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

November 30, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L033 - Thu 30 Nov 1995 / Jeu 30 Nov 1995

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RENT REGULATION

REALTY TAX FREEZE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS ET VISANT À GELER LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

RENT REGULATION

REALTY TAX FREEZE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS ET VISANT À GELER LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

RENT REGULATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

LYLE HALLMAN

HOSPITAL FINANCING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

AMETHYST AWARDS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

WORLD AIDS DAY

VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

REPLIES TO ECONOMIC STATEMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RENT REGULATION

Mr Bisson moved private member's notice of motion number 5:

That in the opinion of this House, the Government of Ontario should maintain a fair and equitable rent control program, similar to the present rent control system introduced by the previous New Democratic Party government which protected tenants from abusive landlords, rather than creating a market-based system that allows abusive landlords to gouge tenants, and leave tenants vulnerable to unfair rent increases.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member has up to 10 minutes and each party will have 15 minutes after that.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In this, the first 10 minutes, I'll try to go through this as quickly as I can. I think the issue is clear enough for most members in the province of Ontario.

Since the mid-1970s, first under the Conservative government of Mr Bill Davis and onwards to the Peterson government and then on to the Rae government, the province of Ontario as a matter of public policy has always recognized that in order to protect tenants from large rent increases that would have the effect of throwing a lot of people out of their apartments, the province needs to have a law in place in order to protect tenants from abusive situations with their landlords when it comes to rent increases.

Over a period of 20 years, governments sought, first, to introduce legislation under the Tory government and then strengthened it two successive times after, first under the David Peterson government and the accord with the NDP in 1985, where a number of modifications were made to the law, supported by this House, and then again in 1991-93, when final changes were made to the rent control legislation that provides for a fair and equitable system in the way we treat landlords and tenants in Ontario.

The reason I brought this motion forward is quite simply this: In the last provincial election, the Conservative Party, at the time the third party, and a number of its candidates were trying on a local level to reassure tenants that they would indeed protect tenants, that they would not take away our present system of rent control, that if they made any changes, they would ensure that those changes would reflect our current rent control system; that is to say, a system by which the government, through the Ministry of Housing, has a rent control registry and controls the amounts that rents could be increased.

As recently as this fall, there were some public musings on the part of the Minister of Housing, Mr Leach, that the government tends to want to go away from that particular policy. Case in point: An

article appeared in the Toronto Star on November 24 entitled "Tenants Must Fight Increases: Leach." I just want to read a couple of things from this particular one.

"Ontario tenants who are upset with rent increases will probably have to appeal their case to the government `as a last resort' once rent control is scrapped...."

That's a little different from what was being said during the election. In fact, there was no mention of scrapping rent control during the election, from Mr Leach especially, coming from a riding with a very high percentage of people living in apartment buildings. I dare say that if Minister Leach, the then Tory candidate, had tried to float that idea in his riding, I don't think the electorate would have sent him here to Queen's Park. Tenants in that riding especially, one of the highest-tenant ridings in the province, would not have brought him to this House.

It goes on to say, "Marketplace rent control will instead take `the sledgehammer' out of the hands of tenants and provide a level playing field for landlords and tenants, Leach said."

First of all, there is no tough sledgehammer. The government is trying to make us believe that the current rent control system isn't working, and that is just not the case.

It goes on to say: "Though the Tory government has not said when rent controls will end, Leach said they'll be gone once he implements a tenant protection program to shield them from unfair rent increases. But he didn't specify how it will be done."

Our fear is that what we're going to go to is the system that existed in this province prior to the 1970s, with basically no protection for tenants, where the landlord would charge tenants the rents the marketplace could afford.

In many cases -- I wouldn't say all, because I don't want to alarm every tenant in the province -- if the landlord is able to increase the rent because somebody is willing to pay it, the person who now holds that apartment would be put at risk over time because they would not be able to pay the increases and would have to vacate that apartment in favour of somebody who is able to pay higher rent. I think most members in this House would not want to see that happen, including the Conservative government.

Another

article appeared in the Globe and Mail on November 24, and this is the scary part, really what triggered it, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario had a meeting which Mr Leach attended, and this is really what got the alarm bells going for me and a number of people present in the gallery in terms of what the minister is up to:

"The loudest applause at the annual meeting of the Fair Rental Policy Organization came when Mr Leach said he is going to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act -- `one of the most unbalanced pieces of legislation I've ever seen' -- to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants."

That's pretty strong wording, if you ask me.

It goes on to say, "`My government is here to help you,' Mr Leach began, and went on to promise that his ministry will stop interfering in their business and `let the private sector do what it does best -- balance supply and demand.'" That sounds like marketplace, fairly clearly. "He said his government will ditch rent control because `it's bad for landlords -- and it's bad for tenants.'"

I'm here to tell you, it is not bad for landlords and it is certainly not bad for tenants. If you talk to most tenants in this province, they will agree that the present system of rent control is a system that does have balance and protects the rights of both the landlords and the tenants. Our party is prepared to take a look at the Landlord and Tenant Act to address some of the concerns of the landlords, but we're not prepared to start putting tenants in this province at risk by going to the kinds of draconian measures the minister is putting forward.

There is a number of other articles: "Rental Crisis Feared" was one that appeared in the Toronto Sun, that bastion of democracy in the city of Toronto. Even they thought, "Thousands of Torontonians will lose their homes if Ontario's Tory government removes rent controls...." Jeez, if the Toronto Sun says it's so, it must be. I have no other argument.

I'm coming down to about four minutes left, and I just want to point out a couple of things. During the last election, as I said, a number of Conservative members ran on platforms to support rent control, and I'm glad they did so, because I think all members in this House, especially those members but no matter what party they may come from, are here to advocate on behalf of their constituency. If you come from a constituency with a high tenant population, you certainly would be doing your job in trying to protect tenants. I want to call on a few of these people.

Mr Shea, who I see is in the House today, put out a little pamphlet during the last election. It's fairly clear. It says, "Protecting You: The Mike Harris new tenant protection policy will maintain rent controls for all tenants in rental units." It talks about rent control; it doesn't talk about going to a market-based system.

Bill Saunderson, the Minister for Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, has even a stronger one. I would not be confused at all if I had a candidate in my riding present this leaflet. This is pretty clear support for tenant protection through the Landlord and Tenant Act.

It says: "Despite what you may be hearing from my opponents," I suppose the New Democrats and Liberals, "Mike Harris will strengthen rent controls, not cancel them." That's endorsed by his riding association.

I see there is strong support within the Tory caucus, including within cabinet. I welcome that support and certainly hope that the Conservative members here today will endorse this motion to make sure we keep our rent control system in place.

I'd like to make another point. Another candidate in the last election, namely, Mike Harris, the now Premier, in a debate on CITY-TV on May 28 was very clear to the people of Ontario. I want to read what he said on that CITY-TV program, which was later quoted in the Star. Harris said, "Tenants would still be protected under a Tory government and rent controls would be set as they now are under rent control guidelines."

He talks about rent control; he does not talk about a market-based system. In fact, in response to my questions yesterday in the House and questions from the Liberal critic for Housing, the Premier did give us some assurances that he didn't want to leave tenants out in the cold. I certainly got the impression that he was at least willing to hear the case. I would imagine that in the end he will err on the side of caution and on the side of good judgement and common sense and make sure we keep in place rent control in the province of Ontario.

I just want to say another thing. After the election, Mr Saunderson was called to a public meeting by some 400 tenants in his riding in order to defend what they had been hearing through the rumour mill in regard to the government scrapping rent control. I'll just read a couple of articles very quickly:

"A Conservative Tory MPP was forced to defend his position on tenants' issues after his home riding constituents feared he'd changed his stand on the main platform that got him elected." This is about Mr Saunderson. He goes on to say, "I can tell you very sincerely there has been no discussion on rent control in the cabinet."

It must be so, because I know the member is honest and straightforward and would not want to mislead the House or the people in his riding.

"Saunderson went on to say he had not spoken with the Premier on rent control and accused the media of alarming the community by printing Harris's comments." I find it kind of ironic that the Tories would be worried about the media. Anyway, that's another thing.

Even the staunchest defender of capitalism, Mr David Turnbull, in a press release dated January 28, 1993, showed some of the tactics that can be used by landlords if we don't have proper control. He talks about a situation in his riding where a landlord was trying to evict a number of tenants, and this is what the person reverted to:

"On January 8, 1993, pressure tactics escalated when the owners hired two heavyweight champs to force tenants to leave. One of the boxers had reportedly admitted that the owner agreed to pay him `a thousand bucks' for each occupant he persuaded to leave the apartment."

I think that speaks droves about why we need to have --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a couple of comments with respect to this resolution this morning. It really gets to the crux of the whole housing policy for the last decade.

The housing policy for the last decade has been, without question, an absolute mess. As the member for Cochrane South has mentioned, there have been abuses by landlords. There have been some terrible scenes by landlords. All we had to do was to sit through some of the scenes that occurred during the two rent control bills that went through this place and the stories of tenants that came forward.

There are also abuses of tenants. In my view, the Landlord and Tenant Act goes too much in favour of the tenants, specifically with respect to evictions. There are tenants who abuse the process, so there are abuses on both sides.

The whole issue of rent control, which is the crux of the member's resolution, I believe, together with the non-profit housing philosophy, has created an absolute slowdown, in fact a stop, with respect to the construction of housing development in this province. There has been none, very little. With the exception of the construction of non-profit housing buildings, government-constructed buildings in this province, there has --

Interjection: Yes, there has.

Mr Tilson: Well, you name one. I'd like anyone in this place to name substantial private development of apartment buildings in this province in the last decade. And why hasn't there been? Because it's impossible for landlords to make a dollar in this province. So naturally, the government has felt that it should get into the housing market and it did get into the housing market. The NDP government got into it very heavily and we learned a lot about non-profit housing and rent controls through some of the hearings with respect to non-profit housing.

The auditor has spent considerable time dealing with this issue, criticizing the government's philosophy and policy of non-profit housing. This was dealt with in the public accounts committee. Some of the members of this House -- I sat on that committee through a number of hearings and we spent a great deal of time on that philosophy.

So both of these philosophies blend together: the whole issue of non-profit housing and the whole issue of rent control, and it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked. We're still --

Mr Bisson: It hasn't?

Mr Tilson: It has not worked. We're still hearing problems from tenants who are complaining about landlords. Why? Because the system is not working. I can tell you that I have tenants speak to me who complain about abuses by landlords. The housing stock in this province -- there has been none. They're starting to fall apart, and why are they starting to fall apart? Because there's no way of fixing them; there's no way of fixing them whatsoever.

