The House resumed at 8 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose at 6 o’clock we were dealing with an amendment to section 4, subsection 3, moved by Mr. Rhodes. Is it the wish of the committee that I reread the amendment or take it as previously read?

Mr. Cassidy: Better reread it, Mr. Chairman, so that people can collect themselves.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) indicated some concern about the fact that this would be very difficult, if not impossible, for persons who may have lease renewals or renewal of occupancy agreements for the months of January and February, 1976. I believe the hon. member is correct and, therefore, I would ask if he would stroke out -- I hesitate even to count the lines -- approximately two-thirds of the way down in that amendment it states: “and on and before the 31st day of December, 1975.” If he would stroke out that and insert there, “the 29th day of February, 1976” I think that would meet the hon. member’s concern and would reduce the required time period to 30 days rather than 60.

You will note that the people outside like that.

Mr. B. Newman: Do you want to go out there and tell them?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, it was a big cheer.

Mr. Moffatt: Those are the Christians and the lions we were talking about last night.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment as corrected by the minister carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that is not a correction. It seems to me that is a different amendment. I would ask the minister if he would move the amendment as it has just been read. We have a couple of sub-amendments once the amendment is carried and the question he just raised can be moved as a sub-amendment as well.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s fine, Mr. Chairman, I’ll do that.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment the minister has moved will not be read again but I will acknowledge the brief change which would change the content.

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not changed right now as it reads in the copy we have before us and as it’s been read into Hansard. If the minister wishes to amend it we can amend it but it is a substantive and not a technical change.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has withdrawn the amendment and has substituted the one I have now. I shall save time by not reading the whole amendment. There is the brief correction where he changed it and now it reads “on or before the 29th day of February, 1976” instead of “the 31st day of December, 1975.”

We’ll consider this as a new amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a very difficult bill; it’s a difficult section. We’ve indicated that there are a number of changes in the section which we support and, therefore, with all our reservations about the bill as whole we’re going to support this particular amendment.

What I’m really asking for is just a couple of minutes in which two or three of us who have copies of the amendment can look at what is proposed here; see how it works and how it fits in with the 60-day notice required elsewhere in the bill and the 90-day notice of rent increases which is to be required under the amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act. If the minister -- if you would allow him, Mr. Chairman, since he’s agreed -- would withdraw that particular amendment we could pass the section as unamended and consider his sub-amendment separately.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member makes a valid point in that this does reduce the time period from 60 days to 30 days.

Mr. Cassidy: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’d be quite prepared to treat this as a sub-amendment and proceed with the bill with the section as it is; proceed as you have read it, without this particular amendment and I will introduce an amendment later.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the original amendment as proposed by the minister carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, there are now two amendments moved by me, of which, I believe, you have copies.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves an amendment to change the words “operating costs and capital expenses” in lines two and three of the typed amendment to the word “costs”; and another to delete the words “or project” in this subsection and throughout the rest of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t think we need to discuss the amendments any further. We had some fairly lively debate beforehand and we may come back to the question of cost at a later time. Perhaps we could take a vote on those two particular sub-amendments before we come to the new proposal of the minister.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: We will stack it, Mr. Chairman. You are rather hard of hearing too. The Liberals don’t know where they stand on that. There wasn’t a peep.

Mr. Chairman: This will be stacked.

Mr. Martel: We will throw you out in front there to the lions.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

Mr. Moffatt: You lost.

Mr. Chairman: In my humble opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: It was the teachers who distorted your hearing.

Mr. Chairman: This shall be stacked as well.

The minister has moved a sub-amendment in subsection 3, in the 20th line, that “and on or before the 31st day of December, 1975” be taken from the section and the following inserted, “and on or before the 29th day of February, 1976.”

Mr. Good: One question, Mr. Chairman. This would apply only to any application falling in the first two months that there would be a 30-day notice. After that, then, the first part of the section would carry, where it would require a 60-day notice for the landlord. Is that a correct interpretation of this?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The amendment is in order to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. member on the impossibility of meeting the requirements of the bill as it was written.

Mr. Cassidy: I think, if I understand the way the section would work, where a tenancy agreement expires at the end of December, 1975, and a landlord wants to apply for more than an eight per cent increase in the rent in the new lease, he can apply for that increase up to 30 days after the commencement of the new tenancy agreement and still make it retroactive. It’s kind of a negative notice period, because it’s minus 30 days.

Mr. Good: It is for January and February.

Mr. Cassidy: No, no. I am just saying if he applies on Jan. 31 for an increase to take effect on Jan. 1 then he is giving minus 30 days’ notice to his tenants of his intention to apply for more than an eight per cent increase. The minister is quite shocked by that, but if we allow a negative notice period in this transitional period we are prepared to allow -- the minister is very troubled; maybe he would like to comment about this?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am beginning to think you are right.

Mr. Haggerty: He is right.

Mr. Cassidy: In effect, Mr. Chairman, what is happening is that if a landlord decides to apply for a 12 per cent increase to take effect on Jan. 1, he can tell the tenant, after the new lease period has begun, that he is awfully sorry but he is going to ask the tenant for more than an eight per cent increase in rent. That’s rather a curious kind of thing. I don’t know whether the minister wants to have a look at that and see whether under any circumstances it should be that; or whether there should simply be a shortening of the notice period to 30 days for leases that expire on Dec. 31, 1975, Jan. 31, 1976 and Feb. 29, 1976.

[8:15]

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Waterloo North wish to comment?

Mr. Good: I already have and I am waiting for the minister’s reply.

Mr. Chairman: The minister will reply momentarily.

Mr. Martel: I wish the minister had drafted that bill properly in the first place. It is a mess.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply at this time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. I recognize the concern of the hon. member. I don’t really believe it’s that much of a concern. What we are saying is that those who have concerns about those leases which will have come up for renewal between July 29 end Dec. 31, will have the month of January in which to make their application. Then 30 days after that is the time period that will be left for the extra 30 days for the matter to be placed before the rent review officer, moving it then to Feb. 29 and the full month of February. I agree, it is negative but I don’t think it is detrimental.

Mr. Cassidy: Actually, I think it is just playing games. We will agree with the amendment I believe that it is normal practice that landlords will be giving notice to the tenants, usually of 30 days -- and sometimes of 60 days in the case of the big corporate landlords. I don’t anticipate a major difficulty from this and we will go along with it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s subamendment to section 4, subsection 3 carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments or comments to section 4?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that section 4, subsection 4 be amended by inserting after “increase” in the fifth line “other than a rent increase that has been approved by a rent officer”.

Is there any comment on the amendment moved by the minister?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Good: I have an amendment to the same section and I would like to express our concern. In this section, Mr. Chairman, you will note that the application by the tenant to the rent review officer must be made “not later than 60 days after he receives the notice of the increase, or before Jan. 31, whichever last occurs.” By the way this section is written, the tenant is required to “give notice to the landlord in the form prescribed by the regulations requiring the landlord to apply to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate to justify the increase.”

We feel that the tenant should have the same privilege as the landlord; that he makes his application to the rent review officer with a copy to the landlord. That’s the way the landlord does it when he wants to have a review. The landlord makes his application to the rent review officer with a copy to the tenant.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, the minister’s staff is listening. We feel the tenant should have the same privilege to make his application for review to the rent review officer with a copy to the landlord.

Unless there is some administrative reason why this does not work, which I will be glad to listen to, I would like to place an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Good moves that subsection 4 of section 4 be amended by striking out, “give notice to the landlord in the form prescribed by the regulations requiring the landlord to apply to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situated to justify the increase,” in the 11th line, and inserting in lieu thereof, “apply in the form and manner prescribed by the regulations to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate requiring the landlord to justify the rent increase; and at the same time the tenant shall give notice to the landlord of the application for a review of the rent increase.”

Mr. Good: Now I notice that the minister has changed the word “notice” to “copy”, so I think perhaps that it would be advisable to change this to “copy of the application.” Now, if the minister didn’t understand what I am asking him to do, I will be glad to say it again.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I really don’t know what you want to accomplish by what you are proposing on this amendment. This section requires that the landlord -- the onus is on the landlord -- to prove and to justify his requirement for any increase in excess of the amount of eight per cent; and on anything less than that the tenant is being required to say to the landlord: “If you want to increase my rent by the mandatory eight per cent or the allowable eight per cent, I challenge that”; and that requires that landlord to produce the necessary documentation and justification for going to the eight per cent to the rent review officer.

