Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with debate on Bill 20, I think the member for Oriole would like to introduce a group.

Mr. Williams: I would like to welcome to the House this evening scouts from the Toronto 142nd Scout Troop, located in the fair riding of Oriole. With them this evening is their scout leader, Mr. Ron Cameron, and I would like the members of the House to give them the appropriate recognition.

Mr. Speaker, also with the scouts, as you can see, is a group of girl guides from the Agincourt area. I believe they are from the riding of the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells); perhaps, in his absence, I could welcome them here this evening as well.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

Mrs. Bryden: This bill on rent control is a sign of the times. It’s a sign of minority government times, because I don’t think it would be here if there wasn’t a minority government. It’s also perhaps a bill which may restore the faith of voters in their power to effect change. I just hope that they go on and make the change complete in the next election --

Mr. Laughren: Hear, hear. How could they resist?

Mr. Good: No chance.

Mrs. Bryden: -- and turn out the government and bring in Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Never!

Mr. Laughren: Especially in the Ottawa area.

Mrs. Bryden: -- which usually happens in the fullness of time anyway.

Interjections.

Mrs. Bryden: The Conservative position on rent control has certainly been a series of amazing transformations. I’m not going to go back to 1968 as did my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), but even looking at what has happened since May, the transformations are really remarkable. If one wanted to find something to compare it with, one might go to the natural history world and consider, without any pejorative sense, the snake which sheds its skin and transforms itself periodically.

Back in May, when the city of Toronto rent control bill was up, there was a headline in the paper which said: “Irvine Says Toronto Rent Curbs would be Disaster, Urges Rejection.” That was May 31. Then on July 31, “Ontario Plans Rent Review Board” -- the next transformation. Then on Sept. 2, they shucked off that skin and went for the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, because the previous rent review boards had no teeth. Then things were really turning over fast. Six days later, on Sept. 8, they were suddenly converted to rent review boards with teeth. And, finally, when Bill 20 came in they adopted most of the NDP proposals for genuine rent control.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Just one.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please?

Mrs. Bryden: So there has been a very significant change. However, I don’t want the government to sit back in euphoria and say that this solves our housing crisis. Because this bill is not going to help the people who are paying 40 per cent and 50 per cent of their income on rent already. It’s not going to help the people on fixed incomes who are finding it very difficult to find accommodation within their means. It’s not going to help the families who cannot find enough family accommodation at moderate rentals. It’s not going to help people who have been priced out of the housing market and have no hope of ever owning a home.

That’s why I think that the government must make a commitment. I hope that the minister, when he rises to reply, will make a commitment that he is prepared to bring in the complementary measures that must go with any rent control bill to make it work. The pressures on the administration of rent control will be intolerable if there is not strong action to bring in these complementary measures and to solve the housing supply.

You can compare rental control to something like a wonder drug. You use it in a case of a very serious illness even though you know that it has side effects. I think most economists will agree that rent control does have side effects, that it may discourage demand and that, therefore, you must take counteracting measures to counteract the side effects.

Mr. Mancini: Say it again.

Mr. Good: Say it again. Did your colleagues hear that now?

Mrs. Bryden: That’s what you do with a wonder drug. You take the drug, you also take counteracting measures. The sort of counteracting measures that must be taken are, of course, a vigorous housebuilding programme.

Mr. Sargent: This isn’t the Ministry of Health estimates. What’s going on?

Mrs. Bryden: I think it’s time that we stopped relying on the private sector to build moderate-rental housing.

Mr. Good: That’s not the way your colleagues have been talking all day.

Mrs. Bryden: We must acquire land. We could use existing serviced land and we could acquire land held by speculators and take the speculative element out of it.

We must get more mortgage money into the housing sector, and this could be done by requiring the financial institutions to put a percentage of their money into mortgages.

We could use the existing developers on a contract basis to build more public housing.

The second thing that we must do in order to make rent control work is to enforce maintenance standards and improve maintenance standards. I know this is mainly a municipal responsibility, but the province can bring in -- as part of its rent review guidelines that the rent review officers will administer -- the enforcement of maintenance standards. We know that rent control has brought a deterioration in maintenance where there is not such enforcement. That’s the second complementary measure that must be brought in.

Third, there must be stronger security of tenure laws, and we will be dealing with that under the Landlord and Tenant Act. I hope that the law that comes out will be a strung one. Fourth, there must be stern measures against abuses under rent control. Key money, finding fees and that sort of thing must all be considered part of the rent if such are discovered to have been charged, but they should be considered illegal.

Fifth, we must undertake land banking for future needs immediately but not on prime agricultural land as has been done in the past.

Finally, we must undertake decentralization of development so that the housing pressures do not keep building up in the municipalities where there are real shortages of housing.

Those are the sort of complementary policies that I am asking the minister to make a commitment to undertake if he wants his rent control bill to work. There are two or three things in the bill itself that I would also like to mention, which must be changed. I don’t want the government to get euphoric about the fact that it has a rent control bill that we might consider good; we certainly don’t consider it perfect.

The biggest change that we would like to see in it is the removal of the exemption for units of four and under. I recently heard of a single detached house in my riding where the rent was going to go up from $200 for the tenant who was leaving to $300 for the new tenant who was coming in. They have no protection under the present bill and that must be changed.

Second, the rollback period must go back before July 30 because there certainly were a great many rent increases in the early months of 1975 and it is completely unconscionable to suggest that landlords should be allowed to add another eight per cent on top of some very large rent increases that occurred before July.

Third, I question the eight per cent. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to prove that rental costs have gone up by eight per cent. The figures from BC indicate it’s closer to six per cent out there. I think we must have more information on Ontario’s rental increase rates, but for the first year, I would suggest we try six per cent and if it proves inadequate then the landlords can get an adjustment next year if they wish to apply for an increase over the guidelines.

Finally, the other major change that I would like to see is a very definite commitment in the bill that the rent increases that are allowed will be based solely on operating costs and that the operating costs will be defined very carefully. There should ice some renovation costs included -- whether you would call those operating or not -- but there should not be the costs of financing new mortgages and things like that.

These are some of the changes that we want to see in this bill before we will consider that we have adequate rent control in this province.

Mr. Germa: I am pleased to rise and say a few words on Bill 20, a bill to introduce rent control in the Province of Ontario. This bill came through a very tortuous procedure in order to get to its present form. We have also gone through four Ministers of Housing in the past four years. We started off with a Mr. Snow, then a Mr. Handleman, then a Mr. Irvine and now a Mr. Rhodes. It all indicates that none of these Ministers of Housing has been able to deal adequately with supplying people in Ontario with the housing which is so necessary. I don’t hold out much hope for this minister surviving any longer, because we know him as a rabid free-enterpriser. In fact, he was formerly in another party which is possibly the most rabid free-enterprise party in Ontario, which is the third party in the House, sitting to my left. It is quite obvious that the minister is choking -- he is choking when he introduces this bill and it must feel like swallowing fish hooks by the sounds I hear coming out of the third party in the House.

[8:15]

These free enterprisers who are totally afraid of the slightest bit of socialism are beside themselves. They are pressed on the one side by public demand to get control of rents in the Province of Ontario, and on the other side by political repercussions if they don’t support this bill. I would suggest that if they stood on their principles they would have to stand against this bill. No way do I see that they can accept what is in this bill. It is an interference in the free enterprise system, which has failed to supply the people of Ontario with adequate housing.

The minister and this government have to stand condemned for allowing the situation to deteriorate to its present deplorable state. It is only as the result of people of Ontario having spoken on Sept. 18, by reducing this gang to a minority, that they saw fit to bring in this legislation. We know the problems that this government went through during the election campaign and the various idiotic announcements which came from the Premier (Mr. Davis). The most idiotic one of the bunch was that he was going to introduce rent control under the Unconscionable Transactions Act. Some joke that was. It took us about three days to catch this one and to hold it up to ridicule in front of the people.

Anyone who suspects that the people of Ontario are not aware of what’s going on in the House here tonight, that they are accepting a little bit of socialism, is just not thinking properly. You may rest assured that all of the people of Ontario are waiting in anticipation for this legislation to pass. I’m sure they are going to welcome it. I am quite proud to be able to stand here tonight knowing that I participated in bringing this about during the last election campaign.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was running against two of the most rabid free-enterprisers in the Province of Ontario. Yet the city of Sudbury turned their backs on those two free-enterprisers. They wanted a little bit of socialism in the city of Sudbury. And to think that this problem only exists in the major metropolitan areas is not thinking properly, because there is no community in Ontario which suffers more from shortages and inadequate housing than the city that I have the honour of representing here.

It is quite evident to me that --

Mr. Riddell: You are a little wild, Bud.

Mr. Germa: -- free enterprise has failed us absolutely and that we now have to turn to some sort of control and intervention in the free market system.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the member for Sudbury that there is nothing about political ideology in this bill. Would you return to the principle?

Mr. Riddell: You waited a long time to tell him that.

Mr. Germa: I was reading between the lines, Mr. Speaker, and I detected that there is a bit of socialism within the content of the bill.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Go easy on those northerners.

Mr. Germa: Whenever any piece of legislation intervenes in the free market economy, I think we are talking about socialism. I do not fear that, Mr. Speaker. The intent of the legislation is to control rents on a graduated basis effective July 29, 1975. At that retroactive date rents will be reduced according to the bill to a point not to exceed eight per cent. We don’t agree and the minister has supplied us with no verification of how he arrived at this, unless he has a secret ouija board.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: A which? A ouija board?

Mr. Germa: Ouija board, yes. Or do you have a fortune teller there who divined this eight per cent figure? On what basis did the minister figure that eight per cent was an inequitable increase in rents?

Mr. Laughren: The size of his hat.

Mr. Germa: The size of his foot. That probably has more sense than a lot of things that come out of this ministry.

I was surprised to hear the leader of the third party criticizing the bill, despite the fact he said he was going to vote for it. The leader of the third party suggested that we should pump more public funds into subsidizing private profit in order to meet our housing needs. This is a clear indication that the free enterprise system has not supplied us with our needs. And these parties who adhere to the free enterprise philosophy have been all too quick to pump public dollars into private profit in order to try to shore up a faltering system which is not supplying us with any of our needs, let alone housing.

The free enterprise system will function as long as there are people that can be exploited. This bill is an indication of the times that people are no longer willing to sit idly by and continue to be exploited. The government understood this during the past campaign, that people who are forced to rent accommodation will no longer tolerate the gouging that has been going on in the rent field. This is precisely why the minister was brought in here kicking and screaming, with such a piece of legislation. To suggest, as some members of the House have done, that this is not a widespread phenomenon, that gouging occurs only on a hit-and-miss basis, I would like to read into the record a few of the cases I have brought to the minister’s attention. How many letters, I ask him, has he got from me regarding rent gouging in the city of Sudbury? How many petitions have I given him in the past two weeks?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to that. I received a number of letters from the hon. member for Sudbury; he’s been writing me a number of letters. I don’t think any of them involve rent gouging; many of them are rent increases.

Mr. Germa: Let me present some facts, Mr. Speaker, and let the House decide what is rent gouging. Case No. 1 has to do with an apartment at 131 Adie St.

Mr. Shore: Could we have an understanding of what the survey is based on?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Give us the facts.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No facts.

