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

December 11, 1975

30th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L038 - Thu 11 Dec 1975 / Jeu 11 déc 1975

FUEL TAX PAYMENTS BY INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKERS

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

PRICE FREEZE

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ONTARIO

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION FIELD WORK

HEALTH OF COKE OVEN WORKERS

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

CULTURAL POLICY

EGG MARKETING BOARD

ARMSTRONG POWER PROJECT

HOME BUYERS GRANT

COST OF MUNICIPAL TOUR

GRANT TO CITY OF PEMBROKE

PARKWAY BELT WEST

ASBESTOS EMISSIONS

HIGHWAY 400 EXTENSION

WELFARE ASSISTANCE

STUDENT PAYMENTS

PILFERING OF LIBRARY EQUIPMENT

SPEAKER’S RULING RE PETITION

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this House, 40 grade 10 students from the Norwell District High School of Palmerston, in the beautiful riding of Grey, under the supervision of Mrs. Judy Tuck, Mr. Bob Perreault and Mr. Archie Calder. They are seated in the east gallery. Would you please welcome them to the Legislature this afternoon?

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, seated in the east gallery are 24 students from the Galt Collegiate Institute and Vocational School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Barry Preston. They come from the wonderful riding of Cambridge, and are some of our better young people there. I would like this House to welcome them please.

Mr. Speaker: I might also draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have, seated under the Speaker’s gallery, former Speaker Reuter, who is back visiting the Legislature today.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, he could clarify that ruling we were discussing yesterday.

Mr. Lewis: He can find another seat in another party.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FUEL TAX PAYMENTS BY INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKERS

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Revenue has moved to provide relief to interprovincial truckers who have in the past been assessed by more than one province for the purchase and use of motor vehicle fuel.

By way of background, carriers registered with the Ministry of Revenue are currently provided with a refund of tax paid on fuel purchased in this province and used outside Ontario. Conversely the Ministry of Revenue has been assessing these carriers for tax due on fuel purchased outside the province but used in transit in Ontario. Unfortunately, some other provinces do not reciprocate in providing similar tax relief on fuel purchased in those provinces and consumed in Ontario.

For some years, Ontario has attempted to negotiate an interprovincial tax agreement to sensibly relieve carriers from these instances of double taxation. Such an agreement would provide for tax revenues to go to the province in which the fuel is actually used.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the difficulty in trying to collect tax rightfully due to Ontario when a carrier has already paid tax to another province on the same fuel. In dollar terms, we estimate that interprovincial truckers could be subject to double taxation to the extent of $2 million annually.

Since we have been unable to come to a successful interprovincial agreement to date, the Ontario Ministry of Revenue has proceeded to relieve interprovincial truckers from the inequities suffered in the past by granting total relief from their Ontario tax liability where a double liability has been incurred, up to Dec. 31, 1975. In addition, my ministry will refund any tax already paid under these circumstances.

However, in future, as of Jan. 1, 1976, it will be the responsibility of all carriers to make their own arrangements to reduce the incidence of tax liability to other provinces on fuel actually consumed in Ontario.

As of Jan. 1, 1976, interprovincial carriers will be liable for all fuel tax due to this province.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on Oct. 30 I reported to the Legislature on the actions the government of Ontario was taking to support and strengthen the national anti-inflation programme. We are convinced that the most critical government initiative possible, to contribute to the fight against inflation, must be control on public spending. Excessive growth in spending by governments at all levels has contributed in large measure to the inflation problem in the economy at large. Accordingly, governments must now provide an example of restraint by ordering priorities and cutting back on their demands upon the taxpayer.

The government of Ontario will meet its pledge to limit overall expenditure growth to 10 per cent in 1976-1977 without compromising essential services. Attaining this total expenditure objective of approximately $12.5 billion necessitates reductions in a number of low priority programmes in order that the genuine needs in higher priority areas can be met. The level of activity in provincial road construction, for example, will be reduced. An already high level of investment in housing will hg maintained but not increased. Welfare spending will be held to the rate of inflation plus projected growth in caseloads.

Payments toward post-secondary education, on the other hand, will increase significantly to accommodate the rapid increase in enrolments. Spending in the justice field will increase in recognition of the demands from Ontario residents for improved service in the area of law and order.

Salary increases to civil servants will be held to an overall average of eight per cent in conformity with the recent federal guidelines, while compensation to senior levels will be frozen through 1976 at the level they have been since October, 1974. In addition, we are continuing to reduce the authorized staffing levels of the civil service. From 1974 to the end of this fiscal year, our actions will have reduced total complement from 70,800 to 67,500. A further reduction of 1,000 complement positions is targeted for 1976.

I think the members will agree that this compares very favourably with a federal government which cannot seem to do better than a two per cent increase in an obese federal bureaucracy.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s because they have to do your work for you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have asked for the full co-operation of our local governments in this common cause of spending restraint. I am tabling today three letters that have been sent to all heads of council informing them of our course of action and soliciting parallel action on their parts. I am gratified that the municipal liaison committee and the Association of Ontario have indicated their support of the anti-inflation programme and the need for tough spending controls.

Let me list our support to and the performance of the last local government sector over the past five years. In the five years 1970-1975, local government spending in Ontario has increased 70 per cent from $3.6 billion to $6.1 billion. A very large part of this increase has been financed by enrichment of provincial grants which have been doubled from $1.4 billion to over $2.8 billion. This has allowed a considerable expansion and upgrading of local government services with only moderate increases in mill rates. Over the period 1970-1974, mill rate increases averaged less than one per cent per annum.

There was a 12 per cent increase in mill rates in 1975, so that the total increase for the five-year period 1970-1975, was about 17 per cent, or an average of three per cent per annum.

During the period 1970-1975, personal income per household rose 52 per cent and consumer prices rose 44 per cent. In the context of these increases, a mill rate increase of 17 per cent is very modest indeed. Gross property taxes per household in 1970 were about $360. By 1975, they were about $420 or only $60 higher. After property tax credits and rebates are taken into consideration, net property taxes in 1975 were $310 as opposed to $295 in 1970. This represents a very real decline in property tax burdens during a period of significant increases in the quality and scope of local government services delivery to ratepayers.

I am tabling this afternoon six charts on our 1976 expenditure strategy which I shall present tomorrow to the provincial-municipal liaison committee. These documents outline in greater detail the restraint measures Ontario will implement in 1975 and the impact of those actions on the local government sector.

In view of the significance of provincial assistance to local sector financing, it is vital to municipalities, school boards and local agencies to know the dimensions of our financial support in preparing their budgets for 1976. I have already announced that total provincial assistance to local governments by the province for 1976 would be limited to the Edmonton commitment. Taking into account the overpayments we have made in 1975, this implied an increase in funding in the order of five to six per cent for next year.

Tomorrow I will inform the PMLC that the province is prepared to increase its support by some eight per cent, which represents some $230 million in additional funds to local governments. This enrichment is the result of deferring the 1975 overpayment in determining our Edmonton support level for 1976. We have stretched our own budget to make this improvement for local governments because we realize they are facing a very difficult year.

Municipal councils, and all local agencies, must make tough decisions to hold the line on 1976 spending, to cut out new programmes, to freeze civil service hiring and to postpone capital projects if the mill rate increases are to be kept to a minimum next year.

The province has accommodated local spending to the limit of its own budget capacity. Now it is up to the local sector itself to exercise rigid budgetary constraint to ensure that ratepayers get full value for their tax dollars. The principle of an affordable society requires implementation and commitment by all levels of government. The provincial government is meeting its part of the challenge. Local governments, I am confident, will meet their challenge.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: I’m trying to absorb some of these tables. May I ask the provincial Treasurer how he reconciles page 1 of his statement, where he talks of cutting back on government demands upon the taxpayer on the one hand, with a level of increase to the municipalities on the other hand, which as he himself implies in his defence of the level of property taxes, will require those municipalities to levy upon their ratepayers very high increases indeed simply to maintain essential services? How is that reconciled?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that’s what the statement was all about. If the hon. member is suggesting that we should be raising our taxes, then go to it.

Mr. Lewis: No, I’d like to talk about priorities but not here. Has it occurred to the Treasurer, as he looks at table 3, that the single greatest increase for which he has budgeted in 1976-1977, with the exception of teachers’ superannuation, is interest on the public debt; and has it not occurred to him that he is the author of his misfortune in terms of this statement?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to doing something about it.

Mr. Ruston: You never talked about it before.

Mr. Nixon: Since he has now modified his first statement to the municipalities that the increase allowed them in provincial grants will not be five per cent but closer to eight per cent, I would like to ask the Treasurer has he done any studies which would indicate how the projections from the municipalities of a 30 per cent average mill rate increase would be affected by this additional three per cent from provincial sources?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen any studies which would indicate a 30 per cent average increase in mill rates.

Mr. Nixon: I have a further supplementary: Projections have come from budget chiefs, I believe from Toronto and from some of the provincial centres, which would indicate they would anticipate a 30 per cent increase if the Treasurer stuck with his original figure of five per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary?

Mr. Nixon: Has the Treasurer not seen those statements?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Until the municipalities knew the level of grant support and until they know what their own surpluses may be at the end of this year, what their reserves are at the end of this year, I think it’s very hard to make a categorical statement that mill rate increases will be in the order of 30 per cent across the board next year.

Mr. Lewis: Let me put a supplementary to the minister: What level of housing starts does the government expect to achieve with a 2.2 per cent growth rate in the next fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would emphasize these are figures which ministries are using to sort out their priorities and determine how they will meet those targets and those figures -- and I am sure they will. I think it is fair to say that ministries are not in a position to give breakdowns at this point in time as to the specifics of how that money will be spent.

Mr. Lewis: Do you just set arbitrary figures?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the specific question which he has asked should be directed to the Minister of Housing. I doubt very much whether that question can be answered at this point in time.

Mr. Lewis: Do you just take a figure out of the air and never mind the consequences?

Mr. Shore: Would the minister comment on how he expects the municipalities to include restraints, if he has fought the concept that the regressiveness of the municipal tax rate is truly regressive? How does he expect the full province to absorb a greater percentage of the cost of municipalities when he’s suggesting an eight per cent restraining figure, when they cannot cut down their costs and the province hasn’t?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid. I don’t follow that question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The question is very confusing.

Mr. Speaker: It is a very general question.

