Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 we were discussing Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment to section 9. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Renwick: I just want to make one point. I think we all want to make a lot of progress. If the minister will desist from the bombast, we’ll try to avoid making a constructive reply to bombast.

Mr. Nixon: He has never had any problem that way in the past.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would be more than happy to co-operate. If anything is going to cut down on the constructive types of reply from the hon. member for Riverdale, I will be pleased to co-operate.

Mr. Ferrier: Something new.

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 we stack it?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, stack it.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that subsection 1 of section 10 of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof: “and of the total number of members appointed, at least one-half shall be persons representative of tenants.”

Mr. Mackenzie: Once again, to my way of thinking at least, this is not a point that has to be dwelt on for very long. It seems to me it makes some sense that in establishing the board the people we’re trying to look after and who are the reason for this bill coming forward in the first place should be represented on that board in at least equal numbers.

Mr. Shore: Shouldn’t you say if the other half are landlords?

Mr. Mackenzie: They won’t have any trouble deciding.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment?

Mr. Ferrier: Too much bombast.

Mr. Williams: This is a rather innocuous amendment as proposed.

Mr. Cassidy: I wouldn’t say that.

Mr. Williams: I think one has to try to ascertain what is meant by being persons representative of tenants. I would hope that in fact all of the members appointed to the Residential Premises Rental Review Board would be representative of tenants and of landlords and of investors; and that they would take an objective position in the interests of all parties involved in any application or appeal that was brought before them. From the way in which this amendment is worded, I presume what is meant is that they have to be people who actually are tenants themselves or people who pay residential rent. If that is what is meant, it doesn’t precisely state that. With it not stating that, then I think the provision --

Mr. Good: It doesn’t say that?

Mr. Cassidy: No, it doesn’t say that.

Mr. Williams: -- is too broad and lacking in clear definition.

As the hon. member for Hamilton East suggests, it doesn’t warrant any further discussion and I think it should be put in its proper perspective. If it was a question of selecting people from the different sectors, it seems to me that at the very least there should be representatives from the three main sectors involved. This would be the tenants, the landlords, and as I mentioned earlier the people involved in the building and investment field. All three of them, I think, have a very vested and strong interest in seeing that housing does move forward and that adequate accommodation is provided at reasonable rents. If there is to be a division of interests, I would suggest it should be on a 33½ per cent interest among the three main parties in the legislation.

Mr. Warner: How naive.

Mr. Williams: But beyond that, I think it is naive to suggest this provision has any worthwhile meaning otherwise.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: I guess I am a little naive. I thought that if we were going to have some fairness in this Act that you could be assured of some kind of fair shake on the board. It seems to me that if one half of the board was composed of members who were at least representatives of tenants and one half of the landlords you would have a fair shake.

I ask the member for Oriole to take a look at his suggestion. If we had one third from the landlords, one third from the investment industry in this province and one third from the tenants, does he really tell us that would be equity? Surely, I am suggesting he is the one who is naive in this situation.

Mr. Ferrier: That is a Tory equity.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment, I would like to say at the outset that we support the amendment as proposed. It seems to me that in supporting this amendment, you have to consider the reasons for which the bill before us is being considered. First off, it arose out of a situation wherein certain landlords -- and certain landlords only -- were gouging.

There has to be a feeling of fairness throughout this Act, and although we have no idea how many people are going to constitute this board, we can assume there will be an even number. In spite of that, it seems to follow that the tenants are basically in a more vulnerable position than landlords. If we are going to indicate some fairness throughout this entire bill, we must keep that in mind and guarantee the tenants that, although they are in a more vulnerable position, they will be protected.

By inserting a guarantee that they will be represented on the board, there is a guarantee of that fairness we wish to have permeate this Act; and that is why we are speaking in favour of this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I had hoped we might be able to move along rather quickly on this, Mr. Chairman. Two proposals have been put forth: First of all, this amendment says you could have one half of the persons representative of the tenants and one half representative of whom? Who does the other half represent? Surely to goodness we are not trying to create a confrontation sort of situation on that particular board.

I am amazed that my friends in the Liberal Party would allow themselves to be drawn into this situation that has been created by the members of the New Democratic Party through this amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Good: Read our amendments of last week.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are attempting to create a direct confrontation situation on that board, which we really don’t want nor do we need. I suggest the same situation applies to what my colleague the member for Oriole suggested of one third, one third and one third; I don’t find that acceptable at all.

I would like to see on this board people who are going to represent all of the people in the province, the tenants and the landlords; and you don’t categorize them. Ideally I would like to see a board made up of persons who are single-family homeowners and don’t own any rental property or are not tenants. That would be ideal, then you have got a completely open mind. No one would be arguing at all.

Mr. Nixon: All part of the Sault Ste. Marie electorate.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is absolutely ridiculous to do this. I don’t understand why you want to create, as I suggest, a confrontation situation on the board that’s expected e deal fairly and equitably with review officers’ decisions that are appealed to them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We hope that they will operate as a board centred here in Toronto and sending various people throughout the province to hear these appeals, so that people won’t be required to come down here to Toronto. How are you going to select these tenants, and who are the tenants going to be? Are you going to categorize the tenant? Are you going to say it’s the tenant who must live in a high-rise building with so many floors? I could go and get a tenant who could be the president of a bank and put him in as a tenant representative.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s swell.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are living in high-rise apartments all over the place.

Mr. Mackenzie: You could ask some of the labour councils.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You laugh. Do you think that is incorrect? Go to the ManuLife building and see who lives in that building. Do you want some of those people sitting as tenant representatives? Do you really? I don’t understand why you want to create this sort of a monster, because that is what you are doing. I know that is what you would like to do, and it really disturbs me how you have allowed yourselves to be drawn into this. We can select a board of people who will be unbiased, who have noon minds about the thing and will not let themselves trapped into two groups, which will do nothing but delay and drag out these situations.

Mr. Cassidy: Like all those other Tory boards.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t understand it at all.

Mr. Warner: Come on. It’s like the boards of governors at the various universities and colleges.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It can work without this, and if you want to drag on for the next five or six hours I am prepared to do so -- tomorrow or the next day -- but that is exactly what you are doing. You are trying to create a problem for the board before the board even starts. There is no need to do this at all. We can get along with a board that can be appointed by people who perhaps don’t represent either of the interest groups and it would be a lot healthier board and a lot healthier situation for both the tenants and the landlords, all of whom we are supposedly protecting. You have got it in your minds that the board is going to be made up totally of landlords.

I am glad I don’t look upon things in this life as terribly as you do. Gosh, you must wake up in the middle of the night screaming at your own monsters.

Mr. Shore: I believe what we have been hearing here for several days may substantially go out the window with what we are trying to do here. The amendment itself, if you look at it, says half the persons shall be persons representative of tenants. I submit to you that a review board, just in name itself is supposed to be as close to objectivity as it can possibly be, and if you are going to form within that board a nucleus of representatives it automatically suggests to me -- and I submit that we think this through -- that it’s already starting a form of legal representation, that they are there representing something. That is the connotation of it.

Surely a review board is supposed to be objective in its analysis, and to be objective you can’t represent a vested interest group. You have got to hear the evidence all the way through. I truly believe that more harm than good is going to come of doing it this way.

I say this is the same if you were going to have it representing the landlords. Surely the concept of a review board is to come as close to objectivity as possible, to hear the evidence and hear the facts and try to come to some reasonably independent conclusion. I don’t think you can do it this way because as the minister has suggested -- even though I don’t agree with a lot of the things he has said -- it clearly starts to put this into a we/they concept. I don’t think that is the purpose of this bill.

[8:15]

Mr. Warner: The minister asked why we are particularly wary at this kind of set that we are given. It is pretty clear; we have had some precious evidence. We need only take a look at the boards of governors that are appointed at the various universities and colleges across this province to realize what kind of vested interest sits there. It really isn’t enough to have the assurance of the minister that this whole thing is going to be dealt with fairly and equitably without any problems. Because we have the past experience of the boards of governors of the various universities and colleges, it becomes absolutely necessary that we tie it clown to some specific number. If we hadn’t had that experience, we could very easily let this subsection 1 of section 10 slide by without amending it, but it is necessary because we need some guarantee for three people for whom this bill was struck in the first place. We very much need to adopt the amendment as proposed.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, all one would have to do is to have sat through last week’s hearings to know this entire bill arises out of confrontation between landlord and tenant. It’s a fact of life that we cannot bypass or overlook. Since this bill arises out of confrontation politics, we must keep in mind the old legal maxim that not only must we be fair, but we must appear to be fair --

Mr. Shore: You won’t in this way.

Mr. Stong: -- and if we are going to appear to be fair, then we must include and guarantee to the tenants, the vulnerable people in this situation, that they will have a voice to be heard even within the board. That is the reason that I agreed to this amendment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, to a point I would agree with what the minister has said regarding the sort of dangers inherent in allowing tenants on the board. But I think we have to point out that, from past experience, having watched the examples that have been set in Ontario in terms of the Ontario Housing developments, the local housing authorities and so on, and having seen the great emphasis this government has placed on putting people there who are not tenants, who are not representative of tenants and so on, that it’s only fair at this time that we take some steps and some action to ensure there may be some representation of tenants.

We know it is not going to be perfect. We knew that you can appoint the presidents of various banks as tenant representatives on the board. But at the same time if we are going to err, we should try to err on the side of the tenants, because up to this time the government has failed to provide that kind of representation on various other boards. It is only by trying to put it into legislation where it stands up to public scrutiny, or is available for public examination, that we can look at the government and we can point out, “Listen, the legislation says this, but the government insists that the tenant representative will be this person or there will be no tenant representatives whatsoever.” If we are going to do anything, we should try to put it into legislation that there should be a tenant representative.

Mr. Good: Personally, I look at this in a somewhat different light. I don’t feel that having a board that can interpret the interests of all the people involved in the hearings is lining up one side against the other. We have all kinds of appeal boards in the province of Ontario that are composed of various people to represent the interests of the people who will come before that board.

Mr. Ruston: The Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Good: I refer to such appeal boards as the Labour Relations Board, the appeal board for the General Welfare Assistance Act, the appeal board for legal aid in local communities. There are people sitting on those boards who not only represent the viewpoint of the lawyers and the government, but clergymen and social workers who can represent the viewpoint of the individual person going before that board.

I don’t look on an amendment of this sort necessarily to be lining up the board as landlords against tenants and thereby requiring that we have got to get one from each. All we are asking for -- at least this is my personal opinion -- is an assurance that all points of view coming before the board will be represented by members of that board. That’s the way I look at this.

There are enough precedents of boards set up in this province, and composed in that manner, that they should not just be all drawn from the -- well, I was going to say the Tory pork barrel -- but from the registered list of people who are waiting to be appointed to boards and commissions by the government. I think they have got to be drawn from people who can genuinely represent all kinds of interests. It adds to the effectiveness of any board if we are assured that people sitting on that board will not only understand the problems of the landlord but they will also understand the problems of the tenants.

