The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this House, 40 grade 10 students from the Norwell District High School of Palmerston, in the beautiful riding of Grey, under the supervision of Mrs. Judy Tuck, Mr. Bob Perreault and Mr. Archie Calder. They are seated in the east gallery. Would you please welcome them to the Legislature this afternoon?

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, seated in the east gallery are 24 students from the Galt Collegiate Institute and Vocational School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Barry Preston. They come from the wonderful riding of Cambridge, and are some of our better young people there. I would like this House to welcome them please.

Mr. Speaker: I might also draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have, seated under the Speaker’s gallery, former Speaker Reuter, who is back visiting the Legislature today.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, he could clarify that ruling we were discussing yesterday.

Mr. Lewis: He can find another seat in another party.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FUEL TAX PAYMENTS BY INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKERS

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Revenue has moved to provide relief to interprovincial truckers who have in the past been assessed by more than one province for the purchase and use of motor vehicle fuel.

By way of background, carriers registered with the Ministry of Revenue are currently provided with a refund of tax paid on fuel purchased in this province and used outside Ontario. Conversely the Ministry of Revenue has been assessing these carriers for tax due on fuel purchased outside the province but used in transit in Ontario. Unfortunately, some other provinces do not reciprocate in providing similar tax relief on fuel purchased in those provinces and consumed in Ontario.

For some years, Ontario has attempted to negotiate an interprovincial tax agreement to sensibly relieve carriers from these instances of double taxation. Such an agreement would provide for tax revenues to go to the province in which the fuel is actually used.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the difficulty in trying to collect tax rightfully due to Ontario when a carrier has already paid tax to another province on the same fuel. In dollar terms, we estimate that interprovincial truckers could be subject to double taxation to the extent of $2 million annually.

Since we have been unable to come to a successful interprovincial agreement to date, the Ontario Ministry of Revenue has proceeded to relieve interprovincial truckers from the inequities suffered in the past by granting total relief from their Ontario tax liability where a double liability has been incurred, up to Dec. 31, 1975. In addition, my ministry will refund any tax already paid under these circumstances.

However, in future, as of Jan. 1, 1976, it will be the responsibility of all carriers to make their own arrangements to reduce the incidence of tax liability to other provinces on fuel actually consumed in Ontario.

As of Jan. 1, 1976, interprovincial carriers will be liable for all fuel tax due to this province.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on Oct. 30 I reported to the Legislature on the actions the government of Ontario was taking to support and strengthen the national anti-inflation programme. We are convinced that the most critical government initiative possible, to contribute to the fight against inflation, must be control on public spending. Excessive growth in spending by governments at all levels has contributed in large measure to the inflation problem in the economy at large. Accordingly, governments must now provide an example of restraint by ordering priorities and cutting back on their demands upon the taxpayer.

The government of Ontario will meet its pledge to limit overall expenditure growth to 10 per cent in 1976-1977 without compromising essential services. Attaining this total expenditure objective of approximately $12.5 billion necessitates reductions in a number of low priority programmes in order that the genuine needs in higher priority areas can be met. The level of activity in provincial road construction, for example, will be reduced. An already high level of investment in housing will hg maintained but not increased. Welfare spending will be held to the rate of inflation plus projected growth in caseloads. Payments toward post-secondary education, on the other hand, will increase significantly to accommodate the rapid increase in enrolments. Spending in the justice field will increase in recognition of the demands from Ontario residents for improved service in the area of law and order.

Salary increases to civil servants will be held to an overall average of eight per cent in conformity with the recent federal guidelines, while compensation to senior levels will be frozen through 1976 at the level they have been since October, 1974. In addition, we are continuing to reduce the authorized staffing levels of the civil service. From 1974 to the end of this fiscal year, our actions will have reduced total complement from 70,800 to 67,500. A further reduction of 1,000 complement positions is targeted for 1976. I think the members will agree that this compares very favourably with a federal government which cannot seem to do better than a two per cent increase in an obese federal bureaucracy.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s because they have to do your work for you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have asked for the full co-operation of our local governments in this common cause of spending restraint. I am tabling today three letters that have been sent to all heads of council informing them of our course of action and soliciting parallel action on their parts. I am gratified that the municipal liaison committee and the Association of Ontario have indicated their support of the anti-inflation programme and the need for tough spending controls.

Let me list our support to and the performance of the last local government sector over the past five years. In the five years 1970-1975, local government spending in Ontario has increased 70 per cent from $3.6 billion to $6.1 billion. A very large part of this increase has been financed by enrichment of provincial grants which have been doubled from $1.4 billion to over $2.8 billion. This has allowed a considerable expansion and upgrading of local government services with only moderate increases in mill rates. Over the period 1970-1974, mill rate increases averaged less than one per cent per annum. There was a 12 per cent increase in mill rates in 1975, so that the total increase for the five-year period 1970-1975, was about 17 per cent, or an average of three per cent per annum.

During the period 1970-1975, personal income per household rose 52 per cent and consumer prices rose 44 per cent. In the context of these increases, a mill rate increase of 17 per cent is very modest indeed. Gross property taxes per household in 1970 were about $360. By 1975, they were about $420 or only $60 higher. After property tax credits and rebates are taken into consideration, net property taxes in 1975 were $310 as opposed to $295 in 1970. This represents a very real decline in property tax burdens during a period of significant increases in the quality and scope of local government services delivery to ratepayers.

I am tabling this afternoon six charts on our 1976 expenditure strategy which I shall present tomorrow to the provincial-municipal liaison committee. These documents outline in greater detail the restraint measures Ontario will implement in 1975 and the impact of those actions on the local government sector.

In view of the significance of provincial assistance to local sector financing, it is vital to municipalities, school boards and local agencies to know the dimensions of our financial support in preparing their budgets for 1976. I have already announced that total provincial assistance to local governments by the province for 1976 would be limited to the Edmonton commitment. Taking into account the overpayments we have made in 1975, this implied an increase in funding in the order of five to six per cent for next year.

Tomorrow I will inform the PMLC that the province is prepared to increase its support by some eight per cent, which represents some $230 million in additional funds to local governments. This enrichment is the result of deferring the 1975 overpayment in determining our Edmonton support level for 1976. We have stretched our own budget to make this improvement for local governments because we realize they are facing a very difficult year.

Municipal councils, and all local agencies, must make tough decisions to hold the line on 1976 spending, to cut out new programmes, to freeze civil service hiring and to postpone capital projects if the mill rate increases are to be kept to a minimum next year.

The province has accommodated local spending to the limit of its own budget capacity. Now it is up to the local sector itself to exercise rigid budgetary constraint to ensure that ratepayers get full value for their tax dollars. The principle of an affordable society requires implementation and commitment by all levels of government. The provincial government is meeting its part of the challenge. Local governments, I am confident, will meet their challenge.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: I’m trying to absorb some of these tables. May I ask the provincial Treasurer how he reconciles page 1 of his statement, where he talks of cutting back on government demands upon the taxpayer on the one hand, with a level of increase to the municipalities on the other hand, which as he himself implies in his defence of the level of property taxes, will require those municipalities to levy upon their ratepayers very high increases indeed simply to maintain essential services? How is that reconciled?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that’s what the statement was all about. If the hon. member is suggesting that we should be raising our taxes, then go to it.

Mr. Lewis: No, I’d like to talk about priorities but not here. Has it occurred to the Treasurer, as he looks at table 3, that the single greatest increase for which he has budgeted in 1976-1977, with the exception of teachers’ superannuation, is interest on the public debt; and has it not occurred to him that he is the author of his misfortune in terms of this statement?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to doing something about it.

Mr. Ruston: You never talked about it before.

Mr. Nixon: Since he has now modified his first statement to the municipalities that the increase allowed them in provincial grants will not be five per cent but closer to eight per cent, I would like to ask the Treasurer has he done any studies which would indicate how the projections from the municipalities of a 30 per cent average mill rate increase would be affected by this additional three per cent from provincial sources?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen any studies which would indicate a 30 per cent average increase in mill rates.

Mr. Nixon: I have a further supplementary: Projections have come from budget chiefs, I believe from Toronto and from some of the provincial centres, which would indicate they would anticipate a 30 per cent increase if the Treasurer stuck with his original figure of five per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary?

Mr. Nixon: Has the Treasurer not seen those statements?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Until the municipalities knew the level of grant support and until they know what their own surpluses may be at the end of this year, what their reserves are at the end of this year, I think it’s very hard to make a categorical statement that mill rate increases will be in the order of 30 per cent across the board next year.

Mr. Lewis: Let me put a supplementary to the minister: What level of housing starts does the government expect to achieve with a 2.2 per cent growth rate in the next fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would emphasize these are figures which ministries are using to sort out their priorities and determine how they will meet those targets and those figures -- and I am sure they will. I think it is fair to say that ministries are not in a position to give breakdowns at this point in time as to the specifics of how that money will be spent.

Mr. Lewis: Do you just set arbitrary figures?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the specific question which he has asked should be directed to the Minister of Housing. I doubt very much whether that question can be answered at this point in time.

Mr. Lewis: Do you just take a figure out of the air and never mind the consequences?

Mr. Shore: Would the minister comment on how he expects the municipalities to include restraints, if he has fought the concept that the regressiveness of the municipal tax rate is truly regressive? How does he expect the full province to absorb a greater percentage of the cost of municipalities when he’s suggesting an eight per cent restraining figure, when they cannot cut down their costs and the province hasn’t?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid. I don’t follow that question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The question is very confusing.

Mr. Speaker: It is a very general question.

Mr. Shore: I will rephrase the question. How does the minister expect the municipalities, given his view of the regressiveness of municipal taxes, to live with an eight per cent guideline?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, they are not living with an eight per cent guideline. They can live with whatever guideline they choose to impose on themselves --

Mrs. Campbell: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What I have indicated to them is that our transfers will increase about eight per cent this year.

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the Treasurer, while he is in such splendid spirits and form, what does he think about this amazing happening in Ottawa between the Anti-Inflation Board on the one hand and the cabinet on the other? Does he have any comments he might wish to make on that, since he has surrendered our public sector to the same group of people?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have only seen press reports, and only the morning press, and I think it would be unwise if I commented at this moment until such time as we have seen, (a) the opinion of Anti-Inflation Board; and (b) such opinion which may be given, I suppose, in the House of Commons or by release, by the government of Canada.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Does it not strike the Treasurer as odd, in the context of Ontario, that the federal cabinet is about to alter, or has altered, a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board, based on historical relationships, for its public sector workers, whereas he is not prepared to permit the government in Ontario to do that for our public sector workers? How does the Treasurer expect the Anti-Inflation Board to work under those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the member’s attention that the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto, if that is who he is referring to, are not part of the public sector of the government of Ontario --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Warner: Off the hook again.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They happen to be employees of the local municipalities’ school boards. They are not ours.

Mr. Cassidy: They are affected by your financial policies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary, the member for Sarnia?

Mr. Bullbrook: Since the Treasurer is not prepared at this time to discuss the impact as far as their federal situation is concerned, would he be prepared to discuss the impact of yesterday’s communication to the corporation of the city of Sarnia that the federal AIR have decided that they can’t intervene with respect to provincially propagated statutory arbitration awards --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe that is not related closely enough. It would make a good new question later when we give the hon. member his turn. Thank you very much.

PRICE FREEZE

Mr. Lewis: A further question of the Treasurer: Now that everyone is descending so happily on wages and the cost of living has gone up again by virtually a full percentage point, is the Treasurer prepared to intervene on behalf of the consumers of Ontario to institute a price freeze of basic commodities across the province for a minimum 90-day period until the Anti-Inflation Board finds out what it is doing and where it is going -- if ever that happens?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, other than in the socialist Valhalla of British Columbia, hopefully soon to come to an end --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to come to an end today, I would wager, my friend --

Mr. MacDonald: Not by the Tories!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Only in that never-never land out there --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that answer was somewhat provocative. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a further question?

Mr. MacDonald: it was a non-answer that was provocative.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr. Lewis: in that little free-enterprise Hades that he runs over there --

Mr. Speaker: Could we get back to the question period?

Mr. Lewis: That is an obvious pro-condition of this question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear it.

Mr. Lewis: Now that the unemployment rate in Ontario went up again last month, does the government have a single programme which it might initiate to put Ontario workers back to work, other than the consequences which are sure to follow some of the absurd restraints?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Ontario -- I don’t know why the member didn’t ask about this yesterday --

Mr. Lewis: it fits nicely today.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- on a seasonally adjusted basis, went up 0.2 per cent, something less than Canada as a whole. And that still leaves us two points less than British Colombia!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Two points less --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and there will be a lot more of them out of work tomorrow and they are all Socialists like the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Lewis: He may be right but if he is wrong he won’t be able to survive tomorrow morning.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Thank you.

Let’s get back to the question period, please. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I thought surely there would be a supplementary on that, but it must have been a killing shot.

I’d like to put a question to the Attorney General which is really based on the question which my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) was about to put to the Treasurer. Since the Anti-Inflation Board has officially informed the city of Sarnia that arbitration made under Ontario law is binding pursuant to the provincial and federal statutes and that the federal Anti-Inflation Board has concluded that the parties should comply with the provisions of the provincial legislation, can he indicate to the House what impact he believes this would have on all arbitration coming under various provincial statutes; for example, the settlement in the Renfrew teachers’ dispute, which was on the basis of arbitration under the section of Bill 100? Would that then be payable by the school board without further reference to the Anti-Inflation Board?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the opinion just quoted by my friend would appear to support the view I gave in this House the other day in answer to my friend, the member for Sarnia: That is that the provincial legislation still applies with respect to any arbitration. But once the federal legislation is in place it will override where, in the appropriate case, those sectors of the economy are covered under the umbrella sections of the federal legislation. At the point that the provincial government enters into an agreement with the federal government then the federal legislation will be overriding insofar as those sectors of the public sector that are brought in under the umbrella provisions of the anti-inflation bill.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary if I may: Surely the minister must mean, and would he not agree, that under the circumstances presently described by officials at the Anti-Inflation Board they are quite prepared to accept the supremacy of the provincial law, the provincial initiative in this regard, and that the only way it could be superseded federally is if this government decided that that was their policy and it should be superseded federally rather than applying the implementation here?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I thought I’d made my position clear, but obviously I didn’t. That is, the provincial legislation, of course, is still in force. To my knowledge, as of this moment, the federal anti-inflation legislation is not yet the law of the land.

Mr. Nixon: It’s not predicated on that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is predicated on that and it has to be predicated on that, and the member should know that.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, do I take it then that paragraph 3 of page 2 of the letter of the Treasurer of Ontario which is supplemental to the statement that he filed today wherein he advised the employer -- namely municipalities or police commissions: “Pay the award as required by provincial statute and subsequently refer the case to the Anti-Inflation Board,” that that is a redundancy in the context of the minister’s reply and his attitude?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t see anything inconsistent with that and my reply, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bullbrook: One final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: So there is no misunderstanding, do I understand the Attorney General stands by the position that notwithstanding the absence of an agreement to the contrary, that Bill C-73 from a constitutional point of view supersedes any obligation pursuant to the statute of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I do not. That’s not what I said.

Mrs. Campbell: You just said that.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know how the minister can have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity for a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary -- this is such a labyrinth we’re getting into -- are both the provincial Treasurer and the Attorney General, as I understand it, saying that the arbitration award is to be paid until such tune as the Anti-Inflation Board may vary it downwards, in which case payment will be taken from the people’s wages to compensate for overpayment prior to the arbitration board’s decision? If that is the case, how does the government handle the Renfrew teachers’ situation?

[2:30]

Mr. Bullbrook: That is real government leadership, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister not think it is too chaotic to sustain?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I simply state that of this moment the provincial legislation, with respect to arbitration, is of full force and effect.

Mr. Singer: What does that mean?

Mr. Nixon: A further question on this related matter to the Attorney General: If he might for a moment think about the possibility that his assumption is incorrect and that the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board will hold even after the Senate debate and after His Excellency gives royal assent to the law, and that the Anti-Inflation Board means what it says when it indicates that our provisions here will take precedence, would the minister not then think that the provisions of Bill 100 could be used within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board’s stance to at least modify the present chaotic situation which has kept the schools in this city closed for more than a month?

Mr. Speaker: Was the question directed to the Attorney General?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, it was. Might I say further that since this matter is thoroughly legal and has nothing to do with the educational aspects, it would require the interpretation of the chief law officer of the Crown. Would he not agree that with this ruling the responsibility which the members opposite have so clearly thrown to Ottawa is now right back in their court?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know what the question was, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: You don’t want to know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: You just don’t want to know.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary on this subject.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s beyond his comprehension.

Mr. Lewis: No, the Attorney General comprehends very clearly.

Does he not feel, as Attorney General, that we are visiting selective injustice on a series of groups of employees who do not now know where they stand while Ottawa and Queen’s Park trade and shift jurisdiction in these constant memoranda. Can he make a statement to clarify it from Ontario’s point of view?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education so that the context of the argument will be changed slightly in that regard.

Is he aware that Mr. J. F. King, of the federal Anti-Inflation Board, has informed the city of Sarnia that arbitrations made under Ontario law are binding pursuant to the statute? That being the case, if the interpretation is as the words are expressed, would he not think that this would mean that under the provisions of Bill 100 there is a clear avenue of settlement available to the teachers and the boards of Toronto, which comes under provincial law and is under his supervision?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not as conversant with the Sarnia situation, but I would suspect that in that situation this was an arbitration entered into before Oct. 13. The question is whether before Oct. 13, an arbitration or, as in the case of the Renfrew teachers, final offer selection was entered into. That is, the people signed and said “We will accept whatever that arbitrator or that final offer selector brings down. We will accept that; there are no other sanctions and nothing else can happen. There are no negotiations after that.” If that was done before Oct. 13, but the decision wasn’t handed down until after Oct. 13, should that he considered as having a contract before the guidelines were introduced?

