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

November 5, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L003 - Thu 5 Nov 1987 / Jeu 5 nov 1987

CRAIG JAMES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

ALEX BAUMANN

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HARRY MULHALL

ENERGY POLICY

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

WASTE DISPOSAL

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

STUDENT HOUSING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

RENT REGULATION

STEEL INDUSTRY

GRAIN PRODUCERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT /

LOI SUR L’ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT / LO1 SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

PETITIONS

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

NATUROPATHY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

CRAIG JAMES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to call to the attention of the House a visitor at the table, Craig James, the Second Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees of the British Columbia Legislature, who is on attachment to the Office of the Clerk.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: l just want to say that the two-day start of this legislative session certainly does not confirm the adage that bigger is better. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is contradictory and confused on his free trade stance and options and the new Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who usually perfumes quite competently, has no handle at all on what he is doing with automobile insurance legislation. He does not even know what is in the bill he tabled yesterday.

On November 3 he informed the media that there was no capping of insurance rates in the bill. However, the bill tabled on November 4 contained exactly the same capping provisions, including the 10 per cent rollback for males under 25 and taxi drivers, as were in the bill his predecessor tabled last May. Today, November 5, the media are still quoting the minister as saying the 10 per cent rollback is not in the bill.

Prior to and during the election campaign, the Premier and the former minister flatly stated that the government would not permit rate classifications based on age, sex or marital status. Instead of reiterating that in his statement to the House or in the legislation yesterday, the minister said that rate classifications will be subject to “public consultation prior to finalization,” but he cannot see any change in position between that statement and the election promise of his leader.

Perhaps I am being too hard on the minister. I should perhaps be blaming his acting deputy minister, Jack Lyndon of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who is obviously putting the words in the minister’s mouth.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Harris: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his Liberal friends are now entertaining a proposal to dramatically expand an existing wilderness area near Temagami in northeastern Ontario and he is giving credibility to what we believe is a self-serving southern-Ontario-based plan to ban all existing and future primary resource operations in the area.

It could eliminate an estimated 15,000 direct and indirect resource jobs in the north, which is about the same as wiping out about 200,000 jobs in Metro Toronto. It is hard to believe that is what the Premier and our Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) are now seriously contemplating. The minister’s waffling on this issue has already jeopardized and probably doomed 200 direct jobs and the entire mill operation at the Milne lumber company in Temagami, one more sign of the Premier’s willingness to put northerners out of work for political gain in the south.

The minister has already held up access to timber allocations in the area for close to a year. Sportsmen and recreationists have already discovered locked gates across access roads, and now the Liberals have appointed yet another committee to review the mess that they alone created. We do not need another committee, we need our jobs and we are prepared to fight for our jobs.

The Premier’s friends are welcome to canoe in our workplace, but at a cost of 15,000 jobs, or even one job, the current price of admission is too high. I call on members of this House to take a stand on this northern Ontario issue and to oppose this Liberal economic insanity before another job is lost.

ALEX BAUMANN

Mr. Campbell: I wish to inform the House of an exemplary young Sudburian who has left his mark on the international athletic community. I am speaking of Alex Baumann. Last week he officially announced his retirement from competitive swimming at the age of 23.

Fourteen years ago, Alex began his career under the expertise of his coach and mentor, Dr. Jeno Tihanyi. The thousands of hours of practice time in the pool paid off. Alex Baumann has won numerous awards in his area of specialty, the 200- and 400-metre individual medley. Sudburians were extremely proud of Alex in 1984, when he won two gold medals at the Los Angeles Olympics, the first time in 72 years that Canada had won a gold in the pool.

His immediate plans include completing his education at Laurentian University, where he is majoring in political science -- this is the second day in a row that we have had somebody majoring in political science; it is a field of the future, I would say -- and his forthcoming marriage in Australia next year.

Alex Baumann is certainly a young man of whom Canadians can be justifiably proud. I ask the members of the House to join me in paying tribute to Alex Baumann.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Today I want to make comments, and very sad comments, about a gentleman in my riding who passed away the other day, Frank Pival. Frank was employed with Wyeth Ltd. pharmaceuticals at Windsor for 29 years. Throughout his employment, he worked with a multitude of harmful substances. One substance commonly used was formaldehyde, which he used for washing bottles and a number of other things that they use that chemical for in the pharmaceutical industry. Workers were required to put their hands in the substance without gloves. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogenic, and many of the other chemicals that Frank worked with were in the same classification.

On Tuesday night Frank died of brain cancer. He was 49 years old. Frank knew for some time that he was going to die. His hope was that if compensation came too late to help him, at least he would know that compensation would be available for his family after he died. If he had known this, at least it might have lessened the suffering he went through in the last several months.

In the last year and a half, our offices contacted the Workers’ Compensation Board 17 times without success. The Ministry of Labour has lost files. The Workers’ Compensation Board has lost files. The matter has been referred out to consultant after consultant and, as of today, there is still no compensation for this family. This is an outrage in Ontario.

HARRY MULHALL

Mr. Pollock: I would like to pay tribute to Harry Mulhall, who died yesterday at the age of 53. Harry Mulhall was the city editor of the Belleville Intelligencer and the dean of its staff. He started working with the Intelligencer in 1962 and before that had worked with a variety of northern papers and radio stations.

Harry had interviewed me on many occasions, and I always felt he was fair in his editorials and factually accurate. The Belleville Intelligencer under his guidance gave equal coverage to the four Ontario ridings in the Quinte area. Harry Mulhall was a credit to his profession and the community in which he lived and was a devoted family man. He took a keen interest in the workings of the Ontario Legislature and he will be sorely missed.

ENERGY POLICY

Mr. Tatham: In early 1951, the Parliament of Canada incorporated a company called Trans-Canada PipeLines. In 1953, it decided that the export of natural gas should not be permitted until it was satisfied that there could be no economic use, present or future, for the gas within Canada. This was a Canada-first natural gas policy.

In the fall of 1955, after the TransCanada pipeline company had suggested it could finance the rest of the line if the

section in northern Ontario from the Manitoba border to Kapuskasing could be publicly financed, the governments of Canada and Ontario signed to establish a crown company to build and own a

section of the pipeline.

The pipeline from Alberta was built and our citizens in northern and eastern Ontario had a supply of natural gas. Our parliamentarians had the vision to promote a great national undertaking which contributes to the preservation of Canadian independence and the strengthening of the Canadian economy.

Have we now changed our minds? When we read The Seven Sisters by Anthony Sampson or The Control of Oil by John M. Blair, do we not question the energy proposal in the free trade agreement? We live in an energy-intensive age and we live in a cold climate. In our deliberations, let us be forthright and encourage a Canada-first energy policy. Anything else would be tantamount to selling off our heritage. Are we not stealing from our children?

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Reville: I want to reiterate again today that it is very much time for the government, and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) in particular, to re-examine the profound stupidity of Bill 127. I invite the minister to review, because he was not here at the time, the debate that took place when Bill 127 was rammed down the throats of unsuspecting parents, teachers and students in Ontario. Of course, that is the bill that requires joint bargaining between teachers and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, which resulted in a strike and a stoppage of children’s education that would not have been necessary were it not for the existence of this absolutely dumb-headed bill.

It may be remembered that the purpose of the bill was to mask the underfunding of education, to reduce the accountability of school trustees and to try to shut out the trustees of the Board of Education of the City of Toronto. It is clearly folly to proceed with bargaining this way, and the minister had better get on to it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to make a brief statement to the Legislature today. On October 8 the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced several initiatives to put before the public the consequences of the draft Canada-US free trade agreement and to explain the reasons for Ontario’s objections to the proposed pact.

At that time, the Premier promised to release a number of background papers previously prepared by my ministry and subsequently reviewed and reassessed in the light of the information we received from the federal government on October 6.

This government believes the people of Ontario have a right to know the facts and the implications of the proposed free trade agreement and that Ontarians have a right to assess the proposal and all of its consequences.

l am pleased to announce that I am releasing the first of these papers today. Others will follow, as they are completed. The independent study is titled Dispute Settlement in the Canada-US Trade Agreement and was prepared by Philip Slayton and Jack Quinn of the Toronto law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon.

It is appropriate that this is our first report. It deals in detail with the foundation of an acceptable free trade pact, the fair and uniform application of and access to dispute settlement mechanisms by both nations. Both those in favour of the agreement and those opposed to it agree effective dispute settlement is absolutely necessary.

In April 1987, the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, stated, “The US trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada, period.” Mr. Mulroney stated in the House of Commons a month ago when he announced the agreement, “We wanted an agreement that guaranteed fair and impartial application of US trade remedy laws, and this agreement does all of those things.” In fact, the report concludes that the proposal does none of those things.

The report pinpoints four areas where the federal government has failed to negotiate an effective dispute settlement mechanism. Briefly, it does not impose legally effective limits on protectionist measures; it is not binding; it is not any more effective than what already exists and it does not involve interested participants, such as the provincial governments or the private sector. In fact, the agreement does not give us any assurance that we will be dealt with more fairly.

As the Premier has stated, Canadians may get the chance to examine the deck, but we will not be able to do anything about the fact that it is stacked against us. The report further states that the mechanisms in the agreement are flawed in ways that will result in our being denied access to US markets.

The executive

summary concludes: “The mechanisms do not pre-empt US trade remedies… They do not produce binding decisions... They are not particularly workable... They do not provide for appropriate participation by interested parties.” Clearly, the federal government failed to gain what it wanted. Worse, it left Canada with little leverage in the future.

In other words, the original goal of the deal -- to secure access to the US market -- will not be realized under the proposed dispute settlement mechanisms. In fact, the mechanisms in this agreement offer Canadians no more avenues of protection from harassment than already exist. US trade laws remain intact and we receive no real protection from US trade harassment.

It is obvious that there can be no tree trade without secure access and there can be no secure access without clear-cut dispute settlement mechanisms.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Hon. Mr. Scott: On Tuesday of this week the government introduced the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, 1987, as Bill 1. We thereby intended to indicate the priority which this matter should receive in the coming session of the Legislature. I wish to inform the House of the steps which the government has taken to guard against conflict of interest in the period before passage of the bill.

