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

May 16, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 16 May 2002 Jeudi 16 mai 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES LOCATAIRES (AUGMENTATIONS

ÉQUITABLES DES LOYERS)

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES LOCATAIRES (AUGMENTATIONS

ÉQUITABLES DES LOYERS)

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES LOCATAIRES (AUGMENTATIONS

ÉQUITABLES DES LOYERS)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HALTON CITIZENS

EDUCATION ISSUES

OPHTHALMOLOGICAL HEALTH CARE

VERONICA BRENNER

LONG-TERM CARE

POLICE WEEK

MINISTRY SPENDING

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

MONIQUE HARTIN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'AUTOROUTE

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU /

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

HIGHWAY ACT, 2002

SOLICITORS AMENDMENT ACT

(CONTINGENCY FEE

AGREEMENTS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PROCUREURS

(ENTENTES SUR DES

HONORAIRES CONDITIONNELS)

VISITORS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HARRY WORTON

NURSING WEEK /

SEMAINE DES SOINS INFIRMIERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

HYDRO ONE

DURHAM COLLEGE

HYDRO ONE

ORGANIZED CRIME

MINIMUM WAGE

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

FEDERAL AIRPORT SECURITY FEES

GASOLINE PRICES

BORDER SECURITY

EDUCATION ISSUES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

HYDRO ONE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AMBULANCE SERVICES

HYDRO ONE

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

HYDRO ONE

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE /

DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE

Thursday 16 May 2002 Jeudi 16 mai 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Mr Sergio moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to ensure that the transmission corridors remain provincial assets to be used for public transit, recreational

and similar purposes / Projet de loi 13, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité afin de garantir que les couloirs de transport demeurent des éléments d'actif provinciaux

devant servir aux fins des transports en commun, des loisirs et d'activités semblables.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for York West.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to thank you and the House for bringing forward my private member's

bill.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to our standing orders 96, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr Sergio: I'm delighted to make some comments on my private member's bill. I'd like to formally introduce it as it is written. It is

An Act to

amend the Electricity Act, 1998 to ensure that the transmission corridors remain provincial assets to be used for public transit, recreational and similar purposes.

More in particular, it is to remove from the assets of Ontario Hydro, or its successor in the event of a sale, the hydro transmission corridor lengths. My bill

does not deal with any other component of the so-called Ontario Hydro, or Hydro One, as we have heard more the past few months, but for the past year. My bill deals strictly with the hydro corridor

lengths, those stretches of land, those swaths of land, that the electric transmission towers sit on. Those are the lands that we deal with specifically with my bill today. Another day, hopefully,

we will deal with the other issues, and perhaps the even more important issue, Hydro One. But for today, we'll limit ourselves to try and protect and deal in the House with preserving forever and

for public use in public hands the corridor properties.

You may say, "Why this particular bill at this particular time?" Let me say this. With what we have heard in the past year or so from the former Premier and now

Premier Eves, we want to make sure that indeed, if a sale takes place, if a sale is approved by the present government, those lands are protected forever.

Let me say at the outset that I, my fellow Liberal colleagues here, and my leader, Dalton McGuinty, are opposed to the sale of Hydro One. Let me say further that

my constituency and the people I have spoken to are opposed to the sale of Hydro One. But the former Premier and now the new Premier have said, especially just prior to the last by-election, the

Hydro One sale was off the table. On my part and that of the people I speak for, they don't want to hear of, they don't want to know of, any deal off the table, on the table, under the table -- any

sale, any lease whatsoever. They want no deals whatsoever.

Let me get to my private member's bill. I was saying before, why the bill at this particular time? Well, if the Premier is serious in what he has said to us, if

the government is serious in making that promise and protecting the lands forever, then today I think it's a good time, it's a good initial point, to support this bill and say, "Yes, it is

important that the lands remain in public hands and in the control of the provincial government."

We are dealing with swaths of land, some 55,000 acres. It represents an irreplaceable piece of property. It is priceless. It is one of a kind and it is unique.

Let me say that they don't make it any more. There is one for us to use today and for the needs of tomorrow.

On April 3, because of some pressures, I suppose, the government, through its Ontario SuperBuild Corp -- which is one and the other; it's the same -- made this

particular announcement:

"The province and Hydro One, with the assistance of the Ontario SuperBuild Corp, have agreed to protect the province's interests and ability to use lands along

hydro transmission corridors owned by Hydro One for public purposes after Hydro One is privatized." Well, I have a problem with that. It further says, "Hydro One and the province have entered into

a letter of intent that establishes the principals that will form the basis of a final and binding agreement to be completed prior to the Hydro One equity IPO."

Further in the same memo, it says that there is an option for the province to acquire these transmission corridor lands. Shall we say that the lands are already

owned by the people of Ontario and they are owned by the province of Ontario?

It further says, "In addition, Hydro One will be required to provide the province with 120 days' notice" in case they decide to sell it or sell any part or any

interest in it, and that they would have 120 days to exercise it. Specifically, the province says that they "may" exercise. So there are too many "ifs" if the province indeed is serious, is

sincere, in protecting the hydro transmission corridor properties.

Further, which gives even more worries, it says that if the province indeed will use that option and acquire the lands, they may sell it for transportation uses.

This is why the bill is here today. We want to know from the Premier and from this government if indeed they are serious to protect these 55,000 acres of land, which are now in the domain of the

public, in the domain of the Ontario government, if they will indeed protect the hydro transmission corridor lands.

This is only one aspect. Let me read what Markham is saying, for example: "Whereas the impending sale of Hydro One has raised questions about the ownership of

lands under the transmission lines and

whereas the lands in the hydro corridors are one of the few publicly owned facilities that are ideal for consideration as rapid transit corridors...."

Presently, those lands are already in use by many agencies and municipal governments for transportation, public parking, commuter parking. They are being used

for recreational uses such as soccer fields and many other uses. But most important, if we let go of those lands -- they already form part of the transportation corridor -- those lands will be lost

forever, and we will have to beg whoever is going to be in control of them tomorrow to lease them, to use them, to buy them back. Let me say that it will be impossible for the people of Ontario,

for any government in the future, to repurchase 55,000 acres of land, let alone that because of the particular position where they are located, they would prove a huge, huge embarrassment for any

future government to try and deal with the legal tangle, the legal issues to buy back those particular lands. Because of their location, they would provide a huge problem for the local

municipalities and abutting residential communities as well. It is for this reason that I call on the Premier today, that I call on every member of the House, that if we are serious in saying we

are indeed going to protect the hydro corridor lands, approve this bill today.

Might I say that whatever happens to this private member's bill this morning may be the prelude of what is going to happen to the rest of the components of

Ontario Hydro, and more specifically Hydro One. What happens to this bill here today is indeed the prelude of what is going to happen to Hydro One in the future.

If we are to take the Premier seriously when he says the Hydro One sale is off the table, then my message to the Premier and the members on the government side

is, if you are serious, if you were sincere when you told the people of Ontario immediately prior to the last by-election that the Hydro One sale was off the table and the hydro corridor lands are

a part of that, then you have no reason not to support this private member's bill today. Failing that, I think the Premier and the government are sending a very definite and strong message to the

people of Ontario that they will go ahead and privatize Ontario Hydro and sell Hydro One.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Thank you for the opportunity to take

part in what I think is a very important debate about a very

important issue. Just so people at home understand clearly what we're talking about, Ontario's hydroelectric system has a number of very large transmission lines. I'm not talking about distribution

lines; I'm not talking about the hydro poles and hydro wires that distribute electricity to our homes. I'm talking about the huge transmission lines which are in many cases 100 metres, 200 metres,

even perhaps in some cases 300 metres high, that carry the very high voltage wires. We're talking about thousands of kilometres of these transmission lines. Essentially, they run from the Quebec

border all along the St Lawrence River, along Lake Ontario, along Lake Erie down to Windsor. They run from Niagara Falls through to Hamilton. They run across northern Ontario, into northern

Ontario. So we're talking about very large corridors. In some cases, these corridors are 300 or 400 metres wide. It's almost as if someone had the forethought to build very large, continuous road

allowances, highway allowances across Ontario so that at some future time, if we chose to, we could literally build almost unimpeded superhighways. To say this is very valuable real estate is to

understate incredibly the value of these corridors.

We've heard much discussion from the government over the last few weeks that they want to sell Hydro One, that they'd be satisfied if they got, say, $4.5 billion

or $5 billion for Hydro One. I think anyone who went out and looked at the corridors by themselves, just looked at these transmission corridors, and did a little bit of inquiry would discover

that within the next 10 years the corridors themselves are going to be worth that amount of money.

I want to elucidate why they will be worth that amount of money. The first reason they're worth that amount of money is that if we look not just in Ontario but

across North America and the rest of the western world, a number of telecommunications companies are looking for dedicated corridors where they can put down fibre optic cable. Yes, you could put

fibre optic cable down your street, or I guess you could put fibre optic cable down a railway line or down the 401. But you've got some problems there. First of all, in many cases those corridors

are already very crowded. Second, many of those corridors are now so criss-crossed and interrupted that you'd go to a considerable expense to put down your fibre optic cable. Third, you'd always

have to worry in that kind of situation about somebody who wants to put in a new water line, a new sewer line, and the prospect of having your fibre optic cable broken, torn apart or otherwise

disrupted.

What is so incredibly valuable about these transmission corridors, which belong to all of us in Ontario, and what makes them so attractive, is that you could

literally use them to put fibre optic cable from Montreal to Windsor, from Niagara Falls to Toronto, on into northern Ontario, across northern Ontario from Quebec to Manitoba, and you've also got

the potential to have a number of other linkages, all of them without interruption. In fact, you could lease some of this space to telecommunications corporations for them to put down their fibre

optic cable and the money from those leases would accrue to the people of Ontario, and we're talking here potentially about hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue.

But what does this government want to do? It wants to give that revenue away to its friends on Bay Street. Not once in this government's attempts to try to avoid

any debate or discussion about Hydro One have they been willing to talk about not just the value in 10 years but the value right now of those hydro transmission corridors in terms of leasing out

some of the space for fibre optic use.

