role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 14, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L011 - Thu 14 May 1987 / Jeu 14 mai 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

GASOLINE PRICES

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

GASOLINE PRICES

AFTERNOON SITTING

SPEAKER'S RULING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

NURSES' WEEK

CAMPING LIMIT

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

JOB TRAINING FOR OLDER WORKERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH RESEARCH

LEGAL SERVICES PLAN

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RESPONSES

HEALTH RESEARCH

LEGAL SERVICES PLAN

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HEALTH RESEARCH

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

EDUCATION FUNDING

RICHARD SNELL

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

LAND TRANSFER TAX

PENSION FUNDS

RENT REGULATION

LAND TRANSFER TAX

PROPERTY SPECULATION

LABOUR DISPUTE

RENT REGULATION

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

CENTRE FOR LABOUR STUDIES

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

LONG-TERM CARE

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

PETITIONS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM ACT

DIALYSIS UNIT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

SIMCOE DAY ACT

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Reville: It is with a sense of some moment that I rise today to speak in the second-reading debate on my bill in respect of roomers, boarders and lodgers.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please move the motion first?

Mr. Reville moved second reading of Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for the windup.

Mr. Reville: As I was saying when I was interrupted by some procedural niceties, I am delighted to be speaking in this debate today.

It strikes me as particularly odd that one group of people in our society is denied the protection that all other members of society have; that is, of course, security of tenure. How could it be that a group of people, usually the most vulnerable people in our society, certainly the least well-off people in our society and therefore the most deserving of any breaks that are available to be had, should be left out in the cold, so to speak, by a Landlord and Tenant Act that does not recognize their right to security of tenure?

For those who are at all familiar with my history, it will not be surprising that my private member's bill should be on the subject of rooming houses and roomers in particular. In 1972, when I first became involved in community activism, I was working with roomers. I had recently founded the Neighbourhood Legal Services and our first set of clients was roomers in south St. Jamestown who were being threatened with massive evictions by the big speculator of that time, the Meridian Group.

Those who are familiar with the history of the St. George and St. David ridings, as they still are called but which will soon disappear, will know that in the 1960s and 1970s, the Meridian Group bought up large numbers of existing buildings using a tactic that was appropriately called blockbusting. The main victims of this blockbusting attack were roomers. At that time, we were working to try to protect as many of the rooming houses as we could and we were grateful to be able to preserve 51 rooming houses in that community which were subsequently purchased by the city of Toronto and are continuing to be operated as rooming houses.

The regrettable fact is that those rooming houses may be the only rooming houses that are secure in this city and in cities such as Ottawa because in fact they are owned by a public body. What we are seeing happening more and more, and particularly in the recent speculative housing boom, is that rooming houses are the favourite target of speculators. The reason for that is not hard to fathom: it is easy for a vendor to guarantee vacant possession. Why should that be?

Because the people who live in rooming houses are not protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act and it is not required for an owner to give them any notice at all, nor to allege any reasons why it should be that they should lose their home. That strikes me as an absolutely shocking situation.

Yesterday, down the street in district court, the tenants of 433 Ontario Street, a building in the new riding of St. George and St. David, were before His Honour Judge Webb pleading for their homes. Their house had been bought in January of this year for $175,000. In March 1987, the same house was sold for $225,000 and the vendor quite wrongly said, "You will have vacant possession." The vendor is going to get vacant possession because His Honour Judge Webb said, "The people who live at 433 Ontario Street are not tenants." Incredibly, they are licensees. Because they are not tenants, they are not protected as other tenants are from eviction without cause.

This is a pattern that has been repeated over and over again over the past number of years. When I started working with roomers in 1972, there were double the number of roomers in Ontario that there are today. The population of roomers has not been halved because there is not a demand for low-cost housing; on the contrary, the demand for low-cost housing is increasing. Where are those roomers? They are on the street. As the number of roomers goes down, the number of homeless goes up.

If the members understand the way we supply affordable housing in this province, they will know that for every unit of affordable housing that is created you have to build four units of housing because the rent-geared-to-income portion is generally 25 per cent. Even under a 40 per cent rent-geared-to-income quota, you need 2.5 units for every one of those roomers who has been displaced. What would protect them? A simple amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act.

This was not an amazing new discovery I had made on April 29 when I introduced this bill for first reading. In fact, one can start back in 1974 with the verdict of the coroner's jury inquiring into the death of Isabelle McIntosh. That coroner's jury recommended that roomers should be protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act. That was in 1974. It is now 1987. In the ensuing 13 years, the number of prestigious task forces established at great cost to study this problem, and the number of housing studies and housing policy suggestions that have recommended roomers be included under the Landlord and Tenant Act, has grown into quite a pile.

In fact, I was able to discover 14 such documents dating back to 1974, including the verdicts of four coroners' juries. One will remember that one does not get a verdict of a coroner's jury unless one has a death. In each of those four verdicts, one of the top recommendations was, for God's sake, to bring roomers under the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act and do it now. Thirteen years have elapsed and tens of thousands of roomers have been put out on the street or have returned home one evening to find the lock has been changed on the door of their room and their belongings are out on the street next to the fire hydrant.

I cannot think of any reason why there should be a delay in moving on this much-needed legislation. I have heard some concerns from people who suggest that in cases where perhaps an older woman is letting one room in her home, the operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act might pose a problem. If that is a problem, then let us deal with that by adopting my bill and sending it to committee where we can review the kinds of concerns that may be expressed around the situation of an older person who rents out one room or perhaps a couple of rooms.

In the vast majority of cases, rooming houses are operated not by people who love to run rooming houses but by people who are reserving a piece of property for future sale. There are no little old ladies involved in running these rooming houses, although there are many little old ladies who live in them because, as we know, little old ladies are particularly susceptible to being of low income in our society.

I am going to close my introduction at this stage. I am very interested to hear what other members of the Legislature have to say. I will reserve the balance of my time for a windup in due course.

The Deputy Speaker: The member reserves 10 minutes and 20 seconds.

Mr. Cordiano: Let me start off by talking a little bit about how the government has acted to improve the housing conditions for our citizens in both rooming and boarding situations.

The Ministry of Housing's convert-to-rent and home-share programs are helping to increase the supply of affordable housing units in the existing housing market.

Mr. McClellan: Right. How many? Have you got some figures?

Mr. Cordiano: It is enough to say that it is a far cry from what happened in the past. I have the ministry's Project 3000 here on paper and I want to talk a little bit about that.

Project 3000 is totally funded by the provincial government and is producing 3,000 new units for the so-called hard-to-house. That is a real figure for my friend across the floor. These include people such as the homeless, the disabled, discharged psychiatric patients and many other victims; victims of family violence, for example.

The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) also commissioned two comprehensive studies of the supply, support and protection problems faced by roomers, boarders and lodgers. I allude to the Bairstow task force and the minister's advisory committee headed by Don Richmond, general manager of the Metro Toronto Housing Co. Ltd. They have looked at, for example, private homes where the owner resides with four or fewer roomers; hotels; motels; university residences and a number of other items, and have made a number of recommendations.

As well, the April 28 speech from the throne announced that further measures of assistance will be introduced this session. I certainly hope that these measures will include legislation, as my colleague pointed out, to provide protection for roomers, boarders and lodgers against arbitrary eviction, which I think is uncalled for. That type of initiative is long overdue. On the other hand, there should be procedural modifications that make the system more workable for shared facilities situations.

We have some real concerns, and I hope the form of the new legislation will not be such a simple solution as suggested by the proposed amendment of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville). It is a very complex situation that he is trying to address and to solve with a simple solution. I do not think it is that easy.

I would like to talk about one of the things to which my colleague alluded earlier with respect to an elderly person who may open up his or her home to a boarder or lodger. In the amendment of the member for Riverdale, there is no exemption for that. As he says, let us look at it.

Mr. Reville: Move one in committee.

Mr. Cordiano: Fine, but that is only one example of the kinds of difficulties we could face. Of course, in these situations we are not talking about commercial rooming houses. We are talking about the one person, the elderly person, who opens up his or her home to a student or someone else who is just starting out in life and who has moved into this area from another area. We have to be careful on that because what it really amounts to is that someone is taking on a boarder or a lodger, and we are talking about an intrusion into that individual's private affairs.

It not only would be inconsistent with the rule that a person's home is his or her castle but also could have a really detrimental effect on the people to whom this legislation is addressed and whom it is trying to protect. It could have a detrimental effect and work in the opposite direction.

Home owners are willing to open their homes to those in need of accommodation, but if they are faced with the prospect of having to spend months in court in order to deal with someone with whom they are sharing a kitchen or bathroom, I think this amendment will have the opposite effect and will create far fewer available spaces than we have now.

Vacancy rates are already low, and this could exacerbate the situation. I think the Legislature previously recognized special circumstances of owner-occupants sharing facilities when it exempted such dwellings from the anti-discrimination provisions of the Human Rights Code. The same sort of provisions should be included in any amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act that extend the protections of the act to rooming and boarding situations.

I am aware that there is a provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act for classes of accommodation to be exempted by regulation. However, the exemption for private homes is something that should be set out in the statute. I am not sure the member for Riverdale's amendment addresses the issue of how all the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act will apply to shared-facilities situations. Before we enact something, we should know what the real impact is going to be.

For example, is the 20-day notice period required in dealing with disruptive tenants appropriate where the tenancy is on a weekly basis? Are the other tenants really heard from when a resident poses a real threat to the life, health and safety of the other tenants? We have to keep that in mind. Will the general procedures of the Landlord and Tenant Act allow for such problems to be dealt with expeditiously or do there have to be adjustments to recognize the special circumstances of shared-facilities situations?

I do not have the answers here today, but before enacting this kind of amendment, I think we have to concern ourselves with some of the issues I have raised. It would be hasty of us to pass this amendment because it just does not address the complexity of the situation. There are a number of exemptions that must be allowed for and there are a number of other, complicated situations that this amendment does not look at.

I think a number of other issues are pertinent and should be addressed before we simply pass an enactment saying that roomers, boarders and lodgers are to come under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to be able to respond to the bill of the member for Riverdale with respect to improved circumstances for Ontario's roomers and boarders. As I understand the bill -- as the official opposition's Housing critic I should understand the intent of the bill -- in Ontario today we have a situation where roomers, boarders and lodgers are not defined in the Landlord and Tenant Act and where the courts have ruled that these people are to be treated as licensees rather than tenants.

