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

October 28, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

PROGRAMMES DE TRAITEMENT DU CANCER

FOREST INDUSTRY

PUBLIC LIBRARIANS

SARAH MCLAUGHLIN

LIVE THEATRE

WASTE DISPOSAL

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

EMILY HOWARD STOWE

VISITORS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOME CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOME CARE

CARLTON MASTERS

BOBLO ISLAND

HOMOLKA CASE

MINOR HOCKEY

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

VITAL SERVICES TO TENANTS

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

CASINO GAMBLING

INTERIM SUPPLY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): At the end of yesterday's session, the member for York Mills brought forth a point of privilege. The Speaker, at that time, asked for time and will now be providing a ruling.

Yesterday, the honourable member for York Mills, Mr Turnbull, rose on a question of privilege, alleging that the honourable member for Yorkview, Mr Mammoliti, had taken his idea for a bill that he had been working on for a number of months. Mr Mammoliti's Bill 95 was printed on October 15; Mr Turnbull's Bill 104 was printed on October 20. They are both bills with the same general subject matter, but one is specific to the city of North York while the other, Mr Turnbull's, is general in nature. Mr Mammoliti's Bill 95 is up for debate this morning.

While allegations made by the member for York Mills cause me great concern, let me say first of all that there is nothing here that is against our existing standing orders. It is the right of all honourable members to introduce bills and it is not for the Speaker to determine whether or not the origin of an idea for a bill is original to the member introducing it or not. Secondly, there is nothing out of order with these two bills eventually coming to debate and being decided upon by this House at second reading.

As to the question of members' privileges being affected, I can in no way see that that has happened. The honourable member for York Mills still has every right to proceed with his bill and it is not a privilege of members to have exclusivity as to a subject matter. It would even be possible for the honourable member to debate his bill when his turn comes up for private members' hour next week, if the House agrees to waive notice. I would suggest that he consult with his House leader if it is his intention.

I thank the honourable member for all the work that he has put into his presentation and the notes that he has made available to me and I'm sorry that I cannot agree that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Come on, you ruled.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills, there has been a ruling. I will give you a very short time.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. I will say that in future I definitely will not provide any drafts of any bills I'm working on to the ministries so that I will not have to have the suspicion of some untoward behaviour.

The Acting Speaker: We have very limited time; it's private members' hour.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've listened with great interest to your ruling and I have heard what you've said. However, I always thought that the Speaker's place in the Legislature or any parliamentary body was to protect the privileges of individual members. I can recall an issue here some years ago where an individual, who was the member for Riverdale at the time --

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I will give him the book so he can read from beginning to end, all 2,000 pages.

Mr Eves: Excuse me, is there an echo in the chamber, Mr Speaker? There's somebody speaking out of place. I'm rising on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: Please, to the member for Parry Sound, we are --

Mr Eves: The member for Riverdale --

The Acting Speaker: To other members, please, interjections are out of order.

Mr Eves: The member for Riverdale at the time, David Reville, wasn't treated with such disrespect as some honourable members of the government party -- who happen to be in the same party as Mr Reville, by the way; they might know who he is.

Mr Perruzza: You haven't seen him in a long time.

Mr Eves: This is a serious issue, whether you respect or appreciate that or not.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Hurry up.

Mr Eves: Excuse me; the member for Yorkview, who steals other people's information, is babbling about somebody standing on a point of order. Give me a break.

Mr Mammoliti: Give me a break.

Mr Perruzza: That's a point of order, Mr Speaker. Come on.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Parry Sound --

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that the Speaker is here to uphold individual members' privileges. As I started to say before I was so rudely interrupted by members of the governing party, one of their members at one time, the member for Riverdale, had a serious issue about the bank of commerce, I believe it was, CIBC -- I stand to be corrected -- interfering with a member's privileges. That has nothing to do with the standing orders. There is nothing in the standing orders to deal with it, but the Speaker of the day dealt with it.

This member's privileges, by any prima facie factual case, have been abused. As the member for York Mills says, perhaps the only thing to do from now on is never to share any information with this government again, because apparently it doesn't know anything about ethics or truth.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Could the honourable member please sum up.

Mr Eves: Are you telling me, Mr Speaker, that you are going to do nothing about a private member's privileges being abused because there's nothing in the standing orders that says you can do so? Is that the tradition we're supposed to uphold in this place? There has never been a private member's privilege ruling upheld in this Legislature, ever, because it's not in the standing orders? Is that what I'm to gather from your ruling?

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We will now proceed to private members' hour.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

Mr Mammoliti moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York / Projet de loi 95, Loi prévoyant l'adoption par la cité de North York de règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member will have 10 minutes to initiate debate, after which time every recognized party within the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'll start off, first of all, by apologizing to the member for York Mills. I had no idea that he feels so strongly about my bill. I feel somewhat discouraged by it, and I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I feel insulted as well. I meant what I said yesterday when I talked about my activity in Yorkview and the problems that have occurred over the last few years in Yorkview and the amount of work I've done in this particular area.

The member claims that I stole his bill. I didn't steal any bill. I didn't see any of his drafts. I had no idea that he had presented a bill to the Legislature, and as the Speaker said, it was after I had presented my bill.

Having looked at what the member for York Mills has said over the last two days, I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I'm very sympathetic towards his bill as well, and if he wants to go forward with his, I will be supporting him on it. I would ask the member to perhaps use his energies not to argue whose bill it is and who stole whose bill and use up time in the Legislature that way, but invite him to work with me on my bill and his bill as well.

Perhaps we can work together and try to get something accomplished in this place and try to deal with the concerns that tenants have out there, the real concerns in North York in particular. If he were to use those energies around that particular area, I'd certainly accommodate his energies that way and I'd work with him.

Having said that, I want to thank him as well for the comments he's made in the past in this place. I want to tell him that they're greatly appreciated and that, together, I think we could pass this particular bill fairly quickly.

The bill talks about vital services, and it actually gives North York the right to pass bylaws that would deal with vital services in North York. Mine is very specific, and it's very specific for a reason.

I have had problem after problem with landlords in my particular area, and in speaking to a number of officials at the city level in North York, they continually tell me there's nothing they can do about it, for whatever reason. I want to try and help them do something about problems that arise in our particular area, North York, when it comes to vital services.

Today there is an

article in the Toronto Sun that talks about slum landlords. It talks about how I feel about slum landlords and what they have done not only to my community but to other communities as well. Slum landlords are guilty of not providing not only the essential services that tenants pay rent for but the vital services that they, as tenants, feel are their right to have, whatever time of day it is in the 24-hour span.

I can go through a number of landlords that I feel have neglected their responsibilities in this area and that have literally shut things down, such as water and hydro and elevator services. I think this particular bill will deal with a lot of those concerns. While this bill might not deal with every concern that a tenant might have, it deals with the immediate concerns and it deals with the vital services concerns that tenants have.

Yesterday I held a press conference in one of my buildings in my particular area, a building that we have had problems in for approximately -- well, the three years anyway that I have been representing the community. Continually I'm having to go up to that particular building and having to phone the landlord or in this case the landlord's representative, a lawyer, and talk to this individual about what the landlord has neglected this week or this month. The tenants are having to suffer repeatedly because the landlord deals with the elevator problem a day later and forces tenants to climb stairs for a 48-hour period. That happened in this particular building.

These particular tenants have my number at home. I was called out there at approximately 11 o'clock at night one night to try and convince the superintendent that elevators are a very important and vital service to the tenants. The superintendent told the tenants that they've got to wait, that there's absolutely nothing he can do about it because his hours are over and he needs time the next day to phone around.

We all know there are call-out numbers from elevator companies that superintendents can phone. I had mentioned that to him, and with a 10- to 15-minute discussion, I was able to convince the superintendent that it was essential for him to deal with this particular problem at 11 o'clock at night as opposed to 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning, a vital service in my opinion.

I think the bill will deal with North York's concern about its responsibilities. Having spoken with North York recently, over the last couple of days, I've got to tell you I may even have to recommend an amendment to my own bill, because what they're saying to me is that the

definitions of "emergency" and "vital services" need to be looked at and that even my definition of "vital services" might not be equivalent to North York's, so I think we need to make that a little clearer.

Thinking about it, and having looked at the situation across North York and some of the problems that have arisen over the last few years, I would like perhaps to even amend my own bill to include security systems in buildings. Some people will argue that 15 or 20 years ago vital services would not include a security system. Over the last couple of days, and having spoken with some of my colleagues, I would argue that in 1993 security systems are a vital service and that we may want to look at even amending the bill to include that.

I would argue as well that we should look at a number of different areas to be included in vital services that aren't specific in the bill. The language is there, but people might argue that we need to be a little more specific. I'm quite willing to look at security, for instance. I'm quite willing even to look at garbage pickup. In a lot of the buildings in North York, these slum landlords refuse to pick up garbage.

Extermination of cockroaches and mice: Some will argue that that is a vital service as well, and I think we may need to be a little more specific in the legislation to include those. Why? The city of North York, while I was speaking with them, said to me very clearly on one particular problem I had in the example I gave you earlier in that building that cockroaches and mice, for instance, are the tenants' responsibility.

If you've ever lived in a high-rise building you will know it's very difficult to get rid of cockroaches and mice. Tenants aren't able to just, at a snap of their fingers, get rid of thousands and thousands and millions of cockroaches. It needs to be addressed by the landlords.

These amendments are amendments that I think might be necessary and I'd be quite willing to look at.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member will have two minutes in response at the end of the debate. Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I stand to speak on this issue and I am tempted to look at the irony of all this, and the humour in it perhaps is not to be overlooked. I wasn't here in the House late yesterday when these matters were being debated on a point of privilege as to who owned this piece of legislation.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Come on, stick to the bill.

Mr Cordiano: I think it's important to point this out because this is not a matter that has come before us in quite such a way as evidenced today.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Lawrence has the floor.

Mr Cordiano: I think it's a question of not overlooking the real matter in this. Whether this is taking someone else's bill or whether in fact it amounts to theft of legislation, I think was the line that was used yesterday in the House, is left for others to decide. Obviously, today I want to deal with some of the substantive matters, but I can't help but look at this and be somewhat amused by what has taken place. As I looked at both pieces of legislation, Bill 95 as put forward by the member for Yorkview and Bill 104 as put forward by the member for York Mills, I quite frankly fail to see much difference between the two pieces of legislation, except for a couple of points.

Obviously, there is agreement in terms of the thrust of the legislation. The highest form of compliment, as they say, is having someone in fact copy what you do. Someone's got to compliment either the member for Yorkview or the member for York Mills. Each of them stand up and compliment each other, I would say, because at this point I don't know who's really to blame for this piece of legislation being drafted in the way it has been.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): To blame? Who do you want to blame?

