Journal des débats 1985-déc-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

It was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. radio news today that a member of the executive council, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), has been and continues to be under investigation by the police and by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The broadcast alleged that an investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto Police fraud squad has led to the conclusions, which are set out in a police report, that the minister's actions at a meeting "were unlawful" and "constituted intimidation," which is a criminal offence. To date, no charges have been laid.

I am advised the government does not intend to make a statement to the House on this matter, despite the broadcast of allegations of a criminal offence affecting the integrity of the government and the standards demanded of members of the executive council.

My point of order is that you use your good offices before question period begins in order that the government may make a statement on this most serious matter.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If I may respond to that point as a point of order, as honourable members know, because he has told the House, the member for Parkdale met with certain residents of his riding in September 1985. Present at that meeting were investigators from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I should tell the House, as it probably knows, that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations investigates breaches of the civil law of the province, such as breaches of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, the Residential Tenancies Act or orders made by the Residential Tenancy Commission.

As a result of that meeting, the investigators from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations advised the crown law office of what had transpired. As a result of that advice and a preliminary inquiry, a senior crown law officer referred the matter to the crown attorney of the county of York, who in the usual way requested that the Metropolitan Toronto Police make an investigation. The member for Parkdale was not the focus of that investigation, and this is a routine way of handling any such allegations.

The investigation as to the facts is, and was in this case, routinely made by the Metropolitan Toronto Police, who interviewed a number of witnesses, including the member for Parkdale. They prepared a report on the facts of the case and in the traditional fashion laid it before the crown attorney of the county of York to obtain his determination of whether, on the basis of the Criminal Code or any other criminal law, an offence had been committed by any persons. The crown attorney of the county of York concluded, after a review of the facts found by the police and a review of the law, there were no reasonable and probable grounds at that time to charge any of the witnesses or any other person with a criminal offence.

He transmitted that report to the senior crown law officer of my ministry, who reviewed the police finding and formed his own opinion, namely, that there was no reasonable or probable ground at this time to charge anybody with a criminal offence. Yesterday my office advised the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in response to its initial inquiry, that the police investigation had been received and the opinion of the crown law officers and the crown attorney of the county of York was that there were no reasonable or probable grounds to charge anybody with an offence.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is continuing an investigation into a related matter involving other persons. We have indicated to them that, if in the course of that investigation there is the slightest suspicion that a criminal offence may have been committed, they are to contact the crown law officers of my ministry immediately. They have indicated they will do so.

I have seen a copy of the CBL radio broadcast by one Mr. McAuliffe and I have read it. It contains at least two important factual errors. The first is the statement, which I have in a transcript of the report, which is as follows: "Police say what happened at that meeting was unlawful, that Mr. Ruprecht's treatment of the real estate agent constituted intimidation."

The police, as I have emphasized to the assembly, investigate the facts. The question of whether there is unlawful conduct or intimidation within the definition of that term under the Criminal Code is determined by the crown attorney or the crown law officer of my ministry. The statement made in the radio broadcast was not contained, in a direct or indirect sense, in the police report.

The second statement in Mr. McAuliffe's broadcast that is false is his assertion that "this case was different" and his following statement that it was treated in some fashion differently from the way an allegation of conduct against an ordinary citizen or another person would be treated. It was not; it was treated in precisely the same way.

When an allegation was made, it was sent to the crown attorney of the county and a police investigation was completed. Upon the completion of the investigation, the crown attorney was asked to determine whether there was a prospect of laying charges. The determination that there were no reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed was reviewed by a crown law officer in the ministry. That is routine and the statement in that particular is false.

You may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that if any other information comes to my attention, I will be delighted to bring it to the attention of the House.

Mr. McClellan: Does the Attorney General have a copy of his statement?

Mr. Rae: The minister was reading extensively from notes. He must have a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Bellwoods brought this matter up under standing order 26(a). He has made his views known, and I have given the Attorney General time to respond. As I believe this matter is outside my jurisdiction, I cannot see how it is a point of order under 26(a).

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EXTRA BILLING

Hon. Mr. Elston: The Liberal Party of Ontario has upheld the position that extra billing by physicians represents a serious threat to the publicly financed, publicly administered health care system of this province.

During the last Ontario election, we promised that, should our party assume the responsibility of government, we would move with priority to eliminate the practice, a practice that for many people represents a genuine barrier to receiving necessary health care services.

The principle of accessibility to needed health care without any regard for an individual's financial circumstances or ability to pay is in jeopardy in this province. I believe the principle of accessibility must be preserved and protected, and our government is determined to see that the people of Ontario have that protection.

Because health care is essential and necessary for the wellbeing of people, we have created in this province a system whereby a wide range of health care programs is available to people on a publicly insured basis.

We claim that our health care system is a universal one and that the same range of services is available to everyone. We also claim that the system is accessible and that everyone has equal opportunity to receive the services being provided. In particular, we claim that we have a system where no economic, social, ethnic or age group will be deterred from receiving needed health care or from visiting a physician of choice.

I therefore find it intolerable that today, in some major urban centres of this province, women still have difficulty finding an obstetrician who does not extra bill. I believe it is inexcusable that today, almost 20 years after insured health services became law in this province, patients scheduled for surgery must discuss with their anaesthetist the fee for services to be rendered.

I am also aware that among physicians, extra billing can and does distort normal patient-referral patterns. Doctors in general practice do not always know which specialists extra bill and patients frequently do not find out until they arrive at the specialist's office. This has led to confusion, misunderstanding and, for many patients, emotional upset.

These examples are all blatant contradictions of the principles underlying our health care system. They represent an open challenge to two of the principles on which we claim our system is built, namely, universality and accessibility.

These contradictions and anomalies within our health care system are not symbolic or theoretical, as some advocates of extra billing will claim. They directly affect access to health care services and the right of people to receive those services free from any restraints.

It is for these reasons that our government has chosen to act on extra billing. Our government has spent considerable time and effort reviewing extra billing, how it is practised in Ontario and its impact on our health care system.

Since assuming the Health portfolio, I have personally met with a large number of health care consumers and provider groups and sought their advice on this matter. Before drafting the legislation, I requested that during October and November, public information forums on extra billing be held throughout the province.

The meetings were organized to give people an opportunity to find out the facts about extra billing in Ontario. They also provided an opportunity for public interest groups and concerned citizens to express their views and opinions on how we might proceed with legislation to ban the practice.

We heard from a variety of people at the sessions. Physicians' associations, nurses, hospitals, senior citizens' groups, health care organizations and private citizens all felt free to speak their minds on this important health care issue, and so did members of the opposition across the way.

A summary report on each of the sessions was prepared and sent to me so that I might have a record of what was said and the concerns and issues raised at the meetings. The forums confirmed what I personally have found in my travels throughout the province, that our government's intention to ban extra billing has the solid support of the majority of the people of Ontario.

Some participants pointed out that here in Ontario there is a concentration of extra billing among certain specialties -- for example, surgical specialties, anaesthesia and psychiatry. Extra billing is also concentrated in certain geographic areas of this province. It was their view that this clustering phenomenon is the key to the real problem of extra billing. It compromises accessibility to the health care for clearly identified sectors of the population.

Participants also said we must have a single health care system in Ontario, a system that does not disadvantage low-income people or senior citizens on fixed incomes, or discourage anyone from visiting any physician.

Certain doctors have advanced the argument that they have an indisputable right to extra bill. Let me respond to that argument by quoting from the report of the Royal Commission on Health Services, written by Justice Emmett Hall, the man whom many would call the father of Canadian medicare:

"The emphasis on the freedom to practise should not obscure the fact that the physician is not only a professional person but also a citizen. He has moral and social obligations, as well as self-interest, to do well in his profession. The notion held by some that the physician has an absolute right to fix his fees as he sees fit is incorrect and unrelated to the mores of our times. When the state grants a monopoly to an exclusive group to render an indispensable service, it automatically becomes involved in whether those services are available and on what terms and conditions."

In drafting our proposed legislation, these issues and concerns have been considered and taken into account.

Let me now turn to the legislation I am introducing today in this House. The Health Care Accessibility Act is a bill to regulate the amounts that may be charged for providing health care services that are insured under the Ontario Health Insurance Act. These are the details of the legislation:

There is to be a complete ban on extra billing in Ontario for all insured physician services, all insured dentistry services performed in hospitals and all insured optometry services.

Physicians may continue to opt into or out of the Ontario health insurance plan. Those who opt out and bill their patients directly because they prefer this professional arrangement will not be permitted to charge more than the OHIP fee. Their patients, in turn, will be reimbursed by OHIP. Those who opt in will bill the plan directly, as is now the normal practice for most Ontario physicians.

I would point out that under this legislation, accessibility to physician services will be open and expanded to all people of this province. No patients will be deterred for financial reasons from visiting the doctor or specialist of their choice.

This bill also empowers the Minister of Health to enter into agreements with associations representing physicians, dentists and optometrists to provide methods of negotiating and determining the amounts that will be payable for services under the Ontario health insurance plan.

Further, any practitioner who charges fees higher than the OHIP rates will be guilty of an offence and will be liable upon conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000. A judge handing down a guilty verdict may also order the practitioner to pay back to the insured person any money received in excess of the OHIP rate, or the insured person may, on his own, sue for the money to be returned.

I said earlier in my remarks that our party had promised to end extra billing in Ontario. Today we are honouring that commitment to the people of Ontario.

2:20 p.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to make a short statement to bring the members of the assembly up to date on the court proceedings arising from yesterday's unanimous Divisional Court decision, which permitted interim funding of our separate school system.

Yesterday morning, as I told the House yesterday, the Divisional Court unanimously reversed the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Potts, thereby permitting the government to provide forthwith full public funding on an interim basis to grades 9, 10 and 11 of the separate school system.

Late yesterday afternoon, after statements, at approximately 4 p.m., the Metropolitan Toronto School Board filed a notice indicating it would be seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Ontario Court of Appeal. In the ordinary course, the leave to appeal motion would be heard in four to six weeks.

At the same time as that notice was served, counsel for the Toronto board sought and obtained ex parte an appointment before Mr. Justice Houlden of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Counsel for the Attorney General's ministry were telephoned and advised of the appointment, that it would take place within minutes, and attended at the courthouse.

After hearing submissions, Mr. Justice Houlden directed that the motion for leave to appeal from the unanimous decision of the Divisional Court be brought forward and heard at the earliest available date, being tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. At the same time, to preserve the status quo pending the argument of the leave to appeal motion, he ordered that no funds be disbursed by the government pending the outcome of the leave to appeal application tomorrow morning.

The government has complied with the order of Mr. Justice Houlden as it has complied with all other court orders in that matter, and we now await the decision of the Court of Appeal, which will follow tomorrow's hearing.

TAXI LICENSING

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to inform the House that I will be bringing forward an amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to provide that only taxis and limousines licensed by Metropolitan Toronto will be permitted to pick up fares within Metropolitan Toronto.

The amendment will remove the inequities in the current legislation for Metro Toronto taxi owners and drivers. At present, the legislation allows taxis and limousines with federal airport permits to pick up fares in Metro Toronto destined for the airport, even though they are not licensed by Metro Toronto.

The amendment will mean that these airport taxis and limousines will no longer will be permitted to pick up fares in Metro Toronto unless they obtain a Metro licence. Under the proposed amendment, airport taxis and limousines which have federal permits allowing them to pick up fares at Lester B. Pearson International Airport may continue to deliver those fares anywhere in Metro Toronto.

The proposed amendment has been developed after discussions with representatives of the Metro Toronto taxi industry, with representatives of the city of Mississauga and with officials from Pearson airport. This amendment is supported by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and has long been promised to such groups as the United Taxi Alliance of Toronto and the Independent Cab Owners' Co-op Inc. This government is pleased to be the one to fulfil that promise.

SCIENCE NORTH

Hon. Ms. Munro: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and introduce legislation that will make a significant contribution to the cultural and economic wellbeing of Ontario's northern communities. I have the honour to present to the House the Science North Act, 1985, which will make Science North on Lake Ramsey in Sudbury an agency of the crown.

This action is long overdue. Ontario's northern communities have been traditionally underserviced. This is particularly true in terms of vehicles for the north to increase broad awareness of the cultural, scientific and economic contribution made by northerners to our great province.

Science North goes a long way towards redressing these shortfalls. It focuses on the geological and biological technology which has made Sudbury and Ontario's northern communities what they are today. The displays and exhibits reflect the essence of the region, tributes to the mining industry, explorers of the north and the flora and fauna indigenous to Sudbury.

A snowflake-shaped building sitting atop a cavern in a basin created by a meteorite is the embodiment of Science North and a reminder of Sudbury's origins.

Science Nord se distingue également par ses services dans les deux langues officielles du Canada. Cette caractéristique fait de Science Nord un élément vital du dynamisme culturel en faveur duquel cette province a déployé tant d'efforts.

L'importance de l'annonce justifie l'usage de mon français de débutante. La prochaine fois, nous débattrons en français.

By granting crown agency status to the centre, we are effectively and swiftly responding to the specific request of Science North. As further proof of our commitment to residents of Ontario's northern communities, we are providing $813,000 to complete the capital development of the centre and $1.5 million to finance operating costs for the balance of this fiscal year.

We expect tangible benefits to flow directly from the creation of a crown agency. It will forge an even closer partnership of the province, local government and the private sector. Out of that partnership will grow increased activities open to all and a renewed commitment to developing Science North as an important component of the northern tourism industry, with all that means in terms of jobs and economic activity.

The economic impact of Science North is undeniable. The centre has created 580 person-years of employment and injected $15 million into the economy. With government support and the encouragement that crown agency status brings, Science North will surely realize its potential to assist in the revitalization of the local economy.

Science North is a community project in the truest sense of the word. Its existence is a testament to the avid support of the people of Sudbury in the private, municipal and corporate sectors. It is appropriate, therefore, that the government of Ontario formalize its membership in this partnership and reaffirm its commitment to Science North as well as to the people of Sudbury and northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order? I am sure. I would like to hear it.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: At this point, I should ask the minister to move the following bill, that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to acquire the Assets of Inco.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to table the 10th annual report of the Ontario Lottery Corp., for the year ending March 31, 1985.

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Reville: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has repeatedly, extensively and oft-times sarcastically assured this House that every scrap of information pertinent to the domed stadium deal would be placed before the standing committee on public accounts.

