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

October 27, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

PRINTING OF LEGISLATIVE PAPERS

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

HYDRO REACTORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO REACTORS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS HOME CARE PROGRAM

FOREST REGENERATION

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

BARRIE ANNEXATION

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

ROAD SYSTEM FUNDING

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ABITIBI-PRICE MILL

VANDALISM DURING DEMONSTRATIONS

UNITED WAY AUCTION

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PRINTING OF LEGISLATIVE PAPERS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On Tuesday you advised the Legislature that Hansard was being printed by in-house facilities. However, that still leaves me as a member of the Board of Internal Economy and my colleagues as members of the Legislature in an invidious position because, as I understand it, the other items -- the bills, Orders and Notices, Votes and Proceedings -- are being printed by Noble Scott and there is a strike there.

It is my understanding that someone else is doing that work. I am wondering if we are paying for that as members of this Legislature and being brought into a strike situation unwittingly. That leaves us taking sides with one or the other by continuing to make payment to whoever is doing the printing.

I would ask Mr. Speaker to find out who is doing the printing for Noble Scott while this issue goes on. If we are paying and taking sides in this strike, if we are in that invidious position, I would suggest that somehow we make arrangements immediately to prevent us being involved any further in that serious situation.

Mr. Speaker: I will be pleased to take that under advisement and report back as quickly as I get the information. Thank you.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the commissioners of estate bills their favourable report on Bill Pr22,

An Act to revive Silverstone Oil Company Limited.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislature to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the mayors and reeves representing northeastern Ontario who are attending a meeting at Queen's Park today. They are:

Representing the town of Cochrane, Mayor Fortier; the town of Hearst, Mayor Gagnon; the town of Kapuskasing, Mayor Jewell; the town of Smooth Rock Falls, Mayor Duguay; the township of Mattice, Reeve Zorzetto --

Mr. Wildman: We pronounce Mattice differently.

Mr. Speaker: I did that knowingly. Having stood corrected before, I took the time today to find out and I was advised to pronounce it the way I did. It depends on whom you speak to.

Mr. Kerrio: Mais non, mais non.

Mr. Speaker: From the township of Moonbeam, Reeve Filion; the township of Glackmeyer, Reeve Genier; the township of Opasatika, Reeve Pincault; the township of Val Rita-Harty, Reeve Muriel Parent; the township of Fauquier, Reeve Raymond Grzela; from the Moosenee Development Area Board, the chairman, Gerald McAuley; and representing the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association, Alderman E. R. White, president.

Notwithstanding the information I had to the contrary, I stand once more corrected on the pronunciation of Mattice, not convinced that I am totally right or wrong, however.

We have other visitors in the assembly today. I would ask all honourable members to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the members' gallery five students from the Ontario Students' Debating Union. These students are visiting the Legislature after attending a reception hosted by the Lieutenant Governor. Their names are:

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the members of an important event tomorrow in the ministry's Ontario property tax grants program. It concerns the mailing of tax grant cheques and will, therefore, be of particular interest to their constituency offices and senior citizens in their ridings.

On September 2 the Ministry of Revenue mailed out some 600,000 application forms for the second instalment of the 1983 grant to all eligible seniors. By the end of last week this total had risen to 615,000 applications. As of October 21, 540,000, or 88 per cent, of these applications had been returned to my ministry, of which some 510,000, or 94 per cent, have now been fully processed and are ready for payment.

As members will recall, the first instalment of up to $250 of the property tax grant was received by seniors earlier this year, in May, along with their home heating grants. These recent applications, therefore, determine the amount of the second and final payment owed to each applicant during 1983 and will be the basis for the 1984 interim payments.

For seniors who turned 65 in the first half of the year and, hence, did not receive the first instalment of the grant, the full year's entitlement to a maximum of $500 will be issued to them in the form of one cheque. However, seniors who have turned 65 in the second half of 1983 will receive their applications by January 1984.

I am pleased to report to this assembly that the first mailing of the final 1983 property tax grant instalments will begin tomorrow when 510,000 cheques totaling $124 million are issued. The average value of each cheque is $243. Mail-outs will continue thereafter on a twice-weekly basis until all applications from late filers have been processed.

2:10 p.m.

I know all members are aware of the significant contributions these grants make to seniors in paying their municipal and school taxes. With tomorrow's 510,000 cheques, 125,000 seniors in Ontario will have been reimbursed for 100 per cent of their property taxes. For another 90,000 seniors, at least 75 per cent of their property taxes are offset; for 156,000 seniors, between 50 and 74 per cent are paid, and for 140,000 seniors, up to 49 per cent of their property taxes are paid.

As well, I should point out to the honourable members that the Ministry of Revenue will shortly be sending out the annual sales tax grant to seniors who have turned 65 by September. Altogether, $45 million will be paid in $50 grants to 900,000 seniors next December 2. Ontario residents turning 65 in October, November and December of 1983 will receive their sales tax grant in January 1984.

The Ministry of Revenue is continually examining and refining the way applications are processed. In particular, this year inquiry facilities have been restructured to improve response time, inquiry research and call-back functions. As well, a problem in past years has been the length of time taken to issue a replacement application if the original was lost or returned to my ministry as undeliverable. Consequently, all requests for supplementary applications now receive immediate and special attention. These applications are sent out within 10 days of request.

Our improvements, however, will be most readily apparent to the members through an increase in our assistance to their constituency offices. This year we established a new unit dedicated to resolving inquiries made directly by seniors to their local MPPs. The majority of inquiries are resolved while a member's constituency assistant is still on the phone. More complex inquiries are deferred to inquiry research specialists, each of whom is directly responsible for a group of constituency offices. These specialists then contact the constituency office immediately upon resolving the problem.

The response to this service from federal MPs and MPPs has been most favourable. I assure the members my ministry will continue to maintain and enhance this unique working relationship in recognition of the invaluable information assistance afforded the tax grant program by MPPs and their constituency office staff.

A further measure undertaken by my ministry involved information sessions held in some 20 cities and towns across Ontario. Ministry staff offered an advance preview of the 1983 property tax grant application form and a detailed explanation of the Ontario tax grant program to staff in constituency offices, community information centres, federal income security offices and Northern Affairs offices, and to other organizations which assist seniors.

In addition, a special training session was held in Toronto for ethnic information centres. These sessions provided a chance for people who are most often asked to assist seniors in completing forms to get firsthand information about the program from specially trained ministry staff. Moreover, the Ministry of Revenue has established telex contact with the 32 field offices of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and responds on a priority basis to inquiries made through these offices.

Finally, the successful move of my ministry's head office operations to Oshawa provided the opportunity significantly to upgrade our walk-in inquiry centre in Metropolitan Toronto. This centre is now located at 50 Grosvenor Street near Bay Street in the same building as the Ontario Government Bookstore. One benefit of this new location is we now have a much more convenient storefront operation, which is visible to the general public and very accessible to our senior citizen clients. Since it opened on September 6, this office has already dealt with over 2,100 inquiries on a personal basis.

This summarizes a series of key developments relevant to the 1983 tax grants program for seniors. This Legislature can be assured that further reports will be made by my ministry to ensure that all members and their constituency staff are kept fully informed of the progress of this important Ontario government program.

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the Courts of Justice Act that I will be introducing today represents a significant step in the reform of civil procedures in Ontario. The process was initiated in 1975 when I asked the late Walter Williston, QC, one of Ontario's most distinguished lawyers, to assume the task of chairman of the Civil Procedure Revision Committee. In June 1980, after extensive consultation with the judiciary and the legal profession throughout the province, the committee's report was published. The committee recommended a complete revision of the rules of practice applicable to the Supreme Court and county and district courts.

Unfortunately, Walter Williston died shortly after the Civil Procedure Revision Committee issued its report. However, a subcommittee of the rules committee, chaired by Mr. Justice Morden of the Court of Appeal, has almost finished the preparation of a completely new set of rules based on Mr. Williston's recommendations. I have no doubt the new rules will stand for many years as a tribute to the dedication with which Walter Williston served the administration of justice.

The Courts of Justice Act will provide the framework for the new rules. In addition, it is intended to revise and consolidate the many statutes that establish courts and regulate their procedures. Some of these statutes date back many decades and contain numerous archaic and obscure provisions. The Courts of Justice Act is intended to modernize this legislation. The act is based on draft legislation published earlier this year by the Ministry of the Attorney General, on which we received many helpful comments from the judiciary and members of the legal profession.

The number of changes proposed in the Courts of Justice Act make it impossible for me to describe every one at this time. There is one matter, however, I would like to emphasize today. It concerns the independence of the judiciary. Last May this Legislature enacted changes to enhance the independence of provincial judges by removing the involvement of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from the decision as to whether a provincial judge may continue to serve beyond retirement age.

In addition to re-enacting these recent amendments, the Courts of Justice Act contains a number of other provisions intended to enhance the independence enjoyed by the judiciary in this province. For example, the act implements recommendations made several years ago by former Chief Justice Gale that are intended to provide a fair procedure for judicial council investigations of complaints against provincial judges. The act also provides that a provincial judge may be removed from office only on the address of the Legislative Assembly, a procedure similar to that which applies to Supreme Court and other federally appointed judges under the Canadian Constitution.

Another

section of the Courts of Justice Act provides a statutory foundation for the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee, which was established several years ago to make recommendations concerning the salaries and benefits of provincial judges. All these provisions, as well as others in the act, are intended to enhance the independence of the men and women who have dedicated themselves to the public service in the provincial judiciary.

There are a great many other changes proposed in the Courts of Justice Act, and I look forward to discussing them with my colleagues in the House this fall. I hope this House will seriously consider the enactment of this bill before the new year, so that the act and the new rules can both come into force next July 1.

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I outlined our preliminary conclusions on this week's judgements of the Divisional Court on the Inflation Restraint Act. I am able to inform the House that an application for leave to appeal those decisions to the Court of Appeal is now being prepared and will be submitted at the very earliest opportunity.