If that is the case, I think that is a very valid position to put forward and if the AIB is supporting that position -- I think that is what my friend has said -- I think that is right. That doesn’t mean they would support the position if a group at this point in time, after the guidelines were introduced, said it would go to arbitration. The point would be that anybody who goes to arbitration or final offer selection now would still have to have that award reviewed by the AIB if the award was above the federal guidelines.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since there is no indication whatsoever in the ruling that the basis of the ruling is the time scheduling of the arbitrations but is actually the law of Ontario -- which the Anti-Inflation Board is prepared to say should be followed and which takes precedence under these circumstances -- will the minister consult with the chief law officer of the Crown, and anybody else whose opinion he would like to gather, and make a report to the House tomorrow as to the impact of this ruling on the numbers of situations that have faced us in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be most happy to study that and give my friend some decision on that, but I am sure he realizes that if such was the case it would be a very large loophole in the whole federal wage programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one additional supplementary: So that the minister is not a part of a continuing, almost conspiracy, to delude the public, has he read Mr. King’s report to the city of Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: He hasn’t; so will he agree with me that he is not privy to a knowledge that Mr. King exempts the city of Sarnia in these circumstances on the basis of the time frame?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, and I think, Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks by saying that I had not read it and I was not familiar with the whole city of Sarnia situation, but I suspect that time-frame part has got to be part of this particular decision and argument.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The last one was a final supplementary and we are getting into quite a prolonged debate on the same topic. If it’s a brief question that will require a brief answer --

Mrs. Campbell: This is important.

Mr. Bullbrook: Speaker Reuter always treated me with much more fairness.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I always do.

Mr. Bullbrook: He always gave me two finals; always.

Mr. Yakabuski: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: I think we have had enough debate on this subject. Are there further questions?

ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION FIELD WORK

Mr. Nixon: Yes, I want to ask the Minister of Health if he has examined the letter from Peter Kelly, the past president of Grand Council Treaty No. 3, bringing to I the minister’s attention the concern Mr. Kelly feels at the inadequacies of the Addiction Research Foundation’s work in Kenora now, just 10 years after these special programmes were inaugurated there? Has he read the section where Mr. Kelly has indicated that many of the field workers for ARF do work only on certain reserves and Indian communities in which they are personally involved as chiefs of the community themselves, and the totally inadequate assistance given to the Metis communities in that area? Has he read the letter and what is his response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not read the letter.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Will he read it, since it must have been on his desk now for three or four days, and make a report? I got a copy of it about three or four days ago.

Mr. Lewis: Nov. 25.

Mr. Nixon: We all got copies, evidently. Will the minister undertake to read it and give his comments to the House on a matter of growing urgency?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly will, and I will point out that the Addiction Research Foundation is looking at its role as a deliverer of services right now.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Will the minister consider in the context an inquiry into the role and behaviour of the Addiction Research Foundation at the Lakehead, because very serious charges are levelled at its behaviour in this document?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Addiction Research Foundation, as a result of the Krever report, is looking at its own role, at my request. I have asked them to intensify that. I feel they are making pretty good progress, and one of the big questions is, are they the agency of service in any of these fields or simply the agency of resources for information.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since Mr. Kelly’s letter indicates that he does not think an in-house review of ARF’s role is sufficient, would the minister give some consideration to an external review, even in the Indian communities of the north, of the role of ARF, rather than having them contemplate their own navel?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The review of ARF is far from internal only. Woods Gordon were asked to look at certain aspects; the Ministry of Health, as an outside agency vis-à-vis ARF, is doing the same thing.

Mr. Nixon: You are the outside agency? Oh!

HEALTH OF COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Back to the Minister of Health: Back on Nov. 12 I asked the minister, as a supplementary to a question from my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), if he had any results of the apparent stepped-up programme of medical examinations of coke oven workers at Stelco. Has he had any results to date and is he satisfied with the extent and thoroughness of the examinations?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was referring to some of these in the press yesterday, and referring to some documents, which I have with me today.

I think members opposite had better start looking into a few things. I could start quoting from some references you people think are very good -- like Dr. Charles Stewart -- pointing out that this jurisdiction is the only place in the world that has ever recognized a compensable case of lung cancer resulting from a coke oven operation. Regardless, Ontario is leading the way in trying to protect workers and the member should know it. The very document referred to yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition was our attempt to improve the record-keeping in these areas where there is still, in spite of the clear statements, some arguments about the correlation between the work atmosphere and the final disease.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is not an answer to my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Mackenzie: Are the examinations being conducted by doctors only in these cases or in some cases are there only nurses conducting the examination of coke oven workers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know who is doing the examinations but I am told that the medical staffs of both the Steel Co. of Canada and Dofasco are very competent people. I assume they are. I know our engineers were in the plants, too.

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a question to the Minister of Agriculture --

Hon. W. Newman: Of Agriculture?

An hon. member: Bill, wake up.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t get red in the face this time.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, because of the doubt in farmers’ minds, I would like to know when the minister intends to acknowledge publicly that the research staff made a mistake in his speech presented at the OFA convention which stated that the Ontario cow-calf programme was better than BC’s -- which really should have read the reverse?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. What’s of urgent public importance today when it was asked last week? Is there something new about it?

Mr. McKessock: A point of order, Mr. Speaker; I know the question was asked yesterday but if you look in Hansard, due to interjections the minister didn’t get a chance to reply to the question.

Mr. Singer: Now is your chance.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. minister anything further to add to that?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to answer the question today and if the hon. members will just be quiet over there, I will answer it very clearly.

Mr. Cassidy: You are very defensive. Did we get to you yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: In the speech I gave in Hamilton to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture --

Mr. MacDonald: It was a disaster.

Hon. W. Newman: -- the example I gave in my speech took into account the freight rates and the equalization -- exactly as it is worded in the speech.

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

Hon. W. Newman: Those figures are accurate in that speech I gave in Hamilton. At this point in time in our own programme -- and I will be making an announcement on it tomorrow prior to the question period -- but the member’s friends out -- no, they are not his friends -- the BC programme is still working on the 1974 figures --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Very important.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and they pay only on marketed calves.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It hurts, doesn’t it?

Hon. W. Newman: We pay on calves whether they are marketed or not and that’s something which is very important and which members should keep in mind.

CULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier: In the last two weeks many individuals and groups around the province have contacted me because they are concerned and confused about the change in the federal policy regarding multiculturalism. Would the Premier reaffirm and hence assure the thousands of ethnic people in the Province of Ontario that his government is not going to and will not detrimentally change its policy on multiculturalism? Secondly, what positive steps has his government taken in registering dissatisfaction with the federal government regarding this backward change in policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the preamble to the question -- and it was that I couldn’t hear -- but I sense the member was asking whether this government was changing its policy as it relates to multiculturalism. The answer to that is no, we are not.

Mr. Grande: I will repeat it if the Premier likes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is that not what he asked?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Premier received the gist of the question. Does the hon. member have a supplementary?

Mr. Grande: Yes, my question was asking for a reaffirmation of the multicultural policy of this government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the member phrased the question as did we intend to change it and the answer to that is no. If he wants me to say we are going to keep it as it is the answer to that is yes. I think really they are one and the same.

[2:45]

EGG MARKETING BOARD

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food; Has the Farm Products Marketing Board completed its investigations into the operation of the Egg Producers Marketing Board? If so, what are its findings?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, they haven’t made their report yet.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: When is that report expected?

Hon. W. Newman: Shortly.

An hon. member: In the fullness of time.

ARMSTRONG POWER PROJECT

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: Has the minister had an opportunity to read the petition that I placed on his desk today from 107 people in Armstrong, who are insisting that the ministry take initiatives to provide them with something as basic as electric energy for their community so they can attract new industry? Will he discuss the possibilities of using the Armstrong situation as a pilot project for exploring the viability and the feasibility of the use of wind energy for those areas of the province that don’t have any form of energy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part, yes, I have read the petition. Secondly, I have discussed the matter of Armstrong with my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) before this and also with the member in regard to the supplying of power for Armstrong. There is a report expected to the Minister of Energy before the end of the year, at which time Hydro will be giving its views as to how power can be provided and at what cost.

I will also be asking the federal government to give us a definite answer as to what its position will be in regard to fulfilling the agreement which was signed some months ago to provide industrial jobs in Armstrong and to this date has not been fulfilled.

I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the bond which has been posted for $25,000 could, at the termination of the agreement if the jobs were not fulfilled, be used as part of the cost of supplying power at a reasonable cost

I don’t believe I can give the member an answer on the pilot project he has suggested, but I will certainly discuss it with my colleague and get back to him directly.

HOME BUYERS GRANT

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Revenue. Is he able to clarify for this House the position of the Trefann home purchasers as to whether or not they are able to receive the home buyers grant? If not, would he extend the time for them, due to the lateness of the decisions in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the question of extension of time is significant here. I understand from the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), who brought this matter to my attention, that there are a few of those homes now ready for occupancy. A few days ago, CMHC, I understand, ruled out the possibility and the expectation, as I understand it, that the leases by CMHC would contain an option to purchase. The regulation under the Home Buyers Grant Act provides that a lease containing an option to purchase will be considered as a qualification equivalent to the registration of a deed to the applicant.

Since this matter has just come up, I have not had a chance to consult with my colleagues on the point, but it is my view, and I will be making this recommendation to them next week, that the regulation defining or applying to rental accommodation interests be amended to adopt and apply the same principle which this House adopted under the Land Speculation Tax Act, where in that Act we concluded that a lease for a term of 50 years or more was equivalent to a fee simple for the purposes of the Act. It seems to me that that’s a philosophy that would be a very sensible one to apply to this kind of circumstance, and that is what I’m going to recommend. It would, therefore, pick up the kind of lease which CMHC, I understand, will be giving -- namely, one of 60 years.

COST OF MUNICIPAL TOUR

Mr. Swart: My question goes back to the Treasurer -- and that’s probably quite a long way back, Mr. Speaker. It is this: In view of the fact that he and a number of his colleagues are going to cross the province to tell the municipal people during the month of January why they should be happy to get along on the eight per cent limit in provincial funds and, as a matter of fact, the other merits of belt-tightening, will he tell the House what that three-week tour will cost the taxpayers of this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will be glad to when we have completed it.

GRANT TO CITY OF PEMBROKE

Mr. Conway: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announcement made in Pembroke last Friday night, I would wonder and I would ask if the Treasurer could inform me what he sees to be the provincial government’s priorities in terms of spending that $2 million that was so happily promised at that glorious Conservative function last Friday night?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad to hear it was glorious.

Mr. Conway: What are the priorities, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would have some personal views; I am sure my colleagues might have some views; I am quite sure that my staff might have some views as to how that money should be spent; but we will work that out with the local people.

Mr. Conway: Could the Treasurer inform me now, or perhaps later, what he sees as the future of the city of Pembroke’s marina, which we were told last Friday night would be scrapped? Which is something the city officials simply will not accept, because they have spent $250,000 on it to date.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I can’t answer that. It may well be that Pembroke would choose to proceed on their own. I don’t think we are saying no forever. I do think, however, that money under the regional priority programme, perhaps should be -- and this is not just true in Pembroke -- but perhaps on a number of occasions we have been swept along, spending on things which aren’t quite as necessary as some other things. Marinas have a certain attraction to the tourist industry, obviously; but I think there are probably higher priorities in the Pembroke area; perhaps an industrial park, perhaps the servicing of the industrial park.

Mr. Conway: But you said yes some years ago.

PARKWAY BELT WEST

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, because of the concern in my riding and many other ridings to the west, I would like to ask the Treasurer if he could tell us when the parkway belt west plan is to be available? There was some understanding it would be in December. Could the Treasurer please tell us when we might expect that final draft?

Mr. Mancini: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I will check on that, but it is obviously not going to be December. I would hope that it would be early in January. I will check. It’s at the printers and it is a question of printing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

ASBESTOS EMISSIONS

Ms. Sandeman: A question of the Minister of the Environment: In light of the announcement that tests of the ambient air levels around the Raybestos Manhattan plant in Peterborough showed asbestos readings almost six times a sale level, could the minister tell me what he is doing to ensure the health and safety of the people living around that plant?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is implying, we have done some testing there; particularly after work started again, I believe some time in September. The testing at that time was an improvement over testing that was done in April of this year. We hope now, as a result of instructions given to the plant to install certain equipment, that the next inspection, which is to take place in early January, will show a marked improvement

Ms. Sandeman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister assure us, then, that results of these tests will arrive more quickly than the last? On the testing he mentioned in April, the results did not arrive in the community until October.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Those tests were sent to the Ontario Research Foundation and they had those samples for five months. There really wasn’t any excuse for that delay; so I will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

HIGHWAY 400 EXTENSION

Mr. Reid: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: How does the minister justify the province interjecting itself in the building of an extension of Highway 400 south, in view of the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) statement of constraints on highway construction in the Province of Ontario; and in view of the fact that the ministry hasn’t carried out any neighbourhood impact studies? The minister’s not listening. How does the minister justify that, especially in the light of the fact that he has had, I understand, no formal request from Metropolitan Toronto to extend Highway 400?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would say that we have not injected ourselves -- I think that was the word the hon. member used.

Mr. Reid: Where else has the ministry done this kind of thing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have built roads in many municipalities and turned them over to the municipality after they have been constructed.

Mr. Warner: Even if they didn’t want them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The financing of the project and the funding for the extension of Highway 400 will be programmed in with the overall road construction programme of the ministry.

As the hon. member knows, we have the right of way for the Highway 400 extension down to Eglinton Ave. We will now proceed with the designing of that section of the project while the studies are being carried out on the alignment between Eglinton and St. Clair by a joint committee of Metro officials and officials of my ministry, so the proper studies will be carried out before any contracts are awarded or any design work carried out south of Eglinton Ave.

Mr. Reid: The minister didn’t entirely answer my question, but by way of supplementary I’ll reiterate part of it. Has the minister had a formal request from Metro Toronto to build such a road? Second, how many houses are going to be destroyed in the alignment? Third, does the minister have even a ballpark idea of the cost of this extension?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there will be very few houses affected by this alignment. I can’t say how many houses because the alignment has not --

Mr. Dukszta: Have you read the Soberman report?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- been established yet and that’s what the study group will be doing. Now what was the rest of the member’s question?

Mr. Reid: Does the minister have any idea how much it is going to cost?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, the cost has not been established yet.

Mr. Lewis: The government just approves the roads. It doesn’t build the housing.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The final supplementary of the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Ziemba: Supplementary of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Would the minister consider holding off on building the road until he has a neighbourhood study impact, as suggested by the Soberman report and petitioned by the mayor of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I don’t know of any petition from the mayor of Toronto. Certainly, nothing has arrived in my office from his worship. As far as the other part of the question goes, I am sure the alignment studies and the impact studies on the section between Eglinton and St. Clair will be carried out long before any construction work is carried out.

Mr. Dukszta: Can I have a last supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I had the last supplementary. The member for Sudbury East.

WELFARE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: At the time he was introducing his last raise to those in receipt of general welfare assistance, did his ministry revoke as allowable items both the household utilities allowance of $8 and the Hydro allowance of $10 to $15?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, I am not aware of that. I will get the answer and get back to the member.

STUDENT PAYMENTS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Colleges and Universities: With respect to the living stipends that are paid to students in physiotherapy and occupational therapy, dietetics and other related fields, could the minister advise the House whether or not his ministry intends to discontinue those stipends?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think a similar question was asked of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) a few days ago and --

An hon. member: Oh, give us an answer.

Mr. Sweeney: He redirected it to this minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I appreciate that. I think we can make two statements: One, they will not be cut off from support. Second, it may be in a different form. However, we’re still considering that and there is no final answer to the member’s question today.

PILFERING OF LIBRARY EQUIPMENT

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he has had any further information in respect to the extensive pilfering of audio-visual material from the library system in North York, which we discussed a couple of times in recent days. If he has such information, could he impart it to the House and tell us whether he has plans for preventing such pilfering in the future?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the fact that the hon. member has shared his concerns with me. I don’t have a report yet from the authority but as soon as I do, I will share that information with the member and the members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

SPEAKER’S RULING RE PETITION

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for petitions, I wish to make a final statement -- hopefully, that is -- with respect to the presentations thereof.

I can only say that if it is the wish of the majority of the members of the House -- as it appeared to be yesterday -- to abandon the previous practice that is, of course, what will be done. The only reason for the procedure as outlined in Mr. Speaker Reuter’s ruling was for the assistance of the members and is the procedure followed in other jurisdictions. I direct the members’ attention to May’s Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition, page 799.

However, I’m sure the Clerk’s office will be very happy to be relieved of this extra responsibility. In accordance, then, with the wishes of the House, petitions will be received and laid on the table without prior scanning. This will, of course, make it necessary for me to examine the petitions after tabling. If on examination, it proves to be a petition or a request directed to a minister or ministry I will, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) suggested, I believe yesterday, send it on to that particular minister. If the petition is in conflict in any way with standing orders 83 or 84, it will be returned to the petitioner. If however, it is proper within the standing orders and sets forth a case in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere, it will be tabled for such action as the House may determine.

Petitions.