This morning, Ray McNeil, secretary to the board of Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd., appeared before the public accounts committee and responded to question after question that he was not empowered to release information.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully, but I cannot see where that is a point of privilege. It is very good information, and I am sure the committee dealing with the matter will handle it as best it can.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Today, the chairman of Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. refused, consistent with the Premier's own refusals, to release to the standing committee on public accounts a 10-page executive summary, the primary document upon which the stadium board based its final decision. Given that the province is the shareholder of the stadium corporation, will the Premier table the document in the House this afternoon?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In reference to the point of privilege of my friend in the corner over there, as well as to the honourable member's question, I am told, just so we go through the sequence, that the public accounts committee at an emergency meeting on Tuesday last decided to meet today to have the stadium corporation, or some representative thereof, brought before it. They were happy to do that.

Apparently Mr. Connell and Mr. Magwood were busy today, and I am sure the member can understand that, but they have agreed to come tomorrow morning and have adjusted their schedules. Tomorrow morning they will bring all the papers about the stadium corporation, the executive summaries or whatever else the member wants. Surely that is reasonable.

The member needs to get some advice from his members and then he can ask another question. He is getting misled by his own members, who do not understand what they want. They are going on a massive fishing expedition and it will all be there. The member should believe me; he is dredging in the wrong pond on this one, but he can go ahead and ask another question.

Mr. Grossman: Let me begin by reading to the Premier his assurance, not Magwood's or Connell's, given to this House on December 16; that was three days ago. He said: "I invite the member to look at every single piece of paper the stadium corporation has looked at. That is open to scrutiny."

Given the Premier's undertaking to this House that every single piece of paper would be made available to us, can he explain why it is that Mr. McNeil said his instructions from Mr. Connell and Mr. Magwood were not to release the information? It was not a procedural wrangle; he said his instructions were not to release the information.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is that the members on the committee, who are still giving the member advice, had no idea what they were fishing for and they are still trying to advise him what question to ask. They sent Mr. McNeil. I gather Mr. McNeil had a list of some of the potential information. I talked to Mr. Connell about half an hour ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Do the members want to hear the answer? They do not want to hear the answer because they would be embarrassed about it.

I talked to Mr. Connell half an hour ago, and he said he had adjusted his schedule. Whenever he is summoned, he will be very happy to appear with Mr. Magwood in front of the committee tomorrow with whatever information it wants. I am told there is literally a ton and a half of material, rooms full of technical material, and they are going to bring it all. The members can share it and look at it. I can assure the member they will give it to him. Can he assure me he will read it all? Then he will understand what he is talking about.

Mr. Rae: The stadium corporation board did not have a ton and a half of material in front of it. It had certain key material that was denied to the committee this morning on the specific instructions, we understand, of Mr. Connell. Can the Premier explain why the president of the stadium corporation instructed the secretary, who appeared before the committee today, to deny access to documents that the public accounts committee had specifically asked for?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I talked to Mr. Connell. He said he would be there tomorrow and would give the members whatever they want. That is what he said to me. I was not in the committee this morning. He is happy to do it. If the honourable member tells him what he wants, I am sure he will share it all with him; no problem.

Mr. Grossman: It was the Premier who gave the undertaking that all the documents would be open to scrutiny. Mr. Connell comes and refuses to give the documents. We are asking in this House where the documents are that the Premier promised. He is the Premier. We invited the members of the technical evaluation committee to meet with us this morning.

Mr. Epp: The Leader of the Opposition was not even there.

Mr. Grossman: Why does the member not listen for a second?

Mr. Epp: The Leader of the Opposition was not even there. He played hookey. Where was he?

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are wasting the time of the House. Final supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) that we invited the technical evaluation committee to meet with the Progressive Conservative Party in our offices at eight o'clock this morning. He would have sounded more informed at the public accounts committee if he had known that. They agreed to come. Then late yesterday we got a call from the chairman of that group, saying Mr. Connell had informed them that they should not come because of a confidentiality clause in their contract.

Given that the Premier has said all the documents are open to scrutiny, will he please advise Mr. Connell to waive the confidentiality clause so they will be kind enough to meet with the official opposition?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I would enjoy going to the office of the Leader of the Opposition at eight o'clock in the morning either.

Mr. Connell and Mr. Magwood will be there tomorrow. The member can ask them any questions he wants tomorrow. I am sure he will want to be there, with the advice of the members behind him and beside him, to ask them whatever he wants.

Frankly, I do not even know what confidentiality clause the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I do not think he knows either. Why does he not go to the committee tomorrow and ask Mr. Connell anything he wants to ask him? I am sure he will --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not mind waiting. I have all the time in the world.

Mr. Grossman: Sarcasm and sneering instead of the documents. Let us see the sneer instead of the documents.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Is the minister aware of the deep concern of the Ontario school boards who have found they are unable to find carriers to provide liability insurance for their buildings, employees and students? Is he aware that when boards can obtain insurance, as they must under the law, premiums have been increased by between 200 per cent and 500 per cent?

Our caucus has contacted the school boards, as we did a couple of weeks ago. We found out, for example, that the Durham Board of Education --

Mr. Wildman: Did the Leader of the Opposition check this question with the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory)?

Mr. Grossman: Is the member not concerned about Durham? He should ask the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) whether he is interested.

The Durham Board of Education paid $47,000 for liability insurance this year. Next year it will cost $170,000, an increase of more than 300 per cent.

Is the minister aware of the situation? What does he propose to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, I am aware of the concern. Yes, I share the concern with the honourable member and with members of the school board community across Ontario.

As the Leader of the Opposition knows from listening to my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) during the past number of weeks, the whole issue of liability insurance is one of concern not just in the school board community but elsewhere in the public and private sectors.

Discussions are under way between the school board community and officials of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to explore on a priority basis the options that might be available to alleviate the situation to which the member has directed our attention.

Mr. Harris: Is the minister aware that in my riding, Nipissing school trustees are suggesting the schools may not even be able to open in January? The Nipissing Board of Education paid $15,000 for liability insurance in 1985; now it is a minimum of $70,000 for only partial coverage, which excludes school shop classes, athletic events and other activities. In effect, even with the 500 per cent increase quoted, trustees feel there is insufficient coverage to be able to open their schools responsibly.

I am sure the minister is aware it is against Ontario law for a board to operate its schools without obtaining liability insurance.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Harris: Can the minister explain to my board and to boards across the province what options he has available to them? How are they going to be able to open their schools in January?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: This government wants to assure the good people of Nipissing and elsewhere in the province that the schools of Ontario will not be closed because of a want of liability insurance. I want to be very clear about that.

In my conversations with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I have been informed that among the options currently being explored on a very serious and priority basis are such things as the establishment of a reciprocal insurance exchange that would allow the school boards to enter into a co-operative relationship where they could, in effect, insure themselves. If the honourable member would like, and if the House would allow, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations might report in greater detail on that option and others.

Let me repeat to my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and my good friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) that this government does not intend to see the schools of this province close because of a lack of liability insurance.

Mr. Swart: If the minister is genuinely concerned about this matter, the tremendous increase in insurance rates and the difficulty of getting insurance for the buses that transport these children, will he not notify his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that we need an insurance board so that licensed insurance companies have to accept the social responsibility of providing insurance, and that the board should have the power to ensure that it is provided at a reasonable rate?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I take note of the member's representation today, as I have on previous days in this assembly when he has expressed himself, as he does so well, on this matter.

My friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been very helpful in drawing to my attention the activities of his department and in indicating the leadership that he believes can be shown in this regard. Again, if the House wishes, the minister might wish to report on this aspect of what we all know --

Mr. Martel: He does not seem to be too anxious.

Mr. Davis: Why does he not look at section 149 and change it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That answer is satisfactory.

Mr. Jackson: Will the minister agree to provide this assistance by forming a co-operative or collective insurance system? Given that the current situation is going to become acute on January 1, will he and his government underwrite any expenses incurred because there is no liability for school boards come January 1?

An hon. member: A new socialist initiative.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I guess no one wants an answer.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is truly remarkable what a reference to a co-operative commonwealth does to this reform assembly.

I note to my friend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has indicated to me that officials from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board have been in touch with his officials to explore in some detail the possibility of establishing a reciprocal insurance exchange, which is effectively a co-operative insurance operation that would allow school boards to insure one another.

As a government we have made it very clear that we are prepared and anxious to explore with the community all options that will and can be used to address this issue which, as I indicated earlier, is a province-wide and country-wide concern at present.

Mr. Rae: Medicare today, public insurance in six months; what do you say?

Mr. Davis: I would say we have a Progressive Conservative Party in opposition. We are not sure what the member's party is.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Scarborough Centre contain himself?

Mr. Foulds: We know what he is.

Mr. Rae: There is no cry more plaintive than that of the dinosaur on its last legs. I think that is what we just heard.

EMERGENCY HOUSING

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. He will no doubt be aware, as we all are, that on Tuesday night, a short few blocks from this building, Drina Joubert, a woman who had been denied shelter a short week before, froze to death in the back of a truck which she was apparently using as temporary housing for herself.

The minister must be aware that single women in particular face an enormous housing crisis in this city and in many others across the province. He will be aware that a great many shelters are filled to the brim and regularly turn people away, and he will be aware that every spokesman has stated the degree of the crisis.

Is he in a position today to guarantee to each and every person living in Ontario a shelter over his or her head at night?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The person to whom the leader of the third party referred indeed represents a very great tragedy. We have investigated this situation and I would draw to the honourable member's attention that this lady was a family benefits recipient and collected a sum of money on a regular monthly basis. As a matter of fact, when she was found, she had $100 in her purse.

The other point I would draw to the member's attention is that hostel beds were available the evening this tragedy occurred. In fact, this lady had gone to one hostel that was filled, she was directed to another one and chose for her own reasons -- and I certainly do not know what they were -- not to go to the second hostel, where beds were available.

The only point I can make about the individual case is that there was no need for what happened to have happened. It should not have happened and there was no need for it.

With respect to the broader question, I would draw to the member's attention that at the present time this government funds in excess of 12,000 hostel beds in this province to the tune of approximately $33 million, $11 million of that for the Metro Toronto area.

I am sure the member is aware of the fact that the initiation for hostel beds is through the municipality. We keep in regular contact with the municipalities all across the province concerning this problem, in particular with Metro Toronto, and we are assured by Metro that there are beds. If more are needed, we have assured Metro that more will be funded. At present, we fund 80 per cent of the cost of those beds.

I would also remind the member that we have entered into an agreement with a number of churches in the Metro area for Ecuhomes, which also provide beds for people who have no place to live on their own.

I would suggest that we have a commitment to provide a shelter for everyone who needs it.

Mr. Rae: I cannot believe what I am hearing. The minister seems to be saying it is satisfactory to him that there are literally thousands of people whose only option is to sleep on a floor with 20, 30, 50, 80 or 100 other people, and that is what he considers to be an acceptable bed.

The minister is indicating that there is going to be no change in the policy of the government when agency after agency in this province is saying there is a crisis with emergency housing and there is a genuine problem with the fact that for many hundreds of people -- indeed, thousands -- the only bed they are able to call their own is something they have to ask for in a church basement or somewhere else, and the minister does not feel outraged by that situation.

What specific guarantee is the minister willing to provide that no more Drina Joubert tragedies will take place in Ontario? What is he prepared to do to stand in this House and say categorically: "It must not happen. It will not be allowed to happen. It will never happen again in Ontario"?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have indicated that we have worked and are continuing to work directly with the municipalities to provide hostel beds. I have also indicated that we are directly working with various church groups to provide Ecuhomes. I have also brought to the member's attention that we have recently increased the emergency winter hostel program in this province by 50 per cent, a third of which goes to the Metropolitan Toronto area. I further indicated that we very recently discussed with Metro Toronto the need for increased numbers of beds and that we will provide whatever is needed.

I am not sure exactly what else the member is looking for.

Mr. Cousens: I happen to believe the minister does have good intentions, unlike the third party, because I believe there is an effort to try to respond to it in the tradition of our party when we had that portfolio.

Does the minister have specific numbers of people such as this lady who just passed away in the cold? How many people are there in Sudbury, Ottawa, Hamilton and Toronto who are going homeless, out on the street, sleeping in places such as this? Can he give me the numbers of people in those cities who are currently not being looked after? If he gives me that number, then we will have an idea of how much he is going to do about it.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked. It sounds like a question that should go in Orders and Notices but the minister may want to try to answer.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not have the exact numbers the member is asking for but I can tell him we work very closely with the municipalities to establish the need. As a result of this tragic case, I also asked that there be a second check of the municipalities because, although they report to us the number of dollars they require, they do not report to us the actual number of people who take up those dollars.

I can tell the member we have in excess of 12,000 beds across the province. I cannot tell him the exact need he is referring to, but we are in the process of getting it and as soon as we do, I will be happy to share it with him.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister deny that over the last five years there has been not a housing program for single people but a warehousing program for single people? That warehousing program was started by Frank Drea and the Tories when they were in power and it has been continued by the minister without any change. There are literally thousands of people wandering the street with no permanent home, no permanent shelter, who at times are having to sleep outside on the street. That situation is taking place in 1985 a few short blocks from this place.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister deny those facts and what does he intend to do to change this, for goodness' sake?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I deny that there is any need for people to sleep on the street. There are sufficient places for people to go in every city in this province, if they choose to do so. I cannot speak for people who make individual decisions.

I draw to the member's attention that on Monday my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) introduced a program which is going to deal with the shortage of housing, generally speaking. In the meantime, my ministry is responsible for emergency housing, not for housing generally, and we do meet that need for emergency housing.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: I do not know how anybody could applaud that answer.

KIDD CREEK MINES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier concerning the announcement yesterday by Falconbridge Ltd. that it intends to spend $615 million to purchase Kidd Creek Mines Ltd. of Timmins. The Premier will know that in the decades Falconbridge has been mining nickel in Ontario it has not refined a single ounce and it has not upgraded a single ounce of the nickel ore it has sent out of this province without adding value to it.

Given that this company has been playing poor and claiming poor for years with respect to environmental improvements and anything else, why will the Premier not change section 104 of the Mining Act, refuse Falconbridge any further exemptions and insist that if it has the money to buy a mine in Timmins and not add a single new job to the economy, it ought to be adding jobs to the economy by refining and upgrading the ore it produces here?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of the point the member makes. He is quite right. I do not know how many years it goes back --

Mr. Foulds: Since 1912.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- to 1912? -- and how many exemptions have been given to the company over the years. The same thing applies to Inco. I am aware of that argument.

I do not have an instant answer for the member. I know the minister is meeting with them. I read, as he did, of the sale today. I do not have any more details than what I read in the newspaper, but I know the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) is in ongoing discussions with them.

