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

June 9, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

ALMA PUBLIC SCHOOL

BEAMSVILLE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL

POINTS SOULEVÉS PAR LA POPULATION FRANCOPHONE

RACE RELATIONS

ANCASTER BICENTENNIAL

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

FOREST INDUSTRY

STANISLAVA MARKOVICH

SOCIAL CONTRACT

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

SOCIAL CONTRACT

VISITORS

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NIAGARA FALLS

BUILDING CODE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WASTE REDUCTION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LANDFILL

HEALTH CARE

HEALTH EDUCATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

GAMBLING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

LANDFILL

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 4

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

Mr Wessenger moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to be here this morning with respect to moving second reading of this bill,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases, which is known as the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993.

I'd first of all like to acknowledge that, although I don't see that they've arrived yet -- oh, I see some -- we have some people here representing the Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation. I'd like to thank them for coming this morning, and particularly, I have a representative from the land lease community in my own area, Sandy Cove Acres, and Mr Gordon Mills has many representatives from his community in Wilmot Creek. I must thank the federation for its contribution towards my bill in bringing forward the problems and reinforcing the need for legislation in this area.

I'd also like to thank my colleagues for giving me the time to present this bill today. I was lower down in the original order and I'd like to thank them for letting me substitute for them so we could introduce this important legislation during this session. I appreciate also the support of my colleagues for this legislation.

The purpose of the bill is to provide additional statutory protection to tenants who lease land for use as a site for their mobile home or land lease community home. A land lease community home is a permanent structure used as a home and situate on leased land, and many members, including myself, have received concerns about security of tenure, weak bargaining power of tenants and unreasonable restrictions. This legislation addresses some of the major concerns of tenants.

My interest in this legislation has grown out of two facts: my practice of law in the city of Barrie for the last 20 years, particularly in the real estate area, and my involvement in the political aspects.

I might just explain that for many years, I've acted for many people in the past who were residents of the land lease community Sandy Cove Acres to the south, and I had many representations to me and concerns with respect to their problems with respect to marketability of their home, the problems they had with respect to unreasonable restrictions, the insecurity of tenure they had, the fact they felt they didn't have sufficient security and also, at that time, a concern about unreasonable rent increases.

Also, my area had lost two mobile home parks in the last three years as the home parks were converted to other uses, one of them a subdivision. Again, what this means to residents of a mobile home park is that they will not be able to find, usually, another place to put their mobile home. They will lose their equity in their home, and this is quite devastating. People who live in these homes are usually people on lower incomes, many of them are elderly people, often into their late 80s.

I believe that mobile home parks and land lease communities provide a necessary form of low-cost housing in Ontario, and I think anyone who believes that they form that type of necessary, alternative, low-cost housing ought to support providing them the same protection that other tenants have and protecting their equity and protecting their marketability.

The subjects of the legislation, I might add, are with respect to mobile homes and mobile home parks, and land lease, community-owned homes and land lease communities. It covers both areas.

The land lease communities are now protected only by the Rent Control Act, 1992, but are not covered by the Rental Housing Protection Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act or the Planning Act. The other subject of my legislation, mobile home parks, are presently protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act and covered by the Planning Act. There seems to be no logic whatsoever to have less rights apply to an owner of a land lease community home than to an owner of a mobile home, particularly in view of the fact that when I talk about protecting equity interests, the equity interest of the land lease community home is probably greater than that of the mobile home.

Both land lease community homes and mobile homes are not protected by the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act. Again, one could ask, why are tenants, who have no equity in their homes, being protected under the Rental Housing Protection Act while owners of mobile homes or land lease community homes, who, as I indicated, have that substantial equity, do not have such protection?

For many residents in Simcoe county and throughout Ontario who are owners of mobile homes or land lease community homes, such protection is long overdue. Simcoe county has the largest number of mobile home units of any county or district in Ontario. That's approximately somewhat over 2,000. In addition, Simcoe county has approximately 2,000 land lease community homes, again, the largest of any district or county in Ontario.

As I indicated earlier, Simcoe county has lost two mobile home parks in the last few years, with mobile home owners basically losing the equity in their homes when their parks were closed. Another mobile home park is at risk in my area, and it's at risk with closure. The residents received notices of tentative eviction. Unfortunately for them, the owner was unable to effect a deal to sell the park, so they're still living there, but they're living on the verge of losing their equity, and I think it's important that we now provide that protection.

The question is, do we want to protect the equity, the tenure of ownership of owners of mobile homes? Should we not protect a low-cost home ownership alternative?

It's interesting to note that mobile homes and land lease community homes are much less of an ownership alternative in Ontario than in the US, and I would suggest that one of the reasons for it is that it doesn't have the security of tenure or the protection or the marketability that such type of ownership has south of the border.

My bill addresses the most pressing need of protecting the tenure of land lease homes and mobile homes by amending the Rental Housing Protection Act to have it apply to land lease community homes and mobile homes.

The provisions of the act are deemed to be effective May 19, 1993, with respect to the prohibitions against conversion. The amendment also provides for exemption from the prohibitions under the act in prescribed circumstances where the conversion is to a cooperative which will be resident-controlled or to a condominium.

This amendment will hopefully restrict the displacement of owners of homes in both mobile home parks and land lease community homes.

My bill also amends the Landlord and Tenant Act. There's no reason why the owners of land lease community homes are deprived of the protection of that act. It must have been an oversight in the past. My amendment corrects that.

It also invalidates first rights of refusal on the sale of a home. It permits tenants to place "For Sale" signs on their home. It creates a reserve fund obligation for the landlord for those types of services which normally would be provided by a municipality. It excludes seasonal mobile homes from additional protection under the act.

My bill also amends the Planning Act to provide that land lease communities are subject to the same provisions as mobile home parks with respect to planning controls. This specifically ensures that site plan control and subdivision provisions will apply to land lease communities.

I believe this package of amendments enhances the protection of land lease community home owners and mobile homes. The legislation is complex and technical, as is the law of landlord and tenant, and planning law. I know there'll be amendments and I know there'll be improvements as we move to public hearings with respect to this legislation. I look forward to receiving the suggestions for improvement.

I urge all members to support this legislation to give us a framework to start with, to work with, to provide the needed protection for these residents and these owners in our mobile homes parks. I look forward to further discussion in committee on this legislation.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very happy to speak to this bill. I think the intent and the effort put forward by my colleague Mr Wessenger is to be commended.

I understand what he's attempting to do with this private member's legislation. However, I must say that this bill is desperately flawed. There are problems with it that I think will jeopardize this type of accommodation for good.

I also want to say that if the government, and I say this to Mr Wessenger -- the effort put forth by the government to recognize this type of accommodation as affordable accommodation which is provided in the private sector, the very kind of accommodation that we see a lack of in this province, and a lack of effort on the part of the government to stimulate activity in the private sector, to continue to provide private sector, affordable accommodation -- this government is doing very precious little in the private sector to put forward initiatives which would see the creation and the increase in affordable housing.

The government has halted any programs to provide government land for affordable housing in the private sector, getting the private sector to work with government to provide that affordable housing.

This is an area -- this sector -- which has that affordability component: providing affordable homes for people who need them in the private sector. For that reason, I say to you that this provision, this legislation, is very important in that we do not jeopardize this sector.

I understand the need for protection of tenants and I think there are a number of things which have been put forward in this bill which speak to that and can be applauded, but I think this bill is fatally flawed and I want to point out the ways in which it is.

Under the provisions of the amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, the concept of a reserve fund, which is what is being called for under Bill 21 -- let's look at that for a moment -- would work rather well for new establishments, but for older parks it's not feasible. Quite frankly, there wouldn't have been enough time for the reserve funds at that point to have provided sufficient cushion to meet the needs of the older parks, which obviously would have greater amounts of capital needs over time. Those funds would be additional to what would be required in a new establishment, and let's face it, the amount of cushion there would not be sufficient to meet those requirements.

With those provisions in Bill 21, you are seriously going to hamper the efforts of landlords to meet those capital needs. So I think this reserve fund is a basic flaw in Bill 21. Seriously, I think it would destroy landlords. I think we would see the complete annihilation of this type of sector in the housing community, and as a result, there would not be much to commend this legislation when that was brought about.

So I think we have some serious problems with the reserve fund, how it's going to work. Quite frankly, you already have the imposition of rent controls, and the reserve fund calls for amounts to be contributed from rent. As a result of rent controls already putting a cap on the amount that could be granted in the form of rents by tenants to landlords, it's a double whammy for landlords. There are no additional funds to make up for those capital needs and things like snow removal, garbage collection, that are already operational costs. They're not capital costs, they're additional to this. So I think you have problems with that.

As a result of that

section alone, I cannot support this legislation, because you threaten the very survival of landlords in this area. You would lead to the demise of this type of housing without giving due consideration for what this means; therefore, I have problems with that.

Under the Rental Housing Protection Act, you would amend this to include mobile home parks. The problem with it is that you would effectively preclude conversion to co-op type of accommodation. Therefore, that's another flaw in this legislation. Under the Rental Housing Protection Act, the amendments that you're making would effectively not allow for the conversion to co-ops. I have a problem with that. I think that's something that would also be an option available to people living in this type of accommodation that you would not like to prevent, at least I hope not.

Under the Planning Act, certainly the amendments there call for changes which would now prohibit landlords from doing the kind of work to service lots, and, with respect to the size of lots, that would all be under the discretion given to municipalities. I think there's a problem with respect to the provisions under that section.

I'm running out of time, because my colleague also wants to speak to this legislation. I've just quickly pointed out what are the basic flaws in this legislation. Some of the other provisions would be amenable to us, but I think these speak to the heart of the legislation and the fundamental principles behind the legislation. I have difficulty supporting this and allowing it to go to committee, so I will not support this legislation.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The actual consideration behind the bill is certainly something that I think all members would agree with; however, I feel that this legislation is very flawed in the approach that is being taken.

I'm concerned that when we consider that two of the particular developments that are within the areas of the member, Sandy Cove Acres and Wilmot Creek -- I know for a fact that the owners of those developments were never consulted. The member only consulted with the tenants, and that seems a most inappropriate way of proceeding. The intent of making sure that the tenancies are protected is, as I've said, valuable, but what we do with this bill is that we produce once again another confrontational approach.