Mr. Bain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people of Kirkland Lake and area and I are pleased to be able to participate in this historic process.

I would simply like to say that on behalf of the people of Kirkland Lake and area, I would like to present to the Lieutenant Governor and members of this assembly a petition signed by 8,282 people. The reason I hesitated at the figure is that on Dec. 9, it was that figure. With the intermission it has become 8,341 signatures. In addition to their names, the people have affixed their addresses and phone numbers to the petition. In keeping with standing order 83(b), I have also signed the petition.

In addition to countless dedicated individuals, the petition has also been supported by the Kirkland Lake council, the Medical Association, the hospital board, the United Steelworkers and the Chamber of Commerce.

The petition reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, urge the provincial government to convert the old Kirkland and District Hospital to a chronic care hospital for Kirkland Lake and district. We wholeheartedly support the brief of councillor Frank Rainford and Dr. J. Rumball and the efforts of Bob Bain, MPP, and the local town council in this important issue.”

I appreciate the opportunity the Speaker has extended to me and I will forward the petition to him for his inspection.

Mr. Nixon: Did Ed Havrot sign the petition?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I will examine the petition. Will the hon. member place it on the table? I will examine the petition and direct it as we see fit.

Presenting reports.

Hon. F. S. Miller presented the annual reports for the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation for the years 1973 and 1974.

Mr. Singer presented the report of the select committee established to consider and set out the general rules and guidelines for the guidance of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the report was signed by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid). The seventh member of the committee refused to sign it --

Mr. Nixon: Who was that?

Mr. Singer: -- the hon member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). His reasons for refusing to sign are a little obscure. I think in some way they relate -- the message I got was that they relate to my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), but I don’t know what the hon. member for Sarnia bad to do with this committee. In any event, the member for Riverdale refused to sign it.

It may also be a fit of pique on behalf of the hon. member for Riverdale because we did not withhold this report indefinitely until he could make his submissions. The House had instructed us to submit this report by Dec. 1. However, in an effort to be accommodating to the hon. member for Riverdale, the committee withheld the report until today.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you should seriously consider whether or not the hon. member for Riverdale should be held in contempt of the orders of this House both for failing to submit his comments and for failing to sign the report.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you might get on with the report now while I consider that.

Mr. Singer: The committee reports as follows: Its terms of reference were “to consider and set out general rules and guidelines for the guidance of the Ombudsman.” The members of the committee were myself as chairman, Messrs. Grossman, Lawlor, Hodgson, Norton, Reid and Renwick.

The committee held three meetings. At the request of the committee, Mr. Arthur Maloney, the Ombudsman, assigned to the committee Mr. Ortved and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) assigned Mr. John Cavarzan. Both of these gentlemen have been of substantial assistance to the committee in giving their advice and their continued presence during our deliberations.

Mr. Maloney, the Ombudsman, attended on the committee accompanied by Mr. Brian Goodman, director of research for the Ombudsman. Mr. Maloney outlined his approach to the problems which the committee was investigating and has made a written submission to the committee embodying his views, which is attached hereto as schedule A. Mr. Brian Goodman, director of research for the Ombudsman, outlined to the committee the method the Ombudsman office has for dealing with complaints. At the request of the committee this has been submitted to the committee and for the information of the members of the Legislature we have attached Mr. Goodman’s submission as Schedule B to the report.

I might ask you, Mr. Speaker, if at this stage both Schedules A and B could be published as addenda to the Hansard report of today’s sittings. I think they are of considerable use to the members of the Legislature and the members of the public, so that they can better understand both the mechanical procedure of the Ombudsman’s office and generally Mr. Maloney’s views insofar as the office is concerned.

It is the opinion of the committee that:

1. It would be premature to seek at this time to define or recommend general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman and I the exercise of his function, as referred to in section 16, subsection 1 of the Ombudsman Act, 1975 After reviewing other jurisdictions and exploring to some extent the role and function of this office we are of the opinion that greater ongoing experience must be gained as to the range and ramifications of this office on an intimately consultative basis before attempting, except insofar as we have done so, a more fundamental delineation of rules. We recommend that the constituted committee, working in close co-operation relationship with the Office of the Ombudsman, acquire a working knowledge of the types and varieties of the cases and difficulties which may be encountered, and on a subsequent date, not later than June 15, 1976, the whole question be reviewed.

2. That the following general rules he immediately adopted for the guidance of the Ombudsman:

(a) that there be available in the Ombudsman’s office such facilities as are necessary to enable those persons who wish to make complaints and who are unable to express adequately themselves in writing, to have their views committed in writing by someone on the Ombudsman’s staff.

(b) that the Ombudsman’s office have available as part of its staff, or as the occasion requires, sufficient persons who are fluent, not only in English but in other languages used in Ontario, which would allow the Ombudsman’s office to properly communicate with any resident of Ontario, no matter what that person’s language facility may be.

3. The committee wishes to point out that section 17, subsection 2 of the Ombudsman Act provides that letters addressed to the Ombudsman by inmates of any provincial correctional institution or training school or patients in a provincial psychiatric facility are to be forwarded to the Ombudsman unopened by the person in charge of the institution, training school or facility, but the Act neglects to set out that communications from the Ombudsman to any such person should be forwarded unopened to such person by the person for the time being in charge of the institution, training school or facility. The committee believes that the necessary legislative amendment to correct this error should be made.

4. The committee accepts the suggestion by the Ombudsman that it is premature at this time to delineate elaborately general rules and that there should be sufficient experience running this office and the difficulties it may encounter, and that a second look should be addressed to the provisions of section 16(1), and that one of the responsibilities of the select committee will be to work out in association with the Ombudsman the general rules for his guidance which can be recommended by that select committee.

5. The committee believes that a permanent committee of the Legislature should be established immediately so that it may review from time to time the following matters; (a) the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available from time to time; (b) the estimates of the Ombudsman; (c) the action or lack of action taken by those persons referred to in the Ombudsman’s reports; and that the committee report in connection with these matters to the Legislature from time to tune.

The committee draws attention to the comments of the Camp commission on page 71, which inter alia recommends very briefly that:

“A further small, permanent standing committee with responsibility for examination and report on; (a) those petitions presented to the assembly which are referred to the committee; (b) any undertaking made by a minister to a member of the assembly which is not fulfilled within 10 days of it being made (the announcement in the House by the member that the undertaking is unfulfilled would be examined by the Speaker, who would rule whether or not the question should go to the committee); and (c) reports to the Legislature by the Ombudsman.”

There was a discussion with Mr. Maloney as to how he envisaged the extent of his powers under the provisions of the statute. He pointed out that the statute provides in section 15(1) that he has the right to initiate investigations on his own option, and it is on this basis that he believes he has a duty to investigate such matters as possible causes of unrest in the province’s penal institutions.

Several members of the committee expressed concern that the broad powers of the Ombudsman should not be used to establish a new level of political authority.

Mr. Maloney suggested that when the Legislature reviewed its report from time to time, if any of the matters raised in the reports came to a vote they should be dealt with on the basis of a free vote as is done in some other jurisdictions. Discussions took place about this suggestion and it was felt that if the conduct of a senior government person, elected or appointed, came into question, it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to suggest meaningfully that there could be a free vote in relation to criticism addressed to such a person.

Mr. Renwick: Could I sign that report?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the repentance of the hon. member for Riverdale, I ask that any references I made that he might be held in contempt be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I only signed it because it sounded so good in the melodious tones of the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before you call the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 15, 16 and 17 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, just for some clarification with respect to procedures, it has been generally agreed that we will continue to stack votes, if they are necessary, and that we will have one vote on all the amendments some time this evening.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed by all members of the committee?

[3:15]

Mr. Cassidy: That is agreeable, Mr. Chairman.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(5) Nothing in this section nor in section 4 prevents the charging by a landlord of a rental increase greater than eight per cent under a tenancy agreement for any period between the dates set out in subsection 1 where the landlord and the tenant so agree within 60 days of the day this Act receives royal assent.

“(6) Where residential premises not situate in a building to which clause (f) of section 12 applies and not previously rented as residential premises become first rented under a tenancy agreement whereunder occupancy is granted for any period commencing after July 28, 1975, for the purposes of subsection 1 of this section and subsections 1 and 2 of section 4, the rent charged for the first full month under such tenancy agreement shall form the basis on which future determinations of rent shall be made under this Act.

“(7) Where a landlord is of the opinion that increased operating costs and capital expenses which he has experienced in respect of residential premises while the building or project in which they are situate will exceed the increase in rent permitted under subsection 1 and therefore desires an additional increase in the rent for the residential premises for any rental payment period between July 29, 1975, and Dec. 31, 1975, he may, not later than Jan. 31, 1976, apply in the form and manner prescribed by the regulations to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate for approval of the rent increase and shall at the same time also give a copy of his application for increase to the tenant of the residential premises.

“(8) Where a tenant who has entered into a tenancy agreement granting occupancy or renewal of occupancy of residential premises for any period commencing at any time after July 29, 1975, and before Dec. 31, 1975, wishes to dispute the amount of rent increase for any period or periods of occupancy between July 29, 1975, and Dec. 31, 1975, inclusive, and whether or not such increase is within the limits set out in subsection 1 he may, not later than Jan. 31, 1976, give notice to the landlord in the form prescribed by the regulations requiring the landlord to apply to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate to justify the rent increase and subsection 5 of section 4 applies mutatis mutandis.

“(9) Where the rent review officer approves an increase in rent on an application brought under subsection 7 that is less than that provided in the tenancy agreement or where the rent review officer reduces the rent payable on an application brought under subsection 8 the landlord shall, within 10 days of the day the rent review officer gives his decision, pay to the tenant the amount of excess rent paid during the period between the dates set out in subsection 1, and where the landlord fails to pay the tenant within the 10-day period subsection 3 applies mutatis mutandis.”

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are quite happy to deal with this amendment right now. But as the minister was getting up, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was intending to get up for another amendment on subsection 1 of section 3. He can do this as long as it is agreed that we can go back to that after considering this particular amendment --

Mrs. Campbell: Let’s do it in order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- or else we can do it in order, whichever the Chairman prefers.

Mr. Good: I have a very similar point of order. We had an amendment as well prior to the end of the section, at which point these were put on. I would also like to ask the minister another question. The introduction of these new sections 7 and 8, we in this caucus are very pleased to see, copied our amendments to the letter and give what we feel is a degree of fairness to this bill which did not exist previously both for the landlord and for the tenant.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Good: I am still talking on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North is on a point of order.

Mr. Good: I would still ask, Mr. Chairman, that we revert to subsection 2, because with these amendments I rather feel that the minister’s amendment of yesterday under subsection 2 would maybe be needed to make the provision, unless the landlord and also the tenant bring an application under the new sections 7 and 8. I think we are going to have to deal with section 2 and, of course, we have no objection to going back to section 1 of this particular bill if the NDP has amendments to that section, too. Maybe we should start from the beginning of the section.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was not my intention in any way to move ahead of the amendment. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton East indicated yesterday that he wished to make an amendment to subsection 1 of 3. Certainly, I am quite agreeable to that I would point out there are some other changes which I would like to introduce as well to earlier sections so if you will just let that stand as having been presented and go back to subsection 1, it is quite agreeable.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that subsection 1 of section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “29th day of July, 1975” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “31st day of December, 1974”; and by striking out “1st day of August, 1975” in the 11th line and inserting in lieu “1st day of January, 1975.”

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I consider this amendment a key one if this bill is really to respond to the injustices which fathered the bill. If it is to correct many of those injustices we have to start with a more responsible date. I would remind the members that it was cries for help from tenants and not cries for help from landlords which raised this issue in the first place.

The escalation in rents began in earnest some two years before the starting date in this bill; but really started festering in the last year whereas the high-powered opposition started only in the last couple of months when a very privileged position was threatened. The threats of no more apartment construction by these same people mean little when one considers the drop in construction which had already started before this bill was introduced or really on the way.

I agree with the members for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and London North (Mr. Shore) that this bill should be fair and should be administered fairly. Where I and my party fundamentally disagree with them is the point from where we start.

A fair bill does not start with an unequal starting basis. I think all members of the committee will agree -- and all members of this House should know -- that almost every tenant group, social and welfare council delegation, reform citizen action or legal aid group and the Ontario Federation of Labour, asked for a rollback date to Jan. 1, 1974. Two or three were willing to accept Jan. 1, 1975. The people this bill was meant to help are starting from an unfair and unjust position with the present date. Anyone who deals with housing problems and housing calls can recite the cases.

I happened to have mentioned a couple of weeks back the case that went from $210 to $275 on July 1 of this year on Woodman Dr. People said, “What kind of starting date do they have or what kind of a lease term?” What I didn’t say in that debate was that it was one year and when they complained to the landlord he told them it was because of cost increases -- utility increases. To which these people replied, “That’s rather strange. We know the utilities have gone up because we are paying them all.” I don’t know how that kind of increase can be justified.

I would also point out that the industry itself has been incapable of policing itself. One of the more startling admissions which came up during the hearings was when a representative of UDAC, in response to one of my queries about a particularly bad landlord in the Hamilton area admitted the organization knows of him and that he could tell me things about him and his dealings with the tenants that I didn’t know.

Both the member for Oriole and the member for London North yesterday made an impassioned plea for a look at all sides, for justice and for free enterprise. For justice and look at all sides, yes, but if free enterprise means that we start with the tenants at the back of the pack then I personally want no part of it, and this is really where we part company. I ask the members to consider the people who asked for this kind of legislation and what brought it forth, rather than put forward the arguments that come from the developers; an occurrence that was all too obvious during the bearings when we saw the notes pass back and forth. Do not worry about the developers, the insurance industry and the large landlords -- although most of them insisted that indeed they weren’t large. At that hearing, it seemed to me that every landlord who appeared was representing small landlords, and that’s a lot of hogwash.

I ask the members of the other parties to stand with the tenants on this issue, with the citizens’ action groups, with the self-help groups in our communities, the legal aid groups, the social and welfare councils, and the Ontario Federation of Labour. I further suggest that where a landlord is willing to open his books to justify his increases, he has a chance the next year around to redress an imbalance, but I think if we don’t have this additional rollback period, we don’t get the justice for the people who need it. For a start, I am simply asking the members that we start for once looking at the people this bill was for, the little people, and make them number one and start from a fair position, not an unfair position.

Mr. Good: The effect of this amendment would backdate the freeze to Jan. 1, 1975. We in this party happen to think that freezing things as they are, whether they are in line or out of line, is not the answer to the rent problem in Ontario, nor is it the answer to the rent problem in Metropolitan Toronto to base the inequities on a longer period of time than the bill provides. We feel that even freezing back to Jan. 1 of 1975 would not eradicate the inequities that have existed in the rental side of it, the tenant’s side or on the landlord’s side.

All we are striving to do is to take inequity out of the bill and to bring fairness in, for the tenants and for the landlords. Let me cite just a few examples which would not be satisfied by the amendment that the member for Hamilton East has proposed. Those tenants whose rents started to escalate prior to Jan. 1, 1975, would have no redress whatsoever under this bill. This party recognized almost two years ago that there were inequities in the rent scales in the Metropolitan Toronto area particularly, and we introduced private legislation by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). At that time it was obvious that there were inequities creeping into the rent schedules in the city of Toronto.

This amendment would do nothing for those tenants whose rents had been increased drastically prior to Jan. 1, 1974. Wit we are asking for -- and which has now been accepted -- is a review period dating back to the original freeze, which, in fact, would eliminate the freeze period and give a review period. Also, by way of explanation, may I add that we will be asking for an amendment under section 5 of the bill which relates to this directly, and that is, that the rent review officer shall consider not only the increases or lack of increases given in the first half of 1975, but also the rent review officer shall consider increases given in the year 1974 when he makes his determination as to whether to allow increases or not to allow them. We think that is eminently fair, it is just and it is something that the rent review officer must consider. He can’t consider increases from July to December 1975, only in the context of what happened in the first six months of 1975. We feel he has to go back and at least look at what happened in 1974 in that park.

[3:30]

It’s a simple amendment under section 5 dealing with the things the rent review officer shall consider. Following that particular reasoning, we find that it would do more injustice to freeze things as they were on Jan. 1, 1974, than would be accomplished. We will be opposing that amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to make a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). We had a debate yesterday about which side is this Legislature on -- whether it’s on the side of the tenants who’ve been gouged or whether it’s on the side of the landlords. At that point the decision went in favour of the landlords. That was over the question of an eight per cent or six per cent allowable increase for 1975.

I want to recall for the benefit of the House one of the early witnesses we had; I think it was on Tuesday morning. It was a man who came before us as a small landlord and not as a representative of a large development corporation. We questioned this gentleman and it turned out that he owned 80 or 100 suites in North York, I think it was; he owed about $500,000 on the particular building and in eight years of part-time landlordism this particular individual had acquired an asset whose value in the market right now was about $1.5 million.

He came to us to complain about his cash flow problems, telling us he couldn’t eat the cash flow he was getting out of his building and we were looking at a man who was worth $1 million and who was worried about whether he could or could not afford caviar. Frankly, that was ridiculous.

That was the situation, I would suggest, of many of the landlords who came before us to tell us they were going to be bankrupted as a result of this Act. They were going to be bankrupted all the way to Miami or the Bahamas. I can’t accept that kind of point of view.

We’ve looked at the proposed amendments the Liberals are proposing about the I rent review officer taking into account rent increases going back as far as 1974 and we’ve decided we’ll support that particular amendment. We think it’s a good amendment.