Mr Cordiano: I'm saying around the particulars involved in the way this has unfolded. Let's forget blame for a moment and talk about giving a compliment with respect to who is to take ownership and that, as I said, will be left for others to determine.

Let me just say on the substantive matter -- because this is quite an important matter and on principle I am very much in favour of the thrust of this legislation. It is a necessary piece of legislation that I think the government ought to take very seriously. It is in fact very timely and I believe the government will take this matter very seriously.

I know the member for York Mills has been very vociferous on behalf of his constituents and I would also say that the member for Yorkview has made several points about this over the last number of months. Again, I'm not going to allude to whose piece of legislation really counts here, but I would say the government should bring forward a government piece of legislation to in fact deal with this matter. I would also encourage all members on the government benches to support that initiative because I think it would go a long way towards solving the problems that have appeared on this matter.

With respect to how this is best dealt with, I feel very comfortable in the thrust that has been made towards a municipal act, and the comprehensive nature of the bill that Mr Turnbull put forward I think is the right way to approach this. It would allow all municipalities the option of enacting bylaws to deal with vital services. It is long overdue in the sense that tenants should not be left defenceless and having to deal with landlords who are unscrupulous and very much overlooking basic needs and services.

That's simply not a situation that can continue to be tolerated, by virtue of the fact that if people are living in accommodation in whatever municipality across the province as tenants, they have a right to these vital services. That needs to be supported through legislation by the province, therefore, recognizing it legally as a right.

It also speaks to the flexibility which is granted to municipalities in order to deal with the matter on a municipality-by-municipality basis. Obviously in localities where this may not be a problem, it's left to the municipality to deal with in a flexible manner to reflect the local concerns and local needs of that municipality. It very much appeals to me because we on this side of the House and in our party very much believe in municipalities expressing their free will to deal with the matters that would be best dealt with at the local level, and I think this is one of those.

Having said that, I do believe that treatment of tenants should be dealt with right across the province equally, thus mandating municipalities to do the same, in effect bringing this about at the municipal level by virtue of a bylaw. It would in fact be giving municipalities the same access to this power to enact bylaws which would effect these vital services to be a right for tenants.

The government should act on this legislation. If they see the light of day, they would be wise to act on this legislation. God knows, they need some good news for a change. People out there in the province will be looking to this government at this time to deal with this, particularly tenants across the province. This is one of those items that would surely go a long way to at least allow the government to take some credit for something worthy that it has failed to do over the last months, in fact years now, as we put it in the opposition. There are a number of items the government has failed to act on that are as pressing as this.

There seems to be all-party agreement by virtue of the similar legislation that we've seen presented in this House. I would say to the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs that he should not waste any time in dealing with this matter, making it a priority and bringing it forward to be dealt with. I think he would see that all sides of the House would be in agreement on that. Quite frankly, as I say, it would score a few political points for the government.

I'm sure the member for York Mills would take that if the legislation were enacted quickly. He's been an ardent advocate of this. I think at the end of the day he himself has said the government should make this a piece of legislation that it brings forward, so I encourage everyone to support this legislation.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The purpose of second reading of any bill is to discuss agreement in principle. I'm certainly in agreement with the principle which drives this bill.

As you know, I have had some concerns, which I have expressed over a long period of time, that legislation did not exist to allow municipalities generally in this province to be able to enact vital services bylaws.

This would be enabling legislation where the municipality would decide if it needed such a bylaw, and that would depend very much on the kind of demographic profile of that municipality. I suspect most rural municipalities probably wouldn't need this. However, in urban municipalities, we have recognized, with the passage of private bills for Ottawa, the city of London and the city of Toronto, that in fact it is appropriate that we give municipalities the ability to move to ensure the continuation of vital services to a building where a landlord fails to provide these services.

Over the last several months, I have asked questions to the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether they would not bring in legislation which would enable all municipalities to do this, and I must say I have met with a great deal of stonewalling from these ministers. As recently as a few weeks ago, when I suggested to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that I was preparing a bill to enable all municipalities in the province to pass such bylaws, the minister's reaction was first of all that North York didn't want it. He was factually wrong.

Once again we found that the government wanted to play political football with tenants. We know the NDP likes to feel it has a cornerhold on all tenant matters. It just simply isn't true, because in fact the Conservatives have always led this province in terms of bringing forward enlightened legislation to help tenants. This goes back over a 10-to-15-year period that the Conservatives brought in such legislation.

Mr Perruzza: They're going to use this bill against you.

Mr Turnbull: I see that the member for Downsview is, as usual, heckling. Why don't you just listen to what we have to say?

Mr Perruzza: I am listening. That's the point. If I wasn't listening, I wouldn't say anything.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills has the floor. You will have your opportunity.

Mr Turnbull: The point is, we should not be using this as a political football.

The fact is that my concern was heightened by an issue that arose at 1002 Lawrence Avenue East. Constituents of mine, at the beginning of this year, had some terrible problems with a very unscrupulous landlord whose clear intention was to clear the existing tenants out of the building and then, through a legal process, to come to something which was close to a cooperative housing project but wasn't quite a co-op. I would suggest that those people who have been unfortunate enough to buy shares in that building may have some great difficulty in the future if they ever want to recoup the money they've invested.

The vital services were being withheld in this building as a way of forcing people out of the building. There were many seniors and there were people with young children in the building who were suffering. It doesn't matter what political party is in; we should have as our absolute, single most important aim the protection of those people so that they are appropriately accommodated, so that heat, lighting, water, those vital services, are provided. The whole intent of bringing forward my legislation was to ensure that all municipalities across the province would have the appropriate enabling legislation so that they could do this.

In speaking to the minister in this House and also in committee, I have spoken to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Housing to encourage them to take over this legislation, because the government can achieve passage of a bill far more quickly than a private member. Here we are with the member for Yorkview bringing forward his private bill today, and mine was due for debate next week. I have stopped debate of mine simply because I think we can address it in today's debate. But the point is that the government should have moved at an earlier stage.

As recently as this summer there was a debate in committee in which there was a discussion of the London law which allowed them to enact vital services bylaws, and a ministry official was asked whether this should not be extended to the whole province. There was one of these nice, fuzzy answers about, "Well, we're thinking about it." But the government hasn't acted, and I'd just like to read the following into the record.

Last week, the Toronto Area Property Standards Officers, TAPSO, which includes the senior property standards officers from the 11 municipalities in the greater Metro area -- namely Aurora, Brampton, East York, Etobicoke, Markham, Mississauga, North York, Richmond Hill, Scarborough, Toronto and York -- and a representative from the Ministry of Housing discussed Bill 104, my private member's bill, which is provincially focused, relating to the provision of vital services.

The group expressed support for the approach of my bill in that if we as legislators have already endorsed the principle individually for Ottawa and London, there should be nothing to prevent us from going on one last step and enacting general permissive legislation. That approach is preferable to the piecemeal approach put forward by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the member for Yorkview in Bill 95.

When the standing committee on regulations and private bills was dealing with the London bill on June 2, 1993, the committee members addressed the unsatisfactory nature of attacking this problem in a hodgepodge way through private legislation. The legislative counsel indicated that a policy decision would have to be made by the ministry and the cabinet. The virtue of this commonsense approach was supported by members of the committee across party lines. Ministry policy rep Richard Doherty confirmed that the ministry was happy to be dealing with this on a request-by-request basis and that if more requests came in, they would address general legislation.

Why, then, are we being pre-empted in my bill, which was province-wide in its nature, from moving forward with province-wide legislation?

I have to say to my colleague the member for Yorkview that I would suspect you feel that in my rising yesterday, in some way I was making this a partisan issue. I was not. I will say to you that I was requested by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs some one week before you introduced your bill to provide a copy of the draft legislation which I had prepared. My bill was not completed, because I had consulted very, very widely with tenants, landlords and municipalities.

Mr Perruzza: Could we have the names of a few of those people?

Mr Turnbull: You can indeed. The point is that I believe on an issue like this there is no reason to turn this into landlord against tenant. The good landlords of this province, I have to tell you, were overwhelmingly supportive of my legislation. Why is that? Because they view their tenants as their customers, as they should do, and they understand that it is essential to provide the services those people have contracted for.

In his opening comments, the member for Yorkview suggested that perhaps security systems are a vital service and that they should be provided. Perhaps, but I have to say to you that under the present regulations which exist since the passage of Bill 121 by this government, there simply isn't any money for most landlords to be able to do this.

I believe Bill 121 was a fatally flawed piece of legislation and I believe it should be revisited, because we have the situation that some landlords who had their mortgage paid off and had done a lot of renovations in the few years under the Liberal legislation probably have fabulous returns on their investment. Those buildings which had changed hands during those latter years immediately prior to the election of this present government and had large mortgages were probably irreparably harmed by that legislation, and the lack of the ability to flow through the cost of substantial renovations has harmed the ability of landlords in many cases to be able to provide the services.

What I am going to say in wrapping up, because I must leave my colleague just a few moments for his comments, is that we should move this legislation out to a standing committee. I am not allowed in private members' hour to move an amendment, but I would take it out to committee and I would then suggest that we enlarge the scope of this legislation so that all municipalities are able to pass such bylaws.

The cost to London in preparing its private bill was some $13,300, and that is without counting the cost of in-house counsel and staff time. That's just their disbursements that were involved. It took them several years to bring it. I'm not talking several years of continuously working at it, but several years to get it to fruition.

We should be able to give any municipality the blanket ability to move now. So I would hope that in his closing comments, my colleague the member for Yorkview would comment on his support for that type of amendment, which would allow the municipalities to help tenants, which should be the job of all legislators, and it shouldn't be turned into a political circus.

Mr Perruzza: It is indeed a pleasure for me to be able to take a few brief moments to participate in this debate here this morning on Bill 95,

An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York, introduced to us this morning in a timely way by the honourable member for Yorkview, Mr Mammoliti.

I don't see this as a bill that will impact on all landlords in the city of North York. Most of us will have witnessed in the last round of these debates when the Liberals championed a rather different cause, and our Conservative colleagues, and primarily the member for York Mills, who stood in this place and championed the cause of landlords and who, quite frankly, has done a backflip here this morning because he is now the champion of tenants. I say to him that the champions for tenants sit on this side of the House and not on that side of the House, and I can tell you there's a long history and we have extensive Hansard to show on all those fronts.