It is fair to say that with the imposition of rent controls on these parks, and then with this bill, it would be impossible to contemplate that any further such developments as Wilmot Creek or Sandy Cove, to name just two, would ever again be developed in this province as long as such legislation was in place.

I want to turn to some testimony that we received during Bill 4 hearings. This was from Martin Grove Village in Waterloo. I'm just going to read some extracts from a letter that they presented in their brief to Bill 4:

"I am the owner and operator of a mobile home park located in the township of Woolwich immediately adjacent to the northerly boundary of the city of Waterloo. There are presently 78 homes in the village, housing in excess of 200 people, most of whom are relatively low-income and retired, elderly people. The tenants own their own mobile home and lease the land from me. As landlord, I provide hydro, water and septic sanitary services to each of these homes. These are not seasonal or recreational trailers, but homes in which, under the permitted zoning, the residents live year-round.

Some residents have been living in the village for in excess of 30 years. Most residents have their entire life savings invested in their mobile homes.

"Over the past few years I have been engaged in discussions with the township of Woolwich and the regional municipality of Waterloo, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the designation of these lands under the local official plan as a settlement area which would allow for the expansion of this existing settlement as a mobile/modular home park.

"The required official plan amendment and zone change application have been approved in principle, subject to certain conditions which would lead to the required replacement of the existing hydro, water and septic sanitary system. These existing systems are approximately 30 years old and are recognized by me as well as the municipal and other government authorities as being very much in need of replacement. Engineering reports initiated by me confirm that the need for replacement arises out of normal wear and tear."

I'm going to just skip on a little bit. Essentially, this community says:

"Current rents average $181 per month, which includes $50 per month for taxes and about $40 per month for maintenance. This rental fee is far below market rent and provides for no more than a break-even point for me. Certainly, there is no capacity in me to provide for the extraordinary capital expenditures of replacing existing services without an increase in rent."

So here we have the problem that, having brought these trailer parks under rent controls, we now have the double whammy of various municipal and governmental services saying that services need to be upgraded. The landlord in these parks has to operate as collecting the taxes and has to provide all of those services which are normally provided by a municipality.

So to the extent that these people cannot make any money out of their operation -- and I'm particularly thinking not so much of the Wilmot Creek and the Sandy Cove Acres, but those ones which have been in existence for a longer period of time, where they're not so much mobile homes as trailers but they are used year-round.

We are having the problem that the operator cannot make any money, doesn't have the money to upgrade the services and yet is being told that he must, and now we have legislation which will essentially not allow him even to be able to sell the land for some further development at the time the leases come forward. That is very troubling and goes to a lot of serious questions about property rights in this province and the constant erosion of property rights that we're seeing.

But most importantly, the concern is, how do we protect those tenants who live in communities and the people who potentially would be tenants in an expanded community such as Wilmot Creek in the future? Certainly the landlords of these developments will not see fit to expand those communities to the detriment of people who will be retiring in the future.

So for this reason, we have great trouble with the thrust of this bill. We certainly say that we are on side in terms of protecting those tenants, and I believe we can find ways of protecting those tenants and protecting the values of the properties that are owned both by the tenants, who own the mobile homes, and by the owners of those developments, in another way. But this bill certainly is not the way to achieve those ends, so for this reason I will be opposing it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today and talk to my colleague from Simcoe to Bill 21.

I was interested in the comments that the member for Lawrence made about needing affordable housing. In Hansard yesterday he got up and he said this affordable housing is a complete waste.

Interjection.

Mr Mills: That's what you said in Hansard.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lawrence on a point of order.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, I have to rise because the member is completely misconstruing what I had said yesterday. I was referring to the non-profit housing program, not affordable housing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I'd just like to recognize the wonderful people from my riding of Durham East who are here today to support this bill. They are in there; they are up here.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the people who are in the galleries to refrain from applauding. This is unruly. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I think it speaks oceans to this bill and the concerns when 80 people from Wilmot Creek have come here at their own expense this morning by private bus. They're in the process of getting in here; some are here, some are in the gallery. I think that speaks oodles.

When I attended an all-candidates meeting at the Roundhouse in Wilmot Creek way back in August 1990, one of the things that came out of that all-candidates meeting was addressing the concerns of the folks who lived there. Those were their concerns, and I made a vow that, should I win Durham East -- and there were lots of people very surprised that I did, particularly the Conservatives -- I would make this one of my focuses, to get these things right.

When I was elected, I had the pleasure of having an intern serve with me, and I directed that intern to research this matter for three months. It's a very complex piece of legislation, which I commend my colleague and friend Mr Wessenger for. It involved the Attorney General's office, it involved Municipal Affairs, it involved the Ministry of Housing. It was complex. After my intern had done his three-month research, we went to Wilmot Creek with the results. Our ideas of how we will resolve that were soundly endorsed by about 500 people who were in that Roundhouse hall that night as we gave this presentation.

I say to the member for York Mills that he's out of touch with reality if he doesn't recognize that the people in this type of leased-lot communities need protection; they've been crying out for it. And then he has the audacity to stand in this place and say, "What are the landlords going to do?"

I say that the landlords should have addressed those inequities a long time ago and we wouldn't be here today doing this bill if they'd recognized that.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the members in the gallery to refrain from applauding; otherwise I will have to take away your privilege and you won't be able to stay where you are.

Mr Mills: These folks, as you know, are in their golden years and this is so important to them. I guess they feel it to be such an important piece of legislation that they have difficulty in hiding their enthusiasm for the wonderful work my colleague for Simcoe East has done in bringing this here today.

I'm limited on time. I have to go away and sit on a committee and I have other members of our caucus who represent leased-lot communities who also want to speak. I just say to those members over there that this has been brought about by circumstances that could not be addressed any other way except through this legislation.

Again, full marks to Paul Wessenger for his work on this bill and bringing it forward in this House today. I hope everybody in here supports it, because, believe it or not, every community that you live in, there are people in similar circumstances and they're looking to you members for support. When the votes comes later in today, they will take note of all those people who do not support this, believe you me.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the very short time that I have, I want to address three issues, but before I do I have to make the comment that they've brought all these marvellous, wonderful people -- I am very close to seniors as I approach that period of my golden lifetime, but to bring them here under the assumption that this bill is going to become public law is a sham, an absolute sham.

The member from Simcoe Centre knows that. Your government of the day was not prepared to bring this legislation forward; it in fact died on the order paper on the last occasion. These people should know that this is an exercise in the height of public relations and this bill will never make it past this second reading, if it gets passed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Thank you. The member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: There have been only two private bills -- I don't like fooling seniors the way you people are trying to do it. There have only been two bills in the history of the Legislature that have ever made it to public policy as a result of private members' bills. One of them was on daylight saving, which moved it a week ahead; the second one was Mr Mahoney's when he brought in the age qualification for gambling in the corner stores --

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: -- because your government didn't have the good sense to realize that eight-year-olds were in fact going to be spending their lunch money on buying lottery tickets for football games.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton South has the floor. Those who want to have the opportunity to voice your opinion, you'll have a chance to do so, but please respect the member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: So I find it really incredible that you would try to fool these good people who have come all the way here from Barrie and other areas.

Having said that, I think it's incredible that you never bothered to talk to both sides of the picture here. I have three points to address. The first one was that these contracts have been around for 25 years. People obviously have lived in many of these communities, at least the three I'm familiar with, for 25 years.

The first-right-of-refusal clause makes sense because these people live in a community where, if there is not a right of first refusal, you could have someone moving into that community, and it's a very tight-knit community, perhaps who would not be desirable, who could not financially carry the burden. Therefore, a greater burden is thrust upon those residents who already live there.

The question of receiving 95% of the value of the item: If they sold it through a real estate agent they'd probably pay 5% or 6%, so you eliminate the necessity of having to go through that exercise by this being done in this way.

Finally, the question of signs. Just think about it this way: If in your community, in one of your subdivisions, because of a downturn in the economy or for whatever other reason, every house had a For Sale sign on it and you were trying to sell your house and you took somebody through that subdivision, they'd look around and they'd say: "My heavens, who wants to move into this community, because they're all selling their homes. There must be something wrong." This is precisely what can happen.

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: I love you people over there. You put your views forward and then you shout and act up like children, taking away from my time to have an opportunity in a democratic chamber to be able to express the views that are there.

It makes sense. Have any of you been to these communities? Probably not. I would venture to say that many of you have not even read the bill that has been presented by the member from Simcoe Centre -- simply because you wouldn't understand it, probably. It is a bill so complex that, even if it were to be passed, which is highly unlikely -- in fact, as I say, looking at the history of this place, it's unlikely that the government will ever pick up that piece of legislation.

The member from Simcoe Centre has brought in a piece of legislation. He's brought all these people a great distance, promising them the world. I have to tell you people, you have had a nice trip, you will see a great exercise in public relations here, but you wait and see if the New Democratic Party brings that legislation in. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they don't. The fact is that they've not bothered to tell you the reasons why some of these aspects are there. Some of my colleagues have addressed them, the question of financial viability, the question of continuing these accommodations.

I know for a fact, in talking with seniors I know who live in these parks, that they are quite happy. They live in a seniors' setting. The people they're dealing with are seniors. They have many things in common. It's almost like a country-club-style operation. You start putting signs up all over the place, and you'll find that will have a detrimental effect on the community itself.

The member from Simcoe Centre said that in his previous life as a lawyer he used to have people coming in to him and complaining about the restrictions in these contracts. Well, my question to the member from Simcoe Centre is, as a lawyer, what did you do about it? Did you simply let them sign the contracts? If you did, then you must have thought the conditions were not unreasonable. Why didn't you remind them of it? Why do you bring it forward here in the Legislature and attempt to convince these people that you can change the law? I would suggest that your responsibility would have been to have told these people that the contractual rights were too interfering with their rights.

Suddenly, it just becomes a hot political issue: "Let's see how we can pacify these people." Well, I have to say to you that I find that regrettable. I think it's regrettable to do it to any group from Ontario, but particularly to do it to people who are seniors, who are retired, whose income is limited, who perhaps are looking to live in tranquillity in their golden years, and you bus them all down here with the anticipation that this bill is going to become law.

