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

October 28, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

AGGREGATE POLICY

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

HALF-BACK PROGRAM

JOB CREATION

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

JOB CREATION

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

CHILD RESTRAINT DEVICES

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, an answer was tabled by the government House leader on behalf of the ministry, which was more or less a blanket answer to several questions that have been on the Order Paper well beyond the time limit established by the rules of this House.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, I brought to your attention earlier this week that a number of these questions had run over the time limit.

The response from the government was not an answer at all. It was simply an indication that the government was not prepared to provide the answers to these specific questions put to the ministry asking for facts on the operation of the government of Ontario.

The ministry indicated that they did not have the time to provide the information under the rules and were not prepared to do so, suggesting that the honourable members of the House go to the services of our library or to the public accounts to find the information they were seeking.

I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that some weeks ago the library informed us all formally that because of the pressure of business and the fact that their budget had not been expanded as they had expected, they were not able to look after all of the requests that had come from the members, although we have since been personally informed that they have caught up with that backlog.

I simply put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the traditions of this House have always established the rights of the members to put on the Notice Paper specific questions of the ministry asking for information that should be provided in the House.

In the most recent amendments to the rules, the government has come under the rule of the House that provides specific time limits for these answers so that they cannot drag on and on. Now we are provided with what the ministry considers to be an answer under the rules which simply tells us to go suck eggs, or something like that.

I would say to you, it is entirely unacceptable that the government, spending a budget of $23 billion, with all of their platoons of information officers spending all their time trying to make their ministers look good -- and usually failing in that connection -- does not have the time or the wherewithal to provide the answers to the questions that have been put on the Order Paper.

I believe this is a very serious infringement of the well-known and established rights and privileges of the members of the House, not just the opposition. I believe you, sir, as our spokesman and guardian of these privileges, should take whatever action is sufficient to see that answers are provided by the government and in the time limits established by our rules.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the same point of privilege. I also am quite disturbed by the government's action, or I should say inaction, to clean up the backlog of questions that have been placed on the Order Paper by some members of the House.

I took some time to go over carefully the press release sent to the caucuses by the cabinet office. Basically, it is suggested that there are no financial resources in this time of restraint to answer questions of the members of the opposition, and that we go to the library services, as was mentioned by my honourable colleague, or to the ministers themselves.

Does the cabinet office not feel or believe that if we go directly to the ministers, or if we go directly to the legislative library research service with all of our questions, they also are going to need extra resources to answer the questions we place before them?

The statement which has been forwarded to the caucuses by the cabinet office is nothing more than a smokescreen. This government is the most secretive in Canada. They do not want to inform the opposition of what is going on in the ministries. They want to build up lines of defences. They want to impair our ability to act as good members of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you not allow them, and by them I mean the government, to infringe on our right to carry out our duties.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. Today, the Toronto Star reported that yesterday, in a secret meeting, the cabinet of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are dealing with a new point. Let us first deal with the first point.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to the first matter that was raised here and that was questioned by two of our members.

I have raised questions relating to the Ministry of Energy on matters that you will be aware, sir, in view of the federal and provincial restraint programs, are matters of an urgent nature for the people throughout Ontario, who are seeing energy costs going out of sight. I thought these matters should have been addressed by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). They are very pertinent and we need answers as soon as we can get them.

I would ask you to intervene on our behalf to ensure that we can answer to the people of Ontario about where we are headed in these very important matters and see what the ministry is doing about the cost of energy, while we are attempting to do something meaningful for the people of Canada and Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this point of privilege and since the matter has been brought up with your agreement, I would like to read the answer that this government gave because I think it has been misinterpreted.

2:10 p.m.

The answer that was given to a number of questions on the Order Paper read: "The government will attempt to provide an answer to as many questions as possible before the adjournment of this session. It should be noted, however, that the tremendous increase in the number and complexity of questions. . ." and I might just digress there and say that in the first session of the 32nd Parliament there were 282 questions on the Order Paper; to the present time there are 650 questions on the Order Paper waiting for answers.

To continue: ". . . the complexity of questions placed on the Order Paper would require that increased amounts of time and manpower be diverted from present assignments in order to provide the information requested. An alternative would be to increase the resources allocated to the performance of this function. At a time when the government is endeavouring to adhere to an ongoing restraint program, neither course of action would seem appropriate.

"Should there be questions that cannot be answered in the remaining weeks, given these circumstances, members should note that sources other than the Order Paper may be utilized as part of the search for such information.

"For example, the public accounts of Ontario will be of assistance in regard to many of the questions dealing with expenditures. Questions of this nature could also be directed towards the ministers responsible for such transactions during the estimates process.

"All honourable members enjoy access to the research and information services provided by the legislative library, and the Liberal and New Democratic parties each possess their own research capabilities funded through the budgets accorded both parties.

"It is hoped that through a combination of these approaches, with the full co-operation of ministers and members, all honourable members will be able to obtain the information that they seek.

"Every effort will be made to answer the following questions on or before December 17, 1982." Then we give the list of the questions, Mr. Speaker.

It must be noted that in the 650 questions there are now appearing many questions that would normally be asked of ministers during the estimates process. There are many hours devoted in this House to consideration of estimates by ministers when the minister and his staff are there, and I would defy members to find times when the information that has been requested during that estimates procedure has been denied to the members of this House.

Questions relating to the cost of a car, how many staff are in various departments and so forth have traditionally been asked at estimates time. We now find multitudes of questions on the Order Paper. They will be answered in due course, but it does take time to compile all that information.

I want to point out that there is no attempt on the part of this government to deny information to the members of this House. But at some point there is a bit of responsibility on the part of the members over there to search the information out of the public records that are available rather than dump it all on our hard-pressed research staffs.

I should also point out to the members that we will adhere to the standing orders of this House, which state that some form of answer should be provided within 14 days, albeit that this answer may be that it will take us longer to provide a more detailed answer to the question. I should also point out to the members that under standing order 81(

d) it is possible for a minister to say that he declines to answer. That is also one of the options offered here; it is in the standing orders.

I want to assure the House that this government stands ready to provide all the information it can. There has been a very great increase in the number of questions, and I think our friends over there should realize that we have tried to give a rather careful explanation rather than just to put in the answers to the questions. They will be answered by December 17. We have tried to explain to members some of the problems we face.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, that is just --

Mr. Speaker: No, I think everybody has had ample time to --

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, then.

Mr. Speaker: No, we are dealing with this point of order.

Mr. Sargent: Why are you part of the coverup too? Sit down for a second. That is a bunch of garbage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to resume his seat, please. Thank you.

The point of privilege which was raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was a matter which has arisen from time to time in this House where honourable members have appealed to the Speaker to make a judgement or to adjudicate on a difference of opinion. Obviously, the government has provided an answer. Although the member may not be happy with that answer, that is beyond my jurisdiction or authority to deal with.

I would refer all members to standing order 81(d), which says quite clearly: "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming. . ."

The government House leader has indicated that the answers will be forthcoming in detail at a later date. He has said quite clearly that he needs more time in order to prepare those answers so I do not see that the member has a point of privilege. The matter has been dealt with.

The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No. I have recognized the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Sargent: I know you have, but why not recognize me for once?

Mr. Speaker: Because he was on his feet first. The member for Oshawa.

[Later]

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was interested in your assessment of the question that was raised a while ago. You referred to

section 81(

d) of the standing orders. You made a good point but in order to help you come to some real determination may I just put this on the record?

In question 293, I asked of the minister: "Would the Minister of Energy provide the cost of the quarter page advertisement placed by Ontario Hydro in the Globe and Mail. . ." That was asked in September and that does not require a lot of research.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite clearly, that is also out of order.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I submit to you that this is a massive cover-up by the government and I have been trying to --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: My point of order is this: For weeks I have been trying to find out -- no one in government knows -- how much Mr. Foley, the head of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., makes. The minister thinks he might make $100,000. He does not know; nobody knows. Why in the hell do they not know? They have a huge staff --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Do not turn this mike off on me.

Mr. Speaker: The console operator has just recognized who was giving directions. Thank you.

AGGREGATE POLICY

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Today's Toronto Star reports that yesterday the cabinet, meeting in secret, overruled an Ontario Municipal Board decision concerning some gravel pit operations near the homes of the Eaton family. The Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses reports that one family gave at least $13,500 to the Tories in the last provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, are you satisfied this is in order and that there was not a little bit of hanky-panky involved or at least some relationship between a donation of that size and that decision?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the honourable member may well recognize that is not a legitimate point of order.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with the business of the House, I would like to advise all honourable members that due to the generosity of the members and the staff we, the Legislative Assembly, have raised $833 from the auction sale and the fun fair today, to go to the United Way. I thank you all for your participation and co-operation.

Mr. Ruston: I think we should recognize the auctioneer.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, we should recognize that because the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) did such an excellent job in raising the price of that photograph.

Mr. Epp: Was that a legitimate point of order that you raised?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure.

2:20 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on the revised funding arrangements we have developed to assist the Ontario hospital system to maintain its level of excellence in the current economic climate. To do this the government has provided us with an additional $110 million which will raise our spending on hospitals to $3.3 billion in this fiscal year. Many members will recall that this is more than the total health budget five years ago.

We have already advised all hospitals of the specific impact the changes will have on them, but I would like to review the general principles of the new funding formula for the members of the House.

In the past, when a hospital reported an operating deficit at the end of the fiscal year, that hospital would then negotiate with the ministry for a full or partial recovery of the amount of the deficit. This has led to an unhealthy debate on the question of underfunding versus overspending. To this end, the government has provided us with the necessary funds to make this a turnaround year in hospital financing.

The base which the ministry had used to calculate hospital budgets was established a number of years ago. Some hospitals argued that it was unrealistically low and this led to claims of underfunding. This will no longer be the case. All hospitals will be given a new budget base for the current year which is based on what they actually spent to provide services last year, that is the fiscal year 1981-82.