But what's important to note is that during the last debate, and according to Ministry of Housing statistics, over 70% of landlords are good landlords. They provide decent places to live and charge fair rents. Those are good landlords, and this legislation does not impact on them one iota. Then there's a whole bunch of other landlords who are reasonable landlords. Sometimes they forget and they neglect, but when they're reminded, they act, and they act on their own volition. This does not impact on them either. This piece of legislation chases those who are not good landlords, who neglect their buildings, who neglect --

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would ask the member for Downsview to withdraw the comment that he has Hansard which suggests that I was a champion of landlords. In fact, I was a champion of good legislation which would ensure that tenants had decent accommodation and that they continue to have decent accommodation.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: I hope you give back me the two minutes he ate out of my time.

In any case, this is a piece of legislation that chases bad, negligent landlords, people who are in the business to maximize their profits, not just simply to make a profit but to maximize, and who abandon their obligation to their tenants.

Hence, the member for Yorkview introduces a bill which says, "The purpose of the Bill is to allow the City of North York to pass vital services by-laws so that vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water can be provided to the occupants of rented premises when the landlord fails to provide them." That's the key, "fails to provide them." They walk away, shirk their responsibilities, fail to provide vital services. That's who this bill is intended to get.

Now you have an awful situation. You have cases like a case which I'm going to allude to here this morning of a particular landlord, a landlord who, quite frankly, doesn't give a hoot about his tenants in his building. The municipality's hands are tied; they can't do anything to affect landlords who shirk their responsibilities to provide decent places to live.

We have 4750 Jane Street -- there are other examples, but this is one of them -- where tenants live under shoddy conditions and they pay darn good rents; in fact, premium rent.

In one particular case, there were countless letters and a paper hurricane with the city and bylaw enforcement officers from the city contacting the landlord. This started around April 22, 1993, when the letters started going back and forth. This tenant has cockroaches in his refrigerator because the rubber seal on the door of that refrigerator has been broken and the landlord refuses to fix it, along with a number of other deficiencies. This particular unit has had 25 deficiency orders registered against it by the municipality since April 22, 1993. We are today at the end of October 1993, and nothing has been done to date to rectify this bad situation.

So we have an individual here with cockroaches in his refrigerator, and the municipality is impotent in the face of all this because currently they can do very little. They'll drag this guy up before their property standards committee. Eventually they'll issue another order against him to comply. Perhaps a year or two years from now they'll end up in court and at some point somebody's going to have to come along and replace that washer, and maybe the cockroaches won't be able to get into that refrigerator any more.

This bill gives the municipality teeth to be able to say to this shoddy landlord: "Fix it. Fix the problem, because if you don't fix it we'll get on the phone, we'll get somebody in there to fix it for you and then we will bill you for it. If you don't believe you'll be able to pay your bill, we can place a lien against your property. If you don't believe we can take the money from you that way, we'll be able to levy it on our tax bill and, quite frankly, you will pay and you will fix the unit and you will provide the tenants with a decent place to live."

If all that fails, they will have the power at that point to say to the tenant, "Redirect your rent to us and we will pay the bill to fix the refrigerator, to repair your wall, to fix the garage door" which hasn't been working for several years and cars are being vandalized and it makes the place dangerous for people late at night. The city can say: "We will come in, we will fix it and we will have the power to extract the money for that from you. So, landlord, don't shirk your responsibility. Be responsible in what it is you are doing, because if you're not, we will make you a responsible landlord." That's what this bill does.

For my Liberal colleague here this morning to stand in his place and say: "Gosh, this is a bad bill. Golly, this is like a bad bill. Why are you guys doing this" --

Mr Turnbull: He didn't say that.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): He didn't say that.

Mr Perruzza: Of course he did say that; it's in Hansard. I heard him, you heard him and we'll be able to get it from Hansard later today. Absolutely. That's precisely what he said. For him to simply say that is --

Ms Poole: He didn't. He didn't say anything of the kind.

Mr Perruzza: -- quite frankly beyond me, because this is a good bill. I think it's a timely bill. It's not a bill that purports to go on a witchhunt and chase every landlord in the province of Ontario -- actually, in the city of North York because it pertains exclusively to the city of North York. What it does say to the bad landlords is, "Don't shirk your responsibilities to provide your tenants with a decent place to live." That's why I'm going to support it and that's why I ask every other member of this Legislature, on both sides of the House, to support it.

Ms Poole: I am pleased to enter into the debate today. I first became aware of this particular problem when I visited the Cheyenne apartments in London when I was Housing critic for the Liberal Party. I went and I talked to the tenants and I found it really deplorable that in fact they had had their vital services cut off, that the city of London was attempting, in all good faith, to remedy the situation and yet there was no legal manoeuvre for it to do this because of provincial legislation.

In fact, I was absolutely astounded to find out that it required provincial legislation in order to empower the city of London. When Irene Mathyssen brought forward her bill last year, I was extremely supportive and suggested to my caucus that we should give that bill our support.

When this bill, Mr Mammoliti's bill, was first brought forward and I looked at it, I thought, "This is a similar bill to Irene Mathyssen's, which attempts to do the same thing," and two things crossed my mind.

The first was that this was becoming a more widespread problem and perhaps, instead of doing municipality by municipality across the province, we should have one bill which would empower municipalities to pass their bylaws instead of having to come back to the Legislature year after year and pass yet one more municipality.

The second thought that crossed my mind when Mr Mammoliti introduced the bill was that obviously there was a problem in North York, one of our Metro municipalities, and that it should be dealt with and, although my preference was to see it dealt with on a widespread basis, that I would support this bill.

I was really quite astonished when I was sitting here last night and the member for York Mills stood on a point of privilege and said that he had raised this with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the minister had asked him to send over his draft bill. This was long before Mr Mammoliti's bill was even printed and, I suspect, given the circumstances, it may well have been before Mr Mammoliti thought to do this.

It disturbed me, because normally I would give the honourable member the benefit of the doubt and say he's acting on behalf of his tenants and maybe it was just a marvellous coincidence that these two bills came forward at the same time. But I had a rather unfortunate experience with the same member, Mr Mammoliti, the member for Yorkview, almost a year ago in private members' hour when he put forward a resolution concerning co-op conversions. At that time again it would seem like a great idea, where it was actually talking about having a pilot project to convert public housing to co-ops and allow the tenants a great deal of management say.

But what distressed me when I was doing my homework as Housing critic at the time was that I phoned the

Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario, which we know as CHAO, to see if it had any comments on it. They said, "We've had a working group working on this for a year; in fact, for the last few months we've been working with the Ministry of Housing to develop this pilot project" and an announcement was imminent. I went back to the resolution and said, "But there's nothing here giving credit to the co-op movement." This was indeed not Mr Mammoliti's idea; this was the co-op movement's idea, and he didn't give any credit.

The next morning when I came in, I listened to his speech carefully to see if in fact he would give credit to the co-op movement, to CHAO, and he gave nothing. He took the ideas as his own, peddled them as his own, and he took what I thought was a very worthy project by the co-op movement and tried to take his own credit for it.

Mr Perruzza: Does that make it less worthy?

Ms Poole: It certainly does not make it a less worthy effort, but it is unworthy of the member to have taken credit.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: According to the standing rules of the Legislature, when we speak to bills in this House, we refer to the bills that are before us. If the member is on some kind of witchhunt on another matter or on some other issue, then that should be clear --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): This is not a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: -- and she should bring the motion to this House that speaks to that so we can all debate it.

The Acting Speaker: To the member, I have made a ruling that this is not a point of order, and I would caution this member and the previous member not to impute any motive to any other member.

Ms Poole: I thank you for that ruling. This is a very important point, because it cheapens a bill or a resolution if you have this kind of acrimony. There are certain bills in this House and certain resolutions on which you do have goodwill among all members, that they think it's a good idea.

By the way, I really take exception to the member for Downsview's comments about the Liberal critic being critical of this bill; in fact, his comments were very supportive. I don't even know if the member was in the House at the time. I was watching it on television, and I certainly did not get that impression from the Liberal critic.

It is very important when we have a bill like this to work cooperatively, not to take other people's ideas but to work together for the benefit of our constituents. I find it very unfortunate that this is now the second incident in which a member of the government, the member for Yorkview, has been accused of borrowing somebody else's idea and taking it as his own. I think it's very unfortunate, and I don't think it speaks well when that type of thing happens in this House.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): All residents of the province of Ontario have the right to clean and decent living accommodations that are properly heated and served by all the necessary utilities. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to pass legislation to guarantee this basic right.

This legislation must provide the protection tenants need from a small number of landlords who have neglected their responsibility. At the same time, we must be cautious that the legislation does not go beyond what is required so that it acts as a disincentive to the majority of landlords who are responsible. If this occurs, then the legislation may be counterproductive.

From my experience in many years of municipal life, I've found that the property standards regulations that are in place work for the majority of landlords who are responsible. The municipalities can work with them and decent accommodations can be provided.

For the minority of landlords who will not obey the requirements, there is a real problem municipalities have, both with the living accommodations, for example, plaster, leaking toilets, leaking faucets, appliances that don't work, any number of facets of rented accommodation that are unacceptable -- the municipalities have a problem in terms of enforcing the property standards, because they need more authority -- and the vital services bylaw will help them address gas, electricity, water, those kinds of services which certainly need to be addressed.

The member for York Mills has been providing excellent service for his constituents, particularly at 1002 Lawrence Avenue in a case where a landlord has simply abandoned the building, has gone away, and the gas is turned off. At this time of the year -- at any time of the year, frankly, but particularly at this time of the year -- that's been a tremendous hardship for the tenants. I must commend the member for York Mills for his actions and for his foresight in recognizing that we should have a bill that pertains to all of the province of Ontario and not just to one city.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I'm in support of the member for Yorkview on this particular bill.

I think enough members have been talking about the issue in London. I sat on that committee with some other members in the House here and we passed a bill, which was Bill Pr13, on June 2, 1993. The presentation that was made by the city of London showed the deterioration of the apartments, and it wasn't the tenants' fault, the condition they were in. The grass was uncut, toilets were leaking. A lot of them had fixed up to a certain point, but a lot of them were moving out and there were a lot of empty apartments. With the empty apartments came rats.

I believe that this bill will provide for the member in Yorkview, but I think what was brought up also in that particular bill was that it be taken a look at for more of Ontario. If the member could wind up getting this bill through for Yorkview, then I think it would help his residents in that area, but I'd like to see an amendment to the point that it cover all of Ontario.

I know the member for Yorkview has looked at tenants and their problems out there and I think he's a very dedicated member to look after the tenants in his riding. I think there has to be some balance between tenants and landlords and I think this is some balance. You have to say that the basics in your life are shelter, food and good health. I think it's one of the most basic things, that your place of living is important for you and your family.

