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

April 6, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Apr-06 (PDF)

L038 - Thu 6 Apr 2000 / Jeu 6 avr 2000

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA PROTECTION DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY OF MOURNING

POLICE OFFICERS

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

DIALYSIS

SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

DAY OF MOURNING

TARTAN DAY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DAY OF MOURNING

VISITORS

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

MINING INDUSTRY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION POLICIES

VOLUNTEERS

ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS

BUILDING REGULATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PETITIONS

TENANT PROTECTION

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

GASOLINE PRICES

KARLA HOMOLKA

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COLLECTION AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES AGENCES DE RECOUVREMENT

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA PROTECTION DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS

Mr Marchese moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to authorize certain municipalities to restrict the demolition of rental residential buildings / Projet de loi 30, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités en vue d'autoriser certaines municipalités à restreindre la démolition d'immeubles d'habitation locatifs.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Mr Speaker, this is a very important bill for the New Democratic Party. It continues to be a worry for us as a party. When we were in government we realized that we needed to build decent and affordable housing for people, because we know that not everybody in this society is wealthy enough to afford the kind of rental accommodation at the high end, and they certainly cannot afford the kind of condominiums that have been built under this government.

This doesn't solve the problem of affordable housing across the province, because it doesn't deal with the construction of housing, as you understand, Speaker. You know that the federal government has abandoned us. You may also know that in 1990 your colleagues at the federal level, through Mr Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, co-authored a report saying we needed a national strategy on housing, because he understood there needs to be a role for the federal government in the construction of housing. He knew that in 1990, when he was in opposition. But when he formed the government, along with M.

Chrétien, they abandoned a national policy on housing. In fact, they continue to devolve all their responsibilities to the provinces and say, like the provincial government, that they are not in the housing business. Although they have committed some dollars to support housing initiatives generally across the country, there is not a single cent for the construction of housing.

I know my Liberal friends beside me will decry the policy of the federal Liberal government-I am convinced. And I know that when the three speakers here will speak to this, they will admit that the federal government has abandoned its national responsibility for the construction of housing, and that if they should be in government they would not do the same. I know they will say that, and I want to hear that.

In my view, what the federal government has done is negligible, negligent and wilful. In knowing they should play a role and not doing it, in my view, they have been a part of the destructive problem in this country, a part of the national disaster we are decrying here in Ontario in terms of homelessness, and a housing disaster that most people of modest means simply cannot afford to have decent, affordable and accessible housing.

At the provincial level, we know that Mike Harris says, "We're not in the housing business." He says that what we as New Democrats did was bad. We argue that we constructed housing because it was healthy competition in the private market, that when you have non-profit housing, co-operative housing and similar types of housing, it makes housing competitive. We know that the buddies of the Conservative government said: "This is bad. We don't like this kind of competition.

We don't like governments getting into the housing business, because it cuts into our business." We say that, as part of this free-market system, offering affordable, accessible housing is a good thing, as a way of not only making housing accessible but keeping rents down and affordable.

They have different interests, and they listened to those who are very wealthy, the big property owners, who told them, "Leave the job of construction to us." But we know that the private sector has not been building any affordable units except, of course, condominiums that are inaccessible to those of modest means. That's not what we need. What we need are units that people who make $20,000 to $30,000 can get into. These days we need units that most people who make $40,000 to $50,000 can afford, because it's becoming a more difficult problem for people.

You know that wages have gone down in the last 10 years. Wages have gone down, and rents have gone up. Rents have gone up approximately $1,200 for a two-bedroom unit, and you know that wages have been frozen for most people since the 1990s. So we have a serious problem on our hands.

While we know the federal government doesn't want to spend money to build, and we know the provincial government doesn't want to spend money to build, we propose a modest bill that says: "Let the municipalities control the demolition of their buildings. Let's keep affordable stock." That is a modest power that you are giving to municipalities.

When you downloaded services to the municipalities you said, "Don't you trust municipal governments to do the job?" When you downloaded housing as a responsibility on the cities, did you not say: "The cities are best suited to provide housing, because they know what they're doing. Don't you trust them to do that job?" In the same way that you fine Tories made that argument, I hope you'll permit this modest bill to go forward, because this says, "We trust municipalities, local governments, to do what is best for their citizens."

This bill cuts across the entire province. This bill empowers municipalities to protect the housing stock in the context of a housing crisis. I hope that the Tories will support this bill.

Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester): I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak against Bill 30. As parliamentary assistant to municipal affairs and housing, I have more than a passing interest in this debate. Bill 30 represents the grief and the frustration felt by landlords and tenants with the NDP rental policy, which certainly wrecked havoc in this province during their mandate. Through the NDP policies of restriction and limitation, they effectively brought this province into the depths of economic despair. In stark contrast, our government has worked hard to raise Ontario to new heights.

Over 670,000 new jobs have been created since 1995, and Ontario once again leads all of Canada in economic growth.

One of the reasons why this government has been able to make such dramatic economic recovery is because of our focus to create growth and investment. With growth and investment, everyone benefits, through greater choice and greater opportunity. Therefore, I wasn't surprised to learn that the member for Trinity-Spadina has put forward a bill that would effectively mute future investment in affordable housing. Nor was I surprised to find so many others who are opposed to NDP rental policies.

"Landlords Vow to Outlast NDP Regime" was a headline that ran on January 2, 1992, in the Toronto Star. The opening line is a quote from Harry Taylor, who happened to be a landlord in the former municipality of East York, who stated that in four years' time he had hoped a new government will "recognize the cost of doing business as a landlord." In fact, Mr Taylor had grown so frustrated with the NDP rental policy that he was quoted as saying that he'd sooner stuff his money into a mattress than sink more into his East York apartment block.

Is this the rental policy that we wish to create? As parliamentary assistant, I can assure my colleagues that that is not the case. Bill 30 would only manage to reintroduce the frustration and angst expressed by Mr Taylor. Luckily for Mr Taylor and the people of this province, his wish for a new government came true. The need for change was acknowledged and came about in the form of Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act.

Bill 96 was designed to restore the balance and the fairness to the rental system. Our focus was clear: to establish an environment to encourage investment in the construction of new rental housing and to secure the rights of tenants. To secure the rights of tenants; that's worth repeating. We created a balanced system by empowering landlords and investors with the flexibility to properly manage the growth of their investments. This ultimately serves to the benefit of the investor, the tenant and the province.

Bill 96 allows municipalities to use their official plan policies to manage conversions and demolitions in the best interests of their constituents. Through that planning exercise, they have the ability to forecast and protect their communities and design for future growth.

As you can clearly see, Bill 30 would destroy that flexibility and balance that have contributed to the success of the current system. As a result of our policies, investment strategies such as the mattress stuffing are no longer publicly threatened as stories of hope and prosperity begin to appear.

For example, in a story that ran in the Ottawa Citizen on August 18, 1997, Mr Greenberg of Minto Developments, one of the premier builders certainly in our province, stated, "In the next two weeks, Minto will be announcing a three-year, $25-million capital improvement program for our Ottawa portfolio." That is a substantial investment, and "Bill 96 is one of the main reasons we've got the confidence to make such a massive investment." Mr Greenberg goes on to say, "Bill 96 represents an important, symbolic first step to providing tenants with truly their best form of protection," which is choice.

Mr Greenberg wasn't the only one praising our policies. Prominent Liberals have also praised the Tenant Protection Act. Just ask the Liberal chief of staff about his comments that appeared only last year in the Toronto Star. In reference to the OMB decision preventing the city of Toronto from removing an investor's right under the Tenant Protection Act to convert apartments to condos, current Liberal chief of staff Philip Dewan said: "Current tenants need not fear for their apartments.

The Tenant Protection Act provides that any tenant in a building being converted to a condo would have the right to remain for life. It's far more reasonable to have constant rules than to have a city council going on a deal-by-deal basis." Not only does the Liberal chief of staff support our legislation, but through this quote he clearly disagrees with the intent of Bill 30. Bill 30 does not serve the best interest of Ontarians; it only serves to undermine the progress that this government has made.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): It's certainly a pleasure to join the debate on Bill 30. At the very outset, I just want to make it very clear that I and the Liberals support measures of protection for tenants from the demolition, from the reduction of the affordable housing supply. Of course, the member didn't acknowledge in his remarks, but I know he would, that it was the former Liberal government which did introduce the Rental Housing Protection Act in Ontario which, of course, was repealed by the introduction of Bill 96.

The previous speaker, the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, was extolling the virtues of that piece of legislation. It's interesting that when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was at the Urban Development Institute, a scant 10 days to two weeks ago, he was whining to the developers saying, "Why aren't you building affordable rental housing?" It was an absolute whine, a repudiation of just about everything the member just said, that his own minister, the member he serves, has acknowledged to the developers, to the landlords, that in fact there is virtually no construction of rental housing going on in the province.

As I said, we support these measures and as such I'll be supporting the bill, of course, in principle, even though I do have major concerns about the approach in this bill. I think that we really need to pass it, get it into committee, introduce some amendments, so that we can make sure it is an appropriate, sensible and workable bill.

Let me tell you about some of my concerns about Bill 30. I have a concern about the role of municipalities. The member read into the record the four conditions that he's attaching to the prohibition of demolition, and the first one is really very strange: "The council is satisfied that the rents that were charged for each rental unit in the rental property one year before the proposed demolition were at or above a level specified by the council." Frankly, councils don't have the power and the authority to specify what the level of rent should be, nor should they.

Is the member seriously proposing that a municipal council now take on the power to assess each rental property within its borders? That's a ridiculous provision. I think it's probably misworded by this member. One of the reasons why we need to get it into committee is to clean up that kind of wording.

I really have no doubt that municipalities are very interested in protecting the rental stock. The city of Toronto in fact had moved a similar bylaw to protect their rental properties, the character and nature of their neighbourhoods here in the city. It was Progressive Conservative Tory activist Jane Pepino shilling on behalf of landlords to be able to get the demolition, to challenge that bylaw, and it was the Ontario Municipal Board appointed by this Conservative government, Harris appointees, which struck down the Toronto bylaw.

I again differ with my colleague opposite about the council's ability to protect their neighbourhoods through the Planning Act when you have an activist Ontario Municipal Board in contradiction to what assurances were given, not only by this member, but by the minister and his predecessor on the introduction of Bill 96.

We've seen in Toronto, we've seen in Ottawa, we've seen in Hamilton an interest in the preservation and protection of rental property. I've had meetings with many municipalities, with tenants, with activists, with people who are interested in protecting rental housing in all of its forms, and they have some very real concerns about what the Harris government has done.

I have concerns, of course, about the aspects of this bill. As I said, I don't think that the power that's being proposed for municipalities is necessarily appropriate, and this wording really does need to be reworked. There are other approaches to the conversion and demolition of rental properties.

