WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT ACT
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to participating in the discussion of amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act. There are a couple of mechanical matters we could clear up before we get started. I would like the permission of the chair to move --
Mr. Stokes: Yes, you can sit in the front seat.
Mr. Brandt: I thank the member for Lake Nipigon very much. I would like to move to the front seat.
The Deputy Chairman: The House would be graciously pleased, I am sure.
Mr. Brandt: The second item I wish to address to you, sir, is to have the staff accompany me in the front.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Brandt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I leave my position here, I want to mention to all the members who are in attendance tonight that the minister is unable to be here because he is participating in the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. He offers his apologies. As his parliamentary assistant, I will be working with members to see whether we can expedite this very important series of amendments. With their co-operation, we will proceed.
The Deputy Chairman: The amendment we are considering is one proposed by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) to subsection 36(1) of the act as set out in clause 4(l)(a) of the bill. Is there a need to repeat the amendment?
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, before you put the amendment, I just want to say that the critic of the Ministry of Labour from our party is also attending the estimates, which are just beginning in another place at this time; so my colleagues and I have the rare and unexpected honour of representing our party as these important amendments are put before us.
I have carefully reviewed them and see that the design of each one of them is to enrich the value and importance of the additional payments. Naturally we will wholeheartedly support them as they come forward. It may be that these few remarks will suffice for our party as these various amendments are debated. I hope that is the case; but, of course, I will be standing ready, willing and able to participate in a lengthier and perhaps fuller way if that is required.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I find it very disconcerting that a party that last night could vote for nine and five could stand up for 15 tonight.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I thought it might not be necessary to have a fuller participation, but we cannot allow the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), that Scrooge of the Tory party, to put his views unanswered.
The only reason there would be any indication that these payments would be larger than the five per cent we have been supporting right across the board is that the party he is supporting and the government of which he is a member have for so long kept these payments below the subsistence level. If there was ever an opportunity to improve this situation, this has to be it.
I have a good deal to say in this matter, and I will hold it in readiness in case the Minister of Revenue wants to participate more fully himself.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member. So provocation is needed if you want to continue the debate?
All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 4 be amended by adding the following:
"(5) The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
"'36a. Payments made pursuant to clauses 36(1)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the said act, as re-enacted by subsection (1) of this section, will be adjusted by adding thereto an additional six per cent of the compensation rate being paid, effective the first day of January 1983.'"
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I emphasize again the same principle, that what we need in the Workmen's Compensation Act is a mechanism or clause that will increase payments of pensions of injured workers every six months.
What we are claiming now with this proposed six per cent increase is to take into consideration a benefits increase as of January 1, 1983. This six per cent is particularly related to the principle of a 15 per cent increase as of July 1, 1981, and I urge the members of the Legislature to support this amendment.
Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, by way of brief response, there are a series of amendments proposed here, all of which follow a very similar trend and direction, in that they are quite obviously enriching the proposals that have been put forward by the government.
I believe, if one were to look carefully at what is being proposed by the government, the figures are very close to the kinds of increases that have been experienced in terms of the cost of living, industrial wage indexes --
Mr. McClellan: Wrong.
Mr. Brandt: Let me finish. They are slightly below that, but really not all that much. They are very much in line. When one is talking about a basic principle in the context of what we recognize as an extremely difficult economy, the position of the government is simply that this is as good as can be expected at this time.
I think one has to recognize when one is putting forward these enrichments that somebody has to pay for them. They permeate the entire economic system. The people who have to pay for them have to be recognized as well as those who are going to be recipients of the benefits.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. McClellan: Who is going to pay? The injured workers, or somebody else?
Mr. Brandt: I suggest to the member it is not quite that simple. In the view of the government, this is as far as we are prepared to go, or able to go, at this time.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the parliamentary assistant could go back and review the words he just used, to the effect that the increases proposed here are in line with what other people in our society are having to accept and have accepted over the past few years.
If the injured workers in Ontario were starting from a base that was comparable to what other people in society had been getting, I could totally agree with the parliamentary assistant. But the point that was made prior to the dinner recess, as I am sure he will recall, was that the injured workers in Ontario are not starting from a comparable base. That is why we have taken the position that the kinds of increases we are talking about now cannot be considered in the same vein at all.
I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that his argument has that glaring fault in it. Surely he and the other members of the government will take that factor into consideration.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 5:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 36(6) of the act, as set out in subsection 5(1), be amended by striking out "$1,300" and substituting "$2,000."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to address the principle of this section. Through the amendment provided by Bill 205, lump sum payments to the dependent spouse have been increased from $1,200 to $1,300. I think that such an increase is unfair and cruel, especially when we consider the principle that the breadwinner of the family passed away because of an accident in the work place.
We want to make sure that each dependant of the family, including the spouse, will not suffer as a result of that tragic accident. We want to make sure the lump sum payment to the dependent spouse will be increased to $2,000. If I may say so, $2,000 is a very conservative figure. The lump sum payment should be higher than that. I hope members of the Legislature will support this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 6:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 42(5) of the act, as set out in subsection 6(2), be amended by striking out "nine" and substituting "15."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I do not have to elaborate on this amendment. It is a housekeeping amendment; so I hope members will support it.
Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, that is a rather expensive house the member over there is cleaning. The arguments that were used previously in response to a similar proposal in one of the earlier amendments stand again, that the enrichment being proposed is beyond the capacity of the people of Ontario to pay at this time.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised the parliamentary assistant would take the stand that, based upon present economic conditions, the industry cannot afford to pay for it.
The cost is paid for by every consumer; it is a hidden cost in workmen's compensation, and I think the parliamentary assistant should lay that out. I do not think he is fooling us. Every consumer who pays for a product is paying for workmen's compensation. It is not a direct charge to the industry. They have a way to pass it on to the consumer.
I have heard this old saying for years now and I suggest, when one looks at the nine per cent that is offered in the bill, it has not been given for a year and a half, for 18 months. Actually all that has been given is the normal six per cent, plus three per cent for the last six months; so we are looking at nine per cent within the guidelines.
It may be a year or 18 months down the road before they get another increase; so for the coming year we are actually looking at a retroactive adjustment, not a current adjustment. That is the problem with the workmen's compensation benefits; they do not deal with the current month or year but go back 18 months.
Nothing was given to them for that period of time; so actually it is not even a catch-up but, rather, it is behind. I resent the parliamentary assistant's comment that this is all the traffic will bear at this time. It should be higher than that. It should be taken into consideration that within the guidelines there should be at least nine per cent plus the five per cent in January.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this amendment until I heard the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), who sat on the select committee and who by this time should know what we are talking about.
For him to suggest that increasing the benefits for injured workers by 15 per cent is a very expensive proposition is preposterous, because the same honourable member and his caucus accepted a much more expensive proposition when the fees for the doctors were increased.
If we have to judge how expensive this proposition is, we should see where the money comes from and how much the injured workers have been getting until now. If the member does that small calculation in his small mind, he will realize that in the past several years the purchasing power of the injured workers' benefits has decreased substantially. We have documented how the cost of living, the average industrial wage and the consumer price index have increased at much higher rates than the benefits for the injured workers.
What my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) is proposing now is only an adjustment. Professor Weiler wrote in his report that it is not an increase of the benefits. If the member for Sarnia sat all summer on the committee, he must have read the report. This is an adjustment for what the workers lost, not an increase in their benefits.
I do not think the government has a very qualified spokesman on this occasion, but I hope the other members on the Conservative benches will realize that what we are proposing is nothing extravagant. It is just a small remedy for the lack of action of the government in past years.
8:20 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 43(8) of the act, as set out in section 7, be amended by striking out "nine" and substituting "15."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to raise a few points on that section, because it is really important. When I said it was a housekeeping amendment, I said so on the basis that I elaborated that principle in my opening statement.
I want to refresh the mind of the parliamentary assistant by stating that the investments of the Workmen's Compensation Board for the year ending December 1982 will be $1.6 billion. All the money is invested in long-term bonds, with $400 million in mortgages guaranteed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp -- I am wondering why mortgages are skyrocketing -- and $200 million in short-term securities.
In talking about that amount of money, I am not calculating the total revenue of money that comes into the funds of the Workmen's Compensation Board on an annual basis, I am making particular reference to the amount of money that is paid by the employers of Ontario.
If the parliamentary assistant is convinced the board does not have the money or the capital invested to give to injured workers, I think he is completely wrong. He is completely wrong because injured workers have been suffering for years as a result of accidents. I stated that emotional problems have developed as a result of accidents and that members of the family suffer the consequences of them.
In view of that, as my colleague the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) said, the position not to give money to injured workers is completely wrong.