In order to bring that level forward to 1982-83, we will add to that amount an amount for inflation and an appropriate amount for increases in work load. We will further provide additional funds to cover fully the cost of salary increases negotiated under the inflation restraint program when it is resolved by the House.

In future, this new base will be used with appropriate increases to reflect the higher costs of approved services. We will not accept or pay for deficits incurred in this or future years. Because the budget of hospitals will be based on the actual amount they themselves spent in the last fiscal year, hospitals should indeed be able to continue the same level of service.

As my associate deputy minister said in his letter to all administrators, "Hospitals will be expected to manage in a manner which will neither sustain a deficit nor reduce services in a way that would jeopardize patient care." I should pause to clarify that: In other words, hospitals will not have any reasons to, or be permitted to, affect patient care by closing beds or withdrawing services.

We have offered to work with hospital boards and administrators who anticipate difficulty living within these new budgets and I have written personally to the chairman of each hospital board to ask for their assistance in dealing with the inflationary pressure on the hospital system.

The public of Ontario is very fortunate in the excellence of our hospital system and the government remains committed to maintaining that level of excellence. I know all members will recognize this commitment in the decision of my colleagues to provide us with the additional $110 million at a time when many other worthwhile programs are being constrained by the economic forces we face.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: When government policy is announced in the House it is customary that it be done before it is released to the press. The information contained in the minister's statement, along with the specific dollars applied to my community, were announced by the minister's colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and were headlines in the local press yesterday.

Surely it is not proper for even the Minister of Health to use the many hundreds of millions of dollars that we are spending in hospital services for political purposes. If he is going to make the announcement of policy in the House, why should not the local Tory members make the announcement to the local papers after it has been made here? Surely it is against the privileges of the House that they once again run this sort of thing through the political machine as has become so characteristic in the recent months of this administration.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I might respond in this way. The hospitals have been waiting for quite some time to get the final determination of this question. As soon as it was determined by my colleagues, we prepared the appropriate letters and they were mailed earlier this week. I felt it important to get those letters out, and I know the hospitals will appreciate receiving them. I think some received them yesterday.

The information was shared with my colleagues earlier this week at the point at which those letters went into the mail. I will tell members why I am very comfortable sharing it with my colleagues. It is because my colleagues are part of the government which has to make the necessary and difficult decisions to support this program. They are entitled --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The members over there have the privilege of criticizing without any inhibition what we have done today and what we have done on previous days. My colleagues on the other hand have to go around and defend, and have to do so every year, the difficult job of raising money and putting taxes on the public to fund these things.

Given that situation, I am proud to be able to equip my colleagues to go out and defend what we do today as equally and as well as they defend on those days when we have to raise the money as well as spend it, to the degree to which they are prepared to defend the government of which they are a part.

The members opposite are part of the system which allows them to criticize it and we respect that right, and they have it now. These people are prepared to defend revenue raising as well as take credit for the decisions. Let us clarify it. These decisions are made by the government. They are not made in this case in this forum. They are decisions that have been made largely by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) in freeing up $110 million. Those decisions quite properly should be shared with my colleagues, defended by my colleagues and explained by my colleagues.

I am proud to have had them out doing that for us as we mount this new expanded base for hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for bringing that matter to my attention. I must confess I was unaware of it, but it does not in all honesty constitute a point of privilege, as you well know.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I gather in view of your saying that it is not a point of order or privilege, I would not be allowed to say --

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- that is probably the worst justification --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would not mind being able to make an announcement in here without reading about it in the press first.

I would like to announce details of a five-year plan being undertaken by my ministry which will form the framework for the continued development of community living opportunities for the developmentally handicapped people of this province.

This policy of providing community living opportunities for those who are able to benefit from them has been a primary focus of this ministry since 1975. In those seven years we have had great success in promoting community living for developmentally handicapped people. Let me outline some of our major accomplishments.

In the area of community residential care, we have created 2,800 new places for children and adults. At the same time, we have more than doubled the capacity of our workshop and training program, from 3,600 places in 1975 to 7,600 on March 31, 1982.

Another highly successful program has been the introduction of the adult protective service workers who assist developmentally handicapped adults in coping with the day-to-day activities of independent living. These include such practical matters as finding accommodation and work, negotiating rents, making legal agreements and so on. There are now 130 adult protective service workers in the province providing support to over 6,000 clients.

2:30 p.m.

Since 1975, we have also developed a variety of services for developmentally handicapped children. One example is the parent relief program which offers short-term care for handicapped children so that their families can take vacations. Another is our special service-at-home program. Under this program, the province provides funding to parents to purchase specialized services for their handicapped children who have more complex needs; for instance, children who are developmentally handicapped and also have a physical disability.

As a result of the development of these community programs and services, we have reduced the population of our institutions over the last seven years. To give members a specific figure, as of 1980, 3,800 residents had left our facilities, with a net reduction in our facility population of about 1,200. Since 1980, the population has been further reduced by more than 200. Most of those who left were trained and placed in the community by my ministry.

I see that as a testimony to the wisdom of this policy direction and the very capable way in which this policy has been carried out in co-operation with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, its local affiliates and other agencies.

In the past seven years we have increased the annual allocation of funds for community services to the developmentally handicapped from $10 million in 1975 to $118 million in 1982. The projected expenditures for this year include: $49 million for residential programs; $29 million for vocational and prevocational training; $6 million for programming in homes for special care; $17 million for home support programs; $11 million for special needs programs; $2 million for community support programs for adults, such as community living courses and grants to district working groups; and $4 million for the adult protective service worker program.

In addition, we are spending $11.5 million for developmental day care through the day nurseries program.

We have now reached a point, however, that in order to continue with this process of reducing the population of our institutions and expanding our community resources we must consolidate our gains and adapt our plan of action to changing conditions. The five-year plan I am announcing today does exactly that. In other words, what I am announcing is not a new policy direction, but the next phase of an ongoing process that has already proven successful.

It is also a plan designed to reflect today's needs and utilize our available resources in such a way that they will best meet the requirements of all our developmentally handicapped citizens.

There are basically two elements to this five-year plan. First of all, and this is top priority, we plan to expand our community resources for the developmentally handicapped people of this province. That includes increasing community services to the whole range of developmentally handicapped persons.

Second, because of our past success in reducing our residential population, we intend, as the next logical step, to consolidate our institutional services by reducing the bed capacity of our facility system.

After looking at all options, we have concluded that the best way of effecting that reduction in bed capacity is through a combined action -- the further reduction of our residential population and the phased closure of six of our

schedule I facilities. The provincially owned

schedule I facilities are the facilities directly operated by my ministry.

Let me tell members what this five-year plan will mean in dollars and cents. Over the next five years, we plan to spend approximately $33 million in the expansion of our community service system. An estimated $10 million will be new money; the remainder, approximately $23 million, will be generated through the phased closing of these six facilities.

I want to quickly outline some of the ways we plan to spend the $33 million over the next five years. First, we plan to develop a number of supervised community living alternatives for children and adults currently living in intensive settings such as group homes who no longer require this kind of 24-hour supervision.

Basically, we see these supervised community living alternatives taking two forms. Under the first alternative, the handicapped adult lives on his or her own, probably in an apartment, with supervision and support appropriate to each individual's needs. Under the second, the handicapped individual is placed in a family home program. Here, he or she receives support within the context of family living. In addition, where necessary, there will be a worker assigned to assist a number of individuals and families.

We expect to develop 750 supervised community living places over the next five years. We also plan to provide funds to agencies to provide 1,881 new employment and training places. These new funds will be primarily directed towards more job-oriented training for developmentally handicapped clients.

In addition to these services, my ministry intends to expand our family support services. These include services such as the provision of in-home training to families with developmentally handicapped children. Since 1975, the system of family supports in Ontario has grown to the point where it now serves approximately 20,000 families a year. We plan to add 1,000 more families to that system.

We also intend to develop 250 community spaces for severely handicapped adults and 200 for severely handicapped children. Although we have created a large number of residential alternatives to institutions since 1975, few have been geared to the needs of the more severely handicapped. We hope to remedy that situation over the next five years.

Here is an important point: as one of the most positive aspects of this five-year plan, we intend to virtually eliminate the long-term institutionalization of children in

schedule I facilities in this province. This brings me to the second part of this five-year plan designed to ensure a better quality of life for the developmentally handicapped people of Ontario.

As I said earlier, we also intend to consolidate our institutional services through the continued reduction of our facility population and the phased closure of six of our

schedule I facilities. We intend to begin with the closure of the St. Lawrence Regional Centre in Brockville in the fiscal year 1983-84. This will be followed by the closure of the Bluewater Centre in Goderich in the latter part of the same year.

In fiscal 1984-85, the St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre, the START Centre, will be closed; followed by Pine Ridge in Aurora in the latter part of the same fiscal year. We plan to close D'Arcy Place in Cobourg in fiscal 1985-86 and, finally, the Durham Regional Centre in Whitby in fiscal 1986-87.

During the same five-year period we also intend to reduce the population of the Oxford Regional Centre in Woodstock by 30 to 35 residents per year between 1983 to 1986 for a total of 173 residents. In order to determine which facilities should be closed my staff looked at a number of factors, including the following.

We looked at program considerations such as the proximity of alternative facilities and the suitability of the buildings for the programs we want to provide. For example, is the building accessible to wheelchairs? We were also mindful of the greater opportunities in a community setting for those residents able to move there.

A second factor was the effect on both residents and staff who would have to be relocated if a facility were closed. A third factor was the impact on the community of closing a facility in terms of lost employment and income. We also looked at the cost of operating, upgrading and maintaining the various facilities. The six facilities to be closed were chosen on the basis of a number of considerations including these four.

