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

October 8, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr Curling moved resolution number 27:

That, in the opinion of this House, since over 75% of the trade of the province of Ontario is with the United States of America; and since Ontario has created exceptional technological infrastructure in the areas of health, resources, transportation, education and technological development; and since we have in our recent history an example of how enhanced and exuberant economic growth has beneficially affected the attitude of citizens of all countries towards the people of Japan; and since attitudes of racial intolerance towards Japanese people have given way to respect and cultural sensitivity, as a consequence of that nation's contributions to the global economy; and since it is the genuine intent of every citizen of Ontario to move towards greater equality and the establishment of a better system of securing to every person the human rights for which our democratic society stands; and since Ontario has abandoned efforts with bettering trade with developing nations; the government of Ontario should make a significant commitment and a concerted effort to re-establishing very active trade activities with developing nations that will focus on technology transfer and the enhancing of the skills of the people and, through trade policies, which benefit the economy of the province of Ontario as well as the economies of developing nations, the citizens of Ontario will acquire a sensitivity towards the culture of developing nations and a regard for their citizens as persons deserving of respect.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to tell members what an opportunity this is for me. I appreciate this opportunity to bring that resolution before the House, which I feel very strongly about and which I am sure all members of the House will support.

As I said, the province of Ontario trades with the United States, and the trading position of the United States with Ontario is more than 75%. About 87% of all the trade that happens in Ontario is with the United States; a further 5% is traded with Japan. So you can see, and I just want to put the situation straight, that the remaining 8% of the trading that we do with the rest of the world is distributed around, with Asia and other nations; only 8%.

We are very proud in this province of the equity aspect of dealing with people: the laws that are put in place and the regulations that are put in place, the Human Rights Code, employment equity, police issues. We have done situations in which we have changed curriculum to address and be sensitive to the visible minorities in this province. As a matter of fact, over 60% of our population is visible minorities. They are from Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa.

What does this mean basically in the economic sense? We have a tremendous opportunity to trade with the rest of the world. We do, of course, appreciate the fact that the greatest nation in the world is right beside us on our doorsteps, at the border: the United States. The old saying goes, as you recall, that if we put all our eggs in one basket, it's quite possible that we could suffer if there is any downsize to that. The expression goes that of course if the United States sneezes, Canada catches a cold, and Ontario itself is just on that border.

If we look, if we want to be very effective, I think we could divide our situation in two respects, one in which we can talk about aid, and we can talk about trade. We can talk about serving people effectively. We can give aid to the developing nations. For instance, in Somalia today, where they have problems, we can send food and medicine. In the meantime that's on a short-term basis, but on the long-term basis I don't feel it does anything. I think if we set up a proper trade relationship with those countries, we are better off.

We in Canada, we in Ontario, are in a very fortunate position. What do we have? We have a diverse multicultural society. No longer do we have to import expertise to speak to the other nations of the world. In Canada, for instance, we are a member of the G-7 nations, and the rather interesting situation about that G-7 membership is that we are a member of la francophonie, we are a member of the Commonwealth and we are also a member of the Organization of American States, with an opportunity to serve all nations, yet our situation of trading has been not as effective.

The reason why I draw Japan in perspective as a case in point is that I recall, and you can recall, the time when a Japanese who had ancestors from Japan and was living in Canada, a Canadian Japanese, had properties taken away from him or her just because he or she was a Japanese. That was an appalling human rights situation we had in Canada.

That has been adjusted because what has happened is we see Japan coming out of the ashes and building an economy that is respected over the world. Today we are anxious to trade with Japan.

I think if we look at the other developing nations, they have been in the trading business for years. If you look at the West Indies or Africa, they have been in the trading business for hundreds of years, and somehow they have been shortchanged in this respect.

Ontario, I feel, has downsized many of its opportunities. They have closed offices now in New York where they could have done an effective job in dealing with the trading situation in other parts of the world, and this was a lost opportunity.

I feel that if we decide to put some strategy in place, if instead of giving aid we trade with these people, we are better off. Increased trade in helping developing countries improves the standard of living. We have many technologies here that are ready and in need of those countries. As I travel around the world in other developing countries, there is evidence of Canadian technology, roads, aviation, all kinds of technologies that are ready to be received in those countries. It improves those countries' positions.

But what is happening? The decrease of trade is having an appalling effect on those countries. Total exports, just to bring it into perspective, to all countries are about $74.4 billion. The total imports of Ontario are about $79.1 billion, and that was in 1990. There is a deficit that you're seeing there. It was worse in 1991. The total exports, of all countries, in 1991 was $70.7 billion. The total imports, of all countries, is $97.9 billion. Over the period of 1990 to 1991, the trade deficit nearly doubled from $4.7 billion to $8.4 billion. And who suffered the most under those conditions?

They are the developing nations. They have decreased their trading relationship with developing nations. This has a tremendous impact on us. I think we have a great opportunity in which to improve our situation in those countries.

We know that national governments cannot control capital. As soon as you put pressure on capital it moves. It's quite flexible. The problem with that is that as capital moves people move. So we have to be quite flexible in responding to the rapid global change. We're a trading province. We have been in the trading business for a long time. As a matter of fact, 30% of our gross domestic product depends on the export sector. In a comparative way in the United States, I think only 17% of its gross domestic product depends on the export trade.

In the last 10 years, I think the Americans have seen the light and they're expanding their trading capabilities. I think we have the opportunity here to expand that way.

If we look at Quebec, as I've travelled around some of the countries in the world I've seen evidence of Quebec trying to expand its trading relationships. I feel Ontario has that opportunity, and I emphasize that because of the fact that our culture and our population is quite diverse and we are able to trade with ease with those countries.

It's a challenge, of course, for us at home because of our diversity and, as I said, we have approached it in a very sensible way, but it's an opportunity for us abroad because the opportunity is to increase our trade, to increase our relationships, to increase our human rights approach. I feel that if the government takes a very assertive and progressive approach to trading, we have progressed extremely well in equating it to our equity aspects of legislation in regard to human rights. In trade we can do both, and in the meantime command the respect that we have earned so well.

Also, from the other side itself, we have seen a different life of those people who are willing to trade, who need our technology, and I think we'd have a better world. I think it is called the global village.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments on this resolution brought forward today by my colleague the member for Scarborough North.

I'd like to read the resolution into Hansard because I think it's important that people realize really what the resolution is that we're speaking on here this morning. It says:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since over 75% of the trade of the province of Ontario is with the United States of America; and since Ontario has created exceptional technological infrastructure in the areas of health, resources, transportation, education and technological development; and since we have in our recent history an example of how enhanced and exuberant economic growth has beneficially affected the attitude of citizens of all countries towards the people of Japan; and since attitudes of racial intolerance towards Japanese people have given way to respect and cultural sensitivity, as a consequence of that nation's contributions to the global economy; and since it is the genuine intent of every citizen of Ontario to move towards greater equality and the establishment of a better system of securing to every person the human rights for which our democratic society stands; and since Ontario has abandoned efforts with bettering trade with developing nations; the government of Ontario should make a significant commitment and a concerted effort to re-establishing very active trade activities with developing nations that will focus on technology transfer and the enhancing of the skills of the people and, through trade policies, which benefit the economy of the province of Ontario as well as the economies of developing nations, the citizens of Ontario will acquire a sensitivity towards the culture of developing nations and a regard for their citizens as persons deserving of respect."

I wanted to relay in my remarks this morning some of the reasons why I think it's going to be difficult to make some of these things happen, because we in this province of Ontario have a significant commitment and a concerted effort to establish trade activities with developing nations that will benefit the province of Ontario.

But I find it rather ironic that we are debating this resolution today because the socialist government, through its proposed changes to Ontario's labour laws and its tax-spend-and-borrow approach to fiscal management, is destroying our prosperity and is lowering the province's economy to the same level perhaps as some of the Third World countries. So the government should clean up its own backyard before we take advantage of a developing nation.

I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to go, with a delegation led by Mr Henderson, to Cuba -- a very, very worthwhile trip. We watched what happens in some countries that are having some problems, some very difficult problems. When you're rationed to five litres of fuel a month, when you take half the buses off of the streets and when we look at some of the developing countries that are in this problem, I think there's some very bad news there.

When we look at some of the deficits that countries have, it's difficult to find how we are going to be helping more trade with Third World countries. When we look at some of the policies of this government with regard to some of the taxes, some of the policies put in place, we have to consider, how do we help to affect the attitudes of the citizens here to really make things happen, when we have the unemployment rate that we've got in this province, when we have a province that has expanded debt?

I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward to try to make people aware of what is really happening here. I am also aware, though, of what is happening in other countries. When I speak of Cuba, the problems that it has, I can see why the member brought this resolution forward.

Even in the province of Ontario in Canada, interprovincial trade is not in place here. Why wasn't interprovincial trade part of this new Constitution that we're dealing with? When we look at trade, it can even be within your own province, in your own country, and Canada should have free trade across provincial lines.

So that's what the resolution says: Ontario should make a significant commitment to trade. When we look at what's happening here, with the technology that we have and the technology that we have lost -- it wasn't long ago, the other day, we had a person in committee, dealing with an appointment, and we talked of how our technology has gone to other countries. At one time, almost 10% of the technology that was sold in computers and high-tech was here. That's not happening today; it's down now to about 3%.

So when we look at the trade that's taken place, we look at the Third World countries. The wrong that was made a right with regard to the Japanese people some years ago was a very important step for the togetherness of Canada. The rapid trade changes that we're seeing taking place with the United States, Mexico and Canada are only going to expand. The economy and our high taxation, our high unemployment, our lower productivity and our social structure are limited by soaring health, education and welfare costs.

So when we look at more taxes here, we look at people who have desperate problems with regard to funding. We have to make that commitment to a policy of achieving deficit reduction through expenditure controls and not through tax increases. We must avoid hiking taxes or introducing more taxes. We must cap or roll back wage increases in the public sector and provide tax relief for retail and small businesses so that we can have those funds we need that the member is discussing with regard to the resolution that is before us today.

We must abandon some of the major legislation that we see before us, such as the labour bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation that's ever been brought to this Legislature. I think it'll have a very detrimental effect on this whole province and in other countries at the same time. I say that because, when we look at that legislation, what other country wants to expand its business to Ontario? We can give examples of the tax grabs that have taken place. When we look at increases of 15% in recreation country with regard to camps and hunting licences, there are all kinds of reasons why this government will never be able to do what this member is asking for in his resolution.

