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

December 14, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

HUMAN RIGHTS

SUDBURY DIVERSIFICATION

CONSTITUENCY MAILINGS

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT

UNEMPLOYMENT

LEATHERDALE CASE

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

CANADIAN PIZZA CRUST LTD.

MENTAL INCOMPETENCY HEARINGS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

NORTHERN TASK FORCE

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ESTIMATES

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTION OF TENANTS AND HOME OWNERS

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of all honourable members that today, December 14, marks the 22nd anniversary of the United Nations declaration on the granting of independence to oppressed countries and peoples.

In the light of this province's commitment to human rights and to the plight of oppressed peoples, as exemplified by numerous statements by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition (Mr. Peterson), the leader of the third party (Mr. Rae) and by the Premier (Mr.

Davis), I would like to state that there is a concern and an appeal from many citizens in this province and in this country that the Premier of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly look at the possibility of proclaiming a Captive Nations Week in Ontario, as the first jurisdiction in this country to do so, to underline our commitment to the principle and spirit of the United Nations declarations and conventions in the light of the leadership we have shown in the past, be it related to Poland, Afghanistan or to other nations.

I would like simply to remind the members of that declaration, which said, "The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, to domination and to exploitation, constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights and is contrary to the charter of the United Nations." It concludes by saying, "All peoples have the right to self-determination and by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development for the promotion of world peace and co-operation."

SUDBURY DIVERSIFICATION

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I know honourable members will recall that about three years ago, when the government of the day took a very active interest in trying to diversify the economic base of Sudbury, the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) went to Sudbury and addressed the 2001 Conference. At that time, he made certain predictions and certain commitments to assist that municipality in really diversifying its economic base.

We all recall when 2001 was established, and they made a purchase in Texas of angora goats. There was some comment in this Legislature about what that would do for northern Ontario. I am very pleased and proud to be able to show members today the finished product: mohair, naturally, from northern Ontario.

Next year Sudbury will celebrate its 100th anniversary. A century ago we said, "There's nickel in them thar hills." Now we are saying, "There's wool on them thar hills."

I have order forms here. I know members will want to purchase some for their wives, their girlfriends or themselves. The price is right and it will add to the economic base of Sudbury, because the manufacture of this sweater alone -- and it is all done in Sudbury -- has already created 19 jobs in one company. It is part of our effort to diversify the economic base of Sudbury, and you ain't seen nothin' yet.

CONSTITUENCY MAILINGS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On November 15, all members of the Legislative Assembly received a memorandum from Robert J. Fleming, the director of administration and secretary of the Board of Internal Economy, which contained a reminder of the regulations governing constituency mailings.

As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the regulations regarding those mailings say, "It is implicit that the content of these mailings be nonpartisan in nature and be restricted to outlining legislative developments in the House and the committees and the role played by the member in this legislative process."

Mr. Speaker, I have with me and I will send to you the report to Armourdale from the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey). I want to draw to your attention that at the bottom of the front page of the mailing and on the back page there is the following: "In lieu of greeting cards this year the Armourdale PC Association has made a donation -- "

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not really a point of privilege.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Board of Internal Economy --

Mr. Speaker: I would think that if you are looking for some direction, you should refer this matter to the Board of Internal Economy, where it will be dealt with in the proper manner.

Mr. Wrye: You are the chairman, Mr. Speaker. I will send it to you and ask you to raise the matter with the Board of Internal Economy. This is why I bring it to your attention, sir.

An hon. member: It would seem to be the appropriate place.

Mr. Speaker: And others.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have before me in the Toronto Star a statement by the government House leader that Bill 174, the Malvern bill, cannot proceed because of the New Democratic Party tactics. The minister knows that the bill is not on the Order Paper, and he knows full well that he cannot bring that bill back until he finds a place where he is going to deposit that material.

I would ask the minister not to use such cheap tactics in order to try to get a little bit of political mileage because he cannot find a location, as he promised before that bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer that. I have not seen the story my friend is referring to. It comes as a result of a discussion with a reporter about the scheduling of business in this House, and I think it is no secret that we have not been able to consider a number of bills because of the tactics of the honourable member's party on Bill 179. That is a matter of historical fact.

I am not saying that I am in any sense trying to use this as an excuse for not bringing forward the bill. But, as my friend knows, someone wants a bill on the Waterloo area; we will not be able to consider that, likely; there are about 10 other bills we will not be able to consider. That is a pure and simple

interpretation of the time that is available here for discussion in this House.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the winter Experience program for 1982-83 has been enriched by an additional $1 million, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on November 22.

This winter Experience program is only one element of the youth employment envelope recommended by the Ontario Manpower Commission to my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). The youth envelope this fiscal year includes employment programs totalling $64.5 million and has created over 80,000 jobs this year alone.

Our $4.75-million youth Experience initiative this winter is being administered by the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development as a pilot project. It is already helping to reduce unemployment among young people who have left school and are facing special difficulties finding employment. The program is directed at young people who have less than a grade 12 education and those facing special difficulties, such as physical or mental disabilities.

More than 1,200 winter jobs have been created for those needing work experience and job skills. Participants are being paid the provincial minimum wage and will work for periods of between 12 and 20 weeks. The program started early in November and will end March 30, 1983. The extra $1 million will create an estimated 500 additional jobs.

Our youth employment programs in the past have largely been in the summer; however, over the past few years, statistics show that those young people who have limited skills or who face other barriers to finding a job remain on the unemployment lists year round.

If not given a chance to acquire job skills, this segment of the youth population will always have difficulties in the labour market. The winter Experience program is designed to give this group the experience they need to enter the labour force on a more permanent basis or a chance to return to school. My colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), working with the youth secretariat, spearheaded the government's efforts in this regard.

Winter Experience projects involve 16 provincial ministries. The emphasis is on job creation in local communities through municipal governments and other public sector or nonprofit organizations as well as job creation in businesses and on farms. We have concentrated on geographic areas of high unemployment and are working with our youth employment counselling centres to ensure that those who would most benefit from the opportunity have a chance to participate.

When the extra money was allocated to us, there were young people who had already received counselling from the local youth employment counselling centres and were actively looking for jobs. These locally based centres could direct these young people immediately into many of the jobs that were created.

This co-operative effort of community and government working together in Ontario can only lead to a positive and rewarding work experience for our young people and help to alleviate the local unemployment situation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question was to have been to the Treasurer, who by our understanding is supposed to be here today. If he is in the precincts somewhere, I wonder if he might appear.

Mr. Martel: Try your second one first.

Mr. Conway: In consideration of the advice tendered by the member for Sudbury East, I will go to my second question first.

DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the first minister. I was particularly struck last Friday by the advice the Premier (Mr. Davis) tendered to me about how the community at large and this Legislature in particular ought not to be discriminatory with respect to an Ontarian who has served the public in various capacities, notwithstanding bad judgement in one case.

Keeping that in mind, I am very interested to know where the Premier stands, as leader of the government, with respect to the transparent discrimination his government is levelling at one Donald MacAlpine who, as other honourable members have drawn out in their questioning of other ministers, particularly the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), has done very little wrong; who has, by the determination of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board, acted in good faith and has not violated his oath of office --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: My question to the first minister is this: How is it that his government, on the one hand, wishes to exonerate Mr. Morley Rosenberg for the reasons he has given, and on the other hand, wishes to persecute in a very public, vigorous way a public servant who appears to have been doing nothing more than his job -- and a good job for forest management in this province and the public at large?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the acting leader of the Liberal Party is perhaps oversimplifying the issue. I certainly am not going to make any comments of a derogatory nature with respect to Mr. MacAlpine. I do not know the individual involved. I have no personal knowledge of him or his activities other than through the reports of the minister and the ministry.

I think what the minister has done is to follow the legal process in order to determine whether the grievance settlement board was proper in its judgement. I think that was a judgement call made by the minister on advice from his ministry officials. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Conway: It seems to me nothing could be more simple and straightforward in this matter than that which was set out in the first minister's letter of October 3, 1980, to all his ministers, from which I cite the following:

"Between now and the time when freedom of information legislation is enacted" -- and God only knows when that will be -- "there is a great deal we can do to give the policy of open government meaning and consistency. A further step that can be taken in this interim period before the act is in place is to encourage open and responsive behaviour among public servants in their daily dealings with the public, particularly including members of the Legislative Assembly and representatives of the news media."

He sets out seven guidelines, two of which are:

"The basic communications position of the government of Ontario is to be open as opposed to closed in its dealings with the public" -- and most important -- "civil servants acting in good faith under these guidelines will not be considered as having violated their oaths of secrecy."

My supplementary question is: How is it that the Minister of Natural Resources, in this extraordinary action, has not violated those most explicit tenets set out in the Premier's letter of October 3, 1980?

And how is it, sir, that this fine public service that we have -- and the Premier, among others, is quick to boast about it -- how is that those people out there, who are trying to do a good job, are going to continue in the face of this kind of extraordinary persecution which must violate the very policy he so eloquently set out not that many months ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to hear the member refer to my letter as eloquent. I really felt one used that word to describe how one articulates in the verbal sense, but if it was an eloquent letter, I appreciate his observation.

If memory serves me correctly, I think the Minister of Natural Resources answered that specific question. Perhaps the member was not present when it was answered, but I am sure he would be delighted to reiterate that answer for him. It was relatively simple and understandable.

I think it is fair to state that the government does not accept the term "persecution" used by the member. I do not accept that at all. Apparently, there is a question in terms of the advice from the senior people in the ministry with respect to the law or the policies within the ministry that they feel should be adjudicated. It is a process that has been used before, although not very often, and I think we are fortunate in that respect. But I do not accept that this is a persecution. It is not.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier would agree that at least it has the appearance of being vindictive in the circumstances. I would ask the Premier to bear two things in mind. First of all, that the process of judicial review can only consider errors of law and not any findings of fact that were found by the grievance settlement board; and that if this process of going to a third party called a grievance settlement board is to have any integrity, then surely the government has to follow the findings of fact that were actually made by the grievance settlement board.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I would simply ask the Premier to comment on these two findings: first of all, the findings that Mr. MacAlpine at all times acted in complete good faith and that he is, in the judgement and the finding of fact by the grievance settlement board, "a civil servant of integrity" -- those are the words of the settlement board; and second, that there was significant fault, not on the part of Mr. MacAlpine but on the part of his superiors, who were found as a matter of fact to have brought undue pressure on him to sign a licence to the Buchanan company.

