THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as I said before I adjourned the debate on the last occasion when this bill was before the House, this is a very contentious issue.
On the one hand, we have people who are opposed to censorship of any kind in our society. Their reasoning is that censorship interferes with freedom of expression, which is now protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They feel it interferes with free cultural and artistic expression. They warn that it has been used to limit political dissent and can end up with thought control in the style of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. They ask who controls the censors, who chooses them and to whom are they answerable.
On the other hand, there is a growing concern about the increasing dissemination of material that portrays and condones violence and the sexual exploitation of women and children and that is abusive of ethnic or religious groups or of any other vulnerable group in society.
The tremendous growth in what is known as the porn industry has greatly increased the concerns of those who believe our laws must protect the dignity of the individual. The industry is now a $1-billion industry and its products can be reproduced very cheaply and in great numbers. Its products can cross borders with very little difficulty. Competition for the market is leading to the production of more and more extreme depictions of violence, of sexual coercion and dominance, of sadism and of more dehumanizing portrayals of vulnerable groups such as women and minorities.
I believe there is a growing consensus that some limits must be placed on freedom of expression when it is used for the commercial exploitation of violence and the degradation of women and children.
Recently the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) commissioned a former New Democratic Party member of the Legislature, Mr. Patrick Lawlor, to study the question of hate literature. In his recent report, under the title Group Defamation, he made this observation:
"Freedom is and must be restricted in order to preserve freedom itself and the equal freedom of others."
I believe most members in this House would support that principle. Where we differ is in the route to follow in imposing those limits.
We welcome the bill's extension of the film classification system to all videos, tapes and films sold in retail stores. We accept a licensing system for such retail outlets as an effective means of enforcement. We agree that items classified as adult-only should not be sold to children or to any person under 18. We agree with municipal laws that say such items should not be displayed at levels under five feet or with pornographic pictures featured where other purchasers may see them.
We support these aspects of Bill 82 as very necessary legislation, but we are voting against the bill at this stage to highlight our alternative approach to the problem, which we want the government to consider.
We reject the government's route of turning the problem over to an even more powerful censor board; that is what the Ontario Film Review Board really is. We believe our alternative approach will be equally or more effective in removing offensive material from the media, from the newsstands and from the video stores. At the same time our approach will preserve human rights and freedoms through a classification and licensing system that contains an adequate appeal procedure.
This appears to be another of the bills before the House this session on which there is a clear distinction between the NDP and the Liberal Party. Most of us want the same goal: the elimination of unacceptable pornographic material. But most of the Liberal speakers appear to be accepting the Tory route to that goal; that is, a more powerful censor board.
Instead, we propose a broadened classification board and retention of due process to review the decisions made by the classification board. In the bill there is no judicial review allowed of the decisions of the film review board beyond referring the question to another panel of the same board.
The NDP has traditionally been opposed to censorship, because it has seen how it has been used by right-wing governments to infringe the rights of free speech and to inhibit free cultural and artistic expression. We have seen how it has been used by undemocratic governments to restrict political dissent and the rights of opposition parties and groups. We have seen it used for thought control in one-party states.
8:10 p.m.
However, we have also seen the need for human rights laws against hate literature and hate expressions, particularly in the field of race relations. We have welcomed the clauses in the Broadcasting Act that forbid the broadcasting of any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation of any race, religion or creed.
One of our federal members, Lynn McDonald, introduced a private member's bill in Ottawa to add the word "sex" to that prohibition. We are pleased that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has recently accepted her proposal and applied the prohibition to both broadcasting and pay TV. It has also extended it to material abusive of children.
The New Democratic Party also sees the need for restrictions on material that degrades women, children and any other vulnerable group. For that reason, we strongly support the call for amendments to the Criminal Code that would more clearly spell out the kind of material that should be defined as obscene and should be prohibited.
We also support a beefing-up of the customs and excise practices in making decisions on what should be denied admittance to Canada under the Criminal Code.
Because of the explosion of degrading and unacceptable material flooding our media newsstands and film and video shops, the NDP reviewed its policies on controlling this material at its recent convention in July 1984. After much study of the problem and long debate, the party came up with a new policy resolution on pornography at that convention.
Some of my colleagues have already described the features of that resolution. However, I want to point out exactly what it does, to make our position clear. It contains the alternative route I have been mentioning as the reason the NDP is rejecting the route proposed by the government in Bill 182, which apparently is also the route supported by most of the Liberals.
The NDP resolution does the following things:
First, it clearly reaffirms the party's support of the right to free expression.
Second, it reaffirms the 1980 Ontario NDP policy that called for replacement of the Ontario Board of Censors by a film classification board. The board would classify both films and videotapes based on legislated community standards.
Third, it recognizes that free cultural and artistic expression is fundamental to our society and is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This recognition would stop the kind of raids on art galleries that the present censor board has been staging under the existing law.
Fourth, it urges amendment of the Criminal Code to prohibit publication of violent or sexually coercive pornography. This would be enforced through the courts rather than through a censor board.
Fifth, it urges amendment of the Ontario Human Rights Code to provide a much broader hate law than we have at present. The hate law must be extended explicitly to cover expression of hate towards women as a group.
Sixth, it rejects any form of porn that portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children and suggests special measures to keep such material out of circulation.
Seventh, it proposes a route for dealing with films and videos that do not meet the legislated community standards. Distributors would be licensed and could lose their licences if found to be in violation of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Human Rights Code or the Theatres Act. Enforcement would therefore be mainly through the courts.
The classification board would have the power to recommend the excision of parts of films or tapes that the board believes violate community standards or that can be classified as child pornography. The recommendations would be discussed with the distributor. If he or she did not agree to make the cuts, the board would not make the cuts itself, nor would it ban the film, as a censor board does.
However, if the distributor showed the film, he would be subject to a charge of violating the Theatres Act, and no further showings would be allowed until the courts heard the case. The distributor would then have the opportunity to prove in a court of law that the film does not violate the legislated community standards or that it is a film of significant social, educational, cultural or artistic merit. If the distributor succeeded in so proving, the board's recommendation would be set aside and the film could be shown.
This provides for the law to be brought in to evaluate the decision about whether the material is in violation of either the Criminal Code or the Ontario Human Rights Code.
This is far better than the kind of appeal provided for in Bill 82, which simply lets the distributor appeal a cut or a ban to a new panel of the film review board, as I mentioned earlier. Bill 82 also continues the film review board's exemption from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act; in other words, it rules out due process of law. We feel this is a very important defect in the bill, and this is why we wish to protest the route that is embodied in the bill.
I might add that the NDP motion has an additional component that is completely missing from Bill 82. It calls for a public education program to make people more aware of the offence to human dignity caused by violent or sexually coercive pornography, especially as it affects women in their struggle for social and economic equality. In effect, it seeks to overcome the desensitizing of society that is growing because of violent pornography.
The NDP motion also calls for school programs on human sexuality, equality and mutuality.
Finally, it calls for an education program on this issue within the party to raise awareness of the seriousness of the problem and of the necessity for legislation to control it. It also would discuss how we can preserve free cultural and artistic expression while protecting women, children and other vulnerable groups from a new and very vicious form of antihuman hate literature.
These are the reasons we are opposing the bill. We are also opposing it because the minister has not brought before us the regulations that will contain the community standards that are to form the basis for the decisions by the film review board. We think we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke in this bill until we know what those community standards are going to be.
8:20 p.m.
Another thing that appears to be missing from the legislation is a clarification of responsibility for distributing unacceptable material. Under the Criminal Code, publishers, wholesalers and retailers can be charged. We have seen this happen in the recent case of Penthouse magazine. We have to recognize that most magazines and many videotapes and films are now sold through convenience or variety stores. These retailers are very much on the firing line.
I am told by the co-ordinator of the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association, which represents a large number of variety store operators throughout the province, that five of his members have been charged in the Penthouse case. We also know that at least one large wholesaler of magazines to retailers has been charged. I do not think the small retailer should be considered the culprit in such cases.
In the first place, he gets his magazines and videos in a package. Even though he does not have to accept every magazine or video in the package, he does not have time to examine each package to see what should be rejected. In the second place, he is not necessarily knowledgeable about community standards or court interpretations of the obscenity clauses in the Criminal Code.