I gather we intend to meet again in January. I will take the member's point under advisement.

Mr. Laughren: The Premier indicated that he learned about it through the newspaper. I gather the other ministers of the crown did the same thing.

Does the Premier think it is appropriate for a company such as Falconbridge -- which gets an exemption from the cabinet on a yearly basis, although I believe the exemption now extends through to 1989 -- just to make the assumption that those exemptions would continue and it could go ahead and purchase Kidd Creek Mines, when Kidd Creek itself does not have a refinery? Does the Premier think that is appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me go even one further. I am one of those who has some concern at various times about the enormous amounts of domestic capital that are used to consume other companies and are not going into new jobs.

We have seen a great deal of paper entrepreneurism in this country in the last little while. We have seen a great deal of our own capital just going into buying and acquiring. We know there are certain tax incentives to do that at the federal level. It is the kind of thing that is of concern to me.

I know a number of other people have registered concerns and have posited some solutions to that whole question of corporate concentration here in this country. I do not have any instant answers -- indeed, we do not have the power over that today -- but I do share the concerns of the member.

Mr. Laughren: Since I do not suspect the Premier would agree with me that those two companies belong in the public sector anyway, would he at least tell those companies there will be no further exemptions under section 104 of the Mining Act until they make a commitment to build a refinery in Sudbury for the nickel and in Timmins for the copper and zinc?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will not undertake to do that but I will undertake to discuss the matter with the minister. I will look at the situation with the companies and if we have any news we will report back to the member.

EXTRA BILLING

Miss Stephenson: I have a question of the Premier. Having read the bill the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) introduced today, which on careful perusal seems motivated more by sheer vindictiveness than by any real concern for health care, would the Premier guarantee that every cent regained, so-called, by this method will be directed to the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the member's very strong personal and political views on this situation and I respect them even though she is wrong. She points out that we as a province stand to gain $50 million from the federal government that has been withheld under the Canada Health Act. Over three years it will be $150 million but it is now $50 million a year.

We are now in arrears close to $50 million as I recall. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) could help me out in that regard.

We have, as the member knows, an exploding demand in the health care area. She has seen our transfers go up by 8.2 per cent this year. New technologies, new utilization and an ageing population are putting incredible pressure on the health system. I cannot imagine that money will not be consumed very quickly. It would be nice to have far more than that. I am sure those moneys will be going back into the system to build a quality health care system right across this province.

Miss Stephenson: I have difficulty in assessing the Premier's response that the amount of money which is said to be regained by this activity is going to make any significant difference to the health care system when, indeed, it is such a minuscule amount of the total expenditure.

Mr. Rae: What is $50 million?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Miss Stephenson: Is the Premier aware that an increase of something slightly more than two per cent may be necessary to resolve the difficulties raised by this blatant act of terrorism against the medical profession which the Liberal government has introduced? Will that consume all of it?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I see my honourable colleague, whom I welcome back, has not lost her flair for intemperate language, even in opposition. I reject her characterization of what is going on here today. We think it is fair and we think the vast majority of the medical profession will see it as such.

They have been crying out, as the member knows, for increasing funding in hospitals. We have great technical demands for an increase in computerized axial tomography scanners and such things. Now we are going to be in a position to use the moneys very constructively, and I think the vast majority will be delighted with that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I can understand why the member who just spoke speaks so strongly about this issue since she was one of the first doctors to opt out of the Ontario health insurance plan in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to ask the Premier for an absolute --

Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As a fiercely independent physician who has been a member of a noble profession which has contributed more to the welfare of this society than any number of members of that party will ever contribute in 1,000 years, I say that suggestion is stupid.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want the House to get out of hand. I remember the other day the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) invited somebody outside the House. I hope that does not happen again.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The member for York Mills is probably designing those ads for the independent doctors.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Will the Premier give a commitment to the Legislature today that the two years that are left in the agreement with the Ontario Medical Association will stand and that there will not be negotiations that will result in the $50-million saving going into the hands of the doctors? We want that money in care for the elderly and other alternative programs, not in the pockets of the doctors.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to get into a fight on the relative merits of the medical profession and the teaching profession. We on this side have profound respect for the members as members of both professions. We think they are all wonderful. As representatives of their profession, they are shining and stellar examples of professions that make a great contribution to humanity.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of information and correction, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Miss Stephenson: May I not correct the Premier, sir? I did not mention the teaching profession.

Mr. Speaker: If you said something incorrect on the record, you may correct it.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier did not answer the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Goodness, we are all in the Christmas spirit today, are we not? Does the Premier want to make any response?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am informed I made an error and I apologize. I understand the member used to be a social worker. We like social workers as well as teachers and doctors. I want to clear that up. I humbly apologize at this Christmas time.

The minister will be using those funds in the health care area. It is not our intention to be antagonistic to the medical profession. There are special circumstances where certain extra-billing funds have gone into research and other institutions. We are going to work with the doctors sensitively and effectively for the most creative use of the moneys that will be coming to this province.

I can assure members that the moneys will be assigned to building quality health care everywhere and that the medical profession is an important and integral part of that.

TORONTO APARTMENT BUILDINGS CO.

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Attorney General respecting the ongoing soap opera involving his cabinet colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht).

I want to ask a question with respect to whatever happened to the Toronto Apartment Buildings Co., which the Attorney General will recall was charging students of the Radio College of Canada in the order of $250,000 in illegal rent in clear violation of a current order of the Divisional Court for Tabco to obey the orders of the Residential Tenancies Act. Tabco was involved in an attempt to squeeze the $250,000 in illegal rent out of the poor, benighted Radio College of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. McClellan: In all the ongoing saga of the bumbling and stumbling of the member for Parkdale, whatever happened to the investigation and prosecution of the Toronto Apartment Buildings Co. for its clear violation of the order of the court?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thought I made that clear when I answered the question earlier.

Mr. McClellan: No. This is the sixth time I have asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It may not have been clear to the honourable member, but I made it clear to anyone else who listened to it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is all off. We can get along without you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting for order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the member wants to ask questions as if he were in a grandstand, he cannot complain if someone else gets into the act every once in a while.

As I said in my earlier statement, the investigation into the allegations against Tabco for breaching the Residential Tenancies Act, or the orders made under it, is being conducted by the department whose name I always get wrong.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Financial and commercial?

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, consumer and corporate affairs.

Mr. Foulds: Wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is being investigated by Monte Kwinter's department.

When an allegation was made that there may have been some criminal implication to what they were doing, the matter was referred to the Ministry of the Attorney General. We conducted the kind of investigation through the crown attorney's office that I described in detail earlier today. The decision was reached that there was not sufficient evidence to lay charges, as I reported earlier today. The matter was reported back to Monte Kwinter's department, which is engaged in carrying on with the residential tenancies investigation.

I am sorry to waste the time of the House. We might ask for some more minutes, because that answer was given earlier.

Mr. McClellan: I thank the Attorney General for his little display of arrogance so early in the new game. I will ask the question for the seventh time and in a different way.

Is it the opinion of the Attorney General that the clumsy, bumbling and incompetent performance of his colleague the member for Parkdale, when he attempted to work out a private fiddle among himself, Tabco, Radio College and everyone else, has impeded the prospects of investigating the Toronto Apartment Buildings Co. and dealing with the fact that it is in violation of an order of the court not to charge illegal rents?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Talk about arrogance. As long as I am Attorney General, no one, whether in this House or anywhere else, is going to play fast and loose with the reputation of any honourable member until there is evidence to warrant it.

Mr. Foulds: Methinks the minister doth protest too much.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Connor: On the same theme of arrogance and to the same minister, does he realize there is a higher standard of conduct for ministers of the crown in which they must be beyond reproach when they are dealing with members of the public? The conduct of this minister in this case is totally unacceptable.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know the conduct to which the member is referring. I will say clearly that if there is any evidence against any member of this House that would lead charges to be laid with any expectation that a prosecution could succeed -- that is precisely the issue -- I will participate and see to it that they are laid.

Mr. McClellan: That is precisely not the issue.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member treats this as a sideshow; I treat it as a very important matter. If there is any question about impropriety in the conduct of a minister or any other member of the government, parliamentary assistant or other, it will be up to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to decide whether his resignation is required.

There is no evidence as yet against the member for Parkdale. To engage in this kind of sideshow, as my friend calls it, is grossly unfair not only to that member, but also to any other member who participates in the sittings of this House. This is a system of law and order and it does not become any different just because one gets elected in here.

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Leluk: I would like to ask a question of the Minister without Portfolio for citizenship and culture concerning his current study on multiculturalism. Does the minister have a mandate or terms of reference for this study? How much will each of his 21 public meetings across this province cost, including travel and accommodation costs and the costs of his ministry officials? Is the minister studying nothing more than a make-work project?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The member surely knows it is essential to go out and consult the multicultural community, precisely because the former government did not do that. Consequently, it becomes essential that we find out from the communities how best to serve them.

As to the member's second question about how much it costs, it will --

Mr. Davis: It will be in Orders and Notices.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: That is right. It will be in Orders and Notices. The member asked the question and we will put it in there.

Mr. Leluk: Will the minister let this House know what organizations he has met with and will be meeting with? Has he thought of consulting with the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship? When will his report be made public?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I am happy to oblige. The member realizes full well that this is an open government.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: There is no doubt the member's questions will be answered. There is no secret whatsoever about the organizations I have met and in what cities I have met them. Consequently, I will provide the member with answers to his specific questions as to where and with whom we have met.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on his announcement on sulphur dioxide emission controls, Countdown Acid Rain, which we welcome since limits on acid gas emissions will help to preserve and stimulate the tourism industry in northern Ontario.

Recognizing that Algoma ore division is currently testing experimental technologies for cutting sulphur dioxide emissions, can the minister assure the House that limits on Algoma ore division will be achieved by means of improved technologies rather than reduced production and employment in Wawa?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can assure the honourable member that the goal of the Ministry of the Environment and the government, and I think this was clear in the negotiations with representatives of Algoma, is that the regulation which would apply will apply regardless of what the production schedule will be.

We have encouraged them, and the federal government has assisted with some of the research that is going on into finding means of reducing their sulphur dioxide emissions. I can assure the member that in 1994 their regulation will call for 125 kilotonnes regardless of what the production run happens to be at that time. If things bounce back in the economy, they still have to live up to that regulation.

Mr. Wildman: With respect, the minister did not precisely answer my question. Does he recognize that the experimental technologies to which he refers, the flotation and iron oxide processes, are ongoing? They have not yet been proven feasible. We will know that in approximately six to eight months.

If those technologies are not found to be as feasible as the company and the community hope and the ministry expects, can he assure us that the limits, the 125,000 kilotonnes to which he refers, will not be met by production cuts?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: When I look at the operations of a particular company in Ontario, I cannot dictate what those production runs will be. I cannot tell them they should be producing more or less. That depends on their markets. I know when I was in Wawa, the member was there and we were discussing with company officials their efforts to reduce their sulphur dioxide emissions.

I can assure the member that the company must give a final report to us by December 31, 1988, on the technology and the methods to be used to reach the control order of 125 kilotonnes per year. It is my expectation that the company will do so, based on changes in technology rather than cutting back on production.

Ms. Fish: On the assumption, as the minister has indicated, that the cutbacks will be done through technology rather than production slowdown or closing, can the minister advise this House what proportion of the cost of installing such technology will be borne by each of the companies and what proportion will be borne by the taxpayers, whether federal or provincial?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The honourable member will know from the announcement and from material that was provided to all members of the House that we are requiring each of the companies to report every six months to the Ministry of the Environment on its efforts in terms of the technology to be used and the costs.

By December 31, 1988, each of the companies -- these are the two smelters in Sudbury and the sintering plant in Wawa -- will come back to the Ministry of the Environment and indicate to us the technology it plans to use and the costs it anticipates. At that time, the Ministry of the Environment will evaluate that report and make a determination of just what allocation of funds, if any, would be available to either of the two smelters in Sudbury or the sintering plant in Wawa.

I would not want to give a commitment of government funds to any of these emitters until such time as it could prove to our ministry and this government that funding is necessary. If it is, the federal minister has promised up to $85,000 from the federal government under its smelter program and I have given a commitment on behalf of the provincial government for a matching amount.

3:20 p.m.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Cousens: I cannot see how a bag lady who has no permanent address can ever receive welfare cheques from Ontario, but that is a subject for another question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

My question to the Minister of Community and Social Services deals with the revision of the vocational rehabilitation services for the handicapped. The minister will recall that legislation under Bill 82 provided for the process of normalization whereby handicapped children and adults are integrated into the mainstream of Ontario's educational system.

The handicapped have relied on the expertise and funding of vocational rehabilitation services since its inception. However, with the abrupt changes now under way for those attending post-secondary institutions, there are problems. Will the minister explain how the needs of the handicapped will be met in view of these proposed changes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response to the member's initial editorial comment, I thought I made it clear that the lady was receiving a family benefits cheque, not general welfare assistance. For family benefits, one does not have to have a permanent address.

With respect to the specific question, I believe the change the member is referring to is that it is now a requirement that a handicapped person who is receiving vocational rehabilitation assistance and who plans to go to a college or university must also apply to the Ontario student assistance program for vocational rehabilitation assistance so as to get assistance for tuition and room and board. We have made it very clear that the vocational rehabilitation officers will provide every assistance for them to do that. If they cannot qualify, they can come back to vocational rehabilitation and get some assistance there.

As part of the mainstreaming and as part of the normalization, it is our sense that a handicapped person has an obligation, as does anyone else, to apply to the regular funding programs that are available.

Mr. Cousens: It sounds good, but it is not good. My supplementary has to do with a simple thing such as wheelchair ramps. The minister says the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is doing something. However, who will provide the simple, the most important service of having a wheelchair ramp for those handicapped people who need it? Is the minister going to assume that responsibility or is someone else? Who is?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The difficulty some handicapped people might have in physically applying for an OSAP loan or grant can be mediated by one of our vocational rehabilitation officers. As a matter of fact, we have agreed to work with the OSAP officials to have one application made at one location.

If a handicapped person has some difficulty in getting access to a university or college, that obviously would have to be taken up by the institution in question. It is not the responsibility of my ministry.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise with some trepidation. I am not sure my voice will make it all the way through the question.