With the rapid trade changes that have taken place, it's unfortunate that we're closer to some of the Third World countries than we ever were. We, at one time, were great exporters. We exported a lot to other countries. That is down now.

Mr Curling: The percentage.

Mr McLean: The member has the percentage that it's down. I haven't got them this morning, but he did mention them in his opening remarks.

We have many other issues that are cause for concern, and the focus is on technology transfer and enhancing the skills of people. That was why, some years ago, we had 23 community colleges built, to enhance the skills of people so that we would be able to sell the knowledge we would have here to other countries.

I think the time has come when we have sold out to some other countries such as Germany and Japan. When we look at the car market, we look at all the products that are made in Japan and sold in the United States.

Why, last weekend on W5 they didn't even make it in the States. They brought it in, uncrated it, changed the label to "Made in USA" and sold it. I couldn't believe that would happen and I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing is happening here in Ontario. It wouldn't surprise me at all, because I'm not so sure the government is really on top of the situation.

I said earlier that the government is determined to destroy Ontario's prosperity and is lowering this province's economy to the same level as many developing nations', and that's sad to see. One of the ways the government is doing this is through the unnecessary overhaul of Ontario's labour laws, which will ultimately destroy the unique partnership between labour and business. It is a partnership that is necessary if Ontario is to be economically healthy and vibrant.

The changes that are being made in this province are making it difficult for this province to be competitive with some of the other countries that we're talking about here today. The government shouldn't be giving prospective investors one more reason -- and that's what it's doing; it shouldn't be, but it's doing it -- not to invest in Ontario by confirming the business community's worst fear: that the government has not listened to its concerns and is determined to proceed with its pro-labour agenda.

The resolution before us today I think is important. It gives us the opportunity to discuss the change in attitudes of some of the people in this province. I think the resolution will probably be looked at more by the metros of Ontario. I think the government of Ontario should make a concerted effort to re-establish some very active trade activities.

Now, I don't know, but I understand the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is somewhere in the world. I heard through the grapevine that he is away for three weeks. Obviously, he's not interested in being in this Legislature to answer questions the opposition might have with regard to trade, with regard to high technology.

I want to put on the record that the industry that is being located in the town of Midland, my colleague for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's riding, is the first in Canada for high-tech skills teaching. I think it's important that this be strongly supported by this province. It was initiated and funded by the federal government but we should be part of that, because I think in trade and technology, for individuals to learn skills, that's where we're falling behind.

I have many people with German ancestry who indicate how far advanced Germany is compared to what we are here in Ontario. I think there should be a far greater effort put into what we're doing here to make sure skills are developed, that people can learn them and that there is an opportunity to learn them.

It's not bad being a mechanic or a plumber or a bricklayer. These people make good money, and so they should. They are the backbone of the country. We should be teaching the skills for those people here in Ontario. We can't all be lawyers and doctors, and it's a good job we're not. It's a good job that we have people like the member for Mississauga here in the House this morning, because his views in his municipal days have been well noted here.

My colleague the other member for Mississauga is the same way. Mississauga is well represented in this House. We look at the development of that one community alone, which is debt-free and has a surplus. Why is it that the government of Ontario cannot balance a budget? Why is it that the government of Ontario continues to increase the debt of every man, woman and child in this province?

I remember coming here when the debt of every man, woman and child in this province was about $3,200. Today that debt is over $17,000. That's a tremendous debt. I'm saying there should be a system where governments cannot put debt on to the people of Ontario. They're doing it. Most of the local municipalities are debt-free, not all but most of them, and most of our small-town politicians are very good with the dollar and they look after it and pay their way. Why not the government of Ontario? Why are we putting this debt on our children?

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this resolution.

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough North for bringing this resolution motion to the attention of the House. I'm pleased to see that we can agree that Canadian business people, Ontario business people, have been too focused in the past on dealing strictly with trade and business initiatives within our own country, as well as the United States. I think we're beginning to realize that with the globalization of the business community, we have to broaden our horizons, look for new opportunities throughout the world and not become strictly focused as we have been in the past on trading with our best trading partner, the United States.

However, I won't be supporting the resolution. The reason is that I have a problem with the wording, specifically "and since Ontario has abandoned efforts with bettering trade with developing nations; the government of Ontario should make a significant commitment and a concerted effort to re-establishing very active trade activities," and then it goes on.

I'd like to point out that our government, the New Democratic government of Ontario, has worked with business in expanding trade opportunities with developing countries, and I'd like to refer to some specific countries.

In the Pacific Rim, South Korea: In 1990, exports to South Korea were approximately $259 million; in 1991, they were increased to over $405 million. Taiwan: in 1990, $201 million in exports, increased in 1991, under the stewardship of the New Democratic government of Ontario, to $396 million. Pakistan: $19 million in 1990, increased to $23 million in 1991.

These aren't simply commodities we're dealing with. We're dealing with plastic and plastic articles, which increased in the entire Pacific Rim, Asia in particular, from $146 million to $181 million. Iron and steel increased from $108 million to over $399 million.

Let's look at trade with Latin America and the developing countries in that area: Argentina, $22 million to over $32 million; Bermuda, $11 million to over $20 million; Peru, a small increase but still an increase, $13 million to over $14 million; Venezuela, $82 million in 1990 -- under the stewardship of the New Democratic government of Ontario, it increased to over $177 million; Brazil, $54 million to over $116 million.

Let's deal specifically with a continent, Africa. We have over 103 projects in various countries of Africa that have received assistance through an agency of our government, the Ontario International Corp. I'm sure the members of the opposition are familiar with that agency; it is very successful. But the projects that are being undertaken in the continent of Africa, in various countries, deal with building the infrastructure so that those countries can improve the quality of life for their citizens.

Example: first, environmental project, for Burkina Faso, a country in Africa, a total project value of $16 million, and an office building with a value of over $2 million; natural resources development in Ethiopia, over $20 million in value. All these are commitments of our government to expanding trade in developing countries, and I think it's important.

Let's talk about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Ed Philip. He's had a very busy

schedule in 1992. He visited Switzerland, Belgium and Spain in the spring. In October, he was in London. He's currently in India and Pakistan.

Might I point out that when I had a meeting with one of the ministers of Pakistan here in Toronto, they were very impressed, because that is the first minister of any government in Canada who is going to visit Pakistan. They're very keen to expand trade with businesses in Ontario. I think that's very impressive.

I won't be supporting this resolution, but I hope the member for Scarborough North won't hold it against me, because I'll be bringing in a private member's bill in the very near future and I hope to have his support in passing that bill. If he would consider changing the words of his resolution, perhaps I could support him, but as it stands, I cannot.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): It's indeed a pleasure to speak to the motion from the member for Scarborough North. I'll tell you frankly, especially the viewers who don't quite know how the system works, when I first saw this motion on the order paper, I thought, how is this going to affect me and what does this mean to my constituency in Nepean, to the people there? I was first inclined to say, "Let someone else speak to this motion," as we often do, but then I thought about it again and I realized that my parliamentary colleague put his finger on a very important subject.

That subject and why I want to talk about it today is our openness as Canadians to the world over, and of course, as this motion says, particularly to the underdeveloped world.

I was born and raised in Europe, and if there was one characteristic Europeans appreciated about Canada, as much as they knew about Canadians, was their international awareness, their role on the international scene, that they weren't just caught up in their own affairs, that they didn't come in with a heavy hand, as sometimes the Americans would do, but would deal with all countries on an equal level, would be sensitive to their concerns and would work with them. We can all be proud of that recognition, especially Canada's peacekeeping role, so well known all across the world.

When I first learned more about Canada, it was precisely that role, that openness to the world and to the concerns and needs of other peoples, that really attracted me to this country. I must say that in recent years, I find we have become all too parochial in our thinking. I appreciate and I know why that is. Obviously, the constitutional debate we're involved in has really focused our attention very much inwards. Sometimes you have to do that, you have to get your own house in order to be able to look outside again, to go out there and help other people.

I hope after October 26, we will be ready to have our house in order, or at least as much as it is possible at this time, and that we're ready to open our eyes and our hearts again to the whole world and specifically the underdeveloped world.

Now, we could ask, isn't this a federal responsibility? It's the federal government that deals with other nations, with other governments. But, as in all aspects of provincial and federal relationships, the provinces too, and we as Ontarians, have a role to play to encourage trade and to be concerned with the needs of other countries.

My colleague from Scarborough North is so right when he says that we as Ontarians -- really, as quite well-off Ontarians; with the knowledge and skills we have in this province, we've nothing to be ashamed of. We have good skills. We have a great education system that can stand up to international tests. It may not be the best and there's need for improvement, but we have something to share, and there are many countries that would like us to share our knowledge and our experience and our skills with them. I think we as Ontarians have an obligation and a responsibility to do that.

I'm very pleased and proud to support the direction Mr Curling, the member for Scarborough North, is putting forward.

Especially this government, the NDP government, which prides itself as a party that it stands for the little guy, for those who are less privileged -- mind you, it appears that the member for Welland-Thorold is beginning to wonder whether the NDP is holding true to its old ideals and principles and whether it's beginning to move away from their own high and lofty concerns for the little guy.

But if they're true, if this government is true to its own party ideas, then I think the members really ought to support this motion and support the idea of working with developing countries and helping them to improve their economies and move forward with medical and technical advancement and with knowledge.

At the beginning of my comments I asked, why does this affect the people in Nepean? I'm very pleased to say that we have some people in Nepean who in fact are already active in this field.

About three years ago, Mr Des Garvey, whom I know very well, encouraged the city of Nepean -- he worked very hard at it and for a long time, and it took him quite a bit to convince a lot of people, but he succeeded. He convinced city hall to establish a partnership with the city of Bo, right in the heart of Africa. I'm pleased to report to the House that we had municipal officials and municipal councillors go to the city of Bo and share some of their expertise in terms of municipal handling and how to deal administratively with the needs of a municipality. That too is a skill.

When we think of technology transfer, I don't think we should just think of machines; there's also that administrative skill we have here that we can share with others.