Some retailers who are newcomers to Canada are not experienced with our court system. These people in particular are very anxious not to be found in conflict with the law. Often they fear that even being charged may hinder their chances of bringing relatives to Canada. They fear it may become more difficult for them to obtain Canadian citizenship. They also fear the publicity about charges and that it may reflect on the members of their ethnic community.
Mr. Martel: Is the minister about to respond? Is that why the lights are on?
Mr. Bradley: Why are the lights on?
Mr. Elston: The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has brought light to the Legislature.
Ms. Bryden: Yes. It must be a pretty important topic.
Because of these unfortunate effects of charging small retailers, I urge that the Criminal Code, the Theatres Act and the Human Rights Code be amended to clarify that the publisher or the wholesaler is chiefly responsible for the content of what is put in the retail stores. This is an amendment I urge the minister to consider including.
In conclusion, I believe most members in this House agree that steps must be taken to control violent and exploitative pornography. We simply disagree on the methods to effect that control. It does not mean we are any less concerned about the problem of pornography. I commend our proposal as a way to remove unacceptable material from our society and at the same time to preserve freedom of cultural and artistic expression and the right to have a review of decisions about what is unacceptable subject to due process of law rather than to bureaucratic fiat.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with Walter and his friends this evening as we discuss --
Mr. Sweeney: Walter?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Not one person in the room knew what the W stood for.
First I want to thank the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed), the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine for their interesting and well-intentioned remarks about views they hold very strongly. It is an issue which tends to divide people, very strongly, on their views.
There is a reasonably good consensus of what we are all about, even though there may be some disagreement about the process we may use to achieve that end.
One should remember we are not here tonight to discuss a new principle. The legislation we are talking about, the Film Classification and Censorship Act, has been in effect in this province since 1911. It is not new. It has been through many phases. The last phase some four years ago introduced the concept of a public board representing the public. It determined what the community standard was and then endeavoured to apply that standard to the films before it in order to classify the great majority of films. In others, it required some eliminations. That was, by far, the very smallest part of its job.
Tonight we are here essentially for two main reasons. One is, we have seen in our day a shift in the distribution of films that have in the past been seen in public theatres. The same type of film is now distributed through retail outlets on video-cassettes.
The whole premise upon which this legislation was based and upon which it continues to be based, is that film is a particular type of visual medium that has the capacity to have a particularly strong impact on those who view it.
It would be fair to say that most researchers in the world who have examined these issues and have come to some thoughtful conclusions on them would feel there is a possibility or probability that viewing the kind of abhorrent material we are talking about can influence behaviour and attitudes and, at the very least, can reduce one's sensitivity to what is going on with respect to the degradation of women and exploitation of children -- the violence and so forth that can be associated with sex.
We are dealing with a very important issue. It is an issue which this province has recognized as an important one for many years, and which other countries throughout the world are gradually becoming concerned about, although many joined in that original concern. The numbers are increasing in that area; they continue to mount.
We are here tonight, first, to deal with the fact we now have a new method of distributing visual moving pictures, namely videocassettes, and to propose ways and means to control or to license the retailers and distributors of those videocassettes. We are here to impose those principles of classification upon them that apply to ordinary films in movie theatres today and also to those occasions, rare though they may be, when some censorship is required.
We are also here about the issue of the Charter of Rights. Many members have referred to the Supreme Court of Ontario decision. Just to clarify the issue -- because there are some who I think may have wrongly felt the court had said that what the existing legislation did was contrary to the charter -- I would like simply to quote from that judgement, which said, "Some prior censorship of film is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society."
The question is not the legality of censorship; the question is whether or not the limits that have been placed on freedom of expression are reasonable limits and whether they have been prescribed by law. We are here tonight to introduce legislation that in addition, therefore, by regulatory power gives the government the power to prescribe by law what those limits are, subject always to the test by the courts that they must still be reasonable limits.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Elston: The lights just went out on the minister.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I thought the lights were here for the member opposite, not for me. They so rarely look at me these days. I am not the fifth man; I am not even the fourth man these days. But I will be there somewhere in some race.
Some members have commented on the fact that as a public policy tool this bill will not do away with violence, sexual exploitation, the degradation of women or the exploitation of children. That is true; it will not do away with them.
But it does do several things. It states as public policy what this government and what this Legislature feel about this issue. It gives those retailers and distributors whom the member for Beaches-Woodbine was so concerned about -- and I share her concern -- some certainty that their shops will not be subject to the kinds of raids and charges that caused them disrepute in the neighbourhood and from which, by the way, the majority of them want protection.
They do not enjoy being charged and having their reputations scattered around the neighbourhood. They want something to be done that protects them from the kind of film that puts them in trouble with their community and with their neighbourhood. That is where their business is, and they do not need to lose that kind of business. This bill therefore states our public policy and it does much for those whom the member for Beaches-Woodbine has expressed concern about.
The ironic thing about this debate is that we do not disagree on what we are trying to achieve and that is one of the unique things about this bill. The struggle is with the process and how we achieve it and it is not a struggle that we alone are having. I refer to the position of the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists, an association with which the member for Halton-Burlington has an occasional relationship. He is now between jobs, so he is not intimately associated with it at the moment.
It has an interesting position, and I do not say this critically, because the association clearly struggled with it. It has a two-part policy on pornography and censorship. The first part calls for a fundamental revision of federal obscenity laws in order to allow complete freedom of expression where portrayals of explicit sexual behaviour are concerned; it seems pretty clear. But the second part of the policy, interestingly enough, requires ACTRA members about to engage in work in their field to seek and receive prior approval from ACTRA if they plan to produce programming that advocates or condones violent or abusive sexual behaviour. Clearly it has the same difficulty that many do. It is called an on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand kind of difficulty.
Again I do not say this in the least to be critical and I hope no one takes it that way, but the third party in its previous resolutions shared this kind of on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand difficulty. Under resolution 410, it totally opposed censorship, but under resolution 413, it said that no station shall show or broadcast anything that is abusive, etc., or that relates to sex or sexual abuse. So clearly everybody is struggling with the issue of freedom of expression at a time when we all know exactly what we are trying to achieve as a goal, although we may have some differences with respect to how we achieve that goal.
Both the member for Hamilton West and the member for Beaches-Woodbine have reviewed the most recent position of the third party and I understand it.
It is an interesting position that proposes among other things, and I will not review them because those members have done so very ably, that there be a committee representing the public to determine community standards, that they classify films and recommend eliminations where those eliminations would offend community standards and that there be an appeal within the system. If a company chooses to go ahead and distribute the film anyway, it should do so and then go to the courts as the ultimate answer to all these problems.
Let us just see how easy it is for the courts. I think many have read and appreciated the struggle and the interest Mr. Justice Borins had when he reviewed a number of films in the case of Her Majesty versus Doug Rankin Co. Ltd. and Act III Video Productions Ltd. Let me quote from page 27:
"Yet it remains the task of the trier of fact, who is assumed to have his finger on the pornographic pulse of the nation, to assess objectively whether or not the contemporary Canadian community will tolerate the distribution of the motion pictures before the courts. There is some irony in this requirement.
"The judge, who by the very institutional nature of his calling is required to distance himself or herself from society for purposes of the application of the test of obscenity, is expected to be a person for all seasons, familiar with and aware of the national level of tolerance. Thus the trial judge or jury is required to rely upon his or her own experience and decide as best he or she can what most people in Canada think about such material to arrive upon a measure of community tolerance of that material."
I may say in passing that two or three months later a judge and jury sitting in Thunder Bay reviewing the same material considered three or four further tapes to be obscene even though that jury was reviewing the same sort of material.
It is not a straightforward and simple matter for a judge, who, as Justice Borins says, has distanced himself from those matters, suddenly to be required to assess a community standard. That is what the Board of Censors, the Ontario Film Review Board, is all about, a board that has become accustomed to and has indeed got the pulse of the community standard of the day.
With respect to the issue of whether it is better simply to broaden the criminal offence, as some would say, I think it should be broadened. The Attorney General is working diligently to do that.
I would like to refer to the report of the British committee on obscenity and film censorship chaired by Barnard Williams, dated November 1979, commenting on this very issue of prior review of material before distribution. We are talking now about film censorship in a free and democratic society. I will quote from page 145:
Some people told us that if there is material which we were satisfied should not be made available to the public, the proper way to suppress it is by way of making it the subject of determination by the courts rather than by prior restraint. Prior restraint is commonly recognized as a more effective means of suppressing material than is offered by the subsequent punishment approach.
8:40 p.m.