I should add that our concern arises from the implications of the very broad

interpretation given by the court to freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It could create doubts about the validity not only of Ontario statutes but also of those of other Legislatures in Canada.

As I stated on Tuesday, these cases mark the beginning of the

interpretation of freedom of association under the charter and not the last word. It is important in all the circumstances that these issues be canvassed by a higher court.

2:20 p.m.

HYDRO REACTORS

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on October 11 I informed members of the status of Pickering unit 2, following the failure of a pressure tube on August 1. Today I wish to make members of this House aware of a decision by Ontario Hydro regarding unit 1 at the Pickering nuclear generating station.

Unit 1 is virtually identical to unit 2 and has a similar operating history. Ontario Hydro has determined that a comparison between the tubes removed from unit 2 and the tubes in identical locations in unit 1 would further the investigation into the causes of the G-16 tube failure in unit 2. As a result, Hydro intends to shut down unit 1 as soon as scheduling permits within the next two weeks.

Mr. McClellan: You said this was impossible.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Four pressure tubes will be removed from the reactor and sent to Chalk River laboratories for comparative metallurgical analysis. At the same time, the location of the spacers, commonly known as garter springs, between calandria tubes and pressure tubes will be checked.

The Atomic Energy Control Board has been consulted on this decision.

I am advised that Ontario Hydro is releasing information on these matters this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy: it concerns Bruce, not Pickering, on a related matter.

The minister is aware that over the weekend construction workers at Bruce reported a frenzy of activity regarding inspection of the reactors at the Bruce B site for possible garter spring migration. This is the same problem that Ontario Hydro is going to be looking at in Pickering, according to his statement today. He is also aware that units 5 and 7 are being X-rayed to see how many garter springs moved out of place during the installation. It has been reported that at least one garter spring was found at least a metre out of place.

If the garter springs are out of place at full capacity, there could be an excessive sag in the 21-foot pressure tubes which would run into the calandria, causing hydriding and premature embrittlement. What is the status at Bruce today? Would he report to this House immediately on what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report on the immediate status of activity at Bruce today as is requested by the Leader of the Opposition. I will be pleased to obtain that kind of up-to-the-minute update, but I am sure that sort of information will be available from Ontario Hydro in the discussions surrounding the decision related to Pickering unit 2.

As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the question of garter springs on the reactors at Bruce is being studied to determine whether their movement has contributed to the hydriding and embrittlement of reactor tubes as a preliminary study into the whole aspect of the problems at Pickering unit 2.

Mr. Peterson: It is my understanding that the instrumentation has not been developed at this point to move those garter springs if they are out of place. There is some experimental technology with respect to vibration or electromagnetic pulse, but at this point the technology is not there, which event would require a complete tearing down of the reactors. Is that the case, or is the technology in place to move those garter springs should that become necessary?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am not in a position to give accurate information on that. Ontario Hydro is the operating agency for those reactors, and that question in terms of the details would be more appropriately posed to that agency. I will be pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition if he wishes those details: I will take the question as notice and do so at a later time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the minister give us an estimate of the cost of shutting down unit 1 at Pickering? Can he tell us whether there are plans to do tests on the reactors at Bruce? If so, can he give us any estimate of what that would cost?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, again the leader of the third party is posing a question that requires some detailed explanation. I said in my statement that Ontario Hydro will be releasing information with respect to Pickering units 1 and 2, and I would ask the leader of the third party to refer those questions directly to Ontario Hydro at that time.

Mr. Peterson: I remind the minister that it is his responsibility to report to the House on these very important matters. Is he denying accountability? Is he saying to us that we should be running around phoning the chairman of Ontario Hydro for the answers to these questions? It is his responsibility to answer them in this House. Very serious questions are being raised.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: It is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, and you may want to speak to him about it privately.

My question is this: We have been in touch with Ontario Hydro officials, and they report to us -- and I want to make sure I have the correct understanding -- that one cannot check for any misalignment of the garter springs if those units are operating. There is some worry at the present time, not only about Pickering but about Bruce as well, that there is a series of misalignments of these garter springs which could lead to serious questions.

As the minister knows, Bruce B, Bruce unit 6 is ready to start up in the next month or so. There is some question as to whether there is a misalignment there. How can one be sure there is no misalignment in the other reactors if one cannot check them because they are operating? How can one be sure the problems are not endemic right across the entire system?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The Leader of the Opposition has raised this point about the garter springs. He is accurate in his statement that the reactor must be shut down for the proper sonic equipment to be utilized to make the examination. I am confident that the agencies, Ontario Hydro and the Atomic Energy Control Board, are prepared to make this examination if they deem it appropriate.

The question of the garter springs is one theory being advanced as to the possible cause of the tube rupture in Pickering unit 2, but it is only one of a number of theories.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer with respect to the program for youth unemployment that we suggested yesterday. He has had an opportunity to apply his mind to that program as well as to the statistics that are available to him. He is impressed, I am sure, with the gravity and the seriousness of the problem we are facing.

Is he persuaded now that his government has a responsibility to act with respect to improving the future prospects for our unemployed, particularly our hard-core unemployed young people? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have always said we have that obligation. I have indicated several times that a good part of the exercise that will commence with our fall economic statement leading up to our spring budget will be focused on that need.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is losing time. The spring budget will do nothing this winter. It is obvious what is going to happen with the statistics. I am not happy about having to come back three months from now and say, "I told you so." Therefore, we are telling the minister now. He knows what is going to happen.

He is aware that the existing programs such as the Ontario career action program soon will be out of money and will need another $7 million to $10 million. He is also aware that the winter Experience program budgeted 200 fewer positions this year than last. Given the gravity of the situation, could the minister be persuaded to bring in a program now to meet the problems this winter is sure to present?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, let us understand that the employment picture in Ontario is improving significantly and dramatically.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, of course it is improving dramatically. Any analysis of the figures, be they from this government, Statistics Canada or the federal government, will ascertain that. It is quite clear.

Just to put some of the initiatives in some perspective as we look at the proper options to mount, I think the responsible thing for us to do is to work with the federal government, which is now at a rather late stage indicating that it is prepared to enrich programs specifically for youth unemployment. The federal minister has talked about $40 million being available. As I indicated a couple of weeks ago, the responsible thing to do is to deal with the federal government to try to see where it is going to target that $40 million so we do not overlap that program.

As well, it is important to remember that some of the impact of some of the programs we have already brought in will just be beginning to be felt this fall.

2:30 p.m.

I read, not at great length, some of the details of the program the Leader of the Opposition announced yesterday. While it had some features that warrant study -- indeed, it is almost a direct copy of what is being done in the United Kingdom -- I think it is important to note --

Mr. Nixon: We don't care where good ideas come from.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know who the Leader of the Opposition's heroes are.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want to hear the minister's answer or not? Minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In terms of whether we find that particular program attractive, it is important to juxtapose its value against the things we are already doing. Let us have a look, for example, at the program the Leader of the Opposition indicated he thought we should mount, which was to deal with 28,000 youths. He expected a 50 per cent takeup on it; that would be 14,000 jobs. The cost --

Mr. Nixon: It was 28,000 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. It was 28,000 youths, with a 50 per cent takeup -- 14,000 jobs. As I read the press release, it indicated the cost would be $90 million to $139 million. Compare that to our youth employment program, for example, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to a moment ago. It provides not 14,000 jobs but 55,000 jobs, costing not $90 million but $30 million.

Mr. O'Neil: But they're all temporary jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We can go through the Ontario career action program, which has $17 million providing 13,200 jobs, about as many jobs as the program the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday for an extra $90 million or $100 million. I could go on and on.

The fact is that all of our programs to date amount to much more cost-effectiveness. For the same amount of money the Liberal Party's program would have us spend, we are providing not 14,000 jobs but 100,000 jobs through our current programs. Those are programs that are already in place in this province, and they do not include our other programs that are specifically targeted to youth.

All in all, I conclude that while we are still searching for more programs to target more and more problem areas with youth unemployment, the fact remains that the programs we have in place are far more cost-effective than any other that have so far been brought to our attention. They are covering far more people than any other programs we have heard about to date.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer a simple question. What specific actions is his government going to take, which the Treasurer will announce in his fall budget statement, that will meet the enormous problem of the unacceptably high level of youth unemployment in the province today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The fall economic statement is not intended to introduce new programs but to begin the stage towards new budget-making. If the honourable member does not want to have some input into that, that is his choice, but we did not hold that out as a fall budget. We canvassed the possibilities of a fall mini-budget and decided we would wait a bit and get a better feel for where the economy is going to go in the next period of time.

Let me add that the existence of that statement some time next month neither precludes nor invites any special initiatives in the youth employment area or in any other area. We may go before that time; we may go after that time. We will have to measure it as we watch the figures unfold and as we analyse some new program suggestions we are currently looking at.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer chooses deliberately to distort and make -- I do not want to be uncharitable -- unrealistic or even dishonest comparisons. We are talking about 14,000 man-years of employment. Let him compare it to his short-term programs and give us an honest comparison. Let him study the figures and come back to the House. We will welcome his

interpretation. Ours is a very cost-effective program.

In spite of all those good programs -- and we are not against them -- there are still 159,000 unemployed young people on the streets of Ontario today. That is a reality. We are suggesting a new program that would address the problem of the hard-core unemployed who do not have the educational skills to compete.

I wonder whether the minister agrees with the former Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), who said, in addressing the very same problem we are trying to address:

"Over the past few years, statistics show that these 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." Does the Treasurer agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me point out that the program the Leader of the Opposition announced yesterday did not talk about 14,000 man-years of employment. Reading his communiqué, it seems to talk about "servicing approximately 14,000 youths each year."

The Leader of the Opposition talks about year-round programs. He keeps alleging that we do not have year-round programs --

Mr. Peterson: Read it then.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I may have read it more closely than my friend did.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about year-round programs. As he probably knows, OCAP is a year-round program.