This program was established by the previous government, and the minister is just following in its footsteps again, as he seems to be doing with all the programs in his ministry. What does he intend to do to ensure that former psychiatric patients are not severely disadvantaged through this new move he has made, given that all their advocates are asking him to maintain vocational rehabilitation and not to force them into this OSAP approach?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have met with two advocacy groups, and I made it very clear to them that all the vocational rehabilitation services available in the past will continue to be available. However, to the extent they are capable of doing so, and our officers are quite prepared to assist them in doing this, if they can qualify for OSAP assistance, we are saying they should apply for it. Again, let me repeat, if they cannot, we will continue to provide whatever assistance we may for them.

TUITION FEES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister is aware that the University of Waterloo is imposing mandatory computer service fees upon all students, ranging from $40 to $100 per term, which means an effective increase in tuition fees as high as 17 per cent. These fees are not tied to computer usage, and the university spends the money as it pleases.

In view of the fact that the ministry limits tuition fee increases to four per cent a year, does the minister not think such so-called incidental fees are a back-door method of bypassing the ceiling? Second, does the minister not feel that universities which impose such fees are reducing access to university for low- and middle-income students?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let us start from the last part of the question, which deals with the question of access and whether that sort of fee reduces access.

The Ontario student assistance program does provide for the incidental fees that a university imposes on one student or another; so student assistance is provided to cover the cost of those incidental fees. The question of access is not the major one when it comes to incidental fees. The question is whether in any particular circumstance an incidental fee is just another form of general tuition fee.

The issue has been raised with me on numerous occasions by the students of Waterloo. The institution has imposed a computer-use fee, and the honourable member is correct: it ranges in some instances from as low as $40 to as high as $100.

I should point out that virtually every university in the province imposes one sort of incidental fee or another. In fact, it is so widespread that I have asked the Ontario Council on University Affairs to investigate the whole practice of incidental fees so that the decision I make as minister with respect to the situation at Waterloo and at every other institution in the province is consistent.

I expect the Ontario Council on University Affairs, having held hearings throughout the province; to report to me on the question of incidental fees within the next month or two. When I get the advice from that body, I will be prepared to take some action.

Ms. Bryden: I can appreciate the minister's desire to obtain as much information on this subject as possible before making a decision about whether incidental fees are an increase in tuition fees. However, would it not be fair to impose a moratorium on such fees for the present so that, come January 1, students will not be paying this fee, which may or not be allowable under the four per cent ceiling, when the recommendations come down from the Ontario Council on University Affairs?

Will he consider imposing a moratorium on such fees so that other universities are not encouraged to impose them as well?

Mr. Speaker: There are a lot of private conversations here. I can hardly hear what is taking place.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: A moratorium is a very attractive idea in the first instance. However, I must tell the member that when I visited the University of Waterloo, I discussed the question of incidental fees with a group of about 100 students. The president there says this revenue is crucial to the programs he offers those students, and were the revenue to be denied, programs would have to be curtailed. Students have said that if they had a choice, they would rather pay the fee and have the enhanced program than the reverse, which is not to pay the fee and not to have the additional facilities.

It is not as easy as simply imposing a moratorium. The more appropriate and responsible course of action is to wait for advice from OCUA and then take the appropriate action.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A question was raised earlier with the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) about the very critical problem of receiving insurance in the education field, and I want to advise the minister that the same problem exists in municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Why not try asking him?

Mr. Brandt: Has the minister had an opportunity to look at the issue to determine whether the municipal problem can be overcome through some assistance from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Let me assure the honourable member that my ministry and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, along with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), are looking at the possibility of finding solutions to municipal insurance. We are trying to work out a solution to help municipalities that are indeed troubled at present.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Brandt: I had a wonderful supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure, but we will try it on tomorrow.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Swart: Like other members, I have petitions here addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) which, after some introductory remarks, state: "We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal." That refers to the full funding of the Catholic high schools. The petitions have been signed by 359 people, and I would like to table them at this time.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with a certain amendment:

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Township of Osgoode Care Centre.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr29, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Township of Wicksteed under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Hornepayne;

Bill Pr40, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Municipal Recreation Directors Foundation;

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Township of Osgoode Care Centre, and Bill Pr40, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Municipal Recreation Directors Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that notwithstanding standing order 64(a), government business be taken into consideration this afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on the morning of Friday, December 20, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that notwithstanding standing order 46(a), the standing committee on resources development may meet this evening to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Labour while Bill 81 is being considered at the same time in the House.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, first reading of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may Charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

SCIENCE NORTH ACT

Hon. Ms. Munro moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Fontaine, first reading of Bill 95, An Act respecting Science North.

Motion agreed to.

INCO LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 96, An Act to acquire the Assets of Inco Limited.

Mr. Speaker: Am I reading this right? President Martel moves, seconded by Mr. Laughren, that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to acquire the Assets of Inco Limited and that the same be now read the first time.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: This is a great day, with the nationalization of Science North and the conversion of the Tories to co-ops in insurance.

The purpose of this bill is to vest the title and control of the assets situated in Ontario of Inco Ltd. in a crown corporation, the Ontario Nickel Corp. If compensation cannot be agreed upon, provision is made for arbitration.

The objects of the Ontario Nickel Corp. include the task of operating and maintaining the assets of Inco Ltd. so as to provide employment and other economic benefits to Ontario, with headquarters located in Sudbury, where I can run the company.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 17, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 80, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for consideration of objections to the report upon the redistribution of Ontario into electoral districts.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There will be one brief speech and then we will resume the order paper in its regular order.

Mr. Harris: I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate, and I appreciate the House leader calling the order. I will not be longer than an hour or two in the brief remarks I want to put on the record with regard to redistribution.

I want to congratulate the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. I believe it has done a good job, given difficult and trying circumstances. Redistribution is never easy. There are many issues that will always be in conflict. It is a difficult task. While I obviously cannot comment on all the areas of the province, I do want to comment briefly on the proposed changes in regard to my riding of Nipissing and the riding of Timiskaming.

3:40 p.m.

The commission has proposed taking part of the area that is commonly known as west Nipissing and putting it in Timiskaming riding. While I understand and concur with the commission's attempt to equalize the numbers of constituents, and obviously I am supportive of that effort to try to balance the numbers of constituents in the various ridings. In the case of the one I am talking about, Nipissing has considerably more than Timiskaming and there has been some effort to adjust it because of that.

In addition, the proposed changes would pretty well parallel the federal ridings of Nipissing and Timiskaming and may have appealed to the commission for that reason. They may have made very good sense for that reason; in fact, they do make some sense. I acknowledge that. I must say, however, on behalf of the peculiar nature of the area known as west Nipissing, which is very heavy in its proportion of francophones, there is a common bond among many of the municipalities because of language.

Because of the small size of the various communities in west Nipissing, they have banded together in a number of areas. For example, they have the Association of West Nipissing Municipalities. They work together and share many costs, particularly in the areas of planning and industrial development.

There is also an organization known as the West Nipissing Planning Board. That was set up to deal jointly with planning matters in that area. I would be remiss if l did not point out to the commission that band 10 of the Nipissing Ojibways is involved with the Association of West Nipissing Municipalities in various discussions on matters that affect that area of my riding at this time.

What would happen with the new changes? It would split up some of the areas of Springer, Field and Caldwell townships and separate them from the town of Sturgeon Falls and from the town of Cache Bay and from band 10 of the Nipissing Ojibways. I ask the commission to consider the concerns of these communities. Although the numbers may warrant this change and the proposed ridings may parallel the federal ridings, I ask whether those facts are not offset by the commonality of the communities.

Several other disorganized townships, such as River Valley, and other roads boards in various areas of west Nipissing, such as Lavigne, have worked and related together and will continue to do so. Because of the special relationship small municipalities tend to have with their local members of the provincial parliament in the provincial Legislature, they feel they may have to deal with two MPPs on some of these issues, which would cause some difficulties.

In concluding my remarks, I want to commend the commission again. I understand they have a difficult task and I understand the changes they are making, but I ask them to look at whether a revision to the original boundaries, because of the reasons I have mentioned, may not be warranted over the top of the numbers and the paralleling of the federal ridings.

I thank the government House leader for calling this order and for the opportunity to be able to participate in this debate. I regret very much that I will not be here later today for some of the other activities.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker: I think this is an opportune time to announce to the House that pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan) concerning commitments to the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

CAPITAL AID CORPORATIONS REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 42, An Act to repeal the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corporation Act and the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Members will recall that on the implementation of the Canada pension plan, an arrangement was made whereby the share of the premiums paid by Ontario not needed to meet the cost of the plan would be made available to the province for borrowing purposes. We have fully utilized that capital availability over the years since the Canada pension plan began. The decision of the previous administration was to allocate these funds to universities and other post-secondary institutions as well as to school boards through two capital aid corporations named in this act.

For a number of years the money was transferred to these corporations and then set out by way of loans to the recipients; the money was then repayable. Over the years the decision was made that the money not be allocated in precisely that way, but the note still had to be repaid. Through general legislative grants and transfers to post-secondary institutions and other organizations such as the Royal Ontario Museum, the Ontario College of Art and the Art Gallery of Ontario, money was provided from the provincial Treasury to pay back to the capital aid corporations the principal and interest that was entered into in previous years.

The use of the corporations to distribute the funds has not been active for a number of years. They have been kept in operation to receive payments from the former recipients, but it is now suggested in this bill that the two capital aid corporations be wound down and their assets transferred to the Treasury of the province. At the same time, we are writing down to zero these rather artificial debts held by the capital aid corporations from the post-secondary institutions and school boards so that no further repayment will be required.

For the last few years all the money paid back to the capital aid corporations has been provided by the Treasurer making specific grants either through the general legislative grants to school boards or through transfers to post-secondary institutions and similar institutions.

This carries out a commitment made in the budget that we think is reasonable. It simplifies the process of the grants and removes from the balance sheet of Ontario numbers that were carried as assets but that, by government policy over a number of years, were never going to be repaid except through grants from the government itself.

Mr. Andrewes: I rise to support the bill. It makes only good, common sense, given that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has, in his wisdom, decided to write down these debts. This is not a bill that is going to be of monumental importance either to this Legislature or to the institutions that are involved, since I would assume that their obligations would have been met otherwise by way of grants given by the government to the institutions that are represented here.

When he sums up on this piece of legislation, I would ask the Treasurer to tell us how he intends to maintain controls over these institutions with respect to the transfer of money and how these moneys will be used. Can he enlighten us about whether any of the school boards still have outstanding debts?

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to indicate support for this legislation. In the circumstances, since the official opposition is supporting the bill, I suppose for once we would have had the freedom to oppose it, but I do not see any reason to do so.

The arguments proposed by the Treasurer are sound, because what he is engaged in is a double set of books and circular financing, as far as one can tell. It is good, common fiscal sense and good common sense simply to repeal the corporations through this act.

I do have one question and I prefer not to go into committee of the whole House. Is my understanding correct that the Treasury has to give special grants above the normal legislative grants to school boards to repay the loans they have outstanding with the capital aid corporation? If some boards are getting a write-down that other boards did not get in the general legislative grants, there is a slight element of unfairness.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate that the two opposition parties are supporting this bill, which is minor and falls in the housekeeping category. I am informed by the officials, however, that if it did not carry by the end of the calendar year, it would intrude into the fiscal year of school boards, which is the calendar year, unlike our own fiscal year.

That would mean they would begin paying back the capital aid corporation when it is not our intention to have them do so, and we would have to provide additional grants to make up for that payback. It would not cost us any more money, but the officials figure several piles of paper would have to be pushed around one more time.

The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) asked about maintaining controls. I can provide the assurance that the controls would be similar and just as effective as those that have been in operation during the last number of years when the actual use of the capital aid corporations was reduced and then finally vanished, other than to collect payments from previous loans. The controls would lie effectively with the Treasury and that is where they have been for the past eight years.

I do not believe there will be a problem in that regard that cannot be remedied by the opposition members in this House calling to the attention of the Treasurer and the public that they believe, God forbid, that something inadequate is going on by way of control. The control would rest with the Treasury and the Treasurer and that is good and sufficient.

The outstanding debt would be written down to zero since it has been decided for many years now that we would not call on the school boards or the art gallery or anybody else to raise money from whatever sources they would have -- one can only imagine what they might be -- to pay off this debt.

While it has been carried on our books as money owing to us, it has not been the policy of our predecessors and it is not our policy to call the deft either now or in the future. For that reason we have written it down and indicated that the debt that was established in good conscience and as a part of policy some years ago will not be callable and we will no longer carry it as an asset.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) indicated that there might be some unfairness in that some of the debt was probably paid back in good conscience and good order in the early years. That is an interesting point. However, it has now been many years since any actual outside money -- that is, money not provided by the Treasury to pay itself back -- has been used. If there is any residual inequity, I am not prepared to recognize it at this time.

I appreciate the support from the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Curling moved second reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Residential Tenancies.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will keep my remarks very brief in the interests of time and in deference to members opposite, whom I am sure will have some comments to make.

This bill is very straightforward. Section 1 lowers the maximum rent increase chargeable without approval of the Residential Tenancy Commission from six per cent to four per cent, effective August 1, 1985. Section 2 provides for the rollback of excess rents charged between August 1, 1985, and the date of royal assent to this bill. Section 3 removes all references to the exemption of units renting for $750 or more a month from the Residential Tenancies Act. Section 4 provides for a one-year extension of the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether you remembered which riding I came from. I am sure you know who I am. My name is Gordon, from the north. We are here today to talk about --

Mr. Newman: Flash Gordon?

Mr. Gordon: That is true. Actually they call my brother Flash Gordon; they do not call me that.

Mr. Newman: They should have called you Flash.

Mr. Gordon: I am not quite as fast as he is. I do not know whether that is a compliment or not. Nevertheless, I consider it a privilege to get up today to talk about these new measures that are being brought in by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). I know he has done a considerable amount of homework on this matter. I can tell because he looks a little leaner since the last time I saw him, so I presume he spent a good deal of time meeting with interested parties.

I would like to know a little more about exactly what transpired at those meetings. These are the kinds of things that interest us on this side of the House. There are meetings and then there are meetings and then there are other kinds of meetings. We have to consider what goes on in those meetings.

We know the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has meetings. He has meetings at Earl's Shell station and kicks the tires of the tractors parked outside. He is the one who is going to control the purse-strings for some of these programs that are going to come about as a result of this assured housing policy being advanced by the Minister of Housing.

I would like the minister to think about this for a little while. I am actually intrigued at how those people who are called developers in this province have spent years talking about how, if rent controls were put on buildings post-1976, this would create horrendous problems for those developers, the contractors and all those people who depend upon housing for their jobs.