Mr. Shore: I will rephrase the question. How does the minister expect the municipalities, given his view of the regressiveness of municipal taxes, to live with an eight per cent guideline?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, they are not living with an eight per cent guideline. They can live with whatever guideline they choose to impose on themselves --

Mrs. Campbell: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What I have indicated to them is that our transfers will increase about eight per cent this year.

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the Treasurer, while he is in such splendid spirits and form, what does he think about this amazing happening in Ottawa between the Anti-Inflation Board on the one hand and the cabinet on the other? Does he have any comments he might wish to make on that, since he has surrendered our public sector to the same group of people?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Does it not strike the Treasurer as odd, in the context of Ontario, that the federal cabinet is about to alter, or has altered, a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board, based on historical relationships, for its public sector workers,

whereas he is not prepared to permit the government in Ontario to do that for our public sector workers? How does the Treasurer expect the Anti-Inflation Board to work under those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the member’s attention that the teachers in Metropolitan Toronto, if that is who he is referring to, are not part of the public sector of the government of Ontario --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Warner: Off the hook again.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They happen to be employees of the local municipalities’ school boards. They are not ours.

Mr. Cassidy: They are affected by your financial policies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary, the member for Sarnia?

Mr. Bullbrook: Since the Treasurer is not prepared at this time to discuss the impact as far as their federal situation is concerned, would he be prepared to discuss the impact of yesterday’s communication to the corporation of the city of Sarnia that the federal AIR have decided that they can’t intervene with respect to provincially propagated statutory arbitration awards --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe that is not related closely enough. It would make a good new question later when we give the hon. member his turn. Thank you very much.

PRICE FREEZE

Mr. Lewis: A further question of the Treasurer: Now that everyone is descending so happily on wages and the cost of living has gone up again by virtually a full percentage point, is the Treasurer prepared to intervene on behalf of the consumers of Ontario to institute a price freeze of basic commodities across the province for a minimum 90-day period until the Anti-Inflation Board finds out what it is doing and where it is going -- if ever that happens?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, other than in the socialist Valhalla of British Columbia, hopefully soon to come to an end --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to come to an end today, I would wager, my friend --

Mr. MacDonald: Not by the Tories!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Only in that never-never land out there --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that answer was somewhat provocative. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a further question?

Mr. MacDonald: it was a non-answer that was provocative.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr. Lewis: in that little free-enterprise Hades that he runs over there --

Mr. Speaker: Could we get back to the question period?

Mr. Lewis: That is an obvious pro-condition of this question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear it.

Mr. Lewis: Now that the unemployment rate in Ontario went up again last month, does the government have a single programme which it might initiate to put Ontario workers back to work, other than the consequences which are sure to follow some of the absurd restraints?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Ontario -- I don’t know why the member didn’t ask about this yesterday --

Mr. Lewis: it fits nicely today.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- on a seasonally adjusted basis, went up 0.2 per cent, something less than Canada as a whole. And that still leaves us two points less than British Colombia!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Two points less --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and there will be a lot more of them out of work tomorrow and they are all Socialists like the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Lewis: He may be right but if he is wrong he won’t be able to survive tomorrow morning.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Thank you.

Let’s get back to the question period, please. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RULINGS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I thought surely there would be a supplementary on that, but it must have been a killing shot.

I’d like to put a question to the Attorney General which is really based on the question which my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) was about to put to the Treasurer.

Since the Anti-Inflation Board has officially informed the city of Sarnia that arbitration made under Ontario law is binding pursuant to the provincial and federal statutes and that the federal Anti-Inflation Board has concluded that the parties should comply with the provisions of the provincial legislation, can he indicate to the House what impact he believes this would have on all arbitration coming under various provincial statutes; for example, the settlement in the Renfrew teachers’ dispute, which was on the basis of arbitration under the

section of Bill 100? Would that then be payable by the school board without further reference to the Anti-Inflation Board?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the opinion just quoted by my friend would appear to support the view I gave in this House the other day in answer to my friend, the member for Sarnia: That is that the provincial legislation still applies with respect to any arbitration. But once the federal legislation is in place it will override where, in the appropriate case, those sectors of the economy are covered under the umbrella sections of the federal legislation.

At the point that the provincial government enters into an agreement with the federal government then the federal legislation will be overriding insofar as those sectors of the public sector that are brought in under the umbrella provisions of the anti-inflation bill.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary if I may: Surely the minister must mean, and would he not agree, that under the circumstances presently described by officials at the Anti-Inflation Board they are quite prepared to accept the supremacy of the provincial law, the provincial initiative in this regard, and that the only way it could be superseded federally is if this government decided that that was their policy and it should be superseded federally rather than applying the implementation here?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I thought I’d made my position clear, but obviously I didn’t. That is, the provincial legislation, of course, is still in force. To my knowledge, as of this moment, the federal anti-inflation legislation is not yet the law of the land.

Mr. Nixon: It’s not predicated on that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is predicated on that and it has to be predicated on that, and the member should know that.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, do I take it then that paragraph 3 of page 2 of the letter of the Treasurer of Ontario which is supplemental to the statement that he filed today wherein he advised the employer -- namely municipalities or police commissions: “Pay the award as required by provincial statute and subsequently refer the case to the Anti-Inflation Board,” that that is a redundancy in the context of the minister’s reply and his attitude?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t see anything inconsistent with that and my reply, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bullbrook: One final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: So there is no misunderstanding, do I understand the Attorney General stands by the position that notwithstanding the absence of an agreement to the contrary, that Bill C-73 from a constitutional point of view supersedes any obligation pursuant to the statute of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I do not. That’s not what I said.

Mrs. Campbell: You just said that.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t know how the minister can have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity for a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary -- this is such a labyrinth we’re getting into -- are both the provincial Treasurer and the Attorney General, as I understand it, saying that the arbitration award is to be paid until such tune as the Anti-Inflation Board may vary it downwards, in which case payment will be taken from the people’s wages to compensate for overpayment prior to the arbitration board’s decision? If that is the case, how does the government handle the Renfrew teachers’ situation?

[2:30]

Mr. Bullbrook: That is real government leadership, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister not think it is too chaotic to sustain?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I simply state that of this moment the provincial legislation, with respect to arbitration, is of full force and effect.

Mr. Singer: What does that mean?

Mr. Nixon: A further question on this related matter to the Attorney General: If he might for a moment think about the possibility that his assumption is incorrect and that the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board will hold even after the Senate debate and after His Excellency gives royal assent to the law, and that the Anti-Inflation Board means what it says when it indicates that our provisions here will take precedence, would the minister not then think that the provisions of Bill 100 could be used within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board’s stance to at least modify the present chaotic situation which has kept the schools in this city closed for more than a month?

Mr. Speaker: Was the question directed to the Attorney General?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, it was. Might I say further that since this matter is thoroughly legal and has nothing to do with the educational aspects, it would require the

interpretation of the chief law officer of the Crown. Would he not agree that with this ruling the responsibility which the members opposite have so clearly thrown to Ottawa is now right back in their court?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know what the question was, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: You don’t want to know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: You just don’t want to know.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary on this subject.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s beyond his comprehension.

Mr. Lewis: No, the Attorney General comprehends very clearly.

Does he not feel, as Attorney General, that we are visiting selective injustice on a series of groups of employees who do not now know where they stand while Ottawa and Queen’s Park trade and shift jurisdiction in these constant memoranda. Can he make a statement to clarify it from Ontario’s point of view?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education so that the context of the argument will be changed slightly in that regard.

Is he aware that Mr. J. F. King, of the federal Anti-Inflation Board, has informed the city of Sarnia that arbitrations made under Ontario law are binding pursuant to the statute? That being the case, if the

interpretation is as the words are expressed, would he not think that this would mean that under the provisions of Bill 100 there is a clear avenue of settlement available to the teachers and the boards of Toronto, which comes under provincial law and is under his supervision?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not as conversant with the Sarnia situation, but I would suspect that in that situation this was an arbitration entered into before Oct. 13. The question is whether before Oct. 13, an arbitration or, as in the case of the Renfrew teachers, final offer selection was entered into. That is, the people signed and said “We will accept whatever that arbitrator or that final offer selector brings down. We will accept that; there are no other sanctions and nothing else can happen.

There are no negotiations after that.” If that was done before Oct. 13, but the decision wasn’t handed down until after Oct. 13, should that he considered as having a contract before the guidelines were introduced?

If that is the case, I think that is a very valid position to put forward and if the AIB is supporting that position -- I think that is what my friend has said -- I think that is right. That doesn’t mean they would support the position if a group at this point in time, after the guidelines were introduced, said it would go to arbitration. The point would be that anybody who goes to arbitration or final offer selection now would still have to have that award reviewed by the AIB if the award was above the federal guidelines.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since there is no indication whatsoever in the ruling that the basis of the ruling is the time scheduling of the arbitrations but is actually the law of Ontario -- which the Anti-Inflation Board is prepared to say should be followed and which takes precedence under these circumstances -- will the minister consult with the chief law officer of the Crown, and anybody else whose opinion he would like to gather, and make a report to the House tomorrow as to the impact of this ruling on the numbers of situations that have faced us in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be most happy to study that and give my friend some decision on that, but I am sure he realizes that if such was the case it would be a very large loophole in the whole federal wage programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one additional supplementary: So that the minister is not a part of a continuing, almost conspiracy, to delude the public, has he read Mr. King’s report to the city of Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: He hasn’t; so will he agree with me that he is not privy to a knowledge that Mr. King exempts the city of Sarnia in these circumstances on the basis of the time frame?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, and I think, Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks by saying that I had not read it and I was not familiar with the whole city of Sarnia situation, but I suspect that time-frame part has got to be part of this particular decision and argument.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The last one was a final supplementary and we are getting into quite a prolonged debate on the same topic. If it’s a brief question that will require a brief answer --

Mrs. Campbell: This is important.

Mr. Bullbrook: Speaker Reuter always treated me with much more fairness.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I always do.

Mr. Bullbrook: He always gave me two finals; always.

Mr. Yakabuski: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: I think we have had enough debate on this subject. Are there further questions?

ADDICTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION FIELD WORK

Mr. Nixon: Yes, I want to ask the Minister of Health if he has examined the letter from Peter Kelly, the past president of Grand Council Treaty No. 3, bringing to I the minister’s attention the concern Mr. Kelly feels at the inadequacies of the Addiction Research Foundation’s work in Kenora now, just 10 years after these special programmes were inaugurated there? Has he read the

section where Mr. Kelly has indicated that many of the field workers for ARF do work only on certain reserves and Indian communities in which they are personally involved as chiefs of the community themselves, and the totally inadequate assistance given to the Metis communities in that area? Has he read the letter and what is his response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not read the letter.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Will he read it, since it must have been on his desk now for three or four days, and make a report? I got a copy of it about three or four days ago.

