The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MEMBER'S HEALTH
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will want to join with me in wishing a very speedy recovery to our friend and colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) who, we read and hear, is not in the best of health today. I hope the leader of the New Democratic Party will convey, at least on our behalf, to our good friend the very senior member for Riverdale our wishes for a full and very speedy recovery from whatever current ailment he labours under.
[Later]
Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to an earlier point by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) when we were discussing the recent illness of our colleague the member for Riverdale. We on this side of the House would like the third party to convey to the member our wishes for a speedy recovery, and we look forward to seeing him in the House.
CREDIT RATING
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important point of privilege. You will recall that in this House in the past few days we have had discussions with respect to the credit rating of this province and the discussions with Standard and Poor's between the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), and the various agencies from Wall Street.
You will be aware, sir, of the comments of the Treasurer in this House. He was asked some very specific questions with respect to the nature of those discussions and/or negotiations. I could quote them to you at length; they are a matter of record. He said: "It is not accurate to say that we suddenly learned the credit rating was in danger. It is not accurate to say I called the Premier and said, 'Drop everything and rush down here.'"
He went on to give the impression that it was a routine set of discussions that were going on; it was not in the nature of an appeal, and he gave no indication that the credit rating had been downgraded in any way. If you choose, sir, I could read his language, but very clearly that is the impression he conveyed.
Very shortly thereafter, outside this House, the Premier used very different language and I suggest, sir, gave different facts about the identical set of circumstances. He would not say it was a routine discussion. In fact, he referred to an "appeal tribunal."
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Peterson: I would like to finish this; if I may, before you make a judgement. This is a very important issue. It affects not only millions of dollars but also the integrity of this province.
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard a point of privilege.
Mr. Peterson: You will hear it if you give just me a moment.
Mr. Speaker: If you will develop the point of privilege.
Mr. Peterson: I will do that, sir, if you will not interrupt.
Our staff, in discussion with one Marie Cavanaugh of Standard and Poor's this morning, was told there would not be an appeal if there had not been a prior downgrading. The Premier referred to this appeal in his own remarks, but it was denied in this House by the Treasurer.
I say to you, sir, only one of them can be telling the truth, and in this case we run the risk of a very serious misrepresentation of the facts. Because the stakes are so enormous, the Speaker has an obligation to bring those people before the House and to determine who is telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of privilege. It is not the duty of the Speaker, nor is there any obligation on his part, to make a judgement on who is responsible for saying what. As you know, and as I have said many times, you can rise to correct the record as regards statements you have made yourself. Statements made by other people are their responsibility and they will be judged accordingly. I have no authority to make any judgement on that matter.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on that point, if I may.
Mr. Rae: On a related point of order --
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I listen to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk very briefly. I have ruled that was not a point of privilege --
Mr. Rae: I was on my feet and I have the floor --
Mr. Nixon: This is on the first point. Let us dispose of this one, Mr. Speaker, if we may --
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, what is this?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will recognize the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.
Mr. Nixon: There is a well-known concept that all members of cabinet should accept the same line of policy. In this instance, the Premier and the Treasurer have diverged. How are we as honourable members supposed to get straight information in a situation like this?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out again that is not my obligation, nor do I have any influence over government. I am here as a representative of all members. I do not have any specific influence or authority to deal with specific members.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps you can help us. How are we to ask the government questions when the Premier chose to make a statement outside the House yesterday, and he has not been in this Legislature for question period since he announced he was retiring as Premier? How in the name of goodness are we going to get to the bottom of this? What he has said is substantially different from the answer --
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat. Again, you are developing a similar point. It is not my responsibility to guarantee attendance in this House; I cannot guarantee it for you or anybody else.
Mr. Laughren: Why do we not adjourn?
Mr. Rae: What are we supposed to do if they do not come here day after day and choose when to be here and when not to be here?
Mr. Speaker: It is not my responsibility to guarantee attendance.
POLISH DISSIDENT
Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words concerning the tragic case of the Reverend Jerzy Popieluszko of Poland.
It takes a great deal of raw courage to defy a totalitarian system, particularly when that defiance could lead to severe persecution or even death. Yet without those men and women who are ready to lay down their lives in the pursuit of justice, citizens living under these regimes would have no hope for a brighter future.
Reverend Jerzy Popieluszko is one of those rare individuals who has the courage to live by his convictions, no matter what the cost. One of Solidarity's strongest supporters, the reverend has steadfastly stood against the abuse of the Polish system and in so doing he has given the Polish people a symbol of strength and courage that will not soon be forgotten. His death will mark the first time that a priest has been martyred by the communist system for political motives.
I speak for all of my colleagues in the Legislature when I say my heart goes out to the Polish people during this time of terrible tragedy.
Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this House to join in expressing horror and outrage at the kidnapping and possible slaying of Father Jerzy Popieluszko, the pro-Solidarity Polish priest. We call on all freedom-loving people in Canada and throughout the world to call to account the government in Poland which has once again shown its contempt for the Helsinki agreement and total disregard for human and civil rights.
Father Jerzy Popieluszko has demonstrated, time and again, his personal courage and total commitment to the cause of freedom, particularly for those who are living behind the Iron Curtain. This is based on his deep religious belief.
History has taught us that to stay silent while the enemies of freedom and human rights perpetrate acts of evil and crimes against humanity is to do a dangerous thing. Surely we have learned that every time we fail to take a stand, we actually condone what is done by the forces of dictatorship in the world.
2:10 p.m.
Yesterday we learned that a police captain and a lieutenant of the enforcement arm of this dictatorship have admitted to the most dastardly deed of murdering this priest and dumping his body into the Vistula. It is unlikely that such an act could be committed without the knowledge of the senior levels of this regime.
In my own conversation with Lech Walesa two months before marshal law was imposed, he intimated that even the inner circles of the Solidarity movement were infiltrated by agents of this regime and that not much happens without the regime's full knowledge.
The government of Canada must be urged to demand an explanation of this latest incident in the ongoing attempts to subjugate the Polish people. Polish Canadians, indeed all Canadians, I believe, would want our government to be in the forefront of the world's outcry on behalf of Father Jerzy Popieluszko. I entreat the members of the Ontario Legislature to send a strong message to Ottawa in this connection.
Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, allow me to introduce --
Mr. McClellan: Do we still have rotation here?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; the member for York South.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, you were looking in the other direction, if I may say so. I was standing --
Mr. Speaker: I thought I had scanned the chamber. However, the member for York South.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that all members of this House share the anger and frustration of all members of the Polish community in Canada, and of the Polish nation, at the disappearance of the priest who has spoken up on behalf of Solidarity.
Many of us saw the demonstration last night in front of the Polish consulate and felt the anger, frustration, concern and emotion of the community that this kind of persecution would be allowed to take place and be condoned by the Polish authorities.
It would be very appropriate if this House expressed, in a communal way and on a nonpartisan basis, its concern and its deep feeling for the violations of human rights and of human life itself that are taking place in Poland. We share with the community its deep sense of grief and anger at what has been taking place.
VISITORS
Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, in sharing the concern expressed by all three members, I wish to recognize, in the public gallery today, those who are fortunate to be with us, a group of 30 political refugees from Poland of Ukrainian origin who represent the big group of 118 who escaped in a mass escape from Poland this summer.
The first wave is present and watching parliamentary democracy at its best for the first time in their lives. We welcome them to this province and we express our welcome and our thanks to the federal government, which sponsored their arrival. They have chosen this province to be their new home. I hope we will continue to assist them when they are all here.
CREDIT RATING
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask for the Speaker's assistance? In view of what has transpired with the questions raised by the leader of the official opposition and by my leader with respect to who is telling the truth in this matter, would the Speaker recess the House until either the Premier or the Treasurer is prepared to come in here and tell us who is telling the truth and who is not?
Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, I do not have any authority to that.
Mr. Rae: You certainly do. You do it all the time.
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not do it all the time, and those people who choose not to attend do so because of their own particular, personal decisions.
Mr. Martel: You can have grave disorder if you want it.