Mr. Bradley: But the money has dried up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I said here a couple of weeks ago, none of those programs will suffer in terms of lack of money. If more funding is required for youth employment programs, it will be made available under our current programs. It would be more cost-effective to enrich our current programs than to undertake the kind of new programs suggested yesterday.

We have the OCAP program which is year-round. We have several other programs, together with the federal government in terms of our job creation programs, our capital project acceleration programs, many of the Canada-Ontario employment development fund opportunities which are being accessed by young people and on and on. I could read the list.

To sum up, yes, I agree with the statement made by my colleague, and that is precisely why we have a program that has created 100,000 new job opportunities for young people, only in those areas and programs targeted specifically to youth. The total number of youth assisted by our government programs would be far in excess of 100,000 because they have participated so widely in the COED and other programs.

Yes, I agree with that statement. Yes, I believe we have done far more than the program of the Leader of the Opposition might invite us to do. Yes, I believe we have to continue to search for more opportunities. Yes, I agree with the need for year-round programs. That is why we have some, and that is why, as Treasurer, I am prepared to enrich any of our current programs to date, because they all seem to be working quite effectively.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the government House leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Last night he was quoted in the news, and in one of the newspapers this morning, as saying he would have an announcement to make shortly with respect to the fate of the McClure Crescent properties and the removal of radioactive soil from those properties.

Does the minister have a statement to make? Does he have a commitment to make with respect to the removal of radioactive soil? What is the delay in making that statement to the House today rather than making it on the news last night? Why does he not have something to tell us today?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first, I feel a little sorry that my friend did not invite me along on his tour of McClure Crescent today. I would have been happy to take him around the riding. I notice the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) did not invite me along either.

Mr. Peterson: You should show up.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Pardon? What was that?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend will find I showed up there many times.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister please address himself to the question of the member for York South?

Mr. Foulds: Do you need an invitation to go into your own riding?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not need an invitation, but it is nice to let the local member know when one member of this House is coming in.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would have been happy to lay on a lunch for my friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that, first and foremost, the people who are most interested --

Mr. Boudria: The Speaker is standing up now.

Mr. Speaker: I was just going to observe that this was deteriorating into a personal debate. However, you corrected yourself and started to answer the question; so proceed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Thank you, sir. I was going to say to my friend that the people who are, first and foremost, interested in the announcement that will be made will be the people on McClure Crescent. In my view, they are the ones who should hear this matter first, not the members of this Legislature. Therefore, I have arranged, along with the federal member, the Honourable Paul Cosgrove, to outline for the people of McClure Crescent and anybody else who wishes to attend, the arrangements that will be made to remove the soil from around those homes.

We have never said we would not have that soil removed and we have always remained steadfast in that commitment. This meeting will be held at that place at 7:30 p.m. on November 7. Along with Paul Cosgrove, I will indicate exactly how it will be done, where the soil will go and all the details, and answer any questions from the residents. Everyone is welcome to come to the meeting.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The residents of McClure Crescent, as the minister knows, have been waiting for a long time and they have heard from the minister before with respect to delays and with respect to things coming around the corner.

Can the minister guarantee to this House and to the residents of McClure Crescent today that the radioactive soil on McClure Crescent will be removed from the backyards of those houses by the end of 1983? Can he make that guarantee in the House today? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, from the day of the discovery of that soil, I guaranteed to the residents that soil would be moved and we have never deviated from that commitment. That commitment will be fulfilled --

Mr. Rae: Yes, but it has been three years.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and the timing of it will be announced on November 7.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, given the string of broken promises to the residents of Malvern, the minister knows he will be greeted with some cynicism and only be well treated when it is finally gone.

Let me ask him another question related to that matter. Given all that those residents have suffered -- all the personal problems, the anxiety, the worry; and I wish I could release to him some of the letters that I have received but I do not wish to embarrass those people -- does the minister not think, as a member and the responsible minister, it was a dirty trick of his government to appeal the decision of the province's tax assessment review court to reduce the property tax from $1,000 or $1,500 down to $100? His government appealed, putting the taxes up on those properties that are worth virtually nothing today. Is that not a dirty trick?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question to a number of the residents and I have indicated to them that we had no alternative but to appeal because I think the tax assessment review court that reviewed that matter perhaps erred in reducing their taxes. I fully agree that they should have a reduction in assessment because of the problem that is present and that reduction should remain at least until we correct the problem.

The $100 does not even pay one tenth of the education costs for the children in those homes, so it really becomes fairly obvious that an assessment at the level that was set is not equitable for all the residents in the area. We have really no alternative at this point but to appeal that decision.

My friends will recall that we debated a bill that is still on the order paper, Bill 174, in this House and I did not get much helpful support on that bill from the two opposition parties. They all told me they were going to vote against the bill.

Mr. Rae: The hard fact of the matter is that these homes are the most important investment the residents of McClure Crescent will make in their lives and that investment has been devalued significantly. There are many other problems as well, of which the minister is well aware. These are the result of the events that have taken place at McClure Crescent.

Is the minister prepared to stand in his place and say that his government is prepared to provide compensation for those residents who have suffered real economic hardship as a result of what has happened over the last 30 years on McClure Crescent?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I cannot comment on that because those residents have a case in the courts at the present time. They are taking various people to court over that matter and it is going to have to be decided by the courts.

Nobody is denying the fact there has been some hardship on those residents. I mentioned Bill 174. The members of this House all indicated they would vote against that bill unless I indicated where the soil was going to go. In other words, we were interested in having it removed -- I do not deny that all members would support me in that -- but unless they knew where it was going to go they would not vote for that bill.

I indicated I would not bring the bill back until we could announce where it was going to go. I had hoped that perhaps in the interval some member of this House might have come to me and said: "I have the ideal place for that soil. Why don't you bring it up to my area?" For instance, the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) could have told me he would like to have the soil up at the Bruce hydro plant. I did not hear him come forward with that. I have not heard anyone come forward and say to me, "Pass that bill and I have a place in my riding for that soil."

Mr. Rae: The minister has misled the House. If he looks at the speech of our environmental critic, he will see exactly the statements we have made with respect to --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: He has stated something in the House which is simply not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South has made an inappropriate statement in the heat of debate that I am sure he is going to withdraw.

Mr. Rae: I would be happy to withdraw what I said if I am allowed to say that I believe --

Mr. Speaker: No. The honourable member just stops right there.

Mr. Rae: The record will speak for itself. Those who want to look at Bill 174 and the debate will see the discrepancy between what the minister said and what transpired in that debate. There is a major --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not the period for making speeches. It is the time for oral questions.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege arising out of answers given by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in terms of two statements he made at which I take personal offence.

First, he said that no honourable members on this side had given any assistance to him on Bill 174. To clarify the record, I would like to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that both I and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) indicated that although we were not willing to give blanket permission to put the soil anyplace, which is what the bill said, we suggested at least two venues where that soil could be placed. We thought these suggestions were quite helpful and guaranteed we would support that on behalf of our caucus. I think that should be made very clear.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter to which the member took personal offence, apparently.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, may I just clarify that? All I was saying was that I did not receive any indication from any members that they would vote for the bill as it was.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No. You said more than that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If I said more, then I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to have you consider very carefully the comments made earlier by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to the effect that when members of this House are visiting other members' ridings, they should give notification first. I would hope that is now government policy.

Mr. Speaker: Your point is well taken, and I would hope it would refer to all members.

ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS HOME CARE PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister of many hats in his role as the acting Minister of Health. It has to do with the fact that the Ottawa-Hull Alzheimer Society, as I am sure the minister may be aware, is starting one-day-a-week day care for four patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease at St. Patrick's Home for the Aged on Riverside Drive in Ottawa.

St. Patrick's is donating the space. The Ottawa-Hull Alzheimer Society is providing a volunteer staff of a registered nurse with special geriatric training, a psychologist and two other volunteers, including one with a PhD in psychiatry. Can the minister explain why the Ministry of Health turned down a request for funding from the Ottawa-Hull Alzheimer Society with respect to this particular program?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell my friend why the ministry turned down the request but I would certainly be glad to look into it. Any group that is willing to provide this kind of service and help is worthy of some support. It may be that the group should be getting it from another ministry, at the moment I cannot say, but I would be glad to look into it because I think it is a very worthwhile request.

Mr. Rae: What is at stake here is the integrity of the government's home care program and its ability to deliver on the home care promise. We have had statements going back to 1981 with respect to home care. We had a statement from his predecessor that home care legislation was going to be forthcoming and was necessary in order to provide the scope and focus for the delivery of home care programs.

Can the minister give us a commitment today that before the end of this month, or before the end of November, or before the end of December -- give us a time, give us a place -- he is going to introduce home care legislation that will allow these groups and other similar groups to provide the delivery of care at home for people who deserve that care and who at the moment are not getting that care, or who are currently undergoing tremendous costs as a result of that care. Will he finally deliver on the promises that have been made in this Legislature for years and years with respect to home care?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I certainly agree that is a very worthwhile service and it is something I will look into. I cannot give the member any commitment beyond that now, but I certainly sympathize with it and will --

Mr. Rae: Where is the legislation? Larry promised it last year.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Besides looking after the soil and all the other problems concerning hospitals and nursing homes, I have not had time to look at home care yet. I will look at it and I will look sympathetically at what my friend has indicated.

Mr. Rae: I would like to give the minister one example in a letter that was written to the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), a copy of which was sent to me as well as to other members.

How does the minister feel about the fact that Mrs. Joan McCord Roose, living in Ottawa, whose mother is 87 and is a victim of Alzheimer's disease, is having to pay $1,200 a month in nursing fees for someone to come in and provide care at home? How does the minister feel about that?

