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

May 16, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L076 - Thu 16 May 1996 / Jeu 16 Mai 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RENT REGULATION RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

RENT REGULATION

RENT REGULATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX REDUCTION

ENDOMETRIOSIS

TAX REDUCTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

MEMORIAL CUP HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

GASOLINE PRICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

RENT REGULATION

GASOLINE PRICES

WORKFARE

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

RURAL PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SAFETY AND CONSUMER STATUTES ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'APPLICATION DE CERTAINES LOIS TRAITANT DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RENT REGULATION RÉGLEMENTATION DES LOYERS

Mr Curling moved private member's notice of motion number 19:

That in the opinion of this House, since the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has caused considerable confusion by publicly telling landlords and builders that he will introduce legislation that will end rent control, but on the other hand, tells tenants they will be protected without any explanation; and

Since this government has cancelled over 390 non-profit housing projects that would have provided needed and decent shelter to lower-income Ontarians, but has made known no plan to make up for this shortfall in affordable accommodation; and

Since the minister intends to drastically change six pieces of housing legislation, including rent control, that will wipe out tenant protection in Ontario; and

Since rent control legislation was first introduced in 1975 and improved on by subsequent governments over the past 20 years; and

Since this government continues to attack the most vulnerable in our society;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should stop its plans to gut rent control, and work with tenants to ensure that tenant protection and rent control be maintained in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Does the member have a statement?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I do, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. As I said, this resolution is an attempt to ease the widespread fear and confusion that has been created by the Minister of Housing's doubletalk on rent control, doubletalk, quite frankly, that we have grown accustomed to hearing from the other side of the house.

Renters are concerned about whether they are going to be able to afford decent housing under this Tory government. On one hand the Tories condemn rent controls. They say they will tamper with rent control legislation, wiping out tenant protections that have taken 20 years to build up. Recently we hear Al Leach soften his tone. Now when he talks to tenants, he tries to dodge the issue by talking about maintaining some sort of rent cap, and I don't know what that is.

It's not difficult to figure out what this Tory government is up to. The truth of the matter is that the Tories have a plan. They are going to gut rent control as we know it. It is no coincidence that their tone has changed slightly and that they have gone a bit silent on this issue, but alas, come May 23, they will unleash their vicious attack and destroy the tenant legislation in place. Yes, Mr Speaker. They don't want to hurt their chance in the York South election, so they're very careful at this time. It is just that they won't tell us how they are going to do this until after May 23, lest, of course, those chances in the by-election are destroyed.

The Tories call their plan marketplace rent control; I call it a real contradiction in terms. The marketplace will control rents, all right, as we know it. There is such high demand and low supply for affordable housing in this province that the marketplace will control rents so that they will go, as you know, right through the roof.

Tories say there will be a lot of construction, a boom that will be going on, once they get rid of rent controls. Few believe these claims. Experience has told us that developers will not rush out to build apartments, and if they do build, they are more likely to build for the high end of the market.

Now that the Tories have cancelled over 390 non-profit housing projects, renters have even fewer options available to them today. Adding insult to injury, the Tories tell tenants not to worry, because they're going to bring in a tenant protection package. This puts the onus on the tenant to fight unfair rent increases. Renters are in an extremely vulnerable position in today's housing market. Getting rid of rent controls cuts down what few protections they have so far left.

Let me tell you about some of the things that tenants fear.

They're afraid the government will take rent controls off an apartment once the unit becomes vacant. That makes tenants virtual prisoners of their apartments. They can't move, because any new rent put in place would be much higher than their previous ones.

They're afraid the government will make it easier for landlords to turn apartment buildings into condos, and we have seen this before.

They're afraid when they hear the minister say that the Tories are going to make it easier to evict tenants.

We've heard that the Tory plans include allowing landlords to profit from repairs.

The Minister of Housing may say that these are just rumours. You and I know, Mr Speaker, from our short experience of the Mike Harris government, that rumours turn into policy in a very short space of time.

Tenants are speaking out. They're telling the Tory government that controls keep rents fair and ensure tenant rights. We are joined by tenants in the public gallery this morning and by members of the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights. I see Kay Gardner, who is an advocate, and Mike Walker is there too, who have done a tremendous job in fighting for tenants' rights, and members of Toronto council as well are there. They represent tenants from across Metro and across the province. Also with us, as I said, are these councillors who have done an exceptional job in promoting the campaign to save rent controls.

This week the Coalition to Save Tenants' Rights kicked off its campaign to raise awareness of the government's plan and they are mobilizing tenants across the province. All they ask is that tenants receive fair, equitable treatment and that the current laws that protect tenants be supported.

I support their position wholeheartedly. They stand for some very basic principles, and some of those principles include things like this:

Rent increases must be set by a government guideline and above-guideline rent increases must have a cap. Quite reasonable. Rent must be linked to maintenance. Tenants must have the right to stay in their own home without fear of being evicted unfairly or just because their lease has run out. Tenants must have the right to privacy. There must be controls to prevent converting rental housing to condominiums and other uses. All tenants must be covered under tenants' rights legislation -- all, not just some or partial. There must be an impartial and fair process for deciding rent increases, eviction and other landlord-tenant issues.

These principles are fundamental. While the Tory cabinet tries to figure out the right spin on the total demolition of rent controls, I suggest their time would be better spent listening to tenants and their concerns.

We have heard from thousands and thousands of Ontarians who support rent controls. I have had response cards in my office, thousands from direct-mail brochures, from renters who are worried about whether they'll be able to afford their rents once controls are eliminated.

I personally have spoken to a number of concerned citizens, many of them seniors, students and those on fixed incomes. Rent controls keep a roof over their heads. Mike Harris is already hurting them through drug plan user fees, tuition hikes and other user fees. Add to that soaring rent hikes, and frankly these people won't know where to turn. Evictions are way up already, and you have seen that in the papers. Does Mike Harris really want to add to their misery?

We support rent control. We don't support handing over all the power to a few individuals. I support rent control, and I support it wholeheartedly. Rent control is the only fair way of ensuring that the rights of the tenants of this province are protected. That is why my resolution calls on the government to end its plans to gut rent control. I urge all members in this House to vote to put partisan views behind them and think about those tenants. When you speak about tenants, it's their home in which they live with their children and try to make life better for themselves, not to feel vulnerable to legislation that will take away those kinds of protections.

We know that builders and developers are business people who want to make a profit. I lift my hat to them and I encourage them to do that. But when I speak to them, they say to me they will not build those units on which they can't make a profit. That is why government must play a role.

I was completely destroyed when I heard that government had no business in housing. We must, as a government, play a role in housing, especially for the most vulnerable. That's why I take my hat off to the mayor of Toronto in dealing with those people who are homeless. She knows it's a deeper problem than just those people lying out in front of city hall. We know that is a problem we must deal with and government must face wholeheartedly in encouraging them.

We must have legislation to protect these people so that they're not evicted from their homes. We want to make sure this happens. We want to make sure we're not partisan in our view but regard the people who are living in these units to be protected and to pay a reasonable rate for their accommodation. Government has got to play that kind of role.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It is with pleasure today that I stand in the House and support, as the housing critic for the NDP caucus, the resolution brought forward by Mr Curling.

I would also like to point out to members of this House and other people who may be watching this debate that this is one of the few times I have seen a debate during private members' hour where a number of people from other city councils are here to give support to what's happening today. We have five different councillors from the city of Toronto who are here for this debate, and I would like to thank them and other people who are here to support this motion.

I think it speaks volumes to where people are at when it comes to this issue. People see what the government is doing and they're really, really afraid of what's going to happen. They're seeing that the government is intent on dismantling rent control in this province. Why? Because quite frankly this government doesn't believe in the role of government as it affects people's lives. People are worried and people are starting to mobilize and people are doing what they can to try to tell this government: "Stop this attack on tenants.

Back off this change of rent control that you want to make." If you do, what it means is literally tens of thousands of tenants in this province will be negatively affected by this move.

I want to come back to the point of why this government is doing this. The government is doing this for a very simple reason: It doesn't believe in government. This government says it wants to remove itself from absolutely everything that has to do with regulation in Ontario in how business is regulated. If that business happens to be an apartment building owned by a landlord or it happens to be a mine in Timmins operated by a mining operator or it happens to be whatever --

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Or a bus.

Mr Bisson: -- or a bus, this government says it wants to remove itself from all kinds of regulation and it wants to make the marketplace dictate what the rules shall be and what the price shall be for the commodity or the service that is being sold or is being bought on the part of somebody.

I say to the government, you're dead wrong. You forget there is not only a history in this country but a history worldwide across all democracies of the world that says you have to have a certain amount of regulation and government has a positive role to play when it comes to regulating certain aspects of our lives. Which aspect of our lives is not as important as the question of housing?

It is a basic, fundamental need of all people who live in this province and in this country that they have to have a roof over their heads, and if the dismantling of rent control means that those people will be made vulnerable, you really have to ask yourself the question why this government is doing this. I say again, they do it because they don't believe in government. They don't believe the government has a positive role to play when it comes to the question of regulating rents in the province of Ontario.

We have a history from 1975 up to now where tenants, people at the city of Toronto council, people at various councils across the province of Ontario, and my own political party, the NDP, have fought a long battle with successive governments to build up a system of rent control as we know it. We finally have in this province the most progressive piece of legislation when it comes to protecting tenants and landlords. That legislation was passed by none other than my own government, the NDP government, between the years 1990 to 1995.

This government is saying it doesn't only want to undo what we have done as an NDP government, it wants to undo rent control legislation even back to what was initially introduced under the Bill Davis government and go to a system of tenant protection.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Punish the poor.

Mr Bisson: Punish the poor is the exactly the point. Who's going to get hurt? It's going to be those people most vulnerable in our society who will get hurt.

I just want to speak to a couple more points because I've only got about three or four minutes in this debate. The government is saying one of the reasons it is doing this is because it's going to create the situation where the market will be better able to invest in the construction of new apartment buildings. They argue that the reason apartments aren't being built in Ontario is the high level of regulation when it comes to rent control. I say to Conservative members, hogwash.

If you look at the stats and you look at the reality and you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges across this country, where you look at jurisdictions that have no rent control or very weak rent control and compare them to Ontario, the level of construction is the same.