I believe one of my colleagues, Michael Bryant, the member from St Paul's, will be talking about this at great length, He will be sponsoring the bill from the city of Toronto, which has the endorsement of the council. In fact, every member of the Ontario Legislature has received a letter from the mayor of the city of Toronto, encouraging them and requesting them to support the private legislation giving the city of Toronto the authority to halt and delay conversion and demolition of very-much-needed rental accommodation.

By the way, this is in line with what Anne Golden said in her report. She was very specific. She said that cities ought to be able to have this kind of authority. What she said was, "There should be no loss of rental buildings." In fact, we've seen that consistently over the last couple of years because of measures like Bill 96. This is Bill 30, a measure to correct that.

I have concerns, by the way, that this legislation does absolutely nothing to redress concerns around the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which is just imposing a horrible burden on tenants, causing evictions at untold and unprecedented rates. I have of course proposed Bill 36, the Tenant Protection Amendment Act (Towards Fairness for Tenants), which contains six solid proposals to redress the imbalance in Bill 96 under the current tenant and landlord laws. The proposals have been very well-received. I encourage the member and the government to call the bill quickly for debate.

As I said, I will be supporting this bill. I hope to get it into committee so that we can make the appropriate amendments and make it a workable bill for the protection of rental housing.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I stand to speak in support of this private member's bill and to commend Rosario Marchese, the member of Trinity-Spadina, for his lifelong passion and commitment to the issue of, among other things, affordable housing.

The Tories had better understand that there's a crisis here in the city of Toronto. In the two-year period between October 1997 through to October 1999, the average rent in the city increased by over $1,000 a year-in fact, by $1,128. The average rent on a downtown two-bedroom apartment is approximately $1,200 a month.

If you use the standard of 30% of income to pay for housing-and when you're spending 30% of your income to pay for housing you've got precious little left for all those other sorts of things that you need to raise and maintain your family-you're talking about a yearly income of over $46,000 being required to rent that two-bedroom downtown Toronto apartment at the average rent of around $1,200 a month.

Mr Caplan is quite right. Ms Golden made it very clear that the city needs more affordable housing. That can't be disputed. There isn't a fair-minded, reasonable- thinking person who would dare suggest that that's not the case. This city, the city of Toronto, needs more affordable housing. It's a given. Anybody who suggests otherwise is either very naive or has motives that are suspect.

Ms Golden also warned that it's not only a matter of needing more affordable housing, but it's a matter of needing to preserve the existing stock of affordable housing, a stock that is rapidly being deteriorated and attacked by big-price developers, big-money people. We're not talking about small landlords who rent the upstairs of their two-storey home to students or to another senior. Please. We're talking about money here. With this government, money talks.

With this government, money motivates legislation, because the fact is municipalities had the power, the city of Toronto had the power to protect its affordable housing stock, didn't it, until this government abandoned low- and middle-income tenants, betrayed them, threw them at the mercy of the big-money developers with this legislation back in 1998.

I encourage members of this assembly to support this bill at second reading. I hear the concerns about some of the language used in the bill. Let's understand, this is not legislation that's being imposed upon municipalities; it's permissive. Municipalities "may" utilize this legislation. So for municipalities, if there are any, that don't suffer the crisis that the Tories have imposed upon affordable housing or within the area of affordable housing here in Toronto, if there are municipalities that don't have that crisis, the municipal council doesn't have to utilize these modest standards.

Clearly, condition number one is designed to have some mode of establishing what is affordable housing. It's a difficult thing to do without a complex formula. That's why it's important that this bill go to second reading-it's at second reading-and that it go to committee so that members of all three caucuses and the people they represent can come here to Queen's Park. And if committees ever travel again-it seems the only time committees travel under this government is when they think it's in their interest to try to get some local press, where there's been a paucity of positive news coverage of the Tory agenda.

But if committees were ever to travel again so that people in communities across this province could make proposals-

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): The pre-budget committee was in Niagara.

Mr Kormos: That's right. The pre-budget committee was down in Niagara and they got trashed. It may be a long time before they're back in Niagara-it was remarkable-where angels fear to tread.

But it remains that this should go to committee. Let's hear the criticism of it but let's also hear, as I'm sure we will, from those thousands upon thousands of hard-working, good families, families with kids, families who deserve decent, affordable housing, who have choices, as the Tory spokesperson says: the choice to either buy a high-priced, poorly constructed condo or live on the street. That's the choice this Conservative government gives those families. Mr Marchese wants to give them one other choice: affordable, decent housing for them and their families.

Ms Mushinski: I rise in the House today to speak, obviously, against Bill 30 introduced by the member for Trinity-Spadina. We all know that the intentions of the member for Trinity-Spadina are noble, as always. It's his actions, however, that are misguided, as usual.

As a member from an urban riding, I'm quite aware of the difficulties that many people face in finding affordable rental housing. In fact, approximately 40% of the constituents in my riding rent one form of housing or another. Over my 17 years as an elected official, I've heard my share of horror stories about the rental housing market.

My concern with this bill stems from the third party's and the opposition's refusal to address the root problems of affordable housing. For years there was a lack of new rental housing developments in the city of Toronto. It was not profitable for developers and landlords to invest in new, high-density housing. Few units were being built and little was reinvested to repair and maintain existing units. Our stock of rental housing was crumbling; many units lacked proper utilities or were home to more insects and rodents than humans. In fact, under the old Liberal regime, rental housing starts fell 21.4%.

With Mr Marchese's NDP government behind the wheel-in fact, some would say they were drunk behind the wheel-it was even worse. Rental housing starts plummeted by an outrageous 74.4%.

We had to take steps to encourage the creation of new housing stock.

The first step was to create incentives for landlords to create new housing and better maintain the existing stock while still protecting tenants. That is why our government created the Tenant Protection Act. We recognized that the course previous governments had taken would only lead to a greater crisis in the housing market, and indeed it did.

In my riding of Scarborough Centre alone, over 8,000 new housing units have been constructed since 1995. Many of these units are privately owned condominium units, over 50% of which are sublet by their owners as rental apartment housing. In fact, plans for a development of several hundred units just a mere block away from my small suburban townhouse have been dusted off after a decade. Under the Mike Harris government, rental housing starts have increased by 100% and total housing starts have increased by 50%.

The second step we took was to help create an economic environment that would make investment in housing more attractive and that would make it possible for more people to afford better housing.

This was aided by our government's recognition that another factor in the housing market is take-home pay. A key component of the Common Sense Revolution was the recognition that hard-working taxpayers deserved to keep more of the money they earn. By cutting provincial taxes, we put more money into the pockets of Ontarians. This has helped lead to the creation of 610,000 net new jobs. Compare that to a loss of 10,000 jobs over the disastrous five-year period of Mr Marchese's government.

It was clear that we could not continue to travel down the path of previous governments. With the economy, health care, education, welfare and justice, we refused to follow the impotence of the Liberal and NDP governments and their experiments with public housing.

As an interesting aside, I read an

article in NOW magazine a few months ago-and for those of you who don't know, NOW is renowned as a socialist bible-that the publicly owned Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is the landlord that is most likely to evict a tenant in Toronto. As a government, we have built an atmosphere that has created more new housing than either of those two governments and one that has resulted in a great reinvestment in our housing stock.

We must continue to make bold and innovative decisions when dealing with our housing stock and refuse to go back to the old, worn-out concepts of the NDP government. Their housing plan has proven to be a failure, much like their justice plan and their deficit plan. I could go on, but I'll spare you the gruesome details.

This bill would only serve to reinforce the NDP's reputation as the Titanic of Ontario politics.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I support this bill because I support anything that will improve the disastrous black hole, legislatively, that is the Tenant Protection Act.

When this government came in and brought that act in, it undid 15 years of legislative efforts by the Bill Davis government, the Peterson government and the Rae government to build up tenant rights. We all understood in this province that housing isn't a commodity that-we're not talking within the free market that you can give and take and trade as if it is a level playing field. When the vacancy rate is very low, as it is in the city of Toronto right now, it's a monopoly for the landlords, and in the midst of that monopoly it's the government's responsibility to provide some legislative redress to help tenants.

Sixty-eight per cent of the people who live in my riding are tenants. It's an urban riding. It's a midtown riding. For them, housing is not a commodity, it's part of living in the city. Not everybody can afford a house. Of course, there's simply no way that all 68% of St Paul's residents who now rent could own property. This is part of the urban reality.

So what do you do? You try to come up with legislative solutions for the problem. I have a solution and it's a private bill. It's a private bill that has been supported by city council. They are drafting it as we speak. It's supported by the mayor of Toronto. A letter of support has gone out to every MPP in this House. I would hope it's supported by the New Democratic Party as well. It will be introduced. I have to tell you it's not a partisan bill. It's a very constructive solution to try to correct this monopoly that exists. It basically gives back to cities powers to control their own housing stock.

Let cities, in this case the city of Toronto, decide the criteria by which demolition takes place.

The Ontario Municipal Board found that in fact rental stock is going down in this province and that the vacancy rate in Toronto is less than 1%. They found that in a decision in which their hands were tied by legislation. I don't know if I agree with the decision, but they said their hands were tied by legislation and they permitted the demolition of affordable housing in my riding on Tweedsmuir: Two buildings full of seniors, elderly people, many of whom have lived there for 25 years are now being thrown out into the streets. Into what market? A market where the vacancy rate is less than 1%.

We need to stop demolitions and condo conversions in Toronto, and in Ontario we need to give to cities the power to make that decision.

The housing critic, Mr Caplan, and I announced outside of Tweedsmuir last fall, long before this private member's bill was introduced, that we ought to bring this private bill in. It received the support of city council in November, before this private member's bill was introduced. I look forward to introducing this private bill that I'm speaking of in this session, provided that the city gets the bill drafted and passed in time.

Again, it's a constructive solution. I support this bill and I hope that I can count on NDP support for my private bill, because we have to fix this disaster, this absolute disaster that has been created in Ontario through the Tenant Protection Act. We have to take this I guess neo-conservative experiment that was the Tenant Protection Act and correct it, and the way to do it is to support this bill, yes, but also we need to support the non-partisan bill that has the support of the mayor of the city of Toronto to make sure that in fact we correct the housing disaster in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?

Mr Marchese: Just a couple of things-and there's so much to say. The member for Scarborough Centre said so much and I'll do my best to respond to it in the time that I've got.

I hate to remind some of my Liberal friends who were not here that when we introduced the Rent Control Act the Liberals opposed it. Now, of course, in opposition they're saying, "We need rent control." While in opposition they said, "We need real rent control, meaningful rent control." They try to weasel with words about our rent control not being right, but they would find the right one and meaningful rent control. God bless. We tried to do the right thing in 1990 because we saw skyrocketing rent increases that people could not afford.