I like the way this amendment is worded. It says, “would represent the interest of the tenant.” It could very well be that certain landlords can very well represent the interest of tenants, if you could find such a person, or as you say a single-family homeowner. I don’t think that is necessarily what this says. Perhaps some people could very well represent the interests of the tenant and the landlord.

And that is what is going to have to be your job and that of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. You are going to appoint these people. All we’re asking is that when these people are appointed they will understand and be able to represent one side as well as the other side. That’s all I’m asking for.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to prolong this. Obviously there are positions that have been taken and we’ll just have to let it go as the vote says. I will, though, make this final point. First of all, the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) suggests that he doesn’t want to see a board like the local housing authority. I’m sure the hon. member is aware -- if he isn’t he should be -- that the local housing authorities are appointed by three different levels of government. If you’ve got that sort of bias in your own community, then your city council has played a very big part in doing that; because they appoint members alternately with the federal government and with the provincial government.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a cheap shot.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s not a cheap shot. If it’s a cheap shot, you, sir, are an expert at them, you know about them.

Mr. Cassidy: There are three tenants on local housing authorities for all of the province.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The other point I want to make is this. We are not talking about a board like the appeal board or the Labour Relations Board, which sits down as a full group and hears representation from two parties. That’s not what we’re talking about. In the review board we’re talking about a board that will operate not unlike the structure of the Ontario Municipal Board, in that they will leave here individually and go into communities and hear the appeals.

Mr. Good: We’re going to fix that up too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you’re going to try and send out two and three people -- and I listened to somebody criticizing us here for the development of a bureaucracy -- you yourselves are building a monster of a bureaucracy if you’re going to start sending out three, four or five different people.

Mr. Nixon: The bill is in your name.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The bill is in my name as it was introduced and as it had been amended by me not as you’re amending it. You’re making these amendments, not I.

Mr. Nixon: You’re speaking to a very select gallery and you have been talking to them for a month.

Mr. Shore: Your bill is bureaucracy, too.

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead with your bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not speaking to any particular gallery. I’m looking across at this gathering of fine gentlemen and ladies who are here; I thought that’s who I was talking to. You’re the gallery player, and you’re good at it, I’ll give you marks for that.

Mr. Shore: Every part of this bill is bureaucracy.

Mr. Ruston: Your leader played to the gallery last Friday for an hour-and-a-half.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you intend to create a board of this sort of makeup, forcing it to be 50 per cent tenants, then you’re doing it the wrong way.

Mr. Riddell: I’m sure half the gallery left disappointed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You play both sides. I haven’t heard you speak on this bill yet; you or your colleagues, either one of you.

Mr. Riddell: I’ll be speaking on section 12.

Mr. Chairman: It is customary that when any member of the committee or the minister rises to speak that he speak to the Chair, not to the gallery or anybody over there,

Mr. Samis: Good ruling.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I agree.

Mr. Lewis: The Chair is a gallery himself.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, I have had one main question raised, other than the arguments we’ve had on roll-back dates, on percentages, on everything else; one question that’s been asked by people. I had a discussion over the weekend with some of my friends on the social planning and research council in Hamilton. I’ve had representations from the Ontario Federation of Labour on this.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s a biased group.

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean, that’s a biased group?

Mr. Mackenzie: I’ve talked to some of the various people with whom I work pretty closely in my own town and some of the tenant people. If there’s one thing that comes through repeatedly, it’s simply do something about the board, make sure there’s some equity there or you’re not going to have acceptance of this right from the start. And I think that’s what this amendment is all about.

Mr. Cassidy: Question.

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 “ayes” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, please.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for subsection 5 of section 10.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Stong moves that subsection 5 of section 10 be struck out and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:

“No fewer than two members of the board, one of whom shall be a representative of tenants, are sufficient for the exercise of all the jurisdictions and power of the board, and their decision on an application shall be the decision of the board.”

Does anybody wish to speak to Mr. Stong’s amendment?

Mr. Lewis: No, the amendment is consistent with the other one.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Stack it please.

Mr. Chairman: This amendment is to be stacked?

Any other amendment to any other section?

The hon. minister has an amendment to section 11, subsection 2. Anything prior to that?

Mr. McClellan: I have an amendment to section 11(2) as well.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 2 of section 11 be amended by striking out “notice of the rent review officer’s decision” in the third and fourth lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “order of the rent review officer.”

Mr. Cassidy: We accept that. It’s a technical amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

I declare the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Bellwoods; what section do you wish to address yourself to?

Mr. McClellan: To subsection 2 of section 11.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that subsection 2 of section 11 be amended by striking out “appeared” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof “was entitled to appear.”

Mr. McClellan: Our reading of subsection 2 of section 11 -- and I am sure it is inadvertent -- would mean that a tenant who was eligible to participate in the review at the first stage was not entitled to appear in the review at the second stage. I am sure that that is just an oversight, and our amendment simply makes it clear that a tenant has a right to the appeal board hearing even though he may have missed the original review.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment? The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: My feeling on that amendment is that if the tenant wasn’t interested enough to appear at the first hearing, why should he then expect to get notice of the decision just because he could have been there? I say that the decision should be sent to those who have turned up and appeared at the hearing, but to have to send it to someone who wasn’t interested enough even to come to the hearing -- no, I can’t agree with that amendment.

[8:30]

Mr. Warner: That’s fair.

Mr. Swart: To reply to the last speaker, I would like to state that if a person was in the position that he should be notified of the first hearing, surely he would also have an interest in the second hearing and should be notified? There are many tenants who, for instance, could be working and might not take the time off for the appeal; or they could very well be on their day off or working a different shift.

Therefore, I think it’s a simple matter of justice. If they should be notified of the first hearing or are in the position that they should be notified of the first hearing, they should also be notified of the second hearing. They can make up their mind whether they want to attend it that way.

Mr. McClellan: I’m surprised there is resistance; in fact, I’m amazed. All of us, surely, in our own caseloads have had examples, for instance, of unemployment insurance recipients who are notified of their appeal hearing; they don’t understand the implications or the consequences and fail to show up. I don’t know about other members of this House but I have a fair number of cases which fit into that category and I know my colleagues do as well. It’s not an unusual kind of think we’re talking about.

Again, the suggestion seems to be -- I’ll skip what the suggestion seems to be, in the spirit of the member for Riverdale’s new conciliation. Really I think it is something which is liable to occur.

Interjection.

Mr. McClellan: Don’t bait me. My conciliation is only this deep.

I think it’s something which is liable to occur in the normal course of events. Why you would resist this is absolutely beyond me.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I haven’t resisted as yet.

Mr. McClellan: No, I’m sure you won’t.

Mr. Lewis: Give him time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think there is some merit in the individual having at least appeared at the first hearing -- anyone, either the tenant or the landlord. I think this works both ways, at least I hope it does. It works both ways; either the tenant or the landlord can appear either in person or through their agent at the initial hearing. It seems to me that the notice of the decision should certainly go to the agent or the party who attended.

I fail to understand you. You have said all along about how important it is that this legislation be equitable and how necessary it is for tenants to have the opportunity to go before the review officer, scrutinize the information that will be brought forth by the landlord, look at his books and look at all the information. Now you turn around and tell me he doesn’t even have to attend. The hearing can be held with one party present and the other will receive notice of the decision and decide whether or not there is going to be an appeal. I fail to understand why there isn’t enough importance in this matter that the person would want to attend and should be expected to attend the initial hearing.

Mr. Cassidy: According to subsection 1, which we are not proposing to amend, the right to appeal should only be given to a landlord or tenant who appeared at the initial hearing. If the tenant doesn’t appear at that initial hearing, he forgoes his right to appeal. That’s the end of it.

I’m sorry the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) who was bringing his legal abilities to bear on the bill isn’t here right now. It seems to me there are some elements of natural justice and the statutory powers of procedures involved here.

Surely, if a landlord, for example, decides to appeal against a decision of a rent review officer, everybody affected by that appeal should be informed about it. Otherwise they may find that a decision, which they understood had been made because they got an order from the rent review officer, has been changed by a higher tribunal and they didn’t even know that the higher tribunal, the rent appeal board, was considering the matter. That’s downright unfair. The tenant who doesn’t appear at the initial hearing doesn’t have the right to appeal but he surely should have the right to know if his landlord is appealing. That’s what the amendment is saying.

I hope the minister reconsiders because in terms of natural justice I think it is an important amendment and should be accepted.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has raised an interesting point. It says, “was entitled to appear at the initial hearing,” as I read the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s correct, yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, then, what’s the necessity of the amendment? For that matter, I’m beginning to wonder about the necessity of the section.

Mr. Cassidy: No, no, Mr. Chairman, what the amendment says is that if you were entitled to appear at the first hearing, you should be notified of the appeal whether or not you showed at the first hearing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You should just get notice?

Mr. Cassidy: You should just get notice. You can’t appeal if you didn’t come the first time, but in natural justice you should have the right to know if an appeal is going up to the rent review tribunal which affects your rent or the living circumstances where you live. That’s what the amendment says. If the minister wants to stand it down and let his people look at it, we would be happy to do that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it stand down for a moment.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed by the committee?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(6) Subsection 5 of section 5 applies mutatis mutandis to an order or decision of the board made under subsection 4 of this section, and if the order or decision of the board varies, an order of the rent review officer that has previously been filed under subsection 5 of section 5, the order previously filed as so varied may be enforced in the same manner as the original order.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, this provides that an order or decision of the rent review board may be enforced in the same manner as a judgement of the Supreme Court, and provides further that if the rent review officer’s order has previously been filed with the Supreme Court, it’s superseded and amended by the board’s order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

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

All those opposed?

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Cassidy: Clause (a), Mr. Chairman. This is the exemptions part of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clauses (a) and (b) of section 12 of the bill 1)0 struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(a) situate in a non-profit housing project, rents for which are subject to the approval of the government of Ontario or of Canada; and

“(b) situate in a non-profit co-operative housing project as defined in the National Housing Act.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, my copy of the bill has just been borrowed from me, but the present section exempts from the bill something like 100,000 rental units in the Province of Ontario. Those rental units are owned by the government of Canada, are owned by the government of Ontario, are owned by Ontario Housing Corp., and are in limited-dividend or non-profit projects. We’ve given some very careful consideration to this. The proposal we’ve put forward here is not ideal, but the alternatives we would find very difficult to accept as well.

We felt very strongly that there had been some very serious questions raised about the operation of limited-dividend housing. The scrutiny of the government of Canada was not open to tenant participation in any way and we, therefore, came to the conclusion that this should be subject to rent review.

In principle, limited-dividend housing is rent-controlled. In practice, many tenants feel quite strongly that that is not the case and that there has not been adequate scrutiny. This should give them the added protection and the right to negotiate with their landlords which they now lack. In the case of non-profit housing projects, there is a serious problem there because this is an area where there is a new wave of activity, particularly in a number of municipalities like Toronto, because tenants are involved in the main in the direction of these projects and because by their charter they are meant to be non-profit and neither show a loss nor a profit. Because their rents are subject to the approval normally of the municipality and of the province and often of the federal government as well, we felt there was enough scrutiny there.

