario) Ltd. When Mr Schnurr introduces himself to the committee, he says: "I myself am a small landlord in this province. I am a voter and I am a taxpayer. I have in the last 12 months reduced my portfolio from 65 units to one duplex. I have no intention" -- and this is a point that one of the members over here made about confidence in the marketplace in this province -- "of re-entering the marketplace in Ontario until I see a dramatic change in the direction of the provincial administration in this province."

Can you blame him? I mean, you would have to be suicidal, stupid or have some other serious problem -- no reference to the members opposite -- to invest in any industry here with the kind of attitude that we are seeing. This gentleman was quite bright enough to figure that out. He goes on to say on the next page:

"It is a matter of fact that the existing legislation is fair and reasonable and a reasonable means of dealing with rents in this province. It is a matter of fact that less than 75% of the units in the province have ever been to rent review. It is a matter of fact that less than one half of 1% of the units in this province received increases in excess of 30%. It is a matter of fact that half of 1% of the units in Ontario received increases in excess of 100%."

Where, he asks, are the abuses, except in the minds of the minister and the Premier?

"The facts indicate to me that the system is working in its present form. It seems to me that the only problem with the present legislation is the political aspect."

He is actually suggesting that the minister and this government are bringing in Bill 4 for political reasons. I did not suggest that, although I happen to agree with the gentleman.

I want to take members to one final presenter before I wrap up my remarks: Sandra Matthew. Sandra Matthew came before us, and she opens up by saying, "My name is Sandra Matthew and I am a tenant." She goes on, after telling us a little bit about her situation, to say:

"The Rae government made a decision to change the existing laws and then, to add insult to injury, it decided to change those laws retroactive to 1 October 1990. What a bloody bombshell. Such actions must warrant a lawsuit. However, that would be another matter. Suddenly I found myself witnessing sensationalism concerning greedy landlords and gouging. I had to listen to tales of woe concerning poor tenants whose rent had been increased by 100% and 150%. Nobody ever did tell me 100% of what initial amount and 150% of what initial amount -- maybe $40, maybe $100. Sensationalism was the correct choice of word."

1630

It is important that I share this with members. She goes on to say:

"I found myself listening to standard questions from some members of the panel, questions such as, 'Do you care?' and, 'How many people have suffered economic eviction from your building?'

"Well, I care. That is one of the reasons for my being here and no one in our building has been priced out. I should not overlook the old faithful statement, 'We disagree on many points.' I know for a fact that we disagree on almost every issue. That is another reason why I have chosen to speak to you today. Hopefully," she begs, "someone will listen to me -- I mean, really, really listen -- and set aside any further notions of trying to shaft us.

"Our building, as I informed you earlier, is my home. It is warm and friendly, clean and comfortable. It is beautifully maintained and free of vermin. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a cockroach and I really do not feel deprived. My fellow tenants and myself are proud to have our friends and relatives visit us at 1000 Huron Street, although right now we have a huge cloud hanging over our heads.

"Will the institution which financed the necessary replacements in our homes go power of sale, courtesy of the Rae government? Will our landlord who has worked so diligently, a person we all admire and respect, be forced to sell, courtesy of the Rae government? Will we ever again receive the kind of care and consideration we have become accustomed to, should our homes be placed in the hands of some stranger, courtesy of the Rae government?"

What answers did she get? She was ignored. This legislation was brought back to this place. This legislation has seen really one change and that one change will simply recognize the fact that conditional orders had been given, and approvals, under the former legislation. What a miraculous thing for this government to do, to actually say to someone: "Okay, you got us dead to rights. We've talked to our lawyers and we know you've got it in writing, under Bill 51, under the RRRA. We know you've got permission to do this. Oh, all right, we'll be really good guys and gals and we'll agree to it." Amazing.

Let me tell members how the member for Eglinton, the critic for the Liberal Party, had to fight in committee to get this government to agree to that. It is embarrassing that we had to fight with everything we had to get this government to agree to what should have been as plain as the noses on their faces. So they ultimately did agree, and at least we in the Liberal Party can hold our heads high and say that we fought at the committee and we got them to agree to that amendment.

I hear some groaning and grunting from my colleagues opposite. I do not know what it is about and do not frankly much care.

We can hold our heads high in committee and I am sure even the Housing critic for the third party would admit that the critic for our party did an excellent job in fighting to get that legislation amended. But did they do anything else?

Instead, what have they said to Sandra, to Mr Schnurr, to Mr Bouillon and to the dozens of other people, to the mother and daughter from New Liskeard who came to see us in Sudbury at their own expense -- and it was only after I moved a motion at committee that we agreed to cover their costs -- to tell us that we were putting them into bankruptcy, to the young man who bought the apartment building from his grandfather and personally renovated it into an apartment building for six people and did the work with his bare hands, and we are going to put him into bankruptcy with this legislation? To all of these people, this government has said: "We don't care. We think that because we have got some political pressure from some tenant groups in Toronto" -- even they came before our committee, a couple of them led as part of an entourage with some city aldermen, all primed up and juiced up and ready to go, and I asked them one simple question. I said: "Tell me something. Other than the cap on the rates," which I have no argument with, "can you tell me one thing in this bill that helps your tenant group, one thing? Will it help get rid of the cockroaches in your units? Will it repair the holes in the walls that have been ignored and left by your unscrupulous landlord? Will it fix the heating? Will it fix the broken appliances? Will it clean the halls and make them safe for your children? Will it do anything to the underground parking that is crumbling before your very eyes?"

Ms Poole: No.

Mr Mahoney: That is exactly the answer that the tenants' groups were giving us. They were saying no. Other than a cap, which we have no argument with, it does nothing to protect tenants' rights. We struggled in committee to try to understand who is driving this automobile, this Bill 4 vehicle. Who is the pilot here?

The minister, with tears welling up in his eyes to the point that I was ready to choke or gag, I was not sure which, told me of the senior citizens who came before him in Windsor saying that they were going to jump off their balconies because of the rent increase. They were going to jump off the balconies, they were so desperate.

Instead of addressing an issue that would prevent those huge rent increases, instead of perhaps bringing in some legislation that was caring and moderate and understanding and that would address those rent increases, what he has done is he is bringing in legislation that could well be in place for two years, retroactive to October, that will mean those balconies that those seniors have will become unsafe for them to stand on, never mind jump off. They are going to crumble and fall to the ground and then I want to see the big alligator tears from the minister.