I will not be supporting the resolution and I would encourage members of this House not to support the resolution. This government has a concern for the tenant and there have been questions put by the opposition -- I believe the member has put questions of Minister Leach -- with respect to rent control. Minister Leach has said that this government will be putting forward a tenants' protection act. He has said that; he has said that over and over in this House and outside this House.

At that time, he will be repealing the rent control laws, which have proven draconian, haven't worked and are causing great problems with this province. That's what he said. But what you forget to talk about in your resolution is that the government will be protecting the tenant. We will not withdraw rent control legislation until we have a tenants' protection act in place.

The current legislation is complex. Have you ever tried to look at that stuff and the myriad of regulations? Well, if you have looked at it, I don't know about you, but I find it unbelievably confusing; I find it that. I'm just an average guy and I'm sure that tenants and landlords around this province find it unbelievably confusing as well.

I think the real problem with the current legislation is that it has eliminated the private sector from rental production and ushered in the vacancy rate scares of the 1980s. That's what it's done, and I can tell you --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): That hurts tenants.

Mr Tilson: Exactly. Someone has said it hurts tenants, and it does hurt tenants. It hurts tenants; it hurts landlords; it hurts the economy of this province. I know that the NDP government in particular tried to solve the problem, but what it did was make things worse. Government doesn't have the ability to take over the whole housing market, and that was your plan. That was the grand plan. When Mr Rae first became Premier he was interviewed by, I can't remember his name, a socialist housing advocate and he was quoted in this House many times. Maybe he's here today; I don't know.

His intention was to take over the housing market, and you can't do it. That's why we're broke in this province. That's why we're spending money we don't have.

When you invested in non-profit housing it generally cost double what it cost for private enterprise to put forward. They had consultants; they had lawyers; they had architects coming out of their ears. You don't need all those people to develop housing, and that's what the government got into.

We intend to eliminate all that. We have eliminated the issue of non-profit housing. There's no more non-profit housing that's going to be built by this government. That's come to an end, and we are going to end rent control, but we're going to introduce a bill which will be called the tenants' protection act or something similar to that. The minister has indicated that. There will a comprehensive policy set forth in this legislation which will be in favour of a simple market-based policy which will treat landlords, tenants and taxpayers fairly.

That's what the previous Liberal and New Democratic governments have failed to do with their rent control legislation. That's what they failed to do. We will have a system which will preserve the essential tenant protection in the Landlord and Tenant Act. You don't have that now. You don't have that protection. It will be a far less restrictive regulatory system that will encourage the supply of new, private rental housing. That's what we will be doing in this province in answer to your resolution. I recommend that everyone in this House oppose your resolution.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Before I get into my colleague the member for Cochrane South's resolution, I just have to make some quick comments about my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel.

I don't know if it's the mercury in his fillings that makes him have this absent-minded attitude about things. I think he forgot that it was the Tories that brought in rent control in this very haphazard way; that at one time they had to really scrap it, and the fact is that he's now saying it hasn't worked in the last 10 years. I think he also forgot that it was the Liberal Party which brought a comprehensive housing policy in on December 4, 1986, when we had landlords and tenants working together to bring about what we called Bill 51, although it did not solve everything.

But let me address my colleague the member for Cochrane South who has presented this resolution, which first I think I should read in order to emphasize it the proper way.

It says, "That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should maintain a fair and equitable rent control program," -- now, I have no problem with that; I have no problem and I'm sure my colleagues in the Conservative Party have no problem with that, but here is where it went all downhill -- "similar to the present rent control system introduced by the previous New Democratic Party government which protected tenants from abusive landlords, rather than creating a market-based system that allows abusive landlords to gouge tenants, and leave tenants vulnerable to unfair rent increases."

Let me tell you what's wrong with that. This is a typical way of pitting one against the other, pitting tenants against landlords. As you can see, in December of 1986 what I had done as the then Minister of Housing, I brought landlords and tenants together and said: "Governments are too intrusive in all these situations. You tell us what we should be doing." All landlords and all tenants sitting on that board confirmed that and brought that bill forward.

The government of the day in 1990, the New Democratic Party government, interfered with that process, went in and tampered with that process and, the fact is, pitted landlords against tenants.

Now we arrive in 1995, and this government has arrived and started playing around with it and saying it's going to scrap rent control. But yesterday, as a matter of fact, in putting a question to the Premier, I was much encouraged by the fact that he talked about protecting tenants and not dismantling the whole thing, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater like he did with employment equity, like he did with labour reform. That's what he did with the Advocacy Act: "Let's throw everything out." But then he realized that the fact is that this matter must be dealt with, with landlords and tenants, in order to bring a reasonable matter forward and bring something that we can work with.

Let me tell you the villain in all of this. The real villain is the government. One of the greatest causes of high rents is the taxes that are paid -- or you want to call it hidden taxes -- the property tax that is paid by people who are in residential units. They pay four to five times more than people in normal residences. That's where the cost is. If the government can just grab the bull by the horns and decide to address that issue of property tax, quite possibly the price will go down.

But this is not to say that this is the fault of landlords and tenants. I fully agree that landlords should be protected in the sense that with some tenants not paying their rents and destroying the property, they should be able to have some access in getting those tenants out. Also those tenants who have consistently been gouged, of course, by landlords, there should be some regulation, some protection that is there. Government has a role.

Let me just remind the member for Dufferin-Peel: Government never built one home. They just supplied the mortgages. Don't start saying all this about, "We're out of the construction business." They never did build anything, so don't start saying, "We're out of the construction business."

Government is there to protect those who are vulnerable in these kinds of conditions in the sense that there are people and regulations that must be put in place to protect them, protecting landlords and protecting tenants. Stop giving the people outside this kind of version that this is the case. It is not the case.

When you have bad administration, like all that the MTHA went through with and the bad administration on behalf of government, do not blame it on landlords and do not blame it on tenants. Governments must get their act together in order to bring affordable housing to all that. That is the situation itself.

When you brought in your rent control bill -- that's the Conservative Party, Mr Speaker, you may recall -- you were maybe at that time paying attention to them, but the fact is that they brought in rent control regulation. What happened? More flipping went on than anything else. It was disgraceful. It was utterly disgraceful.

I say to you, members, I will not be voting for this. I will not vote for any regulation that pits one against the other. I think we should have a proper regulation in itself, a protection for landlords and tenants in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, you look very smart in your new suit.

Applause.

Ms Churley: That's enough; you're using up my time. Sit down.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Those kinds of remarks will get you everywhere.

Ms Churley: I'm here to speak in support of my colleague's resolution before us today. I want to say to the Progressive Conservative Party, although I really hate to call this party, this government, Progressive Conservatives -- if you look up in the dictionary and see what "progressive" means, I think we're way off base here, but that is indeed the name of this party.

I want to say to the member for Dufferin-Peel, and I'm not going to try in this speech right now to respond to all the myths that he came out with today to try to justify this government's scrapping rent control, a bill that was put in place to protect tenants, many of whom are sitting in the public gallery -- I can tell you I asked the tenants, of which there are many in Toronto, in my riding of Riverdale if they thought this government should scrap the rent control that our government brought in, and they said no.

I can assure you they're not all New Democrats; some of them are even Tories, and they gave a resounding no. They want to be protected.

What I'd say to the member for Dufferin-Peel is that he may have forgotten that under our bill any new rental units that were built were exempted for five years from the new rent control bill, so that cannot be used as an excuse for people being deterred from building new low-rental housing. That's nonsense. It's just perpetuating the kinds of myths around affordable social housing and rent controls.

I want to tell the members here today why I support this resolution, why I supported our government going ahead with, again, extensive consultation with all sides of the issue and trying to find a solution that would stop the gouging in many cases of tenants in buildings who are on fixed incomes -- seniors on fixed incomes, people of low incomes, single moms trying to support their kids in these buildings -- who were facing double-digit increases. This was not uncommon under the old laws, not uncommon at all. These people were facing double-digit raises in their rents. They couldn't afford it.

Furthermore, if they wanted to appeal those rents, the waiting list could be so long that that they would have to wait months and months to be heard. Then if they lost, that would be retroactive. So many people were thrown out of their homes.

It's very clear that that kind of system is not fair. Once again, we are talking about real people here. As we get up in different parties and argue the merits of this system over that system over this system and try to one-up each other as parties, "We can do a better job than you," I can assure you, Mr Speaker, in this House, when we're discussing these kinds of bills, let us bear in mind who we are talking about here. We are talking about some of the seniors who are here today who cannot afford to go back to the old system.

I agree with my colleague here. It sounds to me, despite what's been told to us today and despite what some ministers and other members of the caucus said in the election campaign, that in fact we really are going to be looking at going back to the pre-1970 market-driven system, and that we're very fearful about.

I heard the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, in the debate on Rogers Cable, talking about not only not scrapping this, but if it were scrapped, our bill, his government would improve on tenant protection. There are a lot of people who believe that, and I want this government to commit to going forward and making sure that tenants are protected no matter what we do.

I have no doubt that this government is going to scrap this bill. I hope, and I would ask today, that you would consult with the many tenants out there, not just the landlords. We're talking today about rent controls. I want you to hear directly from the tenants about some of the things that happened to them under the old laws. I want you to talk to them about the pain that it has caused in their lives and why we went out, in our government, and talked to these people, and why they said they needed a better rent control system to protect them.

I'm very worried about what this government is doing in general around housing. There are all kinds of myths out there about social housing and how evil it is and how it hurts the economy and hurts people. Yes, there were problems, there were problems in some very small percentage, but those were the ones that were talked about and seen in the media, a very small percentage of existing social housing -- very small.

The fact remains that government spends about $2 billion a year, which is far more than it ever spent on social housing, putting money, subsidies for people of low income, directly into the landlords' pockets. That's already happening. What this government is talking about and is going to do is get out of social housing altogether, get rid of rent control and bring in a complete subsidy system.

How much money are we going to be spending, are taxpayers going to be spending, on directly subsidizing landlords to subsidize the rents of people who can't afford full rent when there are no rent controls? It could be a phenomenal cost, and I ask the people of Ontario to look very carefully at what it is that this government is going to be introducing.

I want to say a couple of words before I complete my remarks today about the Liberals' position. I also saw Lyn McLeod, the leader of the Liberal Party, in the Rogers TV debate with my leader, then Premier Bob Rae, and with Mr Harris, say very specifically that if she were elected, she too would scrap rent control.

When she was asked what she would do, she wasn't sure, but she'd try to balance for landlords and tenants. So I don't see what the big difference today is. I know that some Liberal members, to be fair, would not support her position on that, but after all, she is the leader and that's what she said she would do.

