The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce 50 grade 10 students from Guelph Collegiate Vocational Institute along with their teachers, Mr. Ross Harding and Mr. Arthur Barnes.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House the Adult Day School from Dundas St. West in the city of Toronto, in my riding. They are accompanied by Sister Mary Alexander, Chris Fraser, Gerry Fink and Sonia Ernest. They are 50 adults attending this very important class and I’ve assured them that they will have the pleasure of observing our very well disciplined question period. Would you please welcome them?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 50 students from Lawfield public School in Hamilton, with Mrs. Becker, their teacher, and with my son, who, in the tradition of this House, will no doubt have a seat here someday.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I introduce to the House grade 13 students from Winston Churchill Collegiate in that thriving, beautiful borough of Scarborough. Would you welcome them, please?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. In the Toronto Sun this morning there is a story headlined, “Hunting Lodge Raided.” I noted in the story that I am listed as one of the illustrious members of this particular exclusive private hunting lodge. I would like to draw to your attention and to the attention of the Sun reporter --

Mr. Roy: You say you can’t afford it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- that I am not a member of that lodge. I am not a hunter. I will accept the adjective “illustrious” but the rest is not correct.

Mr. Martel: You have got the right class.

Mr. Speaker: Let the record stand corrected.

Statements by the ministry.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, two of the major problems facing all Canadians today are the energy crisis and the soaring number of deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Our consumption of motor fuels has reached a staggering 3.8 billion gal. annually, while over 1,200 people die in motor vehicle accidents every 12 months. It annually costs an estimated $90 million in direct OHIP charges alone for medical treatment for the injured.

In light of these disturbing figures and in an effort to achieve sizable savings in lives, dollars and fuel, we propose to take two significant steps. Firstly, we propose to amend the regulation of the Highway Traffic Act, reducing the 70-miles-per-hour limit on Ontario’s 662 miles of freeways to 60 miles per hour for automobiles and commercial vehicles. At the same time, 60-miles-per-hour highways considered part of the King’s highway system will be reduced to 50 miles per hour. In addition, any King’s highway now designated as 55 miles per hour will be reduced to 50 for all vehicle traffic. We shall be asking the municipalities to take similar action.

Secondly, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) later this afternoon will introduce an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act to require the mandatory use of seatbelts in all motor vehicles which are equipped with them. Exemptions will be provided for such situations as children under two years of age; persons holding a physician’s certificate stating the reason they are unable to wear a seatbelt, and persons required by the nature of their work to enter and leave their vehicles frequently. Section 147(2) of the Act is to be amended to exempt owners of motor vehicles from liability in respect of the wearing of seatbelts when they are not driving the motor vehicles.

I must add that by definition the term seatbelt is legally taken to include the so-called shoulder harness if it is part of the equipment installed in the vehicle.

The lower speed limits, at least on the freeways and the entire King’s Highway system, will go into effect just as soon as an order in council can be passed and arrangements can be made by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to alter the signs. The new legislation will apply to all drivers using Ontario highways, whether they come from out of the province or out of the country. It will become law, effective Jan. 1, assuming passage by all members of this House, on New Year’s Day, 1976.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this resolution. It only took a year to convince the government of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PCB CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, in Ontario we have been aware of the hazardous propensities --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- of polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as PCBs, since the late 1960s and my ministry has already taken active measures to control and to eliminate eventually this hazardous contaminant from industrial use.

Today I am serving notice to industry operating in Ontario that it should begin its search for alternative, harmless materials to replace PCBs in products. As Minister of the Environment, I can no longer permit this environmental hazard to continue when substitute materials are available. Through the co-operation of national and international agencies concerned with environmental protection, there is no reason why we can’t eliminate the use and importation of PCBs in Ontario as soon as possible.

PCBs are a class of man-made chemicals which are resistant to chemical change, stable under heat, non-flammable, non-corrosive to metals, low in volatility, low in water solubility and high in electrical resistance. Because of these properties, PCBs were used from the mid-1930s until about 1970 in three general types of industrial application:

1. Open-end applications, such as paints, specialty inks, paper coatings end plastics.

2. Nominally closed applications, such as the working fluid in hydraulic or heat transfer systems.

3. Closed electrical systems, as the insulating fluid in certain kinds of transformers and capacitors.

In 1970, through the inspection procedures and influence of my ministry, the use of PCBs in Ontario was limited to closed systems only and their use in open applications and in hydraulic and heat systems was restricted.

In the late 1960s it was discovered that one of the industrial virtues of PCBs, their resistance to chemical change, led to persistence in the environment. Further developments were bio-magnification and accumulation in the food chains of fish and wildlife. Because of these factors, evidence has accumulated which indicates that these compounds are a hazard to certain species of wildlife with real implications of adverse health effects on humans. The Ministry of Health is monitoring international research on health effects to provide Ontario with the most current information on which we can base government action.

We know that past usage has resulted in the existence of PCBs in various levels of trace concentration in the environment and it is likely to be a considerable time before control actions provide measurable improvement. We also know that the potential toxicity of PCBs is well established and that reproductive failure and mortality in herring gulls around Lake Ontario have been attributed to PCBs. It is an insidious product. Consideration of the possible long-term effects is important.

It’s the things we don’t know -- and can only suspect and investigate -- which concern us. Before the cutback in use of PCBs, before the world was aware of a problem, transformers and capacitors, filled with PCBs, and adhesives, upholstery, inks and a host of other products containing trace levels of these chemicals, were used and disposed of in incinerators and landfill sites. We have unconfirmed reports that some PCBs are still entering the environment from these and other sources. On top of all this, there is some concern that PCBs from sources around the world are migrating throughout the global environment via both water and air.

However, I assure the members that my ministry is seeking answers in these unknown areas, and that we have taken these steps in dealing with the known situation:

First of all, we established a task force in 1970 which has reviewed sources of PCBs to determine control measures.

Second, extensive monitoring has been undertaken to determine the occurrence, distribution and concentrations of these substances in the environment.

Third, industrial plants using PCRs have been inspected and control facilities improved to eliminate discharges to the environment.

PCBs are not manufactured in Canada. Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Co., a US firm, is the only North American producer of these chemicals. The company agreed to sell only to electrical transformer and capacitor manufacturers and to large users of this equipment, such as Ontario Hydro, restricting uses of PCBs to enclosed systems with no discharge to the environment. The ministry has inspected and monitored all former and current Monsanto customers to ensure that their control systems are satisfactory. The few deficient systems we found have been cleaned up.

I wish to add that the staff of my ministry are consistently checking all known sources of PCBs to ensure that control measures are effective. All PCB users now return scrap or waste to Monsanto for disposal or ship it to the Chemtrol disposal facility in Lewiston, New York. Ontario Hydro stockpiles equipment at the Kipling Ave. depot for subsequent disposal at the Chemtrol facility. I have asked the staff of my ministry to keep watch on these disposal sites to ensure that equipment is being properly safeguarded in the disposal process.

[2:15]

This is not just a matter of abatement at the provincial level for Ontario sources but a matter of international concern. The International Joint Commission has recommended the development of standards and remedial measures. Recently, the Great Lakes basin commission recommended banning the industrial use of polychlorinated biphenyls. The eight states and 12 federal agencies represented are asking the US Congress to approve this ban and pass a bill to classify PCBs as prohibited hazardous substances.

In Ontario and throughout the world there is a huge capital investment in essential equipment-controlled, closed systems such as transformers and capacitors which employ PCBs. Replacing this equipment with new and larger units, using less hazardous substances, will take time and require the expenditure of large sums. This, however, is not my concern as Minister of the Environment. My concern is that in Ontario and in Canada industry stop using PCBs as soon as possible and that other harmless materials be substituted.

Our investigations into the distribution of PCBs in the environment are continuing. Some 350 samples of sediments, lake waters, water life, sewage treatment plant, power plant and industrial effluents and rain water have been taken for PCB analysis.

We have given first priority in analysis to fish samples taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and an announcement was made recently by the Ministry of Health on the elevated levels found in cohoe salmon taken in the Credit River this year. Approximately 50 per cent of the current samples showed levels of PCBs in excess of the existing US guideline of five parts per million for human consumption. Yesterday the Department of National Health and Welfare announced a temporary guideline of two parts per million for PCBs in fish.

We are working as closely as possible with federal agencies at both technical and ministerial levels on all matters associated with this industrial compound. Environment Canada is going to regulate PCBs under the federal Environmental Contaminants Act. This Act has had its third reading and is now before the standing committee of the Senate. I look forward to early proclamation of that Act as a step toward the elimination of PC’Bs from industrial usage in this country. However, I must emphasize that a necessary complementary step must be further federal action to control the importation of these compounds from any source.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Lewis: A question if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Energy. How does he explain the apparent behaviour, as documented in the press today, of British Petroleum as a major oil company in its clear violation of the limits which he imposed when the price freeze on the sale of gasoline was removed? What does he intend to do about the discrepancies all around Metropolitan Toronto and apparently throughout southern Ontario as a result of BPs behaviour at least?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, my deputy minister is at present trying to contact the vice-president of BP in Ontario, Mr. Mitchell. I understand the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) will be contacting the president of BP Canada Ltd. which, as you know, is 70 per cent owned by the government of England. That’s Mr. Derek Mitchell.

Mr. Lewis: Would you like us to contact Harold for you? We would be pleased to try.

Can I ask the minister how is it that in the pricing of gasoline in Ontario, representatives of oil companies -- I have the price notifications in my hand -- can arbitrarily jack up prices eight and nine cents a gallon when the minister has put a limit on it and then, in a matter of minutes, change the price listings on the form lowering them by two or three cents? What is there that is so capricious and wilful about pricing in the oil industry -- at gasoline pumps and in home heating fuel -- that he will allow these companies to get away with this kind of consumer gouging without passing legislation to restrict it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the government’s position on this is very well known and very clear.

Mr. Martel: We don’t believe you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We indicated to all of the companies the government’s feelings about prices after the expiration of the freeze; namely, 5.4 cents on motor gasoline and 4.8 cents on home heating oil. What has not been determined -- and this is why my deputy is trying to contact the president of the company for Canada -- it is to determine whether the material that you have -- and I have copies of that same material -- results from a directive from the head office of the company. If it is, and they are clearly in violation of the government’s guidelines --

Mr. Lewis: What would you do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- then if they will not roll it back, we will then have to take some action.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question: Would the minister not agree that one can’t blame the company for taking those actions since there is no regulation or law which prohibits it, and that the minister must move -- whatever BP does in response to his inquiries -- by legislation or by empowering the Ontario Energy Board, to have continuing regulation of these prices?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Once again, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- or whatever it is; southwestern Ontario -- is prepared to forget about the fact that we have a royal commission; that the commissioner will complete his work within the next three or four months and that we will have his findings on that.

Mrs. Campbell: So are the oil companies.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are not prepared to move on that question until we have the findings and his recommendations.

Mr. Nixon: You will have to move.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let them gouge until February, is that it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member asks, should we do it because BP may be breaking the spirit of the government’s guidelines?

Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t matter what their response is.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We want to determine, first of all, if this is because of the activities of somebody lower down the totem pole, if you will, in the field, or whether it has come from Montreal. If it has come from Montreal, then we can do something about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: It is probably the Prime Minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: They don’t return your call.

Mr. Nixon: This is a nationalized company now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights, with a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Has the minister received from his own officials --

Mr. Nixon: Those of the economy --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We may be a little out of order here. Perhaps ye better have the member for Wentworth first.

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to pursue the statement that came out of Montreal today, as reported in the press, that they can raise it whatever they like, there is no regulation in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Singer: That’s right.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, until we have some indication from the more senior people; namely, the president of the company --

Mr. Deans: Come on, he doesn’t raise the prices and you know it!

Mr. Lewis: It is just carte blanche as far as you are concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have indicated today and on previous days that we will do what we can to, first of all, encourage thorn to live within our guidelines. If that can’t be done --

Mr. Nixon: Oh baloney.

Mr. Samis: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I know that all you over there have this great penchant for regulation of anything and everything -- that if they will not live within the guidelines then we will have to act through legislation.

Mr. Deans: How do you return the money to the consumers who have been gouged in the meantime?

Mr. Martel: Sinclair was right.

Mr. Lewis: You are in trouble with these oil prices again.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will have a final supplementary on this question from the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Has the minister received from his own officials or from the law officers of the Crown, or sought from either of those civil servants, an opinion as to whether or not the actions by this company are in breach of the combines legislation as contained in the Criminal Code? If he hasn’t received the opinion yet, is he now seeking such an opinion?

Mr. Renwick: That will certainly help the consumer in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have asked my staff to give me an opinion on that.

Mr. Lewis: Does it not bother the minister that prices are set in this fashion -- raised a cent and down a cent arbitrarily by representatives -- when each cent across the board represents $45 million more out of the pockets of the consumers of Ontario? Does he not think he should now have legislation indicating in a tough regulatory way what he will do with any company which violates his guidelines by 1/10 of one cent?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that the position of this government and its concern about petroleum prices is well known, going back as long as I have been in the Ministry of Energy, and our position that we took --

Mr. Roy: You wouldn’t hazard an opinion yourself, would you?

Mr. Lewis: Does it not bother you?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like to finish my answer, Mr. Speaker. Because of the babbling over there I couldn’t finish it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fighting Dennis.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that we lead the fight in this country --

Mr. Good: When are you going to grow up?

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense, nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We lead the fight in this country to try to stop petroleum product increases.

Mr. Good: You people set the way.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that it was the federal government with the support of the producing provinces -- including, I remind members, two NDP provinces -- which forced the increase in the basic cost of crude oil which has resulted in these petroleum product price increases.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not nonsense, it is fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s the sort of question which becomes argumentative and requires practically the same answer. Does the member have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Only argumentative in the reply. May I ask the minister, as part of his leading the fight or the war or whatever it is on behalf of the consumers of Ontario, did he realize, subsequent to the estimates committee discussion of his ministry, yesterday afternoon, that a survey of the prices in northern Ontario conducted yesterday -- which we confirmed again this morning -- shows that the regular gas price at Goganda is today 88.9; at Hornepayne 92.9; at Gogama 92.3; at Keewatin 91.9; at Marathon 94.3; ranging upwards to 99.9 cents a gallon for unleaded?

An hon. member: For unleaded?

Mr. Lewis: For unleaded. Does the minister not think (a) this nefarious scheme achieved by the government of Ontario to take money from consumers of the north should be examined town by town to see if his limits were exceeded; and (b) special protection by way of a freeze must be given to northern Ontario since he will do nothing apparently until the winter is over?

Mr. MacDonald: One member of the cabinet is acclaiming that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: What will the minister do about this split in the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in committee that I do not think that --

Mr. Foulds: You don’t think, that’s the problem.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an expression told to me by one of the students when I was a teacher at Don Mills junior High School. Sarcasm is not wit, it is merely the babbling of a diseased mind. That student had a rather good point six or seven years ago.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will not respond to the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any question which asks “Do you think” and “Do you not think” is really not asking for information. It is offering suggestions and debating. We are allowing the minister to answer this but if we had fewer interjections we could get on with the normal question period.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in committee that I could not in all good conscience recommend --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I could not in all good conscience recommend a freeze for one part of the province and not the other. As I have said -- and I repeat it again -- I do not rule out the possibility of a complete freeze for the whole of the province again if we are not able to get the complete co-operation of the companies.

Mr. Breithaupt: While the minister is reviewing the exceptional price differentials between northern and southern Ontario, would he review as well the clear differential which exists between those service stations servicing 401 with their captive market and the rates in adjoining communities?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the hon. member would take the time to read Hansard of estimates committee or if he would look at Hansard toward the end of the last parliament, before July 18, he would find very clear references to the fact that I, and the government, have asked the commissioner to look at price differentials --

Mr. Shore: What is happening tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- particularly between northern and southern Ontario but, for that matter, the whole of the province.

Mr. Breithaupt: Further supplementary, can the minister advise us what the commissioner has done in those three months?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: If members wait until they are called, they would be in the right order. The member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Kitchener had a supplementary which I heard.

Mr. Speaker: The member did have a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, it is going to come as a surprise to you but you are running this House.

An hon. member: Are you the Speaker?

[2:30]

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain or tell us why he cannot at this time indicate a government policy that would equalize prices of gasoline between north and south --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: -- which would treat all motorists in the province equally?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It becomes a debate when there’s a series of questions which get into the whole field of the pricing of oil or whatever it might be. It’s the same as a debate that takes place in the estimates committee, and this is not the function of question period. I would remind you again, the debate shouldn’t be carried on at this time. It should be a question for information, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why don’t you rule that way once in a while?

Mr. Speaker: If you have a question based on the original answer, that’s fine. It had to do with pricing in northern Ontario; it was not a general policy question whatsoever. That is not the sort of question that is suitable as a supplementary. Now the member for Kitchener. Is his a proper supplementary?

Mr. Breithaupt: I did not ask for a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting time but I’ll hear the member for Port Arthur on his point of order.

Mr. Foulds: It has always been my understanding that a question beginning with the word “why” was in fact an interrogative. It has always been my understanding, with great respect, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Singer: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: -- that it was our job to find out the policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is debating. The questions are supposed to be for information.

Mr. Boy: Hasn’t your leader told you that yet?

Mr. Speaker: Secondly, the supplementaries, if any, are supposed to be related to the answer that was given. “Why” starts an interrogative question; that’s true, but it needn’t necessarily be related to the original question. Just because it’s got a “why” in front of it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in order. New, please, we’re wasting time.

Mr. Foulds: With great respect, it happens to be a matter of great importance.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has the floor.

Mr. Singer: That’s right. Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The original question by the Leader of the Opposition, as I recall it, and it was some time ago now, had to do with the pricing in northern Ontario. Asking a question on the general policy of the government is not supplementary to that question really. It’s a new question.

Mr. Bullbrook: You are absolutely right.

Mr. Foulds: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the question was specifically about equalization of prices between north and south which relates to the --

Mr. Roy: Your point of order is not debatable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now you’re debating with the Speaker.

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: It had to do with “is the government going to have a general policy?” I remember the question very clearly.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Speaker is on his feet. Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows he’s supposed to sit down when the Speaker is speaking.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is one point of order to deal with now. Does the hon. minister have a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think it might assist, Mr. Speaker, if I pointed out that the question was answered in estimates committee yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Martel: That was a nothing answer.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a further supplementary to the original question or can we get on with new questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: One short question to the Minister of Education: What substance is there to the rumour about the parties in the Metropolitan Toronto teachers’ dispute coming back to the bargaining table; and how is that being effected?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am happy to tell my friend and the House that there are definitely clear signs that the talks will be resuming. I expect that there will be some announcement about this in the next day or so.

