Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RACING INDUSTRY

Mr Grandmaître: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has apparently seen fit to eliminate millions of dollars of funding allocated to the Ontario Racing Commission. These cutbacks will cripple Ontario's racing industry.

For the benefit of those members of this House who have not taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with all aspects of the Ontario economy, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that racing in Ontario is an important, agriculturally based industry, the disruption of which would have many wide-ranging implications for this province.

In 1989 alone, the racing industry generated over $83 million in tax revenue to the province. Perhaps more significant, there are 22 racetracks in Ontario, and over 50,000 people, mostly from the agricultural sector, are directly employed by the industry across the province.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will no doubt be aware that there are racetracks spread across Ontario from Sudbury to Windsor. She cannot claim that this is a marginal industry, nor can the minister claim that any disruption of racing in Ontario would be limited in terms of regional effect. Without government partnership, there are no racetracks. Without racetracks, over 50,000 jobs will be lost and a significant source of revenue to the province will be destroyed.

On behalf of those 50,000 employees whose jobs are now in jeopardy, I would ask the minister to reconsider her course of action. She knows full well the devastating consequences it will have for so many people in Ontario. I would ask the minister why she has chosen to target this one industry when she is in control of a vast ministry funding many Ontario programs which could also have sustained cuts. I would ask the minister not to sacrifice the interests of 50,000 employees because of her government's self-appointed mission to impose its moral agenda on all of the citizens of this province.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of Transportation the very real dangers encountered by my constituents, as well as others in the province, who use the Rockford corner on Highways 6 and 10 south of Owen Sound.

This is an extremely busy comer. Anyone coming from or going to Toronto or Kitchener who has a cottage on the Bruce Peninsula or who makes the trip to Manitoulin Island uses this cutoff. As a result, the traffic flow is extremely heavy. Accidents and unfortunate fatalities are far more common than they should be. The minister will know that for years people have been petitioning the minister to put stoplights in this location, and to the minister's credit, he has included the reconstruction of this corner in his five-year plan.

I am very grateful for this, but I would like to point out the fact that until the work is actually done accidents are still happening. Only by speeding up the plans to make this corner safer for the travelling public will we be able to stop some of the senseless carnage occurring here. I urge the minister to consider giving top priority to this most important project.

GUILD INN

Mr Frankford: One of the most prized amenities of my riding of Scarborough East is the property known as the Guild. Situated on the Scarborough Bluffs overlooking Lake Ontario, bounded by Carolinian forests and surrounded by green lawns and historical artefacts, the Guild Inn and the Guild property are a cultural and environmental heritage.

Mr Bradley: Haven't you nationalized that yet?

Mr Frankford: They already did.

Dating back to the 1930s, when it was called the Guild of All Arts, the site was developed and preserved through the foresight of the late Spencer Clark. In the difficult economic times of the 1930s it offered economic assistance to struggling artists; the Guild supported shops and studios for sculpture, weaving, ceramics and woodwork.

Members of this House will know that the site contains a hotel, where many of us have been entertained, as well as a collection of art and a unique collection of architectural details from old Toronto buildings. There are historic buildings, walks along wooded trails and spectacular views over the lake.

In 1978 the property was purchased from Mr Clark for $8.2 million with public funds. In 1983 the Legislature passed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act. This established a board of management to run the inn, with a membership of 15, seven of whom were nominees of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Clearly there was an attempt to have public involvement to maintain the character and amenities of the property.

The commercial operation of the inn has continued, with the involvement of a number of different companies in recent years. In the past year a major commercial development proposal has been announced, with the addition of 340 rooms to the present 106. This would result in a very dense development right in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. The residents of the surrounding area have expressed their opposition to the proposal, citing the impact of the scale of the project, the likely impact on the environment and the threat to the unique character of the Guild Inn.

I believe that there is a wider interest across the province in maintaining this unique amenity, particularly in light of --

The Speaker: The member for York Centre.

1340

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Sorbara: The Premier has made a virtue out of getting out of the promises that he made during the campaign, but he has also now breached commitments that he has made since the election campaign.

On 12 December the Premier introduced conflict-of-interest guidelines into this House, and at that time he promised that his ministers would divest of any business interests they had within 60 days and that he would report to the House. The Premier failed to meet that deadline and asked for an extension until 31 March, and now that deadline has been missed as well.

During committee consideration of these guidelines, the Premier made a very specific commitment to report to the Legislature and to the people of this province as to what assets his ministers would be retaining and what assets they would be divesting. In the guidelines, he proposed that, where it would be appropriate for ministers to retain their business interests, the reasons for retaining those business interests would be divulged to the House. It is now 2 April. The Premier made that commitment and he asked for an extension until 31 March.

It seems that there is no reason why the Premier could not have reported last Thursday to the Legislature. There is no reason why the Premier could not have reported over the weekend to the province. There seems to be no Premier's statement today on the matter of conflict of interest. Can the Premier tell us when his own ministers are going to comply with the guideline that the Premier himself has presented to this Legislature?

JUNIOR RANGER PROGRAM

Mrs Witmer: I would like to draw the members' attention to the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources has eliminated some 96 positions from the Ontario Junior Ranger program, through the closure of three camps and cutting back on two others. I am shocked and surprised that, at a time when this province is facing serious unemployment problems and a lack of job opportunities, this government is cutting back on a valuable program which provides summer employment for our young people.

The Junior Ranger program not only provides its participants with a summer job which enables them to earn money to further their education; it also provides them with valuable work experience and educational instruction. The work experience will give them the skills and the training they need in order to seek future employment and explore career opportunities. This program also promotes the development of the work ethic and social skills. The educational instruction gives the participants a greater understanding and appreciation of our environment.

I strongly urge the Minister of Natural Resources to reconsider the cuts to this program which provides job opportunities for our young people. On behalf of the students who will be denied the chance to participate in the Junior Ranger program, I urge the minister to reconsider.

AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP

Mr Hansen: I would like to make an announcement today on a topic which is important to me and all members of this House. It concerns leadership in rural Ontario.

We all know the importance of having good leadership in a community. We also know the importance of rural Ontario to the life of the province. Fortunately, there is a program that combines the best of these two worlds, the advanced agricultural leadership program. This program is an intensive two-year course in leadership development for proven agricultural leaders. The program has been such a success that an alumni association has been formed to continue education and training for graduates of the program.

The alumni association has come up with a program that will greatly benefit not only agricultural leaders in the province, but also the members of this assembly. I am talking, as many members will know, of the Ontario agricultural leadership alumni exchange. This is an excellent opportunity for the people in the agricultural community to come to Queen's Park and to spend a day with a member to try to get an understanding of how the system works.

It is also an opportunity for our urban colleagues especially to get out to rural Ontario for a day. They should just think about it -- a calm, relaxing day communing with nature with no telephone calls and no meetings. Many of the members of this House have already signed up. I urge all members, especially those urban members who have never experienced rural life, to sign up.

A kick-off reception is being held today at 6 pm in room 247. I urge all members to attend to show their support for rural Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Cleary: Farmers were surprised to open the 26 March issue of Farm and Country and find out that the province had a new Minister of Agriculture and Food. The member for Essex-Kent was quoted in that issue making at least two significant agricultural announcements which we have been unable to find out from the current minister in the House.

The headline on page 2 of the farm magazine read, "Interest Rate Relief in the Budget." The article below said, "The new NDP government is expected to announce a short-term interest rate relief package in its April budget, says Hayes," and on the issue of the expected minimum wage increase the article quoted the member for Essex-Kent as saying, "Don't think we're about to force that on farmers."

Farmers were glad to hear that the NDP government intends to follow the model of the previous Liberal government in providing interest rate assistance. The only questions we have are, will it call the program OFFIRR 2, or the Return of OFFIRR or the Son of OFFIRR?

Will the Premier tell us who is the real Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Essex-Kent or the member for Hastings-Peterborough, so that we may know whom to address the issues to in the House?

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Turnbull: The TTC has recently announced it is going to spend $6.8 million to purchase electronic signs for its buses. At the same time, the TTC has also voted to cut costs by laying off almost 200 drivers and reducing service.

At this difficult time, $7 million is a great deal of money to spend on bus signs. The people of Ontario have a right to know if they are getting value for their money. Did the TTC get the best possible deal for the contract?

Unfortunately, we will never know. Why? Because the manufacturers of signs in Ontario were never given the right to bid on this contract. It was never put out to tender. Instead, the Premier of the province sent a deputy minister to the TTC meeting to argue against public tendering of the contract in order to give the Urban Transportation Development Corp an exclusive deal.

Is this the way the people of Ontario can expect their government to do business from now on? Is the government going to continue to handle the taxpayers' money without any competition, without trying to get the best possible price, to run a closed shop? Is this another example of the NDP's efforts to reduce private enterprise in the province?

No wonder taxpayers are fed up.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr O'Connor: I rise today to add some views to the constitutional talks that we are entering. I also want to congratulate the select committee for the report that it was able to table in this Legislative Assembly.

The views I share today are from some of the over 70 students from Brock High School in Cannington in my riding, and they have sent them to me in the form of letters. These young students range in age from 12 to 16 and represent the next generation of Canadians who will enter in another stage of our history. It gave me great pleasure to hear from so many young people, but that pleasure sure changed when our collective responsibility became obvious.

I am pleased to tell the House that those young people are indeed proud Canadians and wish to remain united Canadians. They wish us to proceed to maintain the multicultural heritage that has developed from sea to sea to sea.

They point out that in many different ways they see challenges before us in all sectors of our society. They included our native peoples' right to self-government. Some of the students were concerned about immigration problems, but they realize that they are part of the great social programs that prove we are a great nation, if not the best in the world.

In conclusion, these students really can see the importance of maintaining our unity as a nation. We must live up to that responsibility these students see as ours. Mr Speaker, thank you for listening to these young Canadians.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Members may wish to welcome to our gallery two former members of the assembly: previously from the riding of Lambton, David Smith, and Jack Johnson from Wellington.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Hon Mrs Grier: I am speaking in my capacity as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

In late November I advised the House in my capacity as Minister of the Environment of the new directions this government would be pursuing to bring the management of waste in Ontario into the 1990s. I said this government would make waste reduction the cornerstone of our 3Rs programs. In February I announced the aggressive 3Rs programs which the ministry will pursue through the newly established waste reduction office.

The second commitment I made last November was that we would consult the public on ways to improve the environmental assessment process. These consultations are under way. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee is holding meetings in various locations across the province. I am confident that our goals of establishing a process which is environmentally sensitive, timely and cost-effective can be achieved.

I also said that we would address the problem of waste disposal capacity in the GTA. It is this third point, the GTA garbage situation, that I will be addressing today in my capacity as minister responsible for the GTA.

We all know the previous government's prescription for GTA waste: Exempt short-term disposal sites in the GTA from the Environmental Assessment Act and try to find a remote location for a long-term site.

I have considered the pros and cons of this approach from many different perspectives. I have discussed the proposals with representatives of municipalities and interest groups and with individual citizens. I have looked at how these previous proposals fulfil conserver society goals. I have considered what they might do for the environment and what they might do to the environment.

The impact on a remote community of disposing of refuse from four million people, even after the diligent application of the 3Rs, is unthinkable. Waste must be disposed of as close to the source of generation as possible. I have decided that the search for a long-term waste disposal site for the GTA will not be outside the GTA. This is a fundamental departure from the approach of the previous government.

The search for new capacity will proceed as quickly as possible and will draw on data collected already by the GTA regions and by the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee. As well, it will benefit from the public input received through the consultation processes undertaken by the regions, SWISC and more recently by myself.

I do recognize the past effort that the region of Halton has made for providing its own waste disposal capacity. Halton has more than 10 years of landfill capacity for itself, achieved after a long and difficult site search under the environmental assessment process. I therefore believe it is fair in this situation to exclude the region of Halton from this search for GTA solid waste disposal capacity.

In the near future, I will bring forward legislation to establish the new public authority which will have the responsibility for finding new long-term landfill capacity. I will expect this authority to reinforce individual, community and industry responsibility and action on waste reduction; recognize the importance of education and communication in achieving our goals; foster social equity and the conserver society objectives; ensure new facilities are environmentally sound; carry out positive public consultation and involvement; ensure facilities are operated on a true cost-recovery basis; and reinforce the important role of the regions and local municipalities in waste management.

Until the legislation is in place, I have directed an interim staff team to initiate the process of finding longer-term landfill capacity, enough to last the GTA many years. I have directed the interim team to focus the search effort on finding three landfill sites within the GTA. The process for evaluating alternative sites will be consistent with the improvements we are developing in the current consultations on the environmental assessment process.

I want to reinforce conserver society objectives by keeping disposal facilities as close as possible to the sources of waste generation, to respect, if possible, the existing contractual arrangements between GTA regions and to reinforce local responsibility for waste management.

I know there are limitations inherent in trying to find an environmentally acceptable site within Metro Toronto's boundaries. Accordingly, I am instructing the interim site search team to look for one site in York region and Metro Toronto to serve York and Metro Toronto, consistent with the process Metro had undertaken through the solid waste environmental assessment plan to look for one site in Peel to serve Peel's needs and one site in Durham region to service Durham's disposal needs.

Each site, however, will have a licensed service area that will allow it to accept waste from the other GTA regions should there for one reason or another be difficulties with one particular site. Over the coming weeks, the details of the site search criteria and the rigorous environmental screening criteria to be used in this process will be announced by the project team.

There is much to be done to make this new approach work. I recognize that in spite of aggressive waste reduction efforts, the capacity of existing facilities could be exhausted before the long-term sites are in operation. There are many arrangements for this interim period which need to be worked out and which will present us with some very difficult decisions.

I have instructed the Ministry of the Environment to look at all the alternatives for addressing these possibilities, and I will be consulting widely on possible courses of action in this regard.

Finally, let me assure this House that this government is determined to provide the leadership to turn this situation around and find the right long-term solutions to the solid waste crisis of the 1990's.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I am introducing today for first reading, if not for the first time, the Regulated Health Professions Act and 21 health profession acts. It is the result of many years of intensive consultation with professional and consumer groups, and I am the seventh Minister of Health to be personally involved with this legislation.

These bills are very similar to those given first reading by the House last June. They stem from the recommendations of the health professions legislation review, Alan Schwartz's review, which was non-partisan and independent.

The current patchwork of health professions legislation is antiquated and inadequate. Currently, eight different acts regulate 18 health professions. These new bills will bring 24 health professions into a uniform regulatory system, including seven professions which are now unregulated.

We believe the laws that regulate health professions must be changed to better serve the public interest and to provide a more modern framework for the work of health professionals. Consumers of health service have the right to receive health services that are competently performed, services which suit their needs and choices. On the other hand, health professionals have the right to work in a system that is equitable and in which their autonomy is respected and their contributions recognized.

This legislation preserves self-governance as Ontario's regulatory system. However, it contains features designed to ensure that the councils that govern professional colleges and their committees will govern themselves in the public interest. It will be a more open and accountable system of self-governance.

The health professions legislation review recommended that one third of the membership of governing councils of the professional colleges be composed of laypeople appointed by the government. We believe that for the consumer voice to be effectively heard, there must be a more substantial increase in public participation on the councils. It is therefore our intention to introduce amendments to increase public membership to just under one half. We will work with the professions to determine the precise numbers of public and professional members on college councils and committees.

For the same reason, a minimum number of public, that is, non-professional, members on discipline committee hearing panels will be doubled, to two. This particular change appears in the bills to be given first reading today. There is also a need to introduce greater flexibility into our health delivery system and to have a system that carries the values of equity and fair opportunity.

1400

Under the current health professions legislation, exclusive licences describing broad scopes of practice are given to certain professions. This system has impeded some professionals from performing to the full extent of their capabilities and competence. It has also failed to recognize professional autonomy and subjected too many professional groups to the dominance of more traditional professions.

The new way of regulating who does what set out in this legislation is based on the concept of controlling potentially dangerous acts. Thirteen categories of hazardous acts are restricted to regulated health professionals; everything else is in the public domain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Whether all members have a particular interest in hearing the announcement is of little consequence. What is important is that the minister has the opportunity to be heard.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: We believe this system will be better for health service consumers, better for health care providers and better for the health care system overall. The Regulated Health Professions Act deals not only with which professions provide which services but also with the quality of the services they provide. The new legislation requires each profession to set up its own quality assurance program. For the first time, every regulated profession will have a statutory system to assess the overall competence of its respective professionals. As well, consumers will have rights to complain about all regulated professionals.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about what this legislation will not do. In the health professions legislation review there was a section known as the "basket" or "harm" clause, which sought to protect consumers from harm that might be caused by unregulated practitioners, even when no controlled act was being performed. That section has not been included in the legislation. I believe it is unnecessary. The controlled acts provide ample protection for consumers.