But not just fibre optic use; almost every day when I pick up a newspaper that refers to the transportation situation in the greater Toronto area or in the

Golden Horseshoe or anywhere in southern Ontario, I read about transportation gridlock, about how the 401 is becoming impassable, the Don Valley is becoming impassable, the Gardiner and the Queen

Elizabeth Way are becoming impassable, many of the arterial roads are becoming impassable. If we're to look around at what are the potentially best transportation corridors, whether for new

highways or for rail or rapid transit or busways, anyone looking at a map or anyone walking down one of these Hydro One transmission lines would say, "Oh, this is a natural. If we have to build new

highways, this is where they should go. If we have to put in rapid transit lines, this is where they should go. If we want to put in busways, this is where they should go. We won't have to

expropriate any property, we won't have to tear down any buildings, we won't have to force people to move from their homes; this is a natural." Just in terms of their value as highway corridors or

railway corridors or future rapid transit corridors, they are worth, when you think about the length and breadth of Ontario, hundreds of millions of dollars for that purpose.

But during the whole discussion, during this government's whole scheme to sell off Ontario's most important public asset, have they ever once referred to the

incredible value of those transmission corridors for transportation purposes? If you listen to this government, they would have you believe this is worthless land. In fact, for the purposes of

transportation it is, again, worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Let's just assume for a minute that CN or CP wants to build a new rail corridor, or let's assume for a minute that the federal government and Via Rail finally

get their act together and discover that we need to build some of the rapid transit high-speed train lines you see now in Japan or western Europe or even in the United States. This is where they

would go. And from the perspective of the public of Ontario, even leasing corridors out for dedicated rail use at below their market value would still gain for the taxpayers of Ontario, the people

of Ontario, hundreds of millions of dollars a year in new revenue.

What's even more ironic about this is that while this government refuses to recognize the value of these public lands, and while this government refuses to

recognize that this could be a revenue source not only for paying down the debt of Hydro One but residual stranded debt, they refuse to recognize the public benefits to the people of Ontario. The

great irony is that when you read the privatization document, when you read the prospectus that was put out by all those Bay Street folks who want to privatize our hydroelectric system, they talk

about how much revenue can be made, in private hands, of course, to line the pockets of the folks on Bay Street. It's so incredible: if we only sell off our hydroelectric system, if we only sell

off our transmission lines, people on Bay Street will be only too happy to use those hydro corridors to put in fibre optic telecommunication lines, only too happy to make revenue from leasing it

for rapid transit or rail or new highways. But this government takes the obtuse position that in public hands they're not worth anything.

I think this just illustrates the degree to which this government is all about helping out its friends on Bay Street, all about giving them all kinds of

opportunities to make money off a public service. But in terms of improving that public service or further developing that public service so that it benefits all the people of Ontario, no, they

can't even talk about that, can't even consider that, can't even think about that.

These lands, the hydro transmission lines, above and beyond their value for transmitting electricity, which is immense, are clearly worth hundreds of millions of

dollars a year in new revenue for Hydro One, and for the people of Ontario, if it is kept in public hands. Not only that; in rapidly urbanizing areas of the province, this is where you will see the

opportunity to build new bicycle corridors. This is where you will see the opportunity, for example, to put in cross-country ski corridors or in-line skating corridors or paths to walk and run on.

The list is endless, because you're talking about corridors that in many cases are 300 or 400 metres wide, corridors that have no other conflicting use, where you can easily bypass or get through

areas that are otherwise congested.

This government, in its whole scheme, the scheme that they are unwilling to debate or discuss for selling off our hydro transmission system, refuses to consider

any of these values, refuses to consider any of them. The government, to try to finesse this issue, has said that, oh, there would be some kind of process where the public could reacquire use of

these lands. But if you read the fine print, should a privatized Hydro One sell them off, that capacity is ended. In other words, when you read the fine print, when you look just beneath the

surface, there is no strategy here. There is no strategy whatsoever for the protection of these lands and the value that they have for the public, either the monetary value that they have for the

public or the use value that they have for the public. This is all about, again, taking something that has immense financial value, immense public interest value and simply turning it over to the

government's friends on Bay Street so they can make as much money as they want off it, and the public interest be damned. This is wrong, clearly wrong. But it just serves to underscore how wrong

this government's whole scheme is from beginning to end, their whole scheme to privatize our hydroelectricity system. It makes no sense from a public interest point of view to sell off the hydro

corridors. It makes no sense from a public interest point of view to sell off what is a natural monopoly. It makes no sense from a public interest point of view to sell off the generating stations

either.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this part of this issue. It has merits on its own, but it serves to illustrate just how ill-founded, how misdirected, this

government's whole scheme of hydroelectricity privatization is.

So I would support the resolution. In fact, I think the resolution should be stronger. I think this amendment to the Electricity Competition Act should be

stronger. I think what we should be saying is that for all time, these hydro corridors shall remain in public hands for public use, all revenues should accrue to the public benefit, and no other

purposes, no other uses, shall be considered. That, I think, has to be the spirit of the position in this debate. These lands are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue now. These

lands are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of future revenue, whether as information corridors, rapid transit corridors, rail corridors or new highway corridors, and they should be

kept in the public realm so that the benefits of these public lands go to the public and not just a few speculators on Bay Street.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I understand what the member for York West is trying to do here, and I think the intent is

certainly worth looking at. The premise of the bill, though, is that Hydro is going to be sold. I think that's not only a premise that's premature; in fact, it just may be wrong. I think the member

has been candid in saying that if there is no sale, the bill is not even necessary.

I think the member for Kenora-Rainy River hit it on the head. I was also looking at the bill, and what the member is trying to do is he wants a transfer of the

lands from Ontario Hydro into the province's hands. Then he allows under the bill for the transfer or sale of the lands into the hands of municipalities, public transportation groups or whatever,

with the purpose of dealing with the recreational uses etc. The member for Kenora-Rainy River is right. If we're going to do this, you've got to have that protection. That's where this act does not

provide that protection. If you're going to have protection for public use, it should be protection for all time. Anything could happen.

Interjection.

Mr Tascona: The member for York West can say what he wants. I know he's very familiar with the development industry.

I think the member for Kenora-Rainy River hit it on the head with respect to the municipalities or these other groups. There's nothing to stop them from selling

it off to their developer friends, and the member for York West is very familiar with developers in terms of what they would be able to do with the land. That's a fatal flaw with this bill, and I

think the member knows that with respect to the protections that are needed. That's one flaw in this bill that's going to have to be dealt with to protect it from getting into the hands of the

developers -- who the member for York West is very familiar with -- from sales through the municipalities and other groups.

I would think you're going to have to have a fundamental amendment in this bill -- it's (7) of this bill. It's going to have to be amended to make sure that the

lands are protected for public purposes, because the way it's structured right now the transfer goes into the hands of the province and they sell it to, say, the municipalities or these other

groups. These other groups can do whatever they want. They can put them into the hands of the developer, of the private sector, which the member for York West is very familiar with, and that's not

what this bill should be doing. I think he should be looking at a friendly amendment to make sure, as the member for Kenora-Rainy River has said, to put the protections where they should be.

Otherwise, this bill is just a sham, because it's going to end up in the hands of private developers, which the member for York West is very familiar with. That's the truth. If he's not in favour

of a friendly amendment to (7) of this bill, then everybody should know where this land's going to end up: private developers in the city of Toronto. That's where it's going to end up, and that's

not what we want.

Our goals for Hydro One are very clear: we want to protect electricity customers and future generations of Ontarians with a safe and reliable supply of power at

reasonable cost. We want to pay down the $38 billion in debt and liabilities inherited from the old Hydro One. We also want to ensure that the capital to fund necessary investment in aging

electricity infrastructure is available, but not at the expense of provincial taxpayers. The most important goal of this government is to protect the consumer, and before we make any decision on

how to best proceed we are listening to the public with respect to this matter.

I'll quite frankly come out, as the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, in favour of public control of Ontario Hydro. That's what my position is, but we do have

to deal with $38 billion in debt and we have to deal with the management that is still running up debt. We have to deal with their efficiencies.

I'll say that public control with respect to Hydro One, which I think is the intent of what the member for York West is looking for, certainly is the thrust of

his bill. The bottom line here, and the litmus test for the member across the way, is -- the member for Kenora-Rainy River, the leader of the NDP, has said it very clearly -- are we going to

protect public lands in perpetuity or are we going to basically go ahead with what the member is trying to accomplish here without safeguards: transfer from Hydro One over to the province; the

province transfers it over to the municipalities and others groups. It doesn't stop them from selling it off to private developers, so what have we accomplished? Is this just another mechanism, an

indirect mechanism, for the member for York West to get those valued lands to the private developers, who he is very familiar with? We know he's very familiar with those private developers.

I can support the intent of the bill but we need protections for the public and they're not there.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): If somebody wanted to truly protect the public, you'd do the honourable thing right now and stand up

and say you're putting an end and a stop to the sale of Hydro One. That's how you can protect the public. What you're doing right now is leaving the public so vulnerable with this foolhardy attempt

to sell off Hydro One.

You don't recognize the importance of these corridors. In some places in an urban centre these hydro corridors are the only areas of recreation because of this

mentality of pave, pave, pave. The only green space that's left in a lot of urban centres right now are these hydro corridors. You need to preserve these. You need to preserve these for the young

people. You need to preserve these for everybody for recreational uses, for transportation uses, for the sake of the animals. There is still a lot of wildlife in urban centres and these are the

only areas where the animals have an opportunity to thrive, and you're prepared to sell this off.

I think too that you need to recognize the effect these transmission corridors have in rural Ontario. These transmission corridors have been purchased with an

understanding of trust between Hydro and the farmers. The farmer knows what he or she is getting in dealing with Hydro One, and they've developed a good working relationship in opening up these

hydro rights of way. What you're doing is selling out the farmers of this province, you're selling out rural Ontario in this foolhardy scheme, because you're not going to guarantee that that farmer

is going to have protection over that corridor, that right-of-way. You're opening it right up, and I think it is a very wrong move to make.

I think too you need to think through a municipal perspective. There are a lot of municipalities that have sold off -- I can think where we sold off for two

hydro towers to go up through the middle of one of our parks in the city of St Thomas. If all of a sudden this corridor comes into private hands, how is that going to affect the public's ability to

use a public park when you've got some kind of private company owning this transmission corridor? You're not thinking it through.

I think the other thing you need to think about too is that a lot of these corridors pass through some very sensitive environmental areas and some sensitive

archeological areas. These are areas that need to be protected. The best way to protect these sites is to keep these sites in public hands and not allow them to be opened up and left to the whim of

a private entrepreneur.