The bill, as written, would include this type of occupancy for all tenants. However, it leaves open the definition of a roomer, a boarder and a lodger, since there is no strict definition in Ontario statutes. There is no definition of rooming homes or boarding homes anywhere in the Landlord and Tenant Act, but they are included for the first time under Bill 51. We therefore have a situation where the physical accommodation is covered with respect to the rent increases but not security of tenure for the tenants who are actually in it.

The bill clearly has merit, is timely and is appropriate for Ontario today. There are arguments that this is possibly more a Toronto-centred problem, but I believe legislation should be sensitive to that situation. In that regard, I am concerned that we give full debate to this bill this morning.

I was interested and fascinated to hear the member for Downsview (Mr. Cordiano). I guess he is providing the official government version of its attitude towards this bill. I was intrigued by his reference to the government's speech from the throne and how it was going to react to this bill. He used the very significant phrase -- I am sure Hansard will bear this out -- "I certainly hope that this type of legislation will be forthcoming." That is real assurance for the roomers and boarders of Ontario that there is a certain degree of hope on the part of the government that it is going to deal with this problem.

Then they provide the buzzwords of all governments. It frightens me every time I hear them from governments. They say, "Of course, you have to appreciate that this is a complex issue." If I have not seen a scenario where they are trying to buy time, I do not know whether I have ever seen a scenario where they were trying to buy time.

The truth of the matter is that this Minister of Housing spent $180,000 of taxpayers' money to commission a report, yet the member for Downsview says there are still many issues are yet unknown. When are they going to know? After they have spent $500,000 or $1 million on further studies? What did we pay for this report? It is an excellent report.

Mr. Cordiano: There are further issues to discuss.

Mr. Jackson: The member for Downsview says we should be discussing it. I will give him an invitation. If he was listening to the member for Riverdale, that member was saying, "Pass this bill and put it into committee where it can be amended in a sensitive manner instead of delaying it."

In today's Globe and Mail, I read a comment from the Minister of Housing that he is not going to support this bill because he thinks his version is going to be better. Where does he get that kind of arrogance: his bill is going to be better? Whatever happened to the important words "consultation," "consensus," "co-operation"? That is why minority government is supposed to work and it has worked in the past in Ontario.

Is the government afraid to go to committee, or is it the condition of its support that it gets all the credit for bringing in these necessary amendments for a certain group of people in Ontario? The Progressive Conservative Party is prepared today to work co-operatively in this chamber and in the standing committee on resources development in order to ensure that the very points raised by the member for Downsview are incorporated.

As a matter of fact, today I will be tabling in the House a bill which has the effect of amending my colleague's Bill 10. This bill is a product of the recommendations which have come from across Canada, as well as from the Bairstow report, with respect to the very point that maybe Bill 10 goes too far. It does not accommodate, for example, those landlords who are owners of their property, resident in their homes and renting out one or two rooms in their basements. Clearly, Bill 10 goes too far in covering those types of situations.

On the other hand, the government should realize that is a very simple amendment to make. What I will be doing today is tabling a bill which calls for an amendment to

section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and to certain regulations so that a class of accommodation will be deemed not to be a residential premises for purposes of the act. Specifically, the exemption will include private homes in which the owners are occupants and which are accommodating four or fewer roomers, boarders or lodgers, regardless of the physical arrangements.

I submit that if the government has the commitment and sincerity it professes, as it did in its global statements in the throne speech, then it will support both Bill 10 and the bill I am presenting today, and will put them in the resources development committee where we can work co-operatively to develop a final resolution to get this thing resolved before the end of the summer and before we are faced this winter with problems that have been enumerated by a variety of groups both in the media and before committees of this Legislature.

The Conservative Party is pleased to present this amendment, because it recognizes a growing problem throughout Ontario. Even the Bairstow report -- I am quoting directly from page 79 of the report -- makes reference to the fact that "the task force would like to see a substantial increase in the number of rooms provided in private homes across Ontario.

These places will simply not be provided if there is a fear that a person may be welcomed into the intimacy of a family household only to prove incompatible and very difficult to evict without substantial cost." In Quebec and Manitoba, where roomers and boarders are covered by the landlord and tenant legislation proposed in Bill 10, there is this exemption which I will be tabling in the House today.

"What are the complex issues?" I ask the government. I ask the member for Downsview, "What are these complex issues that we have to address?" We do not want to affect adversely those kinds of tenancy arrangements in Ontario, we can agree on that; but I am asking the government to provide some leadership in support of this bill.

My colleague the member for Riverdale has indicated a willingness to accept in principle the bill I will be placing today to form part of the discussions in the resources development committee. I hope he will be making a definitive statement on that fact before the close of today's debate.

At such point, we will be pleased to support his bill and bring it forward so that the necessary amendments will be brought forward and we address the supply problem of the housing for independent-living adolescents in Ontario, which is a growing problem; we address the supply problem with respect to roomers and boarders by providing them the necessary protections and providing the necessary exemptions not to destroy that supply.

I would point out that the legal aid clinics in Waterloo have also made comments within the report that they would support the kind of an exemption we are proposing in the Progressive Conservative Party.

I would like to share one quick example of the kind of tragic situation that is facing roomers and boarders in Ontario; not in Metropolitan Toronto, that is well documented by the media, but in the smaller towns and communities all across Ontario where we have a growing number of adolescent teenagers who are having difficulty with their home life, with school and, yes, sometimes even with the law.

There is an acute housing shortage, and one of the greatest single sources of housing for those individuals in society is the roomer-boarder situation in a residential home. I am upset and concerned that this government has not been forthcoming with the necessary funding for groups, such as the Halton adolescent support services, which are providing a housing network with the kinds of home owners who are providing rooming situations.

It is for that reason that I encourage all members of the House to look with an open mind at Bill 10 and to look with an open mind at the amendment the Progressive Conservative Party is proposing, so that it can go to the standing committee on resources development and that responsible legislation will be in place before the end of the summer.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Ms. Gigantes: It is with a sense of relief that I rise to support Bill 10 put forward by my colleague the member for Riverdale. The problem this legislation would address is a problem which is widespread throughout Ontario and it is a problem we know well in the area I represent, the Ottawa area.

The city of Ottawa did a study in 1984 of what had been happening with housing in that city. It discovered that the single largest need was for affordable rental accommodation for single-person households, single people with low and moderate income. When you get right down to it, the most urgent need is for rooming house space.

The city of Ottawa undertook another study at the staff level this year and discovered that, since 1976 when we had 3,000 rooming house accommodations in Ottawa, we have seen a drop-off in the supply of rooming house space for people to call their home. At this period in time, we are down to 1,300 rooming house spaces in Ottawa, and that includes a couple of recent developments that have been undertaken by community-based, non-profit groups and the city of Ottawa's own City Living corporation. In other words, we have seen a drop in the supply of rooming house accommodation of 63 per cent over the period 1976 to 1987.

That has serious social consequences and in Ottawa the city council is beginning to address that. Unfortunately, it has been left to municipalities so far to try to study the problem and bring forward solutions. Although we have had a task force report at the provincial level, we have not had any action in spite of the voluminous report and the clear recommendations of that report. We have the member for Downsview on behalf of the government still describing this as a problem which is so complex it is going to need government study in order to bring forward a bill.

This is not a complex matter. It is a simple matter and it needs to be addressed simply. People who look for rooming house accommodation in Ontario simply do not exist in law; they have no legal protections. The result of that status has been enormous suffering and an increase in the difficulties experienced by people who have the lowest of income in the province and who are most in need of a place to call home.

I keep saying "a place to call home" because that was the name of the provincial task force report and it is a name that summons up in our hearts and in our heads an understanding of what we are talking about when we talk about this subject. There are thousands of people who need a place to call home, where they know they have some rights, so that they can call that little room, that little space, theirs; so that they know they exist legally; so that they cannot be treated as non-persons living in this province as far as their rights to accommodation are concerned.

We have had the member for Downsview talk on behalf of the government about the difficulties of making exemptions for private dwellings and on and on, how complex these things can be in a simple question. He knows perfectly well, or he should after almost two years in this Legislature, that the whole process we have around here legislatively is one where you put forward a proposition for a legislative initiative, the House approves it in principle and it goes to a standing committee, where if need be there can be public hearings and expert opinion brought forward.

The members of that committee then bring a recommendation to this Legislature about whether there might be the need for amendment to a piece of legislation.

Frankly, I cannot see it, but if he feels it is so complex why not go that well-established route? We have been travelling that route with legislative initiatives long before he was born. I think it is about time he learned what this kind of process is all about. We need to have people who occupy rooms in Ontario treated as if they are people, with some rights like other people, even though they may have less income than many people of the member's acquaintance and his friendship.

Within the existing Landlord and Tenant Act, we have something we might call the "peace, order and good government" clause. It is a clause of very general application. It says every person shall, in a rental situation, have the right to quiet enjoyment, and "every person" covers every person. A tenant, whether it be a roomer or a tenant in a luxury apartment building -- which the member for Downsview, of course, would be more familiar with -- has an obligation to allow the other people with whom he or she is accommodated the right to quiet enjoyment. If that tenant does not allow other people their right to quiet enjoyment, that tenant can be evicted.

That process is well established. It has been in our law for ages; perhaps unbeknownst to the member for Downsview, but in fact it exists in law and it is used in practice. Under this proposal from my colleague, every tenant and every roomer would have the responsibility to allow for the quiet enjoyment of other people with whom he or she was accommodated. The member for Downsview presents problems that do not exist. Let him just allow us to bring this matter to committee and we can show him in great detail.

I want to address briefly some of the examples of what happens to people who have no rights as roomers. In the city of Ottawa, there has been a clear pattern established as the rooming house market and the supply of accommodation for single households with low incomes shrank. That market has squeezed the people who seek accommodation in it to such an extent that they are at the whim and the mercy of the owner of the building.

We know of cases -- I know of four in Ottawa -- where people who were roomers were told by their landlord -- of course, they have no landlord in law, because in law they are not tenants and do not have rights -- they were told by the owner of their accommodation that their welfare cheques had to be handed over to the owner and services had to be provided for those welfare cheques. It was a kind of work-for-welfare scheme that the owner suggested to them they were living on and living in, in which they would be called upon to provide janitorial services because they were renting a room and because their source of income was a welfare cheque.