Mr. Laughren: Do you want grave disorder?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for attendance in the House, on any side of the House.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have seen you recess the House for a variety of reasons, and this is probably the keystone of Tory fiscal management of the province. If we cannot get answers here and if everything is being answered outside the House, it seems to me the House cannot carry on. If you want a little bit of grave disorder that would allow you to recess the House, we could provide a little bit of grave disorder.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to reply, because the member for Sudbury East knows full well that I cannot demand the attendance of anybody in this House on any side of the House.
Mr. Martel: We will wait. Recess the House.
Mr. Speaker: And if people choose to make announcements outside this House, that is their prerogative. There is nothing I can do to stop it.
Mr. Martel: What is your prerogative then, and what is our prerogative?
Mr. Speaker: You know what your prerogatives are as well as I do. I am not going to argue the point with you. Will you please resume your seat.
Mr. Rae: It makes a mockery of the whole process if they are not even prepared to come here on this day of all days.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and his colleagues, as well as the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Rae) and his colleagues, feel very strongly that on a critical and important matter of public policy this House has not been truthfully dealt with. There is a very serious divergence of public statement as between the Premier and the Treasurer of what took place in New York late in the summer of 1984.
Surely this House can proceed only if we are all honourable members and if it is the truth and nothing but the truth that we receive in here. It concerns all of us very much that the Treasurer and the Premier are at complete odds on that question. At the very least it seems to me that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) or someone over there would want to bring forward this afternoon one or both of those gentlemen, to clear the air and to set to rest what has happened here and what the truth is.
In my view, there is a prima facie case that this House has been misled. In the absence of an undertaking by the Deputy Premier or by someone over there to bring those honourable gentlemen here and to clear up this matter, I do not see that this House has any choice but to adjourn until the truth is arrived at on this very critical and timely question.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North does indeed make a good point that all members are considered to be honourable members and to that extent are treated as such.
People make statements outside this House as well as inside this House. I cannot be a judge of the veracity of those statements. I do not think you would want to put the Speaker, even if I had the authority, in the position of making a judgement. But I do not have that authority.
Mr. Conway: On that point, Mr. Speaker: I recognize the very great difficulty in which you find yourself, and I do not want to add to that difficulty, but it seems to me the House as a whole has a greater difficulty.
The leadership of this administration is at direct odds on a critical and timely question of public policy, and on this date neither of the honourable gentlemen, neither the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) nor the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), has arrived and no one over there is prepared to give an undertaking that either of those gentlemen will come to clear the air and to make sure there is one consistent truth on this question.
In the absence of an undertaking from the chief government whip or from the Deputy Premier to produce either of those gentlemen, I must move the adjournment of this House.
Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member, and I am not sure whether he is aware of this procedure, that his motion for adjournment is out of order at this time.
2:20 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: Let me reiterate that this matter can be easily addressed and resolved if someone from the Treasury benches will get up in his or her place and give the House an undertaking that either the Premier or the Treasurer will arrive in this chamber at the earliest opportunity this afternoon to clear up a very worrisome divergence of reference on this question. It seems to me we cannot proceed if the air is not cleared.
No government and no assembly that is truly democratic or responsible can proceed in the presence of this kind of divergence. Someone is not telling the truth. Under the current situation, that someone must either be the Premier or the Treasurer. I believe those people to be honourable gentlemen. I want the opportunity for either or both of those gentlemen to come into this House and clear the air on a critical and timely question of public policy. In the absence of that, I do not know how we can proceed to any other business.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I just make the suggestion to the honourable member that when those members do appear, he may put a question to them at the appropriate time.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to declare this cannot be done, then I have no alternative but to challenge your ruling that there cannot be a recess until such time --
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it is not a ruling. It is in the standing orders.
Mr. Martel: I will challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a ruling.
Mr. Martel: It is a ruling and I challenge it.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would indicate to you that we have a preliminary indication from the other side that neither the first minister nor the Treasurer is going to be in the House this afternoon. If we are wrongly informed, please so indicate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the honourable member that he has spoken four times. He is completely out of order.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Four times too many.
Mr. Breaugh: This is getting pretty close to grave disorder.
Mr. Martel: Let me challenge your standing order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: If I may, it is not a ruling. It is straight out of the book.
Mr. Martel: I shall challenge whatever you rule.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat.
I would point out to all members that standing order 35(a) says, and I quote:
"Subject to clause (c) of standing order 30, a motion to adjourn the House or the debate may not be moved until after the orders of the day or notices of motion have been entered upon except by unanimous consent of the House. Such motions do not require notice or a seconder."
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, what am I to do when the Premier --
Hon. Mr. Brandt: Oh, stop grandstanding.
Mr. Wrye: Well, get them in here.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: What am I to do when a man who is Premier and a second man who wants to be Premier are not telling the truth? What redress do I have? I believe these to be the issues.
Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member please resume his seat.
Mr. Conway: Let us give them the opportunity to clear the air. One of these gentlemen is not telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, I caution you for the last time.
Mr. Conway: Clearly this House --
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please resume your seat. I have told you in very clear and specific terms what your options are.
The member for York South, I hope on a new point of order, because he has already spoken twice.
Mr. Rae: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not on a new point. It is on a similar point and, with respect, you did not let me finish my point. I want to ask you for clarification. Are you saying that under any of the rules, or under the powers inherent in your office, you are not in a position to recess the House until such time as the Treasurer or the Premier is here? Is that your ruling?
Mr. Speaker: As I said before, it is not a ruling. There are provisions within the standing orders for certain things to happen. Nothing has happened at this point to have cause for a recess.
Mr. Martel: There is plenty of reason.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Rae: I want to ask you for a ruling. I think we are entitled to a ruling of the chair on this matter. Are you saying you have no power to grant a request for a recess on any grounds whatever? Is that what your ruling is? We want to have a ruling from the Speaker on this question.
Mr. Speaker: To make it very clear, the Speaker has discretion within this area to decide or not to decide to do certain things. I think to be called upon to do something not of my own volition would be totally improper. I do not see any need for a recess. The orders have not been violated. The procedures of the House are being carried on as provided for.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South has the floor and this will be the end of it.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if that is your decision, a decision not to do something, that is a decision that we in this party want to challenge, and we want to challenge it formally before you. We challenge your decision right now on that point.
Mr. Speaker: There is nothing to challenge. It is not a ruling.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat there is another option. I reiterate my concern not to compromise you, sir, because you are truly in a difficult situation, but there is another option: the government has an ability to produce either or both of the ministers --
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member will resume his seat.
Mr. Conway: Parliament has been misled.
Mr. Speaker: I know what the member is saying.
Mr. Conway: Parliament has been lied to. How, under those conditions, can parliament proceed?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will resume his seat, please.
Mr. Conway: The government should produce the first minister or the Treasurer to clear the air. That is an option we have no response to.
Mr. Speaker: You are making a judgement that I am not going to comment on. The member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, about 1:05 as I left the dining room, strolling through the chambers was none other than the Treasurer of Ontario, who is obviously at the heart of this problem. I do not suggest he is lying, because that is not proper, but somebody has to tell us what the truth is.
You have an option to recess this House until such time as one or both of those people come forward. I do not think we want to proceed until one or the other or both come forward so we can question them, because this is of such public importance. If you refuse to do it, I want to challenge your ruling and you can test the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As I said before, there is nothing to challenge. I have not made a ruling. I think it is quite obvious, and an accepted procedure, that neither the Speaker nor anybody else can make a ruling on statements that are made outside this chamber. That is what the member is asking me to do. I cannot do it. I do not have the authority nor do I have the jurisdiction.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ --
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Conway: -- because we have the transcript of yesterday --
Mr. Speaker: The member will please resume his seat.
Mr. Conway: -- in which the Treasurer said the public knowledge of Standard and Poor's --
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North will please resume his seat.
Mr. Conway: I cannot believe this parliament must stagger along under such a lie.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Resume your seat right now.
Mr. Conway: I must beg you to --
Mr. Speaker: All right. It is with regret that I must name the member for Renfrew North and ask him to withdraw for the rest of the day.
Mr. Conway: I am proud to leave this chamber.
Mr. Conway left the chamber.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South has spoken three times.