I remind the parliamentary assistant that maybe next year or in two years' time, and I hope it is not that long, new increases are going to take place. What we are doing with this amendment and others is taking into consideration the needs of injured workers across Ontario.
I stated in my opening statement that the nine per cent increase is cruel. Fifteen per cent reflects the cost-of-living increase since the last increase, which took place on June 30, 1981. I hope the parliamentary assistant will take into consideration this principle and will support the amendment.
Mr. Brandt: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond about the large war chest the member suggested was available. It should be recognized that whatever increases or benefits are enhanced with respect to the WCB have to relate to some form of pass-through cost. It is going to cost somebody some money, quite obviously.
The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) suggested I was putting the blame directly on industry, that industry was going to be responsible for paying this cost. There are times when I may have a flawed memory, but this is not one of them. I distinctly said it was the people of Ontario who ultimately paid for that, the consumers and the people who purchase the goods, because that is reflected in the cost of the product.
I understand the concern of the members of the third party with respect to the injured workers, and that is why I remind the members on the government side that there is a retroactivity clause in this bill which takes it back to July 1. If one looks carefully at the figures and covers the retroactive aspect of the bill, one sees that it does bring the increases very close to the cost of living that the third party seems to be so concerned about.
When people in the work force are required to take substantially lower increases than what is being proposed here, I know that members of the third party are intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that this is humane, sensitive and responsible legislation that is being proposed.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, the point being made by my colleague the member for Downsview is, who pays? The company or the injured worker? The parliamentary assistant has said that because his government is unwilling to provide for an increase that is anything like a cost-of-living increase since the last increase, the injured workers must make up the difference. That is the point.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 8:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 44 of the act, as set out in subsection 8(1), be amended by striking out clauses (a) and (b) and substituting the following:
"(a) for temporary total disability,
"(i) $180 a week, where the worker's average earnings were not less than $180 a week, from the first day of July 1982, and $191 a week, where the worker's average earnings were not less than $191 a week, from the first day of January 1983, and
"(ii) the amount of the worker's earnings, where the worker's average earnings are less than $180 a week, from the first day of July 1982, and the amount of the worker's earnings, where the worker's average earnings are less than $191 a week, from the first day of January 1983,
"and for temporary partial disability, a proportionate amount in accordance with the impairment of earning capacity; and
"(b) for permanent disability, the pension computed in accordance with sections 43 and 45, but the amount of such pension shall not be less than,
"(i) for permanent total disability, $793 a month from the first day of July 1982 and $840 from the first day of January 1983, and
"(ii) for permanent partial disability, an amount proportionate to that mentioned in subclause (i) in accordance with the impairment of earning capacity."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, what we are saying in this section is that the minimum amount of compensation payable for temporary total disability should be increased from $156 per week to $180 per week effective July 1, 1982, and $191 per week effective January 1, 1983.
Second, the minimum amount payable for permanent total disability should be increased from $686 per month to $793 per month from July 1, 1982, and to $840 per month from January 1, 1983. The increases would be 15 per cent as of July 1, 1982, and an additional six per cent as of January 1, 1983.
8:30 p.m.
Again, perhaps I can spell out the principle that is contained in this section, in particular the minimum amount of compensation payable for temporary total disability, which must he increased from $156 per week to $180 per week. I think we should be extremely concerned about the number of workers who are working for the minimum wage of $3.50 per hour in Ontario. People are getting injured, and they are subsequently getting a lower amount of weekly benefits from the Workmen's Compensation Board.
What happens as a result of that, in case the parliamentary assistant is not aware of it, is that if a person becomes partially disabled with a permanent partial disability, the amount of pension the injured worker gets is minimal. In that case, especially for people who have a range of disability between one per cent and 10 per cent, the Workmen's Compensation Board is paying the total amount of money in the form of a lump sum. Of course, injured workers with a minimum amount of weekly earnings in Ontario are going to suffer the most, because the amount of money received from the WCB is extremely low.
The other principle incorporated in this section is to increase the payment by 15 per cent as of July 1, 1982, and an additional six per cent as of January 1, 1983, for people who are receiving permanent total disability. So we are claiming that the pensions of injured workers with a permanent total disability should be increased from $686 per month to $793 per month from July 1, 1982, and to $840 per month from January 1, 1983.
Mr. Chairman: All in favour of the proposed amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 8 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(3) The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
"44(a) The amounts payable as compensation under this part shall be adjusted on the first day of January and the first day of July in each year by percentage amounts equal to the percentage increase in the average industrial wage for Ontario during the preceding six-month period as indicated by the Industrial Composite Average Weekly Wages and Salaries for Ontario published by Statistics Canada and the initial adjustments shall reflect the percentage increase in the average industrial wage since the first day of January 1983."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, the principle involved in this section is that this amendment provides for the automatic adjustment of compensation to be based on changes in the average industrial wage and to be adjusted every six months beginning with an adjustment effective July 1, 1983, which will be based on the increase in the average industrial wage in the six months beginning January 1, 1983.
We are talking about indexing injured workers' pensions to the increase in the cost of living. In the opening remarks and through several critiques of the Workmen's Compensation Board in committee and in the Legislature, I think many members expressed concern about indexing injured workers' pensions to the cost of living increase.
This section is very important, because if the government agrees to accept it we will not be faced again with having to raise questions in relation to WCB increases. Its acceptance will also mean that injured workers in Ontario, particularly their organizations here in Toronto, will no longer have to demonstrate at Queen's Park to have changes made in the level of their pension benefits.
I hope the parliamentary assistant will convey the message to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) so that this section will be accepted.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 9:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 45(1) of the act as set out in subsection 9(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$24,200" and substituting therefor "$45,000."
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, the principle is clear cut in that section. What we are trying to do is to make sure that the earnings ceiling is increased from $22,200 to $45,000.
We are not the first to propose and support this principle, because it is a recommendation which was made by Professor Weiler. I really do not understand why the government side rejects this measure, which would offer some relief in the weekly benefits of workers who are injured after the passage of this bill.
What we are trying to do in this section is to make sure that injured workers in Ontario achieve a level of benefits which will ensure that they do not live in poverty. We are already convinced that the total amount of money which they now receive puts them below the poverty line in Canada and this amendment is to make sure that their status will be greatly improved.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
On section 10:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that clause 52(3)(b) of the act as set out in subsection 10(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$316" and "$158" and substituting respectively therefor "$400" and "$200."
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak on the principle of this section, again the figures we have been talking about are really reflecting a 15 per cent increase in the allowance for clothing worn out or damaged by a lower limb prosthesis or back brace, which must be increased from $290 to $400, and by an upper limb prosthesis, which should be increased from $145 to $200.
I hope the government will seriously consider the increase we are talking about because we are talking particularly about people who are seriously injured. It is a small allowance which must he given to them to compensate in some way for the suffering they have been going through as a result of accidents.
Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this proposed amendment? None?
Mr. Stokes: Say something.
Mr. McClellan: Come on, Santa.
Mr. Brandt: I have already indicated the government's position on the proposed amendments.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Vote stacked.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one very brief comment. I think it is very regrettable that the government has managed to impose the nine per cent from Bill 179 on the injured workers of Ontario. It is really something this government should be ashamed of. It is a disgrace. Regardless of all the debate we had on Bill 179, there is no excuse for imposing the nine per cent on the injured workers of Ontario for 1982 and 1983. I feel very bitter about that and so do my colleagues in this caucus.
Sections 11 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?
Mr. Stokes: You can't do that.
Mr. Chairman: Oh sorry, it is stacked.
Mr. Stokes: There is some outstanding business yet.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Ashe, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Ashe moved second reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Hon. Mr. Ashe has moved second reading of Bill --
Mr. Nixon: Bill 188.
The Acting Speaker: -- 188. Thank you, to the Liberal House leader.
Mr. Nixon: What would you do without us helping you?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I don't know. I just said --
Mr. Conway: He will impale himself on that tie-clip.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: You should be so lucky. It is a shrinking Liberal dollar.
Mr. Speaker, when I introduced Bill 188 for first reading on November 26, I made some explanatory comments which I would like to expand upon as we consider the bill in detail.
First, the bill is designed to strengthen the section 86 reassessment program and reinforce existing appeal provisions. The honourable members know that more than half of all of the municipalities in this province have been reassessed on a market value basis. Personally, I believe that to be a significant achievement. This accomplishment, coupled with the fact that the program is voluntary on the part of municipalities, emphasizes its worth.
With the concurrence of this Legislature, I intend to reinforce the program in the following manner. The first measure would provide for new pipeline rates in municipalities reassessed under the section 86 program. A similar provision is now contained in the Assessment Act for the updating of pipeline rates in municipalities and areas proclaimed and reassessed at full market value.