An hon. member: No facts -- something else.

Mr. Shore: First of all, what was the initial rent?

Mr. Germa: All right. On Jan. 1, 1975, this lady suffered a rent increase of $10, bringing it to $180 per month. Notice has been received, effective Nov. 1, 1975, of an increase of $40, increasing her rent to $220. So in the space of less than one year -- in fact, in 11 months -- her rent has gone from $180 to $220, which is an increase of 22.2 per cent.

Mr. Shore: Do you have the two years previous?

Mr. Germa: If the minister doesn’t describe that as rent-gouging, then his yardstick is a lot different to mine. We did not suffer an increase in the cost of living at the rate of 22.2 per cent over the past 10 or 11 months, and yet this person has to face that kind of an increase in rent. I have another one from 1770 Paris St., Sudbury. This will involve a 11.5 per cent increase in rent. The present rental is $169 monthly, and the new total is $199, for a 17.5 per cent increase.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: How long was the lease for?

Mr. Germa: Hon. members can judge for themselves whether 17.5 per cent is a justified increase.

An hon. member: There is no lease.

Mr. Germa: Here’s one at 1730 Oriole Dr. in Sudbury: An increase in the amount of $30 on a present rental of $180 to a new total of $210 monthly. This will represent a 16.6 per cent increase in rental charge.

The minister will find none of these less than 15 per cent.

Interjection.

Mr. Germa: Here is another apartment at 131 Adie St. This particular complex was recently taken over by a new landlord, and this man --

Interjection.

Mr. Germa: The minister is familiar with this fellow, is he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, the member wrote me enough letters about him.

Mr. Germa: Let me tell the minister how this landlord acts and he can tell me his attitude towards the public.

Interjection.

Mr. Germa: This landlord already controls more than 1,100 units in the city.

Mr. Sargent: Eleven hundred and four.

Mr. Germa: When people go to him to complain about their increase in rent and they tell him they are going to move out rather than accept his notice of increase, he tells them, “There’s no use in your moving because I’m buying all of the apartment buildings in Sudbury.” He has effectively got control of the largest portion of the market in the city of Sudbury. In fact, he controls more units in the city than does Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. Laughren: Free enterprise.

Mr. Germa: This is a free-enterpriser.

Mr. Sargent: Sounds like a Tory bagman.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does he have a hotel in Owen Sound?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Can’t afford it.

Mr. Germa: This particular tenant of 131 Adie St. suffered a $10 raise, effective Sept. 1, 1975. Notice has been received that, effective Nov. 1, 1975, she will pay a further $38 per month. So that’s $48 within 30 days on two increases. What’s going on when they give two increases within 30 days, one of $10 and one of $38? Then when you go and complain, he says, “There’s no use moving because I’m going to buy the building you are going to move into as well.” Here’s a good one. This one is from 1770 Paris St. in Sudbury.

Mr. Hodgson: What was the figure to start with?

Mr. Laughren: Is the member Lorne’s new parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: This constituent has received notice --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the member for Nickel Belt stop inciting discussion of --

Mr. Laughren: Merely seeking information, Mr. Speaker, that’s all.

Mr. Germa: This constituent, who lives at 1770 Paris St., has received notice that effective Dec. 1, 1975 the rent will increase from $190 to $235 monthly for a two-bedroom apartment. That’s an effective dollar increase of $45 monthly or 28.9 per cent.

The minister cannot sit there on his apathy and say that this is not rent gouging, when a person suffers a 28.9 per cent increase in rent. For what justification?

The cost of maintaining this building did not increase at that rapid rate. The only reason it is going up is that these people are playing games by acquiring a large corner of the market in a very tight housing situation. You know that the vacancy rate in Sudbury is less than 1.5 per cent.

My colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) tried to detail to the House, even despite the interruptions of the Speaker, the problems that we face with the boom-and-bust economy, and the lack of concern by the major industry -- decisions on what happens to the people in the city of Sudbury made in a foreign land. They care not about planning for the city, whether we have housing or whether we don’t have housing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The bill will take care of it.

Mr. Germa: This one here is not quite as had, Mr. Speaker. It’s only 12 per cent on two stages, and is from 1284 Dianne St. in the city of Sudbury. Here’s another one of 12.5 per cent, 47 Bloor St. in the city of Sudbury.

It goes on and on. Here’s one for 15.2 per cent at 1287 Grenadier Dr. in the city of Sudbury. This one here is a two-stage jump of 9.3 per cent in May, and another 9.9 per cent effective Jan. 1, 1976, at 1147 Ramsayview Ct.

By the way, I haven’t received any response from all those letters I wrote to the minister. I hope he will be responding in the affirmative -- that he is going to take action and will immediately send these to the rent review officer once he gets one in the field.

Here’s another one from 127 Adie St., that’s a neighbouring apartment block to the one that Lorne Investments owns. He bought two on that street on the same day -- he collared about another 36 units in two jumps there. Listen to this one -- July 1, an increase of $10, or 6.6 per cent, effective Nov. 1. Another, 18.7 per cent for a total increase since July 1 of 25.3 per cent. I call that rent gouging.

Here’s the beauty of them all. This is at 356 Elgin St., Apt. 1. If you know Elgin St., you know it is not a high-class area in the city of Sudbury.

Mr. Nixon: That’s Shouldice’s area.

Mr. Germa: It is directly across from the CPR station, which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered luxury living.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Elmer Sopha owns that one.

Mr. Nixon: That’s your friend, Shouldice.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Elmer Sopha owns that one.

Mr. Nixon: He’s trying to sell it to you.

Mr. Samis: They call it the Fabbro building.

Mr. Nixon: Not Fabbro, surely not.

Mr. Germa: “The present rental at the above noted apartment is $190 monthly, effective Oct. 1, 1975. This constitutes a $50 increase in rental from the $140 on this effective date.” That rent went from $140 to $190 effective Oct. 1, 1975, for a 35.7 per cent increase. Did you know that one of the bedrooms in the two-bedroom apartment doesn’t even have a window? It doesn’t even have a skylight. One would consider it to be a dungeon.

[8:30]

Mr. Eakins: Is it a dungeon?

Mr. Germa: Yet people have to pay at the rate of $190 monthly for a two-bedroom apartment with one bedroom without a window.

I also sent the minister two petitions which were forwarded to me. They are addressed to the Hon. John Rhodes.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, will the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) keep his voice down? I can hear his conversation from here.

Mr. Germa: This is a petition dated Oct. 22, 1975, addressed to the Minister of Housing. It is signed by the tenants of 131 Adie St. in the city of Sudbury and it contains 28 signatures. There were a few people in the complex who were intimidated and afraid to sign the petition for fear they might be found out and receive eviction notices.

It is a fine state of affairs in Ontario in 1975 that people are intimidated so much that they cannot even lodge a complaint. You know, Mr. Speaker, if you do get evicted in the city of Sudbury there is just no place else to go. With a vacancy rate running at a little over one per cent these people are really up against it, and I can understand their fear of complaining. So, despite the fact that I have brought to the minister probably 30 or 40 cases of rent gouging in the city of Sudbury, the intimidation and harassment that these people fear precludes hundreds of them from coming to the surface and making their cases public.

I have another petition which is addressed to the minister dated Oct. 21, 1975, and it is signed by the tenants of 127 Adie St. This is a small complex of four units, and this deals directly with the bill whereby it excludes four-unit complexes. So this is a case in point which would encourage the minister to make the necessary amendment. I understand he is going to do this to include all residences in the Province of Ontario and for that I have to give him credit.

I have several other letters here and I have some more on my desk that I haven’t given to him yet -- they are coming as fast as I can get them out. I think the minister understands what we are facing in my riding and I support this legislation wholeheartedly, because I know that even despite the fact that everybody in the city hasn’t come to me there are hundreds out there who would like to come but are inhibited from coming for fear of being evicted.

I listened with interest to some of the objections raised by various members in the House, in that some landlords would take advantage of the eight per cent allowable and this would automatically encourage them to go for an eight per cent raise. Despite the legislation, I am not aware of any apartment owner who has not increased at least at the rate of eight per cent over the past year. If someone has that information, maybe he can bring it to the attention of the House. If anyone in this House or within the sound of my voice knows of a rent which went down in the past year, please come and tell the House, but I suspect that every unit in the Province of Ontario has gone up at least eight per cent, so I think we should not be afraid of the eight per cent as enunciated in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That ties in with the rest of your thinking.

Mr. Germa: Also brought to our attention were various tricks that landlords have used in the recent past, contemplating that there might be some rent control.

I have one case in point where formerly the electricity was supplied within the structure of the rent of the unit. This person has gone to the trouble and expense of installing meters in order to lift that responsibility from him and put the responsibility for electricity on each of the unit owners. That constitutes an increase in rent, but I don’t see anything in the legislation which will prevent that from being added to the present rent.

There have been comments made that rent control will cause a reduction in supply. I think that could not be correct. What is going to happen here is that when people are not called upon to spend so much of their income on rent they will therefore have more disposable income. It stands to reason that there are going to be millions of dollars left in people’s pockets which was formerly spent on paying these exorbitant rents.

What would one suggest these people are going to spend the money on? There are various things they could do. I would suggest that one of the things that they might do -- and very many people want to do -- is acquire for themselves a place in which to live. It will accommodate people more and encourage them and make it more feasible for them if they have these extra dollars in their pocket to go out and build themselves a house. I would suggest then that quite the reverse will be true -- that instead of being a curtailment of supply there might even be an increase because people are going to have the financial means, the financial wherewithal, maybe to supply themselves with their own housing.

I am also concerned about the provision in the bill which calls for the repeal of this legislation automatically on Aug. 1, 1977. I don’t know what crystal ball the minister was gazing at to assume that the present problem we face is going to be gone by Aug. 1, 1977. I would suggest that this rent legislation is going to have to be on the books much longer than that because the backlog of housing shortages in Ontario is just not going to be solved by Aug. 1, 1977. And also it gives a signal to those speculators who are waiting in the wings. They know at what moment in time they are going to be able to pounce. Like a lion or a tiger hanging in the tree, they are going to pounce on Aug. 2, 1977.

I would also suggest that in order to increase our housing stock there should be a minister of co-operatives in this government, one of the objectives being to encourage the production of more co-operative, non-profit housing. It is my opinion that people who make profits on housing are no better than those people who, like jackals eating a cadaver, make a profit on nursing homes. To make a profit on that kind of a situation is just abhorrent to me. I don’t think that the necessities of life should be subjected to the vagaries of the marketplace and that for the sake of profit people should have to do without housing or medical services.

Mr. Lewis: You are getting some tough ideological stuff tonight.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Hello, glad to see you.

Mr. Lewis: You absorb it. Nice to see you choking it back.

Mr. Germa: He’s choking on the fish hooks.

Mr. Lewis: Fish, lions, tigers, jackal, cadaver -- this man’s metaphors are worth listening to, my friend.

Mr. Germa: Yes, I split a metaphor once.

Mr. Lewis: Well, at least it wasn’t an infinitive.

Mr. Germa: No, I am very careful not to split an infinitive; metaphors I do.

Let me tell the minister about one more situation which I think is serious.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Get serious then.

Mr. Germa: I have been: It is the subject of nursing homes.