Why are there not a lot of apartments being built? It's very simply this: It's unaffordable. The cost of land, the cost of material, the cost of labour, the cost of taxes at the municipal level, the user fees that are introduced on the part of municipalities because of this government's actions under Bill 26 and the last budget make it difficult for people to invest in rent. So what do they do? They invest in condominiums. It's not the question of rent control that is preventing the construction of new apartment buildings, it is the cost of building.

I say, as the housing critic for the NDP, if the government is serious about trying to deal with the question of how you encourage the construction of new apartment buildings, I want to play a positive role in that, and so does the rest of my caucus.

We're prepared as the NDP to sit down with this government or whoever it takes to say, "Let's look at the question of cost of construction of new apartment buildings; let's look at the taxation level and how it applies to apartments across this province; let's take a look at the questions of licensing and user fees in regard to the cost of construction; let's look at land costs; let's look at what can be done." But don't come into this House and introduce legislation, as you will eventually, that says the panacea of stopping construction is rent control, because in that you're false.

The other thing I want to say is that the government is quite clever. One thing you've got to give this government is that it's politically very clever. They're going to come into this House and they're going to introduce a piece of legislation. They will say, "We are putting in place tenant protection legislation as it exists in British Columbia and as devised by the NDP government in British Columbia." They're going to try to compare that to our present system of rent control.

I want to put this on the record very clearly: In British Columbia, where the NDP put in place the system of tenant protection they have there, it went from no regulation to the first step. In Ontario we are not there. We have evolved a system of rent control over a period of 20 years, and trying to go back to do what they've got in BC would be taking Ontario's standards and pushing them back quite a ways. In BC it was a step forward. Why? Because they didn't have anything.

The BC government over there introduced tenant protection as the first step to try to deal with rent control, on a road to try to copy what has happened here in Ontario over 20 years. But this government and this minister of the Conservative government will try to make people believe that somehow that system will work in Ontario. You are kidding if you think that'll work in Ontario.

What will end up happening under tenant protection if you are a tenant and I am the landlord? The tenant comes to me and says: "It's the end of my lease and I need to renew. What is it, Mr and Mrs Landlord?" The landlord says: "You know, there are lots of people looking for this apartment. I think I can get another 10% on my rent." The tenant says: "Oh, I can't afford that, Mr Landlord. Let's see if we can work something out together." At the end of the process the tenant can't pay any extra, for whatever reason; the landlord says, "Too bad, so sad," the rent goes up 10%, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Yes, you can go through tenant protection legislation to some sort of arbitration board or hearings officer to plead your case, but the point will be that the landlord will have the hammer. The landlord will say: "Here is the cost of my apartment building. Look at the vacancy rate in my community. I can really rent this out to a whole bunch of people and I don't think it's unreasonable to push rents up by 10%." There will be absolutely nothing tenants will be able to do when it comes to that.

You're wrong in your direction. You're wrong for what you're doing. You should keep in place the present rent control system we have. It works. It has been in place for a number of years. It has served both tenants and landlords well in the province of Ontario. Your dismantling it only means to say we clearly know what side you're on. You're on the side of big business, you're on the side of those people who stand to make money by gouging tenants -- and I say it again -- gouging tenants for every penny they can.

On the last point, just before I wind down, I want to thank again my colleague the housing critic for the Liberal Party for having brought this resolution forward. I agree with him that we shouldn't allow partisan politics to get involved in this, but I wish you would have supported our legislation on rent control while we were in government and I wish you would have supported my resolution last fall that asked to do the same thing. But let bygones be bygones, Alvin. I am on side with you. We will vote with you because we believe that in the end what we need to do is come together and fight this government on the front of rent control.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind those guests in the gallery that clapping is a form of demonstration and we will not tolerate it.

I would like to bring to the attention of the members Ian Scott, a former member for St George-St David, in the west gallery.

Further debate?

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise now to respond to the comments made by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. I am a little bemused. They have raised the word "may" to a whole new art level in politics. The government "may" do this; the government "may" do that. The fact is that no one has seen any legislation that would change the existing legislation right now.

No one has seen it and yet there has been a policy of terrorizing tenants that this "may" happen, that "may" happen, a whole spectrum of opportunities that has not been brought forward, has not been put out for any discussion, indeed is not before this House for consideration right now. It's most unfortunate that tenants have been exercised the way they have so unfairly.

I want to remind the members, when they begin their lecture to the government, that it was a Progressive Conservative government that put rent controls in place in the first place. It was a Progressive Conservative government that recognized the needs of tenants in this municipality and in this province. I would like to see some understanding that this government truly understands the needs of its tenant population in this province.

I'm particularly shocked that my good friend the member for Scarborough North would bring forward this kind of motion, because it essentially says: "Let's do nothing. Everything that's in place right now is just fine. Let's do nothing with it." Let me suggest that's not quite what's happening in the real world. Take a look at rents, how they've been going up over the last 10 years. Let me, for example, ask you to consider what was happening to the tenants of Auburndale Court in Rexdale. In November 1990 they had to endure rent increases of 34%, at a time when inflation was in single digits.

I believe the Liberal government was in power at that time. The residents of 221 Balliol in Toronto had to endure increases totalling over 52% between 1987 and 1990. Is that working? I don't think so.

Rents that keep escalating quickly -- that's not working. The fact is that at the same time the rents have been going up, the housing stock has been deteriorating, maintenance has not been properly attended to. Every tenant in this province knows how serious the building conditions are across the province. The fact is that we are now almost causing tenants to be held hostage in their own buildings. There is no choice. Housing stock is not being created. There is no place for tenants to go that they can move to as an alternative to where they're living now. That has got to be addressed. The current system doesn't address it.

Legislation is so confusing now, no one knows what it all means and how it applies to tenants, particularly for their protection; six pieces of legislation, I remind this House, that are so confused, that are so convoluted, it takes a host of lawyers to weave their way through it to try to find any resolution to landlord-tenant conflict. The fact is that has got to change. It costs us $28 million a year just to administer, $28 million that could better be applied to shelter allowances to help people genuinely in need in terms of seniors, in terms of the handicapped, who have difficulty meeting their payments right now in the housing units. That's the sort of thing we should be addressing.

I want to suggest that if that's what the member for Scarborough North thinks is working, that is not what the government thinks is working. It certainly is not working right now. That entire system is out of control and is not working to the advantage of the tenants. Let me suggest that there are a number of things we have to begin to address.

We have to be very certain that we address the entire issue of tenure for tenants. They have to be absolutely certain they have tenure in their buildings; that has got to be addressed. There must be no dramatic rent increases. No one can live with the threat that today their rent may be at one level and tomorrow it may be at a level that is perhaps 30% higher. You simply cannot live in that kind of circumstance.

There must be a quick, meaningful and effective appeal process. Right now, the legislation is so convoluted that no one knows how to weave their way through the appeal process to deal with landlords, or for landlords to deal with tenants. It has become too expensive, too ununderstandable. In many cases, people throw up their hands and they walk away, landlords and tenants alike, and that has to be addressed.

The building standards have got to be enforced far more effectively across our municipalities, and the building maintenance and safety have got to be improved across this province. The fact is that right now we have to address the issue of maintenance. It will not be long before we begin to see some horror stories of properties that are deteriorating physically, and that has got to be addressed. Tenants have a right to be protected from deteriorating circumstances.

The improvement of choice as well for the housing stock has got to be addressed. Tenants can't be held to ransom in their apartments now. They have to have an ability to be mobile across the province or across this municipality. They have to have an ability to choose from various rental stocks. Right now, that choice is simply not there for them.

The fact is that the legislation itself has got to be changed and the six pieces of legislation probably have to be reduced, have to be consolidated, put into very simple, clean language so everybody understands what it means and we can save those costs. I can tell you that while consideration is being given by the government how to improve the legislation, the first cardinal rule of this government is tenant protection. That is the first cardinal rule of this government.

The fact is that there also have to be greater housing choices through increased supply so renters don't have to feel as though they're being held ransom and hostage, strong protection from unfair rent increases with a streamlined administrative procedure that doesn't cost the tenant a fortune to access, an understandable and an effective process, improved apartment maintenance, safety and security has got to be addressed and, finally, government support through shelter allowances to those truly in need.

Those are the cardinal rules that are of concern to this government and in fact this government, as the previous Progressive Conservative governments did, will recognize the importance and the urgencies and the sensitivities that affect tenants in this province, and you can be certain that this government will respond effectively for tenant protection.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I rise in full support of the resolution put forward by my colleague Mr Curling. I'm glad the member for High Park-Swansea recalled that it was in fact a Conservative government that first introduced rent controls, I believe back in 1973. He fails to mention, however, the reasons why a Conservative government believed that rent controls were necessary, because there was a low vacancy rate, because the rental stock was being depleted and was deteriorating at a rapid rate, and their only answer was to bring in rent controls.

They thought it might be temporary, I acknowledge that. It wasn't temporary because the rent controls were needed then and are still needed now.

The Conservatives now want to say rent control isn't working. The fact is the marketplace wasn't working and that's why rent controls were introduced and that's why rent controls are still needed.

Yet it was just two weeks ago in Stoney Creek that the Premier, Mike Harris, still said, "The market works better than any government plan." That might be the Premier's theory and it might be the wishful thinking of those who want to let the market simply rein free, but it is not reality. The marketplace was not working to provide affordable housing for tenants and it was particularly not working in the Metro Toronto area. It still will not work.

So where would the affordable rental stock come from when in Metro Toronto there is so little land to build on? Where would the incentive be for the private sector in this large urban area to provide affordable rental housing when there is still clearly a market demand for high-priced, high-end housing and where clearly the profits to be made by developers are in the building of high-end, high-priced housing?

The idea that removing rent controls will lead to new building and higher vacancy rates and lower rents is not only untested, it is very, very long term. And what happens to rents in existing buildings in the meantime while this theory is put to the test? Without any question at all, rents will skyrocket to levels that people simply cannot afford and that is what is unacceptable.

There is absolutely no question in my mind about what this Conservative government plans to do. They are planning to abandon rent control, and don't let there be any doubt about that. If there's any doubt about that, I just refer you to quotations from the Minister of Housing who has said, "Marketplace rent control will take the sledgehammer out of the hands of tenants." That does not sound like a tenant protection policy to me.

