role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 18, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L060 - Tue 18 May 1976 / Mar 18 mai 1976

TRAVEL INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND

HOSPITAL WORKERS’ DISPUTE

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

MENTAL RETARDATION CENTRES

PRIVATE HOSPITAL CLOSING

TRAVEL INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

ASBESTOS-CANCER STUDY

VINYL CHLORIDE LEVELS

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

OFF-STREET PARKING

URBAN TRANSPORTATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

ECONOMIC FORECASTING

URBAN TRANSPORTATION

PRODUCE PRICES

SEATBELT USE

DISPOSAL OF MINE TAILINGS

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to correct an impression which may have been left with the public and the travel industry by a story in today’s edition of the Globe and Mail.

The

article reported that the travel industry compensation fund is running out of money and that there may not be enough to repay consumers if another large travel wholesaler should go bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, that statement is absolutely untrue.

The compensation fund is very healthy indeed. I have in my hand a report from National Trust, the trustee of the fund, which indicates that as of May 11, one week ago today, the assets of the fund stood at well over a half-million dollars -- $542,267.80 to be precise.

If we deduct from this amount claims which have been either paid or approved, we are left with a total of $475,262. If we further deduct the combined outstanding claims of both consumers and agents, totalling $137,410, more than one-third of a million dollars, or $337,852, remain.

Operating expenses charged to the fund up until the end of March were just in excess of $11,000, so that the bottom-line figure after all deductions is still in excess of $325,000. We are not running out of money. This is not a static figure which continues to diminish as more claims are made against the fund. It is hoped the amount will continue to grow as agents and wholesalers make their required quarterly contributions.

This fund was established under the Travel Industry Act to compensate consumers for the loss of prepaid travel funds. It’s in good financial shape and I am confident it will be able to meet any commitments levied against it in the event of further problems in the industry.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

HOSPITAL WORKERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question, first, for the Minister of Labour and acting Minister of Health in her dual capacity: Is it not time perhaps for ministerial intervention at the highest level to reinstate the negotiations with the hospital workers which appear to have broken down, in order to avoid our usual eleventh-hour gasp in advance of a strike?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are continuing with SEIU this week. They will resume again tomorrow. There is certainly a ministry presence at those negotiations, as there was last week at the negotiations with CUPE. The conciliator-mediator was present at that meeting -- in fact was responsible for getting the two parties together at that time -- and they did have some meaningful discussions. The union decided, however, at that point to break off negotiations again.

At this point we are hopeful that there may be some positive direction in the SEIU negotiations which we hope will have some beneficial effect on the other set.

Mr. Lewis: Whatever the SEIU result and assuming for a moment that the contract negotiated there, if it is negotiated, might not influence the CUPE local, what is this resistance that ministers in Ontario seem to have to enter the bargaining process themselves when the government, in effect, pays the money and when there would be terribly damaging consequences in the event of a strike which need not be necessary, because presumably it can be sorted out? Can I invite the minister to enter the negotiations?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition may invite me to do that.

Mr. Lewis: If the minister had such an invitation from one of the parties, would she accept it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If it was felt to be a reasonable activity which might be productive of some expectation of success, I most certainly would consider it. Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Good. Okay.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

Mr. Lewis: Another question, if I may, for the acting Minister of Health: Could she indicate the nature of the committee of inquiry that has been appointed for the Lakeshore Hospital?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, two of the members have already been defined for us by the Ontario Hospital Association. The two nominees from the Ontario Medical Association have not, as yet, been named for us. The terms of reference have been drawn up and I shall make a statement as soon as the OMA nominees have been appointed.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, did the minister know when she appointed the commission that Dr. Marcilio, around whom the inquiry focuses, actually wrote a major memo as far back as September, 1973, objecting to the incarceration of children in adult wards of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, alerting the medical director and setting out specifics in a fashion which could avoid it in the future?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that memo but I’m interested to hear that it’s there. I’ll explore and find if we have a copy of it.

Mr. Lewis: It is most explicit. May I ask her, has she also looked at her recent correspondence -- maybe she hasn’t had the time to see it all -- from Dr. Marcilio setting out some of the things that have occurred in that hospital over the last three or four years, and can she perhaps include those matters in the inquiry terms of reference?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been a part of the development of the terms of reference and I can assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that, in fact, such items are included in a general way.

MENTAL RETARDATION CENTRES

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Is he aware of the unhappy anomaly in the Ottawa area which has terminated a Saturday daycare programme for 14 families, with retarded children and older persons among them, who use that facility on Saturday as a relief programme sponsored by the Ottawa Association for the Mentally Retarded, and had it cancelled as a result of a technicality enforced by his ministry? Is the minister aware of the truly unhappy situation of these people?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask him then to take a look at it? I think there is correspondence addressed to him.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Certainly.

Mr. Nixon: Would you send them a fund-raising letter?

PRIVATE HOSPITAL CLOSING

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the acting Minister of Health, is she aware of the situation at the Rest Haven chronic care facility in Hamilton, which alleges that it must close down, losing 32 employees and 34 chronic care patients, unless financial arrangements with the government are sorted out?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that the Rest Haven facility was about to close down. I understood that there were to be discussions with the Ministry of Health regarding the future of that institution.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Since they say, “Therefore, without prejudice, we will be forced to close Rest Haven Private Hospital on 30 days’ notice,” and the letter is dated May 14, can I ask the minister to look into it urgently?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I will.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about one matter in respect of his opening statement. What is he going to do now that the travel industry board of trustees has said it will not accept the legislation as he has drafted it and will not accept the regulations as he intended them to be employed? Since the board, I gather, doesn’t meet until late summer and this is the height of the travel season, how will we reconcile this problem?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is under review in the ministry now. We weren’t aware of this decision until this morning. The board met on Friday and has not yet given me any decision in any way except through the press, and I am not inclined to accept that as a form of communication. I would rather hear from the chairman of the board or the members of the board specifically what they have decided, and we will then take action.

ASBESTOS-CANCER STUDY

Mr. Lewis: All right, I will ask one question of the acting Minister of Health and sit down. Has she read Dr. Ritchie’s latest report -- he being the pathologist at the University of Toronto -- which allegedly indicates that the levels of stomach cancer induced from asbestos are twice those in the normal population? It is quite unequivocal in its recommendation that stomach cancer be a compensable matter on the Workmen’s Compensation Board, given a certain definition of exposure, and since families have been waiting for eight months, could the minister possibly get a settlement for us here in the Legislature?

VINYL CHLORIDE LEVELS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Labour: In view of the plans by B. F. Goodrich to currently double its polyvinyl chloride facility in Niagara Falls, and keeping in mind the discussion we had yesterday concerning the standards for vinyl chloride, can she tell us whether she is satisfied to allow Goodrich to plan an expansion in keeping with the present standards as she mentioned in the House, when, in fact, in the United States the standards are much, much more stringent and they ought to be much more stringent at any rate here in Ontario? Does it make much sense to just let them double the present capacity to obsolete standards?

An hon. member: Take a guess.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Labour, under the accord, has the responsibility to monitor plans for expansion of plants to ensure that, in fact, the new plants or the expansions will allow those industries to function within the guidelines set by the Ministry of Health.

If I might, at this point, I can expand upon this answer by responding to a question which the leader of the Liberal Party had asked me on May 3 regarding this subject, because he asked for specific information concerning vinyl chloride monomers at the B. F. Goodrich and Dow plants.

The TLV for vinyl chloride in Ontario is 10 parts per million time-weighted average for an eight-hour day with an excursion limit of 25 parts per million with a minute limit. This is the guideline from the Ministry of Health data sheet on vinyl chloride, and is presently under review by the Advisory Committee on Occupational Health and Safety.

[2:15]

The Goodrich plant was inspected by the Ministry of Labour last on Feb. 2 of this year. Previous inspections on Nov. 25, 1975, and in May, 1974, by the Ministry of Health showed readings well below 10 parts per million. Company monitoring for the first five days of May produced the following average readings: 1.2, 2.6, 2.2, 1.8 and 1.7. The employees of this plant do have access to this information as there are a number of display monitors located throughout the premises of the plant. I am also advised that the B. F. Goodrich Co. is working toward a level of one part per million on its premises in Niagara Falls.

With respect to the Dow plant in Sarnia, inspections by the Ministry of Labour took place on June 26 and 27, 1975, Dec. 24, 1975, and March 23, 1976. In addition, the Ministry of Health investigated the company’s monitoring system on Nov. 6, 1975. On May 11, 1976, the Ministry of Health undertook tests in two areas of this plant and readings were below detectable levels, that is, below one part per million.

On the same day, the Esso plant, also in Sarnia, was inspected, and on the reactor floor readings showed two parts per million; on the steam strip floor, one part per million; and in the dryer area the levels were not detectable; that is, below one part per million. At the bagging area by the operator’s position, the reading was one part per million.

As in the Goodrich plant, the results of the company’s monitoring are available to all of the employees in these plants.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In view of what seems to be a reasonable ability of the industry to stay reasonably low in their readings, if, in fact, this is typical of the inspections and the readings the ministry has and is not just chosen because of its effect, then why will the government not accept one part per million as its limit not to be exceeded? Why does it insist on having an obsolete standard, and why is it that the union still believes that it is not permitted to inspect the records regarding the monitoring? The union still tells us this very day that it is not being given access to these records. Can the minister possibly answer those questions?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have been informed and our inspectors tell us that the information is available to the employees within the plant.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Would it be possible for the minister to table in the House the readings on the dates previous to the most recent which she indicated, to let us see the flux in the levels over the last period of time, since that would clearly influence the health of the workers in the long run?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can find them and table them.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: The minister didn’t answer with respect to tightening up the standards from 10 parts per million to one part per million. Is that under consideration or would the minister consider in any way tightening up these standards?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I said yesterday that the Ministry of Health and the Occupational Health Advisory Committee was looking at this standard-setting specifically with a view to tightening the standards.

If I may say, in response to the questions previously on this subject by both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party, there was some confusion about that standard yesterday within the House, and I added to that confusion. Perhaps I can clarify the situation for them at this point.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labour has set a vinyl chloride time-weighted standard in the United States, from April 1, 1975, of one part per million. At the same time, it set a five parts per million ceiling. A delay period was allowed for levels up to 25 parts per million in companies in which employees indicated they did not wish to wear respirators. From April 1, 1976, companies must begin to implement the one and five parts per million levels.