I'm disappointed that the Liberals are not supporting this resolution today. They might not like some of the wording, but certainly the member for Scarborough North, who just spoke, said in general he was in support but he just didn't like some of the wording.

I would ask the Liberals to reconsider because this is a very important bill to the tenants who are here today and in our communities. Bear in mind that we're talking about these real people who need protection and show some solidarity today with my colleague the member for Cochrane South and with our party to show the tenants that we're on their side, we're there to protect them from this government. As they make up their minds as to where they're going with this bill, we will be there for the tenants and we hope to have the Liberals on side with us.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): When I was told that the NDP member for Cochrane South would be presenting a resolution on rent control to this House, I was absolutely delighted. For years, as a member on both Toronto city council and Metro council, I worked to address the growing concerns of the large tenant population in High Park-Swansea.

My constituents are worried about poor maintenance and rents increasing while buildings crumble and a dwindling supply of private rental stock that has reduced their accommodation options to virtually zero. It has become increasingly clear that the root cause of these problems is the flawed approach to rent controls which the NDP brought us in 1992.

When I heard that my friend from Cochrane South was going to address that bill, I was pleased. As a veteran of the previous government, I reasoned, surely he had to be very familiar with the issues that are of chief concern to tenants today. I was wrong -- wrong and bitterly disappointed. He is obviously out of touch with the real world in which tenants today are living.

I assumed he would offer constructive suggestions on how to deal with deterioration of rental housing. You know, almost two thirds of Ontario's rental stock is more than 25 years old. Much of it is falling apart. I also assumed he would have had a solution to the problem of poor building maintenance.

I hoped he would address the expensive, unfathomable and protracted landlord-tenant dispute mechanism. That system serves no one well. It takes, on average, four months for a dispute to be settled; and if a tenant loses, he or she has to pay retroactive rent increases.

Since my friend from Cochrane South knows that tenants pay a hidden property tax through their rents, I also expected him to examine the assessment system. It forces tenants to pay an unfair share of the tax burden. On that issue, his resolution is silent.

I dared to hope this resolution would address the issue of development charges. Those construction fees are hidden in rent payments. They can drive private investment dollars which could be used to build new apartments out of the industry or, worse yet, they become rolled into unnecessarily higher rents.

I even dared to hope that he might at least speak to the administrative costs incurred under the current rent control system. We spend $28 million on it every year, and my friend failed to ask whether or not tenants are really getting their money's worth.

Tenants fear for their personal safety as they walk through poorly lit garages. Security in many buildings is simply not adequate, and the current law leaves landlords with very little incentive to help.

Does this resolution address any of these concerns? I think not. We could be discussing how to get away from subsidizing bricks and mortar and instead offer shelter subsidies to those most in need. Such reforms don't seem to interest the third party any longer.

The member for Cochrane South calls on the government to protect tenants from abusive landlords and unfair rent increases. I applaud that. It was Bill Davis's goal when the Residential Premises Review Act was introduced in 1975. It's the goal of all Progressive Conservatives who campaigned for a new system, it is the goal of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and it is my personal goal. Let's be clear: Tenant protection is a paramount objective of this government.

I was delighted at first to hear about this resolution. Then I received my copy and carefully examined its wording. I realized that the member for Cochrane South only wants to maintain today's failed system. The NDP seems to think tenants are doing just fine under the existing Rent Control Act. I disagree. I don't believe tenants are currently being treated fairly or equitably. The current system is broken and the province desperately needs an improved system of tenant protection.

The socialist government left us with an incomprehensible system of regulation, with deteriorating buildings and with almost no new private rental stock coming on stream to give tenants freedom of choice. It has left a system costly to administer and, for municipalities, costly to enforce. It has left courts clogged with tenant-landlord disputes. The final insult is this: All of these costs impact eventually on property taxes which, in turn, get lumped into rising rental rates.

This hopeless situation is all that this NDP resolution offers today to tenants. It's not good enough. The tenants of High Park, the tenants of Parkdale and indeed the tenants of Ontario have a right to expect better. With this government, that is exactly what they get: better tenant protection, infinitely more effective and considerate than the previous government ever offered.

Tenant protection is a major objective for this government. Meanwhile, the NDP has nothing new to offer. My friend asks us to endorse a legislative framework which does not work. I believe the new government will soon offer dramatically improved legislation. You can be certain it will enhance tenant protection and it will encourage the private sector to start work on new apartment buildings so tenants can begin to enjoy freedom of choice in a marketplace that works to the tenants' benefit. Most importantly, I believe it will also set in place a tenant-landlord dispute mechanism that is fair, understandable, accessible and quick.

This NDP resolution is more of the same old stuff which simply has not worked. The tenants of my constituency have every reason and right to expect better. On their behalf, I have no intention of settling for second-best. This is what the tenants of my constituency expect, this is what they deserve and this is what this government will deliver.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): The whole thing here, in a nutshell, is that, as yesterday, this is the government that said, "We will not cut one cent out of health care." This is the government that now is going to say to you, "We will protect tenants." How can you believe that when they just broke the so-called solemn promise to health care. Now they're promising you they're going to come up with a better rental protection system than what's in place. I say to every tenant in Ontario, remember what they promised you on health care if you think they're going to deliver on protecting you as a tenant.

The thing that really concerns me is that in my riding most of the tenants are people on fixed incomes; in fact I think over 50% of the residents in Oakwood are tenants. They are people who, again, have perhaps not had the money to buy a home, a big house, but they have done very well in their apartments. I don't think, as the previous speaker said, that we have this unbelievable crisis that we have to destroy the system in order to fix it. I think there are ways of improving the system for tenants, but this government basically wants to scrap the rental protections that have been put in place.

These protections are even more critical than ever because in the cities across Ontario people are losing their jobs, and they're going to continue to lose their jobs because of the draconian tax cuts this government is introducing, which are going to make people more vulnerable. Then you're going to add another fear in the cities across Ontario because people on fixed incomes now are going to be told perhaps, "Your rent is going to go up because the rent control system is going to be scrapped by this government."

I would say to the members across that if they're serious about doing something, they should address the property tax inequity that every tenant faces, because per square foot tenants pay 30% to 40% more in property taxes than do homeowners. When you bring across your omnibus bill, or ominous bill, about rent control changes, I hope that is one of the planks in your new bill, that you are going to address the property tax inequity that each taxpayer who lives in an apartment is faced with and has been overpaying for the last 30 years.

The present system obviously is not perfect and, as we know, there are inequities in it. I think there are ways of doing it without jeopardizing people who are now, as I said, living in good accommodation. Certainly in apartment buildings there are people who have problems with their landlords, but many tenants would rather -- in fact, if you ask them, and I don't think this government will ask them because they've talked to the landlords -- but go to the tenants' organizations, go to tenants in buildings and ask them whether they want to scrap rent control and replace it with the new system, whatever it is.

If they did that, if they had public hearings and went to the people who are living in apartments across Ontario, what would they say? What have they said? The people I talk to are saying they fear that this government is essentially going to impose unilateral change that will favour the landlord and the tenants will be given marginal protection, a lot of public relations rhetoric but very little concrete protection.

I feel that unless tenants across Ontario start to realize that the candidates of the Conservative Party are about to break another major commitment they made -- because in all their campaign literature they said they would protect rent control, they would make it stronger. Instead, the first thing they're going to do, and they said -- they had ministers running around the province saying, "We're going to scrap rent control."

Then yesterday the Premier said he's going to look at a system called marketplace rent control. To me, that's a pure oxymoron. Marketplace rent control? In other words, the rent of tenants is going to go according to what the price is in the marketplace. That means that you will have no idea, six months from now, a year from now, what rent you'll be paying and what protections you'll have because it'll go according to the market. And you know what the market does, Mr Speaker: It goes up and down like a toilet seat. You don't know where you're going to be from day to day.

I would also say that the members opposite always say, "The reason we don't have rental housing is because of the rent control legislation." I think that is an outright piece of misinformation, because there are many other factors that have caused the lack of private --

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): Ask the landlords.

Mr Colle: Yeah, ask the landlords, right.

Mr Ron Johnson: Ask the builders.

Mr Colle: That's who they always talk to, the developers and landlords.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Colle: But we know there are other factors that have caused that, one of them being sprawl, where you can build housing all the way to Lake Simcoe now, and you can make money building ranch-style bungalows, so why would you make affordable housing in Toronto?

I will support this bill because I think the government opposite is about to break another fundamental promise and I don't want them to even get near the tenants.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just want to take the few moments I have in support of my good friend and colleague Mr Bisson from Cochrane South in the resolution that he's brought forward as far as rent control is concerned.

I might point out that this is the third government that -- rent control was introduced by the Conservative government Tories back in the 1970s, and now we see there's a possibility that after what they said during the campaign about protecting tenants, they might come forward and scrap the rent control legislation that was good.

Ms Churley: Another broken promise.

Mr Len Wood: It would be another broken promise, as my colleague has said, because we know that they promised during the election campaign that they wouldn't put user fees on, they wouldn't affect health care, they wouldn't affect classroom education, and yesterday we saw them take a chainsaw to every program we have in Ontario and take billions and billions of dollars out of the economy in order to give a tax break which is about equal to or maybe a little bit more than what they have cut in their slash-and-burn program.

I listened to the member for High Park-Swansea, and in his opening comments he said that he was --

Mr Ron Johnson: But 80% of that tax break goes to --

The Deputy Speaker: I'm warning the member for Brantford, I'd like to see you stay in the House a little bit longer.

Mr Len Wood: We know that some of the Tory backbenchers are in a very bad mood this morning, because a lot of them had to go and hide last night and weren't able to show their faces around. So it's understandable that they would be upset and in a bad humour this morning.

I was starting out to say that the member for High Park-Swansea said that he was happy to see the resolution and the motion brought forward by the member for Cochrane South, yet he was making comments from a prepared speech that was probably prepared yesterday. Even after listening to the speech from the member for Cochrane South, he still wanted to continue on with that.

We have all kinds of campaign promises that were made by the Conservatives. Mike Harris had made promises. Mike Harris said he would strengthen rent controls, not cancel them. Yet now our fear is that this is going to be another promise that is going to be broken and the tenants in this province are going to be put at great risk.

The last thing I want to see is tenants who are expecting that they're going to pay a certain amount of rent for the next year or two years to come -- they're on a fixed income, they have no way of making extra income, and all of a sudden Mike Harris and his Tories scrap the rent control program and leave it up to the landlords to decide how much they're going to increase the rent, when they're going to increase it and whether a lot of these tenants are going to be thrown out on the street and become homeless people. We already have enough homeless people right now. We already have enough people who have to live in slum conditions throughout this province. We don't want to see more.