This is not just one owner. This is what happens in the kind of market that people are living in. When they questioned that implication, that they should be working for welfare for the owner of their accommodation, they were locked out. Of course, they can be locked out. They can simply be locked out. If you are locked out, and you are working on a construction site and your boots are inside, you cannot go to work.

Owners of rooming house accommodation in the city of Ottawa have evicted people in the middle of the month for no good cause and refused to return the portion of the rent cheque that had already been paid. People who are living on welfare will go to welfare and say: "My whole month's accommodation allowance is gone. Can you help me?" Welfare says, "Sorry, we cannot help you."

There was a case of a couple living in Nepean. The woman was ill. They were living in a tent for several weeks. They finally found a room at a certain price. They were told that with two people living in that room the rent would be doubled -- as if it were a hotel, where in fact they do not double rates for two-person occupancy.

I know of a case where a woman brought to the attention of the property standards branch in Ottawa the problem that existed in her rooming house -- which mainly was that it was a fire hazard -- and she was immediately subjected to sexual harassment by the owner of that accommodation. She left, and worried about what would happen to the other women living in that accommodation.

We must pass this legislation.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate with respect to the motion on Bill 10.

I speak with some of the sensitivities from my riding of Mississauga North, a part of the city of Mississauga, which in recent times has had such a large increase of people moving into the city.

There is no question that housing in all its aspects is at critical levels. There is no denying that; it is at critical levels. I speak from my sensitivities as a member for one of the cities which is having a great increase in population, in industrial, commercial and retail activities. There are great demands at all levels and for all different types of services, not only housing but also education and health. We can go right down the line. Mississauga is not unique in this respect, but in many ways possibly it feels more of the demands and the stresses than some other parts of the province.

That does not diminish in any way, shape or form the great need and requirement for affordable housing at all levels.

It is not an easy position. It is not an easy solution. It is one that has to be met. It is one that has to be attacked at many different levels. I would like to say at the outset that this government and the Minister of Housing are indeed attacking that problem. There is not an easy solution to the requirement for affordable housing at all different levels.

The throne speech did indicate that the government would introduce measures to improve conditions of roomers and boarders, and we have already heard about the task force. It has been alluded to by previous speakers.

This particular amendment, though seemingly simple at the outset, must be looked at with respect to the impact that this seemingly simple amendment may have; not would have, but may have. I submit it would be irresponsible on our part not to keep in mind the potential negative impact this amendment may have.

We know that the Bairstow committee recommended including roomers and boarders in the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it also recommended a number of other changes. We know he recommended not just that seemingly simple amendment, but rather exemptions for private homes where owners reside with four or fewer roomers. He wanted exemptions for hotels and motels, for university residences, for accommodation occupied for rehabilitative or therapeutic purposes and for temporary shelters such as hostels.

I do not believe the amendment in Bill 10 comes to grips with the potential negative impact this might have on housing. I know that in a previous life, prior to being the representative for Mississauga North, and even as the representative for Mississauga North, people would come to us and say, "There are too many rights given to tenants." I do not think there is a member in this Legislature who has not heard that. On the other hand, we would hear, "There are too many rights given to landlords." I do not think there is a member who has not heard that also.

I think we must keep in mind that accepting this amendment may provide for a negative impact in that people, private home owners, may be inclined not to admit and not to provide accommodation for roomers and boarders because of the mere fact that the rights provided under Bill 10 would be too much in their opinion. In that respect, we have to be very aware of the negative impact. That is what we have to assess. We have to assess what this amendment would do in the minds of persons who are private home owners. We have to assess what they would think as the people who would be the major suppliers for roomers and the boarders.

To divorce ourselves from that consideration does not do the type of service and justice that roomers and boarders demand. They expect a much greater responsibility on the part of the Legislature. It is because of this that I speak against the amendment to Bill 10, which I do not think will be a great surprise considering what I have previously indicated.

The Minister of Housing and this government have unveiled many other types of programs such as Project 3000, Renterprise, convert-to-rent. We are expending many more dollars with respect to housing, but I do not for a moment say that this means the problems with respect to affordable housing at all levels shall be and now are a thing of the past. Unfortunately, they are not. There is a constant demand on governments and officials at all levels to meet the demands and needs of those who require affordable housing.

I suggest to the member who proposed it, because I have heard him and I know from where he speaks, that this particular bill and this particular amendment may not rectify and remedy the problem for which the amendment was proposed. Although I compliment him, I must stand against it. There is no question in my mind that this is going to have an impact on the private home owners so that they will be more reluctant to take in roomers and boarders.

In conclusion, I stand against the amendment. I wish to reiterate that this government and the Minister of Housing are doing great work at all different levels for all different types of housing through this province so the critical need and the increasing demands for housing will be met and affordable housing will be a right for everyone in this province. I suggest Bill 10 takes one step away from that particular purpose, which this government and this minister have promoted in the past and will promote in the future.

Mr. Reville: It is hard to believe what terror of indecision my little bill has cast into the hearts of my Liberal colleagues opposite. I want to respond to some of the comments made this morning.

The member for Downsview worked himself into a veritable paroxysm of ecstasy over what his government is doing for roomers. Clearly, the roomers who had lived at 433 Ontario and who left the courtroom yesterday, do not share that view. While I am delighted that the government has embarked on Project 3000, not one single unit is occupied in this province, nor will one unit be occupied for some time to come. In the meantime, because of the inaction of this government, tens and hundreds of roomers may be out on the street, joining the lineup of those who are already there.

There are 20,000 waiting for those 3,000 units, so the member can see how inadequate and pusillanimous the government effort is.

My little bill has been accused of being a simple solution. A simple problem requires a simple solution. The problem my little bill addresses is simply this: it provides security of tenure for people who live in rooming houses. It is not, as the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) said, a complex problem; this is a simple problem. It is typically paternalistic and Liberal to try to make a complicated problem out of a simple problem.

We have seen the consistent recipe for inaction from this government. What they do is set up a task force. The task force struggles mightily and emits a report. Then they set up an advisory committee to look at the report that their task force has emitted. All the while, people are getting evicted.

My two colleagues from northwest of Metro worry about what impact Bill 10 might have. Let me tell them what impact their inaction has had. In the last 10 days, 167 people in one riding of this province are out on the street. That is the riding of St. George-St. David, where we are seeing the disappearance of our last great stock of rooming houses. At the snail's pace at which this government moves, it will take 20 years to rehouse the people it is now dehousing.

My dear colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), who is given to making astounding statements all the time, has offered this Legislature the astounding proposition that roomers are people. As usual, she is absolutely dead right. Roomers are people, and I think it is shocking that the government of Ontario, which is making much of its effort in respect of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, is too gutless and too goofy and too indecisive to protect the people in our province who have the least leverage. Shame on this government.

If I could speak to the member from the southwest corner of the province, I would advise him what the United Nations defines as homelessness. I ask the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) to listen to this: "Anyone who does not have security of tenure is homeless." That is what the United Nations says in this the Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

This province, which is richer by far than virtually any nation in the United Nations, is declining to give security of tenure to its poorest people. The government cannot get away with it. It is shocking.

Mr. Mancini: You're getting carried away with yourself.

Mr. Reville: I say to the member, "Don't you dare stand up." Is it not amazing that the United Nations would include a person living at 209 Canton Street, which is valued at $465,000, as homeless because, in fact, at any minute a knock can come on the door and the big shadow in the doorway can say, "Get on your way"? The person in that room is powerless to do anything whatsoever about it.

Sometimes a legal clinic will say, "Let us go off to the court, and we will try to get the court to do what the legislators have declined to do, what the legislators are afraid to do, as they wallow around in pious claptrap, worrying that somehow, somebody, somewhere in this province might not have a rooming house because a tenant in a rooming house would be protected." I have never heard such nonsense. In 1983 in the city of Toronto there were 905 licensed rooming houses. In 1987 there are 657, a decline of 27 per cent. Am I going to be told that it is because roomers are unprotected that rooming houses have declined? I say to the members: "Come on. Have a little sense."

My colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) has made some useful suggestions. He has talked about those few instances, probably in the smaller centres in Ontario, where Mrs. Murphy decides -- he will remember Mrs. Murphy's rooming house that Mr. Kennedy talked about. He probably does not remember. I do not think he remembers much. Let me remind members that there may be a lovely woman wearing a kind of paisley dress with some chintz curtains, who wants to offer a room in her home, and bless her if she does, because people need rooms.

It may be that in that case, when we are talking about rooms in primary residences, we should create some exemptions for that; but let me remind my dear colleagues that in fact the Landlord and Tenant Act does provide a number of causes for which one can be evicted.

None of the 167 people who were evicted in the last 10 days committed any of the offences in the Landlord and Tenant Act. They were not disruptive, they were not behind in their rent and they did not beat down the landlord's door with an axe. They were going about their business quietly and, because the landlord thought it was time to cash in and make a ton of bucks on the home they were out in the street.

Should somebody in a rooming house break the law, a simple 911 call will bring the police, who will drag him off and charge him if there is suspicion that he has committed an offence. Let us not be absolutely silly about this. I know that before tenants in other kinds of accommodation got the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, those land owners said, "`There will be no more accommodation should you protect tenants from whatever our whim is." There are 1.2 million rental units in this province which turn a nice profit for those who own them and they are quite cheerful to stay in that business. Let us not be so goofy.

This bill must go off to committee. By all means, members should bring their concerns there. We can have the member for Essex South come to the committee too. He can bring whatever puny concerns he may have as well, and we will look at them carefully. I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if this government chickens out today on Bill 10 --

Mr. Mancini: What will the member do?

Mr. Reville: It is not what I am going to do; it is the impact on the remaining 100,000 or so roomers in this province who are going to continue to be victims of a housing boom and who cannot protect themselves with the Landlord and Tenant Act, as can every other tenant in the province. Every one of those people on the street is a mockery of the intention of this government to do something serious about the housing problems. Something serious can be done by passing this bill.

I say to members, screw up your courage, vote for Bill 10 and get it to the standing committee on administration of justice. Let us make it law, with whatever exceptions that committee thinks have to happen, and let us start protecting roomers instead of abandoning them to the street.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time allotted for this ballot item has expired.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Dean moved resolution 7:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that many regions of this province, particularly northern and eastern Ontario, are being discriminated against with regard to gasoline prices, this House recommends that the Treasurer of Ontario, in his budget, bring about changes to the methods of calculating and applying the gasoline tax so that the price for gasoline may be equalized throughout the province.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for his windup.