In answer to the questions that I was asking in the Legislature earlier this week, the Minister of Housing got quite exercised and said, "I think the Liberal Party and the NDP are the only people in the world who are in favour of rent control." Yes, we are in favour of rent control, and it is clear that this Conservative government is not.

But they're not ready to acknowledge publicly that they're going to abandon rent control so they're talking about alternatives, like simply taking the back-door approach where tenants will lose their rent protection if they move, and will therefore be forced to stay as prisoners in their rental accommodations in their apartments while landlords look for every possible means to evict them, including letting the quality of that housing deteriorate.

The member for High Park-Swansea says: "This is all just rumour. It's just a `may.'" With this government it is clear that today's rumour is tomorrow's reality and that nothing has been decided until the decisions have been made and it's too late for the people who are affected to have any say about it at all.

Now the member for High Park-Swansea says, "Well, we do have another alternative, and the alternative is shelter allowances." Let's put this one to rest once and for all. If this government thinks shelter allowances are a way of providing affordable housing, they've got to know that providing shelter allowances at a level that would be required to ensure that people could afford decent housing would bankrupt the government. There is no way they're looking at shelter allowances as anything but a copout as they abandon a rent control program.

That is why we are solidly in support of the resolution put forward by Mr Curling. We stated clearly and in writing during the election campaign that we supported rent controls, that we would not abandon rent controls, that we believe they are an important part of an affordable housing policy. I only wish this government had any affordable housing policy. In its absence, we can only plead with them to retain rent controls as they look towards some means of ensuring that housing is affordable to people in this province.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I would like to start by acknowledging the presence of some of my previous colleagues and some newer colleagues at city hall. We have with us today Kyle Rae, Kay Gardner, Michael Walker, Howard Joy and Pam McConnell; not in any particular order of favouritism here -- that's the way they're seated. I'm very happy to see all those members from city council here today because they have shown leadership in our community on rent control and tenant issues for many years. I know that Kay Gardner and Michael Walker, when I sat with them on city council, were leaders in the tenant movement and I, as a new city councillor, learned a lot from them.

When I was elected in 1988 to the Toronto city council for ward 8, I had some tenants -- not as many as some of my colleagues had -- but I know at that time the tenants in the riding of Riverdale, ward 8, were getting double-digit increases, some up to 30%, up to 50%, and if something was not done, they were going to have to leave the premises.

I learned how to organize from some of the members here today. Now I'm working with Peter Tabuns and Jack Layton, who are city and Metro councillors in my area, organizing again with tenants who, after the new legislation that our government brought in, I think got a little relaxed. I know some of the members here today were hoping that our new legislation under the NDP government would go even further. I know there was some disappointment at the time, because of the recession, that there would be less than the 3% rent increases allowed at that time.

I still think we had some work to do, but the legislation our government brought in was the toughest ever, and it was part of an evolution in Ontario over the years that was brought about by people like the councillors who are here today and tenant activists. They have worked long and hard for 20 years or more to get proper protection for tenants in the province of Ontario.

What we see today when we hear somebody like the member for High Park-Swansea talking about, "Oh, yes, we believe in rent control; we will keep rent control; we'll make sure tenants are supported," I say to him, I don't know how many tenants he has in his riding, but I can say to the members here, if they care about some of their Metro-area MPPs getting re-elected, they might look at what they're going to do with rent control very carefully.

In particular, I would say that to the member for Eglinton, who defeated Dianne Poole, a Liberal member here who was a very strong tenant activist. I heard Mr Saunderson on TV talking about, "Oh, we're going to make it better for tenants." That's what he said during debates. He won that election, and the people in his riding -- there's a very high tenant population -- are expecting better protection for them, because that is what he said. What we think this government is going to be doing is the exact opposite.

When I hear the Tory members say that one of the biggest problems we have with rent control is that it's a disincentive for people to build new buildings, I am shocked. That is ideology; that's not based on fact. I suggest to this government that it look at the evidence and the statistics that already exist. In other jurisdictions where there is no rent control or very little rent control, they have the very same problems with building new housing stock in those jurisdictions. That is not the answer.

Certainly pulling out of providing and being in partnership with community groups and others to provide other kinds of affordable social housing is a disgrace. When you have this silly, unproven theory that getting out of rent control is actually going to increase the housing stock, it is not only shocking, it is downright frightening.

Tenants are afraid in this province for a very good reason. They are afraid because we've been going through a recession for a number of years. There are many people living in apartment buildings in my area who can only afford a zero per cent increase. They are terrified about what this Tory government is going to do. They really are.

I would ask the members of this government to sit down and look at the statistics, look at the existing evidence and change the direction of their thinking, because if they don't, we are going to have a housing crisis in this province, and I'm particularly concerned about the Metro Toronto area where there aren't a lot of choices. We're going to have a housing crisis that this province has never seen before and it is going to be on their heads.

I urge the government today to support this resolution. I'm supporting it a bit reluctantly because I'd like it to be stronger than it is. I know that the wording of the housing critic from my caucus, his private member's bill very clearly supported the House endorsing the present rent control system which our government brought in.

I realize that the Liberals wanted to and said in the election that they'd like to take a look at that and I believe that's the thrust of the resolution, that you're strongly in support of rent control but would like to see other ways of going about it. But I'm glad that the resolution is here and that it's a very clear statement that the Liberal Party also supports rent control.

I urge all members to support this resolution.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I rise to offer a few of my comments with respect to the motion from the member for Scarborough North, which surprisingly enough calls on this government to rescind its promise to restore fairness and balance to Ontario's rental housing market. The member from Scarborough should know by now of course that when this government makes a promise, it certainly intends to keep it.

First of all, the member's resolution is based on inaccurate assumptions and statements, namely, that we plan to gut rent control and, second, that we are not working with tenants to ensure their rights will be protected.

We recognize that tenants need protection from unfair rent increases. We recognize the difficulties many would face if they were not protected in some form, especially at a time when many people are facing incomes which have been frozen or sometimes reduced. For every landlord group that the minister has met with so far, he has had similar meetings with representatives of tenants' groups, so I would suggest that when Mr Curling implies that we are not consulting with tenants, he is simply wrong.

At the root of the problem is a very simple economic equation of supply and demand. Rent control, which costs Ontario taxpayers today approximately $18 million a year just to administer, simply doesn't work well. It was introduced in 1975 with good intentions and, contrary to what the member for Scarborough North says, it has not been improved. In fact lately, through actions of previous governments, it has only been made worse and simply doesn't adequately serve the needs of either tenants or landlords.

Combined with the problems of how rental units are assessed and taxed by municipalities, rent control has led to a drying up of the rental housing market. Nobody simply wants to build any rental housing units any more because there are better areas to invest in.

At present, the vacancy rate in Toronto is 0.8% and falling. I think even the Toronto Star, that great bastion of Tory support and the great defender of conservatism, predicted back in February that the apartment vacancy rate in the GTA was forecast to drop to 0.5% this year.

So what does all this mean? It means that without substantial and swift changes we are facing a rental housing crisis in which the landlords hold all the cards and the tenants have few options. It comes back to that simple supply and demand equation: As supply goes down, demand and price go up. Last year only 25 private sector rental units were built in Toronto. Forecasts for the future of the rental market in the current situation are just as bleak.

For tenants, no change means no choice. Their buildings get more and more run down while at the same time, with no new apartment buildings being built, they have fewer choices about where they live and are forced to pay what landlords demand.

The challenge we face as a government is how to fix the broken rent control system. I should point out that even Mr Curling does not dispute that there are problems with rent control. In an appearance before the estimates committee on February 8, in criticizing our policy -- which I don't understand, because he hasn't seen it yet; no details have been released -- Mr Curling admitted his own failure as Minister of Housing during the Peterson government to correct a system in bad need of repair.

He referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing as "the second-largest landlord in North America," and said at that meeting: "As a landlord, you have failed. As a landlord, when I was there, I failed. As a landlord, as the Minister of Housing, as we go through, we fail. We have not brought decent and affordable housing to the people of this province and we must fix that. So I commend you to looking with respect to fixing the rental housing aspect in our province." It's amazing how times change.

The challenge that we face is to fix the current broken system by replacing it with a new system that protects the rights of tenants while at the same time encouraging developers to start building again in the rental housing market.

The solution lies in striking a balance between the interests of tenants, landlords and developers, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are looking at a number of options for new legislation that will protect tenants specifically from unfair rent increases and arbitrary evictions. We're looking as well at improving building maintenance and getting tough on landlords who don't take care of their buildings; producing a climate where people will invest in rental real estate again; and options which will streamline administration and cut red tape, be cheaper, faster and more fair.

If the member for Scarborough North is confused by those objectives, then I apologize. We simply can't be any clearer. How those objectives are going to be met will be announced by the minister at a later date. To suggest at this time that we are failing in our objective to fix rent control is premature and speculative at best, since the honourable member obviously has not had the opportunity to review any legislation, much less comment on it.

The best protection for tenants is to ensure a healthy supply of rental housing. When tenants have more of a choice of where to live, that forces landlords to be competitive with their rents.

I would like to quote an editorial from the Globe and Mail of February 6, 1996: "Rent control has been a dismal failure. It should be ended."

On the question of unfair taxation, in the same editorial they ask: "How will potential investors react when they realize that the GST on home builders is 4%, on non-profit builders is 3.5%, but on apartment builders the full 7%? Metro Toronto's tax assessments even more markedly, and illogically, favour single-family housing over apartment buildings. Apartment buildings are assessed as businesses, and pay property tax at a ratio four to five times that of homeowners. These extra tax burdens must of course be passed on to tenants -- and must be considered by anyone planning to build rental housing."

In his motion Mr Curling also referred to the cancellation of some 385 non-profit housing projects last July. But what he didn't mention is that his own Liberal red book promised as well to place a moratorium on non-profit allocations and review the effectiveness and management of the program. Again, how things can change in a few short months.

As we promised, we are looking into the possibility of introducing a shelter allowance subsidy program for those most in need rather than continue to spend $1 billion a year in the bricks-and-mortar industry.

As far as landlord-tenant disputes go, we are looking at putting in place an administrative tribunal that would adjudicate landlord-and-tenant issues outside of the courts.