I say to you that Mr Rae, the Premier of this province, did not consider this bill to be significant enough to bring it in as a piece of government legislation. He required you to do it. In fact, it was so significant that, in the first session of this Parliament, it died on the order paper. So I find that really incredible. This game of political chess that's played is absolutely and unbelievably bad.

The member from Durham East says that he made it a promise and that he's fulfilling this promise. Well, I have to tell you, it's no wonder the people don't believe politicians any more, because when politicians make promises like that and then bring it into a forum such as this -- our present structure of the Legislature does not allow for it to get anyplace -- I suggest it's a sham.

I'm going to be voting against this because I don't believe that pulling the wool over the eyes of particularly good seniors in this province is fair. In addition to that, if this matter does pass, it should certainly go to public hearings so that both sides of the coin can be heard.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I just want to take a few minutes on this bill, because I find that the bill is just another imposition on the owner of the land, the landlord or whatever you wish to refer to him as. First of all, these problems that are being identified can be handled very well at the municipal level. I know in my riding you can have the bylaw --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): They don't think so. They don't agree with you.

Mr Jordan: Perhaps when their park was established, the municipality did not in fact have the proper bylaw in place to protect the tenant, but we don't need to come from this level of government to protect the tenant in a mobile home park.

The mobile home park under the jurisdiction of the municipality can very well pass local legislation that will give the required protection to the tenants of that park and then you have an understanding from the beginning right at the municipal level on the conditions under which you establish a home in that park. So on the basis that this is more entanglement, if you will, of the provincial government with local municipal government, I would have to say that I could not support the bill.

I do not say that the tenants and the land being leased by the different people in these parks do not need the attention of the municipal law, but they sure don't need a bill such as this to be put in place. And as the previous speaker pointed out, this will never come into place anyhow, so you might better be concentrating at home with your local government and getting the proper legislation in place at the municipal level so that it actually applies to that mobile home park that the concern is concentrated on.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I would like to congratulate my colleague the member from Simcoe Centre for bringing the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act to this House and I would like to thank him on behalf of Middlesex tenants, some of whom are here today, because they will benefit from this legislation. And I must say, my constituents, the people of Middlesex, who live in leased-lot communities have waited for Bill 21 for a very, very long time and have shown great courage in helping this government and me particularly to pursue this legislation.

Leased-lot communities represent an important opportunity for the provision of affordable housing. This affordability needs to be protected. This housing stock must be protected because the people who need it, who utilize it, are for the most part seniors on fixed incomes. Leased-lot mobile home parks give these seniors the opportunity to live independently and to be part of a caring, mutually supportive community. In order for these communities to survive, the costs associated with residents must be reasonable and cannot be allowed to rise unreasonably.

In Middlesex, tenants were faced with increases in 1988-89 of more than 12% and in 1990-91 of more than 11%. Bill 121, the 1992 Rent Control Act, put an end to these huge rent increases. That government bill protects Middlesex tenants, and I regard this legislation, Bill 21, as an important companion piece to the Rent Control Act because Bill 21 extends the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act to leased-lot communities, assures the continued availability of such affordable housing stock.

Tenants in leased-lot communities will now have recourse through the Ontario Municipal Board to appeal any municipally approved conversion of their rental units. Fears expressed by my constituents that their communities could be converted to other uses and their equity lost and them left with no place for their modular homes have now finally been addressed.

So we have rent control in Bill 121 and protection of land lease communities as part of the affordable housing stock in Bill 21. Bill 21 also extends

part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act to leased-lot communities. This does a number of things, but I'd like to focus specifically on the right of sale of modular homes by their owners. Under this bill, landlords can no longer be given or demand first refusal on the sale of a home. Tenants now are free to place For Sale signs on their units. Imagine that, Mr Speaker: anyone in this province not being free to put a sign on their homes. It's just unspeakable.

They are also free to place the sale of those units in the hands of an outside real estate agent. For Middlesex residents, this effectively eliminates the possibility of a landlord interfering in the sale of their property. Unfortunately, some landlords have insisted upon acting exclusively as the realty agent for mobile home sales within their parks and have collected commissions, some as high as 8%. That's two to two and a half percentage points higher than outside agents charge.

Some landlords have actually discouraged prospective buyers, blocked the sale of mobile homes by their owners and then have offered the frustrated and often desperate tenant-owner a much-reduced price for that home.

I want you to consider that these tenants at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords are often seniors on fixed incomes, sometimes frail, sometimes vulnerable, sometimes easily intimidated. These people are among all in our society who should never be wilfully harmed, intimidated or preyed upon by anyone. I'm pleased that Bill 21 places into law provisions to prevent this kind of abuse of my constituents, including our seniors.

I would like to leave time for other members of our caucus to speak to this legislation and would conclude by pledging my support for this bill brought forward by the member of Simcoe Centre. It will help to bring a measure of tranquillity to Ontario leased-lot retirement communities.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to join in this debate today. I've had a lot of experience with regard to mobile home parks in my riding. We have Big Cedar, which is owned by the residents. It took some time to get it in that ownership. We have Fergus Hill Estates that just this past week has made arrangements or is looking to make arrangements to sell the lots that are in the park to the residents in that park for about $17,000 a lot.

During the last election campaign, the member of the New Democratic Party indicated in my riding that he would encourage the government to bring in legislation to change the act so that the people who live in these mobile home parks would have the right of ownership. Well, I expect that would happen, but the right of ownership comes with purchasing the lots and agreements with the owners. There's no way that anybody is going to own the land that they're on without purchasing it. A lot of people indicate that they want to do that, and I think it can happen.

I know Big Cedar went through many different problems to get it into the ownership of the people who are there. I think that's the right and the proper way to do it.

But the right and the proper way for this government to deal with it is in government legislation. Most of the members know that private members' bills here don't go anywhere. What they do is allow you to have a good discussion on the subject at hand to bring out the pros and cons of what this legislation is all about.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): What happened to Cunningham's bill? Where is it?

Mr McLean: The member is chatting over there when he should be listening to the facts as brought before this House with regard to mobile home parks.

So I say to you: Why is the government not bringing in legislation to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act? Why are they bringing in a private member's bill which is going to go nowhere? It's not going anywhere, so the people might as well know that.

I know the concern that the member has had and the pressure that he has had from the church, the old church place in Barrie. There are others within the area that -- there's pressure on it, but you're not going to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act in any private member's bill. It's totally impossible to do that. It could happen, but it is very unlikely.

Why isn't the government bringing in the legislation to deal with it? They're not. So I say, until that happens, then this isn't going anywhere.

The Landlord and Tenant Act is there. They want: "The definition of 'residential premises' in

section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act is amended by inserting after 'means'...'subject to

section 128.2."'

"The definition of 'residential premises' in

section 1 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:...'land intended and used as a site for a mobile home or a land lease community home used for residential purposes, whether or not the landlord also supplies the mobile home"' park.

A lot of questions in this bill are unanswered, and I can tell you that this bill will not go anywhere other than get the first reading, the second reading here, and maybe referred to committee.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm really pleased to rise on this bill today, because right now, at this moment, though we've got a lot of people here from land lease communities, right out there we've got a number of people sitting in the community centre right in Sutton-By-The-Lake and they're watching this on television. So when the members of this House stand up and say, "Well, you've only got 80 people here and it's not going to go anywhere because we don't care and we're not going to let a private member's bill go anywhere," those people are listening and those people are supporters.

It's time that we had legislation come forward that's going to represent the needs of a lot of people, and this does that. It recognizes that people who are in land lease communities are different than other types of tenants. They haven't had that sort of recognition, and it's time that we did that.

You know, Mr Speaker, in this House we do a number of things. Sometimes there's a lot of rhetoric. Sometimes we present petition after petition on a lot of things we are really concerned about. Last year I presented petition after petition to this Legislature, and the reason I did was that I was concerned about the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake. We stand in our place and, "I've got a petition

whereas the residents of," and, you know, sometimes people just don't seem to listen.

If I take a look at this petition that I did present to this Legislature, I could take a look at a lot of the clauses and they're in this legislation. Some of them we acted upon when we took a look and changed the Rent Control Act. Last year we changed it. So what are the amendments? Before we even got to this point, it has already been taken care of.

We talk about, "Whereas the residents feel that the government of Ontario should examine...no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity." Well, this is covered, and I want to applaud the member from Simcoe Centre for bringing it forward.

Another clause here, "Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land lease communities which place unfair restrictions and collect commissions on resales of residents' homes," I mean, it's reprehensible that that should happen, but it has been happening and this bill is going to address it. We have to take a look at that. They've got some concerns because it doesn't have everything in there.

I met on Sunday April 18 in the afternoon -- it was a nice sunny afternoon -- with some representatives from the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, and they presented me with a wish list. There's the wish list. They presented that to me. We sat down, we talked about it, we made some revisions, and not everything is on that, and I recognize that we like to have everything on there. Maybe when we talk about hearing that the landlords -- "When are you going to let the landlords?"

Well, let's get this bill into committee and we can hear from the landlords, and we can hear from the federation, we can hear from the good folks from Sutton-By-The-Lake, we can hear from the folks at Wilmot Creek, we can hear from the folks at Sandy Cove. There are a lot of people out there who want to talk to us, and I think that we have to do that.

I guess the difference is, in the past, governments have said: "Oh, I'm sorry. Private members' bills go nowhere. Backbench members don't have a say here. If the government doesn't bring it forward, that's the way it happens."

Well, Mr Speaker, you're right, there are priorities that the government must take and it brings them forward. There's a lot of us members -- I see a lot of good members surrounding me here, the members from Huron, Windsor-Walkerville. There's a lot of members here who have this very concern and there's a lot of caucus government members that are going to make sure that this goes forward, that we get a chance to go out to public hearings and we make this legislation law, because it's important that we take a look at the needs.

I'm proud of the fact that I represent the people who are sitting out there in that clubhouse right now from Sutton-By-The-Lake, who haven't given me a chance to say, "Well, sorry, it's not going to happen," because they've been coming to me regularly and saying, "Look, we've got to do something. We've got some concerns, Mr O'Connor. We want you to deal with it. We want you to take this to the floor of the Legislature and talk about it," and that's what I'm here doing today, because I think it's important that we do that.