Mr. Deans: Next day or so?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have been talking to both Mr. Shime, the chairman of the Education Relations Commission, and the chairmen of both negotiating teams. I think we’d all like to see faster action with them all talking again, but I think I can assure the House that action is going on and things are happening that will see talks beginning very shortly.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Are these initiatives being taken by Mr. Dickie or the school board and teachers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Dickie is not involved in these initiatives.

Mr. Nixon: Not?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not.

TOBACCO AUCTION

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he is prepared to meet with the officials of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Marketing Board and the representatives of the buyers, as the sale of the $200-million tobacco crop is now at a standstill since auction barns were closed yesterday?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Products Marketing Board has been asked by the growers to try to arrange a meeting with the manufacturers’ council. We have talked to some of the manufacturers’ council and we would anticipate, hopefully, to be able to arrange a meeting this week to deal with the matter.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that instead of trying to arrange a meeting with the manufacturers he, as minister, would be well within his rights if he asked or instructed the representatives of the two sides to attend him in his office because it appears that since the manufacturers have raised the price of cigarettes -- they tell me by six cents a package -- and are now giving a lower price to the farmers, there is something irreconcilable in the marketing procedures as seen by the manufacturers and the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a prime responsibility to set this straight?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the growers have a price which they’ve agreed upon. The bids for tobacco at this point in time are less than the agreed-upon overall average price for the season. Yesterday, the growers closed down the sales and as a result of that, remembering that we have a Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, they have requested us to see if we can arrange a meeting with the manufacturers’ council through our Farm Products Marketing Board, which we are in the process of trying to arrange right now. I think if the growers want further meetings or if the marketing board does, I’d be glad to listen to them at any time. They’ve asked for this meeting at this point in time. We are trying to set this meeting up to get this matter back on the tracks.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, if you’ll permit, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister believe this agreement between the growers and the manufacturers for an average 95 cents per pound minimum is binding on the manufacturers? Is it possible that we in this Legislature should take some action to make it binding?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t have any reason at this point in time to feel that the tobacco manufacturing council will not live up to its part of the bargain in the negotiations it had with the tobacco marketing board.

Mr. Moffatt: Would the minister undertake to provide information for the House which would indicate the kind of guarantees he has from the tobacco council which would be passed along to those growers so they will be assured that there will be no crisis in that industry if those barns are being closed?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said we were trying to get the Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board and the manufacturers’ council together to discuss this matter. I think they’ve requested our Farm Products Marketing Board to arrange this meeting and I anticipate they will have a meeting this week. I do not intend to interfere at this point in time until they’ve had a chance to discuss this matter and have tried to work it out.

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the same subject. How could the minister say there is no indication that the manufacturers -- that is, the buyers -- are not living up to their agreement when they refuse to pay the 95 cents per pound and, as a matter of fact, are a full 10 cents below that? They refuse to raise their bids up to anywhere near that agreed level and the auction barns are closed. Is the minister further aware that every day those barns are closed means a potential loss of millions of dollars to the farmers concerned and this must be a matter of direct concern to the minister?

Hon. W. Newman: It is very much of direct concern to me and that’s why I’ve been talking to the marketing board about this particular matter. That’s why the growers marketing board is very much concerned; that’s why they closed it down. They were bidding, I believe, 86 cents and I believe the price set was 94 cents. That’s why they closed it down because they were not bidding np to the full 94 cents.

This is the first round they’re on now. We’re hopeful, when they get into the second round, which will probably be next week, that matters can be sorted out. The Farm Products Marketing Board is arranging a meeting this week with both sides to try to resolve the matter. I’m fully aware of the growers’ concerns in this matter.

Mr. Roy: I think you will have to call Gene Whelan in.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, sure, he’d --

EGG MARKETING BOARD QUOTAS

Mr. Nixon: I have another question of the same minister. What action is he going to take now that it has apparently been made public that inspectors under the jurisdiction of the Egg Marketing Board have indicated that some members of the board are breaking the regulations which they are enforcing among their competitive colleagues in the egg production business in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: I read the Globe and Mail this morning, too, and it was brought to my attention. I’d like to point out two or three things. First, it was our own inspectors -- the board’s own inspectors -- who discovered that some of the directors may be -- may be, I say -- in violation of quota. Of course, I’ve not personally seen the report. The report was to be released today. It was released yesterday by one of the members of the board and thus it was in the paper this morning. I have asked for a copy of it and I want to see the facts and figures as they are before I make a final determination.

This morning I met with the Farm Products Marketing Board again to discuss this matter and I’ve asked them to arrange a meeting with the Egg Producers’ Marketing Board as soon as possible. Hopefully again, that meeting will be held this week. Of course, today as members know, the semi-annual meeting of the egg producers is being held here in Toronto and there will be about 200 or 250 egg producers there I have some of my staff at that meeting monitoring the meeting as it goes on today. Of course, once the Farm Products Marketing people have met with the Egg Producers’ Marketing Board, I will review and assess the results of the meeting, and the facts, and the report, and at that point in time I will take any action that is necessary.

Mr. Nixon: Since this group operates under the authority granted by this House, has the minister consulted with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as to what specific steps should be taken, if, in fact, the members of the board are taking this liberty with the authority granted by this House?

Hon. W. Newman: The Egg Producers’ Marketing Board has a certain authority to ask the Farm Products Marketing Board for the right of seizure, if it wishes to ask for that at this point in time. That’s why I want to see all the facts because it’s been alleged in the paper that six of the 13 members of the board are over quota. In one case -- I’ll only give you a small example -- in a flock of 10,000 hens he has something like 50 some hens over. It’s over, but as you know hens do die each day and they are replaced and it’s not quite that easy to keep within the one or two they are supposed to, So once I get all the facts before me and I have talked to the Farm Products Marketing Board, we will have a full report and I will take any necessary action that needs to be done.

GRIFFITH ISLAND HUNTING LODGE

Mr. Nixon: A question of the Premier: Did it concern him as much as it did the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and the rest of us -- the stories associated with this little enclave on Griffith Island in Georgian Bay? Has he made any inquiries as to how these people could get away with flouting the game and fish laws; how they could, in fact, be serving intoxicating beverages without having a club licence; how, in fact, they could have armed guards around the island so that casual boaters could not land on it; and how, in fact, there could be members of the Premier’s own party -- in fact, former cabinet colleagues -- who are members and regular visitors there? Can he report upon these matters to the House, and if nut, will he look into it and give us a report?

Mr. Breithaupt: A full report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I would leave this matter totally to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), who I know understands the problem and I’m sure would be delighted to give any answers to the House.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Has the Premier ever visited Griffith Island, or have any of his colleagues visited Griffith Island, to his knowledge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for my colleagues. I must say, knowing perhaps this question came from a Mr. Greer through the leader of the Liberal Party, as often happens, I would just like to inform him, through you, that yes, I have been there for dinner on one occasion. I have never hunted at Griffith Island. In fact I have never hunted anywhere.

Mr. Nixon: But the Premier didn’t take a drink or anything like that? Did he catch a fish?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t hunted anywhere. I haven’t even caught a fish, and I haven’t hunted. However, I have been there. I will not speak for my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Any other questions of urgent public importance?

Mr. Nixon: I gather you have not been asked either, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was a very good meal.

Mr. Lewis: Those moose antlers the Minister of National Resources was carrying on Monday morning are at the airport.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of Opposition would be quiet for a moment, I’d be very happy to answer the questions raised by three of his colleagues last week.

Mr. Lewis: I am listening intently; intently.

FALCONBRIDGE LAYOFFS

Hon. B. Stephenson: The question was regarding the layoff of 438 workers from Falconbridge Nickel Mines and it was imputed that perhaps there had been bad faith bargaining on the part of the company in the recent negotiations. The ministry has inquired into this matter. At the present time there is no evidence of any lack of good faith on the part of the company in its negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: No, is that right? What an inquiry I

Hon. B. Stephenson: The reason for the layoff of 438 workers is a combination of gear-up time and a down-turn in the market during the period of the strike. The numbers laid off constitute less than 10 per cent of the total complement of the company --

Mr. Lewis: That’s all?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and therefore the company has complied totally with the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister indicate whether the proposed layoffs were ever discussed at the bargaining table prior to the agreement being reached?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am informed that they were never discussed,

Mr. Lewis: Oh, but that is good-faith bargaining. Very good faith bargaining. Quite an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: Could I ask the minister to assure the Reuse that the surplus inventories causing the present layoffs were not as a result of the company deliberately building excess inventories in order to meet negotiations?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have no such knowledge, but certainly if there is, in fact, any feeling on the part of the union that bad faith was involved they are at perfect liberty to use the resources of the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Lewis: There’s a $50 fine you know.

[2:45]

CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier. Regardless of the historical legal position that’s involved, is the Premier concerned about the current situation which affects 2,300 workers of Westinghouse Canada? Does he feel it appropriate that an American company, in the process of a sale of its American operation, should be able to sell Canadian rights without consideration for the Canadian economy or employees? Does he intend to make representation to Ottawa or, for that matter, representation to the United States? Does he intend to change any laws? Does he intend to take any action to try to preserve the jobs of 2,300 people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer the first part of the question. Yes, I am concerned. The balance of the question should be directed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Deans: I would like to redirect the question in order that I might get the answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised in this House about one week ago, and it was answered -- but I’ll repeat the answer to clarify the situation. I have been in touch with the minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for Canada, Mr. Jamieson, and we have discussed the problem. He and his colleagues at the federal level are in discussions with White Corp. and, indeed, with Westinghouse Canada. It relates to who owns the rights to the trademarks. There is some confusion, there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s quite a price to pay.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It might be quite a price to pay, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that the trademarks have never belonged to Westinghouse Canada Ltd. They have always been owned by the parent company and, under special arrangements, have been given out for use by their various companies throughout the world. At this very moment the argument relates as to who can have the rights to the trademark. White Corp. at the time that they completed the deal with the American Westinghouse Corp., also took over the world rights for the trademark.

We have been in contact with Mr. Jamieson. He is continuing with his negotiations. It’s in his interest to see that the Westinghouse manufacturing trademarks stay with the Canadian company to give us some hold on that particular industry in this country.

Mr. Renwick: There are compulsory licensing arrangements, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Does the minister recognize that there is a major lawsuit currently being lodged in the US to block the sale to GSW? Is he prepared either to take some legislative action --

Mr. Speaker: One question.

Mr. Deans: -- here or to recommend legislative action in Ottawa to do away with this kind of nonsense and damaging effect?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member asked one question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, let us first of all correct the statement. The lawsuit does not relate to whether GSW -- General Steel Wares -- should take over the Westinghouse Canada operation.

Mr. Deans: That is the effect of it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It relates, Mr. Speaker, singularly and solely to who has the right to the trademark in Canada -- the Westinghouse circle with the “W” in it. That’s really what it relates to and not whether GSW will eventually become the owner of Westinghouse assets. The trademark is the thing in point. Mr. Jamieson is reviewing it. Our people from our ministry have been in discussion with him. Indeed, there have been others in the industry who have been working with him to try to find a solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

An hon. member: Betty Furness is involved in it.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like to direct a question either to the Premier or the Treasurer, whomever would be most appropriate. Could the Premier advise the status of the draft agreement between this government and the government of Canada in connection with his commitment to AIB? Secondly, could he advise whether we might be made privy to it shortly, especially those of us who have the obligation in connection with the select committee on Hydro rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have not yet seen a draft agreement. I think we saw a brief outline of one and the officials are meeting in Ottawa today and tomorrow. Presumably they will be looking at a model agreement; I think that is what they’re calling it. The ministers will not see it until a week from tomorrow when there is a meeting of the Ministers of Finance.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a supplementary, does the Treasurer think it would be possible for us, as members of the Legislature, to have some information in connection with the draft agreement by, say, 10 days?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Roy: Oh, the parliamentary assistant is here, is he?

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr. Yakabuski: Is the Premier aware that since the government of the Province of Quebec has taken over the financial affairs of the 1976 Olympics, there is a growing concern that the taxpayers of this province, and perhaps the other provinces of Canada, will get hooked to bail out the Olympics?

Mr. Singer: Is that a question?

Mr. Cassidy: It’s just a kind of specious statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware of the decision of the government of Quebec to take over some aspects of the administration of the development of the Olympic site. I can’t see how this, certainly from our standpoint, can have an impact on the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario because I think the Prime Minister of Canada has said -- and I’m sure he will not change his mind -- that it is not the intention of the federal government to become financially involved.

Mr. Roy: Not like some people we know?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Ottawa East comes first.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I recall the statements which have been made by the government of Canada, I would say to the hon. member it would appear as though there would be no financial support from the government at Ottawa, which means the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario will not be involved in any short-fall in any financing of the Olympic games by the city of Montreal and the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary on that: I take it from the Premier’s answer that he doesn’t agree with the mayor of Toronto who made a speech in Montreal --

Mr. Speaker: Your question? Or is that an interrogatory statement?

Mr. Boy: My God, you are touchy with the people on this side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is not running against the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: My question simply is this: The Premier doesn’t agree with his Conservative colleague, the mayor of Toronto, who made a speech in Montreal saying that all taxpayers in Ontario -- or in Canada for that matter -- should contribute to the Olympics?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I saw a headline attributed to the mayor of the city of Toronto; I did not see his speech nor have I had communication with him. It may come as a bit of a shock to the hon. member but those of us who do support the same political parties don’t always have the same point of view.

Mr. Roy: We know that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That should come as less of a shock to you in that party than any other party in this province.

Mr. Roy: The Premier should not emphasize the obvious.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Labour. Will the minister intervene with the Abitibi Paper Co., on behalf of the members of the Canadian Paperworkers’ Union in Iroquois Falls and elsewhere in the province, to suggest that Abitibi pay the outstanding holiday pay in accordance with the expired collective agreement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the request made by my hon. colleague is within the purview of the Employment Standards Act, I would certainly so intervene.

Mr. Ferrier: Supplementary: If the request is not within the purview of the Employment Standards Act, will the minister still consider intervening to suggest that, as good corporate citizens, maybe Ahitibi should take this move and pay this holiday pay to these workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I should most seriously consider this matter.

Mr. Reid: On the same subject, as the minister knows this continuing pulp and paper strike in northern Ontario is very serious. Can she report to the House anything new, any new developments? Can she also indicate at the same time whether any other mills in Canada have been before the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa and if that board has made any decision as to the effect of agreements in the pulp and paper industry?

Mr. Speaker: For the information of certain members that is an original question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would agree with my colleague that this is a most serious strike. Unfortunately, I can report no new major development this week; we are still hopeful that there may be one this week.

There has been one settlement in the paper industry in Canada, in New Brunswick with the K.C. Irving plant. The settlement was above the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines and there is agreement between both parties to take that settlement to the board for clarification and consideration of the matter. To my knowledge this has not come before the board as yet and therefore we have no ruling by the board as yet.

Mr. Reid: May I ask by way of supplementary: Does the minister feel that decision by the board will affect settlements in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would think that if we did have a ruling by the Anti-Inflation Board it could provide a stimulus to the resumption of negotiations in the Province of Ontario.

KITCHENER COURTHOUSE

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) asked a question concerning the new Kitchener courthouse. I would remind the hors, member that this project is one of five announced last July by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in his supplementary budget speech designed to stimulate employment in Ontario. I might add that the leaseback system has been utilized at this time because of the government policy of controlling new capital expenditure wherever possible.

The Kitchener project was advertised for tenders, with a closing date of Oct. 7, 1975. The following are the names of the bidders and their annual rental bids: Van Rots Construction Co. Ltd., $749,000; Bramalea Consolidated Developments Ltd., $785,856; Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., $802,284; Olympia and York Developments, $828,000; Major Holdings and Developments Ltd., $858,000; Ball Brothers Ltd., $894,000; and Ownix Developments Ltd., $1,024,760.

The low bidder, Van Bots Construction Co. Ltd., was awarded the contract on Nov. 6, 1975. Upon expiry of the 25-year lease, the building will become the property of the province. Van Bots Construction Co. Ltd. is an Ontario firm, as are all of the other bidders.

If, as the hon. member suggests, local contractors think the building could have been obtained at a lower cost, then I think this viewpoint should have been reflected in their bids.

INCO/FALCONBRIDGE BUSINESS POLICIES

Mr. Laughren: A question of the Premier: In view of the fact that International Nickel and Falconbridge Nickel Mines never have taken the Sudbury community into their confidence; in view of the recently announced layoffs, and particularly in view of the fact that two years ago Falconbridge Nickel Mines, while at a meeting with my colleagues from the Sudbury area and with municipal and regional officials as well as a federal member of Parliament, announced their long-term plans were their business, not ours, will the Premier reconsider his statement of Friday and appoint a select committee to look into the long-term plans for extraction and processing of ores in the Sudbury area and elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: I wonder if the Premier realizes how terribly difficult it is for a community that lives always with a boom and bust economy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This should be a question of information, not what the Premier wonders about things.

Mr. Laughren: This is a reasonable supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Ask a direct question.

Mr. Laughren: I am trying to. Does the Premier understand how difficult it is for a community that lives with boom and bust and uncertainty to make long-term plans for the people of the community? Does he not realize that the government has a responsibility to require the private sector to be more cooperative? Why won’t he do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the implications of a major industry in a community, particularly when it is the prime industry of that community. There are several others in the Province of Ontario: the situation is not confined to Sudbury. I was asked by, I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) or one of his colleagues whether or not the government would consider appointing a select committee. I don’t think that that is a reasonable approach to it. Certainly I would encourage any discussion between the companies and the communities to resolve these problems, but I am saying that I don’t believe a select committee is the way to go about it.

Mr. Laughren: They tell us it is none of our business. How can we talk to them when they have that attitude?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary on this.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that mining is solely within the purview of the government of Ontario, surely to God it is time the government moved --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is debating the question. The hon. member has been around long enough to know that is debating an answer or a question.

Mr. Martel: You are not faced with 900 layoffs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is debating the issue.

Mr. Lewis: How is it you move in on northern members every time?

Interjections.

An hon. member: Oh, that is not right.

Mr. Yakabuski: That is below the belt.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a true supplementary?