It is unbelievable that he could be so stubborn and pigheaded in his approach to this issue when he has been given alternatives. The minister should not make the legislation retroactive. He should not bankrupt thousands of people, not only small landlords -- the big ones will survive, you know. That is what is so frustrating. The big landlords in this province will survive any legislation you bring in. They will wait out the four years, even if they have to subsidize it. They will wait it out. They will find other ways to make money. They will survive. The people who will not survive are the little guys, the people the government purports to represent, the landlord who has to go every day with a chain of keys here to open his apartment units and a hammer over here and a screwdriver back here because he does his own work.

These are the people his legislation is going to harm. He heard about them in Hansard, they came before our committee, and yet with a complete blind eye, with a complete uncaring heart, with a cold-blooded, calculated attempt to satisfy some political need, somewhere in Toronto, I can only assume; I am not sure, because even there I was hard-pressed to find it. Because we know that is happening in other areas. In the area of the environment we know that people like Gord Perks are setting the agenda for his government. In labour management and in economic affairs, we know that people like Bob White are setting the agenda for his government. We understand that.

What I do not understand is, who is driving this one? It cannot be the tenants in Parkdale who suffer the way they suffer with the photographs they showed us, because they admitted this bill will not fix up those problems. It cannot be them. It cannot be the alderman who brought in the entourage, because I asked her, will Bill 4 solve those problems on behalf of the senior citizens she so diligently represented? She said no. She did not say it at first. I had to ask it a couple of times. But she did say no, so who is driving this truck called Bill 4?

The minister is steamrolling over the people in this province. The tenants are unhappy, and let me tell him he should mark my words. The tenants will not forgive him for this because he is not solving their problem. Already they are coming out against the government and its green paper because it is backing off of promises it made in the election, in the Agenda for People and on platforms all around this province. They are coming forward saying, "The NDP lied to us." They will not forgive those ladies and gentlemen opposite.

1640

Maybe some members opposite can sit there and say, "Well, I don't have many tenants in my riding," but let me tell them to look around their caucus. They know the old story, "Look to your left and look to your right and say goodbye to those guys, because they are not going to be here next time, and then when you go home tonight, look in the mirror and say goodbye to that one too because he ain't going to be here."

The tenants are not going to forgive them. The business community is already waiting for the day it can turf them out of office for bringing in outrageous legislation.

Mrs Sullivan: The trades.

Mr Mahoney: And the tradespeople they are bankrupting. Mark my words, by the end of their term even their precious labour unions are going to be angry with them. They might even issue a directive to stop the checkoff of the union dues going to the New Democratic Party. And then what are they going to do? They are going to be out of money, they are going to be out of ideas, they are going to be out of policy, they are going to be out of luck. They are going to be out of government, that is where they are going to be, out of government.

They are going to be able to look back to Bill 4 and say, "Well, aside from Bill 1, which was when we jumped into bed with the Tories, Bill 4 was the first piece of legislation we brought forward with our government's stamp on it, and it was the beginning of the end."

Hon Mr Pouliot: Just look at your entourage. Just look at your colleagues. Your colleagues are embarrassed.

Mr Mahoney: It was the beginning of the end, I say to the Minister of Mines. He may not have too many tenants up in his riding, he may not have to worry about this issue, but if he talks to his colleagues who represent Metro ridings, if he talks to his colleagues who represent a riding in Ottawa, if he talks to his colleagues who represent ridings in London and in Sudbury, where they do have tenants and they have small landlords this government is burying economically with absolute determination. The government is destroying them financially, and to make matters unbelievably worse, it is doing it retroactively, with no chance for them to bail out, with no chance for them to say, "I want out of this mess." We are going backwards.

And by making it retroactive to 1 October, it takes it back potentially 18 months. It is not just 1 October; it takes it back potentially 18 months, because there was money spent over that period of time, some of which was on conditional orders which, now that they have had legal advice, they will honour because they know they would lose that one in the courts. But others who did not have it on a conditional order but spent it in good faith, because they read the existing legislation and they knew what they were doing and they spent it in good faith in all truth and honesty, they are telling those people, "Tough luck, you lose."

Let me tell these folks opposite, four years from now it is going to be, "Tough luck, you lose."

The Chair: Before I recognize the next speaker, it is a real pleasure and honour for me to introduce, in the members' gallery, his worship the mayor of Cornwall, Phil Poirier.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to rise today and to speak on the amendment by the member for Eglinton on Bill 4.

It was not too long ago that I had the opportunity to gather a few people together in my riding and have a kind of open forum and discuss various issues of the day. About 130 people turned up, and the major discussion of that meeting was Bill 4. It was not my doing. I wanted to discuss various aspects taking place in Ontario, but on the minds of people in my riding today was Bill 4.

I have some constituents who are small landlords of four- and six-unit complexes who had applied for rent increases before this retroactive legislation was brought in, had met with the tenants and the tenants had agreed to whatever the increase would be. As a matter of fact, the rents were as low as $200 monthly and as high as $325 monthly. This individual has spent some $54,000 remodelling his building to bring it up to standard, with the agreement of five of the six tenants who attended the meeting, and now finds that he is going to be out of luck.

I think I heard here today our party's critic questioning the parliamentary assistant with regard to the constitutionality of this bill. I also believe I heard her indicate that she had the information and that she would get it. I also heard a short time later that she did not feel she could produce that information, because of the legality of it.

I think there is quite a bit of strategy being played here with regard to this legislation, and it is certainly upsetting the landlords of this province. If any members were outside today to see what was taking place, the demonstration that took place today, that would certainly be an indication of how they feel. The interesting part, though, I say to the parliamentary assistant, was that they were not all landlords who were there; there were a lot of tenants and workers who were at this demonstration. So for her to believe that it is just landlords who are upset, I can tell her that it is not. There are an awful lot of landlords in this province who are very upset.

I have a small landlord who sent a letter to the Premier some time ago, and I would like to just quote some of the contents of the letter. It says:

"Well, you've really started out with a bang. One month after I buy an apartment building which has been under rent review, you cancel it. We had the authority to raise the rents 10.4% for the next two years. Based on this, we were able to justify the price we paid for the building. The building is 26 years old and it needs upkeep. Do you think I'm going to spend anything extra on the building? Well, I don't think so. This is not the way to stimulate an economy that is in rough shape. Well, Bob, I hope you don't come up with another great idea to help the little guy, because some day there won't be any left to take it."

That letter was from Kirby Wagg in Orillia, who had just purchased, as he indicates, a small complex.

When we look at the retroactivity of Bill 4, it is not right, it is not proper and it is not appropriate for any legislation to be brought in as this piece of legislation has been. I know many of the members sitting over there, if they had their own personal feelings they could express, would agree with us on this side that it is not right or proper. Before the last election, I heard the now Premier of this province standing before us in this Legislature condemning the former Premier for not being up front, not being what he would class as coming forth with the truth for the people. Today the Premier has done the very identical thing the former Premier did, so when you look at the activity and integrity, it certainly says a lot of this Legislature and its content today.