These residents have talked to me about maintenance problems that they've had, operational problems, and they feel that the establishment of a reserve fund might help solve some of this. We don't know whether this is going to be the perfect answer, and the way we're going to do this is by getting it out to committee.

We've got an opportunity here, as private members, during private members' business, to make a long-lasting change, a change that is going to affect a lot of people, and quite often they're seniors. They're on a fixed income. Some of their pensions haven't gone up for a long time, and we're going to make something that's going to affect them.

I think it's time that we all stand in our place, support Mr Wessenger in this bill, because it's important not only for the folks in my riding but these communities right across the province because they're -- I hope the opposition are going to support us because they're in your ridings too.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I hope this does make it to committee.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Are you going to support us?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I really do hope it does make it to committee, because then an opportunity will be had, an opportunity that all these people -- these people have come down at their own time -- can just see how truly committed this government is to ensuring this piece of legislation pass. Because you know full well your standing there and lecturing and posturing with the rhetoric doesn't serve one simple conclusion.

The simple conclusion is: Will this piece of legislation pass that's apparently going to help service these poor people who are in a very difficult situation? I hope so, because once and for all we can put it to rest, because you know, Mr Speaker, as we know, as they know -- and maybe these people don't -- that if this were a priority with this government, it would be on the orders of the day, put forward by the cabinet and supported by your caucus.

No, it has not. Why is it not? Because they want to stand here, like Mr Mills, like Mr O'Connor, and offer empty promises, simple rhetoric with no commitment for cheap vote-getting ability.

I hope this passes so we can get it to committee and the committee can take it up and we can see how purely flawed in legislative and legalese this is. We can get these people in to make deputations and then I want to be there the day when you have to explain to these people that it has fallen off the legislative table because your government doesn't support it, because it's flawed. I want to hear your rhetoric and promises and petitions on that day when that comes around.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to support it. You know why I'm going to support it? I don't want to leave these people left alone. I'm supporting it because I want to bring this to the front burner and I want to put you people on the spot and I want these people to know when they're being led down the garden path for votes. That's where you're being led, down the garden path for votes. They may not know it now, but they will certainly know it in some number of weeks when this hits committee and you stand up and make all the public apologies because your word isn't worth salt.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Huron, please.

Mr Wessenger, you have two minutes.

Mr Wessenger: I want to be there too when this law becomes finally legislation. I'd just like to say that I know there's a commitment from my caucus colleagues to do everything in our power to ensure that this legislation does become law. I believe that, with the support of my caucus, we can bring it to committee, we can ensure it goes to third reading and we can ensure it becomes enacted.

Another thing I'd like to say: I realize this isn't perfect. I didn't have the benefit of the Ministry of Housing, I didn't have the benefit of the Attorney General's ministry, I didn't have the benefit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in drafting this bill. I had to do it the best I could as a lawyer, working with legislative counsel, who did yeoman service in helping me bring this bill forward.

I realize there will be amendments, but that's the whole purpose of hearings, that's the whole purpose of committee hearings, to get that input to make sure that we do have better legislation. I've taken a lot of legislation through, even that drafted by government, and I know often there are many amendments there because they're flawed. This is not the final form, but it's a good beginning, a good framework to start on.

The other thing is that I'd just like to refer to a couple of criticisms from the member for Lawrence because I think -- and I can understand why he made the comments; it's a very technical area -- first of all he said the reserve fund was problematic. I agree it's a difficult area, and one of the provisions I put in the bill was to provide for alternative security to a reserve fund, because I realize those difficulties.

The other misunderstanding that several members seem to have is that this bill prohibits conversion to condominiums or to cooperatives. Again, I provided in the bill that the Rental Housing Protection Act does not apply in prescribed circumstances where there is a conversion to a condominium or a cooperative, and the idea is to ensure that where residents want that conversion, it will occur.

So I ask all members, in view of these comments, to support this legislation. Let's get it to committee and let's get it enacted.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time for the first ballot item has expired.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Callahan moved private member's notice of motion number 13:

That, in the opinion of this House,

Since the government of Ontario intends to pass Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act with respect to Residential Units and Garden Suites; and

Since the effect of this act will be to effectively rezone residential properties and increase density without the protection of the planning process which allows public participation and decision-making by municipal officials who are accountable to the public; and

Since the municipality of the city of Brampton and many other municipalities have already incorporated within their official plans a commitment to the creation of 25% affordable housing pursuant to the policy of the former Liberal government; and

Since the Liberal Party recognizes in these difficult economic times that with the high cost of housing, alternative accommodation of an affordable nature is required, as evidenced by the former Liberal government's direction for "granny flats" and specific levels of affordable housing; and

Since the action of this government in this act is to effectively bypass the local planning process with its public participation, and by edict, extract value from taxpayers by expropriating property without equitable compensation, contrary to every rule of equity; and

Since the Liberal Party supports dwelling units being allowed where zoning is consistent and such uses can be appropriately integrated with the host neighbourhood or in future developments where the integrity of the planning process is maintained and the public is aware of what zoning is in place;

Therefore Bill 90 should be withdrawn or amended by the government of Ontario to ensure the property rights of the citizens of Brampton and other Ontario communities are protected.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's interesting that the New Democratic Party government, in Bill 90, has simply tried to deal with an issue of search warrants and how to find out whether there are illegal basement apartments by bringing in a bill that in effect is going to rob people who have spent money on probably the largest investment in their lifetime by buying a home in a residential area where single-family dwellings are established.

That establishment and that zoning was brought about as a result of municipal officials and planning officials looking at it and deciding that that's what should be there, that that's the density that should be there, and in fact approving that, and they are accountable to the public; they're accountable every three years by terms of an election.

But that's not good enough for this government. In an effort to try to deal with the issue of illegal basement apartments, because they couldn't deal with it in any other fashion, they decided, "Well, we'll just legalize all of them retroactively." Let me tell you, that flies in the face totally of all planning principles that I've ever learned of. It flies in the face of the principles of democracy which I thought the New Democratic Party stood for. Number one, it takes away from home owners the benefit that they had paid for when they purchased their home.

Number two, they had paid taxes on that basis for many, many years. Number three, they thought they were in an area where if the density was to be increased because of a change in the neighbourhood area, this would be done through a proper process where they would have the opportunity to have their say, where people would be able to make decisions in terms of an orderly planning process.

I don't think people understand, and I'm sure many of the members of the government don't understand, that that's how far-reaching this legislation is. If they do understand that, then I really am concerned, because it means that a party such as the New Democratic Party -- "democratic"party -- would allow for the elimination of these rights of people without any opportunity whatsoever to have a say.

I don't want the people watching this to get the picture wrong. As I said in the resolution, we are in fact in favour of affordable housing to people. But the city of Brampton and I'm sure the region of Peel took up the challenge of the former Liberal government to ensure that in their official plan there would be at least 25% of the housing listed there that would be in the range of affordable housing. We have done that.

We now find that the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, is now trying to say to us through Bill 90: "In fact, it doesn't matter what's going on in these neighbourhoods, it doesn't matter that you live in a single-family neighbourhood, that's too bad. We are now going to legalize these basement apartments."

Basement apartments, if they are properly planned for, with all the safeguards that can be installed in terms of fire safety, health safety and so on, are great. But if they're done retroactively, as is the suggestion of this bill and the intent of this bill, then what you've done is you've not only taken a situation of a person's home and increased the density of it by law, contrary to all principles of equity, but you have in fact placed them in the potentiality of danger of fire and so on. I suggest that's not fair and has never been recognized in law as being fair.

It's an attempt by this government to do the usual thing and that usual thing is to try to take people's rights away, purportedly for the benefit of other people who need those rights, without thinking about it.

I urge the Minister of Housing, if she's watching this, that there is another approach. If you wish to have secondary accommodations, be it basement apartments or whatever, in order to protect those people and not allow them to be preyed on perhaps by landlords, the way to do it is to say, "All right, in this area, we propose that there should be basement apartments or multiple dwellings." Let the public have their say, let the zoning process take its place and let anyone who buys in that community know that this is a higher-density area. But don't try to foist it on to a community where this was not the case and where people did not anticipate that to happen.

If that's what's going to happen with Bill 90 being passed, then I suggest to you that the people of Ontario are not safe in any area. They're going to find that this government will impose, retroactively, unfair practices on people in terms of a whole host of things. I suggest to you that's not fair. I have had thousands of people in my community who have signed petitions that were done in cooperation with the municipality. The municipality is gravely concerned about this entire issue.

It's interesting that in response to one of the petitions that were filed, as is the case under the rules, the ministry responded and it responded in a document which was some six pages long. I want to refer you to just a few items in here which are clearly wrong. In paragraph 1, it says, "The apartments-in-houses legislation, Bill 90, alters the zoning authority traditionally available to municipalities through requiring that they permit second units in detached, semi-detached and row houses located in zones which permit residential use." That's right. That's precisely what I've been just saying.

They go on to say: "Such individuals and their municipal representatives have expressed the concern that Bill 90 will have a detrimental impact on the character of neighbourhoods which are now predominantly single family in character. However, research has suggested that existing neighbourhoods are unlikely to experience significant change as a result of Bill 90." I'd like to see that research. It's probably the first time they've done research on an issue, and I challenge that.

They also say they will not increase neighbourhood population. Well, that flies in the face of logic. If you're retroactively increasing the density of a single-family home, then you are in fact increasing the neighbourhood population.

They say it won't increase service usage, and then they put the word "significantly" after it, because they know that it's going to increase services. It's going to increase the number of people attending school, the number of people using the sewer system and the water system. In fact, they recognize that, because they eliminated from Bill 90 those homes that are on septic tanks. I say to the people of Ontario, if there's any possibility of Bill 90 passing, maybe what you should do is unhook your home from the sewer system and get on a septic tank, because that's the only way you're going to be able to rescue yourself.

They also say that it doesn't result in a decline in neighbouring property values. Well, that may or may not be the case. If you can't see what's happening inside, then perhaps it doesn't impact on the neighbourhood values. But I would suggest that most realtors who are going around and selling homes are going to indicate that this is the case.