So I'm pleased to say that in my constituency of Nepean, some of the ideas being put forward in this motion are already being implemented. I encourage that, and therefore I'm very pleased to support this motion. I encourage all the members of the House to do likewise.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): I support the intent of the motion. When the member speaks of the sensitivity of Canada and of Ontarians to emerging nations, obviously he has the support of all of the members of the House. Unfortunately, there are many things in the motion which are convoluted, which allow me, unfortunately, to have to stand here and say I cannot support the motion.

There is an implication in the motion, for example, that as one becomes wealthy as a nation, therefore one grows in respect. I have to believe that the manner in which wealth is created is very important and therefore there are some emerging economies where, if we look at the type of working conditions within those economies, we would have to stand back and say, "No, this is inhumane."

When we talk about a situation in Canada, we have created an economy where an individual has some dignity within that economy, where people have the right to work in a safe, clean, humane working environment; to receive reasonable wages for his efforts; to have democratic rights; to belong to a bargaining unit and to negotiate collectively. These are substantive rights and I would say to my colleague across the House that this is a beacon.

The labour-management relations we have established in this province and are establishing in this province indeed is a beacon to the world as to the kinds of relationships that can exist, the solid working relationships, the good quality of life that can exist between employers and employees within a working environment.

What is the kind of example we want to give? We want to give environmental legislation and we do that in Ontario by enlightened, progressive legislation in the field of the environment, management-labour relations and human rights relations. This of course, I believe, is our gift to the world. I believe we can proudly stand up and say that we are pioneers, that we are at the forefront of the most progressive kinds of legislation in the fields of the environment, labour-management and human rights.

As I listened to the debate I heard very little, with the exception of the member for Nepean, moving outside the realm of government. I believe that what we really should be talking about is not government intervention. We certainly have government involvement. We have embassies. We have trade centres. We have trade missions. We have seen the example of our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology not only bringing politicians but business leaders with him on trade missions, so that indeed there is a real partnership between government and business as we extend the arm of friendship and help across waters and across boundaries.

I believe very intensely in the role of the private sector. I believe very intensely in the type of partnership that must exist between government and the business sector as we extend that arm of friendship and help abroad. In the region, for example, where I hail from, the wonderful city of Cambridge and the region of Waterloo, not only do our businessmen travel abroad representing their company -- fine companies: Babcock and Wilcox, for example, bringing in export orders from abroad.

Not only do they go out there as salesmen for their company, but they bring the information about all of the other companies, all of the other expertise and all of the other technologies that are available within our region and within Ontario. So it doesn't become a parochial mission, but indeed a mission on behalf of all of Ontario. This is the kind of partnership between business and labour that we absolutely believe in.

I will simply close my remarks by saying that while I have much respect for the member who presented the motion, the motion fails to give credit to the government for the fine work it is doing, both abroad and in the fields of the environment, labour-management legislation and human rights.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I think members opposite, frankly, have missed one of the most important points of this resolution, and it's the last two sentences where the member for Scarborough North talks about benefiting "the economy of the province of Ontario as well as the economies of developing nations, the citizens of Ontario will acquire a sensitivity towards the culture of developing nations and a regard for their citizens as persons deserving of respect."

I think there's a message there that perhaps hasn't come through and is very much part of the intent of the member for Scarborough North in putting forward this resolution. What I interpret him as saying is that when you trade, you must learn about the cultures and the traditions in a particular country. If we expand our trading horizons, we will learn more about what's going on in those particular countries and what's important to the peoples of those nations. When we learn we grow to understand, and when we understand we grow, and when we grow we prosper. I see it as a circle.

I think what the member has put forward is a very credible position that indeed will help foster better relationships between all the various communities which live and grow here in Ontario, because we will learn more about the people from Pakistan if we trade more with them, and we will learn more about the people from various countries in Africa if we trade with them. We'll have to. To be able to successfully trade with peoples in those nations, we're going to have to learn what's important to them.

One of the things in the resolution talks about how the relationship with Japan has evolved. I can tell you that if you want to do business with the Japanese or many Asian peoples, you have to take time to understand their culture before you actually make the sale. You have to back off. It's not like North American business where you can go in and there's a power close or you try to make the deal and everyone's only thinking of the buck. In their situation they want you to understand what's important to them and what's important to their country.

As a result of that trade, what this resolution is saying is that we have grown to understand the Japanese culture and what's important to the Japanese people, and as a result of that growth and that knowledge and that increased exposure, we have grown to respect not only the country but the people of Japan. The reality is that respect was not there in the 1940s and the 1950s. That kind of respect and growth has developed as a result of an open and aggressive trade policy with the people of that nation.

What this member is saying is that we talk about racial harmony and disharmony and we talk about all the multicultural problems that exist in our society. If we think in terms of doing business with people from the various countries in the world, we will grow to understand them. I think this is a very creative way of dealing with many of the problems we have to face in our community in learning to get along with one another. It's a creative way that will benefit the economy in Ontario and ultimately in these other nations.

I found it somewhat curious and interesting that the member for Brantford would talk about all the statistics of how trade has increased with various countries in the world. I believe what the member is confusing is the difference between trade and aid. No one disputes that Canada is recognized throughout the world as a generous country. No one disputes that when we have hurricanes and damage and problems and poverty and hunger, Canadian agencies, and indeed Ontario agencies, provide aid to those nations that need that help. That's not what this is talking about. There's a difference.

We should continue our foreign aid policies to help people who are starving and who are less fortunate. What we're talking about is that maybe if we change from aid and concentrate on trade, we'll improve the economies so that those nations won't require the aid that's going overseas in the billions of dollars every year from the Canadian taxpayer, and in turn, we can then get a benefit for our own business people in encouraging them to do business.

The benefits of international trade, and particularly of expanding it to developing nations, are that we get to learn more about the peoples from those developing nations, we get to prosper in our own right as a strong economy -- the ninth largest as an entity in the world, as a matter of fact -- we grow in understanding and we grow in respect. It's what I would call an absolute win-win situation for everybody involved.

It's very important that when we quote how trade has increased with Argentine and Korea, it is curious to me that the way that trade has increased is by selling them Candu reactors, a product this government has clearly said it's opposed to. Yet they're prepared to stand up and beat their chest with great pride at the fact that they might have had something to do with AECL in my riding making a sale to Korea for Candu reactors and nuclear energy. Yet they stand on the other side of their mouth and say that nuclear energy is wrong.

I'm afraid you can't claim that you're doing wonderful things in trade when in fact it's the private sector that's doing it and it's former governments that have supported that industry and put in place an infrastructure that will allow it to sell its products. You can't have it both ways, folks.

When you talk about energy from waste, this minister stands up and says she's opposed to burning anything. Notwithstanding the fact that there are apartment buildings and households burning their garbage all over this province, she's going to save the environment by stopping it. Yet on the other hand, we export technology and energy from waste to Asia and all over the world. This government clearly has failed to lead any kind of direction in the area of foreign trade.

I congratulate the member for putting forward this very progressive resolution.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): The resolution tabled by the member for Scarborough North offers some very interesting points for debate. The fact that the economy of our province is subsidiary to the United States, also known as a branch plant economy, presents risks that in better times have been underestimated with the blind faith of previous governments for everlasting economic growth where recessions would be, at worst, short stops on the way to a bigger prosperity.

It isn't so. The world economy has stopped. No one is sure when it will take off again. The markets of the western countries are not able to absorb the goods we produce. The eastern European countries will not be a market for our goods for years. We have to look at Third World countries to establish commerce.

But this is Ontario, this is Canada. Our traditions are different. Because of our peacefulness, our role in defending peace and in helping poor countries directly or through the United Nations, we are welcome everywhere in the world. The multicultural mosaic of our people, and this is particularly true for Ontario, gives us an incredible advantage over other nations. We are able to approach other countries knowing their values, their languages and their cultures because those cultures, those languages, those values exist in Ontario. Brought here by immigrants, they are able to grow and flourish in our province, defended and protected against discrimination by our laws and traditions.

But respect and knowledge of other nations is not enough. We have to offer them goods they need. We have to compete for those markets with the other industrialized countries. We have to overcome the challenge of this economic crisis, not a recession but a renewal, a shift in our industrial structure. It was the previous provincial administration that in 1990 wrote, identifying the challenges to prepare Ontario for the new global economy:

"Most of that restructuring involves shifting resources out of low-wage businesses and the commodity segments of resource and mature manufacturing business into higher value added products and services . . . . It is only by continually raising our value added per employee that we can increase our wealth and maintain a high standard of living."

This was the previous administration's idea. It is true, this is all true, and this government is addressing those concerns through our Jobs Ontario Training fund, through changes in the school systems and with continued attention to the multicultural fabric of Ontario.

This government is multiplying the efforts towards a full implementation of the scopes and ideals of the resolution tabled by the member for Scarborough North, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is taking every possible step to ensure the growth and diversification of our economy and of the markets we target. But it is a common effort. As a government, we are doing our part and will continue to do so.

Mr Curling: I think the resolution I put forward has really made its point. It's not about who votes for it or against it; it's about how we address it and debate it. It's important that we speak about these issues and look at it from a different point of view. This resolution is about addressing equality issues by building economic linkages.

With this resolution can do is to make some rather comprehensive progress. It's about the global economy and how we are tapping into other nations. It's not about who owns capital, but how capital performs in any economy. This resolution made its point, and I think members have debated that and have reflected on it. I'm not concerned if one says, "We shall not support this because it says a negative thing about my government or my minister." I'm not concerned about that. I'm beyond that and I hope we're all beyond that.

It's about our socioeconomic agenda, with a human face. It's about the global village. It's about how we see the world, and the world is right here in our arms here with different nations and how we relate to each other. Giving aid is a good thing, as my colleague stated, but aid is not enough. It's how we relate to each other. We can build each other, we can complement each other; we cannot be a nation unto ourselves. Technology has taken care of that. We can stay right here and communicate across the world.

