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

November 26, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Mr Villeneuve moved resolution 21:

That, in the opinion of this House, when the next commission for the purpose of redistribution of Ontario electoral districts is established, the commission should be instructed to take into consideration the varying conditions, circumstances and requirements regarding representation as between rural and urban electoral districts, and the increase in geographic area of rural ridings after the redistribution of the 1970s and the 1980s, with the intention of creating three classifications of constituencies, urban, urban-rural, and rural, so as to limit the geographic area of rural ridings, and to a lesser degree that of urban-rural ridings, as well as the number of organized municipalities which members must represent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Villeneuve moves private member's notice of motion number 21. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): First of all, I want to make sure that all members of this House realize that this is not a political manoeuvre, in any way, shape or form. If I become political in any way, which sometimes I do, I apologize, because this is meant to provide rural Ontario with representation that is worthy, and by that I mean that we do not expand the geographic areas simply to encompass numbers of people.

In the riding I represent -- and I will be touching on that -- I tell people that they come into Ontario on Highway 401 and one third of the distance to Toronto is within the riding I represent. That's a very large geographic area.

This resolution, in my opinion, is necessary, firstly, to establish that there is a need to recognize the very special characteristics of rural ridings: low population densities, many municipalities and of course many rural routes. In my area, my metropolis is a great little town known as Alexandria, with slightly more than 3,000 people. The second-largest community is Kemptville, with around 2,500 to 2,600 people. All of the rest of our so-called urban areas are communities, towns, villages in the area of 2,000 or less population.

You can appreciate that to get to the population criteria is very difficult, particularly whenever we have ministries such as Municipal Affairs and Environment, which create great difficulties in trying to increase the population. Yes, we have many areas where the land is marginal and municipalities would love to see residences that would bring taxpayers and indeed residents to rural Ontario. I said that as a member of the government back prior to 1985 and I've been saying it in opposition ever since.

I can appreciate that some of the government members run into the very same problems that we in the opposition run into. They may express their concerns in a slightly different way, and I appreciate that. However, the concerns are there, and this motion is to recognize the special needs of large geographic rural areas in this province.

Secondly, it's to give a clear direction to the government and to any future commission in establishing terms of reference and in drawing riding boundaries. I well recall going through the last redistribution, where many people objected to the anticipated redistribution of ridings and where, in many instances, parts of rural Ontario were tagged on to urban areas just to get the population criterion up and yet their common interests were not at all the same as the areas where the urban centres were located.

Thirdly, it's to give some hope to rural parts of the province that they will not be ignored, as indeed they are, agricultural and rural areas, and it's to remind future commissions of the precedent that was set right here in this province in 1962.

As we debate this motion, I want members of the government and members on this side to address some of the problems that they have been faced with, particularly those who have large geographical rural areas. I'll use my own riding, for instance, with 23 very active municipalities in parts of four counties. They run into the problems of waste disposal and funding, and those have to be addressed. One can only be in one place at one time, of course, but you have many irons in the fire when you have 23 active municipalities in an area that is very economically depressed, as I've alluded to on a number of occasions.

I represent two county councils: Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry as the united counties and also parts of the united counties of Leeds-Grenville. You have, again, a diversity and a large community of interests. There are four school boards, plus we have a Christian school, again an area that you have to spend some time to address.

It doesn't really matter whether you're a Tory, a Liberal or an NDPer. The physical requirements of being in a number of places all at the same time cannot be solved, regardless of what party you're with. This is to provide adequate representation to those large rural areas.

There are two district health councils, three conservation authorities -- South Nation River, Raisin Region and Rideau Valley -- four federations of agriculture, soil and crop improvement associations in all of those counties, cattlemen's associations, fall fair boards and what have you -- 18 legion and veteran branches, just as an example. We have the lobby groups. We have many people with the problems that you have in the urban communities.

In my area, the riding, as most rural ridings, is made up of small business and farmers, both groups in some degree of economic difficulty. So we want to maintain a voice for rural Ontario by MPPs with ties and with roots in rural Ontario.

The Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission has been asking for direction from this House prior to going into redistribution. This is what this motion is intended to provide them with: some guidance. We need to recognize, as is already done in northern Ontario -- because of the geographic size of ridings in northern Ontario, there is a totally different set of rules.

As I've said, to me, population should only be one criterion. There should be a number of others that fall into place for these so-called rural ridings.

We have to have three different groups: the totally urban ones, and certainly there are many of those; the urban-rural ones, combination of a city, and we may need to provide a population criterion, whether the city be 5,000 or 10,000 or whatever; and if there is a large rural area attached to it, then it becomes a semi-urban/semi-rural riding.

In ridings such as the one I represent, and I think a number of others -- I think we've gone through it and there are about 14 or 15 so-called rural ridings -- the population is sparse, the area is large and it makes it very difficult for an MPP to do justice to the people of those types of ridings.

So to the electoral boundaries commission, I hope that this Legislature can send a clear signal today that indeed we would like to see redistribution. As I recall, it occurred back in about 1986 and it's scheduled for every 10 years, so it may not be before the next provincial election, and yet again it may be. We don't know when the decision will be made. However, I think when the commission members review the Hansard of this morning they will be provided with guidance and ideas as to how to go about redistribution when it next comes to the province of Ontario.

I look forward to the participation of all colleagues here in this Legislature this morning, their ideas and indeed some of the suggestions that they may put forth.

I hope that this motion will carry because I believe it has merit, and if we do not address this we will have an ever-weakening voice in rural Ontario, and that's where Ontario all began. This Legislature at one time sat only whenever farmers were not too busy on the land. I'm not asking for that at all, but I am asking that we recognize those many areas of rural Ontario which are having less and less influence on this Legislature.

I'll reserve the rest of my time to summarize.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I am pleased to get up and speak today in favour of this particular resolution and the principles and the ideas behind it.

I think Mr Villeneuve has certainly indicated some of the frustrations that politicians and the people within the municipalities have to put up with because of some of the changes that actually have taken place over the years, like the boundary changes.

My riding, for example, between 1985 and 1987 -- of course, I was elected as the member for Essex North. Essex North was mainly the northern part of the county of Essex and, in my opinion, it was a riding that you could service and service very well because you could go almost anywhere, driving, in 20 minutes and a half-hour.

I have a riding now they call Essex-Kent, which consists of 21 municipalities, quite similar to Mr Villeneuve's: 21 municipalities, the two counties, all the different school boards, the separate school board, the public school board, the French school board, the private boards in both counties.

Then I have two conservation authorities in that riding, and hospitals, even though they're not all in my riding. But I have to also deal with the hospital board in the city of Windsor, the hospital board in Kent county -- the hospital is in Chatham -- and then even London and Leamington, areas not directly in my riding, but of course people from my riding use that service.

One of the reasons I want to support this resolution is to take some of the politics out, because what happened in the Essex and Kent area, because of the redistribution -- in fact we can take the party politics out of this thing. What really happened was, the rural community lost a representative between Essex county and Kent county. Now it takes me close to an hour and a half just to drive to one of my constituency offices. I have a constituency office in Ridgetown and one in Belle River. Like I say, in the riding before you were able to attend more functions in one evening or one weekend.

Now you go to one and it's almost too late to get to the next meeting. So it makes it very, very hard.

I can't help but think, I found it very interesting that in 1985, when I did take that seat, people say, "Well, why did they do that to you?" I know we'll have people probably say, "Well, we never got involved." But it's rather interesting, because I was the only one in the province who took a Liberal seat in 1985 and they held that seat for 34 years.

Really what happened was that there was a couple of different members in that particular party. The way the redistribution was set at one point, it would have put those two Liberal members against one another for the nomination and they were not going to let that happen. I think that's sad. That's in the past, but I'm just hoping something like that never, ever happens again, because I learned what gerrymandering was in 1987. It's a shame, because maybe the party in power at the time was able to convince the commissioner of the day that things would be all that much better if redistribution went the way they wanted it to.

I agree with Mr Villeneuve that this type of resolution would certainly help some of the rural areas. I don't think they should be spread out. Even in northern Ontario I think it's important that they get the extra service out there, or maybe they don't have to have the population. At the same time, what happens here is in my riding -- and the population is no different; the area is just twice as large -- you have to service more people in more boards and municipalities.

I'm going to leave some time here for my colleagues. I'm sure they want to speak on this. I think the principle of this thing is certainly a step in the right direction. I hope the elections commission can look at things in the sense of serving the people of this province and not just for political reasons.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It's always interesting to me when we attempt to take the politics out of politics. I don't know. I can appreciate that perhaps this is not a partisan issue, but in many, many ways everything we deal with around here has a certain amount of that involvement.

I recently enjoyed success with a private member's bill that I think was -- while I think there might have been some politics involved, the partisanship aspect was removed and I appreciated the support of all members of the House. So I can understand, when Mr Villeneuve makes the comment that this is not politically motivated, that he's saying it from a point of view that he cares about the administration of the province and the representation that occurs.

I understand this motion perhaps better than the member might think, even though I represent what anyone would have to obviously refer to as the urban community of Mississauga. I can say, Mr Speaker, to you and all members that it's not very long ago that Mississauga was considered pretty rural, if you take a look at the recent history, going back to the days when the Premier of this province was a fellow from Peel by the name of Kennedy, a member of the current third party, the Conservative Party, and the whole history of the Kennedy family through Doug Kennedy, who served in this place in very rural days in Mississauga.

In fact it's not very long ago that Dundas highway was a two-lane dirt road and folks used to go to the 5th Line, which is now Erin Mills Parkway, to their cottages. That was their summer home. There are families still living there in those homes on the 5th Line, constituents of mine, who were the original settlers in that community, who actually worked down here in Toronto, had a home here and considered that their summer residence, and they would go by either very slow car or even buggies out to Mississauga. It's really quite amazing.

I was elected to city council in Mississauga in 1978. We have photographs in the late 1970s coming south from Britannia Road down Highway 10 and it's absolutely unbelievable to see the difference today. That's not very long; that's less than 15 years ago when there was not a building over two storeys back in those days in that area. It had farmers' fields that were actually cultivated. They weren't simply used for a tax dodge, which many developers do today. They plant some cow corn so that they can get the benefit of paying tax on the land as if it were agricultural, when in fact it's worth as much as a million bucks an acre, if you get right into the city centre.

So there is some history in Peel and in fact when the former Premier Kennedy was the Premier I would say the distances he had to travel would be very similar to the distances that the honourable member mentions and that other members -- the member for Essex-Kent -- mention. He would have represented dozens and dozens of local town councils and municipalities, all of which had concerns.