How can the Premier possibly avoid the conclusion, where no action is being taken against the regional office and all the action is being taken against Mr. MacAlpine, that the government not only does not accept the legal findings of the grievance settlement board but even refuses to respect its job, the findings of fact? How can we avoid that conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member has perhaps moderated at least his perception compared to that of the honourable member who asked the initial question. I reject, though, the term "vindictive."

I think it is fair to state, and I will not get into any sort of legal discussion with the member, that the decision of the grievance settlement board obviously contains some fact. There is no question that the judicial review cannot deal with "established facts." I think the member also referred to two or three areas that one could in logic describe as being matters of judgement or opinion.

Mr. Rae: They were conclusions of fact based on the evidence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there is a distinction between the facts that are presented and the judgement one draws or concludes from the facts, and I think if the member looks back over the history of the number of grievances filed before the grievance settlement board and the number that have been accepted without any question by the government -- and I think he will find that there is a fairly good record in this regard -- surely it establishes that in the view of some ministry officials giving legal advice there is something exceptional or different in these particular circumstances.

I do not think it would be proper for me at this point to comment on the judgement of the grievance settlement board. But please look at the history, look at the number of grievances dealt with and look at the fact that I think the decisions of the grievance settlement board have been accepted by this government almost without exception.

Mr. Conway: Is this not an outrageous public morality, a public morality that will offend everyone from the Sunday school in Brampton to the faculty of forestry at the Lakehead, whereby on one hand one public servant is rewarded for lying and another is penalized for telling the truth?

How can the Premier, as the leader of this government, having written these documents, conclude that this is not persecution, that this is not vindication? Can he not see the error of his ways in leading a government that insists on appealing this case two or three days after he stands in his place in this assembly and invites us all to share in his sense of compassion and goodwill with respect to the former mayor of Kitchener?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to know that the member may be beginning to share that sense of understanding and compassion. I am very encouraged by that. I think he meant to use the word "vindictive" instead of "vindicate."

I would only answer as I did before. This is not, as I understand it from the minister, a question of persecution, a question of morality in that sense. It is a determination by the recommendations of those people in the ministry that, with respect to the grievance settlement board's decision, there is something they feel is a matter of principle as it relates to this case that should be appealed. That is the advice that was given.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the second question, which was to have been my first question to the provincial Treasurer, concerns the evidence that is building everywhere about the nature and the extent of the economic and human tragedy of unemployment in Ontario in the fall and winter of 1982.

The Treasurer is no doubt aware that the most recent data concerning permanent and indefinite layoffs in this province, data for the month of October 1982, indicate we have seen month over month, October over September 1982, an increase of 92 per cent in the number of permanent and indefinite layoffs. In October 1982, 6,052 Ontarians lost their jobs either permanently or indefinitely through layoffs. There were 1,400 at Stelco in Hamilton, and 1,250 odd at General Motors in Oshawa.

In view of the fact that the federal Minister of Finance indicated in the House of Commons yesterday that he was about to launch "an all-out federal-provincial effort to stimulate the sagging Canadian economy," and he held out the olive branch of invitation to the 10 provincial ministers, can the Treasurer indicate in a general way, for the 600,000 Ontarians out of work and for those many who are anticipating they will be thrown out of work any day now, what specific undertaking he will present on behalf of the people of Ontario at the Thursday meeting of finance ministers?

What specific plans has he for participating as the representative of the major provincial economy in this new federal initiative Mr. Lalonde spoke of yesterday?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will have to wait to speak to Mr. Lalonde directly to find out whether he intends to increase his already rather large deficit with a major program of public works. He may decide to do so. He certainly will be getting, as I am, conflicting advice these days as to the realness, if that is the correct word, of the meaning of a deficit.

I am one of those people who believes the kind of program on which the federal government has co-operated with the provinces in the last month is not really necessarily an extra spending of government money. I do accept the fact that governments have responsibilities, not only through insurance programs like unemployment insurance but through programs like general welfare assistance, to maintain at least some degree of income for those who are unfortunate enough not to have employment.

If we are going to pay someone in the absence of employment, it strikes me as good common sense not only to let them have the pride of being at work but to accomplish some objectives that are in the national interest, like major public works or even minor public works, where those minor public works need investment that otherwise would not be available. I do not see it at all as extra money. So Ontario will be going to that meeting, as we have gone to a number, to stress that employment and the creation of an environment for investment are among our top priorities.

The member talked in his

preamble, as if it was a foreordained fact, about the many who were about to lose employment. I hope he is wrong. I hope he hopes he is wrong, because I do not think the worst is ahead. I think the worst is behind us.

Mr. Rae: I think the worst is in front of us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Fair enough. I happen to be one of those who believe the more the member says that -- whether I like it or not, he is credible outside of this House at times to some people. I have to say carefully to both members that, in playing the political game all politicians at some time embark upon, they should not so totally demoralize people by their constant references to impending doom that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mr. Conway: What are the unemployed of Hamilton and Oshawa and Pembroke to make of that kind of answer?

The federal government through the new Minister of Finance, it seems to us, indicated a major new direction in the House of Commons yesterday. Thousands of Ontarians are losing their jobs on a monthly basis and the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have been wrong repeatedly about the end of this recession. The 564,000 in Ontario who are officially registered as being out of work as of November 1982 await in daily anticipation the promise of 1981, the Tory re-election promise.

In view of these points can the Treasurer indicate the specific commitment he is prepared to enter into, given the new directions as outlined by Mr. Lalonde? The federal minister has clearly indicated he is now prepared to stimulate the economy more deeply and vigorously than has previously been the case on the part of that government. What specific initiatives is the Treasurer taking to that Thursday meeting?

2:30 p.m.

The member must recognize that within the last month the governor of the Bank of Canada has probably made one of the most fundamental changes of direction we have seen. He has gone basically off his M-1 -- as it is called -- as the basis for making the decisions for determining interest rates and money supply.

We have seen a large measure of success in our Bill 179 -- which will be almost three months old before it will get passed in this House. We have also seen a real tempering of the forces of inflation in the last while, and a real dampening in the growth of interest rates. Interest rates have come down at least 40 per cent in the last year and some improvements in the economy have appeared on the horizon. Housing starts are coming along in the States and here.

Mr. Martel: Where? Tell them that in Sudbury.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They do not like to admit that but they are coming along.

According to the economists I dined with last night -- who are not from my ministry but from the universities and the businesses of this province -- members will see signs that things will improve. But it will require concentrated action. I am going, therefore, with suggestions to make. But more important I am going to listen to what change, if any, has occurred since Mr. Lalonde became minister. After all his is the primary job; our job is to co-operate with him. We have signalled that we will co-operate. The problems are serious enough that this province is prepared to put politics to one side and work.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has been telling us there is light at the end of the shaft for a long time and it has not proved to be correct.

In that regard, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that in October there were 6,052 laid off -- 5,388 as a result of reduced operations. None of these 5,388 are eligible for statutory severance pay under the law of the Ontario. Can the Treasurer tell us whether he will be taking to this federal-provincial conference the very real problems of job insecurity and income maintenance that result from inadequate protection for workers in all provinces, and in Ontario particularly? Does the Treasurer not think this is a very real problem facing people who are being laid off?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between the New Democratic Party and mine about what constitutes security for a worker. I firmly believe -- and I am not sure the leader of the third party does -- that security for a worker lies in the success of his employer's business. To a large extent that success depends upon world markets and consumer confidence. That is the point I was trying to make in my response to the first part of the question originally posed.

Consumer confidence is a very fragile thing. It is easily dampened and easily crushed. The last 18 months have done a great deal to dampen it. They tell me savings rates are passing 15 per cent at this point, which would tell --

Mr. Laughren: You are incompetent, Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At least I have --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- had the chance to prove I am incompetent rather than sitting on the benches like the member all the rest of his life pretending he is competent. He has much to feel incompetent about.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, who has been swinging between voodoo economics and Pollyanna economics in the past few months in the House. If we accept his view that all will be glorious come the spring, can he tell us what his government is doing about one of the fundamental problems we have in our economy, structural and otherwise, that is related to productivity? What is he doing to ensure that our productivity improves so we can continue to compete in international markets?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I trust my friend knows how productivity improves.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not just by investment. You have given me that answer before.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member would take a whip out, hold it over a worker and say, "Work harder."

What other route works? Productivity improves in a society through a number of means: (

a) full use of the installed capacity of companies improves productivity; (

b) cutting down the wage rate growth relative to one's competitors improves one's relative productivity or unit cost --

Mr. Martel: Compete for a foreign market maybe.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a minute. He is asking me and I am giving a lecture --

Mr. T. P. Reid: The first full answer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- (

c) is investing in plant. We can all pretend that is not the most important, but it happens to be. Into that comes taxation policy because if one confiscates too much of the pre-tax earnings, very few of those dollars will find their way back into plant.

That is one of the reasons why in a bad year Ontario had the courage to leave the income tax in the hands of the average small businessman.

LEATHERDALE CASE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General and it concerns the Leatherdale case and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to that case.

It was the judgement of the Supreme Court that, while under the Family Law Reform Act, Mrs. Leatherdale had a perfect right to one half of what are described as the family assets, she did not have a right to one half of the nonfamily assets. In fact, it ruled that her work inside the home could not be taken into account when evaluating her share of the nonfamily assets.

If I may quote directly from the decision of Mr. Justice Laskin, he says, "The trial judge was, as stated above, wrong in bringing into account the work of the wife in the home." He makes several statements to that effect throughout the judgement.

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether, in light of this decision, he does not think it appropriate for this Legislature to consider changes to the Family Law Reform Act? I refer to changes that would consider the contributions a wife makes while working in the home the same way it would consider any other contributions made by a wife while working outside the home?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the Family Law Reform Act will be five years old as of March 1983. In light of that fifth anniversary coming up early next year I have asked my staff to put in process a complete review of this legislation. I will be making a statement in the Legislature next week about the form of that review. This matter and all other matters relating to this legislation will be carefully considered.

I would also like to say that this legislation that became law in 1978 was introduced to this House some time before that and certainly was and is very progressive legislation. It has served the people of this province very well and has brought a considerably greater degree of equity into dealing with these matrimonial and domestic disputes.