So why don't you do the right thing? If you're truly committed to trying to help the people of Ontario and doing what's in the best interests of the people of

Ontario, stop the sale of Hydro One. Have the guts. Mr Tascona just spoke up there. Why doesn't he speak up in his caucus and say to Ernie Eves and Chris Stockwell, "Stop the sale of Hydro

One"?

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Durham.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, it's a pleasure to see you in the chair this morning.

I really do want to be on the record. The very first thing is that I want to make a point of being the first member on this side of the House to recognize the

press release this morning that Al McDonald, the new member for Nipissing, has just been confirmed into this House with a sweeping number. I met Al when I happened to visit the riding and saw him

as a young entrepreneur, and I heard him speak clearly on this issue. I think he was looking, like many members in this caucus, for the government to do the right thing.

This morning we're talking about Bill 13, from the member for York West,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act. It's clear in this House over the last few days

that it has been the issue of the day. On review of the bill, I can say in a general sense that I support the sentiment. The sentiment I've heard right from the beginning of this discussion is the

importance of the public lands under these transmission and distribution lines. Having served on the municipal council level, I know that these lands in many cases serve as connecting areas and

walking trails and public spaces, and I for one think it's important that the public have full access to those lands.

I think the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, who is a beauty -- there's no question that he's a beauty; he uses that term regularly -- has brought to light a

very important weakness in Mr Sergio's private member's bill, and I'm referring to subsection 1(7). For those listening, some of whom are here, "Her Majesty in right of Ontario may sell, lease or

otherwise transfer hydro transmission corridor land to municipalities, public transit corporations and similar entities for public transit, recreational, infrastructure development and similar

public purposes and for no other purpose."

I think the weakness in here, as the member -- the beauty -- from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford has stated, is a risk. Some municipalities in the generation discussion

on Ontario Hydro reconfiguration have indeed sold a local utility, and that sale of the local utility in many cases ended up as a private sector entity, which of course was an option they had.

Now we're talking about Mr Sergio's bill. If we're going to transfer some of these public assets, which I'm arguing are important assets for the public right of

access, then there is a piece of very vulnerable language in this that developers, who in many cases are friends to the Liberal government -- we understand that. I think the point I'm trying to

make is I'm not sure if he deliberately designed this error or if it's just kind of a mistake in drafting. I want him to respond to this question.

In my concluding remarks I want to put on the record our response to the issue of Hydro One rights of way. Our government has long been on record with its

commitment to protect the province's interest in the ability to use the land along hydro transmission corridors for public purposes. Through SuperBuild, the government has taken steps to ensure

hydro transmission corridor lands will continue to be available for public uses after the government decision on what to do with Hydro One. The government recognizes that the primary purpose of

hydro corridors is for transmitting electricity while maintaining the public interest in the land.

At every briefing I've had, and I've heard Minister Hodgson speak on that and I've heard every one of the ministers involved in this issue, including caucus

members like the beauty from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford --

Interjection: Beautiful.

Mr O'Toole: -- the beautiful member says that is our wish as well. It's not clear enough in this bill. I support the theory, but I think there

are some weaknesses in the bill. I'm a bit perplexed about how we're going to deal with it.

I think in reading -- my final remarks here this morning -- it's kind of a flip-flop that's gone to the other side again. I'm not sure of their position on the

generation side. They kind of agree with the model that's out there now. But on the transmission side, they haven't clearly stated their position. Now they're criticizing our Premier because he is

listening and he's prepared to look at a new model. This is, as he said in the throne speech, a new era. We have a Premier now who's listening. He is responding, and that does reflect in his

comments more recently: "Eves said" yesterday "his new Conservative administration is open to Hydro One remaining in public hands." What could be clearer? Clearly the four principles -- public

interest, protecting the consumer, having safe, reliable, affordable electricity -- are in our plan, and our plan includes looking at all the options. This bill leads some of us in the right

direction, but it doesn't do the right thing at the end of the day.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): Spin, spin and more spin. They're going all over the place. This very timely, very astute and very thoughtful bill is

what is necessary, and I ask this question: why is it necessary? Why? They can't get it right. They're going all over the map, and they just don't know how to protect the people's interest here in

Ontario. The public wants this bill. It protects 50,000 acres of land that we presently own on behalf of all the people of Ontario. They can't get it right. They call this a new era. Then why is

the former Premier still in an office in this place, and why are we still paying for it? Is he job-hunting or something? What's going on with the new era? It's all over the map. These guys are

putting on the same spin they've been putting on since day one. They're just trying to make everybody else look like it's their fault. It's the blame game all over again.

Why does the public want this? It's a matter of trust. We want trust in our government. Why is that? Let me point out something to the public. We've got a bill

that is now going to take care of something we put out, and we now know the trust factor is not there. The trust factor says there was a study done, as outlined in the Globe and Mail, a report from

the University of Victoria, the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance. Ontario received 10 out of a mark of 100 in terms of protecting public land. The parks these guys take credit for, for

creating this legacy of great wealth -- what do they do? They allow logging on this; they allow mining on this. They're not protecting any of the land they presently have charge of. That's the

matter of trust. We want to know if we can trust this government in terms of putting this project right. That's why this bill is necessary. This bill is necessary because it's correcting the faux

pas of that government over and over again.

The member opposite wants to read a clause in here. Let me finish the rest of the clause that he did not point out to the public. Subsection (7) says that it can

go over to the municipalities or public transit or the similar entities, for what? For what specific purposes? For the purposes of "public transit, recreational, infrastructure development and

similar public" uses "and for no other" uses. So the baloney that's being spun over there is talking about private interests and developers and is impugning the good name of the member from York

West. I think they should be ashamed of themselves for doing something like that. The fact that they're trying to make this spin as if it's some kind of personal agenda to take care of the public

interests this way, they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to make a spin like that.

The letter is very clear here, very clear, that this member understood the problem from square one and designed a bill that was very timely and necessary. I

thank the member for putting that bill forward and I support it 100%.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): The bill raises an issue that's well worth considering. It does, however, require a number of questions to be

asked. Some of those questions are going to appear obvious, but they're also important. I'd like to suggest a few of those questions now for the consideration of the House and the public today and

as this issue receives ongoing attention.

The first question we have to ask is, what precisely does Hydro One now need, and what does it need in the foreseeable future? That seems obvious, and it may

well be that some of what they have now they don't need. It is also important to note that they don't necessarily have to have ownership of property in order to run lines across them. It may well

be that their true need is not ownership but rather a right-of-way. Those are questions that I think are important. It's easy to ask and it's easy to stand here today and draw attention to these

questions, but it's actually quite complex to determine what the correct answers to those questions are.

It's obvious that whatever is needed for the purposes of electricity transmission has to be attached to Hydro One. The question this bill really raises is, how

do we determine what's needed, and how do we determine what's not needed? This of course is now done by Hydro One itself. Perhaps that system should continue; perhaps it shouldn't. There are

various ways of changing that if those are deemed to be better solutions than the ones we have now.

The bill also does not address what I would think is a fairly significant issue. Suppose lands are not needed by Hydro One but also aren't needed for

recreational, public transit or similar purposes. What's to be done with them then? As I understand this bill, the lands would not be in a position to be disposed of by Hydro One. That doesn't seem

to make sense to me.

This issue, however, also relates to the whole question of ownership of Hydro One, and ultimately that question has to be determined prior to the merits of

this bill ultimately being determined.

We do know that Hydro as a whole -- or the former Hydro -- had $38 billion in debt, and that does not include the unknown costs of the disposition of the

nuclear facilities. Of that debt, $21 billion is stranded, in other words cannot be paid by what was Ontario Hydro and what are the successor entities.

It's important to ask the question, how did that mess happen? I'd like to suggest to the House that it was because Ontario Hydro had no accountability to the

shareholders because it wasn't the politicians' money at stake, and Ontario Hydro had no accountability to the lenders because the government was guaranteeing the money and the lenders didn't care

whether or not Ontario Hydro could pay the money back. In other words, in sum, there was no accountability. That being the case, I think we have to address those issues before we address in a final

form the issues raised by this bill.

In

summary, all I can really say to the member is this: he raises issues that are important; he raises issues that do have to be further considered. I think he

agrees with us that they can't be considered in isolation, that they have to be considered as a part of an overall problem. It's not a new problem; it's a problem really that has been with us in

one form or another for almost 100 years.

But I think we have to invite the public to give some input on all these issues, we have to listen carefully to what their suggestions are and then we have to

look at what is really going to work, both in terms of providing the right result and what would be an efficient process to get to the right result.

In sum, there is a lot more work to be done yet on this issue.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to commend Mr Sergio for bringing forward Bill 13, which is a response to the unwise efforts of

this government to sell Hydro One to the private sector, although as I stand in the House today, I'm not certain whether or not that's true. I listened to the member who represents, among other

places, the city of Barrie, who says he wants it to remain in public hands. I understood, because I watched the Conservative leadership campaign with a good deal of interest -- I watched with

interest as several of them said, "Absolutely, we're selling Hydro One. It's gone." Now, with all the pressure that I see on the government, it looks like the government may be trying to beat a

retreat on this; we don't know. But at least the member wants to address these lands, which should remain for the purpose of the public good.

I heard members across make reference to land developers and so on, trying to insinuate that there is a closeness between members of the House. I tell him to

watch what is happening in Durham, the lands which were exchanged for the moraine. Watch very carefully who gets what in Durham and how closely connected they might be to the governing party.

That's what we have to watch.

I couldn't help but be amazed by the fact that the other night Premier Eves was down at the convention centre or the Sheraton Centre, one of the two, raising

$2 million in one night. I think just a few of those individuals might be contributors to the Progressive Conservative Party. If you leave these lands in private hands, if Hydro One is sold, if you

proceed with what you've been saying you're going to do for the last six months at least, and that is, sell Hydro One to the private sector, these lands might well fall into private hands.

What the member has suggested in this bill, which you can amend or improve if it goes to committee, if you don't like certain provisions of it, and we are

always happy to hear those representations made by all members of the House, he clearly says they should be reserved for public transit, for recreation, for infrastructure development and similar

public purposes -- not for private purposes; for public purposes, for the public good.

This government has allowed, during its reign, the farmland of this province to be paved from one end of the province to the other, and there are members of

this government who will not be happy until you have paved everything from the edge of Metropolitan Toronto to Fort Erie and the whole Niagara Peninsula.