Interjections.

Mr. Germa: The subject of nursing homes is an exemption under this Act, as far as I read the Act. Take the case of two senior citizens occupying one room in a profit-making nursing home. That is their home but they are paying rent, despite the fact the house is heavily subsidized by the Ministry of Health. They are paying their $5 or $6 per day from their own pocket. When you consider that two senior citizens occupying one room in a nursing home are paying an effective rental of $1,200 per month, how can you justify that as being an equitable rental?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You had better explain your math.

Mr. Germa: You know what the rates are per person in a nursing home. It’s $5.90 a day plus $15 from OHIP. It’s about $20 a day per person. Part of it is subsidized by OHIP certainly. But who is making the benefit? It is the profit-maker who owns the nursing home. That is, in fact, a rental and I think that should be taken into consideration.

Interjection.

Mr. Germa: I suggest $1,200 a month for the rental of one room in a nursing home is a little bit too much. The minister should take that into consideration.

Mr. Gregory: I have been sitting here listening to this harangue coming from the official opposition --

Mr. Lewis: Harangue?

An hon. member: He is being complimentary.

Mr. Gregory: It is a harangue. They seem to have forgotten all about the small businessman entirely in their wholehearted attempt to make sure that rents are the only thing at issue. If they would examine the majority of small apartment buildings with four units or less they would realize the majority of them are owned by retired persons, small businessmen, and they would deprive them of a less than six per cent increase on their costs, their rent increases. They say it should be less than that -- four per cent -- and yet the majority of tenants who live in those apartments have probably had increases in salaries of 10, 20 or even 30 per cent per year and they would deprive --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gregory: -- the small businessman of making a substantial profit in order to be able to make his business run. He’s a businessman, too. He depends on that for his income.

Mr. Lewis: That is fair. He can go before the review board.

Mr. Gregory: They talk in terms of rolling back to Jan. 1, 1974. Would they then agree to have the large wage settlements rolled back to Jan. 1, 1974?

Mr. Lewis: No, because they were catch-ups.

Mr. Gregory: No, that’s different. Oh, they were catch-ups; right. But they cannot see that the owner of an apartment unit, following the expiration of a three-year lease, is also entitled to a catch-up. They can’t see that.

Mr. Lewis: Well, he can go before the board.

Mr. Cassidy: It is all in the bill; have you read it?

Mr. Gregory: Yes, I know it is in the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gregory: It seems to me the NDP is pretty myopic in its views. If you want to examine the true problem --

Mr. Cassidy: It is your minister’s bill. You should have had a look at it.

Mr. Gregory: I am firing at the NOP right now -- I will fire on him later. If you want to examine the true problem, the true problem is the shortage of buildings created by people, like yourself, who sit on local councils and won’t let anything be built.

Mr. Lewis: We don’t have anybody on local councils.

Mr. Gregory: Yes, with similar attitudes to the NDP.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Go down the street and look.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gregory: They operate with an attitude of, “Pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m all right.”

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Mississauga East refrain from reacting to interjections?

Mr. Gregory: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grossman: Just stand there and take it.

Mr. Gregory: I would suggest that if the members of the loyal opposition were to dedicate themselves to encouraging their friends on local municipal councils to build more rental accommodation and to be of some assistance in that way, there would be a greater contribution to a solution to the problem.

Mr. Samis: I am rather disappointed to see that the minister isn’t in his seat. I was going to lead off my remarks by first of all congratulating him publicly upon his appointment. Here he comes.

Mr. Shore: Here he comes.

Mr. Samis: I think it was rather well known how ardently all the members of the cabinet were seeking the Housing ministry. I think after the election they were all just waiting for that special telephone call designating them as the minister for this dynamic portfolio. I can just imagine the delight of the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes) when he was selected to receive this divine call from the Premier. Anyway, I congratulate him upon this appointment.

Obviously, I have to congratulate the minister for introducing a bill of this sort. It represents a total change from the government policy enunciated here last spring by the previous minister. It is almost a total change from the policy enunciated here in the summer time before the election was called, and during the election campaign.

[8:45]

Although I am sure it will be taken otherwise, I would like to pay special tribute in a non-partisan way to two members of this Legislature who, before this issue ever became popular or even politically acceptable in this province, were standing up on the floor of the Legislature defending the rights of tenants, the whole question of rent control and the question of tenure for tenants. Those were my colleagues, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). I would like to pay tribute to those two members who both brought in private members’ bills and fought for these issues early in the game. Neither of these members looked at the Gallup poll or any public opinion poll to see if it was popular. They stood up on principle and now we’re acting upon their efforts.

In terms of the principle of the bill itself, obviously we on this side support it. This has been stated by my colleagues many times and I don’t intend to go into any detail as to why we do. The one thing I would say to the minister, and I think it’s extremely important for the tenants of Ontario, now that he has brought in this bill, whether he had to be bound and gagged or whether he had to swallow it, whether he liked it or not, the most important thing is that he commit himself, his ministry and his government to making sure that this bill works for the tenants of Ontario.

Don’t just bring it in to appease the opposition parties. Don’t just bring it in to save this government or give it another six months of political life. Bring this bill in to make sure it works and eliminates the injustices that have appeared in the rental scene in Ontario. I think every member in this House, including our own people, would agree that rent control is not necessarily the be-all and end-all to the problem.

I’m sure if the minister read the speeches of our leader during the campaign when he said this over and over again -- and I’m sure he has with great delight as we have read his predecessor’s speeches -- we need a housing policy.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I didn’t read the speeches.

Mr. Lewis: We talked many times during the campaign as we planned the rent controls.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But I didn’t read the speeches.

Mr. Samis: Can I butt in, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Only when the member gets to be leader.

Mr. Samis: May I suggest that it has been clearly enunciated by the spokesman of this party on several occasions that we need not only rent control but we obviously need to expand the supply of housing units in this province. This is just a partial solution to an overall problem.

I was very pleased to see the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) introduce his accompanying legislation. I’m sure for some members on the back-bench of the government side this was almost revolutionary for them to accept. It will be very interesting to see them vote for it and go out into the hustings and defend this in case the far right party in this Legislature attacks it publicly in the hustings.

Mr. Warner: The Liberals.

Mr. Samis: I won’t mention their name. They know who they are.

Mr. Warner: Are you sure?

Mr. Samis: In terms of the actual provisions, I am glad to see that the minister has agreed to make amendments on the question of exemptions. What the original bill did was to create two classes of tenants in Ontario: those who were protected and those who were left unprotected. Those who’d be left unprotected are those who by misfortune would be renting from someone who had four or less units was rather interested in this this weekend in my riding. On Saturday I had three separate complaints about rent increases. I won’t go into any great detail, as the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) documented examples in his particular riding. In each case I asked the people how big a unit they lived in. In all three cases there were less than four units.

Prior to the minister making some indication that he would modify the bill, I had to tell them under this bill they wouldn’t be covered; they could be gouged by landlords. It’s obvious that the original bill in the original form was unfair, and I’m glad to see that the minister has seen the light of day. Again, I think it proves that in a minority Parliament the opposition can have considerable input and it’s the people of Ontario who benefit.

I would also like to point out that I think it was the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) who first brought to the attention of the minister that in small towns, whether it be Cornwall, Timmins, Brantford or Kitchener -- you name it -- housing is frequently on a much smaller scale than in Metropolitan Toronto or Ottawa or Hamilton In my particular community, the vast majority of the rental units have four or less dwellings within, and those people would have been excluded, so I’m glad to see that the minister has backed down on that one.

As my colleagues mentioned earlier in the debate, it seems to me that if we’re going to have rent control in Ontario, we shouldn’t just do it arbitrarily in the middle of the year. In all fairness it should be extended back to Jan. 1. This is the beginning of the calendar year. If you bring in legislation for 1975, you should cover the whole span of 1975 and not just six months.

I think back to when the home buyers’ grant programme was introduced and the number of complaints I got from constituents: “How come I don’t qualify?” “How come we were cut off then?” “They get it and I don’t” -- this sort of thing; I think it was very unfair. The fairest way of all in terms of rent control would be to begin at the calendar year. I think most people accept that, and I think most people would want it that way.

As has been mentioned, the question of restricting this legislation makes me warier about the motives of the government, whether they’re really sincere about it or they’re just buying political time. I noticed in other jurisdictions in Canada where rent legislation’s been brought in, Quebec and BC, they didn’t bring in any particular time restriction such as this government is, and I ask myself why. Obviously, I would suspect they know an election is coming up next year, and my deepest suspicions tell me they would love to remove, abolish or dissolve the restrictions within this bill, assuming they were to come back here with a majority, which I doubt.

Anyway, it seems to me that if we’re really serious about helping the tenants of Ontario, this legislation can’t have a fixed duration. It should be legislation introduced, period.

As has been mentioned by numerous speakers, to exclude public housing in a sense is unfair. It’s obvious that their rents are calculated on a different basis and we accept that. But whether it’s government housing directly, OHC housing, we shouldn’t create different classes of tenants in Ontario, and by making those exclusions, we’re creating different classes. At the same time, I’d also like to mention to the minister that the question of calculating rents for those people in OHC housing is still highly questionable. I think other members in my caucus have mentioned this already. If a household or family unit gets an increase in salary or income, OHC immediately grabs a chunk out of it, and you really have to ask yourself what incentive is there for those people to improve themselves.

Another question that might be of interest to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) -- since I think he has some in his riding -- is the question of luxury housing. I have no brief for those who build, live in or make profits from luxury housing, but if there are no controls there whatsoever I am somewhat worried that investors, seeing that there are controls in other types of housing and now we bring it down to zero limit in terms of units, some of these people would much rather divert it into luxury housing and dry up the other forms of accommodation. I think that could be disastrous to low and middle income families, and I would suggest to the minister that he amend this particular section and remove the idea of excluding these people.

Another thing that concerns me is the whole question of roomers, people in hotels or flop-houses, people who have accommodations who are rather transient by nature because of their lifestyle, their job or their particular situation. Again, by excluding these people we’re creating another class of tenants who are excluded from the provisions of this bill. It seems to me it’s not their fault necessarily that because of their job or their nature or their background they are living in this particular lifestyle; they have the same rights as other tenants in this province and therefore they should have the same protection as other tenants in this province.

The question of the ceiling being eight per cent has already been mentioned by my colleagues. It seems to me that it should be six per cent, based on studies done by our research group, in British Columbia, and apparently the majority of judgements by the rental commission in the Province of Quebec have ruled that six per cent is the more reasonable figure in terms of increases in operating costs. Why can’t Ontario apply that figure instead of going beyond that?

On the question of the rebate procedures, I am somewhat worried by the fact that the tenant must bear the onus of getting the rebate, not the landlord; he will have to go to the board, go to the review officer and sometimes even extract it from the landlord, whereas the landlord is under no specific obligation beyond the moral guidelines of the legislation.

One thing I would hope that the minister and his officials incorporate in the bill is that there be a guarantee of an extensive publicity programme, once this bill is passed, whatever form it’s in, so that every tenant in Ontario knows what his sights are under this legislation. It seems to me that last spring we were dealing with a fairly good piece of legislation brought in by the former Attorney General -- Bill 55, the Unfair Business Practices Act -- which covered an awful lot of situations that deal with the average working man, woman, family situation, and consumer, and yet I would dare say that less than one per cent of Ontario has any idea whatsoever what that bill’s about or what their rights are as a result of that bill.