Again I say that I can support this bill and I'll be voting yes on second reading, and I imagine just about every member in the House will have the same opinion.

I find that some of these buildings, as they deteriorate, are reassessed at a lower value and I think the municipalities lose money on this also, but I think we should make sure in the bill that the cities are no longer the bill collectors. I think that when people are paying their rent, they're already paying in their rent the cost of hydro, heating and the services in that particular building.

I know the member for Yorkview is looking for some amendments to his bill, and, as I say, I'll be supporting this bill.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me just start out by thanking all who appreciate the bill and want the bill passed. I think that was a very consistent message.

Let me start out by of course telling the member for York Mills that at this particular time I don't see a problem in looking into province-wide legislation. I think it's something worthwhile looking at. But in order to make me a little bit more comfortable, I'd like to have a chat perhaps with some of the municipalities and maybe a committee, if this goes to committee. That might be an opportunity for us to do that. I could certainly work with him on that, and hopefully that particular amendment that he's looking for might be in order.

Secondly, for the member for Eglinton, I'm a little disturbed that she's rambling on about everything except the bill. She talks about stealing bills, taking credit for bills. If everybody wants to take credit for the bill, let them take credit for the bill; I don't care. As long as the bill passes, it's fine with me.

But you stand up and you give an example about co-op conversion. The member surely knows that members out on the street can't come in here and pass legislation, that they need members to be able to come in here and utilize this time in private members' hour to pass the ideas that are out there --

Ms Poole: It was a resolution and you took credit for it.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, of course the co-op people did a wonderful job and they knew that because they were meeting with me on a regular basis in my office and they helped me put that piece of legislation together. So when I came in here, it wasn't just my idea. There were ideas out there from the co-op movement that helped me with that particular piece of legislation. They can't come in here and pass the legislation. They needed me to do it.

Perhaps the member was a little upset and still is a little upset that I beat her to the punch, I don't know, but that's what happened back then. For you to stand up here and bring that up in an argument like this I think is totally out of order, and if I was the Speaker, I would have ruled you out of order -- totally inappropriate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat. I would ask the member not to be provocative. We must respect each others' opinions. Would he please proceed.

Mr Mammoliti: I'd like to also thank the member for Lincoln for his remarks. I appreciate his support and I know he's looking for it to be province-wide legislation as well. I'm quite willing to accommodate that.

As I said, I'm going to try and refer this to the general government committee, and I'm hoping that everybody can agree with that.

If we get it to a committee, then we could talk about not only the amendments that the member for York Mills wants -- and I'm hoping I can work closely with the member on this bill so that we can expedite it and pass it through quickly; we know that this is needed -- but also the amendments that even I want, after yesterday's meeting with those tenants in my riding who are saying very clearly to me that the vital services should also include security systems and garbage that isn't picked up in hallways and is left to rot and smell throughout the building.

That is a vital service as well, so perhaps we could look at some amendments that tenants are looking for in this particular case. The general government committee I think might be able to look at these amendments and pass them. It might be a good avenue for us to take. I'd like to see it go there.

The issue yesterday in my particular riding with slum landlords is very pertinent to this piece of legislation. I believe that when slum landlords live in -- let me give you an example. In a small building in my riding recently I tried to track down a landlord who lives in China, for crying out loud. He lives in China and he owns a building at Jane and Eddystone in my riding.

This small, four-storey building has had a number of problems and I can clearly say that this guy is, in my opinion, a slum landlord. I couldn't get hold of him because he lives in China. There's no way for me to talk to this guy to get the vital services that these tenants need, because he lives in China. So for those who argue that this has nothing to do with slum landlords, I disagree with them.

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

Mr Mammoliti: This, in my opinion, has everything to do with stopping some of the stuff that's going on --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Mammoliti: -- in our buildings. Thank you for listening to me and I appreciate it, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The time for ballot item number 1 has expired.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Daigeler moved private member's notice of motion number 25:

That, in the opinion of this House, since in December 1992 the Bob Rae government postponed indefinitely the completion of Highway 416 between Century Road and the 401, and

Since this delay breaks the promise made by the NDP Transportation Minister Ed Philip in November 1990 to honour the Liberal government's commitment towards a 1999 completion date, and

Since the 416 postponement and the recent decision to charge significant fees for the Wolfe Island and Glenora ferries proves clearly that no one is fighting aggressively within the NDP government for the interests of eastern Ontario, and

Since the building of a four-lane link between Ottawa and the 401 has been a transportation priority for people in eastern Ontario since 1966 but was basically ignored by successive Conservative governments, and

Since for the first time a formal commitment was made to this project and moneys allocated by Liberal Transportation Minister Ed Fulton on June 12, 1989, and

Since Liberal Transportation Minister Bill Wrye in a July 3, 1990 letter to Nepean MPP Hans Daigeler promised the completion of phase 1 by 1995 and of phase 2 by 1999, and

Since the quick completion of Highway 416 topped the 1990 election wish list of Ottawa-Carleton's business community, and

Since from 1985 to the fall of 1992 there were 39 deaths and 721 reported accidents on Highway 16 with 90% of them happening between Century Road and the 401, and

Since area Conservative MPPs Bob Runciman, Norm Sterling and Noble Villeneuve have failed to ask questions in the House about this matter as requested of them by the Grenville Business News in March 1993, and

Since Ottawa-Carleton regional council in a motion of January 13 strongly urged the province of Ontario to stand by their commitment to complete the construction of Highway 416 from Highway 401 to Highway 417 by 1999,

Therefore, the Bob Rae government should be asked to re-establish funding for the construction of Highway 416 in time for the 1999 completion date as planned by the Liberal government and confirmed by NDP Transportation Minister Ed Philip in November 1990.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(

i) the member has 10 minutes to debate.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I'm really pleased to be able to address a subject that is of great importance for the people of eastern Ontario and I think for all the people of the province. What we're talking about here is jobs, what we're talking about here is improvement of the economy, what we're talking about here is making sure that we've got the infrastructure in our area, as an example, but in other parts of the province as well, that will help tourism, that will help small business people, that will help transportation companies to get to each other quickly.

What we're talking about today is job creation, is supporting the business community in eastern Ontario, and since a major project such as highway construction frankly involves companies that are not necessarily located in eastern Ontario, this motion and this project of the completion of 416 can be and is of interest to businesses and workers in other parts of the province as well. So I'm very pleased to again, because I've done so many times before, put myself on the record and put the Liberal caucus on the record towards the earliest completion of Highway 416 possible.

Obviously, when I put forward this motion it was quite a few weeks ago, because according to the process in this House we have to submit to the Clerk the motion well ahead so it can be printed and can be circulated among the members. I was pushing at that point, about four weeks ago, very much out of an interest to get the provincial government going again on this initiative because, as I said in my motion, unfortunately about a year ago, in December 1992, the Minister of Transportation very quietly, without making any kind of announcement, put on hold the second phase of the 416.

He said, "We'd still like to complete it but we don't have any money and therefore we're not proceeding further with that second phase."

Frankly, if it hadn't been for myself, with the help of Leon Korbee from CJOH-TV, we wouldn't have found out about the fact that the NDP dropped its commitment towards the completion of the 416 in time for 1999, which is still more than five years away. We're still a significant time away from 1999, and they put it on hold indefinitely, which would prolong the thing for at least another five years, well into the year 2000. That is just not good enough for the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and not just for where I'm from but for all of eastern Ontario.

When we were able to uncover this unpleasant news, there was a lot of reaction already in eastern Ontario, in Ottawa-Carleton, and at that time we urgently requested -- and a lot of councillors and municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and not just in the Ottawa-Carleton area but in Kemptville and Prescott, a lot of people there were very upset and very concerned that a commitment that was made by two successive governments, by the Liberal government and the NDP government -- because the Minister of Transportation, Ed Philip, assured us in this House, assured me, and then I asked as well the new Minister of Transportation, Gilles Pouliot, whether he still was committed to the completion.

I asked him at a committee hearing, and he said, "Yes, we're still committed." All of a sudden, he changed his mind, and no longer were they going to continue with this. So I have been pushing for the completion of this project for quite some time, and so have my Liberal colleagues in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

In addition to the fact that I wanted to get the NDP government to get moving again on this project, obviously we've had a very important event happen on Monday, which I think adds tremendous opportunity to my motion and to this debate today. Obviously, we have had a significant change in the federal government, and I think a significant change for the better, because the federal Conservatives did not want to contribute anything towards infrastructure and job creation projects across the province, and the 416 was one of them.

We know that the Toronto people were calling for a federal contribution towards the trade centre here, and we know that other areas were asking for a contribution from the federal government. The Tories did not come through with any kind of substantive promise, and we know what happened to them.

Yes, they were concerned about the deficit and they were concerned about spending money, but at the same time they realized there was a connection between spending on infrastructure, roads and schools and things that will last, and just giving increases to transfer agencies, to civil servants and other expenditures that don't leave a lasting impact. At least with infrastructure projects, we have something there that generations of people will be able to benefit from.

With the election of the federal Liberal government and Mr Chrétien's promise of federal support towards just these types of projects I think we have a fantastic opening for the province to come back on stream and to say, "Since the federal government is willing to contribute" -- at least he has promised -- "we want to see that now, and we are ready to come back on track as well."

That's what my motion is all about. As soon as the new federal Transportation minister is named, I will send him a letter by fax, saying first of all: "Congratulations. I think it's great that we finally again have a Liberal Transportation minister." The second part of my letter is going to be, "How about a federal contribution towards the completion of 416?"

You can be assured that I will be pushing very hard with my Liberal colleagues in the Ottawa-Carleton area, both provincially and federally, because I know they're all on side. I know they're all committed to this project, so I will be pushing with them very hard and very quickly and right there. Frankly, that's the important part, and that's where I've been missing the Tories.

As I said in my motion, we've heard very little from the eastern members of the PC caucus about the 416, even though I was at a meeting, I think it was in May or April, in Kemptville, where the business community of that area was calling on its representatives. That area, Kemptville, is just to the south of my riding; it's no longer a part of the Ottawa-Carleton region. However, because the 416 will connect the Ottawa-Carleton region, through Kemptville, through eastern Ontario, with the 401, that project is of great importance for the business community and the economic future of that part that's represented by Mr Runciman and Mr Villeneuve and Mr Sterling as well.

We've heard very little from them, even though they were asked at that meeting to keep hammering away at this. I understand that. If you want a project, you have to persevere. You can't just say, "Too bad; I'll give up."

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Just stick with it.