Another thing this legislation will not do is deregulate the naturopathy profession. Naturopaths will continue to be regulated under the Drugless Practitioners Act until the new Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council, all laypeople, provides me with advice as to what the profession's scope of practice should be. A Naturopathy Act will then be introduced. Consideration of naturopathy's scope of practice will be the advisory council's first task. The council itself will be established as soon as possible after the legislation receives royal assent.

Finally, personal care attendants will continue to provide assistance with routine activities and support for daily living for persons with disabilities. An exception to the controlled acts for personal care attendants will be created by regulation. We are committed to involving persons with disabilities in the drafting of the regulation. Acupuncture will also be exempted from the controlled acts.

The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council will serve to ensure consumer input into the development of policy in this area. This will be achieved through the advisory council's lay or public membership and through its processes. I will ask the advisory council to conduct a review of the operation of this legislation five years after the act comes into force. The council will study the impact of the innovative concepts in the legislation and review its effect on professional self-regulation.

Over the years of this legislation's evolution, most of the consultations have been dominated by professional groups. To health consumers, I would like to say, "Now it's your turn."

It is my hope that the bills will be referred to committee, and I will ask the committee to make special efforts to hear members of the public, consumers who wish to make submissions, and to allow consumers to contribute to this lengthy and complex legislative package. I have asked the Ministry of Health to make information available to all interested members of the public.

I want to use this public occasion to extend a thank you to all those who have contributed to developing this legislation: to Alan Schwartz, who did the original review, to my predecessor ministers of Health, to members of the Ministry of Health staff, and in particular to the health professions, consumer organizations, public interest groups and individual members of the public who have dedicated much time and effort to bringing this bill forward. With the help of all these people, I believe we will reach our goal of providing legislation that will satisfy the needs of both the public and the health professionals.

RESPONSES

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the statement of the Minister of the Environment, who has once again put forward another piecemeal addition to a garbage policy as if it were a thought that just occurred to her; a whim, if you will. It is very clear that there is no waste management strategy here.

On 22 November the minister announced an authority for the greater Toronto area that would deal with the garbage. Five months later we have seen no legislation, we have seen no appointments of a chair or a board, no mandate, no funding, no criteria for site selection and no time lines. The minister acknowledges in this announcement that there will be a garbage gap. The minister has not, however, assured us that no garbage will be transported out of the GTA or out of the province, as Halton has had to do when its site was full, when the other sites are very clearly full -- and that is going to happen, as she knows, within the next two years.

It is also clear that existing sites must be used. Once again Keele, Brock West and Britannia Road are on the table. The emergency powers that she said she will use will clearly have to be invoked. She is not even bringing in regulations for her much-touted reduction targets until 1992.

We must ask the minister what sites she has in mind for GTA garbage. Will they be on class 1, 2 or 3 farm land? Will they be in the Oak Ridges moraine? Is Whitevale back on the table? What development freezes has she enacted in addition to Britannia that have not been announced and that people do not know about and where there has been no public consultation? What environmental screening processes will be put into place? She has indicated that there will be some. Will the new sites be subject to the existing Environmental Assessment Act or the new process which she has promised? However, there is no legislation in the House to bring that process in.

I also want the minister to put on her other hat. What are the rules relating to transportation of waste for other parts of the province? She is speaking as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area today; she should speak tomorrow as Minister of the Environment.

Every minister's statement to date on this issue has been imprecise and unrealistic. This minister's lack of action is shocking both in her naïveté and in the frustration that it causes. There is no answer to the problem in this statement.

1410

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to respond to the Minister of Health. I guess most members could predict what our response would be when she said early on in her remarks that the legislation is very similar to that which was tabled in June. I guess obviously the question that would be asked is, what took so long to bring it forward?

I think the members of the public will appreciate that the legislation is important. I do think it will broaden the choice for the consumers of health care in the province but also provide the necessary quality assurance. While the legislation has very broad support, I think the minister and others will appreciate that we look forward to second-reading debate and also the broadly public hearings, because there is still within the bill some considerable debate.

In regard to the comment the minister made on eliminating the "harm" clause, the "harm" provision, I think we will see a fair bit of debate, because I think there is not necessarily a consensus on that issue out there. It is one that I think at the committee hearing stage will be very important that we debate.

I think the most important thing that I would like to comment on is somewhat symptomatic; that is, my concerns about the ministry right now. As I have expressed before, I think there is a backlog in the ministry. I felt that this legislation could have come forward sooner. I have been looking forward to the long-term care reform enactment. I have been looking forward to the minister's announcements on community-based care. I have been looking forward to her announcement on northern health care which, as the minister may recall, she said she would bring forward in November when I asked in the House. I have been looking forward to her response on out-of-province billing, on the Ontario Medical Association negotiations, on the drug benefit plan. All of these things are backing up and beginning to, I think, feed the reputation and the term the minister is known by now, as sort of Dr Do-Little. We are concerned that in the Ministry of Health things are backing up.

As I say, this piece of legislation is symptomatic. It has taken six months to come forward. The problems in the Ministry of Health keep coming. The minister is going to have to begin to deal with them faster or they will pile up and we will see some significant concerns. We are pleased to see the legislation today and we look forward to the public hearings, but we urge her to get on to eliminating the various backlogs in the ministry.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Marland: I am responding to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. The minister must feel about as ill reading the statement today as I feel hearing it, quite frankly. After everything that she has stood for, after everything that she promised, I can hardly believe that she can stand in this House today and read this statement. Either she is getting very bad advice or she has thrown everything that she stood for to the wind.

I think it is colossal that for the second time she is again announcing the new public authority, six months after she announced it the first time in the throne speech. Six months later, she decides that she is not going to have it until she brings in the legislation. Who has power over bringing in legislation? The minister could have brought in that legislation in November had she had the good intentions. Furthermore, now she is handing over the responsibility to "an interim staff team." How irresponsible could she possibly be as the Minister of the Environment? She is handing over to them the responsibility for finding longer-term landfill capacity.

When the minister goes on and she reads further into her statement the fact that every site of the sites that she is talking about, the three sites in Metro, Peel and Durham, she is saying they "will have a licensed service area" which may accept waste from other GTA regions, "for one reason or another," but she does not say what that reason is. She does not say what the reason is that she has actually copped out on her responsibilities. Then she goes on to say that after she develops "the rigorous screening criteria," she may have to make some very difficult decisions.

Well, six months later, the minister is not making any difficult decisions. Six months later, she is making the most hypocritical statement of her career, and I think it is very unfortunate. We can only assume it is the bad advice she has received. In all the years she has stood for the environment in this province, all I can say about this statement is that after all her promises of no expansions, no new sites in Metro, she is now looking at sites that she turned down before. Simply put, the empress has no clothes.

Mr Cousens: Garbage stinks, the statement stinks, and Metro Toronto is going to be smelling its own garbage pretty soon. This minister has just not come through. I mean, the promises -- that was then; this is now.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Eves: I would just like to respond briefly today to the statement made by the Minister of Health. I might point out that it has been some 26 months since the Schwartz report was tabled that we are finally getting this legislation tabled in this House again. I would like to reiterate a couple of the comments already made.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: That has got nothing to do with the 26 months that have gone by in the interim, I say to the Minister of Housing. With respect to naturopaths, the ministry has had since the Schwartz report was introduced to deal with this crucial issue. The government, to be fair, has had at least six months to deal with this issue. I presume that Dr Barkin is still over there and that most of the officials of the Ministry of Health are still over there. They have had two years and two months to deal with this problem. I am kind of surprised today that we have not come forward with an act to deal with that profession. I am also kind of surprised and concerned about the ultimate disposition of the diagnosis clause and, in particular, the harm clause, or lack thereof, as the case may be in the future, with respect to this legislation.

The coalition of unregulated practitioners, which I am sure the minister is aware of, has some serious concerns about both clauses, but specifically, I think, it is important to say more importantly about the harm clause in the legislation. There are all kinds of professional individuals out there, be they psychotherapists, social workers, pastoral counsellors, parole officers, crisis centre counsellors. All these people are concerned about a proposed revised definition of the harm clause, if there is going to be one. Is the minister saying in this House today that there is not going to be a harm clause, period, of any description whatsoever, that she is not going to consider that during --

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I just said it. Were you not listening?

Mr Eves: They have some serious concerns about that as well, and whether or not they will be placed in legal jeopardy as a result of not having a harm clause. I think it is fair to point out to the minister that is a concern of theirs. They have said as recently as this morning that they have not been able to get a response out of the minister as to whether there would or would not be a harm clause and whether it will or will not be considered during committee deliberations.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGES

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege of which I have given you notice earlier today.

To paraphrase Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms,

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed...by members...without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

This, of course, echoes Erskine May's interpretation of privilege.

I should also like to refer you to item 2 of subsection 46(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, which I paraphrase as follows: "The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court or record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts...the acts, matters and things following...obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member of the Assembly."

Allow me to briefly outline the details of what I consider to be a breach of my privilege as a member of this Assembly. You will recall that last December, I raised here in this chamber the matter of the Deputy Minister of Culture and Communications, David Silcox's, rather excessive expense accounts. I did so with the view to determining whether the current Minister of Culture and Communications condoned the spending practices of his deputy and whether he was prepared to put an end to them.

I also raised the matter to draw the members' attention to the issue of government waste, the kind of excessive abuse of public trust and apparent unfettered access to public moneys that offends all but the most jaded taxpayers. My question and the minister's answer were given wide coverage in the media.

In January 1991, Mr Silcox was replaced as deputy minister. I am told that he is currently serving as special adviser to the secretary of the cabinet pending his posting at the University of Toronto as part of an executive exchange. Subsequent to this, it was brought to my attention that a rather lavish party was being planned for Mr Silcox's retirement from the ministry.

The flyer promoting this event states in part that, "The beautiful cascading lobbies of the Elgin and Winter Garden Centre will set the stage for us to convey our warm regards to a dedicated colleague and friend." I was reliably informed that tickets were being flogged to this event, $15 for bargaining unit employees and $25 for managers or higher.

I should tell you, Mr Speaker, that I was rather disturbed by the notion that public servants and others, including those who deal with that ministry, were being hit up for tickets to this event. I expressed that concern in an interview with Gerry McAuliffe of CBC Radio. I said in that interview that what Mr Silcox did with his expense account was wrong.

1420

Late last week, I received a letter from Stephen T. Goudge, who practises law with the firm of Gowling, Strathy and Henderson. Allow me to read Mr Goudge's letter.

"Dear Mr Tilson:

"Re David Silcox:

"We are the solicitors for David Silcox and as such have reviewed your statements in the report by Gerry McAuliffe on CBL on March 1, 1991.

"You allege that it is obviously quite apparent that what Mr Silcox did with his expense account expenditures was quite wrong.

"Your allegation is utterly false. As you should know, these expenditures were all properly undertaken in the proper discharge of Mr Silcox's duties as Deputy Minister of Culture. Moreover, they were vetted and approved by the Provincial Auditor.

"Please be advised that should you repeat these or similar false allegations outside the Legislature we are instructed to commence proceedings against you.

"Yours very truly,

Gowling, Strathy and Henderson,

Stephen T. Goudge"

I know full well that Messrs Silcox and Goudge cannot silence me in this chamber or in committee, and I am clearly subject to privilege, while at first glance it might appear that something said outside this House is not subject to privilege. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider the full implications of senior public servants threatening members with legal action every time they say that something a public servant has done is wrong. Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you that we could not discharge our duties as we traditionally have, nor as those who have sent us here expect us to.

This letter is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to muzzle me, and I would hope that all members would share in my indignation at being told by a public servant that I will be sued if I pursue this matter outside the House. Mr Speaker, a threat is a threat, and while we all react differently to threats, I would suggest to you, and through you to members, that threats such as this one weigh heavily on us and truly affect our discharge of public duties.

As well, I would suggest to you that a threat such as this from a senior public official cannot go ignored. If we as guardians of the public trust and public purse are limited to expressing our criticism of public servants' actions in this House and its committees for fear of being sued by those same public servants, we will be reduced to being little more than prisoners of this place:

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider whether I have a prima facie case of privilege in this matter.

The Speaker: First, I would like to express my appreciation to the member for having notified me in advance and, second, for having raised this matter outside of the time allotted for oral questions. I have listened carefully to the matter the member has brought before the House. I will deliberate on it and get back to you at my earliest convenience.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services. Over the past year, there has been a 48% increase in people using the Toronto food banks, as she is aware, and over the weekend, as she is also aware, the community did its best to raise sufficient food to carry on its activities during the summer months -- the rest of the spring and the summer months -- in the face of the recession that we are all aware of. Mr Speaker, you would be aware of the frustration expressed not only by the leadership of the food bank movement and its organization, but the many volunteers from across the city who assisted in collecting and packing the food, since they fell far short of their requirements.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House then, since her interest and commitment to this and the interest of the head of the government and all members of the government -- as a matter of fact, all members of this House -- is clear in this regard, why she has so far failed to take the sorts of actions that would ameliorate this problem which has been bad in the past and continues to worsen.

Hon Mrs Akande: I do believe that I have in fact taken action that responds to this important need. We have taken the kind of action which was initially recommended and supported by the food bank, and our increasing the shelter costs did result in a 3% decrease in the use of the food bank.

Mr Scott: Time for a cabinet shuffle.

Hon Mrs Akande: The other thing we have done is we have focused on our back-to-work initiatives and our retraining initiatives which have taken people off the rolls of social assistance and put them back to work, which is a great support to those people and of course also decreases the number of people using food banks.

The reality also is, though, that we are in a recession and that during that recession there is an increase in those who are using food banks. That increase has resulted in different people moving to use the food banks because of the transition of their moving from a salary to living on social assistance. We are moving and we continue to move to address their needs.

Mr Scott: That is when food banks are required, when you're in a recession.

Mr Nixon: The interjections by my colleague from St George-St David are, as usual, effective and thoughtful, because his point is well taken. It is during a recession that the assistance is needed. The minister is indicating that once the recession is over and the Treasurer's cash flow resumes, the NDP may in fact move towards fulfilling its promises to the needy and those on a wide variety of social programs in this province.

Surely in this instance it is obvious that action should be taken on a priority basis and the argument that the honourable minister is giving that we should wait until after the recession is on the face of it irrelevant if not ridiculous. Would she not see fit to try to persuade the Premier, who is shaking his head, and the Treasurer, who is white-lipped and trembling, that -- why could she not use her undoubted influence to point out to these people who seem to be heartless as well as incapable of keeping the most rudimentary promises that this is one that must be kept now, not when the money is flowing into the coffers? It is now that the need is apparent.

Hon Mrs Akande: Once again, it seems that the member has misunderstood, has misheard and, therefore, has misquoted. I have in fact stated that we have addressed the problem. I was only mentioning the recession in order to --

Mr Scott: She wouldn't even go to the food bank. It's not that far from Forest Hill. Get down there.

The Speaker: I appreciate that all of us have had an opportunity to rest, some a greater opportunity than others, but perhaps we could curb our enthusiasm and allow the minister to continue with her response.

Hon Mrs Akande: I have mentioned the food bank only to emphasize the point that people are at this point in time losing jobs and during the period of their transition from a salary to a point when they are accommodating to living on social assistance, there is a period of adjustment that is required, and that in fact swells the roles of the food bank. I would also mention that it is a load that this province has determined to carry on its own, because of course we have received no assistance from the federal government, and that we have moved to reduce the imposition on the municipalities by several acts we have done.

Mr Nixon: I do not believe the issue can be put off either on the recession or the federal government. I think the honourable minister would be a bit sensitive that she and the head of the government were singled out for criticism by Gerard Kennedy, who is highly regarded in this community as one who does not fool around with politics particularly and has a commitment to the Daily Bread Food Bank situation and one in general to the welfare of the community.

I just simply quote from his reported comments: "This is a pretty fundamental issue morally. I'm sure the idea that they" -- meaning the NDP government -- "would take care of social needs in a more compassionate way was part of their appeal." He went on to say, "We are not impressed "

Since there are many recommendations made in this regard that the honourable minister would be aware of that have come from those people who go to the food banks for assistance themselves, such as that there should be free transit passes for them to assist in finding employment and to go to their work; that there should be more subsidized housing, which was clearly promised by the government as the number one priority; that there should be further increases in their assistance and their education and training programs and school breakfast programs, would the minister not agree that there are alternatives, if not easy solutions, she must surely be recommending? Who is going to do it if she does not do it? Who is going to solve this problem other than waiting for good times to come when these people, who will then be employed, will not need the food banks? Would the minister not indicate to the House that she has a better answer than that which she has already delivered and which might move towards some sort of a reasonable solution?

1430

Hon Mrs Akande: The member is quite right. Gerard Kennedy is not a man who fools around with the issue, and this government is not a government that fools around with the people who have grown to depend upon it.

I commend Mr Kennedy's focus at the food banks. Yesterday I was spending my time meeting with people whose needs are indeed great, who in fact are users of the food banks who have come to me to ask what they might do to assist their situation.