All residents living in these six facilities will be looked after in one of two ways. Those who are not able to move out into the community will be moved to other facilities. I think it is important to emphasize that this five-year plan will allow us to expand our community services while continuing to provide a high level of care to residents remaining in our facilities.

Those residents who are ready to take on a more independent lifestyle will be placed in group homes, supervised community living situations and other community alternatives. I am talking now not only about residents from the six facilities to be closed but residents from all our facilities.

We estimate the phased closing of these six facilities over a five-year period will mean an overall reduction of 1,163 ministry staff and 989 facility beds. In other words, we expect it will mean a better way of life in the community for a minimum of 989 developmentally handicapped residents. However, I emphasize that no resident will move into the community until we are assured that he or she has an appropriate place to go with adequate access to day programs. This is in keeping with the practice that we have followed for the last seven years.

I would like to stress as well that my ministry will also be playing an active role in the relocation of all surplus staff. Personnel officials will be conducting interviews with all affected staff long before the date of any facility closing. Information on vacancies within the facility system, as well as other government jobs open, will be provided to all staff.

2:40 p.m.

As I pointed out, one of the factors we looked at in selecting the six facilities was the proximity of other facilities and government settings. The idea here was to ensure the minimum personal disruption to all individuals, including employees affected by the closures. At the same time, employees will be assisted with the costs of relocation, including such items as trips to locate accommodation, movement of household effects, temporary accommodation and incidental travelling expenses.

I want to point out that in the past few years our ministry has had experience with a number of facility closures. Our record in finding alternative employment for the majority of those directly affected has been excellent and I believe reflects our concern and commitment to our employees. Given the long-range strategy I am announcing today, we have every hope of continuing that excellent record.

I started my statement today with a brief outline of how our system of community services has grown over the last seven years. The fact is this growth would not have been possible without the assistance and collaboration of many agencies, in particular the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and its local affiliates. We trust that co-operation will continue in the future.

In closing, let me say that over the next five years we plan to continue to expand and broaden our services to the developmentally handicapped people of this province and to do so in the most responsible way possible, with very special emphasis on the quality of human values and the humanity reflected in new opportunities for them to live and participate in the community to the fullest of their potential.

HALF-BACK PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to make a statement in the House which appeared in the press at any time, and I think this is it.

It is my pleasure to announce to the House that the Wintario Half-Back program will return on Monday, November 1, offering people in our province substantial discounts on the purchase of Canadian books by redeeming their old Wintario tickets.

As members will recall, the Half-Back program began in 1978 as an experiment to encourage more active participation in Canadian culture. Since then, more than 3.4 million Wintario tickets have been redeemed on Canadian records and feature films, the live performing arts, subscriptions to Canadian magazines and mass market Canadian paperback books. By all criteria, the ministry's experiment was a success.

Having refined and tested the program, we are now ready to launch it on a much-expanded basis, beginning with the Canadian book industry. Qualifying for discounts will be any book written by a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant, living or not, regardless of the book's language, content or publisher.

Starting November 1 and through into 1983, Ontarians will be able to redeem their old Wintario tickets to a value of 50 cents each at close to 400 participating bookstores and book departments across the province. Tickets from tonight onwards are eligible for the program.

The public may redeem Wintario tickets for a discount of up to half the retail price of a book or $15, whichever is less. For example, on a book that costs $16, one can receive a discount of up to $8 by redeeming up to 16 Wintario tickets. On a book that costs $40, the maximum discount is $15, for 30 Wintario tickets.

Members will be pleased to know that the Half-Back program was developed in response to requests from the Canadian book publishing and bookselling industries. The ministry has worked closely over the past six months with representatives of the Association of Canadian Publishers, the Canadian Book Publishers' Council and the Canadian Booksellers Association in designing the program.

Thus, the Half-Back program will help strengthen the Canadian sector of the book industry. Its timing will coincide with the major pre-Christmas selling season and we are confident it will add significant new sales for publishers of Canadian books, open important new audiences and enhance the ability of Ontarians to purchase and enjoy Canadian books. If this phase of the Half-Back program is successful, it will be expanded early next year to assist other areas of cultural life in Ontario to include admissions to live performing arts and admissions and memberships to art galleries and museums.

In closing, I would like to invite all members of the House to start saving their old Wintario tickets now. In this way, they will participate in our efforts to tell Ontarians that culture is good business and that it contributes significantly to the economy of our province.

JOB CREATION

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I notice that the second-in-command of the Supreme Soviet over there, who likes to share matters like the purchase of Suncor with his colleagues who have to defend it, has not risen in his place to give us a statement on his views of the statement of Mr. Lalonde yesterday. Surely that should be one of the primary considerations before the House today --

Mr. Breithaupt: He should make a comment in the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid: In the House, yes. Does the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) not have something to say?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This being private members' afternoon, I would caution all members that we have a very strict time limit on ministerial statements and we are approaching it very quickly.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to table the eighth annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

This report, like the seven before it, represents the very excellent work carried out by dedicated members of the council under the direction of Mr. Douglas Rapelje of Welland, who served as chairman with distinction for three years and as a member for another three years. At present, the chairmanship of the advisory council is in the very capable hands of Mrs. Fran McHale of London.

All members of the Legislature will receive a copy of the report today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the man who brought down interest rates, the provincial Treasurer. I share with my colleague a concern that the minister would not have brought to this House a statement this afternoon with respect to his response to the so-called mini-budget, as he called it, at least half budget, unbudget or statement of the federal Minister of Finance yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I believe it further reveals the contempt of these ministers for this House that we have dealt with today. We have repeatedly called on the Treasurer for a job creation program that expresses his own ideas. I think that has been mentioned 21 times or so since this House was called back. We know his projections for the provincial economy are completely out of whack, and unemployment is far higher than he predicted. Indeed, employment is far lower.

Contrary to his expectations, in May his ministry's latest estimates of gross provincial product for the second quarter of 1982 show not only a decline in real production for the fourth quarter, but a decline in current dollar production for the first time in 22 years, all of which speaks to the severity of the recession in this province. Will the Treasurer tell this House what he is going to do now that the federal government has announced this program? What are his plans?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, as to why I do not have a statement, even the minister responsible in Ottawa did not call his statement yesterday a budget. In fact, he did not even call it an economic review. He stood up during normal ministerial statements in the House and presented it there. I would suspect it is without precedent that an hour and a half or whatever time it took has never before been used to present what I have to call a budget in that way.

Second, I point out to my friend that when the federal government has brought forward its budgets in the past, be they Conservative or Liberal governments, I have not reacted the day after. Please go back in the records to check. I have taken a couple of days at least before reacting, for the simple reason that I have learned --

Mr. Nixon: You sure crucified Crosbie.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not react the day after Mr. Crosbie's budget; I reacted two days after his budget. I have learned it is always wise to have my tax people look at the written documents that support these statements, apart from the rhetoric used to present them. In most cases we like to see the details before we jump to conclusions, and I would suggest that this is normal and prudent.

The balance of the question has been asked, as the member says, 21 times or more, and I would point out to him that he does not like the answers. I do not like the state of the economy. At least yesterday we saw some willingness on the part of the federal government to invest some of its reordered priorities in job creation. If my reading is right, they have put about half a billion dollars in the next 18 months towards that. I would simply like to compare that in quantum with the amount I had in my tiny budget, some one quarter the size of theirs, last May, when more than that was put into Ontario alone for job creation.

Mr. Renwick: No, it was not.

Mr. Breithaupt: You just reshuffled the deck.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is factually correct. I said before this statement came out that we stood ready to work with them. We do stand ready. Mr. Axworthy will be here some time this afternoon. I will be meeting with him and we stand prepared to co-operate.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware that this follows on the news of another set of firings or permanent layoffs of an additional 1,100 people at Falconbridge yesterday. He is aware of the report of the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy dealing with the auto industry, and whether he agrees with the conclusions or not it speaks fundamentally to the severe structural problems that we have in this province in the resource sector as well as in the manufacturing sector.

Is the minister going to have discussions with Mr. Axworthy about those very basic and deep problems? Is he going to address them? Is he going to use some of the moneys he has saved from the restraint program, anywhere between $440 million and $820 million, depending whom one talks to in his ministry? He has freed up money through the restraint program. Is he going to use it to deal with these structural and basic problems in the Ontario economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One point I would make about yesterday's comment is that control over the cash requirements of this nation has obviously not been well kept. That is not the fault of the present minister. Anybody who sees his cash requirements change by 350 per cent in less than --

Mr. Peterson: What has this got to do with the question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It has a lot to do with the question. The member just does not like to hear the fact that Liberals cannot manage money; that is what he does not like to hear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to point out that through internal hard decisions, my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and I have managed to keep our spending, as Ontario Finances will show, to the predicted levels this year even though we have faced the same kinds of problems as the federal government. I have flexibility to help.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the job creation program the federal government announced yesterday will create very few jobs -- 10,000 to 15,000 in Ontario over the next 18 months, I believe -- would the Treasurer not agree that this, combined with a number of jobs that will be lost because of his wage control package, which is estimated to be around 12,000 jobs because of decreased consumer demand, will leave us no further ahead as a result of yesterday?

Does he not believe one of the things he should do, now that the federal government seems to recognize to a very small extent that jobs are the number one problem, is to withdraw the wage control package as part of a program of recovery in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The member for Windsor-Riverside has had some five weeks of talking to us both in this House and in committee on this issue. We fundamentally disagree. If what the honourable member says is right, all I need to do is double the salary of every civil servant in this province and there will be no problem.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Treasurer should talk about federal Liberals being able to manage when it was his criticism of his federal colleagues that helped lead to the defeat of the Clark government.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If it were not question period I would talk about the purchase of Suncor, the land banking, advertising, Minaki Lodge and a whole host of other wasteful topics.