You changed the law. There was a provision in the Planning Act of Ontario which was much tougher than what we see today. It would have prevented this urban

sprawl. It would have called for what the government is now attaching itself to: true smart growth. What did the government do? It weakened that provision. So all across this province we see prime

farmland being paved. I can tell you there are people in the Niagara Peninsula -- developers -- who are rubbing their hands, waiting to pave that good farmland, where the soil is compatible, first

of all, with the growing of tender fruit and, second, where the climatic conditions are there.

The member for York West has certainly made an effort with this bill to try to save these lands for public purposes. We're going to need public transit, not

1,000 more highways in the province. We have to expand our public transit in this province so that we use our resources in a much better way than we have already. I want to say as well that for

recreational purposes, we want to retain these lands as open space that people can enjoy; for infrastructure development when we require the renewal of certain services; and, as he says, for

similar public purposes.

He wouldn't have to bring this bill forward if you people weren't trying to peddle Hydro One, the crown jewel of electrical production in Ontario, the

transmission grid. If you weren't willing to sell that off to people, then the member wouldn't have had to bring this forward.

I turn to the whip and I say, am I supposed to sit down soon?

Interjection: Yes.

Mr Bradley: I am. So I simply want to congratulate the member. He's done a great job.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): It's always difficult to follow the member from St Catharines, but I will. The member for York West must be

commended for bringing in this bill. The member for York West is trying to act in the interests of the public. The member for York West, Ontario Liberals and Dalton McGuinty seek to protect the

public interest here. We have to do this because right now the executive, the Premier, the government of Ontario, is in fact engaging in an exercise that I think our kids and grandkids will look

back at and find appalling -- the year, the month, the day that the province of Ontario sold off Ontario Hydro, sold off the lands therein.

I think about some of the grave errors that governments have made historically in the past. You think about the great rip-offs that governments have fallen

victim to in the past. You have to think of the sale of Manhattan Island to the Dutch for $24 in the 16th century. They will say in the 21st century that this foolish government, which had options,

which had a choice, which was told by the people not to sell off the electricity transmission grid, in fact did so. They did so, and it will be the equivalent -- mark my words -- of selling off

Manhattan Island for 24 bucks.

What is the member for York West trying to do? He's trying to hang on to what little public interest we can rescue from this exercise. I think it's incumbent

upon the members in this House, particularly on the government side, to hold true to the promise of the throne speech that this would be an open and consultative government. This, I would imagine,

would be the very first test of that open and consultative promise. Why? This is private members' business. Here's an opportunity for the front bench of the radical right, by which I mean the

backbench of the Ontario PC caucus, to have an opportunity to say on behalf of their constituents, "Yes, we don't want to sell off valuable public lands."

I listened very closely to the member for London West, who talked about Hydro One as if it were the same thing --

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Do you want to nationalize the TransCanada PipeLines?

Mr Bryant: Princeton's prince of privatization has just arrived, ladies and gentlemen, to make sure that in fact the privatization agenda of

this government continues. We look forward to seeing his position on this particular bill.

The member for London West talks about the sale of Hydro One as if it has got something to do with Ontario generation. The province of Ontario in the 1990s

underwent a process of electricity restructuring reform, and it was all about generation. To throw in electricity transmission at the last minute would be like, in the middle of a debate over

hospital restructuring, deciding to privatize the ambulances. One has got nothing to do with the other. In the 1990s the concern wasn't about the natural monopoly of the electricity transmission

grid, and today Hydro One is a natural monopoly and a natural money-maker, generating more than $300 million every year for the people of Ontario -- we, the people. This government wants to give

that away. Why this government would want to give that away is surely the question of this legislative session, whether they be fools or knaves.

I say to you particularly in the backbench there, we need to see the government's --

The Acting Speaker: The member for York West has two minutes to reply.

Mr Sergio: First of all, let me thank all the members who have participated in the debate. May I send a copy to my good friend Mr Tascona,

please? I would invite my colleagues and friends the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and the member for Durham to share and read again my private member's bill. They don't have to go any further

than reading the text, which for the benefit of the public, I'm going to do on behalf of the House again. This will help to eliminate any distorting or misleading statements which may be attributed

to my bill here today.

It says that the bill amends the Electricity Act to remove from it the assets of Ontario Hydro and its successor in case they sell it. The hydro transmission

corridor lands are to be held by the province for recreational, public transit and similar purposes. Nowhere in my bill, Mr Speaker and my colleague Mr Tascona, does it make any mention of selling

it to third parties.

Further to that, let me address just for a second the clause that they have picked from my private member's bill. I know they have no problems with this

clause, because they are both lawyers, I believe, and I know they can read legal affinities. The problem is that they are getting orders from high above. It says that under no circumstances is the

land going to be sold to anybody else unless it's given to the municipalities in case there is a need. If there is a problem, it's because they don't want to deal with the issue. They want to do

what they want to do, and the public will not have this land saved for their future use.

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES LOCATAIRES (AUGMENTATIONS

ÉQUITABLES DES LOYERS)

Mr Caplan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to amend the Tenant Protection Act, 1997 to ensure fairness to Ontario's tenants / Projet de loi 134, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la

protection des locataires en vue d'assurer un traitement équitable des locataires de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 96, the member has 10 minutes.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Today is a critical time to have this debate. It's incredibly appropriate. It's clear to me that Ontario's

tenants are under siege. The Tenant Protection Act, so called, is a clear contributor to the attack on tenants.

I just want to very quickly clarify what Ontario's tenants are facing today. Vacancy rates are at an all-time low. Rent increases are going far beyond the rate

of inflation. Evictions are being generated at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal at a record pace, and affordable accommodation is scarce, if not totally non-existent, in many communities across

our province.

When you look at the bottom line for tenants, the picture is even more disturbing. Study after study shows that half of all Ontario's tenants pay more than 30%

of their gross household income on rent. In other words, 50% of all tenants pay more than the government agrees that they should as an affordability measure. Even more startling, one out of every

four tenants, 25% of all renters in the province of Ontario, pay half -- half -- of their gross household income on rent. That's the borderline; that's the edge of homelessness.

These same tenants are not only being assessed by the guideline rent increases that are allowed every year. The problem is that they've been hit over the past

several years with above-the-guideline rent increases for capital repairs and for utility cost increases. Currently, 80,000 tenant households face rent increases above the guideline based on

extraordinary utility costs alone. The problem arises that they pay these increases forever and forever. There's no relief when the landlords' bills have been paid off or when the utility costs

come down. I don't know how many people could afford an increase in their homeownership costs of 6% to 12% every year over a number of years. Yet that's what tenants in Ontario face.

Let's be clear. For all members of this House, let me review for you how the increases work. Every year tenants get an annual increase based on a formula of 2%

plus an amount justified for inflation and other costs and increases adjusted over a three-year rolling average. Landlords can then apply for above-guideline rent increases of 4% more for capital

costs each year to recapture the expenditures. They can also apply for an unlimited increase related to so-called extraordinary cost increases. Once the rent increase is granted by the government's

rubber stamp, the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, it becomes a permanent part of the rent the tenants pay. Even if the costs come down, the rents do not.

Once balcony repairs have been paid off, should the tenants have to pay the rent increases related to it? I say no. The government's law says yes. Natural gas

prices have dropped since the dramatic increase in price that we saw last year. Now that the landlords' costs have dropped, should the tenants have to pay the increases related to that? I say no.

The government's law says yes. It is patently unfair to tenants. If the landlord no longer bears the cost, then neither should the tenant -- a basic measure of fairness. That's the intent of Bill

134: to bring some real fairness into the way rent increases are determined and administered. Frankly, it's the least we can do to bring a modest amount of fairness to the government's rent

regulation rules.

Elinor Mahoney from Parkdale Community Legal Services put it this way: "At a time when deregulation and privatization of hydro is very much a public concern,

Bill 134 provides a fairer and more rational approach to fluctuating utility costs than the Tenant Protection Act. Bill 134 provides the opportunity for the government to show that it is willing to

make changes necessary to correct the unfairness of the current approach." Elinor is here today with her colleague Joe Myers from Willowdale Community Legal Services. Mary Todorow from the Advocacy

Centre for Tenants Ontario is also here. I just want to divert from the remarks on my bill and thank them all for their efforts in regard to tenant advocacy. Their ongoing work has, in part,

inspired this bill.

I know that we're going to hear from members of the government, and they're going to say they can't possibly support this bill because the administration costs

would be onerous. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm sure the government members would be very aware of the fact that any landlord application for above-guideline rent increases has to be

accompanied by the necessary paperwork, by the receipts and bills that they have. It would be a simple matter to file an appropriately updated financial statement on an annual basis, they have to

do it anyway -- to their same rubber stamp at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. To suggest otherwise is simply government members and government policy trying to find bad excuses in an attempt

to further punish tenants in Ontario.

I want to speak about the other major provision in the bill. It's the restoration of something called orders preventing rent increases, or OPRIs. One of the

most common complaints that I'm sure all members of this House receive is from tenants who are concerned that they're receiving rent increases when proper maintenance is not being done to their

building. In many cases, the buildings have outstanding work orders from cities against them, yet nothing prevents landlords from seeking and obtaining these kinds of rent increases. At the

tribunal, tenants are routinely told by adjudicators, government appointees, that their claims of maintenance issues and the like are not valid. The adjudicators are supported by the so-called

Tenant Protection Act, and that has to change. Bill 134 will do precisely that.

Every year landlords are granted, as part of the basic guideline increase, monies that are ostensibly for repair and maintenance, yet the law that supports

this provides no means to enforce that these basic tasks are being done. OPRIs provide this incentive because they compel landlords to do basic maintenance which can complement the provisions to

allow for increases for capital repair. These measures were removed from the Tenant Protection Act. The government will tell you that tenants can simply file an application for rent abatement with

the tribunal. But it's a sad day when tenants are asked to spend money and wait an extraordinary length of time to get tenant matters heard at the tribunal. Members of this House need to realize

that we're not talking about getting a new pool installed in the building or an upgrade to the health club. We're talking about mould, water leaks, broken appliances that are not being repaired,

safety lighting, broken elevators, falling plaster. These works cover quality-of-life issues. To grant rent increases when the basic issues are not even being addressed is ridiculous and

unfair.