I might also say to the member, though he seems unable to realize this, that we do assist in terms of transportation costs. We assist with transportation costs for those who are on back-to-work projects, we assist with transportation costs for those who are receiving training and we assist with transportation costs for those who are on low income and who require subsidies. So it is an initiative that we have long thought of and that will continue to grow.

The other thing is that now that Back on Track has come to us, we will be very quickly dealing with those issues.

Mr Nixon: I am interested in the aggressive response from the minister, but she is still failing to solve this particular problem.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Nixon: Now we will turn to another minister, the Minister of the Environment. I have in my hand a copy of a letter signed by the counsel for the intervenors representing Ontario in the case before the Honourable John T. Curtin, United States District Court in Buffalo, regarding the disposition of chemical waste in that area, which is contaminating the Niagara River and, through that, Lake Ontario and the water sources for many communities in Ontario and the United States.

I am alarmed and frankly surprised that this letter, which must have been sent with the approval of the ministry, if not the minister, withdraws the long-expressed objection of the province of Ontario, the former Minister of the Environment and the former opposition critic of the Environment, to the proposal from the United States that this containment would be sufficient only if walls were built around the chemicals that are buried, rather than their excavation and proper disposal.

Can the minister indicate the veracity of the position I indicated to the House the ministry apparently is now taking? How can she explain a complete change in view she is now taking as minister, as opposed to when she was supporting the former Liberal government in objecting to anything other than excavation?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am very glad to have an opportunity to explain the position the ministry has taken in this respect. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I certainly support and admire the position taken by my predecessor, the member for St Catharines, in his fight to try to get excavation of these sites on the US side of the Niagara River.

Unfortunately, what happened, as I suspect the Leader of the Opposition may know, is that the court ruled the intervention by the province of Ontario was not in fact valid and therefore the attempt to achieve excavation would not be allowed. What then happened was that consultants came back and indicated that, in their view, the plume that was moving off this site was not moving towards the Niagara River, but could be seen to be going or considered to be going to another location known as, if I can remember it, the Buffalo Avenue plant site.

The position of the ministry is that there was nothing to be gained by continuing in the direction that had been taken under the previous minister because of the court ruling, and it would be more effective if we proceeded with our attempts through the courts in response to the Buffalo Avenue plant site remediation plan which, it is felt by the consultants, will catch the aquifer that may or may not be flowing off the S site towards the Buffalo plant site. I do not know if I have made myself clear, but let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that this is an extremely complicated remediation and legal situation.

Mr Nixon: It will not be necessary for me to put on the record again the wide variety of quotes that came from the present Minister of the Environment supporting the former minister in his strong position that only excavation would be appropriate. She, as a close consultant with the many environmental groups, was certainly a clear voice for reason in those days.

Without quoting extensively from the letter signed by the minister's employees, it is clear that the officials in the ministry have expressed, under seven specific points, their continued concern with the proposal the minister is now accepting. Can she think of no appropriate action, such as talking to her colleague to her right, who I understand will be meeting with Governor Cuomo some time in the immediate reasonable future, to indicate that such a proposal without excavation is not acceptable and that at the very highest level, if we may put it that way, there is still some room to see that the consumers of Great Lakes water downstream from the Niagara River are going to have the protection she herself in her wisdom formerly was insisting on?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know whether Governor Cuomo can overturn a court decision, but the court decision taken was in fact appealed, and in both cases Ontario lost because the selected remedy could not be proven to be effective. Therefore, the letter which the Leader of the Opposition quotes explains, as he said, very clearly the concerns of the province of Ontario with the plans of New York state and ends up with, which the Leader of the Opposition did not quote:

"Ontario is concerned relating to contamination in and under the Niagara River to the Buffalo Avenue main plant litigation. Ontario intends to monitor the Buffalo Avenue main plant litigation closely to ascertain whether its concerns are being adequately addressed. We are using whatever legal avenues are open to us to continue to get the best possible solution to the problems that have been allowed to fester on the New York side of the Niagara River lo these many years."

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister is indicating there are no alternatives other than to agree to the American proposal. Yet the letter signed by her intervenor counsel says in the final paragraph, "Ontario will not object to the entry of the RRT stipulation by this court."

Why should we not object to the entry of that stipulation, which is the one we feel is totally inadequate? It is the one we believe will still allow leachate from these deposited chemicals over the years to move out of the bottom of the pit. Would the minister not continue to agree that if she does anything other than insist with all of her authority, moral and otherwise, that excavation and disposal be undertaken, she will not be adequately serving in her responsibility as minister to the people of this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is no doubt the preferred alternative of the province of Ontario, as it was under the previous government, is excavation of these sites. But when the court rules against you, when the appeal court rules against you, you have to find the best possible avenue to proceed. It is the opinion of our counsel and our counsel in the United States that the best way to proceed is to continue the litigation with respect to the next site, which is the Buffalo main plant, and that will continue.

1440

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today, in response to the Leader of the Opposition as to where she was on the weekend, the minister indicated she was busy meeting with people.

During the election, and last December in a direct question to the Premier, I asked whether the Premier would not take the lead or have his government take the lead in co-ordinating a breakfast program, and it could be financed corporately and run with volunteers at little or no cost to the taxpayer to provide hungry children with at least one meal each school day. I do not know whether it was a brand-new idea to him or not, but the Premier at that time said they would look into it. He assured the House my suggestion was one his government would consider.

I wonder if the minister could tell us then specifically what contacts or meetings, if any, she can relate to us today that she has had with individuals or groups who might want to be involved in the delivery of this type of program.

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, as the member may know, I did in fact have a lunch program at the school where I was formerly principal. We have discussed some of this information with a couple of the municipal councillors concerning how Toronto would be dealing with it. We have also discussed it with people who were involved in the food banks. We have also looked at the implication of such a program when our focus has been to make sure that families have an adequate income, so that they can provide appropriate parenting for their children, including feeding.

Mr Harris: Now that we know all her thrust and all her focus have totally failed, there are more and more children who are going to school hungry, there are more and more people relying on food banks and her answer is, "We're pursuing this other option," which is a total and abject failure.

The minister keeps telling us and the Premier keeps telling us they are consulting, it is going to be a consultative government. She knows the need is there. She has had many groups come forward, many school boards. Many corporations say they would be willing to participate. Can the minister tell us one school board she has consulted with about the possibility of bringing in a breakfast program for children who are hungry?

Hon Mrs Akande: In actual fact, when the member is referring to school boards, I have discussed this matter with the director of the Toronto school board, who is Joan Green, and with some members of the York city school board. In reality, it is the decision of this government to focus our funds where we can serve the greatest need. Our focus has been to provide for people in a way that supports them to parent their children and to provide adequate funds for shelter, as well as for food.

Mr Harris: The proposal I brought forward to the Premier last December, which I talked about in the campaign, the proposal that the private sector has talked to me about that many individuals are talking about, does not require extensive consultation. It does not even require very much money, if any. What it does require is some leadership from the minister, and if the minister will not do it, perhaps the Premier, some initiative in co-ordinating those resources.

I would ask the minister, when there are so many people willing to volunteer time, money, facilities, when it is work at no cost to the taxpayer in some examples already, why will she not show some leadership, help co-ordinate the existing sector and volunteer resources and provide a meaningful province-wide breakfast program that could be put into place at literally no cost to the province? Why will she not do that?

Hon Mrs Akande: Once again I must say to the member that we have consulted and we will continue to consult, but our decisions will be made on the basis of what provides the best support to most people and that is the most adequate income. The focus of that is the implementation plan which is coming back to us relative to Transitions. That is where we are focusing our energy and that is the plan that at the moment we consider to be the most effective.

Mr Harris: To tell the minister the truth, I cannot believe she is standing here and telling us that hungry children are not as high a priority as some 50 other programs that she is talking about. That is a disgrace, to stand up in this House and tell us that she has other priorities than hungry children.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Treasurer. I was shocked to hear; I would assume that he was shocked to hear; I would hope that all of those who are concerned about value for money were shocked to hear, that some of his government's so-called anti-recession package money is earmarked for transportation projects that are already planned and are already budgeted for by municipalities.

What mechanism does the Treasurer have, what auditing procedure, what control procedures does he have, before he throws all this money away, that satisfies and assures him that any of the Ministry of Transportation proposals will do what they are intended to do with this money, ie, be spent on new projects and therefore create the new jobs that he is hanging his hat on and saying all these jobs that he is creating. It is the only program he has got. Can he give us any type of assurance that he has any kind of reporting or auditing mechanism that has integrity in it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I should perhaps correct some of the impressions out there about the whole question of transportation projects. The projects that were approved by the operations committee, chaired by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board, came from the municipalities themselves. The Ministry of Transportation asked the municipalities all across the province which projects they would appreciate some support on from the anti-recession package. By the way, a lot of those projects had been on the shelf from 1990 and they updated them to 1991 in some cases, although in many cases the priority of those projects had not changed in the various municipalities. So in fact we did not decide: "This is the project you must do." We felt that since the municipalities are our partners out there they should have a say in what their priorities were and they selected the projects that they would use to create jobs in their municipalities and improved their infrastructure at the same time.

I am very pleased with the way the operations committee established the criteria and set the priorities all across the province and I am convinced that they did a good job and that those funds will be used to improve roads in the municipalities all across the province.

Mr Harris: The question I asked the Treasurer was whether he has any mechanism in place. I guess what he is saying is he does not have any mechanism in place. The Treasurer stands in his place, he makes an announcement, he says, "We're spending $700 million, that's our anti-recession package." Now we find out at least some, perhaps all, of this money is not creating new jobs; it is not going towards new projects. We know of two that the Minister of Transportation himself admits to. We know the city of Guelph says it got $1.3 million just for the asking. It was already spending the money anyway. We see another -- Kitchener -- some of the grant money there that has been reported, saying, "Oh, yes, we were going to do that anyway."

The Treasurer knows it is an election year. He knows that municipalities are on the front line of tax increases right now, so if he gives them the option of using the money anyway, does he really think that they are going to go out and embark upon some new projects to create new jobs? I ask him one more time, does he have any mechanism in place to assure him -- I would think he would want to be assured. Since he does not care, how about assuring this House and the taxpayers that this money is not being spent for other purposes?

1450

Hon Mr Laughren: I am surprised at how little trust the leader of the third party has in our municipal partners out there. When the projects were approved they were approved as specific projects requested by the municipalities. In some cases, I acknowledge the fact that some of the projects they will now do were projects they would not otherwise have done. They would not have been able to go ahead with the projects. If the member says that is not a new project and that is not new job creation, he can put that particular spin on it if he likes, but to me the important fact is that these were projects that would not otherwise have been done, that now will be done and will create jobs all across this province.

Mr Harris: Let me try one more time. Clearly, the Treasurer and his Premier and their ministers are running around the province saying what a wonderful job they are doing creating all these jobs with their $700-million recession package. Now we find out at least some of the jobs are not new jobs, not new projects; they are all existing projects. They are existing jobs that were there. I do not know whether it is all $700 million that is being spent this way or whether it is just the Ministry of Transportation. I can understand why he went from $0 deficit to $600 million, and then $2.5 billion and now $3 billion, and now he says it is okay to go to $5 billion, because he does not appear to have any accounting mechanism for the money he is handing out, that it is being spent where he said it is being spent.

Does the Treasurer not realize, when he says, or his Premier says, "This money is creating new jobs," and his Minister of Transportation says, "'Oh, no, they can use the job creation fund to cut costs, not create new jobs,' NDP minister admits," that we have no way of verifying or knowing whether he is creating one new job with his $700 million of money?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party understands very well that the purpose of the anti-recession package was to create jobs at a time of recession. But surely, unless he is going to engage in Social Credit accounting, he must also acknowledge the fact that if a job were not having to be done before the package was announced, and now it is being done, that is the same thing as creating new jobs. I can tell the leader of the third party that the intention of the program was not to allow municipalities simply to put the money in --

Mr Turnbull: There is no way to control it.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, speaking of control, perhaps the member opposite could bring himself into that state. I can tell the leader of the third party that I would not be happy if that were being done. I trust, however, that the Minister of Transportation is well equipped to monitor the projects he has approved, so I have no doubt in my mind that the anti-recession package -- by the way, the anti-recession package will accomplish what we set out to have it do, namely, to create jobs all across this province.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Last week, he told the Toronto Star that he could do nothing to stop Durham College from running a seminar and the bus tours to teach our students the finer art of shopping in the United States. As unbelievable as that statement was, he went even further and he said that if he were an avid shopper, he might even take the course himself.

Does the minister still feel that this was an appropriate response to a crisis which is costing Ontario taxpayers about $260 million a year, or has he had a talking-to by the Premier over the weekend?

Hon Mr Allen: Could I first put the issue in some perspective. As the member knows, the colleges have a certain incidental activity on the fringe of their main offerings which are leisure courses which are offered to the public on a cost-recovery basis. There is no public tax money that is involved in the expenditure on these courses.

What I said in response to the media was, of course, that if I were an avid shopper, which I am not, I might be tempted to take the course, and of course in the Port Hope and Oshawa area there are avid shoppers. They have been taking a bus for years from that region over to Buffalo to shop. So the college thought it might not be a bad idea to piggyback on that. I am not sure it was such a great idea, but I am not sure that it dealt the economy or the public a great deal of harm either.

Mr Daigeler: I find the response from the minister really utterly unbelievable. I do not know whether he checked with his own Premier and what reaction the Premier had last week. At least the Premier had the decency to say that the idea of courses to teach our students how to shop in the US is bizarre. I think at least he should get in touch with his own boss and figure out what the official line is. The minister has been, I am sure, called on the carpet so often that he is wearing out the carpet in the Premier's office.

Will the minister not address the problem which is the real problem? Will he not phone today the president of Durham College to say he disagrees with sending our students to the US to learn how to shop, and will he not do something so that our students and our people in Ontario will support Ontario retailers and Ontario business?

Hon Mr Allen: Let us be quite clear: It is not our students who are enrolled in mass numbers at the colleges who are engaged in these things. I am not any happier than the member is with the idea that people are being encouraged to go and spend dollars across the border.

When I responded to the question last week, in the first instance I did not have the slightest idea what the content of the course was. Quite honestly, if I were teaching it, I would turn it into a course which would deal with the fundamental differences between the American and Canadian economies -- what happens when you go over to a neighbouring city across the line -- and turn it into an economics course. The course in question does not do that. I wish it did, but I am not going to lay a heavy hand on the college and tell it to stop teaching. They have got the sense and they have got the mechanism to do what they feel needs to be done about deciding what courses should be offered. The president will be taking all that into account when he makes up his mind about this course.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and the minister of the greater Toronto area. Last Wednesday the region of Peel received an order in council which withdrew its planning authority under the Planning Act to plan for land surrounding the Britannia landfill site within 500 metres.

Since she has been minister she has withdrawn two sites, Durham and site B in Brampton, because they were to proceed under the Environmental Protection Act. I am wondering now today, with this action on the land surrounding the Britannia site, if this order in council means that she is now willing to proceed with an expansion of the Britannia landfill site without a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Hon Mrs Grier: The order that was issued last week means nothing more than my responsibility to keep all options open in the event that we do in fact have a shortfall between the completion of capacity at existing sites and the opening of a new site. With that in mind I asked the city of Mississauga not to allow development to proceed within the buffer zone around the Britannia dump.

1500

Mrs Marland: Of all the ministers in this House, we would have expected this minister not to backslide the way some of the others have with promises made by this government. It is a sad day indeed today for the environmental groups around this province that look to her for leadership. Quite frankly, if the minister realizes that the Britannia landfill site was originally approved under the Environmental Protection Act, she would not even be considering it an option. If she were still sitting in the opposition today, she would be fighting for full environmental assessment under the EAA. She would not accept the consideration of any expansion under the EPA. Here she has a site that she is considering as an option when she sat on this side of the House and fought against anything that was to be considered under the Environmental Protection Act.

I simply ask the minister, does she not stand for the same things that she stood for when she fought for those people who lived around Brock, Keele and Britannia, who simply asked for and had the right to full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. Is she not doing that today?

Hon Mrs Grier: Twice today the member for Mississauga South has suggested that I am backsliding on my environmental principles. I want to say to that member that this government has proceeded in the most environmentally sound manner with respect to garbage disposal within the GTA than the previous government and in a more environmentally sound manner than the government that preceded the previous government. We are proceeding with a waste reduction plan that is second to none across this country. We are looking at the Environmental Assessment Act to make it effective.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I realize that it is Tuesday and that brings with it a certain atmosphere in the chamber. However, it really would be helpful if we could all give both the questioner and the responder an opportunity to place questions and to complete responses.

Interjection.

Mr Speaker: Actually, it is in the standing orders.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sorry I am speaking perhaps strongly, because I know in my heart of hearts the member for Mississauga South is too committed an environmentalist to really believe some of the statements that she made earlier. Let me say to her in response that it would be irresponsible not to maintain open as many options as possible in the event that we find ourselves with a shortfall between the completion of the existing sites and the opening of a new one.