The federal government has indicated it will put something like $500 million into job creation. The Treasurer indicated on the radio this morning that 40 per cent of those jobs created by the federal government would usually be in Ontario; that is usually the way the figures work. Is he prepared to put up an additional $200 million, therefore, which would be 40 per cent of what the federal government is putting into the program, for job creation in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Rainy River was at my press conference yesterday. He was getting his script from it, as I recall. I saw his comments in the paper afterwards.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Unfortunately, I missed most of --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any event, there may have been some misunderstanding of the very issue the member mentioned. He has stated it correctly, by the way. Not all the press did, because the question came to me yesterday, "What part of the $500 million do you think the federal government is going to spend in Ontario?" My answer was, as the member said, "Forty per cent is about what we would expect, and that is about $200 million."

When we talk in billions of dollars, the impression is that it is a vast amount of money and that a billion dollars would solve all our problems. I think the member and the third party would agree that if we have a million and a half people out of work and if they each need $200 a week minimum through unemployment insurance to survive, that is $300 million a week; so a billion dollars runs about three weeks.

It really is not, in total, the kind of money that is going to solve the economic problems of this country. But no one program is, and I think we have to focus on that. The question is how much use is that going to be, particularly if it is aimed at people who are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits.

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Treasurer's answer in view of the very exciting $750-million Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program which was going to solve all the problems of the world.

However, let me change to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On Tuesday we had a discussion about the Cadillac Fairview-Greymac transaction and, as I recall, the minister stated in the House that he would be happy to invite Greymac Credit Corp. in to talk about its purchase of some 11,000 Cadillac Fairview units.

I am sure the minister is aware that yesterday, presumably under his instructions, the Tory members on the standing committee on general government defeated a motion by our party to have this whole matter investigated by the committee. I understand they also defeated a further motion to investigate it some time before the closing.

Is the minister prepared to have this whole matter investigated in some way or other, such as by a committee of this House? There are too many ramifications of this deal, too many unknowns. It has too big an effect on the rental market here in Toronto to let it go by unscrutinized. What is he going to do about it? Why will he not allow a committee hearing on this matter?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us not leave, by innuendo, any suspicion in anyone's mind that this government is not concerned about the effect that interest rates are having on everybody and, in particular, the impact they have on tenants when the cost of financing and refinancing buildings is passed on to them. This is a real problem that we all have to face.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: With great respect, that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Why would the minister not allow an investigation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The issue the Leader of the Opposition is raising today is the issue of whether there should be some large-scale investigation into the sale of property. Several sales of property take place each year. Is he saying there is some implication that Cadillac Fairview is acting improperly in this transaction? If he is, then he should say so publicly outside this room. Is he saying that Greymac Credit Corp. is acting improperly in some aspect of this transaction? If he is, then he should say so publicly outside this room.

I have received nothing to date to indicate to me that there is anything improper about the price or the reported rates of interest. I have indicated to the honourable member and to others that I am prepared to request that Greymac come into my office and discuss details of the transaction. Indeed, I have already written to Mr. Lumley requesting that the Foreign Investment Review Agency review the transaction.

Mr. Peterson: Oh? Why is that if there is nothing the matter with it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Because, if my friend recalls, there have been insinuations and concerns expressed in this House and by tenants about the impact of foreign capital in this deal. They are concerned about it. I think the minister should respond to matters that concern the public and should respond in accordance with their concerns. If the member does not agree with that, then he should say that too.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we move along: I am sure we all get caught up in the emotion and the excitement of the debate. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the reference he made a few moments ago.

Mr. Peterson: I was going to do it before you asked.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What did he say? I was not involved in that.

Ms. Copps: He used the word "hypocrite."

Mr. Speaker: He used an unparliamentary word. He called you a hypocrite.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Well, does he want to meet outside and we will talk about that?

Mr. Peterson: The minister is pugnacious. I am saying to the minister what other people are saying to him; the executive committee of the Metropolitan Toronto council, for example. Is he aware of what transpired at the executive committee yesterday? Is he aware there is a great deal of concern by a lot of people? If he is insulated from that, then he does not know the realities of what is happening out there.

It is a huge transaction. It represents some five per cent of the controlled rental stock in this city. He knows there are implications with respect to the potential foreign involvement. That is only one aspect of it, one among many. Because a lot of this financing probably will be passed through and the tenants will be asked to participate in that, and because of the huge consequences, he has an obligation to look into that. I am asking him whether he will permit a committee to look into it. Why will he not?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The reference to the Metro executive committee is interesting, because I see reports in the paper now that some of them did not know what they were voting for.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The mayor included.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me just indicate very clearly that the Residential Tenancy Commission, under the terms of the legislation, has an obligation to look into transactions. They have the authority to do so. If the authority is not sufficient, I have already indicated that I am prepared to look at that and review it. But they have certainly demonstrated quite ably that if there is anything in the transaction which was not appropriate, they can deal with it. I think that is the proper forum for rent increases to be dealt with.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it is unbecoming of a member of this House to suggest that another member step outside the House to deal with the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I mean, I would dearly love to be invited --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat. There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Riddell: Let's retain the dignity of the House --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Tell him that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I'll step out any time -- any time you want me to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that you have both had an opportunity to vent your frustrations, I will recognize the member for Etobicoke.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I do not want this thing to get carried away but, in view of the fact that this Legislature is looking at the question of family violence, I think it is not becoming of the House to have any member invite another member outside. I say that in all sincerity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations tell the House why tenants should be paying for corporate reorganization, which is what he is allowing to happen? Will he impose a moratorium on the sale of large buildings until his government has in place legislation that will protect tenants from the kinds of exorbitant pass-throughs that this company and others are able to get on the sale of buildings?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated very clearly that the Residential Tenancy Commission is the place to review the nature of a transaction to make sure that it is an appropriate one and that the carrying costs involved in such a purchase are phased in over a period of time. I have indicated to the House that this matter is under review by the courts, but I support that principle and will continue to support it. I do not feel it is an issue that needs to be dealt with in this place but, rather, can be dealt with more appropriately at the time of the hearing.

Mr. Peterson: I would be happy to step outside with him --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- except I am afraid he would try to do to me what he has been doing to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) for years now.

The minister asked me to make some projections --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the member is casting aspersions on what I look upon as a very real friendship that has developed in this Legislature between a member of the government and a member of the opposition, then I think he should clearly think over what he is saying, because I think those kinds of things are very important in life. If he has some objection to it, let him say so.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to say that when the member for Sudbury East is in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I have never seen the minister so sensitive about so many things, and justifiably so. But he asked me some questions about Cadillac Fairview. There is no question that, by and large, Cadillac Fairview has been an exemplary landlord, but that is not the case with Greymac. The minister is aware, for example, that Greymac was convicted in 1980 of some 29 violations of city fire safety, building, plumbing and zoning standards.

When they are going to become a massive landlord, as it appears they will unless there is an investigation, perhaps we should be looking into these matters. That is what I am suggesting to the minister. I am also suggesting that he is blind to the realities here. We have an opportunity to look into this situation, and it should be done by a committee of this House. Why is the minister stonewalling it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have heard the allegations about other properties owned by Greymac, and I already have a member of my staff verifying those comments at city hall. That, of course, is one of the matters I will be speaking to them about when I meet with them in my office.

3:10 p.m.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, who has waited in vain through three budgetary statements by the federal Liberal government over the past year. As the last statement, yesterday afternoon, indicates probably the final word of the Liberal government on their job creation program, and as it contains no long-term employment strategy and obviously no help for the restructuring of Ontario's economy in either the resource sector or the manufacturing sector, can the Treasurer tell us precisely what he is prepared to do to create permanent jobs in Ontario, or is he simply going to tag along with the ad hoc federal program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I assume that is not the final word of the government. If it were, I would have thought the Minister of Finance would have called it a budget. The only way it may be final is that, one hopes, as a government they may be defeated by the only legitimate alternative to them in Ottawa, a party I think could do a heck of a lot better running this country than Mr. Trudeau's government has done in the past few years. I simply say that.

Mr. Cooke: That's why you opposed their one and only budget.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You were not so big on Mr. Clark.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously there is not going to be some sudden, magic solution to the problem. I would be the last to say that. I have tried to say in this House and in other places that economists for a change are at least starting to agree the economy is moving up instead of down.

Mr. Renwick: It is not and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Renwick: Please respond.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have tried to point out that even people like Mr. Beigie, who I believe was before the committee the other night, and a number of others have said the measurable human statistics that are very real to the honourable member and myself are not going to get better. They probably will get worse; I am not denying that.

One suddenly does not turn around an economy, but we believe a couple of things in last night's statement were good. Last year's most disastrous November budget did more than impose a set of taxes; it destroyed a set of beliefs in this country that one was rewarded if one took risks. Last night, I saw a glimmer of a return from that socialist viewpoint expressed by the federal party.

Mr. Foulds: Can I ask the Treasurer to set aside his ideological straitjacket, his rhetoric and his cant for the moment and answer very simply how long he is going to wait for the economy to turn around?

What steps is the Treasurer going to take to begin the hard work of restructuring and rebuilding Ontario's economy when it is evident, as he admitted earlier today, that at best Ontario is going to get 24,000 short-term jobs over the next 18 months, when unemployment totals more than 500,000 people and when the number of jobs, which averages out to 1,333 a month, will not even match 1/10th of the number of exhaustees on unemployment insurance who will be coming on to the scene in Ontario on a monthly basis over the next year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend certainly plays with figures. I do not know where this figure of 1,100-odd jobs a month comes from. He likes to put everything in concrete terms. Unlike him, I really do not believe governments by themselves can solve the kind of problem he is talking about. Every time a party like his has gotten into power in this world it has destroyed the economic system, it has never made it work.

