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

June 21, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L077 - Thu 21 Jun 1979 / Jeu 21 jun 1979

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS ACT

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT (CONCLUDED)

NEWSPAPER

ARTICLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH SERVICES

PUBLIC SERVICE DENTAL PLAN

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

DEATH OF ANDREW STUPARICK

WINTARIO

HEALTH SERVICES

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

FLUORIDE POISONING

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

SALES TAX EXEMPTION

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE

MANAGEMENT STUDIES

WCB USE OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

SPEECH PATHOLOGY SERVICES

SUGAR HAZARDS

ARAB ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

FANSHAWE COLLEGE

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

WRITTEN QUESTION

MEMBERS’ EXPENDITURES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS

FUNERAL SERVICES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT (CONCLUDED)

POLLUTION COPLAINT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with business this morning, I wonder if I might indicate some sort of

schedule for this morning, notwithstanding what may be on the sheet before us.

I thought perhaps it would be wise to proceed now to deal with government notice of motion 4 on the Order Paper, following which we would do the second readings which have to be attended to this morning; that is, Bills 135, 139, 140 and 133.

After the second readings have been completed we would then go into committee of the whole House to do what work we have to do in committee, ending up with Bills 96 and 163. We would then come out of committee just before the luncheon break.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. F. S. Miller moved that the authority of the Treasurer of Ontario granted on March 29, 1979, to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing April 1, 1979, be extended to October 31, 1979, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr. Nixon: I doubt that the Treasurer will have any particular statement on this. I understand he had a busy evening last night consulting with the interns and that my colleague from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), who is not in just at the moment, made an equal impact on those fine and outstanding young people. I am delighted the Treasurer is here to defend the motion.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is now a standard procedure and one which is very acceptable. It is a vehicle for considerable debate if time permits and if the opposition parties want to make use of it for that purpose. I am delighted myself that it is now established as custom and requirement in this Legislature that a single motion does not provide the funds to pay the day-to-day operating expenses through the whole year and that the Treasurer, on behalf of the administration, properly comes to the Legislature for interim supply of this type.

The only thing that I might say before I resume my seat is that our procedure for a careful scrutiny of the estimates of expenditure seems somehow to be degenerating. I think both sides take responsibility for this, since matters of public importance, perhaps more urgent than the immediate discussion of the estimates, seem to be coming forward and you, Mr. Speaker, and our colleagues in the Legislature know what a broad spectrum of matters this involves, employing the time and mental capacity of the committees and their membership.

I think perhaps this sort of motion may occupy more of our time in the future when we attempt to have a discussion of spending procedures and the efficacy of the policy behind them debated more in this chamber than in the individual committees, which in our evolving experience occupy more and more of their time on specific policy matters. We have no objection to the passing of the resolution at this time.

Mr. Laughren: In keeping with tradition, I understand that the government motion does provide for a fairly wide-ranging debate, if the members so desire. It is not my intention to do that this morning, but there is one thing that bothers me a great deal, and I think should be of concern to the Treasurer, and certainly the ability of this government to pay its bills is greatly affected by the issue which I want to speak about for a few moments. That is the impending increase in the price of oil by $1 a barrel, which the federal government has just announced, which would take effect on July 1, with an interim period of 60 days, I believe, for the existing stocks to get down.

Mr. Kerrio: Got to do something about those feds.

Mr. Laughren: I think the Treasurer has an obligation to tell us what his position is on the announcement and to tell us what he thinks the impact of that increase is going to be on the Ontario economy. We know that every time the price of oil goes up $1 a barrel it roughly causes the rate of inflation to go up by approximately one per cent. Certainly the ability of this government to pay the bills, which is implicit in the government motion, the Treasurer should be very concerned about that.

The competitiveness of the Ontario economy and the industries within it are at stake here, and it is very strange that the Treasurer would be silent on the announced increase in the price of oil, because of the enormous impact it is certainly going to have on the Ontario economy.

The former Treasurer had worked out figures which indicated what a $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs Ontario in terms of jobs and I would assume that this Treasurer has done that computation as well. If he hasn’t, he sure should have. We would like to know on this side of the House what studies the Treasurer has done to indicate what the effect of this $1 price increase is going to be, both in terms of the rate of inflation and in terms of the rate of employment, and unemployment in the province of Ontario, and in general what it does to Ontario’s competitive position.

We know, in looking at the figures, that unemployment is still at an unacceptable level. I come from a community where the unemployment rate is almost 16 per cent and the Treasurer gets up in this House and thumps his chest and says the rate of unemployment has dropped specifically because of the policies of the federal government, or of his government.

If he wants to take credit for a 16 per cent unemployment rate in the district of Sudbury let him stand up and say so. I would like to hear him take credit for a 16 per cent unemployment rate in parts of northeastern Ontario -- or St. Catharines, down in the Niagara Peninsula, with one of the highest unemployment rates in all of Ontario and yet it’s one of the industrial and farming heartlands in this province. The Treasurer stands up in his place just a week ago and thumps his chest and says he’s proud of the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario.

That’s without the $1 increase in a barrel of oil which his federal counterparts have just announced. I’d be very interested in having a response from the Treasurer on what he sees is going to be the result. What’s his position on this? Where are we heading in terms of the price and supply of oil and gas in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Peterson: I’d like to address a couple of remarks to this. Again, I don’t want to prolong this debate, because I realize there are more pressing issues, but given the latitude one has, I just want to take this opportunity to mention a couple of things.

The Treasurer last week, as I recall, with as much flair and flourish as he could summon up, and that isn’t a lot at best of times, came into the House and made a statement about paying off the treasury bill offering of this province and, in fact, he was proud of the fact that he is not going to use the treasury bill float of $325 million odd to finance the deficit in this province, at least in the short run.

You will recall the history of that, Mr. Speaker. That has been used at various times to finance deficits when the Treasurer has misforecast. He manipulates that amount of money, which is really a debt obligation of this province. In the original instance, they had $10 million or so a week. Just after this Treasurer was appointed, they snuck in an extra $15 million a week to increase the net amount of public debt by $15 million a week, which translates into something like $195 million a year. That was in the wake of some very strong commitments by the previous Treasurer that there would be no more public borrowing.

I want to make that very clear. This Treasurer snuck that extra treasury bill float in, that extra $195 million, and changed the wording when he did so, saying there would be no more public debenture borrowing. It was a clear violation of the budgetary statements of the previous Treasurer. It was done casually, it was done with the manipulation of a word here and a word there, but in fact a principle that had been brought to this House and laid before this House was violated. This Treasurer has now found sufficient cash through an accelerated cash flow, through, presumably, better than expected revenues.

We all hope that, Mr. Speaker, because we had record growth in the first quarter of this year, something the economists are finding very difficult to understand. It may be just a cyclical aberration. It may be a quarterly aberration. I hope it’s true. I hope the over six per cent real growth figure that came about is a real one and will be sustained for the rest of the year. Most people feel that won’t be sustained.

I’m not sure why the cash flow for the province turned out better than the Treasurer previously anticipated, although I have my suspicions and I think they can be confirmed in this budget.

What happened was that the Treasurer, in his first budget of this year, borrowed far more from long-term requirements, from debenture borrowing from the pension funds essentially, than his net cash requirements. As I recall the figures, even though his net cash requirements were forecast to be just over the billion dollar mark he borrowed from the internally generated pension funds, teachers’ superannuation, Canada Pension Plan and various other funds, over $1.5 billion.

I just want to make this very clear: while we have not altered the deficit position of this province we have just again played the old shell game, the old transfer game, transferring short-term obligations to the long-term obligations and back to short-term obligations and now back to long-term obligations. In fact, as best as I can determine it -- we have not seen the first quarter statements -- there is no real improvement in the cash flow. There has been no real improvement in the deficit position, the net cash requirement position or anything else one wants to call it. I think that should be brought to the attention of this House.

[10:15]

Unless the Treasurer has a more worthwhile explanation, I think his statement of last week didn’t really shed a lot of light on that aspect of the budget that concerns many members of this House; that is, the very significant debt that has been accumulated by this government over a period of time. Mr. Speaker, I won’t take any more time. I realize the time pressures this morning. Thank you for the opportunity to make that brief contribution.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the three speakers for being brief. I think they did touch on useful parts of the discussion. I feel no one was unnecessary.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you very much.

Mr. Laughren: We’re so pleased that you are pleased.

Mr. Peterson: That’s very condescending of you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is, absolutely. You say nice things about me most days too.

Mr. Peterson: Last night I did.

Mr. Martel: Do you want to make this wide open?

I would say my major concern is whether those will be all that are demanded by Alberta now that world prices of oil have started to escalate at rates that were not expected when these two increases were agreed to. Ontario, as a province that imports almost all of its oil, almost all of its natural gas and almost all of its fossil fuels in total, has to take the position of opposing a rapid change to world price.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why the increase in natural gas prices?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m going to explain. Ontario does not negotiate; Ontario offers its advice. This is the key issue.

Mr. Mancini: I thought Joe Clark was going to change all that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Ontario’s advice will continue to be that, in the interests of Canada’s economy, not just Ontario’s, there is a real need to keep a differential between the price of oil in Canada and in the United States and world markets. That differential, as of July 1, will be in the range of $2.30 a barrel lower in Canada than it is in the States. That differential must be maintained if our industry is going to remain competitive in world markets and, therefore, if jobs are going to be protected in Ontario.

There are studies -- the members asked about them -- I recall seeing them. I’m afraid to regurgitate the cost of jobs per dollar-a-barrel increase, but I recall some figure in the range of 30,000 jobs every time the price goes up $1 a barrel. That’s a rough guess, because in this kind of estimate that is all one can do. I think perhaps what is more important is the relative price of oil rather than the absolute price, when it comes to industrial use.

Ontario does have the highest per capita oil consumption in the world and therefore we are probably more vulnerable than any part of the world to outside pricing. We have to continue to stress to the federal government that the interests of the Canadian economy, not just the Ontario economy, are best served by such a differential.