We know how important housing is in this province. We know it is a real economic generator. It generates jobs and the sale of goods and services. We know it has a real, deep and lasting impact on the society in which we live.

I have to go back again. I know the minister is listening very carefully to me. These very fine gentlemen spent the last three or four months going around the province, going to television stations and radio stations, talking to newspapers in large centres and small centres, and going to places such as Windsor, which is not a small centre.

4 p.m.

Mr. Newman: Gateway to Canada.

Mr. Gordon: I agree with the member. Windsor is a fantastic place to live. I spent some of my most memorable years there. Will the minister mind very much if I digress for a moment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Not at all.

Mr. Gordon: It has something to do with it because I lived in housing in that municipality and I am going to talk about it for a moment. This leads to what I am going to say. Mr. Speaker, you have to realize I want to provide some background to what I am going to say.

The Deputy Speaker: As long as it relates to the bill.

Mr. Gordon: It certainly does, Mr. Speaker, about as much as your fishing on the French River relates to your sitting in that chair.

Getting back to Windsor, I spent some of my most memorable years going to Assumption University, as it was then called. It became the University of Windsor in the year I graduated. I met my present wife there.

Mr. Dean: Present?

Mr. Timbrell: Present? What are you trying to say?

Mr. Gordon: I have to ignore these interjections. I am glad the minister is not interjecting. I am glad he is not being hard on me. Perhaps the House leader is.

I was going to come to the fact that I met my present wife there. I say "my present wife" because I have six daughters, and when I say I have six children, everybody looks at me and asks, "Is this all with the same wife?" I say, "Of course."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You are much too young.

Mr. Gordon: Thank you. I recall living in Windsor quite well. At that time we lived in a place called the Casa Grande. It was like a fraternity house.

When we talk about housing, I am reminded of the real need in this province for housing for single people. Before I go back to the developers, I would like to take a diversion track and talk about people.

Mr. Rae: You will talk about people before you talk about the developers.

Mr. Gordon: Exactly.

Mr. Rae: Then you will come back and talk about the developers.

Mr. Gordon: That is right. I have a feeling that the member who is interjecting must have spent some time in the federal House and learned a little about giving talks in a legislature. Obviously, he has.

One of the things that struck me today, in a question directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), had to do with the unfortunate lady who passed away, who was frozen to death in Toronto. One of the reasons these things come about is that we still do not have enough housing in this province to meet the needs of single people. I urge the Minister of Housing to bend every effort in the coming months to come up with a program in conjunction with his fellow minister, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and the municipalities of Ontario, an innovative program that would address this very serious problem.

If he makes an attempt to come up with a program that takes another step forward in meeting the needs of those who, because of lack of education, or health or psychological problems, or inadequate education or unfortunate incidents that happen to them in their lives, have been disfranchised from the kind of life many of us are able to live, the minister will make a niche for himself and will make a very important contribution to the people of this province. Fate sometimes deals people blows they cannot recover from. I ask him to look into that aspect of housing.

Let us go back to the developers. The four per cent that is being placed on housing after 1976 intrigues me. The minister spent the past three or four months going around the province talking to everybody and anybody who would talk or listen to him. Then the day after he makes the announcement, everything is fine and there is no problem.

Perhaps the minister has some elements of the wizard about him, being able to do something magical -- there may be stardust involved in all this. However, this is not a Broadway play. This is the real world. Someone said to me the other day: "When you are talking about the Legislature of Ontario, you are not talking about the real world. Get serious. This is not the real world."

Since I am here, I have to tell the minister this is the real world for me.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us about the secret deal. He will not talk about that.

Mr. Gordon: I am coming to the secret deal.

Mr. McClellan: Come on, get to the point.

Mr. Gordon: I am getting there.

Mr. McClellan: We know what the member wants to talk about.

Mr. Gordon: I do, but I want to build to it. I do not want to slide into it too fast.

Mr. McClellan: We want to know about the secret deal.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Bellwoods will please cease interjecting. The member for Sudbury will carry on.

Mr. McClellan: I am filled with anticipation.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps if the member for Sudbury addressed the chair, he would not be disturbed by the interjections.

Mr. Gordon: I will try to ignore the interruptions coming from my left. Could the minister tell me where I left off?

Mr. McClellan: The secret deal. The member was just coming to the secret deal.

Mr. Newman: Back to Windsor.

Mr. Gordon: No, we will not go back to Windsor again.

I was intrigued how the key developers in this province threw up their hands on the day of the announcement and said: "Whoopee. Everything is fine. Everything is okay." The next day I looked across this floor and said to myself, "Either he has some magical powers or there is something going on here in the body politic that has been arranged." I thought to myself, "What happened on the way to four per cent on post-1976 buildings?"

That is why, when I began, I had to say there must have been many meetings between them and either the minister himself or his officials in the Ministry of Housing. We now know they are no longer the landlords of Ontario; as part of the new deal in this province, they are going to call themselves the property owners of Ontario. It is a very astute move on the part of the developers to call themselves the property owners of Ontario, because that is what they are. They are as much property owners as somebody who owns his own house or a cottage. Those are the property owners of Ontario. Even they had decided they were going to change their tune.

What is the secret deal? What has amazed me is that my friends on the left, led by that well-known piano player, singer, troubadour, Rhodes Scholar

Mr. Timbrell: An all-round good fellow.

Mr. Gordon: -- and generally all-round good fellow, issued a press release in which he said to the world: "The world is unfolding as it should. We are confident everyone has been well protected and there is nothing to worry about."

4:10 p.m.

There is something to worry about. I am soon going to start sounding like the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) There is something to worry about. There is a deal. I do not want the Rhodes Scholar to leave yet. I want him to listen to this. The deal is that they are going to take financing costs, repairs and maintenance and all kinds of things and feed them into a formula that will raise rents for those people living in those buildings built before 1976. They are going to pay through the nose.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If I may revert to a tradition from another place, would the honourable member accept a question?

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member accept a question?

Mr. Gordon: He will have his chance to talk.

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on, the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Rae: I was looking forward to asking him a question.

Mr. McClellan: No questions are allowed; they are verboten.

Mr. Gordon: When we get down to the committee stage on this, we will see who asks the questions and which party begins to squirm over this secret hidden agenda that has been put together by the Minister of Housing and his cronies in that ministry. We will see where the questions come from.

The fact the leader of the New Democratic Party is finding it so hard to leave this House and is continuing to interject tells me and should tell everybody in this House there is a hidden agenda. They are embarrassed by it and they are hoping they will not get nailed with it in six months.

Mr. Davis: He is coming back to sit down. The member moved him --

The Deputy Speaker: No, carry on, the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Gordon: I will allow the leader of the New Democratic Party, that Rhodes Scholar --

Mr. Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member has indicated that my leaving has something to do with some motive which he has attributed to me.

Since my leaving has everything to do with Christmas and nothing to do with the remarks of the honourable member, I want to indicate on this matter of privilege that the long-term bill will go to committee. If my friends, the members in the Conservative Party, have some concerns they want to raise in that committee and move amendments that will protect tenants and take on the developers to protect tenants, then we will be able to change the bill for the better if that is the kind of --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order or privilege.

Mr. Gordon: I did not say to the member who was starting to leave that he was leaving because of what I said. I said he was staying and the fact that he was staying tells everyone in this House that they recognize the truth, that what is being said here has validity.

I am willing to bet that in the new year we are going to see the New Democratic Party begin to take a different stand. It is going to start moving away from all that gushy prose it put out the day the Minister of Housing announced his new assured housing for Ontario. That is why I am surprised a Rhodes Scholar would not have picked up this little bit of subterfuge that is going on here. Nevertheless, we will not get into that now.

I have some very real concerns about the kind of deal that has been worked out here. It has not been publicized. It has been established and put together in the back rooms of the Ministry of Housing. If we could subpoena them and put them under oath, ask them to bring out all the letters, minutes of all the meetings, be able to get them to tell us what was said on both sides, and if that was reported and put in the papers, there would be a howl across this province such as has never been heard before.

The tenants of this province are intelligent people. As they begin to hear what is being said, they too will begin to ask questions. For example, they are going to ask: "Are we expected to pay all this increase? Can we not expect the home owners of Ontario and the rest of the taxpayers to contribute something, too? Why should we alone be expected to pick up the tab for this new policy?"

It is a new policy. It is a policy attempting to make the rents in those pre-1976 buildings higher, to bring them up so that the rents being paid in those buildings that were built since 1976 and those being paid in the ones built before 1976 will come closer together. When they begin to build some new buildings -- and no one would ever deny that we have a real need; we are not saying there is not a need -- people will be a little more willing to pay the kinds of rents that would be required for there to be an economic return on those buildings that are built in 1986.

That is the plan. It is part of the plan, I should say. I do not want to spill all the beans here today, because I am sure the Minister of Housing and I are going to have many more conversations across the floor of this assembly.

Mr. McClellan: I will be there, too.

Mr. Gordon: I know my good friend the member for Bellwoods is going to be there egging me on, urging me on. There will be other people there, too, whom I will not even acknowledge are here today.

What is going to happen to the tenants of Ontario in this new system? The minister has eliminated their opportunity to go before a quasi-judicial hearing, at which they had the rule of law on their side, so they could speak their piece and cross-examine. He has taken it away from the developers as well.

He is bringing in an informal type of meeting. The first meeting will be an informal meeting between the property owner and the new rental adviser. It will be an informal meeting between the tenants and the rental adviser. What does an informal meeting mean?

Informal suggests to me that one takes off one's tie, wears short sleeves or maybe even shows up in Bermuda shorts. Is the rental adviser going to turn up in casual clothes, too, just so everybody feels that much more relaxed? Perhaps that is what we should do in this House. Maybe it is the secret. The secret of a good Legislature is that we begin to dress more informally, because it is so much easier to make the laws of this country and of this great province of ours in an informal, off-the-cuff fashion.

Miss Stephenson: There are some norms that have to be upheld.

Mr. Gordon: That is true. I would have to say there are some norms, but that is not the new fashion that is going to occur in the Ministry of Housing.

Miss Stephenson: A vogue nouvelle or a vague nouvelle?

Mr. McClellan: Or is it a filibuster?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: I would have to defer to the former Minister of Education, knowing her loquaciousness and her ability to go on and on for hours and hours, but she always makes a great deal of sense.

What is going to be the real cost of these changes that are being made? I have been spending a good deal of my time boning up to be the Housing critic, because I know the minister has so many more aides than I do; that is the formal way of doing things. For the tenants and the developers of Ontario, it is going to be the informal method.

I want to quote from the minister's Assured Housing for Ontario: the Reforms to Rent Review. It says, "Economic rents reflect the level of revenue a building must produce to provide an adequate return on invested equity." The question is, how are we going to get there? How are we going to get to the economic rent the minister writes about? Perhaps the minister did not write it, but somebody wrote it for him. Who is going to decide what is an adequate return? Who is going to make that decision?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Good question; very good question.

Mr. Gordon: The minister says to me, "That is a good question." I thank him for that remark; it is a good question. This is the second part of my talk today.

Mr. McClellan: What was the first part again?

Mr. Gordon: In the first part, we were talking about the secret deal and the hidden agenda.

I see we have worn out one Speaker and we are going to have another one now. We will find out whether this one is any better than the one who just left. I take that back; I meant it in a jocular fashion.

Is not the latest Speaker the one who came from the Ombudsman's office?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): That is correct.

Mr. Gordon: Anyway, back to what I was talking about. Who is going to decide and what is an adequate return?

Mr. Breaugh: It is hard to believe my friend actually has notes for this speech.

Mr. Gordon: If one -- if one --

Mr. D. W. Smith: The member threw him off.

Mr. Gordon: Yes, he threw me right off the bridge.

Mr. Breaugh: The member let his finger slip off the page.

Mr. McClellan: The member got past the secret deal and the hidden agenda. He was going on to something else.

Mr. Gordon: That is right.

The minister is going to set up a committee to try to get things resolved in this new Alice in Wonderland world we are moving into. It is my understanding this Rent Review Advisory Committee is going to be made up of six landlord representatives, six tenant representatives and five senior ministry officials, including the assistant deputy minister and the chairman of the Rent Review Hearings Board.

Ms. Fish: Which ADM is that? Is it the ADM responsible for the building industry?

Mr. Gordon: We will see if I can be a good Charlie McCarthy. "Which ADM is that? Is it the one responsible for the building industry?"

Ms. Fish: Is that the one? Is it the one who deals with the landlords?

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, you can see that already I have converted one member of this Legislature to the view I have been advancing. Actually, she is one step ahead of me, because my friend the member for -- is it St. Andrew-St. Patrick? Is that it? No?

Ms. Fish: The member has a friend in St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I happen to be the member for St. George.

Mr. Gordon: Okay. The member for St. George is actually pointing in the direction I am going; that is, we are dealing here with a stacked deck. The stacked deck is that we know this group is going to be there in an advisory capacity, but almost a third of the deck is made up of senior officials from the ministry.

I have to believe what has happened is that the minister's senior officials have sat down with the property owners of Ontario, which is the new name for landlords. Those officials being more of the property owners' persuasion and leaning more towards their arguments -- which now have become paramount in the Ministry of Housing and even for the minister because he is advancing their views and their policies -- what is going to happen is that a way is going to be worked out so the tenants of Ontario, or perhaps all the citizens of Ontario for that matter, are going to have to take care of the increased rents that are going to come about in this province. That is the bottom line. That is what is happening.

I wonder how much we can trust those people in that ministry. I wonder whether the minister has been seduced by their urgings and declarations of what should be in this province when it comes to what happens to landlords and tenants. I could go on for a long time --

Mr. Davis: Keep going. I am enjoying it.

Mr. Gordon: Actually, I have used only a couple of pages of notes so far.

Mr. Davis: Do not stop now. We can go to six o'clock.

Mr. Gordon: No, no. Christmas is coming.

Mr. Davis: I think the minister would like to hear some more of the story.

Mr. Gordon: Would he? Okay. What the minister has effectively done to the tenants is he has done away with their right to natural justice by doing away with the Residential Tenancy Commission and the residential tenancy officers. The minister is going to find, as time goes on, that the tenants on his Rent Review Advisory Committee are going to find it increasingly difficult to understand what they are being told about what they should be doing or not doing when it comes to rents in this great province.

I do not know how long the minister is going to be able to hold this thing together. It is going to take an awful lot of glue. Maybe he is the one to come up with that glue because, as I said in the beginning, some elements made me think a little wizardry was going on. Then I took the time to think about it, to try to analyse it, and I came to the conclusion that the minister and the Ministry of Housing had decided to come down foursquare on the side of the developers of this province.