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists have been meeting for the past 25 or 30 years. It is well recognized in the western world as an organization devoted to the development of administrative and technical aspects of worker health protection. Its TLV list was adopted and legislated by OSHA when the latter came into being a few years ago.

The TLV committee of the American conference met on April 27 and 28 of this year, reviewed the documentation on which OSHA based its decision, that is, the one part per million recommendation, and decided that additional information was required before accepting the one part per million standard. It still has this matter under consideration.

Perhaps we should look at that United States scene rather more realistically. In a telephone conversation to Washington this morning, OSHA was asked, as the delay period ended on April 1, 1976, what was the actual compliance date for the standard of one part per million in the United States. The answer was that the standard does not have a specific compliance date. Every plant in the United States must institute special engineering studies to find out what steps are necessary to be taken in an effort to meet the standards. OSHA will handle the matter on the basis of the actions which the companies are taking to comply, eventually, with that standard.

OSHA points out that it is waiting for the US Environmental Protection Agency to establish a standard regarding emissions to the environment as obviously these will affect the techniques used by the companies to control in-plant emissions.

OSHA also advised that it has indications that US companies generally are showing highs of 25 to 35 parts per million during peaks, while operating during normal periods at less than 10 parts per million.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We asked OSHA as well how long it would give the United States companies to comply with the standard of one part per million, and the answer from OSHA directly is five years or more and that some plants would never be able to achieve this standard without the use of respirators.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Not just for a moment, the hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Tens of thousands of US workers earn their livings in industries using vinyl chlorides and OSHA suggested that the US government did not wish to take arbitrary action which would mean loss of employment --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has not yielded the floor, so the member will have to wait before raising a point of order.

Mr. Foulds: It is a point of order.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It’s obvious that this is a prepared statement which the minister should have given prior to the orders of the day.

Mr. Lewis: It is a prepared apologia, for God’s sake! It is utter nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. members I am keeping track of things. The hon. minister will continue.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The US government does not wish to take arbitrary action which would mean loss of employment for these tens of thousands of workers. While the US has legislated a standard of one part per million which has not, to this date, been accepted by the TLV committee of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, US companies will be given several years to reach this level and are operating at present at levels higher than Ontario plants.

The Ministry of Health is aware of and is studying carefully the international literature on vinyl chloride. We have established a responsible position in protecting the workers in this province and the levels are being reviewed on the basis of worldwide knowledge of medical engineering and toxicology.

I might add that this morning OSHA admitted that though it has set a standard of one part per million, it really does not know how much exposure is truly hazardous.

We have 1,400 copies of the Ministry of Health’s data sheet on vinyl chloride and we will be very happy to distribute these.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue with the question period, I really think an answer of that length probably should have been given before the orders of the day. I allowed the answer to be given because it seemed to be closely enough related to the question which was on the floor at the time, and it seemed to be appropriate because it did add to the information. I think that would be understandable. We will allow two minutes extra in the question period.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree, because we’re now talking of a new plant and a rather large expansion to the condition that exists in Niagara Falls, that it would be an urgent matter to set the criteria before we get into this new plant? I appreciate that in old plants it may be difficult but in this case I would ask if it is not an urgent matter to set the criteria in view of the expansion?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is, I think, entirely reasonable and it is my information that the company is specifically working toward a level of one part per million in its old plant and in its new plant.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the acting Minister of Health: What penalty will the ministry enforce against Browndale for allowing children to remain in homes designated as overcrowded and unsafe by her own ministry officials, and what is the excuse for the inaction on the part of her ministry in view of a letter written in January by the director of children’s mental health services saying, among other things, “When the safety of children is seriously questioned there can be no excuse whatsoever for the interminable delays in handling this situation”?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at this point answer a question regarding a specific penalty, but I can tell the House that I shall be meeting with Mrs. Brown on Thursday to discuss this entire area.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: I am pleased to hear that the minister is meeting with Mrs. Brown about various matters, but in view of obvious negligence on the part of Browndale, why has the ministry not simply done the report itself and then billed Browndale?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s an interesting suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will take it under advisement.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell us how many hours the people in her staff are having to spend to sort of babysit and look after Browndale, when they should be able to look after themselves? It seems to me the people in her ministry are spending an awful lot of time having to keep them within the regulations.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I really don’t believe that anyone is babysitting Browndale within the ministry at the moment. The normal activities related to any group or association which provides service on behalf of the ministry are, of course, carried out on a regular basis.

Mr. S. Smith: I am looking forward to the audit from Browndale.

OFF-STREET PARKING

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of -- since the Premier (Mr. Davis) is absent -- the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the statements made regarding the parking facility for Spadina and so on, will the minister accede to the request of the Hamilton city council in a resolution dated April 27, for the payment of a subsidy toward the purchase of land for off-street parking development, where such development is required to improve the flow of traffic by the removal of on-street parking?

Mr. Nixon: I don’t see how they could turn that down.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I doubt very much if that will be approved. I don’t think we have officially responded to the city of Hamilton resolution as of yet.

Mr. Shore: What about London? Can you approve some for London?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Same for London.

Mr. S. Smith: As a supplementary: Does it seem reasonable to the minister that subsidies should be paid for widening various traffic arteries in order to improve the flow of traffic, which his ministry does, and yet not pay a subsidy for something which in effect widens the road which traffic can flow on, and does so by permitting the removal of on-street parking? Is it not the same principle?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t think so at all. It is not our policy to pay subsidy for municipalities to develop off-street parking facilities. We, of course, do pay subsidy for improvements to the highway system, the arterial roads and municipal streets. And we would anticipate that if a municipality improved an arterial road, for instance, at a cost both to their own taxpayers and to the provincial Treasury, that they would so designate the parking on that street that it wouldn’t hinder the traffic.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question to the minister: Since the minister indicates he won’t consider a subsidy for off-street parking, will he consider recalculating the subsidy for the transit system in order to get people off the streets altogether and onto buses?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are the mayor already.

Mr. Lewis: You would like to be back in T and C.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the hon. member thinks that recalculating the transit subsidy will get all the cars off the streets in Hamilton, I don’t think he is on the right track at all.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this morning I met in my office with Chairman Mrs. A. H. Jones and representatives of the Hamilton-Wentworth traffic committee, and I believe two staff members from the city of Hamilton, to discuss the particular matter that the hon. member is concerned about; that is, a transit subsidy for the city of Hamilton.

Mr. Deans: What did the minister say?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We put certain information before them, certain calculations we have made following their submission to us. The committee were to take that back and discuss it at their full transportation committee meeting, and I expect that a further meeting will be forthcoming in the near future.

Mr. Deans: Did the minister offer them a subsidy?

URBAN TRANSPORTATION

Mr. S. Smith: This is a final question, again to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Since he wishes us to get back on the track, it brings up the following question with regard to the Urban Transportation Development Corp.: Could the minister outline for us precisely what the involvement has been of McDonnell Douglas, the much-heralded involvement that his predecessor spoke of? Exactly how many dollars have they put into various schemes related to UTDC? Similarly, whatever became of the negotiations with the Alberta government regarding its possible involvement in this?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether McDonnell Douglas, in times prior to my involvement with this ministry, made any contribution or not. I do not believe that they did. It was significant; they were considered as a possible component of this development scheme. At the present time, McDonnell Douglas is not involved in any way.

As far as negotiations with the Province of Alberta are concerned, we have been having consultations with the Province of Alberta and the Province of Quebec, and I don’t know whether one would call them negotiations, consultations or frustrations, but we’ve been having some discussions with the federal government as well.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate -- and table it in the House -- just where the $6 million went in the illegitimate son of Krauss-Maffei, on which he was going to report to the House, and will he table any documents and technical papers in relation to that $6 million that was spent in the last year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that money was spent by the Urban Transportation Development Corp., or at least a portion of it was spent last year. I’m sure in due course, when I receive the annual report of the corporation, we will certainly be tabling that in the House, and I’m sure we can supply any particular information that the hon. member wants.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Ruston: Lean over and ask him! Don’t you speak to one another?

Mr. Norton: I wonder if the hon. minister could indicate what effect, if any, he anticipates there will be upon Ontario universities this year as a consequence of the rather major change in cash flow announced by the Hon. Hugh Faulkner in the transfer payments for post-secondary education to the provinces?

Mr. Nixon: That’s a setup.

Mr. Peterson: Don’t get involved --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You know, it is rather interesting -- I guess I shouldn’t make editorial comments, but I will -- it is rather interesting that questions of major concern to members of this party don’t seem to have the same acceptability in the relevance of this House as they do across the floor of the House, and I don’t think that’s at all fair.

Mr. Nixon: You just turned around and fed it to the nearest member.

Mr. Reid: Which one is the ventriloquist and which one is the dummy?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The statement attributed to the minister yesterday, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner, was certainly misleading, and I have a copy of that particular press report here. I’ll read a very short bit of it.

“The Secretary of State, Hugh Faulkner, told the provincial education ministers when he first forwarded their 1976 monthly payments that went out in April, that the level of payments would be based on” --

And it goes on. That’s just not so, Mr. Speaker. The telegram that we received was very short. It read:

“An instalment in the amount of $12,570,000-odd on post-secondary education adjustment payment in advance in respect of 1976-1977 has been deposited in your account at the Bank of Montreal today. Details to follow.”

That represents the total information that we received. I’m very concerned, and I know the universities and colleges are very concerned, about what would appear to be a rather abrupt change in the method of flowing cash through on transfer payments. We are, I think, justifiably very concerned on that issue. We received a formal letter yesterday. I would like to inform the member for Kingston and the Islands, we haven’t had time yet to assess all of that. I will try to keep him and this House informed of that rather significant change, which affects every college and university in this province, and certainly this government is markedly concerned on that change.