However, the problem with that is that when the rent review officer looks at a proposed new rent increase and has in his mind whether there was a big or small rent increase in the past, he does not have the power to rebate any rent paid by a tenant who was gouged in the past. Maybe he can sort the situation out in the future but he cannot give a rebate to the tenant who was gouged in the past.

We had some very anxious discussion in our caucus as to whether a rollback to the beginning of 1975 was adequate. In general, the tenants’ organizations said that the rollbacks should be at least to the beginning of 1974. Since there was a great amount of evidence brought to this Legislature in the course of the hearings on the Toronto private bill and on other occasions that the big rent increases, the big rip-offs, began not just a few months ago but well over a year ago in the spring of 1974, it was with great reluctance that we finally came to the position that we could only go back to the beginning of 1975 because of the administrative complications of going back any further.

We don’t believe that it’s protection for tenants to leave them with no protection against the rip-offs which took place in the spring. We don’t think it’s protection to tenants that in a year or so’s time, when a lease comes up, the rent review officer may make a decision which is influenced by big rent increases they had this spring or last year but will not be able to pay them I back any of the money of which they were unjustly liberated by their landlord who was exploiting the position into which he had been put because of the inadequate housing policies of the government.

If this government is committed to protecting tenants against the kinds of situations they have suffered, this government will support the amendment of the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I’ve sat here and in committee. Admittedly, I didn’t sit as long as Mr. Cassidy but I think, with the greatest respect, I might have heard more in the short time I sat than Mr. Cassidy may have.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: I’d like to state this at the outset: This side of the House certainly is not interested in debating the issue of what side we’re on,

Mr. McClellan: We know what side you’re on.

Mr. Shore: The NDP feels very clearly that it wants to have a class system and divide. We’re not interested in debating nor were we debating yesterday, in this clause we’re discussing, the side of the landlord or the side of the tenant.

Mr. Cassidy: You want to exploit them.

Mr. Shore: That was not the debate; that was not the debate at all, Mr. Chairman. And now, Mr. Cassidy, when you were speaking I listened to you, and I hope you will do the same thing.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to caution the hon. member that when he is referring to a member, he refer to him by the name of the riding.

Mr. Shore: Sorry, I will do that.

Mr. B. Newman: What is the name of his riding?

Mr. Shore: Ottawa --

Mr. Cassidy: Neither right nor left; Centre.

Mr. Shore: All right. Quite seriously, we on this side are not interested in debating whether you are on the side of the landlord or the side of the tenant. We want to be on the side of what we think is right, and that’s what we are concentrating on here.

Mr. McClellan: That is the side of the landlord.

Mr. Cassidy: Right wing, you mean.

Mr. Shore: And I have heard in the last six days, Mr. Chairman, also -- Are you okay, the member for Ottawa East?

Mr. Cassidy: Centre.

Mr. Shore: Centre; sorry. We have heard constantly in the last six days the words gouging, rip-offs, and exploitations. Now really and truly, if the member for Ottawa Centre was truly listening in those debates, he would have heard some of these things also; that labour and wages have gone up very substantially more, on balance, than rents have in the last three years; and bread, milk and many other items have also risen in price.

I am not in sympathy with any particular group, but look at the statistics -- and they have not been challenged; those are the facts.

I think we have to be very concerned that we don’t lose sight of the real purpose of this piece of legislation and of this section. Truly, we are trying to control the areas of inequities, and that’s what our amendment will do, Mr. Chairman. I think if the members on the other side will recognize that, they will go forward and support this amendment. We do not want to cut ourselves off from the supply and the market -- that’s what we are really interested in.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, it appears we are all endeavouring to accomplish equity and fair play in this legislation --

Mr. Norton: Not all of us.

Mr. Williams: -- and as stated by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). He has given his interpretation of what equity end fair play is. I think he clearly defined it in his closing remark, when he suggested that the equity and fair play that we want to apply is such that we are looking after the little people. Well, the true equity and fair play that is going to apply in this bill is equity and fairness for all people -- not just the little people, for all the people.

Mr. Cassidy: For the big people too.

Mr. Williams: And that’s why, that’s why the-

Mr. Bounsall: For your friends.

Mr. Williams: -- that is why the present loyal opposition, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, will, after the next general election, be back in the position of being the third party in the House --

Mr. Bounsall: Spit it out.

Mr. Nixon: I think your party is going to be in that position.

Mr. Williams: -- because their perspective is too narrow to recognize the needs of all the people in the province, and not just the so-called little people, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Riddell: Might even become extinct.

Mr. Warner: It would be a pleasant relief, too.

Mr. Chairman: There is no reference to political parties in section 3 of Bill 20.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Chairman, you can be replaced you know.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the bill is designed to provide equity and fair play not only to those who are renting accommodation, and it was suggested that we have lost sight of that primary goal and objective. We must remind the member for Hamilton East that, in fact, it is this government that introduced the legislation and the purpose of the legislation is to bring --

Mr. Angus: Running scared.

Mr. Williams: -- stability to the rental marketplace, so that is still the primary thrust and concern of this government. But in applying that primary concern to those who are in the rental accommodation situation, we must consider the other parties who are adversely affected or potentially adversely affected by this legislation, and that does involve the owners of the rental accommodation facilities -- both the large and the small. It also does involve the investors and the builders, who have brought this province, in large measure, to the high standard of living that all of us enjoy in this day and age.

I think it was noticeable, Mr. Chairman, the lack of influence that the small landlords appeared to have on some members of the committee when this matter was in committee, as contrasted to those who were tenants. There were more than a few small landlords who came before the committee and --

Mr. Mackenzie: They were all small.

Mr. Williams: -- drew to the committee’s attention in no uncertain terms that they, too, could be suffering in great measure because of the implementation of this bill. If I might, I have to refer to one submission in particular. I refer to a proposal put forward by a Mrs. Armstrong, 23 Moore Ave., in the city of Toronto, and I quote as follows:

“My husband died four years ago, leaving myself and two small children. I received no pension but good life insurance. I was not qualified to do work apart from secretarial work and the remuneration from this form of work would not support the two small children, aged seven and nine.

“I went back to school and am completing my BA from University of Toronto this spring. I studied for this degree through Woodsworth College, receiving no financial assistance from the government and therefore working all the time, part-time, as a secretary, to supplement my widow’s pension from Canada Pension.

“As a hedge against inflation and as a means of insurance against my retired years, as I will receive no pension from my husband’s employment, I invested my life insurance money and proceeds from the sale of the family home in two rooming houses, plus 50 per cent ownership of a third. We live in one of the rooming houses on the ground floor and my children have to sleep in the basement.

“This was a big readjustment for us. During the last three years, I have worked long and arduous hours coping with these income properties. I have coped with alcoholism, drug addiction and severe mental health problems in tenants. I have coped with frozen pipes and stopped-up drains; one New Year’s Eve sitting down with the drain man until midnight almost in tears wondering how to cope. I have coped with the cleaning and errant tenants all the time, as well as going to school, working and bringing up two children. For what? I have received no income from my money. If I had invested in Canada Savings Bonds I would have been receiving $9,500 income on my invested money, but with the thought that I was building for the future, I worked long hours for no payment but felt that it would be worth it through capital appreciation.

“Now, I see the whole of this going down the drain and I feel very bitter. I am faced with looming municipal tax increases on the properties and large raises in utilities, plus ever-increasing costs for maintenance. How am I going to pay for these?

“The whole point of studying so hard for my degree has been to go to the faculty of education next year in order to gain my B.Ed. for teaching purposes. How am I going to pay for this? How are we going to live on the widow’s pension next year when my costs are increasing on the houses and my children’s food and other needs are so rapidly increasing?

“Why have landlords constantly been painted as large companies gouging rent? If you spoke to my tenants about their rents and about their feelings towards me, I am sure you would receive a very positive picture of my involvement. The plight of the small landlord is being ignored. I don’t believe that the Ontario Legislature is so lacking in economic knowledge to realize just what the effects of this bill will be on the small landlord.

“In conclusion, I pose the question again: How am I going to afford to go to school full-time next year; and afterwards, is my teaching salary, for which I have worked so hard, going to be used to subsidize my tenants?”

This surely, in a very humanistic way I think, brings into clear focus the fact that it’s not only the tenants that this bill is designed to accommodate and to assist, but while it primarily may be so, it also has to be done with true equity and fair play so that the small landlords and many of the other landlords, medium and large, who have been responsible landlords, are also treated equitably and fairly.

[3:45]

The investment community, the building community, will not be providing the additional needed housing over the next two-year period if the constraints under the bill are so rigid as to do away with the confidence that has existed in those areas, because without it we cannot provide the additional housing that the opposition parties have been pleading for for so long. The private sector has to be relied upon to assume that primary role of providing the housing.

Mr. Warner: Sure, because you do nothing.

Mr. Williams: So, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we recognize the escalating rates and the effect they’re having not only on the tenants but the landlords. Consequently it would be inappropriate, I suggest, to carry the retroactive period back to the beginning of 1974. The primary period of escalation of costs has been mostly in the latter part of this year, moving into the spring.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it began in 1974. You were too insensitive to see it.

Mr. Warner: Try some facts.

Mr. Williams: The greatest increase over the shortest period of time has undoubtedly been through this past year, but Mr. Chairman, we have to find a responsible point of retroactivity or else the administration of the Act and the application of it back into the preceding year will create a difficult administrative problem and the real purpose and thrust of the legislation will escape. On that basis I would have to suggest that this side of the House would be opposed to that amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: I don’t think there’s been a section in this bill that has caused me greater concern. There is no doubt that in the area I represent the rent increases in 1974 and early 1975 were, in some cases at least, disastrous. In looking at the section and the clause before us, I first gave consideration to the amendment as proposed by the opposition, together with their proposal for six per cent rather than eight per cent. I wrestled with the very fact that there seemed to be no proper and appropriate evidence before us to assist me in coming to conclusions on the percentage basis.

I recognize that if we did succeed in incorporating into this bill the provision for the rooming house tenant -- or, if you like, the rooming house unit -- then you are stuck with some pretty serious problems in administration on a rollback principle. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in my bill I provided for the rollback, but a lot of time has passed since that was introduced.

I then looked at the possibility of the reintroduction of review procedures, because it seemed to me that if we could have the ability to have review procedures, they can go back to 1974, and in fact within the meaning of the amendment of the government and of ours, there could be retroactivity to this extent, that in the case of gouging in 1974 and early 1975, there would not in fact be a rollback -- that is true -- but there could be a negative increase at the time of the order. In my mind, as I went through this, it seemed to me that we would then accomplish a better purpose than to try to work our way through the whole problem of rental increases in rooming houses for weekly tenants or monthly tenants and for the rest.

I recognize the problems which we all face in trying to give equity in such a circumstance. I also have to be concerned with those people in my riding who, like the example given by the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), are not the great landlords who oddly enough come here and cry before us. These are people with very real needs who must have some real consideration.

It is for that reason that I concluded the six per cent or eight per cent or 10 per cent or whatever really should not be an effective part of this bill. Once we get into the review procedures, the rent review officer can use his judgement to assess the kind of gouging with which we are all familiar but he can also look with equity at those landlords who have not been gouging. I have those in my riding, too.

In my overall view, providing we carry the review procedures, I believe we have an administration with which we can work and we do have provision which will cover off, on a negative increase principle, those who have been gouged.

Mr. McClellan: Let me deal first with the position put forward by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). I think it is a serious position but I think there is a serious flaw in it. We are already stuck with an eight per cent guideline on the basis of yesterday’s vote. I talked about that briefly and I will go over it again -- what the eight per cent guideline effectively means.

What it means, at least for tenants, is that a majority are not going to get into the review process. One assumes within the tenant population there is a reluctance to enter into the review process. There is a lack of information; there is a lack of familiarity. This has been the experience in other jurisdictions. One of the arguments I tried to make yesterday for having a lower percentage guideline was that it would increase the number of cases which go into the review process.

BC data suggests if you raise the percentage guideline from five per cent to seven per cent -- a two per cent increase -- 65 per cent of the landlords in the province would have their basic operating costs met. They would not have to go into review because their costs were being met by the automatic increase, by the percentage minimum. They won’t be going into the review process and I suspect the same thing will happen here in Ontario -- the eight per cent will be adequate.

Most tenants won’t go into the review process so that negates the kind of argument you are putting forward around extending the review procedures back to 1974 -- why we will support that; and they are good. I don’t think it is going to solve the problem. The problem is simply that tenants have to take the initiative in order to have the review undertaken. That was the concern I was trying to raise yesterday, and in all the ideological cant that got thrown back at me, I think that was missed. It’s too bad, because now we’re stuck with eight per cent.

I think the Liberal Party ought to again supporting our amendment, otherwise the majority of tenants going to benefit retroactively.

Secondly, I want to deal briefly with the other ideological bogyman that keeps being raised in this debate; that is, the relationship between control and supply. There isn’t really a tittle of evidence to document the positive correlation of control and supply. The serious data that I’ve been referred to by the CCSD, the Social Planning Council and other people who are serious and don’t have a vested interest in the matter, indicate simply that supply is independent of control; it depends on a whole variety of housing policies. In a number of jurisdictions that had control, such as Massachusetts and New York in the 1960s, there was a tremendous increase in supply while those jurisdictions were under control. The correlation simply isn’t there. You don’t improve your case by continuing to raise what is essentially an ideological vested-interest argument, that control is going to affect supply -- in fact, a whole bunch of other policies affect supply. Why don’t we stop the cant about that and address ourselves to the problems that we’re trying to solve in this bill and not throw in a whole bunch of red herrings?

I urge again that the amendment from the member for Hamilton East be accepted.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I should say is that I don’t think any particular date can be pointed at as being the answer to solving the problem as to who is gouging who, when and for how long. I’m sure that if we all take the time to go back into our own respective ridings -- perhaps some more than others -- we will find if we went back to 1974, some landlords who were perhaps gouging their tenants. We can go back to 1972 and 1973, and somewhere back there we’re going to find someone who was not being totally fair and equitable with the people who were renting their facilities, for whatever reason.

Mr. B. Newman: Even in the Depression days.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As for picking the particular date as a cut-off point, that was a date brought forward during the time there was a great deal of publicity about the gouging that was going on. There was a great deal of publicity about isolated and very high-profile cases, I would suggest and it appeared that this was a date we could put into the bill and that would be satisfactory. If we follow that with the fact of the guidelines that were brought out by the federal government on Oct. 14, in fact we are being more retroactive than that particular date. I don’t know how far back we could conceivably go and probably justify, in certain cases, where certain types of gouging have gone on or where there have been unfair practices by either party.

Many of the speakers have said that in the course of the select committee hearings, the tenant organization representatives made very strong representations on behalf of their group. I sat through some of those and read some of their briefs as well, and it’s quite true. But I think we must remember that the tenant organizations themselves, even in some cases by their own admission, do not represent all that many people and they’re not totally representative of all of the tenants in this province any more than UDI or HUDAC are representative of all the various landlords.

On my desk right now, I’ve got a file of telegrams -- I’m not going to try reading them; and this is only a portion -- that have been pouring into my office for the last few days. They’re not coming from huge companies or corporations or these bugaboos that everyone is so afraid of because, if it happens to say “Co. Ltd.” after its name, it’s something you should destroy quickly and stomp on it. These are from individual people who own buildings of various sizes within many of the communities in this province who are saying, “Do you know what you are doing to us? Do you realize that this sort of thing is going to pet some of us in a very bad position?”

[4:00]

I thought that the reason for the committee was to listen to the representations being made by all sides. I thought we weren’t just listening to one select group. If you were just listening to the tenants and we were just listening to the landlords, we are in bad shape. That’s not the way it is supposed to be. I hope we were listening to all of them on both sides of the thing.

I do have one letter that I thought I would like to mention. We talk about the retroactivity. We could go back to Jan 1, 1975, or as some suggested to 1974, but I think we would be doing an injustice to a great many people to do that. I’ll lust read a portion of the letter from a gentleman.

Mr. Cassidy: How many of these people will be tenants?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This gentleman says he is 70 years old. He bought from his life savings a three-unit house in Kingston, partly mortgaged at 10½ per cent. He says:

“I am doing maintenance mostly by myself so that I shall not be able to claim an increased cost of maintenance as a way of obtaining exemptions from the limit of rent increases. Why should the income of people like myself not be allowed to increase at the same rate as the cost of living or the earnings of others, who will be profiting on inflation by paying for rents a reduced percentage of their earnings?”

This gentleman is not a great landlord at all. In fact, he says in the letter that he himself is a man who has worked all of his life. He took part of his savings out of his wages and salaries during those years of his lifespan and invested them in this building, so that he wouldn’t have to be dependent on anyone and would have a source of income and a pride of ownership in his building.

I’m not trying to defend the landlords but I am saying to you that if we are talking about equity let’s talk about equity and not simply say that there is one particular group that we are going to do everything we can for in this bill at the expense of everyone else.

I want to agree with a comment that was made by my colleague from Oriole and others opposite in the course of this discussion, that we are looking for equity. We are looking for a piece of legislation that certainly will not be perfection; it never will be. But hopefully, it will be reasonably fair to all of the parties that are involved in this.

It was mentioned by the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) about the question of the percentage and the effect this was going to have and that some people would not go through the review process. I hope that is not correct. I hope that people will recognize that there is a review process there for them and they are entitled to use it and should indeed do so and contact the proper people to take advantage of it.

The Province of Quebec, for example, which has had some form of control or regulation in review for many, many years has no percentage limitation. Anything can be appealed by the tenant. The landlord asks for an increase and the tenant is entitled to go ahead and appeal and ask the rental officers in that province to deal with the matter.