It seems to me that the tenant is then being relieved of any responsibility of documentation, of producing documents, of producing material and information. That onus is being placed on the landlord, who in fact does have such documentation, or certainly should have, and requires him then to take it to the review officer. Why would you want to turn that around and place all of that onus on the tenant?

Mr. Martel: They don’t worry about the little guy.

Mr. Good: I think the minister has missed the point, Mr. Chairman. May I reiterate:

Assuming the landlord has served notice that he is going to increase the rent, and the tenant wants a review of that. So before Jan. 31, whichever last occurs, according to your bill he is required to give notice to the landlord, which would require the landlord to apply to the rent review officer.

Now why should the tenant have to go to the landlord with his beef? The tenant, we feel, should go to the rent review officer and say: “Look, I got this big increase. Here it is. I want to make application for a review, and I am notifying the landlord.”

Now this was stressed considerably. For instance, if a tenant goes to a landlord and just tells the landlord, “I want a review”; suppose the landlord doesn’t act on it? Then what? What if the landlord doesn’t act on it?

In this way the tenant places his application with the rent review officer and it’s up to the rent review officer to see that action is taken on it. You give that privilege to the landlord. He applies to the rent review officer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we could look at each section of the bill and find if somebody doesn’t do something they are in violation of the bill. I am simply saying that under this section it requires that the landlord, in fact, take that as notice and go to the rent review officer and ask for a review. Now if the landlord doesn’t perform that necessary function of going to the review officer, he is in violation of the particular section and subject to the penalties attached to the bill.

Mr. Good: How is the tenant going to prove he gave notice to the landlord?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Minister, through the Chairman, you ask why they have done it. The answer is very simple. They want to put the onus on the tenant; and that’s precisely what it does. Why in the name of heaven should a tenant have to apply on behalf of the landlord, who then has to justify his costs? It’s insane; it’s nonsensical.

If the landlord doesn’t respond to the tenant’s notice, as the minister said, he’s in violation of the Act and he’s unable to proceed with the rent increase, unless he does so in violation of the Act. You have simply, once again, biased the thing in favour of landlords.

Mr. Cassidy: Not the minister; them, the Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence sir, I think if the hon. member would read subsection 7, it states simply, and I think, very clearly, that if the landlord fails to act he loses the right to claim any rent increase. If he is not going to take the proper steps, as related in subsection 4, then he loses the right to any rent increase, He’s finished. That’s it; the rent stays as is. The onus is placed on the landlord, and I see nothing wrong with leaving that onus where it is. They are the responsible people to go to the rent review officer. You’ve lost this one. Please.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to pursue this any further, except to point out that the representations from the tenant groups specifically stated they don’t want to have to take their notice to the landlord; they would like to deliver it to the rent review officer and have the onus on the rent review officer to notify the landlord for a review. That is the privilege which you give to the landlords in this bill. The landlord doesn’t give his notice to the tenant; the tenant has to truck off to the review officer. It works the other way for the landlord. If you feel you can’t change it, and if the NDP don’t think it’s a valid point, that’s fine; but I hope you can explain it to the Metro tenants’ groups which wanted this very badly.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the concern of the administrator of the Landlord and Tenant Advisory Bureau of the city of Windsor, who makes exactly the point that my hon. colleague has mentioned. I think the minister should think this over a bit. After all, the administrator has had an awful lot of experience in the community and he is very much concerned with this.

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

Mr. Mackenzie: I’ll pass, Mr. Chairman. I can’t believe the so-called logic coming from that end of the House.

Mr. Good: The what?

Mr. Martel: Convoluted argument.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall the vote on the amendment be stacked?

Mr. Good: We will stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that clause b of subsection 5 of section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out “notice” in the ninth line and inserting in lieu thereof “a copy.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we would agree with the amendment; it just makes sense that you don’t have a two-stage kind of thing. We have an amendment to clause a of subsection 5 which we would like to bring forward possibly after this amendment has been voted on.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on the minister’s amendment?

Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has a further amendment to section 4? Shall we deal with this or --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on subsection 5a; my notes indicate we have about three amendments before the minister’s next turn. He can do his next Monday.

This amendment is put forward with some seriousness, because it reflects the spirit in which the bill is being put forward. Before supper, I expressed grave reservations about the way in which the bill was going and this would help to calm some of our fears that have been aroused by the lengthy amendment that we had a while ago about the eight per cent freeze that had been originally proposed for 1975.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that clause a of subsection 5 of section 4 of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof: “provided that the amount of the increase does not exceed the limit set out in subsections 1 and 2.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, that would make clause a say that if a tenant disputes a rent increase and if the landlord wants to try and negotiate, the landlord shall “(a) reduce the rent increase to an amount agreed upon by himself and the tenant”; and our amendment would go on to say, “provided that the amount of the increase does not exceed the limits set out in subsection 1 and 2.”

We didn’t support the Liberal amendment just now because we feel it’s proper that if a tenant disputes a rent increase, that he should go to the landlord and the two of them should have a chance to negotiate to see if they can come to a rent increase which they can both agree upon.

We are worried, though, about the prospects of intimidation or cajolement or whatever you want to call it, and therefore we don’t think that tenants should be in a position where the landlords can say, “Look, you want six per cent and I want 15 per cent, let’s split the difference at 12 per cent.” We believe that if a landlord desires a rent increase of over the eight per cent mark, whether or not the tenant is sympathetic we think is immaterial; we think that the dangers of the tenant being coerced into a position of agreement above that level are too great.

Therefore I would hope that the minister would accept this amendment, which would provide that the landlord and tenant could agree on a rent and keep out of the rent review process, but which would still protect a tenant against being forced to agree to any rent increase beyond the maximum permitted increase, which would be eight per cent at the outset and might be a different figure as it is set from time to time by order in council.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for London North wish to comment?

Mr. Shore: Yes. If I understand the amendment, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we voted on it before and it was defeated. It seems to me the hon. member is bringing in the same issue again at the back door. I would like to have a clarification on that.

Mr. Cassidy: I think what the member for London North is referring to is the disagreement in the House about eight per cent and six per cent; and the disagreement in the House about whether an agreement should be allowed to have a rent increase of more than eight per cent during the five months of 1975 to which the bill applies. This particular question refers to leases after the beginning of 1976, and it is different to the principle that was adopted on that previous section. It is certainly not out of order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I took part of the time in the last two hours to look at this particular concern of the hon. member and I have seen --

Mr. Martel: They just threw Pepin in the ring.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Pepin? Jean-Luc Pepin?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Could we return to Mr. Cassidy’s amendment?

Mr. Martel: I am sorry, I didn’t mean to distract you.

Mr. Moffatt: He did so.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the easiest way to deal with this is to say I don’t think it’s such a bad amendment, we will accept it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we will accept the minister’s acceptance graciously, thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Cassidy’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to section 4?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moved that clause (b) of subsection 5 of section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out the words “and may in such application apply for a greater increase than that set forth in his original notice of increase to the tenant.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I couldn’t hear the hon. member because of the disturbance in front of the building. What are they saying out there; the same as they said to Mr. MacDonald?

Mr. Moffatt: They just announced the BC results.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I heard them say “boo.”

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the arguments of principle put forth from my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre on clause (a) of subsection 5 I think apply here too. There is real concern on our part that here, once again, there can be some intimidation if this clause is left in. If the application is made by the tenant, the landlord can apply for an increase greater than he had in his original notice. This, of course, is going to cause the tenant, even though he feels he has a just cause, to think twice about pursuing the reduction in his rent. So we think it is reasonable that this amendment should be passed.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on this amendment before the minister responds?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we have difficulty with this NDP amendment. We’re not sure why this is there in the first place. As I understand, if a landlord makes application for one increase he can then, at the hearing, apply for an amount in excess of his original application. Now could the minister explain why that section should be there at all? Is there any reason?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I think our position is simply this: If a landlord, in an effort to be conciliatory if you will, and to be a non-gouging landlord to use the words of many, decides that although he perhaps can show that his increase should be a greater increase he is prepared, for the sake of being conciliatory, to accept the lower increase, that if he then is forced to go to the rent review officer with his particular application, he be entitled to produce at that hearing material which would in fact justify an increase greater than he had originally asked for.