The recession came and we tried to protect those who could least defend themselves in a recession. God knows what would have happened if the Tories had been in then. That's what we tried to do. You came into power with your own mandate and you got rid of rent control and introduced the tenant protection package. Poor tenants, if only they knew. They're getting to understand that that Tenant Protection Act, previously the tenant protection package, had nothing to do with them. It was a way of lulling tenants to sleep. If they only knew what was contained in the bill, they would have woke up with rage.

But if you title a bill the Tenant Protection Act, you can simply say to tenants, "Don't worry your little heads, this bill is for you," until you face the situation where you are in court trying to deal with above-guideline increases to the rent. All of a sudden you say, "My God, when did this happen?" My only hope is that tenants will wake up.

This bill is not just for Toronto. The Liberal member says, "I hope the NDP will support our non-partisan motion, which is for Toronto." Why wouldn't I support that bill? But when the two of you speak as if this bill doesn't quite do it but yours does, I have to tell you it makes me a little ill. My bill is intended to solve it for cities across our beloved Ontario, including the city I have lived in most of my life-in fact, this very riding that I live in and represent. Why wouldn't I support such a bill?

I say to my Liberal colleagues that this bill gives power to all cities, to all municipalities of 25,000 and up, to determine for themselves, if certain conditions are met, that some rental buildings will not be torn down. What is wrong with such a power, I ask, member for Scarborough Centre?

Interjection: They're not torn down unless there's replacement stock.

Mr Marchese: I read the conditions. I'd hate to read them again. I think they are quite clear. You have it in front of you. Please read it. It is an enabling power to municipalities to keep affordable housing stock. There are conditions attached to it where cities could say: "That's fine, you can probably take it down. It's crumbling." Of course no one is going to say, "Keep it up." That is one of the conditions we stipulate.

What is wrong, member for Scarborough Centre-you as a former city councillor-with giving municipalities that power? Haven't you and others before advocated that cities are quite properly situated to defend the interests of the population, particularly as it relates to issues of this sort? It's a minor issue. I'm not asking you to change your bill, because I know you are hell-bent on keeping it. I know that. Why would I ask you to make changes that you will not make? This is something you can do and live with.

The member for Scarborough Centre mentions many things that are wild. I'm not sure who read those supposed statistical facts for you, but you're quite wrong. I'm going to try to read them into the record for you so that you know. In 1995-this is Professor Hulchanski, who has done a great deal of work in this area.

Ms Mushinski: I know who he is.

Mr Marchese: I'm sure you do.

In 1995, the Ontario government told us that the private sector would build the rental housing we need. Private sector rental housing starts in Ontario averaged 857 units per year for the four years 1995 to 1998, a small amount to address the high need. In the previous four years, 1991 to 1994, the period New Democrats were in, the average number built per year was 2,768. These are the facts. But you said our starts were much lower. I don't understand who wrote that paper for you, but you've got to get that research person out, and quickly, because they are wrong.

I'm not sure how you can challenge these figures of Professor Hulchanski. Maybe you have a another professor emeritus for everything in your caucus who compiles them on the fly. It's quite possible, Speaker.

Mr Kormos: The Tories don't read non-fiction.

Mr Marchese: The Tories don't read non-fiction? The number of private sector rental starts was even higher in the years prior to 1991, meaning that under the Liberals we had a lot of rental housing starts. I wouldn't want to criticize the Liberals all the time. To give them credit where credit is due, they built too. We built them to give people choices. The choice is not between homelessness and a nice, lovely condo by the waterfront. That's not the choice we want. The choice we want is affordable housing for people who only earn $20,000 or $30,000.

Just a few more facts, Member for Scarborough Centre: In the 1991 census, owners' average income was $73,000 and renters' average income was $38,000. In the 1996 census, owners' average income was $74,000 and renters' average income was $36,000. Do you have a sense of the problem and the scale of the problem we're speaking to?

The housing starts you speak of are the type of houses in the Woodbridge area and the ones you wanted to build in the Rouge area and the Oak Ridges moraine area. These are the housing starts you are building for people who have the money to afford houses, but for rental accommodation-

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I hope you will have an opportunity to speak again, Member Mushinski. It would be so nice to hear you.

The people who have the bucks can afford houses. Rental accommodation, the ones we're not building, the ones your buddies are not building-they've got nowhere to go.

Another study, Madame Mushinski from Scarborough Centre, since you spoke to this: Over 300,000 tenant households in Ontario are paying more than 50% of their income on rent. Many tenants are at immediate risk of becoming homeless. In most parts of Ontario, tenant incomes are falling even as rents rise faster than inflation.

We have a crisis. How can you deny we have a serious problem on our hands? How can you? Study after study shows we have a disaster. We've got the disaster relief fund people in Toronto saying: "We've got a problem. We need a 1% solution, where all governments commit themselves to 1% more to deal with the homelessness and the housing disaster we've got."

We've got people like Paul York from the Greater Toronto Tenants' Association and Mr MacIntyre from the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, who are here, working diligently to help tenants with the disaster you have caused. We've got people like Councillor Joe Mihevc, who says:

"In my ward, Ward 28, the residents of 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue are facing relocation because the Ontario Municipal Board has allowed Goldlist Properties to demolish these buildings to build condominiums. While the Ontario Municipal Board has ordered Goldlist to give the right of first refusal to the existing tenants, the replacement is only 60% of the units that are being lost."

The reality is that we're losing the very little we can control. What this bill attempts to do is give municipalities the trust you normally want to give them and the enabling power to control the little they can. Madame Mushinski, that's all I ask for. You were a municipal councillor. It's a short little bill and it does so very little, nothing that you can oppose.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 30, brought forth by Mr Marchese.

I'm not in favour of this piece of legislation, being a member from outside Toronto. Certainly, the Toronto MPPs want to impose their own solution on the rest of the province. It's sort of typical, and perhaps a little arrogant. What we're dealing with here is Toronto MPPs who want to wrest powers from their municipalities. It's a municipal situation that they have to deal with. We're talking about branding the situation and saying, "Any municipality over 25,000 has to do this."

I can tell you that I haven't heard any concerns. My area is the fastest growing in the province. When I was on council, we mandated that affordable housing would be put forth. That's why we have tremendous growth and people moving from Toronto. They're moving from Toronto not because of rents; they're moving from Toronto because Toronto has a very expensive real estate market. They're coming to areas where housing is affordable. One reason why I left Toronto was because I couldn't afford a house in Toronto, so I moved to an area where there was affordable housing.

What we have here is typical: a Toronto MPP saying, "I've got a solution for the rest of the province, because I don't trust my municipality to handle our own planning powers." A Toronto MPP problem, real or imagined, isn't something that should be imposed on the rest of the province.

We understand the direct connection between new housing starts and the Ontario rental housing market. In 1999, there were 67,235 new housing starts in Ontario,

whereas the construction of rental housing in Ontario has languished for years. Everybody knows that. In part, this was due to the previous legislation that contained numerous obstacles to investing in the rental housing market.

I really question whether this legislation would even survive a charter challenge. What are you trying to do, tell people who own buildings, "You can't do anything with your building"? There are property rights that are enshrined under the charter, but the member from Toronto says: "Who cares? Let's put our solution on the rest of the province. We don't care whether people who own property have rights. We're going to interfere with their property rights." He knows well, with respect to condo conversions and the demolition of apartment units, that there are protections in place, many protections for tenants that deal with issue already.

I would say this to the member: A landlord must be allowed to decide whether or not the cost of maintaining an older building is so high that it no longer makes financial sense to do so. This member says, "I don't want them to be able to make that decision," because he's so anti-people who own property, and he's anti the rest of the province because he thinks he knows the solution for the rest of the province-and you don't.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's a great pleasure to follow the member from north of Toronto and his Toronto-bashing antics. I stand proudly before you as an MPP for the riding with the highest percentage of tenants and I stand before you as a homeowner.

I must say that this issue is one for which I am very pleased to lend support to the member for Trinity Spadina.

We hear from this government statistic after statistic about economic performance, but we hear nothing with respect to the housing needs of those people who are not getting the full benefit of economic expansion in Ontario, and that's what this is about. We hear nothing about trying to find and help to house and maintain housing for those who are the working poor. We hear nothing from this government about solutions to deal with the pressing problem of the homeless on our city streets. We hear nothing from this government about the extraordinary doubling of the child poverty rate since they have taken power.

That is because they are awfully prepared as a government to create ghettos of poor people, to allow people to languish in poverty without any solution from this government. This government is ignorant, and they choose to bury their heads in the sand and to ignore the crisis.

In my riding, in the last little while, we've brought heritage buildings that had been boarded up, that had been bricked in, back to life. We did that, not through the support of this government, but through the support of the federal government and their residential rehabilitation assistance program. Now 88 Carlton Street, which was once home to squatters, is finding new life as decent, affordable housing for people. Similarly, a building on Jarvis Street, just south of Maitland, is now undergoing the final stages of renovation, and that heritage property is being brought back to life and providing homes for people.

We hear this government constantly on the case of co-ops, hammering co-ops as bad investments by the public. My riding is home to more co-ops than any other in the country. I'll take members on walking tours and demonstrate to them not only that this is good housing but that this is housing that contributes to good communities.

Similarly, my riding is also going through an evolution of new condominiums, more condominium development than you can imagine: 15 condominium developments in Yorkville alone. I'm particularly proud of the new life of condominiums that we see down at the corner of King and Parliament, where the enlightened policies of Barbara Hall, the former mayor, led to zoning certainty which has led to the development of new housing.

With respect to the demolition of presently occupied tenant housing, this is not just an issue that takes place in the big-scale developments like Tweedsmuir that my colleague from St Paul's spoke about. This is happening, regrettably, in too many other places as well. In Rosedale, on Maple Avenue, we've got a situation where a large house that had been subdivided into 12 is presently undergoing a renovation and will be sold as three condominium units, yet again evidence of the failed policies on the part of this government to protect the housing stock that we have.

Why would we ask that they protect the housing stock that we have? It is simple: Because we have a housing crisis in the city of Toronto. It is not a crisis that will be solved by the creation of more condominiums, which I embrace. It is that this government fails to recognize the extent to which there are people at the bottom end, more marginal people, poorer people, the working poor, those living on welfare, those living on disability, who require some assistance from government.

In this case, we're asking this government to recognize that it has a choice, that it has a policy tool at its disposal, and that is to say, as we said as a government in the 1980s, "We will not allow rental housing to be torn down and to exacerbate the crisis in Ontario."

The Acting Speaker: The member for Trinity-Spadina has two minutes to conclude.