The measures I have talked about represent the first meaningful attempts -- despite what Mr Curling claims today and in his own past has admitted his own failure to take on these issues -- in many years to build up the rental housing industry into something once again which will benefit both tenants and of course those who provide rental housing units. It's time that the government got out of the bricks-and-mortar industry and let the market take care of itself.

Mr Colle: I think this government has been very categorical about one thing: They don't believe in regulation -- they say that over and over again -- they don't believe in controls; they don't believe that government has a place in the housing business. They've said that. Therefore you're really saying that you're going to get out of protecting tenants and you're going to dismantle a system that isn't perfect but helps to protect tenants.

This government has a habit, any time tenants' organizations meet and deal with this concern over rental protection or when the city of Toronto called the meeting about protecting tenants -- they call that fearmongering. That's what they always say. You wonder why tenants across this province are afraid when in their own Common Sense Bible they say, "We will also direct the Ontario Realty Corp to develop a plan to sell the more than 84,000 units owned by the Ontario Housing Corp." This is why people are afraid; this government is basically dedicated to dismantling tenant protection and getting out of the business of providing public housing.

The city of Toronto has shown leadership on it. They have spent $250,000 on protecting tenants because they know what this government is planning. That's why that night, when the city of Toronto held its meeting, over 1,500 concerned taxpayers from all parties were saying they are afraid of what this government is going to do to them. Oddly enough, that day there wasn't one Tory MPP at that meeting to speak on behalf of tenants.

It's interesting to note that when they first got elected, the Minister of Housing and the Premier boasted that they were going to gut rent control. Every time they spoke to landlords and builders they said: "Watch us. We are going to get rid of rent control. It doesn't work." Now that they are approaching the by-election in York South, they're backpedalling and softpedalling that issue.

It's interesting to note also that when the city of Toronto resolution went to the city of York supporting rent control, the candidate in York South, Rob Davis, voted against the resolution. That is a very interesting bit of news for the people of York South.

All over Metro, people should be saying to this government, "Mike Harris, keep your hands off our homes." The people in York South next Thursday will be saying the same thing: "Mike Harris, keep your hands off our homes, especially when we're unemployed or our incomes have been cut with your cuts. Don't just feed big business and landlords. Protect seniors and those on fixed incomes who live in apartment homes."

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I will be supporting Mr Curling's resolution for a number of reasons. I want to tell you what's happening in my own riding of Ottawa East. With not only your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address it in French because only last week I had a meeting with a number of groups of people, who are very concerned about rent controls and the abolishment of rent controls in my riding.

Le gouvernement conservateur de l'Ontario met une peur dans la Révolution du bon sens en annonçant qu'on allait raser 86 000 unités de logements présentement subventionnés et abolir le contrôle des loyers. Dans mon comté, 65 % de mes commettants sont des locataires. Alors, imaginez la peur qu'ont ces gens -- des personnes âgées, des personnes qui vivent avec une petite pension -- de se faire mettre sur le trottoir, de se faire déplacer du jour au lendemain. J'ai rencontré ces gens pour tenter d'assurer que le gouvernement de l'Ontario ait un plan pour remplacer le contrôle des loyers.

Par contre, on attend avec impatience le plan du ministre des Affaires municipales et responsable du logement en Ontario.

Ce matin, lorsque j'entends mon collègue de High Park-Swansea et le député de Brantford, là on commence à voir une lueur. On commence a connaître les intentions du gouvernement. On veut simplement abolir, mettre de côté ce plan qui n'est pas parfait. Le contrôle des loyers n'est pas parfait. Je crois que M. Curling l'a admis. Tout le monde l'admet, mais il faut trouver une autre façon d'améliorer le système. Mettre de côté complètement le contrôle des loyers n'est pas la solution.

Je connais les intentions de mon collègue de Scarborough-Nord, qui a travaillé d'arrache-pied, surtout lorsqu'il était le ministre, pour améliorer la situation. Aujourd'hui le gouvernement tente de dire à M. Curling, «Vous avez raté votre chance lorsque vous étiez ministre responsable du logement et maintenant c'est à notre tour de changer, d'améliorer le système.»

J'encourage le gouvernement de nous présenter ce plan le plus tôt possible et d'éliminer les rumeurs, parce que ce qu'ils sèment présentement fait peur, avec raison, à tout le monde en Ontario, surtout aux personnes âgées, surtout aux familles qui ont un revenu faible.

J'encourage le gouvernement à cesser les rumeurs et à présenter un plan qui sera acceptable pour ceux qui veulent que la régie des loyers continue, pour ceux qui veulent contrôler les loyers en Ontario.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I would like first of all to deal with something the member across the way said when he talked about the fact that there's no rental stock being built right now in the province of Ontario. He suggests that somehow, if the rents remained the same, they wouldn't go up as a result of there not being any housing built in the province of Ontario. Of course, he's dead wrong. The reason that developers want rent controls off is so they can build more units and charge whatever they want for those units.

I would like to appeal to members of this House to look at it each within their own riding. We all represent either a large number of tenants or a small number of tenants. Anywhere from I suppose 10% in the more rural ridings to over 60% or 70% of the people who live in our ridings are tenants.

Those people right now live with a tremendous amount of uncertainty. We've already heard about the uncertainty of people living in public housing. As a result of comments the minister has made over and over again that the government should get out of the housing business, we have received petition after petition and urgent call after urgent call from seniors and from families across this province saying: "What's going to happen? Am I going to lose my unit?" Exactly the same thing is happening across the province with tenants who live in private accommodation.

I would like each one of us to examine our own situation and clearly understand that we represent these people as well. We don't just represent the developers, we don't just represent the private homeowners; we represent tenants in our own ridings. I would urge the Conservative members to remember that.

If there is a way you can improve the system, then do something about the fact that it takes many rent control officers in this province up to a year to make decisions on some matters that are put before them, and that is totally unacceptable both from a tenant and from a landlord viewpoint. To that extent, I totally agree that we have to do something about the system.

We cannot simply take the kind of situation the Minister of Housing suggests when he states, as my leader stated earlier, that market-controlled rent will take the sledgehammer out of the hands of tenants. That kind of statement can only have one

interpretation, and that

interpretation is that, as far as this government is concerned, tenants seem to have all the power and landlords have none at all, and we all know that's absolute nonsense.

We also know that when British Columbia abolished rent controls, the availability of housing remained static. A recent study at McMaster University has also concluded that rent controls have little effect on the supply or the sale price of private sector rental housing.

Support this resolution. Let the tenants of Ontario know exactly where you stand on it so that they can have some certainty in their lives as well.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough North has two minutes.

Mr Curling: In my two minutes I'd just like to make some quick comments, especially to the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Brantford. I want them to stare right in the face of their tenants when they go back to their constituencies and tell them that it is their government that has declared war on the people of Ontario. It is their government that has declared war on the most vulnerable people in our society, especially those who can't afford the kind of rates that are being paid in rental units today.

It is their government that cancelled the non-profit projects that were targeted to the most vulnerable people in our society. It is their government that wants to sell off the 86,000 units that are owned by Ontario Housing.

Let me correct the record now --

Interjection.

Mr Curling: Let me correct the record while you rant in your little place there, and I hope you learn something from this. We as landlords, the government that was managing 86,000 non-profit housing units, were terrible landlords. The conditions weren't good. Those are the ones we're talking about and that's why we said that, as a landlord, we as a government have failed.

We also have moved, very much so, from 1975, when the Tory government introduced rent control, and have improved upon it. What we have in place today is good. Of course anything can be improved. But the fact is, to destroy it now and talk about putting in shelter allowances and getting rid of rent control is the wrong way to go. Don't play political football with the tenants. It's their home.

Don't play with the shelter allowance. We know your plan. You want to reduce the shelter allowance level at the lower rate, more or less, fighting tenants to negotiate with landlords, whom you have already negotiated with in order to make their deal. The fact is, they are the ones who immediately cut off money for social welfare.

I ask them to support this resolution. Come to your senses somehow and support this resolution. It's the resolution that will put you in good stead with the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I'm sure you agree with that too.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to bring to the members' attention Gary Malkowski, former member for York East.

Mrs Boyd moved private member's notice of motion number 18:

That in the opinion of this House, since persons with disabilities in Ontario face systemic barriers in access to employment, services, goods, facilities and accommodation; and

Since all Ontarians will benefit by the removal of these barriers, thereby enabling these persons to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should keep its promise as set out in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, dated May 24, 1995, to:

(

a) enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within its current term of office; and

(

b) work together with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, in the development of such legislation.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I'd like to remind once again that the guests in the gallery are not allowed to demonstrate, and that includes clapping. We'll not tolerate it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the members that I would appreciate your attention.

Mrs Boyd has moved ballot item number 30, private member's notice of motion number 18. Mrs Boyd?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I want to begin the debate by reading into Hansard the letter that was mentioned in the resolution. It says:

"Dear Mr Baker" -- who is a member of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee --

"Thank you for your most recent correspondence dated May 3, 1995, concerning the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

"As I indicated to you in my response of May 11, 1995, to the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped questionnaire, a Harris government would be willing to enact an Ontario with Disabilities Act in the first term of office within the economic goalposts of the Common Sense Revolution.

"The accommodation issue is often the stumbling block when it comes to financing access to post-secondary institutions, transportation, government publications, training programs and communications. We hope, through cost efficiencies achieved in other areas of government, to direct much-needed funding to accommodation.

"I would be pleased to work together with your committee in the development of such legislation."

Today all members in this House have an opportunity to ensure that the government's promise becomes reality.

Why is an Ontarians with Disabilities Act essential? Persons with disabilities are a large yet severely disadvantaged group in our society, comprising at least 15% of the population. Disabled people experience massive unemployment rates far in excess of national and provincial levels. Because so many doors are closed to them, disabled people are grossly overrepresented among those receiving social assistance.

Those of us fortunate enough to be without disabilities take many things for granted: the right to go to our local school; to attend post-secondary institutions; the right to use public transportation, to travel in buses, trains and airplanes; the right to communicate with and to attend at the place of national, provincial, regional and local government; the right to seek and be considered fairly for a job; the right to access and use services, facilities and goods which are offered to the public, just to name a few. Persons with disabilities all too frequently are prevented from enjoying these rights.