Whether it’s consumer law or housing rights, it’s not enough just to pass a bill to make it law. You have to inform the people what their rights are especially those people who don’t frequent university panels, and don’t read the Globe and Mail. The average working man has to be informed of his rights and that’s the government’s obligation.

In BC when they brought in consumer rights, I believe a pamphlet explaining the rights of the individual was sent to every consumer in BC. They also had government sponsored travelling trailer exhibitions, public displays and school speakers to explain what this bill was about, so people knew their rights. Well, in housing, surely we in Ontario can do the same.

The question of fines concerns me somewhat. For a big corporation like Cadillac or Fairview or some of the others, to be fined 82,000 is a licence to violate the law, a licence to exploit, a licence to get around this bill. I think one of the greatest concerns the average person has is that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. When they see how white-collar crime is treated by our courts, how white-collar crime is sometimes treated by our law officials, they are rightly cynical. They are right in their belief that the little guy ends up in Kingston but the big guy never sees the place. If he does, as in the case of Harold Ballard, he sure gets his swimming pool and log cabin thrown in. Obviously he is cynical.

Interjections.

Mr. Samis: So I would like to see the minister toughen that particular section of the legislation.

Another one is the enforcement mechanism. It seems to me that every rent should be registered -- available to the public. The rent officer should have a registry of every rent in his community or within his jurisdiction, available for public purview.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would like to make public everything the member has said and done over the last few years.

Mr. Samis: That’s a different issue altogether, otherwise we will go back to the radio station days and some of the things the minister said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They would be rated X, I will tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Samis: But I think that the public have a right to this because these are public documents. As soon as they become private we get the lawyers in there, we get developers; and these people can all play hanky-panky with the bureaucrats. Rents should be public information.

I would like to say that the basic change the minister has to make is that it applies to all tenants -- which I am glad to see he has done -- and set the coverage date back to the beginning of 1975.

The final thing I would say to the minister: If he is bringing this in, for God’s sake let him enforce it, not just do it because of ritual.

Mr. Burr: I should like to speak briefly in this debate. It’s one of the disadvantages of our multi-committee system that members often have to be in two or three places at once -- or try to be -- and keep tabs on two or three issues at once and therefore me be repetitious when they finally do arrange to speak. However, I wish to support the six per cent increase rather than eight per cent. I wish to favour the --

Mr. Reid: Based on what?

Mr. Burr: On the experience in British Columbia -- and the retroactive date earlier than July --

Mr. Reid: That’s good experience.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Have you paid rent there, Pat?

Mr. Reid: They increased it 10.4 per cent.

Mr. Burr: -- or based on any information the minister may be able to produce for us, and to reduce the number of exemptions that are permitted under the Act.

I should like to ask the minister two or three questions. How is this Act going to prevent some of the tricks that are played by some of the more notorious landlords? For example, having a key deposit of $50, which is returned at the end of the tenancy, without interest, of course, because they are not required to pay interest on it. How will the regulations prevent the final month’s rent from being merely $5 -- the first month at least twice the usual, minus $5 -- another device for avoiding the payment of interest on the final month’s rent?

[9:00]

I should like to point out that single-family units should not be exempted because many of the tenants who use single houses have considerable expense when they move. They have a complete houseful of furniture, including the very heavy units such as the refrigerators and stoves. Many apartment tenants don’t have to contend with the movement of these heavy articles and therefore can move more easily. This means that the tenant of a single-family dwelling is often more at the mercy of a landlord, in his ability to move cheaply, than most apartment tenants.

There is a certain corporation in Windsor which has raised rents about 10 per cent last year, allegedly because taxes had gone up 10 per cent. Again this year the same corporation has raised rent about 10 per cent because the taxes have gone up 10 per cent. But when one looks into the actual dollars and cents increase we find that for some of these houses belonging to this corporation the actual increase of taxes was $2.25 a month, but the rent increase was $15. This year, another $2.50 tax increase, but a $20 a month increase in the rent.

Although this corporation owns at least 75 houses of this type -- single-family dwellings -- the bill, as at present constituted, would enable all of these houses to be exempted from the provisions of the Act. If you exempt four-apartment buildings you will inevitably find the owners of some buildings, which contain five or six small apartments, knocking out a wall or two to make four-apartment buildings. This way, they exempt themselves from any restrictions that the Act provides as protection for tenants.

Finally, I’d like to speak on the retroactive feature. The past spring I was a member of the committee that heard the city of Toronto ask for special legislation to control rents. The committee sat for about six Wednesdays and heard submissions from tenants, landlords and the city of Toronto itself. The only ones to benefit from that whole series of hearings were those landlords in Toronto who were of the greedy type. They had lots of time and lots of incentive to raise the rents. As members probably recall, rent increases of 30, 35 and 40 per cent were common during that period. That is one very good reason for having a retroactive date earlier than July. If the minister can’t bring himself to put it back to Jan. 1, let him try sometime around Easter; that will catch a lot of people.

Mr. Breaugh: First of all I really want to say that this is a pretty dramatic turnabout. I think it is a very good one, and frankly I don’t really care how this legislation got in front of the House. The fact is that for a great many of the people in my riding, and I’m sure in many of these ridings, it will help to some degree, compared to the previous position of totally abdicating any responsibility towards those people. In fact, I believe it was in June of this year when the then Minister of Housing spoke in Oshawa to a development society meeting and said: “There will never be rent controls in Ontario as long as there is a Progressive Conservative government.”

I want to thank him for that great turnaround and I want to thank his successor for placing this bill in front of the House. One of the things that fascinates me about the bill is the fine print, all the little words that are here and there. I would like to list some of these so that when the minister offers his summation to the House he could perhaps give us some reasons for it.

The first one has been mentioned many times. Where did that date -- the July 29 date -- come from?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where did your Jan. 1 come from?

Mr. Breaugh: Is that the day when the Great Pumpkin spoke? Is that the day when the great Pooh-Bah decided that after July 29 people get some care and some respite and a government that looks after them? Is that the day when the gouging started? Is that the mid-point of the gouging, so that you are kind of fair to some and not fair to others? Where did that date come from? What is the rationale that produced that one particular date? I would like to find that out. I think that presenting legislation gives us the responsibility of having some criteria established.

There are some things here I want to ask some rather blunt questions about. One section of the bill says that the landlord will pay to the tenant anything that was in excess. How? In what way? What happens if the landlord does not, does the sky fall? Does he get arrested? What is the penalty clause in there? How does that happen? Do we take him to jail for three years? What is the process there?

In one section there is an appearance I of rent control for two years. It offers one magic number, the eight per cent, and we won’t go into that because everyone else has. We all pick our magic numbers and we would like to think they are related to costs, but sometime next April, by an order of the Lieutenant Governor, we’ll have a new number put out. How will that number be arrived at?

What kind of things would come out of that number if, for example, we had an election in between? Would that be used as a mechanism whereby the government might, for six months, treat the tenants with some respect and say there are rent controls? Then if they win an election with a large majority and say to the landlords who traditionally curry their favour -- which, I suppose, is a polite way to put it -- would they then say to the landlords: “Well, listen boys, we put it to you for six months, now it’s only fair we turn around and put it to the tenants.” If the rate struck next April is 20 per cent or 40 per cent or whatever, what is going to happen then?

Really, this bill puts in front of the House the invitation that sometime next April another magic number will pop up. What will that he? Is that going to be directly related to the costs that are increased? Is that the way that it comes out?

One of the things that we ought to be concerned about is whether this process will work. How long will it take? It makes mention in the Act of some 60 days’ notice. Does that imply that giving 60 days’ notice really means that there will be a workable solution found in 60 days? Or does that simply mean we give the notice 60 days prior to the increase? How long is the minister anticipating that process will take?

Let me put it to the minister in a slightly different way. He will notice, in terms of a rent review officer, it states that the case will be heard. He is to give 10 days’ notice. I wonder how practical that is for many people? I wonder how many tenants, for example, could actually appear at that hearing? Will that hearing be held in the evening? Will it be held in the morning? Will somebody have to take the day off work to appear as a tenant in front of that review officer? How is that process going to come out? I would like to hear that explanation a little bit finer than it is in here.

The legislation rather carefully avoids stating emphatically that there will be some kind of group decision. One of the things I am concerned about is the person who is a little bit shy, who perhaps has some rights under this legislation, but is unwilling to go before a rent review officer and speak against his landlord. What is the mechanism there? If one person has the intestinal fortitude and ability to make that case, does that case then apply to everyone in that building?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No.

Mr. Breaugh: What does the minister do then? Since we are putting, I hope, some legislation before the House which will work.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The leases change every month. What is the member talking about? They are not all leased the same date.

Mr. Breaugh: Okay, the minister takes offence. Let me put it to him in a very blunt illustration. I know several little old ladies who will not take this to a review officer. What are you doing for them to see that they are protected? How will that happen? Can a review officer take cases where he knows the same thing has happened in the apartment next door and apply the same criteria? Or does that tenant in fact have to appear before that review officer? How will that happen?

It skirts about the issue of maintenance. Depending on how you read this Act it addresses itself in part to that, but not directly. Nor does it really say anything about what we might consider basic essentials -- except in the Landlord and Tenant Act or related pieces of legislation -- things like heating and lighting and normal repairs and painting processes and things like that. Are we inviting, in this legislation, landlords to cease doing that?

Do we have some protection for the tenants in this Act? If so, where is it and could we highlight that and make that just a bit more clear? Or are we going to attempt to deal with that through, if you like, regulations?

What, in particular, can a tenant do -- let me take this at its worst aspect, I grant you -- where the whole thing might bog down and where a tenant may have something withheld for something like, say four or five months, where the increase was substantial? After the rent review officer and the review board have made the decision, are you expecting the tenant to come up with $200 or $300 in back rent in short order? Are you allowing him some process whereby he might get that money?

I see some practical problems there. People might think that they are protected by this legislation, that they have had their rent held down. Then four months later, or three months later, or whatever it might suddenly turn out to be, they, in fact, owe the landlord a couple of hundred dollars that might be rather difficult to come by in some circumstances.

The converse of that: What does the landlord do when he has a substantial number of units and he might have to come up with a substantial amount of money? Does he get hit in one fell swoop or is there a time-payment plan? What’s that process? Could the minister elaborate on that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has asked a number of questions and I’m attempting to get them down as quickly as I can. Perhaps I could try, which I have not done up until now, to answer some of them. Do you want to continue?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the debate should be on the principle of the bill. The question and answers can be clarified in the committee, which I understand it’s going to anyway. If it’s to illustrate a point of principle, you may pose a theoretical question. Your opinion as to the principle of the bill is really what we should be talking about.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what I am attempting to do is address myself to the real principle of whether this bill is going to work or not and inviting the minister to respond, in his summation, to many of these questions. I anticipate that he will and then we’ll deal with the clause-by-clause thing, if you like, or the nuts-and-bolts of it in committee. Is that acceptable to the House and to the Speaker? Very good.