Mr. Martel: I am asking the Premier, in view of the fact that the province has the sole right over mining, is it not time that the province took some leadership to head off the boom and bust economy in Sudbury?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a question of information.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do your job and we’ll back you up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: You won’t have anything there after the next election.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[3:00]

NAPPAN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Good: A question of the Minister of Housing: Now that the minister has had time to review the background material relating to Nappan island and especially the reports of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Trent Valley Conservation Authority and the local municipalities which utterly oppose this development on Nappan Island, is the minister prepared to forward this material to the OMB so that body may look at the environmental considerations in dealing with Nappan Island when it hears the zoning change application; which is next Monday, making this a matter of urgent public importance?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member did supply me with some information. There was more information to be gathered; and I have started to gather that information. The people in the ministry are now putting all the file together and I will have a direct answer for the hon. member in ample time before the hearing on Monday.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister assure the House at this time that he will not only look at the information but will review the draft plan approval which was given by the former Minister of Housing, and which to all concerned was in complete disregard of all reports relating to that area? Is he satisfied that he can, in fact, refer this to the OMB in conjunction with the other hearing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that’s part of what Tm attempting to do as a result of the inquiry made to me by the hon. member. I have asked to have the draft plan brought back so it can be properly reviewed and we can make a decision, just as he suggested.

HOME PROGRAMME

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has the answer to a question asked previously.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Nov. 13 the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) asked about the increased price of HOME plan lots in a resale situation, referring to initial cost of $65-a-month to the projected cost of between $200 and $250-a-month for the lot the house is located on.

Members will recall that the original HOME plan fixed the lot price for a period of 50 years, and a second or third purchaser could buy a HOME plan house and make the same monthly land payments as the original buyer. Unfortunately, this created windfall profits for those who chose to sell the land after the obligatory first five years of the lease were up; and it also led to under-the-table deals as principals sought to circumvent the programme’s safeguards.

This resulted in a revision of the programme in June, 1973, which provided for the second purchaser to take over the land lease payments at the market value of the land when the property changed hands. Effective Aug. 8 of this year, the lease provisions of the programme were dropped. The HOME plan is now a freehold programme which means resales are at full market value.

With its low down payments and generous mortgage provisions, the HOME plan is of great assistance to families who normally could not afford to buy on the open market. I would tend to agree with the hon. member that the greatest benefit is certainly derived by the first purchaser of the HOME plan house and property.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Can the minister indicate whether it might not be better to have the resale back to the programme rather than allowing them on the free market? Then the people who need the homes will benefit from them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the question is very difficult to answer. There are two ways we’re trying to do this. If you want to retain the general public ownership of the homes and the property, what the hon. member is suggesting is probably correct; but if we do want to place these homes in the hands of people in the lower and the moderate income area so they can purchase them --

Mr. Deans: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and own them, then I think we have to allow them to own them. Certainly they should be free to compete in the marketplace as any other homeowner can.

An hon. member: They should profit on their houses the way the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) did.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, a point of order, the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition that you were discriminating against northern members. I want to say that I find that remark totally irresponsible and beneath the dignity of the Leader of the Opposition. As a member from the north, I want to say to you that I uphold the job you’re doing as long as you continue to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am with the hon. member all the way on that one.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was at best a juvenile remark.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get back to our business.

Presenting reports.

Hon. W. Newman presented the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Parrott presented the financial report of Queen’s University and Sir Wilfrid Laurier University for the year ending April 30, 1975; and of the Ontario College of Art for the year ending May 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry presented the sixth annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill, referred to in the earlier statement today by the Premier (Mr. Davis), that will require the mandatory use of seatbelts in automobiles.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. MacDonald moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill can be simply stated. As things stand now, all government documents are secret unless there happens to be good reason, in the view of the government, to make them public. This bill is predicated on the assumption that everything should be freely available to the public unless there happens to be good reason for it being kept secret. A statutory obligation to make all government documents, with legitimate exceptions, freely available to the public is a necessary and healthy corrective to the instinctive reaction of those in authority to withhold information that might prove embarrassing.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motian agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced in the last session. The purpose of it, of course, is that when individuals are arrested tinder the Mental Health Act this amendment in fact would force a judge or justices of the peace to have the individual examined by at least one psychiatrist within a reasonable period of time.

Hon. J. B. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the answer to written question No. 11 from the hon. member for Wellington South.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect to Residential Premises.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. McClellan: I’d like just briefly to conclude the remarks that I had started to make, I believe last Thursday. I spoke at that time of the remarkable achievement of the minister in managing to exempt somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of landlords, and to exclude between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of tenants in this province by virtue of the elimination of fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, single-attached and single-detached dwellings and rooming houses from the Act. The minister was heard to mutter repentance during the discussion and we look forward to amendments coming forward which will correct those serious omissions.

Today I want to speak briefly about the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. The principle of this bill is socialism. The very heart awl soul of this bill is socialism; the very nub and kernel of this bill is socialism; the very essence of the being of this bill is socialism: because what this bill does is remove residential housing from the forces --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Keep that up and the Leader of the Opposition is going to have a leadership convention.

Mr. McClellan: -- of the so-called free market, and bring residential housing under the control of the state in the name of social justice. And that, Mr. Speaker, is socialism.

Mr. Lewis: He is winning them over, and he hadn’t realized it.

Mr. McClellan: What this bill does is establish the principle that housing in this province is a social utility under the regulation of the state; and that, Mr. Speaker, is socialism.

Interjection.

Mr. Samis: You old free enterpriser.

Mr. McClellan: This bill is a socialistic bill in all aspects and in all respects, and the truly glorious thing is that in a few short minutes, no a few short hours, all three parties in this House are going to vote for this piece of socialistic legislation.

Mr. Lewis: And the Minister of Housing is choking. He choked in cabinet; he choked his way out of cabinet.

Mr. McClellan: And all those who are girding their loins for a holy crusade against socialism in the not too distant future are going to vote for this socialistic piece of legislation, along with us.

Mr. Foulds: Did they realize they are a part of the socialist hordes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does the Leader of the Opposition have a leadership convention coming? I hope so, he’s in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all --

Mr. McClellan: The anguish this bill has generated across the floor end beside us in the ranks of the third party was evidenced in the remarks of the member, I think for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) who rose to debate the rent control bill and gave instead a hymn of praise to the free enterprise system. What kind of confusion, what kind of schizophrenia is this, that a member would be forced --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Need the member ask?

Mr. McClellan: -- to speak his innermost confusion in such a manner?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member learns very rapidly.

Mr. Nixon: How can the Premier say that when he’s had four positions on rent review and he may change them all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellwoods has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier and his government have had four positions this week.

Mr. McClellan: I do not want to be too hard on the Minister of Housing for his incredible exemptions. He is, after all --

Mr. Lewis: A socialist.

Mr. McClellan: -- a recent convert to socialism. It was unlike St. Paul, whose conversion was not sudden and dramatic and glorious. Instead, it was reluctant and hesitant; it was filled with apostasy from the very first moment.

Mr. Lewis: It was desperate.

Mr. McClellan: He entered upon the socialist path with such hesitance and mincing steps that he wandered instead onto the garden path.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I like the member. We’re going to get along fine.

Mr. McClellan: I want to assure the minister that we will rescue him from the garden path onto which he has stumbled; we will lead him back to the socialist path and he will thank us for it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member from Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Lewis: A copy of that goes to every house in the Soo.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Through what postal system?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I would like to draw to the attention of some members of this House that the title of this Act is to provide for the review of rents in respect of residential premises, not the control.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on.

[3:15]

Mr. Sweeney: This party will support rent review. This is a temporary aberration. It is not --

Mr. Samis: Right on!

An hon. member: Go ahead; the member is getting to them.

Mr. Sweeney: It is not perceived by this party as a socialist document, far from it.

Mr. Foulds: That’s because the member’s perception is rather dim.

An hon. member: The member is getting close.

Mr. Sweeney: It seems to me that over the last several days of debate on this, we have gone a long way toward creating an iniquitous division by suggesting that every single landlord in this province is somehow responsible for the social problems with respect to housing accommodation and rentals.

I, for one, would like to have it on the record that that is not so. May I draw the attention of the House to the following figures in my particular community: In the past 10 years rental accommodation of all types has increased between 35 per cent and 50 per cent. That is 10 years, Mr. Speaker. In the same period wages have increased 100 per cent; food has increased 87 per cent; the cost of living has increased 69 per cent.

I am not suggesting there are not some landlords -- I don’t know what the percentage is -- in this province who are unscrupulous, who do gouge. I think there has been sufficient evidence brought to the attention of this House, and that is why a piece of review legislation is necessary; but I do want it on the record that there are some decent, law-abiding, good corporate citizens in this province who are also landlords, and I think that should be noted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Samis: He’s right in the middle of the whole thing.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. The debate has centred around a rather interesting division on the basis of principle. The body Conservative, which normally does not interfere with the business community, introduces a bill which clearly displays symptoms of withdrawal.

Although I appreciate the government’s reversal -- in fact it should be noted it is not really reversal but rather revolving form of policy -- I make note of the fact that the Conservatives remain capitalist, but compromising, in this Legislature; the Liberals capitalists, but confused; and the New Democrats socialist in a democratic and fair way.

Mr. Sweeney: It is the member’s perception that’s confused.

Mr. Samis: That’s hardly original.

Mr. Warner: In the discussion which took place last week, there was some note made of principle and of the deficiencies of this bill. I am sure the minister is wondering precisely what is missing.

I think what is missing is a statement of principle that shelter is a basic right of human beings in our province. It is around that basic principle that one must put all of the trimmings that are needed to guarantee that shelter will remain as a basic right, without costing all of us so dearly beyond our means. That’s where the bill comes up short.

We have heard about the exemptions. There are far too many of them, that’s obvious. I don’t understand why the government cannot come to grips with the very basic fact that shelter is a necessity, it is a right, and that it should be protected.

Quite frankly, I was somewhat confused by the Conservatives” opinion that those who are able to pay high rents should not be protected. Surely a bill that is going to provide protection should provide protection for all. I have no qualms about providing protection for those who are paying in excess of $500 a month. Surely those people, even though they can afford that amount, should be afforded protection by the government.

The arguments that were heard from the Liberal Party and from the Conservatives were that this bill -- and particularly if we went to total controls -- would dry up the market as far as production is concerned. I submit those statements were made in a vacuum, because had the government looked closely, at the province --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is the member going to vote for it?

Mr. Warner: -- of Quebec, and examined --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look at Toronto.

Mr. Warner: -- their policies --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look at Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: That is because of men and Falconbridge are getting away with what they want. I am going to speak on it in a moment, stick around.

Mr. Warner: The minister should take a look at the legislation in Quebec. I specifically use that because they have been dealing with rent controls for 22 years. It’s an experiment of a length of time and of a nature which should reveal any inadequacies.

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: They don’t have the housing problem we have in Ontario. They don’t have the skyrocketing rents we have here.

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: Their controls have worked.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Warner: Thank you. If the government is really that concerned about the market drying up, then perhaps it will lead its support, finally, to the building of co-op houses. If the owner of an apartment building is so totally convinced that he cannot exist on a guaranteed return on his dollars, such as this bill proposes, then maybe he should get out of the market; maybe the building should be turned over to co-op housing and let the rents drop.

Perhaps the hon. minister is not aware that in the city of Toronto, for example, in fact in Scarborough, a new building was constructed just a month ago in which projected rents for a two-bedroom apartment are $150-a-month instead of the market value of $250-a-month because it is a co-op building. If the government were to put some money into co-op housing that would certainly help. If after all of that, those owners are still complaining they can’t get along with their guaranteed return, at their low interest, then -- and all of us know that the gouging that has taken place has normally been on the older buildings, where the mortgages were 3½ to 6½ per cent -- if they’re still not satisfied with that guaranteed return, perhaps they should relinquish it to the government and let the government run it for the use of the people. Let’s bring down the rents once and for all.

We have the basis of some good legislation and I am sure that in committee the proper amendments can be made. I urge the hon. minister to consider very seriously the roll-back date. The experiences of the people in this province show that the increases in rent began at the beginning of 1974, that the plot was hatched during January and February of 1974 and it came to fruition during April, May and June of 1974. The excessive rents were then invoked through to the end of 1974. Yet the government insists they can only roll back to July of 1975.

I think the government owes us an answer on that, because that roll-back date, as far as I am concerned, is just not acceptable. I am also concerned about the percentage. It’s obviously an arbitrary figure. I would like the hon. minister to explain the percentage of eight per cent, which is the figure used.

We have before us now the most comprehensive study ever conducted in this country on housing, commissioned for Mr. Jaffray and completed on over 5,000 rental units in the Province of British Columbia. The results of that survey indicated that the average increase in cost to the owner-landlord was in the neighbourhood of six per cent, including property taxes; property tax increase was at 2.9 per cent.

All of that is public record now, so I would like some explanation why the percentage used here is the arbitrary figure of eight per cent? In fact, I would ask the hon. minister if he could explain why we are not considering beyond 1975, looking at the cost factor as opposed to the percentage guideline? Why aren’t we simply opening the books of the owners and looking at the cost factor?

It is possible, and I would concede this to the hon. minister, it is possible that in some isolated circumstances the costs would be greater than the eight per cent; in which case simply opening the books and operating on the revealed cost factor would relieve that and the owner could get his just reward.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With the tenants’ association reading the books and all that? Could we see the member’s?

Mr. Warner: I am saying for public viewing, that’s all.

Continuing on through the bill -- and I hope the minister will bear with me, I’m simply going through it part by part because I found the document quite interesting -- as a new member I was quite intrigued by the wording in clause 4 of section 10, appearing on page 8: “Members of the board shall hold office during pleasure.” I don’t know if that means it’s a fun job or not, but it’s very interesting wording.

It doesn’t talk in the bill about justification; about requiring any justification on the part of the landlord. I think that can only come about by opening the books and having their contents public knowledge.

I am also concerned about the technical, mechanical aspects of this bill. In subsection 9 of section 4, on page 5, it talks about common dates for hearings. There is no reference -- although I agree it could be set by regulation -- that wherever possible the meetings to discuss the rent increases should be held within the building or the building complex in order to save time and money. There was no mention of this. Perhaps that could be considered for regulations.

In section 10, subsection 1, where the residential premises rent review board is established, there seems to be no specification as to a balance between the representations of corporate interests and the tenants’ interests, and I would hope the minister could supply some sort of balance there in absolute numbers.

There is a very important question in section 12(a), exclusions from the Act, on why those buildings operated by the Province of Ontario or the government of Canada should be exempt. That deserves a direct answer from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Mr. Warner: Another rather curious point which needs explanation is, there was an arbitrary figure of four used in section 12(c): “situate in a residential building that contains four or fewer residential premises.” Why four? My suggestion, if the minister wants to pick an arbitrary figure, would be three, provided that one of them is the owner-landlord. Because what the minister is doing is opening it up to those landlords who own, in fact, 50 or 60 smaller buildings. There are landlords in this city who own anywhere up to 100 duplexes and that opens it up to them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But this isn’t the only city in the world. This is only one small city.

Mr. Warner: In conclusion, I must admit that I am happier with the presentation of this bill than with the presentation of that other piece of social legislation which was introduced on Sunday store closings. That particular bill, of course, would only meet one’s expectations if one expected nothing from the government.

There is still a tremendous amount of vagueness about this bill. There are far too many loopholes; there are far too many things which can be set by regulations and which are not set not here.

As a final point, I would ask that the minister look very seriously at section 15, on the last page of the bill, where it talks about penalties. Again there is a maximum set and no minimum. I would suggest very strongly that be reconsidered and we look at a minimum penalty. There is no reason why it can’t be put onto a sliding scale with reference to the size of the structure we are dealing with, so as to make it fair to the landlord, but there certainly should be some sort of minimum fine if the landlord doesn’t come up to standards.

[3:30]

In conclusion, I commend the government for some action. I am still very saddened that it has not put in, as a principle of this, that housing is a basic right for all individuals iii this province. Until that day comes we will not see a totally comprehensive bill regarding the control of rents for tenants in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: I wish the Minister of Environment (Mr. Ken) had not left the House. I felt by his interjections that he was about to participate in the debate. He indicated that he felt that under this law thousands of landlords would be going broke. I believe that was his interjection. Probably one or two landlords at the Burlington Golf Club indicated their apprehension in this regard. I was hoping he would participate in the debate in this connection but evidently he’s not going to.

Mr. Martel: A few on Griffith island.

Mr. Nixon: There are one or two things which may not be that productive but I feel I should draw them to members’ attention. The Premier (Mr. Davis), who has also left the House, indicated by his interjection that he felt the Liberal Party had been vacillating on its position in this regard. Nothing could be further from the truth and I want to bring to members’ attention the important role played by my colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) in the formation of public policy in this regard.

I’m sure members are aware that her private legislation having to do with rent review has been before this House for almost two years, during the time when the NDP were, let’s say, dealing with their mentors in the city council of Toronto, to try to get square with them, and, of course, more latterly when the Premier himself was taking a variety of positions. No one associated with the last campaign could be anything but amused at his difficulty in achieving some sort of policy. He had at least four separate and distinct positions, all of them completely unacceptable, before his Minister of Housing got up and introduced the legislation now before us.

As a matter of fact, the minister himself -- who is here and I appreciate that -- indicated as he was being sworn in as Minister of Housing that rent review would delay the construction of housing in the province and that he would have to consider that very carefully. I don’t know who set him straight; presumably the Premier had made up his mind by then and we have the bill before us.

It is interesting but I can predict there will be a time when the Conservatives will be blaming other political parties for the legislation before us -- just like yesterday when we were talking about the unfortunate teachers’ strike. He was indicating that he had nothing to do with it or was putting the blame elsewhere for the fact that the teachers were out on strike.

I think it is important that when we discuss this legislation we make sure our attitudes are well understood. I believe this is important legislation. I believe the rent review aspects of it are going to be with us permanently and, frankly, I think the control aspects are going to be with us permanently.

As one of my colleagues has already pointed out we have had rent control in other jurisdictions, not all of them socialist. The State of New York has permitted it to be applied in the city of New York and they’ve never been able to get out of it. I think that is unfortunate.

The review aspects certainly are important and ones which certainly both of the opposition parties were stressing. It wasn’t during the election campaign that the NDP were talking about controls.

As a matter of fact, if anybody in the NDP thinks they’ve got a corner on social legislation, they are misinformed. Socialist legislation is what they were putting forward in their programme during the election campaign -- at least it was in the printed programme -- but I didn’t hear them talking about it much. They said they wanted to expropriate all the developable land around all the cities. They wanted to expropriate the whole of the mining industry. That is socialism. That’s what they should be pushing because certainly this sort of legislation is no different from --

Mr. Martel: Why didn’t you come north?

Mr. Nixon: -- the egg marketing legislation which has been put forward by Tories and Liberals. It is ineffectual. It’s no different from any other legislation which is necessary and, believe me, we in the Liberal Party believe this is necessary.

We have been consistent for two years in putting this before the government and not just by the loose applications of rhetoric which is so much a part of the socialists -- the second party who are trying harder and harder and making less and less progress. It really isn’t that at all.

Mr. Martel: Where do you sit now?

Mr. Nixon: But we have pot it forward by legislation which has been discussed by this House in the last two years. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be sore that you were aware of the facts in the matter and would not be swept away by the costs of rhetoric immediately to your left and to my right.