I think it is only fair that if the tenant is in a position to challenge the landlord and request a lower rate, and he is in fact saying, within the terms of the bill, to the landlord “You must justify to the rent review officer your initial request,” that the landlord be entitled to produce the necessary information to justify, not only the increase he asked for but an increase that might even have been greater, if he can do so. That’s why we feel that sort of thing should be there.

We want to avoid, where we can, frivolous applications to the rent review officer by either party.

I say this with some degree of hesitation, but the tenant in essence is in a position in this bill, in his reference to the rent review officer, to make frivolous applications “because.” We recognize that. He or she does not have any deterrent. It’s simply a matter of going to the rent review officer and saying, “I think x percentage is too high,” and then the landlord is obliged to go to the rent review officer and justify what he is asking for.

We feel this will deter the frivolous application. The tenant, if he genuinely feels the eight, six or five per cent, whatever it may be, is too high, then can indeed go to the rent review officer and ask the landlord to show cause and justify any increase beyond a certain percentage.

At the same time, I think the tenant should be aware of the fact that if the landlord can justify an even higher rate than he is asking for, he should be entitled to present that information and have an award made by the rent review officer. That’s the purpose of that section.

Mr. McClellan: It seems to me the minister has just verified the concerns that my colleague had previously expressed. What you are very simply inviting is a kind of built-in retaliation on the part of landlords to tenants who are unwilling to accept a landlord’s first offer. I don’t know where you get these percentage rates that you’re fooling around with. The landlord says, “I’ll give you five per cent and, if you don’t like it, I’ll go to the review board and ask for eight.” What kind of nonsense is that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The nonsense goes two ways.

Mr. McClellan: Well, I’m just speaking of this ridiculous idea.

Ms. Gigantes: It makes no sense.

Mr. McClellan: No, it makes no sense. I’m telling you seriously. You seem incapable of understanding the relationships between landlords and tenants as they exist in the real world.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s not true.

Mr. McClellan: You are simply building in the capacity of landlords to retaliate in a very fundamental way against tenants, and we will oppose it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member seems to feel that we’re running on a one-way street and that all of the villains are landlords and all of the heroes are tenants. That is just not so. That’s that barnyards stuff my friend from Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was talking about. I ask you to talk to your colleague from Sudbury East. Does he really believe that all of the landlords in the Sudbury area fall into the category you’re talking about. I just don’t think they do. I know a lot of people around this province who are landlords who are pretty decent people. You can’t lump them all together despite your ideological hang-ups.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve got the hang-ups.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I don’t have. I’m simply saying that there are tenants, and you know them as well as I do, who will attempt for any frivolous reason to take their landlord to the rent review officer. I think in fairness to both sides we should say frivolous actions are not to be encouraged or to be abetted in any way by this Act.

If the landlord has gone to the tenant and said; “I could conceivably ask for a 10 or 12 per cent increase but I really believe that for my purposes I’m prepared to settle for nine or 10 per cent and I won’t go to the 12”; and if the tenant then says: “That’s too much. I’m going to appeal to the rent review officer,” then that’s his right. At the same time, that should not preclude the landlord from going before that same rent review officer and justifying the 12 per cent that he could have asked for in the first place.

That prevents the frivolous actions on the part of the tenants because, like it or not, the member for Bellwoods must remember that there are people who are tenants who aren’t necessarily wearing their babes straight all the time. There are a few of them who really deserve to get a little shock once in a while, and this is the place.

Mr. Yakabuski: Right on. Dead on.

Mr. Swart: If I could just say another few words on this amendment --

Mr. Martel: We have got good company here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why aren’t you out there?

Mr. Cassidy: What about you? What are you doing here? You never used to come.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I knew you were here tonight and I wanted to come.

Mr. Martel: I thought they had thrown you out.

Mr. Swart: I wonder if I could have the attention of the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Welland is directing a question to the minister.

Mr. Swart: No, I’m not directing a question; I’m directing a statement.

Mr. Chairman: A comment.

Mr. Swart: What the minister is saying, in effect, is that in order to deter frivolous applications, he’s going to deter all applications.

Mr. McNeil: He never said that at all.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No wonder it took you seven tries to get here.

Mr. Wiseman: Let the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) talk to him and explain it to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: May I suggest the very process that you have now, where first of all a tenant has to go to the landlord and then at some later date has to appear at a hearing, is enough to deter most of the frivolous applications, If you go through with the bill as it is, you’re also deterring to an equal extent legitimate applications, and I have no other conclusion but that this is what you must therefore intend to do.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of the inclusion of this phraseology in this section.

Interjections.

Mr. Stong: I support the minister, because if and when we get to those sections wherein class action by tenants is allowed, then the tenants will be acting in concert and bringing more applications. I agree with the minister when he says that not all landlords are gougers and not all of them are acting in pure self-interest. Some of them, in fact, do nm their buildings with the best interests of their tenants at heart. Keeping that in mind, this particular phraseology that is used in this section, although it can be interpreted as being of a sense of intimidation, will likewise be used to avoid, as the minister said, frivolous actions. In that sense, it seems to make eminent sense that it be included in this section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Cassidy: Ottawa Centre, Mr. Chairman. The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is out running, I understand.

Mr. Yakabuski: You’re still walking backwards.

Mr. Cassidy: If people from the Liberal Party or the government party in the House really think that of tenants -- if they think that tenants are going to go around sort of obfuscating and trying to harass landlords and so forth --

Mr. Grossman: Not all tenants.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the point of view which has been expressed by the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong). It seems to me if you are not prepared to begin by recognizing that tenants are a reasonable kind of people, just as you are trying to tell us that most landlords are reasonable people, there’s no way we can talk sense about the bill.

Mr. McNeil: So are most of the landlords.

Mr. Eaton: How would you classify yourself; landlord or tenant?

Mr. Martel: Poor John, you were making headway before you got those fellows behind you.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, they’ve obviously been watching the teachers and have been spurred on to come up here. I wanted to start by making a fairly serious contribution to this, because it seems to me that the opportunities --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor and will continue.

Mr. Cassidy: -- for the possibilities of frivolous misuse of this particular section, which the minister referred to, don’t really occur because of the time-tabling which has been created between Bill 26 and Bill 20. A landlord is going to have to give 90 days’ notice of a rent increase. The tenant, if he wishes to get out of his tenancy because he thinks that the rent is wrong --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I’m having difficulty in hearing the hon. member because the Deputy Speaker is talking to somebody and I can’t hear what he is saying.

Mr. Stokes: He can’t hear what the member for Ottawa Centre is saying, he’s so preoccupied hearing what I’m saying.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s only because you’re making more sense than the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cunningham: As he always does.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre will continue.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ninety days before the date of a rent increase taking effect, the landlord has got to tell the tenant: “I’m going to raise your rent.” Sixty days before the rent increase is due to take effect, if the tenant decides that he’d rather quit than fight, he’s got to give the landlord notice that he’s going to get out. Thirty days before the rent increase is due to take effect is the last date at which the tenant can tell the landlord: “I’m sorry, I want to fight this and, therefore, I want you to go to the rent review officer and apply to justify your rent increase.” During those 30 days, under normal circumstances, which means after the first four or five months when the rush of applications under the Act is hopefully disposed of, most applications should be sorted out before the actual time when the rent increase is due to come into force.

If a tenant objection is frivolous, in the sense that the landlord’s request for rent increase is justified on the basis of the facts that are given to the tenant and that can be shown before the rent review officer, then the hearing is going to be a fairly cut and dried kind of an affair. If the landlord was justified in asking for nine per cent but only asked for eight per cent in order to avoid having a hearing, then his application will sail through the rent review process with no problem at all, and the frivolous tenant, if there be one, will very quickly learn that there’s no point; that he doesn’t get any extra time; doesn’t get any prolongation of a lower rent or other kind of a benefit by making a landlord appeal.

I would suggest that the prevention of abuse of that certain class of landlords who may say, “All right, if you’re going to appeal I’ll ask for double what I’m asking you for now,” is far more important than the possibility of one or two frivolous appeals when there is this whole 90-day process surrounding every rent increase.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member misses -- I don’t think he has missed it at all, I think he is well aware of it -- the landlord is placed in the position that when he goes before the rent review officer he must be able to justify his increase statistically and with all the necessary numbers and documents.