The member has a naive, academic belief that socialism works; it does not. The only thing that will work is a return to a consumer market society. That is going to happen slowly; it is not going to happen overnight. People like the member continue to destroy the confidence of consumers in this country. That is one of the essential ingredients of a turnaround.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to deal not only with short-term problems but also with long-term problems. Is the Treasurer going to be talking with the federal people about productivity in the Ontario economy? Is he going to be talking about apprenticeships and on-the-job training while we have an opportunity, when things are not at the most highly productive level, when companies and industries now have time perhaps to train or retrain people, because they are not using their capacity at 90 or 100 per cent as they are usually? There are opportunities here.

Is the Treasurer going to be dealing with those kinds of problems so that we will have a trained work force to handle the jobs when the world economy turns up?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the other night in the committee, while listening to briefs, I was commenting that I accepted as a statement of fact something said by Mr. Clifford Pilkey. I do not always agree with Mr. Pilkey. I agreed with the one thing he said, though, when he said productivity in Canada was not lower than it should be because we had a bunch of lazy workers --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Nobody said that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, no. He was simply saying -- I am not implying those were the member's words -- that productivity depended upon the tools given to workers so that they could use them in a more useful and productive way. I accept that.

The question then is, under what circumstances does a country get its industry into a more productive stance? First, there must be savings or foreign investment. We either generate the money in our own economy or people bring it in and put it into our factories. It happens that when things are very slow, savings are low --

Mr. T. P. Reid: But they are not. They are the highest they have ever been.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am talking about the savings available in factories for reinvestment, not the savings in the hands of consumers, which are high.

One has to take away from all those savings that consumers have in the bank the money governments borrow, because that is the only money that is left over for productivity improvements. That is one of the areas where our country has major difficulties, and that is one of the reasons we in this part have continued to stress the importance of a prudent fiscal policy.

If we borrow all the money back that people put into the bank just to run the country for services we have not taxed them for, then obviously nothing is left for productive increase.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. We have some temporary jobs out of yesterday's statement. We do not know what he is going to do to tag on to that. What is his government prepared to do? There was nothing mentioned yesterday, and the Treasurer did not answer this question earlier today; nor was there anything in his budget in May about the structural problems in our economy.

We could mention another report that came out which pointed to the structural difficulties of the auto industry in our province. We know the problems in the resource sector and the machinery sector. All the minister has done at this point is to institute a few technology centres, and that does nothing about the basic problems in our economy.

What is the Treasurer going to do? What new programs is he willing to institute rather than continuing to flag around the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, which has done nothing about those deep-seated problems in Ontario's economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, Mr. Speaker, I suspect the honourable member did not want us to put those tech centres in. I argue that is exactly what is attempting to attack the structural problems. We have to get productivity improvements. The member's friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) just talked about that.

Why do we have a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing centre? Why do we have a robotics centre? Why do we have an auto parts technology centre? Those centres are there to assist companies to learn how to use modern technology. If the member told the government to do that, he should not criticize it. If the member wants to jump on the bandwagon now and pretend it is his idea, I say to him, please jump on.

Mr. Cooke: The minister does not even know what he is going to do with them. He does not even have terms of reference. It is the phoniest con job he has ever tried.

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I suggest, then, if the member believes all that nonsense --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I caution all honourable members that more than half of question period has gone by. We are still on leaders' questions. With all respect, I think there is too much time being used up on interjections and responding to interjections. Does the Treasurer have a further reply?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

3:20 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I point out that I have had seven minutes so far. I want to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and bring up the matter of Greymac again.

In view of the fact that the Greymac takeover is threatening the security of nearly 11,000 tenants in the refinancing of the Cadillac Fairview units, and in view of the Toronto Star story today that Peter Pocklington is trading 2,584 Toronto apartments to American interests, will the minister tell me what the government and he are going to do to protect the interests of the tenants who face huge increases simply as a result of corporate reorganization?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that all of us, since 1975, have recognized the need to give some extra protection to tenants in terms of the expense that is involved in renting housing accommodation.

What the honourable member is really talking about is whether society should start intervening in the right to exchange and transfer property. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has a resolution before the House on that very issue, the issue of interfering with the fundamental rights of people to own and transfer property.

Surely what the member should be interested in is the capacity of the Residential Tenancy Commission and its commissioners to look into the realities of the transaction to see whether it was a legitimate one, at arm's length, without collusion. Although I have some assurance this can be done, if other things are needed to make certain that it is done, then I am prepared to look at them to ensure that those transactions can be seen through and that the transactions are fair.

Surely the member for Port Arthur, as a member of this Legislature, will agree that this is the fundamentally sound position to be taking.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not think it is also a fundamentally sound position to be taking that the tenants have a right to housing? Does he not think that is a fundamental responsibility of his?

Can the minister tell us what objection he has to a one-year moratorium on the refinancing and resale of large buildings? Can he also tell us why tenants should face huge rent increases to finance the takeover of the buildings they live in by either foreign or domestic interests?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, we are getting down to the fundamentals. On the one hand, we have a rent review process and a commission to evaluate the legitimacy of the transaction. I support that. On the other hand, the member is saying the government is not interested in the availability of housing stock when he knows very well that is flying in the face of the activities of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) --

Mr. Foulds: You mean the inactivity of the minister of housing. What are you talking about? You had some credibility, but don't defend that cluck.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: His activities are innovative and go beyond what anyone has been able to achieve anywhere in the country.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Has he bought another house, Bob?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Surely the member must look on the rent review program in the way I thought most of us did from the beginning. There was a shortage of housing. Tenants did not have a choice, because of the housing shortage, in terms of their ability to go to a less expensive one. As a result, there was a need to step in and make certain that if there were to be increases they were in line with the cost pass-through principle, which is a principle this House approved and which members on all sides have said was a sound one.

I said on Tuesday, and I will say again, if we have to examine some aspects of the program and review them to see if they need to be updated and changed, I am prepared to do that. But I do not think the member should try to pretend that he cares more than we do for the tenants' rights. My goodness, this program was introduced by this government in 1975 and has continued long after the wage and price control program of the federal government was abandoned.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister's only response to this grave situation has been to write a letter to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. What we want to know is simply this: Is that all the minister is going to do, or does he have something else up his sleeve that he will declare later?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question in great detail today and the day before yesterday.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that it is unreasonable for landlords to pass through the financing of 85 per cent of the acquisition cost of a building? Why does the minister not change the guidelines so that tenants will not be paying for the buildings that are underfinanced by landlords?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let me go through once again what I have gone through before. I mean this quite sincerely. At present, as the honourable member knows, the commission makes those decisions about guidelines --

Mr. Philip: You have the power to make regulations by legislation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member will hang on and listen, he may get the answer he wants. If he does not, however, he will not be surprised.

The guidelines have established that financing shall be no greater than 85 per cent of the transaction. Therefore, it is assumed that equity of at least 15 per cent is required. By guideline it is also assumed to be reasonable to phase in those financing increases over up to three years, but on occasion it has been more than three years.

That very principle has been challenged in court by a landlord, and it is going to be before the court shortly. I have indicated, and I am indicating now, that I think both those principles are sound and have to be preserved. If the court upholds the landlord's position, then we will have to seriously review them.

I have also said I am prepared to review whether there should be variations in the amount of equity in all or some situations and whether there should be some variations in the phase-in period of financing charges in all or some situations. That has to be a reasonable response to the situation, and I hope reasonable men will accept it as that.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I will preface my question by congratulating the minister on his announcement today. I think it is a step in the right direction. I say sincerely that at least he has recognized some of the problems in one area of health care.

I want to direct the minister's attention now to another area of health care about which he has also professed a concern, the area of mental health. I wonder whether the minister is aware that there have been four suicides at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre in a period of a little more than one month, from August 22 to September 26 of this year. Three of these deaths took place at Oak Ridge, one receiving considerable publicity.

One of the residents, and I think this is most important, was on H ward in a social adaptation program, which at best can be described as cruel and unusual punishment. According to the

schedule I have here before me, that program stipulates that the patient can speak only to other members of the program and the staff, and only with staff permission. That leaves at least one of the patients in the program in a situation where he is not allowed to communicate with anyone from the outside world for 23 out of 24 hours a day.

At the time of the death of one of the patients, he was confined in an eight-by-ten cell with a steel sink and toilet as a punishment for inappropriate laughter while watching television. The cement slab had no mattress during the day.

Will the minister accede not only to requests from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union but also to calls from people across the province who would like to see a public inquiry into the conditions at Penetanguishene?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I begin by saying that, had I known the honourable member was going to be kind in her opening remarks, I would have paid some money on behalf of the United Way to kiss her at noon today. If the offer is still open, perhaps she and I could go outside afterwards.

Mr. Peterson: She would not stoop to that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not even for the United Way? For the United Way I would stoop to that.

Ms. Copps: I think he meant stoop in the other sense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should tell her leader I have given her my track suit on occasion, which she has worn.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are quite concerned about the number of suicides that have occurred this year. Because of that, we are having a look at the situation to see what all the circumstances were surrounding those sad events.

With regard to the specifics the member has raised, I am not sure whether they come out of the allegations or whether some of them may come out of the inquests that are going to be held in one or two of those cases. I can assure the member we are acting on all of those.

The question of whether we should have a public hearing or royal commission on these things is one that has been raised for some time. The clear choice of the ministry is to proceed with the necessary changes as we see them. A royal commission would take two or three years. I do not believe it would turn up much new evidence that the ministry does not already have at hand.

The report Madness, which the unions put together last year, was a pretty thorough review. I do not happen to agree with all the conclusions arrived at, but it also enumerated some of the problems.

3:30 p.m.

I have to believe the steps we have taken, the reorganization inside the ministry to specialize in the area of mental health, taken together with our shortly-to-be-announced patient advocates and community advisory boards, will go a lot further and faster than any royal commission would towards solving some of the problems.

I would not suggest there are not problems that cause me concern because there are, but I think we have identified the problems. I also think we are moving on the solutions and I would not want to see all that work held up or put in suspension for a period of two or three years while we catalogued, once again, what I think has been well catalogued both inside and outside the ministry.