Mr. Conway: No more sabbaticals.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Lupusella: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tremendous increase in the cost of living, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether the government intends to introduce legislation to increase the pensions of injured workers who have been awarded a permanent disability pension by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. And if the answer is no, why not?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The answer is neither no nor yes at the moment.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary: As the minister is aware, it seems that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has $600 million invested in Hydro bonds. How come this government isn’t willing to raise the pensions of injured workers in this province and insists on continuing to starve them?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The pensions of injured workers were raised as a result of the legislation last July. The Workmen’s Compensation Board is examining the effect of this raise of pensions from last year and will be making recommendations to us within the near future.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Is the minister therefore very clearly saying that a bill to increase the pensions in the month of June is not likely to come forward this June, as it has almost every June as far as any member of this House can remember? Is she deliberately not bringing it forward this June, the time we would expect it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I’m not deliberately doing anything right at the moment. I’m awaiting the report from the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

ECONOMIC FORECASTING

Mr. S. Smith: Now that the Premier is in the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him a question. Since the events of this past weekend show that the only new Tory thought in this country seems to be coming from his federal leader --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s hear the question.

Mr. Reid: Let sleeping dogs lie, they say.

Mr. Nixon: You even woke up Claire Hoy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting time.

Mr. S. Smith: -- will the Premier accept his federal leader’s suggestion and give five-year economic forecasts to this province, which is apparently what governments are supposed to do? What is the date on which his government will issue the next five-year forecast? While we’re at it, would the Premier also accept his federal leader’s suggestion that governments should have a proper committee system, with power to subpoena and to bring matters before the public, instead of carrying on the secret form of government which presently goes on in Ottawa and in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll try to deal with those two totally related questions.

I think the first had to do with economic forecasts and the suggestion made by the leader of our national party and the next Prime Minister of Canada --

Mr. Breithaupt: Surely they weren’t both there, were they?

Mr. Reid: Five dollars on that -- even money.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll take that bet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to put in a word for Ed Broadbent.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, who is Ed Broadbent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I was saying, in my very carefully considered reply to this question of urgent public importance --

Mr. Bullbrook: You joker, you; you’re better than you ever were.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recall what the Leader of the Opposition said; I think he was concerned about the economic direction of the federal government and their total lack of leadership -- now, I’m quoting him; I wouldn’t be as unkind as to say that --

Mr. S. Smith: I just asked when we could expect your five-year forecast.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I listened carefully to his very well considered speech I think he said, isn’t it too bad that the federal government in economic terms and in leadership, inflation and all the rest of it, didn’t show the same degree of leadership and the significant economic accomplishments as the government of the Province of Ontario. I think that’s what he said, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what you heard; that’s not what was said.

Mr. Reid: Are you going to support your national leader this time around?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall him holding up this government as the prime example of how government should be run in this country. I shared that point of view; I totally agreed with him.

Mr. Reid: What did he say about Alberta oil?

Mr. Ruston: What about Lougheed? Did he tell you how much to sell your oil for?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Fewer interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that the material presented to the members of this House from time to time certainly gives the opposition critics ample opportunity to assess the economic situation of the province and the predictions as best we can make them for careful analysis by the House. In that respect I think we have demonstrated great leadership in this area.

Mr. S. Smith: So we are not getting one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As for saying that we should have five-year projections of expenditures, of course we look at things more than a year at a time. There is no question about that.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the committee system?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As time goes on, we’ll share as much of this information as we can with the member for Hamilton West in the hope that he will be able to assimilate it. What was the second question?

Mr. S. Smith: The committee system.

Mr. Reid: Like hospital expenditures.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really feel the committee system is unrelated to the first question.

Mr. Speaker: I feel it too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I understand the committee system here, the committees are empowered -- and the Clerk of the Legislature can correct me if I’m wrong -- to operate in a way which is and which the members have found to be relatively appropriate. I have found that from personal experience.

Mr. S. Smith: You know it is not true.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a supplementary, without invading the personal relationship between the Premier and Mr. Clark, did he feel that the government’s deficit was also one of the finest in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think really what he said -- and I can’t quote him accurately -- was that in terms of the effort made by the provinces, particularly Ontario in its budget this year, the great progress we have made in the reduction of our deficit is an excellent example for the federal government to follow.

Mr. Reid: What did his wife say?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would refer the member to the text of his remarks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yesterday the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) asked me a supplementary question regarding the Urban Transportation Development Corp. He inquired as to what portion of the $6 million was spent in West Germany on this project with Krause-Maffei. The answer that I have is that none of this money was spent with Krauss-Maffei, although some money has been spent with other corporations regarding control systems.

He also inquired as to how many engineers were in Germany regarding this project at Krauss-Maffei. The answer is none. There has been none there since July, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll allow one supplementary.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: When the minister announced the shutdown of the agreement with Krauss-Maffei, he made much of the fact that the facilities were going to remain available to our experimental engineers. In the event, we are not making any use of that part of the agreement at all. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I didn’t say that at all. Although it’s not being used at the present time, as that portion of the testing is completed, we have made extensive use of the Krauss-Maffei test track at no cost.

PRODUCE PRICES

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food with regard to Produce Processors Ltd. in Trenton and the related co-op development, which is deemed by the vegetable marketing board as designed to circumvent this year’s negotiated price of $61.25 per ton for the produce. Since the minister’s parliamentary assistant informed a meeting in Strathroy last Saturday night, I believe, that one of his ministry officials has declared: “It’s all legal but it looks pretty damned immoral,” what is the government going to do about it?

Mr. Nixon: Did he say that?

Mr. Moffatt: Control that man.

Hon. W. Newman: It’s quite obvious the hon. member didn’t know we had a marketing board, but we do have. It’s the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Marketing Board. They had negotiated a price of $61.25.

Mr. Breithaupt: The parliamentary assistant didn’t know that.

Mr. MacDonald: I mentioned that.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s the marketing board incentive at this point in time. I have also read the

article and, as far as I’m concerned, the marketing board has established a price of $61.25 and that’s what the price is.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister, a reviewing board?

Mr. Reid: Is the minister saying his parliamentary assistant didn’t know there is a marketing board?

Mr. MacDonald: By way of a supplementary, the minister has evaded my question again. Since the development of a cooperative in relationship to that plant, in which this government and the federal government put in $800,000, is deemed by the marketing board that negotiated that price to be circumventing this year’s price, what is the minister going to do about its immorality?

Hon. W. Newman: We have a marketing board with duly elected representatives and it’s up to them to deal with those matters themselves.

[2:45]

Mr. MacDonald: I have a final supplementary. One of the directors of that marketing board, which is going to deal with this, according to the minister, says, “I think the provincial government would be willing to bend the rules because of its financial involvement to keep the plant going.” Is the government going to bend the rules to permit the plant to keep in operation because of the money it has got in it and, at the same time, undercut the $61.25 negotiated price for this year?

Interjection.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite obvious the hon. member doesn’t understand what I am talking about.

Mr. Foulds: Who does?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. W. Newman: What I’m trying to tell him is that there is a marketing board duly elected to look after these situations. I have made no reference at any time to any provincial or federal money in any particular storage facilities in eastern Ontario or in western Ontario or anywhere else.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Since it is my understanding that the minister has had representations both from the eastern Ontario growers and the western Ontario growers on this particular issue, could he please tell the House what advice he is giving those people and what he is telling them to do in this circumstance?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have had representation from all across this province, from all the agricultural --

Mr. Peterson: I am not interested in how you waste your time.

Hon. W. Newman: -- let me tell the member -- is he talking about a particular company which has just written to me, I think within the last two or three days, pointing out their concerns? I have also had representation from eastern Ontario regarding the situation.

Mr. Peterson: We know that. Answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: The marketing board is fully aware that if it wants to meet some of the commitments overseas, it has to deal with the price structure. It is up to the board to deal with this, if it wants to deal with it. It has finished its negotiations and has set a price of $61.25.

Mr. Peterson: Are you going to allow them to do that?

SEATBELT USE

Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given the statistics released by the Minister of Transportation and Communications a few days ago regarding the reduced deaths and accidents on our highways, in regard to the use of seatbelts, can the minister assure this House that he is prepared to encourage insurance companies to reduce their rates for auto insurance or at least review the recent increases in light of the statistics released by the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member is not a member of the Justice estimates committee. That matter was raised in the estimates and reviewed at great length. Certainly we are prepared to take a look at the justification given by the insurance companies for their current rates. There are other factors than simply the drop in accident rates. Most of the health costs are paid by OHIP.

The collision rates are up and collision costs are up. What we did say was that the reduction in deaths and injuries would have a stabilizing effect on the rates and presumably, sooner or later, there will be a turnaround in rates; but at the moment it hasn’t been in effect long enough to have a very material influence on rate reduction.

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you reduce life insurance rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Take that up in London.

DISPOSAL OF MINE TAILINGS

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked me a question regarding the Madsen Mine town site and the sewage works at that site and the result of a possible mine closing in June. I haven’t all the information that I would like but I thought that as about 10 days had gone by now at least I could give him the information I have.

My information is that the sanitary wastes are collected and discharged into two septic tanks which in turn discharge into the tailings area. The septic tank sludge is pumped out twice a year and the sludge is transported to the tailings area. Generally, the system is not in good repair. As the hon. member knows, it has been operated by the company and, as a result of the mine closing, we are looking at various alternatives -- individual septic tanks or a lagoon; or some form of mechanical treatment or modifying and improving the present system in some way.

I think, as the hon. member knows, the problem is that if the mine closes who will operate and maintain the system? We need some type of a legal body, some type of a council or framework up there actually to look after the community. A meeting was held last week with representatives of Madsen, as well as TEIGA, Housing, Natural Resources and my ministry to explore solutions to the problem and to try to derive some type of legal framework for operating the community.

There have been a couple of suggestions -- to turn it into an improvement district or possibly to annex it to Red Lake. These are two of about five different suggestions. There’s another meeting this Thursday, but the point I want to make to the hon. member is that if the mine closes and the company no longer operates the system, we first have to have a structure and then we have to improve the system, because, as the hon. member says, the tailings will no longer be available for sludge.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can the minister assure this House and the people of Madsen that the ministries that he mentioned can have a co-ordinated answer by June 1, which is the deadline that the community is facing?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We are working towards that goal.

Mr. Foulds: That’s what the Minister of Natural Resources prompted you to say.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’re very much aware of what is going on.

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Moffatt: A question for the Minister of the Environment: In view of the fact that Eldorado Nuclear has optioned about 400 acres in the Port Granby area, at the town of Newcastle, what involvement has his ministry had with that particular firm to make sure the disposal of nuclear waste from the Port Hope area will be handled in an appropriate fashion, and hopefully will not even be used in that particular area? Secondly, is the minister aware that the permit for the use of that present site at Port Granby by Eldorado Nuclear expires on June 15?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there is a committee set up, under the chairmanship of my deputy minister, involving the Atomic Energy Control Board, the company, the Ministry of Health, the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Gillespie’s ministry, and my ministry. They have already had one meeting. The purpose of this committee is to find a suitable site for the waste from the Port Hope area.