Mr. Lewis: Nov. 25.

Mr. Nixon: We all got copies, evidently. Will the minister undertake to read it and give his comments to the House on a matter of growing urgency?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly will, and I will point out that the Addiction Research Foundation is looking at its role as a deliverer of services right now.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Will the minister consider in the context an inquiry into the role and behaviour of the Addiction Research Foundation at the Lakehead, because very serious charges are levelled at its behaviour in this document?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Addiction Research Foundation, as a result of the Krever report, is looking at its own role, at my request. I have asked them to intensify that. I feel they are making pretty good progress, and one of the big questions is, are they the agency of service in any of these fields or simply the agency of resources for information.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since Mr. Kelly’s letter indicates that he does not think an in-house review of ARF’s role is sufficient, would the minister give some consideration to an external review, even in the Indian communities of the north, of the role of ARF, rather than having them contemplate their own navel?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The review of ARF is far from internal only. Woods Gordon were asked to look at certain aspects; the Ministry of Health, as an outside agency vis-à-vis ARF, is doing the same thing.

Mr. Nixon: You are the outside agency? Oh!

HEALTH OF COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Back to the Minister of Health: Back on Nov. 12 I asked the minister, as a supplementary to a question from my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), if he had any results of the apparent stepped-up programme of medical examinations of coke oven workers at Stelco. Has he had any results to date and is he satisfied with the extent and thoroughness of the examinations?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was referring to some of these in the press yesterday, and referring to some documents, which I have with me today.

I think members opposite had better start looking into a few things. I could start quoting from some references you people think are very good -- like Dr. Charles Stewart -- pointing out that this jurisdiction is the only place in the world that has ever recognized a compensable case of lung cancer resulting from a coke oven operation. Regardless, Ontario is leading the way in trying to protect workers and the member should know it.

The very document referred to yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition was our attempt to improve the record-keeping in these areas where there is still, in spite of the clear statements, some arguments about the correlation between the work atmosphere and the final disease.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is not an answer to my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Mackenzie: Are the examinations being conducted by doctors only in these cases or in some cases are there only nurses conducting the examination of coke oven workers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know who is doing the examinations but I am told that the medical staffs of both the Steel Co. of Canada and Dofasco are very competent people. I assume they are. I know our engineers were in the plants, too.

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a question to the Minister of Agriculture --

Hon. W. Newman: Of Agriculture?

An hon. member: Bill, wake up.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t get red in the face this time.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, because of the doubt in farmers’ minds, I would like to know when the minister intends to acknowledge publicly that the research staff made a mistake in his speech presented at the OFA convention which stated that the Ontario cow-calf programme was better than BC’s -- which really should have read the reverse?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. What’s of urgent public importance today when it was asked last week? Is there something new about it?

Mr. McKessock: A point of order, Mr. Speaker; I know the question was asked yesterday but if you look in Hansard, due to interjections the minister didn’t get a chance to reply to the question.

Mr. Singer: Now is your chance.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. minister anything further to add to that?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to answer the question today and if the hon. members will just be quiet over there, I will answer it very clearly.

Mr. Cassidy: You are very defensive. Did we get to you yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: In the speech I gave in Hamilton to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture --

Mr. MacDonald: It was a disaster.

Hon. W. Newman: -- the example I gave in my speech took into account the freight rates and the equalization -- exactly as it is worded in the speech.

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

Hon. W. Newman: Those figures are accurate in that speech I gave in Hamilton. At this point in time in our own programme -- and I will be making an announcement on it tomorrow prior to the question period -- but the member’s friends out -- no, they are not his friends -- the BC programme is still working on the 1974 figures --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Very important.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and they pay only on marketed calves.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It hurts, doesn’t it?

Hon. W. Newman: We pay on calves whether they are marketed or not and that’s something which is very important and which members should keep in mind.

CULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier: In the last two weeks many individuals and groups around the province have contacted me because they are concerned and confused about the change in the federal policy regarding multiculturalism. Would the Premier reaffirm and hence assure the thousands of ethnic people in the Province of Ontario that his government is not going to and will not detrimentally change its policy on multiculturalism? Secondly, what positive steps has his government taken in registering dissatisfaction with the federal government regarding this backward change in policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the

preamble to the question -- and it was that I couldn’t hear -- but I sense the member was asking whether this government was changing its policy as it relates to multiculturalism. The answer to that is no, we are not.

Mr. Grande: I will repeat it if the Premier likes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is that not what he asked?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Premier received the gist of the question. Does the hon. member have a supplementary?

Mr. Grande: Yes, my question was asking for a reaffirmation of the multicultural policy of this government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the member phrased the question as did we intend to change it and the answer to that is no. If he wants me to say we are going to keep it as it is the answer to that is yes. I think really they are one and the same.

[2:45]

EGG MARKETING BOARD

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food; Has the Farm Products Marketing Board completed its investigations into the operation of the Egg Producers Marketing Board? If so, what are its findings?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, they haven’t made their report yet.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: When is that report expected?

Hon. W. Newman: Shortly.

An hon. member: In the fullness of time.

ARMSTRONG POWER PROJECT

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: Has the minister had an opportunity to read the petition that I placed on his desk today from 107 people in Armstrong, who are insisting that the ministry take initiatives to provide them with something as basic as electric energy for their community so they can attract new industry? Will he discuss the possibilities of using the Armstrong situation as a pilot project for exploring the viability and the feasibility of the use of wind energy for those areas of the province that don’t have any form of energy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part, yes, I have read the petition. Secondly, I have discussed the matter of Armstrong with my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) before this and also with the member in regard to the supplying of power for Armstrong. There is a report expected to the Minister of Energy before the end of the year, at which time Hydro will be giving its views as to how power can be provided and at what cost.

I will also be asking the federal government to give us a definite answer as to what its position will be in regard to fulfilling the agreement which was signed some months ago to provide industrial jobs in Armstrong and to this date has not been fulfilled.

I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the bond which has been posted for $25,000 could, at the termination of the agreement if the jobs were not fulfilled, be used as part of the cost of supplying power at a reasonable cost

I don’t believe I can give the member an answer on the pilot project he has suggested, but I will certainly discuss it with my colleague and get back to him directly.

HOME BUYERS GRANT

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Revenue. Is he able to clarify for this House the position of the Trefann home purchasers as to whether or not they are able to receive the home buyers grant? If not, would he extend the time for them, due to the lateness of the decisions in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the question of extension of time is significant here. I understand from the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), who brought this matter to my attention, that there are a few of those homes now ready for occupancy. A few days ago, CMHC, I understand, ruled out the possibility and the expectation, as I understand it, that the leases by CMHC would contain an option to purchase. The regulation under the Home Buyers Grant Act provides that a lease containing an option to purchase will be considered as a qualification equivalent to the registration of a deed to the applicant.

Since this matter has just come up, I have not had a chance to consult with my colleagues on the point, but it is my view, and I will be making this recommendation to them next week, that the regulation defining or applying to rental accommodation interests be amended to adopt and apply the same principle which this House adopted under the Land Speculation Tax Act, where in that Act we concluded that a lease for a term of 50 years or more was equivalent to a fee simple for the purposes of the Act.

It seems to me that that’s a philosophy that would be a very sensible one to apply to this kind of circumstance, and that is what I’m going to recommend. It would, therefore, pick up the kind of lease which CMHC, I understand, will be giving -- namely, one of 60 years.

COST OF MUNICIPAL TOUR

Mr. Swart: My question goes back to the Treasurer -- and that’s probably quite a long way back, Mr. Speaker. It is this: In view of the fact that he and a number of his colleagues are going to cross the province to tell the municipal people during the month of January why they should be happy to get along on the eight per cent limit in provincial funds and, as a matter of fact, the other merits of belt-tightening, will he tell the House what that three-week tour will cost the taxpayers of this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will be glad to when we have completed it.

GRANT TO CITY OF PEMBROKE

Mr. Conway: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. In view of the announcement made in Pembroke last Friday night, I would wonder and I would ask if the Treasurer could inform me what he sees to be the provincial government’s priorities in terms of spending that $2 million that was so happily promised at that glorious Conservative function last Friday night?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad to hear it was glorious.

Mr. Conway: What are the priorities, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would have some personal views; I am sure my colleagues might have some views; I am quite sure that my staff might have some views as to how that money should be spent; but we will work that out with the local people.

Mr. Conway: Could the Treasurer inform me now, or perhaps later, what he sees as the future of the city of Pembroke’s marina, which we were told last Friday night would be scrapped? Which is something the city officials simply will not accept, because they have spent $250,000 on it to date.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I can’t answer that. It may well be that Pembroke would choose to proceed on their own. I don’t think we are saying no forever. I do think, however, that money under the regional priority programme, perhaps should be -- and this is not just true in Pembroke -- but perhaps on a number of occasions we have been swept along, spending on things which aren’t quite as necessary as some other things. Marinas have a certain attraction to the tourist industry, obviously; but I think there are probably higher priorities in the Pembroke area; perhaps an industrial park, perhaps the servicing of the industrial park.

Mr. Conway: But you said yes some years ago.

PARKWAY BELT WEST

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, because of the concern in my riding and many other ridings to the west, I would like to ask the Treasurer if he could tell us when the parkway belt west plan is to be available? There was some understanding it would be in December. Could the Treasurer please tell us when we might expect that final draft?

Mr. Mancini: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I will check on that, but it is obviously not going to be December. I would hope that it would be early in January. I will check. It’s at the printers and it is a question of printing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

ASBESTOS EMISSIONS

Ms. Sandeman: A question of the Minister of the Environment: In light of the announcement that tests of the ambient air levels around the Raybestos Manhattan plant in Peterborough showed asbestos readings almost six times a sale level, could the minister tell me what he is doing to ensure the health and safety of the people living around that plant?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is implying, we have done some testing there; particularly after work started again, I believe some time in September. The testing at that time was an improvement over testing that was done in April of this year. We hope now, as a result of instructions given to the plant to install certain equipment, that the next inspection, which is to take place in early January, will show a marked improvement

Ms. Sandeman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister assure us, then, that results of these tests will arrive more quickly than the last? On the testing he mentioned in April, the results did not arrive in the community until October.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Those tests were sent to the Ontario Research Foundation and they had those samples for five months. There really wasn’t any excuse for that delay; so I will make sure it doesn’t happen again.