The government, on a voluntary basis, has determined that during this interim period the bill will be treated as if it were already in force with respect to cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants. The government has put in place two distinct sets of safeguards in order to ensure that compliance with the bill by cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants is complete and timely.

The government has retained the firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon to interview cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants in order to obtain disclosure of their personal holdings, assets and liabilities and the holdings of their spouses and minor children. Interviews have also been conducted by the firm to ensure that ministers and parliamentary assistants have arranged, or can arrange within the time permitted, their affairs so as to comply with the bill within the limits it contemplates. These assurances were communicated to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) prior to the appointment of the cabinet by a senior partner of the Blake, Cassels firm.

One of the central features of Bill 1 is the establishment of an independent commissioner who will prepare public disclosure statements for all members and rule on situations of conflict of interest. In order to achieve the effective application of the bill to cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants prior to its passage the government has appointed the Honourable John Black Aird as interim conflicts commissioner.

Members will recall that in 1986 the Premier asked Mr. Aird to recommend a new set of conflict rules for Ontario. His report, delivered in the fall of 1986, formed in large measure the model for Bill 1. I am sure all members of the House will agree that Mr. Aird is an ideal choice to assume the duties of interim commissioner. The government has asked Mr. Aird to retain whatever assistance he requires to fulfil his duties, including the use of members of his law firm.

Mr. Aird’s first responsibility will be to prepare the public disclosure statements for ministers and parliamentary assistants. As of November 4, Mr. Aird had received a complete report on the holdings of ministers, parliamentary assistants, their spouses and minor children in accordance with

section 11 of the bill. As the bill requires, Mr. Aird will meet with these members and their spouses in order to prepare the public disclosure statements contemplated by the bill.

Mr. Aird has advised that he expects to be in a position to file the public disclosure statements for ministers with the Clerk of the House by the end of November and the statements for parliamentary assistants by the end of December. During the interim period, Mr. Aird will also have the function of determining whether cabinet ministers or parliamentary assistants are in compliance with the bill and of reporting his findings to the government.

As was indicated in the speech from the throne, the people of Ontario must have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives. I am confident that the measures the government has announced today will reinforce and enhance that public confidence.

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As many honourable members know, this is Crime Prevention Week and we are marking the occasion with seminars and award presentations around Ontario.

Crime Prevention Week focuses public attention on police forces and members of the public who have worked together to make Ontario a safer place for all of us. It is a way of thanking them for past efforts and it is a way of strengthening the partnership between the police and the public.

That bond is paying real dividends. All around Ontario you see signs identifying Block Parent and Neighbourhood Watch communities. A variety of citizens’ groups is helping us wage the war against drinking and driving. Private businesses and service clubs have on many occasions helped to promote worthwhile crime prevention programs.

The public at large is reaping the benefits of that involvement and this week I have been experiencing that involvement first hand as I visit communities around the province to present special awards to some of the police officers and private citizens who have made outstanding contributions to crime prevention.

All told, my ministry will be presenting 253 people and organizations with the Solicitor General’s Crime Prevention Awards, a gesture by this government to honour leadership and achievement in the field of crime prevention.

Those award presentations are part of this week’s crime prevention seminars in Smiths Falls, Lindsay, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Terrace Bay, Dryden, Windsor, Brantford, Owen Sound and Toronto.

I know many members of this House have supported crime prevention programs in their ridings and I thank them for their assistance.

Teamwork between all of the community is a big part of any successful crime prevention program and all of us should make the effort.

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). I do not think it should come as any surprise to anybody in this room that the American Congress has refused through the trade negotiations to give up its capacity and its power to effect its economic sovereignty, its ability as a sovereign body in Congress to deal with imports as they come into that country.

I have said for a period of two and a half years it was inevitable that the American Congress would continue to insist on its power and capacity to retain some kind of economic control over the economy of the United States. I do not think anybody should expect the American Congress to do what Brian Mulroney seems only too willing to do. He seems to be the only one willing to give up his capacity to intervene in the economy. The American Congress is not going to be so blind as to do that.

We appreciate the briefing from Blake, Cassels and Graydon. I am sure it is worth the price we are all paying for it. But the question I have for the government -- and I will have a chance to ask it again -- is simply, what is it going to do about it? None of this should come as any surprise to any of us. The question is whether or not Ontario is going to do what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has been telling us for two and a half years he would do and what he said during the election campaign he would do. It would now appear, as more and more evidence is gathered, that what we have is a government that has been elected on false premises.

I do not know whether the consumer protection legislation that the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) is going to be bringing down is going to give the people of the province a remedy against political fraud, but I would hope it would, because what we have here is a government that has been elected on an utterly fraudulent basis, saying it would do something about an agreement and when that agreement comes down saying, then and now, there is nothing it can do about it. That situation should be exposed. It is disgraceful. It is a fraud and we are going to continue to expose it in this House.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would also like to comment briefly on the report that was issued today and commented on by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I think it is rather unfortunate that the minister has not brought anything new to light beyond what is in the report.

The report tells what we all knew, that there is no dispute settlement mechanism provided for in this agreement. There is no effective remedy from American law for attacks on Canadian industry and we are going to have to bide by the provisions of American law when it comes to trade with the United States. We do not have any control of our own destiny in terms of our economic relationship.

The issue is: Why has the minister not said anything about what he is going to do about this deplorable situation? He reiterates everything we already know and says nothing about what he is going to do to live up to the commitment that was made by that government when it was elected less than two months ago. It was committed to do something to stop a free trade agreement that did not fulfill six conditions. These conditions have not been fulfilled, and this report clearly says that the key condition, which had been advocated by the Canadian government and by industries across Canada, has not been met.

The issue at this point is: What is the minister going to do to ensure that we do have this agreement ended, as this government has committed itself to the population of this province to do?

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Breaugh: I want to respond briefly to the statement today by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on conflict of interest.

John Black Aird is one of our most distinguished Canadians. We should be relishing this moment today when this kind of statement is made, and I wish we could.

It is unfortunate that the minister set a rather evil precedent by introducing this bill in this forum on the day when the speech from the throne was read. It is worse yet that he appoints a commissioner to handle conflict of interest before the legislation is passed. It is worse yet that he thoughtlessly implemented the legislation before he even introduced it to the Legislature.

I am afraid we are off on the wrong foot here entirely. What the minister seems to have missed completely is that this is not about hiring a good law firm or hiring a decent commissioner. It is about the perception among all members here, and the public at large in Ontario, as to whether he has handled the conflict-of-interest issue adequately.

I regret to inform the minister that despite his wise choice of a commissioner, everything else he has done has been in the wrong direction so far.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: I want to take this opportunity to respond briefly to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and the legal position that he has put forward from Blake, Cassels and Graydon with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism.

I find it passing strange, and I share this with the members of the Legislature, that a very carefully crafted legal position that obviously took a number of weeks to develop was given to the members of the opposition, and a response was anticipated within minutes after having received the document.

I find that to be somewhat unfair and inappropriate when one looks at the importance of this issue as it relates to Ontario and to Canada.

I also find it strange that in the minister’s statement there is more left out than perhaps has been included. As an example, the minister makes no reference whatever to the fact that this really is a two-phased process. He knows full well that the dispute settlement mechanism that has been reviewed by Blake, Cassels and Graydon is the first stage of a process that will take perhaps another five years.

Both sides have, in fact, agreed that there has to be a more firm understanding with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism, and that the actual framework or the time frame for resolving that very key issue will take some period of time, so that if there are any weaknesses which have been identified in a very careful way by the law firm that he had review this document, those weaknesses can be corrected.

The minister also fails to mention, in any way, shape or form, that the present mechanism that is being proposed replaces absolutely nothing. At the moment, we have no mechanism whatever. Even if this present mechanism is flawed, as he suggests, there is nothing on the table at the moment to help us resolve some of the disputes and some of the problems that we have between our two countries.

I listened with interest to the comments the minister has made with respect to the fact that we are totally and completely subjected to American laws, and yet he fails to mention that the Americans are also subjected to the same Canadian laws; those are in place as well. All we ask on this side of the chamber is that the minister be fair, honest and truthful with this issue and give us the facts.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Eves: In responding to the statement made today by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), we are operating here on the basis of proposed legislation. I think the members of this assembly are entitled to a little bit more respect than that under a democratic system, with all due respect.

We would like to know when Mr. Aird was appointed commissioner, for one, and why the Legislature was not informed, why we are being told about this after the fact. Why is the interim commissioner reporting to the government and not directly to the Legislature or the Speaker? Why is the responsibility being taken away from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to look after conflict and given to a commissioner? Surely the responsibility of the Premier is to ensure the honesty and integrity of the members of the executive council.

The Premier’s statement in Windsor on September 18 stated that he personally plans to review the statements filed by every member of the executive council. We will presume on this side of the House that this has been done, and done to his satisfaction, already.

I think this proposal is the height of arrogance. This is not a dictatorship. It happens to be a democracy. There are funny things in here, I tell the Attorney General, called first, second and third readings of bills, debate and sending legislation out to committee, in which it may, to his surprise, even be strengthened and improved upon.

The onus on cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants under this proposed legislation is much less than it was even under the Davis guidelines. It would have been much more prudent of his government at least to use the somewhat watered-down Peterson guidelines, which would have required filing of statements within 30 days instead of going about it in this backhanded fashion.

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to respond to the statement to the Legislature by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and congratulate the minister on again bringing to our attention Crime Prevention Week. It is important that all of us in our capacity of members of the provincial parliament encourage people across the province of Ontario to work in conjunction with our police forces, be they municipal, the Ontario Provincial Police or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Of course, I have to refresh the memory of the minister that it was a long range of previous Conservative administrations that fostered this kind of encouragement in terms of Crime Prevention Week, and time and time again -- to the honourable House leader -- I have heard from that front bench, while pointing to us: “Those nasty Conservatives. What did you do in office?” I think it would have been only fair to have included that the Conservatives --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired. That completes ministerial statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I have a picture of a Liberal advertisement which appeared in the Windsor Star on August 29, 1987. It says:

“We will. Free trade. ‘There can be no deal unless it’s the right deal and Premier Peterson’s six conditions are met:

“1. If our auto pact is gutted -- No Deal.