So while we can't really justifiably refer to it any more as the farming community of Mississauga, I can tell you in all seriousness that the community is steeped in rural history. In fact there was an

article in the Mississauga News just the other day that had a photograph of a man and a wife who still live in a home that is within shouting distance of the City Centre. They have no hydro, they have an outhouse for their toilet facilities, they operate on propane, and this is today, right now, living there.

When Highway 403 was built, as a matter of fact, there were expropriations and there was a holdout and today, if you travel down a road off Creditview that doesn't even have a name and you cross the tracks and you go under 403, you'll come to a homestead that's surrounded by barbed wire and it's got a number of dogs in there and a fellow walking around with a shotgun. It's his land. In fact he was one of the original farmers in that community.

I just give you that background to say that while my city is clearly a city today, hustling, bustling and dynamic in every way, it's not many years ago that we were actively farming in Mississauga and very much a rural community.

Representation is rather important. In fact I spent a little bit of time this summer with the honourable member for Kenora, Mr Miclash, a caucus colleague of mine. He actually flies his own plane. It's not a plane of great sturdiness. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that a man of your girth might be somewhat nervous about getting into this plane with Miclash, let me tell you.

But he has to actually use that method of transportation or he would be unable to ever see some of his constituents. The only way to get in to see some of his constituents is to fly in a float plane and actually go in or, in the wintertime, go in on skis. He has to go miles and miles and miles. It's unbelievable, the size of this riding.

The issue becomes, how do you balance this need for representation by population with the need to actually service all constituents? Is one constituent in the province of Ontario less important than 100 or 1,000? This is where you get into the politics, because we know that this government is primarily concerned about servicing the areas and the ridings either that they hold or that they consider winnable. They're primarily more concerned about the NDP constituency, in my respectful submission, than they are about the Ontario constituency of all people throughout the province.

It won't surprise me to see some reluctance to support this for fear that this may be seen by some members in the NDP as some method of dividing and conquering and splitting the representation so that they can't focus in on their own interest groups.

You know, not long ago last summer, you'll recall --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Why is Mississauga so well treated?

Mr Mahoney: I'll give you a break, but I believe that to be true and I think most people in the province believe that you people will tailor your policies into areas where you think you can get the most political bang for your buck, as opposed to servicing the true needs of the people of this province.

I enjoyed the experience within the last year of travelling all over the province and talking to people who feel isolated, who feel they've been deserted, who feel that this government thinks of this as the province of Toronto. Well, I've got news for the government: This is not the province of Toronto and there are indeed constituencies all over this province that need to have some attention paid to them.

The farmers are upset. They think that they're being ignored, that the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn't really understand. Hard to believe, but that's what they think. Unless they're telling us one thing and they're telling these people another, they believe that they're being ignored.

People in eastern Ontario feel isolated. They feel that once you go along the 401 and you go by Oshawa, you know where eastern Ontario begins: it's where there are no longer any street lights. If you're driving there at night, you all of a sudden drive across this line where the lights disappear and you're driving into darkness. They feel, without a doubt, that Queen's Park doesn't know; they don't want to take that step beyond where the lights go off. They just may be a little bit afraid to go that distance.

The member in his resolution says by his implication that the special circumstances of northern Ontario have been recognized by this government. I'll tell you how they've been recognized. What this government did is it went into my home town of Sault Ste Marie and made a deal with everybody to save Algoma, which was vitally important, but didn't look at how Algoma could function in the modern economy, in the global market, to find new customers.

What did they do? They shored it up. They turned the workers at Algoma Steel, I say to the member for Sault Ste Marie, for whom I have some respect -- I know he's a hardworking individual -- but they turned the workers at Algoma Steel, who simply want, I suggest to you --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: -- I'm glad I'm getting some attention over there -- who simply want, I would suggest, to survive, to put their kids through school, and to lead reasonable lives, they've turned them into owners of the company. Now when Algoma faces a further restructuring, which I think the honourable member must agree is inevitable, it's the actual people in Sault Ste Marie who are going to be told that they've either got to be laid off themselves or members of their family are going to be laid off, or they're going to have to go next door to their lifelong friend and neighbour and say: "Sorry, buddy, you're out of work. You're out of a job."

Mr White: You'd rather have them out of work than participating in their economy. Typical left-wing rhetoric.

Mr Mahoney: So while I say to the member that the government may have recognized some of the geographic difficulties of northern Ontario -- they may have agreed to the resolution by the honourable member for Parry Sound, Mr Eves -- in fact it was our government that agreed to recognize Parry Sound as northern Ontario.

Many of the members here think northern Ontario is anything north of Steeles; they feel if they have to go any further than that, they'd better pack a lunch and take some warm clothing. They don't understand that it goes beyond just geography in recognizing northern Ontario. So I don't agree totally with Mr Villeneuve when he says that the special circumstances of northern Ontario have been recognized for some time. What's been recognized is perhaps the geographic differences in northern Ontario from what these people think of as the province of Toronto.

But I suggest that they are playing games. They go into Kapuskasing and they use Hydro money. They use Hydro as a social instrument to save the business in Kapuskasing. Now, would anyone stand here and say that the people of Kapuskasing should not have been helped? Of course they should have been helped. But the government was primarily dishonest in going in there and telling them they were going to help them restructure the pulp mill in Kapuskasing and using Hydro money -- not taxpayers' money, although ultimately it is; it's ratepayers' money -- and now we see Hydro jacking up its rates, increasing the cost of hydro-electric power.

If Sir Adam Beck had ever thought for one minute that there would be a socialist government in Ontario that would use Ontario Hydro capital and Ontario Hydro debt capacity to go around bailing out businesses and riding in on white chargers pretending it's solving problems -- Sir Adam Beck must have rolled over in his grave, I suggest to you. This is just an irresponsible attitude and game-playing, and that is why I say to the member, you can't take the politics --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): What do you suggest we do, just close down the north? Are you suggesting we close it down?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Be honest. Go to the people in Kapuskasing and say, "We are prepared to get involved to help you restructure your pulp mill, and we're going to do it with taxpayers' money."

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Sault Ste Marie will please come to order.

Mr Mahoney: Don't try to hide behind some game and say to the people of the rest of Ontario: "Don't worry about this. We're bailing out Kapuskasing, but we're really not using the taxpayers' money; we're using Hydro's money." Well, let me tell you, talk to the people who get their hydro rate increases in their homes.

When Sir Adam Beck founded Ontario Hydro in this place, what he created was a tool for economic growth and advancement that made the province of Ontario the most competitive jurisdiction in Canada, perhaps in North America --

Mr Martin: It still is.

Mr Mahoney: -- because of inexpensive hydro, inexpensive energy. The member for Sault Ste Marie is harping over there, saying, "And it still is." You don't understand. That's the problem. You believe it's still competitive. Businesses can't afford to pay the hydro bills. They can't afford to pay the adjustments you are wreaking upon the business community with your labour adjustments. With everything you have done you have destroyed the confidence of this community.

Mr Speaker, they're getting me off track; I want to get back to the issue.

I want to just give you one quick example I would throw out as a caution to the member about his resolution. The region of Peel is made up of Caledon, Mississauga and Brampton. There are five members on regional council from Caledon, six from Brampton and 10 from Mississauga. Anyone who can add says that's 11 for Brampton and Caledon together and 10 for Mississauga. What happens is that even though Mississauga represents the majority of the population, Brampton gets the courthouse, it gets police headquarters, it gets the regional headquarters, Mississauga gets the dump. It's 11 to 10 every time.

My only caution is that while I will support this, we have to be careful about ensuring that everyone has good representation in this province.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I am very pleased to rise for a few minutes and extend my support of this resolution and to comment for a few moments on the special needs of rural Ontario.

I was in my colleague's riding, the riding of S-D-G & East Grenville, last weekend, and I just want to begin by congratulating my colleague Noble Villeneuve for bringing forward this resolution today. I learned first hand of the special needs of his constituents and the vast geographical distances that are involved in his representing that particular riding. It's very similar to my own riding of Simcoe West, although I would have to say that Mr Villeneuve's riding is tremendously large and covers a great number of municipalities and interests.

The resolution calls upon the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission to take into account the varying conditions and circumstances which separate rural and urban ridings. In fact, the heart of the matter of the resolution is that it calls upon the government and the commission to recognize the special needs of rural ridings.

The resolution asks the commission to examine the increase in area of rural ridings after the redistributions of the 1970s and 1980s, with the intention of creating three classifications of constituencies, urban, urban-rural and rural, in order to limit the area of rural and urban-rural ridings and the number of municipalities which members of this Legislature must represent.

In recent years, the size of rural ridings has been growing. Rural MPPs have tremendous demands on their time. They're required to work with and assist a large number of local councils, municipalities, counties, school boards and county organizations. Rural MPPs spend a great deal of time travelling within their ridings. Travel distances in an average rural riding can be a hundred times greater than in a city riding.

The 1985 redistribution carved out three rural ridings from the electoral map; three only. The member for Grey at the time, who was Mr McKessock, said this would mean less of a voice for agriculture and tourism. His words indeed were true.

My colleague's resolution today accomplishes two things: It raises awareness of rural issues, and it calls upon the government to act upon the findings of Ontario's first electoral commission, established in 1962. That commission decided to create a population base for urban ridings which was some 50% larger than for rural areas and an intermediate one for mixed rural-urban constituencies.

The member's resolution provides the government with an opportunity to pay more than just lipservice to concerns of rural Ontario. Most rural Ontarians feel detached from decision-making here at Queen's Park, and they feel that government policy is Toronto-driven, or at least big-city-driven.

Since 1985, rural Ontario, in my opinion, has been largely ignored by Liberal and NDP governments. Rural Ontario is being wiped off the map. Where we once celebrated our agricultural successes, today the list of agricultural failures grows longer and longer. Farmers in my riding of Simcoe West feel that the government is not listening to them and that the government here at Queen's Park is not there for them when they are most in need.

Last week, I accompanied three Collingwood-area apple growers in a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture. These proud farmers have felt first hand the wrath of Mother Nature. For the past three years, their apple crop has been wiped out by inclement weather. What makes the losses even tougher to deal with is that these apple farms are located in the Blue Mountain area, which has historically been regarded as fertile ground for apple growing.

I'm sure that Mr John DenBok of DenBok Farms of Collingwood feels that the needs of rural ridings are being ignored. John's $3-million apple crop was virtually destroyed by Mother Nature. "I did everything by the book," John told the Agriculture minister last week at our meeting. Unfortunately, what the government doesn't realize is that its farm assistance programs are not helping farmers survive crisis periods. "Three crop losses in a row tends to wipe you out," said Bob Giffen in the same meeting with the minister. At that meeting last week, Bruce Holroyd of Collingwood said that if Ontario wants an apple industry, we're going to have to help.