This new measure will ensure that pipeline assessment is on the same market value base year as all other property assessments within those municipalities reassessed under the section 86 program. This provision is not retroactive, but will have effect in the 1983 taxation year.
The second measure that I bring before the members this evening strengthens the section 86 program by clarifying -- and I emphasize clarifying -- the basis of comparison for assessments under appeal. The primary object of the section 86 program is to equalize assessments within property classes and not allow any assessment shift between property classes.
When a municipality is reassessed under the section 86 program, a regulation is made which specifies very clearly the various classes of property and the class percentages to be applied against the market value of the properties within each class. This method ensures fairness in assessment within property classes and prevents the severe tax shifts that would take place if the provision was not made.
Upon complaint or appeal, the courts and tribunals are directed by the existing legislation to compare similar real property in the vicinity in determining the fairness of the assessments under appeal. This new provision applies retroactively in section 86 municipalities by further directing the courts and tribunals in determining the value of a property under appeal that they shall not have reference to the assessments of properties in other classes as prescribed under subsection 63(3). This measure will preserve the tax basis of section 86 municipalities by preventing any court-directed shifts from one property class to another.
The second major purpose of the bill is to defer full market value assessment for a further year by providing for the return of assessment rolls from municipal taxation at present levels of assessment, except, of course, when a market value based reassessment has been introduced under the section 86 and section 70 programs.
Finally, the bill clarifies and strengthens certain administrative provisions in the act, it corrects the reference to the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, repeals a reference to corporations assessment that is no longer relevant, introduces a new gas transmission pipeline rate and clarifies the business assessment provisions for public utilities.
This concludes my remarks on second reading debate for Bill 188.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill because I have been waiting for some weeks for it to come up and we are glad to have it finally before us. I regret the fact, though, that we do not have more time to speak to it.
Although this might be regarded somewhat as a housekeeping bill because it postpones the assessment rolls for another year, it is anything but a housekeeping bill. It has very important implications for the municipalities in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Who said it was a housekeeping bill? I did not.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Epp: Every year the government comes in with the postponement of the rolls. If one looks at the explanatory notes, one would think it is a very harmless bill that does not carry with it a lot of important implications; but if one looks at it very closely, there are some important things that should be looked at.
I am particularly interested in one matter. The minister indicated to me earlier, and he covered it partly today, the matter with respect to the pipelines and not making this retroactive. If one read the legislation one would think that it was going to be retroactive and some of the companies that have appeals before the courts at this time would be affected. As I understand it, they will not be affected, and those cases that are before the courts will be able to proceed on the basis they started out on.
8:50 p.m.
This is particularly important, because I got one letter from a company that shall remain nameless. It indicated it had encountered a problem with respect to being taxed on its field and gathering pipeline. The assessment rate per foot indicated in subsection 24(4) of the Assessment Act and the one that was used were very different. The company was somewhat confused because it thought it should follow the Assessment Act.
On further exploration of this problem, it found out that the new rate was a fair market value rate agreed upon by some of the larger corporations or gas developers in the province with the Ministry of Revenue. It was a smaller company and had not been informed of this new rate.
There was no legislation to use a revised assessment per foot, nor was there a gazetted equalization factor to correspond with that rate. The company concluded that the 1969 market value and the 1970 gazetted equalization were the legal numbers for pipeline assessments. When the company applied this to a particular township that its lines ran through, it found that although it was being taxed considerably over $100,000 the actual assessment should have been between $70,000 and $90,000. So the company was being taxed in excess of $50,000 more than it felt it should have been if it had been informed of the new figures that the ministry had agreed to with some larger gas pipeline developers, but not with the smaller ones.
As a result, the company took this case to court. It won at one municipal level, but now it has to take it to another level. Its appeal has come up, or will be coming up, and that is why it does not want this amendment to be retroactive, because it has been partly successful and wants to be successful in relation to another municipality.
Although the basis for real property assessment in Ontario is market value, in actual fact for several decades assessment has not been based upon market value. Prior to 1969, the function of assessing lands in Ontario was a municipal function with each municipality setting its own basis of assessment. The Department of Municipal Affairs offered assistance to local municipalities and assisted in reassessment programs. The bulk of the property in Ontario was assessed by use of various editions of a Department of Municipal Affairs manual of reproduction costs, which attempted to establish actual reproduction costs of a structure to a base year premised upon 1954 construction costs.
Through the 1960s, various municipalities, including Windsor, Sarnia, Oshawa, Guelph and others, were reassessed to 1961 values, once again using a reproduction cost manual produced at that time by a private consulting firm. In 1968, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in rendering its decision relating to the Bank of Nova Scotia premises located at Bay and King streets in Toronto, directed that the existing system of assessment was basically intolerable and ruled that an equitable basis of assessment ought to be employed.
In the result, it became apparent that substantial reassessment programs were necessary throughout Ontario, and at the request of several municipalities which expressed a great concern with respect to the cost, the province then felt obligated to take over the assessment function and determined that this provincial takeover would be directed to reassessing at market value. This market value approach to the reassessment of the province became government policy at that time in the hope of establishing a consistent and equitable base for municipal taxation throughout Ontario.
By 1972, however, primarily because of rapid increase in the value of single-family dwellings in metropolitan areas in the province, the provincial government formed the opinion that the tax shift from commercial-industrial properties to residential properties which would result from a reassessment of market value, was politically intolerable.
In addition, the then Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. McKeough, with the assistance of persons in the ministry, formed the opinion that the data supplied by the Ministry of Revenue were not sufficiently accurate to enable reasonable tax policy decisions to be made.
Third, in 1974, which was to be the reassessment year -- 1975 was an election year, although there was a strong possibility it would be held in 1974 -- it was felt inappropriate to proceed with property tax reform and assessment reform.
Accordingly, legislation was enacted in 1974 to postpone the return of market value assessment in Ontario. The initial postponement was for a two-year period, projecting a return of market value assessment in 1976. By 1976, the government was in a minority position and at that time commenced an annual postponement of the rolls at market value.
As a result, we now have Bill 188, which postpones the rolls at market value. The government has done this since 1974 and proceeds to do it on an annual basis.
This bill is somewhat of a sleeper. I do not think the minister has indicated the kinds of implications that the bill has. I want to look at a few of these for a moment.
If we look back to 1970-71, there was a decision rendered in Ottawa concerning the municipality of Nepean. Judge Honeywell said at that time that for the purposes of assessment on residential properties one could compare town houses, high-rise apartments, single-family units, walkups, etc., put them in the same grouping, in the same hamper, in the same class, all for the purposes of assessment in that class.
This went in the face of some of the evidence and some of the things that the government wanted to do, and certainly what the opposition would have liked to have seen. As a result, the government brought in section 90 to clarify this section and consequently we have certain precedents established which indicate that the classifications, the divisions the government had established, should be ensured and should be supported.
In a very recent case in the Ottawa area, Judge Cornish indicated that these various things could be grouped together. He ignored section 90 and grouped together two matters which should have been in different classes. I understand this has brought about section 5 in Bill 188.
If we look at section 5, we have to wonder whether the government has any faith in the system itself, because even government counsel have indicated that if they appeal the decision of Judge Cornish they will win that case.
If the government really had confidence in the system that has been established over the years, confidence in its own counsel, confidence in the assessments that have been done over the years, it would not have brought in this section.
If there was ever an admission by a government that it does not have confidence in its system, I would draw attention to this section. Its own counsel, the municipality, the people, and 10 years of precedents have indicated they would win if this decision was appealed, arid I think that is what they will do. Maybe with this legislation they will not even bother to appeal, but the fact is the government would win.
9 p.m.
Yet they bring in this legislation because they do not have confidence in their assessors. I regret that very much, because there are a lot of good assessors in the province, a lot of dedicated, hard-working, open-minded people who want to do the best they can for their province and for the people of Ontario. Yet the government does not have confidence in them. They think, for instance, that because one judge in one single instance has crossed classes it is going to mean that other judges will do the same thing. But if you look at the precedents, there is no need to believe that.
Section 5, particularly in the latter part, draws our attention to another thing. I plan, of course, to bring in an amendment to help clarify it. The government is now indicating it does not have faith in the classification system. The last three lines in this section say, "and the inclusion of real property within a class so prescribed does not indicate that such property is similar to other real property in that class."
If you were to accept the classification system, you would say that if you have certain guidelines drawn up for commercial, industrial or residential assessment, you compare a particular property -- let's say a home valued at $100,000 -- in that classification against certain guidelines that you establish. You should be able then to assess that house on the basis of the criteria you have established in that class. That is the basis of subsection 86(3) or subsection 63(6); you have classification and you can compare your property with the guidelines developed in that particular section.