Is he aware of the number of people who are being forced to pay $500, $1,000 and as much as $1,500 a month to provide nursing care at home? He says he is too busy, he has a lot of other things to do and he is not aware of whether he is going to be able to find the time to deal with this question of home care. It is costing the people of this province a lot of money. It is putting them into debt. It is causing them difficulty. Why is the minister not going to act on this question?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I did not say that. My friend was making good points with me in his argument until he started into the last part of the rhetoric, the histrionics. Perhaps after he has been in the House a little while he will learn he can make a little more headway by just stating his case rather than trying to embellish it a little.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I notice he has just left his seat. If someone might try to get him, I will stand down my question until he comes.

FOREST REGENERATION

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, while that is happening, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs, again deferring from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) who it seems has not been around here for the last week.

The question is on the tree production nursery complex in the Swastika region. This project which was begun as a result of a 1981 election promise was abruptly cancelled earlier this year. The deputy regional director of the Ministry of Natural Resources has referred to this episode as "a bit of a mistake."

Given that 10 contracts were signed with private growers to provide the same nursery stock after this project was begun, can the minister tell us whether this is just a case of mismanagement? Can he tell us what really did happen and why this Swastika project was cancelled?

Beyond that, the news reports indicated that not just $200,000, but several hundred thousand dollars had been spent on this project. Can the minister indicate to us how much this mistake cost?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as the member has correctly pointed out, this is a matter for the Minister of Natural Resources. I will take the question as notice and report back to him.

Mr. Van Horne: I would ask further that the minister investigate this comment from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association: "Governments and the private sector will have to triple their investment in the forestry industry and, unless this is done, Canada will be facing a shortfall of wood fibres within the next dozen years."

Would he also investigate that the container stock superintendent for the northern region expects a shortage of tree production by 1986, somewhat less than the dozen years. In the light of these concerns, what is he going to do to assist this vital industry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Those of us who are here on a regular basis have heard the Minister of Natural Resources on many occasions spell out what they are doing on reforestation and regeneration programs. I am sure if the member would check Hansard, he would find the answers to those questions.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I would endorse what the member for London North has said. When the minister is talking to his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, would he ask him -- I would have thought he would have already asked this question of his colleague -- why, when we are going to need increased production of seedlings in the next few years, is that minister not using the opportunity to establish tree nurseries in the many very small, relatively isolated communities all across northern Ontario? Is it not an ideal opportunity to provide an additional economic base for those communities?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would go around and visit many of the small northern communities and areas in northern Ontario, as I do, he would see that the Minister of Natural Resources has already complied with that. But those members go to the major centres, like Thunder Bay, and do not receive any attention or recognition. They do not know what is going on and they make accusations and criticisms that they have no knowledge about.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In an

article which appeared in the Toronto Star on October 22 regarding Westinghouse, it would appear that controversial decisions to downplay worker concerns were made in Toronto.

Let me quote: "What has made Gray's labour board foray against the inspectorate and Westinghouse so fascinating is the eye-opening evidence from ministry bureaucrats about how controversial decisions to downplay worker concerns were made. Some officials have testified, for example, that the content of peculiar and controversial tests, reports and decisions they signed was not their own but dictated by the higher officials of the ministry."

Who is writing these reports from the office of the Minister of Labour? Why are the facts being altered to downplay the issue? Rather, the ministry should be going out to enforce them vigorously.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are no facts being altered, but the underlying response to the honourable member would have to be this: The matter he is referring to is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. They are trying to get questions to an awful lot of answers. It is a rather complex --

Mr. Foulds: We are trying to get answers to an awful lot of questions.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Pardon?

Mr. Foulds: You've got it backwards.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry; that is what the member for Sudbury East does to me; he gets me back to front.

It is a very complex hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it at this time. These matters are being dealt with in the appropriate forum.

Mr. Martel: I will try a supplementary. I realize what is there. Is the minister aware that Mr. Bergie of his ministry stated that he had notified the Toronto office of "alarming" -- his word -- levels of lead tests at Westinghouse on July 12, 1982, and that his assistant deputy minister denied the ministry had any knowledge of these until September 12?

Is he aware that in this same report -- is it not the same report that I managed to get myself into trouble over in that his assistant deputy minister stated also she had no knowledge of the results of the tests conducted in October 1982, despite the fact those results were in eight days before that report was drafted and presented in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There is absolutely no change in the position of my assistant deputy minister in that matter.

BARRIE ANNEXATION

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. No doubt the Attorney General is aware of last week's unanimous decision by the three Divisional Court judges which overturned an Ontario Municipal Board ruling of June 3 regarding the annexation by the city of Barrie of land owned by the township of Vespra.

Given that the three judges cited bias on the part of the two 0MB hearing officers, both senior members of the 0MB, and given that both municipalities have incurred legal expenses of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past eight years due to the bungling of the provincial government and the Ontario Municipal Board, is the minister prepared to reimburse these two municipalities for the legal expenses they have incurred over the last number of years?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would not think so, Mr. Speaker. I have heard of the judgement, but I have not actually read it, particularly that aspect of it which I think is the core of the judgement, the issue of bias that the member has raised. Certainly, my preliminary view is that it would be inappropriate, but I will review the decision and may have something further to add.

Mr. Epp: Does the minister not think the provincial government has a responsibility in this area with respect to reimbursing these municipalities? Given the fact that the 0MB has been accused of this bungling -- and the mayor of the city of Barrie has called it a fiasco -- is the minister intending to speak to the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the continuation of service of these two senior members on the board?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think all members would agree that on a day-to-day basis the Ontario Municipal Board serves the citizens of this province in a very effective and dedicated fashion. To suggest on the basis of one judgement that two members be removed is certainly not a suggestion I would seriously consider.

Mr. Nixon: What do you want? Two out of three? Are you going to appeal?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General about the Niagara Regional Police. Incidentally, they are the Niagara Regional Police, not the Niagara Falls Police, as the minister said in his answer last time.

The minister must be aware that, without any advertising being done for other applicants or without inviting any other members of the Niagara Regional Police to apply, one of the deputy chiefs of that police force, James Gayder, was appointed by the Niagara Police Commission on July 5, 1983, to take over as the new chief when Chief Harris retires at the end of this year.

Is the minister aware that at the time Mr. Gayder was appointed by the police commission, two internal police investigations were under way concerning a certain gun matter in which he was involved with gun dealer Mark DeMarco: one, an investigation into breaches of the Police Act and the department's code of conduct, and the other by the special criminal investigation unit into contravention of the Criminal Code?

Does the minister believe the commission was wise and acted in the best public interest by that appointment in that manner under those circumstances?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on matters of employment of personnel within the individual police forces of the province, be they regional or municipal, appointments are made by those commissions and the commissions make those decisions.

There is usually one representative from the municipality on most commissions and two appointed by the province. The larger ones, the regions, usually have two individuals, and in this region they have a county court judge sitting on the commission. That judge, the elected official who sits there and the three appointed officials have come to a decision after reviewing the candidates seeking the position and have made a decision on the successor to the chief who will shortly be retiring.

In these matters they sometimes ask the Ontario Police Commission for advice on how to interview and on the manner and method of selection, and sometimes such assistance is given by the Ontario Police Commission. As the member well knows, however, it is the ultimate decision of the individual police commissioners. When they make their investigations into the selected candidates, I assume they do a thorough and knowledgeable background search and know all the assets and deficiencies of the different candidates. They make their decision knowing full well that background information.

Mr. Swart: It is my understanding that the Solicitor General has some responsibility for the overall quality of policing in this province.

Specifically, is it not true that the special criminal investigation unit has found there is sufficient evidence to charge Deputy Chief Gayder under subsection 94(1) of the Criminal Code and so reported to Chief Harris two months ago?

If this is the case, would the minister not agree Mr. Gayder should not be sworn in as the new chief now or at any time until those charges are satisfactorily disposed of in an open way? Does this not prompt the minister to reconsider his limited investigation and opt for a full, open investigation of all levels of the Niagara Regional Police?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On the investigation of the Niagara Regional Police, I would remind the honourable member he requested a full investigation be initiated and I have done that. It is an independent investigation. That has been done in the normal course of events, as these take place through the Ontario Police Commission. It has initiated that investigation. When it is completed, we can make a decision at that time on the evidence provided by that investigation. This is usually done in the normal course of events.

Somebody else in that area, one of the lawyers involved, asked for a similar style of investigation, not the one the member is now mentioning that he desires, namely, a wide, public and expansive investigation. I feel the present one will find us the immediate solution to the problem, if there is a problem, as he alleges there is.

ROAD SYSTEM FUNDING

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. As the minister is aware, the impact of a good roads system on job creation and tourism cannot be overemphasized. Yet since 1975 there has been a 12 per cent reduction in real dollars for road system funding which, according to his own ministry standards, has resulted in 28 per cent of all municipal roads and streets in Ontario being deemed inadequate, as in the district of Muskoka where 51.4 per cent of the roads are inadequate or in the county of Hastings where 42.4 per cent of the roads are inadequate. In rural areas this is a major cause of motor vehicle accidents.

In view of these facts, would the minister assure this House that he will reassess his government's position of underfunding our roads system, which the Ontario Good Roads Association points out is the most counterproductive policy the government could adopt?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. I would like the honourable member to send me over those figures because I think the reduction is somewhat more substantial than what he quoted.

Mr. Eakins: Since many municipalities in the Hanover and other areas appeared before a rural task force urging improved and more direct routes to their areas, will the minister indicate how many previously planned projects and tenders were not called this past summer? What does this mean in terms of dollars?

Will the minister guarantee to us in this House, to the Ontario Good Roads Association and to all municipalities in Ontario that action will be taken now to provide the level of funding necessary to reverse this situation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can only supply the level of funding that is voted by this Legislature. If the Legislature votes more funding, I will pass it on to the municipalities.

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could catch the Premier before he leaves. I would like to ask him a question.

Mr. Speaker: Place your question, please.