I want to touch on the percentage increase for a moment too. Although the eight per cent figure is there, it is in fact really just a guideline. It is simply saying to the landlords if they want to go higher than that figure they must prove that they need more than that. In actual fact, it is going to go both ways. The review could be from zero and up, depending entirely upon the ability of the landlord or the tenant in the case of the review to present their particular position and to justify their position as to whether the rents should be higher than that eight per cent or indeed lower than that eight per cent.

The review process really is what we are talking about and the eight per cent is only a guideline figure. Perhaps what is difficult for some of my friends in the New Democratic Party to realize -- I am not wanting to be ideological on the thing, but they keep looking upon this bill as being some form of hard-nosed control. We look upon it as a review process with a guideline of eight per cent. I know what they would prefer to have is nothing but straight out-and-out, hard, everlasting control. That is not what we are looking at. We are looking at a review process with a guideline of eight per cent.

Mr. Warner: It is pleasing to hear the minister at least touch upon some of the errors of his ways, when he describes what happens in Quebec. Perhaps one of the major faults with this bill is that it does not address itself to true costs. It rather fixes a percentage. Had the government seen fit to deal with the cost factor rather than the percentage we might not be going through this arduous debate right now about the date of retroactivity.

I would submit that, using a cost factor, the small landlord, such as the one described in the letter you read to us, would be protected because he could show that his costs had increased over that period of time. If, for example, we had decided on January of 1974 or December of 1974, or whatever date, then all the landlord would have to do is to show his costs over that period of time back to whatever date you affix, and the increases allowed by the rent review officer would be in the light of those costs, rather than looking at the straight percentage. That is a very serious flaw in this whole business and it brings us, unfortunately, to the position of having to debate and argue over what date we will affix for the retroactivity.

It should be very clear to the minister and I am sure it is -- that in the Province of Quebec the tenant or the landlord will appeal on the basis of a higher potential cost to either party. If the landlord can show through his books that he, in fact, has a higher cost then the rent review officer will take that into account in the affixing of the rent. That really, surely, is a very simple kind of process. All it means is that the landlord opens his books and says, “Here are my real costs.”

You and I both know why the landlords are so reluctant to do that -- not the small landlord, not the person whose letter you received, or the person the member for Oriole alluded to, or the small landlords who have come to see me; not those people at all, but UDI, Cadillac, Meridian and all the rest. For years we have asked for their books to be opened. For years they say no, and one of the reasons is because back, just not too long ago, they were getting mortgages at 3% per cent. Today they continue to get mortgages at six per cent and 6% per cent. How on earth can they show exaggerated costs?

Mr. Singer: How do they get those?

Mr. Good: Where do they get those?

Mr. Eaton: Back up your statement.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Show me where you get those.

Mr. Warner: They either have a better rating than you do --

An hon. member: You knew where you could get that percentage.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Warner: Since I have captured your interest now, I will put before you the case of Cadillac, which owns some property at Bayview Mews -- I believe that is in the member for Oriole’s riding -- and which decided in 1974 to pass along to the tenants an increase of $50 a month rent, in what is admittedly a high-rent district to begin with. The tenants decided to fight and they handed together, and there were some 300 units. They got a lawyer, the lawyer searched the title and found that there was no mortgage on the building. The building bad been paid for long ago. There were virtually no maintenance costs; the landlord had not made improvements to the building. When they confronted Cadillac with this information and asked them why the increase, the answer was -- and I quote directly -- “The increase is because I decided to do it.”

That is the kind of injustice that we are fighting, and what I would suggest is, if the government isn’t the least bit willing to look at the retroactive date, going back to the one we suggested, that at the very least they look at the substantial cost incurred from the date we suggested and use that as their measuring stick. I really get the impression that the government finds it very convenient to draw a line at eight per cent and let it lie there. When you do that, eight per cent becomes the minimum increase not the maximum.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about the former government of British Columbia; the immediate past government of British Columbia?

Mr. Singer: Did you get an advance poll on the election?

Mr. Warner: If you would be more concerned about running the business of this province and less concerned about criticizing other provinces, we might get something done.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How so?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Don’t tell us all the great things they do in BC then.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Shall we return to section 3 of the bill?

Mr. Warner: Yes, and as soon as the minister has finished being provocative, I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. Eaton: John, don’t be provocative.

Mr. Warner: I fully support the party’s position with regard to the date of retroactivity on the basis that we know from historical evidence that the increases began long before the date we are suggesting. Our date is really nothing more than compromise between the true picture of when these increases began and your position which is not rational.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member one question: Could he tell us where that six per cent money is?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Wasn’t it 3.5 per cent?

An hon. member: It would solve all the housing problems.

Mr. Singer: I’d even take some six per cent money if you have it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member has stated that certain people were getting money at six per cent. I would be interested in knowing because, frankly, I would like to see more houses built in this province and if you will show me where I can get it for six per cent, I can build a lot of houses. Don’t sit over there and tell us that unless you can back it up. As phoney as a $9 bill.

Mr. Martel: Ask the railroad pension fund. You have no jurisdiction over that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Campbell: I would refer him to 1 and 23 Oriole Rd. where the interest rate as of last August, new mortgage, is six per cent. There is some truth in what he said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where does it come from?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not new mortgages.

Mrs. Campbell: This is a new mortgage.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I think it’s fairly obvious from comments from all sides of this House that it is recognized that there has been some inequity in the past and this legislation is designed to try to remedy that inequity. I don’t think that fact is a matter of dispute here.

The issue at stake at the present time with this amendment, as I understand it, is one of time, although there have been many other factors alluded to in the last few minutes of this debate. I have a concern which is a little different. That is whenever we are bringing forward legislation which is intended in some way to remedy inequities -- which this one is intended to do -- the retroactivity part of it can be somewhat dangerous. If it were possible in legislation like this or in legislation like the anti-inflation legislation from Ottawa to start everyone off even I think we would have fewer differences of opinion, fewer quarrels as to what is just and what is unjust. We all know from long experience that you cannot start off even and therefore we do the best we can under those circumstances.

One of the things I which concerns me about this particular amendment is that by trying to go back too far -- and to the gentleman who made this motion, I am not sure what is a fair date -- what we are doing is playing games and, I think, dangerous games as to how we operate within the legislation, the laws, of this province.

People do make decisions, they do guide their lives by the way things are and if we are frequently going to back-date things too far, we are going to create within our people a deep sense of insecurity and frustration. If I may use the vernacular we have to know the rules of the game and play them I the best way we can and when we don’t like those rules, we change them. That’s what we are trying to do here.

The point I am I trying to make is that there is danger in putting too much retroactivity into any legislation. As the previous speaker mentioned, I think what we are trying to get at here is some sort of compromise. It has been suggested we can go back two or three years; it has also been seriously suggested that there shouldn’t be any retroactivity to it at all and it should come into effect on the date this legislation is passed. What we now have is a compromise. It is as good as a compromise as anything else which has been suggested and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would have to speak against the amendment.

[4:15]

Mr. Lawlor: I shall speak just briefly on the matter. The validity and the date being suggested by this party is at least in part founded upon the interminable proceedings we had last spring in committee -- before you were the minister -- on the housing matters with the city of Toronto bill. There, the full impact was felt. There, the disastrous increases were gone over almost ad nauseam. The thing was documented, presented to us, and the brief still is extant for anybody’s perusal as to the escalations that took place prior to the time of that debate. And the date arrived at -- by people who are not New Democrats; by people who have a very fair sense of what equity consists of in a wider social area, many of them being Conservatives -- in their presentation to us they set a date of June, 1974.

Because of your dilly-dallying, because of the procrastination, because of the obtuseness of the minister, his total intransigence -- thank God, he has left -- we have had this thing prolonged. It has been set over endlessly and it is only because of a certain election campaign that you are even grudgingly amenable today.

They set the date of June, 1974. In our desideratum, we thought maybe that was going back a little too far, but the reason for setting it was because of the monumental increases that had taken place in the meantime. They wanted to forfend against that and move in; make the alteration and make it as equitable as possible. We’ve had thought, because of the lapse of time through no fault of our own, to move it forward on a six-month basis, thinking that this would be a reasonable, balanced compromise objective of the legislation as it finally emerged.

And then what do you do? You truncate it again; divide it down the middle, when the whole thing was in the wind; when everyone knew what the repercussions would be, and when the escalations went on apace on a larger scale than ever.

So, what do you do with this legislation? You bring in your latter-day saints and you set your particular date, which is well after most of the harm has been done, give them a little bonus on top of it, as things presently stand, at eight per cent and go from there.

That is purblind in the extreme. It is not, I would put to you, in the least equitable or balanced or a proportioned view of what is actually taking place in this province. I would ask that the House bring in the earlier date. It is not, to any great extent, that disruptive -- and it’s certainly infinitely fairer.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just hope we can call the question. I’ve consulted with the parties and I wonder if we could agree, that unless the House decides otherwise, that we would try and call the question on each amendment after no more than a half hour debate. That is, if the debate goes on for half an hour, probably the major points would have been made and we could agree to call the question at that time.

Mrs. Campbell: We can never rely on that.

Mr. Cassidy: It would be open to the House to change that at any time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that. The only thing is, and I say this with the greatest of respect, the member for Ottawa Centre has been known to use up a half hour on every section. As long as the rest of us have our share of that half hour.

Mr. Cassidy: I spoke for four minutes.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we will do our best to confine our remarks. I think there are enough amendments that we’re proposing that each party, including the government, which has more amendments to the bill probably than we have --

Mrs. Campbell: Having adopted ours.

Mr. Good: I think we have had enough opportunity to get our points of view across throughout the bill, and we will do our best to limit our discussion to that period.

Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall this voted be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to section 3? I understand we are dealing with several amendments.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have an amendment to subsection 2, unless there is anything earlier.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to subsection 1?

Mr. Good: On a point of order, could the minister clarify for me just where he intends to insert his amendment which is on page 4 of yesterday’s list of amendments? Where does that go in? It just says section 3(3) and there already is a section 3(3).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They want me to put it in now.

Mr. Good: Well, that helps.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies to the hon. member because he did inquire about that and I did not get it clarified for myself.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 2 of section 3 be amended by inserting at the commencement thereof: “Unless a landlord brings an application under subsection 7.”

Mr. Cassidy: We will oppose this particular amendment. It is a consequential amendment on the lengthy amendment that the minister read out a few minutes ago. Our reasons for opposing it, I would suggest, would be put forward when we get to the amendment proposing new subsections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to section 3 of the bill. We will not make a substantive argument at this point, but we will vote against this amendment.

Mr. Good: I would like to inquire of the minister, since that amendment was proposed yesterday dealing with subsection 7 of yesterday, I am wondering if he needs an additional amendment to the effect that: “Unless the tenant brings an application under subsection 8.” Is such an additional amendment required in there as well, if you are dealing with 7 and 8 of your new amendments of today, which are our amendments?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will have to get the advice of counsel.

Mr. Good: Yes, get the advice of your staff.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in that case could we stand the amendment, since it is consequential on the longer amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Is it the agreement with the minister and the committee, or have you an answer?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let it stand.

Mr. Chairman: We will let the amendment stand and come back to it later. Does the minister have another amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves the following be added to section 3: “This Act applies to tenancies of residential premises, notwithstanding any other Act and not withstanding any agreement or waiver to the contrary, except as specifically provided in this Act.”

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Waterloo North has a spring in his chair which is rather stronger than the one in mine.

On the point of order, I believe that this is a new subsection 3 and that the present subsection 3 will be renumbered accordingly. We had proposed to bring forward an amendment very similar to this one in order to prevent the practice of landlords writing a clause into a lease that says that their lease superseded provincial legislation. Those clauses were probably illegal, but tenants were open to intimidation because of lack of knowledge, and we certainly agree with this particular addition to the Act. We are glad to see that the minister has put it in.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I cannot let that go by. It is not a question of giving in; it’s a question of recognizing that problem from some of the reaction I had --

Mr. McClellan: Be gracious.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- back to my office from people who in fact were experiencing just exactly that sort of lease being presented to them. That’s why it is here; it wasn’t a question of suddenly seeing the light. It was brought to our attention by some very learned people.

Mr. Good: We will support this amendment. Then I presume the present subsection 3, to which we have amendments, will follow this amendment, in which case we would accept this amendment. Then we wish to speak to the present subsection 3 which I presume will be renumbered 4, if this amendment carries.

Mr. Chairman: Any further debate on this amendment of the minister’s?

Mr. Renwick: I just want to make absolutely certain that this amendment conforms with the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. I take it that it is an exact duplication of the provisions set out in subsection 1 of section 82 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you asked me a question, I wasn’t paying attention, I’m sorry.

Mr. Renwick: Just before it passed, I wanted to make certain that this was the same wording as is presently in subsection 1 of section 82 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, so there would be no confusion about the meaning.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is the same wording. It was simply put into this Act; it’s exactly the same.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to move the following amendment --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think we have to have the vote first, before the next motion.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, I thought the hon. member wished to speak on the amendment. It is my understanding that any renumbering is done editorially after the bill is reported, so perhaps we can eliminate the discussion on that and we can now vote on the minister’s amendment to section 3(3).

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: See how co-operative we are?

Mr. Good: On the present section 3, we have several amendments which we think should be inserted in this section. This is the section which says, where the landlord fails to pay the tenant the entitlement that is due to him over the eight per cent which was allowed, and if there is no appeal and what not, the landlord has 60 days in which to make that payment; and on the application of the tenant, the determination of the amount can be given by the rent review officer and then the landlord is to pay it.

There are two ways this could be handled. One is the manner in which the NDP has it handled, in that the tenant can deduct it from his rent right at the start. We have suggested, in our amendment on this part of section 3, that after the tenant has been to the rent review officer for determination of the amount, and the rent review officer has ordered the payment of the amount by the landlord, we say that within five clear days of the date of the order, the landlord has to pay it. Where the landlord fails to comply with the order, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount owing to him under the said order from the next month’s rent and so continue until the full amount of the order shall have been satisfied.

I think we can include the other amendments we have in this same section in the one motion -- in that the word “may” in the fourth line and in the sixth line be changed to “shall,” so that it would then read that:

“The rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate shall, on the application of the tenant, determine the amount that is due and shall order the payment of the amount by the landlord to the tenant within five clear days of the date of the order. Where a landlord fails to comply with the order, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount owing to him under the said order from the next month’s rent and so continue until the full amount of the order shall have been satisfied.”

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Good moves that subsection 3 of section 3 be amended by striking out “may” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “shall”; and striking out “may” in the sixth line and inserting in lieu thereof “shall”; and adding at the end of the seventh line:

[4:30]

“within five clear days of the date of the order. Where a landlord falls to comply with the order the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount owing to him under the said order from the next month’s rent and so continue until the full amount of the order shall have been satisfied.”

Mr. Good: The reason we feel this is important is that if the landlord did not make the payment he would be in breach of the Act and probably be subject to the penalty sections under section 15 which, if granted, carry a $2,000 fine, but to get any redress under that section, my understanding is that the tenant would have to take further action through the court to recover the money. We do not agree that the tenant should be able to deduct it right away just with his own arithmetic. He should wait until the 60 days have expired and if the landlord hasn’t paid it by then, he should go to the rent review officer for an order which has to be carried out in five days. If the landlord doesn’t comply in five days then he can deduct it because that would be the correct amount.

We think that is a good way of handling it. When you have instances of an obstinate landlord who says “I’m not going to pay it;” this will soon correct the situation. It would be done on the authority of an order from the rent review officer. I’d invite the minister’s remarks on this suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If I understand correctly what is being said under section 3(3) as printed, is, starting in line 3, you would have it changed -- “the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate” -- change “may” to “shall” -- “on the application of the tenant determine the amount that is due and” -- again change “may” to “shall” -- “order the payment of the amount by the landlord to the tenant.”? No objection.

Mr. Good: You have no objection to that but we want to add after that, “the payment of the amount by the landlord to the tenant within five clear days of the date of the order.” If the landlord hasn’t paid it, after he’s had 60 days to pay it, the rent review officer orders him to pay it within five clear days of the order. And then, “Where the landlord fails to comply with the order, the tenant shall be entitled to deduct the amount owing to him under the said order from the next month’s rent, and so continue until the full amount of the order shall have been satisfied.”

Mr. B. Newman: Very logical. Reasonable.

Mr. Good: We don’t feel that the tenant should be able to deduct this overpayment just on his own arithmetic. He should wait until he gets an order from the rent review officer.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment at this point?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The five clear days has me a little bit confused. How are you referring to five clear days?

Mrs. Campbell: After six.

Mr. Good: I believe that’s the term used in the Landlord and Tenant Act, if I’m not mistaken, and other government acts; I suppose it would not include Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. Lawlor: Clear means to exclude the first day and include the last.

Mr. Good: Now we have it on the authority of the member for Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have some question about it, then.

Mr. Ruston: That is not nice.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am not sure of procedures here so I’m in your hands but I really would like to see the amendment to subsection 3 struck, and the following substituted, which was the amendment we were going to move. That is

“Where a landlord fails to pay to the tenant entitlement thereto the amount of excess rent that is due within the time limited in subsection 2, the tenant may deduct the amount of excess rent from the amount of rent otherwise payable; and where a landlord is of the opinion that the amount deducted by a tenant under subsection 4 is correct, the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate may, on the application of the landlord, determine the correct amount that is due, and may order an adjustment.”