Mr Marchese: Just a reminder to the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford: I think he needs to read the bill. It's not terribly complicated; it's quite simple. It says: "The council of a local municipality having a population of 25,000 or more may, by bylaw, prohibit the demolition of rental properties ... unless one of the following conditions is fulfilled," and there are four conditions. Quickly, "unless ... All or part of the rental property is, in the opinion of the municipality's chief building official, structurally unsound," is one example, and there are three others.

These are not terribly complicated, and it gives municipalities a great deal of flexibility to deal with some of these problems. It's only a small part of what municipalities can do to control their housing stock, that's all. Give municipalities the power to do that.

This problem is province-wide. It isn't Toronto alone that's suffering this. We're suffering this problem across Ontario, and studies have shown this. You cannot be blind to them. You cannot deny them.

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp said we will have needed 80,000 units to be built by 2001. We're in the year 2000 and we've only built 6,000 units. We have a problem, and it's a crisis. Unless we do something, the crisis will deepen. This motion attempts in a small way to deal with that. It doesn't deal with all of the problems. It doesn't even contradict your bill. It does not go against your Tenant Protection Act, I would argue. It's something you can encompass, unlike so many other things that I could bring forward that I know you will object to and not support. This is something that I urge you to support, because it is in your interests as well.

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

Mr Wettlaufer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day / Projet de loi 28, Loi proclamant le Jour des pionniers allemands.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): On July 24, 1788, King George III, by royal proclamation, formed several districts within the then province of Quebec, west of the Ottawa River, now known as Ontario.

Those districts are Luneberg, bounded on the east by the Lancaster tract and on the west by the Gananoque River, including such towns as Charlottenburg, Cornwall, Osnabruk, Williamsburg, Matilda, Edwardsburg, Augusta and Elizabeth-Town; the second district was Mecklenburg, from the western boundary of Luneberg to the Trent River, comprehending such towns as Pittsburg, Kingston, Ernest-Town, Fredericksburg, Adolphus-Town, Marysburg, Sophiasburg, Ameliasburg, Sydney, Thurlow, Richmond and Camden; the third district was Nassau, bounded by Mecklenburg on the east and aligned north from Long Point; and the fourth district was Hesse, which encompassed the remainder of the province.

These districts recognized the then large population of German settlers in Ontario.

There have been various waves of German immigration to Ontario-seven, to be factual. Some accounts indicate three major waves of immigration, but in total there were seven. The first, of course, was immediately after the American Revolutionary War. Over 24,000 German troops fought for the British in the American Revolutionary War because the British didn't have enough troops. After the war some of those troops came to Canada to stay, most of whom came to Ontario as part of the United Empire Loyalist mass settlement.

The United Empire Loyalist definition includes three classes of settlers: a nobler class, those forced from the United States by persecution during and after the revolutionary war and, lastly, disbanded troops. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 of those troops came to Ontario to stay. Unfortunately the figure is unverifiable, because in 1799 then Lieutenant Governor General Peter Hunter struck their names from the list of United Empire Loyalists because they did not reflect a British connection. After the war some of those troops continued to serve the British government as spies.

During and after the war many settlers loyal to the crown, from Pennsylvania, New York and as far south as Georgia, immigrated to Ontario searching for peace and arable land, and by 1821 the population had grown to 125,000 citizens, of which 70% were German. As many as 25% were German in the eastern parts of this province. By 1821 they were coming not only from the United States-Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York-but they were also coming from Prussia, they were coming from Hesse, they were coming from Saxony. My own ancestors, the Wettlaufers, at that time came from Alsfeld, Hesse.

We have a page here by the name of Alison Brohman from my riding of Kitchener Centre. Alison's family also came from Hesse. Frank Klees, the government whip, is a German Canadian. We also have other descendants of German Canadians in this caucus and in this House.

The very first church in Ontario was built by a German Canadian. The first Lutheran minister was Johann Samuel Schwerdtfeger, who has been described as the saint of the St Lawrence Seaway and served the congregations of Williamsburg, Matilda and Osnabruck. Minister Schwerdtfeger had been a pastor of congregations in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York but was persecuted because of his allegiance to the crown during the American Revolution. He moved to Canada in 1791.

After his death in 1798, his son requested that his name be added to the list of United Empire Loyalists, but the reviewing committee did not recommend it because he had never joined the Royal Standard, ie, he was not a member of the nobility. However, his name was put on the list and beside it is the note "much persecuted." Both Julia Munro of our caucus and Norm Sterling, our House leader, are descendants of the Reverend Schwerdtfeger.

A few years later German Lutheran churches were established in Ernestown, Fredericksburg and Camden East, but there were laws passed some time later and prior to the Family Compact to discourage group settlement of Germans because it was felt at that time that they could no longer be easily assimilated if they were in groups. John Graves Simcoe, who had initially attracted German settlement, discouraged group settlement and he then also changed the names of the districts which had been proclaimed by King George III to reflect a British connection. German place names abound in this province. We have all kinds in Waterloo region, but they abound elsewhere, not just in Waterloo region.

The German settlers and their descendants have given us much in this province, not only the Amish and the Mennonite but also other German artisans and German farmers.

What have the Germans given us? Well, they gave us the Christmas tree. They gave us the Easter bunny and Easter eggs; that came from the German settlers. They gave us kindergarten. They gave us J.M. Schneider meats. Their descendants gave us a Canadian furniture industry that had no equal elsewhere in the world, noted for its fine craftsmanship, names such as Krug Furniture, Kaufman Furniture, Baetz Furniture, Knechtel Furniture and the old Hespeler Furniture. They gave us Zehrs, a very successful food chain, which is now owned by Galen Weston.

They gave us the famous Kraut line of the Boston Bruins in the 1940s and 1950s. One of them was Milt Schmidt, who grew up across the street from my own father. They gave us Bauer skates, Greb shoes, Dare biscuits-Dare was then spelled Doerr. They gave us Economical Mutual Insurance Co, one of the largest property and casualty insurance companies in Canada. They gave us Clarica, which was then Mutual Life Assurance Co. Sir Adam Beck, the father of Ontario Hydro, was a German Canadian. John Diefenbaker was descended from German stock. Ed Schreyer, former Governor General of Canada, was of German stock.

Louis Breithaupt, a former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, was also of German stock.

It has touched all three political parties. Theodore Heintzman gave us the best pianos ever made in Canada. Daniel Deitweiller was the driving force behind the Queenston-Chippewa canal. He founded the Algoma Power Co, whose idea it was to improve the St Lawrence Seaway. He also founded the great Waterway Association of Canada, the Welland canal locks; it was his idea that gave us the Welland canal, Mr Kormos. Elias W.B. Schneider improved the flour-milling process. Reinhold Lang gave us one of the finest leather-tanning processes ever known.

Augustus Stephen Vogt was a gifted musician who founded the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir. William Moll-Berczy, born Johann Albrecht Ulrich Moll-Berczy, is best known for his portrait of Joseph Brant, but he was the artist who built Yonge Street and Markham Road. Karl Ahrens is an artist whose work hangs in the National Art Gallery. The riding of Waterloo North, which preceded mine, was represented by German Canadians both provincially and federally. Isaac Erb Bowman, Hugo Kranz, W.G. (Mike) Weichel, W.D. Euler, L.O.

Breithaupt, Albert Smith-the list goes on and on, famous German descendants who have given Ontario much.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased to join in the debate today on this particular matter, which is brought by Mr Wettlaufer, the member for Kitchener Centre,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day, 1999. It is listed as officially in the order papers of this assembly.

When you think of it in perhaps crass economic terms, for instance, we have people who can communicate in their own native language with places all over this world, who have connections with countries all over this world, who understand people from various ethnic backgrounds all over this world. That mosaic we have in Canada is a genuine advantage to this country. Make no mistake about it. Certainly among those individuals have been people who have come from Germany to North America as Germans and then came to Canada-I think of the United States and then coming to Canada-and have made a very significant contribution to our country.

The member for Kitchener Centre may know that in the Niagara Peninsula we have many people of German descent. You mentioned Mennonite people, who make a wonderful contribution to our communities in terms of the churches we have in our area, in terms of the charitable work which is done, not only in our part of the province but people who have gone around the world to offer their services to others.

In St Catharines we have-and we're very proud of it-Club Heidelberg. There's Club Rheingold in Port Colborne. Both of these are areas where people of German descent gather and have membership in, but I can tell you that they welcome people from across the Niagara Peninsula and beyond our borders to their various events and to share in that culture, and this is a distinct advantage.

Club Heidelberg in St Catharines, if I may be parochial, has provided recreational facilities, a wonderful hall for people. We have what's called the Folk Arts Festival, this year from May 20 to June 4, where people of various ethnic backgrounds get together. You know, when you see people fighting around the world, you ask them to come to our communities, which have these kinds of festivals. Among the organizations and groups which are welcoming people to their facilities and being an important part are the people of Club Heidelberg in our area and Club Rheingold in Port Colborne.

I've enjoyed many an anniversary at Club Heidelberg over the years, enjoyed the dancing. I can't do it, I can tell you that, but the dancing is just outstanding. The musical talent is outstanding. The crafts, the art, the food, the warm hospitality which is extended to people of our community by people of German background is simply wonderful, and our community is richer in a cultural sense because of that.

The member wouldn't mind me mentioning, I know, while we're on this subject, the assessment that might be changed for various halls. I'm worried that Club Heidelberg, for instance, as a result of new provincial rules in assessment, may have an assessment two and a half times what it is today. I know the member for Kitchener Centre and I will be advocating-and I see another member in the House today, Mr Kormos, who has been on this issue as well. We discussed it together at a meeting the other day at the region. We want to see these clubs maintained.

One of the challenges is that the flow of immigration from countries such as Germany has slowed to a certain extent. We'd like to see more people coming from all over the world to our communities. This slowed down, so we see an organization which has many seniors who are still very active and are looking for the younger people within their community to continue to make that contribution. In order to do so, the halls must be treated fairly in terms of assessment. I hope we revert back to the residential assessment which has been applied to them instead of the commercial assessment, which would raise their assessment two and a half times.

I don't want to divert too far into that, but it's important. I think the member would understand that and know how important it is to maintain the halls, the home where people can come as an organization and again share with those of us in the communities.

We have many people of German descent at Tabor Manor in St Catharines, which is a wonderful nursing home and seniors' home in St Catharines. There is Heidehof, which is a right across the street from Club Heidelberg. Again, there are many people of German background there. Right next to Club Heidelberg, we have some new apartments now where many people of German descent have moved in. I can relate to what the member is talking about. I know the Kitchener-Waterloo area and the wonderful contribution that people of German descent have made to that area.