This is going to be a problem because of the type of waste; naturally, no community will want to be the receiving community for this waste if it’s removed from that area. It is highly toxic, as the hon. member knows. There was apparently some consideration by the town of Newcastle on the basis that if the company builds another refinery there, it would consider taking this waste. There is no decision as to a site.

As far as the permit is concerned, it is my understanding that the company is not required to obtain our permission to establish a site.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of a bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of amendments to the Education Act. Many of them are minor amendments and housekeeping changes. However, there is a new subsection requiring boards to charge the gross fee to all pupils on student visas, except participants in certain educational exchange programmes and pupils who were enrolled prior to July 1, 1976.

There are also major sections that provide that moneys raised by local taxation for the payment of salaries and wages of teachers and other employees of a board that were not paid by reason of a strike or lockout, if not excluded from the estimates of the board in the same year, must be placed in a reserve fund and taken into account in the estimates of the following year for the purpose of reducing the board’s requirements. The Act will also provide that the municipal tax collector must send out with the tax bill a notice informing all affected taxpayers of the amount by which the board’s requirements have been reduced and its effect on their mill rate.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 28, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has given me notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer given him on Thursday last by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) concerning rent review. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

Mr. Nixon: That will be great.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 21, 29 and 73 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, for the information of members of the House, it’s been generally agreed, for the work in committee today, that we would stack any votes and perhaps have a bell by 5:30.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed? That any amendments we might have which might result in a vote will be stacked and called at 5:30?

Agreed.

section 1:

Mr. Cassidy: On

section 1, I wonder if the minister could explain the meaning of this? Specifically does it mean that if the rent has been paid on an annual lease the increase means the renewal of the year’s lease or is it only on a monthly basis?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it was not clear in the original Act as to whether or not the Act did apply to periodic tenancies and there has been some suggestion made that once an annual lease or a two-year lease expires the tenant is no longer protected under the Act. We simply want to make clear that a monthly tenancy is also covered under the Act. It has nothing to do with the security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Chairman: Could we have a little order please? It’s very difficult to hear the speakers.

Will you keep your private conversations down please?

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Cassidy: On subsection 2, I want to raise a question and ask the minister whether he’s prepared to accept an amendment -- I haven’t drafted an amendment -- because it seems to me there is a serious question involved in the matter of short leases. The minister may recall that when the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) was responsible for rent review and we had those amendments in January, we recommended during discussions held outside the Legislature that an amendment like this one be put into effect so that any rent increase would have to take hold or be in effect for a full year.

That was rejected at that time by the ministry. We welcome the fact that the ministry has now changed its mind with this minister; however, the net effect of this is limited if not non-existent.

[3:00]

As I understand it, what happens is the following: If a landlord is increasing his rent to take effect on June 1 or July 1, that rent increase will have to be in effect for a full year. However, I don’t know if there is any retroactivity to apply to rent increases that took effect on May 1 or in previous months? I would like the minister to comment on that, because if it only applies to June and July rent increases, then effectively there are no real results -- or very limited results -- flowing from this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It applies to any rent increase that has taken effect since the Act became effective. Which would mean that if a person had issued a short-term lease on Feb. 1, March 1 or May 1 of this year to expire at the end of July -- and presumably the increase has not gone to the rent review process -- whatever that increase was, whether it was three per cent, six per cent or eight per cent, it would still have to go before the rent review officer if the landlord contemplates another increase either on the anniversary date of that lease or on Aug. 1 of this year. So it certainly will apply to any rent increase that has taken effect since the Act became effective.

Mr. Chairman: Shall

section 2 of the bill carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you could move a bit more slowly. I want to get this straight; I want to ask the minister what action he intends to take in order to inform tenants about this important new right.

The minister is saying that whether a rent increase took effect last Sept. 1 or takes effect this coming July 1, unless the landlord subsequently goes to rent review, that rent increase must last for a full 12 months. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Going back to the original debate, it was contemplated of course that any rent increase could be appealed by a tenant; and if the tenant did appeal the rent increase, whether it was eight per cent or less, the rent review officer, by his findings, could order it to be held for 12 months. A great deal of publicity was given to that aspect or the Act. Unfortunately, many tenants were quite prepared to accept an eight per cent increase without appeal and, as a result, were left without any protection against the subsequent increase on Aug. 1 of this year if they were given a short-term lease.

I just want to assure the hon. member and all hon. members that the intention of this

section is to do what the tenants really had the power to do themselves if they had taken the action, which was to appeal the original rent increase, whether or not it went to rent review. But since they have not taken advantage of that we are putting in this

section to ensure that the onus will be on the landlord to prove the need for any further rent increase.

Mr. Cassidy: Can we also have an assurance from the minister that if a landlord goes before a rent review officer on Aug. 1 for an increase of more than eight per cent, which would require him to go to rent review, and the previous rent increase was less than 12 months previous, that the rent review officer will refuse to consider that application because of the fact that it’s premature and therefore illegal?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course, it will not be illegal. A request for an additional rate will not be illegal, but the rent review officers will review the application and say, “In accordance with this section, you have already received a rent increase within the past 12 months, and that is effective until the 12 months is up.” We can’t stop people from going before the rent review officer and asking for additional rent and particularly if the lease has expired. They will have to go before the rent review officer to try to justify increased rent. But it is not illegal for them to go before the rent review officer.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I can cite the case of a tenant whose rent was increased in the last 10 or 11 months, or maybe in the last four or five months, and whose landlord then seeks to raise his rent by eight per cent or less on Aug. 1. What steps does the minister propose to publicize this new amendment and to enforce it against landlords who might otherwise be charging illegal rent increases, effective Aug. 1?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t believe we are ready to employ an army of policemen to go around knocking on every door and asking every tenant what their rent is. I think there has to be some onus here on the tenant to report it. We will be giving it publicity as soon as these amendments become effective. We will publicize them in the way that we publicized the original Act, which was quite extensively. However, we have no way of finding out about these cases unless they are brought to our attention.

Mr. Cassidy: Just as a final comment on this particular section, I want to raise a concern. I have said before, and I say it now in the House, that rents which became illegal after the passage of the Act have continued to be charged by a number of landlords in Ottawa, to my knowledge. And it’s my understanding that this has taken place in other parts of the province as well. It is also my information that there have been no prosecutions launched by rent review officers, or even aided by rent review officers, despite the promise that that would be done and despite certain requests that have been made for that assistance from tenants.

If that has been the record in the past, then this particular amendment may not be worth the paper it’s printed upon. Because if the rent review office neither monitors what’s happening out there, nor is prepared to help tenants who try and get their landlord to desist or try and prosecute the landlord for charging an illegal rent, then the tenants are left powerless. That, of course, is unfortunately still too often the problem with the rent review process.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether we are getting a preview of the late, late show, but certainly, if the hon. member has any evidence whatsoever to enable anyone to file a prosecution on an illegal action, he has a responsibility to put that evidence before the proper authorities.

To the best of my knowledge, the hon. member has never once come to either a rent review officer, or to our ministry, to say that apartment XYZ in such-and-such a building is charging a rent which is in excess of the guidelines, or is illegal because it has not been approved by a rent review officer. If he has that evidence, I would like him to come to us. We will ask him to file the information, go to court, give his evidence, and a prosecution will be raised.

Mr. Cassidy: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I have some evidence like that --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Don’t talk about it. Give it to us. Do something.

Mr. Cassidy: I have it from tenants who have asked me not to give it, because they feel intimidated by their landlord and they do not wish it to be brought forward. They fear that they will be hurt or evicted, or something else would happen. They have no confidence in the process that the ministry has set up in the province, and that’s why they are afraid to come forward -- that’s the situation.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s the same reason people give for not giving evidence when they are hit on the head by a hood on the street. As far as I’m concerned, the system of justice will not work unless people are willing to come forward and give evidence. Allegations of that nature don’t do the system any good at all.

Mr. Cassidy: At least there is a competent and good police force in the province that is concerned about assaults on the person. The ministry, though, has specifically refrained from having any kind of effective policing action in the case of tenants who are being charged illegal rents.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I say again to the hon. member that if he has evidence, and the people who have given him this information are willing to come forward, we will file prosecutions. We cannot win prosecutions unless we have some indication that they are going to be won. There isn’t any point in going to court unless you are going to win the case unless, of course, as the hon. member obviously wants, he wants harassment of certain people without any evidence.

Mr. Cassidy: If that’s a commitment, Mr. Chairman, then I will do everything in my power in the next week to give the minister information on people who are prepared to swear the information.

Mr. Chairman: Shall

section 2 of the bill carry?

Mr. Cassidy: No. That was on

section 2, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Cassidy: I have further material later on about

section 2. I have raised some concerns which I think are germane to this

section and to the bill. The

section deals with

section 5 of the Act. Perhaps I could preface my comments by reading a couple of amendments that I wish to propose.

Mr. Chairman: Can the Chair have a copy of those amendments?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I will just send them to you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the minister for not having these in particularly good order.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that

section 2 of the Residential Premises Rent Review Amendment Act be amended by adding the following:

Subsection 6 of

section 5 is amended by adding the words at the end, “and where a landlord files a cost-revenue statement with the rent review officer, he shall forthwith give to the tenant a copy of said cost-revenue statement.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, to speak to that particular amendment, I have expressed concern, privately with the minister and his staff and publicly as well, about problems that tenants have been having in the operations of the rent review Act, which are making the system appear to them to be biased and making them feel that their rights are not being respected. We’re getting these now in the form of comments from tenants who’ve been through the hearing process and just don’t feel that they got a fair deal at all.

The complaints relate to the information they’ve been getting from the rent review offices. That’s probably a matter of staff training, and I hope it’s being improved. The complaints also relate to the regulations and practices which the ministry has adopted. The manual of procedure which the rent review officers have been given is not a public document, so the tenants are finding very difficult to find out what the rules of the game are.