I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party that the Leatherdale decision and any other relevant matters will be very much a part of this review that has been initiated in the ministry.

Mr. Rae: When the Ontario Law Reform Commission presented its report on family law in 1974, it stressed the need for recognition of the contribution both partners make to a marriage. It found the current laws did not recognize the very real contribution a wife is making by housekeeping and by household management. Also the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission urged this distinction between so-called family assets and nonfamily assets be done away with.

2:40 p.m.

Can we not have a clear commitment from the Attorney General that, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court which has worked a very real hardship on Mrs. Leatherdale, his government will stand committed to ending this phoney distinction between family assets and nonfamily assets?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the 1978 act makes it very clear that the intention of the legislation is to recognize the vital contribution made by any wife and mother who chooses to remain in the home. The whole matter of parenting and looking after the household is to be treated as of equal importance.

There are some complex issues related to this matter. We have no difficulty in accepting the principle of the fundamental importance of the contribution made by the wife and homemaker. This is a matter that will be carefully reviewed. I would certainly welcome suggestions from any members of the Legislature as well as any outside the Legislature. As I have stated, this review is already under way.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side welcome any review of the Family Law Reform Act because it does require some fine-tuning in some areas. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada basically kept and enforced a spirit that had been enacted in the 1978 act. Basically the decision ruled that under

section 8, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was restricted to the basis of

section 8, saying that a wife or spouse who wanted to claim under that

section under nonfamily assets must show some type of financial contribution.

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether, in the light of that decision, he is prepared to review the definition involving family assets? As Justice Estey said, I think there is a difficulty of the courts interpreting, and the litigation in many cases involved the definition of what is and is not a family asset. Second, is the Attorney General satisfied the rights of spouses to achieve equity in the process if there is a separation is still maintained under subsection 4(6) of the act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, all these sections will be part of the review. Fundamental to the review is the question of presumption of more or less equal sharing of the family assets as opposed to the business assets. This will be one of the major issues that will have to be resolved. All of this will have to be looked at in the context of the totality of the legislation.

Certainly anything that could be done to create any greater degree of fairness, and to remove any inequities that may have occurred subsequent to the passage of this legislation, will all be matters of intense interest to those reviewing the legislation -- including myself.

Mr. Rae: To cut through some of the obscurity in the Attorney General's answer, does he not think --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Don't be insulting.

Mr. Rae: No, I am not being. This is very important. I would simply like to ask the Attorney General a simple question. In regard to the distinction between family and nonfamily assets, and the fact that according to the Supreme Court of Canada it is not possible for a judge to take into account the work a woman does at home or a man does at home, is it not his opinion that works a real unfairness and seriously underestimates the contribution women make to marriages when they stay at home and raise children? Does he not think that is unfair?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the New Democratic Party would spend three or four minutes reading some of the decisions of the courts of this province in the past four or five years, he would recognize that this is taken into consideration on a day-to-day basis. I think he should look at this matter in a little greater depth and not be prepared to trivialize it, as he does so many issues in this House.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Rae: I think I will let that go, Mr. Speaker.

My second question is to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). The minister made two promises to the Legislature and the residents of Stouffville: that York Sanitation would not be allowed to expand the Stouffville dump site and that the dump would close on June 30, 1983. We now learn it is intended that the dumping will continue in Stouffville for another three years. How can the minister possibly explain this decision, given his commitment to the House earlier this year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of helping to clarify in the mind of the honourable member what took place in April, I indicated in a statement to the House the contents of an order issued by the director of the environmental approvals branch of my ministry, an order I support and endorse. The result of that order was as is provided for in the legislation.

An appeal launched by the company in question was scheduled to begin before the Environmental Appeal Board more than a month ago -- I forget the precise date. I want to make it clear I am not a party to this matter because, under the legislation, I am the next level of appeal. Therefore, I have had to treat this matter with great care in order not to jeopardize my capacity to carry out my responsibilities under the legislation.

However, prior to the appeal being heard, it is my understanding an approach was made by the company to the parties to the appeal, they at that time being, as I recall, the ministry, the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the Concerned Citizens of Stouffville group and a number of individual citizens who were represented independently from that group.

At that time I was involved to some degree in that I became aware that a proposal had been made. In instructing our legal counsel it was my position that they ought not to take a position that in any way would put them in a situation of being a proponent of any particular proposal. However, at the same time, if it were acceptable to all parties that such discussions might take place, they ought not to thwart such discussions. As a consequence, I understand a process was set in place and the parties among themselves selected one of the legal counsel from my ministry staff to act as a sort of chairman of the group during the course of these discussions.

To the best of my knowledge, there is not any agreement at this point that would alter the original decision in any way. It is my understanding, though, that there has been some agreement in principle among those who are parties to the proposed appeal and that those discussions are still continuing. It is not correct to suggest that I or the ministry have changed our position in any way.

It is my understanding the proposal embodies all the principles that were in the order, with two variations. One was the timing by which the site might be closed and the other an increase in the volume of material that would be allowed to be put in. If it is possible for all parties to agree to a variation in the original order that is acceptable to all, this decision and the advice that would be received by the parties presumably would be based largely on technical grounds as to whether this was acceptable or not.

2:50 p.m.

I want to make it clear that whether the site would be expanded as in the original application is not at issue. It is a question of the time by which the present site would be closed and the amount of waste that would be required to appropriately close that.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the length of the answer, but I am still not sure I understand what the minister's position is. He did make a statement on April 29, 1982, saying there would be no expansion, for reasons he set out, and second that there would be a close-out of the dump. In giving the reasons for this he said, "The information that has been provided has some fundamental errors that make the proposal unacceptable, since the site may create a nuisance and a health hazard." That refers to the old site, as I understand the text of the minister's statement, and that is the reason the site was being closed.

If that was true on April 29, is it still not the case in December? Does the minister not think the same facts hold and that the site should still be closed? Is that not the view of the minister today? Why has he changed his mind?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, at this point I think it is not for me to impose my view on the process that is taking place. I think a legitimate discussion is taking place.

I want, though, to clarify two points in the mind of the honourable member. First of all, the proposal that has been made and that is subject to discussion, as I understand it, still provides for a close-out, but a close-out at a different date. It still would maintain no expansion of the site in the sense that the original application was for an expansion of the site. That has not changed.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, in his answer to the first question the minister mentioned that the parties to this hearing are the ones who are dealing with the negotiations with the company. The citizens' group that originally raised the issue with this ministry and followed up on it so well by doing all the studies necessary to bring it to the minister's attention has withdrawn because of funding difficulties.

As this is so, is there any chance the minister can develop some kind of program whereby these public interest groups can receive funding and therefore be able to participate actively and continually in processes like this? They should be assured their fears are not bargained away between other groups to the actual appeals system.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from one or two sources that funding difficulties might have played a role in that decision, although I find this difficult to accept in view of the fact they were being provided with free legal counsel, as I understand it.

I have also heard speculation -- and as far as I am aware it is nothing more than that -- that the Concerned Citizens were perhaps motivated or influenced by certain other factors. I understand they had outside advice that had nothing to do with my ministry. I was told there was professional advice that the proposal made good sense -- advice that in fact recommended they might accept it.

However, before their meeting, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) attended a meeting of theirs, I believe, and urged them under no circumstances to entertain any such possibility of arriving at any agreement. At a meeting two or three days later they decided to withdraw as a party. One speculative version I have heard is they made that decision to withdraw as a party because there was such division within the group as to what their common position might be. That might not be correct.

If they had ongoing concerns my advice to them would have been to remain a party and to maintain that position. Under no circumstances do I or my ministry have any interest in trying in any way to press people to accept any agreement they think is unreasonable. If they had wanted to maintain that position it was their decision to do so. I do not find it credible, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that financing was the main issue if they were being provided with free counsel.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I should say to the minister that it is never wise to comment on things of which he knows not. If he wishes to be briefed on the situation in Stouffville, my staff would be happy to sit down with him and fill him in fully on the discussions that went on there.

My question to the minister relates to his answer to the first question. The minister suggested an alteration of the original order may be possible if all the parties to the appeal agree. Can I take it that means if all the parties to the appeal do not agree, there will be no alteration to the original order of last April?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Any decision with respect to the date and the volume of waste that can be accepted in that site will ultimately have to be based upon the soundness of technical evidence with respect to environmental impact. I understand the proposal at present lends itself better to the appropriate contouring of that site to avoid problems of ponding and pooling of water in future because of the stringency of the original order. We still stand by the original order as it is at the moment.

I want to emphasize that this is a serious matter. It is important to the interests of that community and those citizens that they be permitted an opportunity to examine any such proposal and come to their own conclusion.

I do not approve of the conduct of a member of this Legislature who would deliberately try to disrupt the efforts of the citizens of that community to do that very thing. I could respond to the member's latest question by saying, "Yes, perhaps there will be no acceptance of any agreement if one individual party does not accept it." But knowing his conduct, his first effort would be to go out to Stouffville and try to persuade one individual not to accept it to try to abort any reasonable effort to find a solution.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister should withdraw. He is imputing motives to another member, and in this Legislature that is contrary to the rules. I ask you to have him withdraw his last comment.

Mr. Speaker: The version I heard quite clearly was rather hypothetical. The minister was speculating. He did not impute any motives to anybody.

CANADIAN PIZZA CRUST LTD.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on November 26, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) raised a question concerning problems experienced by some 23 employees of Canadian Pizza Crust Ltd. At this time, I wish to report on the results of the investigation which I directed in respect of this matter.

3 p.m.

At my request, a senior official of the industrial relations division has met with the employer and employees involved. I am pleased to report that yesterday, with the ministry's assistance, the parties concluded a settlement of their differences.

The terms of the settlement provide for the reinstatement of all 23 employees effective December 13. In addition, the disputed 30-cent-per-hour wage increase will be granted to those reinstated employees who qualify by reason of length of service. In return, the employees have withdrawn their complaints under the Employment Standards Act and the Human Rights Code.

This matter now appears to have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, before asking a short supplementary, I want to say to the minister that the action the ministry took in this regard restores some of the little faith we on this side have in the question period process itself. I want to congratulate the minister and his staff for the speed with which they responded to the concerns we raised in this House with respect to that question.