I know the great history and the fun that is associated with Oktoberfest. I've had people from the Niagara Peninsula and I have relatives who have gone to Oktoberfest. They enjoy it immensely and again enjoy the warm hospitality of people of German background.

We see a lot of our history as well. Mennonite people have preserved it, but you have the Amish, particularly in the area of Kitchener-Waterloo, who, if we look at the way of life, have continued that way of life which started a number of years ago and give us some insight into our early history, particularly as it relates to farming in that particular area.

I'm pleased to join with the member in indicating my support for this bill.

I want to say as well that I had the pleasure of meeting Milt Schmidt, one of the Kraut line. He used to play for the Boston Bruins, and what a gentleman. I met him at a recent event. I have to be careful of what I say, but today, professional athletes, with all of the money they have and the star-studded cast they hang around with, don't often relate to average people as well as people of years ago. What a gentlemen Mr Milt Schmidt was. I approached him at a table he was sitting at, and he thanked me at the end for coming to over to speak to him. I recalled that I had him in hockey cards when I was a little kid, and he was quite intrigued with that.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): -pretty young in those days.

Mr Bradley: Yes. I accept the interjection beside me.

So I want to say that I understand the member is bringing forward this resolution particularly looking at his area. I'm glad that he brought forward this bill which emphasizes the contribution of people of German background to the province of Ontario, to the country of Canada, and in particular to his community. Thank you for doing it, member for Kitchener Centre, and I suspect that we're going to have unanimous support for your bill.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'll support any effort-any effort, any legislation, any cause-that helps us to celebrate the incredibly rich cultural and ethnic diversity of this great country. I say to the author of this bill, you went through a list of historical events and personalities. By the time you got to the Easter egg, you had me sold. You need only have mentioned rouladen, though, and I would have bought into this legislation in a minute. My people, perhaps far more modestly, my Slovak Canadian parents, brought perogies and holubsti, competitors perhaps with rouladen.

I appreciate your narration of the history of their role in the colonial territories prior to the formation of Canada. In the area I come from, Niagara region, again, there is a great tradition of the United Empire Loyalists, among them Pennsylvania Dutch, the very same people you were speaking of, those Germans who were participants in the American Revolution, who either returned immediately or came immediately to what is now Canada, Upper and Lower Canada, or who stayed in the United States for some period of time and then came here.

But I have to tell you, the German Canadians that I'm most familiar with, of course, are not the personalities you spoke of, the wealthy or the famous, are not the heroes of revolutionary wars, if there are ever any real heroes in wartime, as compared to people who merely do what they've got to do. My greatest familiarity, because of my age, because of when I was born and when I grew up and where I grew up, is with that wave of Germans that came here in that tragic period, of course, in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I know these people.

While among them I'm sure there are some who have made the Canadian Who's Who, the vast majority of them, like the vast majority of my family and myself and people from my cultural background and most cultural backgrounds, aren't in Who's Who. But they're decent, hard-working people.

I tell you, those German Canadians who came here after the horrible experience of the war are as much Canadian pioneers as were those Germans or Prussians of the 18th or 19th centuries, because they worked hard. They worked at incredibly low wages. They sacrificed. They had but one passion, and that was to make life better for their children than it was for them. To achieve that goal, they sacrificed and they made commitments that they stuck to, and they built things. They built their homes. They didn't hire contractors; they built their homes. I know these people. I witnessed this as a kid.

They didn't hire excavators to dig basements; they dug basements with shovels. Women worked alongside their husbands, working as hard and, importantly, probably working longer because they not only worked alongside their husbands but raised their children and maintained their households as well.

So I understand your interest in reciting the names of famous or celebrated German Canadians, but let my modest contribution to this debate be a celebration of the German Canadians, like so many other new Canadians, who may never have made headlines, who may never have become mega-wealthy but, by God, who contributed as much to this country as any big entrepreneur, as any inventor, as any scientist, as any celebrity, as any revolutionary war survivor or hero.

These are the kinds of folks that I meet. Jim Bradley spoke of Club Heidelberg and Club Rheingold, and I suspect these are some of your constituents here from the German Canadian community. You know the communities we're talking about when Jim Bradley and I talk about Niagara region and Heidelberg and Club Rheingold. I know these people. I grew up with them and I grew up with their kids. I knew them when they first came to this country in that huge wave of post-war immigration, and I watched them build.

They not only built homes, but they built neighbourhoods, they built communities, they built schools and they built hospitals. They, with great sacrifice, built things like public health care systems so that their kids wouldn't have to suffer in a user-pay, private sector health care system, so that their kids and grandkids could get medical treatment regardless of how much money they had in their hip pocket. So many of them were denied opportunities, because they came not just from big cities but from small towns, peasant towns, in Germany.

They didn't have the opportunity of even high school education, never mind, my goodness, college or university. But they made sure their kids and their grandkids had college and university educations. They did it by giving more than they ever took back.

So I join you in this bill. Today we talk about German Canadians and their great contribution to Canada historically, but I'll put this to you, even more importantly, currently. I want to join with anybody who wants to reinforce and assist these cultural communities, as Canadian as any community could be. Let's confront that right now. I have no hesitation-and I challenge anybody who suggests that any person who maintains regard and respect for their cultural heritage is somehow a lesser Canadian. On the contrary, Canada, as a country of immigrants, is stronger by virtue of our insistence that we reinforce our history of multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity.

You as new Canadians have a responsibility to make sure that your children understand their mother culture and those traditions that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so many generations before them celebrated throughout the course of not just decades but centuries and in the case of so many cultures, millennia.

I applaud our ethnic and cultural communities that join together to struggle-because it is a struggle. As generations succeed each other and children marry and move away, it becomes more and more difficult, doesn't it, my friends? The membership in your associations, your German Canadian clubs, becomes a little smaller, and from time to time a little greyer. The number of people who are there to run the clubs and the organizations becomes fewer and fewer and older and older. We worry about the survival of those ethnic cultural clubs. We worry about them because they are incredibly important to our communities.

They add an incredible richness to our communities. So I will speak, as Mr Bradley did, about the crisis among our ethnic and cultural communities across Ontario right now.

I know that in Niagara region there are scores of ethnic cultural halls, non-profit organizations, which have been reclassified, for the purpose of tax assessment, into commercial properties. I understand and commercial hall operators, commercial caterers, understand that they always have been classified commercial. But please understand-and I've written to Ernie Eves, treasurer. I spoke with him just two days ago, Tuesday, about this. Jim Bradley and I met with our Tory counterparts, who weren't particularly helpful on the issue, in Niagara region. They weren't very helpful at all.

We met with regional chair Debbie Zimmerman and her tax assessment advisory committee, and Jim and I made a plea for these cultural halls, these cultural communities.

You see, what's happening, whether it's the Slovak hall in Welland or the Casa Dante hall or Club Rheingold or the Ukrainian Cultural Centre or the Ukrainian Labour Temple-see, now I've started and I should finish them, shouldn't I? I'm going to offend somebody by omitting them, but they know who I'm talking about. These halls aren't going to survive this latest onslaught of double and triple property taxes. They are bona fide non-profit organizations.

People had better understand that if our cultural halls, 99% of them non-profit, don't survive, when we go to these halls to arrange for wedding receptions for our children or for celebrations for our sports teams or for any number of events like that-if we didn't have these non-profit halls, we would be paying twice and three times what we pay now for our dinners and our celebrations, wouldn't we? You folks know it, because you and your memberships subsidize our family celebrations with your volunteer work.

So communities better be very careful about forcing these cultural communities out of the hall business, and I say "business" in the loosest sense of the word.

It appears that the basis for the reclassification is a ministerial advisory, an interpretive bulletin to the now private, arms-length Ontario Property Assessment Corp, which specifically states that although non-profit halls are to be exempt from the commercial classification, "non-profit halls" does not include cultural and ethnic halls.

That's nuts and it's stupid and I'm hoping that at this point it's a simple matter of having Mr Eves review the issue, because it's as simple as his ministry preparing yet another advisory memo, an interpretive memo to the Ontario Property Assessment Corp, to keep these non-profit-they are non-profit. They not only provide their services non-profit, but each and every one of them contributes incredible amounts of money on an annual basis to their community, not just their own ethnic community but the broader community, the community at large.

The German Canadians, through their halls and their centres, do it, along with every other single ethnic group: the Italian Canadians, the Slovak Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadians, the Franco-Canadians, the whole nine yards.

If we're really serious about celebrating our cultural diversity and about paying homage to pioneers both historical and present-as I say, those great pioneers of this century, or the last one, as it is now, but those great pioneers of the last 50 years, those hard-working, decent people who worked and struggled in a new land, confronted by a new language, but who at the same time had the courage and the wisdom to maintain the presence of their culture in their families and in their new communities so that they could share it with their children and, more importantly, share it with the rest of us.

That's what multiculturalism is all about. It's not about tolerating different cultures; it's about celebrating different cultures.

Club Rheingold is probably more important to me than it is to German Canadians because it lets me share and celebrate part of that tremendous and rich German culture. So it's far more important for me-I speak very selfishly now, I suppose-to ensure that Club Rheingold survives and its membership survives, because one way or another those families will maintain some essence of Germanic culture, but it will be harder for me to share it.

So I'll support this bill. Please, let's support these German Canadians and their other ethnic colleagues and contemporaries across this province.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm pleased to rise today to support the member for Kitchener Centre in bringing forward this bill to recognize the contributions of German people to our history in Ontario. As the member has said, German immigrants began coming to Ontario in large numbers in the 18th century, and they helped settle this land and have made great contributions to the values and ideals of our communities.

I would also like to go down the road of history and just reinforce some of the things that have been said about German people in the past. Early German settlers to North America were often Mennonites with roots back to the radical wing of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. Many of these German Mennonites had to flee Europe because of persecution in the 17th and 18th centuries, and a great number settled in Pennsylvania, as they were attracted to the area by the tolerant policies of William Penn's government.

These settlers became known as Pennsylvania Deutsche or, after many years of mispronunciation, Pennsylvania Dutch. Their skills and those of German immigrants who followed them made for a very rich agricultural community.

By the time of the American Revolution, the Pennsylvania Deutsche population was about 100,000, more than a third of the state's population at that time. But many German settlers left Pennsylvania because of their opposition to the fervour of American nationalism. The American Revolution triggered great migration of United Empire Loyalists to Upper Canada, and of these immigrants Germans made up the largest group of non-British descent, perhaps 10% to 20% of the refugees fleeing into Canada in the decade following 1776.

Many of these immigrants settled in Upper Canada by acquiring land from private landowners in the Niagara Peninsula, as we've heard, York and Waterloo counties, Haldimand county, and throughout my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

I'm of United Empire Loyalist ancestry, primarily British but also Pennsylvania Deutsche through my great-great-grandmother Lang from Round Plains in Norfolk county. I would also like to remind the members of the House of United Empire Loyalist Day, which is coming up June 19.