HIGHWAY 400 EXTENSION

Mr. Reid: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: How does the minister justify the province interjecting itself in the building of an extension of Highway 400 south, in view of the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) statement of constraints on highway construction in the Province of Ontario; and in view of the fact that the ministry hasn’t carried out any neighbourhood impact studies? The minister’s not listening. How does the minister justify that, especially in the light of the fact that he has had, I understand, no formal request from Metropolitan Toronto to extend Highway 400?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would say that we have not injected ourselves -- I think that was the word the hon. member used.

Mr. Reid: Where else has the ministry done this kind of thing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have built roads in many municipalities and turned them over to the municipality after they have been constructed.

Mr. Warner: Even if they didn’t want them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The financing of the project and the funding for the extension of Highway 400 will be programmed in with the overall road construction programme of the ministry.

As the hon. member knows, we have the right of way for the Highway 400 extension down to Eglinton Ave. We will now proceed with the designing of that

section of the project while the studies are being carried out on the alignment between Eglinton and St. Clair by a joint committee of Metro officials and officials of my ministry, so the proper studies will be carried out before any contracts are awarded or any design work carried out south of Eglinton Ave.

Mr. Reid: The minister didn’t entirely answer my question, but by way of supplementary I’ll reiterate part of it. Has the minister had a formal request from Metro Toronto to build such a road? Second, how many houses are going to be destroyed in the alignment? Third, does the minister have even a ballpark idea of the cost of this extension?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there will be very few houses affected by this alignment. I can’t say how many houses because the alignment has not --

Mr. Dukszta: Have you read the Soberman report?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- been established yet and that’s what the study group will be doing. Now what was the rest of the member’s question?

Mr. Reid: Does the minister have any idea how much it is going to cost?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, the cost has not been established yet.

Mr. Lewis: The government just approves the roads. It doesn’t build the housing.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The final supplementary of the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Ziemba: Supplementary of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Would the minister consider holding off on building the road until he has a neighbourhood study impact, as suggested by the Soberman report and petitioned by the mayor of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I don’t know of any petition from the mayor of Toronto. Certainly, nothing has arrived in my office from his worship. As far as the other part of the question goes, I am sure the alignment studies and the impact studies on the

section between Eglinton and St. Clair will be carried out long before any construction work is carried out.

Mr. Dukszta: Can I have a last supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I had the last supplementary. The member for Sudbury East.

WELFARE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: At the time he was introducing his last raise to those in receipt of general welfare assistance, did his ministry revoke as allowable items both the household utilities allowance of $8 and the Hydro allowance of $10 to $15?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, I am not aware of that. I will get the answer and get back to the member.

STUDENT PAYMENTS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Colleges and Universities: With respect to the living stipends that are paid to students in physiotherapy and occupational therapy, dietetics and other related fields, could the minister advise the House whether or not his ministry intends to discontinue those stipends?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think a similar question was asked of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) a few days ago and --

An hon. member: Oh, give us an answer.

Mr. Sweeney: He redirected it to this minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I appreciate that. I think we can make two statements: One, they will not be cut off from support. Second, it may be in a different form. However, we’re still considering that and there is no final answer to the member’s question today.

PILFERING OF LIBRARY EQUIPMENT

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he has had any further information in respect to the extensive pilfering of audio-visual material from the library system in North York, which we discussed a couple of times in recent days. If he has such information, could he impart it to the House and tell us whether he has plans for preventing such pilfering in the future?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the fact that the hon. member has shared his concerns with me. I don’t have a report yet from the authority but as soon as I do, I will share that information with the member and the members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

SPEAKER’S RULING RE PETITION

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for petitions, I wish to make a final statement -- hopefully, that is -- with respect to the presentations thereof.

I can only say that if it is the wish of the majority of the members of the House -- as it appeared to be yesterday -- to abandon the previous practice that is, of course, what will be done. The only reason for the procedure as outlined in Mr. Speaker Reuter’s ruling was for the assistance of the members and is the procedure followed in other jurisdictions. I direct the members’ attention to May’s Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition, page 799.

However, I’m sure the Clerk’s office will be very happy to be relieved of this extra responsibility. In accordance, then, with the wishes of the House, petitions will be received and laid on the table without prior scanning. This will, of course, make it necessary for me to examine the petitions after tabling. If on examination, it proves to be a petition or a request directed to a minister or ministry I will, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) suggested, I believe yesterday, send it on to that particular minister.

If the petition is in conflict in any way with standing orders 83 or 84, it will be returned to the petitioner. If however, it is proper within the standing orders and sets forth a case in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere, it will be tabled for such action as the House may determine.

Petitions.

Mr. Bain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people of Kirkland Lake and area and I are pleased to be able to participate in this historic process.

I would simply like to say that on behalf of the people of Kirkland Lake and area, I would like to present to the Lieutenant Governor and members of this assembly a petition signed by 8,282 people. The reason I hesitated at the figure is that on Dec. 9, it was that figure. With the intermission it has become 8,341 signatures. In addition to their names, the people have affixed their addresses and phone numbers to the petition. In keeping with standing order 83(b), I have also signed the petition.

In addition to countless dedicated individuals, the petition has also been supported by the Kirkland Lake council, the Medical Association, the hospital board, the United Steelworkers and the Chamber of Commerce.

The petition reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, urge the provincial government to convert the old Kirkland and District Hospital to a chronic care hospital for Kirkland Lake and district. We wholeheartedly support the brief of councillor Frank Rainford and Dr. J. Rumball and the efforts of Bob Bain, MPP, and the local town council in this important issue.”

I appreciate the opportunity the Speaker has extended to me and I will forward the petition to him for his inspection.

Mr. Nixon: Did Ed Havrot sign the petition?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I will examine the petition. Will the hon. member place it on the table? I will examine the petition and direct it as we see fit.

Presenting reports.

Hon. F. S. Miller presented the annual reports for the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation for the years 1973 and 1974.

Mr. Singer presented the report of the select committee established to consider and set out the general rules and guidelines for the guidance of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the report was signed by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid). The seventh member of the committee refused to sign it --

Mr. Nixon: Who was that?

Mr. Singer: -- the hon member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). His reasons for refusing to sign are a little obscure. I think in some way they relate -- the message I got was that they relate to my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), but I don’t know what the hon. member for Sarnia bad to do with this committee. In any event, the member for Riverdale refused to sign it.

It may also be a fit of pique on behalf of the hon. member for Riverdale because we did not withhold this report indefinitely until he could make his submissions. The House had instructed us to submit this report by Dec. 1. However, in an effort to be accommodating to the hon. member for Riverdale, the committee withheld the report until today.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you should seriously consider whether or not the hon. member for Riverdale should be held in contempt of the orders of this House both for failing to submit his comments and for failing to sign the report.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you might get on with the report now while I consider that.

Mr. Singer: The committee reports as follows: Its terms of reference were “to consider and set out general rules and guidelines for the guidance of the Ombudsman.” The members of the committee were myself as chairman, Messrs. Grossman, Lawlor, Hodgson, Norton, Reid and Renwick.

The committee held three meetings. At the request of the committee, Mr. Arthur Maloney, the Ombudsman, assigned to the committee Mr. Ortved and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) assigned Mr. John Cavarzan. Both of these gentlemen have been of substantial assistance to the committee in giving their advice and their continued presence during our deliberations.

Mr. Maloney, the Ombudsman, attended on the committee accompanied by Mr. Brian Goodman, director of research for the Ombudsman. Mr. Maloney outlined his approach to the problems which the committee was investigating and has made a written submission to the committee embodying his views, which is attached hereto as

schedule A. Mr. Brian Goodman, director of research for the Ombudsman, outlined to the committee the method the Ombudsman office has for dealing with complaints. At the request of the committee this has been submitted to the committee and for the information of the members of the Legislature we have attached Mr. Goodman’s submission as

Schedule B to the report.

I might ask you, Mr. Speaker, if at this stage both Schedules A and B could be published as addenda to the Hansard report of today’s sittings. I think they are of considerable use to the members of the Legislature and the members of the public, so that they can better understand both the mechanical procedure of the Ombudsman’s office and generally Mr. Maloney’s views insofar as the office is concerned.

It is the opinion of the committee that:

1. It would be premature to seek at this time to define or recommend general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman and I the exercise of his function, as referred to in

section 16, subsection 1 of the Ombudsman Act, 1975 After reviewing other jurisdictions and exploring to some extent the role and function of this office we are of the opinion that greater ongoing experience must be gained as to the range and ramifications of this office on an intimately consultative basis before attempting, except insofar as we have done so, a more fundamental delineation of rules.

We recommend that the constituted committee, working in close co-operation relationship with the Office of the Ombudsman, acquire a working knowledge of the types and varieties of the cases and difficulties which may be encountered, and on a subsequent date, not later than June 15, 1976, the whole question be reviewed.

2. That the following general rules he immediately adopted for the guidance of the Ombudsman:

(

a) that there be available in the Ombudsman’s office such facilities as are necessary to enable those persons who wish to make complaints and who are unable to express adequately themselves in writing, to have their views committed in writing by someone on the Ombudsman’s staff.

3. The committee wishes to point out that

section 17, subsection 2 of the Ombudsman Act provides that letters addressed to the Ombudsman by inmates of any provincial correctional institution or training school or patients in a provincial psychiatric facility are to be forwarded to the Ombudsman unopened by the person in charge of the institution, training school or facility, but the Act neglects to set out that communications from the Ombudsman to any such person should be forwarded unopened to such person by the person for the time being in charge of the institution, training school or facility. The committee believes that the necessary legislative amendment to correct this error should be made.

4. The committee accepts the suggestion by the Ombudsman that it is premature at this time to delineate elaborately general rules and that there should be sufficient experience running this office and the difficulties it may encounter, and that a second look should be addressed to the provisions of

section 16(1), and that one of the responsibilities of the select committee will be to work out in association with the Ombudsman the general rules for his guidance which can be recommended by that select committee.

5. The committee believes that a permanent committee of the Legislature should be established immediately so that it may review from time to time the following matters; (

a) the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available from time to time; (

b) the estimates of the Ombudsman; (

c) the action or lack of action taken by those persons referred to in the Ombudsman’s reports; and that the committee report in connection with these matters to the Legislature from time to tune.