Ms. Copps: The question remains whether the public at large can be satisfied with another in-house inquiry.

I refer the minister to a full-page

article that appeared in the Globe and Mail some two years ago on a program called medication awareness and compliance, which existed at St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, where Connie, along with two to 12 other severely disturbed misbehavers, was confined to two small barren rooms in St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital for more than 23 hours a day.

That same MAC program is currently in operation at the Penetanguishene facility. There was an in-house inquiry two years ago. Why does the same situation still exist? Why were four people brought to the point of taking their own lives within the space of 33 days at Penetanguishene? That deserves a public inquiry. The people of Ontario want to know what is happening in the mental institutions across the province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the inquests are going to serve the precise purpose the member identifies, which is to find out what caused those tragic deaths. That is why we have the inquest procedure. There has never been any suggestion that not all the evidence and information has come out at these inquests.

The circumstances which the member refers to particularly are going to be available to the public. They can assess for themselves whether the ministry is responding to whatever shortcomings those inquests turn up. Indeed, if we did not, we would be subject to appropriately strong criticism.

I am satisfied and I can undertake to the member that any particular shortcomings that might be turned up in those inquests will be dealt with very expeditiously by us if indeed they are things which should be actioned.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister may not be aware of an inquest into a previous suicide in 1980. I have a copy of the report from the coroner's office and none of the recommendations made have ever been implemented by the Penetanguishene hospital.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a legitimate point of order and therefore does not deserve a reply.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of privilege: With all respect, my answer did not indicate that every recommendation of an inquest would be implemented. I was rather careful to say those portions of an inquest that should be actioned by the ministry will be actioned.

CHILD RESTRAINT DEVICES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Why is it that a government that spends $40 million in advertising can only spend $125,000 to inform parents of this province of the content of the child restraint law, the knowledge of which is a matter of life or death?

Can the minister tell the House exactly what he has done to inform parents, as opposed to police and hospital officials, as to the actual content of the law and their responsibilities under the law, since it takes effect next Monday?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have not attempted to contact each and every parent in Ontario directly.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: First, can the minister tell us if his ministry has done any form of radio or press advertising as opposed to posters and brochures?

Second, at a time when we have almost 600,000 people unemployed, and since these devices will cost between $50 and $100 for parents to acquire, can the minister tell us why the ministry budgeted only $40,000 to the Ontario Safety League for their rental program, most of which money was used for administrative purposes? Why is the ministry discontinuing its funding at precisely the time when the demand for rental units is bound to increase, and especially in the current economic climate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have had no request from the Ontario Safety League for funding additional to what we have already agreed to provide. To my knowledge there has been no request from any other organization for funding for the rental program. I am very much aware of a number of rental programs being undertaken by service clubs in many communities across this province. They want to undertake this program as a service club activity within that community and have not asked for government funding.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to tell us whether he has yet been able to persuade his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) to drop the proposed sales tax on these items, given the fact that these items are now mandated in law and are by no means a luxury?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I have not discussed this with my colleague the Minister of Revenue. I did discuss it with the man who is responsible for those kinds of decisions, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), some time ago -- in fact, before the budget considerations. At that time the decision was that they would not be exempt from tax.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and it concerns the withdrawal of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. from negotiations with Can-Car of Thunder Bay on the construction of the H-6 cars. Is there any truth to the allegation that Can-Car management is asking for a guarantee of $200,000 or $300,000 more on each H-6 car before an agreement can be signed?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I quite understand the request for a guarantee of additional money before a contract can be signed. I might help the honourable members of the House -- and I have already notified you, Mr. Speaker, that I have an answer to a question that was asked on Monday when, unfortunately, I was not here. I was in northern Ontario at that time.

The Toronto Transit Commission decided about a year ago that it wished to start a procurement process for the purchase of additional subway cars for the Toronto subway system, with an initial order for 26 cars, or perhaps a maximum at this time of 60 cars, which might eventually lead into a requirement for 100 cars.

At that time I believe the TTC distributed to the prospective bidders a package of information. It was not a tender call, because the commission has not, to my knowledge, to this date authorized a tender call. They submitted a package of information to bidders, which included Hawker Siddeley, Thunder Bay and Bombardier in Quebec. Then I had correspondence from Hawker Siddeley asking that this not be a tender call but a negotiated contract with Hawker Siddeley. At this time Hawker Siddeley and the UTDC were in discussions, and still are, as to joint venture arrangements that might be very beneficial to both companies.

In the meantime I had correspondence from officials of Bombardier, who wrote to me because of the suggested upcoming tender call. They wanted reconfirmation of my assurance given to them some time previously that as far as we were concerned we would not ask Bombardier to bid again on projects unless I could guarantee them that there was going to be no interference with the bidding process. As members will understand, this came about because of the government's decision on a previous occasion to give preference to Hawker Siddeley and to negotiate a contract even though bids had been called.

I am not particularly against giving preference to Ontario suppliers or against a negotiated contract, but I am against doing so after bids have been called.

At that time, as I say, a request followed that from the Toronto Transit Commission asking for our concurrence in having the TTC consider a negotiated contract with Hawker Siddeley for the supply of these cars.

3:40 p.m.

At that time, the UTDC and Hawker Siddeley were in the process of a draft agreement for some joint venture in marketing and manufacturing processes, not only for subway cars but for light-rail vehicles and other types of vehicles, and to try to assist Hawker Siddeley in getting export orders as well as commercial business.

I wrote to the TTC and gave my concurrence for it to negotiate with Hawker Siddeley for the supply of the 26 cars provided it was satisfied it was getting a price that was in the range of the North American market for such vehicles. The last report I had is that negotiations between the company and the TTC --

Mr. Mancini: Is this a statement or an answer to a question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want an answer, or not?

Mr. Riddell: It is a pretty lengthy answer to a question asked by one of your own party members.

Mr. Wrye: You should have made a statement. You didn't need to make the Wintario statement.

Mr. Mancini: Why didn't he make a statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you don't care, go back to your office.

Mr. Riddell: What are we supposed to expect? It is a setup question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, members on both sides of the House are assisting me in making my decisions and I appreciate that, although it is not always necessary. To make sure there were no charges or allegations from this side of the House, I was going to make a statement at the end of whatever question or answer the minister may have had. He was going on at some length, with all respect, and I was going to lengthen the question period for a period of two minutes to compensate for the length of time he was taking.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: First, I had not completed my answer. Second, I was not only answering the question from my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who has been very interested in this matter, but I was also answering a series of questions which were asked of my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) in my absence on Monday. He passed those questions on to me. I am answering questions from all three parties in one answer and I cannot do it in a few words.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that is generous. However, because of the length of time the leaders' questions took today, I was not really going to grant your request. I had thought we could hold that off until tomorrow morning. However, I think we should deal with the question asked by the member for Fort William.

Mr. Hennessy: Is there any possibility of negotiations being reopened between the UTDC, the TTC and Can-Car of Thunder Bay in regard to the H-6 Can-Car contract? There are hundreds of people out of work at that plant and the people of the city of Thunder Bay are very anxious. If anybody thinks this is a setup, he has his head screwed on wrong.

Mr. Ruston: That's the way to go, Mickey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications; do not comment on the second part.

Mr. Kerrio: What you are saying is they don't treat you any better than they treat us. Come on over, Mickey.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am well aware of the situation with the Hawker Siddeley plant in Thunder Bay. Negotiations are ongoing between the UTDC and Hawker Siddeley on other matters. There are no negotiations going on between the UTDC and Hawker Siddeley on this subway car requirement because Hawker Siddeley has proceeded to negotiate directly with the TTC. It has submitted its negotiated price, as I understand it.

I have been told by the officials of the TTC that they are not able to recommend to their board the award of any contract based on the prices that have been submitted because, based on any calculation they can use taking previous escalated prices or market price into account, they consider them to be very excessive. I understand that the TTC will now be recommending to their board, the senior management, that an open tender call be made for the cars after the first of the year.

They have suggested to me that they might like to make this a worldwide tender call, or a no-restricted tender call. I have indicated to the TTC that, from my standpoint, I would not want to see tenders called on these cars beyond the boundaries of this country.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is there a requirement that Hawker Siddeley be involved in a joint proposal with a crown corporation? Why should there be such a condition imposed on the private sector, such as Hawker Siddeley, and why should 900 people be put out of work in Thunder Bay as a result of this foolish requirement?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this had nothing to do with 900 people being out of work. There would be another 200 or 300 people out of work right now if my ministry had not advanced an order for GO Transit cars.

First, to answer the honourable member's stupid question, there is no requirement upon Hawker Siddeley to enter into any joint venture with the UTDC. This has been an ongoing relationship between these two companies. I have received a letter from the president of Hawker Siddeley, Mr. Tanner, within the last week advising that he wants to continue negotiations with the UTDC on ventures that can be beneficial to both companies.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to caution all honourable members. There is nothing to be gained in the use of inflammatory language and in casting aspersions on other members' questions, and I would ask all members to use a little restraint, as they would in normal situations and circumstances.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister why it is he had to give his concurrence to the TTC to enter into a negotiated type of contract with Hawker Siddeley UTDC, and what the conditions on that concurrence were when he gave it? Can he explain why it was that Mr. Savage was quoted on the radio, at 6:30 a.m. on Monday in Thunder Bay, as indicating that the financial considerations between the TTC and Hawker Siddeley were not an impediment to proceeding with the contract?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first, I cannot understand the statement which I read in Hansard, made by the honourable member, who said that Mr. Savage had made that statement at 6:30 on Monday morning. The honourable member heard it. I do not say he did not hear it. I do not say Mr. Savage did not make it. I said I cannot understand it because I know the details and I know the tremendous financial difference that was the reason for them not wanting to proceed.