The most obvious example is the proliferation of computer products which could easily be adapted to serve users who are blind, mobility-impaired, dyslexic and otherwise disabled. The technology gap the Minister of Education and Training has identified between users and non-users of computers is equally being created by the mainstream computer industry even as we speak by their failure to adapt hardware and software appropriately.

During these days when governments seem obsessed by budget cuts and government downsizing, persons with disabilities have been among the first and most seriously affected victims.

This government has taken many steps which further disadvantage the disabled: They repealed the Employment Equity Act; they repealed the Advocacy Act; they charge user fees for drug benefit prescriptions; they cut funding to municipal parallel transit for persons with disabilities and then tried to blame the municipalities for their cut; they threatened to weaken the building code obligations to make new and renovated buildings accessible; and they cut funding to education, which puts those in special need in special disadvantaged positions.

But what, we must ask, is the cost to our society when we exclude disabled people from full participation in our community? The price is high, it is avoidable and it is one that we will all pay sooner or later. The major costs are human costs. All around us today are many talented people who happen to have disabilities. Some have been able to overcome the numerous barriers they face through their own effort, resourcefulness, family and community support.

We all honour their accomplishment, but we must not laud them as superstars or be misled into believing that by their success our society is barrier-free, because also in our midst are many others who also have enormous talent to offer but who, because of the barriers they encounter, have never had the chance to shine.

These citizens slam up against public transit systems they cannot use, buildings they cannot enter, schools whose teachers don't know how to teach them, documents they cannot read and, worst of all, the stereotypical and exclusionary attitudes of many employers, service providers and government officials which continue to prevent people with disabilities from full access to jobs and other mainstream opportunities that the majority take for granted.

Even those who are more concerned about dollars than human costs have to admit that the cost of excluding the disabled from mainstream Ontario is enormous and is growing fast. We pay that cost every time a person with a disability is denied an education or a job and is driven to rely on social assistance. We pay the cost every time we buy an inaccessible bus which drives up the demand for the more expensive and less effective parallel transit systems. We pay every time an aging person ceases to be active and self-sufficient in our community, and aging is the most common cause of disability.

There will be a greater proportion of persons with disabilities in the year 2000 than ever in recent history.

We must act now to dismantle existing barriers and prevent others from being raised. Existing laws to protect the rights of the disabled have not succeeded in breaking down barriers. Equality rights in the Ontario Human Rights Code since 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1985 are important legal rights, but we know from long and bitter experience that they have not proved to be a total solution.

The time for action is now. Ontario must set an important and valuable lead in achieving a barrier-free society for persons with disabilities by the year 2000. The government must keep Mike Harris's promise to bring forward an Ontarians with Disabilities Act and to do so in close consultation with the coalition of people and organizations dedicated to this task. This House should know that despite his promise, as yet Mr Harris has refused to meet with the committee, and so has his Minister of Citizenship. I notice that the minister and her parliamentary assistant are not with us today, and I think that's shameful, because this is their responsibility.

We have lots of people with us today who are intimately concerned about this issue, and we must remember that those people do not have access to --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member opposite is in her second term. She knows it is against the rules of this place to refer to the absence of an honourable member, and she's done it on two --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I must admit that I didn't pay attention, but if this is the case, you're not supposed to do that.

Mrs Boyd: My apologies, Mr Speaker.

These people who came to be with us today, many of whom could not get into the chamber, are currently watching this debate on television in rooms elsewhere in this building. There are more than 50 people who could not get access to this building. You will see that there is space for only four wheelchairs. This is not appropriate. This is the kind of thing we need to stop.

The development and passage of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act is not a right- or left-wing issue; it is an issue which should be above partisan politics. One need not be a champion of civil rights to pass such a bill. After all, George Bush, the Republican President of the United States, passed exactly such a bill there in 1990.

Even those whose ideology opposes government regulation of the economy in most areas agree that government must intervene when the marketplace fails or has itself created a serious problem, and as people with disabilities will attest, the marketplace for jobs, goods, services and facilities has not served this substantial portion of our society.

Each of us here either has a disability ourselves or has the opportunity to look forward to when we may have a disability in the future, each of us has someone near to us who has a disability and each of us has constituents who look to us to serve their needs and their best interests. Therefore, it should be easy for us as a Legislature to pass this resolution in favour of going forward with an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This is not the act itself; this is a plea to the government to keep its promise, to work with the committee that has been organized from a coalition of individuals and groups to form the kind of legislation that will be acceptable.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Premier himself and certainly our party believe that the time is now for all of us to join together and show those with disabilities in our community that we truly honour them, we respect them, we welcome them to be part of a full life in this province. We have a rare opportunity today to make that promise come true.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind the people in the gallery that you're not supposed to clap.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It is a pleasure for me to address this House today on the issue raised by my honourable colleague the member for London Centre. I would like to comment on this resolution presented by the honourable member. I have no problem with the intent of this member's resolution; I have a difficulty, however, with the content and the wording chosen by her and what she implies in her speech that she has just given us. She implies that this government has done nothing to reduce the systematic barriers in access for disabled people.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Destroy the system.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Interjections are not allowed. She has the floor.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Tell her to stop being provocative.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Tell her to be honest.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You're wasting your time. The member for Huron.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Get her to tell the truth.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane North, I want you to withdraw that remark.

Mr Len Wood: I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mrs Johns: Let me just remind you what was said during the campaign. I am quoting from the ARCH TYPE May-June survey of three political parties. This is what our party said:

"A Harris government would be willing to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within the first term of office within the economic goalposts of the Common Sense Revolution. The accommodation issue is often the stumbling block when it comes to access to post-secondary institutions, transportation, government publications, training programs and communications. We hope, through cost efficiencies achieved in other areas of government, to direct much-needed funding to accommodation."

The Harris government is committed to the interests and dignity of persons with disabilities and is sensitive to the challenges they face both in the workplace and in society as a whole. The challenges faced by the disabled community are being addressed by this government, and they are being addressed through a number of initiatives and will continue to be addressed through our term. These aims can and will be achieved within the economic goalposts of the Common Sense Revolution.

I would like to share with the House information on the recent initiatives taken by this government, and my colleague the member for Nepean will share with you information pertaining to initiatives coming from the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As work in these areas progresses, we will continue to encourage input from all interested parties on how to effectively address the concerns of persons with disabilities.

If I may have the indulgence of my honourable colleagues, I would like to list some of the recent actions taken by the ministry I'm associated with, the Ministry of Health. These initiatives, combined with the actions taken by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, contribute to and encourage the dignity and autonomy of disabled people.

In the budget we announced $170 million this year to provide in-home care, longer-term care that we are reinvesting in to provide seniors and disabled people with care in their homes instead of in institutions. This means an additional 80,000 people in communities across the province will receive services such as in-home nursing care, housekeeping and meal programs.

I have a specific example to share with you. In Sault Ste Marie, an additional $200,000 will be pumped into the system. With this, the community decided that they would like to have 12 more people with disabilities able to find housing. They will live independently within the community with these dollars. Dollars are being allocated from the community to disabled people.

Reforms to Ontario's long-term-care system will simplify access, preserve existing community-based organizations and reduce administration through the establishment of the community care access centres.

At the present time, 70 people with disabilities are currently participating in a pilot project to test the option of receiving direct cash payments to recruit, manage and pay for their attendant care services. I have met with some of the people who are in this pilot project during the focus groups that I set up for long-term care.

We have invested $25 million in dialysis machines. We announced $23.5 million to enhance community-based mental health services. We've reinvested to get our people with acquired brain injury home. And we will provide $10 million this year, and it will grow to $20 million, to expand services for preschool children with speech and language disorders.

The government's commitment to the interests and dignity of persons with disabilities is not restricted just to the Ministry of Health. There are a number of other actions being taken across other ministries.

At the Ministry of Transportation, funding to municipalities for specialized transit services for people with disabilities will remain at the current levels for the next two years. Fully accessible conventional transit services is part of the ministry's "family of services" concept of services for people with special transportation needs. This includes specialized transit, community buses and accessible taxis, and it will be achieved in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner.

In reforming the welfare system, we have protected income support for seniors and people with disabilities. The government in its budget has announced plans to move seniors and people with disabilities off welfare and on to an Ontario guaranteed support plan that meets their needs, respects their dignity and continues to protect their benefits.

Mr Agostino: When? When are you going to do it?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton East, order, please.

Mrs Johns: At the Ministry of Education, incentive funding to colleges and universities is provided to assist them in meeting their legal obligations to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities, and this funding will be maintained at its current level.

It is mandatory for school boards to provide or purchase from other boards special education programs and services for students with exceptional needs.

Lastly, as part of the ministry's contribution to the equal opportunity plan, which the member for Nepean will discuss in further detail, MET will soon be releasing policy statements on workplace equal opportunity and anti-discrimination education to school boards, colleges and universities.

So indeed, this government is showing its commitment to people with disabilities. As we move forward with work in these areas, we will continue to encourage input from all interested parties on how to effectively address the concerns of people with disabilities.

Mr Agostino: I rise in support of the resolution of the member for London Centre. I'm somewhat surprised that the member on the government side of the House would actually talk of the accomplishments this government has made in relation to the disabled community. Maybe I can outline some of those accomplishments.

The first thing this government did was cut 5% of all agencies across this province that deal with the disabled community: the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Deaf-Blind Association, the Ontario March of Dimes, the Canadian Hearing Society, the CNIB, and the list goes on and on.

Then they cut funding to municipalities, which impacted transit: Wheel-Trans in Toronto, DARTS in Hamilton.

Then they decided they were going to cut welfare benefits, and they promised they were going to protect seniors and disabled. My colleague across the floor just spoke of that commitment. Let me remind my colleague that as of the end of March there were still 12,438 seniors and disabled receiving a reduced welfare rate when you promised in the Common Sense Revolution you were going to move them to a protected category. You have failed to do so. It's almost been a year and you still have over 12,000 seniors and disabled who have had their benefits cut when you promised you weren't going to do that. That's the commitment this government's talking about.

We're now talking about redefining "disability." That's a great buzzword for saying, "We're going to find a way of ensuring that less people are eligible for disability benefits across Ontario, and we'll move those individuals to the welfare system as well," so they can get less benefits and the government can save more money. I can tell you that's what it will mean. When the redefinition of "disability" comes down, you will see a definition that will limit in scope, in magnitude, the number of people who receive disability benefits in Ontario, and that will be a smaller number than it is today.