What the government is saying in this section is that it does not have confidence in the classification. It now wants to be able to compare the property with other properties in that classification. So if I have a property, I appeal my assessment and the property happens to be sold for $100,000 in an arm's-length sale, then the ministry will come in and say: "We don't accept the arm's-length sale. We compare it with X property, Y property and Z property." They can compare it with these various properties, which may not have been developed on a very good, rational basis; yet the government says those are the properties to compare it with and those are the things to accept.
As a result of this, odd as it may seem, with that section we have reverted back to where we were a number of years ago. The classification system is out and we are now comparing one property with another, something we did years ago and something that Darcy McKeough and all the others said they wanted to avoid.
We spent hundreds of millions of dollars. I think, in fact, the Ministry of Revenue has spent about $1 billion in the last few years trying to bring in some form of market value assessment. Even the computer they use is charged against the Ministry of Government Services, and they do not pay for the computer under their estimates. So whereas they use the computer a great deal those costs are not attributed to that ministry.
The government has 32 assessment regions in the province, as I understand it, and each of them has a commissioner. If you have an important piece of property that is assessed and you appeal it and win your appeal, the government obviously has the right to challenge it in court, and they often do. The interesting thing about this is that when you have a property that maybe is assessed for $100,000, and you pay maybe $1,500 or $1,000 in taxes, then the small property owner can appeal it, but because he is financially strapped and because the assessment appeal may make a difference of only $100 he does not appeal it. As a result he goes ahead and pays the taxes instead of hiring a lawyer and appealing.
For a large corporation an appeal may make a difference of $500,000 or $1 million over one year or a period of years, so the large corporations appeal their assessments. They are able to hire the very able lawyers who are available in the province and they often get their assessments reduced.
Of course, as was indicated to me in a letter, if the ministry thinks they are going to lose the case, they call up a company and say, "We will make a deal with you." Since it may be more profitable to make a deal, they often make deals with the various companies. If the Minister of Revenue thinks this is hilarious he should check with his assessors, because they are making deals every day of the year with large corporations and sometimes with smaller companies in order to avoid going through the courts.
When the 32 regions in the province were established a field office was established, I think about five years ago, and the field office was supposed to bring a certain expertise to the regions, a certain uniformity. They were supposed to draw up standards, they were supposed to provide some direction and they were supposed to clarify some assessment instructions or regulations the ministry had put out. To do this the field office needed only nine people. But in the last five years that field organization has grown to somewhat over 50 people, I think. As a result that cost has escalated considerably for the ministry.
Not only that, but the existence of this field office is a direct reflection on the lack of confidence in the various assessors, and that is unfortunate because I am sure the assessors out there are trying to do a very competent job. But it happened in one case in northern Ontario that an assessment was established by the local assessors for a particular commercial property. When they finished, the field office went in there and imposed their own assessment on that property. In the final analysis the morale of the local assessors was somewhat deflated, and understandably so. So we have this new case now in which the ministry, through its own field office, often imposes assessments on various local areas.
I want to indicate, too, that this incredible lack of confidence by the government in the assessment is not something I have dreamed up or anything of that nature. We have it on very good grounds that the ministry does not have a lot of faith in their system. I am looking for my notes on that matter and I will come to it.
The assessor swears when he becomes an assessor that he will make the best appraisal he can under the system, and he wants to stick by this appraisal.
Those who can afford to appeal, as I indicated, go ahead and appeal, and those who cannot afford it do not appeal. The system we are talking about should be one of fairness and equity and it should be simple. Yet the assessment system in Ontario is very confusing, and I doubt if you will find 100 people in the province who can really explain the system the way it is. The fact that it is so confusing is great for a number of lawyers, because they are very successful in getting appeals.
The minister before said "ha" when I said he did not have confidence in the system. I want to quote one of the arguments Mr. Bernie Chernos made at a hearing, "There is no confidence in the factor or determination of market value." As I understand it, he is a leading solicitor and consultant for the government of Ontario and he says he does not have any confidence in the factor or in the determination of market value in this province. He should know because he is trying to defend it almost on a daily basis in this province. If he does not have it, why should we have it.
9:10 p.m.
To review, we have before us a system that is very misleading. I want to read the notice that was put out b the Ministry of Revenue. It says:
"Important, please read carefully. An open letter to all property owners and tenants in the city of Hamilton.
"Dear Sir or Madam:
"The enclosed assessment notice indicates your new equalized assessment as determined by the assessor"-- it does not say a few other things which are indicated -- "and as required under section 86 of the Assessment Act your 1979 taxes will be levied on this assessment.
"The following is the basis used to determine your new assessment:
"1. The market value for each property was established for the year 1975. Market value is what you might expect to realize for your property if you willingly sold it to a willing buyer. In the instance of farms actually used for farming purposes, market value is what you might, as a farmer, expect to realize were you to sell to another farmer who intends to use the land for farming purposes.
"2. The market value so established for each property has been adjusted by a factor. The factor for various classes of property ensures that tax shifts from one class of property to another do not occur."
We are talking about market value factors. What we are getting in this section is not market value assessment, factors and classification. We are saying we can discount all that and just compare it with two or three homes down the street.
The little guy is hurt by this legislation to some extent. By allowing only those who can hire a very able lawyer to appeal because they can afford those lawyers, we are hurting the little guy because he cannot afford the luxury of an appeal. We are back to pre-subsection 63(3) clays.
We are pleased this is going to committee tomorrow. We wish there was more time for that, but I understand it will only go to committee for a few hours.
In my region of Waterloo, a number of municipalities are very concerned they are paying for regional services at a different level than other municipalities. They are also paying for educational services in one municipality at a higher level than in another because of their assessments. I wonder if the minister is directing his attention to this. When can we expect some kind of action to rectify this problem?
Mr. Breaugh: I listened very carefully to the Liberal critic but I am still not sure whether they are supporting or opposing the bill. I would like to put on the record that we are going to oppose this bill on second reading.
It appears to be the annual deferral of market value assessment, but around that there are a couple of other items that are worthy of note and opposition.
First, in principle the government is still doing something I find rather offensive and that is setting rates by order in council. It is a technique this government uses extensively. It effectively shuts out anyone from reviewing what the rate is, whether it is fair, unfair, the right rate or the wrong rate. The fact remains that the government can use this technique of setting them by order in council or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and it means that nobody in this world can have much of an impact on what the rate is.
I oppose that aspect of the bill in principle. I think it is the wrong way to do it. I know the government has listened for some period of time now to various members who complain that setting rates by order in council is an unfair way to proceed. It is a method whereby, for example, members of the Legislature may go down to the regulations committee and check to see whether those regulations have been set out in a legal manner. But they still have no recourse to argue about merits or demerits of whether that is a fair and reasonable way to proceed. That is my first objection to the bill.
The second objection centres on the now almost annual deferral of market value assessment. I would like to see the minister make up his mind on this. This concept has been around for some time. Quite frankly, I suspect the government intends to find some time when there is the least political impact on the government -- some moment in the dead of night I suppose would be the ideal choice -- when it will be able to get away with what its stated intentions have been for some time -- that is, to go to full market value assessment.
I think that would create some pretty dramatic shifts in many municipalities. I do not think there is any question about it now. There is not only going to be unfairness involved in that process, but there will be a substantial impact on many people. Particularly in urban centres and particularly among low-income groups, it would mean their ability to pay municipal property taxes would be stretched to the limit and in fact, over the limit.
Some could take the side, and probably will, that one should always be grateful for a stay of execution on this kind of business. I am more and more reluctant to say it ought to be done on an annual basis. Frankly it is time for the government to stop trying to bring this thing in by the back door and to say frontally what its intentions are.
I would hope they would admit publicly that they have great problems with this market value assessment concept. They have not had a very smooth road where they have tried to put it in. There has been a major study done in Metro Toronto, which I am told is finished but not yet made public, and it is going to have a substantial impact. I guess it is no secret that if the government is successful with this technique going in to the largest urban centre, it is simply a matter of time until it then moves it throughout the province.
It is my view that will be a sad day indeed, not that the concept is all that flawed, but simply the technique. The previous member spoke at some length about all the problems people have trying to understand assessment. There is no question that they do and the reason is that it is not a simple business. Even among those who work with it day in and day out there seems to be considerable confusion.
We have had problems recently in my own area. It seems they notified people of a change in assessment, but when one talks to the local assessment officers they say there really was not a change. Yet the notice they sent out to homeowners said there was a change in assessment.
After we have a little discussion with the local assessment officers, they point out that under different sections of the act the thing was not put out properly initially and it is all computerized. The problem is, one cannot get a simple answer.
There is one other area in here where I think we should point out some slight differences to the member from Minto Corp. who was rushing to the defence of the developers.