While the minister felt some sympathy for my constituents, he was unable to provide any meaningful assistance. The minister kept returning to two of his government's programs which are designed to help farmers: the commodity loan program and crop insurance. The commodity loan program has not been extended to assist apple growers, and the minister told my constituents that if apple growers banded together they might be able to speed up the process of extending the commodity loan program to apple growers. In other words, the minister was saying that today the voice of a solitary farmer has been rapidly drowned out by special interests and big special interest groups.

Crop insurance: The theory behind crop insurance is sound; however, the practice has been less than beneficial for many farmers. One of the problems with crop insurance is the lack of affordable spot coverage for apple growers, many of whom have to spread their risk around on different farms in order to ensure that they have some crop. Because what happens in my area of the province is that you'll have frost in one pocket and down the road you'll have a fairly good crop and the weather will have been fine. Farmers in my area tend to put orchards on different farms in different geographical locations.

The problem with crop insurance is that if one of those farms has a good crop, you can't claim on the farms that have a bad crop, and that indeed is a problem the minister will have to address.

Crop insurance premiums for apples and specialty crops are so high that many growers simply cannot afford them, given the farmers' narrow profit margin; that's if they have a profit at all. Growers have become frustrated with a program which they have paid into yet has failed to pay off when they've experienced crop losses.

Collingwood-area apple growers have been made to pay a heavy price through a freak of nature that is no fault of their own. Government has some social responsibility outside of what is currently in place to assist farmers and their families. If we want a domestic food industry, we had better learn to appreciate our farmers and be more sensitive to their needs.

I think the NDP's failure to grasp rural issues is again demonstrated not only in the agricultural sector but by the Minister of the Environment.

In a letter to her colleague Simcoe Centre MPP Paul Wessenger -- in response to a letter sent to him, Mr Wessenger wrote to the minister, and also in response to a letter I sent to the minister regarding the construction of a replacement school in Nottawa, just south of Collingwood -- the minister said, "Planning the location of the school to allow connection to a municipal sewage system would in many instances involve moving the school under five kilometres, which may add five minutes to some school bus routes." In her letter to me in March, the minister had said, "In many cases, planning can eliminate the need for rural institutions entirely."

I think these two quotes demonstrate the government's bias against rural living. It's an ignorance of rural life and it's naïveté concerning rural issues. The Minister of the Environment clearly told her colleague and myself that she will not support the development of new schools in rural areas because we don't have the services and infrastructure there. She has told us in Nottawa, south of Collingwood, to move the new public school to Collingwood. It speaks volumes about this government's and the cabinet's attitude towards rural Ontario.

The Sewell commission also speaks volumes. It tells us there'll be no more development in rural Ontario. The big-city attitude the NDP and cabinet have is that we're to be preserved as a picture on the wall for the people of Toronto to drive up to on weekends and appreciate, or to drive out to eastern Ontario to Mr Noble Villeneuve's riding to appreciate.

We live in rural Ontario. We need development, we need schools, we need institutions, we need community living associations. Today there'll be a huge lobby here at Queen's Park to address the needs of community living associations. In rural Ontario, many, many developmentally handicapped individuals, their families, care givers, will not be able to enjoy a decent standard of living and quality of life if this government continues with its $1-billion cut to social services. The cuts to triministry funding, the cuts to sheltered workshop funding are hitting particularly hard in Simcoe county, a rural part of Ontario.

I say shame on the NDP government, which spent all of its time in opposition and all of its time in successive campaign trails being holier than thou. They triumphed these issues. They promoted issues of human caring, issues of social conscience. We know from this government's actions and from Marion Boyd, the Minister of Community and Social Services, that now it doesn't appear to care.

I have to tell you that in connection with this resolution today, the large distances that we must travel in rural Ontario, the large areas that we must represent make it very difficult for our constituents and the residents of our small towns and villages to access the services here in Toronto. It's a tremendous cost, a tremendous distance, inconvenience and time. We need those in-home services that community living offers. We need the day programs it offers to give some dignity back to our people, to restore families to the family unit and to take pressure off families. We don't need the government cutting valued programs that have demonstrated their cost-benefit worthiness.

I call upon this government to support this resolution. It gives me the opportunity and others the opportunity to discuss rural issues. Community living is one. The size of ridings and the need for more rural representation in this Legislature are paramount. If one were to examine Hansards on a weekly basis, the amount of time given to rural Ontario is disgusting. That's the word I would use. It's frankly disgusting. If it weren't for some of us rural members in the PC caucus and some of the Liberal members, we wouldn't hear any of the concerns of rural Ontario in this Legislature.

We need more representation, and this resolution calls upon the electoral boundary commission to take that into account and calls upon the government to take the needs and special needs of rural Ontario into account.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I would first like to congratulate the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for raising the issue of electoral fairness, but I'm going to approach this matter from a rather different perspective. I do agree it's an important issue that deserves more discussion than it usually gets.

The mover of the motion represents a rural riding. I represent a mixed urban-rural riding. At the last election, there were 63,000 registered voters in my riding, but only 44,000 in his. In fact, my riding was one of only 13 with over 60,000 voters. At the same time, there were 21 ridings with under 40,000 voters. Nine of these were in northern Ontario. Surprisingly, 11 of them were in Metropolitan Toronto. These numbers suggest to me that the reasons for different numbers of voters in different ridings are more complex than the resolution indicates and that different remedies are needed.

The problem of riding size is mainly associated with the single-member constituencies that we use in North America and in Britain. A country like Israel, where 130 members are elected to represent the whole country in a single constituency, has no problem with riding sizes or boundaries. It may have other electoral problems but it doesn't have this one. Most other European countries use multimember regional constituencies combined with some method of proportional representation. This may have some problems with riding size, but disparities can be partially resolved by changing the number of members for a constituency.

Here in Ontario, our democratic traditions derive from the British parliamentary system. There, the principle of representation by population forms part of the program of radical reform which started with the great Reform Act of 1832. Before then, the basic principle was that members represented units of government: boroughs and shires rather than people. There were voter ratios of 60:1 between the largest and the smallest districts. Today, the principle of representation by population is widely accepted and the voter ratio disparity is much smaller. But it's still around 2:1 in Britain and in Ontario.

Clearly, the principle has encountered lasting obstacles. Among them are different philosophies and principles as well as purely practical problems of implementation.

I won't attempt to discuss all the obstacles, but will confine myself more narrowly to the question of rural preference contained in the resolution. There is an old doctrine that country deserves better representation than town simply because it is the country. Until 1952, Norway's Constitution contained a guarantee that country districts, regardless of population, should have twice as many seats as the towns together. New Zealand had a similar rule until 1946. In the USA, farmers and small towns are systematically overrepresented, not by Constitution or law but by tradition.

I still believe in the principle of representation by population and that is why I'm unable to support this resolution. I recognize that there are all sorts of obstacles to achieving this principle, but we should do all we can to move in its direction and not erect new obstacles like the ones embodied in this resolution. Rather, I think we should look at the existing disparities in the number of voters in different ridings and see what we can do to reduce them.

I can see why the practical problems of getting around the larger ridings in northern Ontario justify them having fewer voters than average, but it's hard to justify 11 Metro Toronto ridings with under 40,000 voters or three suburban Toronto ones with over 80,000. It happens because people move from the inner city to the suburbs and a redistribution is out of date before it's even implemented. At the same time, we need some stability in riding boundaries and cannot change them every year.

One possible solution would be to create multimember ridings in Toronto and accommodate moving populations by changing the number of members in a riding instead of changing boundaries. I put that idea forward for further thought and consideration.

To sum up, I again commend the mover for raising the issue, but I think he has the wrong solution to the wrong problem and I shall not be supporting the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to rise today in support of this resolution from my colleague Mr Villeneuve. I was here before the last redistribution took place and spoke in this Legislature on redistribution at that time. Many flaws happened in that legislation. I want to zero in on the riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the riding of Simcoe East and how those two ridings were changed. I also want to talk very briefly about the riding of Grey, the large riding Mr Murdoch represents, and how it has been increased.

Huntsville and Midland have very little in common in the Muskoka-Georgian Bay riding. It's one of the larger ridings in Ontario and the member has to drive through most of my riding to get to the other half of his. It totally doesn't make sense when these things are looked at. To get to one part of my riding I have to drive through the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's riding. I don't have to, I can go around it, but it's shorter to drive through his riding to get to mine.

When we talk about redistribution -- and this resolution deals mainly with the urban and/or rural -- there is a difference. In urban Ontario you could represent 200,000 people as easily as you could represent 75,000 in rural Ontario. The criterion being used as population is wrong. I hope the commissioners, when they look at it, will realize the difference in rural Ontario.

My riding of Simcoe East is about 100 kilometres long and about 45 kilometres wide and I'm sure, Mr Speaker, your riding is much the same. When you go to the city of Peterborough -- the member just finished speaking -- she can represent that total city of a population of, I don't know, well over 100,000, I think -- 75,000. Anyhow, the area around it that she represents -- the member and myself have a lot bigger job to look after our constituents than you do in urban Ontario.

I hope that when the commissioners deal with this very issue they take into consideration the changes that are needed, how we've got to maintain agriculture and how we've got to maintain those communities, that we be viable, that we can continue to supply the food we need in this province of Ontario.

I want to commend the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for bringing this resolution forward because it was a good opportunity to discuss for an hour in this House what's going to happen and some of what we think should happen when redistribution comes in place and looking at it in about 1995.

The urban-rural population is the key. In Toronto you can look after 200,000 population as easily as you can less than 100,000 in rural Ontario, and I think those considerations need to be kept in mind by the commissioners when they're dealing with it. I hope the members here will support this resolution fully.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I'd also like to commend the honourable member for bringing forward this motion, although I tend to think the underlying concern is something basically different. Traditionally, rural ridings have been represented by basically the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Agriculture represents the views of the farm community. The farm community represents about 4% of the population here in Ontario.

The balance of rural Ontario consists of small towns such as in my riding: Selkirk, Tillsonburg, Port Dover. The issues a rural member deals with are vast and varied. They deal with services; they deal with different issues. In my case, I deal with issues like fishing, the fishing industry in Lake Erie, tobacco and different types of agriculture, yet there are base industries in the Tillsonburg area evolving around auto parts and so on -- a basic steel plant that just developed over the last decade there.