Canada has to recognize that for many years when the shoe was on the other foot Ontario did worry about the other provinces and did involve itself in the arrangements for redistribution of wealth with the federal government, always on the principle that the wealth of this country needs to be shared among the have and the have-not provinces.

The member touched briefly on unemployment. I would think exceptional circumstances applied in the city of Sudbury in the last while. I hope those circumstances have passed. I hope we will see something closer to a normal rate.

Mr. Martel: Maybe you’ll get some policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Any unemployment is excessive. I can only say our trends for the next year are encouraging and would indicate there will be a downward movement.

Mr. Laughren: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Martel: How about some policy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: When I get to the other member’s comments on treasury bills, I would say that the member for London Centre, who is not listening to me, should recognize that the increase in treasury bills, because he was talking to his neighbour from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: And probably misunderstanding that as well.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If you can teach the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk anything about this House, I will take my hat off because I consider him one of the experts in this House, and I might say, one of those who respects this House.

Mr. J. Reed: If you had listened to him years ago this House would be a lot better.

Hon. F. S. Miller: See, I told you, Bob, if you were brief I would be nice.

An hon. member: Stand up and take a bow, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t what we agreed on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say that last year’s temporary reduction in the Ontario retail sales tax caused a drop in the originally budgeted revenues of the province and required us to have more cash and therefore we used the treasury bills for interim cash requirements. In the meantime, short-term rates on treasury bills, which historically had been a bit lower, tended to move above the long-term rates of interest available, so therefore there was no real saving to the province to be in the short-term market and our cash position improved. Therefore we used them as a balancing act.

One must remember that we have managed to increase our spending levels over many years to much higher levels than they used to be, through inflation, through new programs, while at the same time reducing the percentage of cash required to manage those by very carefully projecting cash requirements and investing in securities to counter-balance short-term surpluses. Almost always, if we had the money invested, we were earning more than we were paying on the treasury bills on a given day. However, that vehicle was no longer needed and we happily vacated it, knowing there always could be a future need to return to that kind of cash market and believing that it is available when needed.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for the resolution standing in the name of the provincial Treasurer, government notice of motion number 4. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 133,

An Act to repeal the Income Tax Discounters Act.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, the order has now been switched once more. I am having difficulty keeping up with the order. I just have a list that was sent in to me and that one’s down. It certainly is not the next one. I thought the police bill was next. I will try to arrange to get my critic.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s why I called it. I saw the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) just a few minutes ago.

Mr. Martel: I am without him, Mr. Speaker.

I think that it’s a good idea that only one jurisdiction has the legislation and an argument may be made -- and I am sure the minister would be delighted to make it -- that our legislation is better than theirs, but in this instance it doesn’t make any difference, so we certainly support the bill in principle and in particular.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The order of legislation seems to be different from the sheet I was handed just moments earlier. Excuse me if I appear a bit disjointed. The New Democratic Party was responsible for this legislation coming into place in the days before the federal government moved to protect consumers in this area and we think it is still a good piece of legislation. It is much superior to the legislation that is currently in place at the federal level.

The biggest difference is the amount of money these loan sharks in disguise can charge to the consumer when they are performing this service. In the days before the bill came into being they were charging 50 per cent and more of the income tax return to the consumer. Under this new bill we followed the lead of a number of other provinces and said it would be wrong by law for these income tax discounters to charge more than five per cent of the return, which works out to something like an annual interest rate in these cases of 20 per cent, which is about in line.

Under the federal legislation, unfortunately, the federal government not being pressured by as large a number of New Democrats I suppose, the legislation permits the loan sharks in disguise to charge up to 15 per cent of the tax return. That can well equal an annual interest rate of 60 per cent, and by anybody’s standards that has to be gouging.

The minister, in the compendium he so thoughtfully supplied when the legislation was introduced, commented on the fact that the Ontario legislation was no longer needed because the federal government had moved in with legislation which was working. While I can’t find the compendium to quote directly from it, there was an interesting sentence that said in this last income tax year the income tax discounters had not reappeared in the province of Ontario.

That is totally wrong. That was not read into the record of the House, as I recall, or I would certainly have challenged it. At any rate, it wasn’t read in when I was around. I haven’t had a chance to look over Hansard for the day the bill was introduced. I brought to this minister’s attention two cases in the city of Toronto that came to my knowledge from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporter Nancy Durham.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It came to me first, the two in Toronto, so keep the record straight.

An hon. member: The point is, they haven’t disappeared.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If they came to the minister first and the minister didn’t even move against them, that certainly gives room for censure. I don’t think the minister should be proud of the fact that they came to him 24 hours before they came to me.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since the word “censure” has been used --

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of privilege here. It doesn’t constitute a point of privilege. It is a difference of opinion. We are getting too many erroneous points of privilege. The member for Hamilton Centre will continue.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I agree with you completely, Mr. Speaker. No matter how provocative the minister is when he stands up to speak, I promise not to rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Kerrio: What are you going to rise on, a stepladder?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The fact is that the government, through the minister, has said that in the 1978-79 tax year these discounters had folded up their tents and disappeared from the Ontario scene. That is wrong. It is just not factually true. The CBC found those two cases right here in Toronto. There have even been cases in other parts of the province.

One of the problems is that I don’t believe the federal government is acting with utmost speed on these cases. It is certainly not acting with the kind of speed we have come to expect from this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would say to him, one, he has a better bill than the federal government has; he has a good bill. Two, this ministry has shown, at least in this particular area of consumer protection, and in some others, that it is more prepared to act with speed to defend consumers when they are being ripped off.

[10:30]

I would think, therefore, that we would be very wrong today in this House to repeal this act in the dying hours of our time here this spring. I know the government’s position, as the minister will probably indicate, is that there is a constitutional problem involved, that because there is a provincial statute and a federal statute supposedly dealing or allegedly dealing with the same problem in the same sort of way, the provincial government feels unable to move against these income tax discounters, and indeed hasn’t over the past little while.

That is unfortunate, because in a case like this it would seem to me it would be up to the courts to make the final decision as to the question of jurisdiction. If somebody doesn’t like being forced to live up to the obligations and responsibilities of the Discounting of Income Tax Refunds Act, then let them take the ministry to court. Let’s not make that decision here. We have a better piece of legislation and I would hope the minister is more prepared to move on it than the federal government is. Don’t just throw it out the window because someone may take offence at the minister prosecuting under it. I think he should go ahead and do his job with it.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I can recall that two former ministers ago, the Honourable Sidney Handleman -- and the name of his riding slips me at the moment -- said when we first urged him to bring in such consumer protection legislation that no, he wasn’t going to do it because there was a constitutional problem, with the greatest of respect to the former minister. The problem was there was a lack of will to move to protect consumers, and if we hear again this phoney argument, this phoney constitutional jurisdictional argument, all it hides behind it is a lack of will to protect consumers.

I would say to the minister and his party, and I would say to the Liberals, let’s look at this again. It is not the time to remove this consumer protection legislation. It is much better than any other protection the consumer has in this area, and I don’t think we should sell them short by taking away this good piece of consumer protection legislation. Mr. Speaker, I and my party will oppose this move. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is no question that the Income Tax Discounters Act 1977 could continue, in theory at least, to co-exist with the federal legislation. There is no argument about that whatsoever, in theory. I hope that the member votes against this today, I hope he votes not to support this, because when he does he is opening the door wide open to total return of the tax discounters across Ontario, and I would have thought that some of his legal advisers might have cautioned him.

Since he has challenged the constitutional matter, I have several citations here from various

definitions of inconsistency. I want to go in at some length on the doctrine of paramountcy. In practice, what would happen is, these two things living in theory so beautifully, the moment that we laid a charge the person who was charged would immediately go into the courts to challenge our ability to charge, and we don’t have much doubt that at that moment the courts would be left with no decision other than, in terms of the charge and the prosecution, that the federal government has very clearly occupied the field and that, therefore, the province of Ontario, with the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977, was unable to proceed.

In practice that would mean, because there is a difference between the two pieces of legislation, that the tax discounter who wanted to operate would immediately violate our act so that he could be charged under our act but still be legal under the federal act and have the prosecution removed from the courts. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the first time that happened you’d have a tax discounter on every street corner from December through to March, which is the time period they operate in, and I’d be perfectly prepared to call that the Davison doctrine.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It’s taken the province a year and a half. If it’s such a big problem why did it take so long?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Let’s go through the history of these two acts. There is no question that my predecessor -- and I was his parliamentary assistant at the time -- the member for Carleton, did prod the federal government to introduce the very legislation it eventually did. In fairness to the federal government and the federal minister of the time, the sanctions that the federal government intended to take against loan sharking or this type of operation, were contained in draft legislation called the BDPA, the Borrowers and Depositors Protection Act.

That was draft legislation. It was intended to operate on a national level, taking into account the differences between provinces in the way that loan sharks and other people offering funds at either extremely exorbitant or, indeed, usurious rates, function within the economic milieu of not only the 10 provinces but indeed bearing in mind the regional differences within those 10 provinces.

It would take too long to mention all the adventures of the BDPA, but it did not have any consensus in any of the provinces and eventually it died. Following that, the federal government did introduce the very legislation that the province of Ontario and other provinces wanted. At that point -- and let’s make this very clear -- we have not commenced a prosecution or a charge under the Income Tax Discounters Act 1977, because we know what will happen. We have become a referral service.

If we hear of these cases, or find them out through our own investigations, we go to the federal government and ask that the federal police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, be brought in to investigate to see if charges will he laid.

This act is not only redundant and cannot be used by the province but is indeed very dangerous. If this House today does not support the efforts to remove this statute from the books, I caution that come this fall or the early winter, when income tax discounting as usual pops up its ugly head, it will be open season right across not only Metropolitan Toronto and southern Ontario but very much indeed in northern Ontario.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why didn’t the minister do it a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact there was no uproar here some months ago when the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), who was then a private member, tabled a resolution in the House to get rid of this bill.

An hon. member: We’re tired of roaring up the gangplank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It never came because of the ballot procedure for private members’ bills or resolutions. As long ago as that, thinking people in this Legislature were concerned about this strange co-existence between two acts, perfectly allowable, constitutionally magnificent, until you laid a charge and opened up in the court and then you were in a position where, in effect, there was no law.