When you say he can double his increase, he possibly could if he was asking for a four per cent increase and wanted to go to eight, or was asking for five and wanting to go to 10. If he can justify -- and he must so justify to the rent review officer -- that this is a legitimate request for an increase, that is the only way he is going to get it.

To say that the landlord can go to the tenant and coerce him or intimidate him and force him to accept something higher than he would ordinarily is really not true. The tenant always has the right, under this Act, to go to the rent review officer and say “I believe this to be too high an increase for the unit I am occupying.” Then the landlord must prove to the rent review officer that what he is asking for is not only just but he can prove that he could have a higher increase.

All I am saying in this section to the tenant is “Don’t take every landlord to the rent review officer on every occasion or frivolously take him through this procedure. If you have just cause to believe that your increase is too high, by all means take that landlord there. Don’t drag him before the rent review officer for the sole purpose of having a bearing.” You know and I know that there are people in our society today whose recreation is going to hearings. That’s what they do.

We are simply saying to the tenant, “If you have just reason to believe that rent is too high and you know that to be a fact by all means take the procedures of the Act to the fullest extent, keeping in mind that if it is a frivolous affair, you may very well end up with one or two percentage points higher -- if the landlord can justify, by his cost pass-through, that it is costing him that much.” That’s what we are trying to do. That’s all.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the validity of this section depends largely upon the information available to the tenant. It strikes me that in the absence of any information upon which the tenant might make any judgement as to the frivolous nature or otherwise of his application it’s like asking someone to play Russian roulette. You are saying that without any knowledge of what’s in the chamber you pull the trigger.

I personally favour the idea of some deterrent to frivolous applications but I think we must view this in conjunction with the necessity of some provision that information be provided to the tenant at the time of the notice of the rent increase. I would hope we would bear that in mind later on in the legislation and there might be some provision, if not in the legislation itself then certainly in the regulations, that if necessary a prescribed brief form setting out the justification for the increase to be sewed upon the tenant at the time the notice of the increase is served.

Otherwise, it seems to me that to ask the tenant to take this kind of risk is asking him to take it in a vacuum, I intend to support the inclusion of that provision here but I would also support the provision later on that a tenant be provided by the landlord with reasonable information upon which to make that judgement. No one can be asked to make that judgement without any information at all and normally the tenant does not have access to the information the landlord does.

Mr. Cassidy: We might hope that would lead to a split in the Conservative Party but I understand the government plans to move an amendment in that vein very shortly. It doesn’t really alter our opinion about the need for this deletion but that section you refer to is on the way.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on Mr. Swart’s amendment?

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

We will stack it.

Is there any further comment on section 4 of the bill?

Mr. Mackenzie moves that subsection 7 of section 4 be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:

“Where a landlord fails to reduce the rent increase under clause a of subsection 5 or to apply to the rent review officer under clause b of subsection 5 within the 15-day period mentioned in subsection 5 or where a landlord fails to apply for an increase which will exceed the increase permitted in subsection 1 or 2 as prescribed in subsection 3, the proposed increase in rent is null and void.”

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment shifts the onus, really, to the landlord by nullifying automatically any increase for which an application has not been made. I don’t know if that is coming down too tough on the landlords or not.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment on the member for Hamilton East’s sub-amendment?

Mr. Good: The way I interpret the amendment is that if the landlord does not comply -- and I think the same principle is involved here as in an earlier matter -- the increase is null and void. If the landlord doesn’t reduce it or if he doesn’t apply for the increase within the 15 days it is null and void. As I understand it, the way the bill is written the tenant applies to the rent review officer and there is an order which declares the increase null and void. To me it is a little more authoritative and a little better for the tenant to have the order declaring it null and void than just act on his own and say it’s after 15 days. I think the same principle is involved here as it was before. I would sooner see actions regarding money carried out by order of the rent review officer rather than having them done automatically by either the tenant or by the landlord, as the case may be. That’s my interpretation and I would prefer not to support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, would you permit me one question, please, to the hon. member for Hamilton East? Do I understand the latter part of your amendment to mean that if a landlord fails to apply for an increase in excess of the allowable increase -- the eight per cent -- all of the increase is wiped out? Is that what you are saying? That the rent would stay exactly as it was, without any increase?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Shore: You guys are unbelievable.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If that’s the case I really would like to have an explanation of why and how you are going to do that.

Mr. Mancini: Irresponsible; no other word for it.

Mr. Yakabuski: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Shore: I would like to hear the explanation.

Mr. McClellan: The landlord is in violation of the Act. If the landlord is in violation of the Act we don’t feel that the onus ought to be on the tenant to seek redress. The redress ought to be automatic and if the landlord wants his increase he has to follow the provisions of the Act. It is really as simple as that.

Mr. Shore: I thought it was an Act of equities.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Again, I would ask the hon. member or someone to explain to me how the landlord is in violation of the Act if he fails to apply for an increase in excess of the allowable increase? Surely that’s a choice he has -- if he decides that instead of asking for 12 per cent he wants only eight per cent, he takes the eight per cent. I don’t understand. Unless I misunderstand your amendment, it appears to me you are saying that unless he asks for more, he is in violation of the Act. I don’t understand that.

[9:00]

Mr. Cassidy: I understand what the minister is saying. He is taking the words, “where a landlord fails to apply for an increase which will exceed the increase permitted in subsection 1 or 2” -- “as prescribed in subsection 3” are the operative words. Subsection 3, if the minister recalls, says that where the landlord thinks that his costs are running over eight per cent and he decides to ask for more than eight per cent, then he has to apply. And we are saying that if he was obliged to apply for those reasons and didn’t, then he can’t have anything. The purpose of this --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let’s hear the purpose.

Mr. Cassidy: The purpose is because there is a real problem with compliance under the Act, as I am sure the minister and his experts are aware. What we are doing here isn’t that different from what the minister is doing in subsection 7, as it stands.

Subsection 7 says right now that if the landlord doesn’t apply for a rent increase after a tenant has challenged a rent increase, then provided that the tenant goes to the rent review officer for an order, that rent increase is null and void. That covers a situation where a landlord asks for eight and the tenant says: “No, I think it should only be six” and the landlord is forced to make an application.

If rent increases of eight per cent or less are to be made null and void where the landlord refuses or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act in subsection 5, then we think it makes sense that where a landlord fails to comply with the requirements for making an application for a greater increase under subsection 3, that that rent increase should also be null and void.

The penalty to a landlord who doesn’t comply is that he has to go through the process of a 90-day notice again and loses a rent increase for a period of three months. That’s a perfectly reasonable kind of thing if you believe that landlords should be held to respecting the law. If you don’t believe it, then the situation you are going to get in is that the tenant has to go to the rent review officer. He will say, “My landlord didn’t apply and he is charging me 15 per cent more. What can I do?” And you have to drag the landlord into court and try to fine him $1,000 for failing to live up to the Act. That’s a much more roundabout way when you can have a much more direct means of enforcement, which is denying the landlord any of the increase he hoped to get.

The minister is obviously still puzzled. We have thought it through. We think it’s a fair balance between responsibility and penalty. We don’t think this is a vindictive kind of measure -- the kind of thing we have been accused of on some earlier sections. We think it’s a technical and administrative means of ensuring that the Act is complied with in a reasonable kind of way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, again I must ask for some clarification. In looking at subsection 3, it indicates that if the landlord feels that he is entitled to such an increase in excess of the allowable amount for the reasons as outlined -- operating costs and capital expenses have increased -- it says that he may “at least 60 days prior to entering into or renewing a tenancy agreement” apply for it to the rent review officer and notify the tenant as well that he wants that extra amount of rent. But surely if he decides not to apply, surely you would not penalize that landlord by saying: “You get no increase”? You are saying to the landlord: “Hurry up and apply for more than the eight per cent allowable.”

If he is satisfied to take his eight per cent and not apply for more, why in the world would you want to put a section into this Act that would force him, in essence, to go to the review officer and ask for more? I don’t understand that.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not what it is. You don’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But the section states that he may apply -- if he feels that he has increased operating costs and capital expenses, he may then apply for an increase over and above the allowable amount. You are basically saying to me, if I understand you correctly, that unless he applies for that greater amount and gets that higher rate, he doesn’t get anything.