Interjections.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made very clear what is going on here. The Premier of this province has chosen to be away from this House since the day he announced his resignation; he is not here. With respect, the Treasurer in answer to questions yesterday --
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat.
Mr. Rae: The Treasurer in answer to questions yesterday --
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume his seat.
Mr. Rae: Are you going to allow me to finish my point?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Rae: I am not allowed to put on the record the discrepancies of yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of that, of course, and cannot make ajudgernent.
Mr. Eakins: He is not resuming his seat.
Mr. Speaker: He will. Being a reasonable person, he will resume his seat when the Speaker is standing.
Mr. Eakins: But he is not.
Mr. Speaker: He will. Will the member please resume his seat.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to continue to stand. I ask to be recognized on this important question. When the Treasurer says to this House, "Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the member what stage Standard and Poor's was at," and when -- I see you have cut my mike off. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am being very patient. I am being very understanding.
2:30 p.m.
Mr. Rae: We have a government, sir, that is refusing to answer to this Legislature for decisions --
Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member please resume his seat? He is not leaving me much choice.
Mr. Mackenzie: It is time you adjourned the House.
Mr. Speaker: I will do it when, in my judgement, the proper time comes. I caution the member for York South to resume his seat.
Mr. Rae: It is very clearly a question of what is going on in this province. We have a government that is coming apart at the seams. We have a cabinet that is leaking documents with respect to the budget. With respect to financial matters, we have a clear discrepancy between what the Premier said and what the Treasurer said.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker cannot make a judgement on the veracity of anybody's statements and certainly not on any statements that are made outside this chamber.
Mr. Swart: Recess the House until they come in.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we have reached that point yet.
Mr. Rae: You can easily recess the House until either the Treasurer or the Premier comes in.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South will please resume his seat and we can get on with the business of the House.
Mr. Foulds: There is no business of the House until the Treasurer or the Premier comes in.
Mr. Rae: Everybody knows what the business of the House is today. The business of the House today is to deal with the discrepancies in the comments made by the Premier and the Treasurer.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South is not leaving me any option and I also have to name him and ask him to leave the chamber.
Mr. Rae left the chamber.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: first, I ask that you tell the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) who in the heat told me to "fuddle-duddle" -- and everyone over here heard him say it -- to withdraw it.
Second, I challenge the Speaker's decision and ruling to throw my leader out.
We will deal with them one at a time. We will deal with the obscenity first.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: We saw your obscenity.
An hon. member: Everyone on this side heard it.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I saw his. I could not hear that one.
Mr. Martel: I know what he said and so does everyone who sits over here.
Mr. Cooke: Deal with the challenge.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Just a minute. In all honesty, I did not hear any obscenity.
Mr. Martel: Everyone over here did.
Mr. Speaker: That is fine, but again you are asking me to make a judgement on something I have no knowledge of.
Mr. Mackenzie: You hear in only one ear.
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not.
On your second point, challenging my decision, I can tell you that it was a very reluctant decision. It is a decision that I did not take lightly. Having said that, the member for York South really left me with no option but to do what
I did. I was reluctant for two reasons. The first is the personal esteem in which I hold the honourable member and, second, I think that as leader of a party he has to be treated with perhaps some difference from some other members. However, he gave me no choice.
Mr. Martel: I challenge that.
Mr. Speaker: There is no challenge. There was no ruling.
Mr. Cooke: What are you talking about?
Mr. Martel: Yes, there is.
Mr. Speaker: There is no challenge. I named him as provided for in the standing orders. There is nothing to challenge. There is nothing out of order.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Martel: Wait a minute. Are you not going to make my friend withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point. Will the member for Sudbury East --
Mr. Martel: Everyone on this side of the House heard my friend.
Mr. Speaker: I did not and I am sure other members did not.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: Will he withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: That is not for me to say.
Mr. Martel: That did it. I am not sitting down until he withdraws.
Mr. Speaker: If you will not sit down, you leave me with one option.
Mr. Martel: That might be the case, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am going to ask you to resume your seat.
Mr. Martel: You are going to have to throw us out systematically all afternoon, until something happens in this zoo.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I did not hear you.
Mr. Martel: He is going to withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker. Everybody on that side and on this side of the House heard him, and he is going to withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House has reached that magic point when the Speaker is going to recess for 15 minutes.
Mr. Martel: Oh, no.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, yes.
The House recessed at 2:37 p.m.
2:51 p.m.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, we are not leaving this. There are two points I made a while ago. My friend is going to withdraw his comment to me. He can deny what he said, but there are far too many people over here who heard him say it. Since you are not one who heard it, he will not get up and deny he said it. He did say it. He is going to withdraw before the day is out or we are going to try to find out why.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have been accused by the member for Sudbury East of uttering some obscenity in this House.
Mr. Martel: We all heard him say it.
Mr. Cooke: He has not got the guts to admit to what he said.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I cannot withdraw something I have not said. I have been a member of this House for 13 years and I have never uttered an obscenity in this House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East please resume his seat.
Mr. Martel: Well, let me hear what you are going to say.
Mr. Speaker: The allegation you made has been dealt with. The Minister of Correctional Services has made a statement. I did not hear the remark. Again, I cannot be put into the position of making a judgement of who said what or where.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I understand your predicament and I do not say you have to hear everything that goes on in this House. That member said what I said he said, and everyone on this side of the House heard him. If he is saying he did not say it, then he is saying I am a liar.
Mr. Speaker: Will the member please resume his seat.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, he is going to withdraw. Everybody on this side of the House heard him, and he cannot deny it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member resume his seat for a moment.
I am not going to be put into the position of making a judgement on something I did not hear. As we address each other we have to assume we are all honourable members --
Mr. Martel: That is not the case.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear the remark and I cannot make any personal judgement. The minister has denied it, and that is the end of it as far as I am concerned. The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat.
Mr. Martel: He said it.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: He is lying.
Mr. Speaker: You are testing my patience.
Mr. Martel: That is fine. He is testing mine too. He is lying through his teeth. The man is lying.
Mr. Speaker: I am going to caution you for the last time.
Mr. Martel: He is lying through his teeth.
Mr. Speaker: I have no option but to name the honourable member and ask him to withdraw from the chamber. Sergeant at Arms, will you please escort the member.
Mr. Martel left the chamber.
Mr. Bradley: All of the cameras were not back.
Mr. Martel: He is still a liar.
Mr. Speaker: I did hear that, and that is unparliamentary, as you know.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the proceedings began today with a request by the opposition that either the Treasurer or the Premier be in his place to answer a very grave discrepancy in government policy. I move a recess of this House until the Premier or the Treasurer appears.
Mr. Speaker: I have to point out that there is no provision in the standing orders for such a motion to be heard at this time.
Mr. Foulds: There is no provision in the standing orders against it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I was just handed a note that the Premier is, in fact, in his office in the building and has just issued a statement through his press officer, who happens to be under the gallery now and who may be able to clear this matter up through one of the government ministers, that he has nothing further to say on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, hear me out. You must understand how very seriously members of the opposition take this matter and how frustrated we are by the lack of remedy that we have. I have some sympathy for the position you have been put in today, and perhaps it is a deficiency in the rules. But the glaring indictment of this whole sorry mess is that the government members are sitting passively by and letting this whole thing happen when they have the power to bring the appropriate ministers to this House and clear up the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition please resume his seat.
Mr. Peterson: I ask you in this extraordinary set of circumstances to ask the House leader or the Deputy Premier to clear up this matter; to indicate whether this note from the Premier is true, which, believe me, will just exacerbate --
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat.
Mr. Peterson: We have a right to the truth. You should be using the moral suasion you have, the good office you have, to produce that information now before the House, or it must be obvious you will see continued chaos in this House, and none of us wants that.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that was not a threat.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just point out to the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure he well knows, that I do not have any authority to demand the appearance, of or an explanation by, any member in this House on any side. From listening to your point of privilege, I think you have made the point quite well.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it is just for that reason that I have made a motion, which I put to you, that this House recess until the Treasurer or the Premier appears. Let me, if I may, speak to the motion.