Mr. Dean: It is most unfortunate that the government blocked the transfer of a resolution similar to this one, standing in the name of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), as was requested last week by our party with the support of the third party.

It is obvious the government is very touchy on the issue of gasoline prices in northern and eastern Ontario; it does not want to talk about them. Today, this House will talk about fair gasoline prices all over the province, even if the government does not care about them.

In our society, it is self-evident that transportation is one of our essential services. Throughout our province, auto and truck transport is the way almost all our travelling is done and is the means by which most of our goods are distributed. All our residents, in every part of Ontario, depend on such services and cannot get along without them.

It is not fair, therefore, that our fellow citizens in parts of eastern and northern Ontario are forced to pay more for gasoline than what is charged in the rest of the province. My resolution calls on the Treasurer, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who I wish were in his seat today to hear this important debate, to change the government's method of calculating and applying the gasoline tax so that the price of gasoline may be equalized throughout Ontario.

I am stating unequivocally that I am one of many members in our party who want to see action by the government on this vital issue. I ask for the support of all members of all parties for this fair-minded resolution. The Treasurer has a golden opportunity to effect this change in his budget of next week. I am sure he is looking for substantial support from us, his colleagues in all parties, so that his resolve to carry out this desirable change may be strengthened. By passing this resolution, we demonstrate our belief that all citizens of Ontario should have equal treatment when they buy gasoline; that is, fair treatment.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member wish to reserve the last 17 minutes and 48 seconds?

Mr. Dean: No.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In rising to participate in this debate, I want to state how important I feel this issue is to residents right across northern Ontario. I welcome the fact that the resolution also addresses prices in eastern Ontario. This is an issue that affects people throughout the province, in rural areas, in the more isolated areas of the north, eastern Ontario and some areas in southwestern Ontario. The fact is that we are paying gasoline prices quite a bit higher than those in the Golden Horseshoe area of the province, and it is about time this government took some action to equalize those prices across this province.

It is an issue we have worked hard on and advocated long throughout this term of the Legislature. It was the first issue I brought forward as an issue of concern to my community when I had my first opportunity to speak in this Legislature, in question period. I have pursued it since then but with little impact in terms of tangible government action by either the Conservative members who were in power at the time the Legislature started up two years ago or by the Liberal government which succeeded them.

The accord agreement with the Liberals asked that a major inquiry be conducted into the price differential between northern and southern Ontario. That study clearly showed the discrepancies; the fact they came up with was that on average, residents in northern Ontario are paying an additional $130 a year just because of the average differential of about five cents a litre between northern and southern Ontario. In many communities, the differential is much higher than that. I recognize it is not only in the north but also eastern Ontario, and I hope we can address those differentials as well by taking action that would ensure prices are equalized across this province.

I have some serious concerns about the sincerity of the Conservative members on this issue, however. They had many years in government to act on this issue and never took any government initiative to do anything. In recent months, they have taken up this cause, particularly in northern Ontario, because I am sure they recognize the popularity of this issue among the people and the concerns that are being expressed by northern residents on this issue.

I commend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), who 10 years ago presented a bill to the Legislature asking that gasoline prices be equalized throughout the province. I would far prefer that the member in his resolution had advocated the action the member for Algoma-Manitoulin proposed 10 years ago, that oil companies which wished to sell gasoline in Ontario would be required to sell that gasoline for the same price in every community in this province.

It is that kind of regulation that is required to ensure we do get equalized gasoline prices and that we are no longer paying the high cost, the high penalty, for our location at a time when we in the north, because of the longer distances required and the absolute necessity of automobiles, have no choice but to pay more as it is today, and generally drive greater distances as well.

The Conservative members should look back at the bill that had been presented by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin 10 years ago. We had a bit of discussion on this several days ago, in which the member for Algoma-Manitoulin stood in his place and stated that this kind of legislation had been advocated by him at that time and should be brought back to this Legislature.

That is the direction I think we have to go. I am not sure what the Treasurer can do in his budget. I hope he does take some action that will lead towards elimination of the differentials in prices of gasoline between the north and the south, but I think it is going to take far greater action than has been suggested specifically within this resolution.

Regulation alone has its risks, certainly when we talk about the kind of regulation that has been instituted on other issues by this Liberal government. Our current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) announced several weeks ago he was going to regulate the insurance rates in the province. As we have found out there, a freeze is not necessarily a freeze, a cap on prices is not necessarily a cap, and a reduction of 10 per cent on certain insurance rates is not necessarily a reduction at all.

Consumers in this province are still getting auto insurance increases of 20 per cent or more from what they were paying six months or 12 months ago. In fact, this government has taken no action in that area, which also affects the drivers of this province and which is a very important issue of basic injustice and unfairness to the consumers of this province.

We do not want to see that kind of action come from this government. We want to see some action that has some force and some teeth and that will ensure the prices are fair in this province.

I would also say there is some competition within this province. One of the major problems in the north is the fact that there is no competition. The study that was done by this Liberal government, which had no conclusions whatsoever, did come up with some interesting facts though, including graphs such as this one on comparative gasoline prices between Sault Ste. Marie and Guelph.

As we can see, the price in the Sault is anywhere from five cents to 12 cents a litre higher than in Guelph over a long period. While the Guelph prices go up and down on a week-to-week basis, the Sault Ste. Marie prices have one fluctuation over a period of a number of months; just one shift, which was an increase of 1.5 cents. In fact, that one shift was not because of any competitive pressures; it was because there was an increase in the federal gasoline tax rate imposed by the Conservative government federally at that time.

There is no indication that there is any competition in prices in northern Ontario, particularly in communities of the Sault area, where there are no independent operators. The price is set by one of the major outlets, and the other gasoline distributors fix their prices identical to that. The dealers we have talked to -- and I have talked to a number of them -- say they cannot do anything about it because they are told to work only with their margin. They are not given what the price is going to be; they are told by the people in Toronto what the price they are going to be given is. They have a three-cent margin to work with and that is all they can deal with.

I ask this government to take action on this issue before an election is called. Over the two years since the accord was signed, the government has had the chance to take action on one of the major initiatives that was in that accord, and that was a major investigation of the price differentials between northern and southern Ontario. It took them eight months before the study was even commenced. It took them another eight months before the study was completed. It was supposed to be a major inquiry; in fact, it turned out to be a farce, with insufficient notice to the general public. The public was not able to make full presentations.

The details of what is going on internally within the oil industry, the setting of gasoline prices and the kinds of contracts that are being imposed on the local dealers that prevent them from competing on prices were not addressed by that study. Most serious, the conclusions were totally superficial. The conclusions were, of course, that we are paying $130 more per consumer in northern Ontario and that the reasons are the transportation cost to get up to northern Ontario, the lack of competition in the north and the fact that there are fewer consumers in the north. We know those facts, but there were no recommendations in that study for what the government was going to do about it.

The government has abandoned its role to represent the legitimate interests of the consumers of this province and to take action to see that we do have the price of gasoline equalized, not only across northern Ontario versus southern Ontario but also across the whole province. If a company wants to be in the gasoline business, it should be able to provide gasoline for the same price to every consumer in this province.

M. Fontaine: M. le Président, c'est avec grande surprise, il y a deux ou trois semaines, je suis allé à North Bay et lisais dans les journaux que M. Harris faisait campagne pour défendre les parties du Nord contre le prix de la gazoline.

I would like to remind the House that there was a Royal Commission on Petroleum Products Pricing in 1977 or 1976 by Claude Isbister. This royal commission was started by the former Conservative government and in this report there is a

section about northern Ontario. As my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) said, this was tabled with the previous government in June or July 1976 and there were some good points made about gas in northern Ontario.

I know we can blame the government and we can blame the big companies in all this, but it is a fact in northern Ontario the dealers or the wholesale people are taking more per litre. In this report, the one my friend does not like, the one we did last year, there is the fact that in some areas the dealers or the wholesale people are taking more per litre.

This is a fact. I think that royal commission had the power to get the facts that perhaps we did not get last year. It was over a year and we found after 10 years that it confirmed the figures. That is not only the fault of this company or that company, but it is general in northern Ontario or in the east, where there is less volume, that the distributor takes more. It varies between 2.8 and eight cents a litre, and then by gallon there was an eight-cent difference between Kapuskasing and Hearst at the wholesale price level and the retail price.

Then there is talk about the tax. Tax reduction was put in place in other provinces such as Quebec. In Quebec, they reduced the tax in isolated regions by 4.2 cents a litre, but still, after a few months, the price was up again. We looked into that. To say we did not look at it is not right. We worked at it too. We did not spend the time just dreaming.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Undoubtedly.

Mr. Fontaine: Never mind. The member can talk after. He will get a rebuttal.

We looked at the Quebec situation after that. We looked at the Nova Scotia situation. Nova Scotia had a regulated price. It is still at 50.8. They put it down by two cents not too long ago; I guess because an election is coming up, but still it was higher.

Interjection.

Mr. Fontaine: The member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) should shut up, because his government has done nothing with this. Also, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) asked for another price for the real north, but he did nothing because up there they paid $4 or $5 a gallon on the reserve. It is a report that I found when I was Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and they did nothing about it.

At least we recommended to the people who worked for the northern development councils and the members that this year we should reduce the tax; because if we reduce the tax by four cents, the problem at Red Lake, at Chapleau, at Hearst and at Red Rock will still be the same. You will be a hero tomorrow if you reduce the tax by four cents, but the next day the guy who lives in Chapleau will still pay eight cents more than one in Kapuskasing.

Mr. Laughren: What does that tell you?

Mr. Fontaine: Never mind.

We recommended to the NDCs that we put more money into roads instead of reducing the price at this point. The NDCs came out for it. There were nine NDCs, and there was one dissent on reducing the price and then half of Sudbury was for reducing the price. The rest said we should put the money into the roads.

At the same time, what is fun over here is that every time there is a budget coming up some people ask for debates so they can go back to their ridings, and if there is something in the budget they are going to say we did it because we figured there was an election tomorrow. That is all they are doing it for; that is it. If it were coming from the New Democratic Party I would accept it, but coming from that side I do not accept it. They had from 1976 to 1985 to do something about this and they did nothing. The report of the royal commission said they should do something, but they have done nothing with it.

Mr. Gordon: That is no argument.

Mr. Fontaine: I do not have to take anything from him. I will listen to this side instead. I have nothing to do with him.