“2. If our family farms and agricultural industries are threatened -- No Deal.

“3. If our cultural identity is weakened -- No Deal.

“4. Unless we can support regional development -- No Deal.

“5. If we cannot screen foreign investment -- No Deal.

“6. Without an ironclad dispute settlement mechanism -- No Deal.”

Is it still the position of the government of Ontario that there can be no deal?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Leader of the Opposition raises an interesting point. I should tell him that if he had had the opportunity to examine the document and was not so concerned with pushing his particular ideological point, he would know that going into the discussions, in the preliminary round of discussions, the impression was left to the Premiers that they would have a right to OK the deal, and at that point the Premiers said, “If it is not the right deal, there is no deal.”

I can tell the member that I was in Ottawa with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) when we were briefed on the documents, and at that point the Prime Minister said that 95 to 98 per cent of the elements in the deal are not in provincial jurisdiction.

I should also tell the member that the American trade negotiator, Ambassador Clayton Yeutter, who was addressing the Empire Club, said publicly that if the provinces did not ratify this deal, there would be no deal. The media immediately asked the Premier, “What is your response to that?” and he said, “The deal is dead.” So what we have is a situation where we are investigating what legal access we have to preventing this deal to stop it.

It is very easy for someone in opposition, albeit a reduced opposition, to get up and say what should be done. It is another thing to act responsibly, and this government --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Take another try.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: It is curious. The Attorney General says, “Take another try.” He should not worry. We will be back, and if we on this side are being attacked because our position has not changed and because we have some integrity, then it is a curious position for the government that those people who have maintained their position are somehow being criticized.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister, if he can tell us: Has the auto pact always been a question of federal jurisdiction or has it at some time been a question of provincial jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Leader of the Opposition will know that the auto pact was negotiated by the federal government, notwithstanding Ontario is the chief beneficiary of the Auto Pact -- everyone acknowledges that -- and we are severely impacted by anything that in any way detracts from that.

I can tell him my position is that we were promised a Cadillac, when we got the bill it was for a Rolls-Royce, and they delivered a Chevette.

We are totally opposed to what they have done with the auto pact and we have made that statement. We feel they have gutted it, and we have voiced our opposition and are continuing to voice our opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: With great respect, if it is a Chevette, it is the Chevette the minister has been driving in for the last two and a half years. He did not say boo for two and a half years when Simon Reisman and everybody else said publicly that if the Americans wanted to put it on the table there was not very much that could be done about it.

I would like to specifically ask the minister: With respect to the auto pact, the Premier has been quoted as saying in the Toronto Star -- and these are not summations of what he said, this is a direct quote – “There is no way I would allow the situation to develop that would change the auto pact to the detriment of the province of Ontario.” Asked if he would exercise the power of veto if the auto pact were threatened, he told reporters, “The answer is very clearly yes.”

The government went to the people because it wanted to be able to stand up for them. That is why they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these ads. What I am asking them now is, they have their mandate, they have their 95-member Red Army chorus; when are they going to put it to use on behalf of the people of Ontario and stop the free trade deal, as they spent two and a half years saying they would?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This government has taken the position that, notwithstanding we represent Ontario, one third of the population of this country lives in Ontario, so we are not only Ontarians but we are also Canadians. As a result of that, if it is a bad deal for Ontario, by extension it is a bad deal for Canada.

Notwithstanding all of that, it is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say, “Veto it.” I can tell him that if there was a provision for us to veto it, we would exercise it.

We are now examining what recourse we have to this agreement to see what our legal position is.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me go back to the minister, then. Is he stating categorically here today, on behalf of the government of Ontario, that the government will not implement any aspect of the deal? Is that what he is saying on behalf of the government of Ontario; that there is not a single order in council or piece of legislation that Ontario is going to pass? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No, I am not saying that. I understand what the Leader of the Opposition is alluding to, but members should know there are other considerations. When we deal with beverage alcohol, we have an impending

section 301 action by the United States, we have a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision of the GATT panel due down within the next couple of weeks, and we are assessing what our avenues of recourse are.

Mr. B. Rae: I have never in my life heard such a two-faced attitude on the part of the government. Let me quote an exchange and ask the minister to comment on it.

“During the election campaign, the Premier was standing in the shade and sipping grape juice. He made a sort of free trade deal of his own with Brian Nash, head of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board. After listening to Mr. Nash plead, ‘Do not sell us out on free trade,’ Mr. Peterson promised he would not. ‘OK. We will shake hands on that one,’ said Mr. Nash, offering his hand.”

Just what is the Premier’s hand worth if the minister is not even able to get up on his feet and say that in one area where the province has jurisdiction -- where the government had said for two and a half years that it would not implement, that it would not do it, that it would not bring it into effect, just what is it worth if the minister is not prepared, once the deal has come down, to say that the Premier’s handshake is worth something? That is what they have reduced themselves to: the Premier’s handshake is worth nothing in this regard, nothing at all.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party will certainly know the precarious position the wine and grape industry in Ontario has been in. He will also know that this government and previous governments before us have supported that industry.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The reference by the minister, with respect, was to the leader of the third party. They do not have one, but they will soon have one.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I apologize. Habits are very difficult to break. He looked so comfortable in the position of leader of the third party, but I do offer my apologies and I congratulate him on assuming his new post. Two of the losers flipped a coin and he won it, notwithstanding his bravado on election night on his great victory.

Having said that, I should tell members there are many implications affecting the beverage alcohol business. We have a spirit industry that sells $400 million worth of whisky into the United States and that is very concerned about our responsibility in dealing with that market. We are looking at all of the alternatives that are available to us. We will respond in a timely, responsible way when it is appropriate.

Mr. B. Rae: I would rather win 19 seats honestly than win 95 seats on the basis of a fraud, which is exactly what those people have done.

On Thursday, August 13, 1987, in the election campaign, the St. Catharines Standard said, “Premier David Peterson commiserated with the plight of Niagara fruit growers yesterday” -- I am quoting directly from the newspaper – “and promised to protect them from any adverse effects of a free trade agreement with the United States.”

Quite simply, is that still the position of the government of Ontario, and precisely what is it going to do on behalf of those particular workers in this province? What is it going to do?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot give an exact answer on what we are going to do because we have to wait to see how this plays out, but I will tell the member it has always been the position of this government that we will act responsibly and that if there has to be some adjustment as a result of what happens --

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am saying we are still committed to protecting those industries and those people who are going to be impacted by this agreement. I am talking about a worst-case scenario. In a worst-case scenario, this government will fulfil its responsibility to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: I have a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the document he tabled today, providing us with an opinion on the dispute settlement mechanism. I would like to ask the minister his opinion with respect to his statement and the legal opinion that he has received today.

Will he provide us with his views as to whether he believes even a flawed dispute settlement mechanism, as commented on by his lawyers in connection with what has been proposed in the current document, is better than no mechanism at all, as we have at the present time? I will make it very clear. Which does he believe is better: what he considers to be a flawed mechanism or no mechanism?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: With all due respect to the leader of the third party, we do have a mechanism. What we have is actually better than what we got. Under the present system, as I am sure the member knows, there is a process whereby there is an administrative action by the Court of International Trade and by the Department of Commerce.

The only thing that we got in this agreement is that, instead of referring it to the international court in New York for judicial review and appeal, which we can do now, it is going to this binational commission, which is made up of two Americans, two Canadians and a chairman to be appointed by either one.

What we have now, and one of the drawbacks, is only the length of time it takes to get through that process. But nobody was complaining about the process. What they were complaining about was the application of the administrative pressures at the lower level.

The reason that the old system is even better than the new one is that, if the member will see the document, we are precluded as a province and general members of the public are precluded as individuals from appearing before this tribunal,

whereas now they can go to the court. That is a serious flaw. So all we have done is given up the appeal court in New York to a binational committee. Nothing else has changed.

I should tell the member that not only did we get a legal opinion from Blake, Cassels and Graydon but also we got a legal opinion from an American law firm, a highly respected law firm which is expert in trade law and which confirmed exactly the same thing. Before my hearings, Mark McConnell, the lawyer from Washington, said: “You got nothing. As a practicing lawyer in Washington I would not proceed with the case any differently than I am now, other than that, if it were appealed, it would go to this national tribunal.”

Mr. Brandt: The minister knows full well that the mechanism that is in place at the present time is totally unacceptable to those who have gone through the process. I can think of individual cases where, on the east coast as an example, the fisheries industry went through a cost of something like $1.6 million to resolve a dispute which took many years to resolve.

Let me offer the minister a second legal opinion, if I can, from the firm of Hogan and Hartson in Washington, with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism that his lawyers indicate is flawed. I quote, and I will provide this document to the minister if he would like and I will give him two minutes’ advance warning as he gave us:

“By application of this agreement, future changes in US law shall not apply to Canada unless the legislation specifically states that they so apply and the United States must offer Canada a right of prior consultation before such legislation is enacted.

“Further, the panel should operate more quickly and efficiently than US courts” -- and out of quote for a moment; what the minister was referring to -- “if outstanding legal issues are satisfactorily resolved.

“By reaching final judgement within a year the panel could improve significantly on the time commonly taken by the US Court of International Trade to reach judgement.”

I ask the minister again, does he have any comment whatsoever with respect to the proposed dispute settlement mechanism as being an improvement over what we have in place at the moment?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: With all due respect to the leader of the third party, his statement is absurd. He has just quoted from a document that we paid for and the one I referred to. If he understood what they were saying, they were saying --

Mr. Brandt: I just read it to you.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Yes, but the member read it out of context. What it says is that if the United States is going to bring forward any kind of trade law that is going to impact on Canada, which is entirely separate from the dispute settlement mechanism, if it is going to bring that forward, it must name Canada in the law, otherwise it does not apply. It is a totally separate issue.