During the last election we had a great deal of discussion with regard to mobile home sites, and there has been a lot of discussion within this bill with regard to mobile home sites. My NDP opposition at the last election delivered to every mobile home park in my riding to indicate to them that if he was elected and the NDP government became elected, it would bring in legislation that would allow those people to be able to own their own site in that park. To this day, I have not heard nor seen any indication of any legislation, and I am not sure how you would bring in legislation unless you bought the property from the owner. So to indicate to the people in that park that his government would bring in legislation that would solve their problem of ownership totally was not being up front with the people.

1650

The outlining of some of the retroactivity of the bill, I would say, is vindictive and will lead to bankruptcies of many landlords, and that will be to the detriment of the tenants. The bill will lead to thousands of job losses in the capital repair and renovation industry, which we have seen has already happened. The major part of the large amount of unemployment and people who have gone on the welfare rolls in this city is because of Bill 4.

The standing committee on general government dealt with Bill 4; it travelled the province and listened to many delegations. I am sure it would have brought through some amendments by the government that would have solved some of those concerns that were raised.

I believe that the legislation will cause a major problem to the tenants of this province. I realize there was a problem with some of the landlords who want to gouge, so to speak, tenants with the shifting and turnover of their property. I totally disagree with that, as I think pretty near every member in this Legislature would disagree with what some did; but you cannot punish the majority because there are a few bad apples in the basket.

Those are some of the major concerns that I have with the bill and I would hope that the government would see fit to accept some of the amendments that are being placed before it with regard to the retroactivity of this bill. It is not right and it is not proper, as I have said before, to bring legislation in and have it dated back maybe almost a year after it was passed.

I also say to the parliamentary assistant that I wish she would come clean with regard to the question my colleague asked with regard to the constitutionality of this legislation. I think that is so important. How can she sit there and say, "We have the information and it is available," and a few minutes later come back and say, "Sorry, but it's confidential because there may be a court case over it"? I do not know how they can accept that. I cannot and I know that most of those members cannot.

The major part of this bill is totally unacceptable to me and I am sure it is unacceptable to the people of the province. If anybody thinks we are here speaking on behalf of the landlords, yes, we are, but we are also here speaking on behalf of those many tenants who are in the buildings.

I had a letter here with regard to somebody in Timmins who had a $53 rental per month. I also read where if they had done the remodelling and adjustments, it would raise to $275 a month. That is a major increase, I agree, but it depends on what type of accommodation you are going to be getting. There are lots of people and tenants who will be looking forward to having the rent increased.

As to the green paper that was brought in to be tabled in the House on the 18th and the public hearings that were held across the province, the minister wanted to have those hearings. He did not want our critics to be able to speak. He wanted them to come and to sit in and to listen and look nice on the platform; however, no input. In my area he invited the landlords to a private meeting, he invited the tenants to a private meeting, and then he had what they called an open meeting.

I certainly cannot believe what I have seen and heard this last six months from my colleagues who used to sit to my right here, preaching openness, fairness, integrity and honesty and being up front with the people, the very same people who have brought in this Bill 4 to freeze the rent increases.

I want to say that the opportunity to have some input into this legislation and the retroactivity part, to me, is what it is all about. I want to thank you for the opportunity, Mr Chairman, and I hope that the parliamentary assistant would see fit to get the information that she said was available, what my colleague had requested. If she cannot produce that information, we are going to have a problem getting this legislation passed.

The Second Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments on Ms Poole's amendment? The honourable member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I just want to speak very briefly to something said by the member for Victoria-Haliburton. He said that some people consider they are thinking when what they are really doing is simply rearranging their prejudices. Well, I would say to this government that you pretend that you are listening when what you are doing is simply reinforcing your own prejudices, and one of the prejudices you guys have -- I did not say youse guys, just you guys -- one of the prejudices you have is that you think that all landlords, all investors, all financial institutions fit the typical stereotype.

Interjections.

Ms Poole: The Conservatives seem to be quite overactive this afternoon, Mr Chair. Maybe they got their Wheaties or something. Oh, they have calmed down, so maybe I can continue.

The Second Deputy Chair: Address the Chair and it might make it simpler and quieter.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will certainly continue to address you, if you can hear me, I am not sure, above the rabble to my left, who are really to my right.

What they are saying as members is that they agree with the stereotypes, the typical stereotypes that all landlords are grasping, greedy, evil individuals who have nothing but their own profit in mind, and I will tell them, there are some of them like that, there is no doubt about it, but I would submit that landlords are just like any other set of individuals. You have your good ones; you have your bad ones. You have your greedy ones; you have your compassionate ones. You have your ones who are fair and sensitive; you have the ones who do nothing but make life miserable for tenants. But what you have to realize is that they are not all the same, just as all tenants are not the same.

Some tenants are extremely vulnerable. They cannot speak for themselves. Other tenants who have been very active in the tenants' movements are quite eloquent, quite prepared to act, not only on their own behalf but on behalf of all tenants, and are quite well equipped to do so. Some tenants are very good. They pay their rent, care about their building, try to have a good relationship with their landlords. Other tenants: Let's be charitable and say they are not so good. They skip out on their rent. They make life difficult for other tenants by having wild parties.

So when they are stereotyping, when they are reinforcing their own prejudices, they should try to remember that landlords, investors, financial institutions are the same as other individuals, and they should try not to let their prejudices blind them to what is wrong with this bill and what they can do to correct it.

That is the lecture for --

1700

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

Ms Poole: I was just on my last sentence.

Mr Turnbull: I do think it is important to point out that --

The First Deputy Chair: A point of order from the member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: I do excuse myself for interrupting the member's last sentence, but I think it is absolutely reprehensible that there is absolutely nobody here from the ministry. We have neither the minister nor the parliamentary assistant. That is the kind of respect this House gets for this serious legislation. Is there absolutely no interest in this debate? Why do we have a Parliament at all?

Hon Mrs Coppen: On a point of information, Madam Chair: The parliamentary assistant had an emergency phone call. She just came over to me to tell me she would not be any more than about two minutes. She notified me. She is in the lounge. She has not left the building. She will be right back.

The First Deputy Chair: You can continue, member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I thank the member for York Mills for that courtesy and I thank the chief government whip for the point of information. I was on my last sentence but I have forgotten it because of the interruption, so I will just have to start all over again. Then the parliamentary assistant could hear my words as well.