I urge the members to continue this kind of debate, to be sensitive to other nations and know they're here, because we can benefit much more from it and also have the other countries benefit from it too.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mrs Marland moved resolution number 23:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that on June 18, 1992, the Minister of Housing released the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses, which contains draft legislation to allow home owners to create an apartment in a house without municipal zoning approval; and recognizing that the Housing ministry's consultation period, even with the ministry's decision to accept written submissions after the deadline of August 31, 1992, is inadequate for legislative changes of this magnitude; and recognizing that several parties, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many municipal councils, the Ontario Home Builders' Association and many ratepayer groups, have identified serious deficiencies in the proposed legislation; and recognizing that these deficiencies include the following:

-- Failing to recognize that accessory apartments, unless located in suitably zoned areas, may not offer a reasonable quality of life for their occupants or be compatible with their surrounding neighbourhoods;

-- Failing to provide adequate legal protection to home owners who need to regain possession of their accessory apartments.

-- Interfering with municipal zoning authority and negating official plans and decades of land use planning decisions.

-- Failing to provide municipalities with licensing authority for accessory apartments.

-- Failing to consider how municipalities and the school boards will pay for the services required by the residents of accessory apartments.

-- Failing to consider whether sufficient infrastructure is in place to accommodate the residents of accessory apartments.

-- Failing to require onsite parking for accessory apartments.

-- Contributing to the "absentee landlord syndrome" by failing to limit accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes.

Therefore, the Minister of Housing should not introduce the legislation proposed in the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses, which would permit an apartment as of right in a detached, semi-detached or row house.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mrs Marland has moved second reading of ballot item 24. The honourable member for Mississauga South will have 10 minutes to initiate the debate, after which all three parties in the Legislature will have 15 minutes.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The NDP government's proposal to permit one apartment as of right in all detached, semi-detached and row houses has aroused a storm of controversy in my community of Mississauga and across the province.

As the Progressive Conservative spokesperson for Housing, I have had the concerns of many parties, from ratepayer groups to municipalities and home builders' associations, about the draft legislation contained in the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses.

Virtually everyone has complained that the NDP government released the consultation paper just before the summer when most people take their vacations. With a deadline of August 31 for responding to the paper, many parties were unable to do so. This is unacceptable for such significant legislative changes.

The basic premises of the proposed legislation -- the need for more affordable housing, the need to curb urban sprawl and a plan that will not be a burden on the provincial treasury -- are laudable. However, there are many problems with the proposal, some of which I have outlined in my resolution.

First, I would like to comment on the major concerns of Ontario's municipalities.

Speaking on behalf of mayors in the greater Toronto area, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion has said: "We aren't against subsidized housing in basement apartments, but we want to decide where they go. If we have people moving into basement apartments who can't find a place to park, they're going to call the mayor. We have no control and all the responsibility."

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario supports residential intensification as an option. However, it is AMO's position, to quote its president Helen Cooper, that "Decisions on housing intensification policies should be the responsibility of municipalities."

By robbing municipalities of their zoning powers and pre-empting their official plans, the province would be ignoring years of long-range planning by municipal governments, whose decisions reflect the wishes of the majority in their communities, not to mention the incredible millions of dollars that have been spent having planning departments in regional and area municipalities. As AMO said in response to the Apartments in Houses consultation paper, "This is an unwarranted interference with municipal zoning authority."

Municipalities, school boards and their ratepayers have identified many other shortcomings in the draft legislation. One of the most serious is the failure to ensure that municipalities and school boards will receive additional tax revenues for the extra occupants of accessory apartments.

Under the Assessment Act, a home with an accessory apartment may generate the same tax assessment as a home with a finished and unrented basement. Unless the additional unit increases the market value of a property by more than $5,000, which is not always the case, the assessed value of the building does not increase. Moreover, even if the tax assessment does increase, it does not rise in relation to the number of occupants in the apartment, but rather in proportion to the increase in the home's market value.

Consider the hypothetical case cited by the Credit Reserve Association, Mississauga's largest ratepayer group, in response to the consultation paper:

"If the owner of a typical $250,000 house spends 5% ($12,500) to divide it to provide an apartment (no additional square footage), his property taxes on market-based assessment would increase by 5%, while the municipal costs would increase by nearly 100%. Who is going to pay the difference?"

Unless the Assessment Act is amended, all property taxpayers will subsidize municipal and educational services for residents of accessory apartments. There will also be strains on the infrastructure of many municipalities. Some sewers and watermains cannot accommodate the extra demands of accessory apartments. As well, there are concerns about traffic congestion and parking, especially if basement apartments are allowed in houses on narrow lots and there is no requirement for on-site parking.

In addition, there will be pressures on policing services. In my own community, the Peel Regional Police have stated that rapid housing intensification and the region's hidden population are already severely straining policing services. Unless municipalities can collect extra tax revenues for accessory apartments, policing services will be further strained by the inevitable impact of the proposed legislation.

Another important issue is property standards. Allowing accessory apartments as of right will result in more income properties and the absentee landlord syndrome, which can lead to poorly maintained houses and yards. The draft legislation does not limit accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes.

Although the discussion paper proposes giving municipalities broader powers of entry in order to enforce health and safety standards, how are the municipalities going to pay for these apartment inspections? Again, the province is downloading costs and responsibilities on to the municipalities and their property taxpayers.

In my own community, Mississauga city council has responded to the apartments and houses consultation paper by sending a resolution to the Minister of Housing and and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mississauga's resolution objects to the requirement for accessory apartments in detached dwellings with lot frontages of less than 40 feet, in all semi-detached and town houses, and in garages.

The city also objects to the accessory apartment proposal unless many other conditions are met. For instance, Mississauga wants municipalities to be given the power to license and to impose development charges for accessory apartments. I have also heard from many ratepayers' associations gravely worried about the impact of the proposed legislation on their neighbourhoods.

In my constituency of Mississauga South, the Credit Reserve Association, with its president, Doug Watson, has prepared an excellent response to the consultation paper. This association has an intensification committee consisting of nearly two dozen volunteers who have worked countless hours to study intensification issues.

As well, there are Fran Wallace of Orchard Heights Homeowners, Frank Kovacs of Sherway Homeowners and Recreation, and Charles Cowley of the South Applewood Residents Association. These associations have raised concerns that are representative of my riding, which consists primarily of mature neighbourhoods with all types of housing and varying lot sizes in one of Canada's fastest-growing suburban cities.

There's also a tremendous hazard where we might have to face the problem of parking on streets without sidewalks. That's an issue on its own.

As I mentioned earlier, the Credit Reserve Association realizes that a proliferation of accessory apartments would cause large increases in their property taxes. The association also points out that, "The new rights are experimental, yet they will be virtually impossible to reverse once conferred (even if the experience is a bad one)." As the association says, we are opening a Pandora's box.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association has also identified potential problems which the draft legislation does not take into account. For example, will expensive building code changes be required to facilitate basement apartments? What about subdivision servicing? Will municipalities increase their persons-per-unit count, resulting in higher development charges?

We must also ask questions about landlord and tenant law for accessory apartments. When we allow accessory apartments as of right, many home owners will opt for the extra income from a basement apartment without understanding the relevant laws and regulations. For instance, it's very difficult to regain possession of an accessory apartment, yet there could be many cases when it would be necessary to evict a tenant. Consider the following hypothetical examples.

What if a tenant tells a non-smoking home owner that he doesn't smoke or she does not smoke, when he or she does and in fact is a smoker? Why should home owners have to share their house with people whose habit endangers the health of the home owners and their families? Yet it would be extremely difficult to evict a smoking tenant.

Second, what if a family needs its basement space to accommodate children, a nanny or aging parents but the tenant refuses to leave despite the landlord's having the right to repossess a rental unit for his own use if he gives the tenant due notice? Should a tenant refuse to leave and the matter goes to court, it could be many months before the family could regain the use of its basement.

Third, what if a family purchases a home with a basement apartment, counting on the rental income to pay the mortgage, but the tenant does not pay the rent? Again, it can take months to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. That could amount to enough lost income for the home owner to default on his or her mortgage payments.

It appears, then, that changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act would also be required for accessory apartments.

Mr Speaker, I look forward to concluding my speech.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will have two minutes in summation at the end of the debate. Further debate on Mrs Marland's motion?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to stand up this morning and urge that this resolution be roundly and soundly defeated by this House. I'd like to start off by stating my bias.

In the city of Scarborough we currently have in the neighbourhood of 14,000 to 15,000 illegal basement apartments. My question to the member for Mississauga South is, of course, should we decide not to legalize these basement apartments and we give the municipalities the authority to go in and remove these people from these illegal units, where are we going to put these people? Will the member for Mississauga South and other members of her party assist these people in buying homes so that everybody could be living in the nice 1.7-member family homes that this member envisions in the city of Mississauga?

I want to talk about some of the reasons why we're moving towards the legalization of accessory apartments and some of the inconsistencies that the member's position demonstrates.

First of all, job creation: By eliminating the zoning barriers that stop people from adding basement apartments to their homes, we're going to spur a job creation program in the construction industry, which is quite badly needed.

Again, the first inconsistency that arises in the member's position is that the PCs talk about being concerned about the lack of job creation. As soon as we announce a program that is going to create jobs, and it's the intention of the program to create jobs, they oppose it.

Secondly, while our government remains steadfast in its position, in its commitment to the creation of tens of thousands of non-profit homes, we know this is only part of the solution to the insufficient supply of affordable housing.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr Owens: We need to use other methods to encourage the creation of affordable housing.

I look across the House at the member for Mississauga South and the member for Dufferin-Peel, who, every time the issue of cooperative housing is raised, hit the roof and say, "This is a terrible way to use the taxpayers' dollars." Well, my answer is that we have a proposal that is going to use existing resources without having the Treasurer come to this House to request more tax dollars. But again you say, "No, that's not good enough."

Studies in Toronto, Vancouver and the United States have shown that rents for apartments in houses are in the neighbourhood of 15% to 35% less than those charged in apartment buildings.

One of the legal clinics that my office deals with is Scarborough Community Legal Services, and in particular with a legal worker by the name of Linda Mitchell. She deals with assaulted women and single mums who are in transition between leaving the abusive relationship and trying to get into Metro Housing. These basement apartments are used as transition points. What are we going to do with the single mums and assaulted women if we don't legalize these apartments, if we don't bring them up to standard?

It's hard to understand, again, in terms of the use of tax dollars, why the party of the taxfighters -- the member for Nipissing likes to declare himself a taxfighter -- would oppose the use of existing resources, again for these very substantive problems.