As far as co-operatives were concerned, where they are non-profit co-operatives there too there is, if anything, too much rather than too little governmental oversight, and they are clearly not in the kind of housing that is to be looked to by the Act.

The question of Ontario Housing has been particularly difficult for us to come to. We would point out several things that ought to be borne in mind. In the first place, the government has insisted that this bill be for a period of 20 months only. That is approximately the time it will take to negotiate and to settle on a new rent scale which will be fair both to the taxpayer and also to the people who are public housing tenants under the Ontario Housing Corp.

Second, about eight per cent of the rental housing units in the province are in Ontario Housing. It would seem rather strange that a government which was bringing in rent review or rent control would exempt, as a first step, eight per cent of the rental housing stock, the housing stock that is occupied by people who often are among the poorest members of our society and the housing stock which in fact is owned by the Province of Ontario itself.

Third, we would point out that the people who live in public housing are subject to wage control or income control either by the federal government under the anti-inflation programme or by the provincial government through disability pensions, social assistance, workmen’s compensation, mothers’ allowance, and the other forms of income which form the mainstay of people who live in public housing projects. If they are geared to income, their rents therefore will effectively also be under controls because of the effects of the anti-inflation programmes and the various provincial controls on the incomes which they receive.

We don’t believe that this is an ideal situation but we do believe that a breathing space is desirable while the new rent scale is negotiated. We feel it would be far worse to leave OHC out and confirm the view that too many people have taken that this is a ghettoized community of people set apart. That would be wrong, and therefore we are proposing in this amendment that there should be no exemption for tenants living in OHC.

Mr. Good: I just don’t think we can deal with this all in one amendment that clause (a) be struck out and clause (b) be struck out. Is it correct then to assume that the NDP wants to leave clauses (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)?

Mr. Cassidy: We have subsequent amendments affecting the remaining sections.

Mr. Good: So we’re dealing just with clause (a) and clause (b)?

Mr. Cassidy: And nothing more.

Mr. Good: Could we deal with these one section at a time please?

Mr. Chairman: If that seems to be preferable, we will deal with clause (a). The substitute for (a) is “situate in a non-profit housing project, rents for which are subject to the approval of the government of Ontario or of Canada.”

Mr. Good: I don’t think that is the substitute for (a) is it?

Mr. Cassidy: I think we should just simply strike out (a), and then the proposed (a) and (b) that we have should be substituted for (b). I’m sorry. I would then move, as a substitute motion, that clause (a) of section 12 be struck.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, if I might ask for some clarification from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, I take it that what he is attempting to do with this is simply to remove the Ontario Housing units from the exemptions?

Mr. Lewis: More than that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is really all he’s trying to do.

Mr. Cassidy: No, more than that.

Mr. Lewis: Limited dividend, yes. I’m sorry, do you mean section (a)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, section (a). Is that correct, in section (a)?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, Mr. Chairman, the application to the government of Canada, the government of Ontario, or an agency of either of them. In fact, just on principle, we’re suggesting that that kind of housing, be it market housing or any other kind of housing, should come under the Act.

Then we have spelled out the kinds of government-sponsored housing that we think should be exempt in the proposal that I sent over to the minister when I moved the alternatives to clauses (a) and (b) a minute ago.

Mr. Chairman: I take it then that Mr. Cassidy would like to have his amendment read: “That clause (a) of section 12 of the bill be struck.”

Mr. Cassidy: Right.

Mr. Good: Just a minute.

Mrs. Campbell: Could I just ask what --

Mr. Lewis: Just strike clause (a), Margaret.

Mrs. Campbell: I apologize I wasn’t in the House. I was busy discussing Bill 26. As I take it, the motion is to strike clause (a) as an exception. There is no question, in our view, that this is an appropriate motion for this particular situation. We look at the numbers of cases covered by this and we have seen what has happened, particularly to those in Ontario Housing who are senior citizens --

Mr. Nixon: Even more than that.

Mrs. Campbell: Pardon?

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead, you’re doing a great job.

Mrs. Campbell: -- and we are of the opinion that these people have to be protected as well as anyone else.

One question that I had that bothered me, and it has been raised by us, is whether, in view of the earlier clauses which we have inserted as to agreements, the agreements made for Ontario Housing, for example, with the government of Canada would then be exempted by reason of the earlier provisions. Naturally, we are assuming that this would not be the case, but certainly the tremendous increases in Ontario Housing rents, particularly for senior citizens, are something that we decry on this side of the House. In fact, rents have increased from $51 a month to $104, for example, only by reason of the assistance given by the federal government and the provincial government.

We have, for example, a case in the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) own riding where the rent was increased 56 per cent, from $72 a month to $111 a month. We recognize the fact that there was a freeze in these cases but, nevertheless, the only increase in income to these people has been the increase in old age pensions and in the GAINS programme.

We note the announcement today by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) of a further increase in the GAINS programme. If all that means is that we transfer that money, or even 25 per cent of that money, back to the government it really is a pretty misleading situation, and therefore we are supporting the amendment as proposed.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I hasten to support my colleague the member for St. George and the amendment. I have in my riding a very large Ontario Housing development, and I have noticed, Mr. Chairman, that every time the Premier or one of his cabinet ministers gets np and says, “Look what wonderful people we are,” and somebody has given another GAINS grant or some other kind of a grant, it is grabbed by the other hand, by Ontario Housing, in their rental increases. The people who live there don’t ever seem to get ahead. And while it sounds great -- what was it that the Premier was doing? He increased something $6, but there was a little confusion about whether the money came from Ottawa or here during the course of the campaign --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There was no confusion in our minds.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the Premier made an announcement, and I got a little confused about who was doing it and so on --

Mrs. Campbell: Then you take it back.

Mr. Singer: But what was happening in Lawrence Heights, in the riding of Wilson Heights, was that the landlords were taking it back. I used to argue with your colleague, the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) about this and he said it wasn’t so; the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine), when he was the minister, he said it wasn’t so; and I’m sure the member of Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes) would say it isn’t so either. But it is so. Every time one of these agencies of government -- municipal, federal or provincial -- gives additional money to people who are economically deprived and live in Ontario Housing, the landlord agency takes that money back in rent. You are shaking your head; and you are absolutely right, I would say this is unfair.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: A percentage.

Mr. Singer: No, in actual dollars -- sometimes a little more. The last time I think there was 20 cents more taken back.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: A percentage.

Mr. Singer: Well, it is taken back. I would think that while Ontario Housing, publicly subsidized housing, performs a very useful and important function in this province, we have to have as an objective of ours the idea that people can get out of there; that they can put a little money aside to go and buy their own homes -- if we had any homes; that’s another one of the minister’s functions --

Mr. Yakabuski: It’s not part of the bill.

Mr. Singer: -- but not that we take every last penny away from them.

Mr. Yakabuski: Stick with the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You tell me I am grandstanding; listen to who’s talking.

Mr. Singer: Oh now, even in the Ottawa valley they need homes.

Mr. Johnston: You’re away out in left field and you know it -- even if it is in Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: That’s what we are doing.

Interjection.

Mr. Singer: And I would think that we wouldn’t have to look at this Bill 20 ii we had a supply of housing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Back to the section of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer: The government has dismally failed in supplying housing. You haven’t done it. That’s why we need this bill. Many of us find the principle in this bill completely abhorrent, but we need it because people are suffering and because you people have fallen down very badly in the task that has been yours over many years, and as a result there isn’t a supply of housing. Therefore, we need this kind of bill as an emergency measure that hopefully isn’t going to last too long.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are having trouble picking a street, aren’t you?

Mr. Singer: We also need publicly subsidized housing where other people can live. And we believe, we Liberals believe -- the people on our right here I think are in agreement with us -- that people who live in Ontario Housing should be protected to some extent and perhaps should be given an opportunity to build up a little equity so they can go out and buy one of the houses that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is going to build very soon, as were his two predecessors.

Mrs. Campbell: If.

Mr. Singer: If we get a housing programme. Let’s do that. Let’s put this kind of pressure on government. You and our good friends up in Ottawa are kissing cousins, I think the Premier used to say. Let’s put this kind of pressure on them and say, “We are not going to allow you to grab these additional moneys.” Beat your breasts and pat your backs and say what wonderful people we are; look what we are giving to the economically deprived. Let’s put this kind of pressure on them since we have got this kind of a bill, and let’s make sure that we give some kind of a break to the people who need subsidized housing. It makes good sense to support this amendment, and I would hope it is done; I am sure the members of the House will support it and hopefully a good result will flow from it.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a word before the minister intervenes. Some of us feel even more strongly about this amendment this evening than we did when it was first discussed in the House.

I want to remind the Minister of Housing that the Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) reneged today on a commitment which Was in the Throne Speech, and made during the election campaign, about the protection to those in the GAINS programme who had suffered undue rent increases. Many of those people reside in public housing, or government-assisted housing of one kind or another.

Now that you have taken the $18 million which you have designated for their use by way of compensation for high rents for 1975 and applied it to the GAINS pension itself -- which you would have provided anyway in 1976, thereby saving yourself a lot of money but removing an amount which was promised -- if at the same time you are not going to include a great many of those people under the terms of this bill, they are doubly discriminated against. Not only have they lost the undertakings made to them during the course of the campaign and in the Throne Speech when the date was designated -- Apr. 1, 1975, which you have completely discarded -- but you are not going to give them the protection of the rent bill, so that the poppycock spoken by the Treasurer this afternoon about this rent bill helping many of these people would never apply if we passed it without this amendment.

I say to the Minister of Housing, my colleague from St. George is right, an extraordinary number of senior citizens would be harmed if this amendment is not passed. You have already done them enough damage today. I urge you to at least allow them the protection of removing this particular exemption so that there will be some equity salvaged from the announcement which was made earlier. Therefore I think this amendment is a salutary one and you should accept it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t understand how you can possibly look to housing that is now being subsidized, and considerably subsidized by the taxpayers of this province, and say that you want to then control the rents as well; or even to review the rents with a possibility of allowing the increases that the bill itself would allow.

Mr. Deans: It is not being subsidized.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What you have to understand is what do you do --

Mr. Deans: A lot of it isn’t being subsidized.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Would you put a plug in that fellow for a moment!

Mr. Yakabuski: Yes.

Mr. Deans: You haven’t been in the ministry long enough to understand that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What you have to understand is, what you are going to do --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What you are going to do if Ontario Housing Corp. was to even follow the terms that are permitted within the bill --

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and that is to take the costs of operating --

Mr. Nixon: That would be unconscionable on your part, if you allow them to do it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and go to the rent review officer; we could end up by getting larger increases.

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You could end up with larger increases than permitted under the rent-geared-to-income.