I think my friends from the third party are on the right track. I know they used it in the election last year, or two years ago. I think they won two or three ridings with it. Now the Conservatives are trying to do the same thing because they are scared in the north; they are shaking. Now they are trying to use that as the NDP did a few years ago to win a few votes, but the people will not listen to that because it is going to be all over the north what they did with that report.

At least we are going to do something with our small report. We are going to try to do as was done with food. We are considering a number of options to help increase the level of competition in gasoline marketing in northern Ontario. Past experience in the food sector has shown that with accurate information it worked with the public. It has worked in the food sector, and we are going to try it again. We are going to use some money to reduce the tax; we are going to put it in the roads. The members saw in the throne speech that we are committed.

I want to remind my honourable friend that 15 years ago the gas station -- I used to own a gas station at one time. We used to take 14 cents a gallon in Hearst. In Timmins at that time they were working with eight cents and 12 cents on number one, and we were working on 14 cents and 17 cents in Hearst. The wholesale people used to work on seven cents a gallon in Hearst and they worked on three cents in Kapuskasing or Timmins. That had nothing to do with Imperial Oil or Esso; that was our markup.

At the same time, today the service stations are not doing repairs any more, so they have to rely on the gas or the oil, and it is 4,000 or 10,000 miles before the oil needs to be changed so there is less oil to be sold. The service stations today need more money. That is one of the big problems we found. How we are going to change that, I do not know.

I repeat that I was in Red Rock the other day. There was eight cents a litre difference between Red Rock and Nipigon on the highway. I guess the small service station there was working on eight, nine or seven cents. I did not check, but I know that in some places they are working with only 2.8 cents, and some wholesalers work with 3.2 cents. There is a wholesale price difference between Toronto and Chapleau of 2.3 cents and there is only half a cent difference in wholesale price between Marathon and Toronto.

This is a problem that I do not think we can change by regulating. Looking at the price at the self-serve pump. The crude cost is equal all over the country. When you come to the provincial tax, the federal tax, there is a movement; then we have refining and marketing costs, and profit. We use only 7.5 cents in Toronto; some other provinces use 13. At the retail level in Toronto, they work on 2.9 cents.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Tell them to give it to every retailer for the same price.

Mr. Fontaine: That is the problem. It is okay to have that dream. I had that same dream. I was in Hearst all my life. When you look into it deeper it is not that easy, but I think there are other ways.

We are going to try other ways. We are going to put more money into roads and save some mileage for the people going from Chapleau to Sudbury. First, we will repair our roads; and second, we will look at other ways to do that before we say we should cut that equally. If it was that easy, somebody would have done something with this. The report did not recommend it that way either after a year of investigating the prices in Ontario. This is for the price in Ontario. There is a

section on page 81 that talks about northern Ontario. That is where members will find what I am saying.

The posted price showed 4.7 cents difference between Timmins and Kapuskasing. The dealers' margin was 3.7 at that time. We confirmed that this year. It is easy to go and say things to the people to win votes, but when you come to apply a solution it is different because the small village of Hearst or Red Rock will still be faced with the same differential whether you raise the price or not. Tomorrow, if you took four cents off in the north, the next day northerners would still pay 10 cents more because the dealer takes a bit more. That is the truth.

Can we regulate the dealers? We cannot regulate the dealers. Maybe we can regulate the price at the level of the refining, I do not know, but we cannot tell a dealer who sells gas, "You should sell it at three cents, four cents or five cents less." Can we say, "That is enough of that"? No way. I do not want to see that in this country yet. We are not Communists.

Mr. Morin-Strom: You put it to every dealer in the province for the same price, René.

Mr. Fontaine: I have sold gas for 25 years, and I buy more gas in one day than members buy in a whole year, so I know how much it costs too. When I used to be in the lumber business we went through five million gallons a day. Still, we cannot regulate the dealer. The truth is the dealer and the wholesaler take eight cents too much. That is all. That we cannot change.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Polsinelli): Order. The member's time has expired.

Mr. Gordon: It would just be great if we sent the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) out on the hustings in the north to explain why people should be paying more for gasoline.

More than one year ago, I received a letter from the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) heralding the arrival of the north-south gasoline pricing study. I would like to quote from that letter sent to me by the Minister of Energy in reply to a letter I sent him asking that gas prices be lowered. The minister told me, more than a year ago, "You will also be aware that the government considers this study to be the first stage in the resolution of this issue."

In other words, they said that the north-south gasoline study put together by this government on the other side was the first stage in bringing about a resolution of the issue. The north is still waiting for the changes in gasoline prices that the government intimated it was going to bring about.

On December 2, 1986, I wrote to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is Minister of Northern Development and Mines, urging him to implement a gas equalization policy. I would like to quote exactly what the Premier said in reply to my letter. His reply was a pure and simple defence of the status quo.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I really do think that the member for Sudbury's privileges are being abused by his own back-benchers who are heckling him. I wonder if he could make a stop to that.

The Deputy Speaker: If it were correct, it would be a point of order. However, the point is well taken that several members of the official opposition, not being in their seats, are being very noisy even as I speak.

Mr. Warner: Heckling their own member.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, and the member for Cochrane North is also aiding that noise. Could we please have some more silence for the member for Sudbury?

Mr. Gordon: The Premier's reply is rather interesting. He wrote back saying, "Higher margins for gasoline may be justified."

I would like to say to the Premier that northerners do not believe that higher margins for gasoline are justified. Northerners are fed up; northerners do not want to pay for this ripoff any more. This is the kind of thing that takes money out of the pockets of ordinary people; out of pensioners' pockets, out of the pockets of people who are living on fixed incomes and out of the pockets of people who are carrying a lunch pail in the northern part of this province. It is just not fair.

As a result of the Premier's letter, I launched a campaign in northern Ontario to get gasoline prices lowered. I want to tell the House today what happened. Do members know that across this great province of ours, and particularly in northern Ontario, we had overwhelming support? Through letters and resolutions, the northern municipalities indicated to us that they wanted gas prices lowered. The chambers of commerce said the same thing and so did the travel associations. Ordinary northerners wrote letters to the Premier and to the Treasurer. They sent petitions, all of them saying: "We want gas prices lowered.

We are tired of this ripoff. We are tired of being taxed to live in the north." That was their reply.

I think back to what was said in the throne speech, that this government was looking for northerners to tell them what we believed was essential, what we thought should happen in the north. One of those home-grown ideas, and an overwhelming idea, was to cut the price of gas in northern Ontario. That is what the ordinary northerner said.

I think it is rather sad. Two years ago, the Premier of this province, when he was campaigning in northern Ontario, promised that he would see that the cost of gasoline between north and south was equalized. He said that. He said it in Sudbury, and we have reporters there who can verify that. It is a shame that today he is saying, "The margin on gasoline may be justified." How fast they forget about ordinary people once they get their limousines and big offices. The ordinary people in the north deserve a break.

I would like also to say it was sad that this government chose last week to refuse to debate my resolution to cut the price of gasoline in the north. That is one of the first times that has happened in years in this House. I cannot think of another precedent like that.

I want to thank the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) for making it possible for me to get up today to talk for ordinary northerners in this province. The government is not going to be able to stop the people of the north from expressing their views. We have a right to debate an issue like that today and we are going to be looking very closely at the government members to see which way they vote on this issue. If they vote against this resolution to equalize gas prices between north and south, what they are saying is: "We do not believe in our campaign promises. We do not believe northerners deserve a break."

Do members know that the difference between what someone makes living in the south or living in the north is now $5,000 a year? Do members not think that person should have the chance of having some of the same opportunities as people who live in the south? Do they not think that person should have his gasoline equalized instead of having to carry on in this way? I want the members of the government to understand this. We in the north view this as a tax for living in the north, and it is just not fair.

I know what the government is going to say. It is going to say, "We are going to use that money on roads." Now what the government is telling us is that it is going to use the money it raised from northerners to pay for roads for northerners. I have to tell them, no one is going to be impressed by that. People are not fooled.

I would like also to point out to the members on the other side that the advisory committee on resource dependent communities, which had as its chairman Dr. Rosehart -- and our government took pains to appoint people who represented the north -- recommended that there be a cut in gas tax of at least five cents a litre. Yet today we have the member for Cochrane North standing up and blathering away about how he used to run a gas station and saying that northerners -- I cannot believe he said this -- should pay more for gasoline to prop up the gas stations across the north. I do not think the northerners are going to buy that argument. I think it is a weak argument and a foolish argument.

I would go so far as to say this: we in northern Ontario know there are two Ontarios today. There is the prosperous southern Ontario, where unemployment has almost been wiped out. We have a southern Ontario where the economy is booming. Yet we have seen over 20,000 jobs disappear in northern Ontario in the last two years. It is time northerners got a break on their gasoline. It is time they stopped paying a tax that is both regressive and unfair.

I would just like to point out what happens in a small town in northern Ontario. Let us take Chapleau, for example. The people of Chapleau pay on average 50 cents a gallon more for gasoline than the people down here in southern Ontario. We are not talking for the Sudburys, we are not talking just for the North Bays or the Timminses, we are talking for the little people, the small communities. Do members know, for example, that at present Chapleau has the lowest per capita income in the north? Yet these people are being hosed. They are no farther away in actual miles than places like Wawa or Timmins, yet they are paying more. It is not fair, it is not right and it should be changed.

For example, if you owned a Monte Carlo, you lived in Chapleau and you filled the tank twice a week -- which is quite conceivable; they do a lot of long-distance driving in the north -- you would be paying $759.20 more a year in cost of gasoline than someone living in southern Ontario.

In conclusion, I want to say that northerners are tired of losing their jobs. We are tired of having tourists come to the north and tell us they are not coming back because they pay too much for gasoline, it is costing them too much. We are tired of a government that has shown such insensitivity to northerners. It is only fair that this government lower the price of gasoline. It has the power; we expect it to do it.

Mr. Laughren: Whenever I hear this debate going on, I always think it is appropriate that the word "gas" is involved in it.

I must say the resolution as put by the member for Wentworth is a very strange one, because there are two principles involved in his resolution, as I understand it. One is the question of equalization of prices and the other is the question of who pays for the equalization of prices for gasoline across this province.

I think it is appropriate to reread the member's resolution. It states:

"That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that many regions of this province, particularly northern and eastern Ontario, are being discriminated against with regard to gasoline prices, this House recommends that the Treasurer of Ontario, in his budget, bring about changes to the methods of calculating and applying the gasoline tax so that the price for gasoline may be equalized throughout the province."