I would urge the members of the House to consider the doctrine of paramountcy, to consider, secondly, the fact that the legislation was introduced in this Legislature with the express admonition that we wished we would not have had to introduce it, that the federal government would have. The federal government did, subsequently. We have to recognize the fact that they have occupied the field.

If there is a quarrel with the federal legislation, then I humbly suggest that it’s not to keep a dual entity on the law books of Canada, one for a province and one for the federal government. The place to handle it is in the House of Commons. I don’t think there is a single valid reason to oppose what is the purport of this bill. It is not only to remove a redundant piece of legislation. It is not only to show that there is provincial and federal co-operation in this country. When the federal government occupies a field, we willingly leave, as we should, not waiting to tie up the courts and so forth.

Finally and I emphasize this, there’s a very significant and potential danger of these two laws, when one charge is laid by us, just opening up the whole field. I certainly hope that no one in this House would say to me as minister, “Mr. Minister, keep the law on your books but don’t charge anybody, because if you do you open up everything.” That is repugnant to me, it is repugnant to this government and I am sure it is repugnant to the entire House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Police Act.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this amendment to the Police Act. It has been our policy of long standing that such an amendment should have been put forth, simply because the mandatory requirement of a county or district court judge to sit on such commissions has, in many jurisdictions, caused problems of finding such a person and making it convenient for the commission to do its job.

There’s very little to say about it. It’s a pretty straightforward amendment. It removes the requirement that one of the members of the board shall be a county or district court judge, and removing that particular requirement now leaves it open that the head of council and the other two people will formulate the commission, having been chosen by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That is acceptable to our party.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise in support of Bill 135. The content of this bill incorporates an item which was requested by my party a long time ago. I look back to June 9, 1976, Hansard, page S-1659, where my colleague at that time, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), raised this concern about removing the judges from the Ontario Police Commission.

[10:45]

Bill 135 is going to comply with this particular request by us in the past. I think it is an important appointment. Now that judges are not allowed to sit on the Ontario Police Commission, I am particularly concerned about new appointments which are going to be made by the Solicitor General when a vacancy takes place.

From Hansard, I note the former Solicitor General, the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth), raised a particular concern about appointments of judges to the Ontario Police Commission. It was stated that representatives of ethnic communities, representative of community interests, various segments of the community, particularly in the lower income strata, are not represented on those commissions. I think that it is an important principle which should be taken into consideration when appointments are going to be made, if they would like to see commissions working and really representing the needs and the interests of various communities.

In the past, and recently, we had the opportunity to hear complaints made before the Ontario Police Commission, particularly in relation to problems affecting the minority groups in our society. If the Solicitor General is going to take into consideration that the kind of people who are supposed to sit on this commission are supposed to represent these various strata of lower incomes or different ethnic communities, then in my opinion when a complaint is going to be discussed before the Ontario Police Commission their concern is going to be very well taken into consideration.

Therefore, I welcome such a move coming from the government in relation to Bill 135. It is a positive move which has been expressed by the government, even though the New Democratic Party has expressed its concern in the past. Even though such change is going to be made in relation to the composition of the Ontario Police Commission and the people who are supposed to sit on this commission, I would urge that a civilian review board is necessary and should be established in Ontario.

I raised this particular issue during question period a few weeks ago, that the establishment of a civilian review board is necessary. It has been recommended by different reports which were pursued in the past, the Morand report and the Maloney report. The Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) has stated in the Legislature that the establishment of a civilian review board to hear complaints from citizens is not necessary at this point in time. I completely disagree.

While he might have good reasons to have faith in the police, this move in Bill 135 to replace judges sitting on the commission is as I stated before, a positive move, but I think that to make sure that justice is going to be done in relation to complaints from citizens in Ontario the Solicitor General has to move very quickly in the direction of establishing this citizens’ complaint bureau.

If I may conclude my remarks about Bill 135, I would like to receive from the Solicitor General some explanation about

section 1(4) of the bill in relation to a reasonable remuneration. Even though it is spelled out that remuneration shouldn’t be less than the minimum prescribed by the regulations, I have some problems understanding what “reasonable remuneration” means when we have clear regulations drafted to deal with this particular item. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Solicitor General and his explanation of such wording as “reasonable remuneration.”

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 135. In doing so, I would like to make one or two comments and suggestions in this regard. I speak as a person who was a member of the police commission for eight years as the head of my municipality. I have found in the past that there are some judges who make very valuable members of the police commission and there are some who don’t. The current judge of the county court is one of those who is a valuable member of the police commission.

I would like to point out to the Solicitor General that with the very busy courts we have now, and the pressures under which the judges are working, I think it is right to relieve them of this added responsibility.

In supporting that principle of the bill, I would like to also put in a few remarks in regard to the appointment of not just another resident of the community but another member of the council when that opportunity arrives. The work of the police commissions now, as opposed to what it was some years ago, puts a great deal of stress and time on financial management. That is one of the greatest parts of the work of a member of the police commission. With the increased costs represented in policing, it is imperative that someone who has been elected by the people, in addition to the mayor, can put forth the views of the people.

Most of the things with which the police commission deals, manpower matters, equipment matters, staffing and so forth, have a very important monetary bearing and of course this is what is important to the people of the municipality as well as good policing. Good policing we will have, because all councils want it. We have the police chief present to advise. But I just want to point out it is important, when the time comes for making alternative appointments to the police commission, that we should bear in mind it is the local taxpayer who has to pay for policing in the community and it would be quite worthwhile to have an additional member of council in that place.

Mr. Roy: I have just a brief comment on this legislation. Having had discussions over the last seven or eight years about the role of judges on police commissions, I think, as my colleagues have said previously, this bill is worthy of support.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt are aware, at various times over the last 10 or 15 years certain of our colleagues in the Legislature have taken a pretty strong position pertaining to the role of judges on police commissions.

An hon. member: The former member for Armourdale comes to mind.

Mr. Roy: I suppose a number of commissions as well have commented on judges on police commissions. If one were to look at the question of possible conflict one could say technically that any time we have a judge on the police commission there is that possibility of conflict. As members can understand, if there is a judge -- and in this case we are talking about a county court judge who sits on a police commission -- who sits in judgement of an accused charged by the police force of whose commission the judge is a member, technically one could say that in such a situation there is a conflict of interest.

The problem is that we cannot work in a vacuum. If one were to look at ulterior motives, or conflict of interest, in a variety of situations one could not operate. My colleague the Solicitor General has two hats on; that could be considered a conflict of interest in some circumstances.

Mr. Conway: Two hats on one head is not an inconsiderable accomplishment.

Mr. Roy: There are circumstances, obviously, where one has to weigh the pros and cons and say, is the contribution made by these judges on police commissions of such a nature as to far outweigh any possibility of conflict? I think that is a decision most of us have arrived at, having thought this matter through over a number of years and discussed with various police commissions across the province the useful service contributed by a county court judge on a police commission.

The judges themselves have been a much- maligned group on this. I can recall there was some talk that judges were serving on police commissions because of the extra remuneration involved. That was taken away a number of years ago, and judges over recent years have served without additional remuneration on these police commissions.

One of my colleagues expressed interest earlier as to whether subsection 4 is a message sent to council that there be some remuneration over and above what a county court judge gets from the federal government. I would like the Attorney General to comment on whether this possibility is open under subsection 4.

I would like to say that the amendment is important in the sense that it takes away the obligation of having a county court judge on a police commission. That is important. In various areas there must be the flexibility to have that choice. My experience in the Ottawa area has been that we are dealing with three or four police commissions.

From my discussions with them, people who sit on these commissions feel that it is a necessity to have someone with the kind of training, background and judgement that a county court judge has, but it may very well be that in another area they feel it is not necessary, that sort of expertise may come from somebody else -- my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would say from one of the legal profession; that may be, I know he is always supportive of that group. That may be an alternative.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t mind lawyers, I just don’t like the profession.

Mr. Conway: We need a few more optometrists.

Mr. Roy: Or a few more chiropractors.

Mr. Nixon: Talk about going into the lion’s den.

Mr. Roy: I support the amendment as proposed by the Attorney General and I would like briefly to take this opportunity to commend the useful service that has been given over the years by county court judges to police commissions. I think it has been a worthwhile service, an important community service, and their contribution should be recognized after so many years of being maligned by reference to conflict of interest.

Some of these people, and some are in the Ottawa-Carleton area, have continued to serve without remuneration, putting in long hours of useful service on these police commissions. Their contribution, from my discussions with various chiefs of police, mayors and so on, has been very worthwhile.

On balance, I think I am supportive of the amendment and I trust we will give individuals who have made such an important contribution an opportunity to continue to serve, but that we take away the obligation. I think it’s a worthwhile compromise and deserving of support.

[11:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate? If not, the honourable minister.

Mr. Conway: Never has this Attorney General enjoyed such unanimity.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Briefly in response to questions in relation to remuneration, the member for Dovercourt asked what “reasonable remuneration” means. It is up to the local council. We provide for a minimum of $1,000 a year for communities over 500,000 people and a minimum of $500 if it’s less than that, which I think is a reasonably modest minimum. It’s really up to the local council, depending on the workload. We think this is a decision that should be made by the local council, in relation to the workload of the police commission. As far as the judge’s remuneration is concerned, there is no change in that.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if I might be permitted to add one further remark in response to something that was asked of me a few moments ago?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All right.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for Wellington South asked me a question and I forgot to answer him. I apologize.

My colleague, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), expressed concern to me in relation to the size of police commissions. The member for London South (Mr. Walker) expressed some concern as well, in relation to the size of police commissions. Some of the larger communities would like to see them expanded from three to five. We are reviewing this. We regret that we were unable to come to a decision in relation to it this spring, but we will seriously entertain that suggestion to extend some of these police commissions to five members. We hope to be able to have a resolution of that matter in the fall.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Nixon: I want to say, sir, that this is the first occasion we have had before the House a bill of this type, based on a recommendation of an external board -- in this instance, the election expenses commission. I know when it was first discussed, as to changing the terms of reference and thereby changing the statute establishing the election expenses commission, there was a feeling that not only this House but also, I believe, the citizens of the province have a great deal of confidence in the way that commission has carried out its responsibilities.