"Its advantages are that it provides certainty, consistency and speed of decision and the possibility of continuous review by the same group of people. It avoids the delays of criminal trials and decisions by courts who know nothing of films and are not representative of the film-going public. It provides a more refined control capable of identifying which elements of a film are objectionable and, therefore, allowing the distributor the opportunity of reacting, and it prevents objectionable material from becoming available at all, rather than trying to retrieve it after publication and thereby giving it more publicity."
It is not an easy issue and it is not an easy one simply to leave to the courts. I can assure the members that members of the P squad would tell them that it is not an easy issue for them. It is not an easy issue for the corner distributor the member for Beaches-Woodbine was talking about, whose reputation in the community is certainly different to what it was before the day he or she was charged.
Mr. Nixon: You charged them with selling Penthouse.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Does the member want to start selling Penthouse?
Mr. McClellan: You charged the clerks.
Mr. Nixon: Some poor guy behind the counter.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: We are talking about the issue of films. That is the issue before us. Several changes are being proposed to face the new reality of videocassettes and their retail distribution, and of the Charter of Rights with its requirement that whatever is proposed by a government with respect to control over distribution of film must be reasonable and must be done in a legal framework -- in other words, in the statute or by way of regulations.
In concluding, I commend this legislation to members as achieving those goals and I ask for their support when this matter is eventually referred to committee.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Elgie, the debate was adjourned.
RESIDENTIAL COMPLEXES FINANCING COSTS RESTRAINT AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, 1982, before us this evening for second reading, will extend the sunset provisions of the act for one year; that is, from December 31, 1984, to December 31, 1985.
This extension is necessary to afford an opportunity to consider a recommendation in volume 1 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies released October 30 that the principle of this act be put in place permanently. The report has been received with considerable interest and many parties are now in the process of making known their views on and responses to that report.
The act, as members will recall, 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 the purchase or sale of a residential complex. The extension before us this evening will allow time for appropriate study, but will not prevent other legislative changes from being made to rent control legislation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time this legislation has been before us. It is interesting to note that while we are still dealing with a five per cent pass-through, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has with great vehemence and enthusiasm indicated to us that the level of inflation in this jurisdiction is now closer to the three per cent level and he is predicting that it will go even lower.
It seems to me the five per cent pass-through is quite generous, particularly since the minister is indicating this is just pro tem until the authorities in government and perhaps a committee of the Legislature have an opportunity to review the recommendation of the Thom report.
There is a general feeling that the government's approach to rent review in general, and this aspect in particular, is predicated more on the nearness of a provincial election than it is on doing justice to the whole concept of rent review.
The whole basis of rent review depends originally on the foresight and inspiration of that great lady, Margaret Campbell, who in the days when the government of the day was rejecting any sort of rent review or control out of hand was putting forward, on behalf of the Liberal Party, the concept of review which has been found to be quite adequate and workable from 1975 until this day.
Mr. McClellan: The member should not be fatuous.
Mr. Nixon: Well, it was picked up by some johnnies-come-lately who are always interjecting from the far left, the ineffectual left.
I am very proud to say I was leader of the official opposition when Mrs. Campbell had this transcendental vision. It was picked up by the socialists who were simply talking about rent control or some other sort of fascist approach to this particular matter. The then Premier, our lame duck friend, rejected it out of hand, but seeing the views of the people in this jurisdiction, in this metropolitan area and other important cities, realized his re-election depended on some sort of bow to rent control.
I am quite concerned the government is so slow and ineffective in moving towards keeping the Margaret Campbell concept up to date. It feels that what was okay in 1975 is going to be all right in 1985. I do not believe it will be. Its approach to this is still uninspirational, antediluvian and steeped in the kind of politics that, unfortunately, has been moderately successful for these past few years on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party.
But I am concerned, even at the level of five per cent, that it would put that before us. The five per cent level is more than generous, particularly as the Treasurer, as I pointed out, is indicating that inflation has fallen well below that level. It is a sort of nice balance between what the leadership candidates want to squeeze out of the Urban Development Institute, the people associated with it, and what it feels the people renting in St. James Town will stand for.
We are quite disappointed that the minister, who has the carriage of this responsibility, has not applied his undoubted great intellect to a problem which requires a more imaginative approach. We are not going to stand in the way of this legislation because it is necessary, for want of the kind of leadership the Progressive Conservative Party has failed in over these many years.
We are thinking seriously of trying to persuade Mrs. Campbell to come back into the House so we can have the kind of leadership in this matter for a further decade. There is nothing on the Tory side and nothing with the NDP, which simply parrots the old, glassy-eyed, doctrinaire approaches of socialism which are really no longer effective or useful in the problems we face in a modern world. I hope our critic comes back soon.
Mr. McClellan: What a wonderful speech that was, Mr. Speaker. It was a tribute to the former member for St. George, who, it is true, was a temporary convert to the cause of rent control. How unfortunate it was, how tragic it was that she was never able to persuade her leader to come on board on the issue.
Mr. Nixon: That is not factually correct. I hesitate to use the terminology the member's House leader would use.
Mr. McClellan: I remember the debates in 1976 when we passed the first rent control act.
Mr. Elston: It is to be noted that the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is laughing all the time he is speaking.
Mr. McClellan: I remember those debates.
Mr. Elston: He cannot remember a single thing about 1976.
Mr. McClellan: I remember those debates so clearly, when the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) stood in his seat and denounced rent control as a temporary aberration. He was over here in those days. He was sitting right here and he said it was a temporary aberration. I will never forget it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Treleaven): Order.
Mr. Sweeney: I object. Show me the record.
Mr. McClellan: How quickly we degenerate into disorder in this place. Where did the minister go?
Mr. Elston: It is obvious the minister believes he has heard everything that is reasonable and rational. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has stopped.
Mr. McClellan: Perhaps when the minister is through chatting with one of his --
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I just saw your two friends fighting. I thought I would leave.
Mr. McClellan: When the minister is finished chatting with one of his many surrogate candidates, perhaps we can come back to the debate.
The Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act is being re-enacted because the sunset clause triggers in in about 33 days. What a big surprise that is.
In November 1982, this minister announced to a breathless Legislature he intended to appoint a royal commission because he was so upset, so terminally concerned, so chronically concerned, so pathologically concerned and so hysterically concerned about the two issues of costs no longer borne by the landlord and the phenomenon of illegal rents that were widespread and rampant in Ontario.
As a matter of utmost urgency, that royal commission was going to provide him with interim reports that would advise the minister, who was suffering, as I have said, from rampant concern about how he would deal with the problem of illegal rents and costs no longer borne by the landlord in November 1982.
We stand here in November 1984, having received a report of the Thom commission three or four weeks ago, the minister having received it some time in August or September, and the minister now comes forward with this little extension in Bill 147 to escape the sunset clause.
I have to ask myself, and I have asked the minister this before, about the election we had in the summer of 1975. September 18 was election day in 1975 and one of the big election issues that transpired, to the misfortune of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, was the issue of rent control.
In the middle of the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Davis) was forced, without any reference to his colleagues, to say that he too espoused this plank from the communist manifesto. The Premier, that notorious Marxist, espoused the notion of rent control and he was going to bring in rent control for Ontario.
We came back to this assembly -- I remember it clearly as a newly elected member of the assembly -- in October and the very first thing on our plate was a complete rent control bill, a complete legislative package to establish a rent control system for Ontario.
I do not have the exact dates with me, but we were here in the latter part of October. We had finished the second reading debate by the middle of November and the bill had been passed into law after a series of extensive public hearings before Christmas 1975. It was proclaimed in early 1976.
We went from election issue to complete legislative promulgation in September, October, November and December 1975. Lo and behold, here we are in 1984. We have had a royal commission that has been busy burning up the cheque books for two solid years from November 1982 to November 1984. There has been an unlimited blank cheque and there is no end in sight. Now they are on to phase 2 and the sky is the limit. They are going to study the whole issue until they spend probably $5 million or $6 million of taxpayers' money.
In the course of two full years and the expiry now of two and a half months, the minister still does not know what to do about costs no longer borne by the landlord and illegal rents. He does not know how the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act of 1982 fits into the big picture.
He does not know how it meshes with all the learned expositions of the Thom commission. In other words, he is no further ahead in December 1984 than he was in November 1982, which, if memory does not fail me, was the month when we first saw the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act. Was it not introduced in November 1982? The minister can nod if I am not mistaken. I am correct.