My supplementary is this: Does the experience of his ministry and the Ontario Human Rights Commission in this case not make him feel that it is time for a change in the Employment Standards Act? Does he not think there should be a just dismissal provision so that other workers in similar positions around the province will have the same protection we managed to get by virtue of the kinds of pressure put on in this case? Does he not think it is time all workers had the same kind of protection?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: First, I want to thank the honourable member for his gracious remarks.

In response to the question he raised, I would answer in the same manner in which I answered when it was raised on a previous occasion. The matter of unjust dismissal is under very active study by the employment standards branch.

MENTAL INCOMPETENCY HEARINGS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General feels it is not within his jurisdiction, he could refer the matter to his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman); and if it is not in his jurisdiction, it may be referred to the arrogant Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: I just want to play it safe, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the Attorney General is: In the light of the recent decision and court case involving the question of competency under the Mental Incompetency Act of Justin Clark and, as I understand it, a series of other applications which shall be made, can the Attorney General advise when we can expect major reforms of that statute in the area of having the question of competency or incompetency decided in a forum other than a trial? I wonder whether he agrees with me that a trial is not a proper forum for this type of decision.

Secondly, will the Attorney General look at giving more flexibility to the presiding officer, board or whatever it is that is going to have to make a decision so that, rather than being forced to make a decision that is either black or white, competency or incompetency, the presiding tribunal, judge or whatever is allowed to make a decision, for instance, of competency but requiring assistance for specific tasks?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Ottawa East is well aware of the complexity of this issue. As he appreciates, on the one hand many of these procedures are there for the protection of the individual who wishes to be able to manage his own affairs. On the other hand, the legislation must protect that individual when he is in need of protection in so far as his competency to manage his own affairs, particularly since people in that position are often vulnerable to other less scrupulous people who might want to take advantage of their disability.

The issue being as difficult as it is, in my view it is necessary in the final analysis to provide the opportunity for some process that will allow the adversarial mechanism to obtain the truth as it may relate to a particular individual for his protection. Having said that, obviously the Justin Clark case raises a number of issues, and the ministers involved, together with our law officers, will be reviewing the legislation in the light of that case.

Mr. Roy: Having in mind, as the Attorney General stated in answer to my question, the possibility that the adversarial system is retained -- and I am not sure that it should be for this type of decision; but given that it is -- subsection 7(2) of the present statute provides that an application for this type of purpose, to declare competency or incompetency, can be made either by the Attorney General himself or by a next of kin, a parent or otherwise.

Having in mind that an application can be made in this fashion and that some parent or next of kin may genuinely and objectively have some concern about the person's competency, will the Attorney General also review the situation whereby the person who is the subject matter of those proceedings may have legal assistance -- in fact, support from legal aid, support from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and assistance from a variety of sources -- while on the other side the next of kin or parent may well be in the situation where he has a genuine concern but has to suffer serious financial and legal obligations?

Will the minister review that prospect as well to make sure that there is not inequity and to restore a sense of balance in that process?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly agree, first, that the adversarial process, while necessary in the final analysis, is not the avenue that we would like to see these matters take if they can be resolved short of that.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will the minister confirm that in a rent review hearing for a building at 40 Earl Street in Toronto, the rent review commissioner, Mr. David Braund, was unable to obtain the names of the beneficial owners of that building, now owned by a numbered company, namely, 495929 Ontario Ltd.?

Is he further aware that on November 24, the agent for the landlord of a building at 41 Garfella Drive in Rexdale, owned by a company called 490352 Ontario Ltd., refused to provide the commissioner, Mr. Tenbroeck, with the name or names of the beneficial owners?

What action has the minister taken to ensure that commissioners request such information in the sale and resale of new buildings coming before the commission, and what actions will be taken in each of those cases where the landlord or his agent refuses to provide that information?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, obviously the commissioner does not consult with the minister about his decisions, nor would this Legislature or the honourable member expect him to. I am advised that he did indeed make a finding yesterday that he saw it as an important thing for him to know who were the beneficial owners of the property to make a determination as to whether the transfer of property had been at arm's length. I have not yet read the decision myself to confirm that, but that is preliminary information given to me.

As I am sure the member knows, those are matters that are left to the discretion of the commissioners, although they do consult with each other and the chairman has certain guidelines and certain policy proposals he discusses with his commissioners from time to time.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Philip: The minister does not leave it at the discretion of the commission when he promises this House that he can find out the names of beneficial owners, as in the case of the Cadillac Fairview sale. But in the case of 40 Earl Street, the commissioner ruled that he would allow only a 23 per cent increase instead of the 54 per cent that was requested by the owners, whoever they are, of 495929 Ontario Ltd., refusing as he did, to pass through the financial costs of the resale to the tenant.

Can the minister confirm whether that ruling will apply in the case of the Cadillac Fairview sale to a series of numbered companies? Will the minister now take action to prevent landlords from receiving any increases when they refuse to provide that information to the commission?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The House should clearly understand, as I am sure the member does, that the guidelines this government has introduced, and the proposed bill I am asking members to support, and to support quickly, so we do not have tenants in this province who will be suffering because there has not been co-operation -- I have not had any indication that I will not get it, but I am counting on their co-operation to get it through quickly -- the guidelines and steps this government has taken are seen as very indicative of our view that the kind of speculative activity we have seen in these situations is not to be tolerated.

NORTHERN TASK FORCE

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister is aware of the extreme importance being placed on the release of the Task Force Study of Transportation and Living Costs in the Far North because of the hardships experienced by those who live in that part of Ontario.

As the minister knows, with gas costing more than $5 a gallon in Winisk, butter at $3.19 a pound in Attawapiskat, bread at $1.55 a loaf and milk at $1.15 a quart in Fort Albany, there is no doubt that the people of the north are finding it very difficult to afford their basic needs. As the minister also knows, a recently announced increase in air transportation rates will make this situation even more critical.

Will the minister please advise the House when the report of the task force, which began investigation of these costs in August 1981, will be released to the public? Will he also advise the House whether leaders of the communities affected by the report will have an opportunity to provide further input and for discussion with the minister before its final implementation?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me first point out that this minister and this government certainly share the concern of the member for Cochrane North about the high cost of living in the remote parts of northern Ontario.

The honourable member is quite correct in pointing out that an interministerial committee was established some time ago. It has gone through various studies, has moved across northern Ontario, has had dozens and dozens of meetings with the local people, and has prepared a draft.

I am told by my staff that the first draft should be in my hands early in 1983. It will be reviewed very carefully within my office, then made public, and we will ask for some response from the native communities and those directly affected and involved.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Barlow, on behalf of Mr. Eves, from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr39,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Barlow, on behalf of Mr. Eves, from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's third report for 1982.

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that private members' business not be taken up on Thursday, December 16.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be referred to the standing committee on resources development for consideration tonight and tomorrow morning, Wednesday, December 15, the time taken in that committee being subtracted from the remaining time allocated for those estimates in the committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 308, 309, 405 to 430, 648, 657, 670 and 675 to 680, all standing on the Notice Paper, and the responses to petitions presented to the Legislature, sessional papers 282, 289 and 291 [see Hansard for Friday, December 17].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROTECTION OF TENANTS AND HOME OWNERS

Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, motion 47 under standing order 63(a):

This House condemns the government for its failure to protect the interests of tenants and home owners in the province of Ontario; specifically for its failure to launch a full public inquiry into the sale and subsequent resales of nearly 11,000 units in Toronto owned by Cadillac Fairview, despite evidence of massive profiteering and misleading information being given to a minister of the crown by private financial interests; for its imposition of a set of rent review guidelines which continue to impose on tenants the cost of speculation and intolerably high interest rates; for its failure to introduce legislation which embodies the principle that comprehensive and not just temporary rent review and control should become a permanent part of the legal and economic landscape of the province; for its failure to introduce a speculation tax on speculative transfer of land and housing; for its failure to relieve the burden of property taxes on middle- and lower-income home owners; for its failure to allow home owners to pay off without penalty closed mortgages at high interest rates, thus preventing thousands of Ontarians from taking advantage of lower rates; for its failure to introduce legislation which would require full and open disclosure of the identity of beneficial owners and shareholders of companies incorporated pursuant to the laws of Ontario and full disclosure of the ownership of land by such companies and by companies and individuals resident outside Ontario; for its short-sighted and reactionary decision to conduct a fire sale of lands previously purchased and banked by the government of Ontario; for its refusal to carry out an intensive program of construction of new housing in the nonprofit, co-operative and public field in order to provide affordable housing and jobs for thousands of Ontario's people; and for its fundamental failure to recognize that shelter is too precious and important a human need to be left to the caprice of the speculator and the whim of a marketplace dominated by the principle of private profit and enrichment; and for all these reasons this government now lacks the confidence of this House.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I indicate that it was agreed we would share the time equally among the three parties? Perhaps the table could make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and some honourable members will be surprised to realize, as I was earlier today, that this is my maiden speech before the House in the sense that this is the first occasion on which I have been able to speak before the whole House, rather than the committee of the whole House, with respect to a matter of some importance.

In doing so, I want to deal with some important things with respect to how it is I arrived here and to say a couple of things, if I may, about my predecessor, Donald MacDonald, the former member for York South.

When Mr. MacDonald announced his intention to retire from the House, tributes were paid to him by members from all sides. I simply want to say that as far as I am concerned, there is no finer politician in Ontario and no person who better understands and respects the traditions and the people of this province.

I am very proud, and I will leave it as simply as I can at that, to be his successor in this Legislature. I hope that in my own way and in terms of my own service, I may provide something of the kind of contribution he provided not only to this Legislature but also to the people of York South, the people he represented.

Mr. Roy: It is unfair that there should be such poor attendance by your caucus on your maiden speech. We should ring the bells.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the attendance of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) which for my short time here has been somewhat sporadic. I realize he has other commitments outside this House to other clients.

Mr. Roy: It is the quality, not the quantity.

Mr. Kerrio: It's quality when we talk about Albert.

Mr. Rae: It is quality. I appreciate that, and I certainly appreciate the help I have had since coming here from the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Mr. Kerrio: Any time.

Mr. Rae: I do not know where I would be without his helpful remarks.

Mr. Kerrio: I am a big-hearted guy.