Well, good luck, because every landlord in the whole of creation is going to rush out and apply for something. I don’t think you really mean that, but that’s what you are saying to me.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment.

If not, all those in favour of Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this?

Agreed.

Interjections.

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

Mr. McClellan moves that subsection 9 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“Where more than one tenant in the same building or project has received notice of rent increase and more than one tenant in that building or project has required that the landlord apply to the rant review officer to justify such increase, or where a landlord has applied to the rent review officer under subsection 3 for approval of an increase respecting the occupancy of several tenants in the same building or project, the rent review officer may

“(a) direct that the landlord notify all tenants that have received notice of rent increase to take effect in the same month that the rent increase has been appealed;

“(b) proceed as if applications under section 4, subsection 4, had been received from all tenants who received notice of increase to take effect in the same month; and

“(c) fix a common date for the hearing of applications or deemed applications tinder paragraph (b) respecting the same building or project.”

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, this is really quite a modest amendment.

Mr. Grossman: Compared to the others.

Mr. McClellan: In line with the testimony of both landlord and tenant witnesses last week, we want to facilitate the possibility of what could be called class actions. This amendment does not differ substantially or essentially, I think from your own, except in one respect; that subsection 9 is vague, to say the least, with respect to procedure.

We’re concerned that the legislation will be as specific as possible with respect to procedure so that tenants will clearly understand what their rights are under the legislation, and that there will not be confusion about it, that there I will not be ambiguities and that the thing will not he vague. The three subclauses we’ve added to the amendment -- a, b and c -- simply specify the kind of procedure in fairly clear and simple language so that tenants in a building are clearly aware of their right to proceed on the basis of class action under the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment?

Mr. Good: I have a concern as to the effect of the next three sections -- new sections 10, 11 and 12, which the minister has introduced -- on this amendment. Basically, we agree with the concept here. I’m wondering if that is not reached to a great extent in the minister’s next three sections, where in fact he is giving the rent review officer the authority to have the same rent for the same apartments in the same building. If I could just have a little more time to study the minister’s amendments -- or maybe the minister could comment on his next three amendments as to how they would fit in with this proposed amendment. I think there is some overlapping here.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment by any other members of the committee on Mr. McClellan’s amendment? Does the minister wish to enlighten the committee as to how this amendment might affect his amendments?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I’ve run into a major problem. My glasses have fallen apart and I can’t see what’s in front of me --

An hon. member: Adjourn the House.

Mr. Shore: I’ve got an extra pair.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll try to put them together.

An hon. member: Just like your party. Oh, I apologize.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I sure don’t need glasses to respond to that last asinine remark, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Good: The blind leading the blind.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The blind may be leading the blind, but I know who’s doing the following right now.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to be opposed to this amendment for the simple reason that I have some concern over the fact that you are going to force tenants within any particular building into being a party to an appeal, which conceivably could mean an increase in their particular rents. As we indicated earlier in another section we discussed where the possibility arises as the result of an appeal, that the rent review officer might, in fact, increase the rents for those who appealed above the amount suggested as the acceptable rent by the landlord prior to the appeal being filed by the tenant.

If the tenant does, in fact, file an appeal and takes along all other tenants in that particular building, they would be liable to any increase that they may not have ordinarily received in the normal course of dealing with them on an individual basis.

I recognize the desire to have a class action; I recognize the desire to have a building dealt with as a unit. That, I think, is a desirable element to be worked in somewhere. I don’t believe this is the way to do it -- to force those persons to go to an appeal of their rent, when they in fact do not wish to do so, and subject them to the possibility of receiving a greater increase than they may have already contracted to accept as the result of a lease they may have signed.

I just don’t feel that you can do that to people without allowing them the opportunity to make the choice of whether they wish to be a part of an appeal or not.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. McClellan’s amendment?

If not, those in favour of Mr. McClellan’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: Very perceptive, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we stack this one? Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on section 4 of Bill 20?

Mr. Swart: I have an amendment. I am not sure if this is covered by the government amendment, I rather doubt it is, I have just looked over it rather quickly.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that the following be added after subsection 9 of section 4:

“(10) Where the rent review officer has given notice of a hearing of an application under subsection 8, he shall make available to all parties to the hearing all material filed with him in connection with that application, together with any information which he requests from any party.

“(1) Material to be made available under subsection 10 includes any books, records or other information supporting an application or requested by the rent review officer.”

[9:15]

Mr. Swart: I expect this is one that can be accepted both by the government and the Liberal Party. Certainly the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) expressed the same sort of principle in a little different context, but surely we must all agree that if there’s going to be a hearing the full information provided by both sides ought to be available to both sides. This simply provides for that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would look at section 5(1) of the Act. It seems to me that does in fact meet his concerns. If what you’re looking for is that all tenants in the hearing are to receive copies of all documentation filed by the landlord, the requirement is excessive. I think it is costly and time-consuming.

Under 5(1) we are saying that all documentation that is necessary must be made available and that the rent review officer has the right to require that this information be made available to him. I don’t understand why you would want this in this particular section; I believe it is covered by 5(1).

Mr. McClellan: I am prepared to concede that the minister may have intended that, but as I reread 5(1) I don’t see where it says that the documentation in full is to be made available. An opportunity of knowing the issues” is not necessarily the same thing.

I think again this amendment makes it specific that all the documentary material be made available. I don’t believe the amendment implies that, for example, copies of the landlord’s books have to be sent to every tenant in the building, or even that all of the documentation has to be sent to each tenant individually, but it has to be available in some place where the tenant can avail himself of it. It seems to me a reasonable and sensible amendment that you could easily accept, because as I read 5(1) it’s certainly, to say the least, ambiguous with respect to what kind of information is available to the tenant prior to the hearing.

Mr. Stong: In speaking against the motion, against the amendment, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. McClellan: The minister’s parliamentary assistant is getting out of hand.

Mr. Stong: -- I agree with the minister that section 5, subsection 1, covers this issue adequately. Because if a landlord is seeking an increase and he fails to bring sufficient material for the rent review officer to make the proper determination, he acts at his own peril. It should be left up to the landlord to prove his case to the satisfaction of the rent review officer, and that does not necessitate opening up all his private dealings to those who could not possibly be interested in all of them.

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

Mr. Swart: I think perhaps that is the fundamental difference between our amendment and the original section. The original section would seem to indicate that the rent review officer would have the right to all the information he would want and thought he should have for making the determination, but it does not state clearly that all of this information shall be provided to both sides in advance. Certainly the amendment which we have put forward here makes it much clearer that it would be the case that the full information would be available to both sides.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the hon. member would agree with me that what he’s suggesting is really not necessary in that --

Mr. Swart: It’s not likely I would, but proceed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, if you give me a chance, you never know -- in that the onus is placed upon the landlord to prove to the rent review officer and all parties concerned that a rent increase greater than the allowable amount is justified. He must go before that rent review officer and justify that position. Is it really necessary that the tenant have all of this information? Bemuse the tenant, as I appreciate what we’re doing here, is a third party who has said to the landlord, “You want a higher increase in my rent. You must prove to that review officer that it is justified.”

In the course of the hearing, this information would become available. The testimony would be held in an open hearing and the information would be made available to the tenant. The tenant would have every opportunity, I am sure, to cross-examine.

We say in the bill later on that the tenant is entitled to professional and technical assistance to carry out his particular case. The tenant has the alternative to go on to a review board above that review officer if he does not feel he’s been justly dealt with.

I know it’s a built-in, long-standing thing with the New Democratic Party that the landlords should open up all their books, throw them on the table and say: “Here, have a good time; read them.” But is it really necessary? Let’s be reasonable. Is it really necessary?

Mr. Swart: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the information is made available to the hearing officer who will make his ruling on that, and during the hearing the information is available publicly at the hearing, why do you want to put in this particular section? It’s a thing with you; you’re hooked on this thing.

Mr. McClellan: Come on. You are starting to sound like your assistant.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s like you get tied into something and you won’t let go.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You don’t need it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, it’s not just a thing with us. It reflects a basic philosophy, which is that we really do believe it is desirable that tenants and landlords should make these decisions, as much as possible, in the private sector without having to have recourse to government. The creation of the rent review process is a means of equalizing the power which is enjoyed by the tenant and the power which is enjoyed by the landlord. Right now, it’s biased too much in the favour of the landlord for various reasons.