The complaints also relate to the information filed by the landlords, and in fact there are two or three related amendments here which affect that particular question. The act says, in

section 7, which I’d like to read:

“The rent review officer may give directions for the conduct and carrying on of proceedings before him, and in so doing shall adopt the most expeditious method of determining the questions arising before him that afford to all parties to the proceedings an adequate opportunity of knowing the issues in the proceedings and of presenting material and making representation on their behalf.”

Previously, in

section 5, subsection 13, it states that where the rent review officer is given notice of a hearing of an application under sub 8 of sub 12, “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.”

The information takes two forms: One is the cost-revenue statement, a four-page document, a form which has been prepared by the rent review offices and which is a

summary of the landlord’s information; and along with that there are certain appendices which have to be attached, such as the

schedule of rents and so on; and then, thirdly, landlords may file with the rent review office supporting data, their books or an annual report or other material like that. In certain cases this may be hundreds of pages of material, and I think it’s fair to argue that it would be unrealistic to ask the landlord to give a 50- or 100-page document to every tenant at the time that an application is going in to raise that tenant’s rent by more than eight per cent.

On the other hand, most tenants work. Even where there’s a man and wife living in an apartment, in many cases both work, and unless the rent review officers are to adopt evening hours as a matter of course it’s awfully difficult for working people to get down to the rent review office to look over the material. That’s why this particular amendment says that a copy of the cost-revenue statement -- the specific four-page document, which is relatively easy to copy and relatively easy for the tenant to understand -- should be given to the tenant at the time that he is told the application for rent review has gone forward and the landlord is filing his statement with the rent review office.

[3:15]

What’s happening right now, in many cases, is simply that the tenant gets a notice of hearing; the notice of hearing tells him only that if he doesn’t appear he can’t appeal and doesn’t give him any other guidance about what’s happening down at the rent review hearing. So the tenant gets himself down there, but is not well enough informed to look into the files at the rent review office to see what material is there, or perhaps couldn’t get there because of the physical problems of getting away from work.

He winds up at the hearing where the landlord and the rent review officer both have a copy of this cost-revenue statement, which is the basic document from which they work. The tenant hasn’t got a clue because he can’t even follow the information they are discussing because he doesn’t have a copy to work from. He certainly hasn’t had a chance to look at the material before.

It seems to me that in order to remove the suggestion of bias which is now firmly attached to the rent review process it is desirable that this particular amendment be adopted. Later on, I will also be moving an amendment to permit tenants reasonable access to the other material filed by landlords and the right to photocopy it. By directive from the rent review offices, the right to photocopy has not been given; it has been denied specifically to the tenants.

That has put an enormous hurdle in their way and, frankly, I think it is a denial of natural justice. Certainly it is a violation of

section 5(13) of the Act which says the material shall be available; and of

section 7(1) of the Act which says all parties to the proceedings should have an adequate opportunity of knowing the issues in the proceedings and of presenting material and making representations on their behalf.

What I am seeking to do with these amendments since --

Mr. Chairman: I would prefer if you would stick to comments on the specific amendment before the committee, rather than dealing with an amendment which has not yet been moved.

Mr. Cassidy: What I am seeking to do with this amendment plus other material which may be presented later is that since informal representations to the ministry have so far been unsuccessful, I think the Legislature -- I say this to the Liberal Party in particular --

Mr. Nixon: All right.

Mr. Cassidy: -- has the right to speak in order to ensure that tenants are not denied natural justice.

Mr. Shore: They are not denied; I can tell you that.

Mr. Cassidy: It is possible for the question of the application of

section 7 of the Act to be tested in the courts but that is expensive and time-consuming. In the meantime many tenants may suffer through inadequate information and the whole rent review process may suffer because it gets a bad name because tenants feel they have been discriminated against.

I will send a copy of this amendment over to the minister. I hope he looks at it seriously and that he will consider accepting the amendment on behalf of the government.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would ask you to consider carefully whether or not this amendment is in accordance with the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill is quite clear. The principle is designed to take public housing out of the rent review process and the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is completely out of order.

I would ask you to rule on the question of whether or not it is in order before I comment on it. I certainly would hope that you would uphold my contention that this amendment is out of order and cannot be debated.

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

section 2 of the bill has absolutely no application to public housing at all. The principle of the bill is that a number of amendments were desirable to the Rent Review Act.

Mr. Chairman: In

section 2, the explanatory note says, “The amendment ensures that in the case of a periodic tenancy or short-term leases the increases provided for cannot be taken twice in one year unless it is justified before a rent review officer.” It seems to me that the amendment would fall within the intent of the Act inasmuch as the increase has to be justified and the amendment calls for making that justification available to the tenant. It seems to me that the amendment would be in order, subject to a challenge by the committee.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, obviously I accept your ruling. I would hope that the members of the Legislature, of this committee, would not accept this amendment. I think there is appearing -- very gradually but quite clearly -- the obvious intent of the New Democratic Party with regard to this Act.

We hear the claims that the New Democrats are very sincere in hoping that this Act will work. Obviously, the easiest way to make it fail is to undermine it; to make it completely unwieldy; to make it impossible to operate; to impose upon the government a vast bureaucracy in order to make it operate. It has operated well. The hon. member is becoming quite adept at pulling out individual cases. Out of the thousands he can probably name five, six or even 50 cases in which the process has not worked as smoothly as it might.

I have discussed this Act with literally hundreds of tenants and I want to tell this committee that only one tenant, who happens to be the vice-president of a Metro federation of tenants, has ever objected to the process, and there is no question in my mind what that federation is seeking to do. In one hearing they took seven hours of the rent review officer’s time in an attempt absolutely to destroy the process and, if that is allowed to happen, then the process will indeed break down.

We cannot accept that this kind of information, which may very well be confidential, should be published in the Globe and Mail the next morning after it is in the hands of tenant activists. I have no objection whatsoever to a tenant coming in and making himself familiar with the contents of the cost-revenue statement. That’s what it is there for. But we see no reason whatsoever why a copy of information that may very well be completely confidential should be available. The publishers would have to rely on a handwritten copy. They would have to rely on the accuracy of the tenant’s ability to copy it and to understand it.

We’re having problems in the process, and there is no question about it. It is not a smooth process. We have people who have received a very fast training course. They have the basic skills in order to handle this, but they simply cannot sit through seven- and eight-hour hearings on one unit because a group which is dedicated to the destruction of the process wants to undermine it. The best way to do that is to have the rent review officer throw up his hands in disgust and say, “I cannot deal with this matter,” which leaves the rent exactly where it was.

The purpose of the process is to permit cost increases to be passed through. The rent review officers have to have that information in their hands. They are not there to be a referee in a war, and that is the problem. A war is being created by the kinds of approaches that are being made by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) all over this province. Not only in this chamber but everywhere in this province he is going out and telling the tenant, using the words that he just used in regard to this amendment, that the process is against him and the government is against him. That’s the kind of thing that I deplore.

Mr. Philip: It is you that is against them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We certainly don’t want to discourage landlords from submitting their information to us. We also recognize that many of the landlords are doing this for the first time and may very well submit information that should not be divulged.

One landlord, in an effort to substantiate his claim, submitted a copy of his income tax form. The rent review officer, being inexperienced, distributed that. There is nothing in this country that is more confidential than an income tax form. I will not permit under my ministry to have that kind of information disseminated. This kind of amendment will make it far too easy to distribute that kind of information. I suggest that the tenant who wants to obtain the information can do so, and there is no need to distribute it widely among everybody who is interested in the problem.

Mr. Good: I think we discussed this point or a point very similar during the amendments when the original bill went through. As far as I am concerned and I think our party is concerned, we feel that is covered in subsection 13 of

section 5 of the bill as it now stands, which states:

“Where the rent review officer has given notice of a hearing of an application under subsection 8 or 12, he shall make available to all parties to the hearing all materials filed with him in connection with that application together with any information which he requests from any party.”

Then the next

section goes on to state:

“Material to be made available under subsection 13 includes any books, records or other information supporting an application or requested by the rent review officer.”

I know we dealt with this matter. I thought we debated it thoroughly.

As far as we are concerned, I think there is ample protection under that subsection so that the tenant does have access to any information that the landlord plans to use, including his financial statement, profit and loss sheet and everything else. If the landlord is going to use that as a defence, it is now available to the tenant. I don’t see what additional measures should be taken.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t quite know why the minister is so recalcitrant about a proposal such as my colleague has put forward. Let me set aside for a moment the whole question of rent review administration which will come up in the minister’s estimates in committee.

Whatever feelings the minister may have about the way in which the administration is being carried on and what he chooses to call the attacks made at the instigation of my colleague -- which, of course, I totally dismiss as having any foundation -- whatever those reasons are, the cost-revenue statement is the key to what the hearing is about. The application is not what it is about. It’s the cost-revenue statement. The manual, which we haven’t seen as yet, is obviously the directive to the rent review officer, subject to his discretion, for the purpose of determining whether or not any proposed increase in the rent is justified or not justified.

If you’re going to give any substance to the hearing before the rent review officer, surely the key document upon which the rent review officer is going to make his decision must be available to be examined by the tenants who wish to oppose the application? Otherwise the hearing is a meaningless hearing and you’re not providing the substance of what the bill was intended to provide. That was a fair hearing by both sides before the rent review officer and then the rent review officer makes his decision, subject to whatever appeal rights there may be.

The key document which determines whether or not the rent increase is I justified or not justified, or the extent to which the rent increase is justified, must be made available to the tenant or the tenant has no way in which to form the kinds of questions that he may wish to submit at the time when the hearing is held.

Everyone knows that the cost-revenue document of a significant multi-accommodation building is both an accounting document and a specialised document having to do with the kind of business operation being carried on. That doesn’t put it into a confidential class, and that doesn’t put it into the situation where the tenant must be forced, if he wants to have the information out of it, to go to the rent review office and laboriously copy it out by longhand. Surely, in all reason, we’re coming back to the very basis upon which every hearing must be held, that it must be fair and it must be done in good faith.

The rent review officer has to fairly listen to both sides, and he can’t fairly listen to both sides if the one side does not have available to it the very crucial document when it is required for the purpose of a fair hearing. Otherwise it becomes meaningless and you will only compound the sense of frustration by various tenants’ groups particularly, because after all individual tenants have really no strength or authority to fight a landlord except on a group basis. You will only frustrate those very groups who can afford to retain people to examine a cost-revenue statement for the purpose of making certain that the proper questions are asked and the proper answers are given.