I do not think the developers are going to thank the minister for this in the long run; before this is all over, I think even they will wish it had not happened in quite that fashion. It takes developers to put up the buildings, but it also takes tenants to inhabit those buildings. I have a feeling this whole new experiment of the minister's is going to cost us a great deal of money. I have to question what is happening.

When we have these hearings, I hope we will find that people will be much more forthcoming as to the meetings that were held and to the effects of those meetings.

I hope too -- we in this party hope -- that those people sitting to the left of us will begin to see the light and will begin to talk about the tenants of this province the same way we are. I want to hold out a hand to them. We are looking for them to come over, all of them. we will welcome them with open arms. I promise that when the time comes, I will not make fun of anybody who did not listen to our words with full attention today.

4:30 p.m.

I want to wish the minister well in his new portfolio; I certainly bear him no ill will. However, I will be as critical as possible, because as a former educator, I know there is always room for improvement.

We would like to see him have the opportunity to bring in policies in this province that will be good for the people of Ontario. We feel that with our guidance and with his examination of our past history, he has obviously seen something good in what we promised in the past or in what we have done in the past. Obviously, he is bringing in the four per cent for those pre-1976 buildings. Obviously, he also sees the light and is going to see that going through the $750 barrier does not allow people to increase rents in an untenable fashion any more. That was one of our policies. He is also going to see that financing is taken care of properly with the five per cent.

I think the minister is beginning to learn. He has been a good student, and I want to give him top marks in that respect.

At the same time, I have to warn him that one thing that concerns me is that he seems to have fallen completely into the hands of the development industry. He has set up so many committees, and when we see a minister establish so many committees after six months, we know he is putting off the moment of truth. He does not want to have to answer questions, so he says: "It has gone to committee. The committee is trying to decide." That is understandable. I used to do that years ago when I was mayor of Sudbury. When I had a problem, I would establish a committee to look at it and examine it.

We on this side of the House have been here long enough and are experienced in education politics, having been elected to boards of education, to municipal councils or to this Legislature. In fact, some in this House have even come from the federal House; one of them is going to change his mind about tenants too very shortly, but I am not going to talk about that right now.

We know how the minister can go about deferring decisions and making things fuzzy. We are not fooled by what is going on. I urge him to re-examine some of the things he has put in print in Assured Housing for Ontario. I will be the first to tell him what I think is good in it; I am certainly not going to rap him for things that I think are positive. However, there is a little bit of subterfuge going on here. There is a hidden agenda, and I think he is hoping none of these committees is going to have to report for at least two years.

We know how long it takes to begin new building programs. We know how long it takes to get things started and to get things rolling. The minister is looking for some lead time here. However, we are going to be watching very closely, observing and commenting on his activities as minister.

Since I probably will not have an opportunity to talk to the minister again in an informal way -- since we understand now that things are going to be much more informal -- I would like to close my remarks by wishing him a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Mr. McClellan: I cannot say how much I enjoyed listening to the fantasies of my colleague the Conservative Housing critic. I am delighted to hear him say clearly and unequivocally for the record that they are implacably opposed to the interests of the development industry and that they are openly and defiantly hostile to the development industry. The Tories have converted to the cause of unapologetic socialism. They have adopted as the central core of their plank and platform one of the very central cores of The Communist Manifesto itself.

A most amazing transformation has taken place. A few short months ago, when they sat on the other side of the House, they were responsible for a piece of rent control legislation that was toothless and unenforceable.

Mr. Timbrell: Oh.

Mr. McClellan: The Conservative House leader groans.

In 1979, this Legislature passed section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act setting up a rent registry; it was the means of enforcing the Residential Tenancies Act. One cannot enforce a rent review system if there is no means of recording legally chargeable rents and if there is no means for tenants to find out the legally chargeable rent for their units.

Despite the fact that section 33 was passed by this Legislature, the Conservatives never proclaimed it and never brought forward amending legislation, not in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 or 1985. They did not bring forward legislation to enforce the Residential Tenancies Act through a rent registry. They persisted in exemptions that, after 10 years, meant thousands of units were not within the purview of rent review. Many thousands of tenants did not have protection or security of tenure and had no protection against the threat of economic eviction.

Now the Conservatives say they have reformed. They have come to understand, to paraphrase the remarks of their Housing critic, that the private development industry is so evil it cannot be trusted. Some kind of menacing secret deal, according to their critic, has been worked out between the government and the development industry to shaft tenants. He has been saying that since Monday.

Miss Stephenson: That is not what he said.

Mr. McClellan: That is exactly what he said. I know the former Minister of Education is a genuine Conservative, a real right-winger of the old school, and does not believe the words that are coming from the mouth of her Housing critic.

Miss Stephenson: He said he was fearful.

Mr. McClellan: She is appalled and cannot comprehend that a Conservative Party spokesman in Ontario would be uttering these kinds of socialist shibboleths.

Miss Stephenson: It is a shibboleth; that is right.

Mr. McClellan: She was so appalled that she found it necessary to heckle him during his speech. She threw him off his stride.

Miss Stephenson: I was not heckling him. I was asking a question.

Mr. McClellan: Now she is heckling me.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was merely asking a question of the minister through the member for Sudbury: Was his new program nouvelle vogue or nouvelle vague? I want that answer; that is all.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: The critic replied that it was not sufficiently socialist for him because it was obviously biased in favour of capitalist vested interests, otherwise known as developers.

That is an amazing line from the Conservative Party, and we welcome it. We congratulate them for their conversion to the cause of progressive socialist thought and we look forward to working with our socialist Conservative colleagues in the committee when they put forward their amendments to strengthen the legislation, so that it is the strongest and most ironclad tenant protection legislation of any jurisdiction in the western industrial world.

Because of the pledges of the Conservative Party, we have an opportunity to strengthen the rights of tenants in all aspects of the legislation and to strip from the developers any usurpation that may have crept in through the back door of bureaucracy.

We welcome this challenge from the Conservative Party and we accept it. We will put the developers in their place. We will support pro-tenant amendments to the legislation and we will emerge at the end of the process with a strong bill of rights for tenants that will be the best in the western world.

Mr. Breaugh: We will be born again.

Mr. McClellan: Since the Conservatives have been born again, we have to welcome them, but I digress from my historical exposition. I was talking about how awful the Conservatives were when they were in government. There was no means of enforcing rent control. Not only that, they eliminated housing supply programs in Ontario.

In 1979, after re-enacting the Residential Tenancies Act, the government of Ontario abolished the Ministry of Housing, turned the Ontario Housing Corp. into a holding company and did not finance the development or the construction of any more affordable rental accommodation in Ontario for the next six years, until they were thrown out of office.

It was not until Monday of this week, when the Minister of Housing made his announcement, that Ontario re-entered the modern world and reassumed the responsibility that it had accepted in the 1960s to finance the construction of affordable, nonprofit rental accommodation across this province.

The result of the two policies -- on the one hand, rent review; on the other hand, the elimination of a public sector housing supply program -- has been a housing crisis of catastrophic proportions brought on entirely by the policies of the previous government.

The private development industry has been on strike since the introduction of rent control in 1976. Private capital in this province has refused to invest in affordable rental accommodation because of the presence of rent control. Everybody knows that.

Representatives of the industry said it when they were organized under the rubric of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. Various spokespeople have been saying in loud, honest and unequivocal shouts that they refuse to invest their money in affordable rental accommodation as long as rent control legislation is in place.

Everybody in every party understands that. That is the rule of capital. If the rate of return is going to be restricted, it will be invested somewhere else where it is not restricted. Yet the response of the Ontario government under the Conservatives was to terminate its own housing supply program. Apparently, they still have not reconciled themselves to the reality that rent control is here to stay.

Very simply, the corollary is that the public sector has to accept a major responsibility for financing the construction of affordable rental housing and it will have to be done on a nonprofit basis because the private sector will no longer play in the game. That is the reality in Ontario. It has been the reality for the last 10 years and it will continue to be the reality for the indefinite future.

Nobody in any political party on the right in this province has the intestinal fortitude to call for the elimination of rent control. They know that it would be a catastrophe for tenants and that the tenants would assassinate them politically as soon as the polls were open. That is the reality and everybody knows it is the reality. All the nonsense and puffery that will take place over the next three to six months as this legislation works itself through the system here will not disguise that fact.

I regret that the new government has chosen to participate in the charade that somehow the private sector can be enticed back into the business of building affordable rental housing. Various schemes have been developed since the mid-1970s to try to give artificial respiration to the private rental development industry. They have all been one variety or another of a catastrophe, a ripoff or a scam, starting with the assisted rental program, through the Ontario rental construction loan and the Canada rental supply program, and now we have Renterprise announced again on Monday.

The statistics of Renterprise speak for themselves. An investment of $75 million is required to build 5,000 units of affordable housing. Compare that with the government's well-designed nonprofit housing program. Seventy-two million dollars is being invested. It will stimulate a total, I believe, of $1.6 billion of construction and the construction of 15,000 units of nonprofit affordable housing. Through Renterprise, $75 million flows down the drain to produce a third of what could be produced with the same investment in the nonprofit sector. That tells us the whole story right there; the beginning and the end of it.

Yet the government continues to follow the foolish path charted by the previous Conservative government, which spent tens of millions of dollars in various giveaway schemes to the private development industry in the vain ideological hope that somehow, some way, if it was only given enough money, the private sector would come back into the rental market. It did not, it would not, and it will not. The government is going to waste another $75 million proving it yet again.

Nevertheless we are pleased that at long last, after 10 years, we have legislation which imposes a reasonable rent ceiling of four per cent, plugs the loopholes and provides a means of enforcement of rent control.

The Conservatives today will happily support the four per cent ceiling, but I was here in June 1977 during a previous minority government when the then Premier William G. Davis said if the minority parliament had the gall and audacity to move an amendment to his rent control bill, which would have reduced the rent ceiling from eight per cent to six per cent, he would call a general election.

Mr. Timbrell: In April.

Mr. McClellan: In April, thank you. The election was in June; June 7.

Mr. Timbrell: June 9.

Mr. McClellan: June 9. I do not argue facts with the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). I was re-elected on the 7th. He may have been re-elected on the 9th.

At any rate, the Conservative Party expressed its attitude towards minority government, towards opposition, towards rent control. That silly episode, that $40-million expenditure on an unnecessary election about an issue of whether the rent guideline should be eight per cent or six per cent, is part of the historical record. When the Conservatives were re-elected, the first thing they did was bring in a rent ceiling of six per cent, which we are changing, and it has not been changed since 1977.

4:50 p.m.

This is a historic day. Despite the fact that interest rates have been drastically reduced for a number of years and four per cent has been the obvious target for a considerable time, and that the previous government did nothing to actually implement four per cent, we finally have the four per cent ceiling before us today and I am actually in order when I make that statement, probably for the first time in my speech.

We also have the re-enactment of the five per cent cost pass-through. Again, this is something we applaud. We will have an opportunity to talk at even more fulsome length about the reforms set out in the larger bill, which eliminate the exemption, set up a rent registry and make some major changes to the structure of the Residential Tenancy Commission and the rent review process.

For now, I simply want to say we are pleased to support the bill in front of us. We are pleased in a general way with the announcement the minister made on Monday. We will have a lot of questions to raise when the omnibus rent registry bill goes to committee. I cannot even remember what it is called. It is the successor to the Residential Tenancies Act. We will work with our newly revolutionized Conservative colleagues to strengthen the tenants' rights sections of the bill.

Mr. Taylor: What do you mean by that?

Mr. McClellan: The member should have heard his Housing critic.

Mr. Taylor: I heard.

Mr. McClellan: We will see what the Conservatives do when amendments are put forward in committee. If they are upset about a secret deal with developers, maybe they will be willing either to move or to vote for amendments that strengthen the rights of tenants and smooth any potential rough edges in the legislation in favour of tenants. We will just wait and see.

We are prepared to take up the challenge the Conservative Housing critic has hurled down here today. We look forward to working with him and the minister in producing a strong package of tenant protection legislation, the first piece of which will be passed later this afternoon.

We look forward equally to the expansion of Ontario's new nonprofit housing supply program. I will conclude by again urging the government to reconsider the allocation of so much money in a vain attempt to artificially resuscitate the private development industry. It is not going to happen.

If the government has $75 million to spend on housing, let us spend it where it will work effectively. The Premier toured the Frankel-Lambert development during the election campaign in my own riding. He was mightily impressed with what he saw. It is a community of almost 1,000 units which has been built with programs that are no longer in place. The member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and I had the opportunity to work together in bringing that community into existence.

Ms. Fish: Proudly so.

Mr. McClellan: Proudly so. It is a wonderful success story, a mixture of nonprofit, cooperative and private housing that stands as a model of what can be accomplished. The St. Lawrence development in the riding of St. George is also a living model of success in the nonprofit sector.

Ontario turned its back on those success stories for six long years. Now, after a long drought, we have an opportunity to move forward and build nonprofit and co-operative housing communities all across the province. That is a real accomplishment which we welcome with great enthusiasm.

I will not talk any longer because we will have lots of time to talk about all the details of tenant protection and tenant protection law in the days, weeks and months ahead.

Ms. Fish: Given the condition of my voice, allow me at the outset to extend my apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the House and the Hansard clerks who will no doubt try to hear me on all occasions. I hope members will bear with me as I join in this debate.

First of all, I support the legislation before us in Bill 77. My concerns deal with the degree to which Bill 77 will live up to its promise as a strongly pro-tenant bill at the time when we see the companion omnibus legislation and work our way through the implementation questions that are implicit in the proposed changes to the rent review system beyond those outlined in this bill.

I believe, for example, when we go through and look at the opportunity for four per cent rent review ceilings, we must understand the criteria that will be applied to afford a decision in excess of four per cent. One criterion that will be applied in the future speaks of economic rent. In particular, that will deal with post-1976 buildings mooted to be suffering losses and, more to the point, pre-1976 buildings that are suggested by so many landlord and development groups to have artificially reduced and severely depressed rents. An interesting turn of phrase has come about in the use of the term "artificially depressed" rents.

I will raise a simple question. What is the purpose of rent review? As far as I understand it, and the reason I have always and consistently invoked before city council or in this House when I have had the opportunity to participate, when I have supported rent review and have called for its strengthening, has been that I believe the rent review system is there precisely to moderate rental increases in the market, precisely to intervene in market forces to achieve rental rates that are lower than would be found if rent review were not there.