The fact that this report has come at this time is certainly gratifying as far as we’re concerned. I am very glad that the government has seen fit simply to accept the recommendations of the commission, rather than fiddle around with them. I think this is an appropriate approach by this House. We on this side are supporting the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I want to make only a few comments with respect to the bill. As my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said, this is the first opportunity we’ve had to dispose of this sort of problem.

I think it’s going to serve the Legislature well. I think it’s going to serve the province well, because one thing that’s going to occur is that we will not see those gigantic raises in pay which have caused so much irritation and which were distorted to some degree because they came possibly only every three to five years. When we play the game of catchup, the amounts are so great that the public resents it, and we cannot blame them.

The thing I like about what is being done is that the increase has been in that portion which is taxable. I think the public is prepared to accept more readily that members in this Legislature are treated in the same fashion as they are. The commission, in its wisdom, this time increased one

section very little, but the large portion of the

section that was increased is taxable; I think that will be accepted in a good manner by the public. I only hope that some of the other things that are wrong, in terms of how they are paid out and so on, will be straightened out. I am looking forward to the next report of the commission.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the remuneration paid to the whips. This is a matter I have discussed with House leaders and other people in the past, and I am speaking from some degree of activity or knowledge in that field. The remuneration, the way it has been provided in this bill or the way it stood in the previous legislation, I still consider as grossly unfair. It’s unfair on the basis that in this minority government the whips and the House leaders by and large carry out equal duties. They meet regularly together; their responsibilities, I think, are almost identical or are very similar to a great extent.

Perhaps some larger increase can be granted to the government whip or House leader in comparison to the other whips or House leaders but --

Mr. Kerrio: It has to be worth something to win the race.

Mr. Makarchuk: All right. We will give him $500 to win. But the amounts that are being granted in this bill are as follows: the government whip gets $6,500, the opposition whip gets $4,000 and the third-party whip gets $3,250. In my opinion, the remuneration is grossly unfair in relation to the responsibilities these people have and to the time and effort they spend in the whole government process. This is particularly true in the minority situation -- and I don’t foresee any great change in the next five to 10 years; whatever the government may think, conditions are not going to change.

I hope the commission will look at these figures in the future and bring the remuneration of the opposition whips and House leaders in line with what the government whips and House leaders get. They share the work and responsibility, as all members of the House do, and they should get paid in a fair and equivalent manner.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, there is a part of the bill that bothers me when we are talking about the compensation of members. The leader of the third party does not know I am going to say this, but the differential between his remuneration and that of the leader of the official opposition is outrageous. For the leader of the official opposition, the extra remuneration is $19,500, and for the leader of the third party it is $5,450.

Mr. Kerrio: Worth every penny.

Mr. Laughren: I am not questioning that; the responsibilities are enormous for the leader of the official opposition. I would suggest to my friend that in a situation as we have today, where there is a one-seat differential, to suggest that there is that kind of differential in the workload or the responsibilities of the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition simply makes no sense at all. I suspect the leader of the official opposition would agree, if be were here, that there should not be that kind of differential. I don’t know how one justifies it.

Does one say that the leader of the third party does not travel the province as much? Does he not have as onerous a workload?

Mr. Nixon: I remember how concerned the New Democrats were about this when they were the official opposition.

Mr. Laughren: The former leader of the official opposition knows what it is like to be leader of the third party, and I suspect he worked as hard when he was leader of the third party as he did when he was leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t cry about it, though.

Mr. Laughren: My leader is not crying about it either. I am saying that I think it is fundamentally wrong to have that kind of differential in remuneration between the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party in this House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be fair comment at this stage to indicate that a copy of the Hansard dealing with this debate will be sent to the members of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses so that they will have the benefit of these views as they continue their review.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 140,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 139,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

section 7:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Welch moves that

section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(2) Clause (

a) of subsection 7 of the said

section 65, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1973,

chapter 151,

section 7, be amended by striking out ‘with portfolio’.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive agreed to.

Bill 139, as amended, reported.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 140,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Welch moves that subsection 1 of

section 3(

a) of the Act, as set out in

section 2 of the bill, be amended by deleting “with portfolio” in the first line.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill 140, as amended, reported.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

[11:15]

section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that

section 35(a)(4), as set out in

section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(4) No person shall undertake any development in an area designated under sub-section 2 unless the council of the municipality or, where a referral has been made under subsection 10, the municipal board has approved one or both, as the council may determine, of the following:

“(1) a plan showing the location of all buildings and structures to be erected and showing the location of all facilities and works to be provided in conjunction therewith and of all facilities and works required under clause (

a) of subsection 7;

“(2) drawings showing plan, elevation and cross-section views for each industrial and commercial building to be erected and for each residential building containing 25 or more dwelling units to be erected which are sufficient to display:

“(

a) the massing and conceptual design of the proposed building;

“(

b) the relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas to which the members of the public have access; and

“(

c) the provision of interior walkways stairs and escalators to which members of the public have access from streets, open spaces and interior walkways in adjacent buildings, but which exclude the layout of interior areas other than the interior walkways, stairways and escalators referred to in clause (c), the colour, texture and type of materials, window details, construction details, architectural details and interior design.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not had the opportunity to see the amendment. I tried to follow along with our own proposed amendment to the same clause. I wonder if the minister could deal with subsection 4(1) in his amendment, since the wording seems to be quite different and I would like to understand the implications of it. I regret I am not the critic. He is here now and he can speak to it. Sorry.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Waterloo North wish to speak to this amendment proposed by the minister? In the meantime, we will hear from the member for Riverdale and then we will come back to you.

Mr. Epp: I will let Mr. Renwick speak to it, and then I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think we welcome the proposed amendment put forward by the minister. Since the bill was introduced and the implications of the omission have been understood by the members of this House and all of the interested parties concerned with it, there have been significant and substantial negotiations going on, both openly and behind the scenes. I understand this amendment is now entirely acceptable to the city of Toronto, which is my major concern. I know there are many other municipalities throughout Ontario very much interested in it.

It is my understanding this particular amendment now meets the very serious deficiencies which were inherent in the original bill, and I am glad that after such hemming and hawing on the part of the ministry it has finally seen the light and is prepared to introduce this kind of an amendment.

I would suggest that when the time comes to make any other amendments to the Planning Act, the government, if not the minister, take seriously into consideration the proposition that a little discussion beforehand, with the members of the parties in this House and with the municipalities across Ontario, might save the government and that particular minister a lot of headaches.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we were most disturbed last week when the government decided to delete subsection 12 of

section 35a of the Planning Act. As you know, this was a very important

section and one that required a lot of effort in the first place to have it included.

Second, without sufficient notice the government decided to delete and without, I thought, sufficient clarification in the bill. It took some time before municipalities and the opposition were aware that it was being deleted and it was done without any real discussion as far as the various municipalities were concerned.

We know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on numerous occasions has set a very good example for his cabinet colleagues in trying to consult with municipalities. He hasn’t always been consistent with that promise, but that has generally been the case. We only hope the Minister of Housing will take this to heart in the future before he brings in an important amendment of this nature and that he will go the consultative route, as is the case in many other areas.

As a result of this particular procedure we have had to do a lot of work, and the civil service has had to do a lot of work in the last days rushing about trying to get clarification on exactly what these various words mean, so municipalities would be protected by any changes that might ensue.

Mr. Chairman, we will support this amendment. We think it has the concurrence of the municipalities and of people who are developing, the architects and so forth who play a major role in drawing plans, present the drawings, et cetera. We think the government was originally in error in trying to omit the word “plan.” It is now included in the amendment. This is obviously an important improvement and we will support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I just want to make a couple of observations in relation to the comments of the member for Riverdale and of the member for Waterloo North. In our discussions on second reading I indicated very clearly that we had taken the time to consult with the solicitors representing the city of Toronto. We had consulted with the Municipal Liaison Committee, which is the organization which is supposed to have some say in matters relating to municipal problems in their relationship with the province. It wasn’t a matter of having cast aside all considerations for those people.

I also indicated to the member for Riverdale that at the time I had a letter from the mayor of Ottawa which drew my attention to only one

section of the bill which was giving their council some concern. To put to rest any fears about consultation with communities, municipalities, regional governments, county governments, I trust members are aware of the fact that in the presentation of the white paper on the Planning Act we have been going on through rather extensive meetings with municipal heads of council and with chairmen of planning board and others who are directly related to those problems.

We have indicated clearly that we are prepared to have some 25 to 30 workshops that will deal with the very specifics of the legislation with members of municipal councils, with members of municipal planning boards, and with staff of those planning operations throughout the province, and with the private sector as well.

Mr. Chairman, there is no indication that we were hemming and hawing or trying to delete something that would be of advantage to a municipality. Obviously, we have taken the advice and suggestions of members of the opposition parties on second reading of the bill, at which time I said we were prepared to move an amendment. I also put to rest any fears that we are not going through a very in-depth consultation program with municipalities relating to the Planning Act, whether it be this

section or the entire new act we are bringing in, we hope, some time in 1980.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Waterloo North had an alternative amendment, which I gather he is content to waive.

Mr. Epp: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw the amendment since the minister has put his motion for amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that

section 35a(5) as set out in

section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(5) Nothing in this

section shall be deemed to confer on the council of the municipality power to limit the heights or density of buildings to be erected on the land.”

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The only change, Mr. Chairman, is that the word “bylaw” has been replaced with the word “section,” strictly because the bylaw is not in force.

Mr. Epp: We will support the amendment the minister has put. It is essentially the same as in the present act and was not in the proposed bill. We think the amendment is a good one; the original wording in the act was good. We will support it.