I was quite impressed as a matter of fact that the legislation did settle on the eight per cent lid. The federal legislation for wage and price controls establishes this eight per cent for wages and it allows another two per cent for productivity, which evidently everybody is going to get because we are such a productive nation and another two per cent for a number of causes that the Anti-Inflation Board might get around to dealing with some time in the next six months. This is an area of serious delay which concerns me.

The fact that the minister brought forward the eight per cent lid is an indication that he is not without some influence in the cabinet or that there is somebody over there with a political perspicacity which is appropriate. Even though the NDP have already given notice that they think that’s too high and they are going to move to reduce it, nobody is going to take them very seriously. In fact, we are not prepared to support an amendment which is going to reduce that percentage.

Mr. Cassidy: Who is in bed with whom right now?

Mr. Nixon: I feel that it’s necessary in case there’s some doubt in the minds of the party to my right, that these positions should be known. I am sure if the lid had been set at four, they would have wanted to reduce it to one. If in fact it had been frozen solid, then the old phrase --

Mr. Martel: You will change it by tomorrow again.

Mr. Nixon: -- roll back would have been out, because there is really no way to satisfy a party which is trying harder, and that is the basis of their interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: We made our decision clear and we are sticking to it.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, but when did you make your decision? You weren’t even talking about rent controls. You were talking about rent review and you know it.

As far as we are concerned on this side, the part of the bill that does concern us is the exclusions which have been put before you, Mr. Speaker, by members, not only of this side but which I have seen discussed in the electronic media by the Minister of Housing. I believe he now feels that he has made a mistake with these extensive exclusions, but surely there has to be an inclusion of public housing in this regard.

This whole concept of rent-geared-to income being something that is aside from rent control is unacceptable. The minister knows full well from his experience as mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, as all of us as members of this House have experienced, that the increase in rents in the rent-geared-to income in public housing area is something that does require the sorts of controls that we are talking about. I would hope the minister would reconsider this exclusion as he has reconsidered some of the other exclusions.

I heard him indicate on TV that he might bring forward an amendment which would remove the present exclusion under the terms of the bill which would apply to accommodation in houses or apartment buildings of four or fewer units. Certainly I think this is a matter which must concern us because many communities have rental accommodation of that type almost to the exclusion of the kind of high-rise cliff-dwelling facilities that one finds here in Metropolitan Toronto. I have even had a letter complaining about the $500-a-month exclusion. I know that there’s a number of people in the party to my right who may be concerned with that as individuals, but even they are not prepared to bring that forward as one of the list of complaints that they are trying so valiantly to wave as a red flag. That’s the colour that they seem to like.

Mr. Cassidy: No, we defended the rich valiantly. We defended rich and poor alike.

Mr. Ferrier: Did that letter come from South Dumfries?

Mr. Nixon: I think we are prepared to maintain that exclusion but I would hope that the others would be removed by the committee. We give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, and to anybody else who might be interested that we are prepared either to put forward ourselves or support amendments of that type.

It concerns me that that noted Liberal, Barnett Danson, Secretary of State for Urban Affairs, indicated quite clearly that he felt a review procedure should not be a part of provincial legislation, that it would tend to frighten developers away from building because they would feel that they faced a morass of red tape, but that some kind of a ceiling exclusively would be sufficient as long as those people who went forward with their investment would be exempt for four or five years following. I don’t agree with them, of course, because I believe that it is a misunderstanding on the part of anybody --

Mr. Martel: No flexibility, no flexibility.

Mr. Nixon: -- who is not prepared to support the review concept. When we’re talking about review, we’re not talking about the rent payable by an individual, but the rent payable on a dwelling unit. Surely this is the sort of procedure which is going to be with us, not just for a period of months or a couple of years, but permanently. Anyone who thinks that this sort of legislation is going to be sloughed off with the resurgence of the free enterprise system is, of course, in error.

As a matter of fact, I personally would like to see some provision where rent controls would be removed from those communities where there was a vacancy rate of something between three and four per cent. But it appears --

Mr. Laughren: Twenty and 30.

Mr. Nixon: -- frankly, from the experience in other jurisdictions, socialist and otherwise, that once the tender hands of the bureaucrats --

Mr. Martel: This bothers you, doesn’t it?

Mr. Nixon: -- get on these matters, it’s very difficult for them --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: -- to release their grasp. I would suggest, that whether the present minister continues in his responsibility or not, that rent review with teeth in it, that is roll-back powers as far as rental payments are concerned, will be with us on a permanent basis.

I regret it, but it seems that with the growth of the communities, particularly urban communities, that this is a responsibility which this House must accept and which we must examine very carefully in its administration by whatever facilities are set up by the government of the day. I am also prepared to predict that while the free enterprise system must be given encouragement to invest in housing --

Mr. Germa: Subsidize it. Yes, that’s the free enterprise --

Mr. Nixon: Well, we are now and you know that. That’s the first time I heard your voice today. I thought you would get involved in that Sudbury exchange. We are subsidizing --

Mr. Germa: That’s free enterprise.

Mr. Nixon: -- the building of houses now in a very big way. But it seems to me that the private sector had many years of opportunity to use this wide variety of programmes in which public funds were available to them. We have still come to the position now where this House is required to take the steps that we are discussing. So that while we must rely on the private sector, there is no doubt in my mind that one of the realities that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) will face this coming year and forever in the future, is a growing responsibility to use public funds and more public initiative to meet the housing problems that have assumed crisis proportions in the last few weeks, few months, few years. It appears that the solution is not as simple as some politicians and some developers have said. But we must be sure that these Draconian solutions are not going to be -- It is important that we recognize that all communities do not have the same problems.

In the city of Brantford, for example, it is possible to go out and buy a single-family dwelling now for a price of about $36,000. I am told that there are those available on that basis right now, if anybody wants to move into that charming city with all sorts of jobs available. So the problems differ from one part of the province to the other.

I reject the comments made by some that this is socialist legislation. I consider it to be important social legislation. I call to your attention again that we have supported this concept consistently for the last two years. I say again, a good deal of the credit for the development of public acceptance of this concept must go with my colleague, the member for St. George, who will be active in the committee offering amendments on behalf of my party.

Mr. Martel: People from Toronto didn’t believe you.

Mr. Nixon: More of them voted for us than voted for you.

Mr. Martel: People in Toronto didn’t believe you.

Mr. Gaunt: We get more votes in Toronto than you did. Oh, yes we did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s all right. We know how that happened.

Mr. Nixon: Most of the seats are empty.

Mr. Roy: Elie, in 1971 you were talking percentages.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon member for Etobicoke has the floor.

[3:45]

Mr. Philip: If I might have a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, after the oratorical sonorosity of the last speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Take as long as you want and try to be sonorous. Otherwise we won’t listen.

Mr. Philip: No doubt the hon. member for St. George managed to summarize their position with greater brevity, and perhaps if the last speaker had listened to her he wouldn’t have needed to give his long and ponderous speech in the first place.

Mr. Sweeney: Where were you when the guy in front of you spoke?

Mr. Nixon: Another typical tight halo that goes with the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if we could get to the principle of the bill?

An hon. member: They’ll never learn.

Mr. Philip: I am concerned about two exceptions in the bill. In my riding many small manufacturers and service industries are feeling the pinch. The cost of renting space is skyrocketing at a pace that makes it extremely hard for them to be competitive with industries in other parts of the province, and indeed in other provinces. I find that more and more of the businessmen in my community are coming to me with the problem of how to remain competitive if something is not done regarding the rental space of industrial and retail operations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They do what they have been doing all along -- they raise their prices.

Mr. Philip: They raise their prices and then they are not competitive; that’s the problem.

The other problem that I am concerned about is the Ontario Housing units being excluded. Over the years we have constantly been labelling these people; we have been setting them apart as people who are somehow different. The implication of this singling out is more serious, I would suggest, than are the dollars and cents issues involved.

Many of the Conservative Party members I have talked to are concerned about the whole process of labelling through management training. Many of them who have undergone programmes will tell you that people live up to the kinds of expectations and self-images that other people give them. Yet what we are constantly trying to do with people who are so-called poor is to tell them they are a part of this society. Here we have taken a group of them, labelled them as something that is somehow different and put them once more in a ghetto -- once more set aside from the rest of society. I think it should be reconsidered.

Mr. Good: The matter of doing something regarding the rental situation in Ontario, I think, has been brought about basically by two conditions: First, the peculiar rental situation in Metropolitan Toronto and, second, the general inflationary conditions that have affected all prices and wages across Canada and particularly in Ontario.

I think it is significant that we must be dealing with the rental situation in Ontario at a time when anti-inflation legislation is being put in place all across Canada. I think we must look at this legislation, because the bill deals with increases made during the period July 29, 1975, to Aug. 1, 1977.

I think we should all work towards that end, in spite of the position of the federal NDP. They feel the anti-inflation legislation and the programmes put into place federally will do something toward containing the high cost of living in Ontario as it relates not only to other commodities but also to rent.

Some will argue -- and I must agree -- that in many parts of Ontario this legislation will not be necessary, and could do more harm than good.

I would like to elaborate a little on the words of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) as to the situation in our own area. We have a free marketplace in rental units. When students leave the university at the end of May we have a 10 per cent vacancy rate through June, July and August in the twin cities. People can move at will and find the best accommodation. True, the situation does get tight when the university students come back in the fall. Only in those conditions have I heard of any cases of rent gouging. Here you have a small minority, a small group of people who want to take advantage of a particular situation. Therefore I feel strongly that legislation to deal with particular and specific cases such as that is most important. However, contrasting the situation in my own area is the situation in Metro. I would like to review a few of the figures in the “twin cities” area.

Last June, there was a 10.4 per cent vacancy rate in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, while the survey of December, 1974, showed that there was a 7.5 per cent vacancy rate. I have listed before me various apartment buildings and I would like to just give a few of the increases that have occurred.

The increases in high-rise have been somewhat lower than those in the solid walk-up; in other words, the rent variation seems to be less in the higher rental units than those in the lower rental units. In the period from 1966 to 1975, rent increases in various apartment buildings have varied from a low of 10 per cent to a high of 40 per cent over a 10-year period. There must be added to those figures an across-the-board increase of about $20 that was put in last fall.

We find that at Surrey Place, a rather distinguished apartment building in Kitchener, the rents were $160 for one bedroom and $180 for two bedrooms. They will have attached to that a $20 increase, which would bring them beyond the limits of this bill. Even at that, the rental increases with the additional $20 over the past 10 years would have been only 41 per cent and 38 per cent, respectively, on the one- and two-bedroom apartments.

So, we see that many landlords in our area, by applying an eight per cent annual increase, will be able to raise rents more than they have during the past four-, five- or 10-year period.

I think our position on rent review, which would have dealt with unconscionable increases, or complaints from landlords, would have been more practical than any separate and straight freeze.

That is a situation where the marketplace has been free and where it has kept rents down. Contrasting with that, look at the report of the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council. They show explicitly that the rent increases in Metro are not related to return on investment, they are related to the ability of certain landlords to get larger rents because there just isn’t the rental accommodation.

In 1968, there were 30,000 dwelling unit starts in Metropolitan Toronto. This number decreased and in 1972 was down to 21,000; in 1973 down to 29,000; in 1974 down to 16,000. In 1975, the predicted number of dwelling starts in Metropolitan Toronto is down to 9,000 units.

That is where the Minister of Housing’s problem is. It has been the lack of direction of this government to move some of these 50,000 or 60,000 people a year who come into Metropolitan Toronto, to create incentives in other parts of this province so that people don’t flock to Metropolitan Toronto. This was what was promised in 1971 when the government brought in the Toronto-Centred Region Plan.

This government was to disperse the population of Toronto, start growth in other centres where it was needed and bring vitality to industrial areas of the province other than Metro. But we still have the 50,000 or 69,000 people a year trying to crowd into Metropolitan Toronto. Government statistics show that the dwelling starts have gone down and the population has increased. There is such a tight rental situation that there is no free market.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you make people move?

Mr. Good: There is no free market, The government hasn’t done anything to encourage people. It doesn’t make people move.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you do that? You have all the easy answers.

Mr. Roy: Through incentives, taxes and so on.

Mr. Good: Carry out some of the promises that were made back in 1972 when the government introduced the Toronto-Centred Region Plan.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Waterloo North wouldn’t interfere with the free-enterprise system, would he?

Mr. Good: This government has failed in its responsibility --

Mr. Riddell: People will move where the jobs are.

Mr. Good: -- because this government has faded in its responsibility to do something about the conditions --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you do it?

Mr. Roy: They’ve done it in other areas. You start with a provincial plan.

Mr. Good: -- because this government has refused to do something --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you do it?

Mr. Good: -- about the problems of Metropolitan Toronto and everyone moving in. You end up with a Band-Aid solution to a problem which should never have existed. There are in my view, some inequities in the bill being imposed upon the province when it really should have been designed for Metropolitan Toronto and other municipalities where it was required or wanted or needed. Certainly, the matter of the freeze from last July until the end of the year, allowing an eight per cent increase, is not going to solve the problems that have arisen by unconscionable increases. I would sooner see what has happened up to now dealt with on a review basis where people who have had terrific increases could complain. I think the section which would allow the put-through of additional costs in the bill, if used properly, could be adequate where increased costs can be justified.

One apartment owner has shown me how his costs have increased; he has had to refinance a seven per cent mortgage on a 10-year term, and one can only imagine that the refinancing of a seven per cent mortgage is going to require at least an additional five or 5½ percentage points of interest to be paid. That’s got to reflect on the rents alone close to the eight per cent increase; when you add that to the price increase of fuel oil for this winter of 4.5 cents a gallon, there is no equity, there is no fairness in the method of dealing with increases from last July until this December. The minister must know this.

It’s a brave move. You say, “Let everybody, whether it’s right or not, come under this one umbrella.” There will be more equity starting Jan. 1, and I dare say that the rollback of the starting date is not the solution. You are just going to create more inequities to try and catch a few other rent gougers. That’s not the solution.

The approach up until the end of this year, in my view, is very poor. It’s a Band-Aid solution, it’s typical of the way this government reacts to crises. They did it with the farm tax rebate. Rather than figure out what the real inequities were in the taxation system relating to farmers they suddenly said: “Give them a quarter of their taxes back.” The next year they said, “Give them half their taxes back.” And up to now, no one’s even interested in figuring out what is a fair and equitable solution to the problem.

This government reacts suddenly with Band-Aid solutions which are neither thought out nor fair in their application.

I think that the matters spoken on previously are of great concern. The matter of fairness is non-existent when it comes to the past few months up to the end of this year. The old wartime prices and trade board controls were fairer than this legislation. And I was a renter in the services at that time. It was great, because many landlords would go down and say: “What is a fair market value for my suite or my apartment?” And the board would measure up the square footage, look at the cost of construction and everything else, and set the rent. And in many cases the rents were larger than was being charged where the rent was unusually low; in other cases they were rolled back in those areas.

Even though we wouldn’t want that situation in peacetime, people adhered to it, and there was, at least, equity in it. In many instances there is no equity in this.

We can’t leave out units under four. Look at the townhouse situation. Will they be considered as single units and be exempt from it? Many large builders had rows and rows of townhouses which are perhaps, according to this, going to be excluded. I don’t think that should be the intent. If you want to really do an anti-inflation job, limit the increases to eight per cent according to federal guidelines -- and that’s how I think we have to look on this legislation -- that part of it at least -- as anti-inflation legislation.

[4:00]

I don’t think the minister can limit triplexes and fourplexes just because they have those units. It will distort the whole picture. The big builders don’t usually build that type of unit; they build high-rise. In our area it takes a year and a half to fill a high-rise after it’s built. I can show you one, two, three which I know of in the Waterloo area which have been renting for a year now and I don’t think they are more than three-quarters filled. It takes time to fill those units.

I think to bring some equity in the minister will have to look at some of these peculiar situations in which he has to make it fair and equitable to all landlords so everyone is competing on an equal basis. I think it could well have an effect on future building. I am not too concerned about that because I have heard people complain before but they go ahead and live with it.

I remember when we passed the old Landlord and Tenant Act back in 1969 the landlords were all going to go out of business then. Well, they didn’t. Mind you, housing starts went down in Metro. I think they can live with the new regulations if they are fair and equitable.

I support this bill. I think it is going to make people realize that we have to live within the federal anti-inflation guidelines. The people over here in the NDP think they have a corner on everything which is good and reasonable. They are so tied up with their own rhetoric and their own emotionalism on these issues.

Mr. Cassidy: You are finding that third party status awfully hard to bear.

Mr. Roy: It is just a temporary situation, Mike.

Mr. Good: They can’t even see the validity in this. I don’t suppose there is one of them over there who has ever embarked on a business venture for which they have had to borrow money or raise money by mortgage and things like that to try to make a deal and to make things go.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course, there are.

Mr. Good: They are so enthralled with any legislation which will bring control to government --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are all teachers and preachers.

Mr. Good: That’s about it. Or union holler guys.

Mr. Ferrier: Your customers never talk back to you.

Mr. Good: We support the legislation. I hope some of the inequities will be cleared up in committee.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, my heart bleeds for the people who have just been talked about by my hon. friend from Kitchener.

One thing I think this legislation ignores completely and, perhaps, must ignore if we are going to move ahead with any system of rent controls, is the capital gains situation over the past dozen years in the whole apartment field. I was talking to an apartment developer not too long ago and he admitted to me that he had built a building for a certain amount of money, $1 million or so. It was now worth twice that, at least $2 million.

This original rent was based upon the $1 million valuation but now he is able to go into the market and raise another mortgage for $800,000 or so and that is incorporated into the rent structure of that same building. With the $800,000 he is now building another building and he is incorporating --

Mr. Warner: Milk the tenants.

Mr. Young: -- that $800,000 into the rent structure of the new building; in other words, twice.

Mr. Good: Terrible inflation and your people oppose the anti-inflation guidelines. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Mr. Young: All I am saying is that over the years --

Mr. Good: You are opposing the legislation.

Mr. Laughren: Because it is discriminatory legislation, that’s why.

Mr. Warner: Milking the tenants.

Mr. Young: All I am saying is that over the years inflation has been very kind to the landlords and has been a little tough on the tenants.

Mr. Good: What’s your house at? Has it gone up or down in the last 10 years?

Mr. Young: I am not concerned that we try to roll values back to 10 years ago; I don’t think that is possible.

I think we have to keep in mind, when we shed the tears, that that increase in value, that inflation, has been very kind to the man who built some years ago; it’s not so kind to the fellow who is building now, I agree. It’s very kind to the man who built some years ago and who, over the last 10 years or so, likely has written off the capital he put first into that building. He is still charging rents based on today’s values. I think this is a thing we have to look at and something we have to recognize.