For that reason, last November I asked the municipalities to stop the final closure of all existing sites, and when I learned that the city of Mississauga was about to approve a plan of subdivisions right adjacent to the Britannia Road dump, this government moved to make sure that people could not be moved into houses with a garbage dump in their backyards in the event that it was necessary to continue the use of that site.

Mr Speaker: New question. The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Drainville: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Communications.

Mr Scott: You got back faster than I did.

Mr Mahoney: He's on a day pass.

Mr Scott: Are you on a day pass or are you here permanently? You beat me back to the House, Dennis. I was on vacation too.

Mr Drainville: I realize that the member for St George-St David is at his wit's end, and it has not taken him long to get there.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW

Mr Drainville: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Last week, he assured this House that there is a commitment on the part of the government to provide support to the Ontario film investment program. That is a laudable intention on the part of the government, and certainly we support it, but I would like to ask a question because there is a more significant problem here. We know, for instance, that in Ontario presently there are two major distributors that do not provide Canadian films for Ontarians to watch. I would like to ask the honourable minister in the House today, what is he or his ministry going to do to ensure that Ontarians have the opportunity to watch Canadian films in their local cinema?

Hon Mr Marchese: The member is perfectly correct in stating that Canadian films are rarely seen by filmgoers in Canada. In fact, in general Canadian features capture about 3% of the screen time and approximately 1% to 3% of the box office revenues. The announcement that I made last Thursday included two new initiatives that hopefully will begin to address this problem.

One initiative was the strategic industry plan, the intent of which is to develop a stronger film industry in Ontario in the next 5 to 10 years. In developing strategy to do so, the plan in addition would include addressing the whole issue of film exhibition.

The second initiative is the film exhibition pilot project, which will assist in the promotion and advertising of Canadian films. In fact, theatres in large and mid-size communities will receive funding to promote and advertise Canadian films. We hope to be able to extend this in the smaller communities after we have done the review.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health and has to do with cross-border shopping in terms of drug and alcohol treatment centres in the United States. I raised this question in December in the House. I think in January, if I am not mistaken, the minister said that in the future people will not be spending our dollars and using services available in the US that create jobs there which could be creating jobs here. I think in February a person in London, Mike Wilson, who is the acting manager of the St Joe's detox centre, said, "There's not a week goes by that I'm not contacted by someone from the US soliciting my services."

When will the minister bring forward her program to curtail this type of cross-border health shopping, which is being fuelled in Ontario by commission sales people, I think, to the tune perhaps of $50 million flowing annually to US treatment centres that could be better spent here?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member is correct that this is a serious problem and it is a problem that really needs to be addressed on two fronts. It is not only a question of preventing people from going south of the border to get treatment. They do not do that only because they are being hustled, though a lot of people are being hustled, it is true. It is also a question of building up our services here.

I will be bringing forward, in the next very short period of time, policy to cabinet which I hope to bring forward to the House within the next several weeks. I hope that we will begin to tackle the problem, but it is a larger problem than simply stopping the attractive sales pitches that are going on here on behalf of American institutions; it is also a question of identifying precisely what services we need and building them here in Ontario.

1510

Mr Phillips: I used to kind of accept those answers. I remember my very first question to the minister was on northern health care. This was in November, and I remember her saying, "I would like to let him know that I will be addressing each of those concerns in an itemized way over the next few weeks." I went back to my office and I said, "I'm making things happen." Every day I checked my mail and nothing came in my mail about northern health care. So I am learning. I am learning, as I said in my remarks on the minister's statement, that Dr Do-Little is beginning to actually sink in on me too in terms of the action of the ministry.

I wonder if the minister could be a little more helpful to me, so I do not have to check my mail every day, on when this action will be coming forward in the next few weeks. I am learning that no one believes me when I say she is coming forward in the next few weeks. Could she be a little more helpful to me, because I do think it is important? I think literally millions of dollars are going down there.

It is not just on drug and alcohol treatment. I think the minister will find now head injury. Today I heard of a case -- it was in the paper, I think -- of an asthma victim who is leaving the province for treatment. It seems to be reaching quite significant proportions. Can the minister give me a little more help just in terms of timing, so I can sleep better at night?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I tell the member that sometimes I share his feeling. It does take a long time to get things done, even with the best of intent. Certainly he will be aware that the previous Minister of Health was aware of the problems that we face in terms of head injury services -- and again there are serious gaps in that service in Ontario -- and in terms of treatment facilities and treatment programs for substance abuse. These problems are not problems that started last October; these problems are problems which have existed over a period of many years and which have not been addressed in a staged way before and which this government is determined to address in a staged way.

I am not content as Minister of Health to say to this Legislature that I am going to insist that we spend this and that kind of money immediately building up the programs that are going to solve the problem in terms of providing the services we need here. I want to know that those services are going to be effective services, as good as we can make them. We are going to build them for the 1990s so that they will last us through the 1990 period and, hopefully, we will not be facing this 10 years down the road.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Harris: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today in her statement, on page 2, she states that the impact on a remote community of receiving refuse from the GTA is "unthinkable." In view of the fact that it is not unthinkable to the people of Kirkland Lake, it is not unthinkable to the CNR, it is not unthinkable to the Ontario Northland Railway, it is not unthinkable to those who would like the recycling jobs in that part of northern Ontario, other than her northern Ontario caucus colleagues who have this perceptual problem that they, without analysing it, said they were opposed to this in principle, can the minister give me one environmental reason why it is unthinkable?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the primary environmental reason is that it is more responsible to look after one's waste products as close as possible to the source of the generation of those products. To move waste hundreds of miles across the province, to move secondary resources hundreds of miles across the province to be recycled, and then to be brought back, if that is not absolutely essential, is not in the best interests of the environment. It was for those reasons that I made my decision.

Mr Harris: I understand why, now that there are big jobs in recycling and in handling the environment, those in southern Ontario have changed their views and they are not at all interested in northern Ontario receiving any of those benefits.

I would ask the minister this; I have not heard any particular environmental reasons from her. Can she explain to us why she would not allow it to go through to an environmental assessment, to determine if in fact this proposal that was put forward, in good faith, as they were asked to do by the community of Kirkland Lake and those involved -- why she would not, instead of making some subjective judgement that it is "unthinkable" to her, allow this project to proceed through an environmental assessment to see if it is unthinkable environmentally? I do not know, but if it went through that, perhaps this proposal may be the most environmentally sensitive proposal of all. Why would she refuse to allow that proposal to go through with the environmental assessment process?

Hon Mrs Grier: Because, as I said in my initial answer, I think the best environmental principle is that waste ought to be dealt with as close as possible to the source of generation. If you follow that principle, it therefore follows that the impetus to get serious about reduction and re-use is much stronger and much more likely to be effective than if you can ship the waste many hundreds of miles away to have it out of sight and out of mind.

SEASONAL CAMPING TRAILERS

Mr Waters: I have a question I would like to address to the Minister of Revenue. Last July and August there was a major concern raised over the subject of taxation on seasonal camping trailers. As the 1991 season will soon be upon us, my question to the minister is, who will be affected by the proposed changes to the Assessment Act regarding seasonal trailers?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: There are not any changes proposed to the Assessment Act regarding the assessment of seasonal trailers.

As the member is aware, and as was particularly evident immediately prior to the election of our government, there has been a long-standing controversy surrounding the assessment and taxation of seasonal trailers located in private campgrounds. The previous government attempted to resolve this controversy by attaining a workable solution which would be agreeable to campers, campground owners and municipalities. This proposal involved amending the Municipal Act to permit municipalities to impose a permit fee on seasonal trailers located in campgrounds for more than 90 days. However, under the previous government an agreement could not be reached and consequently no new policy with respect to the taxation of seasonal trailers was implemented.

Mr Waters: By way of supplementary to the minister, will the property assessment program continue to assess seasonal trailers?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: In the past, assessments had been passed on certain seasonal trailers. The Supreme Court of Ontario has upheld these assessments and ruled that trailers that are permanently attached to land are liable for assessment and taxation. This ministry will not make any change to the assessment of trailers located in private campgrounds.

In addition, my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and I will not proceed to introduce any new policy with respect to trailers without having full discussions with all affected parties, including campground owners and municipalities.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Mancini: I address my question to the Premier, and I wish to thank the Premier for staying so late into question period.

Mr Elston: I think we should have a 90-minute question period.

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Well, he may not have wished he stayed after we finish.

In November of last year, the Premier broke his party's election promise of funding Go rail extensions to Peterborough. In response to this broken promise, the people of the Peterborough region held a meeting on 12 December last. They invited the Minister of Transportation, but he said no. They asked the minister to send a staff person from his office; the answer was no. They invited the seven socialist MPPs who represent the region, and they all said no. They asked the minister to send a civil servant to take notes of the meeting; the answer was no.

The people at the meeting and the people who make up the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock Line Passenger Association were angered to find out that in fact someone from the Ontario government did attend the meeting. It was referred to in today's Toronto Star report as, "Transport Ministry Sent 'Spy' to Meeting, Documents Reveal."

When the Premier was a member of the opposition and the leader of the opposition, he spoke on a regular basis about integrity in government and standards in government. The people in the Peterborough region have reason to expect a certain standard and a certain level of integrity from our ministers and from employees of the government. Does the Premier believe that while on one hand receiving a no from everyone invited to the meeting, it was fair or appropriate for the ministry to send an employee of the ministry in a covert fashion to make reports on the meeting and filter these reports on up to the minister?

1520

Mr White: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member referred to the members in that local area. You will remember that on 12 December we were sitting until midnight and the other members, like myself, were here, unlike the member for Essex South.

The Speaker: It is not a point of privilege. I do appreciate the member expressing some concern.

Hon Mr Rae: I had a feeling that the member was going to ask that question, which is why, of course, I would not have dared miss it, and the minister is not here today.

I want to say first of all I would not want the member to leave the impression that there were no meetings between the minister and his staff and the group in question. There was a meeting on 9 November, as I am sure the member will know, and the member is quite right when he says that the government decided that it would make far more economic sense at this stage to proceed with a bus route rather than simply with an extension of the rail line.

Having said that, I was troubled by the news report which I read today with respect to the fact that a member of the ministry, a public servant, attended the meeting and did not let people know that he was there, that is why he was there and that is who he is. I can tell the member I expect members of the government, I expect members of the civil service, who are there representing the government, when they are attending public meetings, to let people know they are there, to tell them who they are and simply leave it at that. That is what I expect.

Mr Mancini: I want to thank the Premier for the answer, and I am sure that the people of the region are going to in fact feel that maybe in the future their concerns will be listened to.

At the meeting, the person who was sent by the ministry wrote a four-page report that was funnelled up to the minister, I assume, and these are some of the comments that were taken as notes, and these are verbatim.

It says, "On the blackboard was the following quote from Bob Rae, 'I am pleased to make a commitment to extend GO Transit service to Peterborough and Brantford.'"

Another quote from the four-page memo states: "Jenny Carter was supportive of GO rail service to the area until she became a minister. Now she doesn't need the service because she is driven to work in a limo each day. Why is Brantford being served and not Peterborough?"

Also another quote, "If the area does not get train service, it will remember, just as it will remember what Mulroney has done."

In a letter sent to the Premier within the last day or two, the association puts this very important point to him, "Simply put, we as commuters cannot withstand, on a continuous daily basis, the frustrations, inconvenience, discomfort and loss of productive time which arise from multiple modal transfers and lengthy highway travel."

These people have made an economic case. They have made a social case. They are relying on the Premier to keep his promise. Can they count on him to keep the promise that he made last summer?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the minister has already made it very clear that for the time being, given the cost -- I want to go over with the member some of what the estimates by the government of the costs are.

The capital costs of the construction to Peterborough are somewhere between $10 million and $12 million. The annual operating costs would be $3.5 million. The revenue would be about $600,000, which would mean that the annual loss every year would be close to $3 million.

I would say to the member that, given that information, I do not make any apologies for the fact that we felt it would be far more responsible for us, until we can find a lower-cost rail alternative, to proceed with a bus alternative, that we would try to make the bus alternative as efficient and fair as possible, and that if it turns out that there is a change in the economic circumstances, then obviously we can go the train route.

I would ask the member whether he would think it wise, given the circumstances that are there, to run something on it that would operate at a loss of $3 million a year. On balance, we decided that that made less sense than for us to proceed with the bus alternative for the time being, and that is the decision of the government and that is the way it is.

PETITIONS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 333 residents of South Winds Village in the town of Westminster, riding of Middlesex.

These 333 constituents respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide 100% funding for the sewage treatment plant now needed to correct the problem of malfunctioning septic systems and related health hazards in this four-year-old subdivision developed by South Winds Sand and Gravel Ltd.

They also request that the Parliament of Ontario pursue all necessary and appropriate avenues to secure contribution from all those who properly share financially responsibility for the sewage and septic problems in South Winds.

I have signed my name to this petition.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS

Mr Christopherson: I am pleased to rise in my place today and present a petition of behalf of individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome. These Ontarians are requesting funding for testing, assessment and treatment for patients with ME. The petition is signed by almost 1,700 individuals, and I would also like to acknowledge the presence today in the gallery of representatives from the ME association of Halton-Wentworth. I have also affixed my name to this petition.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Mr Speaker, I am asking consent to revert back to motions.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to revert to motions?

Agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mrs Coppen moved that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order of precedence for private members' public business:

"(a) ballot item 7, Mr Mills; ballot item 11, Mr Chiarelli; ballot item 14, Mrs Sullivan; ballot item 20, Mrs Fawcett; ballot item 41, Mr H. O'Neil; ballot item 64, Mr Phillips; ballot item 80, Mr Conway; ballot item 98, Mr Lessard;

"(b) Mr Charlton and Ms Churley be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and all members of the New Democratic Party caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn;

"(c) the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 7 and 8;

"and that, notwithstanding any standing order or practice of the House, in the time allotted for consideration of ballot item 9, motions for second reading of two bills may be made and the bills debated together."

Motion agreed to.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 43, An Act respecting the regulation of Health Professions and other matters concerning Health Professions.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 43, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions de la santé et d'autres questions relatives aux professions de la santé.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES AUDIOLOGUES ET LES ORTHOPHONISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 44, An Act respecting the regulation of the Professions of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 44, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions d'audiologue et d'orthophoniste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CHIROPODY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PODOLOGUES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 45, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropody.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 45, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de podologue.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CHIROPRACTIC ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CHIROPRATICIENS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 46, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropractic.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 46, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de chiropraticien.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTAL HYGIENE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 47, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Hygiene.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 47, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'hygiéniste dentaire.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DENTAIRES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 48, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Technology.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 48, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien dentaire.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTISTRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 49, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dentistry.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 49, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de dentiste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTURISM ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTUROLOGUES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 50, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Denturism.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 50, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de denturologue.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DIETETICS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DIÉTÉTISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 51, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dietetics.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 51, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de diététiste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1540

MASSAGE THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MASSOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 52, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Massage Therapy.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 52, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de massothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DE LABORATOIRE MÉDICAL

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 53, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Laboratory Technology.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 53, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien de laboratoire médical.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS EN RADIATION MÉDICALE

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 54, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Radiation Technology.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 54, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien en radiation médicale.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MEDICINE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 55, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medicine.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 55, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de médecin.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MIDWIFERY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SAGES-FEMMES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 56, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Midwifery.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 56, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de sage-femme.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

NURSING ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INFIRMIÈRES ET INFIRMIERS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 57, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Nursing.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 57, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'infirmière ou d'infirmier.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES ERGOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 58, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Occupational Therapy.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 58, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'ergothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

OPTICIANRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTICIENS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 59, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Opticianry.

Mme Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 59, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'opticien.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

OPTOMETRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTOMÉTRISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 60, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Optometry.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 60, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'optométriste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

PHARMACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHARMACIENS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Pharmacy.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 61, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de pharmacien.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1550

PHYSIOTHERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHYSIOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 62, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Physiotherapy.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 62, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de physiothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

PSYCHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PSYCHOLOGUES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Psychology.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 63, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de psychologue.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

RESPIRATORY THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INHALOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 64, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Respiratory Therapy.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 64, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'inhalothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

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

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, perhaps I might ask the permission of the committee for staff from the ministry to be on the floor with us.

The Chair: Certainly.

Hon Mr Cooke: Could I also ask the unanimous consent of the House leaders from the two opposition parties to indicate to the House that any votes will be stacked on Thursday at 5:45.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Ms Poole: Our caucus does have a number of amendments which we would like to place forward. I wondered if it might be appropriate before then if the minister gave some general comments to the purpose of the bill and some of the background information. I notice quite a few members in the House today who were not privileged to be sitting on the standing committee on general government when we went through clause-by-clause, and I think it would be quite appropriate.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the invitation from the opposition critic, but she will understand, as does the critic for the third party, that we had an extensive debate at second reading, we have had discussion in question period, we have had several weeks of public hearings, we have had clause-by-clause and we have had consultations across the province. So I am prepared to get on with clause-by-clause and finish this bill because it is essential that this bill get into place very quickly. Tenants are wondering when this protection is going to be put in place.