To speak, therefore, of rent that has been depressed from market by virtue of a rent review system and to say that is wrong is to mount a frontal assault on the entire point of rent review. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how the two can coexist. If rent review is there to moderate the rents, and I believe it is, it is there to control a sector that has never been free since the Second World War. Free enterprise is not what occurs in the housing market.

5 p.m.

That market has been protected and sheltered, as Pat Laverty sitting under the press gallery knows well, from the days of mortgage insurance as it was introduced, from the continued efforts to utilize the construction and housing industry as an opportunity to counter downward cycles in the economy and to pump in money. It has never been a free market within the adult life of anyone in this House. It has been very substantially subsidized and assisted and very considerably protected from loss.

It is perfectly reasonable under those circumstances to suggest that a very substantially supported sector also be a regulated sector. The form of regulation that we have applied here in Ontario has been rent review. The regulation has had the effect of moderating rents; yet we are now going to see a substantial change in the criteria that will be used to consider when rents should go beyond the guidelines now proposed, as we indicated we would as well, of four per cent. What then will those criteria be?

I return again to this point. One of those criteria will apparently be the pre-1976 buildings that were having their rent levels held down precisely in the fashion that the whole point of a regulated system intended. They were to be held down below the euphemistic economic rent, also known as the market rent and also known as whatever one can get somebody to pay for it, particularly in a tight vacancy market. It is a fascination to me.

It is also a fascination to me when I read such learned studies as those done by a commission of the Ministry of Housing a few short years ago, and those done by august bodies whose passing I am sorry to see, such as the Ontario Economic Council, which undertook reviews of the rent review system and, among other things, concluded that the very existence of the system as it applied to those units built and occupied prior to January 1, 1976, had a moderating effect, and perhaps the hostile observer might use the phrase "depressant effect," on the rent for post-1976 buildings.

What then was the rent review system supposed to do? If it was supposed to fuel the rent increase drive, why on earth would we have it? If it was not intended to interfere in what has never been a free market anyway on the support for producing the supply, which some have thought should be a free market in the demand end, why do we have it? The whole point is that the rent has been held down and there has been an impact on the rents that can be charged in the post-1976 buildings by virtue of the existence of competition in pre-1976 buildings. That has been the entire point of regulating that sector and of introducing rent review.

What is now proposed is that in both those cases, where the rents have been quite correctly, I argue, moderated downward in the pre-1976 buildings, a provision will be brought forward and new criteria established to afford an opportunity for those rents to rise to the economic rent of similar buildings.

I do not understand the point here. Here we have a system that is designed to control and moderate rents; yet we are going to set about substantial alterations in the criteria for rent increases that have one purpose and one purpose only, that is, completely to subvert the entire reason rent review was established in the first place, to wipe out the control effect that rent review has afforded in pre-1976 buildings and to bring them up to the so-called economic rent, also known as market rent and also known as whatever one can get someone to pay for rent in a tight market.

I do not know the profile of tenants in older buildings, those most often identified as being the ones that have held their rents down in pre-1976 throughout the province, but I do know that profile in an awful lot of buildings in my riding of St. George and in neighbouring ridings around me.

It is a profile of very stable tenancy, where the units are clearly seen as homes, not as stopping-off places or some other form of tenure, where the tenants very often know one another by name and have been in those units year after year, in some cases five, 10, 15, 20 years and more. They are, therefore, also very commonly older people, people who are 55 or 60 and older and very often they are women -- notably, older single women, widowed, divorced, left otherwise on their own -- some of whom are pensioned, some of whom are working, none of whom is going around with a great deal of money, none of whom is enjoying extensive Florida holidays or buying very many Cadillacs.

How then will they pay for these adjusted rents? That is not entirely clear. There is some suggestion that it will not be an unreasonable burden upon them. That suggestion leads to only one of two conclusions. Either the minister is really not going to bring the rents up to the so-called economic rent or he is going to mount a considerably expanded, widespread rent-geared-to-income proposal and program that is going to subject tenant after tenant to a means test. Which is it going to be?

The landlords, with their sudden euphoria and glee in supporting the announcement, have pointed time and again in the press, on the radio and in meetings to the provision that raising the rents of pre-1976 buildings to the so-called economic rent is the single most important factor in encouraging them to come back and build and to feel supportive about this rent review program.

My colleagues in the House might bear with me if, when I have that information and I look at the questions I have raised about the impact of that pre-1976 adjustment, I draw something less than a charitable conclusion about the ministry's intentions with respect to the tenants. The industry is so ecstatic; yet it is the same industry, and I am sure this did not escape the notice of my colleague the dear member for Bellwoods, who was so stridently critical of the former government with respect to its rent review policy.

That same industry is suddenly so laudatory, suddenly so ecstatic, suddenly so optimistic, suddenly so convinced that a rent review system, with which until a few short months ago it indicated it could under no circumstances build, has supposedly been tightened. Now they are dancing for joy. They are going to bring out the shovels, by gum, and the number of building permit applications will soar and let us just see all those new units built.

5:10 p.m.

I will wait to see, but my concern is that all that joy and all that dancing are going to be loaded on the backs of the older single women who have been long-term tenants in the older pre-1976 buildings in ridings such as St. George and who are not able to afford that so-called economic rent.

I also do not understand, if the proposal is to put everyone on a means test, how it is going to work or why on earth we would want to do that. Why on earth would we want to revert to a system that suggested that all tenants in buildings would be subject to a means test, paying a stated proportion of their income -- 25 per cent or 30 per cent -- for rent?

How, pray tell, do we do that when the nature of the control system has been a control on the unit and not on the individual? How, by the way, do we finance it, "we" being the taxpayers of the province? How, by the way, do we then find the money to put into the opportunities for new construction, if all we are doing is extending a system that is very akin to a system that came under severe attack in the 1960s, namely, one that afforded no sensible or reasonable control whatsoever on the rents charged but simply made up the difference between whatever rent was going to be charged by the owner of the building and whatever the tenant could afford to pay? It was a bizarre combination of failed programs, and one of dubious intent.

However, if there have been suggestions about secret deals and hidden agendas, this is one area at least where I believe some very clear answers are necessary and where I believe the nature of the changed criteria, the nature of the expectation that has apparently been dangled so firmly and so clearly and that would lead the development industry to jump up and down for joy, ought really to be exposed, and exposed fully. If it is the intention of the government to proceed in the direction in which I can only conclude from the materials before me it intends to proceed, I believe it will have the effect of betraying many of the tenants of this province.

My second concern is in the area of the review, even within whatever the criteria may be. I note that the proposal is to change the rent review process substantially. I think a little bit of review of that is worth while.

Whatever else the Residential Tenancy Commission has been, it has been independent. The proposal now is to provide for a bureaucratic solution to rent hearings on the first level. What is that solution? It is the classic one that is always provided when a suggestion is made about possibly enhancing economies in a system to reduce costs, namely, to get rid of those so-called inefficient hearings.

That is an interesting one. Whom do those hearings serve? In almost every case, they serve the tenants. They are serving them, because it is through the vehicle of that first-level hearing that the tenants have the opportunity to see the filings from the landlords, ask for additional material to be filed, question the filings and bring forth alternative evidence and, directly or through their agents, question the landlord or the landlord's agent on a number of the submissions that are made in the material brought forward to substantiate the landlord's request for the increase beyond the guidelines.

Time and again, it is the presence of tenants raising questions, talking from personal experience about conditions in their buildings, speaking of information they have from their personal, specific knowledge that they feel should also bear upon it, that leads a hearing officer to agree to require the production of additional information.

After 10 years of an assured hearing at no cost to the tenant, now we are going to have a system that involves some bureaucrat sitting at a desk who may not know anything whatever about the building, who may not call upon the tenant to meet with him personally and who may not permit the opportunity to cross-examine a landlord to decide the first level on the rent.

That is being offered to us in the name of economies and efficiencies in the system. I think it should more correctly be named an offering that denies tenants their now well-established right to have a hearing on any rent increase in excess of the guidelines, a hearing at no cost to themselves that provides them the opportunity to review the submissions in specific and direct detail and to question the landlord.

What happens when a decision is made? The minister has suggested that there is no removal of a hearing, because it is possible to appeal the decision of the bureaucrat. The question is, on what basis is it possible to appeal and to whom does one appeal?

There are things worth noting: (1) There will be a minimum percentage of tenants who will have to file the papers. (2) A fee will now be charged. (3) There may be the opportunity afforded and the threat of assessing costs against the tenants.

What happens if a hearing remains unsatisfactory in its result? Where is the opportunity for further appeal? According to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, among others, that will be a hearing de novo, which is a fancy term for saying that technically the hearing and the hearing officer at that point should disregard all previous information and deal with everything face front, right off the top, clean, as though there had not been any previous investigation and decision rendered.

Of course, in the real world of human personality and foibles, it will be extremely difficult to ignore everything that has gone before, to be mindless of the decisions that have been afforded. The hearing is before a single officer and there is no appeal.

The present system, to the contrary, affords an opportunity for a hearing before a single officer at the outset, with the right of appeal before a panel that would go beyond the single officer in considering the matter before it.

I think these changes are very serious. I do not believe they are simply cosmetic changes and I do not believe they are simply changes of economy or efficiency. I think they go to the heart of the rights that tenants have experienced in this province and have held as theirs for 10 years, which now are being removed. They are being removed because the level of appeal has been removed, because these changes are being applied and because of the opportunity for cost and percentage requirements. Those are backdoor ways to create problems for tenants, to discourage tenants from appealing and to try to establish an entirely different system that will simply operate by bureaucratic fiat.

5:20 p.m.

I am additionally concerned when I look at the organizational structure that will apply. I happen to be very troubled by the fact that a proposal is being made to disband semi-autonomous operations, to delete the hearings opportunity, to put substantial obstacles in the way of tenants wishing to appeal for further hearings and to provide a system that has that bureaucracy reporting to the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Building Industry Development Board and to the assistant deputy minister responsible for corporate resources and building industry development.

Maybe I am a simple, old-fashioned person, but I believe the names we give things have a reason. They have a clear reason: to denote what it is the organization is supposed to do and for which position it is responsible. I take very seriously the title of that assistant deputy minister and the title of that board, and I believe it is designed to be oriented to the building industry. I ask a very simple question: Where is the orientation to the tenant?

My next area of concern deals with the matter of legal rent. It is a troubling concern to me because it is part and parcel of the degree to which this legislation will continue a pattern of tenant support or will move to gut the tenant support that is supposedly being afforded here.

I will speak at some considerable length when we come to the companion legislation and matters relating to things such as the rent registry. I want to note just one thing today. Included in the proposal for the registry will be a requirement that the landlord file within less than a year the rents actually charged in 1985. Apparently this is to be done without any requirement of notice or affidavit indicating they are legal rents or that to the best knowledge of the owner of the building all increases between now and the year 1976 have been legal. Apparently there is also a limit on the period of time in which tenants can challenge the legal base; namely, one year.

That points to another facet that raises a question about which side this legislation comes down on. Every tenant group with which I am familiar, from the flagship Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations to individual tenant associations, has noted illegal rent as a major problem. I agree that it is a major problem, and I agree that a rent registry must be put into place. I also happen to agree with the tenants that the registry should go back to 1976 and, as I indicated in my submission to the Thom commission, that registry should be accompanied by affidavits that indicate the rent has been legal rent.

I can find no reason whatsoever for affording or enshrining any protection to landlords who may have charged illegal rents and may have raised their rents illegally. I find it baseless. There is no housing policy that this would benefit. There is no tenant who would find additional accommodation or more moderately priced accommodation by virtue of enshrining illegal rents.

Yet when one strips away the rhetoric of the companion proposal, which would also deal with the degree to which the system is strong and affords protection to tenants, that is precisely what it proposes to do. Failing that, it will place an incredibly large and onerous responsibility on the tenants across this province. It is a responsibility they would work very hard to live up to, but it is a responsibility they should not have to shoulder.

Illegal rents should not be condoned; they should be rolled back. The system should be established in a fashion that does not encourage or enshrine illegal rents and then we can work from there. It should determine and make clear that the rents charged are legal rents and then continue on with the four per cent.

A similar concern comes when we consider the companion legislation that affords protection for existing rental accommodation from conversion or demolition and offers incentives for the building of new accommodation.

I am concerned about the proposals alluded to under questioning the other day by our colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître). These were proposals on demolition control or conversion control that may be under way now. The current opportunities for demolition control could well do with some strengthening, which would be welcomed.

Conversion control is a very tricky question. Apparently, conversion from rental to nonrental use requires the agreement of the local council. They may have other forms of tenure, such as co-operative tenure, condominium ownership and so forth. That requirement affords an opportunity for the conditions in the rental market in a local area to be attended to and to bear on a decision about the withdrawal of rental accommodation from the rental market.

Until we are able to see the areas that may be changed in that regard, we cannot adequately assess the degree to which we will find a continued direction away from opportunities for moderate rental, away from opportunities in those so-called unduly depressed buildings in the pre-1976 period. As I said earlier, that is something we can come to as we deal in greater depth with some of those items in the omnibus bill.

5:30 p.m.

Finally, l share the incredulity of my friend the member for Bellwoods when he notes the projected housing starts in the two separate programs, one to be targeted to the nonprofit and co-operative sector and the other to be targeted to the market sector.

I may not be as up to date as I might be on revisions to the National Housing Act, but from what I read in the paper these days, very substantial amendments to the National Housing Act are in order. For example, there are amendments that likely will dramatically reduce the opportunities for nonprofit corporations and co-operative corporations, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the minister to the contrary. One of those is most likely to be the imposition of extremely high percentages for rent-geared-to-income units, an imposition and a trend that it would appear the present government of Ontario is prepared to support and indeed intends to support.

Mention has already been made of some of the most successful nonprofit and co-operative developments in this province. I am proud to say that many of them are within the great municipality of Toronto. One that was mentioned is Frankel-Lambert; another is St. Lawrence. I am very pleased to stand before members today as the member of this Legislature whose riding probably has the highest proportion of nonprofit and co-operative housing of any riding.

Those developments are not there by accident. They do not sit with 25 per cent or 30 per cent rent-geared-to-income units by mistake. They are there because they were creations of new communities, new communities that by definition must mix age, generation and income. It would be a terribly retrograde step to move away from the very solid consideration of neighbourhood, community and mix within buildings and within developments and instead to move back to the isolated income ghettos that characterized the development of public housing in the 1950s and so many private sector suburban developments in the 1960s.