The member is saying the prices should be equalized: no problems from this caucus. He is also saying, though, the taxpayers of the province should pay for that equalization. That is what the member is saying. The member is saying it is not the fault of the private sector for causing this inequality for northerners and easterners. That is what he is saying. He says it is not the fault of the private sector. I do not know where he got that information. How did the member come to the conclusion that it was not the private sector that was raising the prices to unacceptable levels in northern Ontario?

Where did he get that information? I did not hear him give us any. If he is saying it is the tax system in Ontario that is discriminating against northerners, let him stand up and say so and let him admit that his government endorsed that policy for many years. He has not said that.

The member for Cochrane North is more honest in his response. He said we could lower the tax today by four cents or whatever and tomorrow the retail price would be right back up to where it was before. I agree with the member; that is exactly what would happen. What he did not do was tell us why. He did not say what that says about the oil and gas industry in this province. He did not make that final statement. He left it hanging. I think the people of Ontario will draw their own conclusions on that. If we lower the tax by four cents a litre and the next day the price is the same, somebody is taking advantage of the market.

I represent a community called Chapleau that has been abused by the oil and gas industry. There is absolutely no question about that; no question whatsoever. The service station operators in Chapleau blame the industry, the suppliers. The industry -- and we have correspondence to back this up -- blames the service stations. Who is sitting on the sidelines digging deeper and deeper into their pockets while this argument is going on? The motorists in Chapleau. The same is true for motorists all across northern Ontario.

I find it very strange that we have this bizarre debate going on, with the Tories saying, "Let the taxpayers pay for what the industry is doing to drivers in northern Ontario;" and the Liberal government saying: "We do not think the taxpayers should pay for that. As a matter of fact, we do not think anybody should, except the motorists in northern Ontario." That is exactly what they are saying.

If they do not want the industry to pay the price of equalization and they do not want the taxpayers to pay the price of equalization, then they simply do not want equalization.

I was taken aback when the member for Cochrane North, in response to some out-of-order heckling from this side -- I cannot remember from whom -- said: "You cannot set the price of the retail level. We are not Communists." We are not Communists; retail price? The member said we cannot set the retail price in this country because we are not Communists.

Shall we look at all the retail prices that are regulated? Are those Tories, because they regulated the price of beer and liquor, a bunch of Commies? I think the privileges of the Tories have been abused by the member for Cochrane North. I have never met a Commie in the Tory party; I never have, and I am prepared to go on record with that.

I really find it strange, because we have a choice to make if we are serious about the equalization of gasoline prices in northern and eastern Ontario. Either the taxpayers of Ontario pay for that equalization or the industry pays for the equalization. If one of those two do not, then we will continue to have the inequality we have now.

This is a classic case where if the industry does not put its own house in order government will. It is like the auto insurance industry. Because they have allowed the drivers to be abused on auto insurance rates, the government is moving in. In some way or another, either through the public auto insurance plan or through regulation, which the minister is rambling about, one way or the other there is going to be intervention in the marketplace and those lovers of free enterprise out there will wring their hands and say: "Too much government intervention. That is the problem with this country and this province."

But in virtually every single case where there has been government intervention, it has been because of abuses by the private sector. This is just another example; if the industry does not get its house in order and equalize the price across northern and eastern Ontario, government, whatever government, will have no option but to intervene and do it on behalf of the consumers of northern and eastern Ontario.

So the industry has a choice. The industry has a clear choice, and if it chooses to go the route of not putting its house in order itself, then I would suggest government will have no choice. The Liberal-appointed task force, affectionately referred to in northern Ontario as the dog-and-pony show, travelled the province a couple of years ago; and when that group went around northern Ontario it concluded that the cost of transportation was about one and a half cents per litre more, as I recall.

We know the price of gasoline in Chapleau is a lot more than that above the transportation costs. I think the member for Sudbury used the price of 50 cents per gallon above what it is in Toronto. I do not think the people in Chapleau and other communities in the north should be paying 50 cents more per gallon. What has allowed the industry to get away with it was the whole conversion to metric, which allowed the industry to jack up prices, one, two, three and four cents a litre. It would never have dared do that if it was cents per gallon, priced in gallons.

Even though I am not one of those opponents of the metric system, when I see abuses like this I say the private sector is begging for intervention. As a matter of tact, it is challenging the government to intervene. If the government chooses not to do so, then of course it will pay the price.

It is silly to talk about whether there is political grandstanding or whether it is being used for political purposes. What in the world are we here for if not to use leverage in order to effect government policy?

On this side of the House, we have no hesitation in saying to the government it is time to intervene in the marketplace. They are abusing the motorists of northern Ontario and it is the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of the motorists of northern Ontario.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to tell the honourable member before he leaves that I will be voting in favour of this resolution. I am sorry he does not want to hear it.

Mr. Laughren: It is taxpayers' pay.

Mr. Ramsay: I am not exactly in favour of the mechanism, because probably the taxpayers should not pay.

The problem with trying to wrestle with this situation in the north is the discrepancy in prices throughout the small towns and big cities of northern Ontario, from the northwest to the northeast. Sometimes when you are travelling around you find the prices are on par, and the odd time some prices in the north have been lower than those in the south. I think the trick is that we all feel there has to be some sort of equality in the prices paid; but what mechanism do we adopt to do this, that is the problem.

I would argue with some of the statements made in the House today about who are the culprits in this. I think it might be possible to lower, say the tax in northern Ontario and to control it at the wholesale or company level, but how do you control it from town to town, from station to station through the small operator? That is the problem.

It is a problem of enforcement of control that is a concern of the government, and I would certainly welcome the ideas of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the member for Sudbury and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) on how we can do these things, because we share the same concerns.

As a northerner, I spend much time in my car and on the highways. Maybe we have differences of opinion on how we have to go about solving this problem, but in the north this type of issue -- highways and gas -- is a people issue. We spend a lot of time in our automobiles, travelling great distances. It is not uncommon for people in the north to commute 60, 70 or 80 miles to work. Obviously, the condition of the highways and the price of gas are of vital concern to northerners.

Mr. Laughren: You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Mr. Ramsay: No, I am not talking out of both sides of my mouth.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ramsay: At this time in northern Ontario, the self-service price is lower than the Canadian average, and that is taking an average of northern Ontario prices. If you go to Thunder Bay, North Bay and Sudbury, you have gas prices a couple of cents more a litre than in the south, but if you go to Red Rock and Nipigon you get very expensive prices, sometimes up to 10 cents a litre more. How do we control that? What mechanism do we use?

The member for Wentworth, who proposed this motion, talks about using a mechanism of tax adjustment. How fine-tuned do you make that mechanism in order to deal with the discrepancies in the different towns and regions of the north? That is a very difficult problem when you have to deliver a program. We know there is a problem and we accept that. How do you regulate and control that?

I will be voting in favour of this. It is obviously a challenge to our government to deal with this problem. We thank the member for bringing it up.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise in the Legislature today to support this resolution. I want to compliment the member for Sudbury, who first put this resolution for debate, and I want to say how disappointed I was, as he expressed earlier, that the government would not allow that resolution to proceed. Also, I want to thank the member for Wentworth for allowing this resolution to go ahead today standing in his name. I think it shows a great sensitivity to what is happening in northern Ontario at this particular time of our political life.

I also want to congratulate the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), who I think recognizes there is a problem. Even though he was not a member of that party when it toured the north and made a commitment to equalize gas prices, now that he is a member of that party he recognizes it is not good enough to say, "Forget what we promised two years ago in the campaign. Forget that we said we would address the problem." He has come forward and said: "Yes, it is difficult. There may be some problems."

Do you get into total regulation? I have to be the first guy to tell members that this is not a new problem; it is a growing problem, a severe problem. It is particularly relevant now for two reasons. It is particularly relevant now because the disparity between the north and the south has been very much more pronounced in the past couple of years than it had been in the past.

Second, there are significant dollars available for the government to do something about it at this particular time. The member for Sudbury and I have talked about this issue. It was difficult to go to a Treasurer in 1982, 1983 and 1984 -- we went; we talked about it -- and say we needed $100 million when the government was $2 billion in the hole and there was a recession on and it did not have the money to address this problem.

So I do not apologize. I do not apologize for fighting for the past six years for northern Ontario. I do not apologize for fighting two years ago, I do not apologize for fighting last year and I do not apologize for fighting right now for northern Ontario and something that can be done.

When we get to this particular resolution: some have said four cents, some have said five cents and some have said to regulate prices. I want to talk about regulating prices. I have had difficulty with that. There is no point in following the example of Nova Scotia, having regulated prices and having them equal in the north and the south if they are higher than they are now. I do not want equalized 55-cent-a-litre gasoline prices throughout this province, and regulation leads to that.

Big companies -- you see it in Bell Canada, the gas companies and Ontario Hydro -- have more lawyers, more accountants, more people who can justify all the cost pass-throughs, and I firmly believe that will lead to even higher prices. So I do think the government has to play a role.

Some of my colleagues may disagree with me, but I do not object to service station operators making a living either, and it is more difficult in the north. That is one of the reasons government has to get involved. They do not have the same volumes; we know that. But the old argument of transportation costs is a very small part of this problem. It is the lack of competition, the lack of price wars and the higher cost of doing business in northern Ontario.

When we look at all those options, I come down to the one where I think the government and I have said it should look at the taxation policy -- any government has to sit down with the oil companies. They have to say: "Here is what is happening. Never mind all the arguments about why it is happening and telling us the profit margins and everything else. It is happening. We have the bucks. We have the money right now. We are going to help the north."

Maybe it should be eight cents a litre. What the heck is the matter with doing a little something to stimulate northern Ontario? Maybe we should eliminate the gasoline tax in the north altogether. It would cost about $142 million.

Let members ask any person in northern Ontario, any council, any business or any tourist operator: "What would it do for you in northern Ontario, Mr. Industrial Commissioner, if gas were eight cents a litre lower? Would that help you attract industry? Would that keep the bus tours rolling through? Would that encourage the trucking companies to keep coming through northern Ontario instead of going through the United States? Would that help your trucking businesses? Would that help your transportation costs?" It would help literally everybody.

I have said fair is fair. Number one, the government should live up to the campaign promise of two years ago. It was a good promise, a promise I agreed with. The government is now in the position and has the power to do it, so it should live up to it.