They say they've talked to 60 key stakeholders. I'd like to know who they were. They've also said they're placing the question of fire standards under the Ontario Building Code. Obviously, they recognize that there's going to be an increased fire hazard by this taking place.

They tell us that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has been consulted as part of the process. They don't tell us what the result was of that consultation, and I would suggest that if these people find people whom I know about, they probably had a great deal to say about it and were objecting to it.

They do say under the first paragraph on page 3: "The Land Use Planning for Housing policy statement issued in 1989" -- that was the one done by the Liberal government -- "required municipalities to amend their official plans and zoning bylaws to allow apartments and houses in appropriate areas. The poor level of compliance...." Well, where's the proof of that? My community certainly complied with it, and I'm sure most communities throughout Ontario complied with it. They use that as a reason for allowing this to take place retroactively.

As I said, I think most good people in this province would agree that we have to have housing for everyone, but it shouldn't be at the expense of people who have already purchased their homes, believing that the density they were moving into, and paying the high price for that density, would remain what it was. In fact, what this government is attempting to do is simply to take that away, without any compensation whatsoever.

Municipalities themselves are obviously going to have increased demands on their services. School boards: Where is the assistance in the bill in terms of financial assistance to municipalities, or are the taxpayers of that municipality suddenly going to have to bear the burden of that additional cost, without any benefit from Queen's Park?

I suggest to you that, all in all, it really shocks me that a party that prides itself on being democratic would bring in a piece of legislation that is so machiavellian that it is going to impact on the citizens of my riding and certainly other ridings throughout this province. So I would ask all members to support this resolution and send a message to the government that Bill 90 is flawed in that respect and make certain that these changes are in fact taking place.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution that the member for Brampton South has brought to us today for our consideration and comment.

In the briefest of terms, this resolution reads as follows:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since the government of Ontario intends to pass Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act with respect to Residential Units and Garden Suites, and

"Since the effect of this act will be to effectively rezone residential properties and increase density without the protection of the planning process which allows public participation and decision-making by municipal officials who are accountable to the public," and therefore this bill "should be withdrawn or amended by the government of Ontario to ensure the property rights of the citizens of Brampton and other Ontario communities are protected."

Having said that, personally, I believe Bill 90 should not be amended; it should be withdrawn entirely. I'm opposed to Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act with respect to Residential Units and Garden Suites for many of the same reasons that have been expressed so well to me by many municipalities in my riding of Simcoe East and other municipalities represented by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The reasons include: It fails to provide adequate legal protection for home owners who need to regain possession of their accessory apartments. It fails to recognize that these apartments may not offer a reasonable quality of life for their occupants or be compatible with their surrounding neighbourhoods. It interferes with municipal zoning authority and negates official plans and decades of land use planning decisions. It fails to provide municipalities with licensing authority for accessory apartments -- now this is Bill 90 I'm talking about -- and it fails to consider how municipalities and school boards will pay for the services required by the residents of accessory apartments.

It also fails to consider whether sufficient infrastructure is in place to accommodate the residents of accessory apartments. By that, I'm saying there are many municipalities that have not got the infrastructure to service additional subdivisions they have wanted for years. Now we're saying you can put an apartment in every home in that municipality. I find that unacceptable. It contributes to the absentee landlord syndrome by failing to limit accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes.

These are just a few of the reasons local politicians have given me for their opposition to Bill 90.

On October 30, 1992, the president of AMO said the NDP government is using Bill 90 to rezone neighbourhoods across Ontario without community consultation. The AMO president noted that zoning is a municipal responsibility and that residents understand this and expect their local councillors to account for the zoning decisions that affect them and their neighbourhoods.

Under the Planning Act, 1983, municipalities are required to conduct public meetings on official plan and zoning bylaw amendments, but Bill 90 overrides these requirements and the existing bylaws which have included community consultation.

In conclusion, I support the portion of this resolution that calls for Bill 90 to be withdrawn. I cannot support the amendment of Bill 90 because it is so flawed that it defies any tinkering the NDP could attempt to undertake.

Bill 90 is not an appropriate mechanism to increase the supply of affordable housing. This legislation would impose a province-wide solution to a perceived Toronto problem, and that seems to be the direction this government is taking: What's good for Toronto, it feels, is good for the rest of Ontario. It's not necessarily so.

So this legislation is contrary to existing policy statements. It is inconsistent with the principles of good planning and opposite to the goals and objectives being advocated by the NDP government's own Sewell commission. Bill 90 is an unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion on local government authorities and it eliminates the option of choice for the local government.

I want to thank the member for Brampton South for bringing forward this resolution, because it shows just how flawed and undemocratic Bill 90 really is. This government is not allowing school boards to expand in the additions to schools in rural Ontario. They are not allowing for the septic systems to be put in. They want the school boards to be all brought together and put in where there are sewers and water.

I hear on the radio this morning that the people in the Brantford area or Welland area are wanting to put in a new school which is a mile from services and allow the septic system to prevail. Is this government's policy the same across the province as it is for one area or the other? Simcoe county board cannot get approval for additions because it's in the rural country.

Anyhow, I wanted to make that known because of the inconsistent policies of this administration, and Bill 90 is just one case in point. So I appreciate the member bringing this forward and allowing the discussion to take place, because Bill 90 is so flawed.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'm very pleased to address this initiative of the government, which is apartments in houses across this province.

First of all, yes, I was part of the ministry which did meet with many people across this province approximately a year ago when the white paper was released. It comes to mind at this point I did meet in the city hall of North Bay with politicians and various community groups there, also in Oshawa and various other places. We talked to the local politicians, we talked to the planners, we talked to community groups, we talked to even real estate people about the aspects and the implications of what this would do.

I'd like to point out a little bit of history here. I believe it was concluded long ago, in agreement between many people in this Legislature, that for affordable housing, as many options as possible is what is needed and, secondly, that communities need to be inclusive: no more of this NIMBY syndrome.

We started discussing this maybe five or six years ago, and I remember the Liberal government back in 1988 putting out a paper and then confirming it in August 1989, a policy statement called Land Use Planning for Housing. The whole purpose of that statement was to provide those options for affordable housing and inclusion in all neighbourhoods of affordable housing.

I remember that much education has gone on since that time. Attitudes have changed. Under the Liberal government, even, the housing advocacy branch was out across this province talking to various people, including the municipal planning committees, and talking about creating access to permanent housing committees and housing help centres.

I hope my colleagues will excuse me when I do say that the Liberal government did provide these initiatives, which were excellent. I remember at a conference in Kitchener, called Developing the Will, Mr Sweeney spoke passionately and Chaviva Ho_ek, about the need for inclusiveness for affordable housing in all neighbourhoods across this province.

I'd like to turn to some very easy things to understand, and these are the reasons why apartments in houses make sense. I'd like to just list them off to you.

First of all, our construction industry is hurting. It's a key part of our economy. We want construction workers, plumbers, electricians back to work, as I'm sure all of us do.

Secondly, apartments in houses are an effective way of increasing the supply of affordable, lower-rental housing at no cost to the taxpayers. Let's have a hand from the opposition on that one.

Number three, this bill will also generate spinoffs in other industries such as the building materials industry, such as the appliance industry, when people upgrade and bring their apartments up to standard or else put in new ones.

I'd like to mention the creation of garden suites or granny flats, as they may be called. This might in fact help our economy by keeping these people in a much happier setting but also keeping them out of institutional care, which is of course very expensive.

Permitting apartments in houses will also help more people enter the home ownership market, and of course the real estate folks in this province are very pleased about that idea: They want the people to have the confidence to be able to get into home ownership. The builders can even now build in the basics of an apartment into the basement or the attic or wherever, so that when a person buys a new home, they can in fact rent out an apartment within it and therefore be able to afford the mortgage. It may help very many singles or young families.

It will also hopefully help those people who have empty nests; that is, their families have left, they have a larger house, they're seniors, maybe, and they need that extra income from an apartment so they can keep their house. We all know that taxes, all kinds of taxes, municipal taxes are rising and people need to be able to keep their houses.

Also, legalizing apartments will raise the assessed value of these homes and this in turn will mean more revenue for the municipality. We all know that these apartments in many cases are there and the municipality cannot assess them because they are not legal and therefore it cannot collect this extra amount.

The apartments in houses will also mean more efficient and economical use of municipal services. We know the benefits of intensification versus urban sprawl. All you have to do is ask the Sewell commission. People don't want to use up more farm land. We need to use the services that are already there, and in many of our cities, in the core of the cities there is empty space that can be intensified. We can use those schools; we can use that transit. We don't have to use more of our farm lands and certainly our children can thank us for preserving more farm land.

We want to create vibrant downtown communities. All across this province, we see the inner cores of towns or cities having less people, and the more people you have there, I would like to say, the better it is for those communities.

I also want to mention that upgrading of the standards will certainly help both the tenant and the landlord. We cannot do that unless these units are legalized, and it is very obvious that these units are in fact there.

I want to conclude by saying that this bill is to help individuals. It is not to infringe on property rights; it is to give people rights. Studies have shown that apartments in houses do not lead to a decline in the neighbourhood's property values; neither do group homes -- the same Liberal studies have shown from years ago -- and neither does non-profit housing. Certainly the Liberal government tried in the past to explain this to municipalities, way back in 1988 and 1989.

This bill is indeed about rights. It is about the right of everyone to inclusion. I ask the members opposite to think of the most vibrant neighbourhoods they know, whether it's in Toronto here or in their own home community. It's where people of all ages, all incomes, know each other, live with each other, care about each other. These are inclusive neighbourhoods, not exclusive neighbourhoods based on property rights.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): As usual, the members opposite talk in terms of inclusion that would give one the impression that in a perfect world we would all live in communes, where we know one another, where we eat with one another, where we play with one another, where we have this wonderful, wonderful fairy-tale-world atmosphere in our residential communities, where there are no problems. It's obvious to me, when I hear the members opposite speak --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, it's not my fault.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West has the floor.

Mr Mahoney: It's obvious to me when I hear members opposite speak that many of them have never had to serve on a local municipal council to deal with some of the problems that occur in dealing first hand with the ratepayers. Otherwise, if they did serve on those councils, they have short memories: They have forgotten the problems that occur.