Paul York of the Greater Toronto Tenants' Association summed it up well when he said, "The landlord argument that OPRIs will act as a disincentive to doing

needed repairs is not compelling because a landlord cannot apply to recoup his costs for capital repairs until the repairs are done, which is the condition for lifting an OPRI." Bill 134 will

ensure a greater state of good repair in apartment buildings by requiring landlords to do all the necessary repairs before they can get further rent increases. The current system of enforcing

property standards is inadequate. Bill 134 will provide an additional incentive to provide a minimum standard of repair in Toronto's aging rental stock. Most property standards officials would

agree.

I'm looking forward to the debate on this bill. I'm hoping that members of all parties, all members of this chamber, will support this important, and modest, I

would add, step to improving the lives of tenants in Ontario.

Just the other day I presented a petition in this House with thousands of signatures of tenants from across Toronto and Ontario. I want to thank all of those

tenants who took the time to sign that petition. I'm hoping that all members of the House will respect the voices of tenants and their desire to bring fair and reasonable first steps in the needed

reform of the so-called Tenant Protection Act.

I have received letters, faxes and e-mails from advocates and individual tenants across the province. I just want to read a few out to you today.

From Lyn Trow of the Older Women's Network: "The Older Women's Network is deeply concerned about the crisis in shortages of affordable housing. Many older

women trying to live on old age security are living in dire circumstances. Inability to feed themselves nutritiously because of high rents contributes to poor health and high health care costs.

Bill 134 is a modest step toward improving the situation under the Tenant Protection Act. It has our full support."

From Joyce Waddell-Townsend:

"David, your Bill 134 sounds very reasonable to me. I guess I understand that landlords need to be compensated for repairs that they make to properties. But

once they have recouped their costs, they should not be able to continue with higher rents.

"Good luck,

"Joyce, 169" --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm not going to take much time but I want to congratulate my good friend for bringing forward this

motion. I think it's a progressive motion.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Don Valley East.

Mr Bisson: From Don Valley East. Thank you for pointing out the riding.

This government has done an abysmal job when it comes to rent control overall. They have basically stripped away the protections that were put in place by

previous governments and more specifically the provisions that we had put in place under the NDP government of Bob Rae, which was real rent control.

I just want to remind the member that he's now, all of a sudden, the advocate of tenants across the province. That caucus voted against real rent control when

we were in power. When we were the government, we brought forward real rent control that meant real protection for tenants. We knew the Tories would vote against us because they've never believed

in that. We accept it; we don't like it. But we were shocked, because at the time the Liberal opposition voted against our rent control legislation. But that wasn't bad enough. When I was the

housing critic in 1996 and brought a motion asking the House to reconsider the changes the Tories had made and return to NDP rent controls, the Liberals voted against it a second time. I understand

it's the position of the Liberal caucus at this point that they still haven't adopted real rent control.

I think this is a step forward. It's a baby step but it is an important step. We will vote for it because we think it's progressive, but I'm asking the

Liberals to take a step the whole way. If you're going to advocate for tenants, this is a good first step, but I want you to join us and our critic, Mr Prue, in calling on this government to

reinstate real rent control for the people of Ontario and put in place real social housing programs that build the kinds of housing we need in this province.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to speak on the private member's bill from the member for Don Valley

East. I'd like to specifically address the issue of building maintenance and work orders, since that is what is at issue under Bill 134. It very clearly says that in the bill: "work orders."

Let me remind the House that under the former Rent Control Act, maintenance of rental buildings was poor. Some rental buildings in the province had hundreds of

outstanding work orders. When there was an outstanding work order, the former act allowed orders prohibiting rent increases to be issued. This was an unfair system because all the outstanding work

orders were treated as if they were the same. For instance, failure to comply with an order to paint a door had the same effect as a failure to comply with a work order for a major structural

defect. It was obviously an ineffective tool, and our government chose not to carry this provision over into the Tenant Protection Act. Instead, the Tenant Protection Act got tough with property

owners who failed to take care of their buildings and it gave property owners the incentive to maintain their buildings, including above-the-guideline rent increases based on capital

expenditures.

These measures have worked. A recent survey has shown that the average capital repairs have gone from $368 per unit in 1995 to $1,178 per unit in the year

2000. When you translate this activity across Ontario's entire rental stock, it likely represents $1 billion in capital investment and tens of thousands of jobs. Investments are being made to

improve garages, elevators, balconies and a wide variety of other structural elements. Everywhere building owners are undertaking necessary maintenance and repair, which leads to better rental

units and a higher quality of life for tenants.

If there is inadequate building maintenance, tenants are protected. The Tenant Protection Act allows tenants to apply for rent abatements. It also increases

the powers of municipalities to enforce their property standard bylaws. Property standards officers have the power to issue a work order immediately to a landlord in cases where there is a

violation. It's an offence for a landlord to fail to comply with a work order within a set time frame. Under the Tenant Protection Act, the maximum fine for a landlord who fails to comply with a

work order has been increased to $100,000. The actions of our government have already helped to ensure that landlords keep their buildings properly maintained and abide by work orders.

Bill 134: I think what I've heard here is an attack on the Rental Housing Tribunal, and it's also an attack on municipalities. In terms of their power, they

have the power to deal with the issues we're dealing with right now. They are responsible. For municipalities, if a tenant wants a work order, they go to the property standards officer, say, "Take

a look at my unit," and those work orders are issued. I haven't heard anything from the member opposite that the city of Toronto isn't doing their job with respect to property standards. They are

doing their job. The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal is the institution, the administrative body, that deals with these problems and they have the power to correct the problems. I can tell you that

the powers they have with respect to dealing with work orders and with protecting tenants with respect to these rent increases are very broad and do the job with respect to any landlord who would

try to misrepresent what they are trying to do. If they don't do it, quite frankly, they are going to be hauled back in front of the rental housing tribunal. It certainly would affect them in terms

of future prospects of trying to get rent increases for their building.

It's sort of a vicious circle here. The rental housing tribunal is attacked by the member. We don't hear anything about the municipal body in terms of how they

are doing with property standards. I'll have to take it from his silence that they're doing a good job with respect to enforcing property standards and issuing work orders in the city of Toronto.

I'm not going to accept the member's argument that the city of Toronto isn't doing their job with respect to work orders, because that's what his bill is about -- work orders. It has nothing to do

with fairness in rents; it has to do with work orders.

As I said, the investment in building maintenance has increased tremendously in this province and the pressure is on landlords to maintain their buildings

because of the powers that have been given to municipalities. So I think this bill does nothing to address the real issue here of maintenance and work orders, because it is already being dealt

with.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): I am pleased to rise in support of this bill brought forward by the member from Don Valley East. I represent a

riding in which 68% are tenants -- the second-largest proportion of tenants in Ontario. I can tell you that the tenants across the riding of St Paul's have fallen victim to the many injustices that

are found in the Tory anti-tenant legislation.

One of the injustices is the unjust enrichment that takes place whereby landlords get to keep above-the-guideline rent increases even in circumstances where

the basis of that increase -- for instance, an initial increase in utilities -- goes away. So they get both; they get the double increase. They get the benefit of the increase in rent and they get

the additional benefit of not having to pay for the initial expense. The purpose of this bill, in part, is to address that injustice; it's to address that unjust enrichment. That is why Dalton

McGuinty and Ontario Liberals support this above-the-guideline rent rollback. That is why Dalton McGuinty and Ontario Liberals support real rent control across the board.

I listen to the other members, and I listen to the third party, suggest that somehow they have a monopoly over the concept of rent control. In fact, I know

very well that the third party knows: that rent control in a reduced form was introduced by Bill Davis; it was improved upon by a Liberal government; and, I think, we had some evolutions as well

under the NDP government. I think it's fair to say.

I like the idea of competition for the benefit of tenants. I like that. I like political competition for the benefit of tenants. But let's be clear, Liberals

support rent control; Liberals support an above-the-guideline rent rollback; and Liberals support a crackdown on apartment building disrepair. That's what this bill is about. It permits a crackdown

on apartment disrepair. You want to raise your rent, landlord? Well, you better make sure that your building is in order. You get an above-the-guideline rent increase and the basis upon which that

disappears, then you get a rollback. That's just fairness. Isn't that fair?

Mr Caplan: Fair.

Mr Bryant: That is fairness and these are circumstances where we're saying to the government -- the new, open, consultative government --

Mr Marchese: With a heart.

Mr Bryant: -- with a big heart, that we wish we could bring forth legislation that would repeal the Tenant Protection Act because we support

the repeal of the Tenant Protection Act. We support that but we know that we're not going to be able to convince members on the government side to support the repeal of the Tenant Protection Act.

We can say to members on the government side of the House, here's a bill that addresses two injustices: the injustice of apartment building disrepair -- which I know the government does not

support. They have an opportunity to show that they don't support that by supporting this bill and that they recognize the unjust enrichment that occurs when a landlord gets an above-the-guideline

rent increase when the circumstances for that disappear after the award is provided. The government could not possibly support that unjust enrichment and today they have an opportunity to make it

clear that they're not anti-tenant. Right now, I have to tell you, the people of St Paul's see the Tory government as anti-tenant, and today is an opportunity for you to say, "No, we're not."

Here's a very fair and reasonable amendment to legislation. We may have fundamental disagreements about rent control -- we're for it, you're against it -- but fine, we'll settle that debate on

another day, election day, but for now we have an opportunity to make a fair and reasonable change. That's the bill that's before you now.

How much time do I have?

Mr Smitherman: You have another 25 seconds.

Mr Bryant: So I say to you, on behalf of thousands of tenants in the riding of St Paul's, millions of tenants in the province of Ontario, who

have seen rent increases of sometimes 30% over the last three years, here is an opportunity for this House to rectify this injustice.

Mr Marchese: I just want to say very clearly that I support la motion de mon ami from Don Valley East -- and I've got more to say.

I want to say to you, Speaker, the Tories make no bones about whom they support. They love landlords; they do. The more money that can be given to them in

whatever form, they like it. They make no bones about that. Do they like tenants? I suspect they do, but do they want to extract money from tenants to give to the landlords? Oh, yes. They call that

fairness. We call that stealing from people who have so little money. You heard the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford earlier on. He makes no bones about whom he supports.