Mr. Renwick: We’re in agreement with the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that

section 35(a)(6) of the act as set out in

section 1 of the bill be struck out, and that subsections 7, 8, 9 and 10 be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this is new to the bill. This

section was not in the former Planning Act of June 1976. It is our feeling that it is really not necessary because it provides a certain amount of flexibility to municipalities to have the kind of parking that may be necessary. In other words, now that we’re getting into multi-functional buildings, if that is what you want to call them, where you might have commercial and residential uses combined in one building, the municipality needs some kind of flexibility to determine the kind of parking that is required for that building.

The other thing is that the municipality can, under a zoning by-law, declare what kind of parking they desire. So we feel that if a municipality had

section 35(a)(6), to which they had to adhere, they might make that minimum requirement fairly high. Then they may not be able to go below that minimum. We feel that with the flexibility offered by the deletion of subsection 6 they will then be able to make that requirement fairly low, a very low minimum, knowing full well that at a later date, when the developer is in, they can apply

section 35(

a) and ask for a higher amount. In other words, they have that flexibility.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s essential that municipalities be given a little leeway, a little leverage here, to be able to negotiate and deal with the developers as they come in and can ask for parking facilities, as well as parking allocations, or parking restrictions, et cetera, as with other conditions. Obviously, we will support this. We feel that it is a move in favour of local flexibility and local autonomy.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think the point is very clear. We’re aware of the amendment that is going to be moved; if they had not moved it we were prepared to move an identical amendment providing for this deletion.

The significance of it is simply that in any form of the kind of sophisticated planning a municipality such as the city of Toronto is engaged in, the last thing one needs is to run into an inflexible method, with respect to any provision of off-street parking facilities. There is a certain sophistication involved in the work which is done on all of these planning developments.

I do think we must leave it to the authorities within the municipalities to work out, in conjunction with those interested in the development, the most appropriate method by which the purposes of the overall plans can be achieved. That is not furthered, in any way, when we have a provision such as subsection 6, which imposes an unnecessary rigidity on the whole of the planning process, as related to those facilities.

[11:30]

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the remarks of the member for Waterloo North relating to subsection (6) as presented in the bill this morning as not being in the original

section 35(

a) of the Planning Act, but obviously the ministry recognized there was a weakness in the act which allowed

section 35(

a) virtually, as a site-plan control, to become a “zoning via site-plan”

section -- virtually everything else it wants to be within the field of planning.

When one finds there is a weakness, one should try to strengthen that particular area in the process of amending a section. I suppose it is also correct to say that two wrongs do not make a right; so that is the reason we brought it in.

The member for Waterloo North said there was flexibility; that it could be accommodated within a zoning bylaw of the municipality. That is exactly where it should be. Parking requirements, density requirements, side-yard requirements or open-space requirements are things that should obviously be within a zoning bylaw. We should not try to take

section 35(

a) and use it as a catch-all for everything that we might think a municipality would want. They should have a zoning bylaw that clearly indicates what the requirements are in the development of a particular piece of property in their community.

The honourable member said they go for minimal requirements in a zoning bylaw. I am not here to be hypercritical of municipalities, but they go for what they think are the requirements of the community, minimal or otherwise; it is what is essential to accommodate the type of traffic or parking or other things that are needed on that particular site.

We felt it was well that this act should have this

section put in. If municipalities want to amend a zoning bylaw to request more parking, it should be done under the zoning. We looked at subsection 6 for some time to determine whether it was really essential. I suppose members of the opposition are saying this morning that municipalities should have a great deal more flexibility. I only want to make this one observation: at some point in time, the developer, whether it be an individual or a corporate structure, has to know exactly what he or she or they are being called upon to do under the

section they are dealing with. To say that they can negotiate it every time through an agreement, I don’t think is the fairest way in which to expect land to be developed.

I recognize there are complexities in the field of planning and development today that we did not entertain five or 10 years ago in this province or in any community of this province. We still think that

section 6 could serve well. We think that municipalities have the competence and the capability to amend their zoning bylaws to accommodate the amount of parking they require in any given zone or block of zoning in their community. It is not a

section that is going to stop up the Planning Act or the planning of this province, by any stretch of the imagination. However, we think that what is good for the municipality also to some degree has to be good for the individual who has invested his money in buying a piece of land that can be developed, and he should have some understanding from the day he buys it as to what the ground rules happen to be that he is going to be called upon to observe for servicing that piece of land.

We are not at the point where subsection 6 has to stay in the bill. If it means we are going to get bogged down for a period of time here this morning on this subsection 6, I am prepared to accept the amendment by the member for Waterloo North and to allow the subsection to stand aside, and in the process of developing our white paper we will look at it again.

I just make the point very clearly that I don’t think we should try to get into two areas of trying to zone one piece of land. To have an agreement that says you will do a certain thing on a piece of property that you own -- site-plan improvement -- is one thing. But to try to have this

section 35(

a) virtually become the overall zoning bylaw of a municipality, I think is wrong. There are property owners who are entitled to some consideration as well as the elected people, remembering they both represent the same cause.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that subsection (6), as renumbered, of

section 35(

a) of the act, as set out in

section 1 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “plans” in the first line “and drawings” and by inserting after “plans” in the fourth line of clause (

c) thereof the same words “and drawings.”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, this is essentially a clarification of some of the points here, and we will support it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we agree with the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that subsection (9), as renumbered, of

section 35(

a) of the act, as set out in

section 1 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “plans” in the first line, in the seventh line and in the 13th line, “or drawings.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that

section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(10) Where the council of a municipality has designated a site plan control area under this

section the council may by bylaw

“(

a) define any class or classes of development that may be undertaken without the approval of plans otherwise required under subsection 4; and

“(

b) delegate to either a committee of the council or to an appointed officer of the municipality identified in the bylaw, either by name or position occupied, any of the council’s powers or authority under this

section except the authority to define any class or classes of development as mentioned in clause (a).”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, does the minister not want to comment?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this amendment came about as a result of some requests by, I would say, the city of Ottawa in particular. Where plans had been approved by a municipality or council, rather than waiting to go back to council if there had to be some small changes in it, they felt it would be more advantageous to have an individual officer or a committee of council designated as the authority to make those minor adjustments. That is basically why this amendment is being proposed this morning.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we agree with the amendment. I was speaking to a planning director just this morning and he was telling me he felt this amendment was very important from his standpoint and from the standpoint of all municipalities. As the minister has pointed out, if you had for instance, a bylaw which said a development required 10 birch trees, and the developer later came along and wanted to put in white pine trees, he would then have to go back to the city council to have the bylaw amended in order to make that change. That is, to say the least, ludicrous.

So, in concert with this particular amendment, the municipality can now pass a bylaw giving to a committee of council or to an individual that authority, either in whole or in part, as they see fit. We endorse the amendment for that reason.

Mr. Renwick: We are in agreement with the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“2. Notwithstanding

section 1,

section 35(

a) of the Planning Act, as it exists on the day before this act comes into force, shall be deemed to continue in force in respect of any bylaw passed under that

section prior to the day before this act comes into force.”

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have a new

section 3, Mr. Chairman. Do you wish me to deal with it separately?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, I would think that would probably be easier.

Are there any discussions on the proposed amendment for

section 2?

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

section 3:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bennett moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“3. Every agreement entered into by a municipality after the 15th day of December, 1973, and before the day that

section 35(

a) of the Planning Act as re-enacted by

section 1 of this act comes into force, to the extent that the agreement yields that the facilities and matters mentioned in subsection 2 of

section 35(

a) of the Planning Act as it exists on the day before this act comes into force, is hereby declared to be valid and binding.”

He further moves that the present sections 2 and 3 be renumbered as sections 4 and 5 respectively.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Correct.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any discussion in regard to the proposed amendment for a new

section 3?

Mr. Roy: I just want to thank the minister for the amendment.

You will recall that in committee the city of Ottawa had proposed what was called Bill Pr9 which would have done much of what is proposed by the minister in Bill 96. Yesterday in committee we deferred and agreed that

section 8 of Bill Pr9 not be proceeded with on the basis that the minister would proceed with Bill 96. The one concern the city of Ottawa had, and I think it’s recognized by the minister, is that there were existing agreements and, on the basis of these existing agreements, the city of Ottawa had inserted in their bill the subsection 9 which did basically what the minister is now proposing in the amendment of subsection 3. I think that will plug that loophole and will be appreciated by municipalities which had existing agreements.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as renumbered and amended, agreed to.

Section 4 and 5, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 96, as amended, reported.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

Consideration of Bill 163,

An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I would like the consent of the House to change my seat and also for the accommodation of my advisers.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: In committee, that is granted, sir.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I need just a little bit of advice.

We have distributed, I hope, to all the members of both parties who need copies, our amendment. We hope they have them and we’re hoping to be able to deal with them somewhat expeditiously. We are proposing a new

section and a new part to deal with one of the amendments. Do you have the amendment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don’t have the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party. The Liberals just asked to withdraw their proposed amendment, which they have done.

Mr. Renwick: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought they had been distributed to the table.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, this is an amendment proposed for

section 1.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you will note there are nine amendments before you. If you would be good enough to look towards the end of the package you’ll see the last one is headed, “New section, new part to follow

part VII.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, I have that.

[11:45]

Mr. Renwick: I assume, Mr. Chairman, subject to your guidance, that it would be appropriate for me to move that at the time we have completed

section 69, which is the end of

part VII. If the amendment were to carry there would be consequential redesignation of the various parts. Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It is agreeable to me, unless the committee thinks otherwise. It would appear to have the consent of the committee.

Mr. Renwick: There is a further one which I have marked “section 111a, new section.” I assume I would move that one just after 111, if that is agreeable.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You also have an amendment to

section 119, haven’t you?

Mr. Renwick: Yes. If it is in order, Mr. Chairman, I will move my amendment to

section 1 of the bill.

section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that

section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection 4:

“

(4) For the purpose of this act, the earliest reasonable date on which a tenant or subtenant may be evicted by order of the commission is a date at least 15 days after the date on which the commission’s order was made.”

Mr. Renwick: By way of explanation, we have been concerned that with the best will in the world, since an eviction is very much a Draconian result of a landlord-tenant dispute, regardless of the merit of the particular problem, there be something called a clear period of grace before an eviction order would take effect. That is not in any real sense inconsistent with the present provisions under which procedures are taken. It should be quite possible, I would think, for our colleagues in the House to recognize the reasonableness of continuing that particular provision.