I think it's important to recognize that in the sense of true democracy people and populations should be well considered in that context. But I have to say that Paul Johnson, a colleague of mine, brought forward a motion just a week ago based on governments giving rural Ontario a better ability to be heard through either a secretariat on rural affairs or a ministry on rural affairs. Rural Ontario is very important and the issues that evolve around rural Ontario are very important to this province and the future of this province.

Services are not dealt with directly by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Agriculture deals very specifically with farm-related issues. I believe rural communities don't have, and haven't traditionally had, the voice they should have here. As a rural member I spend much of my time travelling and much of my time on many different and varying issues, and I can tell you that I accept that as part of the job and function I perform as a member of the provincial Parliament here in Toronto.

It's difficult by virtue of numbers, by virtue of population, to have rural Ontario's voice heard in a proper and meaningful way sometimes in this place. But I consider that to be a challenge, and every rural member here should consider that also to be a challenge.

I can't help but take some exception to the references made to my own party on rural Ontario, one made certainly by the member for Mississauga West. I find it odd and I find it baffling that I see no rural members speaking on that from his own caucus this morning. I can tell you that rural Ontario is a very important and valuable part of the population and makeup of this province. I know the honourable member who brings this motion forward feels the same way.

I can tell you there are some concerns about redistribution and population, but I feel that overall this would be a beneficial motion to support. I thank the Speaker for your time.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville has two minutes to wind up the debate.

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, I want to thank you and all of my colleagues who've participated here this morning.

The member for Essex-Kent, I think, pretty well explained some of the problems that he has within his own riding; they're very similar to what many rural ridings, including yours truly's, face.

The member for Mississauga West saw the evolution from a quiet, serene country surrounding known as Peel county. I recall well being in Junior Farmers, and Peel county was very rural and had Junior Farmers members attending the annual conventions and conferences. I don't think Peel county exists very much as a rural area any more. He alluded to it and certainly lived through those growing pains.

The member for Simcoe West articulated some of the problems. The redistribution was done in such a strange way that we're criss-crossing one another's ridings to get to other parts of the ridings we represent, as in my own case. When I say a third of the distance from the Quebec border to Toronto, yes, you cross that riding that is covered by my colleague Mr Cleary, the member for Cornwall, but just north of him is the riding I represent, so effectively that distance is the same.

The member for Peterborough brought a different concept, and I think part of the argument that the member for Peterborough brought was that indeed we do have some city ridings that don't have that great a population. Again, representation by population always has to be first and foremost, but with special consideration, I believe, for those areas in rural Ontario.

The member for Simcoe East's problems are very much the same. The member for Norfolk, I think, brings the reality of the type of area he represents. Many of his towns, and he knows this, may not be agricultural per se but are very dependent on the agricultural economy.

I appreciate all participants here this morning. I look for support for this legislation, and if I was political in any way, I did not want to be, because this is above politics. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr Mammoliti moved private member's resolution number 33:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing:

(1) that the government of Ontario has supported increased tenant participation to create healthier communities, as evidenced in the reports entitled Planning Together to Improve the Quality of Life in Public Housing Communities and Consultation Counts: Taking Action on a Housing Framework for Ontario; and

(2) that options for increasing tenant participation should include management by resident-controlled cooperatives; and

(3) that conversions of public housing to cooperative housing carried out in the United States, Australia and Great Britain have been successful in increasing tenant participation in the management of their community;

The Ministry of Housing and the Ontario Housing Corp should consider whether a pilot project should be carried out to assess the viability of resident-controlled cooperatives as an option for increasing tenant participation in public housing; and

(1) that the pilot project,

(

i) ensure the extensive involvement of public housing tenants, board members of local housing authorities, employees of local authorities and members of the community, and

(ii) not jeopardize job security for employees of local housing authorities and include consultation with the employees' union representatives; and

(2) that the Ministry of Housing and the Ontario Housing Corp ask the federal government, as a major funding partner in public housing, to contribute to the pilot project.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Mammoliti has moved private member's resolution number 33. Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Mr Speaker, I wish I had an hour.

First of all, I'd like to welcome the residents who have had the time to come down here; they're sitting in the gallery up there. Approximately 100 of them have chosen to come down and support me on the resolution, and I want to thank them for coming down today. I also have a petition by the residents of Yorkview. There's well over 300 signatures on the petition in favour of the resolution.

As a little bit of history, 20 to 25 years ago, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the province chose to help those in need by implementing a public housing policy that currently exists to date. The intent 20 years ago was to use public housing as a stepping stone for those who are in need, for those who need assistance, but hopefully one day carrying out and finding a place of their own and owning a place of their own.

Twenty years has gone by and, in my opinion, things have changed. The social structure in certain communities has changed. The opinion of certain communities has changed in a lot of areas. We never expected some of the social problems that have come out of our decision 20 years ago. For example, 70% of the people who are in MTHA in my particular community are single moms. That's just one example of a particular social problem that we never expected 20 years ago.

Approximately 10,000 people living in MTHA are living in my community. The Jane and Finch community has welcomed residents in public housing with open arms over the last 20 years and has been very familiar with the goings-on in housing, both the positive and the negative, and I wish to speak of the negative as well as the positive.

The negative aspects to social housing we choose sometimes to forget about. We choose not to speak of it. It's almost like a silent lamb. I want to speak about that today, because the members in my community feel strongly about the problems that exist within our system; not that there's a problem with the tenants, because the people of Yorkview and the people of Ontario believe that there's a problem with the system. There are two different things, and I need to speak to you about that.

Twenty years ago we decided to segregate, and this is segregation. Twenty years ago we decided as a government -- not of course the NDP government, but the Conservatives -- that the best way to deal with people on social assistance and people on welfare and perhaps even the colour of somebody's skin was to segregate: put them in a community separate, with a different identity, somewhere else.

My community is one of those communities. We decided to segregate. We said: "We're going to build thousands of units. We're going to put them in an area of the city and they can all live together in harmony." It hasn't worked. It's the complete opposite.

When you put 300 problems in one particular community or building, you get one major problem. When I talk about problems, I talk about family problems. I talk about the social problems that come out of that. I talk about the drug problem. It's not the tenants who are selling the drugs in my community; it's people coming into the community and the system allowing that to happen.

At Firgrove, at Jane and Finch, the architect of the building won an award 25 years ago for that structure. Today the police department is having a hard time patrolling the area because of the concept, because of that particular building. I can tell you that this exists throughout Ontario, not only in Yorkview.

Some $240 million is budgeted to take care of MTHA alone, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority in Toronto, and that is above and beyond the help that government gives the tenants for rent. Security: $11.7 million budgeted for MTHA alone, $250,000 or $260,000 per project. The tenants could use a lot of that money to fix their toilets. The tenants could use a lot of that money to fix their taps. The tenants would like to be able to patrol and have the decision-making that they have longed for. They'd like to be able to patrol their communities and act as the security guards whom we're paying $17 an hour to patrol: an $11.7-million saving.

Recreation: $4.3 million. In my opinion, recreation is important. We have to make sure that our children are active and are keeping out of trouble. But we're spending a lot of money, $4.3 million in Metro alone. I think the time has come for residents to make those decisions on their own. It's time for residents to decide whether they want their child to play basketball or whether they want a toilet fixed. Let them make the decision; they want to. They want to make that decision. It shouldn't be some bureaucrat who doesn't know anything about my community making those decisions. It should be the tenants and it should be the ratepayers around the community as well.

Co-ops have been growing since 1973. Co-ops are a concept in which tenants can take their projects and run them with the staff, among themselves with a board of directors, and you stop all the levels of management. In the Metro Toronto Housing Authority alone, I counted 17 layers, one day, of management. If somebody wanted a toilet fixed, it would have to go through 17 desks before being filed. That's a waste of money. Let the tenants do it. The cooperative way is the better way.

That doesn't mean we're going to lay off. This misconception that the NDP government is going to lay off the workers who currently exist in the ministry: No, I would never put up with that. I think the workers should have a say in the changing. They should have a say in how the particular projects are run. Currently that doesn't exist, not even in the levels of management in the grass-roots areas at the Firgrove project, the one I'm recommending, by the way, to be that pilot project. Those managerial figures don't even have a say. They don't have a say in what goes on.

It's the people down here on Bloor Street who decide on what goes on in our community. Well, we're sick and tired of it. We don't want it and the tenants don't want it and the ratepayers don't want it. I have got over 100 people here today, both tenants and ratepayers, saying: "You're right. It's time for change. You're right. It's time for us to have a say in our community. You're right."

The problems that have come out of social housing, the problems that have come out of public housing affect the whole community, not just the particular site itself. The home owners who have decided to invest in that community are having to put up with the drug dealers, are having to put up with the prostitutes. That's not even the tenants' or the addicts' fault either, for that matter. It's our fault; it's the province's fault. We allowed it to happen over the last 20 years.

Let's open up our eyes. Let's do what's right. I encourage every member in this Legislature today to not only voice your opinions in your particular communities but to support my resolution: Convert the Firgrove/Grassways complex in the Jane and Finch community into a cooperative housing project.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I am sure the member can realize I will not be supporting this resolution. I am pleased that he has raised the issue of housing once again in the House, because it is a social problem that we have in this province. I think the real issue is that with all the problems of housing and the problems that surround housing, how are we going to solve them?

This government continues to expand the policy of construction of non-profit housing. Just recently, the Minister of Housing announced a large development of non-profit housing at the corner of Bay and Wellesley, and of course the subject of building non-profit housing, co-op housing on our parklands on Toronto Islands, so this seems to be the policy of this government.

To use Mr Rae's words when he was Leader of the Opposition, he plans to take over the housing industry --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member listened, and so should members on the other side.

Mr Tilson: He plans to take over the housing industry, and I think when you read this resolution, it's the continuation of the policy that was set forward by the Premier when he was in opposition, the whole expansion of the socialistic philosophy, which I submit is not the proper way to go about it.

Our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, has acknowledged, as have all parties -- as has the Liberal Party, as has the NDP -- that we have a problem in housing. The question is, how are we going to solve it?

Our position has continuously been that we would recommend the implementation of shelter subsidies and abolishing the continuation of government waste on non-profit co-op housing. Therefore, we simply cannot support this resolution.

I would recommend, if the member hasn't already read it, there's all kinds of literature out on this subject which talks about how this province can no longer afford the subject of getting into non-profit co-op housing, because we simply don't have the money for it. Our deficit keeps rising. Where are we going to get the money to do that and, once you construct it, then the continuation of it? We do need to spend money on subsidies, but the whole subject of continuation of the non-profit housing policy must stop. I'd recommend to this House, and particularly the member who has put forward this resolution, to read the various periodicals and articles that have come out on this subject.