Mr. Rae: I have not heard the honourable member speak from his feet, but I have certainly heard him speak from his seat. He makes a valuable and pithy contribution to the debate in this House.

Mr. Roy: You should be proud to have some Liberals here to listen to you.

Mr. Kerrio: They never accused this member of being a wimp.

Mr. Rae: I would.

Mr. Kerrio: I acknowledge that. You know what you are talking about.

Mr. Rae: I also want to express my gratitude to the people of York South for having sent me here. I have had the good fortune to have been elected four times in the past four years, both to the House of Commons in Ottawa and now to the Ontario Legislature. I am sure all members realize the kind of trust and the sense of trusteeship all of us have in taking very seriously the responsibilities and the confidence that has been given to us by the electors of our constituencies.

I want to express my particular gratitude to the people of York South for having sent me here and to indicate how seriously I take my obligations to provide them with the best representation I possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a motion of no confidence in the government, a motion that flows from two basic concerns we have in this party. Our first concern has to do with the breakdown of the rent review system, the breakdown of security, the breakdown of justice, the breakdown in many instances of decent and proper maintenance and the breakdown in the system of rent review established by this Legislature a few years ago.

The approach I want to take today will be to touch on a number of questions, but I think it can be described as touching on three basic questions. The first has to do with the basic problems with rent review and the breakdown in that system, the very real problems that have been created for tenants as a result of the breakdown of the rent review system and the very real challenge facing any government that wants to deal with the problems that people face.

The second point I want to make obviously has to do with the very real inadequacy of the government's response to the general problems of rent review and to the particular problem that we now know as the Cadillac Fairview deal.

We are dealing with three questions: the breakdown of rent review, the problems of Cadillac Fairview and the inadequacy of the government's response to these issues and to the broader question of what kind of future there is for secure and decent shelter in Ontario.

The Cadillac Fairview case has to be seen not as something that can be taken out of context, not as an unusual event, not as an exception but, rather, as one of those instances and as one of those events that graphically demonstrate problems that all of us realized were there and were brewing before.

As a federal member and as somebody who was a candidate in York South, I know that we all -- and I am sure I speak for many other members -- were aware and becoming increasingly aware of the very real deterioration that was taking place in terms of the rights of tenants over the past few years. I can think of many instances in the riding I used to share with the now Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations where problems were being created for tenants by high interest rates and the deterioration in standards of maintenance as a result of what was taking place in the marketplace.

I want to emphasize what some of these problems are. First of all, there are the very real problems and challenges posed to rent review by the sale of buildings. If I may take a case in point, because I believe when you do take a case in point it often demonstrates far more graphically than anything else can possibly demonstrate just how real these problems are, I want to turn not to the Cadillac Fairview buildings that were sold to whomever -- we do not know who they were sold to yet -- but to another example, two buildings, at 221 and 265 Balliol Street, that are known as Chequers Place.

These buildings were sold by Cadillac Fairview to Chequers Place Properties Ltd. on October 27, 1982. The price paid was $13 million, of which $2.5 million was in cash, $4.3 million was in assumed mortgages and the vendor-takeback mortgage was $5.9 million. Cadillac Fairview is the holder of the vendor-takeback mortgage, Metropolitan Trust is the holder of another mortgage, the Canadian Commercial Bank at prime plus two and a half is the holder of another mortgage, and Gossamer Investments is the holder of a fourth mortgage on these buildings as the result of the sale.

The buildings were sold before the brouhaha took place with respect to the other Cadillac Fairview deals. The landlord -- and I am sure the minister may be aware of this case -- has applied to rent review for an increase of 42.4 per cent, with the increases to take effect on February 1. The tenants received notice of the application on November 10. The project now is managed by a group called Blokker Property Management Inc.

When one hears the figure of 42.5 per cent, one might not think it is such a terrible figure because it is simply a percentage and in the abstract, while it seems very high, one does not really know what it means in hard dollar terms. Let us look and see what it means in hard dollar terms.

3:30 p.m.

The old range for a bachelor apartment was from $251 to $337; the new range is from $357 to $480. That means increases of a minimum of $100 per month. A junior one bedroom, from $277 to $395; a one bedroom, from $309 to $440; a two bedroom, $386 to $549: a two bedroom special, $411 to $587 -- some special -- and a three bedroom, of which there is only one, $386 to $550.

That graphically demonstrates the very real and incredible problems that are being faced by tenants in buildings which are being resold. I do not think I have ever had a more clear and telling experience with respect to the impact of sales and what is happening to rent review than when I was canvassing in York South, in the area known as the Jane-Woolner area, which has become somewhat famous because of the number of cases which are going to rent review there.

There are problems of dramatic rent increases being proposed by the landlord on the one hand, and on the other hand, there is a very real deterioration in the quality of maintenance. There is a tremendous sense of frustration on the part of the tenants with the injustice of this situation. There is injustice in the situation when it comes to getting the hot water turned on, when it comes to having heat provided, when it comes to being able to get rid of cockroaches or other pests, when it comes to being able to deal with the problems of maintenance which tenants are facing, and there is no response from the landlord.

The only message they get from the landlord -- and frequently it is an impersonal message from a numbered company -- is that they are being taken to rent review and the increases that are being asked for are $100 per month, or $110 per month, or $120 per month.

That is the atmosphere and the kind of insecurity and the kind of injustice which reigns in a number of buildings, not just in Toronto but right through the province. That is the reality which a government with responsibility for property and civil rights has to contend with. I want to suggest -- I will come back to this -- that the government's response has been totally inadequate with regard to that particular problem and to the situation that those tenants are facing.

We have brought up the problem of illegal rent increases. The minister is aware of that problem. The minister is aware, for example, of 91 Cosburn Avenue in his own riding -- the example that I gave him -- and of Phil Wynn, the landlord who can be described as being notorious over the past few years in terms of his dealings with his tenants. I do not think "notorious" is an unfair word to use with respect to Mr. Wynn.

Half of the units in that building are currently being rented at rates which are illegal, which are unlawful, which are way above and beyond the rates that would have been allowed by the Residential Tenancy Commission had Mr. Wynn ever taken the building to rent review. Did he take it to rent review? Of course not. Why take it to rent review when the consequences would be that he would be discovered and found out for having imposed illegal rents.

What does the landlord do in these circumstances? The landlord does everything he can to encourage tenants to leave. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that is exactly what happened in that building. As soon as the tenants leave, he then charges a rate which is way above the rate which was permitted under the law and permitted by the Residential Tenancy Commission. They are encouraged to leave and the rate goes up again, and then they are encouraged to leave and the rate goes up again.

We have the fantastic situation in one instance, at 91 Cosburn Avenue, where there is an allegation which has been documented. We have the rent book. We have the records. They were made available by virtue of the fact that an employee finally felt that what was being done was completely unfair, where one tenant is paying $274 more than the permissible rate.

This is not a new problem. This problem was not discovered this week or this month. This is a problem that was known at the time that rent review was being considered by this Legislature. It is a problem that could have been prevented by a rent registry, but the government has refused to proclaim that

section of the act. The government has refused to introduce the rent registry and the government has refused to do something that is even more fundamental and even more straightforward. That is to say to a landlord who imposes any illegal rent, "You are going to have to pay a penalty for having broken the law."

What is the penalty now for a landlord? Let us see what the process is. If an individual tenant has the courage -- and it takes some courage, because of the real insecurity that reigns in many of these buildings -- to take the landlord to the Residential Tenancy Commission and say, "I think the rent being charged is unlawful," he goes through the process.

The tenant does not have access to the books or to the records; the tenant may just be working on a hunch. If, on the basis of whatever takes place at the Residential Tenancy Commission -- and the commission can find either way -- it is found that the tenant is paying an unlawful rent, what does the landlord have to do? He has to pay the tenant back.

Mr. Swart: If he can find him.

Mr. Rae: As the member for Welland-Thorold says, if he can find the tenant. The whole program is based on the fact that the tenant himself has to bring that application. So it is a process that makes a mockery of the law. It is a process that every landlord who is interested in making more money outside the purview of the law can carry on, in flagrant violation of the law, in flagrant violation of rent review, and the only penalty that landlord suffers is, in certain cases, having to pay back money. It is a sure moneymaker.

The law does not give a disincentive -- there is no fine if the law is broken -- the law gives an incentive to landlords to break the law. There is a positive incentive there.

We mentioned the problem of exemptions. We have raised examples in the House with respect to conversion to condominiums, conversion to apartment hotels, conversions that desperately affect the rights of tenants and the ability of tenants to maintain their security and to maintain their homes.

There is lack of authority with respect to maintenance, a problem that has not been widely discussed in the Legislature, but we know is very real. All of us know one of the basic problems faced by tenants in many buildings is an increasing reluctance by large and increasingly impersonal landlords to deal with problems of maintenance.

On a Friday afternoon at 200 Woolner Avenue, or 220 Woolner, or any of the apartments on Woolner Avenue, if the heat is turned off and the tenants phone the borough of York the borough says, "Phone us back on Monday." The tenants have evidence over the past year that hot water and heating problems have not been dealt with.

This is a problem I believe the law does not really tackle, because the Residential Tenancy Commission, as any of us who have attended meetings of the commission know, does not deal with problems of maintenance. It does not have the authority to instruct the landlord to provide maintenance. If the landlord wants an increase, then it is up to the landlord to start providing maintenance.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The tenants can deduct rent if they are not.

Mr. Rae: The minister says they can deduct rent if they are not, but the question is this --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: They can lower the rent if the landlord does not keep the premises up.

Mr. Rae: I can understand why the minister is interrupting and is excited. I know his concern as well. I simply say to the minister --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is your maiden speech. I am listening to it.

Mr. Rae: You could have fooled me.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You are trying to fool more people than I am.

Mr. Rae: I do not think so.

If the minister would reflect for a moment and put himself in the position of a tenant in one of the buildings on Cosburn Avenue or on Gamble Avenue in his riding, facing the difficulties he knows those people face, difficulties with language in many instances, difficulties with not having a job in many instances, insecurity at work in many instances, problems of income in many instances. He is aware of those problems. He knows perfectly well that the law, as it is currently considered and constructed in this province, is a very poor instrument for the protection and rights of those tenants with respect to maintenance.