We have selected 15 days as being a fair and reasonable period within which there should be, after an eviction order has been issued, a waiting period. Later on you will note we have tried to make a provision in one special instance, although that’s not the only reason for this amendment, where if an order is issued in the absence of the tenant, and the tenant after service has made an ex parte application within seven days, it would be possible for the order to be quashed if it merited that treatment. This is only one example.

I do believe it is essential for all of us and for the members of the commission in particular to be told by the statute that there is to be a 15-day period of grace because of the severity of the eviction procedure.

Mrs. Campbell: This particular amendment, somewhat differently framed, was before the committee. I believe, if memory serves me, the amendment was put for 30 days and that was subsequently withdrawn. Certainly on the face of it, and if one looks at the experience of the past, the 15-day grace period is very similar to what we have at the present time. The difficulty is, of course, that in dealing with this bill we are dealing with a whole new concept.

One of the provisions of the bill is that the commission shall have an absolute responsibility to attempt arbitration, for example, in the course of the proceedings. The matter that bothered me, and I think it bothered a good many, was the actual cry, I would suggest, of those small landlords on whose behalf the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) spoke so eloquently in committee. That is the situation of the person who has someone in a shared accommodation in the sense that the landlord lives in the house and rents a flat, for example.

In several instances they pointed out their problems with what they termed “the professional rent evader.” They were able to adduce some reports -- I must not call it evidence, because they were not under oath, but at least they spoke to the committee -- about these problems. I would like to just put this into context.

First of all, we do have the arbitration process. Secondly, we have provision in the bill that no eviction order can be made or should be made where, notwithstanding the grounds are there, there would be unfairness to a tenant to make such an order. Having those two things in mind and then looking at the kinds of cases where a person would have an order made, whether it be for vandalism, whether it be for nonpayment of rent, it seems to me that with the provision for an appeal enough is done to cover those very serious cases.

While I normally do want to see some period of grace, I think these small landlords have certainly indicated that in the past it has taken them months to go through the court procedures. I must say that while that time may be circumscribed somewhat by this bill, nevertheless it could be a lengthy period of time.

For that reason, in committee we were not prepared to accept the amendment of 30 days and that amendment was withdrawn. I am afraid we cannot support this amendment at this time.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just a word of comment: I can always rely on my colleague, the member for St. George, to raise the “bad apple” theory, that we spend all our time here going through all of these bills simply for the purpose of making certain the bad apple will not take advantage of the system. I don’t happen to believe in that particular theory.

Mr. Mancini: That’s not what she said.

Mr. Epp: She didn’t even mention an orchard.

Mr. Renwick: I regret there are always those who cause immense difficulties regardless of the procedures followed at any time. This is a law of general application in the province --

Mr. Ruston: Talk to the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Renwick: -- under which there will be legitimate disputes and differing views which will go through a course of being heard before a commission which we expect -- we will be surprised but we expect, on the assurance of the minister -- will provide a speedy method for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants. We recognize -- indeed, it was my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea who, as the member for St. George said, clearly brought them to our attention -- the very real concerns of the small landlord, not only in his area but in the area I represent, the area the member for St.

George represents and the area my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) represents, where these problems are very real.

We have attempted in the bill to deal with those questions.

That doesn’t alter the fact that where you repose in a commission, and, I may say, an inquisitorial commission, the right to order the eviction, and if in its discretion it decides to do so and terminate the tenancy that way, it seems to us to be eminently reasonable that whenever there is a provision in this bill for the termination of tenancies -- for example, “Where on the application of the landlord the commission determines that a tenant has breached the obligation” and so on, “it may make an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant on a date specified by the commission” -- the commission has got to make that determination.

All we are saying is there must be a 15-day delay because of all of the problems inherent in the relocation of any family living in rental accommodation, particularly in the kind of rental accommodation in the areas represented by my colleague from St. George and by myself.

I would urge the government, if the Liberal Party is not prepared to support us on this matter, to consider supporting this very reasonable request.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to speak to the amendment moved by the member for Riverdale, who, it appears, makes it seem as if a tenant can be evicted almost the next day just because the landlord seems to want that done. Having had a chance to sit through the committee hearings since January, and having a good knowledge of what the bill does, I can say that the tenant in no way is going to be evicted immediately, such as is the impression given by the member for Riverdale.

First of all, the landlord must have a good reason for evicting a tenant, either because the tenant is not paying his rent, or because he is causing vandalism or something of that sort of a serious nature. The bill itself says the tenant cannot be evicted unfairly, and that gives the commission any leeway it would need to make a good decision and ensure a tenant is treated fairly.

Secondly, a tenant has to be notified that the landlord does want to evict him. Then there is a mediation period in which the problem may or may not be resolved. This will take a certain number of days. Next, a hearing date is set up, which will take a further period of time. In addition, this new commission we are establishing will then either decide in favour of the tenant or of the landlord and give a specified date as to when the tenant must leave, if indeed that has been the decision of the commission.

I think we do have a certain period of time which will be ample. I believe tenants will be treated fairly. I think the extra 15 days requested by the member for Riverdale, and which was mentioned before when we were in committee, although at that time it was 30 days, are not necessary. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The members for St. George and Essex South have very accurately described the consensus in the committee. That is also the position of the minister.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 2 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

[12:00]

section 33:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that

section 33(5) of the bill be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, a brief word of explanation. All that subsection 5 states is that subsection 3 does not apply to rental units that are exempt from rent review under

part XI.

Part XI are those units which will be exempt from the rent review procedures and those units are all of the units constructed and occupied after the end of 1976, all units where the rent is in excess of $750, together with some other exemptions which are provided.

What we have asked for throughout the hearings was a central registry. By central, we mean centralized on a regional basis, with a commission where any prospective tenant or a tenant in the province in that area could go and look for and obtain information about the rent being charged for comparable accommodation elsewhere in the area.

For reasons explained to us in the committee, which did not seem to have any rationale behind them, the minister has made a dichotomy between those units in the province which are exempt from rent review and those units in the province which are subject to rent review. For those units which are subject to rent review, not only do they post the information which we are speaking about in the residential complex, but they are required that “every landlord shall at least once in every 12-month period give to the commission a copy of the

schedule maintained by him under subsection 1.”

We wish to have that made applicable to all units throughout the province. It seemed reasonable to us that over a period of time that kind of information should be generally available on a regionalized basis. It did appear at one point in the committee that we had perhaps reached an agreement, but as is so often the case, each of us heard what we wanted to hear and didn’t hear the other part of it and it fell apart in this strange dichotomy.

I do want to emphasize that under the bill as before us, in

section 33(1) there is provision for posting up in every residential complex the information which is required. Our concern has been to see there is elsewhere, on a rationalized basis under the aegis of the commission, the information for all of the units across the province, and not to perpetuate this strange dichotomy between those units which are subject and those units which are not subject to rent review. It again, Mr. Chairman, appeals to us as essentially reasonable and consistent with the position which we have taken. I commend it to my colleagues in the other parties and to the minister.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, being very reasonable and consistent, we obviously will not support this amendment, simply because it does something which is not in concert, which is not consistent with what this Legislature committed itself to back in 1975. That was to exempt those units built after December 31, 1975, or as of January 1, 1976. It is our feeling that to have those units which were built since that day participate in a central registry and then have to submit all the rents and everything to that central registry, is a subtle way of involving them in rent review, a move this Legislature said should not be done.

We think that having an in-house registry, giving the tenants who have a unit or the potential tenants who are going to obtain a unit, the opportunity to be able to go to the manager, administrator, supervisor or superintendent, whoever that person may be, to see the registry, and to see the rents within that unit, is proper and right. To suggest then that we should go that extra distance and have that registry filed with a central or regional office and, therefore, have someone go over it to see if all the rent increases are six per cent or five per cent or four per cent or whatever they may be is not something this Legislature committed itself to. In fact, it suggested they be exempt.

We on this side of the House obviously cannot, will not and must not, to be consistent, support the amendment.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I wasn’t able to sit in committee to listen to many of the presentations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Did you say “fortunately” or “unfortunately”?

Mr. Riddell: I would have liked to learn a little more about it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I wouldn’t have wished that on anybody.

Mr Riddell: I must admit that rent does not pose much of a problem in the riding I represent -- not that I shouldn’t be interested in rent review as it affects all people throughout Ontario.

I would like to know if the government housing at the Huron industrial park, which is owned by the Ontario Development Corporation, falls under rent review legislation? If not, I wonder if there aren’t reasons for having it included. The reason I say this is that recently I received some complaints from the tenants at the park that there is a move under way to evict some of them.

This is for no other reason than that there is an industry coming in there, and the industry has in some way negotiated with the administrator -- again, this is some information I have been given and I haven’t checked into it -- to evict tenants to make room for those people who will be coming along with the industry to move in.

If that is the case, I simply do not think that type of thing should be permitted. This is the reason I am asking if the government housing at Huron industrial park is included in this rent review legislation.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I am not altogether sure of the answer from the description of this particular property. It’s not really a question of rent review the member is asking about; he is asking if it is covered under the existing Landlord and Tenant Act --

Mr. Riddell: Right.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- or, if this bill goes through, the Residential Tenancy Commission. I don’t really think it would be, to the best of my knowledge, unless someone from the Ministry of Housing can tell me differently.

The question being raised by the honourable member is dealt with in this act, as it is in the present Landlord and Tenant Act, in that there would have to be an application made stating the unit -- let’s leave it at an individual unit rather than a group -- the individual unit was required by the landlord for his own use or that of his spouse, a very direct use. Obviously that would not be the case. But, by the same token -- and I am sure the honourable member would recognize the validity of this -- there is a

section that states where a unit is required for purposes of employment, agricultural or other, the tenant of the unit could be evicted if he ceased employment with the concern.