To wind up, in respect to the comments by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, when he is lecturing to us about how we are thinking and how we are rearranging our own prejudices, he should try to look in the mirror and ask himself the same question: How many prejudices is he guilty of and how is that affecting his objectivity on Bill 4 and his desire to bring a balanced, fair piece of legislation in? I submit to him that it is having a dramatic impact and that he had better revisit his position.

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant, but before I ask that question I would like simply to comment on the remarks made by the Minister of Housing that the opposition parties are trying to stall this legislation. That is the furthest from the truth. There have been motions by the Conservative representatives on the committee that we wish to have a number of experts come and give testimony. The member for York Mills repeatedly requested for financial experts, economic experts to come and discuss the legislation to clarify the effects it would have on the province of Ontario. For some unearthly reason that was denied.

The only expert piece of testimony that did come to us, Madam Chair, was from Mr Thom, as you know. The province of Ontario spent, I think, $3 million on his report, and the committee gave him one night, a couple of hours, to discuss something he was never asked by the Minister of Housing to discuss -- such important issues as the issues of retroactivity and other issues with respect to the effects Bill 4 has on our legislation.

The only thing we heard from Mr Thom was his representation when he came to us on one particular evening and made his comments with respect to rent control. He indicated he has never been invited by the minister yet the minister continues to say we are trying to stall this legislation. What we are trying to do is to bring very serious issues and very serious implications which this government has never considered, implications that have been brought in a very brief manner by Mr Thom. I say that respectfully, because certainly a man of his qualifications -- I think more than a couple of hours should have been spent by the Minister of Housing. His staff and the minister did not spend one iota of time other than that evening. That is reprehensible.

Certainly, members of our party had to fight and fight to have these hearings extended to hear the representations to be made in other cities. We fought about that, and finally the government saw the error of its ways and agreed that these hearings could be extended to places like Hamilton, London, Windsor, Sudbury and Ottawa.

I think the most glaring issue of this government is the fact that there were at least 150 applicants who wished to be heard at these hearings, and they were denied. This government is determined to ram this legislation through this Legislature. It would not hear all those people, landlords and tenants and other people of our society who wanted to express their concerns on this legislation.

I have spoken to individuals who made application on the day the advertisements were made by the clerk of the committee to advertise these hearings, and people were told by the clerk that the hearings were full. There were no extensions of the time. We repeatedly asked the government to extend the dates for the hearings so that we could hear the people of this province, hear their concerns on retroactivity and other issues of Bill 4. That was refused by this government. This government has one thing in mind, and that is to ram through this legislation without reviewing it and without reviewing all the implications it has for the people of this province.

Then, of course, the crowning bit of work by this minister and his government is the so-called green paper. He calls that consultation. It is green. It is terribly green and it shows the inexperience of this government and how it is not consulting. The member for Simcoe East commented a few moments ago on the procedure of this so-called consultation, how individuals are asked to come and hold private meetings with the minister. There is no debate with the public. The public was not allowed to hear these private meetings. We have no idea what was heard in private meetings of the minister. In fact, tenants and landlords have spoken to me and said that in some cases there was no answer to questions that were made to the minister. There is no excuse for that type of consultation. It is not even consultation. A whole new meaning of the word "consultation" has been given by this government. It is called "ramming legislation through."

I will also indicate that if it were not for questions that were made in this House, I think by the member for Oriole -- yes, the member for Oriole asked to appear at one of the hearings and she was refused the right to appear. In fact, I can tell members first hand that the ministry did finally invite me and the Liberal critic, the member for Eglinton, to appear at these hearings, but we were not allowed to speak. It was made quite clear to us. We could go to them if we wished, and that was only some of the hearings. We were not allowed to go to these private meetings the Minister of Housing was taking. We were not allowed to speak. In fact, it was our suggestion that perhaps the member for Eglinton and myself should have cardboard cutouts of ourselves and put them up on the stage with the minister, because that was our representation.

The final issue, of course, with respect to the consultation: I remind the parliamentary assistant and the government that the terms of reference of this Legislature were that in addition to discussing Bill 4, the committee was to review the entire provisions of the green paper whenever it would be issued. Of course, the minister chose his own sweet time to introduce that green paper. We never have discussed it; our committee has never discussed the green paper. I do not know whether we are or not. My guess is that we are not. In fact, there is no consultation by this government with respect to permanent legislation.

Before I ask my question of the parliamentary assistant, I must say I am simply outraged at the fact that the government would say we are trying to stall this legislation. All we are trying to do is to raise the very serious implications, and we hear the snide remarks made by certain members of the government as we are trying to do things to improve the serious crisis we have in the housing industry in this province.

My question is to the parliamentary assistant and specifically has to do with the first portion of the amendment, which talks about where there is an agreement between a landlord and a tenant in a particular unit. Specifically, there has been situation after situation where work was done, work was paid for and notice was given to the tenants, and either they agreed, in many cases or they did not respond to the notice, which under the current Bill 51, as members know, would be interpreted as consent to that particular application. In many situations where that occurred, that has been considered void as a result of this retroactive nature of this legislation.

1710

Very briefly, I would like to refer the parliamentary assistant to a letter which was given to us and which was filed with our committee on 21 January 1991 from Stephen and Associates, who are rent review consultants. This was with respect to a property in Brampton, specifically 1-46 Eastern Avenue in Brampton. It is a very short letter and it is signed by Abraham M. Stephen, who is the authority for the landlords. He says:

"We wish to bring to your attention that the landlords of the aforementioned complex had filed an application for a conditional order under section 89 of the RRR Act 1986 on 6 April 1990 and an order was issued on 1 June 1990." Mr Stephen attaches a copy of the order from the Minister of Housing for our review. "Based on this order, the landlords completed the works as proposed in the above application. An application for the whole building review under section 74 of the act was filed on 17 August 1990 with a first effective date of 1 February 1991.

"Now that bill 4 has been introduced in the Legislature on 28 November 1990 which proposes to freeze the rent increases above the guideline effective 1 October 1990 the landlords stand to lose a substantial amount of money spent into this complex in the form of much needed capital expenditures. Sufficient notices were given to each and every tenant about these works and nobody made any complaints about it."

He concludes by stating: "It should be noted that the landlords involved here are two retired people and they can ill afford to lose the increase which they are otherwise entitled to. They relied on the law which existed when the works were done and followed all the legal procedures required by the law. It will be highly unfair and will be disastrous if they are denied the increase.

"We have been asked to raise their concerns at the hearing, and as we are told that you cannot accommodate more people, we wish to have the above matters considered before finalizing the bill."