One of them has been put out by the Ontario Urban Development Institute, specifically Morley Kells, who is in the July 1992 edition. It's topic is called "The Needy and the Greedy." I'm sure that topic will spark some annoyance from the member, because I understand his problems, I understand the social problems he talks about in his community and other communities around the province. We all do. We all need to deal with these problems. The question is, how are we going to solve it?

Are we going to continue with the expansion of this philosophy, with the continuation of non-profit and co-op housing, or are we going to get into what we believe, the shelter subsidies? Obviously this government is not going to do that. They are continuing to do it, notwithstanding the fact that they can't afford to do it.

I look at the subject, particularly the third point, where it says "conversions of public housing to co-op housing carried out in the United States, Australia and Great Britain." It's in those very countries that have gone through this process, particularly in the United States, where we've seen it hasn't worked. It's created more social problems, it's created more problems. In an attempt to solve one set of problems, what they've done has not solved that problem but in fact multiplied all the various other social problems: the drug problems, the crime problems. The solutions that have been put forward in these other jurisdictions have not worked.

I'm going to read some excerpts from this paper. Some of you may have read it, but I think it sets forth some of the concerns I have in following along with the proposals being put forward in this resolution.

The whole subject of socialism is defined. I think this is one of the foundations of the NDP's policy: housing, in this specific format that not only the Minister of Housing has put forward and her predecessor, Mr Cooke, put forward, but this expands those policies. Socialism in this

article is defined as: "A theory or system of social organization which aims at securing better distribution and more effective production of wealth by the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land etc in the community as a whole."

That probably is the summation of this resolution, when you read it and understand what the member is trying to do if the government were to follow the policy he is recommending in his resolution.

"State socialism," the

article goes on to say, "is the above established and directed by the existing state or government."

I know my friend is quite familiar with the story of Robin Hood. The

article says:

"Robin Hood was the first legendary socialist. He robbed from the rich and gave to the poor (there was no middle class in the town of Nottingham or in Sherwood Forest).

"The present gang of merry men and merry maids comprising our provincial government are dedicated to the proposition that wealth should be redistributed. Regardless of the merits of that objective, they are attempting to achieve the redistribution of wealth by erosion of the middle class. If they are successful, we will end up like in the days of yore, with the rich and then all the others."

That's the issue. That gets in a direct response to the comments my friend has just made. He's described all these social problems, and already they're escalating. Why would he suggest the continuation, the expansion, of the non-profit housing system and the co-op system in this province? It isn't working, yet he continues to suggest that it be continued.

[Interruption]

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member just to take his seat for a moment.

I am very happy that we have in our midst today a number of people who have come to hear the debate on this particular item, but in this House audience participation is not allowed, and I would ask you to please respect this House and not participate either by applauding or by speaking out during the debate.

The member for Dufferin-Peel, continue, please.

Mr Tilson: The

article continues by stating:

"A number of declarations of policy by the NDP lately would indicate that non-profit housing is one of the major weapons in the quest to move resources around."

That's the intent of this resolution. That's the intent. I would submit that what it will do is create a very large poor class and a very small rich class, because who's going to pay for all this? The taxpayer is going to have to pay for all this.

The subsidies that are going into non-profit housing and non-profit co-op housing are unbelievable. I've spoken in this House and in committees many times on this whole subject, and the province can't afford it. We don't have the money. We can't let our deficit keep rising and rising and rising. One of the reasons it is rising is because of this subject of non-profit housing and co-op housing. In the perfect world, wouldn't it be wonderful to build housing for everyone? The question is, what are we going to build it with? Where are we going to get the money to do it?

I suppose, if I were to follow my friend's suggestion, we have an endless pot of funds. Therefore, I suggest that the proposals he's putting forward are not the correct proposals. It is a proposal if you have an endless supply of funds, but we don't have it, particularly in this recession, particularly when businesses around this province are going out of business, they're going bankrupt, with the increasing unemployment.

How many people are being employed in the construction industry? A lot of people have lost their jobs because the construction industry has gone down the tubes. One of the reasons it's going down the tubes is because there are simply no new apartment buildings being constructed in this province. Yes, there is construction with respect to non-profit housing. Yes, there is construction with respect to co-op housing. And yes, I believe this government to date is moving in the direction of taking over the entire housing industry. I believe they intend that private enterprise will eventually no longer own the housing industry.

My friend has referred to cooperatives that have been carried on in the United States, and Mr Kells does make some reference to that. He talks about what's gone on in the city of Berkeley, and he quotes from a handbook entitled The Cities' Wealth written in 1976, which outlines the political programs developed by California community activists to use the city of Berkeley's resources to the benefit of their supporters.

We must remember that. The number of stories that have come out, more and more, as to who's using these cooperatives at the cost of the taxpayer is unbelievable. Their own Jack Layton is one of them. The present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is another. The member for Halton North is another. Are these people poor? Do these people need to be subsidized under the cooperative system? I would think not.

So there is a housing problem, but the number of people who are taking advantage of the system and the number of people being paid off, I submit, is very difficult.

This

article continues to quote the Berkeley situation. As to what's going on in Berkeley, it says, "Community ownership of housing and real estate is the ultimate goal of coalition housing programs." And that's the ultimate goal of my friend. He wants the community to own all housing and all real estate. That's what this resolution says. I say he's wrong, and he's dead wrong, and it's not what Ontario wants.

Continuing to read from this article, "That goal has been approached through tenant unions, rent control, a neighbourhood preservation ordinance, rehabilitation and code enforcement programs and cooperative ownership conversion." Isn't that what my friend wants? Isn't what has gone on in Berkeley what my friend wants? Well, it hasn't worked in Berkeley. It hasn't worked in Berkeley because the problems that have developed as a result of this policy have been just terrible. I recommend that my friend read this

article before he pursues this policy that he's suggesting with his government members, because it's not going to work.

This

article continues by talking about the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario. It says that non-profit co-op housing was costing other taxpayers a huge amount of money and that there are other options to housing provision. It again gets into the recommendation of what our party has been suggesting, that is, shelter allowances.

My friend also asks the assistance of the federal government. The federal government has completely withdrawn from the housing subsidy field, and the province, of course, essentially bears the entire subsidy burden of new projects. You may be critical of the federal government for doing so, but how much can the province of Ontario afford? You can continue to take your shots at the federal government, but the fact is that you can't afford to expand this. Even the mayor of Toronto has advocated a program of rental assistance to reduce the affordability problems of tenants.

Under the kind of shelter allowance scheme favoured by most economists, money is given directly to the household, based on the difference between what it can afford and what it's actually paying. I believe that is the proper policy this government, or any provincial government, should follow, not what my friend is recommending, because I submit that the province of Ontario simply can't afford the proposals my friend is recommending.

The advantages of shelter allowances certainly extend beyond substantial cost savings. An

article came out in the Toronto Star early in April which I'd like to refer to.

"Shelter allowances are more equitable because they give similar assistance to people with similar needs. They can be delivered faster" -- I'll tell you, the lineups to get what my friend is talking about are unbelievable and inequitable -- "and applied to a far broader selection of rental units, allowing people to remain in the housing of their choice."

My friend is saying, "You must live there,"

whereas the shelter allowance says, "You can live anywhere you want." But my friend says, "You must live in this building and that's that," and that's not the way to treat the people of Ontario.

"Non-profit housing, by contrast, provides benefits only to those people lucky enough to get a unit. It neglects those on waiting lists or those too discouraged to apply; is slow to respond to need because the housing must become vacant or be built; and requires a subsidized tenant to move to a specific project."

It is for those reasons that I intend to vote against this resolution.

[Interruption]

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Before we begin this, if I could repeat myself, we cannot allow for participation from the audience in the gallery, so please do not participate. I ask you to respect the House and the work of this House by not doing that. Thank you.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I would like to support my colleague Mr Mammoliti, the member for Yorkview, in his proposal to convert some units of public housing stock into cooperative public housing. My support for this resolution is based, in large part, on the success that I have witnessed first hand with the cooperative housing that exists in my own community in the city of Cambridge. As well, it is based on a firm belief that cooperative public housing is consistent with the priorities established by the Ministry of Housing which stress the importance of tenant participation and responsibility for the housing in which they live.

There is a lot of talk about empowerment that surrounds co-op housing. I'm not sure that I really like the word empowerment, but I will vouch for the results. The co-op housing in Cambridge is generally exemplary of well-maintained buildings, units and grounds. They are clean and the grass is always cut. The members of the co-op spend a great deal of time in planning for and managing the building they have made their home. The residents plan for both the short-term and the long-term needs of their residences. Above all, the co-ops give visitors a sense of neighbourliness.

The coordinator of Highland Homes Co-op in Cambridge told me that the thing he most appreciates about co-ops is that people who have started to work together out of financial necessity seem to find that they come to appreciate working together as neighbours with shared interests. Is this not part of what we want to see occur in public housing in this province, that those who live in public housing have an enriched sense of neighbourhood?

The coordinator of New Hope Co-op Housing in Cambridge emphasized to me another way in which cooperative public housing can help accomplish the particular goals we have established for public housing in general. It is basically a good way to learn skills. Co-op membership includes a volunteer component that can include tasks from maintenance to management. In order to partake in these activities necessary for management of the co-op, members are trained and assisted until they have learned the skills and gained the experience to be independent managers. What the coordinator of New Hope told me is, "Residents realize benefits beyond housing."

On a personal note, I would like to say of my colleague George Mammoliti that I believe him to be a different kind of politician. He brings a fresh approach to issues. Where others see obstacles, George sees challenges to be overcome. Where others concentrate on the negative, George focuses on problem-solving.

I can tell you that as Solicitor General I was impressed with the thoroughness with which George headed the Advisory Committee on Drug Treatment, which toured this province and resulted in the Mammoliti report, a landmark document in the fight against addictions.

George has made a significant contribution to this Legislature. His plain-talking and straightforward approach to issues is exactly the approach that helps to keep us all focused not just on important issues but on solutions to these issues.

Mr Mammoliti should be praised for this resolution, which takes the principles laid out in the Ministry of Housing's policy of Planning Together and puts these principles into practice. When we replace tenancy with membership and balance responsibility with rewards flowing from it, I think we will see the changes that the honourable Minister of Housing, Mrs Gigantes, started occur at an unprecedented rate.