I found a word in here. I always find these things extremely attractive for some reason. In one of the sections it refers to a “thing.” It says that it will cover “all kinds of things” and it uses that word “thing.” I was really at a loss to find out what we mean by that. Are we talking about doors and windows or what?

There are portions of this Act that rather defy logic, just in spots. I accept wholeheartedly the principle of the thing and that the attempt has been made, but I think some clarification of those portions of the Act really needs to be put in.

I have some reservations about the makeup and nature of the rent review boards. Frankly, that perhaps would not be the case had I not seen similar boards appointed by the Province of Ontario trundling about the province, at 100 bucks a day or so, plus expenses, in operation. I would like the minister to address himself to how those boards actually will be set up, where they will meet and how they will work in order to give the House some clear idea of whether that in principle, is a workable concept and what he has in mind.

I think too I’d like to put the case that some other members have touched on and that is the smaller units. That is one where perhaps all of us overestimated: The extent that they are prevalent; the kind of people who own these buildings; and the kind of people who live there. In fact, one of the things that surprised me the first weekend after the minister announced this legislation was the number of people who took the time to call me and to write to the minister in some form, either a night letter or whatever, who were in exactly that situation, in triplexes or small old houses that had been split up into three or four apartments. They asked the question why they, sitting on one side of the street, don’t have rent controls and people across the street, in a larger building, do have controls, And they made a rather firm case that it wasn’t an owner-occupied situation, that many of those buildings had been subject to the kind of little financial games that go on in the real estate business. A lot of them were owned by absentee landlords.

I think the minister has at least addressed himself to that question and I will be very interested in the kind of response he makes to the House when he actually does that.

Finally, I want to make the plea -- I think this is important -- that there are some loopholes in the proposed legislation. Let me quote one example. In terms of giving notice to the tenants, this Act says: “The landlord can give notice by handing it to an apparently admit person on the tenant’s premises.” Is that really “an apparently adult person on the tenant’s premises”? I have to question whether that is legislation that is actually going to work. That strikes me as being a rather large loophole, even for this government to put out.

What happens in terms of a strike? There doesn’t seem to be provision for that, in fact, it say’s in here that they would have five days. After the fifth day that is considered to be formal notice. I defy anybody to get five days’ service out of the post office these days -- or even on their best day.

What I am concerned about, in summary, Mr. Speaker, is that I really want this to be effective legislation. I want it to work. I want to have a clear understanding that the bugs will be ironed out, and that it is not just rent control legislation in name and that it will not have the mechanism -- whether that is money, whether that is people, whether that’s resources -- to actually do the job. I want some assurances from the government that they are quite prepared to take that on.

Although I welcomed the legislation initially, I have some doubts about whether that government is really prepared to make it work. It would seem to be a drastic reversal of form if that is the case. I accept at face value that they do intend to make it work, and I am simply inviting the minister to respond in kind and to assure us all that it is good workable legislation.

Mr. Grande: During the last provincial election my Conservative opponent, when asked in a television programme whether he agreed or disagreed with rent controls said, “I’m against rent controls. I’ve been in cities like Chicago and they don’t work.” Well, I am enjoying my position here and my opponent is out there eating his words.

In the last four or five months this government -- there is no need for me to repeat it, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mrs. Bryden) has stated it very well -- must have gone through a tremendous amount of psychological pain in order to have the turnaround in this particular policy that it is showing. It also must have gone through a fantastic philosophical split, because in a sense they are stabbing their friends in the back.

I just have three points to make. One of them is that approximately 50 per cent of the people in my own riding of Oakwood are tenants, and approximately 20 per cent of those are tenants in duplexes or triplexes. If the exemptions in the present bill stand, it simply means that 20 per cent of the tenants in the riding of Oakwood have no protection whatsoever.

The second point that I would like to make is that it is obvious by the government bringing in this bill that rent gouging exists. I have tabulated the cases that I have before me -- there is a tremendous number of them -- and it seems that the increases range from 20 to 35 per cent. Who are the people that these rent increases hit the hardest? Of course, they are the people in the low-income brackets. As a matter of fact, as of 1971 approximately 68 per cent of the people in my own riding earned salaries of less than $10,000.

The other point I would like to mention is that it seems to me that there is a relationship here between the large rent increases and the applications that are made to Ontario Housing Corp., because once again the increases drive the low wage earners out of accommodations and these people are trying to get into Ontario Housing.

When one tries to find out whether some Ontario Housing places exist for these people, the answer one gets is that there are no vacancies and there is a tremendous waiting list; we just have to put their names in, give them a number and wait two or three years. As a matter of fact, I would like to read one of the letters that I received from one of my constituents. It starts very apologetically. This is what the letter says:

“I know that this is only one of the many letters you have received concerning housing but I am in a desperate situation and would like your help in obtaining a low-rental apartment.

“About four years ago my mother and I applied to Ontario Housing for an apartment but at each interview we were told, ‘No vacancies,’ but we would be kept on the waiting list. A few weeks ago my mother passed away and, faced with a high rent, I contacted Ontario Housing again and was told that I would have to wait another three months for another interview and then placed on a waiting list.

“I know that I am being given the runaround. I am paying $186 plus cable and phone and my take-home pay for two weeks is $168, as my slip enclosed will show.”

I have here the employee’s statement of earnings and deductions.

“I am a widow and I am 62 years of age.”

I think, as has been said over and over again this evening, that the rent control legislation is only part of the comprehensive housing policy that this government should be talking about. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Mr. Godfrey: I rise to add my congratulations that the Minister of Housing has seen fit to make this small step forward for himself and truly a giant step forward for the renters of Ontario.

I congratulate him on accepting this plank from the social platform which our party has espoused for many years. It almost ranks with the acceptance of a rock-ribbed basis of socialism, namely medicare, which was accepted by his party with as much reluctance but eventually came to be -- and will be surpassed in the near future, I am sure, by the acceptance of denticare, to be followed by insurance, I am also sure.

I will not replicate the arguments which my colleagues have put forward with regard to the percentage or the timing, because I am very much aware of these and of their inadequacies and the fact that in Durham West we have more than our share of people who are suffering under exorbitant rents, but I do rise to a specific question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about exorbitant doctors’ fees?

Mr. Godfrey: The concern I have is with regard to the exemptions. I can understand the exemptions which go forward under the public housing that is performed by the Ontario government, but there are other government agencies which are being exempted by this same programme, namely the government agencies that have acquired, through expropriation or other socialistic means, a large number of houses throughout the province.

I can give you examples of houses that have been expropriated and acquired by the federal government in the defunct airport area of Pickering. I can give you examples of housing that has been acquired by the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and remains under their care. I can give you examples from provincial expropriation themselves, such as Squires Beach, in my riding, or the North Pickering development. In many of these areas, housing is being put on the market.

This housing previously was occupied by owners whose properties had been acquired. This is bringing new rental housing onto the market. But the problem is that the government is itself being a gouging landlord in many instances inasmuch as the rentals it is charging for these properties is far in excess of what was the accepted rental, if we worked it out a pro rata basis, from the previous occupants.

Therefore, my specific question and plea is that the minister will include in his bill a sufficient facility that government houses, aside from public housing as I mentioned before, will be subject to the same strictures as other types of landlords.

Mr. Makarchuk: I’d like to make my little contribution to this debate but I think it is unfortunate that the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) isn’t here. A little earlier this evening he defended the small businessman. He said because our party is trying to get the smaller units to come under the rent control that we are in a way harming or damaging the small businessman.

I’d like to point out to him, no matter whether they are large businessmen or they are small businessmen, there should be a certain fairness in their operation. Just because a man is a small businessman, there is no reason to feel that he has the right to gouge or take advantage of his tenants. I think he should be treated the same as anybody else.

It’s not a case of being against private enterprise or anything of that nature. I’d like to point to the member that during the election campaign one of the strongest defences of private enterprise I heard was made by the Premier to, I think, a Ukrainian group in Oshawa. If you look at the results of the election in Oshawa, you will see that it really doesn’t pay off. Perhaps the Conservative Party would get away from that and speak to the substance or the concerns that bother the people of Ontario.

There was a remark also by the same member to the effect that the municipal authorities in some instances do not help or try to hold back development. I admit there may be certain cases. But I think we have to take into account that one of the reasons for the feeling of the citizens is the fact that due to the failure of the government in terms of providing housing, people have so much of their time and their money invested in housing, so much of their total income has gone into this housing, that any form of development threatens them. Whether the threat is real or imaginary, they have this concern about it. That is one of the reasons that people get excited about these things.

I should also point out to the minister, in Brantford as an example, we tried to prevail on Ontario Housing and we brought it to their attention that they owned a few parcels of land in the city that they finally admitted that they do own a few parcels of land. We asked them to submit a plan of subdivision for the area. After waiting for two months, they finally submitted a plan of subdivision. We looked at that plan of subdivision in the technical advisory committee, and it was something that a planning school trainee would put out. We don’t know who were the people doing the planning. We found out that the densities were wrong, the roads did not connect and everything else.

The municipal officials of the city directed their own planning staff to come up with a plan of subdivision for Ontario Housing, which was sent back to them. This was developed, accepted and eventually the project went on stream. I might add that in this particular case where there was some objections from local residents, we asked OHC to appear at a meeting. We had local officials appear at the meeting and with the three groups present we managed to allay some of the fears and overcome some of the objections of the people in the area. I think options and avenues are open for OHC and for the Ontario government to co-operate in this way to try to resolve the problems.

[9:30]

As to the problems that you are having right now, the reason, of course, why you have had to go through all those rather mental convolutions on rent control is because you have failed to provide housing for the people of the Province of Ontario. In one particular instance, again in the city of Brantford, the city offered to Ontario Housing something like 125 to 130 acres for rental housing, as well as single-family accommodation. And we said to OHC: “Look, we will give you the land, providing you put the land on the market at cost price.” But the officials from Ontario Housing said: “Oh, no, we can’t do that. That is going to affect the market.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s nonsense and you know it.

Mr. Makarchuk: That is not nonsense. That’s the absolute truth. The ex-minister says that’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s nonsense and you know it.

Mr. Martel: He wouldn’t understand.

Mr. Deans: You used to say that when you sat over there and you were wrong.

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

Mr. Makarchuk: At that particular time in the city of Brantford, we had a case where we had two developers who had a monopoly control on all the developable land. Between them they controlled something close to 70 per cent of the developable land in the area. By trying to put some land on the market at cost, we had hopes that the city would be able to shake the land out of these developers.

It is not the case where the developers now come crying -- in some cases legitimately but in many cases not legitimately -- saying, “The reason we can’t get land on the market is the municipality does not want to allow us the subdivisions; the province has up tied up on subdivisions.” I would suggest to the minister, that this is not the case in many small communities in the province. What is the case -- and it’s the case in Brantford and I am sure it’s the case in London and Cambridge and a few other communities in Ontario -- is that you have two or three or four developers who own the majority of the land in the area. They are putting only so many lots on the market in order to keep the prices up.

In Brantford at this time the local developers can go down to city hall tomorrow and take out a building permit for something like 2,000 units. There is absolutely no shortage of land there, There is no shortage of land that has been approved for subdividing for residential construction’. But what is keeping those people from putting the land on the market is simply the fact that there is really no rush to put it on the market. They will sell so many units. They will make about $25,000 to $30,000 per unit. They have a nice cash flow, so why rock the boat? When we requested Ontario Housing to get involved and start putting the land on the market and try to put a competitive edge into the market, they refused and, as I said earlier, they replied: “It may affect the market and we don’t want to do that.”