The other point that was made, and that was the one thing that I --

Mr. Brandt: It is not separate if we are included.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: No, but what I am saying is that they are saying we would not be included in any future laws unless we were specifically named. That does not get us any kind of relief on the previous laws.

The other thing the member should know, and I conceded this, is that the only benefit through the new process is that it will speed it up. It probably takes two years to go through the international court in New York, and under this binational commission it may take a year or less. That is a benefit, no question. That is all we got, but that was not the issue.

Mr. Sterling: In this very craftily worded opinion by Blake, Cassels and Graydon they say, and the minister reiterated in his statement, that there is no binding decision of the binational panel.

Does the minister agree that that is the case with regard to countervail cases or any of the other kinds of individual cases, because that is not what he is doing, and he is misleading in terms of the conclusion which the minister has drawn from this. If there is a binding decision, does that not give manufacturers in Canada an avenue which they have never had before with regard to American trade law?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member’s assumption is not correct. What it means is that the binational panel will do exactly what the international court in New York does, and that is review as to whether American law had been applied. It comes down with a decision, and when it comes down with a decision, either for or against the plaintiff, you have a situation where, if the offending country does nothing about it, the plaintiff has two recourses. One is retaliation, which is absurd when you look at Canada versus the United States; the other is to abrogate the deal, which again is absurd and means we have no leverage at all.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, in response to a question raised by the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), the minister indicated that her ministry would be constructing 102,000 housing units, I believe she said by the year 1990. The campaign literature was referred to earlier as it related to free trade; there was other campaign literature that referred to housing starts and it indicated the year 1989, in terms of the 102,000 units. I will not quibble about the year. I will take 1990 and give the minister a year.

Would the minister confirm for us today in the House what number of units she proposes to construct in the years 1988, 1989 and 1990, the three-year time frame for the 102,000 units?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member knows there will be an emergency debate on the topic of housing in the House a little bit after question period, but the answer I can give now is that our numbers are not divided year by year. There is a global projection over the three years.

Mr. Brandt: The minister was very precise in her comments yesterday that 102,000 units would in fact be built by 1990. Surely she should know some time schedule. One needs equipment, land, contractors --

An hon. member: Bricks.

Mr. Brandt: -- and bricks, as my friend suggests -- all of these things.

Has the ministry made any kind of projections relative to time frames for the construction of the number of units that she has proposed and reiterated in this House are going to occur over the next three years?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The ministry has lists of the various programs under which housing will be both constructed and converted. It includes expanding rent-geared-to-income assistance to nonprofit housing, building additional nonprofit housing units, convert-to-rent, intensification initiatives, home sharing program, building under the support of community living demonstration projects, the Ontario home renewal program, the low-rise rehabilitation program, the home renewal program for disabled persons, and support of community living. Each of those has a three-year global time frame.

Mr. Brandt: That long litany of programs is very interesting, but I want to tell the minister what that long litany of programs has done in the past. It is interesting to note that her predecessor in office released a document to this House some time ago in which he indicated that from the years 1980 to 1985, the maximum number of units constructed in any one year was 15,574. Those are her ministry’s figures.

What the minister is suggesting is that, through some miraculous turnaround, through some new process that the ministry has never been able to work yet, the fact of the matter is that if the units were averaged equally on about a three-year basis, she is looking to more than double the number of units she is going to bring into the marketplace, double the previous year’s high for any period that I can recall.

How does she intend to accomplish this miraculous turnaround? Please do not read the long list of programs, because they have not worked in the past; I would fully anticipate that they are not going to work in the future.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Ministry of Housing has listed the various programs under which housing will be both built and converted. I have given the member the numbers as global figures over the next three years and my commitment that those housing units will be both built and converted.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. As a member of this House from Metropolitan Toronto, I have always deplored the reluctance of Metropolitan council to implement a meaningful recycling program. I therefore regret that this reluctance has once again brought Metropolitan Toronto to the point of saying that it has a crisis in garbage on its hands and therefore asking the minister to shortcut the environmental approval process.

I would like the minister to give this House a categorical assurance that no additional landfill will be approved in the region of Durham or anywhere else in this province without a complete environmental assessment that would allow all the various alternatives to be examined and to be exposed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a very precise question. It deserves a very precise answer.

First of all, yesterday I did not get a chance to congratulate the member on being appointed as the deputy whip as well as the Environment critic. The only reason I say that is that it gives the individual an opportunity to be in a better position to ask questions. I remember when I was on that side of the House.

Specifically to the question my friend the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has asked, she would know, as I do, only through news media reports that a request was being formulated by the council of Metropolitan Toronto and was being sent to me. It would ask that consideration of the Brock landfill site, which I understand from news media reports would be for a period of five years, be sent to me. They would like to go under the Environmental Protection Act provision as opposed to the Environmental Assessment Act provision.

The member would know that as Minister of the Environment -- and I think she shares this with me -- one is extremely reluctant to give consideration to anything other than the normal process that one would require for a proposal of this kind.

There are a number of proposals that come to me for extensions of sites, for instance, interim uses of specific sites and so on. I do want to say to the member that I feel I must at least receive any representations which are made by Metropolitan Toronto and by the people who would be opposed to such a proposal and then make a decision. I do want to indicate to her that I do not like shortcuts, as she does not like shortcuts.

Mrs. Grier: May I thank the minister for his compliments and point out that I was not appointed deputy whip; I was elected to this office. I say to him that in future I would much prefer to exchange his compliments for some answers and some action, because that is what we are here in this House to get.

The minister was quoted last week as saying that he would consider forcing municipalities to recycle if they did not move towards doing it themselves. As he is not prepared to give me categorical assurance about the process if he is requested to shortcut the environmental assessment that he would approve, can he at least tell us whether he meant what he was quoted as saying and how quickly he is prepared to move to make sure that the biggest municipality in Ontario quickly gets on with recycling and reducing its garbage, rather than spreading it around into other municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In answer to the two-part question that the member has presented, the answer to the first part about whether one would not give consideration to any representations which were made, which would be asking to go under something other than the normal process, I think she would agree with me that if I were to say I would give no consideration to that at all, then people on the other side of the House would say now that we have 95 seats, we are arrogant and we will not listen to anyone. So the member should know that we have at least to listen when those representations are made, but it does not mean we have to accept them.

In answer to the second portion of the question, which I think is equally important, I am very pleased to know of the support of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for my initiatives to get recycling moving in Ontario. From the reports of the recycling conference held in Hamilton, which I addressed, she would know that recycling is taking off in Ontario and all kinds of municipalities are involved.

I indicated at that time -- this is what the member asked --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Eves: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this afternoon, I have a question of the Deputy Premier.

I presume that the intent of his government’s proposed conflict-of-interest legislation is to strengthen the conflict-of-interest requirements of members of the executive council. Is that correct?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We think the legislation which has now been presented is good. It is far better than guidelines which were used in the past. If enacted, this is a law which will require the members of the executive council, the parliamentary assistants and others to comply. I think he will be aware that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in his statement to the House today has indicated that, in the terms of the bill which is before the House and which we hope will become law, all members of the executive council are in compliance.

Mr. Eves: I presume that there is not one single member of the executive council, including the Premier himself, who would have had to divest himself of any interest in companies doing business with the government had the Bill Davis guidelines been in place. Can the Deputy Premier undertake to this House here today and to the people of Ontario that is indeed the case? There is not one single member sitting in that cabinet over there who has any business interests that he would have had to disclose under the Bill Davis guidelines. If not, why not? Can he give us a list and can he file it at the next sitting of the House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member will know that the interim commissioner is in possession of all of the reports and will table them with the Clerk of the House in the appropriate time. Then the honourable member and all members of the community will be able to examine those at their convenience and make their own judgements.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It also has to do with the free trade pact and, in particular, the auto industry.

Is the minister aware of a statement the Premier made in Windsor on August 11, in which he said industrial centres such as Windsor could be reduced to no-industry ghost towns if the US succeeds in removing tariff protection for the Canadian auto and auto parts industry with the free trade negotiations. I would like to ask the minister if he still believes that and if he believes there should be no deal, as was promised by the Premier at that time, if it guts the auto pact.

How did the Premier make that promise and how did he plan on implementing that promise on August 11, 1987, if he now feels he cannot implement it? What has changed?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has asked a multifaceted question. As to the first part of it, we are very concerned that if the safeguards are not backed up with tariff protection, there is really no incentive for the Big Three to maintain production in Ontario. They could move it south. We do agree and we have said that we think, with the removal of the tariffs, the safeguards are meaningless and they have effectively gutted the auto pact. We also said during the campaign, and we say it now, we would not support any agreement that does that.

To answer the member’s question, it is the same answer I gave him before. We will examine whatever recourse we have under the law to stop this deal.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Then what the minister is saying to us is that although there was a promise made in the election campaign, the Liberal Party had no idea how it was going to implement it, it had no legal opinion that would allow it to make that promise, and basically these ads that were taken out in the newspapers and the speeches that were given can only be described as misleading advertising in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is wrong. What happened, and I am sure if he followed the negotiations he will know, is that there are many items that were perceived to be on the bargaining table and many items that were perceived to be off the bargaining table. At that time, the Premier was under the impression that the items that were on the bargaining table were in provincial jurisdiction and he would have the right to veto it.

When we were exposed to the final document on October 4, we found out that 95 to 98 per cent of the items in the agreement are under federal jurisdiction. We are now examining our options.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I listened very carefully to the minister’s reply to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), but I do not feel any more assured now than I did before he gave that reply. I share the very same concern the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore raised.

I remind the minister that while he says he will listen very carefully, he obviously has listened very carefully in the past to similar requests, because in the past he has granted in excess of some 60 exemptions to the Environmental Assessment Act.