Once again, I would just like to reiterate my support of Mr Mammoliti's idea of running a pilot cooperative public housing project. The difference in the debate this morning was stark and real. On this side of the House I saw a member looking at an issue and presenting a solution. On the other side of the House I saw a member looking at the problem and saying, "Hey, we can't solve this." I want to go in the direction of Mr Mammoliti.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am pleased to make a few comments on this proposal on behalf of the Liberal caucus. As the Liberal caucus Housing critic I have taken a particular interest in this area of Ontario Housing and also the co-op movement.

When I first saw this resolution earlier this week I thought it was a very interesting one, that perhaps this might be a creative approach to solving a few problems. The first is that it involves tenant participation and in fact encourages tenant participation. The second thing is that, unlike some members in this Legislature, I am very supportive of co-op housing. That's not to say that there aren't problems with it, that there isn't a way we can make the system work better, but I am very supportive of cooperative housing.

I thought this was actually quite a good idea, and yesterday, when the member for Yorkview came over to me and asked would I be supporting this, I said I hadn't finished doing my homework but my initial idea was that I thought it was a good idea. I saw a few problems. For instance, our Ontario Housing Corp stock is older stock. There are a lot of problems with maintenance and upkeep. The stock is deteriorating. Certainly, if you were going to convert it to co-op, one of the priorities at the same time would be to bring that housing stock up to grade. The member for Yorkview agreed with that. I said I wanted to talk to a few more people about it before I made my decision.

But this is where the surprise came in. Quite often when I'm dealing with co-ops I will phone the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario; I will phone CHAO and ask it for its opinion. I've dealt with them in the past and I've found they're very straightforward and very knowledgeable in the area. They said: "Actually, yes, but there's already a co-operative conversion working group that has developed this proposal. In fact, this group has existed for the past year." This particular working group was developed by the co-op sector. It wasn't a government initiative but a private, co-op initiative. Their specific mandate was to look at the conversion of Ontario Housing stock to co-op.

I thought, "This is very interesting," and said, "The proposal before us is that there be a pilot project." He said, "Oh well, yes, that's part of what the working group is doing as well." For the last few months they have been working with the Ministry of Housing to develop this demonstration project, this pilot project, and were getting very positive vibrations from both the Ontario Housing Corp and the Ministry of Housing.

Then I thought, "This is kind of strange." From this resolution I got the impression that this was a new idea, that it was an idea of the member for Yorkview. Nowhere does it mention in here that it was actually being driven by the co-op sector, not the government. Nowhere does it say that this is already on the books and that it appears that an announcement by the Ministry of Housing would be imminent regarding this stock. It really bothered me. I had planned to vote for this resolution, but I don't think this is right and I don't think this is fair.

I wasn't here at the very beginning of the debate, because I had a meeting on another important issue for Metro Toronto, which is market value assessment, but I had asked both my colleague in the House and my executive assistant to take note of Mr Mammoliti's remarks: Did he give credit to the co-op sector for this idea? And the answer was no.

Quite frankly, this bothers me. It bothers me when it's set up that a member of the NDP puts in a private member's resolution, which he had to have cleared with the Ministry of Housing, because that's the way it works --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: That's the way it works.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: I wish the member for Downsview would please give the courtesy of letting other members speak their piece. This is very important and it's a matter of principle here.

Mr Mammoliti: But I can't stand up and talk.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: The ministry had to be aware of this going on because the ministry was involved in the project. This morning the co-op housing association sent me a copy of the project. These are various representatives from the co-op sector, one of whom is from CHAO. I looked through it and it's a good proposal.

But that this member wouldn't even mention this, to me it stinks to high heaven. That this member would bring forward a proposal which he knows the government is very likely to adopt in the near future so he could then take credit, saying, "See, I recommended this pilot project, and look, the government listened," to me this smacks of dishonesty.

I would have had no problem if he had come here today and said, "This is an initiative of the co-op sector and I'm proud to support it." But going through the back door like this means he's going to take credit for something he didn't do, and it doesn't surprise me on the one hand. It surprised me that the member for Yorkview would do this.

Maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe he didn't talk to the co-op sector, so he didn't know they'd done all this work. Maybe I'm wronging him in saying this is a big setup. If that's the case, then he was set up. He was set up by a government that wants to give him credit for something this government didn't do.

This isn't the first time it's happened. Just a couple of weeks ago in the House a question was asked about the Premier's results over in Asia. Lo and behold appears a press release of a $10-million job opportunity by a Japanese company in Ontario, and isn't it wonderful what the Premier's doing.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): What's that got to do with co-op housing?

Ms Poole: What it has to do with co-op housing is that this government took credit for that, yet the very next day that Japanese company issued a statement disavowing itself, saying this program was set up two years ago and had nothing to do with this government. That's exactly what this government is doing.

Let me say, I don't like this type of approach. Just be upfront. If you're going to give credit where credit is due, then fine, but I'll tell you, you demean the whole process by the way this has come in through the back door. When I say it's not the first time, I say it's part of the continuing pattern, the whole John Piper business of manipulating things to take credit for things you didn't do.

A year ago in this very Legislature, the Premier stood up and had to defend himself because he printed in his own householder the fact that he had said 420,000 women were now going to get pay equity because his government had passed the legislation. It wasn't true then and it isn't true today. You're taking credit for something you haven't done and you still haven't done it.

I could give you example after example. I remember when we were talking about finances and the budget. The Treasurer said, "We have protected the poor; we have protected those who are least able to pay." People under $53,000 in income wouldn't have to pay. Then it turned out -- this is what was printed I think by the member for Dovercourt at the time. They took credit for protecting the poor and protecting everybody earning under $53,000. When the facts came out, it was that everybody was paying this 5% increase and in fact was not protected. It's one more example of taking credit for something you didn't do.

What I would like to hear from Mr Mammoliti when he makes his remarks at the end is why he didn't mention the enormous contribution of the co-op sector. I have a copy of the plan, the proposal, here and I've looked through it. It's well-thought-out. A year's worth of work has gone into this. It talks about a number of the areas in which I had concern. They too were concerned about the preservation of the housing stock and the fact that it was very important to make sure that when this conversion process took place, the stock was upgraded. Quite frankly, when I look at their key goals and assumptions, it's obvious a number of the concerns I had are being taken into account.

I'll tell you one thing: I want to vote for this proposal because I think it's a good one. I think it's creative, I think it is restoring our aging housing stock, I think it is encouraging tenant participation, but I really resent the way this government has gone through the back door to try to take the credit for it. Even if they'd said, "We're in a partnership with the co-op sector," even if they'd mentioned it, but no, this was an initiative from the member for Yorkview. No credit was being given anywhere, so that in a couple of months when this initiative is announced the member can take credit for something that he didn't do.

I'm not making comments on the sincerity of the member. I know he's got a lot of housing stock in his particular riding that is OHC, but I'm saying that is not the way to do it. You have to be up front with what you're doing. You have to give credit to those who have done the work, taken the initiative, shown the creativity and spent thousands and thousands of hours of work on this proposal.

I am not going to vote for this because it's a sham. It makes a mockery of a very good proposal --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's difficult. Nobody expected --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Poole: Well, quite frankly, I intended to vote for this. At 4 o'clock yesterday I intended to vote for this proposal, until I found out that you were perpetuating it as your proposal, even the wording in it.

The Acting Speaker: We're now getting into dialogue across the chamber, which, as you know, is out of order. I'd ask you to address your remarks through the Chair. Interjections are completely out of order, as usual, and I'd ask the honourable member for Downsview to please stop. The honourable member for Eglinton has the floor.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my apologies for not going through the Chair, but I am getting quite exercised by the attitude of certain of the members of the government.

I even looked at the wording and it says in item 3 "that conversions of public housing to cooperative housing carried out in the United States, Australia and Great Britain have been successful in increasing tenant participation in the management of their community." This is taken exactly from this report and yet there is no acknowledgement that this report even existed. They have a term for using somebody else's information and adopting it as your own and that's exactly what this is. Nothing less than it.

I think it is not to the credit of the member for Yorkview that he did this. I don't think it's to the credit of this government and the Ministry of Housing which had to have known -- they're part of this -- that it was going on. I find it totally unacceptable for this government to be taking credit for something that was initiated by the co-op sector. They are to be commended for what they did. This government is to be held in disgrace for what it is doing.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'm certainly pleased to respond to my colleague the member for Yorkview's resolution before the House today regarding the development of a demonstration process for public housing in Ontario. Unfortunately, it's very sad the approach that the Liberal critic has taken. Mr Mammoliti, as I'm sure people in this House will know, is a very straightforward member and what he's doing is bringing forward the direct concerns of his riding. It's unfortunate that she cannot be constructive.

The resolution here proposes that my ministry and the Ontario Housing Corp consider a pilot project to assess the viability of resident-controlled co-ops as an option for increasing tenant participation. We fully welcome the idea of tenant participation in management. That concept is at the heart of the government's approach to management of all social housing in this province.

As the member has pointed out in his resolution, we have clearly stated this in two recent documents: firstly, Consultation Counts, which deals with the future direction of co-op and non-profit housing in Ontario and, secondly, Planning Together, which addresses a new approach of tenant involvement and empowerment in Ontario Housing Corp. What the resolution proposes is a major move in the direction of resident participation and one deserving of full consideration.

It's important that the policy and practical implications of this proposal be weighed very carefully, and I would hope the opposition would do this with us. Many people are involved and these are people's homes that we are talking about. I'd like to point out here a very interesting thing I just noticed this morning, and that is the Conservative member who spoke earlier talked about shelter allowances. The word "shelter" to me is abhorrent. He calls people's homes shelters. These are homes, which is a very different concept. A shelter is something maybe you put cattle in. That's the kind of attitude that we see from the opposition.

Let's look at the implications of this resolution. A key consideration would be tenant response to the concept. Tenants' views on the level of direct involvement is most important. A major theme in the Planning Together initiative now under way is to ask tenants how they want to be involved in decision-making in their communities. Tenants have different points of view on this idea. There will be some who want conversion to co-op management. There will be others who would prefer to remain as they are as renters.

Secondly, the province is not the sole funder or owner of all the public housing in Ontario. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp pays 50% of the costs of rent-geared-to-income housing, while all cooperatives have at least some market units. A significant number of units are jointly owned with the federal government, and the city of Toronto has ultimate ownership of several large housing developments. These funders will have to agree and be very much involved before changes can start.

Thirdly, as the resolution rightly anticipates, questions of job security for the current staff of the local housing authorities have to be addressed and, as well, the situation of the staff belonging to unions in a co-op form of management.