Mr. Speaker: No. I have to point out to the honourable member that he is out of order. There is no provision in the standing orders for such a motion to be made. There is a provision in the standing orders for the Speaker to recess the House on what he judges to be grave disorder, but there is no other provision for a recess to be made.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, did I hear you correctly to say my motion was out of order?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Foulds: I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: There is no provision for that.
Mr. Foulds: I am challenging your ruling. You made a ruling on my motion. My motion is not specifically prohibited under the standing orders. You have ruled it out of order, and I am challenging your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I would just point out to the honourable member that there is no provision for it, so that is what I have to be guided by.
Mr. Foulds: Then you have to make a ruling that it is out of order. You have done so, and I challenge it.
Mr. Speaker: All right. I will put it to the House.
4:52 p.m.
The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S.;
Norton, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Wiseman.
Nays
Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wrye.
Ayes 47; nays 33.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to indicate to the House that the Premier will be here to answer questions from the leaders of the two other parties, following a statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).
Without any disrespect to you, I would also suggest, in order to return to a degree of normalcy in the House, if you were to ask for the consent of the House and if it is agreeable to you, that the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South, and the member for Renfrew North might be permitted to return to this sitting of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?
Interjections.
Mr. Laughren: Is that unanimous?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear any objection, but I was told it was not, so I am going to put the question again.
Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?
Agreed to.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to make it clear our challenge was to the government and not to yourself or to your position.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
REPORT ON RENT REVIEW
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the report on the first phase of the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies.
The commissioner, Mr. Stuart Thom, former treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, was appointed by order in council on November 26, 1982, to conduct an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Thom for the diligence and effort he has put into producing this report. I would like to introduce Mr. Thom, who is sitting in the gallery along with Mr. John Todd, his research director, Mr. Don Jack, counsel, and Thelma Hershorn, who was the administrator.
In setting up the inquiry, the government confirmed its commitment to continuing rent controls, and the commissioner was given broad terms of reference to look into the application of existing laws to the regulation of rents and to make recommendations on changes that would reduce any inequities that might be found in the present system.
Because of the complexity of the matters to be dealt with, the commissioner chose to divide his task into two parts or phases. The first phase, covered by this report, deals with the following part of his terms of reference:
"1. To examine, study and inquire into the laws of Ontario, including the statutes and regulations passed thereunder affecting residential tenancies in Ontario for the purposes of determing,
"a) The equity of the current system of rent review, having regard for the rights and interests of both the landlord and the tenant...
"c) Whether a more expeditious procedure should be applied to the review and decision-making process of the Residential Tenancy Commission in view of the issues being raised, the rights of appeal and the need for timely decisions;
"d) The appropriate amendments required in the Residential Tenancies Act, having regard for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect thereto;
"e) The advisability of integrating the Landlord and Tenant Act with the provision for rent review as was contemplated by the Residential Tenancies Act prior to the decision of the Supreme Court;
"f) Any other changes in such laws, procedures and processes necessary and desirable to provide for fair and equitable treatment of landlords and tenants under a system of rent review."
On October 9 the commissioner started his hearing on the second phase of this task, which will deal with the following parts of his terms of reference:
"1. To examine, study and inquire into the laws of Ontario, including the statutes and regulations passed thereunder affecting residential tenancies in Ontario for the purposes of determing...
"b) The effect of rent review on the level of rental rates and the supply of residential accommodation in the province;
"2. To recommend such changes in the laws, procedures and processes as in the opinion of the commissioner are necessary and desirable to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of landlords and tenants under a system of rent review;
"3. To recommend what measures, in addition to rent review, the province of Ontario might take to assist in providing rental accommodation at fair rents."
With reference to the second phase, I would emphasize the importance of the issues to be reviewed. I would like to say that in carrying out its role of providing an equitable basis for landlord and tenant relations, the government must continue to do so in a way that still encourages the private construction of private accommodation.
In the course of his first phase, Commissioner Thom held some 80 days of public hearings from February to September 1983, in Toronto, Ottawa, Sudbury and London. In addition to the further hearings in May 1984, Mr. Thom also received many written briefs and letters from interested groups and individuals across the province.
The result of his deliberations is the report I am tabling today, which deals with the system of rent regulation begun under the 1975 act and revised and continued under the 1979 act as varied by the 1982 act.
As members will see, the report is 297 pages long and contains 65 recommendations of varying complexity and importance. They touch on just about every aspect of the rent review system and propose changes which in many areas are interrelated and which must be carefully considered. It is also clear that some issues being considered in the second phase may have an impact on some of the recommendations made in the first phase.
From our examination of the report to date, it would appear that a large number of the recommendations will likely be generally acceptable to both landlords and tenants. Other recommendations, as one might expect in such an important and complex area, will undoubtedly generate further public debate and require careful consideration. I have therefore attached to the copies of the report being distributed, a notice that the government would like to receive any comments on the report as soon as possible, and not later than November 30, 1984, so our response to this report is not delayed.
I will not attempt to summarize the report in this statement, but I will indicate the breadth of the report and the government's overall intention to respond to it. There are a number of recommendations I would like to comment on at this time. I will refer to them in the order they appear in the report, which does not reflect any order of priority or importance.
1. The first recommendation in Mr. Thom's report is that there should be tenant and landlord representatives on the board of the Residential Tenancies Commission.
The board is responsible for the administration of the affairs of the commission and membership on the board does not require that the member also sit as a commissioner to hold rent review hearings. The government finds this recommendation desirable, and we agree there should be a change in the legislation to make such representation possible.
2. Recommendation 19 is that the maximum permitted rent increase that may be made without application for whole building rent review -- that is, the ordinary statutory increase that we think of -- should be set annually in accordance with a fixed ratio established between the rate of increase in a cost inflation index relevant to the landlord's costs and the rate of the statutory increase.
I must say that although I favour establishing a mechanism for keeping this rate in line with the swings of the economy, our deliberation on this recommendation would have been assisted by having before us, at the same time, Commissioner Thom's recommendations on the establishment of a fair return on equity. Unfortunately, we will not have his advice until we receive the report on the second phase of the commissioner's tasks. Therefore, we will have to assess this recommendation and deal with it on its own merits.
As we consider this recommendation, I would also draw attention, as I did earlier, to the fact that there is some interrelationship. In this case, I draw attention to recommendation 48, which recommends that an annual allowance that adjusts the landlord's net income to offset the effect of inflation should be ordered in whole building review applications.
It is also recommended that this adjustment, which I believe is intended to protect the landlord's income, should not be more than the statutory rate as determined under recommendation 19 which I just referred to. In any event, the government agrees that there should be some mechanism for periodic adjustment of the statutory increase and will address this issue.
3. Recommendation 42 proposes that section 3 of the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act should be kept in force. This is the section that imposes a five per cent ceiling on additional rent increases due to financing costs on the sale of a property. As members will recall, this legislation is sunset for December31, 1984, and it is our intention to extend this provision while the government considers this recommendation.
4. Recommendation 49 is that provision should be made in the Residential Tenancies Act for tenant-initiated rent correction hearings to be conducted by the commission where tenants representing 50 per cent of the rental units authorize such action. This is a recommendation that has obvious merit when applied in a fair and practical manner. Care must be taken, however, that the principle is not extended into areas that penalize the landlord for making reasonable cost savings or improvements.
5. Recommendation 58 is that the exemption from rent regulation of rental units for which the monthly rent is $750 or more should be modified so as not to exempt units that are now subject to rent regulation. The commissioner sets out his argument for this recommendation and also refers to the possibility of varying it for different-sized rental units.
The Legislature is well aware that there are different points of view on this matter, and the government believes they deserve further consideration before a final decision is made on the recommendation. Members will recall that the $750-exemption level provided by clause 134(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act was brought into effect by a regulation that was effective as of March 7, 1980.
As a temporary measure, pending the further review of this recommendation by the government, the regulation implementing the $750 exemption level has been revoked as of today. The effect of this revocation is to continue in effect any exemption that arose before today as a result of monthly rents being or reaching $750 or more, but to prevent new exemptions arising in cases where rents subsequently reach the $750 level.