I cannot fault the government in this one instance for not being straightforward because it seems to me they are putting their exact intentions into this act. Though I can fault them on some other parts of this bill, that is one where I cannot. It seems to me they are saying: "We have a little problem here and we are putting in section 5, which will clearly state what it is we want to do."
In my view, the best law is the one which at least tells us what they are going to do to us next.
In summary, we oppose the bill in principle. There are a couple of things in here we do not like. I suppose we are happy to see that it will go off to committee for a short set of committee hearings tomorrow morning. The difficulties we have with the bill, I have tried to put forward in a succinct manner. Amen.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few brief comments on this legislation.
Mr. Stokes: It is now 9:19 and 30 seconds.
Mr. Roy: As one who is always vigilant of due process, on reading this Legislation --
Mr. Breaugh: Maybe you will tell us whether you are for the bill or against it.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: What did I do to get the New Democratic Party exercised now?
An hon. member: You talk sensibly. That's what they can't stand.
Mr. Nixon: Nobody over there had read the bill until we brought it to his attention.
Mr. Speaker: If you address the chair you will have no problem.
Mr. Roy: Yes; I will.
It was quite obvious the member for that party who spoke previously did not see a sly move on the part of the government in section 5 which he failed to criticize. That is not new. I suppose the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) did not have a chance to speak with him. Obviously they missed that point.
I want to talk about what my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) touched on briefly in his opening statement on this legislation. He managed, in a very thorough opening address, to cover all aspects of this bill, the subject of which is assessment, which politically is not all that sexy to some. Nevertheless, my friend was able to deal effectively with all aspects of this legislation. He dealt specifically with section 5.
The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) should be more forthright when he brings forward this type of legislation which affects existing rights. Let me explain briefly the purpose of section 5.
A number of individuals in this province disputed assessments over a number of years -- I am going back to 1976, 1977, 1978 and so on. They rested their faith on due process. They went before the Assessment Review Court and were not successful. Subsequently, they went on to appeal. The appeal went before a county court judge who made a ruling which reduced their assessments and would have resulted in the municipality of Nepean having to rebate sizeable amounts of money to some landlords in Ottawa. One of the landlords was Minto. Obviously if the landlord's assessment was lower, it would benefit the tenants of that establishment as well.
[Laughter]
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the New Democratic Party would smile about that but that the minister, that so-called free enterpriser, should smile and even laugh at a statement like this is very offensive to the free enterprise system of which Minto in Ottawa is a part.
Mr. Stokes: Huh, huh, huh.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can you restrain the former Speaker?
Mr. Nixon: He is making very strange noises. I've heard them before.
Mr. Van Horne: It must be something he had for supper.
Mr. Roy: That's right. I think he is practising for Christmas. He is trying to give some competition to --
Mr. Speaker: If the honourable member would just turn around about 90 degrees --
Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
What happens is that the county court judge allows the appeal and reduces the assessment. Of course the crown in this case decides to appeal this decision before the Ontario Municipal Board and so the case is awaiting appeal. The case has been in process for a good number of years.
All at once, the minister comes along with section 5, which for all intents and purposes annuls all previous court proceedings; it retroactively decides that all the processes that took place before and the decisions that were made previously by the court will be changed in one fell swoop by this legislation.
There is nothing wrong in having clear and concise legislation. We are not critical of this. But it is not done after the fact. The point is to try to make the legislation as clear as possible to allow the court or whichever tribunal is interpreting this law, to make a clear decision. But when an appeal is now being processed, when an assessment has been ruled, when a judge has made a decision on a particular assessment going back to 1976, 1977 or 1978, I think it improper that this assembly should be passing legislation to affect a process that has taken place a number of years ago.
I would like the minister to tell us if this will affect actual appeals that are existing now -- whether the tribunal, for instance the Ontario Municipal Board, will be looking at this legislation now to decide on the assessment, and not at the legislation that existed at the time the assessment was imposed.
The actions of the government in this case, as my colleague the member for Waterloo North said, are evidence of two things. First of all, it does not even have faith in the administration of justice in this province. The government set up the assessment review court, the appeal to the county court, the whole procedure. After someone plays by the rules and is successful I find it very offensive when the government suddenly turns around and changes the rules in midstream.
I think that is improper. If I may say so, I think it is contemptuous of the process to say to people: "If you win on appeal and you win before the courts, we will fix you anyway. We will change the law." Whether it is a large landlord or any other individual, I do not think it is proper for the government to act in this fashion. Not only is it contemptuous of the process, but I find it somewhat offensive that the government would make this retroactive. It applies to assessments that took place four or five years ago. In that sense the law is offensive and should not be allowed to proceed.
There is one further matter to be considered in this process.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned by the shouting. I am not bothered by the interjections from the New Democratic Party. Usually when they interject, it is because they cannot understand. I can tell. The louder they shout, the more ignorant they are about the process.
It seems to me that when the minister or the government starts bringing forward legislation of this kind, we are going to run into further problems in the future. People are going to challenge this on the basis of the new charter. People are going to say this is against some of the principles of the charter. One of the principles clearly states that if someone is going to be affected by a provincial or federal law, that law must be in place at the time of the occurrence. This is not the case here. What the government is doing here, in December 1982, is imposing guidelines for situations that existed back in 1976, 1977 and so on. Whether it is Minto Construction or any other developer, we think it is improper.
For that reason, some of us have serious objections to this legislation. We find it very offensive that the government sets the rules of the game but is not prepared to play by them. We find it contemptuous of the process when it tries to change the rules in midstream and at the same time imposes retroactive legislation.
I hope some of the people in Ontario will not accept legislation such as this, will challenge it successfully under the charter and get the government to realize, once and for all, that just because it has a majority over there, that does not allow it to bring forward legislation as offensive as section 5 of this bill.
9:30 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly. First, let me touch upon the comments made by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) just to clarify one issue. I appreciate it is only a technicality, and what led to it was the section of the bill headed up "Explanatory Notes." The first one actually says, "(a) to permit the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe new pipeline rates..." In the bill itself, which is correct, it says the minister may prescribe by regulations. There are very few areas where that happens.
In the case of pipeline rates, that is so everyone really knows what it is all about. I think the rates themselves are set fairly and equitably. Frankly, there never has been any great dispute in the major pipeline companies as to the numbers that are related therein. Where the other issue comes up on appeals, which in this case is not retroactive, is in the case of some of the smaller pipeline companies that had not been part of the earlier discussions and that are in dispute in one particular section in 86 municipalities. That is why we are clarifying that.
As for the honourable member's comments about the deferral of market value, I think I have indicated on more than one occasion, as have many members on the government side, that it is very true that market value assessment per se as people would think about it -- in other words, every piece of property at market value -- is unacceptable to the taxpayers in Ontario.
It is unacceptable that we would have major shifts from industrial, commercial and high-rise taxpayers down to the low residential taxpayers. If there are some members of the Liberal Party who support that concept, I would like them to say so, but we on this side do not think that would be fair and equitable.
Over the years we have come up with a system that is working quite well in the municipalities that have opted to go for it under section 70 and in those areas where proclamation is in order based on market value, but for most other municipalities that have gone the section 86 program route, as we call it -- it is now section 63 in the act, but we still refer to it as the section 86 program -- that still allows equity within property classes and yet, at the same time, does not allow the shifts to take place between property classes.
That leads me to the comments made by the two representatives of the official opposition, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). I presume they are speaking on behalf of their party. It is nice to have it on the record that in this case they would like to protect the interests of a major developer in and around the Ottawa area at the expense of the ratepayers around those municipalities, particularly in the municipality of Nepean.
If we want to call a spade a spade, let us do it. That is exactly what the members opposite are talking about and that is exactly what we are talking about. It is not a matter of changing the rules; it is a matter of us putting on the record and clarifying what was always there. If there was some ambiguity, that is fine. We will make it very clear.
In the meantime, if the members opposite want to protect the vested interest of one major land owner at the expense of the taxpayers, they should just say so.
Mr. Breaugh: Shame.
Mr. McClellan: Name names.
Mr. Roy: The people in this party protect everybody. We do not discriminate against anybody.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I have a hard time equating that explanation with the remarks from the member for Waterloo North and the member for Ottawa East, because that is not what they were talking about at all.
The whole section 86 program has been given to the municipalities to avail themselves of the chance to correct inequities within property classes, within a class itself, with the full, complete and fair understanding that there would not be shifts between property classes. There is no doubt in our minds at all that particular appeal can be won, but in the meantime there are many other municipalities out there that are very concerned.
We all know it takes time to go through the process. We all know that lawyers, like the honourable member who is here a couple of days a week, have to make a living in the legal profession; so they at least have to be kept busy. But in the meantime we would like to clarify it for the benefit of all taxpayers, not for one vested interest in and around the member's area that happens to have gotten to him and his colleague. We are interested in all the taxpayers in those municipalities, not just one.