Number two, the government's promise was to attempt to equalize. Its own study says on average four cents. That will not solve all the individual problems. It is not going to be perfect. There is still going to be a little difference here and there. There will be a big gas war in Guelph or some place, and they will get it for 25 cents a litre for a week; but on average, the study says that is what has happened. If the government lives up to that promise, that is what it will do.

I would be the first one to encourage the government to go even further and say, "Let us do something to stimulate northern Ontario; it is at a great disadvantage right now." Why are the auto parts companies getting grants and everything to locate in southern Ontario? The government argues, and I understand the argument, that nobody can go to General Motors and say, "If you want to do business in Ontario, you have to do it in Kapuskasing." They cannot do it, or they will not do it. There is nothing the matter with keeping on trying to encourage them, and we should all keep working on that.

But here is something where we can bring northern Ontario closer to the market, closer to southern Ontario. I had an interesting comment from one of my constituents talking about this. We were talking about the problems of industry in Nipissing and encouraging it to locate there, and somebody said, "You know, if North Bay was right beside Toronto, we would be booming." What brings North Bay closer to Toronto? You cannot pick it up and move it beside Toronto. Four-lane highways bring it closer. Reducing the cost of transportation brings it closer. This guy was on the right track.

We are dealing today with a resolution that will go a long, long way towards helping northerners help themselves, towards helping make it more attractive.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Why did you not do it 42 years ago?

Mr. Harris: First, I guess, I was not born 42 years ago. If one reduced it by four cents a litre 42 years ago, I guess you gave it away for free. The member should not be so stupid with his ridiculous interjections and live up to his own commitment.

I have had six years to fight on behalf of northern Ontario, and I am going to have another 20 to fight on behalf of northern Ontario, because I will continue to fight whoever is in government, whenever the time is, on behalf of northern Ontario issues.

I have to compliment our colleague the member for Timiskaming. He has learned this is not a Progressive Conservative issue. It is not a New Democratic Party issue. It is not a Liberal issue. Damn it, it is a northern Ontario issue. When you are from northern Ontario, those people elect you to come down here and fight for northern Ontario. Any northern member who comes down here and does not fight for his people in northern Ontario does not deserve to be re-elected and does not deserve to come back into this Legislature and may be in for a big surprise when the time comes.

We are talking now about this window of opportunity. When the differential was some 10 cents a gallon instead of up to 50, the previous government lowered northern car licences. They did a few things along the way.

The problem in the last two years has gotten much worse. The disparity between the north and the south in the last couple of years has gotten much worse. This government committed in the last campaign to do it, a good campaign promise. The NDP committed as well. I disagree with their method; I am afraid they would equalize it and they could say, "Look, it is equal," but it would probably be even higher than it is right now.

I believe there is an opportunity, and it is critical that the government listen now. There is plenty of time before the budget comes down next Wednesday. It is critical that this debate was allowed to take place before that budget comes down. This government has an opportunity now to say to the north: "We will put you on equal footing. We will try to do something to help you." They should reduce the gasoline prices and monitor the oil companies, and away they go.

Mr. Wildman: I join this debate with rather mixed feelings. What is proposed in this resolution in effect does not guarantee lower gasoline prices at the pump. What it does in fact is to have the taxpayers and the Treasury subsidize the oil companies' higher pricing practices in northern Ontario. It is not adequate. It is speaking to an issue that is very important to all northerners, but it is not adequate.

It is unfortunate that this government did not live up to its commitment to do something about gasoline prices in northern Ontario when it signed the accord. It is most unfortunate that we now have these Johnny-come-latelies, who 10 years ago could have acted on the bill of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin to have equal prices across Ontario but voted down their own member's bill.

What kind of phoniness is this? Let us actually do something for northern Ontario and do something about high gasoline prices in the north, instead of having these silly debates and never doing anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to inform the members that the time for debate has expired. We will now deal with ballot item 4.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reville has moved second reading of Bill 10.

All those in favour will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: May I request unanimous consent of the Legislature to refer Bill 10 to the standing committee on the administration of justice?

Mr. Speaker: Is there a majority agreement? The standing orders say there must be a majority agreement.

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dean has moved resolution 7.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I hope I can have the attention of the members at this point. Because of another matter that is on Orders and Notices, I would like to bring to their attention the matter in relation to the notice of motion standing in the name of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). Since the House in its wisdom has made a decision on the resolution of the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) today it now becomes out of order for the member for Sudbury to move resolution 4 as it appears on page 9 of today's Orders and Notices because it deals with the same subject matter.

For the information of the members I would like to refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 150: "An old rule of Parliament reads: `That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House.' Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session."

Also, our own standing order 43 states, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

Therefore, I am advising the House that it would be out of order to proceed in this session with the motion by the member for Sudbury under ballot item 7.

Mr. Harris: This party accepts the Speaker's ruling. We would ask, and perhaps serve notice to all members of the Legislature and to the House leaders, that in view of that and the shortness of time between the two ballot items, the member for Sudbury does have another resolution that he will be circulating with as much notice as he can. Obviously, it will not fit in with the rules of the House. We ask the parties to take that into consideration and perhaps allow the member for Sudbury to substitute another resolution.

Mr. McClellan: We also accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the government obstructed the member for Sudbury from being able to move resolution 4. We were perfectly willing to have ballot item 7 standing in the member's name proceed but, as I say, it was obstructed by the government House leader, and we are prepared to make whatever arrangements that are necessary to permit the member for Sudbury to take his regular turn in the ballot rotation next week.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the comments; however, it will be up to the House to make the decision on what action shall follow that ruling.

The House recessed at 12:06 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, yesterday the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) raised a question of privilege regarding a letter he had received in his capacity as chairman of the select committee on retail store hours. At his request, I undertook to examine the matter to determine whether there appeared to be a prima facie question of privilege in relation to the letter the honourable member was kind enough to forward to me.

There is a long-standing tradition of parliament that matters which arise in a committee or which in some way pertain to the activities of a committee should first be dealt with by the committee in question. If, upon reflection, the committee feels its privileges have been attacked in some way, it would be its duty to report that fact to the House, which could then take a decision.

That is why, upon reflection, it would seem to me wiser for the committee to deal with this matter directly. It is presently still legally constituted and has at hand all powers necessary to deal with this matter. If, after due process, the committee feels that it must report the matter to the House, I am certain the House and its members will give the committee's report their full attention.

I thank the member for Oakville for bringing this matter to my attention and I urge him to bring this matter to the attention of the committee, of which he is chairman, as quickly as possible. I will return the letter to the member.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

Mr. Andrewes: Some time ago, by way of a hand-delivered letter, I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to meet with a group of citizens from my riding who wished to petition him over the proposed toxic waste treatment and storage facility of the Ontario Waste Management Corp. in the municipality of West Lincoln. This group is widely supported in the community by citizens, interest groups and a number of elected municipal representatives. This is not a group of radicals, but residents of a rural community who fear that this proposal might jeopardize their future and the future of their children.

Furthermore, if technology for treating toxic waste could develop fairly in Ontario, the mammoth plant proposed by the OWMC might prove redundant.

To date, in spite of repeated phone calls, I have received no response from the Premier's office. I am left in the very awkward position of not being able to advise my constituents on whether they will receive a positive or negative reception. Must the Premier hide behind a busy schedule, which includes naming the domed stadium, or will he allow these citizens of Ontario to exercise their democratic rights? Perhaps we must wait until after the Liberal nomination in Lincoln this evening.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Mr. Foulds: I rise to raise the concerns of a number of public service employees in the Thunder Bay area with regard to OMERS, the Ontario municipal employees retirement system. Spearheaded by Don Campbell of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 966, this group has been examining the structure and benefits of the plan. Basically, it feels the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the OMERS board should look positively into the stacking of Canada pension plan and OMERS benefits instead of the present integration. It feels the present surpluses in the plan should be used to improve substantially the plan's benefits in the area of spousal allowances and regular indexing.

The Thunder Bay group has already taken steps to enlist the support of workers all across Ontario through the Ontario Federation of Labour. It is anxious to bring about changes that will enable workers to retire as early as possible and still live with dignity. It feels it is vital to create a framework that will allow all workers to retire earlier so younger workers will have jobs to move into.

Finally, the group feels very strongly, as does the New Democratic Party, that any surpluses in the plan are the property of the employees and should be used to improve benefits, not to write down the employer contributions in the future.

I am also sure they will be seeking representation on the OMERS board when such a position for an employee representative becomes available.

NURSES' WEEK

Ms. Hart: This week, in Ontario and throughout the other provinces of Canada, members of the nursing profession are celebrating Nurses' Week. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I wish to draw the attention of this House to this special celebration and to express my support for the work nurses are carrying out here in Ontario.

With more than 75,000 registered nurses in Ontario, nurses are the single largest health care profession in our health care system and they represent an essential and key component in its effective operation. While I am expressing this tribute, thousands of Ontario nurses are attending to patients at their bedsides, assisting in operating rooms, emergency rooms and critical care units in hospitals, visiting elderly and disabled people in their homes and caring for the frail in nursing homes.

The record of the nursing profession in the provision of health care stands for itself. Let me, on behalf of the members, express the appreciation and thanks of this House to all Ontario nurses this week, Nurses' Week.

CAMPING LIMIT

Mr. Villeneuve: Just as the summer camping season is about to begin, the St. Lawrence Parks have decided to enforce measures against many of our senior citizens and handicapped people. Many of our seniors spend their summers camping at our parks with their trailers. In all cases I know of, the parks are not crowded, so these seniors are not denying a camping site to anyone else.

This year, the parks have decided to enforce a maximum 23-day camping limit. My riding office has already received many calls and letters of concern, and this at a time when most seniors do not even know about this new policy.

The result of this policy is that the long-term camping traditionally carried out by many seniors will be banned in the St. Lawrence Parks Commission parks. No attempt has been made to deal with the summer camping patterns of seniors and to accommodate their needs. In the past few days, many seniors have told me that they are willing to pay their fair share, but seniors cannot even do that if they are not allowed to stay beyond the 23-day limit at one site.

Ontario has three cabinet ministers with some responsibility for this, and among them surely they can make some policy and give us some direction. The Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) must act now before the season is under way to provide camping access for our seniors.

We need leadership. We need direction from these ministers. We need it now.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On April 29, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) announced that 130 developmentally handicapped people would be released this year from the intolerable situation they find themselves in homes for special care, leaving about 2,000 people in those institutions in inappropriate care.