Fourthly, and very important: What are the implications of this conversion for the principle of broad income mix? We've always considered this very, very important in cooperative housing and non-profit housing. Conversion will indeed contribute to the principle, but public housing has been exclusively rent-geared-to-income tenants. Changing to a mix of income levels may have some implications for this supply of rent-geared-to-income housing. How can we and should we address these implications? These are very serious questions.

Fifthly, what are the views of the non-profit sector? They're very important, both the co-op and non-profit sector. What do they think? What about the public at large? As the opposition has said, "Yes, we will be very, very closely involved with the cooperative sector." The important involvement of the people of Ontario -- because this is a large policy. We're talking here about substantial public assets owned by the province, built up over the last 40 years, thousands of homes, not shelters but people's homes. The point of view of the public has to be sought and taken into account.

Finally, there are the boards of the local housing authority, which have done great service to all of Ontario over many years. They will have to be involved. This government welcomes the concept of tenant decision-making. This government welcomes the empowerment of people, and it can be clearly seen from what the Ministry of Housing has done in the past two years. I'm extremely proud of that. Together, all of us with the Ontario Housing Corp must look very carefully at this proposal, a very careful examination, and give it the thought it deserves.

I thank the member my colleague for bringing this forward. I thank the guests for coming here this morning. We welcome this.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It's a pleasure to be standing and speaking to this resolution however briefly. I like what it says, George. He's putting forward an idea I believe in. He's talking about empowerment of tenants, which makes sense to me. He's talking about responsibility of tenants that the co-op movement provides. It seems to me that's a good mix. Where I do have a problem is the Piperesque appearance of this whole situation.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Piperesque? What's that?

Mr Brown: It's another manipulation of the system, another way of making something appear as something else, as something that looks like something it is not. For that I am disturbed, but I'm not surprised. It's not the particular member I'm concerned with; it's a government that has consistently for two years manipulated consultation processes, manipulated press releases, brought people into the Premier's office to spin things, and "spin" is not a word the public really understands. What it means is manipulate, manipulate a process.

I'm surprised that my good friend the member for Yorkview has been captured by a Premier's office that says: "This is what we have to do. We have to make things appear as they are not." It does not give credit to the group that originated this particular proposal.

I could say I was surprised, and I am a little bit, that the Premier's office has captured even my good friend from Yorkview. But that's what's happened here, and I think all members of the House have to understand that even in Mr Piper's departure, those people are still in the Premier's office.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr Perruzza: Just very briefly, I can't help but try to contain some of my amusement associated with this.

First of all, I'd like to thank my colleague and friend the member for Yorkview for having the guts to bring up such a sensitive subject in this place this morning. I can understand why some of the opposition doesn't want to talk about this. I can understand why the Conservatives don't want to talk about it. During the 1970s, when they were building up Jane Street, when they were making these kinds of decisions, they knew what they were doing.

They knew very well what they were doing. They had all their high-priced executives, all their spin doctors and all the other people it takes to make these kinds of decisions. They knew exactly what they were doing, they knew exactly what they were dumping into that area, and I can understand why they would want to shy away from that today.

But they weren't the only ones who were doing it because, while they were making the decisions, the federal guys who were providing the money were the Liberals. They were in cahoots; they were together. They were just dumping problems along Jane Street and in the Finch area and they were in cahoots. They were together on it because, quite frankly, they didn't care and they have never listened to argument.

So it's no surprise to me today when I listened to some of my Liberal friends and the member for Eglinton said: "You know what? I'm not going to support this. I agree with the concept but I'm not to vote for it, and I'll tell you why I'm not going to vote for it." Then she went on to ramble on how "It's not our idea." Who cares whose idea it is? Who cares as long as it cleans up the problem? Who cares? It's not yours.

You had five years and you did nothing about it. So it's no surprise to me when, during the last election campaign, I canvassed in the area and people told me about their problems: about the drug dealers in the parking lots, about the sex in the parking lots and in the basement and in the corridors, how they were afraid to open their doors because they didn't want to walk out into their hallways for fear that they would be mugged, how the residents, the people who live in the area live in fear because, in order to feed the sex and drug trade, you need to rob and steal. You need to go into a house and take someone's TV and sell it and generate some money to go out and buy the drugs you need.

I can understand why, in five years, you didn't talk about it and you didn't want to do anything about it: because it's a sensitive area, it's a sensitive problem. In fact, one fellow whose door I knocked on said, "You know, we live in this stuff and nobody ever talks about it." I can see that today.

Some of the Liberals in the areas have talked about it. They go around the community and they say one thing. They say, "Yes, this is a problem." They try to blame the NDP. We weren't in power before 1990. The problems didn't happen after 1990. The problems happened before.

They go around the community and say: "Yeah, we recognize it's a problem. Yeah, we need to do something about it. Yeah, we want help in doing something about it." But when it comes down to this place, when it comes to where the decisions are made, when the time comes to put your money where your mouth is, what do you do? You stand up in your place and you say: "God, Jeez, you know, it's not our idea. Because it's not our idea I'm not going to vote for it."

All you're saying is, "We Liberals aren't going to vote for it." You can go in the community and say that all you like. You can say, "Yeah, there's a problem. We want to clean it up," but when it comes down to the guts of it, to the meat of it, you vote against it. You vote against approval. Shame on you.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Yorkview has two minutes to respond.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me respond very quickly to the member for Dufferin-Peel, and the Conservatives for that matter. I'll get to the Liberals in a second.

The Conservatives' idea to solve the housing problems and the social problems that might exist within housing is to make the rich richer. Give the landlords more money. Why don't you take a trip up to my community? Why don't you take a trip and see how those private buildings are run? Why don't you take a trip and see how those hallways in those private accommodations are being dealt with? If you did, you'd probably shut your mouth. If you did, you'd probably regret everything you've said in the House today. Make the rich richer. I don't even want to talk about you for a second.

I'll go over to the Liberals now, because the Liberals -- first of all, the Conservatives' idea would cost this province $2 billion.

You know what, Dianne? You have done me a world of good. She has shown the community where the Liberals stand. The Liberals say one thing and vote another way. The Liberals talk about a potential problem, but they don't want to resolve it. They're too worried about the motives. They're too worried about who's going to take credit. The community's going to benefit from this. The community will benefit from this, and you, right now, today, if you stand opposed to this, are saying no to Jane and Finch. You're saying no to the people in Yorkview. You are saying no to the problems that exist. The Liberals are saying no to the problems that exist in my community.

I am trying to rectify a problem. I am trying to recommend the Firgrove/Grassways complex to be the private project. I know it would work. You're just too afraid to admit it, Liberals.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): We will deal with ballot item number 33 first.

Mr Villeneuve has moved private member's resolution 21. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

We will now move on to the second ballot item.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Could we refer my bill to a committee of the Legislative Assembly?

The Acting Speaker: To the honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville, I'm afraid that it is not a bill and therefore we cannot refer it to a committee.

PUBLIC HOUSING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): We will now deal with the second ballot item.

Mr Mammoliti has moved private member's resolution 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 pm of the clock.

The House recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO THIRD WORLD

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I hope members will share my view that sound projects of Third World assistance are not only acts of altruism. Of course, if they are well conceived they benefit the receiving country directly, but by contributing to fiscal soundness and a better standard of life for all peoples of the world we build healthier and safer international communities and a more vibrant world economy. That, of course, benefits Canadians as well, as present and future trading partners of Third World developing nations.

I am rising, therefore, to thank three Canadian pharmaceutical companies and one charitable organization for their generous donations to Third World assistance, and to applaud their generosity and foresight. The companies concerned are Shoppers Drug Mart of Willowdale, Pharma Plus of Mississauga and Big V Pharmacies of London, Ontario. The charitable organization wishes to remain anonymous.

To these Canadian pharmaceutical companies and this charitable supplier, for their humanitarian service and outstanding generosity, our very sincere appreciation.

PROVINCIAL PARK WARDENS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, a number of park wardens, who have the same authority to lay charges as OPP officers, have alleged that their superiors at Presqu'ile Provincial Park near Trenton are dropping some of those charges without informing them or giving them reasons.

The wardens also allege several incidents of intimidation and harassment by park management. These incidents seem to have been triggered by the wardens' complaints about management interference in enforcement issues. These incidents involve verbal abuse, the manipulation of overtime pay and counterthreats if union action is threatened.

The wardens say they brought all this to the attention of your colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. Your colleague assured them that he had raised this matter with you, the Minister of Natural Resources.

Minister, these are serious allegations. These wardens have come forward because they believe their own safety and that of members of the public who visit Presqu'ile Provincial Park each year may be endangered because of management interference, intimidation and harassment.

Again, the wardens involved were assured that you were on the case. Apparently, this is not correct.

Minister, the wardens are demanding that you examine this matter and they demand that you launch an OPP investigation into their allegations. I support the wardens in their demands for a resolution of this extremely serious matter. Minister, could we please have a reply in writing to these allegations for these people?

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Recently it's come to my attention that a group of self-interested land owners and developers under the name of the Niagara Escarpment Landowners Coalition have approached the regions of Niagara, Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton and Peel to return control of the Niagara Escarpment lands to local municipalities and disband the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

They have also formally written to Mr Terrance Cook, the program director to the Canadian commission for UNESCO to request the temporary suspension of the biosphere designation for the Niagara Escarpment planning area.

A great deal of hard work conducted by the University of Guelph, the University of Waterloo and a number of dedicated individuals in this province brought the Niagara Escarpment to the attention of UNESCO. The former Premier of this province, along with the secretary of UNESCO, in 1990 officially conferred the status of a world biosphere reserve on this precious resource of the province of Ontario.

This shameful attack by a group of self-interested developers and land owners is not only a national disgrace but a provincial embarrassment, and I call on all parties in this House who have supported the Niagara Escarpment and the biosphere designation in the past to speak out very strongly and condemn this foolish attempt to exploit Ontario's precious resources.

The land owners' coalition says that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is too tough. Let me remind members of this House that the Niagara Escarpment plan is driven by the needs of the environment, not the needs of developers.

I am calling for the continued support of all parties of this House to protect the Niagara Escarpment's biosphere designation and the authority of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Thank you.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): A $900-million proposal to construct a state-of-the-art petrochemical complex in the community of Sudbury is in danger of being lost because of NDP government inaction. Over 4,000 person-years of employment during its two-year construction phase and 250 permanent jobs in the north would be created. The complex, put forward by Sunthetic Energy Inc, an Ontario company, would produce ethers to be used as fuel additives, thereby reducing harmful exhaust emissions on our roads. Export sales of this environment-enhancing product have been estimated at $280 million annually in 1992 dollars.