Information is a form of power. Landlords have that information in the form of what’s in their books. Tenants do not.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are their books.

Mr. Cassidy: Your system, the way you’re interpreting it, is a landlord has to justify his rent increase to the rent review officer. In an ideal world, in a socialist utopia, in a world which we could create --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s not an ideal world. They have that in a couple of places. They have that socialist utopia in two or three places I know of Yugoslavia, Sweden, Poland. Those are socialist utopias.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Ottawa Centre stop being provocative?

Mr. Eaton: Table the figures for the house you bought.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are suggesting a rent review officer is dishonest.

Mr. Eaton: How are you making out on that, Mike?

Mr. Cassidy: In the world we could achieve in this province, I could foresee a situation where a landlord --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Like it used to be in BC.

Mr. Wildman: If Barrett loses because of rent control, what’s going to happen to you?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ve got news for you. Don’t give up your card in the OSSTF. You’re going to need it.

Mr. Bain: At least he’s got a job to return to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if I can pursue the argument here, I would like to foresee a situation in which, based on the information available to the rent review officer and made available to the tenant, a hearing might well ensue at which the tenant and the landlord or the tenant association and the landlord have put their heads together. They come to the hearing and say, “We’ve had a look at the books. We’ve had a full, frank and free discussion about this and this time the landlord is right”; or “This time the tenants are right and here is what we suggest you ratify.” That is not going to happen if the landlord is only required to justify it to the rent review officer and if the books and other material are not reasonably available.

What is wrong with making this information available, particularly when the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) and the minister himself agree that the landlord should provide a basic justification to the tenant for any rent increase? What is wrong with a situation in which tenants gradually learn that there are costs in being a landlord? There are people in the gallery who have been telling us in the last week or so that there are costs in being a landlord, many of which are costs that tenants may not be aware of.

If the books are going to be shut to tenants, if they’re not going to have access to this kind of information, you’re going to continue treating tenants like children and you’re going to have the same situation continuing, of which people now complain.

If tenants are not aware of the fact that maybe fuel increases are increasing their rents, when they have a means of controlling that by the way in which they use their apartments; in which they use their windows; the way in which they heat the building, they’re not going to take any action in order to benefit themselves and the landlord by reducing the communal use of fuel. These are the kinds of things that could happen under a situation where the material was available rather than keeping tenants in ignorance.

Mrs. Campbell: I’d like to speak to this section, not as a socialist but as a lawyer and a person who has grown up under a system which has lots of faults but which does, in fact, preserve the rights of parties. There is no way, in my mind, that we can follow along without supporting the amendment to make all of the material available.

Let me put it to you this way. If that material is not available before the rent review officer you will have an appeal and that will complicate the proceedings immeasurably because, without any question at all, and I appeal to any lawyer sitting in this House, that material has to be available on an appeal. You could not possibly have an appeal unless all of the evidence were available to the applicant or to the appellant. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is important that this material be available in the first instance. I would appeal to the government to look at this as a matter of a quasi-judicial process if nothing else.

It’s interesting to me that those developers with whom I have discussed some of the proposals have not had any objection at all to making this kind of material available. I don’t know why we should take a position here that we should close out information to people who are working together, hopefully, for mutual rights. You’re going to have to give that information for the appeal without any question. I suggest that you will cut down immeasurably, if that is the only concern you have, perhaps on the appeals themselves.

I have had experience in a limited dividend area where we have reviewed some of the books, and I’ll admit that because of the way in which the books were set up there were some questions, but certainly you wouldn’t get statements such as we’ve heard in the House today, that there are no maintenance cost increases, as we heard from one of the members of the opposition. Of course there are increases. We know fuel costs have gone up. We know municipal taxes have gone up, notwithstanding what the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) said. We know water rates have gone up, certainly in this area. It is vitally important, it seems to me, as a part of the objectivity of the quasi-judicial process, that this information be made available so there can be an objective look at the situation where both parties have, in fact, the same information.

[9:30]

I would appeal to the minister to keep in mind the fact we are endeavouring, in this bill, to bring equity to the situation. How can you possibly contemplate a procedure whereby a landlord appears armed with full information, which probably, if you look at what he is bringing, requires some very sophisticated analysis, and yet the tenant is denied the opportunity of that kind of sophisticated analysis?

I would point out that, yes, I suppose where you get one single owner of a building, such as some of the landlords we have heard about earlier, today, it might not be that sophisticated. But when you get an operation such as the operation in St. James Town, where the one owner or part of a conglomerate owns all of the conventional operation of St. James Town, together with the two limited dividend projects in St. James Town, and manages the rest, you can have some very highly sophisticated facts that no tenant is going to be able to really bring his mind to bear on; and neither, with the greatest respect, can a rent review officer without an awful lot of assistance.

So, not as a socialist but as a person believing very firmly in the fairness and in the equity of a system of law I appeal to the government to support this amendment.

Mr. Williams: It is regrettable that the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) was not present on two particular occasions which I think put this amendment into its proper perspective. First I think the member was not in the chamber when the minister pointed out that the concerns she has expressed are ably handled under the catch-all provisions of section 5(1) of the bill as proposed.

Mrs. Campbell: I didn’t need to be here for that.

Mr. Bain: She didn’t miss much.

Mr. Williams: The minister did point out that the documentation would have to be filed by the landlord and the excessive amount of documentation would leave open to question the practicality of implementation of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is mandatory in its effect, in that the rent review officer shall make available to all parties to the hearing all material filed with him --

Mrs. Campbell: In the cheapest and simplest way.

Mr. Williams: -- whereas in section 5 as proposed it is discretionary, in that the rent review officer may give direction as to the extent of documentation that should be presented to assure a fair and open hearing. The proposed amendment states that material to be made available under subsection 10, which the rent review officer is obliged to make available if asked to do so, must provide any books, records or other information supporting an application.

The real significance and impact of this section and the import of it really came to light in the committee hearings. The members from the NDP caucus made it abundantly clear that because of their suspicious minds, if a landlord happened to be one of the larger ones, who owned a number of projects, whether within the St. James Town complex geographically adjacent one to the other or a complex owned by the same company or by a group of companies miles apart, in order to get an overall view as to whether the landlord is losing money or earning money, that landlord in fact should be required to bring in the books for all of his companies, for all of his locations whether they be in Toronto or Kingston or wherever else the particular conglomerate company may have its locations.

They felt -- again I stress, because of their suspicious minds -- that maybe this particular building where they are suggesting there is a loss situation, that they are using it as a loss leader situation while they are making profits on two or three other projects. Under this provision it is so broad and comprehensive and mandatory that an applicant could insist that the rent review officer bring in the books of the company in question -- the landlord -- that relate not only to that particular building but to other rental accommodation facilities.

Don’t shake your head, with respect, hon. member for St. George.

Mr. McClellan: That’s absolute nonsense.

Mr. Williams: The fact of the matter is that this is a point of view that was expressed in committee, and I want to alert you to that situation to make you recognize that there are inherent dangers as to the extent to which the review should be conducted -- to the point where it may go beyond reason.

I think that you must bear in mind that this was a stated point of view that could have tremendous ramifications as far as documentation and extent of reviews are concerned. I think there has to be discretion left with the rent review officer as to how much documentation should be made available as to whether the documentation should relate solely to that project or to other projects owned by the landlord in question.

I think under the proposed amendment that there is no limitation available in a discretionary manner to the review officer, that he will have to produce any and all documents required by the applicant -- whether they relate to the project or others that the landlord has an interest therein. This, therefore, is the danger to which you are subjecting the landlords involved, and I suggest that you reconsider the matter in that context.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. Unless I am really missing something, this is the first time I have heard practicability put ahead of justice in an argument for secrecy that I have just heard from the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams).

I think that the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) has made some good points, but I would also like the minister to consider that if a tenant or a group of tenants honestly feel that they are being “done” in terms of a fairly substantial rent increase, and suspect that there is no justification in terms of costs on that budding; or they have some information that the landlord has taken out a pretty hefty additional mortgage on that building down the road, how in blazes are you ever going to satisfy those tenants that they have had justice if at least the basic hooks aren’t there and available? I just don’t think it is clear enough in 5(1) as you have got it.