In regard to this resolution, what we're talking about here today is simply an opportunity for the government to act, to do what it said during the election it was going to do. It's not a question of special rights, it's not a question of special privileges, there's a question of equal access and equal opportunity. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act would ensure that by the year 2000 we will have a truly barrier-free province in every aspect.

In my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth, a great deal of work has been done. We've had the advisory committee on the physically disabled, headed by Councillor Geraldine Copps, who is here with us today -- and many of the members of the committee are here in the gallery -- which over the years, for a very small amount of dollars but a great deal of work and dedication and commitment, has made tremendous strides and tremendous progress in Hamilton-Wentworth in removing many of the barriers that exist in our community. Much has been done; a great deal more has to occur.

My father spent 23 years in a wheelchair as a result of an industrial accident, so I know at first hand the barriers, I know at first hand the difficulties, I know at first hand the struggles that many individuals have to go through. What this act is simply asking is for the government to move to ensure that the barriers that are there in education, in job training, in access to government information, in communications, in transportation, in goods and services and facilities, are removed. It is a simple question of equality. It is a simple question of acting on a commitment that was made.

The disabled community doesn't need to be patronized, doesn't need to be patted on the head and made to feel good, doesn't need wonderful words to tell them how wonderful they are. What the community needs is action. You are the government. You have the power to act, and within the mandate. My fear is that if you wait and you wait and you wait and you introduce some wonderful action in 1999, or some response to this three or four years from now, the time will run short. The goal of a truly barrier-free province by the year 2000 will not be met, because you can't do that kind of change in a year. You can't make those types of changes in six months.

I urge the government to act today on its commitment. The commitment is clear, it's unequivocal, and the one way we can get that ball rolling today -- I know the two opposition parties are going to support this resolution -- is to have the government members support the resolution. This is a free vote. This is an opportunity for you to move away from the clutches and the restraints of government and cabinet and speak out on behalf of your constituents and send a clear message to the Premier and to the cabinet that we want to ensure that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act is proclaimed and moved upon very quickly.

I urge government members to support this. You will be sending the best signal that any of us in the House can send today by supporting this resolution and not doing what is necessarily feel good, not doing what is necessarily special or different, but doing what is right and what is equal and what is necessary in this province.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to take just a moment before our critic, the member for Fort York, expands on our position on this issue. Like my colleague for Hamilton East, I wish to recognize the work that's been done in our community of Hamilton-Wentworth and particularly to note that my former seatmate, Alderman Geraldine Copps, is here today, who, for all the time that I have known her, has devoted the majority of her effort in the interests of helping the disabled in our community. I'm pleased to see that she's here today to represent Hamilton-Wentworth and to be a part of this important issue.

I want to say very directly to the government that the most vulnerable people in this province are, first of all, the ones you've gone after first, the ones you've gone after the hardest, and they're the most frightened in this province. The government ought to believe it; people are frightened. Your agenda hurts people. Your agenda denies people hope. It denies people an opportunity to have a decent standard of living and a decent quality of life. Here's an issue that you ran on. One of your promises was that you would do something about this issue. If this government is going to hide behind weasel words like economic goalposts, then this is nothing more than a blatant broken promise.

The very least this government can do for the disabled, if they won't advance their cause, at the very least, keep your one promise to the most vulnerable you made in this society and do something in this area. Show you have at least a drop of human compassion because, quite frankly, there are millions of Ontarians who are convinced you don't care about them at all, and there's growing evidence that is the case.

I look to my colleague from Fort York and I thank my colleague from London Centre for raising this issue, but it's the government that has the responsibility, morally, legally and ethically, and we call on them to keep that commitment.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the people in the gallery that you're not allowed to applaud; only the members on the floor, not the members in the gallery. Further debate?

Mr Baird: In the time left available to me, I would like to examine a number of initiatives coming out of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in this government.

For instance, the ministry has within its purview the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Ontario Human Rights Code provides for protection against discrimination on the grounds of disability. The goal of the code is to ensure that all Ontarians have equal rights and opportunities in employment, accommodation, goods and services, and facilities.

This government recognizes that persons with disabilities face physical and attitudinal barriers which often prevent them from being judged on their merit and from achieving their full potential. To help persons with disabilities participate in the paid workforce and in the volunteer sector, the equal opportunity plan launched following the repeal of the former government's quota legislation will include a fund to support access and accommodation.

Officials within the ministry are refining program design, assessing alternative service delivery options and actively implementing initial deliverables. Employer associations, employers and other parties have been contacted and are playing a leading role in equal opportunity partnerships. Management Board, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Education and Training are implementing specific equal opportunity initiatives for their sectors.

Through our government's equal opportunity plan, we are establishing a fund to support access and accommodation for persons with disabilities, to participate in both the paid workforce and in the volunteer sector. The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health will develop proposals for a pilot project to test cost-effective accommodation components of employment-related programs for persons with disabilities.

We're making plans for a one-window information referral service, a clearinghouse of equal opportunity business resources, demonstration projects to encourage best practices and partnership building, and training in education through workshops, conferences and alternative formats.

We are committed to equal opportunity for all Ontarians through the development of an equal opportunity strategy. We are promoting fairness, removing workplace barriers and helping build an Ontario where hiring and promotion decisions are based on merit.

Last month, the Minister of Citizenship announced the initiative for vulnerable adults. This was the government's response to the legislated end of the Advocacy Commission as part of Bill 19. This government's approach to advocacy is non-intrusive. It supports community-based services without creating new legislation or duplicating services. Our approach provides support to families, volunteers, community workers and health professionals who are already delivering excellent services.

I know the honourable member opposite sat on the committee which examined Bill 19, and she and her colleague the member for Fort York delighted in repeating during the hearings and afterwards that this government would not provide any financial assistance to those most vulnerable in our society. In the debate on third reading, they asked for $3 million. They said that's what deputations had asked for. Well, our initiative for vulnerable adults has committed $3 million -- let me repeat that -- $3 million to a community-based approach to supporting the dignity and interests of vulnerable adults.

The support for advocacy services will include the coordination of community-based advocacy through community development and other assistance, including a refocusing and near doubling of the community action fund to $2.25 million; funding for an information and referral service including a toll-free line; funding for a clearinghouse for resource materials, and materials to support training and education efforts; a requirement that provincially funded and operated institutions provide accessible ways for dealing with the concerns of vulnerable adults.

Mr Christopherson: You cut $25 million.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, you had your turn.

Mr Baird: As well, the ministry is looking at strategies to deal with abuse and neglect when it occurs. These strategies, among many others, include developing minimum safeguards to protect against abuse in institutions; working with stakeholders to develop and implement protocols to address abuse and neglect; developing guidance for enhancing police response to elder abuse; reviewing current practice with respect to prosecutions of abuse against vulnerable adults -- regrettably, I don't have time to list them all.

To conclude, I would be remiss if I did not bring to the attention of this House a rather curious inconsistency in the sponsorship of this resolution by the member opposite. This inconsistency should be addressed by the honourable member before we vote on this resolution. Why is it that today the honourable member for London Centre calls on the government to implement an ODA when her government failed to act on an ODA when it had the chance?

In a survey presented by the member's interest group, the party position was, "This is an issue that will be considered by the government in its second term." However, this is the same government which let the former member for York East's bill die on the order paper. Why didn't they call it for debate? Was it a busy legislative agenda? Did the House not have time to consider the legislation? The House only sat for some 20 days in the year leading up to the election campaign. It's curious why in five years, with so much free, available legislative time, not one single vote on final reading was ever called on this legislation. I think it's very important to point that out.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted today to support this resolution by the member for London Centre, because it is essential that we discuss this matter today.

I am reminded that in the past each of our parties made promises to the disabled community, and when we're being examined today, each of our parties could have done better.

Are we asking something extraordinary today from the government? No, we're not. We're simply asking that a promise to establish the Ontarians with Disabilities Act be kept. Obviously it is essential to ensure justice and fairness in Ontario. Justice and fairness mean access to jobs, justice and fairness mean access to our transportation systems, justice and fairness mean access to education and a host of other things.

If you will permit me to give you just a bit of history, in 1983, the United Nations proclaimed the Decade of Disabled Persons for the whole world.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. You're not allowed to use any props in the House, please.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's not a prop; it's a scroll.

The Acting Speaker: Just place it back on the desk. You can refer to it, but I would ask you to refrain from using a prop in the House.

Mr Ruprecht: I want to read from it.

The Acting Speaker: Put it on your desk and you can read from it.

Mr Ruprecht: I will read it, Mr Speaker.

In 1983 the United Nations proclaimed the Decade of Disabled Persons. What did the party in power do? Did they immediately act on the resolution of the United Nations? No. It was pushed aside. In fact it was pushed aside until 1985, and at that time, of course, I had the honour to become Ontario's first minister for disabled persons. But at least the government, within 30 days, acted on the Decade of Disabled Persons and immediately established a secretariat with a special minister to ensure that the promises that had been made previously were kept and some guidelines were to be established.

What are those guidelines that all of us agreed on, that each party signed, that in fact the whole community signed in Ontario? The principles are:

"

(1) That the dignity, independence and potential of persons with disabilities will be respected in all aspects of life.

"

(2) That persons with disabilities have equal rights and equal obligations in common with all citizens to participate in and contribute to community life.

"

(3) That efforts will be made to increase public knowledge and awareness of the abilities and needs of persons with disabilities in order to break down the barriers which exist due to a lack of understanding and outmoded attitudes.

"

(4) Public cooperation will be sought to promote positive action in broadening access of persons with disabilities into the life of the community.

"

(5) Services and programs will be aimed at integrating persons with disabilities into existing social and economic structures" -- the word you like so much.

"

(6) Consultation will take place among governments in all sectors of society to ensure a coordinated effort will be established."

We all signed this and we tried to ensure that these will be guidelines not only for all Ontarians to understand but guidelines and principles for all of us to follow. Have we kept that promise? No. I'm reminded two years ago I was asking at that time the present government of the NDP, "Where is the minister of disability?" Two years ago, I couldn't find him because he was axed or she was axed, gone.