Tenants are hurting in this province. You may not know there are 3.3 million tenants in this province, if not more -- almost a third of the population. And why

are they hurting? Close to 500,000 of them are paying over 50% of their income to live in those buildings. Almost half a million are hurting today more than ever before because of the policies of

this government. Rents are skyrocketing under the Tenant Protection Act that was supposed to protect tenants but is really taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Those who own homes

are almost twice as rich as those who live in apartment buildings. But under the policies of this government, rents are skyrocketing beyond people's ability to pay. They're not wealthy like the

landlords and like most Tory supporters, yet the landlords are the beneficiaries of these bad policies presumably designed to support tenants. Tenants are hurting.

They didn't support our rent control act when we introduced it under the leadership of Bob Rae. Quite frankly, neither did the Liberals. But I don't blame the

member for Don Valley East, because he wasn't here. I don't blame the member for St Paul's, because he wasn't here. I don't blame my friend George Smitherman from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, because

he wasn't here. They could stand up and say they support rent control, but the others didn't. The others who were here when we introduced rent control did not support it. What did they support?

They supported meaningful rent control. What is "meaningful rent control"? We don't know. What is probably meaningful rent control for the Liberals is whatever is fair. So the Tories say, "We love

landlords." The Liberals say, "We love them too" --

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): We love everybody.

Mr Marchese: -- yes, you do -- "but we love tenants as well. We love them both, so what we try to do as the Liberal Party is find meaningful

rent control, which is something that is fair to the landlords -- God bless them, because they're not reaping enough money to enrich themselves; they're really in desperate shape -- and something

that helps tenants." This initiative brought forth by mon ami, the member for Don Valley East, attempts to introduce measures that were there in the rent control New Democrats brought in, but it

doesn't go quite as far.

So the two measures that the Liberals have introduced are --

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: -- I would remind you that in the rent control act that the NDP brought in we had orders prohibiting rent increases on units with

outstanding orders. These orders prohibited any increase, not just those above guideline. Those who were in the field of property standards, officials dealing with property standards, said our

policies were effective. Why? Because if there was an outstanding order, they would fix it.

The Tories said, "It's not good, because if we leave that measure in place, the landlords are just not going to make enough money." They took it out. The

Liberals are saying, "OK, that measure was good. We'll bring it in now as part of a private bill, but we won't go as far. We'll keep guideline increases." Good God, if a landlord has guideline

increases, that's a lot of profits for him. So the Liberal measure proposed today is OK, but it doesn't go far enough.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm telling Mac Makarchuk what you're saying.

Mr Marchese: What I am saying, Jim, is that as a measure it attempts to bridge the gap somewhat, but it's a half measure. Would I oppose this

half measure? No. Is it good enough? No, but it's better than what these people are offering, so I'm going to support it.

The other measure speaks about under our Rent Control Act tenants could apply for an extraordinary operational cost decrease. Under the Tenant Protection Act

you can't do it. They eliminated that. Caplan's bill would rectify this and would have the tribunal decrease the rent without a tenant application, but only for the first three years. After that,

tenants would not be able to apply for such a decrease; they would be on their own. So as a measure, it's OK. Does it go far enough? It doesn't.

There are other measures that my colleague Michael Prue from Beaches-East York will probably get into so that I don't have to cover it. Otherwise, I would take

it all and he doesn't have enough to obviously get into. So I'm going to leave those measures there for my buddy Michael Prue.

My main point is that this Conservative government is unequivocal about whom they support. They're for landlords. Their tribunal is made up of -- you guessed

it -- all Tory appointments, most of whom are lawyers. They're all Conservative. They make no bones about it, and they're unashamed about the fact that these tribunal members are all Conservative.

What we had under rent control was that if you had a problem you went to the courts. Judges dealt with these issues that now appointed, politically appointed members, are dealing with. Who do you

think they are supporting? They're supporting the landlords. This is an eviction machine designed, crafted, manufactured by Tories to evict tenants and not to help tenants. These guys are so good.

They're so good at beating up on 3.3 million tenants. The only thing I hope, Michael, is that one day these tenants are just going to rally against this government, rally against them, indeed rally

against any political party that treats them so profoundly unfairly. I'm just waiting for that day. If 3.3 million tenants vote, this government will be defeated.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure this morning to comment on Bill 134 of the member from Don Valley East. On review of this private

member's bill, in general I support many of the themes here. Double accounting, as I will call it, that is, having rent increases based on increased capital and other expenditures and then being

compounded over a number of years and never being rolled back, I theoretically don't have a problem with that.

My problem is that it does have some what I call red tape issues, administrative issues of setting up a registry of some sort for these issues. So my position

is that as it's currently drafted I can't support it. But here's my point.

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I clearly want to put a few points on the record, if I'm not continuously interrupted by the

Liberal Party.

The member from Trinity-Spadina: I have the deepest respect for his commitment to the constituent group that he speaks to and I do support his genuineness and

sincerity because I know where he's coming from. But if I listen to his argument, it doesn't complete the debate. He makes the point -- and I quote him to some extent -- "Landlords make enough." If

I follow through that argument and there was this gouging profit going on, I ask you, how come there are very few apartments being built? If it was that lucrative --

Interjection.

Mr O'Toole: I'm going to follow up with the member from St Catharines's interjection. It's a very valid point he makes. The real substantive

issues here in affordable housing and rent itself is, why are developers not building rental apartments? It goes back to one of the premises inherent in the municipal tax system, which says that

the property tax, which is embedded in the rent per month, is four times residential in Toronto. It's 400% more expensive on the property tax issue for a renter and a person who owns their own

home. The municipalities could reduce that burden by reducing the burden on the renter, the tax rate. If you look at the rate, they pay four times, and yet all of the Toronto councillors -- Mr Prue

probably will get up and talk about it -- have failed to address it. They, by resolution, did that in council: forced the renters to pay more taxes than the private homeowner.

There's another issue here that I don't believe is well understood. It's the federal government. When I look at affordable housing, the Canada Mortgage and

Housing Corp -- actually, Minister Hodgson raised this question. It's worth it for people listening at home to get a copy of Hansard from two days ago. The CMHC passes a premium on to the federal

government for the amount of money raised in doing these finance deals under CMHC. Those premiums flow to the federal government, into general revenue. The annual value of the premiums is about

$400 million, and of that $400 million, over 50% comes from Ontario, which would be $200 million. What that really means is this: when the affordable housing debate and the Golden report comes

back, what do they offer Ontario? About $70 million. That isn't even meeting the commitment of the revenue they are already collecting from first-time homebuyers.

What have we actually done? We really do want people of all income levels to have affordable housing. The land transfer tax is eliminated on first-time

homebuyers. We encourage -- in fact, that's what this affordable housing argument is about. It should be providing, whether it's a condominium and having proper mortgaging under CMHC, for

first-time, young families. That's the pride of ownership. At the end of the day, at the end of the paying, we encourage ownership over rental.

The tribunal itself as it is struck has very strict guidelines. The member for Scarborough East will certainly outline that, as the former Minister of

Municipal Affairs. He speaks in caucus very passionately on behalf of renters. I can assure you that I am waiting to hear his comments and I'm sure that all the people in the House have been

attending here this morning to hear from the member for Scarborough East.

With that, I will relinquish the balance of my time.

Mr Bradley: Almost needless to say, I'm very supportive of this legislation that my colleague has brought forward. Mr Caplan has a long

history of speaking on behalf of tenants, and I certainly want to congratulate him on bringing this bill forward.

He brought forward a bill that I think has at least a remote chance of being passed. To bring a bill that is more extreme, there's no chance that the

government will pass that bill. So I think he has been very wise in tabling before this House for debate a bill which has a remote chance of perhaps picking up a few of the red Tories -- I can't

find any; oh, there's one in the House -- among the government benches, because it is needed.

Members have pointed out something that's a problem right now. I am the Chair of the government agencies committee, so I get to observe the people who are

appointed. As a neutral Chair I would not offer a comment, but I would say that members of the committee who are there tell me that week after week, the people who are appointed all coincidentally

happen to be strong supporters of the Conservative Party. I saw one who was a friend of my colleague from Scarborough East who was on the tribunal and now is on the environmental review tribunal.

He went from the rent tribunal to the review tribunal. He was a good fellow, a generous fellow. He gave $1,000 to the campaign of the member for Scarborough East, so a good friend of his. I want to

commend the member for Scarborough East; he came in to committee to support his friend. Even though some other Tories on the committee were queasy, as I observed from my neutral chair, he still

managed to get that appointment through, moving him from the rent tribunal to the environmental tribunal. But I think it's safe to say that the people who have been appointed are people who are

certainly on the side of the major landlords in this province.

I heard the argument made that somehow we're not having developers build apartments. I heard when you took off rent control -- because in effect you've taken

off rent control when someone moves from accommodation -- that the developers would be falling over each other to build new rental accommodation, and it hasn't happened. I'm still waiting to see

that happen, because that was a promise, that was an undertaking from members of this government.

I have to say this as an observation. The huge landlords in this province were certainly supportive of this government. In the riding of St Catharines, on

every major property there were huge Conservative signs. These are the major landlords in the province. A funny thing happened, though. The people inside the buildings were kind enough to support

me instead of the Conservative candidate, and that may tell you something about their views on the legislation that exists.

The member identified two problems in this legislation and wants to address those. Most people are going to say, "Look, if a landlord incurs a cost in making

necessary repairs to a building, we can understand that it would be reflected in the cost of the rent," but only for that period of time where that cost is incurred. What you people over there on

the other side allow is for them to continue to pass that cost along to tenants for years and years. That's what this bill is trying to address.

Second, it's trying to address the problem of people who will not make the necessary repairs to buildings so that tenants can enjoy a quality of life that they

deserve.

These are basic. This is not putting some fancy swimming pools in the apartments. This is talking about basic repairs that have to be made. So the member has

identified two specific problems. He's brought forward a piece of legislation which is moderate enough that I think it can receive support on the government side. I would like to see us unite as a

Legislature in support of this bill. Send it to committee to make any necessary modifications, if that is what you wish. But certainly I implore members of this House to support a bill which I

think will rectify a major problem in this province.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I too will rise in support of this bill. Does the bill go far enough? I don't think so. But is the bill a

good thing? Sure, it is.

People in the city of Toronto especially but also people in other cities like Hamilton, London, Kitchener and Ottawa know what is happening in the rental

market.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: And Welland too -- know what is happening in the rental market. They know their costs are going up much faster than the cost of

inflation, much faster than their paycheque, and they know that it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to make ends meet. We know in the city of Toronto the average two-bedroom apartment is

now $1,027. We know in Ottawa it's $998. We know across the province in many of our large urban centres the costs have outpaced the ability of people to pay for them.