Mr Daigeler: My motion today is a clear indication that I don't give up. Like the member says, you have to stick with it. You're quite right; you have to keep at it, because this isn't just a pet project for myself. This is not just something that is of interest to me personally or of political importance or significance. There are jobs at stake. And it costs quite a bit of money, I agree. It's over $200 million now for the remaining

section of the 416 and it is an expenditure that's significant.

But, as I say, with that expenditure, there are a lot of construction workers in eastern Ontario and across the province who are looking for a job and who are looking for precisely the types of jobs that road construction brings.

I have only 21 seconds left right now. I think one of the worst things in the federal campaign was when the federal Tories were downplaying the significance of road workers and of people who are building and masons and people like that. I thought that was outrageous. So this kind of project I am very much in favour of. Not everybody can be a high-technology worker, and this is a project that will support labour across the province.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise today to address the private member's motion of the member for Nepean. I must tell you first of all that certainly I and my colleagues in the Tory caucus have been pushing very hard for Highway 416.

It's very interesting to notice that the member for Nepean is playing politics. I don't know if the word "demagogue" is a good word or not, but it says, "Do as I say and don't do as I do," and that's exactly what we've got.

I'll just set the record straight this morning for you, Madam Speaker, because the member for Nepean has very conveniently forgotten a whole number of things.

Mr Daigeler: That's right, $60 million.

Mr Villeneuve: Well, I'm sorry, your facts are wrong, because this highway will cost $400 million to complete. So that's $133 million Mr Jordan committed, and we fully expect that if they're not demagogues, they'll come through with it. That was a promise that was made before a number of people in Kemptville in the middle of the summer. I want the member for Nepean to remember that.

I have had occasion to visit a number of the service roads that are being built right now, and the service roads are creating problems for the local municipalities because the government of Ontario will set them in place and then turn them back to the municipality for them to maintain. So that's a problem and I have been dealing with the Ministry of Transportation, trying to address these problems that municipalities, particularly Edwardsburgh, will have with that kind of return to them of service roads that are now being built.

I've been onsite and they're building the bridge over the Nation River and things are progressing reasonably well, in view of the fact that we had a Liberal government from 1985 to 1990 and now a socialist government.

But prior to 1985, I must tell you what happened. There was a government in place known as the Progressive Conservatives, and they acquired 98% of the right of way by about 1982. I was involved as an appraiser working for the individual land owner to attempt to make a decent deal with the government. By the early 1980s, completion of land acquisition, 98% of the land was acquired. Funny that the member for Nepean didn't mention that. In 1985, lo and behold, the government changed. The consulting was done by early 1982; the acquisition was complete by that time. In 1985, we have a Liberal government.

No announcements on 416 immediately, construction or completion or even a schedule. We pushed and we pushed.

You may recall that we had big tax increases in those days, double inflation and one year I remember triple inflation. Nothing was being announced. Environmental hearings continued in 1986 and 1987. In 1987, the Queensway link was finally approved for construction to begin in 1991 and completion in 1996. First inkling that the Liberal government of the day even knew that something was going on.

On February 15, 1989, the Liberal Transportation minister of the time refused to provide a

schedule for commencement and completion of the construction when I asked him in this Legislature. Andy Brandt, the interim leader of the Tories, asked the same question, February 1989, and it's reported in the Citizen. The member for Nepean never even said boo. He didn't exist at that time.

But would you believe that in March 1989, all of the Liberal members from eastern Ontario were called to the Coach House restaurant in Kemptville? Mr Fulton, the then minister, showed up. Lots of fanfare; lots of cameras. "We're going to finish it by 1999." The only thing he omitted was to put funding in place. It never happened. A big announcement, lots of media, lots of hype; no money. Yet the same government that had no hesitation in doubling and tripling the taxes in relation to inflation. Those are the facts.

In 1989, Ed Fulton in June reconfirmed, "We're going to have a highway from 401 to Ottawa, 1999." Fulton also announced the Queensway portion would be finished by 1995, a year ahead of schedule, and that construction on the remainder would begin in 1992. However, ministry documents from 1987 show that completion of the Queensway

section was expected in 1995 and that the Liberal announcement would maybe speed it up by a couple of months. But we got some media hype. We got the Liberal members from eastern Ontario with their mugs in the paper saying great things. Interesting.

The NDP government continued its tax-and-spend, and I have to have some sympathy for the Minister of Transportation. I have spoken with him on numerous occasions --

Mr Daigeler: Are you in favour of the completion?

Mr Villeneuve: Ever since I was elected, I've been pushing for the completion of 416. For this member to have had the audacity of attempting to belittle the work done by eastern Ontario MPPs I say is an absolute fallacy. It's hard to remain in a mode that is parliamentary, because I think this is why we the elected people are sometimes frowned upon very, very consistently by the public. They are very cynical about us for exactly the type of motion that is coming in this morning.

The Minister of Transportation has told me that through Jobs Ontario, funding is expected to be in place to complete the northern portion of 416 by 1996 and that it is indeed on track. We can get up every day in the Legislature and question and, as we did when the Liberals were here, get no responses. The work is being done behind the scenes.

We had three young ladies very tragically killed early this year. My letter went to the Minister of Transportation: "More bad news on Highway 16. Please remember your commitment." He replied several months later, and I appreciate that. It doesn't have to happen in the hustle and bustle of the Legislature.

I have provided to the road construction groups of Ontario the information on privatization of roads. They are looking into it right now, along with the construction industry of eastern Ontario. Has the member for Nepean done that? I don't know. He wants to get up in the Legislature and make noise so that he can make a little bit of headline.

I have two more of my colleagues who want to participate. I will support this motion, but this motion is why MPPs are considered to be very, very cynical people.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's a pleasure to be able to rise today to speak against the resolution of the member for Nepean.

One of the things I have to speak against, as the member has already said, is the way you're playing politics with this. Let me come to the defence of the eastern members, whether they be from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. They have worked very hard for their region. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, Mr Johnson, who first raised the issue of the ferry expenses in his riding. Also, the member for Kingston and The Islands, Mr Gary Wilson, has been very vocal on that issue and many issues that do face eastern Ontario.

As you know, the ministry's original announcement for Highway 416 was made by the former Liberal Transportation Minister, Mr Fulton, that phase 1 would be completed by 1995 and phase 2 hopefully by 1999, but the completion of phase 1 was delayed due to some engineering complications. Then in December, the ministry announced that phase 2 was being delayed because of limited funding.

The development of Highway 416 is hopefully to allow travellers to reach their destinations and for businesses to be able to deliver their goods and products in a more efficient and effective way. It's also expected to stimulate some economic growth in the region and provide a high-quality access route to the nation's capital.

But phase 1 and phase 2 are distinctly different projects. Phase 1 is a high-priority project and it's designed for freeway standards. This is going to increase highway service and it is significantly going to reduce congestion on the road. Phase 2 of Highway 416 will continue the freeway into more rural areas south of Ottawa, and it's going to provide safe and high-speed construction. While preparation work continues for phase 2, from Highway 401 to Century Road, the completion date of 1999 is not as high a priority on our list as the completion date of phase 1.

As the member for Nepean was saying, with the new Liberal government in Ottawa they may be able to get some funding. In fact, the Financial Post of October 28 says:

"The new Liberal government could pave the way for speeding completion of Highway 416 to link Ottawa with Highway 401 between Toronto and Montreal, an Ottawa MP said....John Manley, formerly the Liberal transportation critic and a leading candidate for Transport Minister" -- maybe -- "said that, 'There's the potential for federal money to go to that project.'"

Is that like when Jean Chrétien during the election campaign was saying, "We're going to nix the airport deal," and then all of a sudden it's, "We're going to review the airport deal"? Is that where the flip-flop comes in? I think that's part of it also.

I think there are also a number of other things we have to look at when it comes to funding of highways. There are alternative ways of funding the phase 2 project. In other areas of the province -- Highway 407, for example -- innovative funding has included the use of private sector consortia and also tolls to pay for the new highway services. That is going to work quite well in the province of Ontario. I think in the Ottawa area we have to look at some of the different ways that we can fund highway construction.

One of the other things that I think we have to look at is the rationale around construction of Highway 416. The number one priority has to be phase 1, and that is where the government is going. The government has already spent a lot of money around the Ottawa area for construction of roads, for construction of overpasses --

Mr Daigeler: Any more than anywhere else?

Mr Fletcher: We have spent a lot of money in your area.

Mr Daigeler: Any more than anywhere else?

Mr Fletcher: Well, you don't just spend in one area and not in another area. There's a whole province that this government has to look at. Everyone is getting their fair share in this province. In fact, I think if you check the Ministry of Transportation's funding, we're looking at spending billions of dollars on infrastructure upgrading, but phase 2 at a cost of about $225 million for a 60-kilometre

section does not carry the same rationale as we can see around other parts of the province. In fact, if you go to northern Ontario and the four-laning of Highway 17, I'm positive the Liberals said they were going to do that also, and that hasn't been completed either.

It's unfortunate that the politics of the day have to be played in this Legislature. I do believe the member is strictly playing politics with this issue. It's a local issue that will bring the kudos out and get him ready for the next election. But don't take all the credit for what's going on because, as I said earlier, there are many members from eastern Ontario who have fought long and hard, and probably much harder, to try and make sure that eastern Ontario is not neglected by this government.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise today to participate in the debate on the motion of my colleague the member for Nepean. The construction of Highway 416, providing a four-lane highway link between Highway 401 and the national capital, is a long-standing, long-awaited priority for my community of Ottawa-Carleton and many, many other communities in eastern Ontario.

As every member in this House is aware, the building of such a major highway is a massive undertaking requiring many years of planning, the acquisition of property, environmental assessments and zoning changes. But a project of this nature also requires political will, political will to push it through all of the required processes and hoops and to provide adequate funding for each stage of construction.

The presenter, the speaker for the government this morning, has not given me any assurance that there will be any political will, any political hoops to be jumped, on phase 2 of Highway 416. I'm sure the people of Ottawa-Carleton are going to be quite disappointed, disturbed, angered by the comments.

A serious commitment to this project was made by the previous administration of this province, and many references have been made to that this morning. Realistic time lines were established, funding was allocated, plans were drawn, environmental assessments proceeded and negotiations were undertaken to fulfil land acquisition and zoning requirements.

In fact, in 1990 a formal commitment was made to complete phase 1 of the Highway 416 project to Century Road by 1995, and of phase 2, Century Road to 401, by 1999. This commitment that the highway would be completed on time and on

schedule was reiterated in this House by the first NDP Minister of Transportation in November 1990, very early in this government's mandate: on time, on schedule. But since then the progress has been slow, and plans, especially plans for work beyond Century Road, are becoming foggier and foggier and, after this morning's debate, I think mired in mud.