Reminding the minister that the Brock South site is adjacent to one of Ontario’s major fresh-water watersheds, namely, Duffin’s Creek, and that the contamination would impact on this entire region of the province, I ask the minister if he cannot give his full assurance now as to what his position will be vis-à-vis the requirement for the full Environmental Assessment Act rather than the environmental protection procedure, then can he at least agree that in view of the fact that Metro has secure dump sites for at least another 12 years, until the end of the century, an application for exemption on the basis of a so-called emergency --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In answer to the question of the Progressive Conservative critic, the real problem is that when municipalities make requests, I am in a position of at least having to entertain those requests. As I say, it is difficult, even when my own instincts may be in a different direction when many requests are made to me, not at least to give consideration to those requests.

I have not actually received that request on my desk in writing yet, but I did say I would at least give consideration to it, as I would most certainly want to give to the individuals who have strongly expressed their opposition at any time to the site that is proposed by Metropolitan Toronto.

I want a process in place, naturally, where there is a full public hearing, where people can air their views, not simply on a specific site but their views in a general sense as to the problems confronted by Metropolitan Toronto.

We want to examine all aspects of it. I want to assure the member that I will also want to determine just what kind of emergency is out there, because one cannot simply say, when a municipality comes to the minister, that it automatically is a situation where there is an emergency. I will certainly give all of those factors consideration, because I share the member’s concern that something not simply be bulldozed through.

Mrs. Marland: I suggest that 12 years left in available space for garbage is not an emergency.

Perhaps the minister would consider addressing the fact that the time factor for the approval process for new sites is tied directly into the new requirements. There are new engineering requirements for these sites, and this has added to the extended time to develop a new site. Will the minister consider assisting municipalities that now face five to 10 times more cost in this area with money that would then expedite the whole process for the approval?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If money could indeed expedite the whole process of approval, that would be a very attractive proposal, but money alone cannot do that. The member will be aware that I announced in June of this year that there would be additional funding available to municipalities to assist them with their waste management obligations in a number of different categories.

I am hearing two different stories here. I am hearing, on the one hand, a genuine concern about the circumvention of any regular process. On the other hand, I am hearing a cry that says, “The process takes too long and the reason it takes too long is it is too costly.” The reason it takes too long, I may say to the member, is that they have to go through all the appropriate steps to get all the appropriate approvals so that we do not encounter many of the problems that existed in the past when things were expedited.

The member may recall in the past when it was easy to get a dump site, when it did not take a lengthy period of time and when there was not the kind of analysis there is today. As a result, we have a lot of remedial work to do in this province. I want to ensure through this process that it is necessary they go through all these --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Rainy River.

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Recent studies by Greenpeace indicate that the toxic compound dioxin is a byproduct of the chlorine bleaching process used in almost all Ontario kraft pulp mills. Tests conducted by his ministry and by American environmental authorities have found high levels of dioxin in the pulp mill sludge pond in Fort Frances and in fish taken below the mill from the Rainy River. Dioxins are believed to cause defects in humans and to destroy the immune system’s capacity to fight disease.

In view of the serious issues raised by the Greenpeace report, can the minister indicate what steps are being taken by his ministry to deal with dioxin contaminants that are a byproduct of the chlorine pulp bleaching process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall that our Ministry of the Environment released a report in July of last year that dealt with this particular issue. Our studies, I think, corresponded to the American studies, which specifically were done in Maine and which first detected the potential in these mills for the possibility of dioxin. We released the results of those studies to the public. We have some ongoing studies to try to pinpoint the source more precisely.

What is more important, and I think the member would agree with me, is that one of the promising aspects of this is that it appears there is a potential for process changes going a long way to eliminate the source of dioxin. The member will know that at present in Ontario in the bleaching process it is chlorine bleaching that takes place. The byproduct of that is dioxin; the companies would say in minute quantities and we would say that any quantity is too much.

I have what I would call an expert committee, and I think the member is familiar with it, that has travelled essentially to Sweden, Finland, the United States and other jurisdictions to evaluate the whole aspect of contamination that can result from these mills. I hope to have a report from them soon. I think the member will know, and this is what Greenpeace would agree with, that the potential for oxygen bleaching is one that has to be looked at seriously for eliminating the problem even being produced, let alone the need for catching it after it is produced. It is better to change the process.

Mr. Hampton: I can appreciate that the minister is aware of alternative technologies. The minister is probably aware that these technologies have now been used in Sweden for the last five years and have in fact reduced the levels of chlorine and dioxin contaminants substantially. What I would like to know from the minister is in view of the fact that these processes are already in place in Sweden, when are we going to see a move by his ministry, either by way of regulation or by some other means, to require the pulp industry in Canada and specifically in northwestern Ontario to move to the superior technology which is already proven?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: This expert committee not only looked at Finland and Sweden, both of which had converted largely to that process in those specific mills, but also looked at catchment systems in the United States and in other jurisdictions to determine whether the waste recovery system was beneficial in this regard.

I expect the report quite soon, I think early in the new year, which is a couple of months from now. That report, which I think is going to be extremely detailed, will deal with more than that specific problem, even though I think the member and I would agree that is an important problem in itself. When I have that report in my hands, I am prepared to see an implementation of the best system possible to eliminate those side-effects, even though there were no dioxins found present in the testing of the drinking water downstream. The very fact that we would find any dioxin in the sludge, as we have over a period of time now in various jurisdictions, should prompt that kind of action.

The member and I will be seeing that report soon, and from that report should flow the kind of action that will alleviate the problem. The municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program will also address that.

STUDENT HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would like to congratulate her not only on her election but on her appointment to cabinet.

Dealing with the question of student housing, on September 2, during the recent election campaign, the Premier pledged $5 million for the construction of 5,000 new residence beds for university students. Yet Tuesday’s speech from the throne, unbelievably, did not mention this proposal.

Will the minister today formally reaffirm the Premier’s campaign commitment and inform this House when and how she intends to carry out this promise?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The honourable member is quite correct. The announcement of funding support to universities in providing and building new residence beds for university students was indeed an election promise and it does stand as a commitment of this government. I trust that we are able to proceed with it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Cousens: That is a better answer than I got yesterday from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek).

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is a better question too.

Mr. Cousens: A better question? Well, by the third day it will get even better.

I would like to know specifically when the minister is going to make the announcement to facilitate students who are already in a position that they cannot find housing in Metro Toronto or in Kitchener-Waterloo -- right across this province there is a dearth of good housing for students. If they are going to have housing for when they need it next September, that plan should be announced today or tomorrow or within the next few days. It should have been mentioned in the speech from the throne. The minister should be getting started. She should be able to tell us now how, specifically, she is going to address this and when she is going to get started on it. Please be more definite.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am not prepared to make a statement about the specific timing of implementing this announcement. I think we all recognize that good management requires the careful planning that this government is currently involved in.

What I would like to assure the member is that I will continue, as will my ministry, to make the concerns of student housing a very high priority. I have already met with student groups on a number of occasions. They have certainly indicated to me their concern for the availability of student housing.

I would like to underscore this government’s record in dealing with the concerns of post-secondary education as a priority, and perhaps particularly concerns expressed by student groups. I point only to two examples: the increase in student assistance and much greater access to university places. We will continue to deal with this concern of student housing with the same sense of priority and concern.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order?

Mr. Cousens: l need an answer to the question. I do not know when we are going to have any housing for students.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: In the absence of the Premier, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Premier. On Monday last, November 2, the Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) were tried in absentia at a court of the poor at Osgoode Hall. They were convicted not only of neglecting but also of perpetuating the problems and the plight of the poor in Ontario.

Would the Deputy Premier not agree that the throne speech, with its absence of any sense of urgency around the problems of the poor and the poverty-stricken in Ontario, with its complete lack of any co-ordinated program or focus in this direction, let alone any overall objectives established in the attack on this issue, clearly confirms the correctness of the verdict issued by the court of the poor that he and his government, in point of fact, are neglecting and even perpetuating the problems of the poor in Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I can only say that anyone who would accuse the present Minister of Community and Social Services of being inadequate and not having initiative simply does not know what he is talking about. In my view, there has been no time in my 25 years in the House when I have known a minister with these responsibilities who has responded more actively and effectively than the honourable gentleman referred to in the question from the member.

Mr. Allen: I am not surprised to hear the Treasurer defend the moral integrity of the minister in question. None of us has any question in that regard. But when one looks at objective performance, perhaps there is another question that has to be asked.

Is the Deputy Premier, when he rejects the verdict, for example, ignoring the simple fact that his government is postponing in its throne speech the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee until next spring, when it ought to be published this winter when it is completed?

Second, the government has refused to comply with Mr. Thomson’s earnest request that the situation is so serious that social assistance rates ought to have been increased as of last spring.

Finally, why is the government now signalling the fact that there might well be constraints and cutbacks in this area, as in other areas, of social spending?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: To set the honourable member’s fevered mind at rest, there will be no cutbacks. But he would surely also be aware that since the honourable member became minister in this extremely sensitive and important portfolio, there have been a succession of improvements -- I would be the first, as Treasurer, to say insufficient but substantial improvements -- not only in the rate of payment but also in some more appropriate approaches to solving the problems that the less fortunate people in the community are responding to.

I can tell him, for example, that money for warm coats for kids going to school in the wintertime is paid on a regular basis.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It took two years to do that.

Hon. K. F. Nixon: All right. It is paid every year for these children. It is not an insensitive approach whatsoever. Once again, as Treasurer I wish it could be more, but it is better than it ever has been and it continues to improve.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. My question has to do with the Rent Regulation Act, the new Bill 51. If she recalls, I asked her predecessor when I found out that the ministry was tabulating the size of rent increases tenants were experiencing across Ontario as a result of Bill 51. In fact, we discovered that it was documenting all those over 10 per cent. The minister failed to be forthcoming in this House and to the public with the specifics of that documentation.

I have with me in the House today a confidential document from the ministry that sets out the statistics for Metro Toronto, which I would like to share with the House. It indicates that there are 2,000 whole-building applications outstanding for the city of Toronto, of which almost 900 buildings, approximately 44 per cent of all applications, have increases and requests in excess of 25 per cent. We could be talking 60,000 tenants here, about 10 per cent of the entire city’s population.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: My question for the minister is: With 23,000 applications pending, being held up in her ministry, after 11 months, when can she assure the tenants of Ontario that she will be able to release and issue orders under this bill? When will she commit to announcing the orders under the legislation?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Rental orders are being issued right now. I am committed to removing the backlog and assuring certainty for tenants and the public, but I should tell the honourable member and remind the House that one of the reasons for the backlog is that apartment housing that was built after 1975 is now protected under rent review as a result of Bill 51. It was not protected before that.