Helping the home owner: Many first-time potential home buyers who were shut out of the ownership market during the inflated 1980s are now out looking again. We thank the third party and its cousins in Ottawa for allowing the interest rates to drop to a more reasonable level. The ability to rent a basement apartment legally would bring in somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $400 a month. This sometimes makes a difference between being able to afford a home or not.

There are many existing home owners who, because a spouse has recently been laid off or there's been the death of a spouse, need the extra income in order to maintain their homes. The member for Eglinton, Dianne Poole, said in the Ottawa Sun on June 22 of this year that the policy will help seniors having difficulty paying taxes and maintenance costs, and I thank the member for that supportive statement.

Back to the member for Mississauga South: The member has accused the government in the past of not assisting home owners. Yet here we are, trying to assist home owners and we're being criticized for it. She opposes the very measure that is going to help seniors stay in their homes, that is going to help young people buy their first homes, but no, the member for Mississauga South says it's not good.

We want to ensure that rental homes are safe and properly maintained. This initiative, while it's going to create new apartments, is also going to help to ensure that the 100,000 existing apartments in Ontario are properly maintained. The majority of these apartments are currently made illegal because of the very municipal zoning restrictions that the member has referred to. Similarly, tenants who may live in substandard apartments are afraid to call a property standards inspector because they're afraid of losing their homes. What we want to do is bring these houses out of the grey market and into the open so that they can be properly regulated.

With respect to the issue of the absentee landlord, our government's proposal actually counters the fear of the absentee landlord syndrome raised by the member for Mississauga South. Of course, this is an interesting position for the member to take because during the legislative debates and particularly clause-by-clause on rent control the member for Mississauga South portrayed herself as a friend of the landlord. Now what does she say? "Small landlords are evil." Yet another glaring inconsistency in the position.

In

summary, our government's proposal on apartments in houses will provide jobs, help home owners and increase the supply of affordable housing. It'll clearly help tenants and landlords ensure rental homes are maintained. The member's resolution shows not a small level of being economical with the truth, both hers and the position of her party. She has accused us of not wanting to help home owners.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I ask that member to withdraw his comment, which suggests that I was not telling the truth.

The Acting Speaker: There has been a lot of discussion in the chamber and the Speaker did not hear that. However, I put it to the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, do you have --

Mr Owens: If the member for Mississauga South took offence at that comment, I do withdraw it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That's a weasel way out of it right there; just weasel.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has great difficulty in hearing the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Owens: In closing, I want to urge this House once again to soundly defeat this resolution so that this government can move forward in its program to use existing resources to maintain and create more affordable housing for Ontarians who desperately need this housing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I rise in support of the resolution because I think that many concerns that have been expressed should be dealt with before proceeding with legislation. I think it's very important.

I'm particularly concerned about the position of the municipalities and the concerns they have expressed. I believe that the ministers and the ministries frequently overlook the fact that municipal governments are composed of elected representatives. The councils indeed are governments at the local level and they have certain mandated responsibilities and services. We have to remember that. So changes in legislation affecting and directing the councils of municipalities should be through consultation and negotiation and not by decree.

That's awfully important to remember and to remember that the over 800 municipalities in this province have decided on a single voice to expedite consultation and negotiation with the provincial government. Of course, that's the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, composed of members from all types of municipalities in this province that are more than willing to consult at any time with the provincial government on changes.

The provision of low-cost additional accommodation of course is important and essential and the provision of granny flats is particularly essential, in my opinion. But I want to point out that they are being provided at the present time through the present planning process, which gives people, neighbours and anyone else who wishes to comment the opportunity to do so. Certainly, the input of the municipal governments in the planning process at the time of any change is important and onsite agreements can be negotiated; that's awfully important.

AMO apparently is especially concerned given that the government's proposals are not in the form of options but represent the government's policy decision. The so-called consultation paper of the government is therefore focused on how to implement the policy and not on the merits and appropriateness of the policy in the first place. In opposition to this approach, AMO has directed its response to questioning the fundamental basis of this policy decision.

It's unfortunate that draft legislation was presented with the consultation paper, because what should have happened is the consultation paper should have gone out, there should have been negotiation and consultation about the many changes and then draft legislation should have been circulated for the comments of all those who wish to comment.

So I support the resolution that legislation not be introduced at this time until the concerns of those who wish to express their concerns have been expressed.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to be able to speak today in support of the resolution of my colleague Margaret Marland, the member for Mississauga South, a resolution asking this government not to proceed with legislation which would permit apartments in detached and semidetached houses.

This proposal is most ill-advised as it ignores the wishes of municipalities. AMO says that it is strongly opposed to this province's draft legislation which would permit an apartment in a house, and calls on the province not to proceed with the introduction of the legislation.

The association does not endorse the approach taken by the province for many reasons. First and foremost, AMO objects to the provincial intrusion into the authority of zoning which has been delegated to municipal councils. Councils will now be held responsible for policy decisions made by the province. AMO is also concerned that given that the government's proposals are not in the form of options but represent the government's policy decision, the consultation paper is therefore focused on how to implement the policy, not on the merits of the appropriateness of the policy in the first place.

Municipalities from all over the province have responded negatively to this idea. Many county governments, for example, Grey and Simcoe, have determined that if enacted, this legislation would have a detrimental effect on our local municipalities: increased demands for municipal services to which they will be unable to reasonably respond, thereby creating possible health, safety and financial problems for the host municipality; parking problems with increased cars; snow removal. It would permit inappropriate conversions, incompatible with adjoining land uses.

AMO says the province should wait for the Sewell commission's recommendations before going ahead with this, and I agree.

It is strange that this government is now telling municipalities to ignore zoning bylaws and allow new dwellings, as they were the same people who went into the municipalities and said no development would be permitted without their authorization. That's what happened in Grey. They went in and said, "No more development," and that stopped everything right there.

This government is in the process now of a consultation process, supposedly, for the county of Simcoe in restructuring. I've got to tell you, this government does not know what consultation means. They said they were going to consult with the people in Middlesex and London with regard to the annexation there. They said they were going to consult with the people in Simcoe county with regard to the restructuring that's taken place there. The consulting process with this government does not exist.

They say they want to have apartments in dwellings, in homes. We go to the village of Coldwater. They've had problem getting the sewage system expanded for the residential development that's there now and what has been approved already in zoning bylaws to permit further development. Here they are saying you must proceed with apartments now when you've not got approval to proceed with the sewage systems, and that is only one municipality that is in that problem.

There are other municipalities all across this province that have real problems of zoning. Scarborough and North York, as well as many other GTA municipalities, have come out firmly opposed to the draft legislation. Hazel McCallion in Mississauga is firmly opposed to this.

Although everyone supports the concept of garden suites or granny flats, there are still some very valid concerns, such as restricting occupancy and regulation of type of unit to be built, which must be worked out before unanimous approval can be given.

This legislation is another example of downloading by the provincial government on to the municipalities at a time when transfer funds are very limited. The whole discussion surrounding legalization of accessory apartments opens the debate on the merits and disadvantages of intensification.

I support this resolution by my colleague from Mississauga. I think it's a very worthwhile resolution because of what this government is intending to do. Do they not know what's going on across the province? Are you not listening to the municipalities out there telling us that they cannot get approvals for sewage systems, to expand their infrastructure? You won't give them funds to do that, yet you're saying, go ahead, put in another apartment, put in another bathroom. Where are your priorities?

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we lost some seconds at the end of the last speaker for the government, and I wondered if --

The Acting Speaker: The Clerk has just advised me that they have been added on again. Further debate?

Ms Carter: I would like to strongly oppose the resolution from the member for Mississauga South. To allow apartments in houses will benefit individuals and society in many ways. The disadvantages claimed in the resolution disappear on closer inspection.

The point that jobs will be created has already been made, so I would like to make two other main points. The member for Mississauga South seems to assume that accessory apartments will provide a low standard of accommodation and will adversely affect their surrounding neighbourhoods. She's also concerned about absentee landlords. However, this ignores the fact that thousands of accessory apartments already exist in an unregulated state.

This legislation will ensure that where there actually are problems, they can be dealt with, whether the landlord lives on the premises or not. Because these apartments will exist openly and legally, municipalities will be better able to inspect and to enforce existing health, safety and property standards. Municipalities asked for a change in the existing requirement that officials must seize physical evidence to prove that these standards are not being met. Some failings, such as low ceilings, cannot be seized.

Since their apartments will now be legal, tenants will be able to use official routes to deal with an absentee landlord who is not maintaining the building. Tenants who feared they might lose their homes if they drew attention to their illegal existence were obviously in no position to do this.

As well, the government's new Rent Control Act gives municipalities and tenants the tools for dealing with absentee landlords who do not look after their building. Such landlords will face severe penalties in the form of a rent freeze or rent reduction.

Some 100,000 existing apartments which have been made illegal by zoning but which are both much needed and affordable can now exist openly and be regulated and kept up to standard. Those which do not meet the necessary health and safety and property bylaws will be shut down. All this will obviously have the effect of improving neighbourhoods and quality of life.

Secondly, I would like to refute the contention that there has not been enough time for public discussion of this issue. This is simply not true. This issue was being debated in the early 1980s when the honourable member's one-time colleague, Claude Bennett, was Minister of Housing. The ensuing Liberal government undertook extensive public consultation on the question of apartments in houses when developing the land use planning for a housing policy statement in 1989. Some Liberal members, including Housing critic Dianne Poole, have recognized the need to go beyond this policy statement and show support for the principle of allowing apartments in homes.

The government released its draft statement on June 18. Consultation on how to best achieve the goal of allowing apartments in houses has yielded over 250 responses, which are being carefully considered. There is still plenty of opportunity for input. There will probably be public hearings during the winter.

I know there is support for this legislation in my own riding of Peterborough. According to the Examiner of September 22, the chairman of the Peterborough housing advisory committee reported to council that there was general support for the apartments concept at a housing forum last week.

Accessory apartments are in tune with up-to-date thinking about urban planning. They lead to dense cities and repopulation of inner-city areas. They help reverse a trend to low occupancy of housing due to demographics and more single-parent households.