As the chairman said, what we are talking about is the justification of the application by the landlord or by the tenant for a change in the rent. I simply want to say that I cannot understand this, regardless of the minister’s feelings. He and my colleague are from the same city and I’ve often thought I’d either like to have all the members from the Ottawa area to dinner or put them in a cage and see how they get along.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or both.

Mr. Renwick: Or both.

Mr. Breithaupt: Throw them a little raw meat.

Mr. Renwick: Leaving that aside, and leaving the intense feelings that are engendered by my colleague, particularly in the minister himself, leaving all those matters aside, the crucial document has got to be available and readily available. To say to me that, yes, it is available to the tenant if he will go in and laboriously take it down in longhand but it’s not available to him because it’s furnished by your ministry, simply defeats the whole proposition. There is no question about it whatsoever.

[3:30]

In this day and age it is not difficult to reproduce and to provide the document to the tenants. The minister fixes upon the confidentiality of the information and that it can be available to the rent review officer and to the landlord, but it can’t be available to the tenant except if he runs an obstacle course to get it.

The minister can’t have it both ways. He either has to say that it’s totally confidential, in which case there is no such thing as a fair hearing, or he’s got to say that it has to be made available, because one of the amendments -- I think it was the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) who particularly raised it -- says that the rent review officer’s obligation is to decide as expeditiously as possible. He can’t decide expeditiously if the tenant doesn’t have the information on which he can frame the kinds of questions that he wants.

I recall we had the same problem a very short time ago under the Pension Benefits Act. If a person who was a beneficiary of a pension arrangement filed with the Pension Commission of Ontario, he could go and make extracts from it but he couldn’t get a copy of it. And there was some difficulty about whether he could get extracts from it. We finally got an amendment through which indicated, yes, the beneficiary of a pension plan could go to the Pension Commission office and get the information about whether or not he was getting his full entitlement under the pension.

I think we have got to recognize that the very institution of rent control takes away a certain element of what would otherwise be confidentiality, but it takes it away in situations where it is well understood that the public interest -- here, the public interest is the efficient, expeditious administration of the rent review process as quite a new venture in the Province of Ontario -- requires that the confidentiality must give way to the public interest embodied in the Act which we passed and amended last fall and which we are now amending for the second time.

Despite all of the minister’s strong feelings, which he has expressed in the House, I think he has got to rethink the position of his ministry on the key position played by the cost-revenue statement, because that is the whole hinge upon which the question of justification must rest. I would ask the minister to consider his position, and I would ask my colleagues to the left in the Liberal Party to reconsider their position, in the light of my colleague’s amendment.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this particular amendment for a moment. Personally, I have no axe to grind with the members from the Ottawa area, so I guess I can speak somewhat impartially.

From day one, this has been a difficult Act to administer and to believe in. With the greatest respect, one of the reasons it may be having this difficulty probably accrues to the member from Ottawa, who is making its administration even more difficult.

Mr. Cassidy: Do you mean the minister or me?

Mr. Shore: The member for Ottawa Centre; I’m sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: You have my attention now.

Mr. Shore: In relation to his amendment, if he truly wants it to work, he’ll give it a chance to work.

I happen to be somewhat familiar with the workings of rent review up to date -- maybe not to the extent that the member for Ottawa Centre is, but I’m sufficiently knowledgeable to know that an effort is being made to try to make it work; and it’s difficult. I suggest that it can he made to work within the confines of the current Act; to add something to

section 6 is going to serve no purpose whatsoever.

I strongly believe there still is a belief in the stronger effect of the information that is brought forward by the landlords, who incidentally also have to bring forward their papers and in many instances go to great expense in bringing along people to try to understand the pieces of paper that are required. I believe that the information is totally available under the current Act, and to suggest that this subsection be added is going to make this thing more difficult to administer and it’s going to serve no purpose whatsoever.

Mr. Renwick: Have you ever seen one of the statements?

Mr. Shore: I sure have.

Mr. Renwick: Did you understand it?

Mr. Shore: It was difficult for me to understand it; but whether or not you get this piece of paper, it’s still going to be difficult to understand. I suggest to you that the information is available and can be made available in the confines of the review. I would strongly urge that we defeat or not accept this amendment because all the information is totally available and all we’re doing is adding complexities to a problem which already exists to no purpose whatsoever -- except maybe to get pieces of paper out to the public, for what purpose I don’t know.

They have the opportunity of reviewing these papers under the current

section and I think, with the greatest respect, it’s totally available to all concerned. Why the member for Ottawa Centre wants to go on adding to the difficulties already there, I don’t know. Surely it’s there now. Surely it can be made available and that is all we should expect.

Mr. Warner: I am wondering at this point if the minister, when considering this whole matter -- because it has been discussed for some time -- has discussed it with any of the rent review officers: if he has taken into account their frustrations?

I would like to use, as illustration of the points which have been raised by the member from Riverdale, an actual occurrence at the rent review office in Scarborough. I felt the rent review officer was putting forward quite an effort to try to determine precisely the situation which existed. He took the information which was given to him and tried to sort it out as best he could. He had sitting in front of him 50 tenants from a building of 77 units and the lawyer who was representing the owner -- not the owner, who didn’t see fit to come, though he owned only two small buildings.

Mr. Cunningham: He was probably working to make the mortgage payments on them.

Mr. Warner: The tenants did not have the information which the lawyer had. When the lawyer presented figures such as $4,000 for the replacement of light bulbs and the tenants objected strenuously, the rent review officer noted it and asked a few questions. He went through the whole process and at the end of an hour and a half had accumulated so many unanswered questions that the officer, in good faith, said, “I cannot possibly render a decision without visiting the building personally and inspecting it”.

I take it that that is the kind of job which, in many instances, he should not have to do. But he did it because he could not sort out the truth of the whole matter. I take it to be very frustrating for that rent review officer.

I also take it that had the tenants been given the information ahead of time so that they could very accurately and very well describe the situation and present facts -- they could not present facts at that point; they had to give impressions simply because they didn’t have the information ahead of time -- perhaps the rent review officer’s offer of inspecting the building would not have had to be made.

I appreciate the inspection by the officer -- I think he was doing his job admirably well -- but I think that by not accepting the proposal you have in front of you, you are providing more frustrations for that officer. I would appreciate it very much if the minister could comment on whether or not he has entered into conversations with various rent review officers and if so, what their impressions are with respect to the very proposal he has in front of him?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that.

Mr. Chairman: If we could sort of facilitate things, it seems that the debate is becoming polarized and the member for Sudbury indicated that he wanted to speak on it. Probably after that the minister could sort of summarize.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are in committee, Mr. Chairman, remember.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious from listening to the debate thus far that the minister has not had the unfortunate experience of having to attend a rent review hearing, trying to represent certain people who are objecting to a rent increase.

A couple of weeks ago I was in that unfortunate predicament when 30 tenants requested that I try to assist them in holding back a rent increase. The cost-revenue statement, of course, is the key item being argued at the hearing.

I don’t know whether the minister has inspected one of these documents. Last year’s expenditures in one column are all the way from heating and lights, snow removal, painting, repairs to the chimney. There are this year’s expenditures -- all the various items again -- and then there’s next year’s projected expenditures. So, you have three major columns of figures adding up to thousands of dollars in some instances.

When the hearing opened, the tenants wanted the facts before them so they could better analyse and digest them. The rent review officer said, “Well, they’re available. Come and look at them.” So, here are 45 people standing in the line looking at this one document presented by the landlord.

It is no wonder to me that rent review hearings are taking up seven hours at a time. The first two hours of that particular hearing were spent allowing each and every tenant to take a look and copy down this multitude of figures in the three columns presented.

We know that this government brought the legislation in under duress; and they wrote the legislation with as many hookers in it as they possibly could to frustrate the tenant. There was a directive from this ministry which I wanted the rent review officer to make available to me while we waited. I thought that he would hand me a piece of paper, and that would be considered making it available to me. But he said: “Not so; my direction is from the ministry. To make available means that is consigned to my office, and you must come down there and peer at it.”

Suppose the same principle applied here. We can reasonably debate what we’re talking about here this afternoon because each and every one of us has a copy of the topic before us and we can, presumably with some intelligence, continue a debate. This is precisely what you don’t have when you’re in front of a rent review officer.

I’m convinced that both of these old line parties are philosophically opposed to rent review and that they are doing everything they can to frustrate the efforts of the tenant in coming to a conclusion when he receives his notice of rent increase.

I’m convinced that you have found that, by withholding the information the tenant cannot adequately deal with the proposal. All that this amendment is doing is saying to the landlord, “At the moment you give the rent review officer the cost-revenue statement, you also hand it to your tenant.” I see nothing too difficult about that.

Certainly, if this landlord thinks that the increase that he desires is important enough to occupy the time of a rent review officer, then he should also think it’s important enough to make up a few extra copies and hand it to each and every tenant concerned. I can’t understand why the third party is backing out. I guess it’s their philosophy. It’s coming to the fore that they believe in the free market economy, the market of supply and demand, which we know has not been working as far as rental accommodation is concerned.

Mr. Shore: What has that got to do with this thing right here?

Mr. Germa: And you are definitely ruining the rent review legislation. This isn’t going to take out all of the hookers that you have built into the legislation. It’s just going to remove one of the hookers that you have.

Mr. Shore: The hookers; that’s right, the hookers.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, if this was a question of facilitating the flow of information so that rent review proceedings could be expedited or handled more efficiently, then I certainly would support the amendment. Since it does exactly the opposite, naturally I oppose it.

As a matter of fact, one of the interesting suggestions that has been made is that this type of amendment actually would act as a deterrent to a fair and impartial evaluation of the accuracy and the dimensions of the material costs provided by the landlord. Mr. Chairman, if it was the intention of this government to freeze rents at the July 1975 level, then I suggest to you that would have been done.

Mr. Renwick: No, it is not; it is a review.

Mr. Drea: The rent review process is one that takes into account costs. It takes into account a number of other factors that really do affect the landlord. I suggest to you that the real purpose of this amendment is to attempt to place a restriction upon the ability of the landlord to submit as much data, and perhaps some of it will be irrelevant.

Mr. Warner: What does he have to hide?

Mr. Drea: He has nothing to hide.

Mr. Warner: Then show us the material.