There is a development on stream in Brantford at this time which will help the rental accommodation. It will certainly help the housing accommodation and we are looking forward to see the price that Ontario Housing is going to be charging for those units. I am sure that will be one of the things that we will be discussing further in the Housing estimates.

If the Tory party did not have that great obligation to the developers and had a commitment to build housing in Ontario, you then wouldn’t have to be dealing with this bill right now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You should sit down.

Mr. Martel: I am sure you wouldn’t understand.

Mr. Lewis: I rise to speak to the principle of the bill, saying quietly to the former incumbent in the Ministry of Housing that he is perhaps the last to intervene, injudiciously, yet again. This bill is almost a political epitaph for some Tories and I would --

Mr. Deans: Was it the ex-minister who said over his dead body?

Mr. Lewis: -- have thought those who experienced the burial would be good enough to understand the quotation. On the other hand, referring, alas, to my colleague from Stormont -- who is not here -- and his references to the current Minister of Housing, I can’t remember whether it was the day the minister was appointed or the day after when I was allowed in once again to the Premier’s office, ushered in quietly. Before there were alarm bells ringing when we came near the door. Now the treatment is positively ceremonial. And the Premier said to me at the time -- I can’t recall the exact words -- but with a kind of twinkle in his eye he said, “Oh, you are not going to find it easy with the new Minister of Housing.” He was very proud of his appointment.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He should be.

Mr. Lewis: If he doesn’t think that we are finding it easy with the new Minister of Housing, think how he felt after the minster came out of his first cabinet meeting and began to talk about rent review and rent control. I think back on that occasion.

But the Premier was justifiably proud of the new incumbent. They didn’t applaud for the old incumbent, but they are entitled to do it for the new one.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh yes we did.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the minister’s epitaph.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member might get to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: I do not want to speak at length, and I suspect the minister may want to speak a little longer than the norm to cover the subject matter. I and others don’t want to press him into conclusion I tonight; I’m sure that won’t be necessary, if he doesn’t feel it.

I am fascinated by the genesis of this bill, forgive a moment’s historical rambling. All of us in this party believe in the principle of rent control and rent review and have for a good many years. Our colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) put the proposition eloquently in his own bill; and my colleague, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) spoke of it many years ago -- but I was always sceptical about whether or not it could ever be embraced by a Tory government. I must admit I am even somewhat surprised today as we actually debate the principle of this bill, that somehow it is the government over there which has disgorged it. I wouldn’t have believed that that might happen.

I was utterly amazed at the way in which the question of rents took hold during the campaign. Let me admit that to the House. It was not by some kind of predetermined design and careful calculation that the rent issue blossomed into such a major political furore. I was as surprised about it, as many Tories were, when it occurred. I think that even I -- and I must admit this to the House -- having espoused it and believed in it for many years, underestimated the degree of public passion about the unreasonable rental increases and the degree of public feeling that something had to be done about it.

It was obvious that a chord was struck during the campaign that reverberated, not only through Metropolitan Toronto, but through most of the urban communities of Ontario. Again, I must admit a certain surprise at the time.

I have to concede an indebtedness to Beland Honderich and the Toronto Daily Star. I think it is fair that it be done publicly. Beland Honderich obviously decided at some point along the way that circulation could be vastly improved in the apartment buildings of Metropolitan Toronto if he ran with rents. So he ran with rents. We ran with rents -- and the Liberal Party didn’t run.

Although it is the last thing in the world I would expect to do, to pay tribute to Beland Honderich, I have to express a modest vote of thanks -- not to mention John Bassett for keeping us out at CFTO; and not to mention Gordon Sinclair. Sinclair, Honderich, Bassett -- it’s a wonderful array, isn’t it -- the way the forces of enlightenment are rallying to the call. However, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Grossman: Now the member knows how we feel.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it really does grate, doesn’t it? But it has its delicious moments as well.

I must really discipline myself, Mr. Speaker, and come back as you would wish me, sir, to the question of this bill and the way in which the minority government has responded to the reality which we all felt. The principle of rent control and rent review kind of grows on one, Mr. Speaker. You analyse it. You learn more about it. You think it through. It’s a highly persuasive proposition which the more thought one gives to it the more it takes hold, and I think everyone in the legislative group, at least certainly among New Democrats and Tories, has moved with the recognition of what rent control is all about and what rent review portended.

We always accepted the principle. We’ve moved to a definition of the particulars. The government repudiated the principle and now it has embraced it. Now it’s a question of their looking at the particulars. It’s an interesting and important transition which has occurred for all of us. Some are uncomfortable with the bill. I think the minister is uncomfortable with the bill. Sotto voce, he says, “Me,” and points to himself as an unrepentant Tory who feels that this kind of intervention in the marketplace is some kind of sacrilege. He is uncomfortable with it, but he brought it in. Think of those to my left who can’t even tolerate its presence.

Mr. Cunningham: Nobody is to your left. Nobody could be further left than you.

Mr. Lewis: Nobody is to my left, if you speak of some. But I must say that there are some in the House -- clearly, I think, in the Liberal Party -- who don’t want the bill at all. That emerged. I’ve never heard such truculent free-enterprise sentiments as I heard this afternoon as some members of the Liberal group even talked of rent review as sacrosanct in comparison with rent control, trying desperately to draw a distinction which would somehow salvage their political position.

The Tories, uncomfortable or otherwise, have embraced the bill, and it’s worth looking at the logic of a shifting position -- the way they have shifted, and, frankly, because it’s important for me to say it, the way we have shifted. It’s a matter of assumption that as social democrats come closer to the trappings of power they moderate their positions, or they might water down some of their approaches. The reality is, in this bill as in other areas of legislation, we have felt tougher and tougher about the particulars, and the positions which I took in the campaign, setting out the particulars, have become tougher and tougher as our caucus looked at them time and time again over the last two or three months.

The position which we have arrived at today, and which my colleagues have put most effectively -- in fact I guess almost all my colleagues have spoken in this debate and put most effectively those particulars -- demonstrate that we are not prepared to trifle with the principle of rent control and rent review one jot, and that the more we read, the more we understand, and the more we absorb, the more we are as a caucus persuaded that this Intervention in the marketplace is absolutely indispensable, that it must persist for a very long period of time, that it must be uncompromising though fair, so that it is one of the best pieces of social intervention that this Legislature has brought itself to in many years. And we’re proud of it; we’re very proud of it.

As a government, I am prepared to concede, the Tories too have apparently looked at some of the particulars and understand the logic of a shifting position. I don’t begrudge that, and I don’t pretend that it’s all politically inspired, because there are Tories -- I daren’t name them -- who talked to me privately a after the bill was introduced and explained some of the feelings they hail and some of the perceptions they had about the inadequacies of the bill. Apparently, in the process of discussion there are to be amendments, and I’m glad of that. I guess I’m asking the minister -- I hope in a spirit of useful argument rather than rhetorical device -- to consider a number of particulars, and before the bill comes to committee of the whole, to look carefully at the amendments which should be introduced, because logic makes a bill fair.

[9:45]

If the minister brings in a bill which in principle is sound, but in a number of particulars represents the last vestige of irrationality, he knows what it is like. He is not happy with the bill, he concedes on a number of points, but he can’t give on the final logical consequences of his act. Therefore the bill becomes irrational and a little unfair.

There are a number of particulars which are worthy of evaluation. I read back in Hansard -- I wasn’t here, I was out of town -- when my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) put to the minister the proposition of the fourplex, triplex, duplex, roomers, etc. I read the intervention from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). I read the intervention from the minister that there would be an amendment. I hope that whatever else is achieved before 10:30 p.m. tonight, that the minister will announce very specifically that the exemption will be lifted, and that we will cover all rental accommodation. I hope the essential fairness and logic of that has impressed itself on the government mind. That’s not a political capitulation, that’s just something which is eminently equitable. And that’s what legislation should be. Therefore I assume the minister will embrace it.

One of the most vivid phone calls I had was from a fellow named David Rabinovitch. He is a CBC producer on the programme “Take Thirty,” whom I bumped into while doing a programme on rents with the BC Attorney General, and he called me a day or two later. He was living in a fourplex and described quite movingly the increase in rent which he and his family were subject to and how he couldn’t believe that the legislation had managed to exclude him from tenants’ rights -- from some kind of justice. I felt when I heard it -- and we in this caucus have had many of a similar kind -- that somehow collectively the Legislature would amend that clause. I see that it will be done, or I gather that it will be done, spontaneously by government. First-rate.

The second point: there is a compelling logic to the incorporation of government housing as well as the private sector. It isn’t simply a matter of class, although that is central, it is also a matter of equity. You don’t apply laws of this kind in an invidious fashion, in private and public sector components. If the principle is correct that rent control and rent review should apply to protect tenants who are vulnerable from landlords who are rapacious, then it applies equally to all. I hope the logic of that proposition will commend itself to government, rather than the opposition having to combine to force the change. However I sense that we will, if the amendment doesn’t come spontaneously from the government.

I want you to look at the arguments that have been made by my caucus mates on the whole question of retroactivity. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) put it extremely well. What kind of sacred spirit is there about July 29, 1975? What makes that such a sacrosanct date? Why pay homage to it? If there is cumulative evidence of rent gouging throughout 1975 -- and you will remember that when the city of Toronto came before the committee of the legislature and made the arguments to move the retroactivity back into 1974, they gave chapter and verse of illegitimate rent increases.

If all of that evidence is before the minister, why then does he not rescue the tenant for the whole year 1975 rather than the arbitrary fixation of the middle of 1975? Since he has eliminated the right of appeal for this six-month period -- a decision with which we agree -- then why not extend it back to Jan. 1, 1975, minimum?

We would rather go further back. We would go right back to the beginning of 1974 and would so move, based on the experiences of what we know of rent gouging. But leave that aside for the moment. In conservative terms, in terms of the basic view the minister has of how the legislation should work, make it fair. And to be fair to the tenants, those who suffered the gouging in the first part of 1975 should have the same recourse that the government provided in the last five or six months under this bill. That’s a matter of simple equity.

Then there’s the question of the percentage. It’s easy to take the eight per cent because it coincides with BC. It’s easy to take the eight per cent, because it was rumoured by Ottawa, but there is much greater logic on our side for six per cent than there is on yours for eight. The Province of British Columbia, in fact, had rent control for more than a year before they decided the fixed percentage. They had already fixed rents. They’d already brought them down and they were able to make an analysis which occupied different components than need be occupied in the Province of Ontario.

Let me remind the hon. minister about British Columbia. Let me remind the hon. minister that the operating costs for the landlords of BC, based on an analysis of the four six-month periods from the middle of 1973 to the middle of 1975, worked out to 3.5 per cent. I read the first 70 pages of that report very carefully. Right, I didn’t get a chance to look at all the tables but I was impressed with the lucidity and the weight of the document.