The American Revolution also caused King George III of England to enlist the help of his German allies in attempting to defeat rebel forces. These men-as Mr Wettlaufer described earlier this morning, 24,000 or so Hessian soldiers were also brought in to fight the Americans-have also had a significant cultural and demographic effect on Canadian society. In fact, they represented 3% to 4% or 5% of Canada's entire male population in 1783. Many came from the United States to take advantage of the offer of land grants from Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe to former soldiers of the King.

Late last year, the Delhi District German Home, located in my riding, celebrated its 50th anniversary. The German Home was founded by German people who came to Canada in the early to mid-1900s, mostly in the period following the First World War. Founders of this home were determined to keep German culture, traditions and language alive. They were involved in farming in our area and helped build our very strong agricultural and primarily tobacco-based economy.

At the 50th anniversary of the German Home, I related to those present that this legislation was coming up and explained I would be supporting the legislation. I'm very pleased to be able to speak today in support of recognizing the immense contributions that German pioneers have made in strengthening our province.

Let's now look at what happened in Toronto specifically. Many of us probably don't know that the co-founder of the city of Toronto, a man called William Moll-Berczy, came to Toronto with 64 German families to co-found Toronto with Graves Simcoe, the governor at the time.

In response to his request to get land, Graves Simcoe said, "Why don't you co-found Toronto with me and build Yonge Street from the foot of Lake Ontario all the way over to Lake Simcoe?" That, he and the 64 families proceeded to do, many of whom died in the process because York, the city of Toronto, that is, was known at that time as "Muddy York," meaning swampland and trees. That was the foundation of Toronto, basically, and that all had to be cleared. That's why many of them died in doing that job of building Yonge Street.

Today there is a monument in front of the Hummingbird Centre commemorating that family's contribution and those German settlers, those 64 families, many of whom died in constructing Yonge Street.

By 1850, the Toronto community began to organize as a group. German Lutherans formed the congregation of the first Lutheran church of Toronto. German builders, architects, manufacturers and craftsmen started their own businesses, including Theodore Heintzman, who would turn his kitchen trade into Heintzman Co, a world-renowned manufacturer of pianos; Sir Adam Beck was knighted for establishing Toronto Hydro in 1903; and German musicians gave Toronto's early arts community a boost when Augustus Stephen Vogt formed the Mendelssohn Choir of Toronto in 1894; and Luigi Maria von Kunits revived the Toronto Symphony Orchestra in 1922.

Now, when we look at Toronto specifically, we see that the sleek black façade of the Toronto-Dominion Centre bears the famous markings of van der Rohe's international Bauhaus style, while architect Eberhart Zeidler's designs of top tourist attractions such as the Eaton Centre, Ontario Place and the Queen's Quay Terminal stand as silhouettes of Toronto's skyline. Their contribution, indeed, as we know, has been great, and we are very grateful for their contributions to not only Toronto but all of Canada. One would have to write another book to detail all these contributions.

If there are visitors to Toronto, and I know there are many from Germany, and they say, "Where do I go to find German cultural attributes, or where do I find some places that still have a German connection?" I would point them first to Berczy Park, which is near the Hummingbird Centre. In fact, Berczy's son was the first president of Consumers' Gas of Toronto and was also a very famous artist and sculptor.

Then I would point them to the statue of Adam Beck, as I mentioned earlier. It's made of granite and it's pretty massive. Then I would say, "Go to Black Creek Pioneer Village." Many of us have been there. These buildings at Jane and Steeles are like an open-air museum and have been arranged around the early 19th-century farm of the Pennsylvania German immigrant Daniel Stong.

Then I would tell them, "Go see the Theodore Heintzman plaque." Finally, I would say to them, "Have you seen the German-Canadian Heritage Museum at 6650 Hurontario Street in Mississauga?" It's a half-hour drive from downtown Toronto on Highway 10 and it's situated in an historic farmhouse, the Hansa House, and it contains a wealth of information on German settlement and contributions to Ontario. Of course, there's also the German library, which is housed at the Goethe Institute on King Street West.

Finally, let me simply say this. I know that the member from Kitchener Centre has-

Mr Bradley: What book are you quoting from?

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you for mentioning this to me. But I am looking at the book which all members have a copy of. It may not be on your desks right now, but it's called Toronto's Many Faces. I'm happy to tell you now that we're doing the third edition this year. It's the bible of multiculturalism in Toronto. Everything is in it.

Mr Bradley: Who's the author?

Mr Ruprecht: The author is Tony Ruprecht, the member from Davenport. Anyway, I wish to congratulate the member, simply to say that the honourable James Breithaupt, whom he is very close to, had made a previous request, actually, to do a German Pioneers Day. I am very happy not only to support this particular resolution but also to say to the member that he has done fine work in continuing to maintain the culture and keeping it alive.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I wish I had a book to flog too, but I don't. However, I am very pleased to stand in my place today and support Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day. I want to begin by commending my friend the member for Kitchener Centre for bringing this private member's bill forward and for the fine speech he gave us this morning.

I also want to add a word of welcome to the people from the Kitchener-Waterloo area who are here in the gallery in support of Mr Wettlaufer's private member's bill. I say welcome to you and I thank you for coming.

Members here know that I represent a large, diverse, rural riding called Waterloo-Wellington, which also includes a fairly substantial city component in the city of Kitchener. I also have Wellesley township, Woolwich township and Wilmot township in Waterloo region. I'm very privileged to represent a southwestern portion of the city of Kitchener.

I can credibly claim that, in terms of geography, I have the biggest part of the city of Kitchener, although not the biggest population. I'm privileged to share that honour with the member for Kitchener Centre who probably, in terms of the population of the city of Kitchener, has the biggest area. This member is hard-working and determined to provide a strong voice for his constituents, which he does with great tenacity. He has earned the respect of the members of the House and the respect and support of various German business and volunteer organizations. He's without a doubt a the most appropriate member to bring this bill forward.

I was honoured last year to join for the first time the member for Kitchener Centre at the Oktoberfest in Kitchener as one of the MPPs representing part of the city of Kitchener at that festival. I'm proud to support the hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers who organize this largest celebration of its kind outside of Germany each year. I'm also proud to say that I have some German ancestry, some German blood. My great-great-grandfather's last name was Kramp. My wife's grandmother's maiden name was Hampel. We are very proud of our German ancestry and our German heritage.

I also share with Wayne a deep grasp of the importance of private members' time as a vehicle for members who are not part of the executive council to support efforts that are near and dear to their hearts. Sometimes it's important to note that it's the only venue for initiatives that MPPs have to bring ideas forward. Knowing that the member for Kitchener Centre realizes and appreciates this, I am very pleased to offer my brief remarks today in support of Bill 28.

I reiterate, this can be a forum for success. People often say that private members' bills don't always become law, but that's not always the case. I've been fortunate to have a number of my initiatives that have been brought forward as private member's bills adopted as perhaps government legislation or adopted in the form in which I've brought them forward. I've used this to support volunteer firefighters. I've used this vehicle to call upon the government to bring in a debt retirement plan.

I've also brought forward an idea which helped ensure that volunteer firefighters would have adequate workers' compensation coverage, which was adopted by the government in the last Parliament, in 1998. Recently, my resolution for a full restoration of the Canada health and social transfer was acknowledged by the Premier and incorporated in part by the government in its recent resolution this week, and I look forward to seeking unanimous support for my own resolution next week in this House.

I believe that this bill, Bill 28, also warrants full support by the Legislature, and I'm sure the member so ably sponsoring it will carry it forward to its full implementation and intended effect.

By proclaiming a German Pioneers Day, we will keep alive values by celebrating the living history and present-day contributions of German people in the Waterloo-Wellington area and indeed across Ontario. We will honour the high value they placed upon freedom and opportunity by venturing forth to begin a new life in Canada. We will help maintain the spirit that helped build the society we have, and are so fortunate to have, and in so doing, further enhance the future for all Ontario residents.

Again I thank the member for Kitchener Centre for sponsoring this bill and bringing it forward, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak in favour of it. I hope all members will support this important initiative today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate? The member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Well said, Mr Speaker.

I would like to join in the debate to support my friend from Kitchener Centre, Wayne Wettlaufer, on his private member's bill, Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day.

I have known this member since he was first elected in 1995. Certainly in this House and in caucus meetings he is most proud of his German heritage. I'm pleased that he has brought this legislation forward, which is legislation to celebrate, with the people of German descent and German heritage, the great Canadian-German history in this province.

I think we're all proud of our heritage. Every member of this House, every member of our society is proud of where we came from and we try to celebrate it in our own way. The member from Durham brought some legislation forward I think last year to celebrate Irish heritage. In fact, I think as we speak, today is Tartan Day. The member from Grey-Bruce brought some legislation one or two years ago to bring forward Tartan Day-I believe it was the member from Grey-Bruce-and, as has already been mentioned, United Empire Loyalists' Day.

Certainly

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day should be part of this wonderful mosaic, the many different cultures and the many different languages we have in this province. I believe the member has chosen the day after Thanksgiving as that specific day; I think that's the date that is spelled out in this legislation, that the day following Thanksgiving Day in each year is proclaimed as German Pioneers Day. I understand the rationale for that is that a lot of the culture in the Kitchener-Waterloo area goes around the wonderful Oktoberfest that takes place in that great city at that time of year. It takes place for six or seven days, I believe, and Thanksgiving is in the middle.

I looked at the Web site of Kitchener-Waterloo tourism, and I would recommend that members look at that. It talks all about the German history in this province. It talks about the history of how the German immigrants really founded and settled that whole area around Kitchener-Waterloo. That started, it seems, around the early 1800s, when Germans from Europe were attracted to Waterloo county because of the opportunity to use their trades: tailors, carpenters, blacksmiths, weavers and industrialists. From that point in time, the area grew tremendously and a government was later formed.

Interestingly enough, as we all know, Kitchener was known as Berlin, subsequently changed to Kitchener, which was named after a famous British general. But that area certainly is rife with German heritage.

You go to the Oktoberfest, which has been mentioned-I recommend that all members read about it on the Web site and, better yet, go there. I support this legislation.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join the debate with respect to

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day, 1999, brought forth by the member for Kitchener Centre.

In my area of Simcoe county, there are a number of citizens of German heritage who have made tremendous contributions not only to the community at large but tremendous business acumen in bringing jobs. I can name two right off the bat, Ingrid and Wolfgang Schroeter, who run a business, Wolf Steel, manufacturing wood-burning stoves and barbecues.