Mr. Rae: The question has to do with the statement made today by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of the province. I am delighted the Attorney General has recognized that the case before the Divisional Court and the judgement of the three judges has broad implications for the

interpretation of freedom of association and the relationship between that concept and inflation restraint, as well as other major pieces of provincial legislation.

In the light of that decision by the Attorney General and in the light of his comments today, would the Premier not agree that it is extremely invidious to be contemplating the introduction of yet another major piece of legislation with respect to inflation control which may prove to be contrary to the Constitution of this country, given the meaning of the phrase "freedom of association" that was adopted by the three judges in the Divisional Court?

Would he be prepared to make a commitment to the Legislature that no such legislation will be introduced until such time as the Court of Appeal of this province has rendered a decision with respect to the question on the constitutionality of legislation put forward by the government of Ontario?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the leader of the New Democratic Party has not had an opportunity to keep up with everything that has been said on this issue. I think the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has said the decision would not alter what is being contemplated by the government.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to what the Treasurer has said and what the Premier has just said, the judges are on record as saying freedom of association implies the right to organize, the right to bargain and the right to strike. In addition, it implies a right to negotiate free from restraint, unless that restraint is of an extremely limited nature and of a very specific kind.

What the judges have said is directly related and touches directly on the question of inflation restraint. Given the very different economic circumstances today from a year ago, I suspect judges might take a very different view of the kind of approach the government might or might not be contemplating.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I ask this question again of the Premier: Given the fact the government was not successful in convincing the court with respect to

section 13(

b) of the Inflation Restraint Act as it was passed last year, how can he be so sure, how can he be so confident the court will be persuaded by yet another intervention from the Attorney General of this province with respect to the constitutionality of inflation restraint and wage restraint legislation in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, either the leader of the New Democratic Party did not hear my answer or he did not understand it. I thought it was, for me, really very clear.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was clear. I said very simply my understanding is the Treasurer has already said publicly that the probable new approach of the government will not have that as a problem. I would further add that I am not one who would prejudge what a court would say in any event, if the member was asking me what we would say. I am referring to that particular

section which was the subject of discussion on Tuesday.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of hearing the answer exactly the same way, though the Premier has never been able to remember what he said two minutes before, can we presume from the Premier's answer that because there could have been a case made for urgency last year with the inflation rate being what it was then, with the rate now being down around five per cent, there will not be any limit put on the bargaining power, because the urgency of the high rate of inflation now does not exist and, therefore, that part of the judges' decision will not affect what the Treasurer will bring in?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot add anything to the very excellent answer I gave the member for York South except to make an observation. Here again we have an example of the Liberal Party of Ontario one day a year ago saying, "Without question it should be a two-year program, comprehensive, covering the world," while today the financial critic is saying, "Gosh, maybe it should have been a one-year program."

Mr. T. P. Reid: The rate of inflation isn't 12 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), I would like to ask a question of the Premier.

Is the Premier aware that Remembrance Day, November 11, this year is not a school holiday, and the Royal Canadian Legion agrees with that policy? It does create some problems, especially in small municipalities and ridings like mine. I would like to explain that in Blenheim we go to the cenotaph where there is a service. We go to the Legion in Blenheim and have lunch. Then in the afternoon we go to the nearby village of Erieau and go through the same service.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McGuigan: In view of the fact that it takes a day to do these activities, and the only way a veteran teacher could now attend would be to use his sick leave, would the Premier confer with the Minister of Education and see if a directive can be sent out allowing these people a day off as in former times?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for notice of the question, which was a process we used to use in days gone by; it is written notice of the question. He stated in his notice to me exactly what he has stated in the House, except he did not give me the example of his travelling from certain communities to other communities. He did not put that in his letter.

I think I would be more than prepared to take this up with the Minister of Education. I sense from people in the Legion in Brampton, some 200 feet from my own home, that the response to the decision to have November 11 observed within the school itself would give the day more substance and more meaning. That was the intent, and I think it is an intent that would be supported by all members of the House.

At the same time, I personally -- and I am only speaking personally -- would be very sympathetic to veterans who are members of the teaching profession, who are part of a ceremony within an individual community or perhaps two or three communities, feeling their place is properly at a particular service. I would have great sympathy for that. I am not sure the minister can send out directives per se, but I will certainly discuss this with her and see if that can be communicated to the boards.

I am only guessing at this, but I think we are talking about a relatively small number. I do not think it would affect, in a substantial way, the academic program within the school system. There is a tendency to forget the relevance of November 11. Certainly, as head of government I would not want to stand in the way of any veteran participating in a service of this nature. For me, this is fundamental, and I certainly will take it up with the Minister of Education.

Mr. McGuigan: I do not need a supplementary. That was a very complete answer.

ABITIBI-PRICE MILL

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade in regard to the task force that was set up by his predecessor, at the request of his colleague the Minister of Labour, to study the future of the Abitibi-Price mill in Sault Ste. Marie.

Can the minister indicate to us the current status of the task force study? When does he anticipate a report from the study? What is the position of the government with regard to the future of the Abitibi operations in Sault Ste. Marie, considering the limits that have been awarded to Abitibi north of Sault Ste. Marie by the crown of this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back to get the exact status of the study. When I was in Sault Ste. Marie a couple of months ago, I did talk to a number of people who are very interested in the outcome. Sault Ste. Marie has unquestionably suffered more than almost any other community in Ontario in layoffs of late. Obviously, very real concern was expressed about the future of that mill.

That was recognized three or four years ago. We had the pulp and paper program. That was one of the older mills, and it was my understanding that money was being invested at that time to keep the mill up to date. I believe within the last week some announcements were made, by either the chairman of Abitibi-Price or somebody in the company, which were optimistic. However, because I do not have the details at my fingertips, I would prefer to go back and review them and then answer the question.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that Abitibi has invested substantially in the southern United States, in development of new mills and renovations of older mills it has purchased with the profits it has made out of its operations, largely in northern Ontario? That being the case, is it the position of the government that this company has an obligation to maintain employment in the mills in northern Ontario, and specifically the mill in Sault Ste. Marie, which should have had a lot more money invested in upgrading over the years?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not only aware of the mills in the south, I have visited some of them. They have one advantage that almost any new factory has anywhere in the world: they have modern technology. They also have very low wood costs. Most of the mills in the southern United States have wood costs that are perhaps as little as one third of the costs in Canada. Most of the mills depend upon delivery by rail or public road; so they do not have the costs involved in their own hauls and the distances are not as great --

Mr. Stokes: It is because you have been negligent in not shortening the rotation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The study my ministry did when I was Minister of Natural Resources was to determine how many of Ontario's mills were in a condition that allowed incremental investment to upgrade them and make them economically feasible because of the threat from the United States. From that review came the pulp and paper program, probably the most important single program ever initiated in Canada to upgrade a sector of any industry. It has had amazing success across the north.

VANDALISM DURING DEMONSTRATIONS

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. The minister will be aware that some time subsequent to the anti-cruise missile demonstration, which went on before this building last Saturday, the front entrance of the building and the main walkway leading to it were defaced by four painted signs.

There is a need to protect public property from vandalism and to protect the integrity of this House and the safety of the people who work in this building, especially in the light of the reported intention of some representatives of various groups in the anti-cruise missile coalition to escalate the level of protests to acts of civil disobedience.

Would the minister please inform this House as to the identity of the member in whose name permission to demonstrate in front of the building was granted? I think I know the answer to that. Would he also inform us of the cost of repairing the defaced property and who will be paying for the repairs; when this vandalism was first detected and reported; and what security arrangements currently exist to police crowds of that size which demonstrate around this building? Finally, will he tell us what can be done to reduce the possibility of such vandalism occurring at or after future events of this kind?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I hope I remembered all the questions. The first one related to the sponsor and the issuing of a permit, for want of a better description. I should clarify first that it is not required that a permit to have a demonstration be sponsored by a member of this Legislature. Where some form of control comes into it is if the demonstration requests either the use of amplification equipment or the use of electrical equipment for its own amplification system; then we do require the sponsorship of a member. In the case of the situation on Saturday, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) was the sponsor of that application.

There was vandalism done some time on the weekend and, as the Speaker probably knows, a suspect was apprehended by the Metropolitan Toronto Police relative to the possible damage of this building and other buildings along University Avenue. I would not want to comment on the suspect's innocence or guilt -- that is not my responsibility -- however, I think it is safe to say that kind of activity would not be condoned by anyone here.

article I read in a local tabloid by a bearded member of the press gallery -- with his new picture beside his byline -- indicated my views as well as anybody has done. I do not know how one can avoid that type of situation. Security for this building, as the Speaker well knows, is not under the purview of the Ministry of Government Services but under a body associated with the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I understand there is regular patrolling of the outside of the building. I suppose the only answer is further patrolling, obviously at increased cost to the taxpayers.

The defacing outside has not been eliminated. We have tried many different kinds of chemical washes. We have been able to make it not so obvious. The next thing we are going to try is water bombing; we do not want to go to sandblasting unless we have to, because it will change the colour of the sandstone.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We are going to use the water bombers that this province very wisely bought.

Mr. Martel: Why don't you use the jet?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As far as the cost is concerned, I do not know all the answers because we do not have the solution yet. It is estimated it will be somewhere in the area of $2,000 to $3,000 and, of course, who but the taxpayers pay for this very obnoxious act of a ridiculous individual.

UNITED WAY AUCTION

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: For a second year, the staff of the Legislative Assembly, who are under your jurisdiction, worked very hard to stage an auction to raise money for the United Way. They are to be commended for their efforts.

I had the privilege of conducting the auction this year, and I want to express my gratitude to such honourable members as the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) and the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), who were excellent bidders, and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who left his bids by proxy because he could not attend. I also want to mention the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock). It takes these kinds of people to make a sale.