The Chair: Would you please list your amendments.

Ms Poole: Since the minister does not wish to make opening comments, I will proceed.

We propose to have amendments to section 8 of the bill, subsections 100b(1) and (2) of the act; section 8 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(f) of the act; section 8 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(g) of the act; section 8 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(h) of the act; section 8 of the bill, subsections 100e(8a), (8b) and (8c) of the act; section 8 of the bill, section 100ga of the act; section 8 of the bill, section 100n of the act; section 8 of the bill, section 100ta of the act; and finally, and lastly but not leastly, section 8 of the bill, section 100tb of the act. We have filed five copies of those amendments with the table.

The Chair: Are there any other amendments to the section of the act?

Mr Tilson: Yes, Mr Chair, the Progressive Conservative Party does wish to make a number of amendments in due course. I can list off some amendments that will be proposed.

The first one will be to subsection 1(2) of the bill; section 8 of the bill, which deals with section 100b of the act; section 8 of the bill, which deals with subsection 100e(1) of the act; again, section 8 of the bill, which deals with clauses 100e(2)(f) and (g) of the act; also on section 8 of the bill, clauses 100e(2)(h) of the act; section 100ia of the act and section 100n of the act. I have copies that I can table with the Clerk.

The Chair: In the future, whenever you bring in amendments, if there is a possibility, perhaps you would print five to eight copies.

Mr Tilson: I am arranging for that now.

The Chair: No, it is fine now, but just in the future.

Mr Tilson: Thank you.

The Chair: On section 1, you have some amendments, the member for Dufferin-Peel?

Mr Tilson: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Mr Tilson moves that subsection 1(2) of the bill be struck out. Do you have any comments?

1600

Mr Tilson: We have heard indications from the Minister of Housing that there is an interministerial committee dealing with the subject of mobile homes. In other words, there has been an acknowledgement -- I will interpret that as an acknowledgement -- that the subject of mobile homes is not a subject of this bill, and yet it continues to be there. I have yet to receive any indication from the government as to what that interministerial committee is doing.

During the hearings that went around the province, specifically in Windsor, we had a number of delegations speaking to the committee, which indicated to us that this was indeed a most inappropriate subject for this bill. I specifically refer to the mobile home being quite different from the residential apartment or the typical residential unit throughout the province, in that with the mobile home normally there is an individual or a corporation which owns the overall sites of the mobile homes and the individuals or the tenants who rent those individual sites own their homes.

The difficulty with those situations is that if there are breakdowns in communications between the tenants and the landlords, they really have a limited number of places to go, a limited number of sites where to move their homes, also at great cost. It does create a considerable amount of difficulty for the tenants with that type of subject.

We were advised that, with the mobile home owner, in other words the owner of the site, there were situations where the Ministry of the Environment would require changes in the water system and the sewage system and the overall site would have to be changed to meet the growing standards and the growing regulations of the provincial government and that would be at great cost to them. I am thinking specifically of a sewage system or a water system which normally is carried out by a municipality. In these particular situations, they have to be carried out by the individual owners of the mobile sites at a cost that individually they cannot afford.

Quite naturally the tenants feel it is great that they do not have to pay the increased rent because of the interim legislation, Bill 4, the two statutory requirements, and if capital expenditures are to be made by an owner, he will have to absorb them. He or she would have to absorb those costs and they could not be passed on to the tenant, astronomical costs for replacing systems such as that. Tenants spoke to me certainly, as did owners. Their fear was that because of the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, their homes could be shut down and they would literally have no place to go because of the inadequate water or sewage requirements.

We had several delegations and I would like just to refer to a couple of them to illustrate the problem that occurred in this area.

The first one I would like to refer to is a firm called Meneset Mobile Park Inc, which is from Goderich. They made their submissions to us on 24 January. I would like members of the committee who have not had an opportunity to review this to review some of the thoughts by this firm:

"My wife and I are the owners-managers of Meneset Mobile Home Inc, a land-lease community. Our feelings are that we are not and should not be under rent controls.

"In 1968 I started the park. I was teaching in high school and my wife was an RN. Evenings and weekends I worked laying sewer, water and hydro lines. My teaching salary, as well as any park income, was all put back into the park development as, unlike the government, we were against the plan being proposed by the government."

They go on to refer to what is required in their municipality. They say:

"We are a small town. Towns collect taxes without government interference. They obtain grants for road and utility work and have money put aside for future projects. They can also raise taxes to cover GST. I am supposed to pay increases in fuel up to 15%, heat 20%, wages 6%, OHIP 200%, workmen's compensation, Canada pension, insurance, taxes, general repairs, building repairs, landscaping, road and ground maintenance, vehicle maintenance, all of which have increased more than 4.6%. A 4.6% increase in my $150 rent per month gives me a $7 increase per tenant per month."

In other words, this firm was comparing its park to a municipality that has the financial resources to complete these projects, to do these types of projects, and I think this clearly should not be the subject of rent review. In other words, these people are perfectly correct. It should not be the subject of rent review, yet it persists to be in this bill.

The minister has said there is an interministerial report being prepared. I am asking the parliamentary assistant to tell the committee exactly what the status of that report is, what the status of that committee is.

I would like to refer to another firm from Clinton, Morgan's Mobile Homes. This also was received by the committee on 24 January last, and they make similar comments as to why it is inadequate legislation for Bill 4. They speak of how they have a land-lease community. It is operated as a private business.

"We own the land and lease the serviced lot to the tenants for their home. It is hooked up to hydro, water and sewers. It is totally our cost to install these services and to maintain them. The same applies to all roads."

This is another example; if roads need to be maintained or capital expenditures need to be made on these roads, if it was a municipality, the municipality would have the financial resources to complete those roads. These types of businesses clearly do not have the great resources of the municipalities.

"The tenant pays a monthly fee of $95 to us for this land lease, and for that they have a nice lot to put their home on it, and it includes their water and sewer paid for garbage picked up and streets maintained. It is called a mobile or modular home park and is identical to a small village or town. We as park owners need some expensive equipment to develop and maintain these parks."

Obviously, again comparing to municipalities, the municipalities have this equipment. Mobile home parks do not, and either have to purchase the equipment themselves or contract it out, all at major capital expenditures which they clearly do not have the resources for and which clearly have not been contemplated by this bill, albeit an interim bill. Certainly these people are concerned about the ongoing problem of maintenance in their parks and the fact that the government is not properly addressing it and is simply saying in Bill 4 that it is subject to rent review.

They go on to say: "If we have a heavy winter, we spend most of the time plowing snow, of which there is no return for our work or cost of maintenance on machinery. Should someone's sewer or water cause a problem in the middle of the night, there is no public utilities commission who will look after it. It is up to the park owner. We find we as owners and landlords are doing a lot of hours of work for very, very little pay.

1610

"We are in the process of having our park appraised, and the consensus is if we were to sell our park to our son, which he would like to buy as that is the only business he knows, the land rent of $95 a month would not allow him to buy it. It is not a viable business and guidelines of 5.2% will not make it a viable business either. We are going to have to get our land rent up to $150-$175 a month to cover expenses and make it a viable business. This will be now prohibited by Bill 4. Many people in our park are retired, drive new cars etc, and have money invested at 10%-plus. Our park alone does not give us a living. It is subsidized by sales of homes out of the park.

"The governments say they need more affordable housing. Our manufacturers and ourselves can supply this type of housing but we are not going to do this if we cannot get a reasonable return on our money invested. That is the general intent of the proposed amendment. We simply feel that it is not the proper subject of rent review. If the government is contemplating other legislation, let's do it now rather than creating the difficult problems with the mobile home owners, both landlords and tenants.

I would like a question, my question that I have asked the parliamentary assistant on that subject, as to the status of the interministerial committee.

The Chair: Are you representing the minister? You could take the front seat if you so wish.

Ms Harrington: May I speak in his chair?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms Harrington: I certainly appreciate the concerns of the member with regard to the provision of a municipal type of services in mobile home parks. We all know this is certainly a great expense. On his question with regard to the interministerial committee, I understand the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Revenue are all involved and they have met with various mobile home park operators. I do not know all the details, but I believe the report will be back to us very soon.

Mobile home parks have always been under the existing legislation. I submit that it is not within the scope of this amendment to evaluate which types of dwellings are covered, whether homes for the aged or other types of retirement homes should be under rent control. What I would like to tell the member is that this matter of which types of accommodation are covered under rent control is dealt with in the green paper, the consultation paper. It is the first item of discussion in there. We have had consultation with various people across the province on the green paper already with regard to that issue.

The last thing I want to tell the member is that we are looking at the big question of mobile home parks but that is not part of this legislation.

Mr Tilson: I do not really believe the question has been answered. There has been an acknowledgement by the minister in our committee that this is under the subject of ministerial review. I appreciate the comments that the ministry is consulting, that it may be the subject of the green paper, however the subject before us now is Bill 4. What is relevant is Bill 4.

If we acknowledge that it is not the subject of this legislation or if it is in fact causing great problems with the mobile home owners and the tenants, my question therefore is, if we are going to be dealing with it at a later time in other legislation -- that may not necessarily be housing legislation, it may be other types of legislation -- or if we are going to be dealing with it in the permanent legislation, why are we having it now?

What is so important, particularly when you have heard very concrete evidence of the grave problems that are being caused by this section? Again I emphasize you must acknowledge that you have a tenant. Say that home cannot legally be there because of an unsafe water system or an unsafe sewage system, for example. "Because of that we are going to close you down." That is being caused by Bill 4 because there are no funds to make those repairs. There are no funds to make those changes perhaps with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment. I take that as an example. There could be other ministries which could affect that.

Therefore, having heard that testimony, unrefuted testimony, by both landlords and tenants, why is the minister persisting in having this section in this bill?

Ms Harrington: The simple answer is that this section was already in the RRRA and that is why it is in here. We want to change the long-term legislation but Bill 4, to stop the increases in rent, stands because it applies directly to what was originally in the RRRA.

Mr Tilson: I am afraid that will not do, to say that it is in the existing legislation. I simply find that unacceptable. This government has given the view -- and on housing it certainly did within the first month that it sat; not necessarily the first month that it was in power, but the first month that this House sat. This is one of its first major pieces of legislation. To simply say, "Because the previous government did it we're going to do it in the interim legislation," is unacceptable.

I appreciate the comments that they are going to be dealing with the subject as time goes on, perhaps in other government legislation -- maybe it will be the Minister of Revenue; I do not know who it will be -- or with respect to the green paper legislation, the more permanent legislation. But having heard the testimony, the unrefuted testimony from both landlords and tenants, I am afraid that answer, "Because the Liberals did it, we're going to do it," is not good enough. In other words, I am looking for the rationale as to why the government is having it in this interim legislation knowing specifically the problems that it is causing and knowing specifically that it is going to be dealt with in the more permanent legislation.

Ms Poole: I would like to support the concern that my Conservative colleague has raised about the provision for mobile homes being in this particular section of the act and indeed being in this act at all. It was quite obvious from the testimony which we heard in various centres in the province, particularly in Windsor, that from both sides -- from the side of the tenants in the mobile homes who rent the land but have their own mobile home, and also from the perspective of the mobile home site owner -- it is an extremely complex issue. It certainly went far beyond what I ever believed it to be as far as complexity of an issue is concerned.

We heard on the one side from tenants who rented the land in these sites that there are many issues that were simply not addressed by Bill 4, that it went far beyond this. It became clear when they spoke that we needed a specific piece of legislation which dealt with the unique problems that were encountered in the mobile home area. By the same token, when some of the site owners came forward they gave us also very unusual examples which had never come to our minds of the problem in incorporating them into this legislation.

For instance, one of the mobile park site owners came and he said, "One of the biggest problems we have is taxes." We said: "Well, why is it a big problem with municipal taxes? You pay it on the site and the mobile home owners pay it on their particular units." He said, "That's not the way it works." The municipality bills the mobile park site owner for everything, including the assessment on the homes themselves. If in the meantime that particular mobile home owner takes his or her unit and moves, then the poor site owner is the one who is stuck with that bill because that is who the municipality levies. Then, of course, that would go as a lien on the site if that remains unpaid.

It became increasingly clear to all of us that it is an extremely complex matter. There was even a fairly substantive court case last September which dealt strictly with whether mobile home units should be included in rent control and rent review legislation.

So I support my Conservative colleague when he says that it is inappropriate to have it in this piece of legislation, particularly because the interministerial committee will be reporting soon and may well be making recommendations which make it entirely inappropriate for it to be in this legislation. Those are my comments and our caucus will be supporting the Conservative critic in this amendment.

1620

Mr Sterling: I want to support my colleague as well on this, and I want to ask questions of the parliamentary assistant. First, let me say it is normal on a bill which has this impact that the minister grace this House with his presence. While I accept the capabilities of the parliamentary assistant, I do not accept that the minister is not here today to listen to arguments put forward by members of the opposition to change this legislation in a meaningful way. Our rules do provide that a parliamentary assistant can be here to take the place of the minister but the problem is -- and we all know it, those of us who have had even six months of parliamentary experience -- that the opportunity for the parliamentary assistant to accept an amendment is almost nil in terms of her ability to accept an argument that is put forward on our side of the Legislature and say, "That's reasonable, that's logical, and therefore we should accept it."

Therefore, what we are going through today is, in some ways, a farce. But I will tell members this: We are going to carry this farce on longer and longer until the minister returns to his place here in the House and listens to the arguments that are put forward by the opposition so that we will have a real hearing of these amendments.

I want to speak specifically to the amendment which has been put forward by my colleague with regard to mobile home parks. He has cited two cases, one case in Clinton, Ontario and another case in Goderich. I want to tell members I have another case in my own particular riding, where the owner of this mobile home park is faced with the same situation. We in this Legislature, I believe on all sides, want to provide reasonable-cost housing to the people of Ontario. Quite frankly, a mobile home in my riding provides perhaps more of the reasonable-cost housing to the lower end of the spectrum.

The cost of living in a mobile home is normally lower than it is to live in a single-family home or in a town house in my riding. Therefore, I believe that the continuation of the providing of this kind of living in my riding is essential, particularly to people who are retired, who are living on fixed incomes, who like the idea of having some indication of ownership and yet cannot afford to either buy a condominium, a town house, an apartment or a single-family home. Therefore, by closing down mobile home parks, which is essentially what this government is doing with Bill 4, it is asking these particular owners and operators to take under way significant capital expenditures without any hope of gaining that money back. Therefore, in looking at the balance sheet, there is absolutely no way they could stay in the business.

What further exacerbates the situation for these people who own these mobile units is that they have no place to go to if these parks shut down, because tell me any municipality which is begging for this kind of development. Quite frankly, it is not happening. Municipal governments, because of various pressures, are not opening mobile home parks at this time particularly as you get closer and closer to urban development. Even taking away the whole fact that there is absolute reason and logic, and unrefuted evidence in putting forward the argument that my friend has with regard to excluding mobile home parks from Bill 4, what this government is going to do is going to be mean. It is going to put some people in a situation where they have their life investment in a unit which, after the closure of the park takes place, will have nowhere to go. Not only that, but they will not be able to sell that unit for anywhere near what its value might have been if there were more lots available in this province. This is a real significant problem in dealing with the downside of not accepting the amendment of my colleague.

I want to ask the parliamentary assistant, if she owned a mobile home park and she was required by the Ministry of the Environment to install a better waste disposal system, who would she expect to pay for it? Who should pay for it?

Ms Harrington: The first question that was asked, with regard to the minister not being here and this being a farce, I just want to point out that the votes are being stacked and we will be voting on each amendment, so I do not believe this is a farce.

I wanted to respond to the member for Eglinton very briefly. She said it is inappropriate. I say that it is very appropriate that mobile homes be included under Bill 4, because Bill 4 is to stop rent increases that were being passed through under the RRRA legislation, and mobile home parks were part of the RRRA legislation, so it is very appropriate that this bill apply to them as well.

The member for Carleton, who has just spoken, raised the question of capital expenditures that need to be done on these properties under the regulations of the Ministry of the Environment. I can certainly understand what he is talking about. Every municipality is dealing with very tough regulations these days, and I am sure that mobile home parks are dealing with the same kind of problems. What I will tell the member is that under the discussion paper for the long-term legislation, we are very seriously looking at the problems of capital expenditures, whether they be in the 20-, 25- and 30-year-old large apartment buildings across this province, or mobile home parks. We recognize that capital expenditures are necessary to keep up the stock and it is very important, as he says, for environmental concerns as well. We do want to deal with that and there are provisions in the legislation. We want to get the long-term legislation in place as soon as possible, and we hope that the member will co-operate with us in that regard.