6. The final recommendation I wish to comment on at this time is recommendation 61, which is that the commission should set up and maintain a rent registry containing the information provided by landlords and relevant information from orders made on whole-building rent review applications and tenants' applications.
The government is committed to the establishment of a rent registry in some form, and it will be included in our revised legislation. Before outlining the scope and extent of the registry, we must consider the administrative and cost implications, the impact of this proposal on all concerned, the complexity of the proposal and concerns regarding compliance and enforcement.
5:10 p.m.
In commenting on these specific issues, I do not mean to suggest that other issues in the report which are not referred to in this statement are not important. As I have said before, I have addressed these examples to indicate the breadth of the report and the government's intention to respond to it.
The report will be fully reviewed and assessed as expeditiously as possible by an interministerial working group so that we can get on with the task of making the rent control and rent review system more equitable for both landlords and tenants. As we move to refine the system I would like to repeat, so there will be no doubt in anyone's mind, that this government remains committed to a fair and equitable rent review system.
Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously, if we are going to have the full hour of question period we are going to go past the normal time of the dinner recess. Do we have the consent of the House to carry through for the full hour without interruption?
Agreed to.
An hon. member: Without interruption?
Mr. Speaker: I meant without a dinner break, of course.
ORAL QUESTIONS
CREDIT RATING
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The Premier is quoted in today's Toronto Sun as saying that he appeared before an "appeal tribunal" of Standard and Poor's in New York this summer, some time in August. Can the Premier tell this House what matters were being appealed before that appeal tribunal?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have missed this environment for the past two or three weeks. In fact, when I heard the bells ringing today and after they went on for a while, I nearly phoned the Lieutenant Governor to see whether he was available.
Mr. Kerrio: It was a long lunch.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not start my lunch until about 2:20, as a matter of fact.
I have not read the Toronto Sun. My best recollection of what I said to the reporters who were assembled yesterday, after I announced the by-elections, was that I felt as if I was appearing before the Court of Appeal; I think those were the exact words I used. I also went on to say, particularly to one reporter, "Do not take it literally."
I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I use that phrase with some regularity. When policy and priorities board of cabinet is sitting, and as my colleagues from the various ministries present us their proposals for the upcoming fiscal year, I greet them by saying, "Welcome, gentlemen" -- or, in the case of two of my ministers, "Welcome, ladies" -- "to the court of appeal." I say that somewhat facetiously, but there is a measure of truth in it, in that they are making their presentations to us about what they envisage for their ministries.
It was in the latter part of August -- and I think I should trace some of the chronology, because I know the Leader of the Opposition is most anxious to have this matter clarified -- that I visited New York City in the company of the Treasurer. I think one has to go back to the last provincial budget. My recollection -- and I am going strictly by memory -- is that the rating agencies raised no issues after the budget.
It was brought to my attention some time during August -- it could have been the latter part of July, but I think it was the beginning of August -- that one of the rating agencies was doing an evaluation of Canada as a whole. The Treasurer suggested in the latter part of the month that there would be merit in his visiting with the rating agency, which is neither unique nor unusual, and that he felt my presence might be helpful.
I always try to appear where I might be helpful, so I attended with the Treasurer to put forward the position that we sensed was in the interest of Ontario. The evaluation of the various provinces of Canada -- I am not sure whether that included the municipalities or the government of Canada -- was part of that rating agency's approach in this current year.
I think it is fair to state that my presence there and what I said to the rating agency were really to reinforce what had already been communicated about the financial position of this province. I would not presume to suggest that my presence had anything to do with the determination made by the rating agency. I would not presume to do that at all, except to make the casual observation that the rating agency maintained the triple-A credit rating of this province.
Mr. Peterson: I want to be very clear. I do not want this to be reduced to semantic differences. Is the Premier saying he was misquoted in the Toronto Sun? If that is what he is saying, will he please stand in this House and say so. Or is he saying he was not there to appeal anything? We deserve a very clear answer to these questions.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have very rarely said I have been misquoted. I certainly was not misquoted in either the Toronto Sun or the Toronto Star. I happen to have a clipping here from the Toronto Star. My recollection is that I used the phrase "court of appeal," although I may have said "appeal tribunal." I used this phrase with regard to how we make presentations to the policy and priorities board. I will not get into a semantic exercise, and I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not wish to do so, but I certainly would not say I had been misquoted. I used either that phrase or something comparable to it.
I have discussed this issue over the past years with representatives from the rating agencies on one or two occasions in New York and on a number of occasions here in our own province. It is not unusual for the Premier on occasion to meet with representatives of the rating agencies. On this visit, I went because of the evaluation that this particular agency was making with respect to all of Canada. One of the reasons I felt it was important to go, and I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree with this, was to make sure there was an understanding.
They are very competent people. Do not misunderstand me. They are conscientious and they do not represent any philosophical or political bias. The member for York South might say they represent a philosophical bias, so I will not use that terminology, but they do it pretty much on the basis of statistical information and an assessment of the economic or financial position of individual jurisdictions.
There is no question that we spent some time explaining the differences, as I perceive them at least, between the jurisdictions of the provinces in Canada and the states of the Union. The differences are in the breadth of our jurisdiction. We have certain programs, such as health, that are provincial obligations and do not exist for state jurisdictions. The states have certain health programs, but there is nothing comparable to what we offer here or what we do as a provincial government.
5:20 p.m.
I cannot give the exact number of states which have constitutional limitations with respect to their budgetary process. I think I am right in saying that the state of Michigan, for example, has a constitutional limitation that says it cannot spend more than it takes in.
I was there to put our best foot forward in the interests of our province. I make no apologies for that. While one cannot be, nor should be, a captive of rating agencies per se, I think it is fair to state that the better our credit rating, the better it is in terms of the finances of the province. I do not think anyone will dispute that.
To further clarify this, we did not get into discussions in terms of their suggesting any priorities for us. There was no criticism of the social programs we support in Ontario. They did not get into a discussion of the individual items within the budget of the province, but there was a discussion related to our objective of continuing to reduce the budgetary deficit. There is no question that is a part of any assessment that any rating agency would make. There is no question either --
Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer denied that the other day.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition should do his homework.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Peterson: I hear so many different stories over there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: My friend is dead wrong.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying not to be provocative, but the honourable member may provoke me if he is not careful.
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I pointed out to the rating agency when I was there -- it was aware of it, but I did tend to emphasize it -- the progress we have made in this current year vis-à-vis the past fiscal year. I said to the agency, and the Treasurer said too, that our objective was to continue to reduce the budgetary deficit. The Leader of the Opposition can quarrel with that. That is fair. He can say it would not be an objective of his. However, it continues to be an objective of this government. The rate at which we do it, and the extent to which we can accomplish it, are matters of judgement that will be contained in the next provincial budget.
There was also some general discussion of the economy of Canada and of our views on where we saw the economy going. There was some discussion of the views of where the economy was going in the United States. Members will not be surprised that one or two members of the rating agency very casually asked me for my predictions on the outcome of what was then the ongoing federal election.
Mr. Mancini: The Treasurer said it was an ordinary meeting; the Premier said it was an extraordinary meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Any meeting I attend, I try to make extraordinary.
Mr. Speaker: I think that was a very lengthy answer, Premier. Thank you.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, did the Premier, or did he not, attend an appeal tribunal in New York in connection with Ontario's credit rating?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make this abundantly clear. It was not an appeal tribunal. It was a group of representatives from the municipal side of that particular agency, those who specialize in Canada. I guess there were seven or eight of them sitting around -- no, they were not sitting around the table; they were on one side of the table. The Treasurer and I were outnumbered in terms of total numbers of people. We were on the other side of the table.
It was very informal and pleasant. I was presenting my perspectives on the financial position of Ontario. I was indicating very clearly how well I believed we had done and that we intended to proceed in the same general direction.
Mr. Peterson: The Premier has said he was not misquoted when he used the words "appeal tribunal." but then he said he did not appear before an appeal tribunal. I am sure the Premier is very familiar with the procedures at Standard and Poor's whereby it does ratings, makes a preliminary finding and then invites people in to discuss those things. He is familiar with that, and I assume that is the way in which he is using the word "appeal."