We know that vacancy decontrol has happened, and this is insidious within this Tenant Protection Act. Whenever a person leaves their apartment, the landlord

can charge whatever the market will bear. In places like Ottawa and Toronto, in places like London and Welland, where vacancy rates are less than 1%, the landlord is free to charge whatever he or

she wants. We have seen apartments that rented for $800 when the person leaves rent for $1,200 to the next person who comes along. They have no choice. They must live in this city or Ottawa in

order to work, they must live there because their families are there. They have no choice.

We have seen the poor and aged stuck in their homes. We have seen that they're afraid with every rent increase. The calls that come into my office when the

above-guideline increases go are absolutely huge. Not content with getting 3.9% or 2.9%, the landlord goes out for 6% and 7% and 8%, and that is taken from people who are pensioners, people who

have seen their own pensions go up by a couple of percentage points, people we should be protecting. They are at the total mercy of this government.

I want to tell you, the energy blip that took place a couple of years ago, what a boondoggle that was. Gas prices went up for two months; tenants are paying

for 200 years, because you will allow a landlord who is a poor businessman, who ran out and took a five-year lease on the gas and who's paying horrendous rates today, to be rewarded for that. His

rent will stay up forever and the Tenant Protection Act is allowing him to do it.

Comments were made by the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. I wish he would come to Toronto, other than to this building, once in a while and take a look at

what actually happens in the city of Toronto and look at what the city of Toronto council has done. The city of Toronto council has gone much further than this. They have asked for rent rollbacks.

The city of Toronto council has asked for a rent freeze following that. The city of Toronto council has asked for real, meaningful rent controls, and the city of Toronto council has instituted a

funding of tenants to fight above-guideline increases. They know -- and 30 to 8 was the vote -- that the tenants in this city are suffering. The council in Ottawa knows the same thing.

Will this bill go far enough to remedy all of that problem? No, it will not. But is it a good bill? Yes, it is. It's a good bill because it takes that first

little, tiny step, a modest step. I wish the bill had said there would be no above-guideline increases if there were repairs needed to a building. I want to tell you, as the former mayor of East

York, we enforced that bylaw and we enforced it very strongly. Those buildings were fixed up far better than they're being fixed up today. There was no rent increase and there was the incentive on

the landlord to do what he had to do for the tenants. Today, he's doing it because he knows he can make a profit in the long term. He or she knows that by doing that, they can raise the rents not

only this year while the repairs are made, but forever.

We've talked about gas prices and we've talked about repairs. There's another minor problem with the bill, and that has to do with the amortization period,

because it mentions five years. Most major capital things like new roofs and retrofits to buildings are amortized over much longer periods, but I'll leave that.

The problem we're going to see, and I foresee it right now, is what's going to happen when electricity prices spike. When they start to spike, that is going to

be a major problem to those poor tenants. It only has to happen one or two months under this legislation and the landlords, I can guarantee you, will be there asking for their pound of flesh. They

will be driving the poor and the senior citizens from their homes.

We have to do more than just this bill, but I am delighted to support it today because it's a first step.

Hon Tim Hudak (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce the members of the

assembly to the students from Heritage Christian School in beautiful Jordan, Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Further debate?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to join this debate and to put on the record that I will not be supporting Bill 134, for a

very simple reason. We've gone down this road before under the NDP, to maintain a registry to micromanage the repairs. That cost $10 million a year, $10 million that had to be borne by the

taxpayers and tenants all across Ontario. And what did it achieve? At the time we were elected, buildings all across this province had, in some cases, dozens, even hundreds, of outstanding work

orders against them.

The fact of the matter is, the previous system didn't work. In 1995, the year we were elected, the average unit in Ontario had capital repairs of $368. This

past year, the average apartment unit in Ontario had $1,178 worth of capital repairs. That's $1 billion that's been spent upgrading apartments all across this province, improving the quality of

life for the tenants living in them. The members on the opposite side obviously don't understand the concepts of depreciation and why landlords have to make those investments.

But it's even more important to put on the record precisely why rents are where they are today. The member from St Catharines was mumbling when the camera was

not him that we should be ordering municipalities to change their property taxes. I find it staggering, considering the number of times that member and other Liberals have commented that every time

we even look sideways at municipalities, we're constraining them and abusing them. The fact of the matter is that here in the city of Toronto the property tax rate is 4.2 times what a single-family

home pays per square foot. That means that the previous government and the government before them, and many of their members who were Toronto councillors, voted to add hundreds of dollars to the

rent of the average tenant in this city. At the same time, they have the gall to stand here --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Don Valley East and the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, come

to order.

Mr Gilchrist: As I was saying, members opposite who were actually Toronto councillors at the time voted for budgets that put in place

criminal, oppressive tax regimes. The fact of the matter is, to eliminate that differential, to have that apartment tenant have their property tax reduced to equal --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'll not warn the member for Timmins-James Bay again.

Mr Gilchrist: -- the tax of a single-family home would take $200 a month off the rent of the average apartment in this city. Their garbage

collection, their sewage disposal --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I won't warn the member for Scarborough Centre again.

Mr Gilchrist: -- their sidewalk cleaning obviously don't cost more than for someone living in a single-family home. In fact, one could argue

that because of the economies of scale of putting 300 units into one building, you should have charged them less property tax, but you didn't. You picked the pockets of tenants, and you have the

gall to stand here and suggest that somehow you and the members of the Liberal Party who were municipal councillors are the paragons of virtue, the saviours of tenants. Well, the fact of the matter

is you're the folks who put them into the predicament they're in today.

At the same time, we have a federal government that continues to give me a GST rebate if I build a building and call it a condo. If I build an identical

building and call it an apartment building, I don't get my GST back, adding thousands of dollars per unit, millions of dollars per building. Small wonder developers aren't building apartment

buildings; they're building condos.

The bottom line is, we've eliminated all the provincial sales tax on the construction of affordable housing. We've streamlined the planning process. There are

73,000 apartment units zoned, serviced and ready to be built, and the construction of those units is impeded only by federal and municipal greed. The reality is, the apartment building industry

itself will tell you, the province has done everything we need to do to get out of the way. The time has come for the feds and for city councillors to stand up and be counted and stop picking the

pockets of tenants.

Mr Smitherman: It's a great pleasure to have a chance to participate in the debate and follow on the forcefully presented comments of the

member from Scarborough East.

I want to acknowledge at the beginning the strong presence in this chamber today of all the members of Team Waffle and their leader, the rightful Premier in

the front row. It is, I think, extraordinary to have that contribution from the member for Scarborough East, who wears his politics so prominently displayed on his sleeve.

Another member of Team Waffle, the member from Durham, spoke earlier, and I wanted to just correct the record around some of the misinterpretations of policy

that he put out.

First, there was a very forceful acknowledgement on his part that despite Al Leach's claims to the contrary, no building boom has taken place in Ontario with

respect to rental accommodation. The member from Durham and the member from Scarborough East talked about the difficulty we've got in Toronto with respect to the property tax differential on

multi-unit residential. But what the member from Durham failed to mention was that there is a 35-year exemption for any new rental accommodation.

He also talked about first-time homebuyers. I think it's important to note that this policy of not forcing first-time homebuyers to pay the land transfer tax

applies to new properties only, not resales. I think that's a policy we can all see has contributed pretty dramatically to the problems of sprawl we have in this province. Those are just a couple

of things that are corrected.

For people watching at home, this is a complex issue for sure. The administration around it is complex; there isn't any doubt about that. But in attempting to

muddy the waters, as the government typically does, I think it's important to relate this to people at home.

Imagine for a second that you took out a second mortgage, $20,000 or $25,000 to make some renovation or repair to your home. You paid that mortgage off over a

period of time, but they kept collecting the bill. That's what the government is opposing today: that we want to have a situation that begins to level the playing field for tenants in this

province.

In my own riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale I have the honour of representing, I think, the riding with the highest proportion of tenants in our entire

province. I think the St James Town community, which is 18 buildings housing something like 20,000 to 25,000 people, the most dense development in North America, is a place where we need to look

for the effect of this law, the effect this law has had on people. This is a government that talks all the time about reducing its taxes and getting government off the backs of its constituents.

But at the end of the day, the working-class people in my riding, who live primarily in communities like St James Town, are being asked every year to pay a burden that is not resulting in any

enhanced quality of life for them. It happens against the backdrop of continued decline with respect to the quality of life they enjoy in those communities.

What the bill that is before us, presented by my friend from Don Valley East, is designed to do is make sure you cannot benefit on an ongoing basis from costs

that have been borne by the tenants, costs that have been paid for at the time that has been completed. We think it's appropriate that that needs to be rolled out.

Now, some of the government speakers stood up and said they had some sympathy with some of the elements that are there. So in keeping with the great traditions

of this House, there is an opportunity before us for the government members, a few courageous souls even, to join with members on this side and allow this bill to go forward to committee, where we

can work on elements of concern and strike out on a path toward finding those areas where there is a common sense that we can improve on behalf of the people in this province.

The last thing I want to say is that I've heard government members talk about the extent to which the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ought to be viewed as

some great saviour for the tenants in this province. It tells me that those members opposite aren't spending much time at the rental housing tribunal, that they haven't gotten involved, engaged in

trying to help tenants in this province to deal with that. For my part, I'm giving a lot of support to the St James Town tenant network, which is designed to assist the tenants in a meaningful

way.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Don Valley East has two minutes to reply.

Mr Caplan: I want to thank all the members who took the time to speak to Bill 134. At this point I'd certainly like to recognize Dan McIntyre,

from the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, for his presence and his support and organization for this very modest measure.

I want to focus on the comments of a couple of the members. The member for Durham talked a bit about this bill, how he supports many of the measures in

principle. I recall that particular member standing in this place presenting petitions on behalf of his constituents who live on Liberty Street in Bowmanville. I will certainly make sure I send a

transcript -- the Hansard of the remarks of this debate -- and his vote to those tenants, because he says one thing on behalf of his constituents but he votes a different way if he doesn't support

this bill.