Mr Sterling: On a point which the parliamentary assistant raises in response to me about the minister not being here, and assuring me that because the votes are stacked, this is some kind of an answer, that is no answer. My objection is that he is not here to hear my argument, so what does my argument go for? It goes for naught. If in fact the person who is going to make the decision which the parliamentary assistant has just admitted by the fact that the vote is going to be stacked tomorrow, and so all of the decisions are going to be made by the minister tomorrow, and the parliamentary assistant is not going to make the decision today, my argument goes for naught. So does the argument of my friend and every other member of this Legislature who will speak this afternoon.

The other fact is that the parliamentary assistant has not answered my question. We are not talking about the deterioration of a building or of a piece of land. What we are talking about is the upgrading of services on a piece of land. It is a part of capital which was heretofore not required of the mobile home owner. In other words, before, as is the case in many mobile home parks across this province, they were on a septic tank and perhaps a common water source, but now they are being required, because of other restrictions, new regulation, to invest more capital into their parks.

We are not talking about a roof that has to be replaced that was originally paid for; we are talking about something brand-new that is required in order to keep this park open. The sewers were never paid for and the rents which were set on those lands were set on the basis of what was paid for. Now we have the government walking in and saying: "You need a new sewer system. You need a water system." Who is going to pay for it? Can the parliamentary assistant answer that? Who is going to pay for it?

1630

Ms Harrington: I will briefly comment that the comments that the member is putting forward now -- I think it would be very appropriate if we could hear from him on how to deal with it. This is not part of the Bill 4 discussion. Bill 4 is to cap rent increases, and I think the member understands that.

Mr Turnbull: I too would like to start out by saying that I am extremely disappointed that the Housing minister is not here. According to the newspapers this weekend, this is the only substantial piece of legislation which this government has brought forward in six months in office. Yet he cannot deign to come to this House and listen to the clause-by-clause discussion, just in the same way as when we were in the committee hearing of it he did not attend all of the hearings. It is not acceptable, because there are an awful lot of people who are going to be hurt by this legislation.

Let me specifically speak to this first amendment. It is totally inappropriate to have mobile home sites covered by Bill 4. The parliamentary assistant suggests that it was covered by the previous legislation. Let me point out that the courts did not think so, and they specifically ruled that it was not covered by this legislation. So in this respect they are reaching yet further back than all of the other buildings which are covered by Bill 4 with the retroactivity of this.

What you are doing when you are running a mobile home site is essentially you are running a village. It is a complete municipality. The operator of the mobile home site is responsible for collecting the taxes. They must collect the taxes from all of the people who live there, yet they are given no remuneration for doing that. They have to lay down the sewage system and the water system and the hydro and the roads.

Indeed, during the hearings on Bill 4 in Windsor, we heard one man who said he had gone out and he had cut the trees down with his own hands to clear the site. He had photographs that he passed around to us to show how he had created this site. He told us that he had not made any significant profit in all of the years that he had had it, and he had had the home site for something like 20 or 30 years. He knew that the weeping tile system that he had put in was getting old and was going to have to be replaced. He was charging less than $100 per month per site. What he was providing for that was all of the services of a municipality, snow clearing in winter, road maintenance, hydro service, water and sewage. Here was somebody with less than $100 a month being told that with all of this plant and equipment that he has got to maintain this, he is not allowed to make any increase over and above the guidelines.

I would suggest that if this government is prepared to put legislation through to mandate that every single municipality in the province must remain within these guidelines, then there would be some equity to this, but this way there is not, because the government is saying all of the other municipalities can go out and increase willy-nilly what their taxes are. Yet because it decided to include this in Bill 4, this is caught by the guidelines. It does not make any sense.

An hon member: You know that's not true.

Mr Turnbull: It certainly is true. You have roads, you have sewage, you have snow removal. Now quite clearly the basket of goods which make up the inflation rate in Canada that people typically look at is not the inflation rate that applies to many of these services. They have increased at a much greater rate of inflation. Unless the government is prepared to regulate every single municipality in the province by the same amount, this should not be passed.

Mr Mahoney: I would just like to add to the comments in support of the member for Dufferin-Peel's amendment, because I think it is very important that the government recognize what kind of option the mobile home industry can provide to perhaps solve some of the difficulties in our housing sector.

We have a couple of mobile home parks in the Mississauga community that have been there for a number of years and they have worked really quite successfully. I think there has been some difficulty -- there were comments made with regard to the difficulties some municipalities are having in approving this particular lifestyle -- yet I know that the Premier himself was touring a mobile home park in the Niagara region just a couple of weeks ago, looking at it as a potential alternative form of housing. Who knows? Maybe he and his minister are thinking about doing something in relation to the Planning Act.

If indeed that is true, it would probably be a progressive step in the right direction of offering the citizens of this province an alterative form of housing. But how does the government couple that with the regressive step of Bill 4 and why, if in fact the Premier is interested in looking at this as an alternative form of housing, would he not deal with the mobile home section in a separate way? Why lump it in? This is what we are having such trouble understanding.

We sat through hearings and we heard people express concerns. I know that in many of the hearings that I attended the parliamentary assistant had a great deal of difficulty with what the people were saying, because I know that the parliamentary assistant had some sympathy with what the people were saying. I just do not understand why the government would not say, "Okay, we see the mobile home sector in society and that industry as a viable alternative and we think it should be dealt with separately."

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant -- who I think should be the minister in any event, since the minister already has two portfolios and I am sure finds that Municipal Affairs is an extremely busy one in its own right. I think it would only be right that the member for Niagara Falls be made Minister of Housing. I would support that, if that helps her with the Premier. I want to make the member for Durham East the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs and the member for Niagara Falls the Minister of Housing. Then maybe we would get some action, if we had one minister concentrating and paying attention to one issue instead of just finding the favourite few in that huge number.

Mr Curling: Vacuum.

Mr Mahoney: Vacuum? Does the member think that is a vacuum?

I would like the parliamentary assistant, with respect, to really tell me, if she would, why she is not prepared --

Mr Perruzza: Come on, stick to the issue.

Mr Mahoney: If the member for Downsview understood the issue, he would know I was sticking to the issue.

Mr Perruzza: Stick to the issue.

Mr Bradley: He's not in his right seat.

Mr Mahoney: And he is not in his right seat, but we are.

In any event, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would tell us why she is not --

Mr Perruzza: Wandering around, floating around, always floating around, floating, floating, floating. Stick to the issue.

Mr Mahoney: The parliamentary assistant is giving the member the evil eye, so I would suggest he just --

The Chair: Order. Would the member for Downsview take his seat, please?

Mr Mahoney: Perhaps he would like to go order some more letterhead and business cards.

In any event, I wonder if -- I almost called her the minister; I think that might be prophetic -- the parliamentary assistant would just explain to us in very simple terms why she will not take it out. Let her deal with it if she wishes to regulate the industry, if she wishes to bring in amendments that will deal with it under the Planning Act, things that would perhaps encourage municipalities to use this as an alternative form of zoning in their communities, to take it out to community groups, to talk about it, because the people who live in those parks will tell her what the quality of life is like.

In my experience, they are quite happy living in that kind of accommodation and it is perhaps something we should be looking at as a province as an alternative. Is she prepared to carry that back to her minister and to her caucus and to the cabinet?

1640

Ms Harrington: I certainly appreciate his comments. With regard to mobile home parks being an alternative type of housing, I certainly agree with the member. As he knows, the previous government put out a housing policy statement a year and a half ago which called for municipalities to look at all kinds of new types of housing and zoning and speeding up the process for affordable housing. We want basement apartments; we want intensification; we want better utilization of the infrastructures so we do not have as much spread out into the environment around cities. So I would like to tell the member that we definitely are looking at various types of alternative affordable housing, and we are looking at all kinds of new ideas, and that is certainly something we will deal with.

Just to get back to why this is not included in this particular bill, it was included in the RRRA and we are now trying to stop the rent increases that were flowing through under that act. If we took it out of the RRRA, there would be further confusion. People thought that mobile home parks were covered by rent review, and now if all of a sudden we said no, they are not covered by rent review, I think it would be a large policy change and it is something that is not appropriate under this particular interim legislation.

Mr Stockwell: Would the parliamentary assistant define for me her definition of capital improvement, please?

Ms Harrington: I am sure there are lots of statements here about what capital improvement is. Really any money that is going into the housing other than the maintenance are capital expenditures.

Mr Stockwell: The difficulty that I have, specifically, the fundamental difficulty, is in fact that definition of capital improvements. Obviously, if you operate any business, and even the business of running a government, you have capital expenditures, expenditures that are obviously long-term by nature. Municipalities have capital expenditures long-term by nature. They fund the infrastructures of cities; they fund the infrastructures of the provincial government.

The question that must be asked is, clearly heat, a new boiler system, is a capital improvement. People need heat to live. New windows to keep the cold out; that is a capital improvement. All these are improvements that I am certain that those people, in the co-ops that some of them live in, would need to do to maintain a standard that is acceptable to live in.

I guess the difficulty I have with their government is, if it cannot accept the fact that capital improvements are needed and in fact necessary, retroactively turning them down, what does the parliamentary assistant suggest a landlord, an owner, a person who has put all of his money into this particular building he owns of two or three units do?

What does she suggest they do, allow someone to live in substandard accommodation? Is that one alternative? That is the alternative that is going to be chosen, I assure her, because if you do not have the money to fix it and you cannot recover the money through the rent, who does she propose pay for it?

The only choice that is left at that point is to pass it on to the consumer, and every product works the same way. Why should rental accommodation be any different from any other product? If they pass a new law that causes someone's product to go up in price, like the health tax or the other ideas that they have come up with, then the only thing that happens is they pass that on to the manufacturer or the retailer and the price of the commodity goes up. Why? Because they have to recover the money so they can maintain the profitability so they can keep employing people so they can stay in business -- pretty logical.

The flaw that she has and her government has when drafting this legislation is they do not understand business. The fact is they have no concept of business, because none of them has been there. That is the difficulty they are faced with. None of them has been in business. The problem that they are facing with the landlord today is, this person has now got to maintain a building to certain --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Well, okay. I should not say that. There are some teachers over there too, and that could be confirmed as a business.

The problem that landlords face today is that municipalities come down on the landlord to maintain certain levels. The question to --

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Chair: While I find the remarks from the member for Etobicoke West quite fascinating, I think we are kind of veering away from what the intent of this discussion was to be, which is a discussion on the viability of having the mobile home provision in this particular section of the act.

Mr Stockwell: I was just getting to it.

Ms Poole: I know he was just getting to it. I would just prefer that he keep his remarks to that.

The Chair: Thank you for your help.

Mr Stockwell: I got into a bit of a rant. I thank the member for bringing me back in line here.

It is business, and the fact is you have to have capital improvements in some of these sites. The question stands: Who does the parliamentary assistant suggest should pay for the capital improvements necessary that have been expressed very clearly by the Conservative member who brought this forward previous to the member for Dufferin-Peel today? Who pays for it? Just as a very simple question, if the government is not going to pay for it, if the tenants are not going to pay for it, if the landlords simply will not do it because they cannot afford it, who is going to pay for it?

Mr Sterling: Since the parliamentary assistant will not answer the question, I would like to ask her, would the minister or would she accept an amendment to this section which would permit an owner of a mobile home park to amortize the cost of a capital improvement over a 20-year period for any repairs that he was required to do by the Ministry of the Environment?

Mr Tilson: Yes, I would like to speak to that amendment. I think the difficulty as I see it is that clearly this government has looked at the subject of capital improvements and says, "Landlords, if you make capital improvements, you can't pass it on, you've got to pay it out of your own pocket, and if you don't have it in your own funds, tough." Which means standards are --

An hon member: You could write it off.

Mr Tilson: Someone said over here, "Write it off." That is an interesting question. Can you imagine? I might add that that subject has been made very clear in the committee hearings. Revenue Canada has come down with a ruling that says that you cannot write off those types of expenses. You cannot write them off. So it is a double whammy. This government is saying, "If you don't have the money, tough." Then of course we have this issue where these members are totally uninformed where they say, "Write it off." You cannot write it off. That is the problem.

The whole subject of capital expenditures is one that has given our party great concerns, and obviously that does get back to the issue with respect to what the government is trying to do with the subject of mobile homes.

The Chair: Order, please. Please speak to the amendment.

Mr Tilson: I am trying to get to that.

The Chair: Do not speak on the amendment that the member for Carleton has brought in.

Mr Tilson: I am doing that, the issue of amortizing the cost of capital expenditures over a period of time. I am trying to do that, and I am trying to show --

The Chair: That is not the amendment that you brought in. I have no amendment as such on the table here.

Mr Tilson: I am speaking to the amendment that is being introduced by the member for Carleton.

The Chair: No. That is not --

Mr Tilson: You are not accepting that amendment?

The Chair: No, I do not, because I do not have it before me.

Mr Tilson: All right. Then I will speak to my amendment.

Mr Stockwell: It is in the mail.

Mr Tilson: I am flexible.

The Chair: You speak on your own amendment.

Mr Tilson: Very well. On the subject that the government has put forward with respect to mobile homes, the government is saying that this is subject to rent control and that landlords, when they do have capital expenditures, can only have the minimum standards as set forth by Bill 4. Obviously, there is the issue that has been raised repeatedly by our party of buildings, that the vast number of residential apartments in this province are 20 years old or more, and there are grave difficulties with that subject.

Obviously, landlords have made it quite clear that if they do not have the funds -- they cannot raise the funds, they cannot get them from the tenants, they cannot get them from the banks, they do not have them themselves -- those capital expenditures, those capital improvements are not going to be made. Tenants with the residential apartments therefore have the option of simply vacating those apartments. In other words, if it becomes a slum, which has been predicted will happen because of the Bill 4 legislation, if slums develop as a result of improvements not being made, the tenants will vacate those premises and move to premises, if they can find them, that are more suitable for living, aside from those that have been ruled inhabitable by health authorities or inhabitable as a result of property standards regulations.

1650

However, the mobile home owner does not have that ability. The mobile home owner is stuck. They own, generally speaking, their own unit. If the services are not put in place, the services with respect to roads, with respect to sewers, with respect to water, with respect to any other major expenses, capital improvements that are required by a municipality, the specific owner cannot move out, because there is no place to go, because all the other mobile home parks are filled. Aside from that, there is an unbelievable cost, because if they have to take their unit and move it to another location, that puts a tremendous cost to them and they do not have those types of funds available to them.

I cannot believe that the parliamentary assistant does not acknowledge that distinction between the apartment resident and the resident of the mobile home. Having that in mind, where are these people going to go? Where are the mobile home owners going to go if they are forced to leave as a result of a requirement from a municipality or as a result of a requirement from the Ministry of the Environment that those parks be closed down because they do not have safe drinking water or they do not have safe health conditions? Where are they going to go?

Ms Harrington: I would like to briefly respond. I thank the members, especially the member for Carleton, for their constructive suggestions.

In regard to the suggestion that would permit owners to amortize over 25 years work required by the Ministry of the Environment, I would like to say that at various municipalities that are under orders from the Ministry of the Environment to get things done and get things done quickly as development proceeds, there have been deals worked out between the regional government, the municipal government and the Ministry of the Environment. We have looked at each situation in a way that we have to get things done -- and we are realistic about it -- as the previous government did.

I would like to assure members that any of the suggestions they are making as to how we can look at the problems these people are facing -- there are similarities to a municipality. I mean, it does not go all the way. These people are in there to make a profit and municipalities are not, but I do want to say that we want to preserve all kinds of affordable housing. I think members know our programs, like the low-rise rehabilitation program where the government is giving loans in order to keep certain apartments up to standards and also make sure that they are affordable, are some of the kinds of options we will be looking at. But clearly this is not part of Bill 4, which is the interim legislation to cap the rent increases for a short period of time. As soon as we bring in the long-term legislation later this year, we will be looking at all these suggestions.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I too support much of what the member for Dufferin-Peel has said this afternoon regarding mobile homes, and I am sorry I have missed some of the debate.

The mobile home issue is an extremely complex issue and it goes to show that this government was rushing -- and I think it has admitted that on some occasions -- on Bill 4. Bill 4 is a bill that should have never happened, because it was pulled together and there are all kinds of loose ends. Mobile homes are certainly one of the loose ends. This type of housing is the type of housing that we all in this House should be trying our very best to make easiest and well preserved because it is affordable, because it is an option that many people want. For the most part it is environmentally sound housing. It is housing that people can buy into who have very, very limited incomes, because the mobile home often contains the furnishings that go with it.

My objection, which I do not think has been mentioned to this point in the debate, is the disincentive that is now there to these modest home owners, home owners of affordable housing, to not improve their property because they will be then somehow putting an extra burden on their neighbours simply because the assessment will go up and it will be paid only through the owner of the campground or the mobile home park. Because there is no provision in this bill to deal with the complexities, we still have all the complications in a very valid, affordable type of housing in this province that has not been attended to in this bill, and I regret that deeply.