He said to people in the know that there would be a full announcement about a seven-year plan to deinstitutionalize on May 7. It now is May 14 and we have still to see that plan. As a result, we are left with the notion that he is playing god. He will decide which people can stay in those institutions and which people will be released to the community and when.

He has said nothing about the repairs to the major institutions for the developmentally handicapped that he promised last year. He has said nothing about how many people who are mentally retarded are in rest homes in Ontario, and I do not even believe he knows that number. He has said nothing about the amount of money he is going to give for programming for those people left in homes for special care. He gave out about $30,000 a year to those individuals who will be brought out to make sure they can live in the community. He has left people in the homes for special care, without any individualized programs to speak of, and less than $5,000 of budget.

I suggest that we have had nothing but flim-flammery and what we need is a real plan of total deinstitutionalization.

JOB TRAINING FOR OLDER WORKERS

Mr. McLean: I have a statement today that is directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). As he knows, unemployed workers have the opportunity to take advantage of the Futures program for job retraining. Once they complete the program, they are better equipped to re-enter the work force rather than having to resort to unemployment insurance.

I am seriously concerned that older workers, those in their 40s, 50s and 60s, are becoming a lost generation when they are laid off because of declining production or factory shutdowns. These people have given much of their work experience, dedication and skills. They are being pushed into the background because of the rush to retrain and re-employ younger workers. The odds are currently stacked heavily against older workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. There are no retraining programs for them.

That means no work and a very dim future at a time they should be working at their full potential, rather than becoming just another segment of society forced on to the unemployment rolls.

Futures may well be the answer for younger workers but there is no future for their older counterparts who are laid off and need retraining to re-enter the work force.

What government assistance will be made available to retrain these workers between the ages of 45 and 60? Will the minister announce a program to enable older workers to continue as productive members of the Ontario work force?

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Allen: The question of capital allocations for school construction has recently been a matter of debate in the Legislature during question period. This party is not going to claim that the $226 million allocated is sufficient to meet the full needs that are out there, but neither are we going to argue that one part of the public system was rewarded at the expense of the other. There is a reasonably fair process in place to establish the priority of need. What we do say is that the province-wide process appears to have bypassed some outrageous school accommodation conditions that the minister must review on a case-by-case basis.

I refer, for example, to St. John's College of the separate board in Brant county, where 1,250 students endure incredibly cramped conditions. No funding was allocated to St. John's, even though by September there will be 25 portables on the site and by 1989 there will be 35. Local solutions, as proposed by the minister, simply leave the students at the mercy of coterminous boards and incite interboard rivalry.

I ask the minister to review this and other similar cases in both systems with a view to relieving utterly intolerable conditions.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH RESEARCH

Hon. Mr. Elston: Earlier today, I announced that my ministry had approved a grant of $7.5 million to the University of Toronto. This money will be used to develop and install a positron emission tomography, or PET, scanner at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. This is new high-technology diagnostic equipment that will help the Ontario research effort into schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis and degenerative conditions, such as Alzheimer's and Huntington's disease.

I also wish to inform the house that my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) today announced that the Ministry of Health has approved a $500,000 research grant to McMaster University in Hamilton to develop a prototype patient information system.

We have strong expectations that the new system will result in better health care planning and more efficient service by health professionals. Once tested, we will then determine the system's application in other Ontario communities.

Today's announcements are testimony to our government's intention to see this province develop into one of the world's leading health research centres. To create the environment that will make this possible, within the past six months more than $50 million in government funding has been committed to Ontario's research effort.

We have provided $10 million for construction of a new heart research centre at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. The new centre will attract some of the world's leading cardiovascular experts to continue their scientific investigations at Ottawa. Two million dollars has been approved to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario.

In April, I announced that $4.5 million had been approved to establish the Eye Research Institute of Ontario at the Toronto Western Hospital campus of the Toronto Hospital Corp. The institute's prime objective will be to conduct research into diseases of the eye and to develop new treatment techniques for eye disorders.

Last December, our government approved $5 million for the new multi-organ transplant unit at the University Hospital in London.

Funding of $2 million has been approved for the John P. Robarts Research Institute in London to help new research programs generated out of that institution. It will also help us to attract those most respected Ontario and Canadian scientists to return from abroad to work here in Canada.

In April, my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) announced that a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics and gerontology would be established at McMaster University in Hamilton with government funds of some $12 million.

In addition to these major programs, this year the ministry will provide a total of $7 million to Ontario's five health sciences centres to support research personnel and to buy necessary equipment. Another $5.3 million will support some 82 independent research projects in a variety of community and clinical settings.

Finally, because good management is so critical to our health care system and because good management requires sound decision making, our government will provide $1.4 million to establish Canada's first health economics research centre at McMaster University in Hamilton.

These research grants represent a sound investment in Ontario's health care future. Our government recognizes that we need a vigorous research community if we are to generate new ideas and create new options and alternatives within our system. We are open to innovative and responsible approaches to health care and we expect to see leadership from our research community.

We have another priority. We want to guide research effort in Ontario in such a way that we obtain maximum return on our investment. We do not want a proliferation of duplicated efforts. What we do want is to create centres of specialty and excellence in heart disease, eye research and organ transplantation, for example, so that each centre becomes a source for the whole province.

Finally, we have a third priority. We want research to have a direct impact on patient care. Our long-term objective is to see clinical practices changed and modified by information received from the research community; in other words, improved health and better health care for the people of Ontario.

LEGAL SERVICES PLAN

Hon. Mr. Scott: I rise today to inform the House of a very significant development in the provision of access to legal services.

As I have had occasion to say a number of times, there is a risk that access to justice will tend to be restricted to either the rich who can afford to retain counsel or the disadvantaged who have the benefit of legal aid under the legal aid plan. Those in between, the great bulk of our fellow citizens, often face significant hardships in knowing and exercising their legal rights.

Two and a half years ago in Ontario, the Canadian Auto Workers, together with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, decided to do something about this. They launched Ontario's first major prepaid legal services plan. Pursuant to this plan, union members in those plants have free access to lawyers for a variety of legal services and the right to obtain further services at rates below those normally charged by lawyers.

In the fall of 1985, the Law Society of Upper Canada, which is the governing body of the profession, established guidelines for these kinds of plans that the CAW legal services plan found unacceptable. Litigation was commenced. In the meantime, the plan operated under an interim arrangement. The arrangement permitted the plan to open offices staffed by full-time, salaried lawyers and to offer services through members of the private bar, both those who enter into arrangements with the plan to limit their fees and those who do not.

The plan has proved to be a success. From November 1985 to May of this year, over 52,000 cases were commenced under its auspices, a usage rate of more than 50 per cent of all eligible employees. Roughly 85 per cent of this business has involved real estate, wills and family law matters.

All this has been at risk in the pending litigation. However, today I am delighted to announce that the Canadian Auto Workers legal services plan and the law society have resolved their differences. The litigation has been discontinued and a fair and balanced agreement has been achieved, pursuant to which prepaid legal services plans can now flourish across Ontario.

In my opinion, this is a momentous achievement. As a result of the ground-breaking efforts of both parties, the law society and the Canadian Auto Workers, this important method of providing legal services to ordinary Canadians is as of now a recognized part of the legal services fabric of Ontario. The rules are now clear. They reflect the law society's duty to ensure the quality of legal services as well as the desire of organizations such as the automobile manufacturers and the Canadian Auto Workers to effectively deliver legal services to their members.

I call upon all members to salute the authors of this historic agreement. Present in the gallery -- and I ask members to honour them today -- are: Arthur Scace, Esq., treasurer of the law society; Rendall Dick, undertreasurer of the law society; Dr. Ron Ianni, the president of the University of Windsor and chairman of the administrative committee of the CAW legal services plan, and Sid Linden, the executive director of the plan. In the upper gallery are members of the union side of the plan and the employers' side of the plan, and I would ask them to stand.

Also, in his absence, I want to commend Bob White, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, and various officials of the approving companies, some of whom are present, for the important role they played. I want to underline that this important new initiative has been undertaken without legislative intervention.

Mr. O'Connor: You stayed out of it; that is what got the deal done.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There are some here who would legislate everything. I am not in that crowd.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps you would let the minister continue with his text.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to underline that this important new initiative has been undertaken without legislation. It is not a matter on which we have dictated the appropriate position to be taken by either party. They have met together. Instead, we have made ourselves available and only intervened as necessary to help the parties mutually achieve an agreement which fully respects the public interest.

The public is well served by this significant new initiative and I wish, as I know all members of the House will wish, the Canadian Auto Workers' legal services plan and those plans that may succeed it across Ontario in the future every success in the years ahead.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Given that standing order 28 requires that ministerial statements deal with short, factual statements of government policy or ministry action, and since it is clear from the statement that neither the government nor the ministry had anything to do with this initiative, why does it qualify as a ministerial statement?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, there is a certain amount of time for statements.

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As members of the House are well aware, farmers in Ontario have been hurt by the current trade war between the European Community and the United States, as well as by a number of trade actions and support programs of the American government. Important sectors of our agricultural community are concerned about the damage that could be caused by a so-called free trade agreement with our neighbour to the south.

In an attempt to overcome existing problems and head off new ones, I have been working closely with the federal government, as well as other provincial administrations. I have also discussed trade irritants on a number of occasions with individual US state agricultural officials and with the members of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

As a continuation of this communication process, I visited Washington yesterday, with the assistance of the Canadian Embassy. My purpose was twofold. I wanted to give them a first-hand account of the concerns of the Ontario agriculture and food sector, and I also wanted to find out more about their concerns about our agricultural policies.

During my one-day visit, I met with senior officials of the Senate agriculture committee, as well as Democratic Congressman Kika de la Garza, the chairman of the House agriculture committee. In addition, I had discussions with the ranking Republican on the House committee, Congressman Ed Madigan, as well as Congressman Charles Stenholm, the chairman of the House subcommittee on livestock, dairy and poultry. On the administration side, I met with Peter Myers, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and a number of other senior US Department of Agriculture officials.

Equally important, I also met with representatives of major US farm organizations such as the National Cattlemen's Association, the National Pork Producers' Council, the National Corn Growers' Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National American Wholesale Grocers' Association.

I believe my American counterparts gained insights into the challenges and opportunities facing Ontario agriculture and food. I also made them well aware of the impact their programs have on Ontario agriculture.

After meeting with these key American agricultural decision-makers, it is clear that we must forcefully ensure that the federal government is representing the interests of Ontario farmers in tra