Simcoe county has great significance because of the United Empire Loyalists. As we know, the United Empire Loyalists came to Canada after the Revolutionary War. On my mother's side, with name Chrysler, they came to Canada in the early 1800s. But John Graves Simcoe, for whom Simcoe county is named-I've taken this from a historical text. In 1791, John Graves Simcoe, who had been stationed near Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War and had become impressed with these and others such as the Quakers and Tunkers, determined that he would attract as many of these farmers as possible to Upper Canada.

They came from virtually all states. Certainly my riding, with the exception of Orillia and the city of Barrie, is mostly rural and very strong agriculturally. I know that citizens of German heritage have farmed there for many years, and I think that is in large part due to the efforts of John Graves Simcoe.

I want to applaud the member for Kitchener Centre for remembering his ethnic roots and the contribution of German citizens to this country. I join in supporting this act.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener Centre has two minutes to conclude.

Mr Wettlaufer: I want to thank the members who participated in the debate: the members for St Catharines, Niagara Centre, Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Davenport, Waterloo-Wellington, Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, and Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. They have all touched on some things I want to note here.

German Canadians today constitute the third-largest ethnic group in Ontario. Between two million and 2.5 million citizens of Ontario trace their ethnic roots to Germany.

I have a letter from the president of the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada, Edward Scott. He says, in part: "I am writing to affirm my full and complete support for your private member's bill as it will help promote greater public awareness and celebrate the achievements of our Loyalists and our Loyalist heritage. Those Loyalists, known as `Pennsylvania Dutch' were so called, as you will be aware, because of a mistranslation of the term `Deutsche,' referring to their German ancestry."

I also have a letter from David Young of our caucus. David is one of the Jewish members of this House. He says:

"German Canadians have a proud history of distinction and accomplishment. Since the mid-19th century, many German men, women and children have come to Canada in search of a new life and new opportunities. They have worked hard with people from other backgrounds to establish vibrant communities all across this province and to build a strong and united Canada. The contributions of German Canadians have helped make this country the best place in the world to live and raise a family."

Hundreds of Germans lost their lives in the American Revolutionary War, hundreds more lost their lives defending Canada in the War of 1812, and thousands upon thousands of German Canadians lost their lives in the First World War and the Second World War.

The member for Niagara Centre talked about the immigrants and the spoken language-

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item has expired. I will now put the questions, first dealing with ballot item number 13.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA PROTECTION DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Marchese has moved second reading of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to authorize certain municipalities to restrict the demolition of rental residential buildings.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will deal with this division following the next ballot item.

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Wettlaufer has moved second reading of Bill 28,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day.

Shall the motion carry? Carried.

According to the standing orders, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Speaker, I would like the bill referred to the standing committee on general government, please.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a majority in favour? Agreed.

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

The division bells rang from 11:58 to 12:03.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION), 1999 / LOI DE 1999 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA PROTECTION DES LOGEMENTS LOCATIFS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Would members please take their seats. Mr Marchese has moved second reading of Bill 30. All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed will please stand and remaining standing until their name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 25; the nays are 41.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business now having been completed, I do now leave the chair and return at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1206 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On April 28 we celebrate the national day of mourning, a time when we pay our respects to those workers who have lost their lives as a result of workplace injuries and occupational diseases. I will proudly be standing with Ron Laforest, the president of the Northeastern Ontario Building Trades Council, the United Steelworkers of America, CAW Mine Mill and other unions in paying special tribute to the masses of workers who have died needlessly.

The memory of these workers must instil in all of us a greater level of commitment to create laws which will maximize the highest level of health and safety in the workplace.

I would like to recognize today Liz Van Rooyen, who is sitting in the members' gallery. She can speak first hand to the devastation of not having a loved one return home. Her husband, Dick, was killed while at work placing pylons along Highway 401. I commend Liz for her continued efforts to raise health and safety awareness and her fight for better legislation.

Let us remember as well Bert Bottrell, killed at Falconbridge's Lockerby mine, and Jim Plummer, who was killed in a blasting accident at Inco's South mine. These deaths must not be in vain.

Later I will be asking a page to bring a roll of X-ray tape over to the Minister of Labour, and I ask him to display this prominently in his office and look at the shattered bones of those who have been injured or killed in Ontario's workplaces. Minister, remember these people and their families as you draft your legislation, and help me convince your government of the need for a workplace carcinoma committee.

Lastly, 231 people have died in Ontario's workplaces this year. That is 231 deaths too many.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to the residents of York North and to all Ontarians: safe streets. During the 1999 election, the Harris government, my government, promised to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets. I can assure the people of York North that this is another example of our government's commitment to keeping its promises.

I was given the honour on Wednesday, March 22, to present a cheque to the newly appointed chief of police for York region, Robert Middaugh, for almost $350,000. This cheque represents 41 new police officers already on the streets of York region, with 36 more approved for the region. These newly hired police officers are a direct result of this government's community policing partnerships program. Through this program, our government is keeping its promise of making Ontario a safer place to live, work and raise a family. We are providing matching funds for up to 50% of salary-related costs for newly hired police officers, who represent a net addition to the strength of our police services.

I am extremely proud of this government's record on keeping Ontario's streets safe. Since this program was introduced, over half of the new police officers have been hired and are working to keep our communities safe.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): This morning I listened with great interest to the minister without portfolio on children's services' reannouncement of funding for children's mental health services. I wanted to take this opportunity to remind the minister of the conditions in my community. In Windsor, approximately 16,000 children require some form of psychiatric help, and there are about 700 children on the waiting list today.

Results from a study conducted by an independent researcher between 1992 and 1999 have prompted 15 children's services groups to ask for an urgent meeting with regional representatives of the ministries of Community and Social Services and Health-meetings which didn't happen.

Beginning with the New Democrats, funding for children's mental health services in Windsor-Essex county has been reduced 10.6%; that's $1.6 million per year. Residential spaces: Again, cuts began under the NDP and continued under the Tories, from 102 spaces to 25. Residential receiving beds at the children's aid society went from 12 to zero. In addition, a number of other government initiatives have put pressure on children's services agencies. I have presented petitions to this Legislature on the issue.

I have done much work, as my colleague from Windsor West has, before the last election and at this time to highlight this need in our community. The minister's announcement falls far short. This government has done nothing but harm children's services in Windsor-Essex county and indeed right across Ontario.

DIALYSIS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): Today I wish to inform members of the House about the success of the Guelph dialysis clinic. This clinic, which welcomed its first patient, Carmen Norris, last May, now treats 22 people and is planning to treat at least a dozen more. It's a satellite of the Grand River Hospital in Kitchener and is designed to look more like a home than an institution.

Before this centre opened, Guelph-Wellington residents had to travel to the Kitchener clinic for three-times-a-week treatment, only to return to Guelph exhausted. They are very relieved that they no longer have to go through this ordeal of travel.

I would like to thank Joan Fenlon, Newt and Marguerite Clayton, and Marty Fairbairn, who is here in the gallery today, for their leadership in helping this facility become a reality. The Guelph Rotary Club; Patrick Gaskin, vice-president at the Grand River Hospital; Kim Hendrix, the unit's nurse in charge; and Dr Peter Somerville are key in keeping this unit running well.

This clinic is another example of the Mike Harris government's commitment to health care in Ontario in the face of chronic and worsening underfunding from the federal Liberal government. Since 1995, our government has invested $81 million in dialysis services all across the province. Hundreds of new patient places have been created. Just imagine how many more we would have if Allan Rock would do his job and restore the money that the federal Liberals have cut from health care. Perhaps then all satellite clinics could offer full service to every dialysis patient in need.

SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) : Ma déclaration est pour la ministre de la Santé.

Madame la ministre, je vous adresse la parole aujourd'hui au nom de plusieurs personnes âgées de ma circonscription. Ces personnes ont appelé mon bureau en pleurant, ne sachant quoi faire. On venait tout juste de leur annoncer que leur service de soins à domicile serait coupé. Plusieurs de ces personnes sont âgées d'au-delà de 90 ans. Oui, plus de 90 ans, madame la ministre, et pourtant le gouvernement Harris avait bien promis d'augmenter les services de soins à domicile afin de maintenir les personnes âgées dans leur foyer aussi longtemps que possible.

Mais voilà que les centres d'accès aux soins communautaires doivent couper ces services car ils desservent un nombre de plus en plus élevé de personnes âgées et un nombre accru de patients sortant des hôpitaux plus tôt, et ce avec la même enveloppe budgétaire.

Madame la ministre, je demande donc aujourd'hui votre engagement à verser des fonds additionnels à ces centres d'accès aux soins communautaires afin de répondre aux besoins immédiats de nos personnes âgées. Ces personnes nous sont toutes très chères et ne méritent pas ça. Nous nous devons de faire tout notre possible pour les garder dans leur foyer le plus longtemps que possible. Ai-je votre engagement, madame la ministre?

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): The Hamilton labour movement will hold a day of mourning on April 28 for the many workers who have died on the job in Ontario. The tragedy of workplace accidents is particularly heightened this year by the 40th anniversary of the Hog's Hollow disaster, where five Italian immigrant construction workers lost their lives. We honour their memory.

Following that tragic disaster at Hog's Hollow, Ontario labour laws and safety regulations were rewritten, beginning in the Robarts era and then under Premier Bill Davis, and strengthened yet again under the NDP. One of Bill Davis's ministers was Frank Drea, who was a Toronto Telegram reporter covering the Hog's Hollow disaster. His graphic descriptions informed Canadians of the horrible tragedy. Mr Drea continued to report on the public outcry over the deaths and on the efforts of workers to organize trade unions to protect themselves from similar disasters.

On March 17 of this year, Frank Drea attended the public remembrance for the workers killed at Hog's Hollow and reminded us that the labour laws and safety changes which came from that event constitute the foundation of today's vastly improved construction safety record. However, construction workers today and their families are worried that the protection gained in those days will soon be rolled back because of lobbying by some of Ontario's biggest contractors.

April 28 is the annual day of mourning for workers killed on the job in Ontario. I urge all members of this House to mark a minute of silence at 11 am on that day and to join the ceremonies in their respective communities.

TARTAN DAY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey): Today, April 6, is Tartan Day in Ontario. Back in 1991, I introduced a private member's bill marking this day in our great province, and it wasn't just to make sure I had an opportunity to wear a kilt, either.

Did you know that the word "kilt" is a play on the word "Celt"? While it looks like a type of skirt, it is actually a descendant of the early battle garb that was worn by Roman soldiers. The tartan can be worn in the form of a dress, a sash, a scarf or a tie-the tie being, at one time, simply a large bandage crusaders wore around their necks to be prepared in case of being wounded-a pretty useful tool around here if you ask me after listening to some of the debate in the past week.