It seems to us that that is a more direct and simple way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order, and I am not trying to be difficult, but I’m wondering how are you ruling on this? The member for Waterloo North has introduced what I thought was an amendment to section 3(3); now the member for Hamilton East is introducing another amendment. Is it an amendment to the amendment? And which one are we dealing with?

Mr. Chairman: I would think that we should deal with Mr. Good’s amendment first. I think the hon. member for Hamilton East was just reading his amendment into the record at this time so that we would know. We will deal with Mr. Good’s amendment first and then we will consider the position of the other amendment following that. Does the minister wish to comment on the second portion, the five clear days?

Mr. Cassidy: We are waiting for each other to take a turn. We question the proposal which the government is making -- and now also the Liberal Party -- because it forces a tenant to go to the rent review officer in order to get an order to get his rebate. That is our fundamental objection to whether it’s the government’s technique or the technique moved by Mr. Good.

As far as we can see, it is desirable to have as little red tape and bureaucracy in this bill as possible. It is perfectly easy for a tenant to calculate what an eight per cent increase on his rent is going to be. It is also easy for him to calculate what the excess would be -- it’s five bucks, it’s 10 bucks, it’s 35 bucks -- and to deduct it from his rent.

If he makes a mistake, the landlord goes to him and says, “Look, I think you made a mistake and it really ought to be this amount.” And if they can’t resolve it equitably, then we are saying that the landlord should be entitled to go to the rent review officer to get the matter sorted out.

But that means that instead of 100,000 tenants having to go to rent review officers in order to get this rebate, which is rightfully theirs, you may have a couple of thousand landlords having to go -- and that is a very substantial reduction in red tape and a substantial reduction in the burden that the rent review officers have got to make. Everybody acknowledges that with a system of rent review you are going to have some administration. Rent review officers are not going to be idle in the early months of the year. Therefore, we ask: Why should you make them enforce something which could easily be self-enforced under the proposals which were outlined by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie)?

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this matter has been carefully discussed with several groups of tenants in this metropolitan area. There is certainly always through this bill, in the eyes of the official opposition, the spectre that the tenants will either be ignorant of the law, or that they will be frightened to come forward.

It does seem to me that where we have tenant hot lines -- certainly in the metropolitan area of Toronto, to start with -- I would think it is unlikely there will be any tenants now who will not come forward to sponsor and to support their own rights under this bill.

There may be places in the province where this may not be the case. But surely the proper procedure is to ascertain the amount of the excess. And, of course, this is particularly true when one looks at what is to continue if we are supporting the review procedures. It is pretty clear that you almost have to have this sort of order by somebody, spelling out effectively what the excesses are.

Surely, then, we should have the procedure which permits the tenant to enforce his rights by a deduction of an amount of money which is owing to him by reason of the excess payments which he or she has made. It permits in our amendment for this deduction to continue until the full amount of the excess, as shown by the order, shall have been satisfied. I think this is the difference between the two, as I see it. The minister must understand that we must ensure this right of the tenant to deduct it. I suppose it is the minister who is to confirm as to which amendment is going to follow.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t give me that crocodile smile.

Mr. Mackenzie: I’m rather surprised. We’ve offered an amendment which we think reduces some of the workload and some of the running to rent review officers. I certainly feel it does and here we have them adding to the load of the rent review officers.

I’m also rather surprised that some people would think the tenants aren’t capable of figuring out the amounts themselves. I think it’s an insult.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, that’s a ridiculous statement.

Mr. Germa: That is not a point of privilege.

Mrs. Campbell: As far as I’m concerned there was no such suggestion but it is customary in cases in this country to have an order which clearly defines what the amounts are.

Mr. Germa: The point of privilege is rejected.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have two proposals. The New Democratic Party amendment, if I understand it correctly, and I do have the printed version here, in essence says that the tenant could, justifiably, unilaterally deduct that amount from the rent. I’m sure they are capable of figuring out how much it is. They will then deduct that amount from the rent without really having any authority to do so. That is the part that disturbs me.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, because it is owing to them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is no order made that the rent should be deducted and reduced.

Mr. Renwick: It’s known as the right of settlement. Everybody has it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I find some considerable difficulty -- the truth of the matter is there is always the possibility that if they did this -- and I’m thinking of it from the tenant’s point of view -- they might conceivably be in the position of not having paid their rent and be subject to eviction under the Landlord and Tenant Act. I don’t know whether you would want to do that or not.

Mr. Cassidy: You are wrapping yourself up in legalisms.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I just looked at what I think is an amendment I don’t think we should support.

Mr. Renwick: We can amend the Landlord and Tenant Act to avoid that possibility.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the amendment put forth by the Liberals is just as dangerous in a sense. It’s a dangerous principle to have someone making this determination himself.

Mrs. Campbell: They are not.

Mr. Good: The rent review officer makes the order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let me finish. The I difference is in the part which I find more acceptable-that it will be as a result of the order having been made by the rent review officer. That being the case, of the two that one has more appeal.

Mr. Good: It has to be one or the other.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not sure I want to support either one of them.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I have an answer to a question asked earlier by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder, if it is too long, could we file a copy of it with the Chair?

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if we could have a brief answer to that and return to Mr. Good’s amendment.

Mr. Warner: Yes, it’s quite brief. The minister wanted to know where to obtain low-interest mortgages. I’m sorry it wasn’t 6% per cent; when I dragged the file out, it’s six per cent. It was obtained in August, 1975, with regard to buildings 1 and 23 Oriole Rd. They were sold by Norlac Properties, a subsidiary of Northern Life Assurance Co. to Anglo Keno Developments and Your New Home Inc. One of the mortgages was for $1½ million at six per cent and the balance of $2 million in two mortgages each interest free. If you wish to pursue that I would suggest contacting Mr. Maxwell Rotstein who is the general manager of Anglo Keno Developments and, I understand, a defeated Tory candidate.

Mr. Lewis: Good grief, he’s a Tory.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair would draw to the attention of the hon. members that we will not accept a supplementary question from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, it is not a question. I want to thank the hon. member for the information which I had already received from the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you. So did the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewis: The profits that are available to defeated Tories. He ran against David; he of David and Goliath.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Good’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall we stack this amendment?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I believe the next amendment would be the one I read into the record at the beginning of this afternoon’s committee session. I would like to make one change in that amendment.

In subsection 5 of section 3, as I filed it with the Chairman, I would like to amend subsection 5 again to replace, in the second last line, “within 60 days,” with “within 30 days.”

Mr. Lewis: Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In subsection 5, in the second last line; replace the words “60 days” so it will read:

“Within 30 days of the day this Act receives royal assent provided, however, the tenant may revoke such agreement by serving a notice of revocation on the landlord within 30 days of the making of the agreement.”

Mr. Cassidy: Is this a new one?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am amending subsection S as I presented it to you earlier today by adding that last part.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Chair should read the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(5) Nothing in this section or in section 4 prevents the charging by a landlord of a rental increase greater than eight per cent under a tenancy agreement for any period between the dates set out in subsection 1 where the landlord and the tenant so agree within 30 days of the day this Act receives royal assent provided, however, the tenant may revoke such agreement by serving a notice of revocation on the landlord within 30 days of the making of the agreement.”

Mr. Good: The new subsection --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I think perhaps I should read all sections the hon. member has on this amendment and then we will deal with them. I read number 5 and there are also subsections 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Cassidy: That was my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: They have already been moved but I think I should read them all before we have discussion on them.

Mr. Cassidy: You can dispense with the reading of them.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that I dispense with the reading of all the subsections?

Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a slight difference which the minister has just introduced. I want to say that we are unalterably opposed to the suggestions put in to subsection 3 of the bill. The proposed subsections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are fundamentally at odds with the original proposal of the bill and I think, Mr. Chairman, you should consider very carefully whether they are admissible or whether they violate the principle of the bill and therefore should not be introduced at this time. Have you made a ruling on that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Would you indicate in what respect they violate the principle of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, when the bill was introduced, it was provided that there would be no more than an eight per cent increase in 1975 and that any amount that was charged in excess of that would be repayable by a rebate from the landlord to the tenant. These proposed amendments effectively rule out rebates I being paid to tenants for excessive rents in 1975.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I would draw to your attention and as well to the hon. member’s attention that the title of this bill is not “An Act to rebate Rents.” The title of the bill is, “An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.” I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that nothing in the amendments I have submitted in any way changes the title of that bill or its intent or principle -- it’s an Act to review residential rents.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I could say this, Mr. Chairman -- and I won’t ask you for a ruling -- I suppose the minister is right, but this represents an excessive watering down of the bill; and it has been a tendency, both by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, throughout the course of the hearings and throughout the course of this week, to water down the bill and to make it administratively unworkable.

What happens here, in these five additional clauses to section 3, is that appeals are going to be permitted on rental increases within 1975. As I have said before, we anguished to some extent over this matter within our caucus before proposing, I guess a month and a half ago, that there would be a permitted increase in 1975 but that no appeals should be allowed in order to permit the system to get off the ground; and that if you did allow appeals on rents in 1975, on a retroactive basis, then landlords would use that appeal process in order to bring the whole rent review system grinding to a halt. They would simply pile in the appeals, tie up the whole thing in red tape and do everything in their power to make it collapse. That is surely not the way to provide the protection to tenants, which one would have thought from the second reading debate was the intention of all parties in the House.

If I may, I would like to go over the original bill as it was proposed in this House a month ago and the revisions as they affect 1975.

Firstly, no increase was to be permitted over eight per cent in 1975. Now, the revision is “unless the tenant agrees”; and there is no protection of tenants against intimidation.

Secondly, there was to be a rebate of excess rent paid by landlords to tenants. The landlord would be obliged to make a rebate. That is washed out if the tenant agrees to more than eight per cent or if the landlord appeals -- and there is every incentive for the landlord to appeal if he has been charging a rent increase of more than eight per cent.

Thirdly, there was provision in subsection 3 that rent review officer could order a rebate paid. That is washed out now if the tenant, by whatever means the landlord may use, agrees to an increase of more than eight per cent. The amendment to the amendment to the amendment allows a tenant to repent or to change his mind; if he makes an agreement, he can revoke it. But that is a piece of administrative flim-flam. It is not good legislation; it doesn’t allow the landlord to know exactly where it is and it is simply an effort to rescue something which is bad law to begin with.

I would point out that not only is the provision for tenants to agree applicable to rent levels that apply in 1975, but effectively other amendments that the government has in mind will give a higher guideline for rent increases in 1976 and in subsequent years. The consequence is that if a tenant agrees to an increase of more than eight per cent as part of a lease in the second half of 1975, he clearly is agreeing -- morally at any rate -- that that increase will continue in 1976, whatever the law may happen to say. Sn the reference to section 4, as though it were to apply for only 1975, is misleading.

Subsection 7 allows landlords to appeal for increases over the eight per cent. We submit that they will exploit that and use every opportunity to do it, and in some cases they may organize themselves to do that in order to try to bring the rent view process grinding to a halt.

Subsection 3 allows tenants to do the same thing. I would point out that we felt that if landlords should not be entitled to appeal rent increases above the eight per cent in 1975, then tenants should not have that right either. It should apply equally either way. We don’t think that many tenants will take advantage of that right for 1975 and, therefore, we think that this set of amendments is biased in favour of landlords and is not equally applied.

Subsection 6 provides that landlords can have one free run at setting a rent level on newly rented accommodation or on vacant units that have never been previously occupied in new buildings that have only partially been rented. I would suggest, as far as subsection 6 is concerned, while it was necessary in my opinion to provide some kind of transitional measure for partially rented buildings that were only completed a year or so ago, this is not the best way to proceed and that the fair rent provisions that we have suggested for new buildings should probably have been backdated to a certain extent in order to cover the kind of situation which subsection 6 attempts to deal with.

To sum np, we don’t think it’s right that tenants can be put in a position of being forced or compelled or intimidated or cajoled into paying more than the eight per cent for 1975. We strongly fear there will be an excessive number of appeals for 1975 which will come into the rent review officers in their early months of operation at the same time as they are receiving appeals for 1976 rent determinations and that the consequence is that the rent review process will be much slower getting off the ground and that it is in mortal danger, as a result of these amendments proposed by the minister. We will oppose them.

Mr. Good: We feel that the inequities existing in this bill for landlords and tenants have been to a great degree removed by these amendments.

Mr. McClellan: Sold out.

Mr. Cassidy: Sold out to the landlords.

Mr. Warner: Three cheers for Cadillac.

Mr. Cassidy: Mercy for Meridian.

Mr. Good: Section 7 and 8 follow word for word the amendments which we suggested in the bill a week ago. Let me, by way of explanation, say for a moment how we arrived at this solution to taking the inequities out of this bill.

Mr. Lewis: They will never win a seat in Metro this way.

Mr. Singer: Your halo is awfully tight today.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on? You still are 2,000 votes behind the Liberals in Metro.

Mr. Good: The bill is a bill to review rents. Our position has been for the past several years that rent review is needed. The freeze period with no appeals brought inequities to tenants as well as to landlords. This has been demonstrated. Those tenants who received unconscionable increases in their rents prior to July 29, 1975, had no recourse or no redress other than to take an eight per cent increase from their landlords. If that’s the kind of rough justice -- it is not even rough justice -- that the NDP wants to perpetuate, we want no part of it.

Mr. Cassidy: You wouldn’t support our amendment to go back to the beginning of the year.

Mr. Good: We say that there must be equity brought into this bill for both sides.

Mr. Cassidy: Equity for landlords, wow!

Mr. Good: This legislation cannot be construed as legislation to line up one party on one side and another party on the other side. What we are after is equity for both landlords and tenants.

Mr. Cassidy: Landlords have been getting the equity all along.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

An hon. member: You should know. You are a big one I hear down there.

Mr. Good: Our original amendments which granted review procedures to the landlord and the tenant during that six-month period have been adopted. We want to thank the minister for incorporating this, which we think brings so much additional equity into this legislation. It may be difficult to administer, but that’s your problem.

Mr. Warner: Slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.

Mr. Good: I would like to speak also to the amendments in section 5. We thank you for including that 30-day cooling-off period because, frankly, we could not accept that section unless there was a 30-day cooling-off period to eliminate some of the problems which we foresaw in this particular procedure as it was presented during the hearings. The mutually-agreed-to tenancy agreements during that period could very well have consideration, but we think there must be incorporated with it a cooling-off period where the tenant can revoke his previous consent and if he so does, the increase would have to go before the rent review officer.

[5:00]

In the matter of vacant apartments in buildings which have not been previously rented I, for one, maybe in error, took it for granted that those suites would not be covered under the old bill. How could you put eight per cent on top of nothing which had existed previously? This, of course, clarifies that position and confirms the fact that where buildings are partially rented, the new rents will establish a market for that building.

I’m pleased to see the review procedures for the tenant under section 8. Of course, it was much in evidence as lacking from your amendments of yesterday. You were prepared to give the landlord review procedures but I could find nothing in your amendments which offered the same review procedure to the tenant. We believe the inclusion of section 8 is paramount; we could not have accepted your amendments otherwise.

On the matter of section 9, which gives a rent review officer the power to order the landlord to pay the tenant any amounts within 10 days, we agree that must be done.

We think that by adopting our principle in section 3, giving review to landlord and tenant, we have finally eliminated a great deal of the inequities in this bill. We are pleased to support these amendments.

Mr. Mackenzie: I’ve never heard so much fresh barnyard carpeting in my life.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think that’s proper parliamentary language.

Mr. Mackenzie: As far as I’m concerned, the moves you’re making right now cut the guts out of this bill. If the member for London North (Mr. Shore) is talking about where they stand and fairness and justice, they’ve come right down on the side of the landlords and let everybody in this chamber know it, as has the government!

Mr. Norton: I think this whole matter would have been much simpler if all the members of this House could have done as the official opposition did during the course of hearing some 60 or 70, I believe, oral briefs and reading some additional 200 written submissions made to the committee over the past week, and approached the matter wearing our ideological blinkers, dashing headlong toward an ideological goal without any consideration of the submissions presented to us.

Mr. McClellan: You are the ideologist.

Mr. Norton: These amendments, I suggest, add a degree of fairness to this legislation, both for the landlord and the tenant. If you had heard what the submissions from tenants’ associations during the past week said with regard to locking in an eight per cent increase over the last six months of this year and the inequities which might result from that; and, on the other hand, had also heard what landlords from throughout this province said about the inequities which might result for them, you would realize the great fairness these amendments represent.

I might add that there was one comment made by a spokesman for the official opposition on our committee which I think represents really what their attitude may be in this whole matter. That was this: After hearing submissions from a small landlord who pointed out that he would be in the position of possibly losing his property if this legislation stayed with the freeze period and the rollback as indicated, one of the representatives of that party said, “Why don’t you go out of the business?”

I suggest that would be the result if this amendment is not passed. We would find more and more of the small landlords throughout this province forced out of the business --

Mr. Shore: That’s what they want.

Mr. Norton: It’s precisely what they want. They would like to see the government forced into the position of going headlong into the provision of housing on a mass scale throughout this province, something the public simply cannot afford without the assistance of the private sector.

Mr. Shore: The NDP landlords.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Most unrealistic.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t really need him over there. He could speak from one of the minister’s seats.

Mr. Shore: I’d move up there and speak if I could straighten you out a little bit. I’d like to comment; the member for Waterloo North on our side has spoken generally on this. I would like specifically to comment on section 3(5). I will say it is a pleasure to see these amendments that have been agreed upon by our party and put forward. I was a little disappointed that the government would not have brought them in earlier. However, it is good to see them here now at least.