This is why my colleague Mr Bisson has brought forward this motion and resolution this morning to protect the tenants in this province against landlords, and now it seems like they have to be protected against the Tories.

We have an obligation on this side of the House. Even though this is considered to be private members' hour, we have an obligation to make sure that the message gets out there loud and clear to the population of this province that it's very important that they speak out loud and clear to some of the changes that they're unhappy with.

As Rev Jackson said the other day in Toronto, it might mean that people are going to have to start marching in the streets in order to make sure that this Tory government understands that cut and slash and burn and take a chainsaw to everything so they can give a tax break to the rich people in this province is unacceptable.

With that, I'd like to leave some time for my colleague. I know he wants to make a few comments.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd just like to make a couple of observations. We're supposed to look at this private members' hour as looking at an issue independently, with some sort of reality. Two comments I'd like to make about the member for Cochrane South's resolution: Why doesn't he insert in there at least that he would want a system that is (

a) workable and (

b) results-oriented? Right now, the present rent control system in this province is neither.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I enter this debate with a little bit of mixed feeling. I'm one of those people around here who has been through these wars on a number of occasions, particularly in the 1990 and 1991 versions of rent control introduced by our colleagues in the NDP.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, I think. I don't think any rent control, rent review, whatever you want to call it, system is going to be resolved in this province. All you had to do is sit through those committee meetings and find the laws of unintended consequence that come from the best-intentioned legislation you might see.

I remember sitting through Bill 4. That was the draconian measure where the NDP actually retroactively froze rents. I remember sitting in the chair, as I chaired that committee, listening to folks, not big corporations but individuals who owned five or six units, actually crying, grown men crying because they had a legal order to increase rents and retroactively they were being told they could not increase rents. They'd done the capital improvements, they'd taken out the mortgage with the bank, and now they could not meet their obligations and they were going bankrupt. I'm sure that was not the intention of the former government, but that was clearly the result.

The second thing is, this bill that the NDP put forward was supposed to help tenants, and one of the most amazing things, Mr Speaker, if you look around at the way it actually worked, just in terms of rent increases, it provided the largest real rent increases in the history of this province. Adjusted for inflation, the NDP bill provided the greatest increases to the tenants of this province and at the same time made sure that landlords could not improve their buildings: just totally unintended; well intentioned, but wrong.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm happy to have less than a couple of minutes to just stand and voice my support for the resolution that's in front of us in the name of the member for Cochrane South, Mr Bisson, and to say that in supporting this, I really hope that all members will take a good look at the words of the resolution and see that what essentially the resolution calls for is the maintaining of a fair and equitable rent control program. Obviously, Mr Bisson feels, as do I, that the present system is essentially that, and that before the government begins to do away with that system, it should take a good hard look at the basic sense of equity and fairness that exists in that system.

I think we know that in this area, as in many other areas, what we need is a sense of balance, that is, legislation and provisions that protect tenants, that give people a fair sense that they have protections, because when we're talking about this issue, we're talking about people's homes, where people live. We're not just talking about commodities or luxuries or things of that nature. We're talking about people's homes.

I think there is also a sense that the rights of the landlords have to be taken into account too. Certainly I know in a riding like mine, although there are not very many high-rise apartment buildings, a large proportion -- I think it's about 40%, the last statistics I saw -- of the residents in my riding are tenants, most of them in very small tenancy situations in small buildings. So there is a need, I think, for that balance to be there. I think the present system provides that, and I would urge members to support this resolution.

Mr Bisson: Very quickly, I just want to go through a couple of points. First of all, I want members in the Conservative government to understand something here. The argument is that what you want to do is take a whole larger approach. You want to move away from the current RGI system, which is rent geared to income. You want to give that money, rather than to non-profits, directly into the hands of landlords to be able to give them the subsidy, and then you want to be able to repeal the Rent Control Act and go to a system that's market based.

That is a recipe for disaster not only for tenants; you will bankrupt the province. Understand: You need rent control in order to make darn sure that the rents don't go through the roof. If you're having to pay as a government a subsidy to a landlord and you don't have protection from rents being raised up, what'll end up happening is that the cost to the province will be far in excess of the $2 billion that we spend now, and I want to put that on the record.

The other thing the member for High Park-Swansea came in here saying, he was one of the guys who had a leaflet out there saying he was in support of rent control and what he was going to do, if elected, is protect landlords' rights under rent control.

Then he came into this House and said, "Well, you know, I was really happy to see the member for Cochrane South coming in here and bringing forward this motion, but after having heard his speech and read it a little bit more carefully I've now changed my mind." I just want to point out, he wrote the speech that he read yesterday, so he obviously did listen to my speech. He made his mind up a long time ago. He's a Reformer like the rest of you, so that does not surprise me at all. I would just say --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: That's true. That's what we've got here. If you guys were Conservatives, you would be supporting the policies of Bill Davis and you would support rent control. You're obviously not Conservatives; what can you be? You're only left with the Reformers and that's what you guys are.

What you will do, if you open this legislation -- and I warn the Liberal Party -- is really go after tenants. Rents in this province will go through the roof. People will end up on the streets and that will be on your hands and on your conscience, and I urge you to support this resolution in order to make sure that the government does not do so.

REALTY TAX FREEZE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS ET VISANT À GELER LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Mr Carr moved second reading of Bill 17,

An Act to amend various Statutes to freeze Realty Taxes / Projet de loi 17, Loi modifiant diverses lois et visant à geler les impôts fonciers.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Carr has moved second reading of ballot item 10, and he has 10 minutes.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'll be very brief. I understand there are some speakers.

This bill, very simply, freezes property taxes in the province of Ontario for one year. I must say that it's rather appropriate with what happened yesterday, although I knew this was coming and knew fully a couple of months ago that we were going to be heading down this direction.

I must say off the bat that I fully support the government actions that we took yesterday. They are needed, they are necessary, they are tough, but it had to be done. We're going to see a year now of restructuring like this province has never seen, and I'm going to say right off the bat, that is good because it has to be done.

We won the election, and if you can sum up the Common Sense Revolution at all, I will sum it up this way: It was about 31 pages, "Our taxes are too high and our government spends too much money" is what the Common Sense Revolution was all about. The Premier of this province, the Honourable Mike Harris, when he was leader of the party, went around and said, "We do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem in the province of Ontario," and each one of our members agreed with that 100%.

The Common Sense Revolution was about reducing taxes and cutting spending. The big problem we have, as we found out the reality yesterday, is now we have given that responsibility on where the cuts will be to our transfer partners. I firmly believe, because other jurisdictions have gone the different routes -- what happened in Alberta, they took taxing power away from trustees and went to province-wide bargaining because they knew they wouldn't make the tough choices.

I can say this without batting an eye: There is no doubt that municipal politicians and trustees will not have the courage to do what we did yesterday. I can say that without a doubt. There are very few politicians who will make the tough choices that we had to make yesterday.

Now the problem that comes up with the transfer cuts that were necessary is what happens to the local property taxes as a result, because now it's into the hands of the school boards and municipalities to make those decisions. In Halton, we have an additional problem in that we're going into market value reassessment and I'm not being alarmist when I say there are some people getting increases of $800. A senior came to see me and said that she's going to be forced out of her home because of the reassessment. I almost introduced a bill to deal with that issue, but I wanted to bring this in so that every member could be involved in it.

I think there is going to be a major restructuring. Another chap came to me, a lawyer with one of the law firms. His property taxes now are $15,000; under the reassessment it's going to $22,000. I can tell you this: We're going to have a major problem in Halton because we're going to have assessment problems similar to Scarborough because everybody is appealing their assessments.

I don't want to spend too much time on that because my bill will also kill the reassessment for a year while we do the restructuring. This restructuring is going to be profound in municipalities and school boards, and then we see that the bill we introduced yesterday allowing the restructuring to take place and again the omnibus bill, as it's called, is completely necessary.

The problem I've got with this is I firmly believe school boards and municipalities will not make the tough choices. I think they're going to have to, at some point, cut spending. There's no doubt about that. But they are also going to go the property tax base, and that is wrong because I honestly, truly believe we cannot afford any tax increases in the province of Ontario for any reason.

While this restructuring takes place, this freezes property taxes and forces municipalities and school boards to make the same tough choices. I agree 100% they should make those choices. I don't want the dictation to come from Queen's Park and say: "This is how you'll restructure. This is what'll happen to your school boards." But I can tell you this: If we do not force them to do it on spending cuts, a lot of politicians will go to the property tax base to try and not make the tough choices.

I was down in Elgin, down in London, at Gavin's hockey tournament on the weekend. They say if the cuts come through, the property taxes down there will go up 30% as a result of our transfer cuts. I'm saying that cannot happen, that it has to be spending cuts that come in place, not property tax increases.

I won't spend too much time talking about what's going to happen in Metro, because I will say they have managed poorly, notwithstanding some of the good folks who have come from Metro. They've got one heck of a problem. But I can assure you, the Jack Laytons, the Howard Moscoes and all the people on Metro council won't make the tough choices we made yesterday; they will attempt to go to the property tax base. I say that's wrong.

I'm not here to speak too much about Metro, although I grew up in Metro Toronto and I know it, but I can tell you the problem with Metro is they're already losing industries because of the high property tax rates. As we sit here today, we are the highest-taxed province in Canada, the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America and our property taxes are highest in all of the industrialized world. What this bill will do is force municipalities and school boards to make the same tough choices.

Part of my riding is in Burlington as well, and Burlington councillors said, "I'm not going to increase property taxes." I said, "That's fine, you're going to make the tough choices in Burlington," and I believe they will. My brother's on council there, as a matter of fact. You think I'm a hard-liner; you should see him. When I talked to them, they said, "We'll make the tough choices," and I said, "That's great, you'll cut out local busing, you'll make the tough choices in parks and rec," and you know what's going to happen? The school board's going to jump in and say: "Oh, that's great. Now we can increase by 2%, 3%, 4%, 5% the property tax, because municipalities have frozen theirs."

I warn every member in here, we are going to spend the next spring in this Legislature legislating teachers back to work if we do not deal with the property tax. As you know, the arbitration changes that we introduced yesterday -- and some of the members might not be aware of it -- are very profound. It basically says to arbitrators, "You're going to take a look at the ability to pay." I agree with that 100%.

But the ability to pay now means they can go to the property tax base to increase taxes. What I'm saying is, we introduce those major provisions in this omnibus bill and we do it based on saying to them that it has to be done within the existing fiscal framework. If we don't freeze property taxes, we're going to allow school boards, we're going to allow teachers, we're going to allow fire and police to say, "The fiscal framework is you can increase taxes on the property tax."