Mr. Grossman: I rise, too, as a lawyer and I am willing to accept some of the challenges put forward earlier.

I sat in this House and listened to some very prominent members of the official opposition express some very serious reservations with regard to things like civil liberties when it came to something as crucial to their civil liberties as seatbelts. But what happened to all those civil liberties when it comes to opening books of those terrible landlords? All of a sudden that isn’t quite so much an intrusion of civil liberties as making you buckle up your seatbelt in your car. It is a one-way street here.

Mr. Wildman: Urgent government business.

Mr. Grossman: We were talking earlier about keeping this system equal.

Mr. Davidson: Another red herring.

Mr. Grossman: We were talking about a system wherein the landlord and the --

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: You are talking capitalistic rights; not human rights.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: We were talking earlier about a system in which both landlord and tenants would not be making frivolous applications; a situation in which both of them would have equal access to the rent review system.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Never worked a day in their lives.

Mr. Grossman: Let’s look at the system now. They will after the next election.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is too much noise in the committee. Will the hon. members give their attention to the hon. member for St. Andrews-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman)?

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Great emphasis was put, in the debate on earlier sections of the bill, on giving both sides equal access, equal rights, equal balancing of frivolous appeals and putting them out of the way, and encouraging both parties to avail themselves equally of the provisions of the Act. But look at what is being proposed now.

Now the landlord is in a position in which, before deciding whether he wants to avail himself of his lawful right to seek a lawful and justifiable rent increase, he must weigh that against the necessity of having to go to the rent review board and open up all his books, show exactly what’s happening in his building --

Mr. Warner: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Grossman: -- show what he is paying Isis superintendent --

Mr. Warner: What’s he got to hide?

Mr. Grossman: What’s wrong with doing up seatbelts as we heard earlier? That was the big infringement on civil liberties.

Mr. Warner: We are not debating seatbelts.

Mr. Grossman: But a guy is in a building; he is paying a superintendent whatever he thinks is proper and he is paying a garbage disposal plant whatever he thinks is proper and that’s his business. He is still not an employee of the government and on this side of the House, we don’t buy that. He shouldn’t be an employee of government and we are not about to usurp his role.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: If you really believe in an equitable system in which both sides have equal opportunity, equal access and equal willingness to go to the rent review board, you cannot penalize one of those parties by saying to him, “If you go, baby, your business is wide open to the world.” That is not what I call an equitable system.

Mr. Wildman: If he was not gouging, he wouldn’t care.

Mr. Grossman: The other thing brought up here was that if we passed this amendment, Lord, it would solve a lot of problems because just seeing how many of these rent increases are justifiable will stop a lot of the appeals. If they were just forced to show the books, we would see all those increases in costs and therefore there wouldn’t be all those appeals. If that’s the case, then no one is stopping the landlord from going to those tenants and showing the books and stopping those appeals, as it is written now.

Mr. Cassidy: Only when they favour his rights.

Mr. Grossman: The landlord has always been free to do that. He is still free to do that but what we like about it is he’s still got the option. It is his choice and we kind of like the sound of it being someone’s free choice.

Mr. Martel: Come down from the hill.

An hon. member: Come into the real world.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I rise as a result, I suppose, of two challenges, one by the member for Oriole and one, St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Martel: Don’t waste your breath on him.

Mrs. Campbell: I believe that if you look at this legislation, when you keep in mind what has to be before the rent review officers --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the hon. members extend the courtesy of listening to the member for St. George?

Mrs. Campbell: I don’t know any piece of legislation anywhere which refers, as 5(1) does, to using the cheapest and simplest methods. If that’s what is meant by your justice over there, that is, in effect, cutting off the right of a tenant to have simple justice. I am basing a great deal of my remarks on the fact that this is what you are providing in your bill. You know there is no cheap and simple method of ascertaining the truth if the books aren’t available. Mr. Chairman, that is the way I feel about administration of justice. It is as important as that.

[9:45]

Mr. Shore: In my consistent manner of equity and fairness, I would like to offer the following. I’m not a lawyer and --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You’re going to vote against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: -- I would like to believe that this Act is not for the purpose of a legal equity but that it’s for the purpose of being fair and just. Although I am concerned about the observations made by the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and others and having some background in the privilege and rights of privacy of books and records, I must say to operate under the purpose of this section, and particularly this Act, fairness and equity should be obtained. I’m satisfied that the only way that fairness and equity are going to be obtained is if the records are made available to all those concerned, the ones that need it.

I am not concerned, as the member for Oriole has stated, that all the books and records of this company will have to be made available, because in section 4, subsections 10 and 11, it clearly refers only to the books and records required for supporting the information, and I have enough confidence that those will be available. I haven’t been in consultation with the landlords on it. I would urge that we support the amendment on this.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Put the question.

Mr. Norton: Very briefly, I must say that I agree to a large extent with the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). Although I am a lawyer of much humbler origin I have appeared before Her Honour Judge Campbell, as she then was, on a number of occasions and I do respect the opinion she’s put forth tonight.

I think the concerns that have been expressed about undue exploitation of this section are subject to the limitation that has been overlooked by some, and that is that the information that would be being made available would be information that was either voluntarily filed with the rent review officer or was under his control by virtue of his requesting such information.

Mr. Good: Right. That is exactly the point.

Mr. Norton: I do not see that there would be any undue and unnecessary exploitation of it since the control would rest in the hands of the rent review officer. It seems to me, believing in the principle of disclosure, under these circumstances I can do none other than to support the position put forward by the member.

Mr. Lewis: Will you be here when the vote is taken?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, are you calling time?

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is the half hour up? The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) had the floor. You recognized him but didn’t let him get up.

Mr. Chairman: I recognized him and I gather he wasn’t going to stand. If he wishes to speak, I will be glad to recognize him.

Mr. Wildman: I’ll pass, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment before we decide this issue?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wanted to respond to the hon. member for Algoma but obviously he has no contribution to make.

Mr. Bain: He makes more of a contribution than you do.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who said that? Oh, the enforcer from Timiskaming.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall we stack this?

Agreed.

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

Mr. Swart: I have one further amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that the following clause be added after new section 5:

“5(1) Every landlord shall within five days of the establishment of a new rental rate respecting residential premises or the giving of notice thereof report to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate in the form and manner prescribed by the regulations the new rental rate so established or proposed and the two previously applicable rental rates.

“(2) The rent review officer for each region shall maintain a record of the rental rates established for all rental premises in the region as reported under subsection 1, and shall make available records for a particular unit, or building, to any person with a reasonable interest during normal business hours.”

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on the amendment? The hon. member for Welland.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, it’s obvious from the introduction of this amendment that we believe in our party that there should be a catalogue kept of the rental rates. We believe this for primarily two reasons. First, if the rental officer is going to do his job properly, it will be desirable for him to have a catalogue -- the accessibility of the rates of other rental premises in that arear.

Secondly, we think it only fair, if cases are going to be heard before the rental officer, that there be available to the two sides in that dispute or in that decision-making process, statistics on the rate of rentals which apply to properties similar to what are under review.

For these two reasons, we think it is advisable, apart from normal statistical reasons, which perhaps are justification in themselves, but we think it is advisable to have this clause in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mr. Swart’s amendment? Does the hon. minister wish to comment?

Mr. Lewis: They will accept it gracefully.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: Would the minister tell us if he accepts the amendment or rejects it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would wait for the chairman to call the vote.

Mr. McClellan: Well, let me just simply say, Mr. Chairman --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s an old custom here; you vote for or against.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve got to tell your troops how to vote, you know.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They know.

Mr. Cassidy: They might divide.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McClellan: I appreciate the minister’s wiliness. There is, however, no other way to enforce --

Mr. Lawlor: Obtuseness.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Lakeshore says obtuseness.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Pat, don’t say that.

Mr. McClellan: Well, you are both wily and obtuse. There is no other way to enforce the legislation than through registry of rentals; otherwise you operate in the same kind of knowledge vacuum that your ministry operates now. Maybe you are so used to that that you couldn’t tolerate any other method. Ignorance seems to be your preference. It is not ours.