Mr. McClellan: Shame.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: George, put an edge on it. Toughen it up.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is not a matter of not having faith in the system; as a matter of fact, to the contrary, we have a great deal of confidence in the people we deal with; we have a great deal of confidence in our employees.
Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Minto. Minto, Minto.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you should know that the developer the member is talking about is Minto Construction, and the president of Minto Construction was a candidate for the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Nixon: How did that ever happen?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I also draw to your attention that there is more than one senior executive within that organization, and some of them are known to have supported the official opposition as well.
Reference was made to confidence in the system, and again I want to emphasize that is exactly what is there. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) talked about classification and asked whether we had no honour and no confidence in the system of comparing apples with apples. Yes, we do. But we also think it has to be made abundantly clear that there is no one out there who should be able to interpret.
If the honourable member thinks it is fair for a downtown commercial sector of a city to be compared with an outlying shopping centre because they are both commercial, he has another think coming; they cannot be compared. You compare commercial with commercial of a similar nature in the same vicinity. If the member would learn that, he would have a better understanding of the assessment system of the province.
Mr. Epp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: What the minister fails to mention is that you establish a classification and then you establish a factor. Then you take a property and use that factor to establish the assessment based on the factor.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Epp: What the minister is saying is that you use whatever property to compare whatever you like.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Waterloo North will resume his seat, please.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, let me also clarify for the current education of the member a little more about the operation of the assessment department in the Ministry of Revenue. I appreciate that the member's pipeline is somewhat out of date. A former employee who had some attractions in the private sector keeps feeding him out-of-date and very inaccurate information.
Mr. Epp: I have a letter here from somebody who never worked in the system.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, about anyone who does not know that computer costs within the government, whether bought from the Ministry of Government Services or elsewhere, are still computed as part of the operating costs of a given ministry. It so happens that most of our contracts, if not all, are with an outside firm called Datacrown. They are not buried somewhere in another ministry.
Regarding the member's reference to the growth in the size of the assessment department, I might also point out that 10 years ago we inherited 2,700 people in the assessment system in the province; there are now 2,146. If that means growth in people, then my arithmetic and the member's arithmetic are somewhat different. And that is including the specialty department --
Mr. Epp: The minister is talking about the field organization. He wasn't even listening.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, I was. Again the member is somewhat out of date with his information. I am trying to clarify the issue for him. That includes the specialty properties division within the ministry.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: The minister is trying to tell us there were thousands of people in the field organization, which I was addressing my remarks to. He does not know --
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Also, the member's reference to a section of the ministry is grossly out of date in terms of name and in terms of the figures he talked about. I know he talked about the nine and the 50 or 45 or whatever; but again he is completely out of date with the facts, and irrelevant.
It is not a matter in any of these of not having confidence in people. Unlike some of the members opposite, all people within the government or within the Ministry of Revenue do not feel they are experts in everything. Yes, we have called upon some specialists to assist in specialized areas, because we are trying to do an equal and fair job for all, in spite of some of the views of the members opposite.
9:40 p.m.
As far as the member's own particular section within Waterloo is concerned, that is the next step in the whole reassessment process being offered to municipalities; that is to say, region-wide reassessments. The region of Waterloo is very interested in further correcting the inequities within that jurisdiction.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, and I ask the House to suspend standing order 57, which calls for five days' prior notice.
Motion agreed to.
RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 198, An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to move for second reading An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes.
Briefly, this bill limits to a maximum of five per cent that portion of a rent increase attributable to increased financing costs claimed by a landlord as a result of his purchase of a residential complex.
This act applies to all applications by landlords to the Residential Tenancy Commission, where the application is made after October 31, 1982. It also applies to all applications where the resulting hearing is held after the date this act comes into force and involves a residential complex that has been purchased more than once since October 31, 1979, or approximately within the past three years.
To eliminate any confusion, the term "purchase" has been clearly defined to confirm that it includes the acquisition, whether by transfer, assignment or otherwise, of any interest in an option to purchase or an agreement to purchase a residential complex.
The RTC, when determining the total rent increase for a residential complex, may allow, as a component of that total increase, an amount equal to no more than five per cent of the last lawful rent in respect of additional financing costs resulting from the landlord's purchase of the residential complex.
I want to emphasize that these approved pass-through costs resulting from such a purchase may not always equal even five per cent. The commission may approve an increase attributable to the purchase of the complex of something less than five per cent if such a smaller percentage is all that is justified.
Because the five per cent cap is the maximum increase allowed by the legislation for that part of a rent increase attributable to increased financing costs arising from a sale, the operation of subsection 131(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act is suspended in regard to relieving the financial hardship a landlord may experience as a result of increased financing costs attributable to the purchase of a residential complex.
In addition, the operation of subsection 131(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act is suspended for the life of this act. The subsection previously had allowed the commission, when apportioning a total complex-wide rent increase among the individual rental units, to equalize the rents payable by tenants in similar units in the complex. In other words, for the purposes of this act, all the tenants in the same residential complex shall experience the same percentage increase in their rent.
I further propose to amend the act, as originally submitted, to make clear that equalization will be suspended for all applications resulting in hearings held after the date this act comes into force. This act will come into force the day after it receives royal assent and will remain in force until the last day of December 1983. Despite its repeal on that date, however, it will remain in force to allow the commission to continue to hold hearings and issue orders on applications for rental increases made on or before December 30, 1983.
During that time, we will await the report of the Thom commission, and I expect to be able to introduce more comprehensive legislation during the fall of 1983. I feel that the present legislation addresses a difficult and at times confusing situation. I believe it provides reasonable interim measures until we receive the report of that Thorn commission.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the minister has introduced some interim legislation, and obviously we will support the bill. However, we plan on looking at it closely in the next day or two, and we will have some amendments to it at that time.
We condemn the factors that made it necessary to bring in this bill. We know what happened. The Cadillac Fairview/Greymac exchange of property in the vicinity of $270 million, which escalated to $500 million, forced the introduction of this bill so the government could give some assurance to the tenants of those buildings that their rents were not going to escalate in a range of anywhere from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, as many of them feared. Whether that reasonably could be expected is not in question. The fact was that many of those people thought it was a real possibility, and I think they had some grounds to believe that would materialize.
This bill, known as An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass-Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes, also could be called the five per cent plus bill. I say it could be called that because what we have here is a limit of five per cent as far as financial cost pass-through is concerned, but we also have six per cent plus remaining that landlords can get for their other operating expenses. That may be somewhat justified.
I am by no means a landlord-basher, as some people might be. There are excellent landlords in the province, and I think we should compliment them. Unfortunately, some of the landlords have given a bad reputation to a lot of other landlords. I remember serving on the committee that studied Bill 163 when a lot of landlords and tenants came before the committee, and I could see that many of the landlords were having a difficult time trying to meet their expenses, particularly landlords of smaller buildings, walkups and so forth.
I know a lot of those landlords, if they have tenants who have difficulty meeting their rent payments, have postponed them. I have spoken to landlords who say: "I have some tenants who are well behaved. I do not make much money on my building, but I am prepared to leave them in the building because they are good tenants. They look after their apartment; so it is really not that important for me to make a big profit on it as long as I have a stable building." Those people should be complimented.
Nevertheless, we have an example here of some people wanting to rip off the system, and they want to rip it off in large chunks and slices. That is what has happened in the Cadillac Fairview/Greymac/numbered company extension, if that is what one wants to call it.
I have a question for the minister. It is unclear how many applications he had on hand as of October 31, 1982, and that is one of the important dates of this bill. It is important from the standpoint of how many applications are on hand. I have heard a figure of something around 2,665; I am not sure whether that is an accurate figure, but it is something the minister can respond to.
One other section, section 5, deals with equalization; it suspends equalization temporarily for one year. I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that it extends this equalization, not for all buildings but for certain buildings. I know the arguments for equalization. When this was discussed in Bill 163, I think all three parties supported equalization, but it now has been suspended and for good reason. It applies only to some people. I wonder how the minister will respond to the fact that it applies only to applications made after October 31, 1982.
9:50 p.m.
"2(b) Where the application is made on or before the 31st day of October 1982 and,
"(i) The hearing by the commission pursuant to the application is commenced on or after the day the act comes into force, and,
"(ii) The application is in respect of a residential complex that has been purchased more than once after the 31st day of October 1979."
That means it includes a considerable number of buildings, but there are a lot of buildings where this particular freeze on equalization does not apply. The minister may want to respond to that.