Mr. Elston: He is sleeping.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is the only time I have ever nodded at the member. Yes, he is correct this time.
Mr. McClellan: I hope he is not nodding out of some desire to sleep, but he has been asleep, of course, for the last two years. Two years later, a royal commission later, months after the report of the royal commission was delivered to the minister, the best he can do is to extend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act for another 12-month period.
Mr. Elston: A year.
Mr. McClellan: My colleague says a year. It is really pathetic. I do not want to be mean-spirited or uncharitable towards my friend the minister, but it really is a laughable exercise. He did not need a royal commission in the first place. He knew what to do about illegal rents, namely, set up a rent registry. He does not need a $2-million royal commission to tell him that. Everybody has known this since 1978 when we passed the Residential Tenancies Act.
He does not need a royal commission to tell him what to do about costs no longer borne by the landlord. We permit tenants to go to the Residential Tenancy Commission and appeal against costs no longer borne by the landlord. We had that in the 1976 rent control act. What kind of joke is being played on the people of this province? This is a complete charade and a complete waste of money.
Again, we are standing here with 1982 legislation, which is now extended to the end of 1985. For what reason? Is it, as I suspect, that the constituency for a progressive --
An hon. member: It is a good thing he is a neurosurgeon --
Mr. McClellan: He had to get out of the psychosurgery business because it is no longer legal.
I am at a loss to understand why this silly exercise has taken place. The minister has a whole ministry at his disposal and command. He has a whole number of competent and qualified staff assistants. He has the resources at his command to come forward with a series of proposals for plugging the loopholes in our rent control legislation.
But he was not prepared to do that, and the reason he was not prepared to do it is that there is no longer a base of support within the Conservative Party for legislation that would plug those loopholes. I do not believe any longer that this government has any intention of plugging the loopholes in our rent control laws.
We will see whether my possibly cynical or jaundiced outlook is sustained at the leadership convention of the Conservative Party in January. I do not think there is any market any more for the kind of pro-tenant initiative that was taken in 1975 and again in 1978. I do not think it is there any more within the government and I think that explains why this minister has shillied and shallied and dillied and dallied for two full years without bringing in self-evident reforms to the rent control act.
9 p.m.
One does not have to be a royal commission genius to know how to plug those loopholes in the Residential Tenancies Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. They are as plain as the nose on one's face. Every tenants' association in any apartment building anywhere in Ontario could tell the minister what he has to do and how he has to do it.
He did not have to spend $2 million. All he had to do was pick up a telephone and ask: "How should we end illegal rents? What will we do about costs no longer borne by the landlord? How can we make the commission more responsive to the needs of tenants?"
No, that is not the way we do things in Ontario. We have a royal commission to bury, suffocate, stall, delay, postpone and disguise the fact that it is no longer possible for a Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to get progressive legislation through this cabinet. That is the reality in Ontario in 1984 when the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), the leading contender, is describing himself as the Canadian Reagan.
Do honourable members think the Canadian Reagan is going to tolerate stronger pro-tenant legislation, stronger protection for tenants? Do they think the Reaganite candidate, whether it is the Minister of Industry and Trade or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), will tolerate plugging the loopholes in rent control? Not for a second. The minister can support the candidacy of the fourth place candidate and he can try to figure out what to do on the second ballot or even on the third ballot --
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): To which bill is the honourable member speaking?
Mr. McClellan: I am speaking to Bill 147 and why this bill is in front of us tonight. It is precisely because this minister has not been able to persuade this cabinet to plug the loopholes in rent control and bring forward reform, the necessity for which is self-evident to anybody who has studied, thought about or experienced the problem. Instead, he is in front of us again with a temporary, ad hoc extension for another 12 months.
Meanwhile, the royal commission ploughs ahead with its open chequebook and its global mandate to study cosmic rent control, but the minister is still as clued out and clueless as to what legislation to bring before this Legislature as he was in November 1982. It is a sad situation. Even though there is a limited market for psychosurgery, the minister would be well advised to pick up his scalpel. I am telling him I am still available.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: For having it or doing it?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate in supporting Bill 147, a successor to Bill 198 introduced only a couple of years ago, which was very temporary legislation then. The very temporary legislation the minister proposed at that time is almost like the temporary federal income tax proposed in 1917, which is still with us.
I am not sure where the minister stands with respect to the support he gets from his colleagues on rent review legislation. Going back to April 27, 1982, there was a letter sent by a businessman of this province to one William M. Kelly, who is now the Honourable William M. Kelly, a senator from Ottawa. The important paragraph we should draw from this letter is this:
"Prior to Mr. Davis's last election, the Ontario Landlord Association met with the Housing minister and we were assured if we as Ontario landlords would support the party and not make any waves prior to the election, we could expect the controls to be phased out if the PCs could obtain a majority."
The Progressive Conservatives got their 70 seats after making that commitment to the landlords that they would remove rent control from the books of Ontario's legislation.
Mr. Grande: They were told the PCs would get rid of rent control?
Mr. Epp: That is what this person said. He said the PCs promised they would get rid of rent control. This was to get additional moneys into their campaign coffers, to get their votes from, and their signs up on, the big apartment buildings and whatever.
Somehow or other, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), after making this obviously very sincere commitment, was not able to persuade his colleagues to get rid of rent controls, as he obviously wished to do. I am not sure that was not the reason he did not get the ministry that had responsibility for rent controls. Nevertheless, he still holds an important portfolio in the government, and in reading his speeches and some of the comments he makes I understand he is in favour of rent controls and he is not going to try to get rid of them.
This legislation came about after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) asked a considerable number of questions of the minister in the House after the 10,000-apartment flip by Mr. Rosenberg, brother of Morley Rosenberg, the former mayor of Kitchener, who fairly easily got a political plum.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Kitchener people do well. Does my friend object to them doing well?
Mr. Epp: I help them to do very well in their private enterprise as much as possible.
The Acting Speaker: Are you talking on Bill 147?
Mr. Epp: As the minister knows, I am a great supporter of private enterprise and of the entrepreneurial spirit we have in Waterloo. The city of Waterloo does extremely well itself; the landlords, the tenants, the business people, those who own the small industries and those who own the large industries. Our unemployment rate is fairly low; it is one of the lowest in the country.
The Acting Speaker: And on Bill 147.
Mr. Epp: I wanted to educate the minister on the entrepreneurial spirit that rests very well in the city of Waterloo and that area.
The Acting Speaker: We have all heard that. Now on Bill 147.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think you have some relatives there who love the area.
Mr. McClellan: Are they landlords, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker: That does not pertain to Bill 147.
Mr. Epp: Speaking directly to Bill 147, this bill will extend financial restraints on the people who want to go to rent review.
Speaking about financial restraints, I wonder whether the minister can give us any greater assurances than he has in the past about setting up a rent registry. As he knows, we have asked a number of questions in this House about that. Over the past two years he has passed the buck on to Mr. Thom, who is going to deliver his edict some time in the future.
We know it is a stalling action, and it has been a very successful stalling action for two years. It may last beyond the next election; which was the original intention, to make sure the government does not have to come up with any decisions before the next leader of that party calls an election. After that, they will not have to worry about it. The minister is trying to pass the buck on to the official opposition, so that when it forms the government he will not have to worry about it. That is fine, as long as we understand the problem.
There is one other aspect we should draw to the minister's attention; it has to do with demolition control, which is part of the whole rent review process. In Toronto we have had a particular problem with respect to a number of buildings the owners have wanted to demolish. The city of Toronto has, as much as possible, tried to thwart the efforts of the developer to demolish these buildings and to keep low-rent units available to those people who have very low incomes.
Unfortunately, the government does not want to preserve these units, although it has it in its power to do so. If it were to try to preserve them, we would have additional units for low-income earners. I ask the minister to try to do what he can to persuade his colleagues to preserve the units on Eglinton Avenue as well. If the precedent holds true, a good number of other units are going to be demolished. We ask him to preserve these units as far as possible.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief on Bill 147, but I thought I should put a few things on the record in regard to tenant legislation and rent controls in the province.
Basically, I want to say to the Liberal Party members, not wanting them to start screaming and yelling all over the place, that before and during the election of 1981 it was Liberal members whom we heard all over the province saying, "Rent control should be abolished for particular municipalities that have a vacancy rate higher than seven or eight per cent;" or whatever number it was. They were quite willing to leave it up to the municipalities to determine whether there should be rent review across this province. So when the Liberals get up to speak on rent review and tenant matters, as far as tenants in this province are concerned they know that party has made itself irrelevant.