I make no illusions that this is going to be easy. I think I'm one of the few going up to yesterday who comprehended what this is going to mean. It's starting to sink in to some of the other members, the most profound change. I agree with it 100%, but I tell you, it must be done on the spending side. The municipalities and school boards must make the tough choices that we're prepared to make. I think, unless we force them to do that with a property tax freeze, they will not.

So I will say this: The measures are very tough and the government has already taken some provisions to do that. The government will say, "We want them to make the choice" -- I had this discussion with the Premier -- but I say to him, then why did we have to freeze development fees? Because we did that on November 16, and I agree with that. If we do not deal with the property tax base in the province of Ontario, our tax cuts that we believe in and are still fighting for, in spite of the opposition -- I guarantee you they will not go to creating jobs.

The ministers a lot of time missed what that tax cut was. When I see Bob Rae ask a couple of ministers, that tax cut is a job creation remedy. We said during the election campaign -- and we had a little formula that we all used. Tax cuts equals more money in your pocket, equals more consumer spending, equals more jobs.

Our tax cuts will not go to creating jobs, is my big fear. Because what will happen is our tax cuts that we're making the tough choices to pass along to the beleaguered taxpayers will go right to property taxes because school boards and municipalities don't have the political courage. My big fear is how we're going to get the job creation with our tax cuts like we said we would if in fact property taxes go up.

I will say this to the government, on its behalf: It has said very clearly to municipalities and school boards, "We don't want any increases in the property taxes." One of the announcements today I got said, "We're going to try to work with them." I say to the government, however you do it -- it may be a proposal where they go back to them and say, "If you increase taxes by whatever, we're going to cut the transfer payments even more to make up for that." That may be what we end up with, I'm not sure, but as we do this restructuring, I firmly believe the provincial government must have the political courage to stand up and do what is necessary.

Just very briefly, in closing, I commend the Premier. I will disagree on some things, and Lord knows, by even bringing this in, there will be times when I'm going to challenge him like never before, but I must say he had the political courage to do what is right. All I'm saying is, school boards and municipalities have to do the same thing.

I'm encouraging every member of this House to do it. I hope it will go to committee. I hope it will pass. I can tell you this: Over the next two months, as municipalities and school boards go through their budget process, this issue is going to come back. At the end of the day, if property taxes do go up, I'm going to be able to say to some of the people, the seniors, who are going to lose their homes as a result: "I introduced a bill that was defeated. I did the best I could to prevent property taxes from increasing in the province of Ontario."

I hope all honourable members will feel the same way. Let's push this bill, let's pass it and let's help the beleaguered taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): This proposed bill comes at a very inappropriate time. I could sympathize with my colleague on the other side if the municipalities were given a chance to deal with the massive cuts which they were presented with in yesterday's announcement. I find the timing of this bill totally inappropriate. It was totally inappropriate to impose upon the local municipalities huge, massive cuts yesterday, and then today, we are saying, "Don't do it." You want it both ways.

Then I'm totally flabbergasted when I hear the honourable member saying that this will kill reassessment for a year. For goodness sake, the people of Ontario, especially in Metro here -- perhaps the member comes from out of town; he doesn't know the plight that we're going through in Metro here -- have been waiting for tax reform for the last 50 years.

On the books, the Conservative Party says, "We are going to tackle this problem of reassessment." If there is one very specific, fundamental problem within Metro, it is the inequities that live within the present tax system. Metro is losing some $60 million a year. Companies are leaving, businesses are leaving Metro for greener, richer pastures out of Metro.

To say to the people of Metro here, and Ontario, "We are going to freeze this and we're going to tell the municipalities, `You cannot do that,'" is totally unjust, is totally unfair, when homeowners in Metro have been waiting for 50 years for a break.

We would comment really that this would be a very commendable act if municipalities were given a choice, saying, "Okay, we are going to give you the power to deal with your own affairs, with your own municipalities," but then we are saying, "But you cannot do that."

With all due respect, how am I going to tell that to Mayor Lastman of the city of North York; M. Faubert, the mayor of Scarborough; Miss McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, when they so diligently have been bringing, for the last two, three, four, five years, zero budget increases?

The only thing this proposed bill does here is say, "Despite what the bill says, we will not allow any tax increase over and above an increase in 1995." How can we tell the municipalities that we're cutting almost $700 million in funding, in transfer payments, and then we're saying, "You cannot even suit yourselves if you should cut services and where, or raise taxes"? The Minister of Municipal Affairs has been saying, "We are going to give municipalities more powers." This is totally contrary to what they had been preaching and this is totally inappropriate after the announcement of yesterday.

Is the government telling the local municipalities, "Conduct your own affairs; we are eliminating everything we've been giving you and now we're going to give you one block of funding, so we give you more flexibility," and then it's saying, "But hold it a second; in spite of everything we have been telling you, you cannot run your businesses the way you would like to, the best way you think for your local municipality"?

Let me tell this House something: It is not the Premier; it's not us in this House here; the people best to deal with local issues are local councils. How will we judge how well a community's progressing, it's living, if it's doing very well? Only when you walk in those residential communities. If you see the sidewalk in good repair, if the streets are clean, if the boulevard's grass is cut and stuff like that, that's how we notice it.

Why don't we give the flexibility that the government has been saying we would be giving the local municipalities? I find it totally unacceptable that today we are presented with a bill which freezes for one year practically, and now this leaves the municipalities with a decision where they say, "We have been cut yesterday and we have been told, `You cannot raise taxes today.'"

I think my time is up. I would hope that the mover of the bill would reconsider it and give the local municipalities the autonomy they deserve.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to have a chance to speak to this bill today. I have to say, and I know, Mr Speaker, you and others have heard me talk, on and on sometimes, about the importance that I place on private members' hour because of the ability it gives all of us as individual members to bring forth bills or resolutions that we feel are important.

I find this one puzzling and somewhat troubling, because I listened carefully to the introductory comments made by the member for Oakville South. I have to say I'm still perplexed as to why this bill is here, because on the one hand it sounded like he was bringing it in support of what his government is doing, and on the other hand it sounded like he was bringing it here because he wasn't able to convince the government to, in effect, make this a part of the omnibus legislation.

One would have thought that in fact, given all the other draconian measures that are in that omnibus bill that comes out of yesterday's statement, this is something that should have been there as well, from their perspective.

I'm going to listen more and more intently as the debate goes on to try to understand what the motivation is behind this bill. I certainly don't want to impute motives, not because that's against the rules but because I don't believe that that's an appropriate thing to do in any circumstances, but if I were a cynical person, I would say that perhaps one strategy that's being played out here today is for this bill to be passed and to be held out there hanging over the heads of municipalities and school boards in a bit of a threat in the event that school boards and municipalities start to increase property taxes.

Now, if I were a cynical person, that might be a conclusion that I would draw.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Oh, but you're not.

Mr Silipo: But I'm not. I tend to be an optimist at heart, and so I have to conclude that the member for Oakville South has brought this bill because he wasn't able to convince his government that it should include this as part of its omnibus legislation, which I find really intriguing, because I didn't know that anyone in the government caucus could actually make the Premier and the Minister of Finance sound like Progressive Conservatives. The member for Oakville South has just managed to do that, at least for this one instance.

Let me say that I will not be supporting this bill, and I want to explain why. I certainly don't believe in increases in property taxes, for a number of reasons: First and foremost, because property taxes are the most regressive form of taxation; secondly, because I think that people are taxed to the extent that they can be taxed and so I don't, for one, support the notion of property tax increases.

However, I have to say that this bill, coming at this particular point in time, on the heels of what we heard yesterday from the Minister of Finance, is just completely inappropriate in terms of what I can support. So I will not be supporting it, because when you look at what the Harris government did yesterday, it will be cutting funding to municipalities by almost $700 million over the next two years. That's almost half of what the government gives municipalities now. So we're not talking about small cuts here.

We're talking 43% to 44% cuts; almost cutting in half what the government gives to municipalities on a year-to-year basis. School boards: similar range of cuts, 9% -- $400 million -- just next year alone, because they haven't told us what they're going to do in subsequent years with respect to school boards.

The question that's left is, what are school boards and municipalities going to do? Clearly, what the member for Oakville South is saying that they should do is to basically cut the services they're providing, because he believes they should not be raising property taxes. He talks about having the courage to make those cuts. I would say that if I were back at the school board and if people here were municipal politicians, I think it would take a lot more courage to be prepared to raise property taxes than it would to make some of the cuts the member is suggesting should be done.

Because this is not a question any more of just trimming the fat and streamlining and restructuring; everyone is in support of that. What we are talking about here is cutting basic services, whether it's child care, whether it's classroom programs, whether it's transit -- having to pay more to get on the subway and on the buses -- and on and on and on.

The difficulty I think this bill poses is that it tries to presume that we as provincial politicians are in the best position to know what should be happening, school board by school board and municipality by municipality. If the government wanted to do that, it had the chance to do that because it certainly is giving itself, through this omnibus bill, lots of powers, including passing on to municipalities the right to levy user fees.

So why would they not have put this in as part of that omnibus piece of legislation? The only conclusion that I can come to is that they did not agree to do that but would be interested, I would suggest, in maybe holding this out as a possibility, because we did hear the Minister of Finance say yesterday that they will have to deal with the situation if municipalities and school boards dare to raise property taxes.

The point I want to conclude on is this: If there are going to be property tax increases, it should be up to school boards and municipalities to make that decision, particularly in light of what has happened.

But if there are going to be increases, let there be no mistake that this responsibility will come back to lie on the shoulders of this Tory government, because it is the draconian and unnecessary level of cuts that they are doing, not for the sake of balancing the budget, not even for the sake of creating jobs, but for the sake of paying for the tax cut that is going to benefit the wealthiest citizens among us the most, those cuts, in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars to municipalities and school boards, that are taking place.

I find it a bit presumptuous for us to be dealing today with a bill that says to freeze property taxes as part of that. I think the choice needs to be left locally. The responsibility, however, will come back to lie on the shoulders of this government. I regret having to deal with this kind of a bill today because I think it usurps somewhat the nature of discussions and bills that we should be having in this House, but given that it's here, I can't but be as clear as I've tried to be in my opposition to this.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand up and speak to this bill, but before I do that, I want to say that I'm happy to see that your gowns have arrived, although clearly it's not the gown that makes the Chair.

I want to thank the member for Oakville South for spending a considerable amount of time on a rather important piece of legislation. I'm going to be speaking today to this particular bill as a member from the Peel area, the member for Mississauga West, but also as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.