Mr. Drea: No, no, this is your little game. He has nothing to hide. The tenant or the tenant’s representative can go in and can copy it down. There’s no attempt to keep these things camouflaged.

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

Mr. Drea: None whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: I’d like to read the specific amendment, because it refers to a four-page document. It adds the words, “and where a landlord files a cost-revenue statement that’s a four-page document with the rent review officer, he shall forthwith give to the tenant a copy of said cost-revenue statement.”

The member was suggesting that there might be hundreds of pages involved in the copying and that’s not the intent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Drea: I didn’t suggest there’d be hundreds of pages.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre can continue.

Mr. Drea: I never suggested for a moment there would be hundreds of pages. The whole point is that the landlord, on the basis of that, would be extremely concerned about the type of information that be filed, not because there is something wrong with it, but because it might enter very well into some other proceedings, and as the minister has suggested on more than one occasion, that it might very well wind up in public print or open to almost unrestricted public inspection. The real function of that kind of document is to submit before the rent review officer the justification, if there is any, but at least the proposed justification, for the rental increase that the landlord has asked.

If the information was not available to the tenant, then I would have some very serious concerns about it, but the information is now available.

Mr. Cassidy: Not in a practical way.

Mr. Shore: Yes, very practical.

Mr. Drea: There is nothing more practical than being able to walk into an office, ask for a file, open up the file and begin to copy it out by hand. It’s been done for --

Mr. Cassidy: For five minutes’ copying by hand?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Drea: It’s been done for 2,000 years, my friend. The photocopying machine has only been around for 10 or 15.

Mr. Renwick: Well, we didn’t know you had any of them.

Mr. Drea: People have been doing it that way for years.

Mr. Renwick: We knew you had the shredding machine. We didn’t think you had the copying machine.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Drea: In the particular occupation you’re in, you’re the last one to talk about modern conveniences being used to their utmost.

Mr. Samis: Look at your occupation.

Mr. Drea: I suggest that all this amendment will do is to complicate, compound and indeed confound the rent review procedures which now, because of the experiences gained by the rent review officers, because of the experiences gained in the submission of data by landlords, and because, quite frankly, of the experience gained by tenants or tenants’ groups, are beginning to work most smoothly. I suggest to you all this amendment would do is to set everybody back to January or February of this year. It would serve no useful function. Indeed, it would serve only a disruptive function.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don’t know why the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) would suspect that there’s any personal animosity between me and his colleague. As a matter of fact, I’m far more fearful of the cannibalistic tendencies he displays when he says he’s going to have me for dinner. I get a little worried about that kind of an invitation.

I just wanted to point out to the member for Riverdale that the amendment which he put forward -- and I think I recall it, having been in the chair where you’re sitting now, Mr. Chairman, at the time he made that amendment, and my predecessor accepted it; an amendment to the Pension Act -- permits a member of a registered pension plan or his agent to inspect and make extracts from the plan at the offices of the commission, and that’s exactly the procedure that we’re following in this Act. Anyone may go in and make extracts or copy the whole thing. He can even ask the information officer for guidance in interpreting any aspect of it.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is going to destroy, absolutely destroy, the kind of impression that the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is trying to create, and that is that the rent review officers, because of their big business background, are dead set on destroying every evidence of tenants’ interest. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere pointed out that the rent review officer in Scarborough felt, after hearing all of the evidence before him, that he would have to inspect the building in order to satisfy himself as to the truth of the application that was made before him. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate process and see no reason why it shouldn’t be done.

To say these things are all being argued out before a rent review officer, in my view, is a complete misunderstanding of the process. It should not be an aggressive adversary system, of us against them or me against him. But that is the way you are creating it and that’s what is happening. You are going around and saying, “The process is against you, you are the downtrodden one. The function of the rent review officer is to determine the truth -- that is his job -- to protect both sides in the hearing before him. He is not biased one way or the other. He will examine the cost-revenue statement before the hearing.

He will ask the questions and he will satisfy himself. He will not permit anybody to pull the wool over his eyes.

The member for Riverdale mentioned the manual. I want to make it quite clear that the manual is to assist the rent review officer in getting to the truth. I just want to give one example of the type of content. There is nothing secret about it. We don’t want it to be known, because having it in one’s possession would enable anyone to change his statement.

Mr. Warner: It is secret.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is not. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the application. I can tell you what does happen and I will give you one example. In the manual, the rent review officer is given a

schedule of depreciation rates. If a landlord claims a depreciation rate on a heating system, the rent review officer is not an expert in the heating systems nor should he be expected to be. He can go to the manual and determine what is in the range of depreciation rates for a steam heating system, a warm air heating system, a hot water heating system or what have you. I am mentioning one thing out of hundreds of pages.

Mr. Warner: It is not secret when you know all about it.

Mr. Shore: What about hot air?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That is the kind of thing that a rent review officer has to have. But I don’t think the landlord should know what the guidelines are, nor do I think the tenant should know because he is going to start arguing. Those kinds of figures will be there for days and days and days.

They are guidelines for the internal use of the rent review officer. We do not feel they should be published everywhere for everyone to see so that a good accountant, like the member for London North (Mr. Shore), can go in and change the whole thing on behalf of his client. It could be done quite easily -- not by the member for London North; I said somebody like him -- because you need those kinds of skills and we will be arguing that at 10:30 tonight.

This kind of an amendment will simply add to the burden of administration. We are trying to avoid the kind of criticism that is being made of it by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Warner: I just wanted to know if the minister was going to respond to my question about having discussed this matter with the rent review officers?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: My meetings have been with the executive director and his staff of the rent review division. We have discussed all of these matters at great length. We have anticipated this kind of thing. We will probably be discussing it again at 10:30 tonight. Yes, I have met with many people in the programme.

Mr. Renwick: I have always been impressed by a rather classic statement of the obligation on anybody who has to conduct a hearing. I refer to the decision in 1911 of Lord Selbourne, speaking for the House of Lords in the unanimous decision in a case called “The Board of Education and Rice.” The Board of Education in England is a department of the ministry.

Mr. Shore: What year was that decision?

Mr. Renwick: It was in 1911 and it is still good. This government hasn’t learned it yet. It was a nice throwaway line at the end of the whole decision about what the obligation of the Board of Education when required to make a decision was all about. He threw it away and he did it very nicely. He said: “I need hardly say that the Board of Education must act bona fide and fairly listen to both sides, for that is the obligation of anyone who is called upon to decide anything.”

I want to say to the minister, if I am correct, the rent review Act calls for an analysis of the increase in the costs of the landlord for the purpose of determining whether an increase is or is not justified.

If pursuant to that statutory requirement, there is a cost-revenue manual made available to the rent review officer and a 14-page guide made available to the landlord for the purpose of his compiling the information so that he can file with the rent review officer the cost-revenue statement, if all of that is done, then why is it not possible for the rent review officer to make a photostatic copy or require the landlord to file sufficient copies to make them available to the tenants who are the persons who have given notice that they are going to attend the hearing.

If you don’t do that, I can’t possibly conceive how it can be said that the rent review officer is listening fairly to both sides. I can’t conceive how that kind of financial analysis -- I say this to the member for Scarborough Centre -- can be conducted unless one has in front of him the whole of the cost-revenue statement. There is no way in which a tenant can copy out the cost-revenue statement except at laborious expense.

As my colleague has said, we are not talking about the financial statements of the landlord. We are talking about a specific kind of cost-revenue statement, of a limited number of pages, on the basis of which the question is going to be decided. I agree with the minister, my colleague agrees with the minister, that we do not want it to become an adversary system.

What is being said is that unless the hearing is not only fair and the information is available to the tenant who is opposing the application in a readily accessible form for his analysis -- not the rent review officer’s analysis -- unless that is done, I find it difficult to think that the statement made which has determined the course of hearings since 1911, whenever they have gone before the courts, could be held to be a fair hearing. Maybe it hears a certain amount of repetition; I don’t intend to repeat what I have said on another occasion but it is absolutely essential that this minister comes to grips with it.

We can deal in committee with the question about the manual itself. We can also deal in committee with the failure of the ministry to provide a guide to tenants equivalent to that which they provide for the landlord in making out his cost-revenue statement. We can deal in committee, presumably peripherally after this debate because I sense it is not going to pass at this point in time, with the question as to whether or not, if you deny the tenant everything except that one sheet of paper and require him to do everything else, you are vitiating the process of fair hearing.

You are creating a situation of frustration which will not be an adversary system. It will simply be one which won’t work and that’s what my colleague has been saying. He has been very fair in the statement which he has made publicly that in a number of areas it is working but in a number of areas it certainly isn’t working. The minister must know that as well as anybody else.

I may also say that if you are going to have any uniformity across the Province of Ontario with respect to the decisions made by the rent review officers, surely the foundations upon which those decisions are made by the rent review officers must be available in a way which can be readily understood. I know of no financial statement that is of any sense to anybody unless the person can take it, sit down and do the analyses and the backup work required either to verify or dispute the information provided by the landlord from his books and from his accounting system.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to make a couple of comments in response to the debate. Having been silent about this question for many months, I made a speech last week and I want to read the first two sentences to the minister because he has accused the NDP and me, as spokesman for the NDP, of seeking to undermine the rent review process.

Last fall there was a honeymoon period in the Legislature which yielded a rent review bill that was potentially strong, progressive and fair. The NDP played a large

part in creating that bill and we hoped it would be administered in the spirit it had been legislated.

If that’s undermining the rent review bill, I would like to know what the House would think of the speeches made by the minister and other members of the government who have gone up and down the province, repeating time after time that they do not believe in rent review. They wished it had not been thrust upon them and they would resign their duties from the ministry if they were forced to continue administering rent review after August, 1977. Just who is undermining the process?

[4:00]

I’m afraid I can’t accept the kinds of arguments made either by the minister or by the parliamentary assistant. We’re trying to create a process which is fair to tenants and which they perceive as being fair. Right now, because of the problems they are having in getting information, they do not see that justice is being done in the process. It seems to me that the government is responsible for administering laws which are passed by this Legislature.

They have just been reminded of that in a very direct way, with the divisional court judgement on the cabinet’s decision about the Doctors Hospital and the other hospitals that the intent of the Legislature was being flouted. I would suggest that the intent of

section 5, sub 13 and

section 7, which stated that the material would be made available and that the parties would have a reasonable opportunity to know the issues in the hearings, is being flouted by the unwillingness to either accept this amendment or to permit photocopies.