Mr. Jackson: The fact is, the government used rebates as an election ploy, but it has not announced a single whole-building review. If the government is having difficulty with the large picture, let us talk about Archie and Mary Dodd, a family about whom I raised a question here in this Legislature last May, a family in the riding of Oakville South, an 82-year-old pensioner’s family. This family was served notice with a 33 per cent increase. The Dodd family is committing 50 per cent of its income to its current rent. Under the bill -- and they were served notice -- it has risen to 67 per cent.

They now today have received their second annual notice. They are now into the second year of a notice under this government’s legislation. They owe retroactively to their landlord $2,000 in back rent as a result of the application that has been outstanding.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: With families, specifically seniors, committing 70 per cent and more of their incomes for accommodation, when will the minister assure those individual families that she will be issuing the backlog of orders, when her own ministry is indicating it may take until next August to clear up the backlog?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is of course very difficult for people such as the ones the member is describing to deal with having to pay so much of their income on rent. That is a problem that other people share and which we are very concerned about. l recognize the backlog is a very serious issue. I am determined to resolve it. At this time we are actually working on increased staffing, more effective processing of applications, a use of superior technology for shorter processing and increasing our production of orders issued.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: I have another question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the proposed free trade sellout by the federal government. Could the minister comment on the remarks of Roger Phillips, the president of IPSCO, who as the minister will know was a strong advocate of a free trade agreement between the United States and Canada until he saw the draft wording, and who stated -- without expensive legal opinion, I dare say -- that the agreement was wanting because of the lack of an adequate dispute settlement mechanism.

I would like to ask the minister particularly with regard to Mr. Phillips’s remarks about antidumping legislation. Does he agree with Mr. Phillips’s view that the current agreement proposed will in fact mean that antidumping measures by the United States not only will not be eliminated but will be more often used against Canadian steel producers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have a little difficulty with the question. The member says something about its being eliminated. What is happening with the steel producers -- and I am sure the member knows -- is that they operate under a gentlemen’s agreement whereby the steel producers export into the United States to the level of 3.5 per cent. The objection that the steel producers have is that they do not expect to get any more than that, but they feel that, without this agreement, that will be reduced. That is a decision they have to make. That was one of my concerns about it, in that they got nothing except the status quo.

Mr. Wildman: The minister will know that Mr. Phillips is odd man out among steel producers. He does not agree with the position taken, and expressed by the minister just now, by most of the other steel producers. He actually argues that, because of American legislation still applying to Canada and to Canadian producers, instead of somewhat reducing antidumping action, in fact Canadian producers will not be able to compete on an equal footing with US rivals and will be subject to more antidumping actions by their US competitors. Does the minister agree with that position or with the position put forward by the other steel producers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I really have to take the association at its word. I am sure the member knows that most steel producers in the world are under what is known as a voluntary restraint action by the United States which actually stipulates what they can ship into that market. The Canadian manufacturers are at 3.5 per cent; during the strike they went up to seven per cent and they are happy with that arrangement.

I am not happy. If we are talking free trade then surely they should have virtually unlimited access to that market. Unfortunately the industry, when it appeared before my committee, said: “We do not have the capacity to penetrate that market more than 3.5 per cent, and we have no desire to do it. We are happy with our 3.5 per cent and all we really want to do is make sure we continue to have that.” That is their position; it is not mine.

GRAIN PRODUCERS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister must have surely been disappointed in the recent speech from the throne. Out of 28 pages, agriculture got one measly little sentence. It is a shame. The minister’s own ministry has stated that grain producers will suffer a 12 per cent decrease in income this year. What innovative things will he be doing to try to correct this?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Before I respond to the question, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengany for his appointment as critic to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, without question the most important ministry in this government. When we stop to think about it, if it was not for the agriculture and food industry, all other government programs would be irrelevant so we can be proud that we are connected with the agriculture and food industry.

I have been proud, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food over the last two years, because we took a Tory agricultural budget of $328 million and we stepped it up to $563 million, a 72 per cent increase. We have introduced more than 60 programs since we formed the government over two years ago. Many of those programs are long-term programs. The honourable member would be less than honest if he stood in this House and said that he did not hear comments from the farmers in his riding that we have introduced some of the most effective programs the farmers have seen in years.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is about the umpteenth time we have heard the minister make that statement. We are getting tired. Grain producers are receiving a 12 per cent reduction in their gross income this year and they had an even greater reduction last year. What is the minister going to do for them?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The grain producers are eligible for the many programs we have in effect, the interest rate reduction programs. There will also be a deficiency payment this year from the government. I have to tell the member that we have worked very closely with the federal government to make sure that we get our fair share of that deficiency payment, much of which will go to the grain farmers of this province.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT /

LOI SUR L’ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 7,

An Act to implement the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

L’hon M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 7, Loi portant mise en application de la Loi type sur l’arbitrage commercial international adoptée par la Commission des Nations Unies pour le droit commercial international.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As honourable members will perhaps recognize, this is a bill that remains left over from the last session and is

an act to introduce a model law.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Villeneuve moved first reading of Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Villeneuve: Just as a brief explanation, the great riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which l attempt to represent well, has been expanded to include portions of the county of Grenville. Because of that fact, Grenville is not recognized as part of this great riding, and therefore I suggest that the name be abbreviated to SDG and East Grenville, thus retaining the historic nature of the riding and recognizing all portions thereof.

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT / LO1 SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 9,

An Act permitting Trustees and Other Persons to dispose of South African Investments.

L’hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 9, Loi permettant aux fiduciaires et à d’autres personnel d’aliéner les placements sud-africains.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The purpose of this law is to amend the applicable law to give to managers of trusts, executives of boards of trusts and pensions the option to disinvest in South African investments if they and their shareholders wish to do so under the circumstances that the bill contemplates.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Election Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cousens: This bill will exempt members of the Canadian Forces, and their spouses and children who live with them, from the requirement of having resided in Ontario for the six months immediately before polling day for the purpose of being entitled to vote in an election in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, can I just take two seconds and go back to petitions since I have brought these in and I missed when you were --

Mr. Speaker: I assume you are asking for unanimous consent of the House to revert. Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

PETITIONS

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The first petition reads:

“To the Honourable Provincial Legislature and Lieutenant Governor in Council:

“Whereas the provincial government should take under consideration the need to legislate as mandatory the now discretionary programs of sexual child abuse therapy programs;

“Whereas the programs for sexually and physically abused children are essential if children are to deal with these horrible events in their lives;

“Whereas these programs prevent further emotional problems and may prevent the children of these children from the abuse cycle as it continues;

“Whereas these programs are clearly a preventive program that is appropriate for the children’s aid society to staff and manage; and

“Whereas, in the end, the cost to society of not mandating these programs is higher in financial and human terms,

“Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the parliament of the province of Ontario to unequivocally mandate all sexual child abuse and related programs as no longer discretionary.”

It is signed by a number of people from the community of Windsor.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The other petition reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and choose the health care system of my preference; and

“Whereas naturopathy has had a self governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mr. Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to remind all members that when they are presenting their petitions, according to the standing order, it is not necessary to read all the “whereases.” I think the information is contained in the “therefores.” It might make business a little more expedient.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Harris moved that, pursuant to standing order 37(a), the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the inability of the government of Ontario to sufficiently address the crisis of the lack of affordable housing and rental accommodation in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Notice of this motion was received in my office at 11:26 a.m., therefore in time, and it is in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Harris: I might add that I placed this motion with the full concurrence of my party and particularly with the support of the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), who, had it not been for this government’s inability to deal with the Don Valley Parkway, would have been here to sign the same motion before the 11:30 deadline. However, that is another matter.

The current supply of rental housing in our urban centres has reached unacceptable levels. Since this government took office in 1985, the vacancy rate is three times worse than when it took office. The waiting list for socially assisted housing is longer than it has ever been in the history of this province.

The number of new units constructed is less than what is needed just to keep up with the year-over-year increase in demand, let alone any move on the backlog. In short, by any standard of measurement, the housing crisis is far worse now than when this government took office in 1985. In fact, this housing situation is worse than ever before in the history of our province. The facts speak for themselves. We are facing a socioeconomic crisis, one which has seriously deteriorated over the past two years.

There are an estimated 10,000 homeless people living on the streets of Metropolitan Toronto. Winter is coming. There are young people who cannot find housing. There are seniors looking for rental housing. There are single mothers looking for affordable rental housing for themselves and their children. University and college students are facing a similar severe crisis. At the same time, they are having to compete for the same limited number of affordable housing units as the other groups I mentioned.

This is a crisis which hits our young people, our seniors, our single parents, those who can least afford it, those who are not benefiting from this great decrease in the number of jobless and from this great increase in economic activity that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) seem so proud of.

What does the government plan to do about this crisis? Yesterday we asked the minister what she was going to do. She gave us -- she is learning quickly -- a nonanswer. She listed a couple of programs which her government had had in place for the past two years. Today she knows a little more about her ministry and she was successfully able to read a list provided by the ministry of a whole other batch of existing programs that have been in place for the last two years. I guess that is exactly the point of this debate and why we are moving it today.

For the last two years this government’s policies have put us in the position we are in today. The only answer we have is to read a list of those same government policies, that somehow, by some miracle -- they did not work in 1985, they did not work in 1986 and they did not work in 1987 -- are going to be the solution to build three or four times the number of units that have been constructed in the past few years.

Based on the minister’s responses to our question, we are forced to conclude that the government really has no plan to deal with this crisis other than the original policies which got us into the crisis in the first place. In fact, the 102,000 units was a figure pulled out of the air; it was required. “Why not mention that in the campaign? It will sound good. How do we do it? I do not know. Can we do it? I do not know. Do we have the money? I do not know. Who cares? Nobody will ask until after the election.” We are asking and we do not have the answers.