Other members here have talked about the drying up of the market and the member quoted figures about the drying up of the market. Sure, we have seen a drop in the construction of new rental units. That’s true. If you go to a garage and the mechanic says, “I’ve got your car fixed” -- he has ground the valves -- and you try it out and say to him, “Somehow or other the car doesn’t work very well,” if he hasn’t put in new sparkplugs when they were obviously worn out, then you’re trying to drive that car which had a valve job, while ignoring the sparkplug problem. When it comes to building, to rent control, to apartments, rent control by itself is a futile gesture unless we also embark on an overall programme of planning for production of housing. This is the thing, I think, the minister must realize.

Mr. Roy: Now you are starting to see the light.

Mr. Young: I read the other night in the Toronto Star an article by that great socialist Jack McArthur entitled, “Housing crisis: Economists say controls cause it.”

Mr. Martel: It’s right on.

Mr. Young: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay, I am not arguing.

Interjections.

Mr. Young: Among other things, he talks about the drop of housing construction and he blames rent controls for it. He’s saying to the minister that he has to recognize that if he is going to put this bill into effect, then he’s going iii see a diminution of building.

He quotes Sweden as part of this picture. He quotes a certain writer as saying:

“The gradual abolition of rent control since 1958 ... has meant a gradual reduction in the housing shortage ... replaced by a surplus.”

This is the old argument that’s always trotted out, that in countries like Sweden rent controls were tried and housing diminished. Then gradually controls were abolished and now there was a surplus of housing. A surplus is something new for Sweden because it used to be that the figures showed a very great shortage.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All the Swedes left that socialist country. They are in Australia now. They left. They couldn’t afford the taxes.

Mr. Young: Oh, is that so? For some reason the population has gone up in Sweden. Maybe there’s been a lot of activity there at home. In any case, the population has increased.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You haven’t checked lately what’s happening in Sweden.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkview has the floor. Order, please.

Mr. Young: It used to be, Mr. Speaker, that when youngsters in Sweden got to be 16 they registered for housing, because by the time they were married and needed housing they might be in line by that time. The housing shortage was very desperate.

Interjections.

Mr. Young: McArthur says they’ve now turned it into a surplus because they have abolished rent control. What he doesn’t say is that since the early 50s and before, the Swedes have very carefully prepared building of housing. They had had careful planning ahead for five, 10 and 15 years. They have had economic and planning controls. They have gone ahead with the whole idea that in so many years’ time, they’re going to have enough houses for their people. They deliberately set out to do that.

Within the planning structure about one-third of their housing is built for the well-to-do, those people over the $500 rent. They leave that to the private sector as long as they build within the plan, for it’s a social and economic plan within which they must build and they must observe the guidelines. About a third is co-operative housing, housing in which the government plays a major role in financing and direction. The other third is public housing built by public authority and financed by public authority.

In other words, this kind of planning over the years has resulted in their ability now to gradually reduce and eliminate the controls on rents. This is a lesson, I think, all of us have to learn, that there shouldn’t be rent control without planning for the future -- without looking ahead and outlining what we want in the way of housing for the people in Ontario 10 and 15 years from now and then deliberately setting up the machinery to build those houses. Our trouble has been that while we talk about rent control, we pathetically are leaving the construction and planning of housing, in too large a measure, to what we call private enterprise. No country in the world has succeeded in building housing for its people when it left it entirely to the private market to do it. It has had to enter this field constructively, with long-term plans to do the job.

I am saying that the rent control legislation -- good as it may be now -- without the other plan is like trying to fix a motor which needs a new sparkplug by simply grinding the valves. You can’t do one without the other and hope to succeed.

I want to add my plea to other members who have spoken here on this bill in respect to Ontario Housing -- I think I have in my riding more Ontario Housing units than any other single member in this province. I know the argument is that Ontario Housing is already controlled in that it is pegged to something like 25 per cent of the income of a person, so we say he is going to be protected. With the federal wage control -- those wages likely can’t go up more than eight per cent to 10 per cent over the next year or two or whatever. Then, within that protection, we say they are protected. But, the fact is that these people want to feel that they are part of the total community; they want to feel that protection of a rent controller, even though it may not be as important to them -- and I admit it -- as it is to many others outside the Ontario Housing field. But I think they should come under this umbrella, that they should feel secure that the rent control provisions apply to them as well.

There are a couple of things I want to mention to the minister too. I ran into two instances the other day which rather disturbed me -- they are amply illustrative of what is happening in this field.

First of all, I had a tenant speak to me about an increase in his rent from $190 to $235. But there was a stipulation in that, that if he paid on time he would get a $10 discount. In other words, the landlord was establishing a base rate of $235 when he should have been talking of $225. So, that when the minister’s rent review comes into effect his base rate is now $235 not the actual $225 which in the ordinary course of events is paid by the tenant on time.

The second one was a lease which I have in my hands where the landlord, up to this year, has been looking after the repairs to the various amenities which he provides and which he owns and which should be his. But, in the new lease it says that this person is to pay a certain amount of money -- $361 per month, up by about 35 per cent from his former lease -- but, it also writes in these words: “The tenant agrees to pay for following services applicable to the rented premises: electricity [that is understandable]; other repairs to washer, dryer, and furnace.” The tenants must now keep the furnace, the washer and dryer in repair. This is an expense he did not have before and is a smart way on the part of the landlord to raise the rent. This is the effect of it.

I also had another complaint where a chap forgot his key and asked the superintendent of the building to come up and open his door. That’s perhaps an inconvenience to the superintendent, but it was the regulation in that building -- and I have found since that it is also the regulation of many others -- that the tenant had to pay $5 for that service. It took the superintendent, I suppose, 10 minutes to open the door, and for the forgetfulness there was the penalty of $5 levied against the tenant. Perhaps it’s a no bigger fee than the proverbial plumber gets, or the TV repairman, but it’s another smart way by which the landlord is able to raise the levy on his rents.

[4:15]

I think that is about all that I wanted to say today. I think these are important things which must be taken into account by the minister, particularly the fact that along with this legislation must inevitably go the long-term planning, which I hope he is undertaking, to build housing and not leave it entirely to the private sector of the economy, He himself must give leadership and this government must give leadership to see that massive homebuilding is undertaken and that the people of Ontario are properly housed within the foreseeable future.

Mr. Sargent: I know that the minister himself is against this legislation, but I understand he rapes very easily and he’s going along with the government’s need to acquiesce to the needs of the day. I, too, am against gouging.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s the Lone Ranger.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Mr. Hodgson: What was that big deal that was announced this morning on the radio?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is the Lone Ranger. Who are you?

Mr. Sargent: John, are you in favour of this bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would return to the principle, and the other hon. members give him the courtesy to listen?

Mr. Roy: He is being interrupted by the minister.

Mr. Ferrier: Don’t let them intimidate you, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: We have in our area a gouging of 20 to 30 per cent increases in rent. We have landlords posting notices to tenants --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And that’s just in the hotel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Room rent.

Mr. Sargent: -- that they will get a $20 penalty if they are one day late paying their rent.

Mr. Martel: That isn’t even for the room.

Mr. Sargent: I am also against, and I decry the fact, not only that hundreds of thousands of our young couples coming into the home market today will never own their own homes --

Mr. Martel: That’s the mortgage rates charged by Ottawa.

Mr. Sargent: Right on, Elie. But they will never even have an apartment because, with this legislation, I firmly believe that there is no incentive for the private sector to build apartments.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, isn’t it?

Mr. Sargent: I happen to know. I had approval myself to build 240 apartments on land I owned; I had approval for the complete go-ahead to build apartments. When I went to the financing of it I found out that at the current price of money at 12 percent, if I built 240 apartments to rent at $200 a month I would be losing money. It would be all for nought.

This is a fact, and I tell you that there will never be any more apartments built in the private sector from here on in. There is not an apartment project on in this whole city by the private sector because, realistically, it’s a dead end street. You cannot get by on it.

Mr. Martel: You should fire Trudeau who allows the mortgage rates --

Mr. Sargent: I’ll get back to you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: You ran in the election against him, and you didn’t make out too well, Elie.

Mr. Martel: We did well in our area.

Mr. Sargent: My colleague from Waterloo North (Mr. Good) put this point, and I will enlarge upon it. The fact is that a man who has apartments and has a five-year term, no-interest deal to launch, and then has to refinance seven per cent money at today’s market of 12 per cent has to refinance it at a five per cent increase in financing. The going rate is $15,000 per apartment, so it’s five per cent, or $60 a month more. He has to refinance that for each apartment.

The eight per cent guideline here is suicide for the people who have their money invested in apartments when they’re doing refinancing. This is a fact -- I’m not going to get into any argument about whether or not I am right or wrong. This is a fact.

Mr. Lawlor: It is a good idea to get into an argument. Provision is made for that in the legislation.

Mr. Sargent: Oh, yes, they have a chance, Pat. They have a chance in clause 6 to cry hardship. I want to tell you, sir, we project 200,000 or 300,000 appeals immediately. And the member for Lakeshore knows the time lags involved here in appeals. What will happen will be complete chaos.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the member supporting this legislation?

Mr. Sargent: We have to support it, because in the interim, this is the only answer we have. We have to support it and everyone will have to support it. The minister doesn’t want it, but even he has to because the gun is to his head.

I think you fellows have got a hell of a good horse here and ride the hell out of it. In this city, 60 per cent of the votes are in apartments, and they are all your votes because this is your horse.

Mr. Norton: They’ve got no saddle.

Mr. Sargent: It won’t work. We have good memories in Owen Sound.

Mr. Cassidy: If you disagree with it, then vote against the legislation.

Mr. Laughren: The Lone Ranger knows.

An hon. member: Are you aware of our bill for 18 months, Cassidy?

Mr. Cassidy: Can’t the member speak against it?

Mr. Sargent: I don’t have to take the member’s advice all the time.

An hon. member: I wouldn’t take it any time.

Mr. Lawlor: Is it a dray horse or is it a thoroughbred?

Mr. Sargent: I think this legislation would have more chance to work -- it would fill a void. What we need here now is a multi-programme, of the type my friend from Yorkview (Mr. Young) was talking about. We have to have a crash programme of low rental housing, and how are we going to do it?

A few months ago, Mr. Meaney, the head of the AFL-CIO, had been telling how to get America back on track. His answer was three per cent money. After the meeting the reporters gathered with all the media there and said: “Mr. Meaney, you are a responsible man. How could you say such a stupid thing as that?” He said: “Gentlemen, you should know that over the years America has given away millions of dollars across the world in forgiveness loans and the like -- $500 billion for nothing, to other countries across the world. Then why can’t we put America back on track by giving three per cent money for a crash programme in housing?” And they agreed he was right.

The other parallel here is this. The Ontario Development Corp. has, as we all know, given millions and millions to American firms to entice them into this country. They invite these firms, in the excess profits brackets in the States, to take over our economy. The Premier says if we are going to do a meaningful job in housing here, we have to subsidize it by doing a high speed, crash programme on modular housing and low rental. But this is a two-edged sword.

It could be meaningful to activate all the vacant plants across the province, to give people work and give us modular housing. This is the only way it’s going to work, until the government realizes that this legislation is only stopgap. It will not solve the problem in the long run. You must have a mammoth programme of low-rental housing with three per cent money available to the private sector or do it yourself on the government programme.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate? The hon. member for Peterborough.

Mrs. Sandeman: I enjoyed the equestrian motif introduced into the debate by the previous speaker. He reminds me of the famous gentleman who galloped off in all directions. Hearing him speak, as I understand, against the bill and yet saying he would support it, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the trauma he must have been suffering. It gives me great pleasure, speaking on this side of the House --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can’t say anything, she’s a lady.

Mr. Sargent: I can’t hear her, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a good thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Would you repeat it for the member? I think he should hear that.

Mrs. Sandeman: Oh, I can’t be bothered -- no. I think it is a little easier for me to speak on this side of the House. You have heard in the rhetorical flourishes of some of my colleagues that we are wholeheartedly in support of a bill --

Mr. Roy: Dedicated socialist.

Mr. Nixon: Your more sonorous supporters aren’t in the House to hear it.

Mrs. Sandeman: There are enough. We are in support of this bill, but we are not --

Mr. Nixon: The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is busy on the business of the riding.

Mrs. Sandeman: We are not in support of the exemptions that presently stand in the bill and I’d like to confine my remarks to the exemption which appears under 12(c) of the bill, the exemption applying to residential buildings with four or less units.

One of the reasons we need a bill such as this at the moment is that the vacancy rate in this province is very low. There is very little public housing available, either in family units or senior citizen units, and many families in this province, many senior citizens and many single people, cannot afford the rents in newer high-rise apartments.

In ridings such as my own, we do not have many high-rise apartments nor do we have many Ontario Housing units. We have enormous waiting lists for those Ontario Housing units which do exist and consequently much of the rental accommodation is in buildings with four units or less. The people who live in these smaller homes, in the old homes which have been changed into three or four rental units, in the duplexes, the people who live in those small apartments are, traditionally, people who cannot afford large, new apartment buildings. They are the people who find that their rents have increased just as fast -- and recently faster -- than the rents of the bigger apartments.

The tenants in ridings such as Peterborough -- and I’m sure this is common across the province -- who live in such houses -- the older homes subdivided or the duplexes -- are, in many cases, on low or fixed incomes. They are the students who cannot afford the $30 or $40 a month increases they have been faced with in September, this year. They are young married couples on very low incomes who are equally unprotected. They are, in increasing numbers, the people who are in receipt of the Ontario disability pensions; who are trying to live or, perhaps I should say exist, on amounts of money out of which as much as 50 per cent already goes in rent. They are the people who are renting small apartments in houses, or in some cases, are struggling to maintain a small rented house on their own.

They cannot possibly afford the kind of increases they have been seeing recently in their rents. The calls about housing which we have been getting in our riding office and here at Queen’s Paris from my riding have been, almost without exception, from people who have seen the outline of the bill, are living in homes with four or less units and are appalled that they are not covered.

They are people on disability pensions who have appealed unsuccessfully to get the GAINS pension, who are struggling on all levels with the legislation of this government and feel themselves abandoned by this exemption. I understand the minister is giving some serious consideration to amendments which would remove this exemption and I hope he will consider it is worth doing.

Mr. Roy: I rise to support, with my colleagues, the principle of this legislation as being necessary legislation in the context of the market and the rent and apartment situation not only in Toronto but in many large centres across the province. I feel very privileged as I’m speaking now to have before us the Premier of the province who’s gracing us with his presence here. I suppose that’s further evidence of the conversion which has taken place on the other side and we see it every day.

Mr. Cassidy: Hugh Segal sent him in.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I was wondering -- is that Hugh Segal’s influence?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: There was a good story about Hugh in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday.

Mr. Cassidy: He’s talking about Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order, I wish the hon. member would get back to the principle of the bill so I could take notes. I can’t take notes on what he’s saying and I’d like him to get back to the principle.

Mr. Nixon: It would do you good.

Mr. Sargent: You don’t even know the principle of the bill. What are you talking about?

Mr. Roy: You’re probably against the principle of the bill. You’re just being forced into this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister didn’t have a point of order, but would the hon. member return to the principle.

Mr. Roy: It’s nice to see the Premier here and to see that Hugh Segal does have some influence.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is always in the Legislature.

Mr. Roy: The reason he’s here is apparently that Hugh unfortunately --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are being very nice to him these days yourself.

Mr. Roy: -- does not have that much experience in winning elections; he’s not done that well there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, get him back to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: He’s been close to power, as he said, in Ottawa, with Stanfield from 1972 to 1974 --

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Roy: Don’t get too close to heel, because you saw the results of his influence in what happened in the 1974 general election.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Roy: Don’t cramp my style, Mr. Speaker. I mean, let’s ramble a bit, let’s have some fun in this place. The exchanges are going across the way here.

Anyway, the other point that is interesting is that the Premier should be here on this type of legislation, because what a painful process they went through before they made up their minds in arriving at a decision on this.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. McClellan: He should know.

Mr. Roy: What a painful change of mind. In fact, on some days during the last campaign there was a change of mind about three different times on the same day. This is what we had to go through during the full election. Let’s talk about some of the positions taken, not only by the government, but by the poor, unfortunate member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine).

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would get to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Roy: I’m right on the principle of the bill. First of all, you recall, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Ferrier: He doesn’t know what it is.

Mr. Roy: -- having sat in the last Parliament, the replies that we received from the member for Carleton-Grenville, the Minister of Housing at that time, the predecessor to this present minister. In fact, his reply to any suggestions that we or other members across the House made is that you would see rent control over his dead body. This is basically the approach that he took --

Mr. Cassidy: Where is he now?

Mr. Roy: -- and the position hardened from day to day. Yet, as we kept getting closer to the election, we started seeing a shift. Then we heard something from the Premier talking about getting at the gougers of the tenants, and they were going to do it by way of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act -- a statute which has been picking up dust on the shelf for many, many years. All at once this legislation was going to be resurrected and that was going to be the answer to the gouging by some of these landlords.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You were going to make a stand.

Mr. Roy: Then the next step was the announcement by the Minister of Housing at that time that they were going to shame the landlords. This was beautiful; what they were going to have were boards which were going to look into the question of increases and the names of landlords who had unconscionable increases would be published, and this would do the lob for the tenants. The shaming of landlords publicly -- what a stand that was. In fact, this was the stand taken in the Tory pamphlet during the last election. As I read it, the pamphlet said:

“To keep rents from soaring and those who rent from being gouged, the government announced rent review boards to hear tenants’ complaints and bring to light unjustified and excessive rent increases.”

So this was the famous policy, this was the third policy by the government based on the position that it was going to shame the landlords. Then the further position taken by the Premier, and taken by the government again during the election, was that the process was going to work through rent review boards and then through the courts. This was something that the Premier talked about on many occasions. In fact, I should point out that in very close proximity the position changed radically. In a rally in Hamilton on Sept. 15, the Premier said:

“The rent gougers don’t like our rent review boards and providing tenants with protection by the courts. But I am sure tenants will approve of it.”

So the protection at that point was going to come from the courts. We felt throughout that the court process did not have the flexibility to deal with the problem as it existed in this province. Then, in a speech the following day in Sudbury, we get a new approach again:

“Third, we are going to provide necessary legislation to support our rent review boards. This legislation will protect tenants against excessive rent increases, while allowing tenants a right of appeal to their rents to review boards, which will take their case to the courts without cost to the tenants.”