As far as the first part of the question is concerned, it is a well-known fact that when we are financing 75 per cent of the cost of acquisition of capital projects by transit authorities, or for roads, or for bridges, or through the Ministry of Education in financing school properties, it is the requirement that public tenders be called and the contracts be awarded on that basis. When the city of Thunder Bay goes to buy four new buses, they normally go through a public tender process and my ministry subsidizes 75 per cent of the cost of the low bid unless the low bid can, for good reason, be thrown out. The member knows the way it works.

If I were given the time I could list the number of contracts Hawker Siddeley has received over the past 12 years and the number that have been negotiated and the number that have been tendered. Out of the 11 contracts that Hawker Siddeley has received in the last 12 years, eight of them have been from either the TTC or the Ontario government, and all of those, except one, were negotiated.

The reason they asked for my concurrence to negotiate was that they were bypassing the competitive tender procedure. At that time both Hawker Siddeley and the UTDC were in this negotiation, and it was not solely because of that, but we did authorize them to carry on negotiations. However, we did not give them a blank cheque to spend whatever they wanted. We said they had to get it for a price that was competitive.

3:50 p.m.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill 159,

An Act to revise the Planning Act.

Bill 194,

An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of Planning and related Matters.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry of Energy, ministry administration program, $6,101,900; conventional energy programs, $3,218,000; alternative and renewable energy program, $25,985,900; energy conservation program, $28,862,800; regulatory affairs program, $2,326,700; and energy supplies program, $62,240,000.

Mr. Kerrio: Under protest.

MOTION

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the current and continuing crisis in the rental housing market in Ontario and, in particular, the impending disastrous consequences for thousands of Ontario tenants arising as a result of a recent residential rental property transaction between Cadillac Fairview Corp. and the Greymac Credit Corp.

Mr. Speaker: I must direct the attention of the honourable, the Leader of the Opposition, and all honourable members to standing order 38 and standing order 39. Standing order 39, if I may just remind you, states, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

I further refer to Lewis, on page 39, which says: "Any matter which has been the subject of a motion or amendment decided in the House cannot again be brought forward during the same session."

May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 368, under the heading, "Matters already decided during the same session," states: "A motion or amendment may not be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. The rule may be fully stated as follows:

"No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which judgement has already been expressed in the current session."

Beauchesne, of course, the fifth edition, page 150, paragraph 416, is substantially the same as the 19th edition of May.

Therefore, by the authority under standing order 38, I am of the opinion that a motion which has been offered is, indeed, contrary to the standing orders of this House.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I bring your attention to two matters. First, the motion that was dealt with in this House on Tuesday was accepted by you as being in order. It was not debated per se. The only thing that was decided was the rejection of the ability to debate it last Tuesday by the members of the government party. The motion then was: Shall the debate proceed, meaning should the debate proceed that day? We divided on it, and the majority found that the debate should not proceed that day.

I would submit to you, sir, that while consideration was given to the very matter you have put before us, we feel in the official opposition, which has put the motion to you today, that we are not dealing with the same matter. The matter that was dealt with then was whether the debate should proceed that day, Tuesday. We are requesting and suggesting in our strongest terms that the government might be persuaded, because circumstances have changed slightly.

At the time, I believe it felt that there were matters of even more urgent purport that should be dealt with and that, in fact, the motion was that the debate proceed on that day. It may well be that, circumstances having changed somewhat, it is possible that might be carried out.

It is true that the wording of the motion is the same. You found it yourself to be in order and it was only the fact that the debate was not allowed to proceed on that day that was set aside.

I urgently request that you give further consideration to allowing the five-minute arguments at least to be put to you, sir. It might even be that, as on a previous occasion, we can have unanimous consent of the spokesmen and, therefore, of the members on all sides for the debate to proceed. I would certainly ask that, if not on the former basis then on the latter basis, we be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent.

Mr. Nixon: If you are not going to consider the alternative, I would so ask.

Mr. Speaker: I think, with all respect, I am bound by the rules of the House and my

interpretation thereof. I have explained that so I think it would be in order for you to ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Nixon: Under the circumstances, I do ask for unanimous consent that the debate proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed to.

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand this new area we are into. I gather I have 10 minutes to address this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your co-operation. I thank the government House leader and the other members of this House. We in our party do feel this matter deserves a public hearing. I must say to you, sir, I am not happy about an emergency debate in the sense that it leads to no resolution, but it does at least give us an opportunity to air some of our very sincere concerns on this matter. I am hoping it will go further. We are asking, of course, for a committee hearing on this matter.

There are many ramifications involved in this issue. I know that the poor, beleaguered Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who is becoming just a trifle more sensitive lately than I have ever seen him before because of the onslaught he is receiving on this whole matter, not only from his own members but from members of the opposition, too --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just your bad manners.

Mr. Peterson: Well, we will not get into that. In spite of it all, he is not a bad fellow. I believe he is just wrong on this issue. I believe that either the instructions he has decided to follow for himself or the instructions he has been given by the cabinet are wrong in these circumstances. I want to point that out.

There are many issues involved here and fundamentally we would like to have an open hearing. We have watched the progression of the minister's thought on this matter. Originally, he did not even think there was a problem, and some time after that, he did not know it was going to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Gradually, under pressure from some tenants' groups, he said he would send a letter to FIRA to see if there were some untoward circumstances surrounding the financing of Greymac Credit Corp., that is, whether some foreign money was involved.

4 p.m.

There is a lot of mystery surrounding this company. We do know some facts about it. We know that the president of the holding company is one, Leonard Rosenberg. You may not know him personally, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you know his brother, Morley, who will be joining you in a semi-judicial capacity as a member of the Ontario Municipal Board. His wife, I gather, is the president of the company, and he is the chairman.

Greymac has also been involved with Axelrod Holdings in the notorious 790-800-840 Eglinton Avenue West situation. Greymac holds a blanket mortgage on all three properties in the amount of about $3.6 million, I am told.

I am also told -- some of this, Mr. Speaker, I cannot prove. I wish I could prove it; what we need is a committee so that it can prove some of these things -- there was a $500,000 brokerage fee for the arranging of that mortgage. The reality is that those buildings are in the centre of a controversy in the city with respect to condominium conversion. We know that certain of the principals were involved in the purchase of Crown Trust with one Joe Barnett, who sold his interest in that, as I understand it, to Mr. Rosenberg and to Greymac Credit Corp.

I am telling the minister a lot of circumstances surrounding this need to be looked at. If this was just one building it might not be all that severe, but we are talking of a transaction of such size and proportion it is going to have major consequences for the rental market in Metro Toronto, some five per cent of the controlled stock affecting the lives of some 20,000 to 25,000 people.

The minister said to me today, "Are you suggesting Cadillac Fairview has not been an exemplary landlord, or that there is anything untoward about it?" I am not suggesting that for a minute, because the fact is to the contrary. Cadillac Fairview, to the best of our information, by and large has been an excellent landlord in this city. I am one of those who are sad to see them exit from that capacity.

Very frankly, up to this point at least, that has not been demonstrable in the case of Greymac Credit Corp., whoever they are in all of their various emanations. We have a group of tenants who have enjoyed the landlordship of a group like Cadillac Fairview and who have been treated well. I understand Cadillac has never come forward to the rent review process. Now we have the spectre of those tenants financing these major transactions. Without much imagination, one can easily see increases in rentals of 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent and 60 per cent.

When we are facing the prospect of some 11,000 units with 20,000 to 25,000 tenants' rents going up in that proportion, then we have a major problem.

The minister can make all the speeches he wants about nonintervention, about free property transaction and all of that, but I will tell him, we have already lost our virginity in this issue. We are involved now in a massive rent review program in this province. At the present time we are involved in a massive restraint program. We are involved deeply in the functioning of the marketplace. No rhetoric will change what the minister's party has done any more than what my party or the members of the New Democratic Party have done. We are dealing with real social problems that we have to address now.

The example of this particular transaction has to be used to look into the wider applications of the rent review legislation. It may not be up to date. I recognize the problems. I also recognize the problems the minister has been faced with. If he wants me to, I can quote to him what some of his people have said; what the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) have said to tenants; what the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) has said as opposed to what some others and some of his back-benchers have said over the years.

He should not think he has been all that consistent, or that the same noises are coming out of his government. He knows there is a social problem and he knows it is growing.

What we need is an investigation of this particular deal and then see how that applies to the functioning of the legislation. Perhaps the rule of 85 per cent amortized over three years is no longer appropriate. We know interest rates are coming down; it may take some pressure off in those areas. On the other hand, it may not. We also know that one of the was around the rent review legislation is to keep rolling them over so that those financing costs can be passed on to the tenants.

We are involved in a very difficult question of balancing the rights of the landlords and the rights of the tenants. I do not take the completely one-sided view of the people to my left, who by and large do not talk a lot of sense economically on many issues, in my judgement. But I do not take the hands-off view the government takes either, and I do not take the view that we should just walk away and do nothing because we see a problem coming.

I make this prediction. We are going to see questions in this House. The members opposite are going to see the apparatus of their rent review board spend a great deal of time and effort trying to untangle a mess that we can see coming. Surely some of the genius in life has to be to foresee problems and prevent them. I think we have a right to talk publicly to Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg and people involved in the Greymac Credit Corp. to find out what their intentions are and how they intend to finance this package.

I gather the minister has said he is going to have them in to his office at some unspecified time in the future. Perhaps he has arranged an appointment, perhaps he has not. But that, very frankly, is not good enough for us at this time. In view of the size of it, in view of the capacity it has to lead on rents right across the city, in view of all of the circumstances involving Greymac and the people involved I think the government has an obligation to hold a public hearing.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Peterson: I had the opportunity in the last day or so to run into a number of people involved in the real estate business in this city who are very aware of these circumstances. They came to me and said, "David, you are on the right track." These are people I fully expected would say, 'You have no right to stick your nose into this kind of transaction." They said, "It bears scrutiny." These are people I respect.