Municipalities will save by taking up the slack in underutilized services, from sewers to schools, instead of having to build expensive new ones to serve new subdivisions. And, please note, this move has popular support. People like it. The endorsement of the inclusive neighbourhoods campaign already makes a very impressive list.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mrs Marland's motion?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole) : I rise today to support the resolution by Mrs Marland. The approach I would like to take on this is really one as a former municipal representative. I was alderman in the city of North York, ward 13, for six and a half years. I was on that council at the time the Planning Act of 1984 was fully developed, where there was consultation with the municipalities on the sorts of incentives and disincentives for good planning at that time.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that the Planning Act was perfect or complete. History has proven that it is in fact in need of significant change and amendment. I point out to the members of this House, and particularly to the Minister of Housing, who is not here today for this important debate, that there is a planning commission going on right now under the auspices of Mr Sewell, and the fact that the minister has tabled this paper at this time I think calls into question the credibility of the work Mr Sewell is doing in the nature of planning in the province of Ontario.

That doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily agree with everything Mr Sewell is going to recommend -- I'll wait until I see what he suggests before I go on record in support of recommendations in the future -- but I would point out very clearly that that work is undergoing consultation and is taking place.

No wonder municipalities are frustrated with this NDP government. No wonder people are upset and aggravated and cynical. This government says one thing and does the other. They say, "We're consulting on changes to the Planning Act," and then they bring in amendments to the Planning Act, and what do those amendments do? Those amendments take away from the municipality the right to plan. It takes away from the municipality and the local members of council the right to work with their constituents to develop the kind of appropriate zoning to achieve what may be very good and legitimate and important public policy initiatives.

I point out that this NDP proposed amendment, legislation, does more than just take away from municipalities the right to plan, and I agree with AMO that it is an unwarranted intrusion at a time when municipalities are talking and working with the government at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in areas such as disentanglement and in long-term care reform in areas called devolution.

While we're discussing devolution in one ministry and disentanglement in another ministry, you have the NDP ideology at the Ministry of Housing taking away the autonomy of the local municipality, intruding on traditional municipal planning authority and mandating, without consideration to local community interests, in a heavy-handed way that does not bring about the right incentives to make good things happen. That's what people are very resentful of.

Further, the way this Minister of Housing is doing it penalizes those municipalities which have been following the directive that was brought forward by the Liberal government. Those municipalities which have brought forward and put into their municipal plans appropriate standards and amendments for basement apartments, for duplexing, as it is sometimes called, already within their official plans are penalized. Therefore, what is the message that is being sent out there? The message that's being sent out by this NDP government is heavy-handed intrusionary: "We use the stick. We use the legislative hammer.

Our words about consultation and partnership, our words about cooperation, are meaningless. When it comes to showing you how we do something, we are intrusionary, we have no respect for the municipal councils and we are not prepared, as a government," this NDP government says to them, "to support and encourage by incentives those municipalities which are willing to upgrade and update and bring their policies into meeting the local needs."

Further, what they're saying is, "We are taking power away from local communities and vesting that in this centrist, socialist approach, which says that we here in Toronto at Queen's Park are going to make decisions for every municipality across the province, whether there's a problem or not. We're not going to listen to the local people. We're not going to look at what actions have been taken. We, the NDP Big Brother," they say to municipalities, "know best."

I would say to the Minister of Housing, I would say to this NDP caucus, that it is not only important what you do; what is even more important is how you do it. While I would agree that there are some aspects --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What's not clear and what simply doesn't prove to be consistent in the inferences the member is drawing is that if you allow people to make the decision, the choice for themselves, that's removing state.

The Acting Speaker: Sorry, that's not a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: That's not imposing Big Brother.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That's not a point of order.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Put the time back on the clock.

Mrs Caplan: Could I have the time back, please, Mr Speaker?

Mr Stockwell: That was about five minutes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: Don't I get the time back? Mr Speaker, I appeal to you to put the time back on the clock. I've been penalized because a member of the NDP has interfered with my speaking.

The Acting Speaker: I realize that. However, I urge you to continue. We are wasting time.

Mrs Caplan: I will wind up and ask that you consider that request by saying that while the initiative that has been put forward by the government may have some merit to it, unfortunately, the way the government has done it, the approach it has taken, I believe, will result not only in bad legislation but bad public policy and bad feelings across the province, and I support the proposal by Mrs Marland this morning.

Mr Stockwell: The basic difficulty I find with this particular piece of handiwork by the Minister of Housing is that it's taking away responsibilities that have historically been left at the municipal level. Why have they been left at the municipal level? They have been left at the municipal level simply because all municipalities have different problems. They have different problems, so they have different zoning, different approval processes and different rules. Why do they have different rules? Because you can have a town like Wawa compared to a city like Toronto.

You can't tell me they don't have different problems, different issues and different concerns. Having accepted that, that was the reason we set up municipal government, so local councils could deal with local issues.

Mr Perruzza: Big brother.

Mr Stockwell: This is called zoning. If you've spent any time on municipal council, you understand zoning. Zoning is different from city to city, from neighbourhood to neighbourhood and from street to street. Why is it different? It's different because municipalities zone areas as neighbourhoods, industrial, commercial or manufacturing, so they can plan their own neighbourhoods.

Coming from a city that was very well planned, the city of Etobicoke, I think we had a good zoning requirement. We had good planning. We had good processes. Why? Because we understood that well-planned communities worked.

Mr Perruzza: Been there lately?

Mr Stockwell: I hear some heckling from the member from North York and I think North York was well planned. I think it's a good, well-planned community. It's a community that was planned very well, so the question you ask yourself is --

Mr Perruzza: Do you want to come for a drive?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. You will get your turn.

Mr Stockwell: The question you have to ask yourself is, why now must the provincial government universally pass zoning and planning for all municipalities as if they're all the same?

I know that in the city of Etobicoke, as in Toronto, East York and York, there are neighbourhoods that this just won't work in. Why? Because local municipalities have a difficult time delivering services on certain streets. Why? Because those streets are bombarded with cars in the road. Why are they bombarded with cars? Because they were built pre-war. Their driveways are narrow, if they have driveways. They have a difficult time getting fire trucks down these streets. They have a difficult time collecting the garbage. They have a difficult time clearing the snow. Why? Because cars are parked along both sides of the streets, lined up, making it difficult to pass.

When you say we're going to put basement apartments in, you're compounding the problem. You're creating more cars, more people on the infrastructures, and the infrastructures can't take it.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Sir, I suggest that you've spent not a minute on local council, or you wouldn't say that. Why is Scarborough saying no? Why are they saying no? Because of that very reason. They don't understand the local planning process, the local zoning process, the process that has been built up over many years that has created what I consider to be fine communities in Metropolitan Toronto.

They're trying to resolve this issue, the housing crisis, trying to resolve this problem by simply creating another, and that's no way to solve a problem. If this minister would like to know first hand the she's causing, I demand that she meet with the local councils, meet with the mayors, meet with the councillors. They'll tell you what the problems are, at least in Metropolitan Toronto.

Finally, this issue came before council when I sat. When I sat it was turned down. In previous councils it's been turned down. It was turned down. Why? It was turned down on solid, fundamental planning reasons. That's why it was turned down. For you to simply unilaterally force this on to the municipalities with no thought to infrastructures, to libraries, to roads, to schools or to sewers is so blatantly irresponsible it even shocks me that you'd do it.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I've enjoyed the debate thus far and I particularly agree with the remarks made by my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre and the member for Peterborough, as well. I think they've adequately reinforced for this House and for you, Mr Speaker, that the government's proposal will not only provide jobs and help home owners, but it will also increase the supply of affordable housing and help tenants and landlords ensure their rental homes are maintained. Since time is short, I would also like to dwell on the environmental considerations of this proposal.

London is a good example of the changing demographics in Ontario. In the inner-city, as couples age and their children leave home, there is surplus capacity in our inner-cities. I'm talking about water and sewer systems; I'm talking about schools; I'm talking about libraries; I'm also talking about transit systems.

This land use policy statement that was put out under the tenure of the Liberal government in 1989 certainly recognized the issue of changing household sizes and suggested that governments had to promulgate housing policies that would maximize the use of existing resources, building stock, community and physical services, rather than encourage urban sprawl, rather than encourage municipalities to eat up valuable agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas --

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: My point of order, Mr Speaker, is that the member may well be --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We have a point of order here. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I've heard several members from the NDP caucus refer to the policies of the former Liberal government. It could be misleading to this House and it would suggest to me that you should intervene.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That's not a point of order. The honourable member for London South.

Mr Winninger: I'm now down to 31 seconds. Could I have some time back? Half a minute will do. I would say in conclusion that if we're going to preserve our valuable farm land, if we're going to preserve our valuable environmentally sensitive areas, if we're going to save the taxpayers of London and Ontario exorbitant tax increases for paying for new municipal infrastructure in subdivisions, we need to fully utilize our existing resources and meet the need in the inner-city to maximize the use of public transit, schools, libraries and so on. So I will be opposing the member's motion.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As Liberal Housing critic, I am pleased to be able to add my comments to this debate on a very contentious issue, and make no mistake about it, it is contentious, as you can tell by the tenor of the debate in the House today.

The debate goes far beyond whether there is support for basement apartments and granny flats. It isn't simply a matter of the not in my backyard forces on the one hand versus the forces of progress on the other. In fact, some people who are strong supporters of the concept of intensification and allowing basement apartments are struggling with the way the NDP government has chosen to enforce this policy through legislation. They are concerned about the process and about proceeding, at this stage, with legislation. But first of all, before we talk about process, let's take a quick look at the merits of the issue itself.

I have been a very strong supporter of intensification over the years. I have long believed that municipalities should allow areas where basement apartments would be legal. For a number of reasons, I think it is a good policy direction. First of all, it does increase the housing supply at little cost to the taxpayer. Second, particularly for seniors and young couples who are struggling to pay their mortgage, it allows them that extra income to make ends meet; it is good planning in that it limits suburban sprawl.

Finally, and to me one of the most important reasons I support intensification, it would legalize the estimated 100,000 illegal basement apartments where tenants right now have no rights and no protections. They have no rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act. They have no rights under the Rent Control Act. They have no rights to have maintenance enforced. They are afraid to go to the building inspector because their unit may be taken out of the market.

Those are the reasons why intensification should be encouraged. On the other hand, the member for Mississauga South has stated a number of very valid reasons why some people are so strongly opposed. There are definitely problems attached to this type of intensification.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Eglinton has the floor.