So, another switch in position. First, they were going to shame them, then the tenants were going to go through the court process, now the tenants were going to go through the rent review boards, which would take the case to the court process. This was how the process evolved.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Chair finds the review of the past election campaign most interesting, but I fail to see how it deals with the principle of this bill.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you find it very embarrassing. I’m getting to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As someone who occasionally gives discursive speeches in this Legislature -- many of the points being made by the present speaker were made by me last Thursday night. If it was in order then, I’m sure that a review by a Liberal critic is equally in order.

Mr. Speaker: I wouldn’t say that it was in order at that time --

Mr. Reid: That kind of help you don’t need,

Mr. Speaker: -- but we’re dealing with it at this point.

Mr. Roy: The member for Ottawa Centre is very kind to put in his word, but the fact that he got away with it does not make it more in order. I do want to make this comment to the Chair. I feel that we’re talking about the principle of the bill and how we arrived at the principle of the bill. If you were to apply the rules strictly we might just as well start reading the bill itself. I’m saying to you that I’m right on the principle of the bill --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s garbage. Mr. Speaker, he might be out of order for being repetitive.

Mr. Roy: -- and if it will make you feel any better, I’m arriving at the end of my frolic into the government’s position prior to the enactment of this legislation.

The next step happened after the election. Then, the position of the Tories was not a success in the last election, so there was a change of Minister of Housing.

Mr. Hodgson: Neither was yours.

Mr. Roy: The first comment of the new Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), in walking out of the cabinet meeting, was that he didn’t believe in rent review boards at that point -- a new position then taken by the government This shocked the Premier himself; that his new minister should shoot from the hip, walking out of a cabinet meeting. Again, this was a different position taken. Finally, we have the baby here; we have the birth of the baby right now, where you have a mixture of controls, limits and the question of review.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could say something but it would be misunderstood.

Mr. Roy: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, you should take pride in that kind of leadership, that kind of tough government action, because you really waffled on this one. You were all over the rink.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So should you. I tell you this, if there is any group in Ontario that knows about waffling it has to be you people. It has to be you.

Mr. Roy: You really didn’t know what you stood for. I suggest to you that if you were to get up and talk about the legislation you, yourself, wouldn’t be too sure of what you stand for or what the legislation said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: You’ve changed your position so often on this that you really don’t know where you’re going. You really had to rely on the opposition to tell you what to do, to tell you what to put --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: We’ve had a further example of this today, Mr. Speaker, when they accepted my legislation in relation to speed limits and seatbelts. How’s that for a conversion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tremendous.

Mr. Kennedy: Just follow through with the bill, Albert.

Mr. Roy: As far as the legislation itself is concerned, some of my colleagues have expressed some concern about certain aspects of the bill. I, and my colleague from St. George (Mrs. Campbell) have talked about the question of the exception made for the question of boarding houses. We’re concerned that they are not covered by this legislation. We are concerned as well, and many people, especially from smaller communities and many parts of my own riding, are concerned that apartments with fewer than four units are not covered by this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The other leadership candidate didn’t speak that long.

Mr. Roy: Yes; that’s why his aspirations are limited.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I see.

Mr. Roy: I’ve got higher aspirations. To get back to my point -- when in many communities of older-type apartments or older-type housing, the exclusion is made for apartments of fewer than four units, you’re really excluding a large sector of suburban or central areas of cities. We should look at this legislation. We should consider receiving representation from various group’s about considering amending that aspect of the legislation.

We’re concerned, as well, that this type of legislation, in fact, appears to penalize more the landlord who has been responsible over a period of time, a landlord who has had a long-term lease for instance. His base rate is not going to be July, 1975; the base rate is going to be going back to 1972 on a two- or three-year lease. I think there is some merit in looking at this, because the landlord who is a gouger, the landlord who is the swiftest, the guy who is prepared to break his lease to get an increase in rent -- he’s okay under this. In fact, he’s better than okay.

Many landlords -- and that’s a further concern of this legislation -- had put in a hefty increase prior to July, 1975. Now, with the eight per cent, they are just going to slap it on over and above the increase that they had before July. It is going to be legal under our legislation because there is no right of appeal between July and January, 1976, according to my reading of the legislation. I see one hon. minister shaking her head on this. As I read the legislation, this is the way it exists. Maybe you can talk to your confrere to convince him that maybe he should have more flexibility in that area.

We are concerned, as well, about a further aspect of the legislation. In view of the 60-day notice that is involved here, for all intents and purposes, there is no appeal from July -- there will be no appeal from January, 1976, to March, 1976 -- if you require a 60-day notice, as I read the legislation for an appeal. So there is no appeal from July to March, as I read the legislation. I would like some clarification on this possibly when we discuss it in committee.

In my closing remarks, I find that again the government, having waffled on its position on the legislation, not really knowing where it is going, compounded the error by bringing this type of legislation without accompanying programmes to build houses. I think we all know why we have got into this situation. We got into the situation because the free enterprise system, as we know it, was a bit off kilter in this. it is a question of supply and demand. The equation had become unbalanced and it had become unbalanced, in fact, by many of your programmes and I suggest many of the federal government’s programmes.

We could talk about the tax on building materials; we could talk about the increase, I suppose, in labour costs in various areas; we could talk about the long delays in planning, in giving approval for buildings, for houses and for developments and so on. The Hon. John White, who was the Treasurer at the time, said he was going to reduce it to six months. I don’t see any evidence that reduction has taken place. These are the type of things which really frustrated people who are interested in budding accommodation in this province.

The sad part about the approach taken by this government is that there are no accompanying programmes to build accommodations in this province. We all agreed that the long term solution is certainly not this legislation and in fact may not be the legislation which is going to be accompanying the changes in the Landlord and Tenant Act. Because, if the supply is plentiful, that is the best protection the tenant could have; when he has the choice. Of course the supply is not there because of various factors and I don’t limit it to this government. I say that the approach taken and the taxation policy of the federal government, or maybe even the lack of planning as a matter of urban policy on the long term basis, may have contributed to this.

I suppose all governments fail to realize the fantastic increases that were going on in urban areas. They fail to adjust to this. I recall comments by my colleague, the hon. member now for Armourdale (Mr. Givens), who was taking about the federal government getting involved in cities. Trudeau said at that point; “No, constitutionally we can’t get involved into this. That is a provincial matter.” We know that they are involved in it now but it seems that for constitutional reasons or whatever, the federal government policy in the past -- in urban planning and assistance, because of their taxing powers and the moneys that are coming in there; they have the money. The fact remains that they have been lacking. And this government has been lacking through its overall policy.

It seems to us that at least this government, when it is bringing in legislation like this, should make it clearer that this is the type of social legislation which is necessary at this time. Surely, on a long-term basis, the sooner we don’t need this type of legislation the better it is going to be. It is not going to go away by itself.

This government is compounding the error by having no positive policies of how we are going to get out of this type of legislation. We find this hard. The Tories, unfortunately, are suffering from what we call hardening of the arteries. They really don’t know where they are going. They just react and don’t really lead. Of course, this puts them in a position where they are changing. When they are under pressure during an election campaign, their position changes every second day.

I’m concerned as well by the approach taken by some of the hon. members to my right. These members seem to be content to have this type of control for control’s sake. We’re building a bureaucracy again, a further bureaucracy. That government has all the answers.

Mr. Laughren: The private sector sure doesn’t.

Mr. Roy: Surely in this country, in this province, the answer in the long term is to build more houses.

Mr. Laughren: Exactly.

Mr. Roy: And the answer in the long term is to make it possible that we don’t need this type of legislation.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, like mortgage rates.

Mr. Roy: But your approach seems to be that controls are great in themselves, more government power, that government has all the answers, that in fact you’re building up bureaucracy.

Mr. Laughren: That’s your government.

Mr. Roy: You seem to relish in that. Your colleague, the hon. member who spoke this afternoon, was talking about “these socialist principles and these socialist policies.” What kind of an approach is that? You’re really showing your true colour. What happened to your leader’s approach about sweet reasonableness, as we might call it?

Mr. Ruston: That’s the act their leader was putting on.

Mr. Roy: Surely, as a matter for the long term, the sooner we get out of this type of legislation, the sooner we get out of all types of control, be it rent control, be it anti-inflation policy --

[4:45]

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: In fact, my friends to the right seem to be --

An hon. member: Not your right, your left.

Mr. Roy: -- highly inconsistent. On the one hand, they’re prepared to control rents and yet they’re not prepared to support the anti-inflation policy as enacted by the federal government.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: To me that is inconsistent.

Mr. Cassidy: We want a socialist policy, yes, but not what we have from the Liberals.

Mr. Roy: And I hear the member for Ottawa Centre stand up and say: “Great, controls. We’re going to have controls across this province, controls for controls’ sake. We’re going to build up bureaucracy.” You know, that’s typically your policy, that government has all the answers.

Mr. Young: Who said so?

Mr. Roy: I recall during the campaign that when you were on the platform, along with the Communist candidate, your policy in the area of housing and in government controls was very similar when you were saying that government has all the answers.

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, is that ever slander.

Mr. Moffatt: Also Liberal policy, too.

Mr. Roy: As a matter of long-term policy, we have to get government, in co-operation with private enterprise, to work under this legislation. It’s not going to be easy. Some builders, some developers, are taking a very negative attitude.

Mr. Cassidy: A typical Liberal position -- the government takes the risk and the corporations take the profits.

Mr. Roy: But we, as a party, must get them together to work --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: -- so that we can build housing. The sooner we can do away with this type of legislation the better it’s going to be for the people of this province --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: -- and the better it’s going to be for the tenants.

Mr. Cassidy: Tell the tenants about that.

Mr. Martel: All right, I’ll take a few cracks at the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you going to be very long?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t help but be impressed by that noise --

Mr. Ferrier: He’s cowering in his chair over there now.

Mr. Martel: -- that noise who started out by decrying that the free enterprise system had failed and ended up by saying that socialism shouldn’t get involved in housing. Now that’s possible --

Mr. Roy: I am not saying that. I say governments don’t have all the answers.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: You know, what that member did, of course, was typify the Liberal philosophy: everything to everybody all the time, depending on where you’re at. They call it flexibility.

Mr. Ruston: That’s what you people did in the last election.

Mr. Martel: I don’t know how you can have it both ways, to cry that the free enterprise system has failed miserably leading to this type of legislation, crying for subsidies and then saying that government shouldn’t get involved in developing sufficient housing.

Mr. Roy: You didn’t understand. As a socialist, you didn’t understand.

Mr. Martel: All right, I didn’t understand. That’s right, I didn’t. I have been around here for eight years and I have never been able to understand your position on a hell of a lot.

Mr. Roy: If you would only listen and come to the House once in a while --

Mr. Martel: You know the problem around here. It used to be confusing before. In the last Parliament, there were 23 ideas, or 24 or 25. The NDP position, the Conservative position and 23 Liberals with 23 positions.

Mr. Roy: That’s not what Morty said. Morty Shulman didn’t say that.

Mr. Moffatt: Is he one of your disciples?

Mr. Martel: Now it’s gone a little higher. Now we have -- let me see -- 38 positions, and you can understand my difficulty. There’s a Conservative position, the NDP position, and 36 Liberal positions.

Mr. Singer: I am glad I came upstairs to listen to this debate. It’s right on the Act.

Mr. Martel: It becomes more confusing, Mr. Speaker, every time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member come to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Singer: Good idea.

Mr. Roy: What I want to know is, is the member going to support the legislation?

Mr. Cassidy: Of course he is. You know with us. You never know with you.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see thot the Premier (Mr. Davis) left. When I came in earlier the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) wanted to know if I was going to speak to the situation as it pertains to Sudbury and I fully intend to.

It is divided into two parts -- pre-1972 and thereafter. In 1971-1972, the minister will recall that we raised considerable Cain because of the tremendous housing shortage in Sudbury. There was a vacancy rate of zilch. This afternoon as we tried to question the Premier, the Speaker ruled us out of order. What we were talking about was a policy which this government has allowed to develop which creates that sort of dilemma for the Sudbury region -- the boom and bust economy, with the government of Ontario turning its eyes away from the real situation.

An hon. member: Shameful.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Labour gave us an answer this afternoon -- there was no collusion. Certainly there was collusion, bad faith bargaining, the whole business. You don’t bring back 650 men who have left the area to go and work somewhere else --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Martel: The minister will let me finish. You don’t bring back 650 men who have taken work somewhere else, bring them back to work for a week and lay them off. That’s what Falconbridge did. They have laid 439 men off --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Four hundred and thirty-eight.

Mr. Martel: Yes, but they brought back over 650 who had jobs in other communities. So you have the boom and bust. We were booming in 1971. We had a vacancy rate of zero. We couldn’t get Ontario Housing, nor could we get the Ministry of Housing involved in anything in the way of construction of homes.

The public was gouged. It dost $200 a month to rent a tent in those days in the Sudbury area. Thereafter men, as it’s wont to do, with the blessing of the Ontario government and the Premier, laid off 3,500 men and there was a mass exodus.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And they all went to work building your big house.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. That’s why I have an estate. It’s not just a house, it’s an estate.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s correct.

Mr. Martel: Right. The hon member doesn’t begrudge me that little estate, that little palatial suite?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member didn’t pay union wages, either.

Mr. Martel: In 1972 they started out with the concurrence of the government of Ontario. With the refusal of the government to look into Inco’s little game at that time, and its policy of licensing and permits and contracts, they were allowed to move out. There was a hunch of people who were requested by the company to build apartments. I hope the hon. minister is listening. They were requested by Inco to build some of the apartments and then they were left empty -- a 40 per cent vacancy rate.

What is happening now? It took two years to get a little upturn. The apartment buildings are filled at last, and Falconbridge plays its little game, and it lays a thousand off. The minister might say 439. I want to tell the minister -- she’s here now -- that within a month another 400 men will be laid off.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I understand the hon. member’s concern for his riding but I would like him to discuss at this time the bill before us. I am not trying to suppress his right of free speech but not on this bill. He can do that during the Throne Speech debate or the debate on the budget, but now let’s get back to the bill and save us all some time.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. minister that other people have talked about the other part pertaining to this legislation -- the necessity to construct accommodation -- and that’s what we are getting to --

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will recognize some brief comments as to the need, but we would ask the hon. member to keep them fairly brief.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I guarantee I am going to be right on topic.

Mr. Laughren: As always.

Mr. Martel: I want to get back to where I was before the hon. minister so rudely interrupted. I would like to tell the Minister of Labour that within a month --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: -- there will be another layoff.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: -- and what will happen, Mr. Speaker, is that you will have more vacancies in the apartments in the Sudbury area. That’s because of the policy of the government to allow these layoffs without ever investigating what the corporations are doing. So you have the boom and bust mentality -- with the concurrence of the Government of Ontario. And when you ask the Premier -- as we did this afternoon -- to look into it, he says no, it’s left to the region. Well, that’s nonsense, that’s total nonsense.

The minister had a delegation in from Sudbury -- and I want to speak to that because he suggested I wouldn’t -- that that group who built after 1972 are in the bind I talk about -- on the request of the companies they built apartments, and then saw a 40 per cent vacancy rate.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We are talking about the rent programme.

Mr. Martel: A 40 per cent vacancy rate. Ultimately they had their apartments filled, and are now into a bind again because we are going to have another mass layoff with 1,000 workers leaving the Sudbury area.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What has that to do with rent control?

Mr. Martel: And that is going to affect the whole of the economy of the Sudbury area, and it is going to affect the number of apartments that are going to be confronted with going under.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member come to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Martel: In the process, Mr. Speaker, the rents have increased rather tremendously --

Mr. Singer: It’s a waste of time listening to that guy.

Mr. Martel: -- in the last couple of months. I just want to put a letter on the record if I might -- Well, we’ll find out if I am wasting the time of the Legislature.

Mr. Singer: You haven’t once talked on the bill and you have talked for 10 minutes.

Mr. Roy: The member for Sudbury East dues it so well that people can’t tell.

Mr. Martel: Well, only certain people. It depends on what your IQ is -- if you’ve got one.

Mr. Speaker, this letter is addressed to me. It’s concerning housing -- Cambrian Village to be precise. Let me put it on the record:

“To recap our conversation we submit the following: On or about May 7, 1975, Cambrian Village was sold to Michaud Enterprises Ltd. in Sudbury.

“Effective that date our monthly rental was adjusted from $225 to $235. [That was June.]

“In August, 1975, we were advised that all tenants would be responsible for their own hydro from Sept. 1, 1975. This of course necessitated our making initial deposit to Sudbury Hydro of $20 plus the rental. It will also mean an additional approximate outlay of $10 per month.

“On Oct. 4 we received ‘Letter No. 5’ advising that tenants would be billed for natural gas, effective March, 1976. This would result in approximately $25 to $80 per month at today’s rate, but we must bear in mind the 52 per cent increase in natural gas in the immediate future.”

So in fact it will be higher than that. To top it all off there is a $10 levy if you get your apartment painted, and there is a $20 levy if you are one day late with your rent. It doesn’t take much of a mathematician to realize that we’re talking approximately $95 a month in Cambrian.

Mr. Laughren: What if you are a day early?

Mr. Martel: That’s a good point. If you are a day early you don’t get a $20 rebate. No, no, you only pay $10 extra if you are a day late. That’s called the free enterprise system.

An hon. member: That seems fair.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. It depends on who is in control.

Mr. Mancini: If you are late with your taxes you have to pay a penalty.

Mr. Laughren: That’s because we have a Liberal government in Ottawa.

Mr. Mancini: What about municipal government?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, we are in fact talking about an increase that ranges from $75 to $95 for that group of people in that particular development, so you’ve got two different types of problems in the Sudbury area. Cambrian was there before 1972-1978. Possibly that is the reason why -- as some of my colleagues have said before me, if you got into the act early enough you are in pretty good shape, if you got into the act after 1972, at least in Sudbury, you are in trouble.

It amazes me that when I try to speak to this the minister says, no, we’re not on the bill, because we are.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are now.

Mr. Martel: What my colleague from Yorkview (Mr. Young) has said previously is that unless you build an accompanying number of accommodations you are not going to get out of this problem -- you’re never going to get out of being the policeman until we have sufficient accommodation.

Of course the reason the Liberals aren’t too happy to talk about such things as mortgage rates -- 12 per cent -- is because anybody worth his salt would realize that we could find moneys at a lot less to provide that type of accommodation. One might look at the railroaders’ pension fund, which I am told is worth about $8 billion, and on which most railroaders will tell you they get about 4½ per cent on the buck.

[5:00]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Martel: It has to do with providing the funding. You have allowed other people to speak to this point all afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would draw to your attention that the hon. member for Yorkview made his point very briefly. We recognize that pomp we will do so again. Put we would ask you when you are commenting on points relative to the bill, but not right on the principle, that you do so briefly.