As a matter of fact, it’s actually readable which is unusual in government reports. It speaks well for Karl Jaffary, John Brewin and other treasured members of the left. I want to tell the hon. minister, that if the actual operating costs, incorporating all of the landlord’s expenses carefully looked at through those four six-month based periods, were only 3.5 per cent, then a six per cent level in the Province of Ontario could compensate for taxes and not only for taxes, but probably for an additional component of return on investment.

I suspect that if we went before a rent review tribunal, that, in fact, would be documented. I see no particular reason for the grabbing of the eight per cent except that, again, for the Tories it was some kind of figure clutched from above.

I want to mention and re-affirm what my colleagues have spoken of in terms of the exemption for new buildings. I went to put a conviction which is very strong in this caucus. We don’t believe for a moment that rent control actual, intended, or otherwise necessarily reduces the building of new rental accommodation. That is a hoary mythology which Tories perpetrate but doesn’t commend itself to us.

One of the powerful parts of the BC document, which I gather the minister has in front of him, is the argument -- demonstrable, documented -- that the decline in rental accommodation began in the year 1970. It had absolutely nothing to do with intimations of rent control. It had everything to do with the market. It had everything to do with interest rates. It had everything to do with the private construction industry. It had everything to do with the way in which developers were deciding to invest their money. It had nothing to do with the threat, looming on the horizon, of so-called rent control.

It wasn’t even mooted in the dark days of 1970 in the old Socred regime in British Columbia and it had nothing to do with the decline of rental accommodation which began here in Ontario at the same time. Rent control and rent review, embodied in this bill, if applied fairly, giving the landlord the right to appeal, as it does and therefore giving a return on investment in the process, need not, under any circumstances, deter the building of rental accommodation.

I know that the minister grabs at that. He holds it to him. It’s kind of an adrenalin, I md of an ideological adrenalin, that if you bring in rent control, you reduce rental accommodation. Nuts; that isn’t the case. It doesn’t have to be the case unless the government’s rent control legislation is inconsistent and unfair. And we’ll try to make it as fair as possible. I want the minister to know that for the New Democratic caucus equity extends to landlords as it extends to tenants and I assume that their right of appeal will give them the protection that they need.

We also don’t accept, and ask the minister to think through, the whole proposition of ending it in the middle of 1977. I don’t know whether it has to do with his electoral strategy. I don’t know whether it has to do with his desperate hope that this need only be a temporary measure. It can’t only be a temporary measure. There will be no adequate vacancy rate in the metropolitan centres of Ontario for the foreseeable future. For the next few years there will be no adequate vacancy rate for rental accommodations. So for heaven’s sake don’t put a termination point on this legislation.

Or maybe he feels that he can extend it. As I understand it from the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), these two years don’t even extend as long as the government’s commitment to the federal wage price guidelines extends. And that’s an inconsistency -- which is illogical and unfair, and should be altered in an amendment to the legislation.

Those are the kinds I of things which should be changed in committee, and we commend them to the Legislature and to the minister. I know that the bill runs counter to many philosophic convictions the government has, but it is just one of those desperate compelling realities that this intervention in the marketplace has to occur. Call it creeping socialism, if you will. Call it in the rhetorical flourishes of my friendly companion from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) -- oh, do I love his presence in this caucus -- call it full-blown socialism, if you want it. But that’s what it is --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You had to keep some socialism there.

Mr. Lewis: -- it’s the recognition that the government intervenes in the life of the private sector to protect the citizenry of a province. It caused the government apoplexy when it froze oil prices. It is causing it as much apoplexy in rental accommodation, but it is an absolutely truth -- there is no way around it. It is irresistible. It happens. Now, cope with it and make it fair. Amend the legislation so that it works. That’s what we are simply putting to the minister.

We put it to him on the question of numbers of units; on the government housing; on the increased retroactivity and the percentage he is allowing; on the exemption for new buildings; on the duration of time that the bill lasts, and on all the multitude of particular points which we in this caucus will struggle to introduce and to amend because we are pleased that this legislation has come. That it is an extension of a social philosophy to which we subscribe and which we think one day Ontario will also subscribe to with equal feeling.

But, I want to make a final point and it is a point which I know the minister shares at least in theory, if not in practice. There is no member of the New Democratic team in this Legislature who believes that rent control and rent review in any sense is an answer to the housing crisis. No one of us believes that. No one of us is deluded enough, or filled with illusion enough to believe it. We know that it is an absolute necessity to correct the vagaries, injustices -- and often outrages -- of the way in which the marketplace has worked to the disadvantage of tenants everywhere in Ontario. But, we also know that until the people over there, in whatever period of time they continue to be a government, begin a housing programme in Ontario in excess of 100,000 units a year, then no legislation will be adequate to the task.

If I may say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister -- and this Speaker (Mr. Stokes) has thought-waves, has cerebral perceptions given to no other Speaker -- and when I speak to the minister through him, he is getting my message because it ain’t distorted en route -- I want to say --

Mr. Deans: It is supposed to be distorted.

[Mr. Speaker Rowe returns.]

Mr. Lewis: This is treason; this is heresy.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It will be properly filtered now, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Speaker: I think I stayed away long enough.

Mr. Lewis: Now I shall have to acknowledge the Speaker and speak to the minister. You know what it will take to build housing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Money.

Mr. Lewis: No, it is not money. It is intervention in the private sector. It is called public ownership of urban land. That’s what it is going to take to build housing in Ontario, and that too will one day commend itself.

[10:00]

How I remember the Tories impugn the integrity of rent control and rent review. They laughed us out of court for putting the proposition that this was the answer to rental accommodation. Now they come in here and introduce it.

Let us say to them as a political party that someday they’re going to have to descend on those municipalities which raise their red tape at every turn in order to prevent the introduction of adequate housing. Someday they’re going to have to descend on these developers who sit on land speculatively, acquisitively, adding their profits. Someday they’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that if the private sector won’t do it the public sector had better do it.

The government can still do it in conjunction with private house builders. The Tories don’t have to build it themselves. But at some point the government will have to intervene to rescue the housing accommodation market just as we are presently intervening to rescue the rental accommodation market.

With a little bit of bemusement and not a touch of surprise I rise, in conjunction I with all my colleagues, to support the principle of this bill; to say to the minister that we will amend it as thoughtfully and resourcefully as we can in committee; to hope he will embrace some of these amendments when they’re put or, indeed, pre-empt us by putting them himself -- we don’t begrudge it. If anything at all justified that whole election campaign and its outcome, it’s this bill and the companion piece of legislation which the Attorney General will bring forward. We are jolly well proud of it.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members to speak before the minister replies? The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry; did the minister want to say something?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, it’s all right.

Mr. Deans: I’m prepared to let you say it if you want to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you going to drag it on?

Mr. Deans: Pardon? I can’t hear you.

Mr. Cunningham: He’s saying you’re an anti-climax.

An hon. member: He says the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Morrow) waits to speak.

Mr. Deans: He wants to speak?

An hon. member: it’s hard to believe.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be presumptuous in rising at this time --

Mr. Lewis: There is another election coming.

Mr. Morrow: -- but I thought, although the minister was urging me to say something some 15 minutes ago on this subject, that after the Leader of the Opposition spoke it would be proper for the minister to close the debate. I see other members on the other side of the House wanting to speak to the bill so I’ll take this opportunity of saying how pleased I am, as an urban member of the Legislature, to see this bill come before the House.

Mr. Lewis: Why is your adam’s apple bobbing?

Mr. Morrow: I want to make it abundantly clear to all the members on the other side of the House, particularly the new members, that the matter of rent control and rent review was a very strong topic in the Progressive Conservative caucus of the former Parliament.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, you fought it bitterly.

Mr. Morrow: Several members of our caucus argued loud and long for some form of rent control.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Morrow: I might say that I live in a high-rise apartment with some 300 units and I have a pecuniary interest that perhaps: I should declare because I am a renter now. I did feel, particularly after the Toronto bill came before the standing committee of the House last May, that there was a good deal of justification at this time for looking into the matter of some form of rent control to be brought forward in this province.

Many members in our caucus took up the challenge and we spoke at length many times throughout the months of April, May and June. It was decided, I might say, by a strong consensus in our caucus that rent control and even the cornerstone of this bill, rent review, would be a plank in our platform in the upcoming election’.

Mr. MacDonald: But “King Canute” Irvine tried to sweep the sea with his broom.

Mr. Lewis: You name it!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Morrow: The only thing I’ll agree with the hon. member opposite on is --

Mr. Lewis: Just a second; someone has fainted in front of you.

Mr. Morrow: -- perhaps we didn’t have all the pegs in place at that time and there has been some evolution in our thinking before this bill came into being. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that’s all to the good. The more thought that has been put into the bill and the more input, the better the bill; and there’s input in this bill, I will say, by members of all three parties in this House. I don’t even take the position of the Leader of the Opposition or other members of his party who begrudge the contribution from the third party of the House. There are many in that caucus who are favourable to some form of rent review.

I only want to emphasize that if the minister has added expeditiously on this matter, it is not only because of the urgings of the parties opposite, but because of the urging of many members in his own caucus. Being a very flexible man and a great humanitarian be is not only bolting after the interests of the people Who rent in the city of Ottawa and the great city of Sault Ste. Marie but for all renters across this province. I do want to congratulate him. I would like to say that I commend the hon. minister for bringing in this bill so soon after assuming office.

I know that there are many of us who have grave reservations, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, about some of the exemptions in the bill. I am one who has grave reservations about certain exemptions, particularly the one to do with four units or less. There are 300 units in my apartment. I don’t want the privilege of having my rent frozen at eight per cent for the balance of this year and then have to pay eight per cent next year unless the landlord, who is Sun Life -- and I couldn’t care less about Sun Life --

Mr. Lewis: You are losing your grip, you know.

Mr. Morrow: -- proves that I should pay more. They are going to have to justify to me why I should pay more.

Mr. MacDonald: You are on the road to Damascus.

Mr. Foulds: I’ll bet you are taking emergency courses in French.

Mr. Morrow: So I want my fellow man who rents in the four-unit apartment, in the triplex, in the double or the duplex or even the single dwelling unit, to have the privilege to appeal his rent.

Mr. Lewis: What about these government buildings? What about them?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One person speaking at a time I think is enough.

Mr. Morrow: I have a great number of government buildings in my riding.

Mr. Lewis: Like the federal Parliament.

Mr. Morrow: I will agree with you. There are many problems there.

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

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order --

Mr. Morrow: I am not yielding the floor. I got your point.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t want you to yield the floor. God forbid. Did I hear --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Morrow: I am speaking personally -- now, just a minute until I qualify myself.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He wants to qualify it.

Mr. Lewis: What about retroactivity? You will have to admit --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Sit him down.

Mr. Morrow: The hon. Leader of the Opposition doesn’t want me to finish. I said that I would like to qualify myself. I know that there are problems with a great many of the people in our government-rented buildings, but I also know that if you give everyone the opportunity to appeal, their rents and so on, no matter who they may be throughout the province, we will get into legislation that will bog us down. We will not be able to get anywhere with it and you will not be able to solve the many injustices there are.

Mr. Wildman: Rough justice.

Mr. Morrow: Now, we don’t have to do this all at once. Let’s bite off so much at one time.

Mr. Lewis: Sure.

Mr. Morrow: I am in favour of the retroactivity measure. I won’t go so far as the Leader of the Opposition went. I am in favour of the way it is written. I couldn’t care less if it was for another six months.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, you couldn’t?