In the case you mentioned, granted it is hypothetical, it seems to me the landlord, which in this case is the Ontario Development Corporation since it is not subsidized public housing, would have the gravest of difficulty, either in the present act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the courts, or in the future, if this bill goes through with the Residential Tenancy Commission. While there is an obvious benefit to an employer where he provides housing as a term and condition of employment in that when the person or the occupant ceases employment, obviously, he has to leave, there are also some provisions for students. It’s a pretty rational position.

I would think the corporation would, indeed, have to get into considerable negotiations with the individual tenants before they even applied to the commission because what they would basically be applying to the commission for would be that these units that were heretofore entirely residential, had suddenly changed status and the particular number of units was directly tied to employment with the particular commercial concern coming in. So I would think, reasonably, if the Ontario Development Corporation had any ideas of entering into a situation like this, they would almost inevitably have to deal in some manner for an equitable resolution with the existing tenants.

I hope that would answer the concerns but it isn’t tied to rent review. It’s tied to the Landlord and Tenant Act, and so on and so forth, and it is basically their security of tenure which is being affected.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the minister is straying from the amendment and if these questions should more properly be directed when we come to

section 134.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would think

section 33 covers a number of instances and is very broad.

Mr. Riddell: I thank the minister for the explanation. To familiarize him with the Huron industrial park, it used to be the old Centralia airbase.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I know.

Mr. Riddell: It was taken over by the Ontario government when it was phased out and the houses belong to the ODC. The administrator, of course, rents the houses out on behalf of the ODC. I must say this came about at the time when Charles MacNaughton was the member representing the riding. By way of trying to attract industry into our part of the riding, which we dearly need --

Mr. Nixon: Those were the bad old days.

Mr. Riddell: -- he decided maybe it was a good thing for the government to take it over, and they got it for a nominal fee from the federal government. The story I’m getting from the tenants is that the administrator is looking for very picayune ways of getting them out, such as, he’s now saying there is no way they can park their trailer on the lawn in front of the house, or they can’t park it in the laneway, or something of that nature. It looks as if he might be looking for very trivial ways of getting these people out to make room for the people who are coming along with this new industry coming in.

The tenants are wondering what kind of protection they have if this is the case. That is simply the reason I asked if they would be covered under this bill.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I might suggest to the honourable member that he can afford them a great deal of protection by helping to expedite the passage of this bill, because until the Ontario Development Corporation, with the passage of this bill, certainly changes the status of those units from rental accommodation, they simply are not going to be able to do this.

Furthermore, the items you mention about certain attitudinal changes on the project would be very difficult to prove in court under the existing Landlord and Tenant Act but, in terms of the investigatory powers of the Residential Tenancy Commission under this act, a very prompt passage would, indeed, assist the tenants there and ease many of their concerns.

[12:15]

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, getting back to

section 33 and the amendment made by the third party, I think all of us in this Legislature should remember that when rent review came into being on January 1, 1976, we made a commitment that all units built after that day would not come under the rent control legislation. We did that so we could encourage the building of more rental units. This province needs more rental units and we need newer rental units. I think any move on our part to renege on that promise would just show the industry that our promises are not even worth listening to and that the commitment we gave through legislation was not worth the paper it’s written on.

As the member for Waterloo North stated, these buildings constructed after 1976 will have their own listing in their own building, so the tenants in those buildings would have access to that information. I think we should stick with the promise we made and try to encourage new rental accommodation to be constructed in this province.

Mr. Renwick: One very brief comment: I say in all anxiety to my colleague, the member for Huron-Middlesex, that if this government happens to be the landlord of any constituents of yours, you’d better be careful and they’d better get the best independent legal advice they can if they want to protect themselves from that landlord. I can well believe from the evidence presented before our committee that any kind of manipulation of the rules is available to that government if they happen to be landlords in the province. So I am glad you raised that point.

Perhaps when we come to the appropriate place, the appropriate minister of the crown may stand in his place and relieve your anxiety. Otherwise take them home with you and consult with your constituents.

On the point raised by my colleague, the member for Essex South, about this commitment: first of all, let me lay this to rest. There is no such thing that I know of as a commitment of this assembly. I don’t know of anything that can be done about that.

There was some talk in the committee about this commitment, and the minister gave a lot of credence to the thought that they’d shed part of their blood in order to seal that commitment somewhere, and it was talked about in some way as though it was a commitment of this assembly. I dissociated myself and the New Democratic Party from any such commitment at any time by this party with respect to those exemptions. What the Liberal Party may feel they have done and what the government may have felt they have done, they have done in the names of their own institutions and not in the name of this assembly.

This assembly made no such commitment, never has made such commitment, and this party -- this institution, if I may call it that -- has made no such commitment.

Mr. Roy: You are exaggerating when you compare your party to an institution.

Mr. Renwick: We stand committed, not to some Draconian bureaucracy of a central registry, but for the convenience of the informed consumer public of Ontario. We believe there should be, on a regional basis, for any citizen in search of rental accommodation, a place with modern techniques for providing that kind of information. I refer to the type of information they require to be an informed consumer and to do some comparative shopping.

Mr. McCaffrey: The member for Riverdale I think is quite correct when he says he was not party to the commitment that has been suggested was undertaken by the Legislature. He need not feel, nor does his party have to feel they were part of any such undertaking. But what is very clear is that the government made such a commitment, had honoured it, and will continue to honour it.

Through the course of the committee all members of the committee had shared this desire to see the consumer as well-equipped as possible to make decisions before entering into a rental agreement. It’s very clear in the bill that every landlord -- not just those buildings occupied or built prior to 1976 -- shall maintain and keep a schedule. The difference is a simple one: those buildings built and occupied after January 1976, as per the government’s undertaking made with the builders that they would not have to file that with the commission.

The member for Riverdale refers to it as a strange dichotomy. It is more than that. It reflects an earlier agreement which will continue to be honoured.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 34 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.

section 40:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that the words in subsection 3 of

section 40 “or in a breach of the tenancy agreement” be deleted from the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, a brief word of explanation: The bill, as it was originally presented to this assembly for first reading, did not include those particular words in it. The marginal note with respect to this has “overcrowding” as the marginal annotation.

The bill, as originally introduced -- and we ask that it be restored to its original pristine form -- read: “A tenant shall not permit a number of persons to occupy the rental unit on a continuing basis that results in the contravention of health, safety or housing standards required by law.”

I believe it was the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) who introduced this particular amendment, and it was carried in a moment of forgetfulness by my colleagues in the Liberal Party voting with the Conservative members. I would hope on this occasion we could move to delete those provisions.

We here adhere to the proposition that, if there are housing, safety or health standards with respect to the number of persons who may occupy a given unit of living accommodation, those should be the governing standards; a landlord should not be in a position to dictate the number of persons who should occupy the particular residential area by having it as a provision in the tenancy agreement.

I might point out to the House the very real significance of permitting this to happen. There are so many landlords who have standard forms of leases who, if they insert the number of persons in a particular clause, are then in a very commanding position as against a tenant, because they can get an order from the commission requiring the tenant to comply with the obligation or not to breach the obligation again.

If the tenant, through no fault of his own, is simply not in a position to comply -- for example, if he has had an addition to his family which brings him over the particular number and he cannot farm out the baby or put it out for adoption some place, or something like that -- the landlord can get an order from the commission requiring compliance. Under a later

section of the bill, if he dares to disobey that, the commission, if it sees fit, may issue an eviction order. It seems to us to be quite inconsistent to provide that there should be that kind of imbalance in the relationship between landlord and tenant.

We firmly believe in the adequacy of and the enforcement of the laws passed by representative elected bodies for health, safety and housing standards. I would ask the government and the Liberal Party to support the deletion of those words and to return the subsection to its original wording.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this amendment. I sympathize with the example that the member for Riverdale has given, that in the case where a couple might have an addition to the family the landlord could, if he wanted, try to evict that particular family.

This obviously would come under a situation where it would be unfair to try to enforce that section. The member for Riverdale has said “if they see fit.” I doubt very much that the commission would see fit to evict someone because they happen to have an addition to the family.

I think what this particular phrase does is obligate a person to give truthful information from the beginning. I think that’s very important. To omit a

section where that obligation was not there would leave all kinds of loopholes where you could give false information and thereby get into a particular building and then try to be evicted, which might take some time. It would not be fair either to the tenant or to the landlord. We don’t feel on this side of the House that this amendment is necessary. We think that as the particular

section stands it will benefit both the landlord and the tenants.

Mr. Mancini: In my opinion, any commissioner who evicts a family that’s had a new addition to that family needs to be fired -- and I hope the minister has heard that loud and clear. The bill states under

section 102(2) that “the commission may refuse to accept any application or continue any proceeding where, in its opinion, the matter is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or has not been initiated in good faith.” I think that

section certainly would give good coverage to the families which have had a new addition, and my earlier words stand.

Mr. Roy: I just want to make one comment about this section. I’ve been sitting here all morning listening to the member for Riverdale who’s been making comments and proposing amendments on this bill --

Mr. Makarchuk: You’ve been listening to other members as well. There has been some agreement.

Mr. Roy: This may be, but I think I’m still entitled to make comments, especially when I see what’s going on to my left. I think I shall not be curtailed on making certain comments.

Mr. Makarchuk: You want to extend this?

Mr. Roy: All I wanted to say was this: earlier, my colleague from St. George gave a reason why, on a particular amendment, it was going to cause undue hardship on a small landlord. The member for Riverdale said, “Oh, yes, you’re looking for bad apples. You’re trying to make the rule with the exception.” I thought it a bit much that in the proposal of this amendment he reaches pretty far -- he reaches pretty far indeed -- to give an example of a situation where a tenant and a family having an addition might, because of this section, be in contravention of a lease and then a commissioner would say, “You’re in contravention and therefore you’re thrown out.”

I thought that was just a bit much. Even on the widest

interpretation or reading of

section 40(3) I couldn’t quite understand how that would be considered to be in violation of health, safety or housing standards required by law.

I just thought I should get on the record that when a member is standing here posturing he can’t have it both ways. He can’t, on the one hand, when one of my colleagues brings forward an example, or there’s difficulty with a bill, say that is the exception and then, on the other hand, reach as far as he does trying to say that a particular subsection will wreak undue hardship on a tenant.