The bill comes into force after it receives royal assent and, therefore, does not protect all the tenants. The applications being heard right now should be included retroactively, at least to November 16, when the minister made his statement that he was going to bring in legislation. The bill should apply to any decisions that were rendered as of November 16, because it will not come into effect until, I suspect, next week, the day after it receives royal assent. There could have been protection for a number of tenants under this bill if it had been applied either to November 16, when the minister made his statement, or at least to the day he introduced the bill. I wonder why he did not do that.
We will be introducing amendments to this bill with respect to demolition control. We hope those amendments will get the support of the government and the third party. We will be introducing them when the bill goes to committee, but I did want to indicate today that we will be introducing some amendments in that area.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, because of the time, I will be considerably more brief than I had intended to be.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want this House to understand that I look upon it as a privilege to have the opportunity to listen to the member for Etobicoke. I hope he is not in any way more brief than he intended to be when he started.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): That is very generous of you; however, it is not a point of privilege.
Mr. Philip: This is the first Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who has accepted some of the ideas of this party and some of the things I have been asking for over the last seven years. I am pleased he is listening again tonight.
In rising to speak on this bill, I suppose I must compliment the minister, inasmuch as he is the first minister who has shown any concern and any movement on behalf of tenants. At the same time, I must say this bill is to be expected of a crisis management style of government. It is typical of a government that has been in power for too long and, as was outlined in the Peter Principle, can only respond when something hits it on the head and says, "There is a problem and we have to deal with it."
This bill is too little and too late. It is a bill that tenants' groups and other progressive groups should take less satisfaction from in the little it does and more dismay at what it does not do. This bill takes one small step in a direction in which tenants have been asking to go for so many years. This bill does too little. All it does is defer the pass-through of financing costs in newly purchased buildings. We have no guarantee in this bill that speculation in buildings will stop, but merely that the cost of that speculation to tenants will be slowed down, at least until December 31, 1983.
The argument of the minister is that this is an interim bill to respond to the specific crisis while further study is taking place. One has to ask, what study? If we have an example of the kind of study this government does, of course, it is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing study that was released during this summer when the House was not sitting and when the minister could not be asked questions on the shallow, ideologically bound, right-wing Friedman type of economics it produced; a study by the Ministry of Housing that in fact suggested rent review should be abolished completely. Is this the kind of study that the Thom commission will report back? When we are looking at that, the minister is asking us somehow to have a blind faith in voting for section 7 of this bill.
One of the questions the previous study dealt with was the very matter that this government now says it is studying over again. The questionnaire sent to landlords by the ministry of housing study asked about financing, but it did not report back its findings.
This minister wants this party to accept section 7 of the bill, which repeals the act on December 31, 1983. He promises that by that time -- or indeed before that time, he said tonight -- the commission will have reported back. For too long this government has promised tenants reform and for too long it has not produced that kind of reform. To ask us to vote for a bill that self-destructs on December 31 without seeing what we will have as a replacement is simply to ask too much of us.
On June 15, 1978, we in the New Democratic Party stated in no uncertain terms where we stood on cost pass-throughs. We filed a minority report to the standing committee on general government report on rent review. It stated:
"Point 6(b)(7) in the report allows the pass- through of financing cost increases that result from the sale of property. In our position we argued that rent review programs should be neutral in respect to the way in which the building is financed, and the inclusion of financing costs for pass-through is a major loophole in the present program. We do not feel that the committee's position is adequate to close it."
The Liberals and Conservatives voted against that. They voted, in fact, for pass-throughs, the very kinds of pass-throughs that this bill now is trying to deal with in a patchwork way.
Even earlier than this, on December 11, 1975, we in the New Democratic Party moved amendments to restrict cost pass-throughs of unavoidable increases in financing costs. At that time we said, "For the purpose of this act, increases in costs shall be deemed to mean increases in maintenance, heating, supervision and utility costs." It is interesting that at that time again the Liberals voted with the Conservatives under the minority government when they could have made a change, and it was defeated at that time.
In committee, we will be moving an amendment to reflect our position, a position that, unlike that of the Liberals, has been constant since 1975 when rent review was first introduced.
This bill is also silent on disclosure. We believe tenants have a right to know who owns the buildings they live in. On November 4, 1976, we moved an amendment to the Corporations Information Act that would have required disclosure of information about any corporation in which a company held more than five per cent interest. The Conservatives, again with the Liberals, voted against that. If that amendment had gone through, perhaps the present situation that has resulted in this bill, the Cadillac Fairview and some of the other flips, would not have occurred.
The minister argues that this bill is to stop the flipping and speculation in buildings, but what the bill does is to attempt to offer a short-term solution. Only this week I asked the minister if he was aware that, in at least two instances I named for him, the Residential Tenancy Commission was denied the names of the beneficial owners of the building, one at 40 Earl Street in Toronto and the other at 41 Garfella Drive in Rexdale.
Both of these were owned by numbered companies. The minister admitted that there was nothing he could do at the present time, other than what was already in place.
10 p.m.
As our leader pointed out in the House today, the fact is the minister will end up in lawsuits over this. Unless the minister amends this bill to put the requirement of disclosure into this legislation, he is going to be dragged through the courts on this issue. We feel it is incredible that the minister should be bringing in even an interim bill without including the legislation requirement for a company to disclose the information which residential tenancy commissioners are asking for.
We believe that in a time of restraint, when workers' salaries have been restricted by the combined Liberal-Conservative alliance, rents should not be allowed, even by this bill, to rise considerably above the rate of inflation, as they are now doing. If the bill is adopted in its present form, it will result in a minimum rent increase of six and five -- six per cent or more for increases in maintenance costs and five per cent for the increases in financing costs. We believe it is incredible that the minister should expect workers, who have had their salaries frozen, to bleed while landlords and others do not share in this burden.
In spite of the constant pleas by tenant associations and by the NDP, we find it incredible that the government continues to ignore the fact that increasingly larger portions of rental accommodation are not covered by rent review. In some areas, such as the area which I represent, a major portion of the rental stock was occupied after January 1, 1976. We have made repeated attempts to get this government to include those kinds of buildings, the newly constructed buildings, under rent review.
In 1977, the Liberals joined with the Conservatives in defeating our amendment to do so. Again, only a few months ago, this government blocked and prevented from coming before this Legislature in a democratic vote my own private member's bill that would have done that. We will be moving amendments to see that, in fact, will happen.
So we have a situation where this minister tries to patch up the system while the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) allows, as my Liberal colleague has pointed out, the demolition of buildings in the city of Toronto. We have Bill Pr13, which was stalled over and over again, by the justice committee chairman, by not being scheduled and now it is not being brought back to the House. So we have an increasing number of buildings that were under rent review being demolished in the city of Toronto, while at the same time an increasing number of new buildings are not under rent review at all. We find it incredible that this minister should not take account of that even in an interim bill.
It is interesting that in spite of the fact that year after year we have called for studies into the speculation by offshore interests in the housing market in this province, this government has done nothing about it. As late as September 3, 1982, the minister, in a letter to a Mr. Kesbar of Toronto, stated, "I am satisfied that the legislation's treatment of this particular issue and the commission's practices in support of the legislation are fair and represent reasonable balance between the interests of landlords and tenants."
Even later, October 14, in answer to a question from me in the House, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said: "If the member has information" -- this is to do with the Cadillac flip -- "I do not possess, I would be delighted to receive it. I have no information that Greymac is a foreign corporation. If he has that information, will he please provide it to the House?"
Basically what he was saying was that there was no flip, and there was no foreign corporation invoked in this. Now he recognizes that there is a problem and, finally, he brings in this bill. We have no alternative, because it does move slightly in the direction for which we have been asking for years and years, but to support it.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would correct the member; in that statement at that time I did not indicate and do not now indicate that I have any evidence that Greymac Credit is a foreign corporation and is owned by foreign ownership. If the member still has that information, please have him provide it.
Mr. Philip: The thrust of that question, as the minister knows full well, was that we were saying there was speculation by foreign interests in the Toronto market. That is what the minister was asking and that is what the minister was saying; that there was no problem that he knew of. That is why I brought that question to his attention, and he did not act at that time.
Now he recognizes that there is a problem. But what about all of the other foreign companies that up until this time have been flipping buildings? What about the Mississaugas? What about the PHI International? What about all of those companies? We still do not know who owns them, who the principals are and how many times they have been selling buildings.
We will support this bill. It does provide some relief to some tenants. It is no alternative to what we have asked for since 1975. It takes one small step in the right direction and therefore we will support it. Certainly we will have a number of amendments to it and we look forward to debating these amendments in committee.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support my colleague from Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) in the comments he has made and in the amendments which he is going to move.
I am not going to speak to any extent about the details of the bill, but I will deal with two or three principles to say that the need for this bill and the circumstances surrounding it clearly signal a number of things, and they are all connected to the outmoded and unrealistic philosophy by which the Tories and the Liberals operate.
Mr. Ruprecht: You leave us out of this.