Mr. Martel: All right, I appreciate that opportunity to make my comments briefly, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue. The money is there. If you want to provide accommodation, the minister himself, through Ontario Housing, might use some of the funding that the government is spending for the purchase of land to drive down land costs. In my municipality, as the minister knows, we are selling serviced lots for $8,400, where five miles away they are selling at $10,000 without services, and in the city of Sudbury -- thanks to free enterprise -- at $22,000 to $26,000 in the latest subdivision, on this rock.

Mr. Shore: Where are you getting the $8,400 from?

Mr. Martel: In the town of Capreol.

Mr. Shore: Free enterprise?

Mr. Martel: No, developed by the town. Property owned by the town, developed by the town.

Mr. Cassidy: You guys want the free enterprise.

Mr. Martel: That’s socialism.

Mr. Laughren: That’s right.

Mr. Martel: And that’s what you should be doing with Ontario Housing money. You should be driving prices down by fully developing lots and competing. The free enterpriser likes the competition. You should be competing with him.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I’m talking about the cost of services -- the one on the rock and the one in Capreol --

Mr. Martel: You should be competing with those free enterprisers and reducing the cost of land -- Valley East has no rock --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s what I mean. That’s why --

Mr. Martel: I don’t live in Valley East. I live in Capreol. I am I telling you that there are ways that you should be using your ministry and the money there to drive down the price of land -- one of the major components in the high cost of homes. But you don’t. You get in there and you play their game. You sell at their level because in the city of Sudbury, OHC lots are going for $20,000. You play the game with them. You are part and parcel of the system. You are not really sincere about bringing land down so that you can provide housing at a cost that people can afford.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister could play a very useful role if he would just move in those areas, such as decent mortgage rates and a decent cost for land. I might ask the minister if he will indicate whether he intends to get rid of this type of policy which prevails for the people at Cambrian. Rent will be $245 if paid after the first of the month; before that date, rent will be $225. I hope that the minister will add to the legislation, that these people cannot charge $20 if tenants are one day late with the rent. That’s ridiculous.

I would ask the minister to clarify this -- and I have read the bill very carefully -- can rents be increased in the various ways that the owners of Cambrian Village have attempted to do -- through utilities, gas and so on; even painting the house for $10 a month. I think there have to be protections. At the same time, I want to say that this minister from northern Ontario -- to prevent any more serious erosion of housing as has occurred in the Sudbury area -- has got to sit down with the Premier and talk about the boom and bust economy that faces the entire north. Otherwise, we are going to have continual problems with people who construct apartment buildings, whether they be large or small. This minister, as the minister from the north, realizes that problem and should do something about it.

Mr. Swart: I rise to say a few words on the rent control bill, just for two reasons -- first, because I think it is such an important matter, that it should be emphasized in this House; second, because it seems to me that the debate, to a very large extent, at least while I have been here, has been revolving around the issue of free enterprise versus socialism or something of this nature.

I am rather intrigued by the attempt of the Liberals, particularly the Liberal leader and the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Martel: The would-be leader; that’s the would-be leader.

Mr. Swart: -- to try to dissociate themselves from anything connected with socialism. I am sure the members on the opposite side of the House, if they speak on the issue, will do the same thing. I think it points up a fault in their two parties that they somehow or other feel that they have to speak against anything that can be construed as socialism. I just tell them that they should move into the NDP --

Mr. Mancini: Have you been listening all afternoon?

Mr. Swart: -- because in this party we don’t have that fear. We don’t have to examine everything in the context of whether or not we are supporting doctrinaire free enterprise. We can examine something like this is on the basis of whether or not it is good for the public -- whether or not the public interest comes first. So we don’t have to fit it within the context of either doctrinaire socialism or doctrinaire free enterprise.

My few remarks on this bill will be made within that context, because that is just what we want to do within this party: put the public interest first and not the interests of any special vested groups. We believe there should be some democracy in the marketplace -- that the tenants should have a right to some say, through their elected representatives passing legislation which gives them some protection. We believe that democracy should be extended to that degree -- so that they would have some say about what they pay and the conditions of the accommodation in which they live.

I want to say, in answer to one of the previous speakers, that we in this party don’t think that all landlords are gougers. We are not supporting rent-control legislation which we think should go substantially further than this bill because we think they are all gougers. We do think there is a substantial amount of gouging going on.

Most legislation is passed, not to control the majority, but to control the minority who would attempt to abuse society and their fellow citizens in some manner. We pass laws against speeding although perhaps not the majority of people speed. We have a Criminal Code, but it was not developed because a majority of people are criminals. So, we need rent legislation because there are, within our society, a substantial number of owners of apartment buildings and other accommodation who will take advantage of the people. They will gouge their tenants and otherwise cause them to live under conditions they should not have to.

In answer to the hon. member for Ottawa East about this party being a party that likes controls, let me say to him that we are not a party that likes controls. We are a party that recognizes there are controls being exorcized by someone, and we think they should be exercised by a legislature in the public interest -- not by the owners of the accommodation just in their interest. Make no mistake about it, there are rents that are controlled today. Somebody is setting rents and they are not setting them in the public interest.

In any event, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the need for rent controls today is primary because the Liberal government at Ottawa and the Conservative government in Ontario have not taken the steps that they should have to provide housing for the public. We now have a condition where rent controls are an absolute necessity if we are going to keep any fairness in the housing situation in our society.

It is because we believe that the public interest should come first that we say the retroactivity in this bill does not go far enough. Any examination will show that there are huge increases in rent taking place, certainly in the Metropolitan Toronto area and in many other parts of Ontario, at least back to the first of last year, perhaps before the first of this year, perhaps before that. If we are going to make this fair, if we are going to deal in the public interest, then we should go back at least to Jan. 1 of this year in our retroactivity.

In our party we have seen no indication that the eight per cent allowable increase in this bill is justified. Our examinations show that approximately six per cent is the increase in the cost to landlords. If this is the case, and it is true in Quebec, it is true in British Columbia and --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You didn’t study it here.

Mr. Swart: The minister may have studied it here; I’ve seen no evidence presented here, no evidence presented in this House, to show there have been average increases of eight per cent in the cost --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Your group didn’t study it here in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: -- of providing accommodation in this province. Our figures show six per cent, and in the public interest, we think it should be six per cent.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Now be honest. You didn’t study it in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: I don’t know just how one does study it. But I think it is the responsibility --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Your British Columbia figures say that.

Mr. Swart: -- of the government of this province, which brings in a bill, to justify that type of increase within this province. I’ve seen no justification for that.

Interjection.

Mr. Shore: Wages aren’t being held to eight per cent.

Mr. Swart: We believe, in this party, that the increase in rent should be based on the increase in costs to the landlord and that’s part of the principle of our bill. The exclusion of the four units -- and I understand the hon. minister is willing to reconsider this -- but the exclusion of those units, those properties that only have four units, is certainly not in the public interest when it excludes 40 per cent.

I mentioned in this House on Friday, I believe, the case in Welland of accommodation where the rats had infested a property. Pictures were shown on the front page of the paper where these people had killed seven rats in the last two days, that had come into the house. They had been attempting to act into public housing. There was no public housing available. So they had to continue to live in these conditions. The other part of that coin is that that landlord owns many properties in the city of Welland -- two or three units -- of the same classification. The bill which we have before us, put forward by the government, would exempt rent controls on those type of properties. In the public interest, we can’t accept that.

We also believe in the permanence of this type of legislation. At least the bill should not be going to terminate at a given date. If conditions should arise, at some future time, that we no longer need rent control, and it can be proved, I suggest this party would be the first one that would be glad to see the rent control legislation eliminated. I doubt very much if that day will come within nor time.

Mr. Shore: What is the definition of that date?

Mr. Swart: There is a very substantial difference on whether it terminates at a given time or whether it is put in, as most legislation, that remains law until action is taken to terminate it. It makes a very real difference in the matter of the amount of housing that is going to be built. They are going to wait. They are going to wait until the rent controls are lifted, and it’s going to deter housing construction during the next two years.

You asked the question and I’ll try to answer it: It is going to make it very difficult to get good rent control officers, to get people who are willing to take a job that is only going to last for two years. I suggest that the success, the public acceptability, of the rent control programme will depend to a large extent on the type of rent control officers you have in the various places.

[5:15]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are going to make the bureaucracy grow.

Mr. Swart: If they are just going to be political appointments, or somebody who wants to get a little extra money for a couple of veers, I’ve suggested it is not going to be very acceptable and not going to be working very well. Therefore, I think, there should be permanence to this bill.

That concludes the remarks I want to make with regard to this bill except, perhaps, to reiterate that I think we should put this in the perspective not of whether it’s socialism or private enterprise but whether it meets the needs of the public. We in this party think the amendment which we will propose and which we hope the government will accept will be the minimum which will meet the needs of the public. We hope this House will approve the rent control bill with those amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Haggerty: Stand up.

Mr. Laughren: I’m on the chair already.

It is with much pleasure that I enter this debate. I’m enjoying this afternoon more than I’ve enjoyed an afternoon in this Legislature for a long time. I’ve enjoyed the way the debate has swirled about and really broken down into a question of whether or not we think this is creeping socialism in Ontario. Any time we can debate in this Legislature the virtues of socialism versus the inequities of the free enterprise system, we’re quite happy to do so with the other two parties.

I would say it’s really strange to hear the Liberal Party decrying socialism in Ontario while at the same time unanimously supporting the legislation. Of course, the Conservative Party would be the first ones to support the Liberals on that principle but they’re the ones who are introducing the legislation. It’s with considerable pride that we take part in this debate. We know for sure that we had a major role in ensuring that this legislation was introduced in the first place.

The debate over review versus control is really not important. I would quote my colleague from Welland (Mr. Swart) who said, “What’s really important is what it does for people and whether or not in protects tenants.” Of course, that is why we are here and why we raised the issue in the first place.

We know there is going to be considerable debate over the percentages, whether or not the allowable increase should be eight per cent or six per cent. Others will say, “Why would you pick six per cent?” I suppose we could ask the government why it picked eight. I suspect there is no magic figure which is absolutely right. We suspect that six would be a more just figure than eight because we know there have been substantial increases over the last few years and we think there was considerable surplus generated over those years.

The whole question of exemptions has been talked about. We are certain that there are too many exemptions and I gather that the minister -- I didn’t hear him say it -- has indicated that there will be amendments to improve that. I certainly hope so.

The retroactivity date, I suppose, is another question just like the percentages. What date is absolutely right? I feel, and the rest of my party does, that Aug. 1 is not the proper date and it should go back to the beginning of the year. I think there were lots of landlords who anticipated some form of rent control or rent review in Ontario and consequently built it into increases during the first six months of 1975.

In Nickel Belt there is one high-rise. I think it is nine storeys. There is another one which may be five or six storeys. The question of rent control as it applies only to high-rises certainly doesn’t affect the small communities in most of northern Ontario and that’s why we will be most anxious to pursue the necessity of removing those exemptions for fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes and rooming houses.

My colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Mantel) raised the whole question of what happens when we have a tremendous change in vacancy rates. In Sudbury in a matter of about two years we went from the lowest vacancy rate to the highest vacancy rate in all Canada. Those, I believe, are Statistics Canada statistics. That, surely, puts a community through the wringer and there is danger that it’s going to happen again. I suppose that’s the logical extension of the free enterprise system in which they do as their balance sheets dictate to them. That is one of the reasons rent control is necessary in communities such as Sudbury. It’s strange that the population of Sudbury in the last year or so has actually declined in absolute numbers and vet we have a housing crisis -- at least it’s getting severe. With the latest layoff that may be altered.

When the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) was here a few minutes ago, she scoffed at the figure of 1,000. But we are certain that there is going to be close to 1,000 men laid off at the Falconbridge operations. They have already announced 439 and there is going to be a phase 2 of the layoff which will probably see just as many go. And then of course there is the related trade. So that is going to play havoc with the housing situation in the Sudbury area.

I agree with my colleague from Yorkview (Mr. Young) who talked about a rent control programme by itself not being enough -- that surely in conjunction with rent control we need a massive public housing programme in Ontario, we need a massive land banking programme in Ontario along with rent control legislation. In a community like Sudbury there are people working in the mines at wages that are probably in the neighbourhood of $10,000 to $12,000. The thought that they are paying $12,000, $16,000 or $22,000 for a serviced lot is just ludicrous. I know it’s no better in other large urban centres in Ontario either. But what is happening in northern Ontario and other parts is that people are being driven out into the outlying areas. That’s causing long-term planning problems, and so forth.

So we will be supporting this legislation, Mr. Speaker, partly because it is a logical intervention of government into the private sector when the private sector has failed to meet the needs of people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I feel terribly biblical -- not bibulous, biblical -- this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You look biblically terrible.

Mr. Lawlor: I think that once upon a time in a place called Asia Minor a certain man riding on horseback fell off that horse and said, “Now I see.” What kind of a donkey was the minister riding on when you hit the turf?

Mr. Good: Saul of Tarsus.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He is not Paul, he is Peter.

Mr. Lawlor: Conversions come late, don’t they? It is all right though, I tell the minister. He can go out to his friends in the community and to the landlords, wring his hands a little, weep slightly, dampen his eyelids, and say “It was all those socialists that did it.

Again, as I say, it is biblical. You haven’t, I wouldn’t think, the decency of Adam who, turning to Eve, said, “Lord, she made me do it.” We are not that cheap. It’s more the condition of Eve saying to Adam, “How did it come about?” And he says, “The serpent spoke to me, tempted me, and I fell.” We are all serpents in the New Democratic Party; we speak rhetorically and we tempted you. And, Lord help me, the venom has infected the system and you have come to this noxious, toxic task that you find yourself in today.

Mr. Good: You have been crawling on your bellies ever since. That is what happened to the serpent.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you know what St. Patrick did to you people?

Mr. Good: You know what happened to the serpent?

Mr. Bullbrook: There are none left in Ireland. No socialists.

Mr. Lawlor: All the chagrin, all the terrible, almost dervish-like, twirlings that we put up with through the hearings of Bill Pr33 -- the longest single interval, Wednesday after Wednesday, that the private bills committee of this House ever underwent. It was under the auspices of Mr. Irvine, who on most occasions didn’t dispose himself to appear. But innumerable delegations, representing a diversity of interests, did appear. We sat through these things meeting, on the part of the government and the members sitting on that committee at every stage of the way with resistance, suppression and total blockage on every count throughout a period of six, seven or eight consecutive weeks in the spring. The election was called and it never did come to fruition or to any particular understanding.

In that particular debate, the city of Toronto’s propositions etc., were scouted, explored, and worked out very thoroughly and the ramifications of this measure were brought to light in a way I have never seen previously in the Legislature. It was a most hopeless piece of business because of the obtuseness on the part of the powers that be throughout that thing.

The one conclusion one came to was the argument used by the Urban Development Corp. and their lackeys that places were not being built because of the threat of this legislation fell flat. It was simple to point out that they weren’t being built in any event. There was a question of getting the cart before the horse or some kind of causality feature worked in -- which came first? It was the failure of the industry itself to go ahead and build despite the carrots held out to that donkey. Enormous benefits were conferred upon the housing industry in this regard and still could be and still are and still they are not being built.

I think, for instance, of the insurance and trust corporations of this province with very large sums of money indeed sitting and being diverted into common stocks where they are losing for their shareholders -- their investment money is coming out their ears -- instead of putting it into something very solid, something which has virtually a guaranteed return on the investment.

In this particular area the trust corporations and the insurance companies I took port of the equity in new apartment construction. They weren’t content to take the mortgages. They wanted a part of the action. And even with that, the thing has dried up. Is there no end to human invidiousness and to the reaching out, the acquisitiveness in this regard? Is there no end to fallacious arguments that we don’t build because we haven’t got sufficient return? They work themselves into the central feature; it has nothing to do with rents.

They simply share in the overall investment dividends which flow from the thing. They can share in whatever proportion they see fit according to their investment of client’s funds. If they want 15 per cent or they want 25 per cent, they simply demand it. Nevertheless in face of all this the market has dried up. Through a radical failure on the part of the people who complain most in their own house -- or in their unbuilt house -- we are driven to this particular kind of legislation.

The legislation is defective on two counts which I wish the minister would take under consideration or at least consult on with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman). One would have to do with a model lease arrangement which we are bereft of and for which I see no move being made to provide. Secondly, a tenants’ bill of rights, which other jurisdictions have devised and constructed and which, in the hang-back, hang-dog atmosphere of this House, has not been forthcoming.

The retroactive feature in this legislation must hear; it is the pivotal feature of the legislation. We are going to ask the minister to back up a little bit on this. Many of our people think the thing should be backed up back to June, 1974, and even before that because the escalations were manifold and multitudinous at that particular time and before that. In a kind of compromise solution to the thing, holding out, I suppose, some form of olive branch we say it is unpalatable to us unless it goes back to Jan. this year. They all anticipated in the spring of the year such legislation coming into being. Despite the government’s resistance it was in the cards and these people are shrewd; they are business people. They know the score. They could feel the winds blowing over them and moved in anticipation of the legislation so that the minister must move as a counteracting force, in this regard, to rewrite the balance in the area of increased rental.

[5:30]

I wonder if the legislation is not also defective, insofar as escalation clause of all kinds are concerned. The minister may argue, and he no doubt may argue in committee, that the breath of the definition in the legislation, as it is at present, is adequate to cover that contingency. Personally I do not believe that it is. I think of the numerous leases in which there are special clauses with respect to say, separate school supporters, who must make up the difference between the mill rate and the amount of assessment made in the public school area over again. That is a constant recurring and deeply endemic feature of leases in the Province of Ontario, and particularly in the city of Toronto, for a long time past.

But those are not the escalation clauses that I’m overtly concerned with. The minister makes no mention of those sort of things: The ones in which, on the side of the lease, they have now come to type on a clause which gives them the power, for instance, in one of its features, if there is any increase in municipal rates of taxes, that increase, the differential between a certain base date and the date of which the assessment is made, will be borne by the tenant entirely.

It doesn’t seem to me that that’s proper. I don’t understand why landlords do that, in any event, because the full amount of the taxes that they pay to the municipalities is deductible on their income tax. Why would they seek to levy that burden upon their tenants when they get the full alleviation thereof elsewhere? Do they, in that particular context -- I would love to investigate this -- take the full benefit of the deduction under the income tax and nevertheless derive the usufruct of the benefit from the tenant without mention, having got a double benefit within the purview of the single clause? I suspect there are a good many of them who do that. While one admits that they could get themselves into very severe difficulties with the tax department, nevertheless this is a feature that is also within the ambit of the minister’s authority and is not specifically provided for within the terms of the legislation itself.