In my speech in response to this government's 1993-94 budget, I urged the Transportation minister to live up to his predecessor's commitment. I said then, and I repeat now, that for the NDP, some promises at least must be kept; some promises must be kept for eastern Ontario.

The construction of this highway is, and has been for almost three decades, of vital economic concern to the region of Ottawa-Carleton, and indeed to all of eastern Ontario. The Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade said in a recent newsletter, "The completion of Highway 416 is so important to doing business in this region that the board of directors is now urging the provincial government to investigate using a toll system to help pay construction costs."

Yet even with this initiative, even with this commitment, this promise, this undertaking on behalf of Ottawa's business community, any reference to Highway 416 in any NDP announcement, in any NDP government budget plan or in any NDP government priority list is difficult -- is impossible -- to find. The commitment just is not there.

The Premier, when talking to the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen earlier this year, said the completion of the link with the 40l depends on whether Ottawa-Carleton can get the private sector involved in the construction. Yet the Premier said in this House, in answer to a question from my leader, Lyn McLeod, on Tuesday last: "We are ready. We are moving." Those words this week in this House, and we hear comments very different this morning from government members.

Ottawa-Carleton, in spite of what the Premier said this week, will have to put up its own bucks, will have to use its own imagination, will have to use its own resources and will have to gather its own collateral. I remind members that the pockets of eastern Ontario have helped to pave the roads of many other parts of this province.

It's time the infrastructure of eastern Ontario is on the front burner, is on the government's top priority list. Time lines change, change, and change again. No one really knows what the expected completion date is any more. As we enter 1994, there are very few who believe 1999, or indeed the year 2005, is a promise that will be realized.

In closing, I remind the House that the accelerated construction of this highway is an important safety issue. Lives continue to be lost. Highway 16, as it now exists, is a dangerous road.

Economic issues, safety issues, job creation: Highway 416 is a must. Eastern Ontario deserves to go -- must go -- into the 21st century with a highway from the nation's capital to Ontario's major transportation artery. Eastern Ontario demands this lifeline. Eastern Ontario deserves this lifeline. Let's go.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I think this resolution is unfortunate because we are dealing with a matter that is serious to the people of eastern Ontario and it's being dealt with in a silly manner. The doctor of divinity, Mr Daigeler, at least is honest in bringing forward a holier-than-thou attitude to this issue. This is a serious matter in eastern Ontario -- there are people dying on the highway -- and Mr Daigeler insists on bringing this in a very partisan way.

Last April, the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Runciman, Mr Villeneuve, myself and Mr Daigeler agreed to appoint two people each to a task force to work and bring forward important points to the ministry. I thought at that time we would work together, and I understand that task force is working to bring forward the various arguments, marshal those arguments together, to convince this government to keep this project on track.

Mr Daigeler breaks the pact today, and I don't know what to do to advise my people, who consider this matter a serious matter for the people of eastern Ontario. Now Mr Daigeler makes light of it by bringing forward a very partisan kind of resolution to this House.

I look at this resolution with disgust, because I have never in my 16 years in this House seen a member bring forward such a partisan issue to a very, very serious matter for the people of eastern Ontario. I say that and I'm angry, because I think this is a disgusting way for a member of this Legislature to act in here. I'm sorry, I'm getting a little bit --

The Acting Speaker: I would caution the member not to be provocative, please.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: The fact is that during a number of elections, politicians have played with this issue over and over again. David Peterson made promises in 1985 vis-à-vis the Queensway which he did not keep.

I can read articles and letters from Ed Fulton, the former Minister of Transportation wherein he said, for instance, in a letter which I received a copy of in 1989: "Please be aware that the financial commitments for Highways 417 and 416 command a significant portion of the ministry's overall budget. To commit additional funds for the widening of Highway 16 at this time would require a deferral of necessary rehabilitative work on existing highway systems."

All the politicians in the Ottawa area have been guilty of promising and promising that this is going to take place at an earlier date. The fact is that during the late 1980s, through the mismanagement of the Liberal government, moneys were spent wastefully on a number of things across this province. That is the reason the NDP government does not have the money at this time to put into the infrastructure, to build 416, which they should have put money aside for at the time when the economy was good and the revenues of this province were good.

I have been involved in this issue for some 13 years. I was involved in the cabinet of Ontario when the decision was made to go down the Cedarview corridor because municipal politicians at that time couldn't decide which way to go. I pushed in order to get a route into Ottawa and we did it, and that was probably harder than getting the funding, quite frankly.

I am sick and tired of politicians playing this issue over and over again, making silly promises which they do not keep. I think the member for Nepean has done a great disservice to the people of eastern Ontario in bringing forward this issue of 416 in a silly and partisan manner, and I think the people of eastern Ontario should view this resolution with disgust.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to thank the member for Nepean for the opportunity to speak to this, because obviously highway construction is an issue probably for each and every member here. The reality is that the provincial budget isn't large enough to fulfil the wish list of each and every member, so I think he probably understands that highway construction, for us as well as our constituents, is filled with a range of concerns; one could even say emotion, if we are talking about running down the main street of a small village that happens to have a range of historic sites.

I think we have to take into account that a range of constituent concerns probably exist. Some of them may have been answered and some may be left unanswered and unsatisfied.

This project, as the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has outlined, has been around for a long time. In fact, he has taken away a couple of my points, which I will just quickly allude to.

An awful lot of preparatory work has already been undertaken over a considerable number of years, which includes a range of OMB hearings to deal with the acquisition of property. The reality is that each and every member here must understand that a lot of time and money have gone into this project already, and there's probably still a lot more work that needs to be done.

One of the issues that has not been raised so far is that the current

section of the highway, the northern portion of 416, when being undertaken, the soil surveys concluded that there were certain pockets of clay which would present some problems for the engineers, but those deposits of clay were much larger and presented much more serious problems and as a result have presented cost factors as well as time factors. I think the member for Nepean must understand that you just don't move ahead without having resolved some of these problems.

I wanted to allude to the fact that you want to make sure, in any highway construction, that the project is done correctly. The member for St Catharines has just arrived, and we've talked about the whole issue of the widening of the Queen Elizabeth Way. We represent the urban area of St Catharines through which the QEW will run, and I know both of us have expressed concern about the neighbourhoods that would be affected and a range of agricultural land-use issues around the area. There are a lot of citizens' concerns out there and they have to be met by the engineers who are with the Ministry of Transportation, and none of this is either cheap or fast.

Personally, as a member representing an area which is looking at a major expansion, I appreciate the fact that time and care is being taken. Like every other member, it's always nice to see that dollars are being spent in your area but I think they should be spent wisely.

Mr Daigeler: Obviously, I got the goat of the Tory members, and perhaps that's good. The member for Carleton and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry also were criticizing me for phrasing this in a partisan manner. Well, what I've done is simply put forward what the Grenville County Business News was asking of the members who are criticizing me, was asking of them in the March 1993 edition after the meeting we had in Kemptville, and I was there as well. Here's what they said. It's not me who's making these silly points about the Tories; it's their own journalists.

And I understand Mr John Morris, who is the publisher of the Grenville County Business News and several other community newspapers, is a good Tory. I think it's their own people, their own supporters, who are putting those views forward.

Here's what Mr John Morris, in an editorial, writes. He says: "Our area politicians" -- and he's referring to the southern

section of eastern Ontario -- "will have to do more as well, especially those representing us at Queen's Park. Bob Runciman, Norm Sterling and Noble Villeneuve should keep asking questions about the future of the highway every day in the Ontario Legislature. Let's keep the heat turned up. If we don't, Premier Rae will continue to give eastern Ontario the cold shoulder." I wonder what upsets the member for Carleton so much. It's his own Tory friends who are saying, "Mr Sterling, we would like to hear more from you on this matter."

My point here, really, is not to criticize the Tories. They obviously are taking offence at being told they should get on board again and be active and be seen on this matter. My point -- and this is where I do hope the Tories and the NDP as well will support me -- is that here we have a project that is of great importance to eastern Ontario, here we have a project that will create jobs, that will provide the infrastructure we need to get the business community working again, so let's get on board again, especially with the opportunity we now have of Mr Chrétien saying the federal government is going to put its money where its mouth is.

Yes, Mr Villeneuve, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, did refer to the fact that Jim Jordan, the re-elected federal member for his area, a Liberal member, did make a commitment in Kemptville, and I should tell him he made that same commitment again this week after his re-election. In fact he was on television yesterday with myself, where he said, "The federal government will come through with $60 million."

Mr Jordan is pushing for it. He's committed to it. I said and I will continue to say, "I will keep you to your word," and I do hope I will have the support of Mr Villeneuve and everybody else in this House to push my own Liberal colleagues at the federal level to come through with their contribution.

By all means, let's work together on this. I will be pushing very hard and I will be very, very mad and upset if my Liberal colleagues at the federal level do not come through with their commitment, but I think they will, if we in Ontario, because this is a provincial road, say, "Yes, this is a priority for us."

Here we have a major commitment that will be coming from the federal government, so let's get back on track in the province. This changes the situation. If the province said before, "Well, we don't have the money," here's an opening, here's a tremendous opportunity.

I couldn't understand what Mr Fletcher was saying a little bit earlier when he said, "No, we can't afford this." He's speaking against his own Premier. Here is today's newspaper. The Premier himself is quoted in the newspaper here. Here's what he's saying.

"Ontario plans to push the incoming federal government to start spending money quickly on a variety of road, sewer and transit projects under the Liberals' promised job creation program, Premier Bob Rae said yesterday." This is today's paper.

If your own Premier has said -- and good for him, I say, good for him. Be right there, be on the ball, go after the federal government. You can't just sit back. You can't just do what the Tories are doing, being quiet about this. This is an important project.

I understand there's a lot of money involved. You have to do lobbying. You can't just sit back and hope and pray. As the member for Carleton said, I am a theologian and I do pray, but there's more to it that's required. We do have to speak up, we have to be on the record and the provincial government has to be up front and say: "Yes, we are ready with this project. We are ready to go again with it and we are going to meet with the Minister of Transport at the federal level right away to work things out."

Again, to his credit, this is what the Premier said yesterday. This is a quote from the Premier: "I've asked everyone within the public service to go through the red book to see what we can do together," and "We'll start calling them up as soon as they're sworn in and saying, 'We're ready to do these things. Where are you?'"