The committee draws attention to the comments of the Camp commission on page 71, which inter alia recommends very briefly that:

“A further small, permanent standing committee with responsibility for examination and report on; (

a) those petitions presented to the assembly which are referred to the committee; (

b) any undertaking made by a minister to a member of the assembly which is not fulfilled within 10 days of it being made (the announcement in the House by the member that the undertaking is unfulfilled would be examined by the Speaker, who would rule whether or not the question should go to the committee); and (

c) reports to the Legislature by the Ombudsman.”

There was a discussion with Mr. Maloney as to how he envisaged the extent of his powers under the provisions of the statute. He pointed out that the statute provides in

section 15(1) that he has the right to initiate investigations on his own option, and it is on this basis that he believes he has a duty to investigate such matters as possible causes of unrest in the province’s penal institutions.

Several members of the committee expressed concern that the broad powers of the Ombudsman should not be used to establish a new level of political authority.

Mr. Maloney suggested that when the Legislature reviewed its report from time to time, if any of the matters raised in the reports came to a vote they should be dealt with on the basis of a free vote as is done in some other jurisdictions. Discussions took place about this suggestion and it was felt that if the conduct of a senior government person, elected or appointed, came into question, it might be very difficult, if not impossible, to suggest meaningfully that there could be a free vote in relation to criticism addressed to such a person.

Mr. Renwick: Could I sign that report?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the repentance of the hon. member for Riverdale, I ask that any references I made that he might be held in contempt be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I only signed it because it sounded so good in the melodious tones of the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before you call the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 15, 16 and 17 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

House in committee on Bill 20,

An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, just for some clarification with respect to procedures, it has been generally agreed that we will continue to stack votes, if they are necessary, and that we will have one vote on all the amendments some time this evening.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed by all members of the committee?

[3:15]

Mr. Cassidy: That is agreeable, Mr. Chairman.

section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that

section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“

(5) Nothing in this

section nor in

section 4 prevents the charging by a landlord of a rental increase greater than eight per cent under a tenancy agreement for any period between the dates set out in subsection 1 where the landlord and the tenant so agree within 60 days of the day this Act receives royal assent.

“

(6) Where residential premises not situate in a building to which clause (

f) of

section 12 applies and not previously rented as residential premises become first rented under a tenancy agreement whereunder occupancy is granted for any period commencing after July 28, 1975, for the purposes of subsection 1 of this

section and subsections 1 and 2 of

section 4, the rent charged for the first full month under such tenancy agreement shall form the basis on which future determinations of rent shall be made under this Act.

“

(7) Where a landlord is of the opinion that increased operating costs and capital expenses which he has experienced in respect of residential premises while the building or project in which they are situate will exceed the increase in rent permitted under subsection 1 and therefore desires an additional increase in the rent for the residential premises for any rental payment period between July 29, 1975, and Dec. 31, 1975, he may, not later than Jan. 31, 1976, apply in the form and manner prescribed by the regulations to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate for approval of the rent increase and shall at the same time also give a copy of his application for increase to the tenant of the residential premises.

“

(8) Where a tenant who has entered into a tenancy agreement granting occupancy or renewal of occupancy of residential premises for any period commencing at any time after July 29, 1975, and before Dec. 31, 1975, wishes to dispute the amount of rent increase for any period or periods of occupancy between July 29, 1975, and Dec. 31, 1975, inclusive, and whether or not such increase is within the limits set out in subsection 1 he may, not later than Jan. 31, 1976, give notice to the landlord in the form prescribed by the regulations requiring the landlord to apply to the rent review officer for the region in which the premises are situate to justify the rent increase and subsection 5 of

section 4 applies mutatis mutandis.

“

(9) Where the rent review officer approves an increase in rent on an application brought under subsection 7 that is less than that provided in the tenancy agreement or where the rent review officer reduces the rent payable on an application brought under subsection 8 the landlord shall, within 10 days of the day the rent review officer gives his decision, pay to the tenant the amount of excess rent paid during the period between the dates set out in subsection 1, and where the landlord fails to pay the tenant within the 10-day period subsection 3 applies mutatis mutandis.”

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are quite happy to deal with this amendment right now. But as the minister was getting up, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was intending to get up for another amendment on subsection 1 of

section 3. He can do this as long as it is agreed that we can go back to that after considering this particular amendment --

Mrs. Campbell: Let’s do it in order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- or else we can do it in order, whichever the Chairman prefers.

Mr. Good: I have a very similar point of order. We had an amendment as well prior to the end of the section, at which point these were put on. I would also like to ask the minister another question. The introduction of these new sections 7 and 8, we in this caucus are very pleased to see, copied our amendments to the letter and give what we feel is a degree of fairness to this bill which did not exist previously both for the landlord and for the tenant.

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

Mr. Good: I am still talking on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North is on a point of order.

Mr. Good: I would still ask, Mr. Chairman, that we revert to subsection 2, because with these amendments I rather feel that the minister’s amendment of yesterday under subsection 2 would maybe be needed to make the provision, unless the landlord and also the tenant bring an application under the new sections 7 and 8. I think we are going to have to deal with

section 2 and, of course, we have no objection to going back to

section 1 of this particular bill if the NDP has amendments to that section, too. Maybe we should start from the beginning of the section.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was not my intention in any way to move ahead of the amendment. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton East indicated yesterday that he wished to make an amendment to subsection 1 of 3. Certainly, I am quite agreeable to that I would point out there are some other changes which I would like to introduce as well to earlier sections so if you will just let that stand as having been presented and go back to subsection 1, it is quite agreeable.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that subsection 1 of

section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “29th day of July, 1975” in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof “31st day of December, 1974”; and by striking out “1st day of August, 1975” in the 11th line and inserting in lieu “1st day of January, 1975.”

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I consider this amendment a key one if this bill is really to respond to the injustices which fathered the bill. If it is to correct many of those injustices we have to start with a more responsible date. I would remind the members that it was cries for help from tenants and not cries for help from landlords which raised this issue in the first place.

The escalation in rents began in earnest some two years before the starting date in this bill; but really started festering in the last year

whereas the high-powered opposition started only in the last couple of months when a very privileged position was threatened. The threats of no more apartment construction by these same people mean little when one considers the drop in construction which had already started before this bill was introduced or really on the way.

I agree with the members for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and London North (Mr. Shore) that this bill should be fair and should be administered fairly. Where I and my party fundamentally disagree with them is the point from where we start.

A fair bill does not start with an unequal starting basis. I think all members of the committee will agree -- and all members of this House should know -- that almost every tenant group, social and welfare council delegation, reform citizen action or legal aid group and the Ontario Federation of Labour, asked for a rollback date to Jan. 1, 1974. Two or three were willing to accept Jan. 1, 1975. The people this bill was meant to help are starting from an unfair and unjust position with the present date. Anyone who deals with housing problems and housing calls can recite the cases.

I happened to have mentioned a couple of weeks back the case that went from $210 to $275 on July 1 of this year on Woodman Dr. People said, “What kind of starting date do they have or what kind of a lease term?” What I didn’t say in that debate was that it was one year and when they complained to the landlord he told them it was because of cost increases -- utility increases. To which these people replied, “That’s rather strange. We know the utilities have gone up because we are paying them all.” I don’t know how that kind of increase can be justified.

I would also point out that the industry itself has been incapable of policing itself. One of the more startling admissions which came up during the hearings was when a representative of UDAC, in response to one of my queries about a particularly bad landlord in the Hamilton area admitted the organization knows of him and that he could tell me things about him and his dealings with the tenants that I didn’t know.

Both the member for Oriole and the member for London North yesterday made an impassioned plea for a look at all sides, for justice and for free enterprise. For justice and look at all sides, yes, but if free enterprise means that we start with the tenants at the back of the pack then I personally want no part of it, and this is really where we

part company. I ask the members to consider the people who asked for this kind of legislation and what brought it forth, rather than put forward the arguments that come from the developers; an occurrence that was all too obvious during the bearings when we saw the notes pass back and forth. Do not worry about the developers, the insurance industry and the large landlords -- although most of them insisted that indeed they weren’t large. At that hearing, it seemed to me that every landlord who appeared was representing small landlords, and that’s a lot of hogwash.

I ask the members of the other parties to stand with the tenants on this issue, with the citizens’ action groups, with the self-help groups in our communities, the legal aid groups, the social and welfare councils, and the Ontario Federation of Labour. I further suggest that where a landlord is willing to open his books to justify his increases, he has a chance the next year around to redress an imbalance, but I think if we don’t have this additional rollback period, we don’t get the justice for the people who need it.

For a start, I am simply asking the members that we start for once looking at the people this bill was for, the little people, and make them number one and start from a fair position, not an unfair position.

Mr. Good: The effect of this amendment would backdate the freeze to Jan. 1, 1975. We in this party happen to think that freezing things as they are, whether they are in line or out of line, is not the answer to the rent problem in Ontario, nor is it the answer to the rent problem in Metropolitan Toronto to base the inequities on a longer period of time than the bill provides. We feel that even freezing back to Jan. 1 of 1975 would not eradicate the inequities that have existed in the rental side of it, the tenant’s side or on the landlord’s side.

All we are striving to do is to take inequity out of the bill and to bring fairness in, for the tenants and for the landlords. Let me cite just a few examples which would not be satisfied by the amendment that the member for Hamilton East has proposed. Those tenants whose rents started to escalate prior to Jan. 1, 1975, would have no redress whatsoever under this bill. This party recognized almost two years ago that there were inequities in the rent scales in the Metropolitan Toronto area particularly, and we introduced private legislation by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell).

At that time it was obvious that there were inequities creeping into the rent schedules in the city of Toronto.

This amendment would do nothing for those tenants whose rents had been increased drastically prior to Jan. 1, 1974. Wit we are asking for -- and which has now been accepted -- is a review period dating back to the original freeze, which, in fact, would eliminate the freeze period and give a review period. Also, by way of explanation, may I add that we will be asking for an amendment under

section 5 of the bill which relates to this directly, and that is, that the rent review officer shall consider not only the increases or lack of increases given in the first half of 1975, but also the rent review officer shall consider increases given in the year 1974 when he makes his determination as to whether to allow increases or not to allow them. We think that is eminently fair, it is just and it is something that the rent review officer must consider. He can’t consider increases from July to December 1975, only in the context of what happened in the first six months of 1975. We feel he has to go back and at least look at what happened in 1974 in that park.