Mr. Swart: Oh, you are tied right in with them, tight.
One of the main reasons we have this bill before us at the present time is because the Liberals in Ottawa, largely supported by the Conservatives here, refused to do anything about the escalating interest rates two, three years ago and last year and even this summer. They may have voiced some sentiments that they were too high, but when it came to actually recommending that the federal government intervene directly to lower those interest rates, they neglected to do that. They stayed away from that.
The tremendous increase in rents around this province are largely due to the pass-through of these high interest rates.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think the member should recall that some three years ago he spoke in favour of an incomes policy. One of the New Democratic Party critics in Ottawa has now come out in favour of that. Is the member himself now supporting an incomes policy for this province?
Mr. Swart: The minister cannot twist that one around. He knows very well that we have been opposed to the high interest rates ever since they started to go up and, both provincially and federally, we have been calling on the government to intervene and to do something about them.
That is the main reason for the high rents. I have been involved in some cases where people have had 30 to 40 per cent increases in their rents because of the pass-through of the higher interest rates.
Second, they do not really ever intervene to prevent problems. They intervene only at a time of crisis and they intervene on an ad hoc basis. The minister knows that my colleague the member for Etobicoke -- and he recognized this when he got up to say that he welcomed his comments -- has been moving private member's bills and dealing with these problems, that now have risen to the point where the government is forced to do something. He has been dealing with those for years and calling on the government for action.
But no, they never take any action to prevent things. Only when it reaches a crisis stage do they bring in some ad hoc legislation, and that is all this is. It is really ad hoc legislation.
10:10 p.m.
I suppose it may be politically smart. If they prevent these problems from arising, by and large they do not get any credit for it; but if they let problems arise and reach a crisis point, then even if they provide only half a solution, they do get some credit for it. I suppose it is a good way of getting votes, but I want to say it is a hell of a way of running the province.
Third, this bill demonstrates something else. It demonstrates the double standard by which this government operates. The credit bureaus in this province can provide information on every individual as to his or her financial position. They have it all in computers. If Bell Canada or anyone else wants to find out the financial position of an individual, it can find out. This government permits that. Yet it does not even want to know who owns the buildings that house 10,000 families. It says it does not matter and it does not even want to know.
For these reasons, the New Democratic Party, with the leadership of my colleague the member for Etobicoke, will be introducing amendments to make this bill a much better protection for the tenants of this province. Unlike the Liberals, we know what we are going to do at this time. We have looked at this bill thoroughly. We do not have to wait for another two to three days to decide what we are going to do. We know what we are going to do at this time and that is to improve this bill substantially and fight the government every inch of the way to get those improvements.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I hoped the member for Etobicoke would not be too prolonged in his remarks so I could have a chance, but I cannot control him any longer.
Mr. Wildman: Remember, it is better to be loved than feared.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: What? Come on now. This is the spirit of Christmas; remember that. There has to be one day in the year when the member for Algoma starts to be nice and decent. He should try it. He might like it every day of the week.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Softie.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, you smooth guy.
In commenting on the remarks by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) -- as long as the member for Renfrew North does not keep distracting me -- I would remind him that when he talks about the five per cent plus bill he should review the record of his own party, which has spoken vociferously in support of the cost pass-through principle as the only logical step to be taken.
If he has changed his position on that I wish he would say so. I know the member has a tendency to change his position on things, but I do not want to remind him of those things because it troubles him and it troubles me. I was there with him the same night.
Mr. Epp: The bill represents a change for your government.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: No. This bill represents the progressive steps this government has always shown it is capable of carrying out.
The member asked a specific question about the number of applications that were on hand as of October 31, 1982. I am advised there were indeed something in the neighbourhood of 2,600 applications for rent review outstanding.
On the question of equalization, there was some confusion in the bill. I confess to a drafting problem in that under section 5, I think the section with respect to equalization would be deemed to apply only to hearings before the commission where this act applied. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I propose to amend that section so it will apply to any hearing, not just those hearings related to this act.
As to why there are the two dates, I think the member can appreciate the concern one always has in looking back and introducing some degree of retroactivity to legislation, but I felt the topic of those transactions was on the minds of the public and certainly on the minds of this Legislature from the date of November 1. I thought the date of October 31, 1982, would not be one that many would question because it was an issue we were discussing on November 1.
However, I would also remind the member I have added another section to the bill that covers hearings occurring after the date the act is proclaimed; nothing to do with applications occurring after October 31, but hearings where there have been multiple purchases will also be covered. That is simply to reinforce this government's opposition to this kind of speculative activity and to make it very clear that we are not going to tolerate it.
The member for Etobicoke talked about crisis management by a government in power too long. Although I hope he has read the Peter Principle, I have to tell him my one worry about him and his party is that if they were to be in control of this province they would indeed let it peter out. That is the "petering" they are about, the petering out principle, and that is the book they should read because that is what they stand for. They should understand that very clearly.
If the member for Etobicoke does not really believe the --
Mr. Breaugh: We want Phil Gillies.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member cannot have him. He had him last night. That is all he is going to get.
If the member for Etobicoke does not believe the measure introduced by guideline and by this proposed legislation has stopped speculation, he is not living in the same city I am living in. The messages I am getting are very clear. Proposed sales are stopping, applications for rent increases have been withdrawn, rent increases have been dropped precipitously, the most recent one being this week when there was a hearing before the commission. The commissioner refused to accept any financing charges because the numbered company could not be identified with respect to beneficial ownership.
The Thom commission was referred to. I hope members will agree with me that in choosing Stuart Thom the government has chosen someone with a great knowledge of the tax structure of this country and someone who has always shown himself to be independent and capable of independently evaluating rent review legislation in Ontario, something that has never been done before, I submit.
Having made all those remarks, I know I have influenced members greatly and will lead them to change their views in life and join those who are more sensible and appropriate. If I may, I will wind up my remarks by saying it has been a great occasion.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could request the House to waive the five-day interval before consideration by the standing committee on administration of justice?
Agreed to.
DISRUPTION OF HOUSE
Mr. Piché: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Respecting the Legislative Assembly Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, chapter 235, as amended by 1981, chapter 29 and a privilege respecting a contempt of the House that occurred last night, I believe the actions of certain individuals, whom I shall name on Monday next, constitute a contempt of this House as defined by sub-sub-subclause 45(1)2 of the Legislative Assembly Act, in that these individuals, by their actions, did attempt to intimidate or obstruct members of this assembly.
Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would propose the following motion: I move that matters relating to the demonstration in the public galleries last evening be referred to a committee of this House for study and report.
Mr. Speaker: I will take that under consideration.
10:20 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
The Deputy Chairman: Call in the members for the stacked votes.
10:30 p.m.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to clause 4(1)(a), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 46; nays 63.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 4, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 4 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 5(1), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 5 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 6(2), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 6 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 7, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 7 to agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 8(1), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 8, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 8 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 9(1), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 9 agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to section 10, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 10 agreed to.
Bill 205 reported.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Would it he appropriate at this time for me to make some remarks?
The Deputy Chairman: Does it pertain to this bill?
Mr. Piché: Yes, it does. I wanted to show the House that the two Sudbury members are missing tonight -- the one who has the big mouth -- yet the member on our side is here tonight. I want to put that on the record.
The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. Order.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the concurrence of the House to place a motion concerning Bill 198.
Agreed to.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Bill 198, An Act to provide for an Interim Restraint on the Pass Through of Financing Costs in respect of Residential Complexes, be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice and that the committee be authorized to meet to consider the bill on Monday afternoon and evening next, the committee to report the bill to the House on Tuesday afternoon next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just indicate the business of the House for tomorrow and next week.
Tomorrow, Friday December 17, we will consider Bill 196 standing on the Order Paper for second reading and committee of the whole and then proceed to concurrences in supply for the auditor, the assembly, the Ombudsman, ministries of Education, Colleges and Universities, Social Development and Community and Social Services, time permitting.
On Monday, December 20, in the afternoon and evening, we will consider the estimates of the Treasurer.
On Tuesday, December 21, in the afternoon we will deal first with third readings of the bills which this House has debated today and tomorrow morning, and any private bills that stand on the Order Paper. Second, we will deal with the motion for interim supply standing on the Order Paper and, third, with the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the Premier and cabinet.
Those particular estimates will continue in the evening of December 21.
There is a possibility, if all that business is completed, that the House can adjourn either Tuesday evening or, if that business is not all completed, it will continue over to Wednesday, December 22, and the House will adjourn Wednesday, December 22, at 6 p.m.
When the House adjourns, it will resume sitting on Monday, January 17, 1983, to conclude consideration of the remaining estimates and concurrences standing on the Order Paper and all the bills at present standing on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:39 p.m.