Let me deal with Bill 147 and say to the minister that back in June or July of 1983 I, on behalf of the tenants of the riding of Oakwood, which I represent, went before the Thom commission to bring forth the concerns of the tenants of the riding of Oakwood. I spoke as well as I could on behalf of the tenants of the riding of Oakwood about the need to have a rent registry in this province, a rent registry that goes back to January 1, 1976.
Do members know what Mr. Thom said to me after I tried to explain the rent registry? Mr. Thom said, "But, Mr. Grande, is there any need for you to go over how a rent registry is set up when this is already part of the legislation and is therefore accepted?" In other words, back then we knew that Mr. Thom was going to accept the notion that a rent registry is required. Indeed, as the critic for the New Democratic Party has said, in 1976 this House said we needed a rent registry in this province.
The minister drags his feet; the government drags its feet. They do not want to do it; they do not want to bring it forward. However, the tenants in the riding of Oakwood demand that a rent registry be established. As a matter of fact, they demanded it to the point where we in the riding of Oakwood, I myself and three or four other people active in the tenants' movement, have set up a rent registry for one of the wards in the riding of Oakwood. We do not have the resources that a government would have to set it up for all of the riding, but we will get there; and I am sure that before this government moves, we will have a registry in place for the whole of the riding of Oakwood.
In effect, the tenants in the riding of Oakwood are being protected right now from illegal rents because this member believes landlords should not be allowed to steal from tenants. Of course, I do not want to say to the minister that he thinks landlords should be allowed to steal; however, he is allowing it to happen; he is allowing landlords to take away from tenants, illegally, thousands of dollars a day.
I do not think this government would for one moment allow a thief to go into a bank and take the money out of the bank, then say to that thief:
"You took that money two or three years ago. We will let you keep it now, because stealing three years ago is not the same as stealing today." That is exactly the kind of rent registry that this minister and the Thom commission were talking about in terms of going back two or three years instead of going back to January 1, 1976.
Tenants demand that a rent registry be established. I am sure the minister knows that. I am sure all the members of this Legislature, if they talk at all to tenants in their ridings, know that tenants want and need to have a rent registry and protection from illegal rents. They look to the government for that protection, but to look to this government for that kind of protection is to look in vain.
I do not want to say very much about the background of Bill 147. I just want to mention the fact that when pressure is there for the government to move, it does move slightly. A few years ago, Stephen Lewis made probably one of the best speeches in this Legislature that I can remember since I was elected to this House. He defined what politics is all about. If I remember correctly, he said politics is the art of the possible, but for this government politics is the art of the minimum.
What is the minimum this government can do to put tenants or any other interest group at ease with regard to their concerns? What is the minimum it can do to defuse an issue? The minister of rent controls, or the minister of illegal rents, found a way to defuse the issue of rents in those apartment buildings that were sold by Cadillac Fairview. He put those tenants' minds at ease by saying, "The new owners cannot raise the rent more than five per cent with regard to the financing." Those people were concerned there would be a 15, 20 or 30 per cent increase.
The minister and this government did the minimum they possibly could have done at that time. Then, to defuse the issue, they said, "Let us set up the Thom commission." For the past two years, the minister and the government had an easy time, getting tenants' organizations to busy themselves going before this forum, or the Thom commission, feeling and thinking that something constructive was going to take place at the end of the process. Now the process is partly at an end.
The first report has been issued, and this government now is stalling more and more.
I suggest to the minister that before this House recesses for Christmas he can bring in the amendment that was put into the legislation in 1978; all he has to do is proclaim it. Then people in his ministry and people in the Residential Tenancy Commission can begin to establish a rent registry that goes back to January 1, 1976, and can get the landlords in the riding of Oakwood to return the money they owe to the tenants in the riding of Oakwood.
9:20 p.m.
I want to talk very briefly about another issue that is crucial in the riding of Oakwood: The demolition of older apartment buildings. What happened on Eglinton Avenue in the riding of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is going to happen in spades in the riding of Oakwood on the Bathurst Street strip. There are about 4,000 to 5,000 tenants living north of St. Clair Avenue and south of Eglinton on Bathurst whose buildings and homes will be -- I predict they will be although I certainly hope not -- put to the wrecker's ball because the landlords are going to want to build luxury accommodation in that area.
There are 5,000 people, not just from the riding of Oakwood but from the city of York and from Metropolitan Toronto, who will be displaced from affordable housing. Where do they go? I have said it before and I repeat it again: it is like getting rid of a small town of 5,000 population in Ontario.
To stall or end this uncertainty on behalf of those tenants with respect to where they are going to live, and where they can find affordable locations and places, if this government wanted and if it had the will, it could introduce legislation in this House to allow the municipality to have a demolition control law with teeth that would be able to be enforced, so landlords would not be able to take their apartments and property and destroy the homes of people in this province.
There is not much time to talk about these matters tonight. I just wanted to put those few things on the record and to say to the minister in as clear a way as I possibly can that the tenants of the riding of Oakwood want action from this government. They do not want another commission, another report and another study.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments with respect to this legislation. I would like to start where we probably ended in the justice committee with the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations not long ago. It is in relation to the deliberations of this ministry with respect to several issues that really cause me a great deal of concern.
At a number of stages when we asked questions pertinent to the deliberations of this minister with respect to policy, he advised us the ministry is considering certain studies and internal types of material so it can generate some sort of legislation to deal with problems that have been in existence for some time. In this particular situation, we have the whole issue of rent review, tenants' rights and the Residential Tenancy Commission, which seems to be one of a number of issues this minister seems to be putting off and stalling until some time in the future.
Perhaps it reflects his desire to be taken off the horns of a dilemma where his philosophical bent perhaps does not particularly jibe with the types of programs his colleagues in cabinet would go along with. I rather suspect the minister is generally well intentioned with respect to protecting the rights of the citizens of this province in dealing with residential tenancies, but he is at some degree of disadvantage when he discusses these matters with his colleagues in cabinet.
Now that the first minister of this province finds himself at a stage where he no longer seems to care to be in the House or the general swing of the business of the province, I can anticipate the government finds itself in a very large way in a state comparable to a rudderless ship. In other words, it is drifting without any sort of direction to deal with the serious problems that need attention in this province.
I think this particular piece of legislation is a good example of the sort of problem this minister must deal with, and probably, if the truth were known, some of his other colleagues would find themselves in the same boat.
The question is, does the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). as he takes over the reins of government, want to carry on a program that would see a rent registry as part of the program of Ontario? Would the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry) want to deal with demolition controls? We have just seen that member come through a particular difficulty in his riding with respect to some buildings on Eglinton Avenue.
Would the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) want decisions that are made at this late juncture in the reign of Prince William of Brampton to be carried over into his time as first minister of this province? Or would the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) desire to carry on a decision that is made at this late date in the fall of 1984 before he takes over?
I can appreciate the difficulty of this particular minister when it comes to creating policy decisions with respect to this very important program in Ontario. Perhaps we cannot blame him if he is not able to work through his cabinet colleagues a precise position of this government on rent control or, for that matter, on demolition controls or on any of a number of other important policy programs with respect to protecting the tenants of this province.
I think it is important to indicate at this juncture in the debate that, while the government appears to be a rudderless ship, the opposition of this province is providing some direction --
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Heading for the glacier.
Mr. Elston: They may be on ice, but they are actively moving forward. Of course, when they are going backwards there is really no comparison in terms of what is happening.
With respect to activities, we are prepared. My colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has taken the bull by the horns, when the current minister has been unable to see his way clear to dealing with this issue, by introducing a clear statement of our policy by indicating we would introduce a central computerized rent registry for Ontario citizens.
I understand this minister has some sympathy for that, although he will not stand in the House and indicate he will support the bill of the member for Renfrew North, but I sensed during our time in estimates that he longed to provide his personal support for this particular piece of legislation as introduced.
The difficulty he comes up with, of course, is the difficulty that any minister has when there is no leadership, and that is the state in which we find the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. We cannot blame this minister for that particular dilemma. We can, however, urge and suggest that he come up with some policy that is a clear and unequivocal statement of his intentions for dealing with this problem in Ontario.