Mr. Deans: Nonsense; we’ll run the risk.

Mr. Nixon: It would be unconscionable on your part to do that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look at some of the figures that are involved.

Mr. Singer: You’ll probably take the applications yourself.

An hon. member: You don’t have any consciences over there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let’s take family housing as an example. Outside of Metro --

Mr. Singer: It would present an interesting picture if you appear there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, obviously the hon. member for Wilson Heights is not interested. He has had his speech; he has spoken to his constituents, and now it is in Hansard and he will send out copies. He doesn’t want to hear any more on that.

Mr. Singer: Oh you are attributing motives; I resent that bitterly. He is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Grossman: Even if it is true?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well your acting leader for this evening did the same thing earlier to me, so I am even now.

Mr. Singer: He is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Outside of Metro we are subsidizing family housing by $1,813 a year.

Mr. Warner: The minister is provocative.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you an acting Tory over there or what?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is $1,813 a year outside of Metro. Inside Metro we subsidized family housing --

Mr. Singer: Get one of those coats the Premier was giving out Friday. Take one and wrap yourself in it.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Wilson Heights come to order?

Mr. Singer: He was insulting me, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Inside Metro we paid $2,328 a year in subsidy on each family housing unit.

Mr. Lewis: So?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: An average of $200 a month.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s cost pass-through.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s subsidy. If the people had to pay the amounts of money that would be charged out of OHC housing, in normal housing, and were subject to the controls that are in this bill and the review that is in this bill --

Mr. Lewis: That’s silly.

Mr. Deans: Nonsense -- absolute nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- it would be a greater amount of rent. It is not silly.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor. Everybody else will be given an opportunity.

Mr. Good: If you did it by rent subsidies it would cost you half that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What do we do with the increases that would come along if you control it and hold it at an eight per cent increase, or six per cent, or whatever is decided upon? If it is held at the eight per cent, you will have people whose incomes could be doubled by their good fortune -- and I wish them well -- who would end up getting only an eight per cent increase on perhaps $50 or $60 a month in rent they are paying; and in the unit next door, someone who started in at a higher income would be paying a higher rent than 25 per cent of their income and that would be increased by eight per cent. There is no justification for it.

[9:00]

Mr. Lewis: That already happens so it is nothing new.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The higher income would be paying the lesser rent.

Mr. Deans: That happens now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It doesn’t make any sense.

Mr. Lewis: Have you dealt much with tenants?

Mr. Warner: Tenants can save money, isn’t that charming?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The single senior citizen, for example, under GAINS receives $255 monthly --

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and the OHC monthly rent is $51. Fifty-one dollars is the rent.

Mr. Singer: How lucky they are, so let’s take some more away from them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The senior citizen couple that is getting GAINS, receiving $511.98, is paying a monthly rent of $103. I don’t think those rents are out of line by any stretch of the imagination. They are amply subsidized.

Mr. Deans: What has that got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What is there to be gained by putting them under this form of review, or control, call it what you will? I don’t understand what you are doing.

Mr. Lewis: Because you’ve increased them excessively.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are not increased excessively. It’s based upon 25 per cent of income, and in a senior citizen’s case, many times it is 20 per cent of income.

Mrs. Campbell: Of gross income.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Twenty per cent of gross income, that’s right. The average rent that is being paid outside of Ontario Housing in the regular market is 31 per cent of income, so the 25 per cent is not exorbitant. It’s in line.

Mr. Warner: It is on gross income.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thirty-one per cent, yes.

Mr. Singer: It certainly snakes a great deal of sense to people who cannot afford it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The average percentage of income that is paid out for rent in the private sector is 31 per cent. That is the average that is paid out.

Mr. Good: That doesn’t make it right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: These are figures that have been made available to me, if you want to go into it.

Mr. Lewis: Where did that come from?

Mr. Cassidy: The developer says 13.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Can I now point out to you one other fact of life? There is one other fact of life and that is, what do we do --

Mr. Lewi: Excuse me. Let me ask you a question, where did the figure of 31 per cent come from? It has never been used before.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It came from my ministry.

Mr. Deans: How did they arrive at it?

Mr. Lewis: It is a fascinating figure.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will send you the information and let you browse through it.

The other fact of life is the agreement we have with Central Mortgage and Housing.

Mr. Good: We figured you’d bring that in. It’s time you made new agreements.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s a fact. It’s an agreement that we have here, and let me just read you a couple of the sections.

Mr. Singer: Whose kissing cousins are they? Yours or ours?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One of the sections says, “The amount of rent to be charged -- ”

Mr. Singer: Now they sound like yours.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It says:

“The amount of rent to be charged to individuals or families in receipt of an allowance under provincial or municipal welfare regulations shall be the greater of the shelter rental component of such allowance or the rental required in accordance with Schedule A.”

That’s the point that the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) has been talking about for some time. There is a rental allowance which, according to our agreement with Central Mortgage and Housing we are required to take from the recipient and pay in the form of rent. The agreement goes on:

“The Ontario corporation shall take steps to verify the income of the individual or family from time to time, but not less frequently than once every 12 months, in such manner as the Ontario corporation may decide, and shall take such other action at such times as the corporation may reasonably be required to verify such individual or family income.”

Once a year. If the person’s income goes up in that year, the rent does not vary. If the person’s income goes down in that year, the rent is adjusted downward the next month. You know full well that that does not occur if you do away with this sort of system. If the rent was established on a yearly lease, it would stay on a yearly lease.

Mr. Lewis: That’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But we do judge, and we take the rents down if the income goes down, and I think properly so. The agreement says: “The Ontario corporation shall fix the monthly rental of an individual or family for the term of one year, except where a reduction in income occurs.” That’s exactly what we are doing. We are allowing the people to have a reduction if they have a reduction coming.

Mr. Deans: No, it doesn’t work that way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Under the terms of this bill, if you want to incorporate it into that, I think you are doing a disservice to the people who live in Ontario Housing Corp. units.

Mr. Lewis: Only if the load on the government were found.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are doing them a disservice on this. There is no question about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think I am wasting my time discussing it. Obviously the opposition have decided they are going to band together to push it through.

Mr. Lewis: If you act in good faith, it will work.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You may very well rue the day that you have done this --

Mr. Bullbrook: How are you going to get it back up?

Mr. Singer: You build more houses and you have more rentals, that’s how you get it back up.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- when we have to renegotiate our agreements with Central Mortgage and Housing, who already are looking at these agreements with a view to increasing the percentage as it is now.

Mr. Lewis: You are not going to intimidate us with that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not trying to intimidate you.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, you are no doubt familiar with a very distinguished and honorable gentleman known as Charlie MacNaughton whose claim to fame was no doubt the credit that was given to him for the purchase of the phased-out air base at Huron Park --

Mr. Johnston: What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Riddell: Just hold your horses. It was turned into an industrial --

Mr. Nixon: What’s that guy’s name?

An hon. member: Is that the member for St. Catharines there?

Mr. Johnston: You know who it is.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: That’s the famous Bob Johnston?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

An hon. member: Got your seatbelt on?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Riddell: It was turned into an industrial park known as Huron Park. Now this park is owned by the Ontario Development Corp. and it rents the houses to those who wish to rent them, and that’s including school teachers. We would have to assume from that that it’s not rent-geared-to-income, because as I look over the NDP here and its 16 or 17 prosperous-looking school teachers -- and thank God they’re here rather than in the classroom --

Mr. Lewis: No, 19.

Mr. Warner: It takes 19 of us to educate you.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Keep it up, Jack.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What about the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney)?

Mr. Nixon: He’s not a teacher, he’s an administrator.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He used to give us a lot of advice.

Mr. Riddell: The point I’m trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that this is housing that is owned and operated by the Ontario Development Corp. which is an arm of government. If this section stays as it is that means that rents will not be controlled, which means that the government can simply ask for any rent increase it so desires and it will not come under a review by the rent review officer or the board. I would like to know what the minister’s response is in this particular situation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Which particular situation?

Mr. Nixon: Go over it again, Jack.

Mr. Singer: Tell him again, Jack. Maybe he’ll listen the second time out. Start from the beginning.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: Briefly, we have a rather unique situation in Huron county, in that there is a park known as the Huron Industrial Park --

Mr. Nixon: Charlie MacNaughton Memorial Park.

Mr. Riddell: -- which is owned by the Ontario government, a tribute to the hon. Charles MacNaughton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wouldn’t want us to sell it. Are you saying we should get rid of it?

Mr. Riddell: The houses in that park are owned by the Ontario Development Corp. and if this section stays as it now reads that means that the Ontario Development Corp. can charge whatever rent they want for those houses. Those houses are not houses geared-to-income or anything else; as I have indicated, there are school teachers living out there. Why shouldn’t these houses be brought under the control of the rent review board?

Mr. Good: They can’t afford it.

Mr. Nixon: We want to help those teachers.

Mr. Riddell: And so with this in mind I would heartily endorse the amendment deleting this particular section.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I’m sure the hon. member might agree with me that perhaps they should be rent-geared-to-income according to some of the teachers I’ve been listening to of late.

Mr. Nixon: Very hard up.

Mrs. Campbell: Like $150 a week.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The question you’re referring to -- that it is owned by the Ontario Development Corp -- I don’t think is necessarily in this particular part of the amendment. We’re talking now about the exemption of Ontario Housing Corp. subsidized units.

Mr. Nixon: No. “Owned or operated by the government of Ontario, or by an agency.” Isn’t ODC one of your agencies?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That lumps it all together. If this passes I guess they’re going to be controlled.

I would draw to the hon. member’s attention though that one of the great supporters of the Liberal Party in the last election was the Toronto Star. There was a delightful editorial in the Nov. 22 issue.

Mr. Eakins: Stick to the subject, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It said:

“ -- and Liberal leader Robert Nixon has unthinkingly gone along with the notion, indicating he will propose the necessary amendments to the bill during the Legislature’s current committee debate which has, of course, the removal of OHC.”

But now that he has abdicated his leadership to the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) I suppose it’s all right. He can unthinkingly do that.

Mr. Nixon: Let’s have a vote and we’ll decide about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hope you’re going to defend the teachers when you get up.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’m interested in what the Minister of Housing said about the problems it will create with CMHC. As I understand it, if the Ontario Housing projects are made subject to this bill, then the procedure for the review of the rent contemplated by the bill will take place. How does that connect with the problem which the government may have in adjusting the rent-geared-to-income scale to fit one of the projects where there has been an increase in rent to cover the costs?

Secondly, does it not make sense that the Ontario Housing projects be subject to some control with respect to the increase in rentals due to increases in costs? What bothers me is, although I know the arguments pro and con on this question, I want to know from the minister what problems it creates for him in relation to CMHC or in relation to adjusting the rent-geared-to-income scale applicable to Ontario Housing Corp. projects where rents are increased to the extent permitted by the bill because of increased costs.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think that if you allow the pass-through costs as they are going to be experienced the increases for Ontario Housing tenants would be much higher. They will be, if you allow those pass-through costs to go onto the rent per unit.