Ms Poole: We have had a discussion of the services that would be overlaid on an area by doubling the intensification, such as sewage, services, schools, parking, traffic. Can they handle this increased volume? Previously, that was a decision the municipality would make.

The other problem of absentee landlords is a very real one. That is why university towns such as London, Windsor, Thunder Bay and Guelph have been so firmly opposed to what the government is doing.

The government has made a decision that it will legislate what is best for communities across the province, making irrelevant the planning process at the local level, making irrelevant their official plans and making irrelevant the will of local residents. This legislation will take away municipal autonomy to make decisions for the benefit of an individual community.

Recently, I read in the Toronto Star that one of the councillors from another municipality had said that this is a made-in-Toronto solution on a made-in-Toronto problem. Ironically, this is not a consensus in Toronto. Scarborough is firmly opposed. The city of Toronto is firmly in favour. There is no consensus.

While I am personally very supportive of the principle, when it comes right down to it, I am very leery of legislation that rams something down municipalities' throats, that takes away their autonomy to make these decisions. I urge the government to extend the consultation period, to listen and to come back with a proposal that will bring in intensification without ramming it down municipalities' throats.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs Marland: Just to complete my earlier comments, I would like to say finally and perhaps most importantly that my vision for affordable housing in Ontario is not a view from a basement window. Basement apartments are an inadequate solution to our shortage of affordable housing.

In conclusion, I would quote from an editorial in Mississauga's community newspaper, the Mississauga News, "There's no question that there isn't enough affordable housing available, especially in large urban centres like Mississauga, but surely more creative solutions can be found than to throw open the doors to anyone with a basement to get into the landlord business."

I therefore ask the Minister of Housing not to introduce the draft legislation proposed in the consultation paper, Apartments in Houses. The people of Ontario deserve better.

Just before I respond to some of the comments that have been made during the debate this morning, I would like to state for the benefit of the House that the member for Grey had intended to be here this morning to speak on behalf of the many municipalities that have contacted him with their concerns, but unfortunately he was detained at the last moment in his riding and was unable to be here.

But I would say to the member for Scarborough Centre -- actually, knowing this member, I'm surprised with some of his argument this morning. I thought for him to talk about basement apartments in the context of where to put assaulted women and single moms was the most deplorable statement I've heard for some time in this Legislature.

If this socialist government is standing in this House saying, "We have a problem because we have nowhere to put assaulted women and single moms" -- he said, "Where do they go?" His answer was, "Basement apartments" -- the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario does not think basement apartments are a good enough solution for anyone who faces the kinds of life crises of anyone of any gender who is assaulted or is in a single marital status, male or female. We do not support that kind of regressive thinking.

And isn't it ironic to hear the member for Scarborough Centre talk about basement apartments being the solution for seniors to stay in their homes -- the very party that has just reduced and eliminated for many thousands of seniors in this province their property tax credit. It's such an irony that you say, "We'll take away their property tax credit," for many thousands of seniors in this province, "but they can rent their apartments." It is such a ludicrous contradiction it's unbelievable.

This is the same socialist government, of course, that reduces benefits to people over 65 in auto insurance. They can't talk out of both sides of their mouths and say they're concerned about the seniors in this province when everything they say and do states the opposite.

For him to suggest that I'm saying small landlords are evil was a personal insult to me. What I'm simply saying is that most of these single-home owners who create an accessory apartment in their home do not have a clue that the rules under the Landlord and Tenant Act also apply to that single apartment. What we're saying is that if it's an absentee landlord, the situation is compounded and is even worse.

As for the member for London South, who seems to be totally oblivious to what his own city council is saying, I would simply say to that member, perhaps it's time he went home. Perhaps it's time all the New Democratic Party members, with their socialist thinking and their socialist ideology, went home. Find out what your municipalities want you to do. Go home and find out what your city councils and your regional governments and your town councils want you to say in this House.

Instead of listening to your union friends and your own ideological trash, why don't you decide that you're here to represent the people who elect you, and that's everybody in your constituency in your ridings. It's not your union friends, who almost pay for the opportunity to be represented by you in this House, and the people who are not members of those unions lose their voice. They have lost their voice, because these socialist members do not even listen to the concerns of their area municipalities and the people who live in them.

I simply say to all of them, if you'd get out of wherever it is you're burying your heads in the sand, if you'd get your head above ground and start listening and learning and doing a bit of homework, you'd find out what the issue is with basement apartments.

I say again that if you're satisfied to create basement apartments and accessory apartments as of right, regardless of the millions of dollars that have been spent in planning our communities in terms of land use, if that's what you want and that's your solution to affordable housing, it's not mine, nor is it the solution the members of our caucus support, nor is it the solution that is even affordable for municipalities, which are going to have to pay additional staff to police these additional units.

Talk to the police forces. I know that's something none of you want to do. You have demonstrated your feeling about the police forces in this province. You don't care to listen to anybody. But if you talk to the police forces alone, you would find out that the additional costs of increasing the population is something that's not affordable today in those areas.

The Acting Speaker: This terminates private members' hour.

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1212.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

The Acting Speaker: The first vote will be on Mr Curling's resolution, ballot item number 23.

All those in favour of Mr Curling's motion will please rise and remain standing until named.

All those opposed to Mr Curling's motion, please rise and remain standing until named.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Did all members vote?

The Acting Speaker: The Clerk here is checking that all members present have voted.

It's my understanding that two members have not voted: Mrs Marland and Mrs Witmer. They must vote. Could they please state their intention.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I will be voting in favour.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I will be voting against.

Ayes -- 16

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Hansen, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sterling.

Nays -- 35

Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward (Brantford), Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

The Acting Speaker: We will now be dealing with Mrs Marland's resolution, ballot item 24.

All those in favour of Mrs Marland's motion will please rise and remain standing until named.

All those opposed to Mrs Marland's motion, please rise and remain standing until named.

Ayes -- 20

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

Nays -- 31

Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Ward (Brantford), Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Acting Speaker: I declare this motion defeated.

This House will stand adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1218.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUNTING AND FISHING CARDS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns his latest blatant tax grab.

The minister recently announced the introduction of a $6 magic stripe registration card system for anglers and hunters. The minister claims the new outdoors card will make life easier for fishermen, but he fails to point out that it will also mean a 50% hike in the cost of going fishing next year.

The cost of the $6 outdoors card will be added to the cost of fees already paid for hunting and fishing licences. Anglers must now pay the $6 card fee plus the fee for a fishing licence, which is currently set at $12. Hunters must also pay the $6 card fee on top of the cost of the hunting licence, which ranges from $20 to $30 annually depending on the type of weapon used and the game to be hunted.

The new outdoors card system, which will affect approximately 1.5 million anglers and hunters, is a blatant tax grab. It's a government ripoff. The ministry will save a large amount of money because everything will be on computers, resulting in less paperwork.

Minister, I wouldn't be so upset if the money you are generating with this blatant tax grab was used to assist Ontario's conservation officers in doing their job or for restocking fish in our waterways or for other conservation efforts. After all, that was the original intent for revenues generated by the sale of hunting and fishing licences.

OUR COMMON FUTURE TOO

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I wish to congratulate the organizers and participants in Our Common Future Too, a local forum on the economic, social, health and environmental challenges facing Peterborough in the world community, held on September 25 and 26.

This conference was a grass-roots endeavour to develop a strong and viable cooperative voice for sustainability and to define our community's role in the wider world. As Thomas Berry said, "The human community and the natural world will go into the future as a single community or we will both perish together."

Key organizers were Frances Adams, Charlene Avon, Ken Doherty, Don Folz, Rudi Massimo, Clara McCue, Bel Pennick, Linda Slavin and Guy Thompson.

Panel speakers on Friday set the tone. Duncan Cameron warned that an unbridled market economy may ultimately be incompatible with democracy and that the ongoing separation of people from the land may be the biggest catastrophe in the history of humankind. Mel Watkins pointed out that under NAFTA, Mexican farmers will be replaced by agribusiness, and that we in Canada need to build on our own domestic market.

The discussions led to agreement that we need more information and consultations at the grass-roots level and more community input into decision-making. This event was part of an ongoing process involving a broad and ever-widening sector of the community. I look forward to further developments.

DEVELOPMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I rise today to focus attention on the completely inadequate approach taken by this government to an extremely important economic issue in Sudbury. The proposal, involving the construction of a state-of-the-art petrochemical complex, has significant job creation, energy supply and environmental quality implications for the community of Sudbury.

To date, local representatives of the provincial government in Sudbury have shown little interest in the proposal and have dismissed its potential to effect substantial benefit on behalf of the citizens within that community.

This Legislature has traditionally operated on the principles of representative democracy and responsible government. Unfortunately for the residents of Sudbury, there has been a complete abandonment of these historic principles in regard to this most important issue.

The people of Sudbury have been left without a voice in the Legislature to express their strongly held interests in this proposal. Their elected members, all of whom sit on the government side of this House, have met their constituents' outcry for action with a deafening silence.

It's ironic that the party that claimed to be different, that claimed it would govern in the interest of all Ontarians, including northern Ontarians, and not just in the interests of a few, could allow this suppression of opinion and community interest to occur.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Yesterday my colleague the member for Waterloo North attended a meeting in Kitchener concerning layoffs and cutbacks at the Waterloo regional health unit.

It is unfortunate that the regional government is taking the heat for proposing these cutbacks when the blame should be aimed at the NDP government. While it's fine to argue that the region can cut in other areas and save the jobs at the health unit, this argument rings hollow when you realize this will mean that some welfare recipients won't get their cheques, day care will be cut and other regional employees will lose their jobs.

The real responsibility for this mess lies with the NDP government. In fact, the three local NDP members didn't even have the guts to show up at the meeting. The members for Kitchener, Cambridge and Kitchener-Wilmot all know who is to blame. They're obviously embarrassed and riddled with guilt to be part of a government that says one thing and does another.

For instance, the Minister of Health has stated that two of her goals are to shift the emphasis to health promotion and disease prevention and foster strong and supportive families and communities. However, the government's words don't jibe with its actions. Public health units are front-line providers of community-based health care services which emphasize health promotion and disease prevention. Instead of enhancing public health units, the NDP has chosen to restrict its efforts by providing only a 1% transfer increase.

As well, the region of Waterloo questions the commitment of the government to public health units when the NDP continues to mandate programs while conveniently forgetting to send along the cheque to the local area.