I understand the staff members did get over their goal. More than $900 was raised by the sale, and the goal was surpassed by I do not know how many dollars. However, it was a bit of a disappointment to me, and I am sure it must have been a disappointment to the staff of the Legislative Assembly who staged this auction, that out of 124 members of this Legislature, only 10 or 12 members showed up to actually bid on the items, knowing that the money is to be used for an extremely good purpose; that is, to go to the United Way.

I would hope that if the staff go through the work of conducting a similar auction next year, we might expect more of the members to come out and support us in our efforts.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. On behalf of all members of the Legislature, I would like to thank the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), who so very excellently conducted the auction and, I might say, extracted rather good prices as well.

3:30 p.m.

PETITIONS

INFLATION RESTRAINT LEGISLATION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Leo is afraid someone might upstage him even though he has the cheques.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: I would think that my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) would want to hear this very important petition.

"We, the undersigned teachers, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas we oppose the extension of the Inflation Restraint Act because it is inequitable in its application to the citizens of Ontario and restricts our basic free collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas we believe that an extension of the act or measures which will have a similar effect would violate the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

This petition is signed by 337 teachers in the ridings of Windsor-Sandwich, Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in a similar vein to the one presented by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye).

The petition is signed by three teachers who live in my riding but teach at Grenoble Public School, and they petition the Legislature "to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

I support the petition.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, with the same

preamble as outlined before, this petition is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it is signed by 250 teachers in Bayview, Strathcona Senior, Victoria, Dufferin, Alexandra Community, Hillcrest, Derby Central, Keppel-Sarawak, Sydenham Central and Osprey Central elementary schools, all in Owen Sound.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which says briefly:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to restore our free collective bargaining rights forthwith under Bill 100, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act."

It is signed by teachers from the Marathon, Manitouwadge and Terrace Bay public schools.

I also have a petition in a similar vein from the Valleyview school in Kenora and the public school in Ear Falls, on behalf of my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar single petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as presented by Mr. Bruce Hawkins of Little Britain.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to submit from constituents of mine who work in various schools in other areas; they are the Torrance and College Avenue schools in Guelph, Alma school, James McQueen school and Westwood public school. They are similar to other petitions that have been presented this afternoon and on previous days.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions signed by teachers in the province to the same extent as others previously submitted. Some of these are from members in adjoining ridings but were delivered in a batch to me. They come from Port Elgin-Saugeen Central public school, Lucknow public school, G. C. Houston school in Southampton, Wiarton public school, Walkerton, Elderslie Central, Arran Tara elementary, Kincardine, and Eastnor Central at Lion's Head.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice under subsection 28(

a) that I am dissatisfied with the answer given to my question by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and we will have a special session at 10:30 tonight.

[Later]

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(h), the member for Welland-Thorold has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Solicitor General concerning an investigation into the Niagara Regional Police. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Kerr 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 without amendment:

Bill Pr39,

An Act to continue the Corporation of the Union of Townships of Eilber and Devitt under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Mattice-Val Côté Act.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted under Bill Pr35,

An Act respecting St. Augustine's Seminary of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits program, $4,140,900.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robinson from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

University support program, $1,231,505,900; skills development program, $681,291,500; student affairs program, $132,573,700.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication be reduced by three hours.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to sit the morning of Wednesday, November 2, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that on Wednesday, November 9, the House will adjourn at 6 p.m. and not 10:30 p.m. as previously ordered.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 100,

An Act to revise and consolidate the Law Respecting the Organization, Operation and Proceedings of Courts of Justice in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill 101,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the bill would double the maximum awards that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is authorized to make.

3:40 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 313, 314, 315 and 317, and the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 100, standing on the notice paper [see Hansard for Friday, October 28].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ruprecht moved second reading of Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Mr. Speaker: Before the honourable member proceeds, I would point out to him that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any part of that time for his windup.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for 15 minutes and reserve the right to readdress the chamber for five minutes at the end. I am saddened to see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is not here to participate in the discussion of this important legislation that affects thousands of tenants, not only in the city of Toronto but also in other metropolitan areas across this province.

Since rent review legislation came into effect, we have seen some very swift sharks, the owners of some apartment buildings, trying to circumvent this legislation by declaring some units to be "transient living accommodation." That, of course, should mean that these units would then be withdrawn from rent review legislation and the six per cent guidelines would no longer apply.

The way they were doing it was by throwing a few sticks of furniture into some units that became empty, either through evicting tenants or through creating some problems so that tenants would go away, then declaring them to be furnished suites. Under this guise, they were "transient living accommodation." Of course, rents went up to the point of being tripled. We have proved that this happened.

The area of Parkdale was especially badly hit. We can identify over 300 units that have been affected by this most recent onslaught or change in the

interpretation of these guidelines. I am thinking of 96, 109 and 166 Jameson Avenue, and the well-known Sunset Towers at 200 Jameson Avenue. We are talking about 300 units that are affected by the

interpretation of this legislation. Many of these people have been thrown out on to the streets. As we all know, the rents of these units have then tripled.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says, "Don't be very much concerned about this problem because it is well in hand," and, as he has indicated on many occasions in the House and in his letters to me, "We should not be concerned because the present legislation covers this and there will be no loopholes."

Mr. Boudria: That is what they said about the trust companies.

Mr. Ruprecht: That is right. That is precisely what he had indicated before it became known there were big loopholes and gaps in that legislation and they had to be covered. If there are no loopholes in the present legislation, then why are so many of our tenants, hundreds of them, being hurt? I would even say close to 2,000 units across Metro Toronto alone are being affected by these loopholes and many people have to do needless suffering.

The minister says we should take comfort. All of us know that Toronto Apartment Building Co. Ltd. is the main culprit or the leader in providing imaginative ways to circumvent the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Residential Tenancy Commission. The minister says, "Toronto Apartment Building Co. Ltd." -- for short, Tabco -- "has not yet managed to persuade the Residential Tenancy Commission that its converted units fall within the definition of exempt units under subsection 4(

a) of the Residential Tenancies Act."

He says the problem arises that the members of our party do not understand the legislation. He then goes on to indicate, and I quote from his letter, that we should be happy because "the individual commissioners who presided at various hearings involving a number of different capital properties arrived independently at the conclusion that the units should not be exempted, but rather that they fall within the specific guidelines."

What worries us especially in this

interpretation, and where we find little comfort in this knowledge that all the commissioners who have rendered decisions to date with respect to conversions of this type have independently arrived at the proper conclusion, is that our contention is -- and that is precisely our fear -- this matter is then subject to the

interpretation of each individual commissioner based on each individual case.

Therefore, the potential exists for an individual commissioner to come to the independent conclusion at some point that the landlord's request to have units exempted under subsection 4(

a) is indeed valid. That is precisely the problem. Each of the commissioners can come to this conclusion independently and that means the legislation is not tight.

This is why we first requested that we ask the board of commissioners of the Residential Tenancy Commission to review the situation and to make the necessary changes. We have asked the minister to produce additions to the

interpretation guidelines and, failing this, to provide amending legislation so that these loopholes can be plugged.

That is why today I have introduced second reading of Bill 59 to plug the specific loopholes, because here in Bill 59, under subsection 4(

a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, only units that are bona fide hotels are permitted under the municipal zoning bylaws to withdraw from the six per cent guidelines. We think this is very important legislation inasmuch as it plugs the loopholes that the minister has failed to plug.

The problem is simply that when we look at the development or history of what has recently taken place since last April, we find companies are very imaginative when it comes to finding new ruses or new ways to circumvent this legislation, even though the Residential Tenancy Commission had indicated to Tabco, "We have found that you are overcharging 54 tenants in an amount varying from $2,000 to $17,000 in one building alone."

This legislation has been so loose that for over a year and a half this company was able to overcharge 54 of its tenants in one building alone -- mark this: let me repeat it -- was able to overcharge 54 units amounts varying from $2,000 to $17,000 in one building alone. We know for a fact that there are many other buildings, and when one adds up all the buildings of Toronto Apartment Building Co. Ltd., we find they probably owe in excess of $500,000 to some of the residents of these buildings.

3:50 p.m.

The minister still stands up in this House and says, "Look, folks, this whole situation is covered." I am somewhat ashamed to have to go back to Parkdale and indicate to my own people that we are not able to move this minister to specific action to plug these loopholes. That is why Bill 59 is here today.

We would assume that the government in its wisdom will see fit to support this particular bill. If it is not supported, what happens? Specifically, what happens is that many of the tenants who have already been thrown out, many of those people who are in these buildings, are really facing grave consequences inasmuch as there is uncertainty as to what they will do tomorrow.

Landlords, especially Tabco across Toronto but also in other centres of Ontario, are saying to their tenants: "We want you to leave so that we can withdraw these units from the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. We want to withdraw these units." That is what they are saying to these tenants. The only answer the tenants can have, of course, is either they comply and pay triple the rent or, because of some harassment, they are being forced to move.

What really happens is when these tenants -- and there are hundreds of them, as we have identified on one street alone -- move from an area, transient people are moving in. I am classifying transient people right now as people who are coming from other centres and who are staying for the night, two nights or three nights -- mostly less than a week. I classify those people as transients.

When these units are furnished and made available as hotel-like accommodation for transient people, the whole area deteriorates. There is, therefore, a consequent danger involved. Not only are we hurting the tenants because they have to live under great fear of being moved out, thrown out, or having their locks broken, but in some cases, as we have heard, the mail has allegedly been tampered with in some of the buildings.

As soon as some of these buildings have been declared hotel-like accommodations, the post office has been notified. Just to indicate one of the excesses, the post office has then been requested that all the mail be placed in the hands of the superintendent in these buildings. The tenants who are still living there now have to face the superintendent on a daily basis and request the mail from the superintendent instead of being provided a mailbox with a key so that they have the privacy of their mail being protected.

If these loopholes are not plugged, the excesses are really great. Not only do tenants live in uncertainty but also their mails are being tampered with. Consequently it is a really regrettable situation.