I think I understand what the member for Oakville South was attempting to do here. You know, we've made statements many times, and we heard it yesterday through the economic statement from the Minister of Finance, that it's crucial, in solving the deficit problem of this province, that we spend a considerable amount of time working with our transfer partners in encouraging them to be part of the solution here and not a continuation as part of the problem.

It's not as though, by the way, this deficit problem landed on us mysteriously. All levels of government have participated in the spending binges that have occurred over the last while -- all levels of government -- all of them.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): It started with Davis and Mulroney.

Mr Sampson: My friends over here in the opposition tell me it started with Davis. That may have been the case, but it was clearly accelerated and went way above proportion by both of these parties. That's the dilemma we're faced with now. What we have to do is somehow, in partnership with our transfer partners, in partnership with the municipalities, in partnership with the taxpayers, solve the problem. We've got to collectively spend less money.

So I can understand my friend from Oakville South's concern when he drafted this legislation, because what he was trying to say to the municipalities was: "Listen, you were part of the problem. We were all part of the problem. We have to together be part of the solution here."

My friend from Oakville South has suggested, by this piece of legislation, that the way to encourage that is to force a tax cap on the local areas. But I'm afraid that's where I, as the member for Mississauga West and as a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, have to part from my friend's position because what we're trying to do in solving this with our transfer partners -- and the statement was made in the House by the Minister of Finance yesterday -- is to hand back to these transfer partners the responsibility and the tools to deal with their share of the spending problem.

We can't effectively do that by taking away one of their tools, and that's their ability to manage their access to the revenue base in this province: the one taxpayer.

While I understand the member for Oakville South's direction here, and I'm concerned with his concerns, I understand where his concerns are coming from, I think what we have to do, though, is say to our transfer partners, "Here are the tools; work with us in solving the problem," as opposed to going to them and saying, "I'm going to give you all the tools but one of the very important ones, being a spending base."

I'm afraid I'm going to have to, on behalf of Finance and as the member for Mississauga West, vote against this particular piece of legislation. But I want to say to the House that clearly the message here to our transfer partners should be that we have to collectively be part of the solution. We're prepared to work with them in dealing with the overspending that we all participated in over the last while, and the only way to do that is to hand the local people the tools to deal with the issue and deal with it effectively.

Mr Colle: I think the member for Mississauga West made some very good points and it was a very thoughtful presentation that he made. I agree with him that the deficit problems we're in weren't started in the last 10 years. There was some acceleration, obviously, but for the genesis of it, we have to go back further than 10 years.

In terms of this bill, it's something that looks very good on the surface. It's got a very appealing phrase about freezing property taxes, and that's something most municipalities and most property taxpayers across Ontario would like to support.

But in terms of the context of this bill, we have to remember that there's a new form of municipal tax being introduced by this government. That's why I'm not going to support this bill, because it doesn't go far enough to meet the new property tax that's will be imposed across the cities and towns of Ontario. These are the new taxes called user fees. If this bill said there would be a freeze on property taxes plus new municipal user fees, I could support it. Even though you may freeze property taxes, it doesn't say anything about freezing these new user fees.

As a result of the 50% cut in transfer payments to municipalities, the government is encouraging municipalities to impose new user fees. It's a new tax that people will have to pay in the cities and towns. There will be a user fee to go to the library. Fees to take your pet to the local animal shelter will go up. There will be fees on things like ambulance services, perhaps. There will be fees on garbage pickup.

These are new taxes, which are going to increase the dollars taken out of the pockets of taxpayers right across Ontario. What this bill should introduce is, how can we control these new series of levies that are going to be imposed on taxpayers right across Ontario?

We could see new taxes imposed on water that comes into your home, sewage that leaves your home. There is going to be an increased cost to every person who lives in a city and town in Ontario as a result of the new taxes that this government is encouraging.

The property tax situation, as we know, is very regressive in that you could be a millionaire living in a home and you could pay the same tax as a person who's just lost his or her job. Freezing it doesn't do justice to the difference between the millionaire and the unemployed person. That's why freezing wouldn't help them.

The new user fees will be regressive taxes too, because perhaps the millionaire can go to the library and take out a book and not be bothered about the new user fee, but the ordinary person, the senior or the person on a fixed income, who goes to the library is now going to have to pay an extra tax.

That's what is missing from this bill. Attention should be paid to the new round of taxes we're going to see right across Ontario, whether your dog or cat needs rabies shots, whether you go to the library to take out a book, whether you use the blue box system, whether you use public transit across Ontario; the fares will go up in every municipality -- and they've gone up already -- to use a bus or a streetcar or the subway.

These are the fees that should be frozen. Freezing property taxes alone is not enough, because we're into a whole new wave of property taxes we'll be hit with because this government has taken almost 50% of its transfer payments away from municipalities. In fact, in cities like Ottawa and Metropolitan Toronto, it's going to impose negative grants and even take more property taxes out of Metro and Toronto school boards. What about a freeze on the negative grants?

I do not support this bill because it does nothing about the new property taxes, the new user fees this government is going to impose on every citizen in Ontario, even in your home town -- Oxford, is it? -- Mr Minister. Not "Minister"; I mean Mr Speaker.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'm glad to see, Mr Speaker, that when you put the robes on they confuse you with a minister.

I'd like to take the seven-odd minutes I have in response to get to the crux of what this is all about. When all of us here, from all sides of the House, go back to talk to the electorate from the counties and ridings we represent, people often say they're cynical about politicians. This is a good example of what fuels that thought and fuels that fire.

What you've got here today is, simply put, a political bill put forward to try to cast the member in the right light in terms of wanting to protect municipal ratepayers. But it's quite contrary to what the government is actually doing. That's what I want to say at the outset of this debate, that what we've got here is purely a political bill.

Everybody understands; nobody back home would have any illusions about the fact that municipalities have the right to tax. That is clearly an issue that lies solely within the purview of municipal councils, and school boards also have the right to tax.

I'm not advocating and neither, I thought, were any members here from any side of the House advocating that we should be encouraging municipalities to raise taxes; that's not at all what we're encouraging. We hope municipalities, in light of what happened yesterday in the massive transfer cut of some 43% to municipalities, will be able to deal with that without a tax hike. I don't think it's possible. I don't think they're going to have a lot of choice.

But I'm certain that all members in the House hope that municipalities don't end up doing what I think will happen in the end, which is to allow Mike Harris to say, "I'm the Taxfighter; here's a 30% tax cut," on the one hand, while at the same time the municipal politicians, because of the reduction in transfers, will take more money out of your pocket through municipal taxes. I think this is what it'll lead to.

On that point, and I won't belabour it any more, I would say this is pure political cynicism. No member of this House would stand for the federal government passing such a piece of legislation, hampering our ability as a provincial assembly to raise or levy taxes in this province. For us to try to do that to municipalities is utterly ridiculous. What we've got here is a private member's bill strictly for political purposes.

In Ontario, and I'd say in most of this country, we take pride in how our municipalities across this country and across this great province are strong, safe, clean communities to live in, have a strong infrastructure, have the services necessary to make our communities safe. I have always been proud when I hear people visiting Toronto say, "My God, I come from Cleveland, I come from Detroit, I come from New York, I come from Los Angeles, I come from Europe, and I can walk through downtown Toronto and many side streets of this city and not worry about being mugged or being harassed by criminals." They're amazed and they wonder how do we do that.

We do it, first of all, because we have a different tradition in Ontario, as we do in the rest of Canada, but also because municipalities take quite seriously, along with the federal and provincial legislators, our responsibility to maintain safe and clean communities.

I'm very much afraid, with what we had yesterday, with the introduction of what I guess we can now call a budget that takes 43% of transfers away from municipalities over a two-year period, as well as a large percentage, 10% next year, from school boards, and with the omnibus bill that came yesterday that allows municipalities to levy taxes through user fees and through various licensing schemes, that we're jeopardizing that whole notion and that whole reality we have in this province of safe, clean communities.

If municipalities do not have the revenue to pay for the infrastructure to maintain our water and sewer systems, maintain our road system, maintain the environmental protection systems we have through our blue box program and other recycling programs; if they don't have the money to maintain policing in our communities to make sure our streets are safe and that we don't have to worry about being mugged on the corner of whatever street, wherever you might be in northern Ontario or in southern Ontario; if the municipalities don't have the money to provide services and fire protection through our fire departments; if municipalities don't have the money to provide for proper garbage pickup, then our cities and towns will go the way that many have gone over a period of a hundred years in the United States, and that's right down the drain.

We can look at cities in New York as a good example of where they don't provide a good infrastructure. Nothing really works in those cities. They're glamorous to go to because they've got the fashion district and the good theatre districts, but when you look at those communities, the infrastructure, both hard and soft infrastructure, has fallen apart because the state, municipal and federal governments in the United States have not seen fit to do what we've done in Canada and Ontario for years, which is to maintain our communities as safe communities to live in.

I very much fear, as I think a lot of members in this House do, that in our haste to deal with our deficit here in Ontario -- and I don't disagree that the government should be trying to find ways to reduce our operating deficit and balance the budget; I think we all agree -- but I really fear that the decision the government made yesterday, first through its budget and second through the omnibus bill, is really going to put our municipalities at risk.

When I look at communities like Timmins, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or Toronto, I wonder, how are those communities going to be able to maintain the services to keep our communities safe and clean if they don't have the money? To boot, the member for Oakville South would have us try to vote on a bill today that would say the community of Timmins or Matheson or Iroquois Falls or Cochrane or Kapuskasing or Oakville or Belleville can't raise municipal taxes above what they were in 1995. It's bad enough that you're hitting them on the one side with a 43% reduction in transfers, but to hamper them to the point of not being able to deal with it on the tax side is utterly ridiculous.

The member makes the argument that you've got to be politically strong, that it's weak and the easy thing to do to raise taxes. I can tell you from personal experience that raising taxes is the most difficult thing any politician has to do. We had to do it in the 1993 budget, and I didn't like it. I'll tell you, I took heat for it, and it was a difficult decision. My municipal aldermen, Mr Welin, Mr Dewsbury, Mr Lou Battochio and others on council making their decisions, didn't like to do it. It's not a courageous thing; it's a very difficult thing to do.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to this bill introduced by the member for Oakville South. Contrary to what some of the members from the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party think, it did come at a rather opportune time, at a time when yesterday the Finance minister made a statement with respect to how this province intends to restructure.

The fact is that we in this province have too much government. We've got too much government municipally; we have too much government with school boards; we have too much government with provincial government. We've got too much spending by all of these governments. That is what the Finance minister intends to correct with respect to his statement yesterday.