[3:30]

It’s a simple amendment under

section 5 dealing with the things the rent review officer shall consider. Following that particular reasoning, we find that it would do more injustice to freeze things as they were on Jan. 1, 1974, than would be accomplished. We will be opposing that amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to make a couple of comments, Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). We had a debate yesterday about which side is this Legislature on -- whether it’s on the side of the tenants who’ve been gouged or whether it’s on the side of the landlords. At that point the decision went in favour of the landlords. That was over the question of an eight per cent or six per cent allowable increase for 1975.

I want to recall for the benefit of the House one of the early witnesses we had; I think it was on Tuesday morning. It was a man who came before us as a small landlord and not as a representative of a large development corporation. We questioned this gentleman and it turned out that he owned 80 or 100 suites in North York, I think it was; he owed about $500,000 on the particular building and in eight years of part-time landlordism this particular individual had acquired an asset whose value in the market right now was about $1.5 million.

He came to us to complain about his cash flow problems, telling us he couldn’t eat the cash flow he was getting out of his building and we were looking at a man who was worth $1 million and who was worried about whether he could or could not afford caviar. Frankly, that was ridiculous.

That was the situation, I would suggest, of many of the landlords who came before us to tell us they were going to be bankrupted as a result of this Act. They were going to be bankrupted all the way to Miami or the Bahamas. I can’t accept that kind of point of view.

We’ve looked at the proposed amendments the Liberals are proposing about the I rent review officer taking into account rent increases going back as far as 1974 and we’ve decided we’ll support that particular amendment. We think it’s a good amendment.

However, the problem with that is that when the rent review officer looks at a proposed new rent increase and has in his mind whether there was a big or small rent increase in the past, he does not have the power to rebate any rent paid by a tenant who was gouged in the past. Maybe he can sort the situation out in the future but he cannot give a rebate to the tenant who was gouged in the past.

We had some very anxious discussion in our caucus as to whether a rollback to the beginning of 1975 was adequate. In general, the tenants’ organizations said that the rollbacks should be at least to the beginning of 1974. Since there was a great amount of evidence brought to this Legislature in the course of the hearings on the Toronto private bill and on other occasions that the big rent increases, the big rip-offs, began not just a few months ago but well over a year ago in the spring of 1974, it was with great reluctance that we finally came to the position that we could only go back to the beginning of 1975 because of the administrative complications of going back any further.

We don’t believe that it’s protection for tenants to leave them with no protection against the rip-offs which took place in the spring. We don’t think it’s protection to tenants that in a year or so’s time, when a lease comes up, the rent review officer may make a decision which is influenced by big rent increases they had this spring or last year but will not be able to pay them I back any of the money of which they were unjustly liberated by their landlord who was exploiting the position into which he had been put because of the inadequate housing policies of the government.

If this government is committed to protecting tenants against the kinds of situations they have suffered, this government will support the amendment of the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I’ve sat here and in committee. Admittedly, I didn’t sit as long as Mr. Cassidy but I think, with the greatest respect, I might have heard more in the short time I sat than Mr. Cassidy may have.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: I’d like to state this at the outset: This side of the House certainly is not interested in debating the issue of what side we’re on,

Mr. McClellan: We know what side you’re on.

Mr. Shore: The NDP feels very clearly that it wants to have a class system and divide. We’re not interested in debating nor were we debating yesterday, in this clause we’re discussing, the side of the landlord or the side of the tenant.

Mr. Cassidy: You want to exploit them.

Mr. Shore: That was not the debate; that was not the debate at all, Mr. Chairman. And now, Mr. Cassidy, when you were speaking I listened to you, and I hope you will do the same thing.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to caution the hon. member that when he is referring to a member, he refer to him by the name of the riding.

Mr. Shore: Sorry, I will do that.

Mr. B. Newman: What is the name of his riding?

Mr. Shore: Ottawa --

Mr. Cassidy: Neither right nor left; Centre.

Mr. Shore: All right. Quite seriously, we on this side are not interested in debating whether you are on the side of the landlord or the side of the tenant. We want to be on the side of what we think is right, and that’s what we are concentrating on here.

Mr. McClellan: That is the side of the landlord.

Mr. Cassidy: Right wing, you mean.

Mr. Shore: And I have heard in the last six days, Mr. Chairman, also -- Are you okay, the member for Ottawa East?

Mr. Cassidy: Centre.

Mr. Shore: Centre; sorry. We have heard constantly in the last six days the words gouging, rip-offs, and exploitations. Now really and truly, if the member for Ottawa Centre was truly listening in those debates, he would have heard some of these things also; that labour and wages have gone up very substantially more, on balance, than rents have in the last three years; and bread, milk and many other items have also risen in price.

I am not in sympathy with any particular group, but look at the statistics -- and they have not been challenged; those are the facts.

I think we have to be very concerned that we don’t lose sight of the real purpose of this piece of legislation and of this section. Truly, we are trying to control the areas of inequities, and that’s what our amendment will do, Mr. Chairman. I think if the members on the other side will recognize that, they will go forward and support this amendment. We do not want to cut ourselves off from the supply and the market -- that’s what we are really interested in.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, it appears we are all endeavouring to accomplish equity and fair play in this legislation --

Mr. Norton: Not all of us.

Mr. Williams: -- and as stated by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). He has given his

interpretation of what equity end fair play is. I think he clearly defined it in his closing remark, when he suggested that the equity and fair play that we want to apply is such that we are looking after the little people. Well, the true equity and fair play that is going to apply in this bill is equity and fairness for all people -- not just the little people, for all the people.

Mr. Cassidy: For the big people too.

Mr. Williams: And that’s why, that’s why the-

Mr. Bounsall: For your friends.

Mr. Williams: -- that is why the present loyal opposition, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, will, after the next general election, be back in the position of being the third party in the House --

Mr. Bounsall: Spit it out.

Mr. Nixon: I think your party is going to be in that position.

Mr. Williams: -- because their perspective is too narrow to recognize the needs of all the people in the province, and not just the so-called little people, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Riddell: Might even become extinct.

Mr. Warner: It would be a pleasant relief, too.

Mr. Chairman: There is no reference to political parties in

section 3 of Bill 20.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Chairman, you can be replaced you know.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the bill is designed to provide equity and fair play not only to those who are renting accommodation, and it was suggested that we have lost sight of that primary goal and objective. We must remind the member for Hamilton East that, in fact, it is this government that introduced the legislation and the purpose of the legislation is to bring --

Mr. Angus: Running scared.

Mr. Williams: -- stability to the rental marketplace, so that is still the primary thrust and concern of this government. But in applying that primary concern to those who are in the rental accommodation situation, we must consider the other parties who are adversely affected or potentially adversely affected by this legislation, and that does involve the owners of the rental accommodation facilities -- both the large and the small. It also does involve the investors and the builders, who have brought this province, in large measure, to the high standard of living that all of us enjoy in this day and age.

I think it was noticeable, Mr. Chairman, the lack of influence that the small landlords appeared to have on some members of the committee when this matter was in committee, as contrasted to those who were tenants. There were more than a few small landlords who came before the committee and --

Mr. Mackenzie: They were all small.

Mr. Williams: -- drew to the committee’s attention in no uncertain terms that they, too, could be suffering in great measure because of the implementation of this bill. If I might, I have to refer to one submission in particular. I refer to a proposal put forward by a Mrs. Armstrong, 23 Moore Ave., in the city of Toronto, and I quote as follows:

“My husband died four years ago, leaving myself and two small children. I received no pension but good life insurance. I was not qualified to do work apart from secretarial work and the remuneration from this form of work would not support the two small children, aged seven and nine.

“I went back to school and am completing my BA from University of Toronto this spring. I studied for this degree through Woodsworth College, receiving no financial assistance from the government and therefore working all the time, part-time, as a secretary, to supplement my widow’s pension from Canada Pension.

“As a hedge against inflation and as a means of insurance against my retired years, as I will receive no pension from my husband’s employment, I invested my life insurance money and proceeds from the sale of the family home in two rooming houses, plus 50 per cent ownership of a third. We live in one of the rooming houses on the ground floor and my children have to sleep in the basement.

“This was a big readjustment for us. During the last three years, I have worked long and arduous hours coping with these income properties. I have coped with alcoholism, drug addiction and severe mental health problems in tenants. I have coped with frozen pipes and stopped-up drains; one New Year’s Eve sitting down with the drain man until midnight almost in tears wondering how to cope. I have coped with the cleaning and errant tenants all the time, as well as going to school, working and bringing up two children. For what? I have received no income from my money.

If I had invested in Canada Savings Bonds I would have been receiving $9,500 income on my invested money, but with the thought that I was building for the future, I worked long hours for no payment but felt that it would be worth it through capital appreciation.

“Now, I see the whole of this going down the drain and I feel very bitter. I am faced with looming municipal tax increases on the properties and large raises in utilities, plus ever-increasing costs for maintenance. How am I going to pay for these?

“The whole point of studying so hard for my degree has been to go to the faculty of education next year in order to gain my B.Ed. for teaching purposes. How am I going to pay for this? How are we going to live on the widow’s pension next year when my costs are increasing on the houses and my children’s food and other needs are so rapidly increasing?

“Why have landlords constantly been painted as large companies gouging rent? If you spoke to my tenants about their rents and about their feelings towards me, I am sure you would receive a very positive picture of my involvement. The plight of the small landlord is being ignored. I don’t believe that the Ontario Legislature is so lacking in economic knowledge to realize just what the effects of this bill will be on the small landlord.

“In conclusion, I pose the question again: How am I going to afford to go to school full-time next year; and afterwards, is my teaching salary, for which I have worked so hard, going to be used to subsidize my tenants?”

This surely, in a very humanistic way I think, brings into clear focus the fact that it’s not only the tenants that this bill is designed to accommodate and to assist, but while it primarily may be so, it also has to be done with true equity and fair play so that the small landlords and many of the other landlords, medium and large, who have been responsible landlords, are also treated equitably and fairly.

[3:45]

The investment community, the building community, will not be providing the additional needed housing over the next two-year period if the constraints under the bill are so rigid as to do away with the confidence that has existed in those areas, because without it we cannot provide the additional housing that the opposition parties have been pleading for for so long. The private sector has to be relied upon to assume that primary role of providing the housing.

Mr. Warner: Sure, because you do nothing.