Third, I think that the minister should be aware that some rent review officers -- and praise be to them -- are permitting photocopies to be taken. Is the government now going to crack down on them and say, “Information bulletin 1-6 told you that the photocopying of material would not be allowed and the copies will not be allowed,” and, therefore, is it going to fire them from their jobs because of the fact that they’re trying to give this information to tenants?

Fourth, it was interesting to read the Globe and Mail yesterday on openness of government and the very positive response of the 1,300 delegates to the Conservative annual meeting to the report prepared by former Conservative candidate, Darwin Kealey and by Bill Nevdle who is now the chief aide to Joe Clark, both of whom were urging that government should be open and not shut and that the Conservative Party suffered by its obsessive and excessive secrecy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There’s no more open government in this country, and you know it.

An hon. member: What about all the unions?

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to say this in a persuasive and not a polarizing kind of way. I would suggest to the minister that to have these cost-revenue statements in the hands of the tenant would perform a valuable educational process, and that should be part of the aims of rent review. That is certainly the object of any court hearing. It’s the object, it seems to me, of the hearing before a rent review officer.

Many tenants, quite frankly, are not aware of the financial problems that the landlords are experiencing, and they find it difficult to understand why, in certain eases, the rent has to go up by eight per cent or 10 per cent or even by a larger sum than that. To have the cost-revenue statement before them so that they can examine it and see where their rent money goes might, in fact, far from increasing friction, help to resolve some of the friction, because the tenants would have a better understanding of the landlord’s problem.

As regards the burden of administration, which was raised by a couple of speakers on the government side, to require the landlord to give a copy of the cost-revenue statement to the tenant does not impose any burden of administration on rent review itself. If every one of the applications now before the ministry were proceeded with and there were four or five sheets of photocopying in each case, you’re talking of a cost of maybe $100,000 in all, or less than one per cent of the cost of the overall process. In fact, if photocopying costs a nickel a sheet, you’re talking maybe $50,000 or $60,000.

The effect of denying tenants information is to polarize tenants and make them frustrated and very unhappy with the way it’s going on. Far from complicating and confounding the process, it seems to me that to give this information is a means of ensuring that the tenants can participate in a reasonable and non-confrontationist way in a hearing which should be directed to finding out the facts, and not creating adversaries between landlords and tenants, but the way that the ministry is proceeding is to create adversaries.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of repetition in the debate on this. I simply want to point out once again that in the whole process there is an onus on the landlord; there is no onus on the tenant that he has to satisfy at all. There’s an onus on the landlord to satisfy the rent review officer. We make available to the tenant the information which is put before the rent review officer. Despite the polarization which is being created by this kind of debate, we do not anticipate that there is an onus on the tenant --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s balderdash, you know.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is a polarization being created, and it is being deliberately created. The movements are being created; they are being indoctrinated to go forward, be aggressive, be active, yell, shout, delay the hearings, and the rent review officers are being frustrated in the process.

Mr. McClellan: That’s crap.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But there is no onus on the tenant; the onus is completely on the landlord.

Mr. Cassidy: It is?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The onus is completely on the landlord; he has to satisfy the rent review officer, who is there protecting the public interest. The assumption made by the member for Riverdale that both sides -- the very use of the term “both sides” indicates that he accepts it as an adversary situation. We do not accept that. We say the rent review officer is there to ensure fair treatment to both sides. Now if that copy is given to the tenant, I know exactly what will happen; it will frustrate the process, because he will not understand it.

He will then have to go and get counsel, who will then appear and then we will have the adversary system with a vengeance. We don’t want it, we don’t need it, and we think it is working well the way it is.

Call the question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shore: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: I am tempted to go on. Obviously the minister is not going to change his mind, but I will just read

section 7 again:

“The rent review officer shall ensure that all parties to the proceedings have an adequate opportunity of knowing the issues in the proceedings.”

Mr. Shore: They have the opportunity now.

Mr. Cassidy: And by refusing this amendment, you are flouting the law.

Mr. Chairman: You have heard Mr. Cassidy’s amendment.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack it?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy indicated that he has yet another amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: This is also in relation to

section 2, but in order to ensure that I am firmly in order, the amendment I am about to read relates to the reference to OHC in the bill.

I would move that

section 2 of the Residential Premises Rent Review Amendment Act be amended by adding the following subsection:

(7) Section 5 of the bill is amended by adding the following subsection:

9(

a) When applications have been received in respect of more than one tenant in a building or project in which rents are geared to income, and the rent review officer wishes to fix a common date for the hearing of all such applications, the rent review officer may in his discretion restrict access to the rent data for each individual unit in order to preserve the confidentiality of a tenant’s income, provided that all other material filed in accordance with this Act is disclosed in accordance with this section.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, before you receive this amendment, I want to rise on a point of order. This is completely contrary to the principle of the bill that is before us. We have already debated the question of rent-geared-to-income housing, and it has been taken out by this Legislature. It is not in the bill that is before us; this amendment would put it back in and destroy the principle of the bill, which was established on second reading.

Mr. Cassidy: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, we have not taken the reference to rent-geared-to-income housing out of the bill right now; it is in

section 5 of this particular bill, and we have not got to that particular point in the committee stage. We have indicated we disagree with that part of the principle and we are posing an alternative as a part of our disagreement.

Mr. Sweeney: He is willing to take it out. Why pose an alternative? That doesn’t make sense.

Mr. Shore: Mike, you must stay awake at night figuring all this out.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to receive your ruling. I don’t feel there is any point in belabouring this issue any further, but again the bill that is before us is Bill 60, as passed in principle by this Legislature; it includes the elimination of rent-geared-to-income housing from the rent review process. This amendment will put it back in.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the minister is about to introduce an amendment which goes against the principle of the bill as adopted on second reading. The principle, according to his argument, would include the exclusion of limited-dividend, privately owned housing from the bill; now he is going to bring forward an amendment which would bring limited-dividend, privately owned housing back into rent review. If you rule this particular amendment out of order, then I am afraid that we cannot receive the minister’s amendment either.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Regarding the private limited-dividend amendment which we are going to be bringing forward, it was made quite clear prior to the vote on second reading that an amendment of that nature would be brought before us in committee, so that when the vote was taken there was a clear understanding of what we were voting on.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with great respect. It was a nod and a wink from the minister, but the bill that was passed in principle on second reading did not have any such amendment in it,

Mr. Chairman: Subject to direction from the committee, I’m going to declare that the amendment is in order simply because it doesn’t change the principle of the bill in my opinion.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I will speak in favour of the ruling. We certainly will not challenge it because it’s the best way, in our opinion, to get the amendment on to the floor so it can be discussed by the committee.

Mr. Good: I didn’t read the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved it but the Chair hasn’t read it yet. I suggest that Mr. Cassidy distribute copies of it to the spokesmen for the Liberal Party and the minister.

Mr. Cassidy moves that

section 2 of the Residential Premises Rent Review Amendment Act be amended by adding the following:

(7) Section 5 of the bill is amended by adding the following subsection:

9(

a) When applications have been received in respect of more than one tenant in a building or project in which rents are geared to income and the rent review officer wishes to fix a common date for the hearing of all such applications, the rent review officer may in his discretion restrict access to the rent data for each individual unit in order to preserve the confidentiality of the tenant’s income provided that all other material filed in accordance with this Act is disclosed in accordance with this section.

Mr. Shore: All of a sudden, confidentiality comes out. I didn’t know you knew what the word meant.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure whether we should debate the question of OHC on this particular

section or else when we get to

section 5 of the bill. Perhaps I could comment on what is happening with the applications for rent review in relation to rent-geared-to-income units across the province. In a number of cases, the rent review officers who have gone forward have dealt with them on a case by case basis, one tenant after another, because of their fear, legitimate fear, that the disclosure of the rental information on units to other people in the building would thereby enable people to know what the income of their neighbours happens to be.

It is actually the practice in a number of cases with which we are familiar, in the case of privately owned accommodation, that the rental schedules are not being made available in general but are being made available only one unit at a time to each particular tenant, although the other information pertaining to the building is being made available and obviously the gross rents for the entire building are being made available.

If that practice, which effectively keeps secret the rents on all other units from each tenant in a private budding, were to be applied universally in the case of OHC units then this particular amendment wouldn’t be necessary. We are putting it forward, however, in order to make it clear that we are not opposed to, and in fact would encourage, the group hearings in the case of OHC because that’s a more sensible way of proceeding, because that’s the way that the costs are assembled and because it is not our intention, in seeking to leave Ontario Housing tenants under rent review, to put a spanner in the works and to make the whole process come to a halt.

There are about 300 or 400 individual OHC projects across the province, and if handled on a group basis, quite clearly they would not impose a really onerous load on the process of rent review.

I’ll say this, Mr. Chairman, that we frankly would prefer -- as I’ve said on the second reading debate -- that OHC were not under rent review but that there was a renegotiation of the rent scale, that there was tenant participation --

Mr. Chairman: Could I remind the hon. member that I accepted the amendment on the basis that it didn’t detract from the principle of the bill, and the intent of this amendment is as stated, “restrict access to the rent data for each individual unit in order to preserve the confidentiality of the tenant’s income provided that all other material filed according to this Act is disclosed in accordance with this section.”

[4:15]

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: I didn’t allow the amendment with the intent that you could go back and regurgitate the whole bill.

The principle of the amendment, as I see it, is the discretion by the rent review officer to provide access to rent data. It was on that basis that I accepted the amendment as being in order and I’ll ask you to keep your comments to that portion of it.

Mr. Cassidy: To conclude, which I was doing, I simply say that while we believe the OHC should be left within rent review until the steps I’ve outlined on second reading are taken, we also feel that if there is any ambiguity about having group hearings and preserving confidentiality of the tenant’s income information, this amendment is intended to deal with that problem.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I certainly don’t intend to belabour this point either because later on we’re going to be voting to take rent-geared-to-income out. It seems to me that by putting this amendment into the bill we now have before us we’re going to have two contradictions. In one case we’re providing the process to hear rent-geared-to-income rent review; in the other

section we’re going to be taking it out of the process. It’s simply completely --

Mr. Cassidy: Change your mind on

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- anomalous compared to the whole principle of the bill and we will oppose it.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is so provocative. I