I am not saying the solution is easy. What I am saying is that there is a real problem and I suggest it is an area Mr. Thom is going to have to deal with and an area the minister is going to have to deal with. We will be dealing with some proposals that we have with respect to the rights of tenants' associations and the need for us to perhaps move into a new era, more of a collective bargaining relationship between the tenants' associations and the landlords with respect to certain minimum conditions and minimum standards.

The minister knows this is the direction in which the law has to move, and I am sure that if he were to overcome some of his own ideological predispositions not to face up to these situations, he would recognize that this is what he has to do.

3:40 p.m.

The final problem is the exemption of new buildings. It is a growing exempt sector; it is a hangover from the era when rent review was considered to be a temporary phenomenon. I know the members of the Liberal Party have changed their minds, or so I have gathered, on this and on many other questions. One cannot tell the players without a program, and one cannot tell their position without a program.

All I am suggesting is that there was a time -- and with the member for Niagara Falls in the chair, I will be very careful about the party I am addressing -- when this matter was considered previously, when I think both the government and the Liberal Party were agreed that rent review was a temporary phenomenon, that rent review was simply a temporary intervention on the part of the government to deal with some temporary problems in the marketplace, some increases in rents that were clearly unfair, some problems in the vacancy rate that were serious, and therefore the government felt it should be done on a temporary basis, almost from year to year.

If one reads the debates, as I have had occasion to do because of the fact that I am new here and I am just getting started -- and making all kinds of mistakes, as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations points out every time he gets to his feet -- it is interesting to notice that in the debates this year on rent review there has been a dramatic change of position by the Liberal Party. I gather they now recognize, judging from what they have said, that maybe this is not such a temporary phenomenon after all.

I think this is something Mr. Thom and the government will have to come to terms with, that our party was right when we said in the mid-1970s that rent review is not some temporary phenomenon. A program of rent review dealing with the question of the fairness of rent, with the question of maintenance and with the ability of tenants to find remedies quickly through a solution to their problems is a permanent need in our social law that is going to have to have to be dealt with by this Legislature on other than simply a temporary basis.

Finally, the Cadillac Fairview issue is a dramatic demonstration of what was going on in the marketplace, of the kinds of deals that were being made, of the conflict in our society between those people who see property as a speculative commodity that can be invested in, disinvested in, reinvested in, transferred, flipped and shifted over according to their own whims and the caprice of their own greedy desires, and those people who see apartments as a place to live, as a home. That is all it is for most people.

But there are a precious few, a powerful few in our society, who see property and apartments as something else, not as a place to live but as a place to make money out of, a place to suck profit out of. That is their perception of apartments. When they walk by apartments they do not see homes, they do not see Christmas lights and Christmas trees in the windows, they do not see people lighting candles on a Friday night, perhaps; they see a place to take money out of, a place that can be flipped and reflipped.

I want the minister to know that there can no longer be any accommodation in our society between these two conflicting views. It is time the government of Ontario came to terms with the fact that housing and shelter are too precious and too important to people simply to be treated as a commodity that can be traded in the marketplace.

If I may be temporarily fair to the government, it is stumbling towards that realization; and the Cadillac Fairview deal gives us a perfect indication of how imperfectly and how gradually it is stumbling towards it, because the Cadillac Fairview deal had several parts to it. The first part was the decision by Cadillac Fairview, announced at the beginning of this year, that it was going to put its 11,000 units up for sale. It announced that as a policy to its shareholders. It was looking all over for a buyer and apparently it found a buyer in the Greymac group of companies. We will have to leave it to the special examiner, Mr. Morrison, to determine exactly what that special constellation is.

When the Cadillac Fairview deal was first announced at the sale price of $270 million and the tenants began to question it and to express their concern about the impact this sale was going to have on them, the minister was on his feet quickly in defence of the deal in response to questions, in defence of the importance of allowing these transactions to go ahead, in defence of the importance of allowing people to make money out of these kinds of transactions and simply not asking questions.

The minister made it clear he was not going to interfere in the transaction, that it would be wrong if he interfered. He did not propose to ask many questions about it. I will come to his famous interview, that famous confrontation. How one would have loved to have been even the proverbial fly on the wall at the meeting between Leonard Rosenberg and the minister.

However, before any shifts, flips, reflips and subsequent reflips, perhaps even out of the country, were announced, the minister himself was not expressing dramatic objection to the nature of this transaction or to the nature of other transactions which have occurred, such as the one I mentioned before of 221 and 265 Balliol Street.

One sale at a speculative profit is apparently all right. That does not bother the Tories. If there is one sale and a huge, massive profit is made, that does not disturb the Tories. They are not offended by that. They are not worried by that. We will see how totally inadequate the rent review response is to that. When it comes to having two, well, maybe that is a problem, but one does not bother them.

When we come to look at the inadequacy of the response of the government to this problem, I have some real questions as to how readily the government understands the conflict between these two world views, if you like, between those who would see housing as a realm for speculators and those who see housing as a place to live.

The minister started to express concern only after he had his meeting on November 1 with Mr. Rosenberg and then discovered some nine days later, to his horror, that what Mr. Rosenberg told him was taking place was in fact not taking place. To this day, I do not understand the minister's response to this situation. I have asked him these questions in committee, I have attempted to ask him these questions in the House and I simply do not understand it.

There is a substantial body of evidence that would suggest problems when one is talking about a transaction the size of that which took place with respect to those 11,000 units, and the complexity of the deals between Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Markle, Mr. Markle and Mr. Player, Mr. Player and Mr. Rosenberg, Mr. Mastin and Mr. Markle, and Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Player, and the unnamed Swiss, Saudi Arabian and other sources of money that are reputed to be around.

I do not know, because all I know is what I read in the papers, in Maclean's magazine, in the Financial Post, in the Financial Times and all those other places that are equally trying to put together and recreate this orgy of mysterious speculation which took place in that period. The minister is asking us to believe, in terms of his answers, that all of this orgy took place in three days.

One cannot even close a house deal in three days. One does not even sell a house in three days, let alone 11,000 units.

The minister, in terms of his answers, is asking us to believe that when he spoke to Leonard Rosenberg -- the president of Greymac, the president of a company which has fiduciary obligations not only to its shareholders and the people who put their faith in that institution, but has clear obligations under several pieces of legislation to the government and to the minister himself -- when he walked into his office, the president of a trust company walks into the office of a minister of the crown and says to the minister of the crown, "We are going to be putting carpets in on December 1 and we are going to be doing this on December 1 and there is going to be new furniture on December 1," the minister is asking us to believe that Leonard Rosenberg had not already concocted what we now know as the Leonard Rosenberg-Mastin-Markle-Player flip-flop, resulting in a deal that is now worth $500 million rather than $270 million.

3:50 p.m.

The minister is asking us to believe that, and I find that absolutely incredible. I would not suggest for a moment -- I say this to the minister and I want to put it on the record -- that the minister has in any way or in any shape or form deliberately misled this House.

I would not accuse the minister of that for an instant or a second, but I would say to the minister that when he is lied to, and I use those words deliberately and quite carefully, and when he is given information that is deliberately misleading with respect to the plans of a trust company in this province, then it is time he started asking some tough questions. He has not been asking them. He has never even said to this House, "I was misled by Mr. Rosenberg, and I object to that." He never even said that.

The Premier said the other day, "I do not think there was any wrongdoing. We have not found anything of a criminal or fraudulent nature, and until we find something of a criminal and fraudulent nature we cannot conduct a public inquiry." The Premier has got it all wrong. When we find something of a criminal and fraudulent nature we lay criminal charges. That is what we do. We do not have a public inquiry. We lay charges.

I have never suggested, and I do not know anybody in this House who suggested for a moment that the minister should lay charges against Leonard Rosenberg or anybody else, because that is not the sort of thing we can do unless there has been a clear breach of a statute.

I would ask the minister and other honourable members, do they not think there is something wrong in Ontario when the president of a trust company walks into the office of a minister of the crown and concocts a story that can only be mercifully described as a cock-and-bull story? Does the minister not think there is something wrong with that? Does the Premier not think there is something wrong with that?

If they do not think there is something wrong with that, I suggest they are kidding themselves. I happen to believe that they do think there is something wrong but they are not prepared to conduct the kind of public inquiry that will ask the tough questions because they know perfectly well that these deals are not exceptional deals, they are part and parcel of a commercial world which has lost touch with the morality of ordinary people.

The Conservative Party is torn and tied and twisted in its own values because it knows in its own way that there is something very wrong with what is happening, but at the same time it knows this is the way of the marketplace and it is loath to interfere with that marketplace though it produces such unfairness and such ridiculous profiteering at the expense of working people. So they concoct a patchwork response, a patchwork response which gives a very limited vision to Mr. Morrison.

Poor old Mr. Morrison will be going into these trust companies and saying, "How did you come up with these valuations?" He will not be able to get at the nature of the transactions. It will not be possible to cross-examine Mr. Rosenberg and say: "Mr. Rosenberg, what did you know on November 1? Mr. Rosenberg, why did you tell the minister a cock-and-bull story on November 1? Mr. Rosenberg, what were the nature of your plans before you walked into the minister's office and why didn't you tell him about your plans?" Those are legitimate questions.

Those are legitimate questions for a public inquiry and I would suggest they are questions which Mr. Morrison is going to have a very hard time asking in terms of the kind of inquiry which the government has set up.

The other major objection which we have to the Cadillac Fairview investigation is that it cannot answer the second basic question and that is, who did exactly what to whom from the time that Cadillac Fairview decided to sell, to the time that the buildings were eventually sold to whoever it is who now owns them? What was the nature and the course and the chronology and the detail of all those transactions?

In order to be able to find that out, the inquiry would have to ask questions under oath and cross-examination, questions not only to the trust companies that were involved, not only on the narrow question of the evaluation of the properties, but on the broader question of the conduct of Cadillac Fairview itself, Kilderkin Investments Ltd. and all of the numbered companies whose identity we know very little about.

I would suggest to the minister I believe that under the law as it has been interpreted in Ontario, those questions cannot be answered and dealt with by the narrow inquiry of Mr. Morrison.

We will see. I hope the minister will give us a simple answer today with respect to this matter: When does he anticipate a report from Mr. Morrison, and is he prepared to make that report public? That is a simple question which I hope the minister will be able to deal with so we can see clearly whether or not Mr. Morrison has been able to deal with these questions.