I also know the Premier is a lawyer and knows what "appeal tribunal" means, as do I, and he uses his words very carefully. The question is, what was being appealed?
Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I tried to draw a parallel. There is not a minister of the crown who has not heard me use that terminology about representations made on budgetary items when we as a government are deliberating as policy and priorities board. I welcome them on almost every occasion, saying, "Welcome to the court of appeal." I do not say I should use that phraseology, because it is not a court of appeal.
Mr. Laughren: Weak, pretty weak.
Mr. Swart: Pretty weak.
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable members may find it weak. I have always found that being factual is the only route to go. I try to be careful with the phrases I use, but I am not always careful.
I do pretend to be -- I do not pretend -- I happen to be a lawyer by profession, a profession which I have not practised since roughly 1961 or 1962, but I say with the greatest of respect that the real issue here is not how one might interpret what I have said or what the Treasurer has said; the relevant matter surely is the rating of this province.
Mr. Laughren: Oh, and how it got there.
Hon. Mr. Davis: How did we get there? I will tell the members opposite how we got there. We got there by good financial management and that reality is a fact of the rating.
Mr. Peterson: It is our understanding that the only time an appeal occurs at Standard and Poor's is when there has been a rerating or a downward rating. Was there a preliminary decision to rate downward the financial rating of this province? Was the Premier there appealing against that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition says I am familiar with all the practices. I do not know whether the practices are the same in every rating agency. I do not have the foggiest idea. I have no way of judging whether the practices, as the Leader of the Opposition describes them, are the same in every rating agency.
Quite obviously, I attended that meeting in New York in the company of the Treasurer to make the best possible case for this province as the agency made its judgement related to what our credit rating should be. If I had not gone, I would think the Leader of the Opposition might have been critical.
Mr. Peterson: Did the agency express concern about this government's budgetary and fiscal policies? Is it true, as Claire Hoy reported in the Sunday Sun, that the Premier had to make "major concessions" and that, as we read the memo as reported in the Toronto Star, the government is worried about that credit rating and is going to keep a very tight lid on all social expenditures? Is that a result of the agency's directive after the meeting?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I have respect for the writer involved. There are some days when I do not totally agree with him, and I would think there are days when the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with him even more than I do, but I am delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition using him as his source.
There were no concessions given and there were no concessions asked. That was not the nature of the meeting. I am doing my best to explain it to the member. It went on for some time. We covered a number of areas that were not related to our credit position. They were a very decent, friendly group of individuals, but there were no "concessions" made.
The area I did indicate as the objective of the government was, and continues to be, the reduction of the budgetary deficit. Certainly, I am concerned every year. I think part of my responsibility is to be concerned.
I cannot say, as I endeavoured to explain to the press, whether the information in the memo to the various ministers was communicated by way of memo in previous years. This is the time of year when we are in the process of determining the transfer payments. That is no secret. The member is totally aware of, not how the process works, but roughly the time frame. While the rhetoric in the memo might have been somewhat different last year, the substance would be almost identical.
I caution the ministers every year when we start this very difficult process -- it is one of the most difficult in terms of government responsibility -- that the rating is important. The Leader of the Opposition can say it is not that important, and that would be a legitimate point of view, but I have used this device for the past five or six years in communicating to the ministers.
5:30 p.m.
The one thing that was different in the memo I sent to the ministers, and I make no apologies for this, was that I said I wanted to continue the process during this period of transition, or whatever way the member wishes to describe it, and I felt it was important that we make the determinations on the transfer payments but that any new policy initiatives should be delayed. Other than the transfer payments, new policy initiatives that might be brought forward by the operating ministers should be delayed until my successor had an opportunity to establish his or her priorities and make his or her judgements. I think that is a very logical and sensible approach to take.
Mr. Rae: In the cabinet memorandum that he himself has referred to -- and it is a sign of a disintegrating government that we would get these cabinet memorandums on the front page of the Toronto Star -- the Premier says, "To avoid having my successor face an early loss of our triple-A rating, it will be necessary to bring in minimal allocations for your approval."
What discussions had he in New York that would have led him to believe his successor might face an early loss of his or her triple-A rating?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I do confess to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I cannot give him the exact phraseology, because I am not sure it was done in written form last year; it may have been. I can say to him only that it is, in the general thrust of the memorandum, exactly what has been communicated year after year for the past number of years. I always take this opportunity to remind my cabinet colleagues -- because they are very ambitious, as they should be, for the programs within their ministries -- that we have a responsibility in a collective sense to exercise some judgement and some measure of restraint.
The leader of the New Democratic Party can quarrel with us about the extent of the restraint. That is fair game; it is a fair political debate. But please understand that the memorandum, with the exception of what I said in response to the Leader of the Opposition about allowing my successor some flexibility in new program initiatives, is, in tenor, roughly what I have said, I think I can safely say, for perhaps the past six or seven years.
Mr. Peterson: I have a simple question. Before his visit, had a decision been made by Standard and Poor's to downgrade the rating of this province, and had he been informed of that decision, by Standard and Poor's, to downgrade Ontario's rating?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I can very clearly state that no decision had been made. If a decision had been made, obviously I would not have been there.
Mr. Rae: It seems to me the Premier has stated in his own memorandum to his own cabinet that there was some apparent risk of an early loss of the triple-A rating. Those are his own words; those are not our words; those are words he used in this cabinet memorandum.
Where did the Premier get the impression that this was a possibility? More directly, was it an impression that he gained from a provisional decision or some kind of decision that might have been communicated to the Treasurer or to officials in the Treasury?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot give the leader of the New Democratic Party the exact number, but a number of provinces were downgraded, as he is aware, during the recent recession. I think what I said in the memo was quite consistent with what I have said in other years. I said this to the press. The possibility always exists that any jurisdiction can be downgraded. It is always there; it is there every year.
The probability is a different thing. If the honourable member had asked me last year at this time or, more important, at the time of the provincial budget, whether there was a possibility, I would have had to answer in all honesty that the possibility was there.
If he had asked me what the probability would be, my answer would have been then -- and this was carried out, I think, after the budget -- that the probability would be highly unlikely on the basis of the information I had.
But I have to say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I cannot alter the system whereby these judgements are made and whereby on an annual basis we have to be aware as a government of the potential that what we do with respect to our priorities, the extent of our expenditures and the amount of our deficit, we then have to be in a position to account to, or at least have our decisions assessed by, various rating agencies. That is not unique; that possibility is always there, and I am just tremendously encouraged that since I have been Premier we have had that triple-A rating for some period of time.
I can recall that the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) was not sure what a triple-A rating was when we first got it. Maybe he still does not totally understand what the triple-A rating is, but it is a very good rating.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I will bet he has a triple-A, but I do not.
Mr. Rae: What I think the Premier has not conveyed to the Legislature in clear and simple terms are the answers to some very simple, basic questions. The triple-A rating may have been there for 13 or 14 years, the duration of his time --
An hon. member: Seven years.
Mr. Rae: Seven years; but it is my understanding that this is the first time in 14 years the Premier has gone to New York to meet with Standard and Poor's to discuss the credit rating, so in that sense it is an unusual occasion. It is not a routine event. This is not an ordinary series of events.
The leakage of the cabinet memo that took place was not an ordinary leak and it does not appear to be an ordinary memo. If it is such an ordinary memo, is the Premier prepared, now or tomorrow, to table memos that have come out in previous years, so that we can make a comparison to find out whether every year he goes around threatening cabinet ministers with the imminent loss of the triple-A credit rating? Is that the ordinary way in which the Premier conducts his affairs or was this a little unusual this year?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not prepared to table any such documentation. I have already said to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I am not sure it was conveyed in written form. I do not use the word "'threaten." I have said to a reporter that to me it is a very significant form of discipline. That is the difference between the way we operate on this side of the House and the way the leader of the New Democratic Party may threaten his colleagues. I do not threaten my colleagues at all. I just tell them the facts of life. They are responsible people and they react accordingly.
Mr. Peterson: The Premier told this House there had been no decision, preliminary or otherwise, to downgrade Ontario's credit rating, yet he went to an appeal tribunal. What he was appealing I am not exactly sure.