Mr Sterling: I understand the dilemma that the government is in to some degree because it wanted to do something quickly on this issue and therefore brought forward this bill. But having heard the evidence of the committee and having heard the debate this afternoon, the concern that I have is that while some people might think that these mobile home owners, the people who own the total park are making oodles of money, it ain't that way.

In a lot of cases, these mobile home parks were constructed on land which was not high land. It was quite often land which was not all that wonderful either for agriculture or for any other use and therefore in a number of cases that I can think of the sewage system was almost doomed to failure from the beginning, notwithstanding whatever may have been required by the Ministry of the Environment 15 or 20 years ago, or 25 or 30 years ago in most cases, as to what were the standards then, which I believe should have been higher. But that is past history and it has been done, etc.

People move in with good faith, put their life savings into a unit which may be worth $20,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 or whatever. The problem is that over those periods of time, because of the way mobile homes developed in a large part in Ontario, the services, the roads, etc, were often done on a shoestring. It is unfortunate, but that is the way it has happened. Therefore in order to attract people into these parks, often the rent is relatively low with respect to other types of accommodation that are provided in the community. That has been the keeper as to what those rents should or should not be.

My concern is that I do not think the government is going to be able to wrestle with the overall problem in a very short period of time, and I have heard via the grapevine that we are going to travel across this province maybe this summer to talk about rent control in the longer term and in the bigger picture. If I would draw on any experience that has been gained over the past five years, it is getting more and more difficult to deal with thorny issues like this in a shorter period of time because more and more people want to have a say and more and more members want to have a say, and as the minister brings the issue to the fore, I think we are talking about a couple of years, or maybe two and a half years, to settle this issue.

In the meantime, I think the government is faced with a significant problem with a number of mobile homes that are going to be forced with closure. I can remember one smaller mobile home closing in my former riding, which used to be Carleton-Grenville.

1700

Mr Bradley: The good old days.

Mr Sterling: Those were the good old days, yes. This particular mobile home park had, I think, 25 or 30 units. Well, it was just impossible to operate with that number of units and keep a mobile home park going. So the economics of running one 30 years ago are certainly not the economics of running one today.

I really believe that the parliamentary assistant, by carrying this section forward, is going to put out, I do not know, maybe one, maybe 10 mobile home parks. But the problem is, once they are out and that land reverts back to another use, then it will never be a mobile home park again. You base that on the history of what has happened in this province in terms of municipalities welcoming low-cost housing into their communities or trailer parks into their communities. It is just not happening across this province now.

I represent five municipalities at this time, and quite frankly they are not looking for that kind of development in that area. So you get the NIMBY syndrome, the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, whereby the people who live in the neighbourhood do not want to see that kind of development because they see it as a devaluation of their own property. Whether that is true or that is not true, that is what the perception is.

Therefore, if you put these people out on the street, what you are doing is taking their life savings, which may be fairly small in terms of what most home owners think of in this province and in this city. What is the average cost of a home, $230,000 or $240,000? So when you talk about an investment of $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000, that does not seem like a lot, but it is these people's lifetime investment. That is why we are fighting so hard on this particular amendment, because I am more concerned about people who only have $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 than I am about somebody who has $230,000.

So my question to the minister before, and she has not yet answered it, is, would she accept some kind of amendment to this bill? Quite frankly, I am not familiar with the operative sections and how it would be tied into it -- and perhaps she could help me, because I am quite willing to be co-operative on this -- but would she consider an amendment in the case of mobile home parks, if she wants to restrict it very narrowly, which would allow the landlord to recoup over a 20-year period the capital investment, and the interest charges, of course, which would be required for that capital investment, something that would be fair? Would she allow them to permit to spread this out over a period of time?

I do not know if she wants to pick 25 years or she wants to pick 30 years -- that is fine and dandy by me -- which would bring the payments down, but I think that without doing that we in this Legislature are inadvertently causing a lot of problems for a number of people who are less able to take care of themselves in finding alternative housing and in maintaining their home in a mobile park which is no longer economically viable. I really believe that is going to happen.

Ms Harrington: I would like to thank the member opposite for his proposal. I would like to tell him also that the minister -- that is, not me -- is at a meeting of the policy and priorities board of cabinet at the moment, and I do wish he were here to hear the member. I want to assure the member that we support mobile home parks, that it is part of our NDP policy that mobile home parks are a form of affordable housing and that we would be most concerned if these were in any way jeopardized by this legislation. I am sure we will deal with that situation.

Mr Sterling: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could help me directly then and consult with her advisers as to which section I would look to if I were going to introduce an amendment like that. Would it be this section or would it be another section within the bill, or would I have to add it to the bill?

Ms Harrington: My adviser tells me that it would be more appropriate under the section dealing with capital -- is that correct? -- because it is an exception to the rule on capital expenditures, section 9.

Mr Curling: First I would like to compliment the bureaucrats for trying to make a bad thing better, but it is going to be very difficult.

I will speak specifically on the area, but Bill 4 itself, I think, is something bad that has gone worse. A critic here commented a long time how hurried it was, and the part on the mobile home owners, the mobile parks, has shown how hurriedly this thing was put together.

I would ask that the honourable parliamentary assistant comment on this. Is there a contradiction? The member stated that her party is in strong support of mobile homes, but in the meantime has excluded it from any sort of protection. Because you protect affordable housing, how could you support this and then have a protection of putting it on the rent control?

Interjection.

Ms Harrington: I would like to clarify that this is under Bill 4. It is under the control of this legislation. The rent increases will not be going up more than 5.4% this year because we are including mobile home parks under this legislation.

Mr Curling: I am so happy that I woke up the backbencher there.

I know that their parliamentary system got -- it is almost like giving her a basket to carry water; it is not even adequate.

I would like to comment and to state that when Bill 51 was in committee of the whole, the minister himself was here all the time responding to all the questions. I just hope that there is some consistency, of course, when the minister is here. We know the time when we had our bill forward, it was an extremely important bill, thought through and put forward with good consultation, and I am very, very disappointed that this is not done.

The member said that the capital costs will be considered in section 9 for the mobile homes. Would the member indicate whether it will be 20 years or 25 years when we put it there?

Ms Harrington: At this time there has been no amendment put forward under that section, so it would be up to the member for Carleton if he would like to pursue that.

Mr Stockwell: The previous question I asked was not answered and I would really like to get an answer.

For instance, if you get specific work from the city, you have got an inspection, the city is demanding certain works be undertaken, obviously capital improvements, particularly on one of these sites. Now, the profitability of the operation is marginal at best. We would know that; we accept the fact that it is marginal at best. Who is going to pay for the capital improvement? Capital improvements are standards. The city sets these standards and it is law that one must live within these standards. Now, if the city orders work to be done, who does the member suggest to undertake the cost of the capital works improvements?

The landlord is in a marginal operation at best, clearly not having the money, not being able to pass the costs off to the tenants. Obviously, they are not going to do the work. Second, you have got the tenants who are protected.

They do not have to pay for the capital works improvements. They are not going to pay. The government itself is not going to pay -- that has been made clear -- for capital works improvements on privately owned operations. The municipality that is ordering the work is not going to request it be paid. So in the alternative, who is going to make the capital work improvement if it is in fact ordered?

1710

Ms Harrington: These improvements that are needed for mobile home parks -- obviously the state they are in now is a reflection of what has been happening year after year for 5, 10, 15 years back. There have been provisions under the RRRA at least for the five years, as the member says, to pass them through to the tenants. So I do not believe that all of a sudden on 1 October 1990 things fall apart and these huge capital expenditures are necessary. I do recognize that the Minister of the Environment and/or other agencies may be putting on pressures this year, maybe more than last year, and I am concerned about the viability of these affordable types of homes -- certainly we all are -- and that we get through this period and make sure they have the environmental assurances they need, the sewers and storm water, whatever happens to be the concern.

What I am saying is that yes, the owner of that property is responsible. The other thing I mentioned before is that once we get into the long-term legislation, we will be dealing with or possibly looking at the work that has been done this year. That has not been made definite yet, but I am saying that under the green paper we are discussing what to do with capital expenditures, necessary expenditures.

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect to the parliamentary assistant, she cannot be serious suggesting that she cannot believe there could not be some work coming up. They break down. On capital works projects things break down and there is an ongoing restoration of capital works programs, projects, in any kind of facility.

Now the parliamentary assistant stands here saying she is going to address this in the green paper. What comfort level does anyone who owns and operates one of these facilities have with a government that just introduced retroactive legislation that potentially could have ripped off their original investment in the first place?

The other statement the member makes, suggesting she cannot believe they have all of a sudden come up, what does it matter what she believes? In actuality, capital works projects are undertaken on a yearly, monthly, daily basis around this province because they break down or they are needed for improvements.

The question is, who is going to pay for it? The lame answer we get is the landlord, who is in a marginal operation at best now and who is going to take some hundreds of thousands of dollars to update a facility with no return. What kind of answer is that?

The member is suggesting that out of the goodwill of people's hearts, they are going to invest $300,000 or $400,000, potentially more, to update a capital works project with no guarantee of return and a possibility from a government to undertake a review of the capital works projects next year, the same government that retroactively ripped them off from their previous capital investments. What kind of comfort level is the government offering anyone who owns these facilities?

The member is talking through her hat suggesting that the landlord is going to fix it up. Who thinks any landlord is going to pay that kind of money to do capital works projects on a marginal operation, at best with no profitability?

What is going to happen is that he is not going to do it. The municipality is going to have to go in and do it, put it to his taxes. He will not be able to afford his taxes. They will close him down and all those people in those units will lose their place to live, all because the government does not have the foresight to see through what is a painfully disguised, lousy piece of legislation that was not given any forethought.

Ms Harrington: This is a very important piece of legislation. It is very significant and, as the member knows, almost the first piece of legislation that was brought forward. We believe that the people of this province who are renters need protection, and that includes the mobile home people. What was in effect was a system that was too bureaucratic, too complex and people were getting passed through this money over and over.

So we are determined to put in an interim legislation to cap the pass-throughs and to work out, with the member's help and everybody across this province, how we will get a good system that will work, that is fair to landlords and tenants. The member may tell me there is no such system, but we are determined to find that system.

I just want to make one comment on what the member mentioned there. If in fact the municipality has to do the work for the mobile home park owner and put it on its taxes, any extraordinary increase in taxes can be passed through under Bill 4.

Mr Tilson: I do not think these questions that we are asking are difficult. With all due respect to the parliamentary assistant, it is regrettable that the minister is not here. We have been advised there is a cabinet meeting going on. I see at least four ministers in the House now. I assume they are playing hookey or the cabinet meeting is over.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: This is the inner cabinet. Quite seriously, it is regrettable, with the questions that have been asked, that these questions cannot be answered. It is regrettable that the minister cannot be here to answer them.

I do think I would like some more clarification with respect to the subject as to who is going to pay for these capital expenditures that are needed. The government does see fit to include the mobile home units under rent control as opposed to waiting for the more permanent legislation. They feel that it is that important. Yet we have had delegations come to our committee that have given several examples where work simply will not get done. In other words, in answer to the parliamentary assistant, they as landlords do not have the money. They simply do not have the money.

Yes, the parliamentary assistant says, "Oh well, we will let it go for taxes and we will let the municipality do it." That, of course, is assuming the property standards have not been enforced, in which case the municipality would come in, do the work, add it on to the tax bill. If the taxes are not paid, they sell the property. That is almost a very flippant sort of answer, with all due respect. That is an answer. In other words, just let the place go, which is a wonderful way to look at the quality of life of the tenants of the mobile homes, people who in some cases are living in retirement in these homes. That is the attitude of this government. "Let the work not be done, or worse yet, let the place go for taxes and they do not have any choice." They have no place to go but that is an answer. That is the answer that appears to be given by this government.

Again I get back to the question. There are other areas, not just the property standards types of areas, the bylaws of municipalities that may not be enforced, where municipalities can go and complete the work required and add it on to taxes. There are other areas and they have been listed. Obviously the Ministry of the Environment may be one. If a septic system goes or something is wrong with the sewage system and the health people come in and close the place down, this work has to be done. Again, I guess I asked the question with that specific point in mind which has been given to us at these hearings: Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to pay for work which in a municipality would be paid for by the municipality? In other words, if the sewer collapsed and work had to be done on the sewer, the municipality would find the funding to do it. In these situations the landlord does not have the money and he has told us he does not have the money. Who is going to pay for it? That is the question to the parliamentary assistant.

Ms Harrington: I would just like to say that ongoing repairs and maintenance and this type of upkeep are well within the 5.4% guideline that this increase per year is in order to maintain.

1720

Mr Tilson: I find it amazing that statement was made. She obviously has no idea what it costs to install a sewer system. She has no idea what it costs to construct a road. She has no idea what it costs to construct a water system. All those are major capital expenditures which these individuals simply do not have the money to do. It is not within the 5.4%. I would like to know what facts she is relying on to make that statement. With that question we appear to have finally stumped her. I do not mean to be stumping her because I think they are very legitimate questions.

I still am waiting for the answer to the question that I asked earlier this afternoon, that if this work is not done for whatever reason -- landlords cannot afford it, they cannot raise the funding for it -- and the Ministry of the Environment comes in, as an example has been given to us, and there is the threat of closing the place down, given the example of the apartment owner or the individual who rents from an apartment owner who can move to another building, these individuals have to take up their mobile home units at great expense and move to other areas, but these same people have said, "We have no place to go."

I would like an answer to that question, under those circumstances under this legislation, where are these people going to go?

Ms Harrington: I have, over the course of the last hour, offered several suggestions as to our concern for the mobile home park residents. That is why we are putting forth this legislation, to protect them from rent increases so that in the long run they will be able to stay there. The suggestions I made were that we would be probably looking with the municipalities and the Ministry of the Environment to make sure that we can keep these places at a good level of service. I mentioned the low-rise rehabilitation program, and the suggestion from the member for Carleton made me think that we should be looking at various new alternatives if in fact that type of situation that the member has mentioned comes about, because I would like to assure him that we are concerned. That is why we put forward Bill 4, to help these tenants, and we are not going to say, "Let's close down the park," because that would certainly be the exact opposite of what we are trying to do.

Mr Turnbull: I find great inconsistency in what the parliamentary assistant has just said. She mentioned earlier that within Bill 51 the capital expenditures were allowed, so she accepted that they had to be paid for in a way. She said that for the last few years people have been allowed to do that, to expense that. She also alludes to the fact that within the permanent legislation it appears that there will be an allowance to be able to charge that. But we are dealing with the period of this legislation of Bill 4.

Are we saying that, oh yes, we need the expenditure before and we need it afterwards, but in the meantime, somehow, magically this money is going to come down from Heaven? If you are making a loss or relatively a break-even point, you do not suddenly have the money. These are small operators. When we are talking about somebody who is typically charging in the range of $100 a month, if we stay within the guidelines we are talking about such small numbers that perhaps we can replace one septic tile per year. In the meantime the Ministry of the Environment and presumably the municipalities are going to be rather upset if the lifetime of that facility is worn out.

If she is saying that she is quite prepared to let these people sit on their hands and do nothing in the meantime in order to protect this affordable housing -- and remember, these people who have their mobile homes own the homes, they have already got that. It is just a question of about $100 a month. The operator cannot afford to do the renovations; that is a fact. You cannot say, "Well, why didn't he do it before?" The reason he did not do it before was because its life had not expended. It is no good rushing.

There is the suggestion from this government that whenever a government brings forward legislation that allows you to do something where there might be some advantage, you rush out and you do everything at the same time because the government may change its mind. Governments change, we know, but they do not go normally and retroactively change everything.

What will she do about guideline numbers on $100? One tile does not suffice to replace a whole tile system in a weeping tile system. We are talking about very small numbers of dollars, and if your weeping tile system is 20 years old or 30 years old, it is gone. What will she do?

Mr Tilson: It is unfortunate that the parliamentary assistant has chosen not to answer that question. I think it is a reasonable question, but let's try another question.

I have a number of mobile home parks in my riding, as I am sure most of us in this House do, in the rural areas at least. Aside from these other areas, some of these mobile home parks are used not only as people's permanent homes, particularly seniors who retire to these areas, but individuals who simply cannot afford a house in a subdivision. It is a different type of housing and it is a good type of housing. There are also the individuals who spend their vacations in these parks. They cannot afford, like perhaps many members of the government, to go to Florida and to go to the Bahamas and other areas of the world to spend their holiday. They cannot afford that so they spend their holidays at mobile home parks, and they are good mobile home parks. They are clean and they have good facilities, and these facilities need to be maintained.

The capital expenditures need to be maintained. The fear that our party has on this particular subject, as we do with the overall legislation, is the deterioration of the quality of life of the tenant of this province, not only in the apartment residential units but with respect to the mobile homes since that is, of course, what the amendment is dealing with. Whether it is a permanent home or whether it is the type of mobile home that is being taken as a summer cottage or a temporary site, these people expect good-quality living and yet, because of this bill dealing with mobile homes, landlords have come to us and have said, "This work isn't going to be done because we don't have the money to do it."