I say, good for the Premier. That's precisely what I want him to do, and that's what I want especially the members from eastern Ontario in this House to do, on all sides of the House, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Liberals. I can tell you, I certainly will be there. I will be calling, and I sure hope Mr Wilson -- I guess he may be speaking a little bit later -- will be there as well and calling, because the people of eastern Ontario want some action.

They have been let down by the Tories, they have been let down by the NDP, and that's why we've seen the dramatic election result the way we've seen it on Monday night. I think that may be one of the other reasons why the Tories are so upset and why they're so sensitive about this matter, especially the member from Carleton saying that this motion is partisan when he puts forward the most partisan motions I've ever seen. The way he's been talking about the Liberal concern about the Quebec-Ontario construction exchange question, it was totally misleading.

But anyway, I just want to say that I am interested in getting the 416 back on track, and that's what this motion is all about, to make sure that we have in eastern Ontario the infrastructure that supports the business community and the economic vitality and structure of our area.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member. The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd like the member for Nepean to apologize to me for calling my remarks totally misleading.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Nepean wish to apologize?

Mr Daigeler: Well, Madam Speaker, it depends whether you find what I said offensive or not.

Mr Villeneuve: It's unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: The word "misleading" is unparliamentary.

Mr Daigeler: If you find the word "misleading" to be offensive, I'll withdraw it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a very brief period of time to comment in respect to this resolution. I want to say I'm not angered by the resolution but I am saddened by it because, as the member for Carleton mentioned earlier, four of us met in Kemptville some time ago, the Liberal Party representatives, Conservative representatives and a federal Liberal member, and there was an effort to work together with members of the community, concerned municipal politicians and so on, in respect to achieving what we all felt was a goal that needed to be achieved, a four-lane highway linking the nation's capital and Highway 401.

We can get into all sorts of arguments relating to other priorities in the province, but this is a link to the nation's capital. So I'm saddened by the wording of this resolution and the fact that the member has chosen to give the real concerns of residents in that area a back seat in respect to really accomplishing what we felt was a united goal in terms of four-laning all of the 416 highway.

I hope the area residents will recognize what the real goal of this resolution is: It's political gain. In my view, I have not seen a resolution or legislation from a private member worded in such a way, attacking individual members. It demeans the issue, and perhaps even more importantly, it demeans the Parliament.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'm pleased to join in this discussion of the resolution by the member for Nepean. He's trying to tell us that it's not put forward in a partisan frame of mind, and I'm willing to accept that, to some extent at least, partly in this new era where I hope we can look for more cooperation from the federal government and indeed all levels of government.

However, I'm a bit disturbed that he would include an item that's centred in my riding and my colleague's riding to the west, because this belies his non-partisan approach. Although he qualifies his remark here about our decision to charge "significant fees," I'm not sure then what kind of fee he would think -- I'd suggest that there should be a fee there of some kind and I think that reflects the reality of today's fiscal climate, that in all kinds of transportation issues it's expected that the users of the service will share in the support of them, of course to guarantee them.

The member also referred to the problems the Tories led to, the lack of commitment on promises, and then went to our government, seemingly forgetting the Liberal government. If he were non-partisan, he would include all governments in that way and say we'll all try to do better. I think it's fair to say that we have to do better.

I'm not about to say that all governments have done everything they can for eastern Ontario, but I don't want to say either that eastern Ontario is the only region in the province that deserves attention. We're all in this together, and I think it's only fair to say that what works well for eastern Ontario will work well for the other areas of the province, just as what works well there will benefit us. It's not to disadvantage any one region that we spend money in our areas.

But as far as standing up for our constituents, I want to say that through the work of Paul Johnson and me, we've got the minister to appoint an investigator to look at the circumstances of the fee. That's Mr Brooke McNabb, who's recently undertaken his investigation to look into all aspects of the fee, and I think it's seen to be fair by everybody in the area that we'll have a good look at what the details are.

As far as benefiting eastern Ontario or making sure that we fulfil our commitments, I don't think you have to take my word for it. We can look at something as recent as today's paper, as the member himself does, and we find a headline here that reads, "NDP Comes Through for Region with $17 Million." So I'm very pleased that the member raised this resolution to provide me with the opportunity to talk about this very significant development, to show that we are committed as a government to make sure the east prospers along with other areas of the province.

What we're looking at here is a program that will respond to the job creation needs in our area, and they're long-term jobs, high value added jobs, that will mean a secure future for our area. This is in keeping with an earlier announcement about a biosciences centre at Queen's, some $24 million that will be spent there in cooperation with other levels of government, and a technology transfer centre as well, a million and a half dollars.

Yesterday the Minister of Economic Development and Trade was in our area to announce the funding to improve the Norman Rogers Airport so that it can be there to support industry as we need it. It's something that's been long identified by area people as a need and our government has come through with the money to make sure that that improvement takes place.

One of the companies that has called for an improvement of the airport is Du Pont, a very important employer, not only for the Kingston area but for eastern Ontario. As you know, it has a plant at Maitland as well. To make the guarantee that the jobs will stay in our area, our government is coming through with a loans package that allows it to spend many more millions of dollars to guarantee that Kingston will be an important centre for Du Pont in the future.

So I suggest that our government is fulfilling its commitments to eastern Ontario. The members there -- and I say it's not only in our party; the members throughout the area, and the member for Nepean is an example of this -- are making sure that what is due our area is paid. However, I don't like the partisan approach that the member appears to have taken in this resolution. I hope it doesn't suggest that this is the way his federal cousins will approach the issue of combining or cooperating with other levels of government.

I just want to turn to, in closing, the remarks of Reeve Barry Gordon, the chair of the Kingston Area Economic Development Commission, another body that is interested in the region. He says about the announcement yesterday, "KAEDC is working hard on behalf of the local municipalities on these and other projects and we appreciate the support of the Ontario government." You see, it's something that we've got to work on in the area to make sure that money is generated in our area so that we can afford projects like Highway 416.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.

Mr Daigeler: Several of the speakers from the other parties said that I am too partisan in my motion. Frankly, I am partisan about this, I make no bones about it, because in order to get the 416 back on track you have to be partisan. You can't just sit back on your hands and say, okay, the transportation minister, either at the federal level or at the provincial level, they're going to be good guys or good girls -- it may be a woman transportation minister. You have to be up front.

You have to be right there when the decisions are made and if we are not at this level pushing the provincial government right now to go after the federal government for its contribution and to put these projects back on track, other areas are going to be smarter and they're going to be the ones that are going to get the approvals and they're going to be the ones to get the infrastructure improvements, and what are we going to do? It's going to be too late then to complain.

Now is the time, and that's why I put this motion forward and that's why I'm partisan about it. We have to keep this matter constantly in front of us. Again I quote the community newspapers of eastern Ontario. I quote the Grenville County Business News, which had the headline, "Constant Lobby Needed for 416 Construction."

This is how politics works. You have to make sure that people know about your concern. Don't just sit back and be satisfied if it doesn't come for you the first time around. Keep at it. If it is a project that's important enough, that's worthy of support, you have to speak up, you have to promote it. That's what this motion is all about, and I do hope the members will support it.

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

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA CITÉ DE NORTH YORK (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will deal first with ballot item 31 standing in the name of Mr Mammoliti. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Mammoliti has moved second reading of Bill 95,

An Act to provide for the passing of vital services by-laws by the City of North York. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

This bill is ordered to committee of the whole House.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'd prefer it to go into the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a majority in favour of its going to general government? Agreed.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will now deal with the second ballot item, number 32, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Daigeler. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.

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

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROGRAMMES DE TRAITEMENT DU CANCER

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : La mauvaise gestion du gouvernement néo-démocrate a entraîné en Ontario ce que certains n'hésitent pas à appeler une crise des programmes de traitement du cancer.

Il y a une pénurie de spécialistes tels les oncologues et les radio-oncologues. Certains des appareils de traitement du cancer ne peuvent fonctionner faute de spécialistes. Ceci explique en grande

partie les listes d'attente inacceptablement longues.

Beaucoup de patients ne reçoivent pas les traitements de radiothérapie à temps. On doit, dans certains cas, recourir à des chirurgies seulement pour limiter les dégâts. Certains patients doivent quitter leur ville pour plusieurs semaines ou même quitter le pays pour recevoir un traitement à temps. Tout le monde s'entend pour dire que les besoins augmentent et que, si rien n'est fait, le problème va prendre des proportions énormes.

C'est pourquoi le groupe parlementaire libéral a mis sur pied un groupe de travail dont le mandat est d'abord d'étudier les problèmes empêchant l'Ontario de traiter les victimes de cancer et, ensuite, de recommander des solutions. Plusieurs questions importantes ont été soulevées à propos de l'accessibilité des programmes de traitement du cancer en Ontario.

Ce groupe de travail discutera avec des patients atteints du cancer et des professionnels de la santé. Il entendra les commentaires des spécialistes de la santé en ce qui a trait aux répercussions des politiques néo-démocrates sur les programmes de traitement du cancer en Ontario et recommandera des solutions à ces problèmes.

À compter de demain, le groupe de travail se rendra dans les villes suivantes : Toronto, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, London, Sudbury et Hamilton.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Last week, another sawmill in northern Ontario shut down, throwing nearly 100 people out of work. This time it's the Goulard mill near Sturgeon Falls, a family-owned business that has operated successfully for generations.

Ironically, and the real tragedy for all those hard-working men and women who no longer have a job, there's no shortage of business. In fact, business is booming.

The problem is that because of native land disputes and because of MNR's refusal to grant cutting permits, our mills can't get enough wood to fill all the orders. Meanwhile, MNR's own research shows that Ontario forests can sustain a 50% increase in the annual harvest. This is NDP mismanagement of the worst order, and it's a disgrace. NDP policies are killing business, they're costing us jobs and they're destroying our economic base.

To save these jobs, I urge the NDP to start listening to my leader, Mike Harris, who represents that area. Listen to Sturgeon Falls' mayor, Mike DeCaen, and to Springer township's reeve, J.P. Charles who, along with Mike Harris, are leading the fight to save jobs at Goulard's and other mills. Lift the native land cautions, issue the cutting permits, let them fill their orders and let our people work.

PUBLIC LIBRARIANS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Many in this House know that before my election, I was a public librarian. I would at this time like to welcome my professional colleagues, who are members of the Ontario Library Association, to the Niagara Peninsula as they begin their annual conference.

This is a somewhat unusual conference in that it is a joint conference with the New York Library Association. For those of us who live on the border, we find ourselves sharing many activities and interests with our American neighbours. In the library world, it has long been a basic tenet that sharing has to be the order of the day. No library, not even the US Library of Congress, can own everything.