Going back to the old-line rhetoric the minister used on me today and yesterday, which I do not honestly believe he believes all that much deep down in his soul -- and I am not calling him a hypocrite, and I apologize for any personal innuendo or suggestion I have made in that regard -- I think he knows there is a problem coming, and I know it is very difficult for him to handle it.

I am giving him the best advice we can give from our side of the House: the only way to prevent this problem is to have an open inquiry right now. I ask the minister to use his best judgement to do this at the present time, because if he does not, he is walking into a major problem. He now has the support of the executive committee of Metro council.

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Peterson: They know it is an issue. I will not read it into the record, because I am not being allowed the time to do that. But more and more the ground swell is developing of people who are concerned about this deal in all its aspects. I would suggest that if the emergency debate we are having today does nothing more than air the issue, I hope it at least will allow the minister to change his mind and take the responsible course.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the original motion and, indeed, to deal with the fact that there is a crisis. I am pleased to see that, after seven years of voting with the Conservatives and against the tenants, the Liberals have finally had a deathbed repentance and come around to our point of view.

They voted with the Conservatives in 1977 to allow all the loopholes that allowed this kind of crisis to develop. For seven years they voted against the tenants; now for one year they are voting for the tenants. Where were the Liberals in 1977 when our party moved the amendments requested by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations? They were there, voting with the Conservatives and the landlords when we were trying to plug the loopholes that have created this kind of crisis.

The fact is that when the Liberal Party had an opportunity to make a difference, when there was not a Conservative majority where they stood no chance of getting through the kinds of things the tenants were asking for, when they had an opportunity to make that change, they voted with the Conservatives, they voted against the tenants and they voted against the very amendments the tenants asked for. Now, when the government has a majority, it knows the changes it postulated are not going to take place.

4:10 p.m.

We support the need for this debate. We support the fact that there is an emergency, an emergency not just created by Cadillac Fairview, or by Peter Pocklington's high-flying companies, it is a crisis created by inadequate bills passed in 1975 and in 1977 by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. That is what we are dealing with.

In 1977, we in the New Democratic Party warned that today's crisis would occur unless the act was amended, unless the loopholes were plugged. This motion is a condemnation of the inadequate legislation of 1977. This motion is a condemnation of the Liberal-Conservative coalition of 1977 which put forward legislation that was clearly aimed at doing more for speculators and landlords than for tenants.

The Liberal Party should not be changing its name to the community party in York South, it should be changing its name to the flip-flop party. Just as it flip-flopped on the matter of teachers' rights to strike -- and are voting for a very regressive act in this House that will take away that right -- it also seems to think it can flip-flop on tenant issues.

I challenge the Liberal Party to move. Where was it when it moved the Residential Tenancy Act in committee to gradually phase out rent review altogether? That was its policy. It has never taken that off its books and that is still its policy, to phase out rent review entirely, community by community. Where was it in talking to its federal counterpart, Paul Cosgrove? There are the hypocrites.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is that dangerous word again.

The Deputy Speaker: I say to the member for Etobicoke that I must admit we are getting carried away in the debate. The word "hypocrite" referred to people in general, no one specifically, but he should take a drink of water and start again.

Mr. Philip: How about the issue of extending rent review in 1975 and 1977? It was the Liberals who voted with their Conservative colleagues and exempted thousands of people from any kind of rent review protection whatsoever. Where were they when the tenants needed them in the minority government? They were there with the landlords. They were there with the Conservatives.

In his comments on Tuesday, the minister talked about the great program of the Conservative government in providing for rental housing. The fact is, as the University of Toronto urban analyst has said in a recent issue of the Toronto Star, "Landlords and investors, not tenants, are the chief benefactors of the rental loan program that is costing the Ontario taxpayer so much."

We have advocated a very clear-cut program to the minister today in this House. We asked the minister why is he not prepared to call a moratorium for one year, or however long the government needs, to correct the mistakes which he says he is presently studying. The minister refused to answer that question. In fact, he stated that he is now looking into it. If there is a problem, if it is a problem worth looking into, why can he not do as the city of Toronto has now requested and have a moratorium until he can deal with the very problems that he has been looking into and that his predecessors have been looking into for seven years?

We are dealing with not just a crisis of two companies; what we are facing is a crisis we in the NDP have been pointing out for seven years, a crisis created by the Liberal-Conservative coalition in 1977. Now that the Liberals have found the tenants' end at last, maybe the Conservatives can also find it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the opposition has spoken in support of a motion that I suggest has three components. First, there is the suggestion that the government is not endeavouring to address the shortage of rental housing in the province; second, the rent review process that is in place may not be adequately serving the citizens of the province; and third, the right of owners of commercial-residential properties to sell those properties should be subject to some unusual sort of scrutiny.

In particular, I gather by insinuation that if there is any foreign money involved in this acquisition this may be undesirable and should be examined even beyond the scope of federal legislation, namely the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

With respect to the first issue, on Tuesday I outlined pretty completely a number of innovative steps this government has taken with respect to its efforts to provide increased rental housing. I will not review those again today.

The second issue relates to the rent review process itself. We all know the existing rent review program was put in place by this government in 1975 because of our shared concerns about exorbitant increases in rental accommodation that were not subject to any scrutiny, It was reviewed and revised again by an all-party committee of this Legislature in 1979 based upon the principle of a six per cent guideline with a pass-through of costs in excess of that being subject to a review process.

It is also pretty clear that principle of cost pass-through, which did not and does not take into account return on investment, met with general approval, and particularly with the specific approval of the former leader of the Liberal Party of this province, when he said, "We feel that the present system of cost pass-through is reasonable."

I was also interested to note that on Wednesday, August 18, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), acting as an agent for the tenants in a rent review hearing, commended the commissioner when he awarded a 12 per cent increase based on the cost pass-through principle and called it a sound decision.

Of course there have been various views expressed from time to time with respect to the six per cent guideline. The former Housing critic of the Liberal Party indicated on one occasion that the ceiling was unrealistic. The member for Waterloo-North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) indicated the ceiling might have to be raised.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is going to quote one sentence, perhaps he would add the other sentence in that

article that said that we in the New Democratic Party would not change it. He is trying to mislead the House.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I read it as it is reported. In any event, it is clearly on the record that, although one member of the Liberal Party feels that rent control is economic insanity but a social necessity, as a Legislative Assembly we have endeavoured to put in place a system that, by and large, tried to treat landlords and tenants fairly. I think it has served the tenants of this province well.

It is true that in earlier years very few buildings and units were going to rent review. I think we all have some understanding of why it is happening now. The leader of the New Democratic Party was quoted on August 8 as saying the main reasons for the increasing costs that were being passed through were higher interest rates and energy costs. He is right on.

The House knows this government is very supportive of a variety of measures aimed at reducing inflation and therefore reducing interest rates. Present trends in these areas are encouraging and one hopes the trend would result in a lessening of the need to come to rent review because of these additional costs.

Last year some 17 per cent of units went to review with landlords requesting an average of about 20 per cent and the commission allowing an average of about 14.7 per cent. By and large, I think it is fair to say that tenants in this province have continued to be well served by that program. Those tenants who are being required to pay increased rents are doing so because of costs that are beyond the landlord's control.

I might also add that by guidelines the commission has endeavoured to phase in financing charges over a period of years and has set a minimum with respect to equity in the acquisition of properties. Their right to do that, as I said before, is now being challenged by one landlord, but these are principles that I believe have to be sustained and perhaps even reviewed with respect to whether or not the phasing-in period should be lengthened in some or all instances and whether or not the equity down payment should increase in some or all instances.

I say quite clearly that if it is a program that needs to be reviewed, I am prepared to do so, and to respond to legitimate complaints. I say that because the government recognizes quite clearly that inflation, with the consequent interest rates, has played havoc with the lives of many people in this province. If anything reasonable can be done to improve the system in order to ease the impact of those increases, of course the government is prepared to consider them.

Further, the Leader of the Opposition was directing his attention to the sale of properties. There have been many properties purchased and sold over the years, but we have before us at the moment a particularly large sale which affects a large number of people. I can understand the concern and the anxiety tenants have about the prospect of rent increases of undetermined amount.

4:20 p.m.

Let me say clearly that in my view the commission does everything within its power to make certain that transfers of properties are legitimate. I know there are some who have suggested that it may not have sufficient power. Let me be frank and open by saying I have no hesitation in indicating my desire to be certain there is no collusion in property transfers, that they are at arm's length and that the acquisition price is fair and reasonable. If the system does not produce those results then we have to look at it to ensure that it does.

As a result of recent increased funding, the commission has hired additional staff to specifically investigate property transactions. In this regard, I do not believe it serves the tenants well to increase their anxiety about a situation before one knows exactly what the details of the acquisition are.

I have indicated I am prepared to request a meeting with the owners of Greymac and will be pursuing that. I have also written to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa requesting that the proposed sale be examined by the Foreign Investment Review Agency to determine whether any aspect of the sale might offend the rules of FIRA as it applies to foreign investment in Canada.

I am not quite certain whether the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting by innuendo that there should be some investigation of the Cadillac Fairview sale to Greymac. He has been much more explicit than that. I know of no one who is suggesting that Cadillac has not been exemplary, and neither is he suggesting it. I do not have any reason to believe there is evidence that Greymac will not be a good landlord as well. I will certainly explore those things when I meet with them.

I do have some concern about the innuendo that one should be able to interfere with the sale of property. I am sure that is what the member for Waterloo North was thinking of when he introduced resolution 39, which called for an amendment to the Charter of Rights guaranteeing the right to enjoy property and that this right should not be interfered with other than through principles of natural justice.

I am also somewhat taken aback by the position of the Leader of the Opposition. He will recall that on July 5, 1977, following a speech by the then Liberal member