In commenting on the remarks of the member for Hamilton East and the member for Ottawa Centre, I guess no matter how many times I am going to say this it’s not going to do any good, but I am going to keep saying it. I wish that they would try to look at this bill, not just in relation to how it affects the landlords and how it affects the tenants, but how does it affect the total community.

Mr. Mackenzie: Somebody has to.

Mr. Shore: They seem to want to look at it from the view that if you are on the side of the landlord, it’s got to be wrong, but if you are on the side of the tenant, it’s got to be right. I say to you that that isn’t the way to look at it. You should be looking at it as objectively as you can. I am convinced now --

Mr. Warner: The landlord’s right.

Mr. Shore: -- after a short period of time, there is no objectivity there. They just look at it in relation to the tenant. They say: “If it is for the tenant we are for it; if it is for the landlord we are against it; but we are not looking at the issue.”

I suggest they look at the issue. And I would suggest further that particularly the member for Ottawa Centre try to find some new vocabulary rather than exploit, gouge and rip-offs. There are other words in the vocabulary.

Mr. Warner: How about gouge and steal?

Mr. Shore: I would suggest further that in section 3(5), there is a statement which says there has to be equity. In my opinion, any time that two intelligent people hopefully -- and I am assuming the tenants are intelligent as well as the landlords and the landlords as well as the tenants -- can by mutual consent agree to something, that should generally be fair, if you haven’t got a suspicious mind all the time. And if you’ve got that suspicious mind, there is this 30-day period that you can do something about it. I can’t think of anything fairer than section 3(5).

Mr. Swart: The comments of the member for Hamilton East may not have been parliamentary, but I say they were realistically descriptive of what is being done to this bill that we have before us. If this amendment passes, it does, in fact, make this whole bill a facade.

The purpose surely of rent control, the purpose surely of the bill which was proposed here, with which we were not terribly happy, is to provide some impartiality --

Mr. Good: You want rent control.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Review. There’s a difference.

Mr. Swart: -- and to provide some balanced judgement on what rent should be paid. By this amendment, you simply say to the tenant, “Go out and do your own bargaining with the landlord,” bargaining in an atmosphere and under the circumstances where there is a tremendous shortage of housing.

Mr. Shore: Read the bill.

Mr. Swart: If this amendment should realistically pass, there will be no meaning to the bill at all. The tenant would have to be able to protect himself.

Mr. Norton: Read beyond section 5.

Mr. Swart: The tenant will now be in a position where the landlord can go to him and say, “I want a 20 per cent raise.” The tenant will know there is no place else to go, just the same as there was no place to go before the bill was proposed and he paid the 20 per cent. There will be no place else for him to go now. He will know when his lease is up he will have to find other accommodation and he will be caught in the squeeze just as realistically as if the bill wasn’t there.

Mr. Norton: Those statements are totally unfounded.

Mr. Swart: You are saying that you negotiate your lease. That is the old situation of the elephant dancing among the chickens and saying everybody for themselves.

Mr. Norton: That’s a distortion.

Mr. Swart: It wipes out any impartiality in setting the rent and in effect nullifies the bill that is being proposed by the government. Some of us were wondering why this applies, that the government would bring in the bill which they brought in in this session and really seem to be doing something realistic about rent control. Perhaps some of us were even more surprised that the party over here on our left seemed to go along with it. We are now finding the loophole where, by joining together, they’re both going to get out from under and really not have any meaningful rent control in this province.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am rising because I know of the limitations and I do not want to deprive anyone else from having comments, such as the hon. member for Bellwoods -- you have a short comment to make?

Mr. McClellan: One short comment, if I may. Mutual agreement very simply permits intimidation.

Mr. Deans: Who said that today?

Mr. Reid: That is the basis of our society. Mutual agreement is intimidation.

Mr. Cassidy: “Take it or else,” that is what they will say.

Mr. Shore: That is the mentality of your thinking.

Mr. McClellan: There is no way around it, it’s a simple fact. Those who are most vulnerable to intimidation will be intimidated, and they will not be dc-intimidated in 30 days. There’s no magic process that’s going to happen in 30 days to protect those who are vulnerable to intimidation, and you are just permitting this to happen.

Secondly, not one single rebate will get paid in this province. Every single landlord in Ontario will apply for a rebate for the rebate period. You will be faced with a hopeless administrative logjam. You have effectively eliminated your rebate and you should concede that. Why not just say there will be no rebate? Why not be honest about it, instead of having this sham?

Mr. Shore: Why don’t you be honest about it?

Mr. Norton: You can say that about any agreement if you assume everyone is incapable of it. It is stupid.

Mr. Lewis: It’s not a matter of stupidity. It’s the way economic forces work. You have got a landlord with an employer-employee kind of relationship.

Mr. Norton: If you understand economics, it is a good thing.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr. Stong: I disagree with the attempts of the NDP to polarize this legislative assembly into landlords versus tenants. I welcome this amendment by the government, not because it originated from the Liberal ranks but because it was eminently fair to both sides.

Mr. Swart: It originated from the landlords.

Mr. Stong: I must say that the NDP seems to have overlooked one very important factor in this legislation, and that is the rent review officer. I could not agree more with the minister’s statement yesterday when he spoke about the impartiality, the integrity and the job the rent review officer is going to be required to do. It is upon him that this Act and its enforcement falls. It has been overlooked by the party on my right --

Mr. Swart: Why are you excluding them from it now?

Mr. Stong: -- and they have obviously indicated a distrust for people in society. In one fell swoop this particular amendment sets an eight per cent guideline, it conforms with the purport of the Act, which is rent review, not rent control --

Mr. Cassidy: It is designed to strangle the process, and you know it.

Mr. Stong: -- it sets the base rate for those apartments which are vacant now and will be rented in the future.

Mr. Ruston: How about your house, Mike? How is the rent coming in every month?

Mr. Stong: This particular amendment represents a shifting onus section. In other words, what happens is, up to eight per cent the tenant has an absolute right, which he did not have before, to appeal an increase in rent; up to eight per cent a tenant can now appeal. He did not have that before nor would he have that under the amendment proposed by the NDP, but we have given them that right. Over eight per cent, the landlord is required to justify his stand, and that was not required before. Now he must prove that he needs it.

Mr. Cassidy: Because they couldn’t do it before.

Mr. Stong: This legislative amendment that has been introduced by the minister is welcomed and it is fair. I resent the fact that we are being aligned only with landlords when we represent the cross-section of our society.

Mr. Chairman: I must remind members of the committee that it was generally agreed that we would not spend any more than 30 minutes on this amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t anticipate such a blunderbuss as has exploded in the chamber. I think we have to have an opportunity to interrogate this matter.

[5:15]

Mr. Chairman: It’s my understanding there are about five minutes left.

Mr. Cassidy: We must try for a vote in five minutes.

Mr. Chairman: The minister will want the right to reply to the comments made, so if you want to share the remaining time with the minister?

Mr. Lawlor: My blunt remarks will take less than five minutes, I’m sure. The minister has effectively eviscerated the chicken.

Mr. Ruston: You would wring his neck if you could.

Mr. Lawlor: That first clause brings in all the aspects of coercion. Don’t let’s pretend in the hard economic realities of today’s life that there’s equality of bargaining power. In this society there never is. It is a bland pretence that there is some kind of balance in this particular market and that weight can’t be brought upon the tenant by the landlord to opt out and, in effect, to render the whole of the legislation invalid by the little twisting of the arm in order to achieve his purpose.

Mr. Shore: You don’t trust the people.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister comes along -- he’s some kind of prestidigitator and that’s unparliamentary, I hope.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: Use parliamentary language now.

Mr. Lawlor: He gives with his left hand and takes away with his right.

Interjections

Mr. Lawlor: Like Eisengrim in Robertson Davies’ “World of Wonders”, he says, “Now you see it everybody and now you don’t.”

Mr. Shore: Now you don’t.

Mr. Lawlor: Now you’re going to have an opportunity to pull out of the legislation.

The landlord can say, “Under my particular impress, you bloody we’ll sign the lease as I want you to sign it or else we’ll make arrangements to get rid of you. I really want you to put your signature on the dotted line -- I’m putting in a 25 per cent increase -- or I’ll find ways in which to make this stick but there’s a clause provided that within 30 days you could change your mind.”

How many times do you think they’re going to change their minds in face of those circumstances? Do you know nothing about human psychology? Do you know nothing about the weight which can be brought to bear upon the powerless, or relatively powerless, in our society vis-â-vis those who have the muscle? This is what you’re legislating.

It is an abominable thing that at this time in the legislation you should see fit to drop this bombshell. It’s absurd that you can eviscerate it after all these weeks, after all the discussion, after all the pretence, after all the masquerade, after all the election promises. This tiny clause is a very effective instrument indeed and it renders this whole thing nugatory.

Interjections.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a vicious piece of business that you’re trying to pull off at the moment and it’s a particularly vicious thing that you would try to pull it in a debate in this particular way.

Mr. O’Neil: How did you fellows get him?

Mr. Lawlor: As far as we’re concerned, we find, emphatically so, that it nullifies pretty well every decent move you’ve made.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think it’s extremely unfair that one should have to follow the hon. member for Lakeshore in debate because he is the only member of this House who can call you names and you don’t know for sure whether he is or not.

Mr. Ruston: He doesn’t know either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know whether he is being unparliamentary or not and I’m not sure whether you do, sir.

Interjections.

Mr. Lawlor: Bad faith bargaining.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think it should be noted as well that it’s interesting for me to sit and watch the members of the New Democratic Party and to recognize that only one person on that side of the House, in that caucus, comes from outside the major municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton or Windsor.

Mr. Lawlor: We know what the problems are.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The only coo is the member for Welland (Mr. Swart). Where are the rest of them representing the smaller municipalities? You’re all here with your vested interests. Where are they?

Mr. McClellan: Where is Bob Johnston from?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Only the metropolitan members are here, playing to the gallery --

Mr. Warner: It is a huge gallery.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- to those multitudes of tenants.

Mr. Lawlor: Multitudes?

Mr. Lewis: Multitudes? All 10 of them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I listened to the hon. member for Hamilton East a little while ago and he sounded very incensed over the fact that he thought someone had said the tenants weren’t capable of calculating their rent return or rent rebate. He was really incensed because he thought someone had said that when no one really had.

Yet the same member and his colleagues stand up and say tenants are not intelligent enough to know whether they’re being intimidated or not.

Mr. Reid: That is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is exactly what he said.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The same thing. I don’t think the tenants of this province are going to be intimidated by anything.

Mr. Cassidy: If you do understand intimidation you believe in it.

Mr. Lewis: This is a basic philosophic difference. There is no question about it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The tenants have the right to go to the rent review officer. There is no question about the philosophical difference.

Mr. Lewis: There certainly isn’t. We think tenants are a disadvantaged group and we work from that philosophic assumption.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I hope everybody recognizes that philosophic difference because you’re trying very hard to make them forget about that philosophic difference. By gosh, they’ll remember it with you. You remember that.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: UDI will love you all the way to the bank.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This subsection 5 is an opportunity for reasonable people, landlords who are not gougers -- and you have admitted there are some --

Mr. Lewis: You wouldn’t have this bill if there were reasonable people.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- tenants who are reasonable to sit down and negotiate a reasonable rent between the two. It can be done.

Mr. Lewis: You wouldn’t have this legislation if the world was made up of reasonable people.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You based your whole position on this on a few isolated cases that were blown out of proportion.

Mr. Lewis: You brought in the legislation, my friend.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s right -- and the legislation is here because there is a need for it.

Ms. Gigantes: You had to bring it in!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, my goodness, are we going to hear from the hon. member for Carleton East? I sincerely hope so.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The 30 days is an opportunity, if there is someone who has been taken in or feels they have been taken in, to revoke the whole thing. It still has to go back to the rent review officer, and there is still the eight percent.

Mr. Cassidy: The eight per cent is dead. You are eviscerating the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not going to go through the rest of it, section by section, because the hour is late --

Mr. Lawlor: You are a prestidigitator; that’s what you are.

Mr. Warner: You have killed your own bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There possibly will be no rebate, but this whole section is going to bring equity into this situation between the landlords and the tenants.

Mr. Lewis: Do you want to destroy the bill now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The bill is not being destroyed.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The principle of the bill is here. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Swart) has missed a very important point that I know is coming out of his caucus. Control -- this is not rent control. You are obsessed with rent control --

Mr. Young: That’s what was promised.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not rent control; it is rent review. That’s what it is going to say.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I think we agreed that we would spend half an hour on this, and that time has elapsed.

All those in favour of Mr. Rhodes’ amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Are we going to stack this?

Mr. Cassidy: We would almost prefer to have it now, Mr. Chairman, but, with great hesitation, we will stack it.

Mr. Givens: Are we stacking at 6 or 10?

Mr. Lewis: At 10.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the discussion this afternoon, I proposed an amended subsection 2 of section 3 of the bill. We set it aside at that time; I would like to make the change.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved that subsection 2 of section 3 of the bill be amended by inserting at the commencement thereof, “Unless a landlord brings an application under subsection 7 or a tenant brings an application under subsection 8.”

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the members of the committee should pay attention. There has been a change.

Mr. Warner: What’s the point? He has already destroyed the bill.

An hon. member: That’s an irresponsible statement.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this amendment carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Not if we can help it, Mr. Chairman. We will oppose it for the same reasons that we have opposed the remaining part of the bill. I have to say to the minister that after the vote on this amendment and on the amendment that we just passed, to which this one is consequential, we are going to have to reconsider our position by which we supported the principle of the bill originally on second reading.

I cannot say to the minister now what our final decision will be. I just want to say that this represents such a substantial change in the bill in favour of landlords that it is no longer the bill that was presented to this Legislature when it came forward for second reading. It is no longer the same bill.

I also want to make a very brief comment and then I will sit down. There seem to be two definitions of equity that are at stake in this Legislature and in the discussion of this bill. There is the definition of equity, which means fairness, and we are quite willing to see amendments that seek to bring fairness as between tenants and landlords. We are concerned about the fact that in the past that kind of fairness has not existed and that landlords have taken every last penny that they could.

The other definition of equity, though, which seems to have taken the affections of both the government and the third party, is the definition that defines the amount of money that the landlord’s investment is worth and the unearned income that he is allowed to get through tenants paying excessive rents. That is the kind of equity that this Legislature is giving to this bill through the votes that we are taking today.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that we support the amendments because they make operable the sections of this bill which bring some fairness to it. Without this amendment we couldn’t have the review sections for the tenants, who can now ask for a review of rents even below eight per cent if they so wish. They can also have consideration of the increases they’ve had before the freeze period which existed before and there was no equity in that freeze period before. If the NDP want to go on record as saying that the equity was there before --

Mr. Young: Roll it back to the first of the year, Ed.

Mr. Good: -- they know right well it wasn’t. There is now equity for tenants and landlords, and the whole process can be a review process. Sure, the policy of the party is separating now. They have been for rent controls. We don’t think rent controls have been the answer. If this government had brought in rent review 1½ years ago or two years ago when we said it was needed, we wouldn’t be debating this bill today.

We now have a review procedure whereby tenants can ask for a review of even eight per cent, and if they had any unconscionable increases prior to July 29, there would now be a remedy for them. There wasn’t in the bill before. If that isn’t fairness and equity I don’t know what is.

Mr. Swart: They wanted rent review like Beryl Plumptre’s food prices review.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Rhodes’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Shall we stack it?

Agreed.

On section 4.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have a long and rather complicated amendment, which I will read, but I have to change dates here from the version which was given to the members of the public and the other two parties in the Legislature a few days before. That is because consequential on decisions of the Legislature about the six per cent and the eight per cent and about the date of rollback, we will put forward this amendment as respecting the decisions of the House even though we disagree with them.

The purpose of the amendment that I intend to read is to I put in a definition of the guideline amounts by which rent increases will be governed after the middle of 1976.

Mr. Cassidy moved that subsections 1 and 2 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“1. Except as provided in subsection 3, notwithstanding the terms of any tenancy agreement under which occupancy of residential premises is granted or renewed to a tenant for any period commencing at any time after July 30, 1975, and before Jan. 1, 1977, no landlord shall charge the tenant for any rental payment period between Dec. 31, 1975 and Jan. 1, 1977, an amount of rent which, when computed on a monthly basis, is more than six per cent greater than the amount of rent charged for the same residential premises for the last full month for which the premises were rented prior to Jan. 1, 1976.

“2. Except as provided in subsection 3, notwithstanding the terms of any tenancy agreement giving a tenant a right to occupy or renew the occupancy of residential premises for any period prescribed by the regulations that commences on or after Jan. 1, 1977, no landlord shall charge the tenant for any rental period beginning after that date an amount of rent which exceeds the last rent lawfully charged for an equivalent rental period in the previous calendar year by a percentage amount to be determined not later than 90 days before it is to take effect by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

“3. In determining the percentage amount for the purposes of subsection 2, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall be governed by the principle that the percentage increase permitted shall not exceed an amount that reflects the average increase in operating costs for residential premises in Ontario during the preceding calendar year.”

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll send you a copy of this, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll send it to other members of the House in a minute.

[5:30]

If I can reiterate my explanation and change it a bit, because section 4 is the most complicated section of the bill, I have made one change to the draft, and that is to substitute July 30, 1975, for Dec. 31, 1974, because it was a decision of the House, with the support of the Liberal Party, not to have a retroactivity to the beginning of 1975.