This is the type of correspondence which members of the committee received. These people wanted to address our committee but the government refused them the right to appear. It refused the owners of this building the right to appear and they had to resort to this letter being written by someone for them.

My question specifically to the parliamentary assistant has to deal with whether she feels it is fair when either agreements are made between a landlord and tenant as proposed by the amendment, or whether in specific cases such as this notice is given and it is obvious there is no concern by the tenants because they have not responded to it, the work is done and then the government comes along and considers the work and the money spent by the landlord as being void: My question to her, is that fair?

Ms Harrington: I would like to respond to a couple of the concerns that have been raised by the member. I would like to touch first on the question that several people have also brought up following his initiation of the discussion. That was with regard to the legal advice.

I would like to tell members that throughout this process we have gone through together in the committee hearings, my purpose in being there was to learn as much as possible from all the people who came to that committee. That is why we had Dr Thom there. That is why I went to hear the expert from Sweden and another expert from New York City. I went there to find out as much as I possibly could about all aspects of this situation. With regard to wanting legal advice, I would, like everyone in this House, like to have as much information or legal advice, whatever is requested, as possible.

We are trying to have as open a government as possible, and maybe that is the trap that I fell into. But the other parties which possibly have been in government before maybe realize that in some instances these legal opinions on certain laws or bills that are coming before the House do have, in certain cases, to be with the government; that is, of course, the advice I received, as previous governments have, I am sure, received similar types of advice.

I would also like to go on and let members know that I believe that there is one thing that has been said this afternoon that is right, that the opposition is right in saying that we are responsible to all the people of Ontario, all the people that members have been talking about, all the people that we have heard from -- and those are the people who will judge us.

The opposition mentioned right at the very beginning the words "fair" and "balanced." Let's think about that just for a moment. Looking back on the past government of five years, looking back on the previous government before that of 42 years, "fair" and "balanced"? Did they represent, and were they answerable to, all the people of Ontario? I would like to propose to members and to the people across Ontario that this government is, even more than the two previous governments, open and responsible to the people, and the people will judge us.

Think about the people across this province who have not, until this week, by the minister who brought forward statements today about the anti-racism committee and the changes that are going to be made in our government -- think about that for a little while. Has that ever happened in the last 50 years in Ontario? Think about the many other initiatives that we have brought forward; for instance, the bill of SCOE, where in the past 75% of the orders for spouses to support their offspring have not been enforced. Do we call that empowering the people of Ontario? Do we call that being responsible to the people of Ontario?

I have heard from the opposition that we are not fair, that we are not responsible to all of the people of Ontario. I am saying to members -- and I would like to just very concisely put it -- that we are responsible to all of the people of Ontario, and they are going to judge us on that.

Now I would like to just briefly get back to Bill 4.

Mr B. Murdoch: She has gone back to Bill 4.

Ms Harrington: But while I am doing this I hope members will keep in mind and turn over as the weeks go by how this government is going to take this province of Ontario, which was on a course this way, and over the next four years take this province of Ontario in a different direction.

I would like members to think, while we are here this afternoon, that we are bringing all kinds of people who have not been empowered in this province into this government, and in four years they will answer that call as to whether or not they are reflected in this government. Those are the landlords, too.

We were elected and immediately people have said in this House, even this afternoon -- let me see if I have that piece of paper with me; no, I do not. It was from the front benches of the opposition, and you said, "You have the power; use it." It was said over and over again, and then you said what we have to do is act. That is what we have been told over and over again. Okay, let's --

The First Deputy Chair: Parliamentary assistant, may I just remind you that your comments should be directed through the Chair.

1720

Ms Harrington: Thank you. We needed to act, and I am glad all of the House realizes that, that a new government, as was said in question period today, had to act. Acting, as the members said very clearly, was bringing in Bill 4 very quickly. And what Bill 4 was to do was to stop all of the rent increases. Mind you, we could not do that. We have only stopped less than half because we could not go back any further. This legislation we brought into the House in November. We wanted it through the House by Christmas so that we could go ahead with the consultation process for the long-term legislation, so that this could be as broad a consultation as possible across this province, with landlords, with tenants, so we could bring their concerns together and somehow, as quickly as possible -- because we know business needs guidelines. It needs to know what the structures are.

Mr Stockwell: Yeah, retroactive guidelines.

Ms Harrington: I am talking about the long-term legislation. What I am saying is that we wanted this to come as quickly as possible and be in place by the end of this year, and because the process by the opposition in December was referred to the committee, that is why we went through the six weeks of committee hearings and that is why in the last two weeks we have been trying to pass this through this House. We are trying, as I might remind members, to get the green paper, the long-term discussion, focused, this week in fact. The last day for submissions was 5 April. This week we are having our staff look at it; next week and then a week after, when we are focusing in on decisions that have to be made to bring that legislation before the end of June.

The member has been in this House longer than I have, and he realizes that this is a tight time schedule. We want to do it right and we are asking for the member's help. But I want to tell him that Bill 4 is only interim legislation which we thought would be in place so that we could go ahead.

Mr Tilson: I would like to take the member for Niagara Falls back to the question I asked. She probably forgot it. The question I asked had to do with where tenants and landlords came to an agreement with respect to work that was being done, or notice was given to tenants and they did not make any complaints about the work. The work was done, the work has been paid for, it has been approved, an order is granted and then of course the retroactive legislation voids that order, even though it has been agreed upon by tenants, or where notice has been given and they have not made any complaints on it. I would like to take the member back to my question, and my question is: Is that fair?

Ms Harrington: I thought I gave the member the larger picture in which to place this particular situation. There are all kinds of situations which we have listened to of tenants facing difficulties, of landlords facing difficulties. This is just one example, and what I have tried to explain to the member is that what this bill does is not try to deal with any particular situation and say whether it is fair or unfair. The only thing this bill does is try to stop the rent increases until we can get a system in place that will work.

Mr Tilson: I cannot make the question any clearer, and I will shorten it to about four words. Is it --

Mr Runciman: You will have to get a blackboard in and draw a picture.

Mr Tilson: I will draw a picture, if necessary. I will write it out for her. Is what she has done fair?

Mr Cousens: The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel continues to ask one simple question: Is the legislation fair? Then we are dealt the kind of abuse the parliamentary assistant has thrown out with her non-answer, and that is the problem we have had and suffered ever since this legislation was tabled by the Minister of Housing.