Mr. Williams: So, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we recognize the escalating rates and the effect they’re having not only on the tenants but the landlords. Consequently it would be inappropriate, I suggest, to carry the retroactive period back to the beginning of 1974. The primary period of escalation of costs has been mostly in the latter part of this year, moving into the spring.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it began in 1974. You were too insensitive to see it.

Mr. Warner: Try some facts.

Mr. Williams: The greatest increase over the shortest period of time has undoubtedly been through this past year, but Mr. Chairman, we have to find a responsible point of retroactivity or else the administration of the Act and the application of it back into the preceding year will create a difficult administrative problem and the real purpose and thrust of the legislation will escape. On that basis I would have to suggest that this side of the House would be opposed to that amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: I don’t think there’s been a

section in this bill that has caused me greater concern. There is no doubt that in the area I represent the rent increases in 1974 and early 1975 were, in some cases at least, disastrous. In looking at the

section and the clause before us, I first gave consideration to the amendment as proposed by the opposition, together with their proposal for six per cent rather than eight per cent. I wrestled with the very fact that there seemed to be no proper and appropriate evidence before us to assist me in coming to conclusions on the percentage basis.

I recognize that if we did succeed in incorporating into this bill the provision for the rooming house tenant -- or, if you like, the rooming house unit -- then you are stuck with some pretty serious problems in administration on a rollback principle. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in my bill I provided for the rollback, but a lot of time has passed since that was introduced.

I then looked at the possibility of the reintroduction of review procedures, because it seemed to me that if we could have the ability to have review procedures, they can go back to 1974, and in fact within the meaning of the amendment of the government and of ours, there could be retroactivity to this extent, that in the case of gouging in 1974 and early 1975, there would not in fact be a rollback -- that is true -- but there could be a negative increase at the time of the order.

In my mind, as I went through this, it seemed to me that we would then accomplish a better purpose than to try to work our way through the whole problem of rental increases in rooming houses for weekly tenants or monthly tenants and for the rest.

I recognize the problems which we all face in trying to give equity in such a circumstance. I also have to be concerned with those people in my riding who, like the example given by the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), are not the great landlords who oddly enough come here and cry before us. These are people with very real needs who must have some real consideration.

It is for that reason that I concluded the six per cent or eight per cent or 10 per cent or whatever really should not be an effective part of this bill. Once we get into the review procedures, the rent review officer can use his judgement to assess the kind of gouging with which we are all familiar but he can also look with equity at those landlords who have not been gouging. I have those in my riding, too.

In my overall view, providing we carry the review procedures, I believe we have an administration with which we can work and we do have provision which will cover off, on a negative increase principle, those who have been gouged.

Mr. McClellan: Let me deal first with the position put forward by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). I think it is a serious position but I think there is a serious flaw in it. We are already stuck with an eight per cent guideline on the basis of yesterday’s vote. I talked about that briefly and I will go over it again -- what the eight per cent guideline effectively means.

What it means, at least for tenants, is that a majority are not going to get into the review process. One assumes within the tenant population there is a reluctance to enter into the review process. There is a lack of information; there is a lack of familiarity. This has been the experience in other jurisdictions. One of the arguments I tried to make yesterday for having a lower percentage guideline was that it would increase the number of cases which go into the review process.

BC data suggests if you raise the percentage guideline from five per cent to seven per cent -- a two per cent increase -- 65 per cent of the landlords in the province would have their basic operating costs met. They would not have to go into review because their costs were being met by the automatic increase, by the percentage minimum. They won’t be going into the review process and I suspect the same thing will happen here in Ontario -- the eight per cent will be adequate.

Most tenants won’t go into the review process so that negates the kind of argument you are putting forward around extending the review procedures back to 1974 -- why we will support that; and they are good. I don’t think it is going to solve the problem. The problem is simply that tenants have to take the initiative in order to have the review undertaken. That was the concern I was trying to raise yesterday, and in all the ideological cant that got thrown back at me, I think that was missed. It’s too bad, because now we’re stuck with eight per cent.

I think the Liberal Party ought to again supporting our amendment, otherwise the majority of tenants going to benefit retroactively.

Secondly, I want to deal briefly with the other ideological bogyman that keeps being raised in this debate; that is, the relationship between control and supply. There isn’t really a tittle of evidence to document the positive correlation of control and supply. The serious data that I’ve been referred to by the CCSD, the Social Planning Council and other people who are serious and don’t have a vested interest in the matter, indicate simply that supply is independent of control; it depends on a whole variety of housing policies.

In a number of jurisdictions that had control, such as Massachusetts and New York in the 1960s, there was a tremendous increase in supply while those jurisdictions were under control. The correlation simply isn’t there. You don’t improve your case by continuing to raise what is essentially an ideological vested-interest argument, that control is going to affect supply -- in fact, a whole bunch of other policies affect supply. Why don’t we stop the cant about that and address ourselves to the problems that we’re trying to solve in this bill and not throw in a whole bunch of red herrings?

I urge again that the amendment from the member for Hamilton East be accepted.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I should say is that I don’t think any particular date can be pointed at as being the answer to solving the problem as to who is gouging who, when and for how long. I’m sure that if we all take the time to go back into our own respective ridings -- perhaps some more than others -- we will find if we went back to 1974, some landlords who were perhaps gouging their tenants. We can go back to 1972 and 1973, and somewhere back there we’re going to find someone who was not being totally fair and equitable with the people who were renting their facilities, for whatever reason.

Mr. B. Newman: Even in the Depression days.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As for picking the particular date as a cut-off point, that was a date brought forward during the time there was a great deal of publicity about the gouging that was going on. There was a great deal of publicity about isolated and very high-profile cases, I would suggest and it appeared that this was a date we could put into the bill and that would be satisfactory. If we follow that with the fact of the guidelines that were brought out by the federal government on Oct. 14, in fact we are being more retroactive than that particular date.

I don’t know how far back we could conceivably go and probably justify, in certain cases, where certain types of gouging have gone on or where there have been unfair practices by either party.

Many of the speakers have said that in the course of the select committee hearings, the tenant organization representatives made very strong representations on behalf of their group. I sat through some of those and read some of their briefs as well, and it’s quite true. But I think we must remember that the tenant organizations themselves, even in some cases by their own admission, do not represent all that many people and they’re not totally representative of all of the tenants in this province any more than UDI or HUDAC are representative of all the various landlords.

On my desk right now, I’ve got a file of telegrams -- I’m not going to try reading them; and this is only a portion -- that have been pouring into my office for the last few days. They’re not coming from huge companies or corporations or these bugaboos that everyone is so afraid of because, if it happens to say “Co. Ltd.” after its name, it’s something you should destroy quickly and stomp on it. These are from individual people who own buildings of various sizes within many of the communities in this province who are saying, “Do you know what you are doing to us? Do you realize that this sort of thing is going to pet some of us in a very bad position?”

[4:00]

I thought that the reason for the committee was to listen to the representations being made by all sides. I thought we weren’t just listening to one select group. If you were just listening to the tenants and we were just listening to the landlords, we are in bad shape. That’s not the way it is supposed to be. I hope we were listening to all of them on both sides of the thing.

I do have one letter that I thought I would like to mention. We talk about the retroactivity. We could go back to Jan 1, 1975, or as some suggested to 1974, but I think we would be doing an injustice to a great many people to do that. I’ll lust read a portion of the letter from a gentleman.

Mr. Cassidy: How many of these people will be tenants?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This gentleman says he is 70 years old. He bought from his life savings a three-unit house in Kingston, partly mortgaged at 10½ per cent. He says:

“I am doing maintenance mostly by myself so that I shall not be able to claim an increased cost of maintenance as a way of obtaining exemptions from the limit of rent increases. Why should the income of people like myself not be allowed to increase at the same rate as the cost of living or the earnings of others, who will be profiting on inflation by paying for rents a reduced percentage of their earnings?”

This gentleman is not a great landlord at all. In fact, he says in the letter that he himself is a man who has worked all of his life. He took part of his savings out of his wages and salaries during those years of his lifespan and invested them in this building, so that he wouldn’t have to be dependent on anyone and would have a source of income and a pride of ownership in his building.

I’m not trying to defend the landlords but I am saying to you that if we are talking about equity let’s talk about equity and not simply say that there is one particular group that we are going to do everything we can for in this bill at the expense of everyone else.

I want to agree with a comment that was made by my colleague from Oriole and others opposite in the course of this discussion, that we are looking for equity. We are looking for a piece of legislation that certainly will not be perfection; it never will be. But hopefully, it will be reasonably fair to all of the parties that are involved in this.

It was mentioned by the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) about the question of the percentage and the effect this was going to have and that some people would not go through the review process. I hope that is not correct. I hope that people will recognize that there is a review process there for them and they are entitled to use it and should indeed do so and contact the proper people to take advantage of it.

The Province of Quebec, for example, which has had some form of control or regulation in review for many, many years has no percentage limitation. Anything can be appealed by the tenant. The landlord asks for an increase and the tenant is entitled to go ahead and appeal and ask the rental officers in that province to deal with the matter.

I want to touch on the percentage increase for a moment too. Although the eight per cent figure is there, it is in fact really just a guideline. It is simply saying to the landlords if they want to go higher than that figure they must prove that they need more than that. In actual fact, it is going to go both ways. The review could be from zero and up, depending entirely upon the ability of the landlord or the tenant in the case of the review to present their particular position and to justify their position as to whether the rents should be higher than that eight per cent or indeed lower than that eight per cent.

The review process really is what we are talking about and the eight per cent is only a guideline figure. Perhaps what is difficult for some of my friends in the New Democratic Party to realize -- I am not wanting to be ideological on the thing, but they keep looking upon this bill as being some form of hard-nosed control. We look upon it as a review process with a guideline of eight per cent. I know what they would prefer to have is nothing but straight out-and-out, hard, everlasting control. That is not what we are looking at. We are looking at a review process with a guideline of eight per cent.

Mr. Warner: It is pleasing to hear the minister at least touch upon some of the errors of his ways, when he describes what happens in Quebec. Perhaps one of the major faults with this bill is that it does not address itself to true costs. It rather fixes a percentage. Had the government seen fit to deal with the cost factor rather than the percentage we might not be going through this arduous debate right now about the date of retroactivity.

I would submit that, using a cost factor, the small landlord, such as the one described in the letter you read to us, would be protected because he could show that his costs had increased over that period of time. If, for example, we had decided on January of 1974 or December of 1974, or whatever date, then all the landlord would have to do is to show his costs over that period of time back to whatever date you affix, and the increases allowed by the rent review officer would be in the light of those costs, rather than looking at the straight percentage.