The second response of the government to the problems that are faced here was to introduce some other changes to the law with respect to the guidelines put forward by the Residential Tenancy Commission.

There was the five per cent solution, which we are still waiting to have proposed by the minister in the House and it is something which we will be considering. I know my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) will be dealing with that very real question.

The second major change was to change the bottom line, as it were, from three years to five years. Let me explain what I mean by that. The really revolutionary change that this government introduced was to say, "Look, we know there is a lot of speculation going on out there and we know problems have been created and our response to that situation is going to be to require landlords and owners to pay for this speculation over five years instead of over three years."

Because of the pass-through notion which is fundamental to the rent review legislation of the Tories, it is not the landlords who end up paying for the cost of speculation. It is not the landlords or owners who are paying anything as a result of the absurd profits that are being made and as a result of the kind of speculation that is going on; it is the tenants.

The minister says that the tenants, instead of having to pay it out over three years are now going to have to pay it out over five years.

I asked someone to give me some examples of the kind of increases that have been awarded this year by the Residential Tenancy Commission on the basis of the three-year pass-through provision for tenants and to then recalculate that according to the five-year pass-through provision that is now before the Residential Tenancy Commission, so we will get an understanding as to the revolutionary nature of the protection that is being provided to tenants by the Tory government, of just where they are in terms of the protection of tenants.

I have four such examples. At 304 Kingston Road, a small 15-unit building was bought in April 1981 for $240,000. The date of the decision of the Residential Tenancy Commission was September 16, 1981. The increase allowed with a three-year pass-through was 50 per cent. A mere 50 per cent increase in rent in one year. The increase with the five-year pass-through would be a mere 38 per cent. So all they are going to be paying is more than a third more in a year. It seems like quite a lot to me.

In Mimico, a small six-unit building at 172 Queens Avenue was bought in May 1981. The owner is now a humanitarian known as 380515 Ontario Ltd. The date of the decision was July 28, 1982. The increase allowed was a three-year pass-through of 63.5 per cent. The Residential Tenancy Commission is really out there doing their damnedest for tenants: 63.5 per cent in one year. The increase for the five-year pass-through is 55 per cent. What a dramatic change; an eight per cent difference, the eight per cent solution.

A third example is 40 Earl Street, bought in 1979 for $456,423, with 37 units. The owner is someone with a great deal of personality, who clearly takes a personal interest in the tenants, by the name of 431606 Ontario Ltd. The date of the decision was October 13, 1981. The increase with a three-year pass-through was 23.25 per cent. Whatever happened to five per cent? Whatever happened to six per cent? The increase with a five-year pass-through was 18.25 per cent.

4 p.m.

Finally, the fourth example I want to give is of 34 Gulliver Road, bought in 1981 for $1,039,812. The owner -- again, where do they get these names? -- is 375646 Ontario Ltd. The date of the decision was February 25, 1982. The increase with a three-year pass-through was 30 per cent. The increase with a five-year pass-through was 21 per cent. Another eight per cent solution.

Nothing demonstrates the point more graphically than these four examples. Whether it is three years, four years or five years, the bottom line of the work of the Residential Tenancy Commission and the bottom line for the Tory government is that speculation is okay provided it takes place between consenting adults only once in the space of a year. The people who are going to pay for that speculation, whether it is over three years, four years or five years, are the tenants in the province. I want the minister to know that is unacceptable to this party and, I believe, unacceptable to the sense of decency of most people in the province.

There has to be a change with respect to the question of pass-through. I know the member for Etobicoke will refer to this. There has to be a change in the whole question of how the burden of higher interest costs and the burden of speculation are shared between owners and tenants. It is simply unfair to impose -- whether one does it over three, four or five years, it does not really matter -- the full cost of speculation and high interest rates on tenants. It makes a mockery of the notion of sharing and fairness.

The government response to illegal rent increases is inadequate. There is no reason we should not have a Residential Tenancy Commission with clear investigative powers, with power to bring in penalties, and a retroactive registry audited to catch violators. There is no need to wait. The government can move on the rental registry now. The government can move on the illegal rent increases question now. There is no reason to wait for Mr. Thom. There is no reason for the government to delay. It can act right now. The same applies to the question of maintenance. There is no reason to wait for Mr.

Thom to deal with this entire problem. It is a question that can be dealt with directly by the government today.

In looking at why I believe the people of Ontario have lost confidence in the government, in its ability to provide security and a decent home for them and for their children, I think there are really two issues. The first issue was, of course, the impact rent review was having on tenants, the real problems they are facing concerning maintenance, fairness and security, and the need for a dramatic change of heart on the part of the government with respect to rent review.

The second problem is the overall and broader problem of housing and shelter. There are many in the Conservative and Liberal Parties who have said that by introducing rental control, the government was interfering in the marketplace and was causing havoc as far as new construction is concerned. I know those who took that view meant it very sincerely. They will not find any disagreement in this party with the notion that if one interferes in one part of the market, that may well have an impact on other parts of the marketplace.

But the reason we are in such difficult straits right now is because we have a government that does not have the courage of its convictions with respect to housing and rent review. It is determined to accept the collapse of the marketplace and the fact that large developers have been exporting massive profits south of the border rather than doing their job of building here. The government has accepted passively what has been, in effect, a strike of capital in the rental market and in the housing market for the last two or three years.

The answer, I believe, is a government that accepts the consequences and impact of rent control and is prepared to say to the developers: "If you are not prepared to build housing at rates and in ways that people can afford, if you are not prepared to respect the overwhelming view of people that tenancy and shelter are too important to be left to speculation, too important to be left entirely to the marketplace; fine, we will fill the gap ourselves. The government itself will play a role. We are not afraid of intervention. We are not afraid of the need to provide social housing.

We are not going to announce a program such as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) announced a few days ago, in which he said, 'We built 10 houses in Metropolitan Toronto, and that is an acceptable result.'" We believe there is a need to find in the mixed economy a new mix that works in providing for shelter. If the mix the government of Ontario has found does not work -- and it clearly does not work -- then let us get to work and find a new one. Let us start building some houses and start putting some people to work. Let us start building some proper shelter for the people of Ontario.

Let us not get hung up on these phoney ideological straitjackets that have prevented the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and this government from providing decent shelter for the people of Ontario.

I believe there is a very clear choice facing this province. The choice is whether to go ahead in providing decent shelter and in providing for the needs of people -- to look at housing not as a commodity but as a basic need -- or to continue to be flummoxed, to continue to be paralyzed, to continue to be timid in the face of a situation and a policy that clearly is not working. There is a housing crisis, there is a rent review crisis, and this government has not responded. It is for that reason we in this party have no confidence in the government of Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Before the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) begins, I would like to point out to the member for York South (Mr. Rae) that you have approximately two and a half minutes remaining.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset it is a pleasure for me to follow the very distinguished member for York South and leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not believe I have had the pleasure of listening to him orate at that length in the time that he has been here. It was quite an interesting, pleasant experience.

Prior to his arrival here from the other place, we used to hear about the particularly warm, convivial relationship that existed between the then Ontario Minister of Labour, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), and the rising star of the federal NDP caucus then sitting federally for Broadview-Greenwood. I suppose it saddens us to see that happy relationship under such tension and strain in these early days of the member for York South's first session in the assembly.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Alas, poor Yorick.

Mr. Conway: At any rate, I suppose he might well consult with his distinguished House leader who could tell him how to carry on a relationship with the member for York East through good times and bad.

This party intends to support the motion standing in the name of the member for York South, but not because we agree with its every proposition. Quite frankly we do not, and I hope to be able to use some of the time available to me today to point out how and where we differ with the members of the New Democratic Party in this regard. But as an opposition we are forced to the bottom line, to the central question: Do we or do we not have confidence in the honourable gentlemen opposite to carry on the affairs of government for this province? And of course, the answer to that has to be a resounding negative; of course, we do not.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: You did not display that yesterday over Bill 179.

Mr. Conway: The member for Port Arthur may very well be able to take advantage of the two and a half minutes left to that caucus to ventilate his views on this subject.

Mr. Foulds: I will have my opportunities. I will be around here long after you are gone.

Mr. Conway: It may be. I have no such prescience, and I will defer always in those matters to the member for Port Arthur.

The motion standing in the name of the member for York South has, as has been noted by others, a variety of offerings. He has drawn our attention, both in his resolution and in his remarks today, to the whole business of the Cadillac Fairview flip-over. I do not profess to have nearly the expertise of people like my leader, who has from the very opening of this fall session led the attack on this matter in this chamber. Quite frankly, I do not imagine I have nearly the expertise to understand many of the technical components of this issue demonstrated by the leader of the New Democratic Party.

However, it really has been a sorry spectacle that members of this assembly and the public at large in Ontario have viewed over the past six to eight weeks with respect to this whole matter. We are particularly saddened to see the provincial government, particularly the responsible minister, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, held in such obvious contempt by some of the major players in the private sector whom it is his responsibility to regulate in the public interest.

I was struck by what the member for York South had to say. He had some lovely phrases. I thought I heard him correctly when he talked about an orgy of spurious speculation --

Mr. Rae: Mysterious.

Mr. Conway: Mysterious speculation. I want to thank the member for clearing that up. I have always felt that is perhaps a good way to describe it.

I would share with the member a bit of related information about some of the interconnections. I do not want people to think I have become paranoid or anything, but I was told just yesterday by a reporter with the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, who phoned me to report, in case I did not know about it, there was recorded on the 1981 election returns for Kitchener city a $500 contribution to one Morley Rosenberg by none other than Mr. William Player. So it seems the Player-Rosenberg connection is a multifaceted one.

Enough said from this quarter about the Rosenbergs, although I --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: QC.

Mr. Conway: Well, I do not know whether Leonard is QC or not. However the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) said it all and said it well when he told us the Rosenberg brothers, Morley and Lenny, have done more damage to the Davis government than Frank and Jesse James ever did to any rural bank in the latter days of the 19th century.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You enjoy that line every time you use it.

Mr. Conway: I thought it was a good indication of the member for Kitchener's wit in these matters.