Not only is this a socioeconomic crisis, it is a crisis in confidence in this government and its ability to deal with this pressing matter. I urge all members of the Legislature to approve this resolution.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to begin this afternoon by saying we agree that we should set aside the business of the House and discuss this matter. As a critic who has looked at housing for some time now, l cannot recall an occasion in our history when the situation has been so bleak for so many people. It used to be that a housing problem, by its definition, meant that one sector of housing, as part of our economy, was in trouble. I do not recall a time when the total housing industry and almost every aspect of housing was in a crisis. It seems we cannot escape that, no matter where we look in that whole broad spectrum of social issues that people refer to as housing.

It is true that here in Metropolitan Toronto, this winter in the middle of this kind of affluence, people will die on our streets because there is no place for them to live. The real tragedy is that in another society they would simply say: “We have buildings that are warm, that have washroom facilities. It is an emergency. Why do we not open them up?” The truth is that here in our society we will say: “No, we cannot use the schools in the evening for this kind of purpose. No, we cannot open up the armouries for that kind of purpose,” or a whole range of other warm places that are available.

These people will spend their evenings in cardboard boxes and bus shelters and garages, and we know it, but the government has done absolutely nothing to resolve that problem. It will respond, mind you, and this is a sad commentary on our political system. Those who work with these people have already told us people will die this winter, without question. When they die, the newspapers will carry their photographs and their stories. We will raise the questions in the Legislature and the minister will stand and announce a brand new program. The sad irony is that we all wish she would listen to those who work with the homeless and respond to that need now.

A rent review system has been in place in Ontario for some time now. It has come to a complete and utter halt. From anybody’s perspective, rent review in Ontario is not working; it simply is not functioning. People who are tenants in Ontario have given to their landlords $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 too much over the last year or so. If one stops to think, will the landlords be happy to search out these tenants all around Ontario and give them back their money? No, I kind of doubt that. I really do not think that is going to happen.

If one looks at the price of housing for people who want to try to buy their first house, it is beyond their reach. If we look at the number of people we know of in Ontario who saved up their money, put their down payment on a new home, expected that the builder would have a legal obligation to complete the house, which is not an unreal expectation, and then we find out subsequently that the builder did not and the people who are responsible for seeing that the houses go on the market say, “There is nothing we can do about it,” and the ministry says, “There is nothing we can do about it,” we begin to have an appreciation of the kind of crisis that is there.

If one looks at the number of people on fixed income who are spending 50 and 60 per cent of the meagre amounts they get in pensions from government, it is becoming astronomical. This is, by my definition, a crisis. This is, by my definition, something the government of Ontario should respond to in a major way.

One has heard, again this afternoon in question period, the minister read off the list of programs. They sound good. The problem is they do not work. The problem is they do not add to housing supply. They may renovate, they may take some old factories and turn them into housing, but we now know that those programs do not function.

In fact, the reputation of the ministry, quite frankly, among those who are trying their best in their own community to provide housing for senior citizens or for those who are on limited income, is that the Ministry of Housing is one of their biggest single obstacles, to fill out its forms, to run through its hoops, to fill all its obligations. One would even say the Ministry of Housing is not very interested in the provision of housing stock for people in Ontario who need it.

I believe this afternoon it is worth our while to set aside the business of the House and to spend some time this afternoon reviewing these problems. I hope we will get a response from this minister which is far different from what we have seen from previous ministers. I want to end by saying we hope the new minister will bring some opportunity for programs that actually provide housing.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have before me the motion standing in the name of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and I want to indicate at the outset that it will certainly be my intention on behalf of the government to see this debate proceed because I intend to be consistent with my position of yesterday, which will be at some variance with the position of the member for Nipissing.

I remind my friend from Nipissing that he argued a very interesting case yesterday in recommending that we not proceed with the emergency debate on the issue of the trade negotiations. I thought it was an interesting argument that he is obviously not advancing today.

The honourable member would surely want to share with me the view that we are setting back the opportunity for the throne speech debate to begin. I do not for a moment suggest that these issues of trade and housing are unimportant because, quite clearly, they are very important. That is what the government has indicated through its program, read by His Honour here earlier in the week. I am sure my friend the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) will be anxious to address this in her remarks later this afternoon.

It is quite clear that this government views the issues of housing and trade as very important issues facing the province and facing the nation, and, I might add, for my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), someone whose views on housing I always listen to, along with the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), with a very great deal of interest because I find the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale very knowledgeable from a particularly personal point of view on issues relating to housing. I am sure he will want to involve himself in this debate.

I want to say to the member for Nipissing that the government views the housing and trade issues as very important issues. That is why we have so very clearly and so very directly stated our position in the speech His Honour read earlier this week. One of the reasons I am happy, quite frankly, to have the debate proceed this afternoon is that we have in this caucus a Minister of Housing who brings to her responsibilities a very great commitment and an outstanding intellect that I think will show in a very real way the leadership this government is prepared to provide in this critical area of social and economic policy.

It is a pleasure, almost, to advance the opportunity that the Minister of Housing will have as a result of this emergency debate so that all honourable members will see just the kind of talent this government has to apply to these very important issues.

I would also observe that the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) are standing by to move and to second an address in response to His Honour’s speech. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin particularly has kept some of his constituents on standby, hoping he might have the opportunity to favour the assembly with his speech this week. I want to say as well that common courtesy would dictate that the member for Eglinton and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin be provided with their opportunity, as l expect the government will be provided with its opportunity to get on with its program.

I am, as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Markham know, a most reasonable person and I intend, in all reasonable ways, to accommodate the opposition. I think I know, as my friend the member for Markham would appreciate, what it is that inspires and informs the opposition in these early days of this, the first session of the 34th Legislature of Ontario.

Having said all of that, having made clear my sweet reasonableness where the opposition is concerned, I do want to ask members to realize that this government has a very important and active agenda that it wishes to proceed with. My friends the member for Eglinton and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin want to begin that with moving and seconding an address in reply to His Honour’s speech. We want to give all members of this assembly an opportunity, in the waterfront debate that is the throne speech opportunity, their chance to speak to these issues.

Having said all of that, I hope that honourable members opposite in the opposition will now understand that while this emergency debate proceeds, the government’s agenda must soon be recognized.

Mr. Speaker: It would appear to me that standing order 37(

c) has been fulfilled to its fullest, so we will now go to standing order 37(d). I have no alternative but to put the question.

Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The members will be allowed to speak for a period of up to 10 minutes and they will be able to speak until we have run out of speakers or until the clock strikes six.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I thank other honourable members in the House for their remarks -- the member for Oshawa, members opposite and the honourable House leader -- as long as he does not think that by being so nice today we are going to support the speech from the throne. We welcome the openness to discussing a major issue in this province at this time taking precedence over other things that are of interest to all of us -- and certainly the speech from the throne is of interest. Along with others, I look forward to participating in the debate on that important document.

Unfortunately, we do have a crisis and a crisis, when you see it in terms of people, is one that manifests itself as a major social problem unless you begin to deal with it. There are so many people who are now impacted by the housing problem. They include young couples from all our communities, in large urban metropolitan areas, who want to set up home. In order to do that, they look for a place to live, and it is almost impossible to find one in large urban areas. So then they go further away from work, and the costs of transportation and just the difficulty to get started mean that they are putting off the marriage date and putting off getting started on the things they really want to do.

In cities like Hamilton, we are seeing single parents who have a great responsibility to look after their children and maintain their families but cannot find a place to live. We are seeing seniors in York region, where there is going to be a reduction in the number of nursing home beds, and when they have to leave their own home in which they have been living for many years, they do not have a place to go to. It is another kind of housing crisis, which is the nursing home crisis.

I know of a student at Wilfrid Laurier University who almost -- except at the last minute he was able to find accommodation in a student residence -- had to reconsider whether or not he would go to Wilfrid Laurier or go to another university closer to home so he could commute from his own home.

We are seeing the problems created for those who are psychiatrically sick, physically disabled or physically disadvantaged who are also facing a crisis of having accommodation that is near a hospital, near a family or near people who can help them.

There is another form of home crisis and that is the new home buyers. I am not going to touch on this one, but it is a crisis for those who are buying new homes. It was addressed in the speech from the throne and I look forward to seeing just how far this government will go to addressing those problems. But there are the problems of the rich, or those who have money, and there are the problems of many other people in our society, for whom the nature of the problem is so great that they cannot help themselves. They have to rely upon ourselves and the leaders of their community to give them assistance.

I have no doubt in my mind that the housing crisis in our province is the single most important social issue in our society today and we as legislators must deal with it. We must deal with it pragmatically, we must deal with it from all sides so we can attack the problem involving municipalities with the solution – developers -- so that we can involve home owners who might be able to subdivide their homes and so that we can bring out programs so that everybody in our province will want to be part of the solution.

It is a crisis that leads to personal alienation in a way. Families have a permanent scar if they have gone without a home or a place to live for a length of time. It so happens that the children of people who have been without homes or in public housing start in a cycle of having to live within that cycle, and they might never get out of it because they will rely upon public housing.

We have to find ways of giving them a sense of purpose and a sense of personal fulfillment so we do not have them put down, but we lift them up. We cannot allow people in our society to feel displaced, and yet so many are. We cannot allow people to ask what is the use of holding a family together. If it becomes such a struggle, does it not lead to some of the family breakups that are going on?

It leads to a cycle of poverty, this homelessness that we see in our society today. Once people give up, they start giving up more when they do not have a home. Is that not something that should be viewed as a right? Has that question been asked? I know it is not in the Constitution, but is it a right for a person to have a home? Maybe we as legislators should start to think about that because this leads to the very basic core of what the need of a family or of a human being is -- to have a roof over their heads.