You see, the issue here that my good friend from Brampton North raises --

Interjection: South.

Mr Mahoney: South. Whatever; close enough.

The issue here is not whether housing intensification is a good idea. As the former speaker just mentioned, our government introduced a housing intensification policy. It's not whether or not basement apartments are a particularly good thing. My wife and I, some 24 years ago, set up our nuptial home in a basement apartment. It was wonderful. We didn't go out much in those days, mind you, but it was wonderful. There's nothing wrong with that if it's done appropriately and if it works within the community.

If you've ever had any experience -- let me tell you about a place called Talka Village, a residential community of townhouses where people in Mississauga, in Mississauga South, as a matter of fact, came in and bought up these individual units, chopped them up into 8 to 10 bedrooms and put people in there, single mothers and others who couldn't afford to find a place of their own, gouged them, charged them outrageous rents, created parking problems, comings and goings at all hours of the day and night and created serious problems that eroded the foundation of that community. That's not intensification.

That's not that airy-fairy world of NDP dogma that would see everyone in a love-in in a community. That's not reality. That's not what our communities are all about.

What my friend Mr Callahan's motion says is that this bill bypasses the municipalities' authority and indeed their responsibility to plan their community in conjunction with the people who live there. That's not NIMBY; that's fairness. A family comes in and invests its life savings and raises its kids in a community only to find out that a number of houses on the street are being turned into multiple-occupancy units. You can't limit it to a basement apartment. We have many examples where people have come in and literally subdivided houses into numerous different flats and turned them into boarding houses.

I don't think any of us would want that to happen in our backyard without some ability to control the problems that occur.

I have some experience in these problems. Before I was elected to this august place I was a city councillor in Mississauga. I was also the president of Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp and a member of that board for nine years. I was proud of it then and I still am. I had to deal with the building, by Peel Non-Profit, of a group home for former psychiatric patients in the middle of a community called Sherwood Forest. Sherwood Forest, the name itself, might give you some idea of what that community is like. They are all very large, 3,000-square-foot-plus, single-family homes.

You can imagine the outrage when this upstart city councillor who thinks he's going to Queen's Park comes to the community and says, "We're going to put a group home in here for former psychiatric patients." Let me tell you, there were 400 people at the meeting ready to lynch me and anybody else who even thought they were going to do such a thing.

We set up a committee of the community. We set up a steering committee. They met with the proponents. They toured another home in Brampton, as a matter of fact, to see how it worked within the community and they found out that their fears were unfounded. They found out that the people who would be moving into that particular establishment were, but for the grace of God, you and me. They found out that they were simply real people who needed help, who needed an ability to move back within the community, who were not quite ready to go home to the pressures of their particular home, and they needed an adjustment period.

Let me tell you, that was also three months before the provincial election, and going through that process and involving the steering committee and involving the residents, I even won the poll, for goodness' sake, because the people had an opportunity to have their input. The municipality had an opportunity to put forward its concerns. The residents in the community felt that democracy at least prevailed, and if at the end of the day they might have all said, "Well, we'd really rather not have this here," at least they understood what they were getting.

Just as a quick note, a corollary, to this, about one week after that home opened there was a suicide in the home. My phone rang like crazy with people saying, "I told you so." I pointed out to those people that within their own community in the past year there had been four suicides unreported in the media.

The point very simply is that these very real human problems exist in all our communities and we have to deal with them. I know the pain of having to go through that kind of process with a community. What Bill 90 does is it takes away that opportunity.

Members opposite say there's no cost to the taxpayer. There has been no analysis done about the impact on schools. There has been no analysis done of the impact on municipal services, be it sewer and water. There has been no analysis done on safety concerns from the fire department's point of view. There is no option for the municipality to enter and inspect, save and except under the fire act, and they don't want to go around like a jackboot group of people. Even though I know this government likes to operate that way, they don't want to go around like that. They would rather have some tools --

The Deputy Speaker: I find this insulting, I honestly do. Your reference to "jackboot," I don't like that. I find it offensive, and just don't use it.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, with respect, sir, I find that offensive. I don't know where it reads in the act or in any piece of legislation in this Legislature -- I'm not calling anyone a liar. If I choose to use a description such as "jackboot," I frankly find it offensive that you would say that.

The Deputy Speaker: I just ask you to be careful with your language.

Mr Mahoney: I find this government acts in that way both in tone and in actions, and Bill 90 takes away from the municipalities the opportunity to have a fair process in place to deal with the concerns and the very legitimate concerns of their constituents.

There will be costs. The municipalities are asking for the authority to license. They're asking for the authority to regulate. They're not saying no to intensification of housing. They're not saying no to basement apartments. They sure as heck are not saying no to non-profit if it's done properly. But they are saying this government has no right to shove regulatory powers down their throat denuding them of their democratic responsibility to work with their community, to make housing intensification work.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to wrap up my comments by telling you, sir, that I'm extremely disappointed at the interruptions that occurred from the Chair.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would hope that through this debate the government would reconsider Bill 90 and consider withdrawing it or changing it.

I must say that I suspect, again, in the first instance that Bill 90 was brought forward at a time when there was a certain need. It was brought forward, perhaps, with good intentions. It was brought forward at a time when the vacancy rate here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, was about 0%, but those times have changed. The vacancy rate today, as we speak, is approaching 2.5%.

I was in Thorold last week and I was told that in the Niagara area the vacancy rate is closer to 7%. I'm told that the vacancy rate in the city of London approaches 5%. Basically, the conditions that we faced back when this bill was brought forward have changed considerably. I think it should be revisited.

I'm interested in that I've heard that there has been consultation. I've heard that the stakeholders have been approached and that there's agreement with regard to the terms of Bill 90. I'd love to know where that agreement comes from, because I have attended a number of meetings through the years on this very topic and recently over the past year or so when it became the intent of the government to introduce Bill 90. I've talked to a number of the mayors and I've been in meetings where many of the mayors of many of the municipalities, particularly from southern Ontario, were in attendance.

I can say that almost without exception there is total opposition to Bill 90; almost without exception.

The municipalities are expressing many concerns. AMO itself, as a representative of the municipalities, is expressing these concerns. Let's not kid ourselves that everybody's in agreement with Bill 90. Let's not kid ourselves that there's municipal support out there for it. Perhaps this is an agenda of the government. Perhaps the government has some philosophical approach to housing. But this is not the support of the municipalities, and the problems that they put forward involve the zoning process. That's been alluded to here today.

When people buy their house, it's the biggest single investment that most people will make in their life. They will carefully choose the house. They will choose it for the number of bedrooms, they will choose it for the location, they will choose it for the price and, in terms of the location, they note what is next door, what's in the community. Are they buying next to a rooming house? Are they buying next to an apartment building? Are they buying next to a business? What kind of neighbourhood are they buying into?

They carefully make that choice in the full knowledge that their neighbourhood will not change unless they are fully consulted, and if there is to be a change in their neighbourhood, it's not done unilaterally. At least, this is what they thought. They had every reason to believe that the planning process that's in place in the province of Ontario would give them the right to speak to any change in zoning in their neighbourhood, that if any changes were to be made they would be invited to a meeting and they would have the right to speak. That's how they bought.

What's being proposed here is that every house, each and every house right throughout the province of Ontario, will be changed and will now become a duplex, that in fact an extra unit will be allowed. Well, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the people will not support that. They will support that in certain instances, if you look at it neighbourhood by neighbourhood. But as a broad brush across the province of Ontario, this is very draconian and will not have the support of the municipalities or the people of Ontario.

The municipalities are put in a bind, as has been alluded to earlier, because there will be more people involved, there will be more pressure on services: recreation services, fire services, library, health, the infrastructure -- the roads, the sewers, the water. Where does the money come from to pay for that? The municipalities, through this budget, are already being cut by hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet they're being asked to pick up funding for extra services for more people. We're being told by the member from Niagara Falls that the assessment will go up on these properties.

We don't know that for sure. In fact, the municipalities will have to ante up more money to pay for more services, when they're opposed to this situation.

One of the main problems has to do with the right of entry. Today, in terms of inspecting properties that are considered to be illegal, there's a grave problem in terms of the right of entry. Residents in a municipality, and I think the member from Mississauga West alluded to that, will complain to their local councillors because they view that in their neighbourhood there's an abuse of the zoning, that there are too many people or too many units in a certain house, that there's poor maintenance of the property, that there's junk all over the place, cars, noise, any number of complaints that will arise today.

The local municipalities have no right of entry into a property to investigate to see if there's a problem.

Now, as the problem works its way through the system and if ultimately it gets to court, the court will require evidence that there is a violation today. The municipalities cannot get that evidence because they cannot get inside. The court requires a witness; the municipalities cannot get a witness. That hasn't changed with Bill 90; the municipalities are in the same boat. But actually they're in a worse situation because Bill 90 will encourage more speculation, will encourage absentee landlords, landlords to purchase a property, to put tenants in the building, but without giving it the proper maintenance.

The municipalities will not have the authority to get in, and they will have more and more complaints after Bill 90 is put forward.

People complain about parking problems. I guess some of the honourable members from the other side who are supporting Bill 90 perhaps represent communities with broad frontages, where there's lots of room for parking. I can tell you, in many of the urban centres there is simply no room for parking and today there is a parking shortage. After Bill 90 goes through, with more people in a smaller area, the parking problems will be unimaginable. Municipalities are raising these points. Municipalities are bringing these points forward, and yet they're not being listened to.

We're being told by the member from Niagara Falls that this will create a vibrant downtown, if we allow basement apartments. Basement apartments will now be the new secret to a vibrant downtown. Well, I can tell you, from the complaints that I've had over the years at the municipal level, people would think that this will do anything but create a vibrancy. This will create all sorts of problems for the municipalities; this will bring down the level of housing.

What the municipalities are saying is, let them speak to the province, let them have input into this, and if there's a working relationship between the province of Ontario and the municipalities, then we can solve the housing problem. But don't legislate something like this down on top of them that they oppose.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): As has been mentioned earlier, the previous government promoted a policy of intensification that would encourage apartments in houses. I say "encourage" because there was no force given to ensure that apartments in houses could be implemented. There are over 100,000 illegal apartments in houses in Ontario already, with half of them outside of Toronto in other types of communities such as London, Brampton and Thunder Bay.