Mr. Renwick: Can’t you adjust the scales?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The scales would have to be adjusted. To do that, you would have to have a new agreement with Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Mr. Lewis: All right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is another point which I think is very valid. That is, the purpose of having subsidized housing in the Province of Ontario, I have always been led to believe and do believe, is to provide housing for those persons who find themselves in an income situation in which they cannot afford the market rents being charged for other accommodation. If you go along with this control or review sort of thing and keep these rents unrealistically low -- which they are now, because of the subsidy; but you are doing it for a purpose -- you prolong the residency there. A person would be foolish to leave if the rents are going to remain low, increasing only by eight per cent per annum based upon the low rent, regardless of what the income is.

Mr. Singer: If you have taken all their money, they can’t leave.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s my feeling that when the rent gets up to a point it is better for the person or it’s good for the person to move out of Ontario Housing --

Mr. Singer: Where do they move to?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- into other forms of housing. They should so do and make room for those who need this sort of housing.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us where they go.

Mr. Deans: You don’t understand. Where do you go when you have five children?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Your own colleagues have said during the debate on this bill that in their own municipalities -- certainly I have heard it from this side -- there is an ample shortage of rental accommodation.

Mr. Singer: An ample shortage!

Mr. Warner: There sure is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is no shortage, I am sorry. There is an ample supply.

Mr. Singer: We agree there is an ample shortage.

Mr. Lewis: A Freudian slip.

Mr. Warner: A moment of truth.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You caught me on that one. The member from Kitchener --

Mr. Lewis: There is a little Viennese doctor who could do a lot with you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- stood in this House not too long ago and said there is no shortage of rental accommodation in his area.

Mr. Warner: You never listened to him before.

Mr. McClellan: You should know better than to listen to him.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He gave us the percentages of the vacancy rate in his area.

Mr. Deans: I wish you would go to some more authentic source.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for London North (Mr. Shore) said the same thing.

Mr. Singer: And Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Toronto is not the whole world.

Mr. Singer: They can have a place to live if this is not the whole world.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Toronto is not the whole world.

Mr. Warner: Is that a reliable source?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is the rest of the province to be considered. It is not the whole world here.

Mr. Singer: Where can they go if they haven’t got a place to live?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This Act applies across the province. There are people who can find a place to live. As I say, I hope we can wrap this up very shortly, so I won’t debate the issue with you. You have made your silly move; good enough.

Mr. Singer: You may change your mind.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Minister, I would like to speak to the point you just made. During the last few weeks I have been in the rather embarrassing situation of having a number of people tell me about what they consider exorbitant rents or exorbitant rent increases. In every single case they have been tenants in Ontario Housing. When they talk of exorbitant rent increases, they are talking of 47 cent. The problem in this particular case is these are families --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But 47 per cent of what?

Mr. Good: The rent.

Mr. Sweeney: Their increase was 47 per cent. All right let me put it in context, please.

Hon. W. Newman: Give us an example.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How many dollars?

Mr. Sweeney: Let me put it in context.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What is their income?

Mr. Sweeney: It went from $180 to $260. Let me put it in context, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In Kitchener?

Mrs. Campbell: That is of gross income.

[9:15]

Mr. Sweeney: What they are bearing is that there are landlords in certain parts of this province who are putting their rents up 25, 30 and 35 per cent. Then they call me and say: “If that is what you’re worried about, here’s an agency of the government that’s putting them up by these amounts.” Keep them in context. That’s one point.

The other point is that in these particular cases these are families with four, five or six children. The ministry, the provincial government and the federal government are definitely providing a service by simply making housing available to these people. You are not to be questioned on that. But when I speak to your own officials in Ontario Housing, they will readily admit, and they have probably told you the same thing, that in a number of these cases these families are paying more than what they would base to pay for similar accommodation on the private market if they could get it hot they can’t. I am not saying there is net rental accommodation available in the private market, but there is not rental accommodation for families that have four or five children: that’s the rub.

Mr. Riddell: Aye, that’s the rub.

Mr. Sweeney: You’ve got these families who are trying -- and by your definition as well -- to put together enough money so that they can get out of rental accommodation and into a home of their own. Yet every time they get an increase in pay so they can put some aside, another few dollars gets whacked onto them.

I don’t know whether this particular amendment can deal with it or not, but something that ye must somehow face is that there are family situations where they are paying too much money, more than what they would have to pay in private accommodation but there just isn’t any place else for them to go. They are on an endless cycle and they can’t break out of it because whenever they get some money to put ahead, it gets taken away from them. We’ve got to deal with that somehow.

Mr. Warner: He doesn’t care.

Mr. Lewis: We’ve been trying for years.

Mr. Cassidy: If we can take a vote I’ll pass the opportunity of making a comment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George said she was to speak to this.

Mrs. Campbell: I too am prepared to go for a vote.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved that clause (a) of section 12 of the bill be struck out.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Mr. Cassidy: Stacked please, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before we continue with the balance of Mr. Cassidy’s amendments, could we deal with section 11 as amended by Mr. McClellan? Does the committee wish to deal with that amendment at this time?

Mr. Cassidy: Could we keep on with this, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Nixon: The minister has some comments about section 11(2).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think I can deal with section 11(2) very quickly.

Mr. Good: Just on a point of order, in eluded in that first amendment was that clause (b) be struck out.

Mr. Cassidy: No.

Mr. Chairman: I think we’re going to deal with those subsequent to the decision on that amendment.

Mr. Good: All right. We would like to deal with that separately.

Mr. Chairman: That’s right. Did the minister wish to speak to Mr. McClellan’s amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I think we should accept Mr. McClellan’s amendment.

Mr. Lewis: Oh; we might be more conciliatory on subsequent clauses then.

Subsection 2 of section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does Mr. Cassidy want to speak to his amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: I revised it somewhat and I’ll send a copy of the revision up to the Chair. It is just a change in editing, no change in words.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (b) of section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(b) situate in a non-profit, housing project, rents for which are subject to the approval of the government of Ontario or of Canada, or situate in a non-profit cooperative housing project as defined in the National Housing Act.”

Mr. Cassidy: The wording I had given out to other members of the House, had two paragraphs, the two paragraphs have been put into one in order to fit into the structure of the bill. We’ve already had our debate about the question of public housing. I don’t think we need to have a debate about the need to bring limited dividend housing under rent control.

Given the degree of control over non-profit and co-operative housing; given the fact that in both cases, in the main, there is very substantial tenant involvement in the rent-setting right now; given the fact that both of them run with no cash cushion to speak of; and given the fact that -- well, those are the major things which lead us to make that amendment about non-profit and cooperative housing.

In the case of the city of Toronto and the Bain Ave. apartments, for example, the tenants are actively involved in actually preparing the budgets from which their rents are set. That’s the kind of procedure which we would hope would be emulated in the public and in the private sectors generally. That’s one of the reasons we’re sympathetic to the suggestion that non-profit housing have a special status.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, our first thoughts on this section were that all of section (b) should be struck out for these reasons.

Dealing first with limited dividend housing, while it is true that the rents are set by agreement between their owner of the unit and CMHC, practice has shown that in recent months and years the increases have been considerable. It would appear that in some cases the allowances made by CMHC for the landlord could be extensive.

The situation has arisen in my own area in which there is a good supply of one- and two-bedroom apartments and limited-dividend housing now commands a greater rent and a greater increase than comparable units in the open market. There is a good market in the Kitchener-Waterloo area for one- and two-bedroom apartments, in both walk-up and smaller units right up to high rise.

The limited-dividend apartments which have been rented for the past number of years and are now occupied have had their rents increased so that in many instances with the last increase which was put through, I believe in May this year, the rent for limited-dividends is higher than it is in regular units on the commercial market.

The non-profit housing units which originally would have been excluded from this bill, and which would still be excluded by the amendment, are not all that different from limited-dividends except that they are instituted by some group or organization which does a public service by getting the units built and then disappears somewhat from the scene after the unit is built. It is true the rents are set in conjunction with the federal government and the group or organization which sponsored the non-profit unit in the first place.

I would like to be assured by someone that those rents are set with tenant involvement. I must say I was not aware of that. I thought the rents were set by the sponsoring group and CMHC when the units were built. For that reason I feel there would be almost equally good reason for including limited-dividend units. Perhaps the minister himself could clarify that for us in this caucus before we vote on this issue; that is, just how the rents in the non-profit units are set -- whether there is, in fact, tenant participation in that or just the sponsoring body and CMHC?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: To the best of my knowledge, in the limited-dividend and the non-profit housing which the federal government is involved in very directly, there is tenant participation and the right to peruse books.

As to what the rentals are going to be, I know there has been some concern expressed about that At the hearing -- of course the hon. member was there -- that concern was expressed and there has been an assurance given to me by the federal minister; and he has, in fact, sent me a telegram just recently indicating that the information concerning limited-dividend rentals under the federal government programme would be made available to the tenants so that they would have an opportunity to discuss any rental increases with the federal government and CMHC at the time.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment very briefly; there does seem to us to be a clear distinction between the limited-dividend housing which is owned by developers and not publicly, and the non-profit housing which is owned publicly. That is why we have made the distinction in these particular amendments and we hoped they would be acceptable to the members of the Liberal Party as well. We do see a distinction.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think there is any question that there is a distinction. However, the limited-dividend is in essence controlled by the federal government as to how much rent can be charged. My understanding of the situation is that the tenants in limited-dividend housing are entitled to see the costs involved and to have an explanation as to why there would be any increase in their rents provided to them by the landlords of the particular facility.

I can only go by the assurances that have been given to me by Mr. Danson that this was going to be done in a more clear fashion for the tenants. I recognize that the gentleman who appeared at the hearing representing a group of limited-dividend tenants was not very happy with that, and didn’t feel that it had been done up until this time anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, it has not been done up until this time. Perhaps I can speak as a representative of an Ottawa riding; the problem with promises that are made by the federal government, even with the best of wills in the world, is that they tend to get fouled up because some mandarin in CMHC says, “No, we can’t do that;” and suddenly it doesn’t come out even if it has been promised. That’s why we would be much happier to have limited-dividend housing included under the bill; and if, in the fullness of time, CMHC pulls up its socks and brings tenants into its confidence, then that is a very good thing and that will continue after the government allows this bill to expire.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the minister a brief presented by Margaret Skinner, administrator of the landlord and tenant advisory bureau in the city of Windsor, and her concern on section 12, paragraph (a), (b), and (g). I am going to speak to paragraph (b) only. She said:

“Because of our experience in this bureau with limited-dividend projects we would ask that serious reconsideration be given to any proposed exclusion of this sector of the housing market from controls.

“As recently as four weeks ago this bureau was inundated with calls from a limited-dividend project of over 100 units. These tenants, on limited incomes, had just been advised that as of Dec. 1 new leases would be drawn up which would transfer the costs of all heating and utilities over to the tenant, and in return the tenant would receive a reduction in rent. All sounds well until one realizes that the rent reduction was a mere $6 as compared with $35 or $40 the tenant was asked to assume in heating and utilities.