Was the Premier given any indication that the credit rating was in danger if he did not follow a certain course of action? Was he given any grounds to believe that Ontario, or his successor, may be threatened by a downgrading under some set of conditions?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I will appeal to the member's logic; it may not be easy, but I will do my best. The Treasurer will have to help me with this. Are the ratings out?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, they are. We have them.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The ratings are out. The particular rating agency has made its judgement. It has conveyed this to all the borrowers who rely upon the ratings of that and other agencies. When did the rating come out?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In mid-September.
Hon. Mr. Davis: In mid-September, a month and a half ago. It is unlikely there will be a provincial budget before some time next spring. There will perhaps be borrowings by Ontario Hydro and perhaps by this government, spanning a six-month or eight-month time frame.
We have done nothing to alter our present budgetary position. We have not said to the school boards, "Give us back some money." We have not said to the hospital boards, "Give us back some money." We have not said to the municipalities, "Give us back some money." Is the member suggesting to me that the rating agency would communicate this in public terms to some very responsible investors right across North America and in Europe, predicated on something that may or may not happen next April or May?
Obviously, if the member pursues the logic of it, he will understand that they did not dictate anything. We have done nothing different. We have not altered our priorities and we have not altered our expenditures in terms of the priorities we have, and yet the rating was given.
5:40 p.m.
Mr. Rae: The Premier stated that he was not misquoted in the papers. The quotation is, "The Treasurer suggested there was merit in my appearing in front of the appeal tribunal." He is stating at the same time that, while he was not misquoted, he did not mean what he said when he referred to an appeal tribunal.
Is it best to summarize what the Premier is saying? In my experience, the Premier does not go around casting careless words into the air. Are we now to understand those words were carelessly misspoken, there was no appeal of any kind, there was no concern expressed at any time about Ontario's credit rating, about the amount of money required to pay on the interest, about Ontario Hydro's activities and soon? Were none of these concerns ever expressed to him, either before or during his meeting at Standard and Poor's?
What really took place in New York was that the Premier was going to the ball game anyway and he decided to drop in because he simply wanted to check on how things were going. He wanted to have a general discussion about Canada and everything else because he knows a lot about those things. Is this really what he is asking us to take from his answers today? The Premier went for a summer stroll in New York. He had never been there before and he decided it was a good time to go in and chat with the folks at Standard and Poor's.
Hon. Mr. Davis: The very simple answer to that question is no.
Mr. Rae: The Premier's colleague the Treasurer said yesterday in talking to us: "The member must understand that the rating agencies are retrospective. They simply look at what has occurred. They do not look into the future and try to figure out what one is likely to do next year. He goes on to say, "As I indicated last week, the entire discussion is retrospective." The word occurs several times.
If this is true, can the Premier please explain why, in Standard and Poor's International Creditweek, it states as follows, "Improved budgetary results in fiscal 1985 and 1986 are expected to reduce the debt burden." Why would there be discussions about 1985 and 1986? Is this a retrospective analysis of what is happening?
Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot say whether that is a retrospective analysis. I can only tell the member what was discussed and what I communicated to these ladies and gentlemen at the rating agency.
Part of the judgement is based -- and I think this is logical once again -- on the track record of the particular jurisdiction. I do not want to sound less than modest, but I think it is fair to say they did communicate to us some measure of enthusiasm for the way the province had conducted its affairs. This will disappoint the member for York South, but that was part of the impression I gained.
While a part of their analysis and a part of their judgement is predicated upon past performance, in the current financial year they are interested in the objective we have of reducing the budgetary deficit. While I have not analysed what the Treasurer said, I would be surprised if he did not say that we did communicate to them that our objective was to continue to reduce the budgetary deficit.
This is something I have said publicly here. It was no great secret in New York or with this particular rating agency. It has been an objective for some time. The speed with which we achieve it, the rate at which we can reduce the deficit, is always a matter for government judgement and for members opposite to offer their constructive criticisms.
While this particular appearance was unique in that the total complement was there, I have discussed this matter with representatives from rating agencies both here and in New York on previous occasions. In this particular meeting I met with the total panel, made up of the people who make the determination, and it was unique from this standpoint.
We have had people from the rating agencies here. We have met with them at lunch; we have met with them at dinner. We have discussed various economic issues and the financial position of this province. It is not unique at all. Succeeding Treasurers have done this every year, sometimes two or three times a year for all I know. I do know on some occasions I have done it myself.
Mr. Rae: I know the Premier is not preoccupied with what goes on in this House, but I will tell him. Yesterday, the Treasurer said: "The member must understand that the rating agencies are retrospective. They simply look at what has occurred. They do not look into the future and try to figure out what one is likely to do next year.
If that is true -- and I do not think any of us in this House believe for an instant that it is true, that it is the case and it corresponds to the facts -- how is it possible that an agency would say, "Improved budgetary results in fiscal 1985 and 1986 are expected to reduce the debt burden," unless that agency had been given assurances that this is what the budget would produce?
Unless that is what they were told by the Premier and by the Treasurer, how, in the name of goodness -- surely they have some credibility at stake -- are they going to come forward and say this is what is going to happen in 1985 and 1986? They are not talking about overall economic activity and they use their words very carefully: fiscal, economic, budgetary. They are all different. They are talking of the budget of Ontario and what they are saying is that improved budgetary results in fiscal 1985 and 1986 are expected to reduce the debt burden.
They are talking there about expenditures. They are talking about revenues. The Premier must have discussed expenditures. He must have discussed some revenues, overall; in general or in specific terms, I do not know. Will the Premier deny that directly contradicts the statement made in the Legislature yesterday by the Treasurer of this province when he stood up with a song and a dance and said everything that was done was retrospective? It was not retrospective and we all know it.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say, and I will try to temper my reply, I have never been a member of a rating agency so I am drawing on somewhat limited experience.
Mr. Rae: You may be yet.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Of all of the opportunities that may or may not be there -- one or two -- becoming a member of a rating agency does not inspire me, because I do not have the talent.
I would say to the member for York South that as I sense the discussions, there is no question that a good part of their judgement -- and it is a judgement, because they are human beings making it, they do not do it on the basis of a computer, punching a whole lot of buttons and coming out with their decision; if the member is listening to me, I am trying to answer him, but if he prefers to talk to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) I will sit down until he has finished his conversation -- I would say a good part of it is retrospective.
I have already told the member two or three times, there is no question that I said to them -- because we did talk about the future in terms of the finances of this province; I pointed to the track record, and the Treasurer had said this in public speech after public speech well before the end of August -- the continued objective of this government was to reduce the budgetary deficit. Certainly I said that to them.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, to the first minister -- who, as the member for York South very properly said, does not have a reputation for misspeaking himself and casting words and phrases idly about in the wind -- do we understand from the first minister this afternoon that he did not believe when he went to New York in late August he was appearing before an appeal tribunal, that in fact he was misstating the case when he was quoted in today's press as having said that?
Do we now understand the Premier to be saying in effect that he did not feel he was appearing before an appeal of some kind during which there were raised serious questions about the spending practices and the financial management of the Ontario government such that earlier this summer that rating agency had very seriously considered downgrading -- if in fact they had not proceeded to downgrade -- the rating of this province?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the rating agency. I would not presume to do so. I would just reiterate to the honourable member that I went there. The Treasurer is a very cautious person; he knew that the rating agency was in the process of doing an evaluation of all of this country, which included Ontario, and that we should seize the opportunity to make our best case. There is no question the possibility was there for the rating agency to make some judgement that would not be as we would like to see it. No question; they have that right every year.
5:50 p.m.
I point out to the member that I am not sure whether they commented publicly, but in the reaction after the budget there were certainly no negatives that I am aware of from any of the rating agencies -- none whatsoever. I may be wrong on this, but there was -- not support, they do not support -- no criticism from the rating agencies after the budget. Let me put it that way. This particular rating agency, which was the only one doing it, was reassessing all of Canada.