Clearly, the key to success in our society is to afford choice in housing: by tenure, by multiple occupancy or grade-related and by size for those who have small or large households, particularly those with children. There must also be a recognition of effective choice that responds to price. For those who are able to pay, there must be an opportunity to choose; but particularly for those who are not so able to pay, similarly there must be an opportunity to choose to belong to neighbourhoods that are as mixed as we have always felt they should be and as naturally occurring as they always have been, and not find themselves in a position where their freedom to choose is to choose no accommodation or the accommodation of the ghetto.

Mr. Dean: I rise to make a few brief comments on this bill which will probably not be as extensive as those of the previous speaker. I am a little surprised to follow one of our members rather than one from the third party or the government party, who I thought might be interested in making comments on the bill.

Mr. Ward: If the member is so surprised, he should sit down.

Mr. Dean: No.

Mr. Breaugh: Did the member say he was dumfounded, or just dumb?

Mr. Speaker: Is that parliamentary?

Mr. Dean: I would not use that word, because it might be unparliamentary.

Mr. Breaugh: What is unparliamentary?

Mr. Speaker: It is unparliamentary.

Mr. Dean: I am particularly surprised that someone who presumably has a number of tenants, and probably property owners too, in his riding, such as the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli), considers that he does not need to speak on the bill. I hope this does not mean the minister has everybody so whipped into shape on the government side that members have stopped thinking. In any case, I presume that is not the case.

I have about four items I wish to comment on. The first is one the previous speaker went into at some length. I will not be as long as that, but I do have concerns about how the so-called informal procedure, the first level of discussion about the rent application, will actually proceed.

The idea of informality and the avoidance of a hearing-like atmosphere is probably good in itself. However, I am concerned -- the minister can correct me on this in his response later if I am wrong -- that it appears there is not an adequate opportunity for either the tenants or the property owners to put at first hand their own respective concerns and to respond to whatever the others might say before the bureaucrat who will be the deciding person here. The fact that this one person or so is sitting in lieu of a panel concerns me.

Running through the whole policy there seems to be a theme that everything is assured; in other words: "Don't worry, kiddies. I am looking after everything well for you. Uncle Alvin has you in mind." How can the minister assure us and, more important, the tenants and the property owners in Ontario that they can be sure that the bureaucrat who is to make the decision actually hears correctly what they are saying and that their rights are protected?

I especially want to remind the minister of the effect on seniors, who will be so many of the tenants affected by the legislation changes, as they have been affected by the Residential Tenancies Act in the past. It may be difficult for them to understand that they are getting a fair shake. I hope they will be getting a fair shake, not only the seniors who are tenants but also the seniors who are property owners and small renters. We need to be concerned about them as well.

The whole procedure needs to be examined again to put to rest concerns that have been expressed to me, which I can see are quite valid, that there may not be an adequate opportunity for tenants, property owners or landlords, whatever we call them, to put their piece across.

I know one thing that will be said is that there is an appeal. Yes, there is an appeal, which is quite proper. However, we note that with the appeal, there is a fee. That is a backward step compared with the present setup. I do not think it is a good procedure. The minister should look at that. He has said in his statement that he is willing to listen to all the good ideas and to incorporate them. Here is a good idea: He should consider taking out this idea of a fee.

My second comment has to do with the experience that I know many of us have had. I have certainly had it in incidents in my own riding. Some owners have been squeezed by the restrictions to the extent that they have found themselves strapped to provide good maintenance for the amount of rent allowed.

I hope the flexibility that is said to be a hallmark of the new regulations will include consideration that will make it possible for good maintenance to be obtained. We do not want our housing stock to deteriorate. None of us wants ourselves, our neighbours or our constituents to be living in improperly maintained housing units. Very careful thought needs to be given to whether the present procedures do that.

I would be glad to hear the comments of the minister later about how he can assure us -- there is that very reassuring word again -- that the procedures involved here provide for the maintenance we want to see in all our buildings. is there enough flexibility in the bill to do that?

My third concern is about the people in our society whom I will call professional agents for tenants or for property owners. I do not mean there is anything wrong with people trying to carve out a position, a job or employment for themselves, but we have heard of people who go around looking for problems they can somehow turn to their advantage. They go fishing for business.

5:40 p.m.

I hope there will be adequate protection so these people cannot be barnacles on the ship of rent review and go snooping around for information from the commission or the board that would lead them to be able to advance their own cause as agents for either landlords or tenants.

If not already fully provided for in present or future regulations, I think they should have to be genuinely authorized by a valid document from a tenant or landlord before they could have access to any of the records of the board or the commission. Can the minister assure us that will be part of his assured housing policy?

I have another less important and more mechanical concern. Without having read extensively all the background and the references in each of the bills, it looks to me as though there could be something of an overlap. I hope there is no conflict, but sections 1 and 2 of Bill 77 that we now are considering appear to me to be very similar, if not identical, to sections 49 to 51 of Bill 78. I trust the people who drafted these have done it in such a way that they are not in conflict. I raise the question as to why we need what seems to be two recitals of the same policies and procedures.

I leave that for the minister to look into. He may already have the answer. I will conclude my remarks with those comments.

Mr. Shymko: Fifteen to 19 minutes may seem adequate to some members. I will attempt to raise the concerns I have and to congratulate the minister on some of the initiatives that have been taken in this bill.

When the minister first sat as a back-bencher on this side of the House on June 10, 1985, I listened attentively to his comments on the speech from the throne. I would like to refer to some of the remarks he made at the time, because they are so important with regard to the perspective we want to see in the legislation he has introduced today.

The now minister said on June 10 that "the issues we debate in this Legislature will affect the lives of the people of Ontario for decades to come." I hope the legislation he has introduced today will have that impact for decades to come. He mentioned that we have inherited standards set by those who administered this great province in the past. He mentioned a variety of names, some of whom were Tories and some Liberals, but in all fairness he was not prejudicial to the partisan relationship or origin of those great members of the Legislature. I would like to refer to some of the standards that were set and that are followed and implemented today by this legislation.

He also spoke of the opportunity to represent people who struggled in many parts of the world to have the simple opportunity to come to this place, to become citizens and to live in an environment "where fairness, justice and decency are fundamental rights." We are the protectors of that tradition of fairness, decency and opportunity.

I would like his legislation and what is being implemented to be in line with the comments he made as a humble back-bencher at a time when he was without the perks and glory, and I must say the responsibilities, of his present office.

I would like to refer to a pamphlet that was given to me prior to the election by one of the members of our Legislature. I believe it came from the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy). It is a publication called Tenant News and it is signed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), then the Leader of the Opposition. This is the first issue, addressing tenants, prepared and signed by the now Premier. It says:

"This brochure, dear tenant, has been prepared in response to the overwhelming number of phone calls and letters that I have received as a result of the takeover of 10,931 Cadillac Fairview apartment units in Toronto. The unsettling manner in which these properties have been resold and mortgaged highlights some of the inadequacies of Ontario's rent review legislation."

The tragic situation of that famous flip led to some very interesting changes, which the administration of the day resolved, such as the freeze on the financing and pass-through cost at five per cent, for which the present administration is taking credit. What I find unfortunate is the comment made by the then Leader of the Opposition when he said, "I am deeply concerned about the Conservative government's mismanagement of this issue and I am determined to assist you as much as possible in securing tenants' rights."

Since that tragic situation of the tenants of the Cadillac Fairview apartment dwellings had been the motivating factor in so many of these initiatives, why does the minister's bill not address a major concern of the present tenants? On November 26, at a public meeting, the tenants of 2,700 High Park high-rise units met and stated that they would like to have an initiative taken by the receiver, Clarkson Cordon, to convert the units into condominiums.

I want to remind the minister that in our speech from the throne and in the proposals of our administration when we were on the other side of the House, we suggested a very important aspect of assistance. In our speech from the throne prior to this government taking over, we had an interesting proposal for a $400-million rental supply fund. It was to be used to stimulate co-operative nonprofit housing to resolve the housing crisis and at the same time to provide assistance to help tenants to purchase their first homes.

The minister knows, as we all do, most people still prefer home ownership to renting. I know members of the third party may have some reservations about that because, with their ideological blinkers, they think public ownership may be the solution to the crisis.

Interjection.

Mr. Shymko: The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) may have some comments to make in the future about this, but most people still prefer home ownership to renting.

The proposal currently being offered by Clarkson Cordon is to make a survey of the physical plant of these buildings and then sell the units to the tenants as condominiums. This has the overwhelming support of the tenants of the buildings -- tenants about whose protection the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Premier, expressed great concern.

Why is there nothing in this legislation to provide that assistance we were ready to provide for this type of conversion? There is absolutely nothing. It is sheer hypocrisy to say we did nothing to protect these tenants, while passing out these cheap pamphlets of Liberal Grit propaganda. Today, when they have the means and the opportunity of addressing the issues, there is no mention whatsoever in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering how the member is coming to the principle of Bill 77. Are you coming to that eventually?

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: The principle of Bill 77 is rent review. The principle is there, implementing many of the elements that I, as did the member for St. George, presented before the Thom commission. The reduction from six per cent to four per cent is something we support because we introduced it, as members recall. The inclusion of units built after 1975 under rent review is something we supported as members.

We introduced the expansion of rent review legislation to cover units renting for more than $750. We introduced the expansion of the five per cent maximum refinancing cap as a result of the flip of the Cadillac Fairview apartments, as members who were elected in 1981 recall. It was the result of our intervention, with the support of all three parties.

Therefore, I support this legislation. I support the fact that the government is addressing these inequities, but I want the minister responsible for housing to look at an area of concern in my riding -- not only my riding because I must point out that tenants who live in these buildings would be guaranteed a lifetime tenure in these apartment buildings while the majority would opt for conversion. A minimum of a five-year rent increase would be kept under the current rent control guidelines. This is why there is a reference to rent control. Tenants would have a lifetime guarantee in the proposal being made by the receiver, while others would have the option for conversion.

I know there are concerns that the municipality may have some objections to conversion. At least, the past city council of the city of Toronto had objections. We have cleaned the socialist control out of city council now. We know there is a different composition. I know it disturbs the members to my left, but it is the reality of the day. Perhaps the city council will change its view on conversion, but the onus is on this government to provide some assistance and to support initiatives which come from the people.

I refer to the statement made by the then Leader of the Opposition in which he states that the needs, the desires and the views of the people are so essential and fundamental to the workings of parliament. The now Premier said in June 1978: "The people of this province must also be guaranteed an opportunity to participate. I do not have to remind anyone here that we are the servants of the people. They are not our servants."

The member quoted Edward Blake, saying, "The privileges of Parliament are the privileges of the people, and the rights of Parliament are the rights of the people." I want the minister to listen to the people in the Cadillac Fairview apartments who are saying: "Help us with assistance. Help us, allowing some tenants to remain tenants with a lifetime tenure guarantee and help us in the conversion." That is the right to property ownership, which I know the minister fundamentally supports. I would like him, while introducing this legislation, to address this crying need by the people in my riding but also in other ridings.

Mr. Speaker: I would like the member to address his remarks to what is before the House.

Mr. Shymko: Finally, the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier said we should not just speak and expound on our own views of the world, but allow our constituents and the people to speak out. I would like to read to the members the concerns of some landlords. These are the concerns expressed by a constituent of mine. This is Mr. Ib Amonsen, a landlord who owns more than seven apartment units. He is a hard-working immigrant who came to this country following the example described by the minister. He says the following:

"There is a loss of revenue by landlords since the 1975 controls which has escalated to a tragically high level. If counting the inflation rate of the last 10 years -- an average increase of nine per cent, for example -- on a $100,000-valued rent-income apartment building since 1975, the compounded loss of revenue is equal today to a full year's rent in 1984."

I am glad the minister is addressing the concerns of landlords in terms of getting back some of the losses that have been incurred. He said: "For 1984 alone, the cost of this loss is approximately $50,000 per unit. Market value for residential homes went up three or four times since 1974, but not so for apartment buildings."

His concern is that landlords have subsidized public housing accommodation since approximately 300,000 rental units in Metro are owned privately. He also said: "In Metro, landlords have lost more than $1.5 billion over the last five years and they picked up the tab as a result of rent control."

"Last year," Mr. Ib Amonsen said, "landlords passed on $150 million of savings to tenants which could have gone in repairs, maintenance, upkeep, and created some $150 million worth of jobs."

These are concerns that I think the minister is beginning to address. His other problem is the fact that landlords are hit by a very unfair tax assessment. I know the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), who has constantly addressed the issue of the unfairness of the tax system, is concerned.

I want the minister to know that for a single home with a $10,000 assessment, one uses the factor system of eight and pays $800.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member please return to the bill?

Mr. Shymko: On a duplex with the same assessment, one uses a factor of nine and pays $900 in taxes, but for an apartment building with seven units or more one uses the factor of 22 and pays $2,200 in taxes.

This is the unfairness and the burden borne by landlords who are not of Cadillac Fairview proportions. They are the 10-unit, the 15-unit and 20-unit apartment buildings.

Taxes between a six-unit apartment and a seven-unit apartment vary by a 13 factor point in the formula for taxes. The tenants in a seven-unit apartment building are paying the difference. He feels this is unfair. He believes these increases are being passed on as rent increases approved by the commission.

So the minister will not resolve the dilemma simply by this first step. There are much more important issues and the tax formula is something that should be addressed.

I want to conclude by saying that what we are witnessing now is a move in the right direction. The minister will have my support for the passage of this bill. l believe we in Ontario have experienced a prolonged and severe shortage of rental accommodation.

We have the examples of a number of cases. In the case of this legislation, the responsibility of the government to the society which it serves is to intervene sometimes, as we are doing now through law to ensure this basic need of shelter can be satisfied in a fair and affordable way. I am glad this is addressed.

I point out that in the last administration we were very proud to introduce many of the elements that are being introduced here. I congratulate the minister for recognizing this. I hope he will recognize this. He will have the support of members from all three parties if he continues in that direction. But there are still many loopholes, there are many concerns.

I will say sincerely that if he is planning to have another pamphlet such as this distributed to the tenants of the Cadillac Fairview apartments, he had better start thinking fast about the commitments he made. If he is saying the Conservatives have mismanaged the issues, then why does he not listen to the people, listen to the tenants and resolve their dilemma?

We are approaching the tragic time when I have to stop talking and I cannot continue to participate, but I thank the members for the opportunity. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: l advise the member that an adjournment is not needed because I believe we are continuing the debate.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

19 décembre 1985