Mr. Morrow: That’s right. I wouldn’t mind.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister hear that?

Mr. Morrow: I am in favour of the eight per cent. I think it is fair where it is.

Mr. MacDonald: We may have to change the minister again.

Mr. Lewis: Who are you speaking for?

Mr. Morrow: I am speaking for myself. When I speak, I always speak for myself.

Mr. Lewis: I understand you lead a back-bench group.

Mr. Morrow: If the hon. member would just listen --

Mr. Lewis: I am listening.

Mr. Morrow: I am in favour of those two features; I am in favour of the rollback provision and even the roll-forward, if it can be justified by the landlords. We have got to look after both these people, as the hon. member says. I am in favour of the minister bringing in any new provisions in this legislation that will help solve our problems.

Interjections.

Mr. Morrow: There is one other thing. I am of the opinion that there should be some companion effort to this bill in the near future. I think the minister is justified in his concern about not enough units being built. That’s a justifiable concern, and I think some sort of package should come in later to promote more units being built. We should be looking into mortgage interest rates and so on to help the builders, because there’s nothing like having lots of units in order to eliminate the scarcity of rental apartments.

I’m going to close on the note that I’m prepared to support the legislation. I am happy that it has been brought in. I am in favour of certain exemptions being removed, and perhaps I’ll so voice myself at that time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would like to check and see if any other back-benchers of the government would like to add to the comments of the member for Ottawa West --

Mr. Lewis: Now, now. Mr. Speaker, there is one here.

Mr. Ferrier: Don’t let the cabinet intimidate you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has the floor anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine) may have a contribution.

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t understand.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, it’s always very difficult when you come to a point like this. After eight years of talking and attempting to persuade the government that there was a need for rent control in the Province of Ontario, to finally see the bill before you and to recognize that some of what you’ve been trying to accomplish has been seen at last. I’ve got to tell you, though, that for a great many people the bill is too little, too late.

When we first started talking about the need for rent review and rent control and amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act back in 1966 and 1967, the need was evident at that point; and if the need was evident at that point, you can imagine just how great the need has become over the last eight years.

Mr. MacDonald: The Tories are slow learners.

Mr. Deans: It bothers me when I think back to 1968, I think -- it might have been 1969 -- when the city of Ottawa came before the private bills committee and asked for private legislation to allow that city to implement a form of rent review with controls that would have enabled them to take grip on what was then going on. The government members came together as one group to block that and had that section of the bill withdrawn and the remainder of that private bill was allowed to pass.

At that point, many of us in this House recognized that there was a need. Many of us argued in the committee and in the Legislature that that section of that bill ought to have been allowed to stand and that Ottawa should have been given the opportunity to act as a guinea pig or as a test area for rental legislation of this type. But the government chose not to do that. In fact, the situation that has occurred since 1967 through 1975 has been so bad for so many people that this bill isn’t going to help them very much.

I still happen to think that one of the objectives of the Legislature of Ontario ought to be that we try to ensure those who wish to do so should have an opportunity to own a home of their own, that there’s a chance for people to purchase and to own housing or accommodation. It grieves me to think that we have reached the point where things are so bad that so many people are forced to live in rental accommodation that they have become at the mercy of so many gouging landlords.

[10:15]

Like most people, I could stand in the House and speak for some considerable period of time about the numbers of people that I have spoken to or sat in their living rooms or they have sat in my living room and in my office, telling me about the problems that they faced in trying to meet the rental increase’s that were being imposed upon them. I raised this matter with the previous minister, the member for Carleton-Grenville, on a number of occasions. He stood in his place and told me I was nuts, maybe not in as many words, but that was the intent. I can remember the minister standing up telling me, as he did on every single occasion every time I raised the matter, that I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Mr. Samis: He said you don’t understand.

Mr. Deans: I can remember it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Like you, I can check Hansard.

Mr. Germa: The hon. member for Carleton-Grenville should resign from the cabinet.

Mr. Deans: I can remember because it wasn’t so long ago. I am going to tell him something. It is because of the folly, the inaction and the actions of this government that we are dealing with rent legislation here. It is because this government has failed so miserably in providing accommodation for people at a price that they can afford that we are here at 10:16 on this date and this year, dealing with rental legislation. It is because of Stanley Randall and his policies on land in 1967 and 1968 and 1969 that we are forced to the position of having to regulate rents in the Province of Ontario. It is because of the policies of Ministers of Housing who preceded the member for Carleton-Grenville and of the current Minister of Housing --

Mr. Martel: Their lack of policies.

Mr. Deans: -- that we have been faced with the skyrocketing cost of land in the Province of Ontario which has been the major contributing factor to the rising cost of accommodation which has caused most people not to be able to purchase accommodation of their own.

When we deal with this legislation, we are dealing with it today, at least eight years after it was necessary. If the government had moved when the need was evident to most thinking people and if it had moved on two fronts -- if it had moved to control the rents in 1967 and 1968 and if it had also moved concurrently to build houses in 1967 and 1968, then we wouldn’t be here tonight doing these things. We wouldn’t have to be. We wouldn’t have needed rent controls at this point in the province.

This government has never understood that the major problem rests in the provision of an adequate supply of accommodation. That is where the government has failed. When it was asked in 1968 and 1969 why it was that it didn’t go in competition with the land speculator, why it didn’t drive the prices down using the land it had, I was told by the then minister responsible for housing, Stanley Randall, whom I mentioned before, that the government of Ontario wasn’t going into competition with private speculators. The government of Ontario was looking at the speculators’ prices and setting its prices accordingly and it helped to drive up the price of housing.

The minister of this day is doing exactly the same thing in the Home Ownership Made Easy programme. The government has taken a very good worthwhile programme and destroyed it. It was a programme that in its inception could have been used to provide decent accommodation for people at a price that they could afford. By its manipulative ways, by kow-towing to private enterprise, the government has turned around and destroyed that programme and made it into a programme for people to gain out of the government’s activities.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You know that’s wrong.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know it’s wrong. I know it is right. I know, for example, that you have allowed the prices in that sector to go to exactly the same prices as they are in the private sector.

Mr. Martel: Tell him he doesn’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Don’t blame the present minister.

Mr. Deans: I don’t blame the present minister. I am saying that he is an extension of you who are an extension of the one before who goes all the way back to Stanley Randall. You have all got the Stanley Randall complex.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, God forbid!

Mr. Deans: And that is the difficulty.

Mr. Lewis: That is practically fatal. It’s a contagion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder in the few moments that are left whether we could get to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Deans: I am speaking about the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: You’re speaking about the ministers or former ministers. Let’s get to the principle of the bill, please.

Mr. Hodgson: Go back where you came from.

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

Mr. Germa: The ghost of the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) is in this bill.

Mr. Deans: Anyhow --

Mr. Hodgson: Why did you come here?

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean, why did he come here? He’s here. He was born here. Leave him alone.

Mr. Hodgson: No way.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Wentworth continue, please?

Mr. Deans: I am going to continue in a minute. I doubt if there is any single area of government that aggravates me more than the area of housing as far as it applies to this government. In looking at what they’ve done in trying to ensure that there was an adequate supply, and what they’ve done in trying to make sure that there was rental accommodation, and what they have done in trying to keep prices down, I can only come to the conclusion that they work hand in hand with the developers; that they have a vested interest in making sure that the developers of the Province of Ontario are maintained. I came to that conclusion some years ago, and said that once before in the Legislature.

Let me say this legislation will be in place forever. It will be in place forever because this government will never ever address itself to the problem of developing a sufficient number of housing units. This government will never be able to appreciate the difficulties that are being faced by the people who work in the average jobs in the Province of Ontario and earn average wages. This government will never be able to understand the frustrations that are being felt by the young people of the day, who are growing up and getting married and looking at where they might go to find accommodation, only to find that there is no likelihood in their lifetime of their ever being able to afford to pay for it.

Mr. Martel: It will never take on the land speculator either, and that is the real problems.

Mr. Deans: I think that is where the government has failed. When I watch what has happened in the 11 years -- that’s the eight years that I have been here and the three years that I had an interest in this matter prior to getting elected -- I have seen the housing situation in the Province of Ontario deteriorate from the point where the average individual, in the average job, could pay out 25 to 30 per cent of his income and purchase an accommodation and pay it off in 25 years, to a point where it would take 60 to 70 per cent of his income, even if he could qualify for the mortgage in the first place, which most people can’t.

They are never going to solve the problem. They are never going to solve it because they don’t know how. They don’t know how. When I hear the minister telling me about how it is to benefit the first purchaser that the Home Ownership Made Easy programme was brought in, and when I hear the minister telling me that it is right in the province to allow speculation to take place at the public expense in the HOME programme, then I can only assume that they really don’t intend to try to provide a supply of housing for those income groups that can’t get into the private sector. They can’t build a sufficient number of houses in any given year under the HOME programme to meet the need, and they allow those that should have been the stock of the HOME programme to be sold for private speculative gain. That’s where they have failed.

I happen to think this particular legislation will likely be in place for as long as I live. It will be in place for that long simply because this government will never ever take the necessary steps to try to alleviate the housing shortage. There is one problem with the whole thing. Even this government must recognize that the rise in rental rates over the last three to four years is far in excess of the actual increased costs of maintaining and paying for the buildings that are currently available for apartment rentals. They must recognize that in almost every case the owners have raised rents far in excess of what could be generally considered as attributable to rising costs in their particular areas.

As a result of that, there are a great number of people who are simply locked in to rental accommodation that they cannot afford on the incomes that they have. There are many senior citizens who are in that category. There are many people on fixed incomes in that category. There are many of the working poor who are in that category, and frankly this legislation isn’t going to help them one single bit. At least, it isn’t going to help them as long as it is left in the hands of this government.

I think that after all these years of fighting, perhaps we have come to the point where we have the legislation. And it may be too late for it to be of any good to a lot of people.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this before the hon. minister replies? Can the hon. minister summarize in three minutes or does he wish to leave it for another day?

Mr. Nixon: You’ve got three minutes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am just overwhelmed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, it would perhaps be appropriate if I made one or two observations about our programme on Thursday. It had been our intention to have the House in committee of supply on Thursday. But I think it would be important to finish this debate. So on Thursday, if I might be allowed to make this one change, we will have the hon. minister’s summary with respect to Bill 20. The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) is anxious to proceed with Bill 8, and so our programme would be this: We will finish up Bill 20, second reading, and then appoint the committee so that we can refer Bill 20 to the select committee. We will go briefly into committee of the whole House to finish up Bill 8, and then we will go into committee of supply to carry on for the rest of the afternoon and that evening with estimates. On Friday, of course, we will have Throne Speech debate.

In view of the fact that tomorrow is committee day, and by virtue of some understanding, we will not count tomorrow as a day as far as the standing committee on estimates is concerned, so that, in fact, the standing committee on estimates will have four days starting on Thursday. It was my understanding that they were to start the estimates of the Ministry of Housing on Thursday. With some allowance, we were hoping to finish with the Minister of Housing tonight so that he could go to his committee. We may have to allow for some time on Thursday for the hon. minister to wind up the debate on this second reading, and then go down to the standing committee on estimates. So that would be understood.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.