The other fear I really have is that when tenants are moved out of hundreds of units -- and this has already been the fact in Parkdale, in the Markham Road area of Metropolitan Toronto, Etobicoke and on Airport Road, where some owners are doing it already and are moving people out -- these areas will turn into blighted areas. That is one of the other dangers, because when families are moved out to make a residence available for transients, two or three things happen right away.

The first thing that happens is that the schools will suffer and the programs will suffer because families are moving out from the area and consequently have to withdraw their children from the schools. The program suffers and the schools suffer.

The other significant thing is that when hundreds of transients are brought in, those who only want to have a party for the night and are consequently making a lot of noise in the building when ordinary people wish to sleep, these tenants then are faced with partygoers, people use the elevators and that sort of thing.

What is even more significant is that there will be more traffic on the streets because more cars are coming in and the community will consequently deteriorate.

What is happening here is that we are moving in people who have made no commitment to a community and we are moving people out from apartments who have lived there sometimes for generations, because some of these buildings are old. They are asked to leave, asked to pull up, lock, stock and barrel, their whole community commitment.

So when this kind of shift is introduced, it is introducing a second New York, which as we have already indicated is filled with crime and dirty streets. It is that kind of scenario that we want to stop with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I see the clock is running out so I would like to reserve the last five and a half minutes of the time for debate for my reply to other members who may wish to discuss this matter at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his remarks. There is time remaining for your reply.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your appointment and I wish you well.

We are debating Bill 59, presented by my colleague from the great riding of Parkdale, to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, according to the explanatory note, in order to prevent conversions of rental residential units to transient living accommodation that are undertaken in order to escape rent review.

The aims of the bill are laudable. I really have some serious questions, however, as to whether the member for Parkdale, in drafting Bill 59, has actually managed to solve the problems he set out to solve.

For many of us in this House, certainly for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the issue of rent control and rent review is inextricably linked to the question of tenant security. Rent review is not simply a question of consumer protection. Rent control is first, foremost and fundamentally, a question of buttressing the security of people to the enjoyment of their homes without the threat of unwanted, forced eviction.

As the members know, evictions can take place for a number of reasons. They can be perhaps grouped into two categories: those that are economic evictions characterized by forcing tenants out by virtue of raising the rents so they can no longer afford to stay in their homes, and those that take place as a result of conversion of the units to other uses. They are conversions for the purpose of transforming an apartment into transient living accommodation, into a hotel, into a condominium, some quasi-condominium or into any of a number of other uses which are different from the use for which an individual or a family has rented the premises.

So one cannot deal with the issue of security of tenure in isolation, or piecemeal or by way of a number of isolated, separate amendments to isolated, separate pieces of legislation.

It has to be seen as a rather complex whole which involves rent control and the question of economic eviction. It has to involve, as well, really tough landlord and tenant legislation guaranteeing the rights of tenants to protection against unnecessary, unjustified eviction for purposes of conversion or demolition. Third, it has to involve our legislation under the Planning Act and legislation governing our municipalities, so that municipalities are given, as part of their own planning processes, the power to prohibit landlords from converting apartment accommodation or housing stock into other kinds of uses and from throwing people out on the street.

That may be a rather long-winded way of approaching my colleague's bill, but I think it is essential to understand that the government is not going to be able to deal with all of the problems that confront tenants in our society by simply proceeding statute by statute, with an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act and an isolated amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Sooner or later somebody -- and it has to be the government -- has to understand the importance of all of these issues and how they are interrelated and bring in a package of major reforms that will complete the job that was begun in 1975-76 when rent review was introduced and when the modern Landlord and Tenant Act was introduced.

4 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: The member should not hold his breath.

Mr. McClellan: I will not hold my breath, but it is good advice.

I also want to say that we have an opportunity this year and in the early months of the coming year to do precisely what I am talking about. The Residential Tenancies Act has a sunset clause and it expires at the end of the current year, the end of December 1983. This means the government has, of necessity, to bring forward new legislation to extend the Residential Tenancies Act, unless it wants to end rent review, which I really doubt very much.

It has, or will have very shortly, the report of the Thom Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies which is studying the adequacy of our current rent review legislation. It has had the benefit of public testimony from a wide sector of the community. It will be in a position to bring in a package of reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act, to the Landlord and Tenant Act and to other statutes, if necessary, in order to secure economic security for Ontario's tenants and to provide protection against unjustified conversions and demolitions.

I may add in parenthesis that it would be a nice gesture of good faith if the government would provide quick passage to Bill Pr3, the request from the city of Toronto to give the municipality power to prevent unjustified demolitions. The government so far has been bent -- and I am sure this is of concern to the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) -- on torpedoing Bill Pr3 and preventing its passage, which is discouraging for those who hope the government will take the next step in modernizing its landlord and tenant legislation.

Unless people happen to be in that very privileged group of people in our society who are home owners, the government seems not to understand or to accept the principle that they have a right to security and the enjoyment of their own home. The old adage that a man's home is his castle seems to apply only to the people who have the advantage of being able to buy their own home. If a householder is in the position of renting his home, he still lacks many fundamental rights and very fundamental protections.

One of these is being talked about today, namely, the power of landlords arbitrarily to convert a person's home into some other kind of use and throw the person out in the street. At present the only right tenants have under the law is the right to be notified they are going to be thrown out into the street. Quite simply, this is a medieval attitude. It makes no sense in a modern, industrial society in which the majority of people are unable to enjoy the privilege and opportunity of buying and owning their own home. It is a simple reality, a simple fact.

How much longer is the government going to keep its head in the sand and say tenants are somehow second-class citizens who are not entitled to the same kind of security around the most basic of all commodities, shelter, in our society? It is a very fundamental question of right and justice. It baffles me that the government has failed to follow through on the initiatives it was forced into in 1975-76 and again in 1978-79 to tighten up the loopholes in the Residential Tenancies Act and to tighten up the provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act. This would guarantee a much stronger measure of security for tenants in the enjoyment of their own homes.

I intend to support Bill 59, even though I have questions about its adequacy, because I support the principle that tenants should not be subjected to unwarranted conversions for which they are then evicted. I hope my colleague the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) will explain in his concluding five minutes the meaning of

section 4a of his bill, which seems to suggest that a landlord would be able to convert a building to transient living accommodation or even to a bogus hotel upon application to the commission. All one has to do if one wants to turn one's place into a hotel is apply to the Residential Tenancy Commission to turn it into a hotel, as I understand the statute. I may be misreading Bill 59 and I would welcome a correction from the member.

Finally, I think in any legislation there have to be much stronger provisions against conversion per se. It is not enough to talk about ending the exemption from rent review; there also has to be a measure of specific protection against unwarranted conversion or demolition.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill today, I want to address a clause of the Residential Tenancies Act that I know has been the subject of considerable discussion and controversy in recent months. I refer to the question of apartment hotels and the type of accommodation which appears to fall close to the borderline of the exemption contained in clause 4(

a) of the act.

This clause provides an exemption from the purview of the act to "transient living accommodation provided in a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home, hostel or other similar accommodation." In order to give some perspective to this issue, it is important to look at the legislative history of this clause. I am sure the member for Parkdale, the sponsor of this bill, will be most interested.

Bill 163, the Residential Tenancies Act, was placed before the standing committee on general government of this Legislature early in 1979. At that time, Bill 163 contained an exemption clause which stated simply: "This act does not apply to temporary living accommodation provided in a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or hostel." There was no phrase regarding "other similar accommodation" contained in this section.

The committee spent some time considering the word "temporary." Concerns were raised by some members that this adjective might not be sufficient to ensure the act's applicability to permanent residents of hotels and motels and the other named types of accommodation. A motion was subsequently put before the committee, and I give credit where credit is due, by one of the members of the opposition. When they do on occasion come up with thoughtful, reasoned comments, we like to give them credit. I do not have an opportunity to quote them too often but in this case I will.

On this occasion the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) put a motion to amend the original clause 4(a). The amended clause, which was finally adopted by the committee and subsequently by this Legislature, introduced two different elements into clause 4(a). First, the replacement of the word "temporary" by the word "transient" was accepted by the committee as providing clear protection for permanent residents in hotels; second, and perhaps even more important, the phrase "or other similar accommodation" was added. The bill before us today wants to remove that phrase.

The points raised in that brief debate in committee on Bill 163 concerning this phrase really go to the heart of our debate here today. In contemplating the words "or other similar accommodation," the committee of that day specifically considered whether the Residential Tenancy Commission should be granted a measure of discretion in determining the applicability of clause 4(

a) to certain premises.

In arguing in favour of providing the commission with that discretion and flexibility at that time, the member for Riverdale observed: "I do not think there is a way in which one can take all the multiple situations which can occur and find a definitive method of satisfying the problem, no more than we can lock various types of accommodation into any one of the

definitions. Whether it is a hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or hostel, it is subject to infinite gradations. I think we have got to leave the question under this act to the commission. If a question comes up and somebody wants to claim the benefit, he ultimately has to get the commission to make that determination."

I thought that was quite a reasoned approach to the problem, and I feel his observations are as valid today as they were then. So too are the warnings to the committee made by the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). He stated in the debate:

"If they go to a hostel or to a rooming house and the rooming house has never made any bones about being a rooming house, there will be no difficulty; obviously they are under the act. But when they go to a rooming house that has conveniently put up the word 'hotel' in hopes of getting around everything, then that is where you run into the difficulty -- you can call yourself a hotel and not be a hotel.

"It is not really dependent on the individual going in. It is on what the proprietor claims to be. If he is only offering transient accommodation, then I guess he really has a motel or hotel or what have you. But if he is offering accommodation on a long-term basis to the bulk of his business, then those are different circumstances."

Our experience with clause 4(

a) to date indicates that the commission has exercised its discretionary power thoughtfully on a case-by-case basis, in the manner I believe was originally contemplated by the committee in examining Bill 163. The commission has considered a handful of rent review applications involving

interpretations of clause 4(

a) and the "similar accommodation" phrase in particular.