There are those who would like to call librarians information scientists. Personally, I do not rank myself among those. That is not to discount the value of the new information technologies which have aided the library world in the dispensing of information quickly and accurately. My librarian colleagues will be discussing issues of technology, but they will also delve into topics that will improve the range of services that are provided to the public. The book is still very much a part of the library world, so it will not surprise anyone to know that there will be detailed discussions with authors and the book-publishing industry.

The first Public Libraries Act was passed during the 1880s, but it is clear to everyone that the libraries have moved into the 1990s. Conferences like this one continue the sharing of resources and information to help to advance the profession.

We in Niagara welcome these important visitors to our area and hope that they will partake of the peninsula's many attractions: the falls, beautiful Victoria Park, but also our Niagara wines and various historic sites.

SARAH MCLAUGHLIN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Members of the Legislature may recall that I raised the case several months ago and on an ongoing basis of a young girl by the name of Sarah McLaughlin and her needs, which are not being met by the Ontario government and by our health care system at this time. She is the daughter of Jerry and Jill McLaughlin, who reside in St Catharines, and the girl requires physiotherapy once a week, occupational therapy twice a month, audiology review every three months, in-home resource teaching at W. Ross Macdonald twice a month, in-home resource teaching with E.C.

Drury once a month, medical appointments with a paediatrician, neurologist or general practitioner once a week, low-vision clinic twice a year, as well as other unexpected appointments due to illness or increased seizure activity, such as emergency hospitalization.

As a result of Sarah's combined loss of vision and hearing, she requires constant one-to-one intervention. Sarah cannot obtain routine information from her environment by watching, listening or touching. In other words, Sarah has multiple disabilities which require a good deal of service on the part of those who have that expertise. At the present time they are kept to only nine hours per week.

What Sarah McLaughlin is asking for, through her parents, Jill and Jerry McLaughlin, is that the Ontario government respond positively to their appeal to provide more service to a youngster who requires the greatest of medical care.

LIVE THEATRE

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise today to recognize the contribution of live theatre to Toronto's economy. In recent weeks there have been media reports about the outstanding success of live theatre in Toronto. Canadian residents, Ontario residents, as well as American visitors, are flocking to Toronto like never before to see productions like Phantom of the Opera, Miss Saigon and Show Boat, as well as countless other successful plays.

Despite the numerous policies of the provincial government which discourage tourism and economic growth -- like the cancellation of the retail sales tax rebate on goods and accommodation and high food, high gas and high liquor taxes -- live theatre is thriving.

The impact of the theatre on tourism and the economy is dramatic. Approximately seven million theatre tickets were sold in Toronto in 1992 alone. One half of these ticket sales were to out-of-town visitors, and it is estimated that the Phantom of the Opera alone generates approximately $200 million a year in spinoffs for the Metro Toronto economy.

The success of theatre in Toronto is an example of private enterprise boosting tourism and the local economy. Just imagine the potential for even greater economic growth if the provincial government stopped strangling the tourism sector with high taxes and excessive regulation.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): As we all know, residents of the Lincoln riding, myself included, have been fighting the Ontario Waste Management Corp's proposal to build a $250-million hazardous waste incinerator near Smithville. We have all consistently argued that there are alternatives to burning Ontario's toxic waste at one central facility, options such as onsite treatment and 3Rs waste reduction.

Well, guess what? A highly respected private waste management company agrees with what we've been saying. Laidlaw Inc has abandoned its bid to build a $50-million hazardous waste incinerator near Sarnia. Why? Because company officials believe the province doesn't need any more hazardous waste incinerators. They believe Ontario can be served either with other environmental technology or by existing kilns in the United States. The other technologies are designed to treat hazardous wastes onsite rather than requiring them to be transported to a central facility.

Four years of environmental assessment hearings into OWMC's toxic proposal wrapped up last month and a decision is expected some time next spring. But even if the proposal passes assessment, it still must be approved by the cabinet. While I am not trying to prejudice the outcome of the hearings, I would urge members of cabinet to take a long, hard look at this proposal if it indeed passes assessment, and I would ask them to weigh the alternatives carefully. I would hope they come to the same conclusion that I and the people of Lincoln have: that OWMC's toxic monster should not be built in Smithville or anywhere else in the province of Ontario.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm disappointed and I'm dismayed that members of the government today underlined the fact that there is no commitment on the part of this NDP government to complete Highway 416 to Highway 401. In fact, the government is now stating that the project is "too expensive," it's "not on any priority list" and that it's "a local issue." These statements by the government members are unbelievable. They are very unacceptable.

As I said in my statement this morning, a project of this nature requires political will, the political will to push it through its processes, to push it through its hoops and to provide adequate funding at each stage of the construction. I did not hear one hint, I did not hear one whisper of positive political will by members of the government this morning in this chamber.

Economic issues, safety issues, job creation: Highway 416 must be completed to Highway 401. It's a must. Eastern Ontario deserves to go, must go, into the 21st century with a highway from the nation's capital to the main artery of transportation in Ontario. Eastern Ontario demands this lifeline.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): A litany of lies and deceit was started two years ago with the introduction of Bill 143 in October 1991. Never before has there been such a deception on the part of a government. Bill 143, evil manifesto that it is of NDP rhetoric and ill remarks, this insidious bill, has ruined lives, destroyed communities and struck dead our belief in the parliamentary system. This bill has steamrollered over basic human rights and ignored municipal rights.

Bill 143 is as two-faced as the party that designed it. Bob Rae on one hand is promising there'll be no more dumps while at the same time sealing the fate of host communities in the GTA. He continues to spit contempt on these communities by refusing their pleas for a review of all the alternatives. A ruthless, spineless minister has never listened to the majority of people in Kirkland Lake.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cousens: She has orchestrated the demise --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Markham please take his seat. The member for Markham, an experienced member in this House, knows better. I ask him to withdraw those remarks and continue with his statement.

Mr Cousens: I withdraw that part about her being spineless and ruthless, but the minister never did listen. And what about her henchmen and henchwomen, the backbenchers?

Bill 143 has been rammed through this house. There has been no acceptance of amendments from the opposition. It has removed our constitutional rights. It has cost the government $30 million; it has cost our community as much again. Bill 143 has cost all of us dearly.

Today, we do not celebrate a second anniversary, we lament it.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Take your seat, please.

EMILY HOWARD STOWE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): October is Women's History Month in Ontario.

The Woodstock Public Library recently held a lecture on one of Oxford county's most important historical figures, Emily Howard Stowe. Stowe was Canada's first practising female doctor. Born in 1831 near the village of Norwich, she had a keen interest in learning and gained her teaching certificate from the Toronto Normal School. She eventually became the first female principal in Upper Canada.

When her husband became ill, she decided to leave the education system because she could not earn enough to support her husband and three children. She turned her sights on becoming a doctor, but was refused entry to the University of Toronto's medical school because she was a woman. So in 1860, she left Canada to attend medical school in New York, where she also became involved in the women's rights and anti-slavery movements.

When she returned to Canada in 1867, she again faced discrimination. As a woman, she couldn't practise medicine because she wasn't allowed to take the proper courses. With help, she lobbied the medical society until she and other women were allowed to take the courses.

She set up a successful practice in Toronto catering to female patients shortly after returning to Canada, but it wasn't until 1880, 13 years later, that she received her medical licence to practise in Ontario.

She would go on to start the suffragette movement in Canada and spent the rest of her life lobbying for women's rights.

Emily Howard Stowe epitomizes the spirit and courage that women have shown throughout Ontario's history, and I'm proud that we've set aside the month of October to recognize their contributions to this province.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I would invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon an experienced member of the House, a former member who was a former minister of the crown, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr John Eakins, the former member for Victoria-Haliburton.

It is now time for oral questions. The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I was able to identify the honourable member because sitting beside him is, of course, the warden of Victoria county, Ms McCrae, and her husband. It's very nice to have them here as well; good, strong local politicians from that area. John, it's good to see you back.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The honourable member, after some prodding from us, has admitted that there are considerable amounts of welfare fraud going on. I'd like him to tell us today the extent of that and what special steps he's taken to curtail that welfare fraud.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I find it really interesting that the member for Bruce would again ask that question to which he's received an answer, but I'd be very happy to answer him again.

I do want to say that I've had a chance to look in more detail into the report that was given to me yesterday by the leader of his party. I want to say to him and to the House -- and I regret that the Leader of the Opposition isn't here to hear this directly from me -- that I'm appalled at the activities and the actions that were taken by the members opposite with respect to this issue.

That report, which they used to allege serious incidents of fraud, as it turns out is not a report that has any official sanction by any ministry in the federal government, which is something that we have been able to verify this morning and which, upon careful reading, results in verification of about seven cases, seven incidents, of fraud that have been acted upon and are being acted upon. From those seven incidents, the writer of this report, an individual civil servant, draws conclusions which cast aspersions on a particular community and which were added to by the Leader of the Opposition's press release, which I find appalling and abhorrent.

I think that it's incumbent, if we want to deal with issues of fraud, which are serious issues, that we deal with them with the facts in front of us and not by casting aspersions on the Somali community or on any other community, for that matter, by raising allegations which are only allegations and which have no substance in fact.

I'd be very happy to go into great detail in subsequent questions and answers --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- on all of the things that we are doing which show that we are taking the issue of fraud quite seriously. That issue, I think, is an important issue that we need to discuss. But I just want to say to the member opposite, since he's standing today in the stead of his leader, that this is an issue that I hope that she will have the decency to follow up on, with the apology to the community that has been requested of her.

Mr Elston: Let's just revisit what has occurred. It's obvious to me that what has occurred here is that that minister accepted a report offered by the Leader of the Opposition to have him and the Premier look into, to investigate. It is obvious, from what was said this morning at the press conference, that his office leaked it to that dipper John Clarke so that he could do some work.

The allegations which he has just made are totally false. The Leader of the Opposition has given him the work to look into and find out exactly what's going on. What he has done is he has verified that a public servant from the federal government wrote the report, and from there on, the matter remains for him to try to obscure what is happening in his own department.

I again ask the member to tell us exactly what his government has done to curtail the fraud about which we have been speaking. Will he confirm that his government in fact was the one that has prevented local case workers from going to do home visits, which in fact would go a long way to identifying the applicants who are, throughout the province, creating or committing false claims and thereby defrauding our province of thousands of dollars?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me deal with those comments that were made by the member opposite. First of all, let me be very clear that this report was not leaked to anybody by anyone in my ministry that I am aware of. In fact, I've been very clear in not releasing this report. I said that yesterday to the media and I continue to say that. So where people got a copy of the report, I don't know. It wasn't from me or from anybody who works for me and with me.