Secondly, it will be impossible to develop new guidelines based on average operating costs unless you have the data. You will be as ignorant after the first year of this programme as you are now.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s impossible.

Mr. McClellan: And with respect to average rental increases, you won’t have any more idea in a year what the rent increases are than you do now, if you’re not recording the stuff. It makes no sense. You should accept it.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister has no contribution --

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond first?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, if it makes no sense, why should I accept it?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make a contribution to this part of the debate since I didn’t think the minister was going to. I thought from the minister’s silence that perhaps he was contemplating accepting this amendment and voting for it, and I just hope that the eloquence of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has not turned him against it.

At any rate, it doesn’t seem possible for us to operate this bill without having a knowledge of what the rent rates are and what increases have taken place in the past, so this seems eminently sensible. Without it, it would be nonsense to try to operate this bill, and thus I support the amendment.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, again I can’t think of a better illustration of the point with regard to the intent of the NDP to give permanency to the legislation. Obviously --

Mr. Lawlor: I want a little information.

Mr. Williams: -- they don’t believe in the self-destruct provision of the bill, and if there is any way of building permanency into the legislation it is surely this type of provision that would require a rent review officer to go beyond his normal duties and requirements in establishing a permanent rent registry facility, comparable to our registry offices in the land titles system or in the county court offices, where we have conditional sales search registries, It seems to me that if this is the type of thing that is being asked for, you can only justify this type of permanency if we’re talking about permanent ongoing legislation that does not have a specific time attached to its termination date. Therefore, it would seem inconsistent with the short-term purpose of the legislation.

Mr. Ziemba: I would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that one of the first questions the member for Oriole asked in this House of the Premier (Mr. Davis) was if we were going to post the rents to keep track of rental accommodation. When he was assured that it is going to be under consideration, he seemed to be very grateful; now he seems to have come full circle and he’s critical of it. I don’t understand that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, the concern I had was with regard to the posting of a list of prevailing rates within the existing rental facility or the project, and not the establishment of a public registry office centralizing all records for the whole region; an entirely different concept.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay then, they’ll give you a crown of thorns.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to appeal to the minister. The minister is proposing, in a second, that a landlord will be required to file a list of all rents in his building where he’s going to the rent review officer for a determination.

In other words, the minister is planning to propose built-in determinations which include access to the information which is referred to under the subsection moved by the member for Welland (Mr. Swan). That’s on a partial basis. It can be provoked or gotten by a tenant by filing perhaps a frivolous, perhaps a serious objection and making the landlord go before the rent review officer. If it is going to be required in certain cases, why should it not be available simply as a matter of course so that the people who operate in the rental market, landlords and tenants, have a fairly equal amount of information? Registration is a simple means of achieving that and I really hope that the minister would change his stand and accept the amendment.

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

All those opposed, will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. Shall we stack this? So be it.

Interjections.

[10:00]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It was the agreement of the committee that we would deal with the stacked amendments at 10 p.m. We have 13 questions to resolve. We will call in the members.

The committee divided on Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment on subsection 1 of section 3 which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 29, the “nays” are 75.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Good’s amendment to subsection 3 of section 3 which was approved on a stacked vote, same count as the above vote reversed.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Rhodes’ amendment to section 3, adding subsections 5 and 6, which was approved on the following vote;

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 75, the “nays” are 29.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Rhodes’ amendment to subsection 2 of section 3, which was approved on a stacked vote, the same count as the above vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

[10:30]

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to subsections 1 and 2 of section 4 which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 29, the “nays” are 75.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

It would seem that the two following amendments of Mr. Cassidy’s to subsections 3 and 4 of section 4 by consequence would also be defeated.

I declare the amendments lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Good’s amendment to subsection 4 of section 4 which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 29, the “nays” are 75.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to clause b of subsection 5 of section 4, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 29, the “nays” are 75.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment to subsection 7 of section 4, which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. McClellan’s amendment to subsection 9 of Section 4, which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment to subsection 9 of section 4, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 56, the “nays” are 48.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the rules call for anyone being in his seat in the Legislature to cast his vote, and we may not have been able to see down here, but it seemed that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) didn’t vote one way or the other. I’d like clarification on that. Did he or did he not?

Mr. Nixon: Care to make a small statement about that?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, what is this continuing vendetta against my colleague? He voted in favour. I was cast in his shadow as he stood.

Mr. Reid: When you stand, you cannot see the rest of that bunch.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to respond?

Mr. Renwick: I always vote the same way as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) votes. Where is the member for Sarnia?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, the member for Sarnia, as usual, is looking after his constituents.

Mr. Lewis: Wherever they may be.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: How are things at the track?

Mr. Nixon: No, he is not at the track.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. For the members who couldn’t hear the chairman, the Chair assumes the member for Riverdale voted in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Lewis: Of course he did.

Mr. Nixon: He rose as I took my seat.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Mr. Swart moved there be a new section to follow section 4, and that the following section be added as a new section 5(1):

“Every landlord shall within five days of the establishment of a new rental rate respecting residential premises -- ”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I must interrupt. Did I understand you to say that the numbering of this section was 5(1)?

Mr. Chairman: This is what I have on the amendment, yes, 5(1).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I must draw to your attention that prior to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Swart) introducing this particular amendment, I inquired of him if this was still with section 4. At that time he indicated it was, and he acknowledged that he knew that I did have further amendments to section 4. With that in mind, I would respectfully request the renumbering of that particular section or withdraw it until the next sitting tomorrow.

Mr. Renwick: I think that is a very reasonable request.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing to stop us from taking a vote as long as we agree to revert to the minister’s amendment tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The deputy leader of your party has already spoken.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for Riverdale is deputy leader.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. It would seem that it would be in order to deal with this amendment providing the committee agrees to revert to section 4 for the minister’s amendment tomorrow. Is that agreed by the committee; that we revert?

Mr. Lewis: As long as you call on the member for Riverdale.

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

Mr. Good: The understanding I had of the amendment of the member for Welland was this was a new section inserted after section 4, called section 5.

Interjections.

Mr. Good: So, if this is defeated we will still in effect be dealing with section 4, will we not?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When the Chair started to read the amendment, I distinctly said that the new section was to follow section 4, and that the following be added as a new section 5, so there would be nothing to prohibit us from dealing with the minister’s amendment to section 4 tomorrow, if the committee agrees. Agreed?

Mr. Singer: Except for Cassidy.

Mr. Cassidy: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I just wish to be very sure, Mr. Chairman, that we have agreement that we will revert to section 4 tomorrow morning.

Mr. Lewis: Yes. You have our assurance.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We have the assurance to the minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because 4 doesn’t necessarily come after 5, even though Ed Good says it does.

Mr. Nixon: If Ed Good says it does, it does.

[10:45]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Does the hon. House leader wish to speak to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister speaking or is he praying?

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

Mr. Cassidy: We are not through.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m sorry, I thought we were.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I withdraw that motion.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is it the wish of the committee that the chairman read Mr. Swart’s amendment? Shall we dispense with the reading of the amendment?

Agreed.

The committee divided on Mr. Swart’s amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 29, the “nays” 75.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Mr. Renwick moved the committee rise and report.

Mr. Breithaupt: If that is the government policy.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate that tomorrow we will revert to the Throne Speech debate. We have a very outstanding speaker taking part in the Throne Speech debate tomorrow.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Before you put the motion to adjourn, I would like to draw to the attention of the House, and the province, that tomorrow a very significant occasion is going to take place in the Rainy River district. I would like to announce, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Moffatt: You’re announcing?

Mr. Martel: A new hospital.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are going to run.

Mr. Reid: -- that tomorrow in Atikokan in the Rainy River district, the official dedication of the Thomas Patrick Reid and Frank Miller Memorial Hospital in Atikokan will take place. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in a completely non-partisan fashion, that I want to thank the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) for his help and assistance in the opening and dedication of that hospital in my riding.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Speaking to the point of order, there are no funds for the operation of that hospital unless it’s the Frank Stuart Miller and Thomas Patrick Reid Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Reid: Agreed.

Mr. Ziemba: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Ziemba: I am very pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be yielding my time in the Throne Speech debate so that the Premier (Mr. Davis) can have his presentation, in the true spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And Mayor Crombie thanks you, too.

Mr. Speaker: All those important events are going to happen tomorrow.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.