So far we have not had that from this man. He has decided he will postpone almost every major decision in his ministry until the spring of 1985. It is inconceivable, and I tried to make this point during estimates. As long as he postpones every major decision to the spring of 1985 he will be so inundated with the legislative process that he will probably be unable to talk to his cabinet colleagues about any program because they will be wondering what he will come to them for next. In fact, he probably will be badgering the member for Eglinton, who I understand would probably take this minister off the horns of the dilemma in which he finds himself as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, perhaps by elevating him or hoisting him to another position.
9:30 p.m.
I would be quite happy to see this minister move forward and provide us with some clear indication that he plans to help out the tenants of the province by making a clear statement that he will come up with a policy that will implement a computerized central rent registry in this province. He owes that to the tenants, even though at this stage he is merely postponing everything by introducing this piece of legislation.
It is clear, as well, that some of the other problems which need to be spoken about are those of demolition control. They are inextricably wound up with the whole problem of providing affordable housing for the people of Ontario. We cannot deal with those issues in any sense or any way without talking about the undesirable way in which applications are being made to destroy affordable housing for the citizens of, in particular, the city of Toronto.
I would recommend to the minister a review of the standing committee on administration of justice when they were reviewing a private bill for the city of Metropolitan Toronto dealing with demolition which would have been much more inclusive than the watered-down legislation actually turned out by the committee at some time down the road.
It spoke very eloquently to the problems expressed by those seniors and by others who find themselves currently in affordable housing, but who upon reviewing what is going to happen to them when demolition permits are issued find themselves actually as a sort of modern-day urban refugee. They have been displaced through no fault of their own; they have been largely abandoned, not only by the government of Ontario but also in some sense by their own members, if we look at the large representation of people from the riding of Eglinton.
I recall very well, as a member of the standing committee on administration of justice, sitting and reviewing the demolition control bill and looking to the rear of the audience and finding there planted among those people as a spectator the Attorney General of this province.
I found that very rewarding. It indicated to me the Attorney General was going to provide some support for that sort of legislation. It seemed to me we had an in to the inside of the cabinet; that there would be some kind of voice for those citizens who were going to find themselves displaced if something was not done.
Unfortunately, the man who wore the badge that read: "Apartments are homes too," along with the vast majority of people who not only sat in on the committee deliberations but who also stood in the aisles and outside listening to the deliberations of the committee, disappointed us to a great extent.
I can sympathize with his position. He has to abide by cabinet policy decisions, but it seems there is something of a problem when I come to review the types of activities of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations when he addresses the problem of tenants' rights since, I understand he is supporting the member for Eglinton in his efforts to become the Premier of this province.
If he hopes to wear the badge of the group he seems to be supporting, he ought to take every necessary step to implement the type of legislation which will save those people for whom he is bearing the sign.
Unfortunately, we have discovered that not only were the committee deliberations unable to pass the scrutiny of the cabinet decisions as to what the majority of the members in the committee would decide, but we were also then to discover the Attorney General would not consider the amendment presented to him just recently in this House by my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), with respect to last-minute efforts to save the apartments on Eglinton Avenue.
There are a number of issues, and this demolition control issue is one, which will and must be addressed by this minister or his successor.
We find the greatest disservice to Ontario is the putting off of these major decisions with respect to the residential tenancies problem in Ontario.
I just want to make two or three other comments on the Thom commission. I can understand the minister's hopes that he will be able to deal with the Thom commission when it is all finally put together in both phase 1 and phase 2 reports.
Mr. McClellan: He will be lucky if he still has a job.
Mr. Elston: It seems to me, however, when we were promised a report on the difficulties of residential tenancy in Ontario by the end of 1983, we should have been given some kind of report in 1983.
We were also told we would have some kind of report early in 1984, then we were told we would have a report in August 1984. Finally, we were told we would have a report at some point later on in 1984; and sure enough, we have it. We have received it through the efforts of our minister, who has been able to extricate the report from the difficulties of having it printed and circulated. We have finally received it, but it is not a final report. We have phase 1 of the report and phase 2 is still to come.
We find at this stage in the report the umbrella groups of landlords are unable to find their way clear to speak to the Thom commission in a real way. We also find the umbrella groups of tenants are unable to speak to the Thom commission. We have individuals speaking to the commission, but I have to ask the minister what he expects to get from phase 2 of the report when there appears to be some sort of active boycott of this commission.
It seems to me what he is doing is postponing the problems of his successor, or perhaps of himself, until the spring of 1985 by passing this piece of legislation and by refusing to deal in any real way with the issues that concern residential tenancies in Ontario as they come up. He could deal with demolition or the central registry. Those programs could be dealt with separately from the overall review. He could do those very easily and settle once and for all the direction his government hopes to take with respect to residential tenancies, but he is not doing that.
He is probably not privy to the secret agreements going on among the four leadership contenders in his party, although he may be. He may feel he is gagged by some order from the grand Progressive Conservative guru in Ottawa. He may feel he cannot come up with any decision on his own.
We have so many items left for the spring of 1985, it is very difficult to tell whether this minister is doing anything more than providing some kind of guiding light for those people we never see in his ministry at all. He may receive a good number of pieces of written literature that will never see the light of day. It is unfortunate that this minister, at a critical juncture of the status of residential tenancies in this province, has been unable to find himself in a position to move on any of the issues.
I raise these issues, not because I wish to delay in any sense the passage of this legislation, but because I would like to let the people of this province know we have here a government that finds itself in a situation comparable to that of a rudderless and pilotless boat in dangerous waters, drifting aimlessly. Those people who appear to be in most danger are not the captain and the first officers, but the deckhands and passengers of that great ship of state, the citizens of Ontario.
I cannot understand for a minute why this minister, who seems to be inclined to provide some assistance if we look at his personal philosophical bent, does not move to provide some direction for the people of Ontario. He is unable to do that and that is too bad.
He ought to tell us he is supporting the Attorney General because he hopes to be able to announce there will be a computerized central rent registry along the lines of the program introduced by the member for Renfrew North; he hopes there will be demolition control along the lines of that first discussed in the standing committee on administration of justice; and he hopes he will come up with some meaningful legislation to deal in its entirety with the recommendations, not only of phase 1 of the Thom commission but also of phase 2.
9:40 p.m.
This postpones the inevitable showdown which will come at some stage in Ontario. Perhaps this minister will be long gone by the time the showdown comes.
It is somewhat akin to the type of showdown now appearing in the Ministry of the Environment. The current Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) will see how easily he escaped the wrath of the citizenry of Ontario because he has escaped the concerns that have leaked out of the chemical wastelands he was for so long surveying in his former capacity as Minister of the Environment. The people in the government are escaping minefields by postponing, procrastinating and praying they are supporting the right leadership candidate.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Are you sure you are from Huron-Bruce?
Mr. Elston: We are from Huron-Bruce. The people of the province require action in a dedicated, sensible, reasonable and compassionate way from the government of Ontario. As the members of the government drift along, they will find themselves wrecked on the rocky shore of a political wasteland from which they may never recover.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time on this bill. I want to register a few comments about what this bill represents in tenant matters in this province and what it reflects in government policy and approach to policy. A number of members have been through it tonight, and I do not want to repeat it all. They have said there is no need for this kind of approach to the question of rent review or to landlord-tenant legislation in general.
We have seen this kind of approach in almost every ministry across the way. We hear the kinds of concerns from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that we hear from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt).
We go through questions on rent review and all the concerns are expressed. We go through questions on workers' compensation and all the concerns are expressed. We go through questions on the environmental things going on in this province, which we were discussing earlier this afternoon, and all the concerns are expressed. However, where is the leadership, the action and the resolutions of those concerns and problems? There is none.
An hon. member: Where's the beef?
Mr. Charlton: As my colleague says, where's the beef?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: He can tell you where it is if you want to look around you.
Mr. Riddell: I see a lot of pork over there.
Mr. Charlton: Quite a few barrels as well. It is a problem of deception. It is a problem of speaking to the people of this province about the things they are concerned about without ever taking any concrete action. This legislation, as my colleague the member for Bellwoods said at the outset, is something we could have dealt with ages ago, two years ago.
The rent registry question is something we could have dealt with two years ago. In the late 1970s, in 1978 and 1979, we had two committees of this Legislature that sat for a total of about a full year on the question of landlords, tenants and rent review. Time after time those committees received presentations in a very thorough way from tenants' organizations, landlords' organizations and individual landlords across this province.