“We can appreciate that a decision on such a matter by a rent review officer would be a duplication of controls, but surely such a situation should be open to an appeal by the tenants. This is not an isolated situation. A disproportionately large number of these calls we receive are from that particular area of the housing market. It is our belief that not should the tenants be allowed the right of appeal, but that residential premises owned and operated by the governments of Canada and Ontario and their agencies be bound by the same increase limitations that are proposed for the private sector. This is not unreasonable when one realizes that approximately 65 to 75 per cent of all rental units in the city would be exempt by virtue of these proposed exclusions.”

I bring this to the attention of the minister to show him how seriously this could affect limited-dividend housing in my nm community.

[9:30]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have some clarification on the non-profit co-operative housing. I don’t understand why we would want to have that under this bill. The non-profit co-operatives are ownership units.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that non-profit co-operative housing does not come under this bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It does not come under it? All right. My understanding was that you wanted that in as well.

Mr. Good: No, just limited-dividend housing.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this amendment be stacked?

Mr. Cassidy: Stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, with this last vote, I don’t know if I can even propose the amendment I had.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister about clause (c). I have a press release here which is dated Nov. 21:

“Housing Minister John Rhodes said today that his proposed amendment to Bill 20, mentioned in the Legislature Thursday, extends the types of units covered by the proposed legislation but won’t include luxury apartments, public housing or rooming houses.

“The minister said the amendment will delete the exemption of buildings containing four units or less and will, in effect, extend rent review to all types of buildings down to and including rented single- detached units.”

Then it talks about the minister’s doubts about luxury apartments, rooming houses and public housing.

I’m not sure where that amendment is; I’ve been looking in vain through my own material for it.

Mr. Good: Is the minister preparing to make an amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: I gather that the minister is in a quandary or schizophrenic within himself, or the government is schizophrenic about bringing this amendment in.

An hon. member: Where is the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t try to intimidate me, to quote your leader.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m just trying to analyse you, that’s all.

Mr. Lewis: Do you have an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I do.

Mr. Cassidy: You do? Why don’t you move it then?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you sat down and shut up I would.

Mr. Cassidy: All right, fine.

Some hon. members: Shame, shame.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.

Mr. Cassidy: You are testy, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I’m not testy, but you’re giving me a lecture for something I haven’t had a chance to get into.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the hon. minister move his amendment, please?

Mr. Lewis: He accused you of schizophrenia and, judging by your behaviour, he’s probably accurate.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that clause (c) of section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(c) Situate in a residential building that contains three or fewer residential premises where the owner of the building himself occupies one of such residential premises.”

Mr. Shore: Down to three, are you?

Mr. Lewis: Boy oh boy, you certainly do shift your ground constantly, don’t you? Do you think the world is going to pay any attention to you?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McClellan: It’s a disgrace.

Mr. Warner: It’s as firm as quicksand.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Be quiet or I’ll spank you.

Mr. Warner: You still didn’t answer my question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we can’t accept that amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Neither can we, Mr. Chairman. It’s a disgrace.

Mr. Good: We thought we had a commitment from you; in committee or somewhere the word got around that you were going to --

Mr. Cassidy: It sure did; it’s right here.

Mr. Good: Yes, in the press release.

Mr. Cassidy: Your press releases aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

Mr. Good: The press release said you were going to make this rent review procedure applicable --

Mr. Lewis: To everyone.

Mr. Good: -- to all rental units, including single-family homes -- and there are a lot of single-family homes on the rental market today that should be included under this.

Mr. Riddell: Who changed the minister’s mind?

Mr. Good: We don’t see why you would have indicated at an earlier time that you would reduce the number of units so that even one single-family home would be covered; and now you bring in an amendment which says three or fewer and the owner has to be living on the premises.

Many municipalities, including my own, have a great number of small units. Only 23 per cent of the people in the Twin Cities live in high-rises; 23 per cent of the apartment units are high-rises. Most of them are in small units. I think a rent review procedure -- mind you, this is a rent review procedure -- should be applicable to all rental units in the province and not just those above a certain size. I am sure we can appeal to the minister’s good sense to simply delete from his amendment all the words after “struck out” and not include his proviso. Then the bill would include all rental units, including duplexes and triplexes and single-family units.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. Warner: Slowly it dawns.

Mr. Good: Now we understood this was being accepted by the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I hope he will realize the error he has made and have it corrected. It’s just a typographical error.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have asked my acting leader for the evening, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), to allow me to speak to this and he has said, “That’s fine.”

I want to raise something else with the minister. I want to raise with the minister the propriety of shifting his ground in this fashion, one week after another, when he has made it clear and the media have made it clear to the Province of Ontario that he accepted the arguments which were put. Indeed, when my colleague from Ottawa Centre was making the points to you on second reading, and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) was making the points to you on second reading, you interjected that an amendment was forthcoming.

You can haul out Hansard all you wish. The fact of the matter is that it signalled to the world -- and you never denied it; there was one news story after another written and talked of right across the province -- that all rental accommodation would be brought into this bill except perhaps for roomers, who were dealt with earlier. At no time did the Premier, (Mr. Davis) the minister or anyone deny the spate of news stories right across Ontario that that was your intention. Now you come in at this point in time with an absolute repudiation of the public conventional wisdom right across Ontario.

You have changed your ground more often on this bill than a chameleon changes spots, let me tell you; and it does the Tories no credit. This particular amendment is the worst hour of all. I really urge you to withdraw it. You can’t make the kinds of public commitments you’ve been making; you can’t allow the public to draw the conclusions it has drawn throughout the discussion of this bill: and then at 9:40 on a Monday night, come in with a shift from four units to three units, when all across Ontario the assumption was that all rental accommodation would be covered. Never in a statement before the orders of the day, never in a response to a question at question period, at no time did you suggest it would be otherwise.

When the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Morrow), I want to remind you, stood on the floor of this Legislature and spoke in a way which frankly embarrassed the former minister --

Mr. Samis: That’s right.

Mr. Warner: Right on.

Mr. Lewis: -- and said that it should cover all units, you smiled. You didn’t disagree with him. You didn’t interrupt him. You followed him. You didn’t repudiate him. And now you bring in an amendment? What kind of uncivilized chaos is this in dealing with an important bill?

I am pleased to join with the Liberal Party in this instance in defeating this amendment, and I agree with the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good): Either you strike all the words or you simply strike out clause (c). It wouldn’t break faith with anyone. It simply wouldn’t be fair now to go back on an understanding shared by several hundred thousand people in the province. If you want to come in one year from now and say it’s not working, and give your arguments and try to persuade us, that’s fair enough. But you surely can’t renege on what amounts to a public understanding of what the government intends to do -- a commitment virtually expressed in your press release, expressed by your back-benchers. It’s idiotic. I appeal to you to withdraw the amendment and to reconsider your own decision.

Mr. Warner: The minister will withdraw.

Mr. Shore: There is no doubt in my mind -- and it is somewhat disappointing -- that if anything was very clear in the last 10 days it was that the minister’s observation meant that he was going to withdraw this. There is no question that a vote will clearly take it out, but I think it would be proper and right if the minister withdrew it so it would be a unanimous withdrawal, because that was the commitment made. I am not worried about how the newspapers had it, but I heard what was stated in this House and I think it would be wrong to deal with it otherwise.

Mr. Warner: This is a commitment.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to get this on the record.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that all the words of the minister’s amendment to section 12(c) after “struck out” be deleted.

Mr. Cassidy: The quote from the minister’s amendment may be significant enough. That simply has the effect of making the minister’s amendment say that clause (c) of section 12 of the bill be struck out. That is the amendment that I would have moved.

Maybe the minister can explain why he was so reticent, why he was such a shrinking violet about this particular amendment. Did he hope that we would take him off the hook by moving our own amendment?

Mr. McClellan: Of course he did.

Mr. Cassidy: Where was the amendment then? Why didn’t we see a copy of it until we asked for it? Why did the minister’s officials shuffle and shamble a bit when asked if they had a copy of it? They weren’t sure themselves whether the minister intended to do it. Maybe they were embarrassed by what the minister was about to do.

Mr. Lewis: Let’s forget the episode.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. At any rate, that is the amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is clear as far as this party is concerned that we want rent control to apply to every building on a street and not to have one triplex covered and the other triplex next door not covered. That would be unfair. The way the bill is drawn up it is if anything more than fair to landlords and certainly no landlord who is fair to his tenants is going to suffer under this particular bill. That’s why we don’t see why the minister’s amendment is necessary.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I had best attempt to clarify some points that have been made. I think if the hon. members will go back to Hansard and look at what was said on that particular debate on the second reading, at that time I did indicate that there might be an amendment coming to that section when it was being discussed in some detail.

Mr. McClellan: Do you read your own press releases?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Later on in the debate on second reading I did, in fact, say that I had considered the fourplexes -- looked at the situation as to the number of people who were living in fourplexes and less, and felt that there should be an amendment below those numbers for those units.

The only reference that was made to single unit -- I suggest to you that you look in Hansard again, with the greatest of respect -- was by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) who yelled an interjection across the floor, “Are you talking about single units as well?” That is the only reference that is made. If you check Hansard, and I have done very thoroughly --

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

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Quote -- this is the minister’s press release on Nov. 21: “The minister said the amendment will delete the exemption of buildings containing four units or less and will, in effect, extend rent review to all types of buildings down to and including rented single detached units.”

Mr. Lewis: Now, how can you misinterpret that? You have 20 PR people in the Ontario Ministry of Housing.

Mr. Warner: And Andy StuParick.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would like to draw to the hon. members’ attention that single units still are in fact covered under this, even with the amendment I have proposed.

Interjections.

An hon. member: They are not owner-occupied.

Mr. Cassidy: You didn’t say you were skipping.

Mr. Lewis: You didn’t say you were moving from four to one.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All I have said in the amendment is that triplexes in which one of the units is owner-occupied would not be covered.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: That is not what you said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s what the amendment says; read it. Anyway, vote on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: In Riverdale riding there is a substantial number of semi-detached homes -- not what is commonly known as duplexes or quadraplexes or triplexes -- just semi-detached homes of the traditional kind. As I take it, if the owner occupies one half of the residential building comprising two semidetached units the other half is decontrolled.

I certainly breathed a sigh of relief when I read the minister’s press release. I am very much concerned because I suppose you can go up and down the streets of Riverdale and a substantial part of the city of Toronto and you can find that the traditional homes are semi-detached. What you are saying, for practical purposes, is if one person owns one of those homes and lives in one half of it, the other half is decontrolled. That means that an immense number of people in Riverdale riding, in particular, and throughout Toronto are not subject to rent control.