It's time the government got its house in order and started to support community-based health care, rather than gutting it.

ENVIRONMENTAL FAIR

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Last weekend I had the opportunity to see the efforts made by business, environmental groups and individuals to achieve a better, cleaner environment. On Saturday, October 3, residents of London and Middlesex experienced the first annual green exchange and environmental fair. The message to all was reduce, reuse, recycle and refill.

Businesses such as the Western Fair Raceway, GM diesel and Bell Canada demonstrated and explained how they had dramatically reduced, and were trying to further reduce the waste generated in their respective workplaces. Others like the Body Shop, Try Recycling, Green Earth, Goodwill Industries and Field Fare, a cooperative food store, displayed environmentally friendly products, reused products and new products developed from recycled materials. Backyard composters and vermi-composters were also featured.

Global Action Plan, LEAP, Greenpeace and Rose were there to explain the ecosystem program for grass-roots action, the management and elimination of PCBs, global warming and community land trusts. There were also tours available to recycling facilities and the landfill site, so people could see first hand the urgent need to reduce, reuse and recycle.

I would also like to mention individual efforts made on behalf of the environment. On Sunday I met Pat Skidmore, a Middlesex resident, who goes out every other day in the neighbourhood to pick up litter carelessly thrown away by others. I think this clearly demonstrates that people in London and Middlesex care about the environment.

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to tell the House about an important meeting that will take place today of the finance and economic committee at 3:30.

The members will all know that we in the Liberal Party have had some real concerns about the way the government is reporting its finances for this fiscal year. The committee has agreed to have the Provincial Auditor appear before us to help answer some questions we've got.

I'll give you just a couple of examples of our concerns. The government owes the teachers' pension $500 million due on the 1st of January, 1993. The Treasurer has, quote, "rescheduled" that payment for the 1st of April, 1993, getting it out of this fiscal year into next year. The problem is that we are going to have to pay 11 1/4 interest on that money when the Treasurer could borrow that money on the open market at 8%. This is going to be a complete waste of at least $3 million of taxpayers' money. We're just going to throw it away for the optics of the Treasurer being able to say that his deficit is below $10 billion. We'll raise that concern.

The second concern we'll have is that the Treasurer has shown that he will get $1.2 billion from the federal government in fiscal stabilization money. The federal government has said, "They're dreaming; they're not going to get $1.2 billion this fiscal year."

The point I'm raising is that we have some significant questions about the accounting in this year's budget. We are looking forward very much to the Provincial Auditor coming and helping the committee to insist on getting the real numbers before us.

BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I call the attention of the members of the House to the fact that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In this respect, I am pleased to acknowledge the work of Burlington Breast Cancer Support Services Inc, a volunteer-based organization begun by Pat Kelly and located at the Burlington Mall, which counsels and educates women on the disease of breast cancer, the leading cause of death among women in the 35- to 49-year age group.

This group assisted over 500 drop-ins over the summer alone, including women diagnosed with breast cancer, their family members and those simply seeking information. Pat and her team have also produced a booklet on breast cancer which the House of Commons subcommittee on the status of women called the most comprehensive model of information of its kind. The booklet is supplied across Canada to clinics and women's centres and deals with such topics as treatment options for women with breast cancer, as well as other crucially important information.

The centre approached the NDP Health ministry for a funding grant of $50,000 for its continued maintenance and operation, and although the Minister of Health visited the centre two weeks ago and even complimented its work, she rejected the funding request, leaving the centre to face an imminent shutdown.

When Bob Rae announced a record number of women cabinet ministers in his government, the women of Ontario thought their concerns would be advanced more effectively at the provincial level. Tragically, what we have is a Health minister who went for the publicity but not the program. During Breast Cancer Awareness Month I call on the minister to re-examine her priorities and reverse her decision, even if it would mean fewer bilingual road signs in southern Ontario.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): In 18 days we will be voting on the Charlottetown accord. Eighteen months ago, the select committee on Confederation flew to Kenora to begin asking the people of Ontario, "What really matters to you about Canada?" We continued across Ontario in seniors' centres, in legions, town halls and schools to hear the real people of Ontario.

We found that people cared about recognizing the inherent right of native people after years of colonialism and paternalism. People cared about a social charter, stating how important our social programs are to us. People cared about reforming a blatantly out-of-date patronage Senate. People cared about stating clearly that all people have equal rights in Canada. People cared that division of powers between federal and provincial levels of government be flexible enough to make services cost-effective.

Then, 130 representatives of different interest groups came together on October 13, 1991, at the University of Toronto. Our committee was hesitant. Could this experiment work? Could these people ever agree by sitting down and listening to each other? At that amazing weekend people did reach common ground, and these principles were taken to Charlottetown. Yes, the people of Ontario cared deeply and profoundly about Canada. I urge you to vote Yes.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, through a scheduling mixup we missed our first opening member's statement. I would ask for unanimous consent to allow it to take place now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do we have unanimous consent? Please go ahead.

SQUARE ONE OLDER ADULT CENTRE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The Square One Older Adult Centre in Mississauga held its official opening last week, on October 2. I was very pleased to be in attendance at this very unique opening of a very unique facility. The story that led to the opening of this facility is one of community cooperation between civic, provincial and federal governments, corporate citizens, service clubs and community volunteers.

Mississauga city council endorsed the recommendation from its recreation and parks department to convert the auditorium in Square One into an older adult centre. This is a room that was not being used on an ongoing basis and now is full of life and activity.

Hammerson Canada, the owners of Square One, lease the auditorium to the centre for a nominal $1 per year. A steering committee of older adults worked to guide and develop programs and to help fund-raise to equip the auditorium. Today, with the continued assistance of community volunteers, the Square One Older Adult Centre is up and running, offering a variety of programs including craft courses, exercise programs and info seminars to older adults in Mississauga.

I would offer my congratulations to all involved: Deb Bensette of the Mississauga recreation and parks department, Nance MacDonald of Square One management, the Mississauga Central Lions Club, members of the steering committee, Hammerson Canada, and of course Mayor McCallion and her council for this very worthwhile project.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Before we proceed to ministers' statements, I would ask the House to recognize Mr Bud Gregory, the former member for Mississauga East.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PATIENTS ABUS SEXUEL DES PATIENTES

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I have today released a Ministry of Health position paper, Taking Action Against Sexual Abuse of Patients, in which we propose several changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act aimed at eliminating sexual abuse of patients by health care professionals. The paper has been written in close consultation with five other ministries. They are the Ontario Women's Directorate, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Colleges and Universities, and Treasury and Economics.

I would like to begin by expressing our thanks to the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients, chaired by Marilou McPhedran. The need for reform has arisen as a result of the task force's recent findings. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which commissioned the task force, assumed a vital leadership role in determining the breadth of physician-patient abuse and in seeking solutions to the problem.

We are inviting feedback to our position paper, either in written or in oral presentations, over the next 30 days, from health professional and consumer groups as well as from others, including legal advocacy groups, aboriginal groups and concerned citizens. This advice will be strongly considered when we draft the legislative amendments, which we intend to table in the Legislature later this fall.

Je suis persuadée que nous partageons tous le même objectif. Tous, membres de l'Assemblée législative, professionnels de la santé et membres du public -- hommes, femmes, enfants -- nous voulons que l'abus sexuel cesse.

Les patientes et les professionnels de la santé doivent savoir que l'abus sexuel des patientes n'est en aucun cas acceptable et ne doit pas être toléré.

I am confident we all have the same goal. We here in the Legislature, health professionals and members of the public -- women, children and men -- all want to stop sexual abuse. Patients and health professionals need to know that sexual abuse of patients is never acceptable and must not be tolerated. If the trust between a patient and a health professional is abused, the consequences are devastating. People need to know that their right not to be victimized in this way is backed by law.

The scope of the problem is more widespread than I think any of us would have dreamed possible a year ago. It is frightening to have learned from recent reports that there are thousands of patients, primarily women, who have been sexually harassed or abused across Ontario.

An analysis of a recent Canada Health Monitor survey indicates that many women in Ontario have been in situations of sexual impropriety, transgression or violation with a physician at least once in their lives. The Canada Health Monitor reported that at least 8% of the 549 women surveyed -- that's almost one in 10 women over the age of 15 -- have been sexually harassed or abused by a physician in Ontario during an examination or a consultation. This survey sample indicates that as many as 400,000 women in Ontario may have been victims of harassment or abuse by a physician.

Of the women interviewed in Ontario, 3% were violated through sexual activities with a doctor during an examination or consultation. This translates to about 120,000 women over the age of 15.

In addition, the CPSO Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients heard women speak of rape and of physicians using their position of trust to have sex with them by representing intercourse as a necessary part of treatment.

The statistics that I have cited represent best estimates. The number of victims could well be much higher. No one can know exactly how many women have been victims. No one can know how many men and children have been victims. People don't readily talk about these things.

I want to be very clear that I believe that most of our health professionals are providing sound, trustworthy and nurturing care. There must, however, be protection against those who are not.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario acted in the best interests of the public, as its mandate requires, when it commissioned an independent task force in 1991 to deal with this problem of sexual harassment and abuse of patients by physicians. The CPSO has recently finished its review of the report and formulated new policies and guidelines as a result.

Last fall, we in the Legislature made changes to the Regulated Health Professions Act, including the requirement that the college of every regulated health profession set up a patient relations committee to establish programs to help prevent sexual misconduct by its members, but it is critical that more be done. As I indicated at that time, an interministerial working group would be established to identify what further amendments to the legislation might be necessary after reviewing the CPSO task force report and the college's response to it.

Half of the task force's 60 recommendations were directed at government. In the ministry paper released today we are responding to the task force report and the CPSO response to it and are making our own proposals.

As the content of this document is considered over the next 30 days, it is important to keep in mind the Regulated Health Professions Act, when proclaimed next year, will apply to 24 health professions. Among the ministry proposals for change that would apply to all the regulated health professions, we are proposing:

-- That there be three categories of sexual offences as grounds for misconduct and that examples of those offences, as well as the penalties imposed and the rules for reinstatement, be written into law. We propose that the RHPA be amended to provide for a minimum five-year revocation of a person's certificate for acts of sexual violation.

-- That any health professional who has reasonable grounds to believe a colleague has committed any o