At one point we even adjourned the committee here and travelled across this province to communities where rental issues were of concern. We went to Sudbury, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Windsor and London. We went all across this province. All these things have basically been repeated by the royal commission.
We have got into a syndrome in Ontario of studying everything for ever, but never doing anything about those things we study. Then we wonder why the people of this province become so cynical about politics and politicians. They see us all as a part of the same process. Unfortunately, we on the opposition side get sucked into participating in all these studies.
Mr. Elston: No, no; the member should speak for his own party. Did it get sucked in?
Mr. Charlton: The Liberal Party is already there. We may get perceptually stuck in; it is already there.
At any rate, it is a very sad day when we have to deal with bills such as this to extend a piece of legislation from the end of this year to the end of next year, when we should be here making the permanent decisions about where we want to go with landlord-tenant and rent review legislation for the next considerable period in Ontario.
My colleagues and I from Hamilton have been holding a series of hearings in Hamilton with the business community around questions of economic direction, about what things we can be doing as politicians to make life a little saner out there in Ontario. One of the things we have been told repeatedly by businessman after businessman at these hearings is: "Look, we do not like all your regulations" -- they say that and it is quite clear and we understand it -- "but if we have to live with regulations, let us sit down and work out the regulations. Tell us that for the next 10 years or 15 years those are the regulations under which we have to operate. Quit tinkering around, playing games, putting in this program, renewing it for one year, changing the program, adding another and taking one away."
That lack of leadership causes more problems for more sectors in Ontario than any other kind of problem they have. We want to talk about this kind of indecisive approach which seems to show the government cannot make up its mind and does not know where it is going. Whether it is the environment, the Workers' Compensation Board or landlord-tenant legislation, it does not know where it is going, where it has been or what might come next.
This bill is a totally lacklustre extension of something the government is not sure it likes, not sure it wants to get rid of, but not sure it wants to make permanent either. It is thus extended for another year, and nobody knows what is coming next down the road.
That is the kind of atmosphere everybody out there wants to end, regardless of whether they are for regulation or against regulation. They want to end that kind of haphazard, piecemeal, unknowing approach, without any clear understanding of what the future holds. We have to get rid of this approach. We are getting no leadership from this government.
This bill is a primary example of not knowing, not understanding and not being sure of whether to get rid of something, keep it or change it, whether to make it permanent or part of something else.
Interjection.
Mr. Charlton: That is correct. There have been no firm decisions in years. Not only have there been no firm decisions in years, there is no sign of one coming either. It is a travesty.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: There is no sign of any tummy. I do not mind that.
Mr. Charlton: There are no apparent decisions coming from the four leadership candidates. They cannot even decide what they are allowed to talk about, never mind what they want to stand for.
The Deputy Speaker: Let us go back to the bill.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Charlton: They cannot even decide what they are allowed to talk about. This has become the biggest circus approach to government that anybody could ever see anywhere. It is like the comedian magician we used to see on the stage in the Mandrake cartoons. Now you see it, now you do not, but oops, it was supposed to be a rabbit and it ended up a dog. Nobody knows where the minister is, nobody knows where he has been and nobody knows where he is going. That is the kind of economic indecisiveness that causes a good many of the problems we have.
If one talks to landlords out there or to tenants, one of the things they say clearly is: "Look, all we want to know is where we are going, not what you are not going to do but what you are going to do. Give us a direction, give us a decision and set it in place."
This bill gives us no leadership, it creates nothing that we can understand and it is just a prime example of the nothing approach to policy that we are getting from the other side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I enjoyed hearing friends fight among each other a little bit at the beginning.
I would like to point out to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, with the greatest respect, that this bill does not deal with the statutory annual increase. When he was referring to inflation, he should have been referring to the statutory annual increase, not the five per cent maximum rent increase that may be attributed to financing costs related to a sale.
Many members have talked about issues that fall outside the domain of this ministry, particularly the issue of demolition. I cannot help responding to the complaint that there is a lack of movement on the part of this government. This minister, within a month and a half of assuming office, had introduced, with the co-operation of the Residential Tenancy Commission, changes with respect to conflict of interest rules.
Within another three or four months the issue of funding and the backlog commenced to be addressed. The whole history has been one of continuing to improve the process and the mechanisms and the funding available for that commission. Indeed, rather than inaction, there has been a two-year history of action while a royal commission considering matters was reviewing the issue.
That report was tabled a month ago. A month later a bill is being introduced to prolong that five per cent cap on financing costs while a working committee reviews the recommendations of the Thom report in the light of responses from interested members of the public. I know this does not matter to any of the members opposite; I understand that. They do not want to hear what those other people have to say about the report. They would just as soon say: "We do not need the other people. We will just go ahead and do it on our own.
Fortunately, this government, perhaps because it understands how the legislative process should work, understands that there has to be a process. That process is in place and, as I have indicated, it is my hope it will produce some recommendations I may take to my colleagues this winter for their consideration.
In summary, I appreciate what I suspect is support for the passage of this bill and I would adjourn debate on the bill at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Elgie has moved second reading of Bill 147. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Mr. Martel: He adjourned the debate. He did not even move second reading.
The Deputy Speaker: He had moved second reading earlier.
Mr. Martel: He did not move it. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: But that was not passed as a motion.
Mr. Martel: He did not move it. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Elston: He sure did.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: We stacked the vote until 10:15.
Mr. Martel: There is no vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Just to clarify the matter, Mr. Elgie has moved second reading of Bill 147.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Williams moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elgie, second reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Securities Act.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I am introducing for second reading amendments to the Securities Act which extend the act to Her Majesty in the right of Canada, Ontario, the other provinces and the territories as well as to the agents and servants of Her Majesty in each of these jurisdictions.
In other words, these amendments to the Securities Act will require crown corporations to abide by the same rules as any other investor trading in Ontario's capital markets, including the Toronto Stock Exchange.
It was the Ontario Securities Commission's discovery that it could not require a crown corporation to abide by the rules that brought this legislation before us for second reading this evening. I refer to the challenge to a 1982 Ontario Securities Commission order that denied a Quebec crown corporation, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, access to Ontario's securities markets. The order was issued after the caisse failed to file insider reports of its holdings in several public companies and made a takeover bid for Domtar Inc. of Montreal without complying with the takeover bid requirements of the Securities Act.
In that challenge to the commissioner's order, the Ontario Divisional Court decided in 1983 that the crown is not bound by the provisions of the Securities Act.
Crown corporations regularly utilize our capital markets. The fact that those agencies alone might not be required to comply with the Securities Act might bring our securities market into disrepute. Indeed, with the reputation of the markets at stake, the Ontario Securities Commission was intending to appeal the Divisional Court decision but abandoned proceedings after the caisse agreed to comply voluntarily with the Securities Act.
However, without appeal, the Divisional Court decision holding that the crown is not bound by the Securities Act remains in place. The Securities Amendment Act is intended to preclude reliance on the court decision and to ensure continued investor confidence in our capital markets.
While certain exemptions for a crown agency spelled out under the Securities Act will continue to be available under the new legislation, crown agencies will have to comply with the trading and reporting rules and takeover bid requirements observed by all other traders in our capital markets.
Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak this evening to this piece of legislation, I want to thank the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister disappeared between the two pieces of legislation with which we are dealing. I can understand his hesitance to speak to this legislation when we find he is extending certain safeguards to the securities market in Ontario with respect to issuances of Her Majesty in right of Canada, Ontario and the other provinces, their agents and servants.
10 p.m.
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant will be able to provide us with some information. What effect are these inclusions going to have when Her Majesty, in right of the various areas I have indicated, is exempted from any of the provisions of investigation, the calling of witnesses and the in-depth delving into the material with respect to backgrounds in prospectuses that have to be filed?
What protections are being provided for the people in the securities markets in Ontario? How are we going to guard against a violation by a crown corporation from some other province in Canada? What types of safeguards are we getting into? What provisions are being made to mete out some punishment for violaters, if they do not comply with the prospectus requirements that are put in place. to deter other people in the capital markets from violations?
Those are concerns we must have when we deal with this legislation. The bill has three sections. The first section adds a new section 138a, which covers:
"(a) Her Majesty in right of Canada;
"(b) Her Majesty in right of Ontario; and
"(c) Her Majesty in right of any other province or territory of Canada,
"and agents and servants thereof."