[9:45]

Mr. Lewis: Withdraw the amendment. Be elegant.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: I would just like to tell the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that in my riding almost 50 per cent are renters and you are cutting out half of those people from this bill.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Ms. Bryden: Because most of them are in small units.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I really think it’s not worthy of debate any longer. I think if the minister truly believed in what he said, he would withdraw this graciously and give credibility to the continuance of this debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Warner: Give him a chance to withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Lewis: Let it be withdrawn before the question. Why do we have to divide on this?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved an amendment to the amendment, that all the words of the minister’s amendment for 12(c) after “struck out” be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Withdraw gracefully.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Warner: Shame. Absolute shame.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this amendment to the amendment be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Lewis: Thank God, you are going to lose this one.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: It is not so much the amendment it is the breaking of faith with the commitment you have made.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Cassidy, did you wish to speak to subsection (d)?

Mr. Cassidy: I remember from 1971 the Premier (Mr. Davis) saying that we made promises and he made commitments. It is an interesting reflection. We will just see, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lewis: At least we break our promises in private.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (d) of section 12 of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Cassidy: This is the amendment concerning luxury housing. We don’t believe that an exemption should be there, Mr. Chairman, for two reasons. First, in certain cases where people are sharing, it may be people in quite modest incomes who occupy housing with a rental of $500 a month or more. Secondly, if you leave luxury housing out, there is an incentive both to build luxury housing at the expense of more modest-priced housing and also to convert housing into luxury housing which will henceforth be exempt -- and we don’t think that should be encouraged under the bill.

Once again, the landlord of a luxury housing unit or an expensive housing unit, who is being fair to his tenants, shouldn’t have to suffer. In fact, the eight per cent that is allowed on luxury housing, which amounts to say $40 per month --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Are you really concerned about him?

Mr. Cassidy: For consistency, yes. There should not be the same problems, because the price of fuel for a luxury housing unit doesn’t go up as fast as the rent. The square footage is probably no more than the square footage on a family apartment, even though the rent is double. Therefore, the cost of heating is not double -- even though the rent is double -- and therefore some of the major increases in costs don’t apply. I would move that motion. The arguments have been made during the course of second reading and don’t need to be repeated.

Mr. Good: This was among our amendments too, Mr. Chairman. There may be an argument that luxury apartments shouldn’t be controlled. Some people are probably only spending 10 per cent of their income living in a $1,000 a month apartment. But the amendment is too broad. It would include many houses over $500 a month in rental that are accommodating several families. There is no reason why there should not be rent review procedures in those particular cases where families are doubling up, living in single-family homes being rented for a figure over $500 a month.

At first we thought perhaps this could be just back-dated -- put the $500 back to the beginning of the bill. In this regard we felt a very good case was made by many of the tenants who appeared before the committee stating that they had knowledge of a great many homes that were shared by different people. We have this case in my own community where a group of students will rent a house and among them they will have to make up the rent, which could exceed $500 per month. For that type of building not to be under the bill, we think would be unfair.

We had suggested the same amendment, so naturally we will be supporting this amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my humble opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: At least we are supporting the little man.

Mr. Cassidy: This is going slowly but we are making progress.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (e) of section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(b) Situate in a hotel or motel and rented for a seasonal or temporary period not exceeding four months, the rent for which exceeds the equivalent of $200 per month, and

“(c) In a vacation home and rented for a seasonal or temporary period not exceeding four months.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: It wouldn’t surprise me if the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk voted for it.

Mr. Nixon: If the Premier does it will become law.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, basically this is the same as the exemption which is contained in subsection (e) right now. The one point that has been added is the phrase “the rent for which exceeds the equivalent of $200 per month.” The intent of the amendment is to cover the kind of grey area where hotels lodge people on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. This was, I believe, also done in the BC rent control legislation.

South of this area in Toronto there are a number of hotels that provide rooming-house accommodation where it’s difficult to tell which is which. We suggest that if people are not paying the equivalent of more than $200 per month then let it be treated as coming under rent control, because basically it is a semi-permanent or permanent type of accommodation and not a temporary or overnight situation.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: You win a few, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Mr. Cassidy: We won’t even stack that, we’ll just let it go. Oh, come on, let’s stack it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair declared it lost.

Mr. Cassidy: Really? Well, okay.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair declared it lost before the House was divided.

Any further comments, amendments or criticisms on any other section or subsection?

Mr. Cassidy: Subsection (f), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Good: Excuse me, do I understand there will or will not be a vote on that amendment?

Mr. Chairman: There will not be a vote. They indicated that they would divide the House after the Chair ruled.

Mr. Lewis: You’re quite right. You stick to that.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (f) of section 12 of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t propose to speak at length about this. This is the section which covers new buildings and we had intended to propose a fair rent policy for new buildings. However, in discussions, it became clear that other parties were not prepared to support that and since the amendment was lengthy and we were hoping to finish the bill by tonight

Mr. Nixon: Everybody else is against a fair rent policy.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. As a matter of fact, there was some opposition to a fair rent policy. If you provoke me I might even read our proposal into the record.

Mr. Singer: Go ahead; you are going to do it anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I am not, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Nixon: It’s called negative provocation; it works every time.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is speaking.

Mr. Singer: See that he is not provoked; go ahead.

Mr. Cassidy: What we proposed was that when a new building came on stream the owner would apply to the rent review officer for a fair rent determination which would ensure a reasonable return on equity. The rents on the units, if they had to be cut below that level because of marketing considerations or the need to fill up the budding quickly, would be allowed to move around and not be subject to rent control until they came up to the fair rent level. We thought that was a better system than the system proposed here.

I recall from the hearings a number of developers and landlords who came before us and said, “We are afraid that come six months or a year or two years, you are going to slap rent control on our new buildings. We don’t believe in the complete exemption you are proposing.”

I would also point out that it has now been proposed in the amendments to subsection 3 that unoccupied units coming on to the market for the first time -- for example, in a building which was completed a few months ago -- will have rent control applied to them after the first rent determination. That’s a pretty tough system, too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There seems to be a lot of noise in the chamber. Could we give courtesy to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Nixon: We were wondering whether he was provoked or not.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I am not, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Singer: We thought this was your provoked speech.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: If it is good enough for a building built six months ago to say you can have only one free rent determination and after that you come under rent control, we question a system which says there will be no rent control at all on new buildings which come on stream after the beginning of the year.

I have tried briefly to outline what our alternative would be. It is a fair rent policy. We think it is fair to the developers and fair to the tenants who will occupy their units. I hope very much that the government would indicate its acceptance by agreeing with the amendment which is to delete subsection (f). If subsection (f) is deleted I will be happy to move the fair rent proposal that we suggest as an alternative.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall this amendment be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Singer: Provoked or not provoked?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: This is an amendment which I hope my friends in the Liberal Party can accept.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (g) of section 12 of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to comment very briefly. We have gone through section 12 in great detail. If I can recall to the House, we have applied rent control to government-owned housing, public housing, limited-dividend housing, small rental units of four units or less and luxury housing so we have made some very substantial changes. Everything that has been clone to this section could be undone by regulation if clause (g) is allowed to stay in the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Everything that has been done to the section could be undone by the government by its power of regulation as contained in subsection (g). We believe that if there is a class or classes of accommodation which ought to be exempt, the government should come back for legislative authority. It can do so in April and we don’t think that’s too long to wait. I hope the amendment receives the support of the House.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any further amendments to any section and if so, which section?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

[10:00]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 12 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) This Act does not apply to tenancy agreements for residential premises in respect of which the government of Ontario or any agency thereof is providing financial assistance for the benefit of the tenant occupying the premises by way of assistance in the payment of rent to the landlord under clause (f) of subsection 1 of section 2 of the Housing Development Act, but this Act does apply to the amount of rent which may be charged by the landlord for such residential premises.”

Mr. Good: I checked out the reference there to the Housing Development Act and perhaps the minister would clarify it. As I understand it, what you’re saying is when OHC enters into a rent subsidy agreement with an apartment owner in the private sector, the rent charged by the owner to OHC comes under the bill but the rent charged by OHC to the tenant doesn’t come under the bill. That’s really what you’re trying to say here, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t think that’s quite correct. What we’re trying to do is avoid having that portion which we are subsidizing, the total, coming under control of the bill. The total rent for the apartment would be under the control. That portion which we are subsidizing would not be.

Mr. Good: In effect, this would make OHC use more rent supplements in apartments in the private sector, which it probably would because the cost is considerably lower than when you do it yourself.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is altogether too much noise in the committee. Would the hon. member continue?

Mr. Good: Now that your rents under OHC do come under the provision of rent review, I don’t see why you need this amendment at all.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suggest we should have this particular section in the Act in order that we can continue to control rents that have been charged by the landlord to the tenant. OHC is subsidizing part of it, and in the case of the rent that attaches to that unit what we’re trying to do is maintain the control on that unit so that if an OHC resident moves out, the control will stay with the unit.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments to any other section of the bill?

Mr. McClellan: I have an amendment to section 15.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the sections up to section 15 be deemed to be carried?

Mr. Cassidy: On 14, I would just bring to the minister’s attention that the evidence before our committee was that about 95 per cent of landlords don’t post, and we’re very seriously concerned about that. We think the minister should ensure that posting of these things is carried out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Personally, I don’t know what happened. I thought I was listening to some amendment that the member for Bellwoods was giving and, all of a sudden, I was cut into a communication from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair would like to draw to the members of the committee’s attention the fact that --

Mr. Cassidy: I think I was out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I wished to ascertain whether there was any amendment or comments prior to section 15, and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre rose to his feet.

Mr. Cassidy: I withdraw my comments.

Mr. Nixon: He withdraws. Go ahead.

Mr. Cassidy: Abjectly, I was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have an amendment on section 13.

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. minister speak up when the Chair is drawing it to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. minister would be most happy to speak up if he could hear one word you were saying.

Mr. Chairman: I have difficulty myself, sir. Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: They kicked them out of the Albany Club and there was no other place for them to go but here.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, could we return to the minister’s amendment?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that clause (d) of section 13 be amended by adding at the end thereof: and prescribing matters that shall not be taken into account by the rent review officer in considering questions arising before him on an application.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In its very simplest terms, what we are hoping to do is to be able to prescribe matters that we, and I don’t think anybody else, would want the rent review officer to be involved in. Basically it would prescribe those matters which he will deal with and also matters we do not want him involved in.

To give you an example, if you start talking about whether or not the building is going to be occupied by children or not, you don’t want the rent review officer involved in that sort of thing. You don’t want him to be involved in the matter of setting what is a fair return on investment. We feel that these things should be prescribed in the regulations so there will be parameters to what he is dealing with. There’s a multitude in that.

Mr. Cassidy: He means that wasn’t to be taken into account.

Mr. Singer: Could I ask the minister why those can’t be delineated? Why do you need always to try to grab under regulatory power such great authority to the ministry? If you feel very strongly about this, and there may be a reason that you feel strongly, why can’t you try to write into the statute what you’re talking about? Why do you always come to us and say: “Give us broad regulatory powers to do things that we can’t really tell you about because either we’re not quite sure or we’re afraid to spell them out or we don’t know how to spell them cut”? Surely you can be specific and not ask for this abuse of the democratic process.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With the greatest respect, I don’t believe it’s an abuse of the process. I think the hon. member is well aware of the fact that it would be virtually impossible to prescribe all of those matters in detail in the bill.