I think Bill 90 and apartments in houses will hold benefits for many different groups. For seniors, the rental income from an apartment in a house can mean the difference between staying in their homes or being forced to move either into a long-term care facility or some other type of facility. The rental income from an apartment in a house could also be a deciding factor for a young couple in terms of whether they'll be able to afford to purchase a new home.

I think that taxpayers in general will stand to benefit from Bill 90. It will save taxpayers money by allowing for better, more efficient use of municipal services. When apartments can be created legally, tenants can help offset decreasing populations in these neighbourhoods and this make services like public transit and policing more cost-effective.

The point I really want to emphasize is that Bill 90 is neither an unconditional amnesty for existing illegal apartments in houses nor an infringement on property rights. On the contrary, it strengthens the property rights of people who want to make better use of their homes and the rights of people to live where they choose, as long as municipal standards are met.

It doesn't mean all apartments in houses that exist now or that are out there now are going to be legal afterwards. They may not be because they may not be meeting those municipal standards. As part of Bill 90, we are giving more authority to bylaw officers to enforce and to enter into to do inspections regarding enforcement of municipal bylaws. So I think the checks and balances have been presented in Bill 90 very effectively.

I also know that many people, and particularly I know in some communities, are concerned about students in university-college towns, but I do know that this will provide a very strong source of affordable and safe housing to these people, to students who have limited incomes as well. So I would certainly hope that people will continue to support the initiative of Bill 90.

The government has consulted and received input. I know my own county planning department in Oxford provided input about concerns regarding rural areas. The ministry has responded to concerns about having it on private septic systems and, of course, they have been excluded from the bill. So I would encourage people to vote against this resolution and support Bill 90.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am rising to speak in favour of the resolution, an initiative by Mr Callahan, because I believe that it represents the best interests of the majority of people in the province of Ontario. There isn't anybody in this House who doesn't want to see an adequate supply of housing provided for everyone.

Most communities have tried hard, particularly in recent years, where there has been a crunch in housing, to provide that kind of housing, particularly in new subdivisions where they've provided the kind of mix, that people know when they move into a neighbourhood that it is going to be multifamily, that there may be some commercial, there may be some industrial. In other words, when they move in, they're fully aware of the circumstances facing that neighbourhood.

It has been pointed out, I think appropriately, that the single largest expenditure that a person is likely to make in a lifetime is the purchase of a home, if a person has chosen to do so. And people often do it based on a lot of information that they gather together to determine where they would like to live and under what circumstances.

There are some people who like to spend a lot of money on a car and they may get a car that's worth $50,000 or $60,000 and it has all the toys on it. Somebody else may like entertainment and spend a lot of money on entertainment because that enhances their quality of life. Others have a cottage or something else that they wish to make their expenditure on.

They're all important and perhaps they don't feel that the expenditure on the home is of great significance. But I do believe that people, when they move into a neighbourhood -- and I sat on a municipal council for seven and a half years and I know the great pressure that's there -- make that choice. The house sometimes costs more money as a result of the fact that they have chosen to live in what is classified as single-family neighbourhoods where there is an exclusion of multiple-family dwellings, where there's an exclusion of commercial or industrial. They pay a premium for that.

I think they feel betrayed when imposed upon them is a significant change to that neighbourhood, and they feel particularly put upon when that is imposed from outside, that is, from the provincial level.

There are certain items that are under the jurisdiction of local government, and justifiably so. One of them is the detailed planning of neighbourhoods. The governments of Ontario, the previous government and this government, have both indicated clearly to municipalities that they wish to see approximately 25% of the new housing that's brought on stream to be made what we call affordable housing.

We've been trying to make it available for people who, in the past, haven't had that opportunity. I think there's a pretty good support for that, even among the municipalities which were initially reticent. But what there is not support for is an imposition by the provincial government of these kinds of rules on existing neighbourhoods.

We live in a society which is dominated by the individual automobile. Just to see the traffic that exists on the street when this is allowed, the number of cars that are parked on the street, the additional services that are required in terms of sewer and water, recreation and the multiplicity of services that local municipalities provide, the local municipality feels set upon by the government legislation, even though there has been consultation and a white paper put out. The local individuals feel, I think, that they are being betrayed by some level of government, by somebody out there who has changed the rules after they have made their purchases.

I think it boils down to -- and this is what the member is trying to get at -- two issues: the individual and the rights of that individual to live in a neighbourhood that the individual has chosen and, second, the issue of the local municipality and its jurisdiction. Provincial governments over the years -- and certainly this government has been doing so -- have unloaded some of the responsibilities to local municipalities. They complained to the Conservatives when they were in power, they complained to the Liberals when we were in power and they complain to the NDP today.

They're almost at the end of their rope in terms of provincial governments putting new responsibilities on local municipalities and of course interfering within the sole jurisdiction of those municipalities.

There are times when the province has to set out broad guidelines. I think most people would accept that. I certainly accept it. I've seen it in terms of agricultural land and the province making its declarations, and there are a number of other declarations of provincial interest that are applied either to specific neighbourhoods or to policies as a whole. I support the province trying to reach those particular goals.

Where I think the problem exists is when the province tries to get into the detailed responsibilities of the local municipality. I would hope there would be some considerable support for the member for Brampton. He hasn't called for the withdrawal of the bill, as many people, I think, probably would. I think he's realistic enough to see that the government is going to proceed with its bill. He has offered, I think, a reasonable and moderate alternative for the government to consider. I hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and members on all sides of the House will see fit to support this particular initiative. I commend the member for Brampton, Mr Callahan, for doing so.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to thank the member for bringing up these important issues, but also to remind him of the very fact that the initiatives that he's talking about, brought forward by the previous Liberal government, of which he was a part, did experience some difficulties.

As the member from Brampton no doubt knows, the Liberal government supported apartments in houses. In fact they asked municipalities to plan for those apartments. They included zoning to allow apartments in houses as a requirement under their land use planning for housing policy statement.

Specifically, in 1989 there was a requirement that municipalities amend their official plans to designate areas where apartments in houses would be permitted. Several municipalities responded positively, but unfortunately the overall response was very disappointing.

Out of 100 priority area municipalities, 60 have adopted the official plan policies. The Ministry of Housing looked at 32 of those plans to see how well they complied and only 17 -- 17 out of 100 -- contained provisions that established areas of specific criteria for the creation of apartments in houses, and most of those 17 plans don't fully comply with the Liberals' housing policy statement.

My friend would have us go back to a Liberal status that didn't work. It wasn't effective. Standards like those mean fewer potential apartments in houses and, in some cases, also mean that apartments are actually excluded in neighbourhoods where they have been theoretically permitted.

I have to ask, why is the housing policy statement of the previous government being resurrected when it didn't do what it was set out to do? What did it accomplish for the 100,000 households with little or no rights? Obviously not very much. That's one of the reasons this government has moved ahead with Bill 90. We don't want to say: "We think apartments in houses are a good idea. Why don't you people go and do something about it?"

That time has come and it has gone and now we have to produce some results about affordable housing, results in regard to property owners having rights about their own property, results about safety and security. We have to act to ensure that this housing, which already exists, meets reasonable standards of health and safety and that the municipalities have the power to enforce those standards.

Under this legislation, municipalities will retain a high degree of control over the physical character of their neighbourhoods, including aspects such as front-yard setbacks, building heights, densities, driveway widths.

My friend from Mississauga West talks about some homes that are overcrowded with substandard accommodation. That's because of the present legislation, not what we're proposing. We're trying to improve that situation. We're trying to rectify the very things that my friend from Mississauga West spoke of.

My friend from Don Mills represents a community which has one of the highest levels of density in all of Ontario. In fact, as he well knows, that area he represents has a high proportion, a high density of number of units per acre, units that are inhabited by very small numbers of families, very small family sizes. Legislation will strengthen municipal enforcement, and far from imposing additional burdens on municipal services, apartments in houses should mean more full use of existing services, therefore services that are more cost-effective.

Studies have shown that both units in a converted house, as in Don Mills, tend to be occupied by smaller-than-average households, so it's unlikely that the total household in a converted house will be substantially bigger than the household in an unconverted house.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brampton South, you have two minutes.

Mr Callahan: It's become more and more obvious to me that the members of the government who have spoken on this motion don't understand it. I must say that's frightening, because they in fact are the people who bring forward legislation and they don't know what it's about.

What I'm talking about is the taking of value, in other words, the retroactive legalization of existing basement apartments. I'm not talking about intensification.

I support fully the intensification process the Liberal government brought in. But I do not believe that you go into somebody's house -- this is the equivalent analogy -- and you say: "The state now owns your house. We're taking it. We're not giving you any compensation whatsoever for it." In fact, that's what you're doing.

I have no objection if the municipality wants to establish an area for residential apartments. I think that's great. I think what that does is create further housing for people who need it. What I'm saying to you is, don't try through legislation to steal from the people of Ontario who have invested their good, hard-earned money in buying a house after the fact, and that's what you people keep doing.

The people of Ontario have to be very frightened by the fact that anything they've decided today and applied their mind to it or purchased or whatever, the government, the NDP government, can take it away like that. "We'll just legislate it retroactively."

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): That's not true.

Mr Callahan: Well, that's precisely what you're doing. You are taking away from these people value and you're giving them nothing in return. You have allowed municipalities to collect taxes on the basis of a single-family residence for ages, or since the building was built, and yet what you're doing now, in one fell swoop by Bill 90, is you're in fact taking away that value from these people and you're not giving them one cent for it. It's contrary to all the principles of equity and justice.

I urge you to support this motion.

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

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 13 standing in the name of Mr Wessenger. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Wessenger has moved second reading of Bill 21,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Mr Speaker, I would request that it be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government? Agreed.

A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill will stand referred to the standing committee on general government.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 14 standing in the name of Mr Callahan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Callahan moves resolution number 14. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seats.

Mr Callahan has moved private member's notice of motion number 13. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Curling, Eddy, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Marland, Miclash, Poirier, Stockwell, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 13; the nays are 29. I declare the motion lost.

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

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Tragedy has struck St Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula once again, this time in the form of a most unfortunate workplace accident on the Garden City Skyway.