For the life of me, I do not know how anyone in this place -- I've listened to the speakers, particularly from the opposition -- can possibly state that they support the status quo. The previous speaker, the member for Cochrane South, talked about how services are going to be lost, and he's right, there's going to be change. No one said this was going to be easy. But when you look at some of the stats -- and I don't mean to provoke the members from the opposition, but I'm going to refer to some of the facts the Finance minister has in his statement.

We are currently spending in the province of Ontario "$1 million an hour more than it receives in revenues.... In the last 10 years government spending has almost doubled, while the accumulated debt has almost tripled.... Fewer jobs today than in 1989, higher unemployment and nearly three times as many people on social assistance as 10 years ago."

How in the world can the members on the opposition side, the Liberal and New Democratic Party, say we have to remain the same?

"Over the past decade, previous governments financed some of their overspending by raising taxes...65 times." It was roughly half from the Liberals and half from the New Democratic Party over the last 10 years.

"Ontario's personal income tax rates are now among the highest in North America."

Mr Eves's statement goes on, "In the past 10 years our provincial debt has...tripled. Soon it will exceed $100 billion."

And I could go on and repeat some of the things we all heard yesterday.

The government had no alternative to change. We have to change drastically; so do municipalities and so do school boards. I'm sure we all agree in this place that all governments are going to have to change drastically, and they've known it's coming. We've given some pretty broad hints on this side to municipalities and school boards that we were going to make rather drastic changes, and we have made drastic changes.

The bill introduced yesterday I know will be controversial today and in the days ahead, but this government will be providing the tools to the municipalities and the school boards and other transfer partners to assist them in the restructuring process. It is on that point that I differ from my friend the member for Oakville South. I certainly support him on his principles of the need to restructure, but I have confidence in the school board trustees, confidence in the municipal councillors. They do have the courage. Someone suggested in one of the earlier comments that these councillors do not have the courage to make the change.

They can restructure and they will restructure. They have no choice. If they don't, if they raise taxes, as has been suggested by some of the other members -- the member for Cochrane South, who is suggesting that -- I can tell you, they're going to be thrown out of office. The property taxpayers in this province are overtaxed and overregulated.

I believe my friend the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay said that in the municipality of Muskoka -- and there was an

article in the paper yesterday that Toronto council has passed a resolution that they're not going to have any more tax hikes. Mayor Hall was quoted as saying, "We don't want to increase taxes and we're going to work very hard to make that possible even in a situation where we're facing very serious cuts in our transfer payments from the provincial government and certain other pressures upon us."

The municipal councillors are ready for what happened yesterday. I have the faith that they will do that. Certainly the taxpayers' groups around the province are concerned about increasing taxes, but the municipalities and the school boards will not be raising taxes, because if they do they're history. They will be forced to restructure, just like every other institution in this province has done.

I support the principle of what the member for Oakville South has put forward, that we all must restructure, including municipal councils, but I'm afraid I cannot support the bill because I really believe we must give some jurisdictions and some rights to municipal councils and trustees to exercise their rights.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): The first thing I want to point out is that my colleagues like to talk about tax increases, but they forget the years prior to 1985 and the 70-plus increases under the Davis government.

I also want to point to your own document, not ours. When you have a second, look at page 32 of your own Fiscal and Economic Statement and the chart at the top that talks about Ontario's deficit. Notice that by your own acknowledgement, 1989-90 was the first time there had been a balanced budget in Ontario. That is not a Liberal document; this is your own document. You should make yourself familiar with that.

I don't doubt the good intentions of the member for Oakville South in what's before us. It's really somewhat ironic that it is coming today, the day after the largest municipal grants decrease in the history of this province. Having served seven years on municipal council, I can tell you that the track record generally of municipal governments across Ontario in regard to tax increases in the last 20 years is better than any of the three governments that have served here at Queen's Park in the last 20 years. Municipal governments generally do a much better job of controlling spending than we do.

Municipal governments don't have the opportunity to go into deficit as we do, because of the Municipal Act, so there are plenty of controls in place already at the municipal level.

But the timing I find ironic. On the one hand, this government introduces a massive, 600-page bill yesterday that is going to give municipalities this wonderful power. It's going to give municipalities the power to be the butchers, to make the decisions that this government doesn't have the guts to do. "We're going to give you the power to decide what services, but at the same time we're going to cut your funding by 50%." On the other hand, we have a bill today that says, "But we're going to take away your ability to raise funds in order to finance these cuts."

The Tories like to believe that user fees are not taxes. My colleagues across the floor think that when you impose a user fee, it is not a tax. It was your own Premier who told us that. So yesterday, when your government imposed user fees on seniors and disabled, you taxed seniors and disabled across Ontario.

What you're going to do through this, it's a smokescreen. It is an absolute smokescreen in front of us, because what's going to happen is this: Municipalities are not going to raise taxes. You don't have to tell them how to do their jobs. Municipalities can tell you how to do your job. But you are taking away the autonomy of municipalities and elected officials to do their job. Let them make those decisions and let them be accountable for that.

At the same time, what you have forced municipalities across Ontario to do is to impose user fees on everything from garbage pickup to hockey arenas to swimming pools and double and triple those user fees. They're going to go substantially higher as a result of your move of yesterday, but that's not taxation, according to the Tories. That's back-door taxation.

If you were committed to eliminating and not having user fees, you would not have imposed user fees on 1.3 million senior citizens across Ontario yesterday. It is disgraceful what you did. Now you have the guts to sit here and lecture to municipal governments on how to do their job. It is an absolute embarrassment what is in front of us, I think, what this government did yesterday and the timing of this today.

The intent of my colleague from Oakville South makes sense. It would have made a lot more sense before these massive cuts that came down yesterday. To turn around and cut school boards by 9%, cut municipalities by 43% and then the next day tell them what to do, the next day try to tell them what to do with this bill, doesn't make any sense.

The reality that you're going to find is there has been a massive downloading, there has been a massive passing of costs to municipal taxpayers. You have imposed user fees on some of the most vulnerable people in our society and you're forcing municipalities to impose user fees on homeowners in the years to come.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It really is unfortunate that the members opposite, especially in the official opposition, can't at least speak to the contents of the bill. The bill is dealing with freezing property taxes, but our member opposite there, he talks about the moon, the sun and the stars. I guess he can't make a fundamental distinction between private members' hour and government business, and it would be nice if the Chair around here occasionally would rule that we at least focus broadly on the contents of the bill.

Having said that, I can appreciate very much my colleague's attempt and intent in his bill, my colleague from Oakville South, about freezing property taxes. But as the member for Dufferin-Peel has noted, and I have to share his outlook, I think it would be very, very unfortunate if we took the opportunity to take away a fundamental tool that we're trying to give municipalities in being more creative in their management of their affairs, rather than going the other way.

If the honourable member for Oakville South had said as well that we'll freeze property taxes and make a changeover in the next two years regarding the assessment function, so that the assessment function would move from being provincially controlled and represented to a system of locally mandated responsibility, then you would be being really creative in helping municipalities run their businesses, instead of telling them.

That's the root cause of property taxes today: not the increases per se and not trying to attempt to freeze them, but actually going to the root cause of the problem, which is an inequitable assessment function that we have across this province.

Whether you're in favour of MVA, market value assessment, or average value assessment or a unitary approach to the assessment function, my firm, fundamental belief is that if the member for Oakville South had made an add-on to the bill that allowed municipalities to change the way in which assessment is developed and allowed them to create an assessment methodology that was most suitable to their local circumstances, then they would be much better equipped and able to control property taxes, to keep them restrained.

I also have to remind my honourable friend from Oakville South that actually many municipalities throughout Ontario, both urban and rural, small and large, have done a very effective job in managing to freeze local property taxes on their own. Within Metro, the city of North York, the city of Scarborough, the city of Etobicoke, and I think some component municipalities in the other regional government areas of, say, Ottawa-Carleton, have done the same thing in the last three years. So I think it would be most unfortunate if we made a sort of blanket rule that every municipality had to freeze taxes for a year without giving them the opportunity to have a change in the assessment function.

Mr Carr: In the wrapup, I want to thank all the speakers who participated in the debate. I very quickly also want to thank the author of the bill, Michael Wood, who in the legislative counsel did all the work on this and worked extremely hard on it.

To the member for Hamilton East I say this: If the cuts weren't as hard as they were yesterday, this bill would not be needed. It's only because the cuts were that hard that I feel this bill is needed.

To the members of the government, I will remind you when you say that the transfer partners have to be part of the solutions -- I agree with the omnibus bill that is coming in, but when you read the municipal section, I say to you as you come in, we have now taken away the ability of district health councils to shut hospitals. I agree that has to be done, but that omnibus bill, our transfer partners -- we shut hospitals in the province of Ontario as of that bill passing.

I say to my honourable friends who say the government has to work with the transfer partners, I support it 100%, but when that bill comes in I'd like you to say the same thing, that we don't want to force our transfer partners to do something. When you read that bill, the municipal

section of it, it is going to be a fundamental change: The province is going to make the decisions. As we go through the restructuring, I will remind you of the same comments you made: We don't want to tell municipalities what you want to do. I will remind you of that when the municipal restructuring happens. Again I say 100% support, but when that happens, I'll remind you of what you said in this House.

Finally, the Common Sense Revolution, page 5, addressed this. I won't read it out because we're getting down to the wire, but we knew with this going in it was going to create a problem and we said there is only one taxpayer and we cannot allow historically what has happened: municipalities to pass it on to the tax. We said we would work with the municipalities to ensure those tax increases don't come through.

This is the only way to do it, in my mind, and I hope all members will pass this bill, support it, otherwise I'm afraid we're going to have massive tax increases and it's going to be as a direct result of this government.

RENT REGULATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there anyone who objects to voting on the motion now?

Ballot item number 9, the resolution standing in the name of Mr Bisson: All in favour? Opposed? In my opinion, the nays have it.

This then will be deferred until after the next question.

REALTY TAX FREEZE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS ET VISANT À GELER LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 10, standing in the name of Mr Carr. Any members who oppose taking a vote on this at this time? Shall this motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

I my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

RENT REGULATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): On ballot item number 9, the private member's notice of motion by Mr Bisson, the New Democratic Party has requested a recorded vote.

Therefore, all those in favour of the resolution will please stand and stay standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Kormos, Peter

Rae, Bob

Bisson, Gilles

Lankin, Frances

Silipo, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Martel, Shelley

Wood, Len

Churley, Marilyn

Martin, Tony

Colle, Mike

Pouliot, Gilles

The Deputy Speaker: Those opposed will please stand and remain standing.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Grandmaître, Bernard

O'Toole, John

Bassett, Isabel

Grimmett, Bill

Parker, John L.