The courts are the wrong place to have hearings of this kind. Through long processes of government there has been the detestation, the hostility toward courts -- I am sorry -- toward administrative bodies of all kinds. It’s an ongoing deeply endemic concept in English law and among conservative minds that administrative agencies are somehow suspect, that they must be avoided if possible, that the courts have some kind of a priority, that their prestige and that their position in society is such as to warrant an addiction to them and attention upon them. That, I thought, had largely dissipated and disappeared since certain reports written around 1925-1930 castigated all governmental utility agencies and administrative bodies saying that they were outside the democratic purview. We’ve come to accept them. We find that they work rather well. Within specific areas of expertise as have to be developed in this area in a jurisprudence, the courts prove themselves largely otiose, out of date and not particularly receptive.

Secondly, the courts of this province, down here in the courthouse on University Ave., are so overloaded that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) himself has to admit that he is going to have to appoint new judges specifically to handle matters of this kind. The costs of judges are very high indeed, and provision of facilities to operate in are very scant indeed. It’s obvious that this sort of thing is a job for an administrative agency where individuals do not necessarily have the legal temper, all the formalism, all the legalism that goes into that, which prolongs the hearings, which sets up nice points.

This doesn’t need nice points. This needs an across-the-board adjudication to be reached as quickly as possible at the least expense with the greatest access. That’s what administrative bodies were designed to fulfil and to do. Yet the minister scouts them. I have no objection to an appeal from such a body to the divisional court of this province in cases outreaching the jurisdiction or in cases of the breaches in natural justice that sometimes flow from people who are not trained in law. That is the safeguard that the ministers fall back upon. And why he should go off on a particular tangent and involve bodies which are not well equipped to handle this sort of thing, quite bemuses me. But it shows that thin edge of resistance that typifies the legislation throughout. It is permeated by discontent -- the minister’s discontent. There is no generosity of feeling and there is no forthright approach to this legislation, accepting something as not only necessary but possibly beneficial to all concerned. This is a fallacy, and the major failure in the legislation with the minister’s innumerable exclusions, etc.

I shall wind up by simply saying that the government puts its emphases -- and has put its emphases for a long time -- in the wrong place. It is worried about money for housing. Yet it has been pointed out to the government that there are pension funds available, that there are very considerable pools of financial resources in this province and country for this business. But it has never arrogated itself on to that point. It has never given consideration.

The priorities of the Conservative government for the past 50 years have been on highways. If I had anything to do with it, I would overt some of that money out of highways. There is too much money being spent on 401. We don’t have to widen it every 10 days and spend $50 million a mile. I would think that a third to a half of that highway budget, which would represent in the region of $500 million, could be arrogated, at least for an interim period, into the housing market.

This building has to be done under public auspices, if the government is going to do it at all, both with respect to the high-rise, in conjunction with the trust companies and the insurance companies, and with respect to the housing market, to row housing --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t you want highways in the north?

Mr. Lawlor: -- and to condominium housing, housing in the environs of the city. The government has the land --

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me there are too many conversations going on. The member for Lakeshore has the floor.

Mr. Ferrier: He is just worried that the highway for Northumberland will be cut back.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I just suggested I would move the money out of the Thunder Bay and Port Arthur ridings into --

Mr. Lawlor: The hon. minister doesn’t have to be narrow minded about it. He doesn’t have to start nitpicking or pinpointing or trying to threaten or do any of that nonsense, just investigate that budget.

Mr. Foulds: What kind of blackmail is that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wouldn’t threaten him for the world, although I think it may be --

Mr. Lawlor: There is money there. I would divert it for two or three years. Put a moratorium on the highway development, particularly around the major cities. The government would accomplish enormous things.

Mr. Stokes: It is very easy for a member who has more highways than he can use.

Mr. Lawlor: In any event, it holds the lands in vast tracts around the city. It should bring in the Ontario Water Resources Commission or some similar agency, peculiarly and exclusively within government auspices, to put in the services on that land. It is the only way it is ever going to be done. Then call in the private developer, then call in the private builder on terms, on contracts and I on conditions. They would be pleased to do it. It gives them a guaranteed income on one side.

Mr. Good: That’s what you people voted against the other day. You voted against it the other day.

Mr. Shore: You’d better get together with the rest of your friends.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister takes the basic rate off and builds the houses. And that is perfectly within his purview. If he did that on any scale, in three years he would have alleviated the condition.

Mr. Good: That’s exactly what you voted against in Bill 6.

Mr. Lawlor: Why doesn’t he have some forthrightness? Why hasn’t he got some imagination in this particular case, instead of a hangdog, pessimistic, woebegone attitude possessed by his predecessor and, so far as I can see from this minister’s general demeanour and deportment, possessed by him ton.

Mr. Cunningham: I have just listened to this recitation of what might be called Canterbury Tales and it is with a great deal of interest that I hear this dichotomy that exists within his party -- that being the problem of the socialists and the private enterprisers. I am sure that I sympathize -- and I know the members opposite me do sympathize with them ton -- with their dilemma, as it would relate to the possibilities of the next election. I am glad to hear that a majority of them still adhere to this great principle of socialism that they talk of, and that in fact we won’t be hearing any more of this great attribute of private enterprise -- at least from them.

I would ask them to think sincerely about the ramifications of a reduction of supply, which is going to force the legitimate private enterpriser -- who is in fact becoming a rarity in this province of ours, almost as rare as Conservative members -- I would ask them to think about the ramifications of this legislation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who is sitting in third place?

Mr. Cunningham: You lost Wentworth North, my friend.

Mr. Ferrier: They are an endangered species.

Mr. Gaunt: We picked up 13.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: God knows, you couldn’t go much lower.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the principle of the bill. The member for Wentworth North.

Mr. Cunningham: I would ask them to think about the ramifications of this legislation which I support in principle. What about the legitimate landlord who hasn’t raised his rent in good faith, because he hasn’t needed to for a number of years.

Mr. Warner: He’s not affected by the legislation.

Mr. Cunningham: I can assure the House he will raise his rents to the limit, and that will be inflationary. What about the landlord who contemplated massive improvements to his buildings? In travelling around Toronto, I see some buildings that could use such improvements. They won’t now. What about the various services -- cleaning, gardening, landscaping, snow-ploughing? I would suggest that these services will be reduced. We only have to look south of the border to New York City where they have had rent controls for 20 years -- 25 years -- and look at the tenements that have resulted from this type of legislation.

Mr. Germa: Try Chicago where it is free enterprise.

Mr. Cunningham: I would think that if my associates in the NDP had their way, there would be no such thing as private enterprise. I listened with interest to Mr. Laughren say that he would have been pleased to see this percentage --

Mr. Speaker: Will you refer to the member as the member from so-and-so?

Mr. Cunningham: From so-and-so? That’s how we refer to him in caucus -- as a so-and-so.

Mr. Speaker: No. The member for Nickel Belt please.

Mr. Cunningham: He suggested six per cent, why not five, why not four? How about zero?

Mr. Germa: That’s all right. Why not zero?

Mr. Cunningham: Where’s the money going to come from -- the United Appeal?

Mr. Moffatt: No, we take it out of your pocket.

Mr. Cunningham: What about the landlords who were interested, I am sure quite sincerely and legitimately, on a private enterprise basis, in constructing new developments? I rather doubt they will now, and I wouldn’t think that we will find --

Mr. Young: They were?

Mr. Cunningham: I am I sure they were.

Mr. Warner: They haven’t been.

Mr. Cunningham: They have been terrified by your party for the last six months.

Interjections.

Mr. Cunningham: The question I would put to my socialist friend is, who is going to build these buildings? We heard, with a great deal of respect --

Mr. Foulds: Who hasn’t built them for the last several years.

Mr. Cunningham: -- all during the last election the results of the famous Comay report. I enjoyed listening to my opposition candidate in the NDP tell me how we were falling short in Ontario, how people needed places to live. I agree with him.

I would question again, who is going to build these places that we require for people to live in? Where, in fact, are they going to live? Is the government going to get involved in this activity?

Mr. Germa: Why not?

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister, what we need is rent review, nothing in excess of that.

If I could use an analogy of the situation -- as a result of the greed of maybe one tenth of the landlords of this province, we are seeing a situation where the Province of Ontario is buying the whole cow rather than just getting the milk.

Interjections.

Mr. Cunningham: The real problem, I would submit to my socialist friends -- and I should hope the people of Ontario won’t forget that posture of theirs regardless of how timid they appear to be in elections -- the real problem, my friends, is one of supply.

And I would say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Ontario, that this solution which is offered by the members of the New Democratic Party -- or as they say in my riding, the No Down Payment party -- is a problem of supply, and I would encourage you to remember that it is private enterprise that is going to build these buildings. It is private enterprise that has the financial --

[5:45]

Mr. Foulds: Why have they failed for the last 15 years? Answer that question.

Mr. Cunningham: Because they have been afraid of, I think, the posturing by your party.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, I thought private enterprise was aggressive and unafraid.

Mr. Cunningham: I shouldn’t think anybody would want to put their money in at six per cent or four per cent or three per cent or two per cent.

Mr. Foulds: Why hold it at that rate? Why not put it up, in your view, to 16 per cent?

Mr. Cunningham: I should think that the traditional methods of supply and demand would afford the people of Ontario, if reason shall prevail, more housing starts.

Mr. Grande: It doesn’t work.

Mr. Cunningham: And I would hope that this would not be the long-term approach by the Province of Ontario, but rather a temporary method of ensuring that fairness and equity would prevail -- especially in the city of Toronto, where people have been, unfortunately, at the mercy of some rather unscrupulous landlords.

Mr. Foulds: Free enterprise.

Mr. Cunningham: Again, I would encourage my socialist friends to remember that not everybody is in that situation and that we must get on with building more new houses, more developments. I think the time has come to realize that government shouldn’t be involved in these activities unless they have to.

Mr. Warner: Now they have to.

Mr. Cunningham: We just have to listen to those fellows in question period and we know that government tends to screw up everything it gets involved in.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s this anyway?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cunningham: I am ambivalent about anything that would reduce the supply of housing in this province. And I would go on record as supporting that theory of private enterprise -- I know that members opposite me share that view and the members of my caucus share that view. It will be a view that will be continued to be expressed in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Nixon: The minister is next.

Mr. Samis: Is he sure he is on the right side?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am always on the side of right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we just have one member speaking?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to be a member of this House when this bill is on the floor of this House and being debated. I trust a few amendments will be accepted and the bill will be passed. I think I am particularly pleased to be on the floor following the previous speaker. I understand some of the dilemma of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Foulds: It is an easy act to follow.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s a situation where there is probably no real threat to the members across the House anymore. It would seem to me that they have moved far to the right -- at least a good number of the members of the Conservative Party in this province.

Mr. Foulds: Is it true that they are financed by the John Birch Society?

Mr. Mackenzie: The rapid expansion of our major cities, coupled with the increasing costs of single family homes, and a growing awareness of the shortage of good land and the need to protect some of our agricultural land, simply means that apartments are going to be a way of life with us from now on -- probably an increasingly important part of our housing mix in this province.

I know in my own riding there are in excess of 7,000 families in apartments and over half of this number in the last five or six years in the east end of Hamilton.

I think the people that are in the apartments make this bill doubly significant. I find most of them are older people, seniors, or young couples starting out and trying desperately to save a bit of money and somehow or other move into a single-family dwelling of their own. Unfortunately, I think this is a hope that is less and less likely in society today.

In my riding, like the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), I have an awful lot of single-parent families and people who are on welfare in these units. It’s precisely because of these kinds of people that we desperately need some control on the rents they are going to pay.

It’s because of these kinds of people that we’ve got to do something to protect them.

Not only have there been unwarranted increases -- and I think every one of us has heard of them if we have been keeping track of our phone calls. I don’t know what’s happening to the other members, but I know that half of my calls to this dcv are housing problems. We’ve all got increases or examples of gouging. I can think of a series of townhouses on Woodland Dr. where the rents in half of the units went from $210 to $275 as of June 1. The rest of the people in those units were informed in the last two or three weeks that they were getting their rent increased at the same rate. I think it had to do with when their leases came due. I suspect that the rest of them are going to get some protection -- that’s if townhouses are covered and that’s obviously got to be part of the bill. They are going to get some help but what about the people in the same row of houses who had their rent increased as of June 1 from $210 to $275? There’s got to be something done, I think, in a case like this.

I can think of other examples of why we have to have some control on rents -- of what we’re up against.

I think of a family on Tisdale Ct. who have had a rough time and have been a good number of months on UIC drawing $170 every two weeks and paying $185 a month rent. That’s well over 50 per cent of their income.

I think of a single girl on welfare. The social worker says it’s advisable that she be out of her home environment at the moment. She is drawing $196 welfare but, at the moment, is in an apartment because she hasn’t been able to qualify for an Ontario Housing unit and she is paying $140 a month. You start questioning where the rest of the money is going to come from to live on.

Or I think of a woman on welfare in Glenburn Ct. receiving $347 a month from welfare plus her family allowance and paying, today, $222 a month rent for that particular unit.

There is a separated woman in the Lady Cochrane apartments in the east end of Hamilton who is receiving $269 welfare. According to anybody who has investigated the case, she is not in a position to be taken off it in any way. She is paying $181 a month for the rent of her unit.

All of these people are fearful of further increases. These people alone, and there are many like them, are one of the reasons why we have to do something to protect them.

I worry about some of the subterfuges that are used to get around rent increases as well. One of the cozy little things I found in the last short while concerning people putting down a $50 deposit supposedly for some damage to the apartment. They have left, leaving the apartment in better shape than it was when they moved in, or in as good shape, and have been charged $30 for the paperwork involved, and the handling of the money that they deposited. I find that one really hard to swallow.

There is a chap in a unit on Melvin Ave. in Hamilton where the apartment has been sold three times since February of this year. The last purchaser, one of the big outfits in Toronto, demanded a $100 deposit once again from him because at that time he wasn’t able to produce his deposit slip. When we dug it up through his trust company we got the cancelled cheque. It went back a couple of years and only after we waved this in front of their nose did they get off his back. They wanted an extra $100 deposit for that particular unit.

I think that we have to consider, when we look at the rents, whether or not we can knock some of the rents down in some of these amazing free enterprises we hear about. I can think of the Granville, a four-unit structure in the east end of Hamilton, and the utter disgrace most of those units are in in that city. There are cockroaches, non-working fire alarms, and not one or two but dozens of calls to the health authorities, to city inspectors, about the unsafe conditions, the lights out in the corridors --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Get a new city council.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s one of our problems. They are all Liberals and Conservatives on the city council; almost entirely. I can think of all of these particular units --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s your problem. Have you no power over there?

Mr. Mackenzie: -- and incidentally, I’d like to talk about the play of the marketplace, that my friends on the left over here like to use. In one of these units at least -- I’m not sure what kind of a game the owners are playing, but when I was canvassing there during the election there were about 40 vacant units. There are now 72 vacant units out of 150 units. It’s an utter disgrace and yet they’ve increased the rent three times over the last year. The last increase brought the rent to $198. It’s 50 Violet Ct., the Granville Apartments. These kind of things point out to me that we’re just not going to get justice in this field.

I think if any of these owners had any sense at all they would also encourage tenant committees. Maybe we’ll get into that during discussion of security of tenure. It seems to me that one of the squawks I get from these same landlords who have let their buildings go to blazes is that they say they’ve got two or three bad apples in the building. It might be that that can be verified. Those people, if that’s the case, should be moved out. The only way you are probably going to do it, though, is with a committee of people who are helping to police that building themselves.

I want to say to the members and to the Liberal members in particular that I do feel this is a form of socialist legislation. Unlike them, I don’t get hung up about it. I really look at it to see if I think it is fair to people; what kind of a break they want; whether they feel they are getting a fair shake from government and from the agencies which represent it. Really, to me, that is basically what socialism is all about. Let me tell members they can put a label on it any day and I’ll march with it and be damned proud to march with it.

I want to say I agree with my colleagues who have said to the minister that we are in this mess -- and I think it is a mess -- because we haven’t got the doggone housing in this province. We are not likely to get it unless we take charge of some of these tracts of land around the major cities and I see nothing wrong with that at all. I’d be as tough as heck and if that makes one a raving socialist, then we are raving socialists.

One of the members pointed out the situation in Sweden where about one-third of the houses were being built for the lower income section by the government of that country. I might also point out to him there is almost no private land allowed around any city of any considerable size in Sweden. The last time I saw the figures it was less than six per cent around any city of more than 50,000 population in Sweden. The state has moved in there very clearly and it is one of the reasons they are improving their housing situation.

I think we have to have exemptions for units with less than four apartments and we have also got to make doggone sure that an owner can’t have 50 or 60 single-family dwellings and be allowed to boost the rents. I want to be sure of the controls in this bill on that. He can’t be allowed to boost the rents because those are single-family dwellings. If it is one landlord -- and we happen to have a few slum landlords even in Hamilton -- he’s got to be controlled.

I think we’ve also got to be sure that we have some kind of training for the superintendents of these apartments. It should be one of the things they are paying for with the rent they pay for the apartments. Legislation is desperately needed to set some standards, some training, and some proper salaries for superintendents of these buildings. I think the people who rent the buildings -- we have an obligation to them to see they get this kind of protection and these things are provided and that they can appeal their rents on the basis of poor management, poor conditions in that apartment building and a poor superintendent. I also find that unfortunately the superintendents become the joe boys for many of the big landlords in many of the cities in this province. I think it is unfortunate.

I have to say, really, in closing that, as one of my colleagues said, this has been a joy to me -- this particular day and some of the epithets hurled at us. I have enjoyed it very much.

I find the position of my colleagues across the House one that I can understand. I don’t think they believe in rent control. I don’t think they ever have. I don’t think they really wanted to bring it in but I think the sense of fairness or the public scrutiny finally got through to them. They brought a bill in.

I really find the Liberal position a joy to behold. I find this very right wing position which says “Damn any kind of controls and any of these restrictions on private or free enterprise” is really trying to come out. Yet, at the same me --

Mr. Roy: Are you misconstruing our position again?

Mr. Foulds: It’s not hard to do.

Mr. Mackenzie: -- a much more -- I guess the other wing of the Liberal Party is that cunning, political organization which knows what they’ve got to do to play to the people and be all things to all people.

Mr. Roy: Cunning?

Mr. Mackenzie: Boy, it is a real joy to see the conflict in that party. I now understand why there are 86 different positions.

Mr. Gaunt: You want to rethink that one.

Mr. Roy: Who wrote your speech?

Mr. Mackenzie: I think basically this really is a good bill. I am hoping, as I say, for some changes and amendments but it is a good bill because it begins to recognize a problem people have and that’s what we’ve got to deal with in this particular bill.

Mr. Foulds: There are 38 different positions, and only eight members in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Other people wish to speak on this bill so it being 6 o’clock I do now leave the chair and we will resume at 8 o’clock.

The House recessed at 6:00 p.m.