On a daily basis, thousands of men and women in our province face potential danger on the job, particularly those in precarious construction and maintenance occupations. To the families and friends of Douglas Shand, Conrad Stenzel, David McKinley and Gordon Thomas, the hearts of all members of this assembly go out.

The investigation of this tragic accident will take place, as it must. If only its results could bring back to life those who have perished, we would all be grateful; but unfortunately they cannot.

The investigation by the Ministry of Labour will serve to explain the reason for the accident and the loss of lives. It will, hopefully, provide clues as to how such a tragedy can be avoided for those who continue to toil in the workplaces across Ontario.

The effort to increase safety in the workplace must continue and must expand to prevent a repetition of the loss of precious life.

To those who participated in the rescue of the others, whose lives, as well, were in jeopardy, we are all thankful. Their assistance has saved the lives of others whose families and other loved ones are most grateful.

ALMA PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): It gives me great pleasure to inform members of this House that Alma Public School in Wellington County has been recognized as an emerald school by the Society, Environment and Energy Development Studies Foundation for the school's outstanding work on environmental projects.

On March 3, Alma Public School became the first school in Ontario and the third in Canada to achieve jade status in the Seeds program by completing 250 environmental projects. By May, the students had com-pleted 500 projects, to rank as the first school in Ontario and the third in Canada to achieve emerald status.

I thank principal John Wilson and former principal Ian Sanders for deciding to have Alma Public School participate in the program. Gord Black, the teacher adviser of the school's environmental club, was a driving force and a source of inspiration to his students. I extend my hearty congratulations and thanks for his fine work.

Of course, the students and staff deserve recognition for all their enthusiasm and hard work in their efforts to improve the environment and promote environmental awareness. Students from kindergarten through grade 6 have worked diligently since first becoming involved in the program.

Among many worthwhile projects, the school has built 150 bird houses to establish a bluebird trail, planted a wildlife garden, started a blue box recycling and composting program, established a shelter belt/wildlife habitat on the school grounds and promoted environmental awareness through speeches and presentations on endangered species and environmental issues. Students also planted 3,000 trees off the school grounds as a grades 4, 5 and 6 tree-planting project.

Bravo, Alma Public School. Your work on behalf of the environment is an inspiration to all of us.

BEAMSVILLE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House of a very exciting and delicious event that will take place in my riding next Saturday, June 19: the Beamsville Strawberry Festival.

Good weather or bad, the streets of Beamsville will come alive as people of Niagara celebrate another fine crop of bright red, sweet and juicy strawberries. Fresh-picked strawberries, strawberry shortcakes and sundaes will be the order of the day, as well as a variety of other foods, including hamburgers and hot dogs.

This year's entertainment will include a bike rodeo, a pet contest, a dog obedience demonstration and performances by various local musical groups, including the renowned Lincoln concert band.

Hay and pony rides for children, clowns and a ventriloquist will also entertain during the 17th annual festival. For aspiring Blue Jays and Expos, there will be a little league baseball tournament.

I'm sure this year's festival will bring together the entire community of Lincoln and it will attract visitors from other parts of the Niagara Peninsula, Metro Toronto and the United States.

I would like to congratulate the organizers of the Beamsville Strawberry Festival for coming up with a unique way of promoting another top-quality agricultural product.

Mr Speaker, if you're listening there, I urge members of the House to legislate a day of sunshine for next weekend's Beamsville Strawberry Festival.

POINTS SOULEVÉS PAR LA POPULATION FRANCOPHONE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Dans son dernier budget, le gouvernement NPD a coupé les fonds à l'Office des affaires francophones de 807 000 $, c'est-à-dire de 20 %. Comme vous le savez, nous sommes aussi en faveur de compressions, mais une aussi forte coupure est, à mon avis, une autre preuve de l'indifférence du gouvernement face à tout ce qui concerne les francophones de l'Ontario.

J'ai aussi appris que les deux ministres s'étaient trouvé une bonne raison de ne pas assister au congrès de l'ACFO en fin de semaine dernière.

Je voudrais dire au gouvernement que les francophones de l'Ontario ne sont pas des dupes. Ils savent que le gouvernement s'est encore trouvé une raison de retarder tout progrès dans le dossier des collèges. Il ne faut pas s'étonner que les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes aient totalement perdu confiance en ce gouvernement.

Le lendemain des compressions budgétaires, je participais au petit déjeuner postbudgétaire libéral. Si je me fie aux propos dans cette réunion et ailleurs, la population franco-ontarienne est furieuse contre ce gouvernement. On a beaucoup parlé de l'incompétence du gouvernement, des promesses non tenues, notamment dans le domaine de l'éducation, et de la situation difficile des aînés francophones.

Lisez les comptes rendus du congrès de l'ACFO de la fin de semaine dernière, c'est la même chose. Il y a encore un fort sentiment de colère et de crainte qui se dégage. Beaucoup de francophones se demandent jusqu'où le gouvernement est capable de se rendre, et ils ont très peur.

RACE RELATIONS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It is time for all of us in this House to end the silence and let the racist Heritage Front know that we have heard their views and that we reject them completely. It is time to stop the spreading of hate messages.

In Kitchener-Waterloo, the white supremacists are creating a climate of fear and intimidation as they boldly wander the downtown streets, harass local merchants, hurl racial slurs, threaten violence and death, and frighten people just by being there. They are aiming their message of hatred, terror and violence at our young people, hoping to attract those who are disaffected, confused and rebellious. In doing so, they have boldly sent recruiting literature to the schools in the region of Waterloo, as well as setting up a phone line.

The people in my community are angry and concerned and they are going to get actively involved in eliminating the growing intolerance. Although freedom of speech is a right to be defended fiercely, it cannot be extended to cover the attempts by these white supremacists to spread their message. Their message of hatred, terror and violence has a long and tragic history, and it must be opposed with all the rigour of the law that our society can muster.

I encourage this government, I encourage each member of this House, to show leadership and act now to stop the spread of violence, hatred and intolerance.

ANCASTER BICENTENNIAL

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): The year 1993 marks the bicentennial of the town of Ancaster.

Over 200 years ago, Messrs James Wilson and Richard Beasley built a mill on the Ancaster Creek and a thriving community began to grow. Known as Wilson's Mills, it included a blacksmith, a cooper, a tavern for refreshment and a boardinghouse for transient workers. This formed the nucleus of the new village.

It was in 1793 that John Graves Simcoe surveyed and confirmed that district number 8 was to become the township of Ancaster. By 1800, it was the third most important settlement in Upper Canada. Owing to abundant water power, industry came and several factories made a variety of commodities: carriages, farm implements and lumber mills. The healthy air brought many early doctors and their patients to recover from the unhealthy area below the mountain. Some of these new arrivals brought education, wealth and an infusion of new ideas to the area.

During the War of 1812, Ancaster was an important military town because the Governor's Road was a direct link with the new settlements to the west.

By the 1860s, agriculture was still of prime importance and farms flourished. Scottish stonemasons and Irish carpenters brought their skills to Ancaster, and the old town hall, built in 1872, is a testament to their artistic workmanship.

Today, Ancaster stands majestically on top of the escarpment, overlooking the city of Hamilton, boasting a perfect blend of elegant estates of yesteryear and beautifully designed homes of the 1990s.

Happy 200th birthday, Ancaster.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The NDP government is once again abandoning the women of this province.

This week, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations attempted to have Wendy Priesnitz appointed vice-chair of the Ontario Film Review Board.

Wendy Priesnitz recently was the centre of controversy when she tried to weaken OFRB guidelines protecting women against violence, degradation and humiliation. It is reprehensible that the minister would consider promoting Ms Priesnitz to vice-chair of the board when this controversy has still not been resolved. Several groups, including the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, have strongly opposed Ms Priesnitz's appointment.

The ministry has misled us by stating that a vacancy exists on the OFRB. In fact, the board currently has five vice-chairs and has never operated with more than that number.

We are concerned that Ms Priesnitz lacks the experience to take a leadership role on the board. In fact, the majority of her one-year term on the board was spent on personal business in Romania, leaving her with only a few scant months of experience.

The minister consistently claims in this House that she must remain independent of the OFRB, yet the minister's office personally spent several hours coaching Ms Priesnitz prior to her scheduled appearance before the standing committee on government agencies. It's obvious that the minister is aware of the difficulties in getting Ms Priesnitz's appointment ratified and is doing her best to smooth the way.

Ms Priesnitz failed to appear before the committee this morning when her appointment was to have been reviewed. Let's hope the minister has second thoughts about this ill-advised appointment.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister recently announced that his government will be shifting the total cost of reforestation on to the private sector. The forest industry will be assuming the cost of a program that cost $140 million in 1991.

In this year's budget, this sector was hit with a $25-million tax hit through the increased stumpage fees and a new corporate minimum tax. Ontario's forest industry is taking so many tax bites from this government that it is becoming impossible to do business in this province.

Marie Rauter, president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, has provided me with the following quotation:

"We are supportive of negotiating a new contract for reforestation, but we need to know what is negotiable. We need the assurance that we will have harvest rights to the resources we grow."

As the Minister of Natural Resources negotiates this reforestation policy, I urge him to take heed of the industry's message. I ask the minister to make reforestation an investment for industry and not just another tax grab.

STANISLAVA MARKOVICH

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Speaker, June, as you know, is Seniors' Month, and we are for ever grateful and indeed fortunate to be among people who love and care for their neighbours and their friends.

Mr Speaker, you greeted, as I did, the recipients of the 1993 Senior Achievement Award to Queen's Park just last week and no doubt were equally impressed with the calibre of seniors we have in the province of Ontario.

There were well over 400 nominations submitted to government, highlighting the involvement of all nominees, and 19 were chosen, but they are all to be commended for their work and their generosity.

Windsor has many such individuals, but Stanislava Markovich of Pellissier Street is remarkable. After spending an hour speaking with her, I can truly appreciate this award bestowed upon her.

Let me give some highlights on the caring of Mrs Markovich. Twenty-five years ago, the dream of the Serbian Heritage Women's Society was to create the first Serbian Heritage Museum in North America. In 1987, the dream was realized, and ever since, Stanislava Markovich, a founding member of that group, has devoted her entire retirement to the