Mr. Singer: It can be done.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You know full well, having dealt with the legal process for the multitude of years that you have, it is practically impossible to do. You can’t imagine every contingency. You are going to end up with some in regulations anyway, and you know that. You are playing a game with me.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. Rhodes’ amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: I have an amendment to section 13.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that we put Mr. Rhodes’ amendment?

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

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The “nays”? You need a hearing aid.

Mr. Chairman: Stack it?

Mr. Cassidy: Stack it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre on section 13.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would move that section 13(c) be deleted from the bill -- and I am sorry I haven’t got that one written out; but if I could make it verbally.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member write it out, please?

Mr. Cassidy: I will write it out, yes. If I could explain which I am writing, Mr. Chairman. This section 12(g) is the subsection referred to in 13(c), and the two amendments are consequential. We have deleted 12(g) and therefore we should delete 13(c).

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause (c) of section 13 be deleted from the bill.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this be stacked?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Your hearing is improving.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on any other section of Bill 20?

Mr. Cassidy: On 13, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, this is very hectic, and this is why it has been rather confusing at the very end. I just say to my friends in the Liberal Party that I trust that on that previous amendment they will actually support us because --

Mr. Singer: Why don’t you wait and see? Mr. Cassidy: Okay, that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They are not that silly -- they won’t support it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that section 13 be renumbered as subsection 1 of section 13 and that the following be added thereto:

“(2) No agreement between a landlord and a tenant, under subsection 5 of section 3, shall have any effect except an agreement in the form specified in schedule 1 of this Act.”

Mr. Cassidy: I will read the schedule Mr. Chairman. I might say I give credit to Hugh Mackenzie of the NDP research for devising it.

“Form of agreement under section 3(5) schedule 1:

“This is to certify that ‘A’, as landlord, and ‘B’ as tenant, have reached an agreement that the rental rate for the residential premises located at [the address] shall be $ -- -- -- per -- -- during the period -- -- to Dec. 31, 1975, and that $ -- -- -- is to be rebated to the tenant for excess rent paid during that period.

“In the absence of this agreement, the rental rate for the residential premises cannot by law be more than eight per cent above the level charged in the last rental period, prior to July 29, 1975.

“The rental rate applicable to these premises as of July 29, 1975, was and $ -- -- -- is the maximum that can be legally charged without reference to the rent review officer, except as provided in this agreement.

“By signing this agreement, the tenant waives the right to appeal increased rents in 1975, and to collect a rebate of rent provided for in this agreement that is more than eight per cent above the July 29, 1975, level and excuses the landlord from the requirement that he apply for an increase greater than eight per cent.

“This agreement does not apply to the rental rate for any period after Dec. 31, 1975. It therefore does not excuse the landlord from the requirements that he apply to the rent review officer for increases in 1976 rents to more than eight per cent above the rate in the last rental period prior to July 29, 1975, nor does it constitute a waiver of the tenant’s right to appeal any increase in 1976. The tenant may revoke this agreement at any time within 30 days of the date of signing. Dated this [space for the date] of the [month] 1975. Signed [both the landlord and by the tenant.]”

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could move that. I think we could dispense with the reading of the schedule.

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman: You’ve heard the reading of the schedule. Shall the reading by the Chair he dispensed with?

Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: Very briefly, because were trying to finish this bill by 10:30, I would like to have a discussion with the minister about this. We disagreed with subsection 5 of section 3 which was introduced at the last minute by the minister on Thursday last. We thought it was a really bad amendment and that it really weakened the bill greatly.

It’s going to confuse tenants. In particular it’s going to confuse them because if they sign an agreement the agreement is good only until the end of the year and, thereafter, the landlord is going to have to apply for any rental increase beyond the eight per cent. Many tenants won’t know that and will assume that if they sign, the 12 or 15 per cent to which they agree in 1975 will continue through 1976. Since the government and the Liberal Party have rejected any mechanism of enforcement it means that tenants are liable not to know their rights and not to exercise their rights.

We are also concerned that, given the normal problems of getting regulations through cabinet and the Christmas season which is upon us, a regulation to establish a form of waiver which is provided for in section 3, subsection 5, would not be published and be made available to the public until sometime in the New Year. Even working at top speed we can’t see how it could get out until the week between Christmas and New Year.

I know there are landlords and representatives of landlords in the gallery -- I suppose there are representatives of tenants here, too -- if they are going to act on section 3, (5) in good faith and if tenants are to be informed of their rights it seems to us desirabl`e that the form which is used be a form which has been approved by this Legislature and that it be in a schedule so that it’s available at the time the Act is passed and is on its way to proclamation.

The draft was done this evening by Hugh Mackenzie of our research department. It could be stood down until just after question period tomorrow. If the ministry people like the idea but want to redraft it a bit we could possibly have some consultations before question period about it. I hope the minister is agreeable to the suggestion and I welcome his comments.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would have to say to the hon. member that the wording of the form is not, in our feeling, consistent with the Act. I would suggest that we do stand it down until after question period tomorrow.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay.

M. Chairman: Agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on any other section of the bill? Mr. McClellan had an amendment on section 15.

Mrs. Campbell: I have one on section 14.

On section 14:

Mrs. Campbell: I would just like to ask the minister if the end of section 14(1)(b)(i) should not read, “or.” Or is it the intention that each of these procedures should be taken?

Mr. Nixon: You need “or” between subclauses (i) and (ii).

Mrs. Campbell: In other words, if I may, are you intending that they both hand it personally -- or hand it to an adult person on the premises -- and post it at the same time? Is that what’s intended? In which case should it no read, “and,” so there wouldn’t be any ambiguity in the section?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t believe there is any ambiguity by not having the word “and” in there. In fact, it says you do both.

Mr. Nixon: You mean both subclauses (i) and (ii) or subclause (iii)?

Mrs. Campbell: You have to do hah (i) and (ii) or (iii).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You must do (i) and (ii) or (iii); right.

Mrs. Campbell: Okay.

Section 14 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything prior to section 15? If not, the hon. member for Bellwoods.

On section 15:

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have inadvertently given you the wrong copy of my amendment. I would be grateful if you would just tear it up. It makes no sense at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He might tear up the right amendment.

Mr. McClellan: Well, you can do what you want with it. I have only one copy, which I will give to the Clerk.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wouldn’t do what I want to. I haven’t read it, Stephen, so I shouldn’t say that.

Mr. Lewis: Reading it wouldn’t change your view.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that section 15 be amended by deleting “subsection 1 or 2 of section 4” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “subsections 1, 2, and 5 of section 4, section 9 and section 11” and by adding “for each contravention” after “exceeding $2,000” in the fourth line.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Where is everybody tonight? Sleeping?

An hon. member: It’s nice to have the Treasurer back.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, they must have locked the doors in the Albany Club early tonight.

Mr. McClellan: The purpose of the amendment is simply to provide penalties so that this legislation will be enforceable. It is remarkably similar to the Landlord and Tenant Act which was also brought in without penalties and was, therefore, unenforceable. The main additions that we have put in by the amendment are simply a penalty for failure to comply with the review officer’s order in section 9 and a penalty for failure to comply with the decision of the appeal board in section 11.

Mr. Riddell: Nice of you to drop in, Darcy.

Mr. Good: Could the minister indicate what additional sections he feels have to be included under section 15 to make the new amendments that were put in under section 3 and 4 operable?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No.

Mr. Good: If you don’t have a clue, could you ask your staff, because I’m sure there might have to be some adjustments to section 15 but I don’t have a clue what they should be either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t believe that we need any adjustment to the penalty clause. And if you don’t have a clue, that’s your problem, not mine.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stacked.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just puppets.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments or amendments to any section of Bill 20?

Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just puppets.

Mr. Lewis: Well, if you are looking for a marionette, he’s not bad.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further in the bill?

It is agreed then that we will stand section 13 down until after question period tomorrow?

Agreed.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: All carried with the exception of section 13.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that with the exception of section 13 that completes the consideration of this bill by committee and that we will in fact vote tomorrow in connection with all the amendments.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: If we are given the few minutes remaining, there are still a couple of items which we may be able to get through tonight.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On this bill?

Mr. Cassidy: On this bill, yes.

Mr. Chairman: I asked if there were any comments or any amendments to any other section of this bill and I heard no comment.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t hear anything.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Who is running the socialist party?

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am asking if it would be possible to move these last couple of amendments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We support the Chairman. We think he is very good.

Mr. Chairman: I clearly asked if there were any other amendments or any comments on any section of the bill and, with the exception of section 13 which we stood down, the Chair assumed that it was completed.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We support the Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I just don’t accept that.

Mrs. Campbell: Challenge his ruling.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh come on!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Challenge his ruling, go on.

Mr. Cassidy: Where has the Treasurer been all night? You haven’t been here for this bill? You come wandering in here late at night. There are a few people who have been working on this bill for three days. You weren’t here.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: You have no interest in it! You don’t give a damn about tenants!

Mr. Warner: You aren’t even a tenant.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. You are one of these landlords we hear about.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s his ruling.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Challenge his ruling -- go on.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I could have --

Mr. Singer: Unanimous consent, try that.

Mr. Reid: His leader says no.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Hold on.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre have a point he wishes to make?

Mr. Cassidy: A point of order, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: What is your point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that if you were not standing there with your gavel ready to strike, we would have moved a couple of amendments, one of which would have required --

Mrs. Campbell: What’s the point of order?

Mr. Nixon: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course it is -- one of which would have required the rent review board to report annually to this House; and the other one of which would have eliminated the 1977 termination date, which we feel is one of the most objectionable features of the bill.

Mr. Nixon: The Chairman is going to get it tomorrow.

Mr. Cassidy: However, given your ruling and given the spirit of the season, we will let the bill go at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Only through our generosity can you make this motion. We want you to know that.

An hon. member: Only through the leadership of this Chairman.

Mr. Good: I would just like to speak to the point of order of the member for Ottawa Centre and say to him that we were going to support the amendment which would have required the board to report annually to this Legislature. So, tomorrow, if the committee, by unanimous consent, wants to revert to that section --

Mr. Lewis: You could do it almost any time.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: How come the Treasurer doesn’t answer questions as well?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: A great Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate the order of business for tomorrow? I thought we might have an opportunity to do the second readings of Bills 41, 42 and, if printed, 48. We would then go into committee of the whole House and have the division with respect to the amendments which were proposed to complete this particular bill; that is, Bill 20. Then we would proceed with Bill 26 and with Bill 5, and it is my understanding that everyone, in the same spirit with which this bill has been completed, would hope we might complete Bills 26 and 5 by 10:30 tomorrow evening.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock p.m.