Beaubien, Marcel

Guzzo, Garry J.

Pettit, Trevor

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Preston, Peter

Brown, Jim

Hoy, Pat

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Hudak, Tim

Ross, Lillian

Carr, Gary

Johnson, Ron

Sampson, Rob

Carroll, Jack

Jordan, Leo

Shea, Derwyn

Chudleigh, Ted

Kwinter, Monte

Sheehan, Frank

Cleary, John C.

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Smith, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Leadston, Gary L.

Snobelen, John

Doyle, Ed

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stockwell, Chris

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Tilson, David

Ford, Douglas B.

Miclash, Frank

Turnbull, David

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

Murdoch, Bill

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

Newman, Dan

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 13, the nays 51.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the resolution lost.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville South, I will not deal with a point of order now. It will have to be done later.

It being 12 o'clock, I declare the House adjourned till 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): "Not one cent from health care," that's what Mike Harris promised. Yesterday, the Conservatives slashed $1.3 billion from Ontario hospitals. "No new user fees," that's what Mike Harris said during the election campaign. That's what he promised, and yesterday the Conservatives slapped a new user fee on drugs prescribed to seniors by their doctors. "No hospital closures," that's what Mike Harris promised, and yesterday the Conservatives announced an 18% cut to hospitals and a fast track for hospital closings, without scrutiny.

Yesterday Mike Harris didn't cut the fat out of health care; he pulled the plug. Never before has a government shown such contempt for the voters of this province; never before has a government violated its commitment, its trust, with the people of this province so quickly after an election. When a government breaks its promise this quickly after an election, one can only conclude that the government never intended to follow through on its promises in the first place.

Every member elected to this House is deemed by the rules of this House to be honourable. After what Mike Harris has said and after what Mike Harris has done to health care in this province, I will not believe another word that Mike Harris ever says again on health care. Never again will I ever trust a word he says. If a man's word is his bond, Mike Harris's bond rating has been downgraded to zero in my books. Shame on you, and you should resign.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's going to be a bleak Christmas for a whole lot of folks in this province. Folks down in Welland-Thorold are scared and, I'm telling you, rightly so: senior citizens not understanding how they're going to afford to pay for the health care they were promised was not going to be tinkered with; young families who don't know whether they're going to be able to continue to live in the houses they've purchased because they don't know whether the increased realty taxes are going to force them out of those houses.

There are lineups at soup kitchens longer than they've ever been in decades and the shelves of the food banks are empty and bare. It's going to be a really bleak Christmas for lots of Ontarians. The cupboard's bare for seniors, children will be hard pressed to understand the poverty they've been forced into, and unemployment continues to loom over this province with no end in sight.

But not for Mike Harris and the Tories at Queen's Park. Oh no, it's going to be a jolly and merry Christmas for Mike Harris's gang as they wine and dine and dance at their caucus Christmas party at the posh, exclusive Westin Harbour Castle hotel on December 13.

This is an exercise in self-indulgence and extravagance and disdain and contempt by this Tory cabal. It's the height of arrogance. They're going to drop in excess of three grand while people are starving and shivering on the streets of Toronto and across this province. Shame on them; it's contemptible.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further statements? The member for Kitchener.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): It's not taxpayers' money.

LYLE HALLMAN

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a leader in my community of Kitchener-Waterloo.

Lyle Hallman is the owner of Hallman Construction, and this year marks his 50th year of success in the construction industry. But I am not here today to talk about Lyle's business accomplishments; I am here today to recognize his philosophy of giving that has made a tremendous impact on the Kitchener-Waterloo community.

His most public gifts include financial contributions to a building for the children's aid society and to the Centre in the Square, our arts centre; $150,000 to the Waterloo Recreation Complex; and $100,000 to the St Mary's General Hospital fund-raising campaign. More recently, there was a gift of $500,000 so the Grand River Recreation Complex could build an Olympic-size pool, and an endowment of $1 million to the Kitchener-Waterloo Community Foundation board.

But while these gifts are very generous, Lyle Hallman's real contribution is his willingness to do what it takes to help people. The time Mr Hallman has spent participating in various clubs and associations has always been driven by his sincere desire to help the community. Whether it was being president of the local Jaycees or spending a part of every Saturday directing a boys' program for the Christian Youth Centre, Lyle's dedication and commitment --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Yesterday, the Conservative government slashed more than $1.3 billion from Ontario's hospitals. You ask, is that a broken promise? You bet it is. But is about a lot more than a government not keeping its word. This is about people's lives.

"No cuts to agriculture." That's a broken promise. "No cuts to the north." That is a broken promise.

But let me make it clear: When you cut hospitals by $1.3 billion, you're taking money from emergency rooms, you're taking money that could reduce waiting lists for cardiac surgery, you're taking money from cancer care, you're taking money that often means a difference between life and death.

When Mike Harris repeatedly promised that he would not cut one cent from health care, I thought he did so because he believed, like the vast majority of Ontarians, that health care was far too important to cut. That is, after all, what he promised in the Common Sense Revolution. But now that the votes have been cast and $1.3 billion has been cut from Ontario's hospitals, all his words about "priority spending" and "not one cent" really make you understand why voters just don't trust politicians anymore.

I ask the Premier to reconsider his $1.3 billion in cuts to hospitals, not because the cuts violate his promise not to cut health care, but because his cuts threaten the one thing all Ontarians agree is our best asset: a quality health care system.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement is to the Minister of Education and Training. Recently, I met with teachers' representatives in Kapuskasing who are concerned about cuts to education programs, specifically the junior kindergarten program. With funding to school boards now being cut by $400 million, this program is now threatened by your government's axe. I might point out that it's like taking a chainsaw to do heart surgery.

The junior kindergarten program, first introduced in 1944 and supported by government since its inception by grants to school boards to provide educational programs in junior and senior kindergarten, should not be threatened. Every dollar invested in programs for young children and their families saves $7 in remedial programs or criminal justice costs down the line.

Because of the benefits for children, the NDP government passed legislation calling for mandatory junior kindergarten. Your government has not indicated support for this initiative and your silence on this issue is thundering, suggesting that possibly you won't be supporting it.

There's a widening gap in Ontario between the children who arrive at school emotionally, physically and intellectually ready to learn and the children who come to school hampered by a lack of nurturing and stimulation. Providing early education to all children means all children will have the chance to live up to their potential in our society.

When you're evaluating education programs and cuts to them, I would suggest that you use your common sense, Mr Minister, and not cut funding to junior kindergarten programs in this province. You say that our youth will benefit in the future from your direct reduction efforts. I say they would benefit more from a junior kindergarten program that would educate them early for future success.

AMETHYST AWARDS

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): It gives me great pleasure to rise today in honour of 17 individuals and groups who represent the hallmark of public service to Ontario's citizens. These Ontario public servants are this year's recipients of the Amethyst Award, the symbol of outstanding achievement in the delivery of services to the people of Ontario.

The honorees will be honoured tonight at a special ceremony.

They are the aboriginal issues action group and George Al-Bazi with the Ministry of Transportation; Carol Gold, Jerome Krause and John Voskuil at the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation; John Gunn and Bill Keller with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment and Energy; John Mochikas of the Ministry of Finance; Sheila McDade with the Ministry of the Attorney General; Sue Noga with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Gyan Rajhans of the Ministry of Labour; Sam Squire with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; the recycling committee of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services; and Sharon Suter with the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

We are honoured to have these individuals here today and I would ask you to acknowledge --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Just before the House assembled today I had an early visit from Santa Claus, also known as His Worship Mayor Mel Lastman of the city of North York, who was staging his own Miracle on 34th Street. The mayor was accompanied by Mr Jack Gallop, president of North York Branson Hospital, 12 other Santas and hundreds of citizens concerned about the proposed merger of North York Branson Hospital with York-Finch Hospital.

The proposed merger will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital and will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which Branson serves. Many of these people are elderly and require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions.

Santa and his helpers delivered to me 12 bags full of 55,000 letters and signatures in support of North York Branson Hospital. Now that the budget bill is going to give the Minister of Health the unprecedented, unilateral, dictatorial power to close hospitals, and having regard for the minister's own health, I'm going to send over to him just two of the 12 bags as tangible evidence of the major concern expressed by citizens who are desperate to see their health service maintained.

I'm sure that Mayor Mel Lastman and President Jack Gallop, who are sitting in the members' gallery, will agree with me that if you were to ask the citizens served by North York Branson Hospital who was supporting the changed role for Branson hospital, the answer would be a resounding "Nobody."

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): As a result of yesterday's attack on the people of Ontario, the brutal assault on municipalities is now becoming quite clear: 47% in cuts over two years. In Hamilton alone, in the next budget, it's being estimated by Mayor Morrow at possibly $9 million. Yet this government has said: "You're supposed to do this, municipalities. Find all these cuts without raising taxes." What kind of options does that leave our municipal counterparts?

In Hamilton, Councillor Dave Wilson is suggesting it may mean 400 jobs. We know it's going to mean user fees in areas that have traditionally been a part of public service. Library branch closings are now on the table, seniors are having to pay an increased cost for their drug benefits, hospitals are being cut, public transit's being cut, junior kindergarten is being cut -- all of that affecting the most vulnerable people in our society.

Again we see this government going after working people, going after seniors, going after the most vulnerable. And what's the bottom line? Not to take care of the deficit. The bottom line is to make sure you've got enough money to give a huge tax cut to your wealthy friends. This is obscene, and eventually you will feel the wrath of the people of Ontario as all of this becomes very clear.

WORLD AIDS DAY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Tomorrow is World AIDS Day in Ontario and I would like to urge all members to join with me in recognizing its importance in raising awareness and understanding of HIV and AIDS.

The World Health Organization estimates that over 20 million people worldwide have been infected with HIV, including 1.5 million children. In Ontario, we have almost 12,000 people living with HIV, many of whom also have AIDS, unfortunately.

The theme for World AIDS Day this year is "Shared Rights, Shared Responsibilities." This theme was chosen to underline how essential both rights and responsibilities are in the context of HIV/AIDS. Governments in particular have a responsibility to ensure that laws, policies and practices prevent the spread of HIV, and they must also work with those people living with HIV/AIDS to protect their rights and to create an environment of support.

Individuals with HIV/AIDS also have rights and responsibilities. They are entitled to all human rights, without discrimination based on actual or suspected HIV status. They also have the responsibility to avoid putting others at risk of HIV infection.

I am happy that the Minister of Health indicated in his AIDS Awareness Week House statement that --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K