We are suggesting to the House, given the fact that the six per cent is a guideline in 1976 and not a limit, that the balance between landlord and tenant is better struck with the guideline of six per cent which compels landlords to make an application for any increase in excess of that amount than the eight per cent which has been proposed by the government in section 4, as is proposed in the bill.

Secondly, we are saying that after the year 1976 is over the guidelines should be set at regular intervals by the cabinet and that the guidelines should be governed by the principle that the percentage increase permitted will not exceed an amount that reflects the average increase in operating costs for residential premises in Ontario during the preceding calendar year.

We will have facts about that and not the hypothesis and fragmentary information that we have to work on up until now as a result of the work of the rent review officers and of the Residential Premises Rent Review Board over the next few months. We are disturbed by the fact the percentage amount of the guideline that is referred to in the bill as it stands is not tied to any particular amount.

It will be open to the cabinet to set a guideline for the last few months of rent review under its proposals at 15 or 20 or 25 per cent, and turn a scheme which was intended to have some balance between landlord-initiated increases, if they were big, and tenant-initiated rent reductions, if the proposed increase of the landlord was probably not too excessive, into one where it would be tenant-initiated exclusively. That system prevails in the Province of Quebec and it has serious weaknesses. That system was used in the Province of British Columbia because the tenants were expected to enforce failures of the landlord to confine their rent increases to the eight or 10 or 10.6 per cent rent increases that were the maximum permissible in the first couple of years of the BC scheme.

The BC people will tell the minister, and I think they have told his officials, that there was a large degree of non-compliance by landlords who ignored the law, charged tenants more than the eight or 10 per cent that was permitted and against whom tenants were powerless because of the problems of tenant weakness and the problems of intimidation of which we have just been speaking in the House.

Third, the bill provides that the Act will self-destruct on Aug. 1, 1977. That is approximately 20 months from now. The government has given absolutely no justification for the view that is being put forward in legislation that the rent crisis in Ontario is somehow going to be magically solved by mid-summer of 1977. Nor has it given any explanation why it was not even willing to make the dates of rent review in Ontario coincide with the dates for the federal anti-inflation programme which, as the minister knows, is slated to keep on until the end of 1978, 17 months longer than the period that is proposed by the government.

We look forward to the time when, as a result of constructive and positive housing policies perhaps by another party than the government now in power, it will be possible to change the legislation which is coming into force with Bill 20. We do not believe, and we cannot see how it is possible for anyone to imagine that the government’s inadequate housing policies will bring an end to the rent crisis in the period of the next 20 months. If the minister can briefly indicate how that will take place, we will be delighted to hear him. We think that the legislation should come in without a termination date. Then when the government of the day judges that it is time or that it might be time to change the legislation, it is certainly open to that government to come forward and to suggest changes or even to suggest the termination of this bill.

We think it is wrong, however, that the bill is in a position where landlords have simply got to wait the government out. The government is saying to them: “Look boys, you have got to cool it for a year or so, because the tenants have been on our back. We will try and get back into power next spring or next fall, and if we make it then you can count on us -- we will let the bill die.”

We don’t think that is acceptable, Mr. Chairman, and for these three reasons we are putting forward these particular amendments. I will send an edited copy over to the minister in just a second.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee that the Chair dispense with the reading of Mr. Cassidy’s motion? Is it agreed? Any comment? The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: We cannot support the six per cent limit, nor can we support the exclusion of the termination date because we believe in rent review, not permanent rent controls, in this province.

Mr. Chairman: Ready for the motion?

All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Can we stack it?

Mr. Cassidy: Stack it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on section 4 of the bill?

Mr. Good: Yes. I have a question under subsection 3 or section 4. Perhaps the minister’s staff could help me on this. It is the section where the landlord makes application for a rent increase -- this is after Jan. 1, 1976, which is next month. It says that when he makes that application he must make it at least 60 days prior to entering into a new tenancy agreement; and I am wondering how that can be accomplished if the tenancy agreement is to be achieved in either January or February. It would be impossible, for instance, as of today or last month, to file an application for a tenancy agreement for either January or February, 60 days prior, because there is no one at the present time to file it with.

Could someone explain if this is a discrepancy in the bill or if there is some other explanation. I rather think it has been overlooked in the bill, the fact that it is impossible to file it 60 days in advance for tenancy agreements which will come up for renewal in January or February, or even March probably, of 1976?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: I have some amendments to subsection 3 of section 4, but before I --

Mr. Chairman: Before you put your amendment, would the minister be prepared to respond to questions put by the hon. member for Waterloo North?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Not at this time; I am getting an answer.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: It seems to me to make more sense to move these as sub-amendments to the minister’s amendment to subsection 3 of section 4, since the minister has incorporated seemingly a number of our proposed amendments in his own amendment. So that if it is the wish of the Chair, I will yield to the minister and then move my two amendments as subamendments to the minister’s.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 4, subsection 3.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could call a vote on subsection 2 of 4 so that we can simply register our objection to the termination day, which the minister has put into the bill.

The arguments about it have been stated, and we don’t need to debate it at great length, but I think we would like to have a vote on subsection 2 of section 4.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I thought we had already voted on it?

Mr. Cassidy: No, we didn’t.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Shall subsection 2 of section 4 stand as part of the bill? All those in favour say “aye.”

Mr. Good: On a point of order. Have we voted on that amendment? I thought we had voted on the three amendments?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It didn’t carry.

Mr. Cassidy: It is stacked.

Mr. Good: That’s what I thought.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we had agreed that when amendments were voted on they would not automatically result in passage of those particular subsections.

Mr. Chairman: We have voted on subsections 1 and 2 of section 4. We have voted on them and they are being stacked with the others that we bad passed earlier.

Mr. Cassidy: That is your ruling -- is that right?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, that’s fine.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved that subsection 3 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“Where a landlord is of the opinion that increased operating costs and capital expenses which he has experienced or anticipates on reasonable grounds that he will experience in respect of residential premises or the building or project in which they are situate will exceed the increase in rent permitted under subsection 1 or 2, and therefore desires an additional increase in the rent for the residential premises for any rental payment period between the 31st day of December, 1975, and the first day of August, 1977, he may, at least 60 days prior to the commencement or renewal of the tenancy agreement with respect thereto, or in the case where entitlement to occupancy under the tenancy agreement occurred on or after the 30th day of July, 1975, and on or before the 31st day of December, 1975, not later than the 31st day of January, 1976, apply in the form and manner prescribed by the regulation to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate for approval of the rent increase applied for or provided for under the tenancy agreement, as the case may be, and shall at the same time also give a copy of his application for increase to the tenant of the residential premises.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, there are about three or four things in the amendment. We have a further amendment to the amendment which we would like to move after the amendment has been carried, or we can move it as a subamendment depending on how the Chair wishes to rule.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that subsection 3 of section 4 of the bill be further amended by striking out “operating costs and capital expenses” in the second line and substituting therefor “costs”; and that the amendment be further amended by striking out the words “or project” in line 4 of subsection 3 of section 4 and wherever they appear in the remainder of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I will explain the two amendments briefly. We have serious questions about the reference to capital expenses and about the lack of a definition of operating costs in this bill. As a consequence, we believe it’s important to reduce the words “operating costs and capital expenses” to the word “costs” and then to define costs later on. We have an amendment to that purpose which the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has and which he will say a word about. That, very briefly, is why we are making the first amendment.

The second amendment refers to “project”. We don’t think the ministry has thought through completely the reiteration throughout the bill -- and this amendment applies throughout the bill -- of the words “or project” where they follow the word “building.” There is always a reference in the appeal clauses. A landlord can appeal for rent increases on the basis of increased costs for his “building” or “project” and the problem with that is very simple -- I would say this to the Liberal Party in particular -- when you start to think about it you say, “Surely, that just means a bunch of townhouses or something like that.” That is possible but the problem of dividing costs for townhouses where many of the costs are home directly by the tenant and not by the landlord is relatively simple. What we are worried about is where you have a complex, as you find in large cities like Ottawa and Toronto -- and maybe Waterloo -- of maybe two or three or eight or 10 buildings under one management.

St. James Town is one of the obvious examples. Tenants will find themselves being forced to challenge rent increases based on cost increases for which they have absolutely no responsibility, or in which they play absolutely no part whatsoever. There may be a maintenance problem in a particular building which is a half a mile away from where a tenant lives, but his rent would possibly go up because of increased operating costs for the project as a whole. Or it may be that new buildings are being built in a project at very high costs, and that tenants who have enjoyed modest rents are being asked for rent increases because of increasing costs on a new building with very high costs.

[5:45]

This is the kind of problem we can see. We would suggest that when this bill comes to be amended in six or eight months, as it probably will be, that the matter might be looked at by the ministry more closely between now and then. But for now, the best thing to do would be to take out the words “or project” and stick to a building-by-building determination.

As to the third question, Mr. Chairman, we support the minister’s decision to accede to suggestions made in the committee, that the rent increase that the landlord applies for, if he wants more than eight per cent, should be the entire amount -- whether it’s nine per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent -- rather than simply the amount that exceeds the eight per cent. Because it may be that even the eight per cent isn’t justified; and we don’t want a situation where the rent review officer does not have the power to roll back the rent to what is justified by increased costs.

Mr. Good: On the amendment to the amendment -- looking at the definition of project -- I don’t envisage the problems as suggested by the last speaker, because it says: “Any number of adjacent residential premises that are situated on a common site.”

So, I couldn’t quite see how expenses in a building half a mile away could be used to doctor the books of an apartment building in a different location. I can well see that where adjacent buildings have a common ownership, the expenses involved with those adjacent buildings could well be taken into consideration.

I don’t see that there could be that much of a problem about trying to include buildings half a mile away, as the last speaker suggested, when the definition of a project says that they must be situated on a common site adjacent to each other. That’s the first thing; I just don’t see the concern there that exists.

The amendment by the minister seems to be quite in order, except it doesn’t satisfy any problem as to how a landlord gives 60 days’ notice to a tenancy agreement that expires in January or February of next year. Now, until that’s answered I can’t support this section until you give me an answer to that. Can you cover that by regulation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, we do obviously have a two-month period which is not covered; and that is January and February. In effect, the landlord is going to be required to carry forward from the existing rates from month to month until they qualify for a hearing. That’s about all we can do. I’m not a magician, I can’t create months that don’t even exist. The January and February period is a very real fact. The rent review officers will not be coming into effect with any authority until Jan. 1, so obviously you cannot apply to those officers for those first two months. It’s as simple as that, I don’t have any answer, unless I can find two months somewhere.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for amending the Act as it stands in two respects. One, by making provision that a copy of the application for review would be sent to the tenant rather than previously in the Act, just a notice; and secondly, by amending the Act to read that the landlord must apply for the total increase of his rent sought, not just for the percentage on top of the guidelines. Those were both amendments that I had intended to put forward, and I am glad not to have to.

Let me just deal briefly with two aspects of our sub-amendments. We want operating costs and capital expenses replaced by the word “costs,” and we intend to introduce an amendment in section 5 to define what “costs” shall mean for the purpose of this Act. I will just read it so that you’ll have a sense of what it is.

“For the purposes of this Act, increases in costs shall be deemed to mean increases in maintenance, heating, supervision and utility costs and other appropriate operating costs as prescribed by the regulations; the reasonably amortized costs of rehabilitation where such costs do not result from work orders issued under a municipal housing standards bylaws; an increase in financing costs which are not avoidable.”

I think that is fairly explicit -- what we mean and what we don’t mean by costs. I don’t think I need to elaborate on it. We are not prepared to permit people to refinance on the basis of increases in market value and to pass those refinancing charges on to tenants. I am sure that both you and the Liberal Party are quite prepared to do that, but we are not. And we want costs redefined to prevent that kind of rip-off from happening.

Secondly, I will speak even more briefly to the question of “project.” It’s very clear that there is no justification -- very clear to us -- there is no justification for permitting the word “project” to remain in the Act.

The illustration of the St. James Town project here in Toronto provides a rich ground for ones imagination to play around with, because if a project is included, the costs of expansion in St. James Town can be legitimately claimed by a landlord and applied against the present occupants of the present building.

This is one issue, it seems to me, where the members of the third party are going to really have to decide whether they want to go right down the road with the big landlords or whether periodically they want to bail out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult -- no, I really don’t -- I understand that you do not want to include capital costs. I don’t know why you don’t want to include them.

Mr. Bounsall: Unavoidable capital costs.

Mr. McClellan: Unavoidable -- the word is unavoidable.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I know you don’t want to. What I don’t understand is how you can say to a person who wants to refinance a building, let’s assume --

Mr. Lewis: Come on; refinancing.

Mr. McClellan: That is not unavoidable.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s never avoidable.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let’s assume he has just purchased. The initial purchase -- should not the capital cost involved, the interest rates being paid, be considered? That’s part of it. Whatever happened to --

Mr. Cassidy: Tell him what capital costs are.

Mr. McClellan: We simply want the review process to determine the question of capital cost. We are not opposed to unavoidable capital costs. Where a guy needs to refinance, he needs to refinance. But you are as well aware as we are of the kind of racket that goes on in the private sector around refinancing on the basis of increased market values, and loading those charges back onto rents. And if that’s going to be prevented, it can only be prevented by moving that stuff into the review process, not by just a blanket coverage of legitimate and illegitimate capital cost increases outside of the review process.

Mr. Cassidy: That is why some of those small landlords were crying.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Never mind.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, could the minister comment on the question of, “or project” -- and would he agree to take that out for now, because of the questions we have raised? If he wants to bring it in in some other form -- either on Monday, when we are still probably going to be on the bill, or else in six or eight months -- why, we will look at it, but

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if you are so interested in the principle of fairness, fairly applied, how do you dispute the logic of my colleague from Bellwoods? What, in the review process -- if it is fairly applied, as you would have it in this bill -- what in the review process can possibly prejudice the right to include refinancing if it is unavoidable? And why would you preclude that from an obvious review, unless, inherent in the process of the bill, as emerges slowly in the Legislature, there is this quiet, calculated effort to alter it only in those ways which, on balance, are beneficial to one part of the economic equation at work here, which is the landlord side of the economic equation.

I think that if you believe in the principle of review, then accept the point which the member for Bellwoods makes. I don’t think it’s so difficult -- nobody is prejudiced by it.

Mr. Good: I want to say this; I think we’re dealing, if I’m correct, with subsection 3 of section 4, which is the section in which the landlord appeals for increases in rent to the rent review officer. That’s the section in which you’re arguing whether capital costs shouldn’t be involved. This will be before the rent review officer, as I understand the bill, and the member for Bellwoods, in talking about refinancing, is not talking about capital costs.

Does the member for Bellwoods realize that any time you put a new roof on, you have to capitalize that on your apartment building? Any time you replace a furnace, you have to capitalize that? All this section says, the way I read it unless I’m grossly in error, is that the landlord may use those expenses as an argument in presenting his case before the rent review officer.

Certainly that is the correct interpretation of this section. I fail to see what the problem is -- this is happening outside review.

Mr. Young: I wonder if the minister could give us some assurance on this one thing which the member for Bellwoods has brought out. I think of a landlord who built a building some years ago -- five, six, seven years ago. It cost him X dollars -- I’m not sure of the amount, something like $1 million. That building has gone up in value until it’s worth perhaps $1.8 million. That first million was incorporated into the rent structure.

He has arranged another mortgage for another amount of $400,000 to $500,000, which he has incorporated into the capital structure and upon which he now charges rent. With that $400,000, he has built another building -- or partly so -- and has incorporated that amount in the rent structure of that building so that tenants are paying twice on that amount.

Mr. Lewis: He gets it twice. The member for London North doesn’t understand that because he approved it.

Mr. Shore: Are you getting the same wages you were getting years ago?

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Who is getting the depreciation? Boy, are the colours showing.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Yorkview has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: But I admit you believe it -- I know the position of arguing from conviction.

Mr. Young: This has nothing to do with increased wages or anything else. It simply means a duplication of income from the same dollars and the tenants are paying that; two different sets of tenants. That’s the thing we’re anxious about and we’d like some reassurance from the minister on it.

Mr. Riddell: Where is that new image, Stephen?

Mr. Chairman: If there is no further comment, we’ll have to deal with the minister’s amendment first, otherwise there is nothing to amend.

Mr. Norton: On this question of the manner in which a particular building is financed, there is something which is not clear to me from the position of our friends in the official opposition. Is the suggestion being made that an individual, who may have acquired a building or built a building, say, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, ought never to be in the position as long as he continues to own that building -- I know the kind of thing you are referring to -- but would your provision not eliminate the possibility of that individual ever realizing from that building any of his capital even at the point when he had paid it off to next to nothing.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so.

Mr. Young: True capital cost is chargeable; not loading extra cost on two sets of tenants.

Mr. Cassidy: It eliminates the doubling and tripling.

Mr. Norton: If his first mortgage were reduced to $10,000, I suggest by what you’re proposing he would never be able to put a second mortgage on or refinance that building to realize any of his capital for any purpose other than to continue to own that building.

The other thing that concerns me is the reference to work orders. Is there not the danger, in your suggestion about never allowing financing to be included where it is pursuant to a work order, of eliminating the possibility that anyone would acquire those buildings with a view to rehabilitating them and making them habitable and usable on the housing market? Is it not likely that, if you preclude that, the building will simply become unusable as housing? If it is possible to include those in the basic capital structure, surely then there is some incentive for an individual to acquire such buildings, to put them into livable condition and to make them useful housing on the housing market. I am not sure whether you had contemplated that consequence of perhaps rendering useless a significant portion of the housing stock.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.