The first thing I would like to say is that the member for Dufferin-Peel and the member for York Mills really have to be complimented for putting up with the kind of answers they have had to put up with, or the non-answers. On behalf of our caucus, I want to express deep and genuine appreciation for the kind of dedication that takes. I have to say that this government will stand judged as guilty of contributing to the downfall of the standard of living for people in the province of Ontario over the short term and the long term. It is, by virtue of this legislation, going to make far more of a slum of buildings than we have ever had before; a four-letter word, slum, and it is creating it by establishing a whole new set of rules for landlords.

I had lunch today with a landlord who is proud of his buildings, proud of his tenants, of building something. If he has a leak in the roof now, where is he going to get the money for that? It could cost him $200,000 to make that repair and he cannot claim it. He cannot recover it. He might be able to in his taxes, but he is not making any money to have to pay taxes on it. The government is pushing them into the ground.

I cannot believe that this government has not listened. It has had presentations. It has had them from our party, it has had them from the public, it has had them outside, it has had them from everybody. It is not fair, it is not right, yet it continues to parrot some kind of words that are given to it by someone -- we do not know whom -- because if it is going to be responsible to the tenants and the people of Ontario over the short and the long term, then it is going to consider some of these reasonable amendments.

Unfortunately, I take some exception to the kind of amendment that even the Liberals are willing to come in with. They are still in favour of some kind of retroactivity. Retroactivity in anything you do fails to understand the planning processes. If you are running a business at any time, you want to be able to have a sense of what the future is going to consist of, not just to have someone say, "Effective back then is when this is going to come in."

When the government was in opposition it opposed retroactivity. When it came into government, it started living by it. How inconsistent; how inconsiderate; how wrong. I just cannot believe that it is not in a position to still accept some of the reasoned amendments that are coming forward. I realize that, through the heat of the moment in committee, there was some acceptance of this amendment. I know for a fact there is going to be an amendment coming forward that will remove this whole idea of having retroactivity. Retroactivity is wrong. Part of the reason it is wrong is what it does to people for their long-term planning. They have no way of knowing what the government is going to do.

One of the reasons that businesses are pulling out of the province of Ontario and moving elsewhere and one of the reasons businesses are not moving into the province of Ontario is their lack of trust in this government. If they had some way of knowing that the government is going to have a long-term strategy, then they would feel more comfortable. They are being scared away from the approach that the government is taking to everything. Why should the government not set an example here, an example that recognizes the need of business, of people, of everybody involved in this equation, to have some sense of long-term stability?

The whole bill, from its origins, makes no sense. The whole process has been wrong and yet the government comes along and says, "Oh, well, the people in the opposition are stalling." I would like to know where it is the government comes from when it makes the ideas that it has. I do not think the bureaucracy or the civil servants wrote these words. They did it under orders by your minister. I do not think the government has really listened to the consultations that have come through, certainly the letters that I have in my office from constituents and people across Ontario saying, "Bill 4, as it is, is bad legislation."

Madam Chair, is there a way in this House that we can begin to have straight answers and a response by this government so that it can respond to the kind of questions the member for Dufferin-Peel has placed before this House, so that the government will listen and react and respond to reasoned amendments? It is a rhetorical question, because indeed in your position you have no control over your former friends in the New Democratic Party, because you are now totally neutral and really responsible for the Chair.

But these people -- I do not know who they are responding to. This government is not responding to the long-term interests of either landlords or tenants with this legislation. They fail all parties in it. If they were to really be honest with themselves, they would recognize that the Landlord and Tenant Act is tough legislation to deal with, but they would be in a position to come back and try to work through the obstacles they are creating with this.

1730

To have retroactive legislation that prevents landlords from being able to recover the costs they spend on capital improvements; to have retroactive legislation that is now going to prevent them from collecting costs of a simple roof leak because it is going to be a capital outlay over this next period of time; to prevent that same landlord who might be relying on the income from his apartment building for his income as a retired person -- they cannot go to the bank for money. If they go to the bank for money right now, because of this government it will say: "No way. We're not going to give you any money, because you're not going to be able to get it back."

They cannot get the money back because of this government's legislation. They make it a poor business deal for someone to own a piece of property, because the moment they have to go and do something to a building to maintain it to a simple, normal standard, which they want to do, they will not even be able to get the funds from the bank to be able to afford to do it. If they do not have their own reserves, they might sell off their RRSPs, their retirement fund, or find some other money, they might sell another piece of property at a time when the property values are probably not worth what they were when they bought them. This government is forcing them into a deeper and deeper hole.

Where is this government coming from? Why do they not listen to what is being said by the public and the people at large? What they are trying to do is wrong. The time to do it is now in this House before this committee. Surely, if the parliamentary assistant is here instead of the Minister of Housing, she has power and can use it wisely and come forward and admit to the fact that they have made a mistake and can still correct it.

There is hope yet. Maybe there should be more people like the member for Welland-Thorold who will come out and stand up and say what they think. Who else among that motley group of people from the New Democratic Party is going to stand up and begin to speak for himself, rather than just be like a pack of people following the Minister of Housing over a cliff? We do not want that for them. We want to push them over the cliff, but they are just jumping. They are taking all the fun out of it.

Instead of being lemmings, come forward and allow it to be something on which we could have some good debate. This is not even debatable. It is so inconsistent with an approach to good business. It just has no sense to it. I do not see how they have any logic behind their argument for it.

Why can they not answer the member for Dufferin-Peel? "Is it fair?" They have not answered him. He has tried -- how many times? -- to get an answer to that. At least a dozen times. The member for York Mills has tried many times, and they do not answer him.

I see the honourable parliamentary assistant about to stand up. Maybe she has had a change of heart.

Ms Harrington: The member is asking me why this cannot be a debate, and there is an answer. Maybe I did not make it clear when I was trying to answer before.

The questions the members are asking me about what exact situation is fair and what is not are all things I can discuss through the whole green paper. I am not going to go through all the questions and options in the green paper, but on all of those situations, and what they are asking about what in the long term is going to work and what is fair for business people, I understand what they are saying. We have to find something that is fair for that tenant and landlord the member for Dufferin-Peel was talking about, and about business across Ontario, we have to find something that is fair for those people. There is no sense in debating it today; that is not part of Bill 4. That is going at length into the green paper.

Through all the hearings we learned about the condition of the buildings, the need for capital expenditures of between $4 billion and $8 billion over the next decade, and all these concerns about the concrete work that is needed and all the rest of it, and we now understand that. That was very helpful. But this bill does not address those particular things.

The green paper asks how we pay for capital expenditures, and we have to get into that as soon as possible. We will answer those questions: What is fair for each tenant and landlord? How should the system work? How should the tenant be able to appeal? All of those questions are what we are dealing with in the green paper, and that is when we can debate all that.