But I agree with the member for York South when he talks about the seriousness of the contempt in which some of those people, mainly Mr. Rosenberg, held the minister and, through the minister, the government and the people of Ontario in those transactions. There was a truly pathetic quality in the minister coming back into this House to tell us, "Yes, Mr. Rosenberg indicated that their plans were essentially to lay some new carpets, make other minor readjustments, and that was basically it." All the while a very cleverly worked out, multifaceted flip-over was well in place.

I have too much respect for the integrity and capacity of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to want to believe he will continue to allow himself to be bullied by those private sector pirates. In this instance they have held both the minister and his government in quite a high level of contempt in the public domain. As has been pointed out, the efforts thus far of the opposition to secure answers to this chicanery have proved relatively unsuccessful.

If I needed a good reason for extending my want of confidence in this government in this regard, could I possibly find one better than what we witnessed here on Friday, November 19. After days of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations being under attack, trying his best to clear the air and, in his own way, to protect the tenants, we had the spectacle of the member for London South (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Industry and Trade, standing in his place and denouncing the member for York South.

He said: "What a nattering nabob of negativism is the member for York South for being so hard on these Saudi investors. Surely the member for York South and the members of the assembly generally will want to stand triumphant in their places and welcome with me this kind of foreign investment."

Is that the majority opinion in cabinet that is making the life of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations so difficult and his policy so unsuccessful? The utter nonsense, the transparent stupidity of anyone, much less a minister of the crown, standing and saying, "Let us welcome the Saudis. I hope they will buy every rental unit in the province." I would like to believe, if nothing else, that from that day until now the good doctor, the member for York East, has taken that recreant soul from London and scolded him not once but often for this kind of absolutely ludicrous position.

I really wonder who speaks for the majority in the Conservative government of the Premier (Mr. Davis). There are days when I really think the member for London South probably spoke for more than just himself in lamenting the failure of the community at large and of the opposition in particular in not welcoming the Saudis with open arms.

We have seen over the course of these past few weeks the efforts of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to respond piecemeal, after the fact, often in a very incomplete way, to the crisis that is affecting the lives of hundreds and thousands of Ontarians living not only in Metropolitan Toronto but elsewhere in Ontario. I could not agree more with the member for York South when he underscores the seriousness of this issue.

Maybe for those of us who have our rents paid by the good people of Ontario there is not the measure of concern there ought to be, but I just hope everyone from Prince Edward-Lennox to Lakeshore, from Sarnia to Durham-York, appreciates the gravity of this issue.

We have, of course, the minister's Bill 198, the rent restraint bill, about which my colleagues, particularly my friend the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), will have a lot more to say in the coming days, weeks and, dare I think, months of this fall and winter session.

4:20 p.m.

I would quickly highlight a concern about some of the inadequacies of Bill 198. It concerns us that it limits the portion of a rent increase attributable to refinancing to five per cent and that increases due to operating costs are not limited. It has been the position of this party there ought to be a flat five per cent freeze on rents, certainly for the course of the control year that is the centre of the Treasurer's Bill 179.

Speaking to clause 2(

b) of Bill 198, applications made before October 31, 1982, that have not yet been heard are only confined to the five per cent limit if the building has been purchased at least twice in the three-year period from October 31, 1979, to October 31, 1982.

The minister shakes his head and says I am wrong. He will want to correct the error. There are a lot of us who have read this bill and who have tried to understand its exact import. Quite frankly, it leaves a lot of uncertainty. How many buildings are going to be affected by this Bill 198? Can the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in his forthcoming way, answer that in his response to these remarks?

How many of the 22,655 applications received by the Residential Tenancy Commission by October 31, 1982, but not heard, will slip through the cracks, unprotected by this legislation, because there was only one sale during the three-year period mentioned above?

The fact the bill comes into force on the day after it receives royal assent creates difficulties for commissioners who are forced to deal with cases in the interval. This may be, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, a clever political strategy but it certainly will not effect protection for the tenants of Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere who seek the protection this bill offers in the minds of some.

It strikes us in the Liberal opposition that if the Conservative government is truly interested in protecting tenants in this province, it will want to move very quickly and completely in bringing forward and ensuring the speedy passage of Bill Pr13 standing in the name of the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey).

The bill concerns demolition control in the city of Toronto. It seems to us if the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is really serious he will not only see to it that the municipal authorities in the city of Toronto are given the kind of power they want vis-à-vis demolition control but that other municipalities across the province which seek that kind of protection will have the benefit of it as well.

As I said earlier, there are a host of other concerns we have with respect to what has gone on here. Under the capable and determined leadership of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), this party will continue to lead the fight in this assembly and outside this building for strong and sensible protection for tenants in this province.

As the member for York South would agree, his resolution deals with other things. I want to talk quickly about one of the matters raised in his want of confidence motion dealing with the government's failure to introduce a tax on speculative transfer of land and housing. I want to deal with one aspect of that. It is an aspect that has been repeatedly and effectively spoken to by my distinguished colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

It has to do with the government's negligence over these past five or six years in not closing a loophole in the land transfer tax as it affected foreign ownership or the takeover of good agricultural land by nonresidents of this province and this country.

We have listened over the years to the answers given by the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) and others in the government, saying: "It is not a very serious problem. It is only one per cent. What is there to be concerned about?" As the member for Huron-Middlesex has very effectively pointed out, in the great ridings of Huron-Bruce and Huron-Middlesex the rate of takeover of agricultural land by nonresidents has been far greater than indicated by successive ministers of agriculture. It is something about which action ought to have been taken not months, but years ago.

I just want to add a bit of personal commentary in this respect. I have listened to my colleagues strike out against ministers of agriculture and from time to time against the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) about their failure to close that loophole. I think -- and I say this advisedly -- they have somewhat misplaced the blame. I know it to be the case on very good authority that the Minister of Revenue and the current Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to his credit -- and after Saturday's Toronto Star, I feel I really have to give credit; maybe more credit than is due him -- have vigorously argued in the executive council for this kind of action.

I wonder if honourable members over there or over here know who has resisted this for months, if not years. I understand that for years the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has argued, at times violently, against the closing of that loophole. I do not find that surprising, but it is, nonetheless, dismaying. I understand from time to time in cabinet committees it has been the Treasurer who has said: "No, you are not going to send out that kind of wrong signal to foreign investors. I do not want anything done to our land transfer tax that would create a wrong environment."

Mr. Philip: It was the Liberal Party that voted against disclosure.

Mr. Mackenzie: They do not like to be reminded about that.

Mr. Conway: If the member for Etobicoke wishes to indulge himself and not spare himself his two and a half minutes, that is his prerogative. As always, I look forward with eager anticipation to hearing an intervention from the member for Etobicoke, the former chairman of the justice committee.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why did the member vote against disclosure?

Mr. Conway: I have too much respect for my friend and neighbour, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), to engage him in this kind of parenthetical debate.

It probably tells us an awful lot about the thinking of the economic ministers, at least, in this government that the Treasurer has for years fought against the kind of amendment that was finally brought into this House last Friday. It makes one think the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry and Trade are as one in their attitude to foreign investment. If the Saudis want to buy 100,000 units of our rental stock in the name of good foreign investor climate, so be it.

If the West Germans, the Dutch or the Austrians want to buy every single acre of prime agricultural land in Huron county, let that happen before we introduce legislation that would somehow send out a wrong signal to the foreign investor community.

Is that the attitude, as I believe it to be, among the principal economic ministers of the government under the present Premier in the late fall of 1982? Because I believe it to be, I cannot but come to the conclusion this is a government that has lost the confidence of this assembly and the public at large.

4:30 p.m.

In his resolution, the member for York South draws our attention to the fire sale of the land assemblies. Here I must say that the member for York South and I have a rather definite and distinct difference of opinion. That is not because I think any government in the discharge of its public responsibility ought to fire sale anything. I do not in any way want to leave a wrong impression.

One is forced to worry, though, about how the government is going to sell these properties for anything like the values it paid since members of my caucus, such as the distinguished member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), who know the intricacies of these matters in far greater detail than I do, tell me that back in the halcyon days when money was plentiful, in the early 1970s, John White and Darcy McKeough, in the names of the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), threw money at those land purchases like there was no tomorrow.

It may seem as though there is going to be a fire sale, but one really is going to be forced into a clear recognition of the kind of irresponsibility the government of the day, led by the current Premier, indulged in some 10 years ago. The member for York South will not recall, for the good reason that he was elsewhere, that we have from time to time, and I have occasionally, raised the issue of the sheer stupidity of these land assemblies -- not in all cases to be sure, but let me use a couple of my favourite examples.

I know the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie), a distinguished municipal luminary and an upwardly mobile back-bencher --

Mr. Roy: Cabinet minister-in-waiting.

Mr. Conway: -- cabinet minister-in-waiting will privately, if not publicly, want to agree with me when I say that the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), the present Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, was never more right than in what he said eight years ago, upon the arrival of the news that the government of Ontario was about to spend -- and I would not want to be held to these figures -- something like $8 million to buy 2,000 or 3,000 acres in the area of the great eastern Ontario community of Prescott, $8 million to buy X thousands of acres in the Edwardsburgh area.

What did the member for Ottawa South say? Let me refresh the memory of the member for Carleton East, who probably has the Carlsbad Springs assembly in his own backyard. The member for Ottawa South, who was then a Premier-in-waiting said, "They must be off their nut," if they want to buy that for those purposes. For once in his parliamentary or political career that member was absolutely and wholly correct, and they should have listened to him.

I cannot agree with those in the New Democratic Party who invite us to condone that kind of fiscal and planning irresponsibility. I invite the member for York South to come and listen to the former leader of this party, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, with whom I know he shares a particularly creative relationship in this House, recite

chapter and verse of the insanity that is Townsend. Really and truly it is as though it were out of some kind of science fiction novel.

If the colourful and creative member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) were to write that in novella form and take it to the local publisher in the Bluewater Beach area from which he hails, I am sure a reasonable publisher would laugh him out of the office.

As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk or the member for Haldimand-Norfolk would be quick to point out, onward this government marches, determined to prove John White's vision of 1971 and 1972. My God, as a Mackenzie King Liberal, I have some respect for the power of vision in politics, but I want to make it clear that John White appears not to have the benefit of a Mackenzie King vision --

Mr. Rae: Only those with crystal balls will know for sure.

Mr. Conway: As the member for York South points out, only those with crystal balls will know for sure. I see, by the way, that the new Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan has taken to