Yet despite these tangible economic and environmental benefits, the proposal has received only a superficial response from the NDP government. The community of Sudbury has until November 30, at which time Sunthetic Energy will pick up and move to California, where there's great interest in developing this most progressive project. However, the NDP government has given no indication that it will support this private project by permitting it to sell its excess electricity to consumers in the Sudbury area.

A news release issued by the company last week states, "Unfortunately, there appears to be little movement on the part of the government towards finding a solution that would enable our proposal to go forward."

When is this government going to act on this issue? The citizens of Sudbury and northern Ontario are anxiously awaiting the response of the government before next Monday. They deserve to be dealt with fairly and openly and not pushed off until it is too late.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to make this statement on behalf of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which has designated this week as Ontario Hydro Rate Cut Week.

As the Minister of Energy should be well aware, businesses in Ontario are cutting costs and struggling to remain competitive to keep jobs and investment in Ontario. This has been a particularly difficult endeavour while Ontario Hydro is moving in the exact opposite direction. To quote a letter from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, "Ontario Hydro's rate increases are rapidly turning what was once a competitive strength for Ontario business into a disadvantage."

I would like the Minister of Energy to take a moment to consider some of the following facts: Proposed rate increases over the 1991-93 period total 31%, while inflation is projected at only 10%. Operating, maintenance and administrative expenses represent 25% of Hydro's costs, and they have increased 86% since 1987. While other businesses are cutting back in order to survive through tough times, Hydro has increased its staff by 22%, approximately 5,000 people, hired over the last five years.

The fact remains that Ontario Hydro is not adapting to the necessities of our economic situation.

RIDING OF LAMBTON

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I am pleased to stand today and inform the House of many accomplishments that have taken place in the riding of Lambton county.

First of all, I had the privilege of participating recently in the reopening of the Victoria Hall Playhouse in Petrolia. The playhouse was restored after a devastating fire and now is back in operation as a vital landmark and live theatre venue in Lambton county, and I invite all members to visit very soon.

I'm also very proud to have had the opportunity to open the new St Joseph's elementary separate school in Corunna on behalf of the Minister of Education and then later open the new Corunna Child Care Centre located at this school. The child care facility will not only be a place for much-needed child care spaces, but it will also be operated by Lambton College, where the college's early childhood education students will be provided with their first opportunity to care for school-age children in a lab setting.

This major project has been made possible by the cooperative efforts of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and is the first of its kind in Ontario.

Lambton county is also very proud of the new central library headquarters opened recently in the village of Wyoming, which will better serve the residents of Sarnia-Lambton. This is made possible with a grant from the Ministry of Culture and Communications.

In closing, I would also like to inform the House of the new Wyoming-Petrolia parish charter of the Knights of Columbus. It was exciting to attend their charter night and present a plaque on behalf of our Premier, Bob Rae.

I wish all the groups I mentioned the best of luck.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): It is a sad commentary on this government when over 4,000 vulnerable persons and the dedicated workers associated with them have to gather in front of this Legislature to grab the government's attention. This form of consultation is confrontation, yet this is the only way they can gain any type of recognition from the NDP government.

The Ontario Association for Community Living has a combined membership of 15,000 people throughout the province. Its goal is to ensure that all people have the opportunity to live in a state of dignity and to share in all elements of living and participating in the community.

Today I joined thousands of people in front of this Legislature protesting the ongoing disregard that this government has for those most vulnerable in today's society. This government's proposed cutbacks will stop the meaningful work that people like Rick Staples do at sheltered workshops. Rick was in my office today, desperately seeking assistance in order that his contribution to the community can continue. If your funding cuts continue, he will be segregated from society.

How can this government, whose Premier promotes the social charter for Canadians, turn around and totally disregard those most vulnerable in our society? This government's unilateral cuts will jeopardize and demoralize these people. As many of the posters said today, "Consult, don't insult."

I am sure the member for York East, who joined us on the steps today, would agree: Bob, you must cut wasteful spending, not the funding for people most vulnerable in our society.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Today at noon outside this Legislative Assembly, there were many concerned parents, staff members and clients who are involved with the Ontario Association for Community Living. They are concerned that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has announced a $5-million cut to the sheltered workshop system provincially. The minister has also announced that the sheltered workshops as we now know them will be phased out and that alternative programs will be introduced to replace them.

The minister should know that the clients I have spoken with, those people from London, are very concerned that they will no longer have the choices that are available to them now.

The president of Community Living London, Mr Al Gleeson, advised parents, siblings and consumers in a very crowded emergency meeting this week that they should advise their elected members of their concerns. They made sure that we knew that integration and supported employment programs were useful and necessary and that they supported them, but they wanted to warn us that each job in the community requires two persons to assist each challenged person. This is a very expensive program.

In these times, when it's so difficult to place so many of our special citizens, will we indeed find those placements that are so necessary? If we're going to phase out any part of that program, we must have another program in place before we do any phase-out. These are important citizens. We should be supporting a very good program as it exists today.

ELIZABETH SCHRODER

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'd like the members of the Legislature to join me in paying tribute to the late Elizabeth Schroder of Guelph.

Between 400 and 500 people attended a memorial service last week to remember a rich and a fulfilled life. She was the wife of Jim Schroder, former Liberal MP for Guelph from 1980 to 1984, and the mother of four children. She was involved in Guelph's community life since moving there in 1951.

The Ontario Ministry of Citizenship presented her with a 10-year volunteer award for her work as president of the Guelph Arts Council. She worked hard to make the dream of the Guelph Civic Centre a reality.

She was the president of the Guelph

chapter of the Canadian Federation of University Women. One of the federation's interest groups was a civic affairs committee to encourage women to become involved in city hall and run for office. Elizabeth Schroder was on that committee 15 years ago when Guelph elected councillors Marg McKinnon and Anne Godfrey, the second and third women councillors in Guelph's history.

Elizabeth Schroder was a compassionate person who canvassed for the cancer society, delivered books to the sick and the elderly at home, taught Sunday school and served as treasurer at Chalmers United Church. She also led a Brownie pack and worked with the home and school association. She was involved with the Third Age Learning Group, which offered educational programs for people of age 55 and older.

She took an active interest in her husband's political career, attending public events on his behalf and sometimes cooperating with his staff to help constituents.

She helped bring the first tennis courts to Guelph's Exhibition Park, so there was play as well as work in her life.

As her husband, Jim, remarked, "Liz really did everything she could to make this a better place to live."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I am pleased to advise the House that today I will be introducing amendments to several pieces of legislation as the first step in the restructuring of Ontario's long-term care system -- a new integrated long-term care health and social services system for seniors, their care givers, adults with physical disabilities and those who need health care services at home.

My colleagues the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Citizenship and I are confident that this framework is a product of one of the most comprehensive and democratic consultations ever undertaken by government. We held some 3,000 meetings across Ontario involving more than 75,000 people.

With a number of innovative features, it will make possible a more flexible approach to the delivery of services in the home, thus responding to the strongly articulated needs and preferences of users and care givers during the consultation. It will enable improvements to the training of facility and community-based workers and to the development of supportive housing projects.

Early in the spring we will announce the details of the implementation framework. In the meantime we will release a report in January on the consultation and the new policy directions. We will ask district health councils to immediately begin restructuring their long-term care planning capacities to ensure the inclusion of representatives of municipalities, social service planning and delivery service sectors and, of course, consumers. In addition, we will ask them to facilitate long-term care implementation planning discussions in their communities based on the January policy directions document.

Our reform also seeks to improve the quality of care for residents of nursing homes and charitable and municipal homes for the aged, because facilities are part of the continuum of care. To do this, we need to amend several pieces of legislation.

The new bill I'm bringing forward today, the Long-Term Care Statute Law Amendment Act, affects seven existing statutes. Changing these statutes is necessary to achieve five major policy goals.

Our first goal is to establish a fairer funding scheme that is based on the level of care required by residents and guarantees non-profit delivery of nursing care and programming components funded by the province. In this respect, I'd like to pay tribute to previous ministers of Health in the previous government who worked on this issue.

Our second goal is to improve accountability to residents, to their families, to workers, as well as to government, in terms of financial management, quality assurance and service provisions.

Our third goal is to establish a consistent resident payment policy as described in our October 1991 Redirection document. Currently, some residents are asked to pay for their nursing and personal care, and their assets and income are used to calculate the fees that they pay.

Under the new policy, residents will be asked to contribute to their accommodation costs only -- that is, for room and board. Let me emphasize that residents will no longer pay for nursing and personal care. As well, assets will no longer be considered in the calculation of residents' fees.

No one will be refused care because of an inability to pay. Those who have a limited ability to pay, based on an income test, will pay at an affordable reduced rate.

Our fourth goal is to allow eligibility and admission decisions to be made by a placement coordinator who will simplify and streamline access to long-term care facilities.

Finally, our fifth goal is to make direct payments to adults with disabilities so that they can purchase and manage their own services. This goal addresses the central importance to consumers of maximizing dignity, independence and control over their own lives.

We remain committed to the $647-million investment in long-term care. It is with great enthusiasm and hope that I ask the honourable members for their support to these amendments, which will help lay the foundation for and take the first steps towards a new long-term care health and social service system in the province of Ontario.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS AND FISCAL OUTLOOK

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): In the 1992 budget the government made a commitment to three priorities: helping workers and employers prepare for the economy of the future, preserving public services that Ontario values and keeping the deficit in check.

When we published the budget we knew the road to economic recovery would be a difficult one, but the problems we face have become more serious than we knew last spring. The economy is recovering more slowly than we and others had forecast and our revenues, as I indicate in the Fiscal Outlook I have tabled today, have also been slow to recover.

We are not alone. Across the industrialized world, economic activity has been slowed, unemployment has been high and growth is sluggish. Government revenues are weak and the need to help those who have been hurt by the recession has increased.

However, in the face of these difficulties, we are on target for operating expenditures in 1993-94. But in the absence of further policy changes, we now estimate our total revenues next year will be $4.2 billion less than planned in last year's budget.

Between now and next spring's budget, we must make additional revenue and expenditure decisions to close this revenue gap.

We have already demonstrated that this can be done. This past year we made significant headway restructuring programs and containing costs. Growth in spending fell to 4.8% after a decade of increases averaging over 10%. If public debt interest were excluded, growth in operating spending would be up only 2.8% this year.

Our management of health care costs is a good example of the progress we have made. After 10 years of increases averaging over 11%, the increase for health care spending this year is up only 1.6%. This reduction in the growth of the health budget was achieved without major disruptions in service and with minimal job loss. That is a tribute to the Mini