I stand to be corrected, but in considering those applications, to my knowledge, the commission has sought to determine the real nature of the units before it. It has sought to determine if the accommodation falls within the exemption, including such factors as whether the accommodation is licensed as a tourist facility by the municipality, as referred to by others in this debate. It has sought to determine whether the stay of its residents is temporary or long term and whether traditional hotel-like services are provided in the building, such as registration desk, laundry, housekeeping and furnishings.

It was my understanding that, to date, the Residential Tenancy Commission has not granted a single exemption under clause 4(

a) to any of its so-called apartment hotels. More important, it appears the discretionary mechanism embodied in this

section is functioning in a reasonable and consistent manner. In reviewing the amendment proposed in the bill before us today, I am struck by the fact that the discretionary factor has not been removed, only altered, and it is altered in a way that I think confuses rather than clarifies the issue.

4:10 p.m.

Although the amended clause would delete the phrase "or other similar accommodation," a deletion designed, I assume, to more narrowly define transient accommodation, the addition of the words "bona fide" add a new and different element of discretion to the commission's mandate. This addition would essentially mean that the commission would continue to look at this

section on a case-by-case basis. It would, however, necessitate replacing the objective factors embodied in the present test with a subjective inquiry into the motivation and good faith of the apartment hotel applicant.

In my opinion, that kind of inquiry introduces an unwelcome element of vagueness and arbitrariness into the decision-making process of this tribunal. The down side of the present clause 4(

a) of the act is that it creates a sense of uncertainty among tenants and owners, but the amendment before us today does nothing to alleviate that problem. It merely replaces one discretionary test with another less appropriate one.

I accept the fact that from time to time we must review certain sections of legislation such as clause 4(

a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, but that is in process, as referred to by the previous speaker. We are looking forward in a matter of weeks, if not months -- I suggest it will be weeks -- to having the Thom report before us. At that time, we will have sufficient ammunition to consider a comprehensive review and refinement of the existing system to improve upon what we already have there.

That is the time to address this and other considerations so that we can improve upon what is already good legislation. On this basis, I feel I cannot support this legislation before us today at this time.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to take the opportunity to commend my colleague the member for Parkdale for bringing forth this bill. On various occasions during the spring and fall, he has raised questions particularly in reference to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to try to draw to his attention and the government's attention the evils wrought by the fact that a loophole was included in the original legislation, which provides an opportunity to Toronto Apartment Building Co. Ltd. to convert apartment buildings to hotels.

I do not imagine they are doing this exclusively, but certainly they are the ones making a real profession out of these conversions. The reason they are doing this conversion of various buildings is the shortage of accommodation, particularly in the downtown core area of Metropolitan Toronto. The government must share responsibility for the fact that very few apartment buildings are being built because we, on this side of the House, have from time to time proposed incentive programs to have apartment buildings built.

There are those who, in order to escape from reality, would attribute to high interest rates the fact that not many new apartment buildings -- certainly not those built for lower-income people -- are being constructed. However, that is a cop-out rather than a logical sequence of reasoning. There is no doubt it has had some impact on construction. It has obviously had an impact on construction of single-family homes, but this is not in itself the sole reason.

I am glad to see the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) is here, because as a former Treasurer he was directly responsible for the budget of this province, and in his many conversations with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and with his other cabinet colleagues, he could have brought about some kind of incentive for the construction industry to have additional units constructed.

In looking at the kinds of dilemmas the residents of these apartments have found themselves in, we find it is very frustrating for them, to say the least, and very disruptive for them suddenly to get notice that they have to move. At the best of times, this can be very upsetting, but at a time when we have a vacancy rate of around one per cent -- and it fluctuates: it could be three quarters of one per cent or it could be one and a quarter per cent, but certainly it is not very high -- these people have to find some other accommodation.

Where are they going to find it? They have possibly been living in these apartments for a number of years. Sometimes they are up in years, they are not people who are very mobile and they have to find somewhere else to live. The government, in the kinds of policies it espouses, has not been particularly sympathetic to the families that have had to move.

4:20 p.m.

I have one flyer here that describes the kind of situation these people are in. It has to do with the landlord, Toronto Apartment Building Co. Ltd., trying to force tenants to leave the building so that it could convert the apartments. It says:

"There are reports of glue being placed in keyholes, apartments being entered without permission by management for so-called evaluation of property inspection, elderly persons being verbally told their rents had been increased. In one particular lady's case -- she was 92 years old -- she was told that her monthly rent was going up from $214 to $283, effective immediately. If they didn't like it or couldn't afford it, they would be evicted. Actual evictions were being served and, in other cases, notifications telling them they would be unable to renew any lease" etc.

A certain amount of pressure was being put on these people. This is particularly difficult for the people who do not have a lot of money and do not know where they are going to live, and is even more excruciating for the senior citizens of this province. My colleague the member for Parkdale has drawn this to the attention of the government, which in its wisdom could easily have brought in a bill correcting the error that was injected in the legislation and was proposed by the New Democratic Party a number of years ago.

I regret to say the NDP members have not been very vociferous in this area in trying to protect the tenants. That is understandable. As the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) pointed out earlier -- and I was going to read a quote, but there is no sense getting into a long explanation -- this was proposed by the member for Riverdale. So I am not totally surprised that the NDP members have not been very vociferous in trying to protect these tenants, because they were the ones who proposed this for whatever reasons. Maybe they would like to explain the reasons.

We have the difficulty of these tenants being evicted, with very few places to go -- there is a vacancy rate of about one per cent -- having very little money to move, and then these particular apartment hotels being converted. I think that is going to be a blight on the face of Toronto, because these neighbourhoods are being affected, as the member for Parkdale pointed out.

These new apartment hotels do not have the kinds of facilities that one expects to go to when one visits another city. I am sure that when the Minister of Industry and Trade, the former Treasurer, travelled to the Far East, he wanted a hotel with restaurant facilities and such other things as people to carry his bags -- although he may have had his own staff to do that --

Interjection.

Mr. Epp: Oh, he carries them himself, just like Jimmy Carter.

When people visit the city of Toronto and fill in applications for these hotels, they are not getting the kinds of facilities they expect to get. That does not help the tourist industry of Ontario. Even worse, it takes away accommodation from the people who so clearly need it.

I hope the member for Oriole was not speaking for all the members on the government side. I hope all members of this Legislature in their wisdom will support this legislation. If there are some difficulties in it, my colleague the member for Parkdale will gladly entertain some amendments to it so it can be made more workable.

In essence, what we have to do is to remove that particular clause 4(

a) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) mentioned earlier that the Residential Tenancies Act had a sunset clause in it. He was probably referring not to the Residential Tenancies Act but to Bill 198. We should remove clause 4(

a) that refers to "or other similar accommodation."

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I too support this bill, because it is an effort to plug one of the loopholes in the Residential Tenancies Act. But since the loopholes are legion, as has been brought forward by the various submissions to the Thom commission, I would have preferred to have had a bill that plugged a great many more of the loopholes. I hope this is just a step towards changing the Residential Tenancies Act to make it an effective piece of legislation to protect tenants.

We know the government never really wanted rent control. In 1975 they saw they were going to lose the election because there had been some very substantial increases in rents and there appeared to be a deluge starting of attempts to raise rents very radically and to charge what the traffic would bear.

The government decided that rather than lose the election, it would bring in rent control. It made it a campaign promise -- although the New Democratic Party had been promising it for a considerable time during the campaign and before -- and it brought in the legislation shortly after the election. Since then, it has been letting it be eroded so that now we have very little real rent control.

The legislation has been eroded by the fact that all new construction since January 1, 1976, is not covered. It has been eroded by the $750 ceiling on rents that are subject to review; and since inflation has started to push rents up to that level and beyond, more and more units are being removed from rent control. It is being eroded by the fact that the act permits a complete pass-through of refinancing costs, which means the tenants end up paying for the building several times over if the building changes hands several times.

There are many other loopholes which have been brought before the Thom commission. In effect, we do not have real rent review. I welcome an attempt to close one or two loopholes. But I would have liked to have seen many more covered, particularly the loophole where a landlord indicates he is going to make major renovations and the tenants have to leave during these renovations. Sometimes he is only pretending he is going to make renovations, or sometimes he makes only cosmetic renovations.

Whether he makes real or pretended renovations, the effect on the tenants is that most of them leave and cannot afford to come back after the renovations. In effect, it removes affordable housing for those tenants.

Conversion to luxury apartments or condominiums is a method of reducing affordable housing. That is what we are talking about today, why we oppose conversions. With a vacancy rate that has been less than one per cent for the past several years, we cannot afford to lose any affordable housing. There was a slight improvement in the vacancy rate last June, but it was apparently due to one or two luxury condominiums coming on stream and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. was not able to pull those units out of its statistics. The false impression was created that the vacancy rate was being reduced.

4:30 p.m.

At this time, any conversion is completely unacceptable because the vacancy rate is so low. But it is particularly unacceptable because of the refusal of the government to permit the city of Toronto to have demolition control legislation under Bill Pr3 as proposed by the city of Toronto, which is adding to the crisis we are discussing today.

The government's reason, through the comments of the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, was that it felt demolition control would be prejudicial to the financial and legal rights of private owners. Apartment dwellers also have financial and legal rights; they have rights to their homes in the same way as home owners have rights, but unfortunately it is not enshrined in legislation.

Apartment dwellers have a right to consider their homes and their neighbourhoods as places where they have settled down and where they should have some security of tenure. Without demolition control, they have no security of tenure and they can lose their homes without compensation. A home owner cannot lose his home when it is taken, say, for a school or a road without compensation; but an apartment dweller, such as those who live in the Eglinton-Bathurst district, can lose his home and will end up with nowhere to go.

When Anne Johnston brought many of them down to the hearings before the standing committee on