The symptoms of this housing crisis are many. The one is the homelessness, the homelessness we see in Toronto, but it exists in Hamilton, in London, in Windsor, in Ottawa and in other large cities. In Toronto, it is considered that there are 14,000 to 20,000 people on the streets, some living in bus shelters or on the streets themselves, some in tents on campgrounds, some moving from hostel to hostel trying to find a place to live; a Band-Aid approach that is not working. Province-wide, it is a serious problem to have so many people homeless.

Another symptom of this crisis is the vacancy rate. The vacancy rate in Metro has gone down to .01 per cent, but it turns out that only the rich can afford to pay for dwellings or for apartments. The lower to middle income earners are being forced from their homes. They are unable to pay. This whole gentrification process is taking place within the large urban areas.

We are seeing something happen in Metro Toronto that has happened in New York City, where old subdivisions and old homes are being converted, taken over and those who are boarding or renting now have to move elsewhere and further away from the city. It is a certain class of society that becomes privileged to live in the city.

We are seeing abuse of the system because the vacancy rate is so low. One finds key charges and one finds people doing almost anything to get themselves a place to live. One is seeing an increase in the backlog of rental housing and one is seeing huge waiting lists. Yes, we have problems and they are symptomatic of the vacancy rate.

Another symptom of it is just the social and psychological trauma to those people who do not have homes. They are unable to cope and it just drives them further into a state of inadequacy. To what extent are the problems in an inner city such as ours today in Metro Toronto caused because of this problem of housing? I know it is not the only cause, but are violence, family violence, crime and certain other things that go on in this city caused by the housing crisis itself?

What about the food banks? Are they a symptom of the housing crisis? Yes, they are. When people who are on general welfare allowance today are spending in excess of 64 per cent for their home or their rent, when it should be around 25 per cent, no wonder they then have to go to a food bank to get help.

We have to go back to basics in society and respect the needs of all people. Through this crisis maybe there now is hope if this government -- having recognized in an election pledge of August 22 that 102,000 homes were needed in two years -- knows what is needed. It knows why it is needed. Now what we need to see coming from this government is when it is going to have some solutions coming to the fore. When are students going to get some of those 5,000 new places that were promised on September 2? When are those 102,000 homes going to be available for people who need them?

When are they going to come out with an announcement that says they are going to do it right away and they have a plan going? Stop worrying about all the other things and get on with the housing issue.

She is the Minister of Housing and she has a great responsibility. I hope she will get support from the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the other members of cabinet so she can do what she has to do. They made the promise before she was appointed. Now she has to fight so hard in that cabinet that they know the member for Oakwood (Ms. Hošek) is the best cabinet minister there is because she wants it, she demands it and she is going to quit in two years if things are not done.

I hope she does not have to quit. I hope she is able to fight and succeed in winning the battle of getting those homes. She should tell us soon. Maybe today when she speaks she will indicate where they are going to be built. How many of these low-rental homes will be built in Toronto or made available in Toronto? How many in York region? How many in Peel? How many in Oshawa? She should give us a breakout of how many she hopes to have and where. We know about how many in Ontario but she should tell us how many there will be and tell us how she is going to do it.

I could go on, but the time is limited. We have a crisis. The crisis is real. We will continue to fight and fight and fight for the people who need homes in this province.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to begin this afternoon by saying that on this side we have some understanding that a previous government decided housing was not the responsibility of the province of Ontario. It basically took apart its ministry and ceased to operate its programs.

Perhaps we would have gotten out of that mess if the federal government had not at the same time said, “It is not our responsibility either.” The two senior levels of government, up until this point in our history, had been quite active and in fact had found it politically attractive to go and cut the ribbons at the seniors’ apartments, to open up new housing authorities all across Ontario and to build units and to operate them. Had they not both decided at the same time to abandon ship, perhaps we would not be in quite this serious a mess.

I think too from this side of the House we have said for the last two years that we understand the ministry was basically dismantled and that they need some time to kind of get things back in gear. They need to build programs inside. They need to staff programs and they need to make up their minds on how they want to approach this issue.

I wish I could say they have had a couple of years to get ready and they have made up their minds on how to do things and now we are ready to get down to business. I wish I could say that, but I cannot. I cannot because people still keep knocking on my door saying, “Here is a problem I have and I went to the Ministry of Housing and it is not interested.” Let me give a couple of examples. I know all the background so do not bother having the staff scramble around to provide the minister with notes.

A guy called me up and said: “I went to rent a town house in North York and a guy wanted $4,000 for key money. I went to the cops and they said, ‘Well, you know, if you pay the bribe, it may be a bribe and maybe not.’” Who of us has $4,000 change in our pockets this afternoon to pay for key money so a police officer can write up a charge? That is not very practical.

The gentleman went to the Ministry of Housing and they said: “Well, that’s not our responsibility. We’re not sure what you should do. We don’t look at that kind of stuff.”

I understand the background that we are not quite sure which law is being broken here. We are not quite sure who should lay the charges. We are not quite sure who should do the investigation. But I tell members very simply, a Ministry of Housing that is aware that somebody wants $4,000 in key money and decides it is not interested in pursuing the matter is not a ministry which is very sensitive to the needs of our citizens.

Let me give another example. The ministry is aware that all throughout downtown Toronto there are developers who are taking apartment buildings and turning them into apartment hotels. The ministry knows they are gouging, and the ministry knows they are working very hard to evict all of their tenants and are saying to them, “We want a 20 per cent increase in rent, and you’ve got to pay it and we’ll hold on to it for a year and maybe give it back to you later.”

The ministry knows it is saying, “Well, it is now the tenant’s responsibility to pay the hydro,” which involves heat for the unit. The ministry knows that the landlords are pretty actively attempting to get people out, to the point where even though people have paid their rent, they receive a pretty official looking eviction notice.

The ministry knows all of this stuff, because I have seen copies of the correspondence going from the tenants to the ministry, but the ministry is not sure whether it can or should do anything and it is not doing anything.

The irony in these buildings in downtown Toronto is that the examples that have been quoted to me are examples of buildings that were put up with government of Ontario financing to provide housing for people in lower-income groups. At the time of their construction, they got additional densities from the city of Toronto on the basis that this type of housing was needed and if the city of Toronto would only increase its densities they would be able to provide more units for people who need some kind of assistance with their housing.

Government money built these units. Governments approved higher densities. Governments are now sitting around saying, “But there’s nothing we can do” when they turn around and evict the tenants and turn the units into hotel units because they can make a bigger buck.

I do not care whether it fits within the framework of any given law or program or not. If it is a ministry that is established to look after housing in Ontario, these matters ought to be of some concern to it.

Let me give a couple of other examples. There are a number of young families who went north of Toronto and put downpayments on houses and sold their own homes and moved out in anticipation that builders would actually do what the contract said: provide them with a house at a given date for a given price. When the builders walked away from the units, the people who are responsible for the building industry, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, said, “We’re not sure we can do anything either.”

Is it not a hell of a situation when the Ministry of Housing in Ontario and the developers in Ontario know full well that young families scraped together their downpayments, sold their houses, left their homes, the new houses are not completed and nobody could do anything for these people? Is that not a clear indication that we have not learned many lessons here; that there is a problem which maybe is not covered by existing law -- although I must say, from my simple point of view, it seems to me that if you sign a contract to buy something or to provide a service and people do not do that, that is what I call fraud.

If I bought a car from a dealer and at the time I went to pick it up the dealer said, “There is no car,” or “It costs more money; I can’t provide that,” I would be happy to go to court. But all these young families are not happy to go to court. They want a house. They thought they had done what was required of them to get a house, and when it comes time to move in they find the house is not there.

Let me give a couple of other examples of things that are going on in housing that I know the minister is aware of and that I know the ministry itself is aware of.

It seems to me -- and in this I mitigate my criticism somewhat -- we are going to have to take a look at the practice of selling condominiums, for example, that are nothing more than an artist’s concept, that have not been taken through the planning process, that are not there, that no one really knows will make it through the zoning bylaws. People in this city are spending $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 for condominium projects that are only some developer’s design right now. What will happen to those people when the city of Toronto says, “Maybe we do not want that kind of density on that particular site”?

Maybe somebody will say, “Perhaps we ought to actually have a waterfront plan,” as every other community in Ontario has an official plan.

These projects will all have to conform to that, and we do not know what that waterfront plan will be yet. What are we going to do for those people? I have not heard much in the way of comment from the minister.

Let me give you some other examples, too, because I heard the minister run through her wonderful programs today. I have had the sad experience of trying to get some financing for people who are handicapped, for example, to make very simple adjustments to a house they already have so they can get a wheelchair in and out. It is about as easy to beat the Russians in a hockey game as it is to get money out of the ministry for this kind of stuff.

The programs are announced but the money seems to be totally invested in pamphlets. There does not seem to be a process at work whereby ordinary citizens can take advantage of programs that are being advertised by this government.

I suppose they have a legal right to get their member to come and fight the bureaucracy and a legal right to get a lawyer and go to court and see that the government delivers, but it seems to me that in these instances the government itself is more interested in advertising the program than actually making the program work. I will bet there is not a member in here -- there certainly will not be after a little while -- who has not gone through the same experience, because in our offices are all the government pamphlets advertising these programs.

People come in and say, “Mike, how do I get some money out of the province of Ontario so I can do a little work around the house and get a ramp put in?” We hand them the pamphlet -- we are kind of partners in this crime to some degree -- then, subsequently, they find out it is not quite as easy as the pamphlet says.

Let me give the minister a couple of suggestions on what she might do if she wants to get some housing supply on the market in a hurry.

There are municipalities, community groups and church groups out there which are begging for some help from Ontario to put some housing on the market. They have been fighting ministry bureaucracy for more than a year. I know them. Why does the ministry not send the bureaucrats on vacation for a little while or, worse yet, let them do something positive for a while? Instead of designing the forms, why does it not have them fill out the forms? Why does it not have them do all the surveys they want? If that is necessary, let them do it. Let us do something a little bit more positive. I do not want the minister to resign. I want her, very simply, to get to work.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to take this opportunity to give the House an outline of our housing accomplishments over the last two years, and to touch briefly on our plans to build on the solid foundation of the assured housing program.

I believe this strategy indicates the aggressive stance t