Scotland has had a direct impact on the history of Ontario. One would be hard pressed to find even one aspect of our history, culture, laws or government that was not positively impacted by the Scots. This is our heritage. The tartan is justifiably a representative symbol for all Ontarians, even in a multicultural society. That is why, later this session, I will be bringing in a bill for second reading that, if passed, will finally see the province with its own official tartan. I know all members of this House will give easy passage to this bill. After all, a province that has adopted a Tartan Day surely will adopt an official tartan.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Yesterday's decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to uphold the provincial government order to merge Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac and Nakina into a single community of Greenstone has understandably created a great deal of confusion and concern in all the affected communities. What still remains unclear is whether the ruling is immediate or will go into affect after this year's municipal elections. Another possibility is that this legal decision could be subject to further appeal to a higher court.

But surely the real issue that the government should be dealing with on an urgent basis is whether or not this forced amalgamation makes any sense at all any more.

When the government first gave the order to amalgamate over three years ago, it was on the basis of potential savings to taxpayers. While I disagreed at that time that any substantial savings would result from this merger, it should be clear, especially to Minister Clement, that as of today, circumstances have changed so considerably that taxpayers will quite possibly see no benefit from this amalgamation moving forward now. That being said, I am calling on the Minister of Municipal Affairs today to consider setting aside this ruling on the basis that the reasons for the forced amalgamation no longer apply.

Furthermore, I think it is crucial that the minister become involved in this personally by meeting with the municipal leaders of all the affected communities. This decision will have a dramatic impact on everyone living in the vast area and the minister must respect that. This needs to be resolved quickly, but it must also be resolved fairly. My constituents deserve nothing less.

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The member from Hamilton West and all of us share the interest of the importance of workplace safety, and every April 28 the Legislature joins with all Canadians in a national day of mourning, paying tribute to those workers who have suffered an injury or death on the job. It is a solemn and sad occasion. It lets us all reflect on our responsibility to ensure that workers return home safely to their families each evening. No job is worth dying for.

The day of mourning is an opportunity for us as legislators to affirm our shared commitment to preventing workplace injury. We are making progress. Our province will meet our target of a 30% reduction in lost-time injuries over the five-year period. However, the job is clearly not done. Our government is committed to preventing further workplace tragedies. Our new provincial strategy involves key safety partners, such as the Industrial Accident Prevention Association, working together towards eliminating on-the-job injuries. We are lowering occupational exposure limits. We are strictly enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

On Thursday, April 27, in accordance with tradition, there will be a statement from our Minister of Labour and a minute of silence in this Legislature. On April 28, the flag at Queen's Park will be lowered to half mast. I urge all members to honour those who have lost their lives on the job and to remember with compassion their families and their loved ones.

VISITORS

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to let the members of the Assembly know that we are joined in the members' gallery today by two outstanding youths from Port Colborne and Wainfleet in my riding, Joey Crawford and Matt Lambert, winners of the Canada Youth Award. Welcome to Queen's Park.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): It's not a point of order, but we recognize our guests who have come.

Interjection.

The government House leader has a motion. Unanimous consent to go to motions, if we could. All in favour of going to motions? Agreed.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Government House Leader): I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I was taken aback by the Palladini tartan, and I did refuse to look at Bill Murdoch's legs.

I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the mandate of the general government committee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Sterling seeks unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that for the purposes of standing order 124, the standing committee on general government be authorized to consider the matter of the creation of an association of former parliamentarians.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, you know that this week we have raised with you the matter of three property sales that have cost Ontario taxpayers $10 million.

I want to raise with you today the subject of a fourth property, located on Bloomington Road in Aurora. There is a sale there that has not been finalized. It is conditional on some rezoning. That sale, we understand from the Ontario Realty Corp, is also under investigation. Notwithstanding the fact that this property sale is under investigation by the police and the auditors, we understand that the Ontario Realty Corp is taking this matter before the Ontario Municipal Board to help expedite and finalize the sale of this property.

Can you tell us, Minister, if this deal is under investigation, as we believe it to be, why all matters connected with it have not been frozen?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm not aware of the specifics. I can assure this House that we are taking the proper steps, acting on the advice of the assistant Attorney General of criminal law. That is the advice we are following. The transaction you are talking about hasn't happened. I'll talk to the chair of the board to find out the specifics on it, but it is not my understanding that anything has happened on this outside of the advice we received from the auditor and the Attorney General. I'm not aware of what is under investigation or if there is an investigation.

I have been asked not to comment on specifics. If you are aware of that, I'd like to know how you were made aware of that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you are not taking all the right steps in the circumstances. First of all, we've been advised by the vice-president of the ORC, Christopher Barry, who tells us that this transaction is the subject of an investigation. It is under investigation. Here's another aspect to this deal: It turns out that the Aurora deal has the same buyer as the Mississauga deal, and the Mississauga deal is also under investigation. That's the one where the buyer purchased the land for $1.9 million and flipped it for $4.4 million. What we've got here are two deals that are under investigation. Both involve the same developer.

Minister, why have you not instructed the ORC to freeze all activity at least in connection with all matters that are under investigation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: First of all, we are following the advice of the Attorney General and the auditor. The senior management team of Christopher Barry, the person you referred to, and others in the ORC are reviewing all the current transactions to make sure the proper processes are followed. They are taking the proper steps in terms of asking the auditor to look at all past transactions. All transactions going forward are following the new criteria adopted by the board, and the senior management team review those. We're doing the right thing. We're as concerned as you are about these issues and we're doing everything we can to find out the truth about them.

Mr McGuinty: It seems to me that if you were genuinely concerned about the loss of millions of taxpayer dollars in connection with these land deals, what you would be doing today, at minimum, is insisting that all activities connected with land sales that fall under the auspices of the ORC in Ontario be frozen.

To make matters worse, when we talk about this particular piece of land in Aurora, we're talking about land on the Oak Ridges moraine, a highly sensitive bioregion. The lawyers for the ORC are helping to push this matter through the OMB in order to help the developer develop on lands on the Oak Ridges moraine.

Again I ask you, Minister: If you are so genuinely and sincerely concerned about the loss of millions of taxpayer dollars, why have you not ordered, at minimum, a complete freeze on all activities affecting those lands and those transactions that are at present under investigation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I have tried to make clear to the Leader of the Opposition that we are acting on the recommendations of the proper authorities, not on speculation of what is or isn't under review.

As the Leader of the Opposition is aware from earlier answers this week, the board of the Ontario Realty Corp has adopted stringent new policies and procedures that govern all realty transactions. All pending transactions are being reviewed by the senior management team to ensure that the transactions adhere to the newly enhanced policies, and only those transactions that meet the new criteria will be approved.

You already mentioned in your first question that this transaction has not been approved. I think the proper steps are being taken. I will mention your concern, though, and pass it on to the chair of the Ontario Realty Corp.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: This question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday the Chair of Management Board said that he was not responsible for the sale of one of these properties, the property in Mississauga. He said that was your responsibility.

I want to ask you, Minister, if you might shed some light on the sale of the property in Mississauga. That's the one that cost Ontario taxpayers $2.4 million. I wonder again if you might shed some light on that sale transaction and I ask, since this minister won't take responsibility, if you will take responsibility for that $2.4-million loss.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I refer it to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Leader of the Opposition asked these questions yesterday. I told the truth, that some properties do not require an order in council, and Ministry of Transportation properties that are held in their title do not.

The act hasn't changed since 1980, but in 1980 it was required that an order in council must be produced for every sale of property. That was changed in 1989 by your party when you were in power. You delegated the authority so you didn't need to have an order in council. It went to a regional director inside the bureaucracy. Your government is the one that made the standards looser.

Mr McGuinty: I have in my copies a deed, a transfer of land. This is for the Mississauga property. It's signed by an individual on behalf of, it says, "Her Majesty the Queen, in the right of the province of Ontario" as represented by the Minister of Transportation for the province of Ontario. So I can't understand why the Minister of Transportation, who signed off on this deal, has now referred this question back to you.

Back to the Minister of Transportation. This deal cost Ontario taxpayers $2.4 million. It was authorized by your ministry. It was signed on your behalf by some officials. We're just trying to figure out over here, on behalf of Ontario taxpayers, where the buck stops when it comes to the taxpayers' losses. So back to you again, Minister: Will you or will you not accept responsibility for the sale of land that cost Ontario taxpayers $2.4 million, a deal which was signed in the name of your ministry?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that everyone in this House is concerned about taxpayers receiving fair value and appropriate value from the Ontario Realty Corp or from the MTO or from any dispersal of assets.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We can't continue as long as the members are shouting at the minister when he's trying to answer.

Hon Mr Hodgson: The problem that he is aware of full well is that we can't talk about the specifics of transactions that are under review, going through the proper process of having an auditor and having the police called in. You know that. You know we can't talk about the specifics. I can tell you about general policy, though. The general policy that your government implemented was that OICs were delegated down to the Ministry of Transportation by Ed Fulton. That is what took place and that's the answer to your question. It's not a question of partisan politics.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor West, come to order, please.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Oliver Mowat set up the ministry. Blame him.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-St Clair, come to order, please.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Nobody's in charge over there. Nobody will take responsibility. What a bunch.

The Speaker: Member for Essex. Members will know that question period is an opportunity to hold the government accountable with questions, and we won't be able to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That's fine. We'll just stand here all day, then. We'll stand here and let the clock run down if you're going to continue to shout, and there won't be any questions allowed to be asked.

Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: This isn't a question of partisan politics. We're as concerned about these issues as every member in this House. That's why we've taken the proper steps to get to the bottom and find out the truth. That's why we've had the auditors come in. That's why the police have been called in to review these files.

In regard to the chain of authority, hypothetically, what you did in 1989 was make an order in council unnecessary to sell MTO property. That's the answer to your question.

Mr McGuinty: Ontario taxpayers do not want your weak expressions of concern. They don't care about protocol and bureaucratic managerial procedures. They want to know if anybody over there has the guts to take responsibility for the loss of over 10 million taxpayer dollars. That's what they want to know. You're saying, "No, it was his fault," and he's saying it wasn't really his fault, it's back to you. What Ontario taxpayers want to know is: Does anybody over there have the guts to take responsibility for the loss of over 10 million taxpayer dollars?

There is an old-fashioned principle called ministerial responsibility. Ultimately, the buck must stop with one of you ministers. All we want to know is, which one is going to take responsibility for the loss of over $10 million?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't have the luxury the Leader of the Opposition has to make speculations on whether money is lost or whether the taxpayers got their true value. We are concerned about those stories and those important questions. They need to be asked and to be answered in the proper process. We on this side of the House don't have the luxury of being casual in our comments.

What we are doing is following the proper process in accordance with the Attorney General-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Order. Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Hodgson: In conclusion, we are following the proper process. We are trying to get to th