I am not talking about the other areas which she has refused to answer; I am talking about just maintaining the quality of life that these people should have. Now, they say they are not going to get it done. How does she propose to have this work done? I am not talking about legislated requirements such as the Ministry of the Environment requirements or the property standards bylaws; I am just talking about maintaining that quality of life that the people of this province deserve. What is she going to do about that if she is putting this type of home in this legislation?

Ms Harrington: I want to point out to the member that there are many seniors who make their home in mobile home parks. In fact, my mother-in-law, who is about 75 or more, on a very low fixed income, lives in a trailer park. We bought the trailer and she has to pay the monthly cost. These people cannot afford large pass-throughs of capital expenditures, and that is what this government is concerned with. Even though it may seem small to the member to go up from $100 to $150, that kind of range, or $200 to pay for new services, for many people who live in mobile home parks, this is too much of an increase, and that is why they are covered under Bill 4.

1730

I would like to point out to the member that Bill 4 is interim legislation that we brought forward so we could resolve the question of what types of accommodation in this province should in fact be covered. That is the first question we ask in the green paper. All the rest of the questions, about where capital expenditures should come from and who pays and all those kinds of concerns that the member has been raising, and very legitimately so -- but I would tell him that Bill 4 is interim legislation and we want to get on and work with him on long-term legislation that will answer some of these concerns.

Mr Tilson: It is regrettable that this question has not been answered. It is concerning to me and it is concerning to members of our party that the quality of the life of the tenant, specifically in the mobile home, is going to deteriorate as a result of this bill, and that is tragic. I am not just, as I say, speaking with respect to the permanent home but about people who are spending their vacations at these parks.

Since the parliamentary assistant will not deal with that area any further, and that is regrettable, I would like to ask a further question of her. This applies to all of the legislation but certainly applies to this specific amendment: As a result of the government insisting that the mobile home be included in this legislation, how does she propose to encourage more mobile home parks to be built? Obviously it is not going to pay. I have read into the record statements from individuals who simply say: "It doesn't pay us. Even within a family, it doesn't pay us to operate." They are needed. It is a needed system of housing, not only for permanent housing but for vacation housing, and this legislation is regressive and is not encouraging the mobile home parks to expand.

On this subject of encouraging landlords to build more housing -- and this is not done to be flippant; this is being done because this type of question was asked throughout the various cities that we attended -- is a poem that I would like to read into the record, a poem that deals with the subject of how we are going to encourage landlords to build more housing, and specifically the mobile home. This was delivered to us and it became an exhibit to the hearings on 14 February 1991. It was written by Rob Van Hae and it is entitled Rent Legislation and Unfair Restrictions:

A landlord is considered a low-class citizen,

He struggles his best with unfair legislation.

Society is there to force a poor decision,

He has no chance, he can barely make a living.

In every other business there are no restrictions,

The landlord is forced and they don't listen.

To do what is best for everyone together

Is not what they want even though this would be better.

Our members of Parliament are thinking of the votes. Yes! All they can get from most of the folks.

They are buying votes from all of the tenants,

By giving them all an expensive residence.

Our taxes are high, we have a large deficit,

We are most certainly beyond our limit.

All this mismanagement and expensive squandering

It costs so very much for all this government housing.

It really does cost three times as much

Because they don't have the businessman's touch.

If business were allowed only half this amount

This could easily settle the landlords' account.

Why not encourage all the landlords

To build more housing that we can afford,

And let's not forget the ones in need,

For they should all be helped to pay the rent indeed.

My question, therefore, to the Minister of Housing is specifically, given the testimony that was given to us in these hearings and the comments that have been raised by both opposition parties with respect to the mobile home, and given the fact that he has stated that he is going to insist that the mobile home be subject to rent controls, how is he going to encourage someone to go into the mobile home business?

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the opportunity to be here for a few minutes. I should point out to the critic for the third party that the reason I was not here this afternoon is because we were in policy and priorities board of cabinet. I apologize for that, but I hope he will understand that there are other responsibilities that I also have. That is why my parliamentary assistant has so ably been doing the job that parliamentary assistants are supposed to do, that is, covering in the House.

The critic for the third party can go on and debate this for as long as he wants to. We had a full discussion in committee. He knows that there is an interministerial committee that has been set up to look at the whole issue of mobile homes and how they fit into the regulatory structure in this province, and that is appropriate, but I am not prepared to indicate to the critic for the third party that we as a government are going to look at regulation or no regulation of this sector of rental properties or any other sector of rental properties that have been covered traditionally by legislation in this province.

The way that he pictures and describes all of these situations is as if there is only one side to the story. There is another side to the story, and that is that for every landlord he is talking about, he or she has several tenants in mobile home parks, and we have had considerable difficulty over the years with substantial rent increases and applications for substantial rent increases. I can tell the member now that we also have some particular circumstances of conversions to co-operatives by the owners in an effort to get out of regulation, and that has put tenants in mobile home parks in this province in great jeopardy.

The member for Essex-Kent, who has one of those right now, can tell the member about the difficulties that some of the tenants are in, even under the present regulatory structure. So if the member is coming here and telling the government today that he wants to deregulate the mobile home rental sector, I can tell him right now, that is his opinion. We fundamentally disagree. We believe the tenants in mobile home parks in this province deserve protection. I do not know for sure because it is not always predictable to know where the official opposition is, but I would suspect that even the official opposition would agree that there has to be regulation of mobile home parks.

The critic for the third party can continue to debate it all afternoon. We had a substantial debate in committee as well. We have come to a different conclusion. I would just ask him, as the critic for the third party, to start considering the need to get on with the passage of Bill 4. We have had substantial debate at second reading, substantial debate in committee of the Legislature and this afternoon we have now been going for nearly two and a half hours, and he is still on section 1. If the name of the game is to simply hold up the bill, then the member can tell us that that is the name of the game, that he just wants to hold up the bill and he does not want to proceed with passage. We are certainly beginning to understand that very clearly.

Mr Tilson: I think it is high time the minister does come and address these very important issues that we have put to him on this area. They are very good questions which have remained unanswered, and I am not going to repeat -- unfortunately, he has just arrived -- what we have been talking about all afternoon. That is why this legislation is here, of course. We are not like him. We are concerned with the overall quality of life of the tenant and the landlord. We are looking at the economy of this province and the overall effect that this legislation is having on it, and that is why we are asking these questions, most of which are going unanswered.

I am going to ask it just simply once more -- I am not going to repeat the other questions and I do not want to get into the green paper and what the minister plans to do; I am looking specifically at Bill 4 -- in this interim period, how does the minister propose to encourage landlords or individuals to expand the mobile home parks, to put capital moneys into them when they do not have the moneys or, better yet, how does he propose to encourage them to build new mobile home parks that are needed?

1740

Hon Mr Cooke: Does the member have the statistics of how many new mobile home park units have been created in the last number of years? It has not been very substantial. So on the other hand, we have to also look at protecting the tenants who live in the mobile home parks in this province, and that is the balance that we must find. In our view, in the past there has not been adequate protection. We are prepared to substantially increase the protection of tenants in this province, whether they are in private sector high-rise, low-rise or mobile home parks. That is the determination of this government.

Strategies on supply, whether it is in mobile homes or whether it is apartment units, I think are issues that we have to deal with in the overall housing strategy, but part of any decent and comprehensive housing strategy in this province has to be regulation of rents for the consumers. We fundamentally believe in that. Those people would deregulate. We want to strengthen the regulation to protect tenants.

Mr Tilson: It appears the minister has made up his mind on this subject. Our party is interested in all types of housing accommodation and we are interested in encouraging all types of housing accommodation: the mobile home, the condominium, the co-operative. We are interested in all of these things, and obviously this government has no intention of encouraging the improvement of the quality of life of a mobile home owner or the building of new mobile home units, so I have no further comments or questions with respect to this amendment.

Mr Sterling: I am glad to see the Minister of Housing is here now.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not what you said when I came in.

Mr Sterling: That is not what I said when they came into government? Right.

Before he was here, we were trying to find accommodation for people who live and who are tenants in these mobile home parks. I know he has a busy schedule. It is unfortunate that he was not here, but the problem relates to the fact that there are, in my view, too few mobile home parks in Ontario to provide a certain type of accommodation for a sector of our public.

What I was trying to ask the parliamentary assistant was whether or not the minister might consider an amendment which would permit a mobile home park owner the opportunity to recapture costs which were required of him in capital expenditure as a result of a request of a municipality or ordered by a municipality or at the request of the Ministry of the Environment or ordered by the Ministry of the Environment or at the request of the board of health or ordered by the officer of health.

The reasoning was this, that if you look at the development of mobile home parks over the past in Ontario, most of them I believe were developed 30 or 35 years ago, at a time when zoning and planning were not at the same level that they are now. Many of those were developed in properties which were low-lying, non-desirable land, land which was not good for agriculture, was not good for anything else, basically. As a result, even with the reasonable environmental standards, one might argue, at that time, many of those mobile home parks have problems now with water supply and with sewage disposal, and as a result, some of them are now being asked to update those services. They are caught in a conundrum of having tenants who cannot pay a great deal of rent and are also in a situation where some of them are on the verge of survival. A lot of the services in them were done on a shoestring. A lot of these parks were developed by people who did not have a lot of capital to begin with, and therefore now they are being asked to upgrade those services.

What I wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant, and I now ask the minister's indulgence on it, was whether or not he would consider an amendment, I believe to section 9, with the help of his counsel and his advisers, which would allow the mobile home park operators to recoup costs which were necessary for them to involve themselves with because it was necessary for environmental standards and that that cost be spread out over, I do not know, 15 or 20 years or whatever is reasonable, in the minister's estimation.

The argument given back, and it was eloquently put by the parliamentary assistant, was that the government was going into a period of debate with its new legislation. I do not think even in the most optimistic of situations the minister might dream of doing it within a year and a half or two years, but my concern was over the fact that if one mobile home park closes, you are going to put as many as 60 or 70 or 100 people who own units in a situation where they have put their life savings of $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000, with no alternative. They own a unit, but they do not have any land or a lot to sit it on, because there are not a lot of empty mobile home lots at this time.

So the concern expressed by my friend and my party is that a reasonable law be struck in order to allow these mobile home owners to stay in business over this next two-year period. My thoughts were to put forward an amendment to section 9 to allow a capital cost allowance, or whatever you want, which could be passed along to the tenants, in lieu of throwing the tenants, or throwing some tenants out or closing the park, over a period of time which would be reasonable.

I think you have to remember that you are not dealing with a situation here where you have basically developers who have done extremely well for themselves, have large operations or whatever. A lot of these operations are family-owned, family-operated, and in a lot of cases the costs which are reflected in their rents have -- well, they have not been reflected in their rents, because they have not been able to charge that over the 30-year period. Therefore, I would ask the minister's indulgence in considering an amendment like that. I would ask the minister if he would consider such an amendment.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, that is not the amendment that is before us, but were it to be put before us, the same arguments would be made, of course, for capital in other apartment buildings.

Bill 4 is a temporary piece of legislation. I think the member is being rather pessimistic in terms of the time frame for the permanent legislation, and of course much of the time frame will be up to them. The longer they delay on Bill 4 and the longer they delay on the permanent legislation, then the more difficult it is to get permanent rent control legislation in place, but that is a decision for those people to make.

1750

I am amazed throughout the whole debate on Bill 4 that whether it is parking garages or whether it is roofs or whether it is major requirements in mobile home parks, they all seem to have gone on 28 November, the day that Bill 4 was introduced. It seems rather strange to me that some of this capital work was not planned for and perhaps even applied for under the old legislation. If it had been applied for under the old legislation, the system took so long that if they were in financial difficulty right now and they had an application that had an effective date before 1 October, they would still be waiting to go through the system for months and months and months anyway because the old system was so complicated and so difficult to deal with.

I think that the best way we can go is to pass Bill 4 as it was amended in committee, because I think anybody who is watching this discussion on TV should understand that this is not the first time we have gone through clause-by-clause. We went through clause-by-clause in the standing committee on general government. We accepted some amendments, and now we would like to see Bill 4 brought in for third reading. We are basically opposed to and not favourable to any further amendments to the bill. We dealt with clause-by-clause of the bill and accepted some amendments when it was in the standing committee of the Legislature.

Mr Sterling: I had hoped that the minister would not draw the analogy to high-rise or apartment land, because I think there is a significant difference when you are dealing with these kinds of land. He is the Minister of Housing and he should be concerned about providing housing of various and different kinds in the province of Ontario. I do not think it is hard to get a municipality to agree to zone land high-rise residential, because it gains a fair bit of assessment, but my experience has been that there are not very many municipalities asking for zoning to be involved in trailer parks.

Therefore, while it may be crass to say so, I could withstand perhaps the situation where an apartment building no longer was zoned for apartment building but I am concerned about trailer parks that are no longer zoned as trailer park. The concern is -- I do not know how many units there are across the province of Ontario; there may be only 3,000 to 5,000 or whatever -- that once one trailer park closes, the person who has invested the $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 in that unit has to have a spot to park that unit, and I believe all of the municipalities which I represent, and many of the municipalities which have bylaws that I am familiar with, will not permit those units to be parked in their municipality, or it is very, very difficult to achieve that.

Therefore the downside in not dealing with this as an exception is much greater than what the minister is talking about in dealing with an apartment. I would really ask the minister's indulgence in perhaps not making a decision until I present my amendment on Thursday next, when I believe we will be debating this bill once again and that he will consider an amendment that deals specially with, I believe, a very special problem. The minister is not dealing with downtown Toronto. He is dealing out in the boondocks, in most cases, in the province of Ontario. I just think that a lot of people, a lot of tenants, a lot of people who have invested their money are going to lose it unless the minister does something in Bill 4.

Mr Turnbull: We are discussing clause 1, and of course that is about trailer parks. But the Minister of Housing is as usual trying to confuse the issue by suggesting there were a huge number of applications that were made just after he got into office. He knows absolutely, perfectly well that the reason there were a large number of applications was that the Ministry of Housing did not have an application form which was required at the time that it should have been available in the springtime.

Mr Sterling: One other response I want to make to the Minister of Housing is that in committee he heard all these amendments. I think that if this government is going to be open and concerned about having the best piece of legislation and doing the best for the public of Ontario, it cannot take the general attitude that because something has gone through committee and amendments have been considered there, this Legislature is deprived of bringing forward amendments at this stage. Quite frankly, I did not have the opportunity to sit on that committee or participate in that because I was involved in other parliamentary matters at that time.

I do believe that if this government wants to have credibility, it should continue to keep the process open as long as the standing orders allow it to be open, which allow it to be open in this committee, the committee of the whole House, to make it a meaningful process for the minister to be here to listen to amendments and to consider those in a reasonable and logical fashion with an open mind.

Therefore I do not accept his argument that because we had clause-by-clause for four days or whatever it was in a committee that stood out here, and two members of my party were members of the committee, all members of this Legislature have had their opportunity to be involved in this debate on Bill 4 and put forward meaningful amendments. I think that is part of the parliamentary process and I think this government should accept it.

Hon Mr Cooke: Obviously, if the member presents an amendment, I will take a look at it, but the nature of the amendment that he has described, the principle of it, is not one that I agree with. But if he is talking about the parliamentary process and being open to amendments, the amendment that his Housing critic is proposing would deregulate the mobile home parks in this province. If he wants us to take his amendment seriously, then he should put serious amendments forward. We are not prepared to consider deregulation.

Mr Tilson: Just one final comment with respect to the retroactive effect of this legislation. The effect of the bill results that this clause dealing with mobile homes will be retroactive to 1 January 1987. I would like to just relate to members an incident from the township of Woolwich which is having a devastating effect on a mobile home park in that area.

This village has 78 mobile homes and 200 people. The owner of that particular unit provides hydro, water, septic, sanitary services. The septic system is 30 years old and needs to be brought up to current Ministry of the Environment standards. By bringing this mobile home site under controls, the owner will not be able to finance the needed infrastructure improvements, and because the clause is retroactive to 1 January 1987, this park owner will owe the tenants $60,000. Therefore the business is no longer economically viable and he simply will not be able to continue operation. This of course is a source of affordable housing which would be lost for 200 people, and I think that is regrettable.

Hon Mr Cooke: I do not want to continue the debate other than to say to the critic that he is not being entirely fair in trying to indicate that this is retroactive to 1987 for rent regulation of mobile homes.

He knows as well as I do that the bill that his party voted for, Bill 51, the legislation that we currently operate under in Ontario, was assumed to cover mobile home parks. So let's be honest and aboveboard with everybody and indicate clearly that owners of mobile home parks assumed that they were covered by rent regulation. The only thing that this amendment does is clarify that and make sure the wording that was used in Bill 51 in the past is absolutely clear for the protection of tenants of this province. I will be fair with the member and I think he should be fair with us as well.

The committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1801.