I also want to comment on the member for Trinity-Spadina. I remember the last piece of legislation that I introduced, Bill 36, which would reform the eviction

procedure. The member spoke in very glowing terms about it and said he supported it. When the time came, members of the New Democratic Party didn't show up for the vote. I'll be very interested to

see whether New Democrats are going to play partisan political games or whether they really support the interests of tenants.

This bill is about basic fairness. If the costs go up, if they're incurred, the tenants will have to fund a part of those costs. Fair ball. But if they come

down or once they're paid for, tenants deserve some relief. What goes up must come down. It's a matter of fairness. I hope all members of this House will support Bill 134. It is a fair and

reasonable way to support the tenants in this province.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 41, standing in the name of Mr Sergio.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will take the division after I've put the question on the second item.

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES LOCATAIRES (AUGMENTATIONS

ÉQUITABLES DES LOYERS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We'll deal now with ballot item number 42, standing in the name of Mr Caplan.

Mr Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 134. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT ACT

(HYDRO TRANSMISSION

CORRIDOR LANDS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

(BIENS-FONDS RÉSERVÉS

AUX COULOIRS DE TRANSPORT

DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Sergio has moved second reading of Bill 13.

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David S.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 79; the nays are zero.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be referred to a standing or select committee?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I refer it to the standing committee on general government, please.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

A majority of the members are not in favour, so this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

We will wait 30 seconds for anyone to enter or exit.

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES LOCATAIRES (AUGMENTATIONS

ÉQUITABLES DES LOYERS)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 134.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Interjection: We did this part already. We're just doing the standing part now.

The Acting Speaker: Pardon me. I will punish myself properly afterwards for that goof.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 48.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

The business being completed, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise in my place here in the Legislature this afternoon to advocate for hundreds of

special-needs students who are currently not at school in the schools operated by Renfrew County District School Board, because up in our part of eastern Ontario we have a now nearly two-week-old

strike between the Renfrew County District School Board and a number of collective bargaining units -- the educational assistants and others. What I want to do today is simply to stand in my place

and advocate on behalf of these special-needs students who are not getting the education they require because of this work stoppage.

These special-needs kids are among the most vulnerable young people in our community. They need and expect not just education but routine and regularity in

their lives. I want to say to both parties to this dispute -- to the Renfrew County District School Board and to the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, which is the bargaining unit for the

other side -- in the interests of these vulnerable young people, get back to the bargaining table now. Get this strike settled, in the public interest, but most especially in the interests of these

very special vulnerable young people.

HALTON CITIZENS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I rise today to recognize some local heroes in my riding of Halton. These people have contributed significantly to

their communities to enhance the quality of life for all. They have been named citizen of the year in their respective towns.

In Milton, Kathy Powell was recognized as a quiet but tireless servant of her community. She has been involved with Milton District Hospital, her church, the

local long-term care facility, Allendale, and at several nursing homes. She organized a multi-denominational pastoral visiting program for Milton that last year arranged over 1,800 visits to people

at the hospital. Kathy supported a chapel in the hospital and a library for patients.

In Acton, local pharmacist Gary Barton was honoured for his contributions over 33 years on the job, including supplying formula to needy babies, sponsoring

local sports teams and organizing foot care clinics for seniors. Consulted on what to do when a young boy swallowed some raw cookie dough, Gary calmly told the mother to place the boy on a heating

pad for 20 minutes at medium temperature. When asked if this would help kill the germs in the dough, he replied, "No, but it'll sure be cool to see if he passes a cookie."

Doreen and Manley Densmore were recognized as Georgetown's citizens of the year. Doreen is very involved in the fall fair and the local chapters of several

charitable organizations. Manley is very active in the fall fair and the Georgetown farmers' market. He volunteers with Boy Scouts and has coached youth baseball and hockey teams for more than 20

years.

These types of local heroes can be found throughout all communities in Ontario. Kathy, Gary, Doreen and Manley are in Halton, and I salute their contributions

to make Ontario a better place to live, work and raise a family.

EDUCATION ISSUES

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): One hundred high school students from Sarnia walked out of school yesterday to highlight the

deterioration of their quality of education. One student, Natalie Frijia, noted that changes to curriculum have been brought in so quickly that the imposed new curriculum is not yet completely

written. As a result, the teachers still have no way of knowing what materials they should prepare for the next term.

Not only have these issues eroded the quality of education in the classroom, but students like Natalie are facing the double cohort in 2003. These students are

concerned that the quality of education has deteriorated, which in turn has not prepared them well to compete with double the number of students who are applying to post-secondary education in the

near future.

These students are fed up with being pawns as the Ministry of Education makes one uninformed decision after another. These students walked out yesterday and

took a stand, because they wanted to send a message to this government. The message is that education in the classroom is suffering and the students are paying the price.

OPHTHALMOLOGICAL HEALTH CARE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Down in Niagara region, the crisis around access to ophthalmologists carries on unabated. This government

has persisted in ignoring the incredible and critically important shortage of ophthalmological services. You've got to understand that Niagara is an aging community. It's among the oldest

communities in Ontario and indeed in Canada. Although the services of ophthalmologists aren't restricted to people who are aging, it's that population that places the greatest demand, most

significantly for cataract surgery.

What's happening down in Niagara, because of this government's refusal to respond to the crisis in ophthalmology, is that patients have to wait nine months or

more, which is more than double the average waiting period for ophthalmological surgery like cataract treatment -- more than double the average across the province.

It is imperative that this government respond to the pleas of ophthalmologists, the pleas of the Niagara District Health Council and the requests that have

been made numerous times in this Legislature by myself. It is imperative that this government deem the Niagara region to be eligible for SRI exemption so that ophthalmologists can address the

demand being placed on them.

If they don't want to hear it from me, they can call Dr Beiko, like I did earlier today. I interrupted him in the operating room down in Niagara, and he

confirmed for me that there is a crisis, that people are suffering and that this government can resolve that crisis. It has refused to do so for over two years now. It's time for this government to

move promptly. Deem Niagara to be eligible for SRI exemption with respect to ophthalmologists.

VERONICA BRENNER

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to a constituent in my riding of York North.

Veronica Brenner promised to save her best jump for a special occasion. That special day arrived on February 19 this year, when the 27-year-old Sharon resident

was true to her word, uncorking for the first time in competition a triple twisting double flip to score an Olympic silver medal in women's freestyle aerials at Deer Valley Resort in Park City.

Actually, Brenner wasn't saving the trick as much as she was working feverishly to prepare it for the Salt Lake City Olympics.

The back full-double full was one of two jumps she had been perfecting. She had not performed either of these jumps on snow, much less under the pressure of

competition on the world stage, prior to a final week of training leading up to the games. She really had little choice but to go for the gold, as it were, sitting in fourth place after the first

round of jumps in a field of 12 finalists. The second jump was among the best Brenner had executed in her career.

Veronica Brenner, the World Cup champion in 1997, missed all of last season because of reconstructive knee surgery, and now she must compete with a knee

brace.

Congratulations, Veronica Brenner, a great silver medallist we are all very proud of.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It's extremely difficult to understand how the provincial government can continue to treat

the frail and elderly in our province so shabbily at a time when they truly need our support and certainly deserve our respect.

The decision last year to drastically cut back support to our home care sector has left many people simply unable to stay in their homes. Unfortunately for

those who are able to get a placement in one of our long-term-care facilities, the level of care that is available to them is sadly inadequate, and the reason for that is that the government will

simply not provide the needed operating funds to allow the caring staff the time they want to spend with their residents.

The family and friends of these residents are understandably distressed by the day-to-day reality faced by their loved ones, and they want all of us in the

Legislature to make a plea to the health minister to improve this tragic situation.

As part of this effort, the Ontario Long Term Care Association has launched a province-wide campaign to raise awareness of this great need. Last Friday,

Thunder Bay representatives Mike Kopot and Yvonne Mason brought in over 500 postcards, which I would like to have delivered to the health minister today. Daniel, could you do that.

Minister, the people who reside in our facilities in Thunder Bay deserve to be treated with dignity. They supported our community, they raised families and

they paid their taxes with the hope and understanding that when they needed help, it would be there for them. Now they're lucky to get one bath a week and frequently have less than five minutes of

help getting up, washed and dressed. This is a heartbreaking reality for the residents, their family members and the staff, who are run off their feet trying to provide decent care.

Minister, do the right thing. Provide the needed operating funds so that proper care and dignity can be restored to those people to whom we owe so much.

POLICE WEEK

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): This year, Ontario's policing community celebrates Police Week from May 12 to May 18. It's a

tremendous opportunity for all Ontarians to say thank you to the men and women who keep our streets and communities safe. This year's theme is Standing Proud -- Careers in Policing.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has told us that the recruitment of appropriate candidates is an issue for municipalities. Ontario needs more

top-quality men and women to help ensure the continued safety, security and prosperity of our communities and our province. Through Police Week, we can help promote the benefits of policing as a

good career to good candidates. It has all the hallmarks of a great career. There's challenge, room for advancement, good salaries, benefits and pensions, and there's something many other careers

don't offer: an opportunity to make a real difference in people's lives and the community. Police officers have the satisfaction of knowing that every day they are on the job, they are making our

world a better and safer place.

We owe the police officers of this province a tremendous debt of gratitude. They willingly place themselves on the line every day to protect the rest of us.

Sometimes they die in the line of duty. It was to honour the valour and contributions of these men and women that the government erected the police memorial, the theme of which is Heroes in Life,

not Death.

I invite all members of this House to join with me to recognize the contributions of our provincial, municipal and First Nations police officers across

Ontario.

MINISTRY SPENDING

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Chris Stockwell seems to have an addiction to misspending taxpayer dollars. Yesterday it was

revealed that the reason Stockwell didn't make his staff pay up for boozing on the people's tab was because his expense records show that he was in the same bars and clubs at the same time. Even

though he is breaking his own rules, he thinks it's OK to buy alcohol with taxpayers' money and he's refusing to pay up.

This isn't pub-crawl Chris Stockwell's first time getting busted for abusing the people's money. In 1990, when he left Metro council to be an MPP, it was

revealed that he attempted to collect a $10,000 severance payout even though he hadn't missed one day of work. Remind you of anybody? Here's what he had to say at the time: "Now it looks like I am

a greedy bastard. Every one of those suckers are getting it. I'm no oinker. I have always kept my spending down, but now it looks like I have been caught red-handed."

Yet again, Stockwell has been caught red-handed being an oinker. Ontario Liberals are very