[12:30]

Mr. Renwick: I accept the admonishment of my colleague, the member for Ottawa East. What one does is not necessarily what one says that others do in this House. I referred, of course, in most loving terms to my colleague, the member for St. George. Each of us on occasion uses the bad apple theory as it may serve our purpose and I, perhaps, even recall the member for Ottawa East having used it on occasion.

Mr. Roy: Oh yes. I try not to pontificate about its use by others.

Mr. Renwick: I see. I will tuck that away in my memory. I’ll watch closely.

Mr. Roy: I will be silent from here on in.

Mr. Renwick: My only point on the amendment is very clear: where there are actual laws related to health and safety and occupancy of residential accommodations, that’s quite fine. But considering the history of the vexatious nature of the problem created by placing in a tenancy agreement a covenant -- and I draw this to the attention of my friend from Essex South -- a covenant by the tenant that they will not have more than such and such number of persons in order to get in the accommodation, it’s very difficult for anyone to treat a breach of that kind of condition or covenant in the agreement as simply a matter of vexatious proceedings.

Those matters can be enforced and it wouldn’t be the first time a person sitting in a judicial position would say, “I sympathize immensely with what the tenant has said but the clear words of the agreement are this and we must, for consistency’s purpose, allow the order to issue in the particular case.” I would ask for the support for this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just want to read a sentence into the record so that no one will be confused. First of all, the member for Essex South is absolutely correct in the

section which does prohibit vexatious application, among others. In addition, there is also

section 6(1). I just want to read in the last part of that subsection, and I think this will make it abundantly clear. “The obligation cannot be enforced unless it is reasonable in all the circumstances.” I think that covers the matter raised by the member for Riverdale and his example about someone giving birth and losing their tenancy as a result.

Mr. Renwick: I am constrained for a brief comment. The problem between accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto where children are permitted and children not permitted is the kind of controversy which is extremely difficult for the commission to rule on in the absence of some kind of public pronouncement on it from an elected body. It’s not that kind of circumstance. Certainly there are instances where it would not be reasonable and I agree with that. There are instances where it would be vexatious. I agree with that. But there are also issues of substance involved in this amendment and the amendment should carry.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Section 41 agreed to.

section 42:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that

section 42 be deleted from the bill.

I might suggest that the way this amendment is placed just negates the section. Therefore, the proper way to handle this would be to vote against the

section when it’s put.

Mr. Renwick: This particular provision is simply inserted for practical purposes, although the minister responsible for the bill may have agreed to put it forward and continue it in the bill. It’s been placed in there because the Minister of Housing of Ontario requested that it be in the bill, It relates to what is known in the confines of our committee as subsidized public housing, which simply means that it’s people who are tenants in publicly owned accommodation. The largest of those landlords, of course, is the Ontario Housing Corporation. I understand they have upwards of 90,000 units now in the province; they are the largest landlord, let alone the largest one covered by this.

This is the only place in the bill where the members of the committee, because of the refusal to take this out, have provided an invidious distinction between people who live in publicly owned accommodation and those who do not live in it, and have inserted in the bill provisions which are in their nature -- if I could use that often-used term -- quasi-criminal in the allegations that are made.

One will find in this

section such words as “false statements,” “knowingly misrepresented” and all of the words that are related to some form of criminal charge related to fraud and misrepresentation, with provisions for very significant penalties against any such tenant, culminating, of course, in the termination of the tenancy and an order for eviction of a tenant.

We have taken the position throughout that the tenants in public housing in Ontario are not required to comply with obligations different from the obligations imposed on any other tenant in Ontario except for the purpose of determining whether they are in the economically straitened circumstances, whatever the reason, that require them to have that housing accommodation.

Once the people are admitted to Ontario Housing, the question, and the only germane question, is one relating to need. In the committee, we have effectively dealt with that question under

section 55. It had been the position of the New Democratic Party that an adequate way to deal with the one and only distinction that should be made between public housing tenants and other tenants in the province of Ontario was on the basis of what is now contained in

section 55 of the bill. To have added these other punitive provisions is, in our view, a very bad example for the government to have admitted into the bill because of the kind of distinction it makes.

I am not going to go over them again, but the number of examples that were presented to the committee of the kind of information required from public housing tenants in order to be admitted to tenancy is picayune, detailed and exhaustive to the extent that it is offensive, and was offensive, to all the members of the committee. The same kind of basic intrusive information in very detailed particulars is required also with respect to the renewal of their occupancy in Ontario Housing. All of those kinds of things are still permitted, will be permitted and will exist.

It is not of help or assistance to us to have had the wording of this particular

section amended in such a way as to add “knowingly and significantly,” “significantly makes,” or those kinds of words. That just adds an additional burden on those who have to make a decision whether or not this kind of offensive measure is going to be applied.

On the basis of the evidence that was given before the committee, either by the officials of Ontario Housing in support of their present procedures, by members of the public who are tenants in Ontario Housing, or by those who have represented tenants in Ontario Housing before the courts on these very issues, there is no justification that should allow this assembly to make this kind of distinction, in this kind of bill, against the tenants in public housing.

I cannot do other than to urge that the

section be voted against and defeated and not form part of this bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this

section is one that has given me a great deal of concern. There is no question that I think every member of the committee present, when the board members of Ontario Housing Corporation came before the committee, was filled with dismay at the attitude of those persons. I say that so as to distinguish between them and the staff person who sat so diligently throughout the committee hearings and who, I believe, tried to be helpful to the committee. I know each and every one of us would have liked to have found a way, right then and there, to deal with the policies, whatever they are and whatever they may be, of that organization.

Of course, when you are filled with that kind of concern, you do want to delete this

section and you do want to place those persons who are not able to meet the economic market in rents and deal with them as tenants, as is anyone else.

Then I come to the other side of the coin. Because of the failure of this government to provide sufficient housing for people who need it, I am disturbed with the practical issues which are implied in this section.

We heard there was great dismay by both the ministry and Ontario Housing with the one tiny little step forward the committee made by an amendment to try to protect those, particularly women because they are in the larger number, who are automatically evicted from Ontario Housing, the only reason being their families have grown up. That was one provision to which we were able to address ourselves.

It was agreed in the committee that we could not in this bill deal with the policy issues of Ontario Housing much as we wanted to do. I hope somewhere there will be some recommendation that a committee be struck to deal with the whole of Ontario Housing and its policies because they certainly need to be addressed.

I know of the people who come to me for housing and I suppose I have to think of those people as well, people who have legitimately put forward their needs. Because they happen to be under 60 years of age and working at a minimally paying job, they are not entitled to be dealt with as people.

[12:45]

I guess coming down to it, what I have to say is if there are people in housing who ought not to be there because they do not have the need and they have piggybacked over people by producing the necessary evidence in the point structure of Ontario Housing, then in my view it is not equity for all those who are waiting. I did not bring the figures with me that I think were given by the Ministry of Housing, the deputy minister who appeared before us, but the numbers were in the thousands of people in need who can’t get into housing.

I suppose then I say that I don’t believe basically that this should be in this type of bill and if by deleting it I could somehow be assured that this government would meet the needs of all the people in this province so that this need not be a part of it, then I would in fact of course support the deletion. But at this time it seems to me that it is wrong to support those who get into housing perhaps by trickery or perhaps by inadvertence. Those who get in by inadvertence are protected under this bill.

This is one case where I really am torn. I would love to delete it but, coming down on the side of those whom I deal with daily, those who are seeking some place to live, I guess this has to be here at this time.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand from the comments made by the member for Riverdale that if this

section was left in the bill it would tend to reinforce the stigma that seems to be attached to public housing or to tenants who live in public housing? Do I understand the member to indicate that this is the case, because I know, going back to the Huron Industrial Park, it has taken us a long time to get rid of that word that has been used time and time again in reference to that place. They call it the ghetto.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s not public housing within the meaning of the act.

Mr. Riddell: I don’t know, it’s still housing that is owned by the government, and the ODC has a --

Hon. Mr. Drea: My house is owned by the government -- CMHC has the mortgage.

Mr. Renwick: Your house is not owned by the government and you know it.

Mr. Riddell: The ODC hires an administrator to rent these houses out. All I’m saying is that if there is any possible chance that this

section would bring that term back into the Huron Industrial Park, known as the ghetto, then I’m going to have to take a pretty serious look at it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member is perfectly entitled to take a very serious look at it, but I doubt if he wants to go back to his constituents and say that by removing this

section of the act there became a reward for a word and a practice that it not dared to be even mentioned in this House; to wit, lying on an official document.

Mr. Renwick: I am glad of the minister’s intervention. There is nothing official about an application to be a tenant in tenant accommodation in Ontario. That’s the particular point I want to make. Is it an official document when you apply for an apartment in Cadillac Development Corporation? No. Does it become an official document when you apply for tenancy in Ontario Housing? Apparently yes.

It’s the bureaucratic mind at work. It has even got through to the minister. It has become official. It’s top sacred. You should have a special filing cabinet with a top drawer, top sacred, with official documents in it and put the application forms for Ontario Housing into it. My colleague, the member for St. George is torn; I wish I could clear up in her mind the invalidity of the argument she used to convince herself.

Section 55 clearly provides if there is any tenant in Ontario Housing who does not have need -- and that is the key word -- then on application by the landlord, in this case Ontario Housing Corporation or any other public authority, the determination can be made: does that tenant have need of this accommodation? If the decision is no, then there is provision of eviction; if the decision is yes, the tenant stays.

That’s fine. That is the one and only distinction we should have to make. We are happy to have made it and we are happy to have that kind of clearcut provision in

section 55. But the members seem to indicate that somehow or other, if there is a falsity in the original document, Ontario Housing should have the privilege of exercising the continuous form of subterranean tyranny they now exercise against tenants because of some kind of a statement which may have been false, inadvertently or otherwise, in the original document.

An hon. member: Knowingly.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. But the question is that you can get that tenant before a commission affecting the tenant’s right to stay in that accommodation for d