I asked the second question: "Where is the secretariat of disabled persons? Where did they disappear to?" The same question can be replied with the same answer: axed and gone. The reason I'm bringing this to your attention today is because all of us agree essentially on the principles and today we can do something about it. I support the resolution by the honourable member for London North; her colleagues support the resolution; all of us will support the resolution. I hope that the government, you too, who are speaking right now, will also support this resolution.

Why am I asking that question? Because I'm simply saying all of us could have done better and we have a chance right now to support this resolution simply because we're not asking anything out of the ordinary, we're asking for simple justice and fairness for Ontario's disabled persons, and today is the day that we can at least maintain part of our promise.

Mr Marchese: I'm very happy to stand today to support the resolution from the member for London Centre, because I think it is an important resolution and she has been a very strong advocate in this field for a very long time. I want to speak to some of the comments that have been made by the members from Huron and Nepean. I think the pernicious actions of this government vis-à-vis the issues of equity are very, very transparent.

The previous government introduced employment equity legislation that was designed to deal with issues of inequality as it relates to women, people of colour, people with disabilities and aboriginal people. We did that with the knowledge that historically these groups have not had the same access to employment equity, to employment fairness in the workplace. We introduced another piece of legislation, the Advocacy Act. Through the Advocacy Commission we thought and felt that people, frail seniors and people with disabilities, would once and for all have a voice they have not had for a long, long time.

We did it with the knowledge that people in the field for 20 years were screaming for an Advocacy Act. We had introduced it.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: One of the members says it didn't work. They had barely five months to begin to introduce a system to bring about greater fairness for these people and these members say it didn't work. Your pernicious actions are very transparent. In a matter of weeks, with a few simple words, you repealed the Employment Equity Act and you repealed the Advocacy Act. You have absolutely no shame when it comes to destroying everything we tried to do that restores, gives people with disabilities, people who have been traditionally shut out, an opportunity for greater fairness. You have broken all that down, tearing it down, and you're not building anything with your actions.

So what does this government say? "Don't worry. Employment equity is gone, but you are all equal. Discrimination is against the law so you should all feel good about the fact that because discrimination is against the law, you are all equal. Therefore, there is no discrimination against women, no discrimination against people of colour, no discrimination against people with disabilities because it's against the law." If it were against the law, why does discrimination continue to exist?

I alluded to a study that the Ministry of Citizenship did the other day where four in 10 Chinese Canadians said, "There's discrimination against us." The response from the Minister of Citizenship was, "Discrimination is against the law." I guess Chinese Canadians should go home and feel good because this government says we are all equal and there is therefore no discrimination. But the people who are hurt by discriminatory attitudes know that discrimination continues and that what you have done by repealing the Employment Equity Act and the Advocacy Act is a despicable, inexcusable act, and those people affected by it will not forget it.

The member for Huron continues and says, "We have an equity plan." Nobody knows what the equity plan is. No one in government knows what the equity plan is because there is no plan. There is no plan that gives equity to people who traditionally have been discriminated against. She talks about the resolution here that speaks to the fact that this government in 1995, May 24, promised to deliver an Ontario Disability Act. She says, "Ah, but there are a few words following that, and those few words are `within the economic goalposts.'" What does that mean? They're taking down the net.

They're taking the posts and the net is gone. That's really what it means. There was no promise if you accompany the whole promise by having economic goalposts. If you take the posts away, there is no promise any more, which means you didn't mean to promise it, except to deceive these people that somehow when you went into government you would do something about it -- complete flim-flam deception from this government on this very issue.

The Tories talk about the few millions of dollars that they're putting in to support seniors, that they're putting in to support women on issues of breast cancer, the $5 million they're putting to feed the kids in the schools, but they fail to remind you they have taken $8.3 billion out of the budget by next year, $8.3 billion gone. Then they say, "Oh, but we're putting in a few million dollars to protect women, to protect people with disabilities, to protect seniors and to give food to the children in the schools." But they've taken the base and the foundation away. They've torn down the building.

They take a few bricks, give them back and say, "But look what we're doing for women, for seniors, for people with disabilities." Does that make sense to those of you listening here, to those of you who have been able to be here today to witness this? Does that make sense? I say it doesn't make sense.

They refer to the Human Rights Code as the mechanism for dealing with discrimination, and they say: "But we've got that in place, so don't worry. If you've got a problem with discrimination on the basis of a disability, on the basis of race, you can go to the Human Rights Commission. And don't worry, we promised that once we would get rid of the Employment Equity Commission, we would put some of that money back." Lo and behold, they did not. I knew they would not. These are promises that are very empty when it comes to issues of this sort.

The couple of million dollars they said they would put back to the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not there; in fact, they took $700,000 away from the Human Rights Commission. But they say, "That's okay, because by taking money out of the system, we're going to make it more efficient." That's what they say. They say, "We are going to do more with less." We know the story of Jesus around this, but I'm not sure the Tories can do it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. No interjections, please.

Mr Marchese: We've heard about Jesus being able to do some miracles of this kind, but surely the Tories, as all of you here have witnessed, not just today but over a period of time, can't do it. They cannot do more with less. It's quite obvious. It's contradictory. You cannot do more by taking out a lot. It seems in the Tory world, the Disneyland of the Tories, they can do it, but those who are watching and listening know that you cannot.

The Human Rights Commission is a good thing. The Human Rights Code is an important thing, because it says, "You shall not discriminate," and it's a good mechanism and tool for people to have. The problem is, it's complaint-driven. It says that where you have been aggrieved, where there is a problem and you feel there has been discrimination, you've got to take it there to the Human Rights Commission, and then the loops in the Human Rights Commission -- so many of you here today know the loops you've got to get through to get your case heard.

But don't worry, those of you present today. The Tories are going to make it better, because they're taking money away and they're going to do more with less. So your case, if you get there, will be dealt with. It will not be dealt with very easily, because the backlog is long, because it takes a great deal of time, because it takes a huge effort from an individual who seeks redress to get there and then to suffer the length of time that it takes to get your story dealt with. It takes a long, long time.

So the Human Rights Code and the Human Rights Commission are important to have, but it's not enough. We need something more. We need to be able to deal with physical barriers that are in society at every imaginable level; arbitrary measures that prevent full participation in employment, in job training, in housing, in public and private transportation, in goods, facilities and services. We need to remove those barriers, those physical barriers, and we need to deal with attitudinal barriers that are within the system, that are systemic, and they're not going to go away.

Voluntary educational opportunities, voluntary educational programs, will not work; they do not work. We need a law. You, Conservative government, have made a promise. Your leader, and perhaps some of you don't know this, made a promise, May 24, 1995, that he would deliver through an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Where's yours?

Mr Marchese: No, not where's mine; where is yours? You made that promise, and you like to keep your promises. Except when you go after the vulnerable, you don't keep them. But when you have to go to get money from the very wealthy, who are avoiding paying their taxes, you take your sweet time to do it.

We need an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to supplement the Human Rights Code,

an act that would promote the removal of serious existing barriers and prevent the erection of new barriers;

an act that would provide specific direction to employers, landlords, service providers, manufacturers in housing and transportation. We need an effective process for enforcement, and we hope, through this resolution and through the act that your Premier has promised to introduce, that finally we will get justice for people who have been excluded for a very long time. Hopefully, you will remedy your mistakes of having repealed the Employment Equity Act and the Advocacy Act and eliminated the Anti-Racism Secretariat through this promise of introducing an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Periodically, matters come before this House that would allow us to set aside partisan rhetoric, and I believe that this resolution would have been one of those and should have been one of those resolutions that would have allowed us to do that. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

But what I would like to do is take this opportunity to commend the member for London Centre for bringing this resolution forward. I also believe very strongly that it's very important that we, as a government, do as we said we would do and protect those who are the most vulnerable in our province. I agree with the member when in her resolution she states that all persons should be able "to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province." I will be supporting this resolution.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'm very happy to hear that the honourable member across the way is going to support it, because this is a free vote, and I think this gives every member on the other side an opportunity to support something they believe in. It encourages your government to proceed down the road to establishing the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I know that you also always emulate initiatives south of the border. As you know, the American government has the Americans with Disabilities Act, so I think it's part of what you believe in, to follow good things they're doing south of the border.

I would just like to say that one specific example that concerns me about the government's track record on this is that there are sometimes things that happen below the surface. I know, rather than getting into statistics and budget numbers, the way your government has impacted on real people. I have a single mother in my riding who has a disabled child. One of the first things your government did was to cut her social assistance. I appealed to the minister and said: "This mother is the friend and caregiver of her disabled child.

She dresses him, she clothes him, she walks him, she plays with him and takes him to school. When you cut $300 from that mother who stays at home taking care of her child and friend, you're cutting that disabled youngster." Despite that appeal, this mother right now cannot pay her property taxes and cannot put enough food on the table. That $300 a month not only affects the mother, who supposedly is able-bodied, but has been an impact on that disabled child who is part of her family.

That's where you've hurt people. It's not just a matter of numbers, it's not just a matter of economic goalposts; we're talking about human beings. We're not talking about sports or playing fields, we're not talking about economics; we're talking about human dignity.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In our society, people who do not require the intervention of government are the wealthy, the powerful and the privileged. Those who do need the intervention of government are the disabled, the disadvantaged and those unable to speak for themselves. We, as legislators, have that opportunity to speak for those who often are not in the major halls of power and do not have the advantages that others have.

Not that many years ago people with disabilities were relegated to the sidelines, left to fend for themselves and dependent upon the charity of others. Progress has been made in recent years, but it has often been with resistance from those who believe they have been inconvenienced.

Significant cuts have taken place by this government, these cuts have impacted adversely on the disabled and the families of the disabled and they have been unable to meet the needs they have as a result.

When people representing individuals who are developmentally challenged, people from the associations for community living, gathered on the front lawn of the Ontario Legislature a few years ago when the NDP government was in power -- they were there to protest the level of funding at that time -- members of the Conservative Party were very quick on that occasion to condemn and eager to support those who were on the front lawn.

Conservative members now have the chance to translate that express concern into action. They can do so by supporting this resolution, whose time has come, not only by supporting the words in the assembly this morning, not only by rising in their seats to vote in favour of it, but also by acting upon the provisions of this resolution. The action will be the measure by which you are judged as opposed to simply the symbolic standing in the Legislature.

I encourage all members of the Legislature to rise and support this motion and to ensure that the government moves forward to implement its provisions.

Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to stand and summarize the debate for this resolution. I have listened with great care to the members of the opposition, as have, I am sure, all the people here to hear this: my daughter, who is a 25-year-old with multiple sclerosis; two of our former colleagues, one born with a disability and one having acquired a disability; and all the others here and in the rooms in this place who are going to be watching to see whether this government is going to keep its promise.

The weasel words in the promise are enough to protect you, because if you make it possible for disabled people to be self-sufficient, to be taxpayers, it will be well within the goalposts of the Common Sense Revolution.

That is what these people are asking for. All they want out of life is to have the barriers that have been erected in the past destroyed, the barriers that we erect every day in the way we do things not to be erected in the future, and for us to actually give them equity, not equality. When you have a disability, equality is not the same thing as equity. Equity means that you actually have the chance to access that opportunity, and it cannot be on the basis of simple equality. They will always remain disadvantaged under those circumstances.

I urge the members of this House: This is our opportunity to keep a promise and it is an opportunity for us to dedicate ourselves to rectifying some of the wrongs of the past, to really show people that we do not just have fine words, that the dollars we have are not the most important thing. The most important thing is working with them to help them be productive and contributing members of society. That is all they want.

If in fact we destroy that opportunity by making it impossible for school boards to continue the supportive work towards equity for students -- and many, many school boards are telling us, and I know they're telling you, that the job of providing that opportunity, certainly within the local community, is disappearing, given the cuts that have happened to education.

We know, yes, there's some money going in to help disabled students in universities, but I can tell you, those who try to get around most universities know that it is a drop in the bucket to what needs to be done. And let's look around us here today. Those of us who cope every day with this wonderful historic building know what barriers are and we know how hard and how difficult it is to try and remove those barriers. But the last three governments of Ontario have been committed to doing that in this place, and we know we have not yet succeeded; we know we must keep on trying. We can do that in other places.

The member for Brantford says he can't vote for the first resolution because of a promise made by the government. Let me tell you, you must vote for this resolution because you also made a promise to the disabled of this province.

RENT REGULATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 29, standing in the name of Mr Curling. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Curling has moved private member's notice of motion number 19. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 30, standing in the name of Mrs Boyd. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Boyd has moved private member's notice of motion number 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1204 to 1209.

RENT REGULATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Curling has moved private member's notice of motion 19. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Curling, Alvin

Martel, Shelley

Bisson, Gilles

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Gerretsen, John

McGuinty, Dalton

Bradley, James J.

Grandmaître, Bernard

McLeod, Lyn

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Phillips, Gerry

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Kwinter, Monte

Ruprecht, Tony

Colle, Mike

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Silipo, Tony

Cordiano, Joseph

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Crozier, Bruce

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Johns, Helen

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Johnson, Bert

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Boushy, Dave

Johnson, Ron

Sampson, Rob

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Shea, Derwyn

Doyle, Ed

Klees, Frank

Sheehan, Frank

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stockwell, Chris

Froese, Tom

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Hastings, John

Parker, John L.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 30; the nays are 26.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: The members in the gallery -- order, please. Order. The members in the gallery are not allowed to applaud.

I declare the motion carried.

I'd just like to remind the members that the doors will be open for 30 seconds to permit those who are outside to come in or for those who want to leave to leave now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now vote on the private member's notice of motion number 19, introduced by Mrs Boyd.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Galt, Doug

McLeod, Lyn

Baird, John R.

Gerretsen, John

Munro, Julia

Barrett, Toby

Grandmaître, Bernard

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Parker, John L.

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Phillips, Gerry

Boyd, Marion

Johns, Helen

Preston, Peter

Bradley, James J.

Johnson, Bert

Ramsay, David

Brown, Michael A.

Johnson, Ron

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Christopherson, David

Jordan, Leo

Ruprecht, Tony

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Sampson, Rob

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Shea, Derwyn

Colle, Mike

Kwinter, Monte

Sheehan, Frank

Cordiano, Joseph

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Silipo, Tony

Crozier, Bruce

Laughren, Floyd

Stockwell, Chris

Curling, Alvin

Marchese, Rosario

Turnbull, David

Doyle, Ed

Martel, Shelley

Wildman, Bud

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Wood, Bob

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wood, Len

Froese, Tom

McGuinty, Dalton

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters related to private members' business having been debated, I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): In the city of York we have witnessed at first hand the impact of the Harris slash-and-burn agenda. The first thing the Conservative government did without warning was cancel the Eglinton subway project. This resulted in 10,000 lost jobs, jobs that the people of York were basing their hopes on -- hope for a York city centre, hope for urban renewal and hope for better transportation. Cancelling the Eglinton subway means not only more unemployment but also continual bumper-to-bumper traffic, more traffic jams, more air pollution and unbearable congestion 24 hours a day.

Next on the chopping block seems to be our Northwestern General Hospital. Where will our seniors go for emergency care? Where will the 800 people who work in Northwestern hospital find new jobs? Mr Harris said he wouldn't cut health care, yet he's cut $1.3 billion.

Where are the jobs for all the young people who could have worked on building the Eglinton subway? Where are all the jobs for the young people who could have worked at Northwestern hospital or teaching in our schools? What good is the Harris tax cut when you've lost your job? What good is it?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This morning we passed unanimously a resolution that was introduced by my colleague the member for London Centre. It reads as follows:

"That in the opinion of this House, since persons with disabilities in Ontario face systemic barriers in access to employment, services, goods, facilities and accommodation; and

"Since all Ontarians will benefit by the removal of these barriers, thereby enabling these persons to enjoy equal opportunity and full participation in the life of the province;

"Therefore, the government of Ontario should keep its promise as set out in the letter from Michael D. Harris to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, dated May 24, 1995...."

People with disabilities, who came here in great numbers from London, Hamilton, Toronto and many other areas, demand full participation in society as people who deserve and want to work and want to contribute in society. They want physical barriers removed. They want attitudinal barriers to be dealt with by government in a proactive way.

They say that the Human Rights Code is not enough, that they need something much more proactive to be able to deal with discrimination as it relates to people with disabilities. They want Mike Harris, the Premier of this province, to keep his promise and deliver on the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We urge him and the minister to meet with them as soon as possible to do that.

ENDOMETRIOSIS

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a challenge for the members in the House today: Can they identify this disease?

This is a disease that affects approximately 500,000 women in Canada. It is a condition where tissue normally found in the uterus is also found in other areas such as the ovaries, the bowel and the bladder, causing internal bleeding.

The cause is unknown and the symptoms include, but are not limited to, chronic pelvic pain, ongoing fatigue, low resistance to infection, extensive allergies and difficulty becoming pregnant.

It is commonly found in 10% to 15% of women between the ages of 25 and 44, but can also be found in teenage women. Between 25% and 50% of infertile women have this sometimes very painful disease.

Treatment is individualized, based on patient's age, severity of symptoms and reproductive wishes. Only by totally stopping ovarian function can doctors prevent the recurrence of this disease.

For those in the Legislature who are still unsure, I'll help them. The disease is endometriosis and May 19 to 25 is their awareness week. I trust that all members who were unsure of the answer of this challenge at the beginning will learn more about this disease.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): We're now seeing the full effects of the 5% cut that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has made to agencies across the board in this province, the $86 million that was taken out of these agencies in July.

We need not look any further than a riding like York South to see the impact of the Harris revolution, dozens and dozens of casualties in this war to deliver a tax cut to the wealthy in this province.

One must wonder why service provided by the community information centre for the city of York on Eglinton Avenue would have funding cut by this government. One would have to go down to 2468 Eglinton Avenue West and visit the York Child and Family Centre to see the impact of the funding cut on children and families in York and in the riding. I wonder why Mike Harris cut the York Child and Family Centre.

I wonder why Tory candidates like Rob Davis support the cuts to the centre, cuts to the Jane Woolner Neighbourhood Association on Jane Street, cuts to the York Community Services, cuts to the children's aid societies, cuts to women's shelters, cuts to seniors' and disabled services, benefit cuts to seniors and disabled.

The list goes on and on. It is too long. It would take hours to read the list of casualties in York South as a result of this government and one must ask the Tory candidate in York South if he supports these cuts, if he supports every single one of the agencies that the Mike Harris government cut by 5% last July.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Last Thursday evening, the Sudbury and District Labour Council and a number of teacher affiliates organized a forum on cuts to education in our community. The event was very well attended by teachers, parents and students and it demonstrated the strong concern that people have with the cuts to education being made in our community. These run counter to the promise made by the Conservatives in the Common Sense Revolution, specifically, and I quote: "Classroom funding for education will be guaranteed."

The fact is that education cuts in our community have led to the following: The St Albert Learning Centre is now at risk of closing; the separate school board has sent layoff notices to 100 staff and its tax increase is just over 6%; the public school board has issued layoff notices to 135 staff, and these include education assistants, guidance counsellors, two special education teachers and a psychologist, and their tax increase is 5.9%; junior kindergarten was protected this year, but trustees made it clear that the future of the program was dependent upon the level of cuts expected by the Conservatives to education next year.

People at the forum had a message for Mike Harris, and it reads as follows:

"Stop the cuts to education!

"and

"Ensure full funding for quality education programs

"Invest in future success by fully supporting early childhood programs

"Maintain a broad range of courses and programs for all students through to high school graduation

"Maintain full services for students at risk

"Invest in Ontario's economy by maintaining day school programs for adult students."

I agree with all of those people.

MEMORIAL CUP HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House to inform all members about the Memorial Cup hockey championship currently being played in Peterborough. The Memorial Cup is Canada's junior A hockey's prestige trophy. I believe that the level of organization and keen interest that our community demonstrated towards the sport of hockey played a key role in bringing the Memorial Cup to our city. Peterborough truly is a great city to host a major hockey championship.

Since the tournament began last weekend, the city of Peterborough has benefited economically and has provided an excellent venue for spectators to witness the skills and talents of future hockey greats.

Such an event brings a great deal of activity and excitement to any community. Many community events have been planned around these hockey championships and all have been most successful.

Community spirit is alive and well in the city of Peterborough. I would like to wish the Peterborough Petes, Guelph Storm, Granby Predateurs and Brandon Wheat Kings all of the best as they enter the final week of tournament play, and congratulate the entire community for a job well done.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): You know, there was a time in On