Mr Stockwell: The question that was put was clear. I think the parliamentary assistant has done her best to answer a lot of questions that were not the question put to her. The question, in very succinct terms, was, does she believe that retroactive legislation of any kind is equitable and fair legislation? It is a very clear question. Her response has covered a number of issues, but she never comes back to the retroactive issue.

Lots of people work with five- and seven-year plans. They own buildings. They plan, they go forward and they do things, depending on how that plan is unfolding. The last thing they expect from their government is to have it cut them off at the knees. The parliamentary assistant keeps answering questions, but never the question put to her. The question put to her is how she can believe -- I do not think she does. I cannot believe that the backbenchers in here believe that retroactive legislation is equitable and fair legislation.

Someone went out with government approval, with law that was sanctioned by the government -- written, passed -- and made an investment; probably a bad investment in some cases, but none the less made an investment. Now he is faced, in some cases, in letters before us, with bankruptcy because this government has instituted, whether it is interim, whether it is a green paper, whether it is a white paper, whether it is a paisley paper -- it matters not to him, because the government has instituted interim legislation that creates retroactivity, thereby putting him out of business, having people declare bankruptcy. In my opinion, there is no legislation this government can pass that is retroactive that would be considered fair by the electorate. If they took a poll and asked the people, "Do you consider retroactive legislation fair?" the vast majority, I am convinced, would say, "No, retroactive legislation is not fair."

Members cannot possibly tell me that out of 72, 73, 74 -- I am not sure where the member for Oakwood is -- 73 members in their party, the vast majority of representatives has come forward and said, "Yes, retroactive legislation is fair." Do members know why that is not fair? Do they know why they cannot say that? There, but for the grace of God, go I, because who is next? When are they going to introduce the next piece of legislation that is retroactive? Who are they going to skewer next? All the people in this province now walk around with the feeling that the governments are prepared to pass retroactive legislation on anybody at any time, depending on whatever socialist dogma pops up from their policy sessions. That is not equitable.

If any members believe they have any clout, they have to go and tell the Minister of Housing. The members from Metro Toronto should know this best of all. There are all kinds of landlords out there who own duplexes and triplexes. They are small people who have invested a lot of sweat and money into this, and they are being ripped off with this retroactive legislation, all kinds of them. The Metro representatives should know it better than anyone, and the Metro representatives are letting those people down specifically, and in Hamilton, in Ottawa and the other urban centres.

The question to the parliamentary assistant is very simple, and I do not want an answer on any other issue. I do not want her to skirt it. I want her to say yes or no. Does she believe retroactive legislation that they have introduced is fair? Does she personally believe it to be fair? I asked a very simple question. Does she think it is fair, personally?

Some hon members: There is no requirement to answer.

Mr Stockwell: Well, there is a requirement. She has a moral obligation to answer this question.

1740

Mr Brown: I am also concerned with not receiving some answers here. I had the opportunity to be out with the committee for three weeks of public hearings. I had the opportunity to hear what people had to say.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. I am having difficulty listening and hearing the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I think we ought to show some respect when people stand in the House and wish to partake in debate.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying, the committee was out for about three weeks listening to what the public had to say about Bill 4 and in particular about the retroactivity of this section and others, and I heard a lot of things said about retroactivity, none of which were particularly flattering, to say the least. It is reprehensible for a government to be proceeding with this kind of retroactivity.

I think, as a member who represents northern Ontario and stood in this Legislature last Thursday morning supporting a resolution which required some retroactivity, it was supported by about half the NDP caucus. It had to do with northern travel grants.

That is how retroactivity works. A government announces a program which is retroactive to the date it announces the program. That is what the member for Kenora was saying to us. The government had announced the program; it will be retroactive to that date. It involved public funds, not private. It involved spending the public's money to do the government's business. It was fair enough. That is how retroactivity works. It does not mean, as in this bill, that you go back two or three years.

The private sector has made decisions out there. The private sector has said -- or it has not said, it has done it. They have spent their money under the rules of the game as they knew them. They did everything that was meant to be. There is nothing, nothing whatever, that they did wrong. They were providing housing for the people of Ontario and they provided it under the rules that existed at that time.

Then a government comes in and says: "Well, we're better people. We know what the common good is. Therefore, you can go bankrupt. That's your privilege." And it is not. It is not the marketplace that is causing this. The marketplace is strong. You can rent the apartments at that price and to those tenants, because in most cases if not all, but in at least most cases, the tenants agreed to the repairs, they agreed that the rents would increase. They agreed. Yet those landlords -- and we think there are about 3,000; there may be more -- are the small landlords. They are not the big landlords, they are the small ones.

They are the fellows who came, three of them, into the committee room downstairs. One said to us, "I am a dry-cleaner," and another one said, "I work for a welder," and frankly I forget what the third one did, but he worked hard for a living. He was not driving around in a limousine. He did not live in a penthouse down by the lake. He was an ordinary -- and I hate that word, because nobody in this province is ordinary -- average-income, hard-working gentleman, and he was going to lose his building. He was going to lose his building. It was his life savings.

He had come to Canada 20 years ago. He had come here to build a life. He contributed to this province, he paid his bills, he provided housing for the people of Ontario, and now he is going to lose his life savings. He has no pension plan. There is none. He does not have one. To him, his investment, his whole life savings were in this particular building, and he broke down and he wept. A 55-year-old man broke down and wept. We had to stop the proceedings three times so we could hear his story.

This is the reality of this bill. It is not fair. It does not do what the government wants it to do. We have heard the question asked over and over again: What justification is there for doing this? We hear silly notions -- I should not say "silly;" that gets them excited over there. We hear notions of the greater good. What is the greater good? Is Canada, is Ontario a province that steals from people? This is what this legislation does.

I was interested yesterday when there were some comments, and it is really the reason I am speaking today, because the member for Niagara Falls in response made some comments which I found to be a little bit different. She said: "From my experience on a city council, which is one of the aspects of politics, I found that certain segments of our population are listened to by politicians and have very easy access to politicians and decision-makers." She said: "From my experience I have found, for instance, industry leaders, developers, tourist operators, downtown merchants, all know exactly whom to call and how to get the city council agenda and probably even how to contact Queen's Park."

The gist of what she is saying here is that nobody else is listened to. But I ask members, are the gentleman I am talking about and his 2,999 other friends who are also losing their buildings and are going to go bankrupt the big developers? Are they the downtown merchants? Are they the powerful? Whom is the government listening to?