It then goes on in subsection 138a(2) to say that they are exempted from subsections 11(4) and (6) and sections 16, 17, 59, 118, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132 and 135, which do not apply. When we look at those subsections and sections, we find they require particular pieces of information to be divulged from the written documents of Her Majesty in right of Canada, the province of Ontario, other jurisdictions in Ontario or crown corporations. They do not have to provide certain evidence through witnesses who are subpoenaed; so I wonder how we can get to the bottom of a violation, if it does occur.
Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can provide us with that information to ensure there is something more than some kind of smoke-and-mirrors approach to protection for those people who happen to want to participate in the securities markets in Ontario. Those are concerns I have.
We do not want to hold up this piece of legislation, but we want an explanation in far more depth than the statement that has been given to us by the parliamentary assistant. I am sure he will provide us with that explanation in some detail, as he usually does, when he stands to respond to the concerns of the people in this Legislative Assembly.
I notice we only have half an hour, but I am sure he will be able to confine his remarks to that short time. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will also wish to speak at some length on this bill, and perhaps he will provide some degree of protection for those members of the caucus of the third party who often delve into the securities markets for their benefit and for the benefit of the people they represent. We would be very happy to see how the parliamentary assistant would like to protect those particular people, the capitalist portion of the caucus of the New Democratic Party of Ontario.
With those short remarks, which are really to request and solicit some assistance in looking at how this bill will provide the protections to which the bill speaks, I will allow the member for Welland-Thorold to come forth to express his concerns about his investments in the capital future of Ontario.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the same concerns stated by the previous speaker. We feel strongly enough about those concerns that we cannot support this legislation before us at present.
If I had to make that decision on my own, I might have some trouble making it, but the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) went into this bill in some depth before he unfortunately became ill. He is convinced the bill is not worthy of support because it does not do what it purports to do.
The explanatory note states, "The purpose of the bill is to extend the application of the act to Her Majesty in right of Canada and Ontario and the other provinces and territories of Canada and to the agents and servants thereof."
The bill has a lot of exemptions. The parliamentary assistant, in his lead-in comments tonight, stated in the second paragraph, "In other words, these amendments to the Securities Act will require crown corporations to abide by the same rules as any other investor trading in Ontario's capital markets, including the Toronto Stock Exchange." He went on in the last paragraph to state that "certain exemptions for crown agencies spelled out in the Securities Act will continue to be available under the new legislation...."
The statement of the parliamentary assistant is, to a substantial degree, contradictory. On the one hand, he says they will have to abide by the same rules and in the next breath he says certain exemptions will be given for crown agencies. It cannot be both ways. He is either going to abide by the same rules and do away with the exemptions or, if he gives exemptions, he is not abiding by the same rules.
As I said, the member for Riverdale and our caucus feel strongly enough about these exemptions, and they are substantial exemptions, that we cannot support the bill that is before us. We will be asking that it go to committee of the whole House, where we will be able to move the deletion of subsection 138a(2), which will provide for those exemptions.
I suggest to the parliamentary assistant, and I would like to have his comments on this, that those exemptions seem to be fairly serious. For instance, section 59 of the act, which is one of the exemptions, provides, "Every prospectus shall contain a statement of the rights given to a purchaser by sections 70 and 126." That, of course, will not apply to any dealings by the crown.
Section 118, as the parliamentary assistant knows, deals with enforcement. The crown agencies will be exempt from that enforcement. As he knows, that provides the penalties and is really the guts, if I can use that word, of the Securities Act. They will be exempt from section 127, regarding liability for misrepresentation in a circular; this will exempt them from that kind of liability.
Section 129 says: "An offeror who,
"(a) does not make the offer to purchase required to be made by subsection 91(1) at a consideration having a value at least equal to that required thereby; or
"(b) does not take up securities duly deposited under the offer referred to in clause (a),
"is liable to pay to the security holders entitled to receive the offer of purchase, or whose duly deposited securities were not taken up, a consideration per security equal in value to the minimum consideration at which the offer is required by that subsection to be made...."
Section 131 of the act deals with the liability of a "person or company in a special relationship with a reporting issuer" where there is a material fact or change undisclosed. Once again, the crown agencies and the government will be exempt from that.
With those exemptions, the act does not do what it purports to do and what the parliamentary assistant says it does in his second paragraph. Why not delete subsection 138a(2), delete the exemption, treat the governments and their agencies exactly the same as private investors and do what he says the act is intended to do?
For these reasons, we are going to ask that the bill go to committee of the whole so we have the opportunity to vote against subsection 138a(2).
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the concerns expressed by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and by the member for Welland-Thorold, who came in to replace the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan).
First of all, I would like to put into perspective the whole purpose of the legislation, which on its surface appears to be housekeeping in nature but is really a substantive piece of legislation. This bill deals with a matter of considerable concern that developed some three years ago when the named crown agency from Quebec decided for its own reasons to involve itself in the acquisition of shares in a private corporation that was sold in the public marketplace. In so doing it in effect impinged upon the legislation as it prevails in Ontario with regard to trading in shares of companies listed with the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The main thrust of this legislation is to remedy a deficiency that was not perceived to exist until this particular initiative was taken by the crown corporation from another provincial jurisdiction. At that time it was determined that there was a weakness or a loophole in the legislation and that a crown corporation was exempt from having to comply with all the requirements under the securities legislation of this province as it pertains to all individuals and corporations that do business within this province, that deal in securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange and come under the umbrella of the operations of the Ontario Securities Commission and our securities legislation.
Even though two hearings were held by the Ontario Securities Commission, which ruled one upon the other that crown corporations were not exempt, the Quebec crown agency in question challenged those rulings and a court decision came down on its side. It was then a standoff, which required the enactment of legislation or further court proceedings by way of appeal.
After considerable deliberation, and when cooler heads were allowed to prevail, it was determined that it would be best to come to an agreement on the matter. Therefore, a formal agreement was entered into between the Ontario Securities Commission and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. This agreement was formal in nature and was dated June 11, 1984. It was an agreement whereby the caisse would abide by the same ground rules by which all other individuals and corporations are bound under the Ontario securities legislation until such time as the appropriate legislation, which is embodied in Bill 109 this evening, could be brought forward. This would put them on an equal footing with others that do business in this province on the exchange.
This agreement provides that it will terminate at the end of this year unless the legislation is enacted in the meantime. Therefore, time is somewhat of the essence. If this legislation goes forward and in the meantime is deemed to be retroactive, then no other crown corporation can take advantage of the loophole the caisses had agreed to avoid using so as not to prejudice the marketplace.
My critics have to be most mindful of these facts, because it is to this singular point that the legislation is primarily directed. In essence, this evening we are talking about ensuring that crown agencies will abide by the same ground rules on insider reporting and takeover bid requirements as other participants in the marketplace when they are dealing with private investors in publicly traded securities.
We have to be primarily concerned with that. The other section is ancillary to and secondary in consideration to the main purpose of the legislation. With regard to that section, I point out that this type of privilege is extended to crown agencies in other legislation; they are not subject to the same types of court orders or investigative procedures, or to having to produce witnesses or make documentation available before the courts.
A constitutional opinion was obtained in this case. It sets out the legal limitations regarding the Securities Act applicable to the crown. It is a 14-page legal manifesto. I can certainly make a copy of that document available to the critics and they can review that opinion. It is a very lengthy and detailed one.
The report cites many case authorities for arriving at that conclusion, but in essence it was deemed appropriate that the exemptions dealing with investigation and a host of points, some of which the member for Welland-Thorold touched on -- investigation orders, prospectuses, distribution, enforcement and civil liability -- were all parts of the act to which these exemption sections referred in section 2 of the legislation.
It was deemed appropriate that these specific exemptions, which the Legislature had previously decided need not be applicable to the crown, should prevail in this situation. We are being consistent with what was considered when this legislation was introduced a year or two ago. Through circumstance, it did not get enacted at the time.
10:20 p.m.
We are simply bringing forward a position that was taken at that time by all parties. It was deemed that this was the appropriate route to go under the given circumstances: bringing the crown agencies under the jurisdiction of the Securities Act as it was deemed to be, without prejudicing the rights by protecting them under section 2, about which the member has expressed concern.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Williams has moved second reading of Bill 109.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
10:26 p.m.
THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Elgie's motion for second reading of Bill 82, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Ashe, Barlow, Bradley, Brandt, Conway, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Gregory, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCague, McKessock,
McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Ruston, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Foulds, Grande, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Reed, Samis, Swart, Wildman.
Ayes 58; nays 16.
Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.