That is a very serious flaw in this whole business and it brings us, unfortunately, to the position of having to debate and argue over what date we will affix for the retroactivity.

It should be very clear to the minister and I am sure it is -- that in the Province of Quebec the tenant or the landlord will appeal on the basis of a higher potential cost to either party. If the landlord can show through his books that he, in fact, has a higher cost then the rent review officer will take that into account in the affixing of the rent. That really, surely, is a very simple kind of process. All it means is that the landlord opens his books and says, “Here are my real costs.”

You and I both know why the landlords are so reluctant to do that -- not the small landlord, not the person whose letter you received, or the person the member for Oriole alluded to, or the small landlords who have come to see me; not those people at all, but UDI, Cadillac, Meridian and all the rest. For years we have asked for their books to be opened. For years they say no, and one of the reasons is because back, just not too long ago, they were getting mortgages at 3% per cent. Today they continue to get mortgages at six per cent and 6% per cent. How on earth can they show exaggerated costs?

Mr. Singer: How do they get those?

Mr. Good: Where do they get those?

Mr. Eaton: Back up your statement.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Show me where you get those.

Mr. Warner: They either have a better rating than you do --

An hon. member: You knew where you could get that percentage.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Warner: Since I have captured your interest now, I will put before you the case of Cadillac, which owns some property at Bayview Mews -- I believe that is in the member for Oriole’s riding -- and which decided in 1974 to pass along to the tenants an increase of $50 a month rent, in what is admittedly a high-rent district to begin with. The tenants decided to fight and they handed together, and there were some 300 units. They got a lawyer, the lawyer searched the title and found that there was no mortgage on the building. The building bad been paid for long ago.

There were virtually no maintenance costs; the landlord had not made improvements to the building. When they confronted Cadillac with this information and asked them why the increase, the answer was -- and I quote directly -- “The increase is because I decided to do it.”

That is the kind of injustice that we are fighting, and what I would suggest is, if the government isn’t the least bit willing to look at the retroactive date, going back to the one we suggested, that at the very least they look at the substantial cost incurred from the date we suggested and use that as their measuring stick. I really get the impression that the government finds it very convenient to draw a line at eight per cent and let it lie there. When you do that, eight per cent becomes the minimum increase not the maximum.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about the former government of British Columbia; the immediate past government of British Columbia?

Mr. Singer: Did you get an advance poll on the election?

Mr. Warner: If you would be more concerned about running the business of this province and less concerned about criticizing other provinces, we might get something done.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How so?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Don’t tell us all the great things they do in BC then.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Shall we return to

section 3 of the bill?

Mr. Warner: Yes, and as soon as the minister has finished being provocative, I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. Eaton: John, don’t be provocative.

Mr. Warner: I fully support the party’s position with regard to the date of retroactivity on the basis that we know from historical evidence that the increases began long before the date we are suggesting. Our date is really nothing more than compromise between the true picture of when these increases began and your position which is not rational.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member one question: Could he tell us where that six per cent money is?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Wasn’t it 3.5 per cent?

An hon. member: It would solve all the housing problems.

Mr. Singer: I’d even take some six per cent money if you have it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member has stated that certain people were getting money at six per cent. I would be interested in knowing because, frankly, I would like to see more houses built in this province and if you will show me where I can get it for six per cent, I can build a lot of houses. Don’t sit over there and tell us that unless you can back it up. As phoney as a $9 bill.

Mr. Martel: Ask the railroad pension fund. You have no jurisdiction over that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Campbell: I would refer him to 1 and 23 Oriole Rd. where the interest rate as of last August, new mortgage, is six per cent. There is some truth in what he said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where does it come from?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not new mortgages.

Mrs. Campbell: This is a new mortgage.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I think it’s fairly obvious from comments from all sides of this House that it is recognized that there has been some inequity in the past and this legislation is designed to try to remedy that inequity. I don’t think that fact is a matter of dispute here.

The issue at stake at the present time with this amendment, as I understand it, is one of time, although there have been many other factors alluded to in the last few minutes of this debate. I have a concern which is a little different. That is whenever we are bringing forward legislation which is intended in some way to remedy inequities -- which this one is intended to do -- the retroactivity part of it can be somewhat dangerous.

If it were possible in legislation like this or in legislation like the anti-inflation legislation from Ottawa to start everyone off even I think we would have fewer differences of opinion, fewer quarrels as to what is just and what is unjust. We all know from long experience that you cannot start off even and therefore we do the best we can under those circumstances.

One of the things I which concerns me about this particular amendment is that by trying to go back too far -- and to the gentleman who made this motion, I am not sure what is a fair date -- what we are doing is playing games and, I think, dangerous games as to how we operate within the legislation, the laws, of this province.

People do make decisions, they do guide their lives by the way things are and if we are frequently going to back-date things too far, we are going to create within our people a deep sense of insecurity and frustration. If I may use the vernacular we have to know the rules of the game and play them I the best way we can and when we don’t like those rules, we change them. That’s what we are trying to do here.

The point I am I trying to make is that there is danger in putting too much retroactivity into any legislation. As the previous speaker mentioned, I think what we are trying to get at here is some sort of compromise. It has been suggested we can go back two or three years; it has also been seriously suggested that there shouldn’t be any retroactivity to it at all and it should come into effect on the date this legislation is passed. What we now have is a compromise. It is as good as a compromise as anything else which has been suggested and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would have to speak against the amendment.

[4:15]

Mr. Lawlor: I shall speak just briefly on the matter. The validity and the date being suggested by this party is at least in part founded upon the interminable proceedings we had last spring in committee -- before you were the minister -- on the housing matters with the city of Toronto bill. There, the full impact was felt. There, the disastrous increases were gone over almost ad nauseam. The thing was documented, presented to us, and the brief still is extant for anybody’s perusal as to the escalations that took place prior to the time of that debate.

And the date arrived at -- by people who are not New Democrats; by people who have a very fair sense of what equity consists of in a wider social area, many of them being Conservatives -- in their presentation to us they set a date of June, 1974.

Because of your dilly-dallying, because of the procrastination, because of the obtuseness of the minister, his total intransigence -- thank God, he has left -- we have had this thing prolonged. It has been set over endlessly and it is only because of a certain election campaign that you are even grudgingly amenable today.

They set the date of June, 1974. In our desideratum, we thought maybe that was going back a little too far, but the reason for setting it was because of the monumental increases that had taken place in the meantime. They wanted to forfend against that and move in; make the alteration and make it as equitable as possible. We’ve had thought, because of the lapse of time through no fault of our own, to move it forward on a six-month basis, thinking that this would be a reasonable, balanced compromise objective of the legislation as it finally emerged.

And then what do you do? You truncate it again; divide it down the middle, when the whole thing was in the wind; when everyone knew what the repercussions would be, and when the escalations went on apace on a larger scale than ever.

So, what do you do with this legislation? You bring in your latter-day saints and you set your particular date, which is well after most of the harm has been done, give them a little bonus on top of it, as things presently stand, at eight per cent and go from there.

That is purblind in the extreme. It is not, I would put to you, in the least equitable or balanced or a proportioned view of what is actually taking place in this province. I would ask that the House bring in the earlier date. It is not, to any great extent, that disruptive -- and it’s certainly infinitely fairer.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just hope we can call the question. I’ve consulted with the parties and I wonder if we could agree, that unless the House decides otherwise, that we would try and call the question on each amendment after no more than a half hour debate. That is, if the debate goes on for half an hour, probably the major points would have been made and we could agree to call the question at that time.

Mrs. Campbell: We can never rely on that.

Mr. Cassidy: It would be open to the House to change that at any time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that. The only thing is, and I say this with the greatest of respect, the member for Ottawa Centre has been known to use up a half hour on every section. As long as the rest of us have our share of that half hour.

Mr. Cassidy: I spoke for four minutes.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we will do our best to confine our remarks. I think there are enough amendments that we’re proposing that each party, including the government, which has more amendments to the bill probably than we have --

Mrs. Campbell: Having adopted ours.

Mr. Good: I think we have had enough opportunity to get our points of view across throughout the bill, and we will do our best to limit our discussion to that period.

Mr. Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall this voted be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to

section 3? I understand we are dealing with several amendments.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have an amendment to subsection 2, unless there is anything earlier.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to subsection 1?

Mr. Good: On a point of order, could the minister clarify for me just where he intends to insert his amendment which is on page 4 of yesterday’s list of amendments? Where does that go in? It just says

section 3(3) and there already is a

section 3(3).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They want me to put it in now.

Mr. Good: Well, that helps.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies to the hon. member because he did inquire about that and I did not get it clarified for myself.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves that subsection 2 of

section 3 be amended by inserting at the commencement thereof: “Unless a landlord brings an application under subsection 7.”

Mr. Cassidy: We will oppose this particular amendment. It is a consequential amendment on the lengthy amendment that the minister read out a few minutes ago. Our reasons for opposing it, I would suggest, would be put forward when we get to the amendment proposing new subsections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to

section 3 of the bill. We will not make a substantive argument at this point, but we will vote against this amendment.

Mr. Good: I would like to inquire of the minister, since that amendment was proposed yesterday dealing with subsection 7 of yesterday, I am wondering if he needs an additional amendment to the effect that: “Unless the tenant brings an application under subsection 8.” Is such an additional amendment required in there as well, if you are dealing with 7 and 8 of your new amendments of today, which are our amendments?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will have to get the advice of counsel.

Mr. Good: Yes, get the advice of your staff.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, in that case could we stand the amendment, since it is consequential on the longer amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Is it the agreement with the minister and the committee, or have you an answer?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let it stand.

Mr. Chairman: We will let the amendment stand and come back to it later. Does the minister have another amendment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves the following be added to

section 3: “This Act applies to tenancies of residential premises, notwithstanding any other Act and not withstanding any agreement or waiver to the contrary, except as specifically provided in this Act.”

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Waterloo North has a spring in his chair which is rather stronger than the one in mine.

On the point of order, I believe that this is a new subsection 3 and that the present subsection 3 will be renumbered accordingly. We had proposed to bring forward an amendment very similar to this one in order to prevent the practice of landlords writing a clause into a lease that says that their lease superseded provincial legislation. Those clauses were probably illegal, but tenants were open to intimidation because of lack of knowledge, and we certainly agree with this particular addition to the Act. We are glad to see that the minister has put it in.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I cannot let that go by. I