I do not accept for a minute that in the history of this province it is the only government that can represent the views of this other segment of the population, whoever they might be, because I have not been able to figure that one out. I have not been able to figure out whom the government members represent and why they come before us and tell us that they are going to put 3,000 individuals into bankruptcy, why they think that it is important to lay off 2,000 or 3,000 workers in this province who would have work anyway, why they think that is important. I do not know why that is that important.

I did some work on the numbers. I think members might enjoy this. I looked at it, and I think when you take this bill into account we are probably talking about 100,000 units out of, what, 1.2 million in the province. This bill in its retroactivity affects about 100,000 units. If you accept the fact that 25% or 30% of people cannot afford rent increases, and that is the common knowledge, that they cannot afford any, we are really talking about 30,000 people who might be "economically evicted." But then, however, we have a minister who comes before the committee, dealing with a different amendment, and he says: "Well, gee, I don't know what's acceptable, but we're going to let a 15% increase go. That's what we are going to do. It's hard for me. I don't want to do it, but we're going to let a 15% increase go." So I guess that is the benchmark of affordability, 15%. Then we take the 15% of the 30%. We are down talking about 4,000 units.

We know that the number one cause of economic eviction in this province -- and nobody can dispute it -- is becoming unemployed; losing your income. That is why you leave an apartment. That is why, if you are a home owner, you cannot pay your mortgage. It is because you have lost your income. This bill directly affects at least that many people, at least the 4,000 or 5,000 whom this bill is meant to save under its retroactivity provisions.

I find that to be passing strange. Why would they do this? It is the big question, I think, that groups all over the province are asking. Why would they have this retroactivity? What purpose does it serve? What is the reason for expropriating? I say that advisedly, because it is not really the truth. I said it downstairs at committee and a few members opposite got on my case and said, "That's a bad word to use." In thinking about it I decided that "expropriate" was a bad word to use, because expropriation meant you would be compensated. There is no compensation. You just lose your life savings. Is that not wonderful? So I did choose the wrong word.

I do not understand. We do not understand. We know that capital expenditures were passed through under Bill 51. We know that in the green paper the government is talking about passing through those capital expenditures again, that when this glorious new regime comes into play some time in the future capital expenses likely can be passed through, we are told. So we have this period of Bill 4 where you cannot do that. You cannot do that with Bill 4.

1750

I was at a meeting in Sudbury, one of these famous consultative meetings with the Minister of Housing where I could not speak.

Mr Callahan: You got in?

Mr Brown: I did get in, yes, thank you.

Mr Callahan: That's amazing.

Mr Brown: But I could not speak. I was there. He said to some landlords who were making this point, "We're going to allow, maybe, we're thinking about, could be that we're going to allow capital pass-through for the Bill 4 period." In other words, two years from now some tenant somewhere is going to pay the rent increase for what happened now. Talk about retroactivity, only this time the opposite way: The tenant now is caught in the retroactivity.

Even better, some of them said, "Before 1 October" -- that wonderful date -- "we might even allow those capital expenditures to be passed through." So now conceivably, to help the landlord, we are going to pass through capital expenditures that could be as many as four or five years away. I want to be living in that unit when that happens. I really do. I want to see what kind of reaction I might have if I get a bill or one of those nice pieces of paper you get from the Ministry of Housing -- and they will all be changed, no doubt, but we will get it through and it will say you have a rent increase for your apartment of 40% for capital expenses that were passed through three years ago, or should have been passed through.

I do not understand and I guess I have to echo the comments of my friends here. We want to know why this is possible, why the government wants to do it. Let the parliamentary assistant tell me about the retroactivity. Let her tell me precisely why she wants to make this retroactive. Why does she want to do that? Is it fair? That question has been asked a million times. But even if it is not fair, what is the greater good? What are we gaining? What is happening that is really good about this? Why does the government want to do that?

Is it because it thinks landlords wear black hats, that they are the bad guys? Is it because they are "capitalists"? Is that why? Is that what is really upsetting the government, and that the tenants are the good guys? Is that it, that they wear the white hats? Even the minister has told us that this is not a black and white world. Even the Minister of Housing recognized there is a little grey out there and all tenants are not good and all landlords are not bad.

Why in government policy would the government want to penalize a lot of good small landlords? The vast majority of them will be good small landlords. They work hard and make very little return on their investment. The government has not shown for one minute that this is an attractive industry to invest in. It has not shown us the numbers. We asked for them. We asked what the rate of return for landlords was. The minister could not tell us even though, fortunately, we got the information somewhere else.

The government does not seem to understand. The landlords it is talking about, 3,000 of them, are either going to go bankrupt or, at the very least, dig into their own personal incomes -- and these are not people making $50,000 or $60,000; these are people making $20,000 or $25,000 -- to subsidize their tenants. They are asking, "Why would you do this?" We do not understand over here on this side and we want to know the answer. We ask over and over again, why do they want to do this retroactivity stuff? How does that make sense? Show us any precedent anywhere where a government has ever picked on a particular group of individuals and said to them: "You're going to lose your life savings. It's fun to lose your life savings, because it is for the greater good. You should give your personal self up to lose your life savings, because it's for the greater good of all society."

I am going to pause because we are getting towards the end of the day and I would like an answer from the parliamentary assistant if I could have one, and hopefully she will because I would have continued for another three or four minutes if she will not.

Ms Harrington: That was very kind of the member to leave me a few minutes. He has said, and I think I may have heard someone else say, that the people of Ontario know that retroactivity is bad or whatever other word he would like to call it. I would like to submit to the member that the people of Ontario know more than that. The people of Ontario know a few other truths in this world, and one of them I am going to explain to the member.

One of his fellow members, at the very beginning of the debate today, said that tenants want balance, that they are fair people, that they do not mind paying if they get a good apartment unit, and that people are reasonable. I think we all in Ontario go with that assumption, that people down deep are reasonable -- tenants and landlords. I really hope so. But let me get at the point here, that tenants want balance. That is what we want, but before we can get to balance on the scales we have to have protection, because there is no way, the way things have been in the past, that they can go for balance. Some people have more say, power, whatever --

Mr Tilson: More rights than others.

Ms Harrington: The member understands deep down in his heart what we are talking about here. Some people have more control than others, and what we are saying is that we want to have balance between landlords and tenants and that there has never been the opportunity for tenants to have that kind of balance where they can go with any sense of security to their landlord and say, "Yes, I am a person, I count, I have rights and I want to be dealt a fair deal in Ontario."

I am not saying that all landlords are bad or any such thing, but I am saying that we are trying to establish that balance. To get there is the first step. We have to work through a long, difficult process of what is fair in each certain circumstance and I know that is going to be difficult. The very basis of what we are talking about today is how to get to that position.

On motion by Ms Harrington, the committee of the whole reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1800.