It is fair to state, and I do not like quoting other people, that the impression I got in part of these discussions from the people who were listening was that they were in general terms quite complimentary about the financial management of Ontario. Heavens above, they would not have come out with their rating in a public way if they had not been satisfied. I would ask the members to explain the logic of their coming out with their ratings some six weeks ago, or whatever the date was, if they were not satisfied. We are not doing anything between now and the next budget that will change anything substantially.
I do not think the member is suggesting they would deliberately mislead those people who depend on these ratings when making their investment decisions for what could be a six-month to eight-month time. If they had serious concerns about the financial management of Ontario, they would have downgraded the rating. That is the only logical conclusion to which one can come.
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is saying there is an ever-increasing congruence between the priorities of Standard and Poor's on Wall Street or thereabouts and the social and other priorities of the government of Ontario. That warms the cockles of the hearts of bankers throughout Canada and North America. I am not sure it warms the cockles of a great many people who will be left outside as a result of those decisions.
What I want to ask the Premier is this. He is saying that, as a result of the meeting he had, there was apparently complete agreement with respect to the overall budgetary picture in fiscal 1985 and the overall budgetary picture in fiscal 1986. That is very different from the story the Treasurer told us. It is very different from that song and dance yesterday -- totally different.
The Premier says he came back and said to his cabinet colleagues something he says every year. Every year he says something to the effect that "to avoid having my successor face an early loss of our triple-A rating, it will be necessary to bring in minimal applications for your approval." That kind of Dickensian language with respect to social programs in his government is apparently, in his own words, something the government does every year, something that is traditional with him and with his government.
Why is it that upon the Premier's return from New York, where he reached such speedy and apparently easy agreement with respect to fiscal year 1985 and fiscal year 1986, his statement to his colleagues referred to transfer payments dealing with services to people? Why was there no public statement from him?
There is yet to be a public statement from him with respect to the biggest borrower in the province, guaranteed by the government of Ontario, that is to say Ontario Hydro, which has received an 8.5 per cent increase from the Premier's Ontario Energy Board and his cabinet.
Why is it that the Premier came back from New York and imposed priorities on this province that are unfair to working people and those who depend on social services and leave the real villain of the piece in Ontario's credit rating completely out of the picture? Can he explain the logic of that?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer covered this very thoroughly yesterday and again in estimates.
Mr. Rae: I thought he did not say it yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Did he or did he not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member was not here.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Did he or did he not go into this thoroughly yesterday?
Mr. Rae: If the Premier is asking me whether the Treasurer's answers yesterday were satisfactory, the answer is no.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They had two members here.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Now to the question, please.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, the process I was involved in did not reach any agreement. One does not sit there and negotiate. They listen and they make their judgement. It is as simple as that. There is no negotiation. There is no discussion of our health programs per se. They do not get into assessing whether we are using the right priorities.
If we look at some of the words that were used when the ratings came out, the rating agencies did make the point that there are some arguments that the maintenance of the social programs which we have supported can, in the cases of some provinces, limit their ability to reduce the budgetary deficit in times of economic improvement. Those are decisions that we make.
Those are decisions that we will make when the next provincial budget is introduced. I reiterate this, and I make no apologies for it. The leader of the third party will never have this experience. There is a group of able men and women who are totally dedicated to their responsibities, who appear before the policy and priorities board, which makes the determinations with respect to allocations, and they all come putting their best foot forward.
If I were to accept all of their requests, it might even be a shade more than the leader of the New Democratic Party himself would support. I doubt that, but I can only say that it is part of my responsibility to remind my cabinet colleagues that while their ministries are fundamental and important and they must present their best case -- and I have never discouraged them from doing so -- there is a collective responsibility upon all of us to live within our economic means.
That is an uncomfortable position for me. It is much easier for me, sitting there as chairman of the board, to say yes. I have always found it easier to say yes than no. I am sure that would be true of the member for York South. I do not have the luxury of doing that. I can only say that there was no commitment given with respect to cutting, slashing or doing anything else.
The only commitment that was given, and it was not really a commitment at all, was an indication we would continue to manage the affairs of this province in a responsible way and that a continuing reduction of the deficit was a continuing objective of this government. The leader of the third party may disagree with that as an objective. That is fair, but it is still the position of this government.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Before the Premier closes this off, I want to say this. He knows he went down there to put out the fire.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Grey-Bruce will please resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Sargent: It is a point of order. Why does the Premier not table the correspondence on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. You are asking a question. Will the honourable member please resume his seat.
REPORT ON RENT REVIEW
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
The minister indicated in a lengthy statement today, when he tabled the report of the Thom commission, that the government is going to take a wait-and-see position on the whole matter. The government will not do very much for at least a month and maybe some time longer.
Why did he not indicate in his statement that he is going to refer this matter of great importance, which has been sitting around for almost two years, since November 16, 1982, to a legislative committee? Since he has not indicated that in his statement, will he do so?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. I think we have been quite clear in this statement about what my intentions were. I intended to give interested parties a period of time in which to comment on the report, a report which the commissioner himself said in his opening remarks, as he commenced phase 2, undoubtedly would evoke some comments and debate on this issue. That is what royal commission reports are about.
While we are receiving comments, the government has already put in place an interministerial committee to draw up some recommendations and proposals that I as the minister may put to my colleagues. That process is under way. When it has been completed, presentations will be made to my colleagues. It is my intention as the present minister that this will lead to legislation in the spring of next year, which will give the member more than ample opportunity to put forth his consistent and thoughtful views on these issues. I know that is what they will always be.
6p.m.
Mr. Epp: The minister speaks about consistent views, but that is one thing we have not received from him. He indicated two years ago that we were going to receive a report a year hence, which was in the fall of 1983, and we did not receive that report until today. That is not very consistent with his views and projections.
Along with a number of groups in Ontario, we have been consistent in asking the minister finally to take some initiative on a rent registry. Would he now be consistent with his view of at least a year ago, when he said he was waiting for the Thom report and once it came in he would implement a rent registry? The report is in today. Will the minister now indicate to the House very strongly that he will bring in immediate legislation to bring in a rent registry?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I clearly indicated in my statement that we will be implementing a rent registry, but it will be part of an overall package of proposals I expect will come forth in the spring.
It is very strange. If we bring in something one piece at a time, we know exactly what the members opposite will say, "Piecemeal is the only way they can deal with things." We are saying clearly and unequivocally that we accept the concept of a rent registry, and it will be part of a process that will lead to the introduction of legislation, as I see it, next spring.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had the report since August -- some press reports say since April, but others say since August, and I guess it is August -- and he has had two full months to study the report and its recommendations.
In his statement, when he refers to six major recommendations of the commission of inquiry, he says he has to assess the recommendation with respect to the removal of the six per cent maximum. He has only qualified support for the extension of Bill 198, the five per cent ceiling on financial pass-through. He has qualified support for the proposal on costs no longer borne. He says he has to defer consideration of the $750 per month exemption. He says he cannot make a decision yet on the proposal for a rent registry.
At best, to be charitable, he has given a very qualified reception to the major recommendations of this commission of inquiry after two full months of study. Does that indicate that this Hallowe'en pumpkin is greeted by the same kind of disappointment by the minister as it is by representatives of tenants' associations and members of the opposition?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would hope repetition was not always necessary, but it seems that in the member's case it often is. I know that is part of the to-and-fro that goes on. I do this and you do that.
I have said many times very frankly that the letter to me from the commissioner, who is sitting in the gallery, was dated August 16. Shortly after that or about that same time, rough drafts of the first cuts were given to me for perusal. It is my understanding that up until some time in the third week of September the commissioner was working on correction of the proofs. The final copies were received no earlier than 10 days ago and preparations have been under way for tabling today.
By the way, that went smoothly and without a hitch. There was no problem. Everything went just dandy, and I want to thank the members for that.
The one thing that is clear and evident in my statement and in everything I have done as minister with respect to rent review is that I want to move and have continued to move to take the steps necessary to refine it and to make it as fair and equitable a system as it can be. That is saying something since it is a pretty good system the way it is now.
Mr. McClellan: May I ask the minister whether he does not share my disappointment about the way the commission of inquiry has dealt with the question of retroactivity on the issue of illegal rents? What is the minister's response to the recommendation that, in effect, says only the last three years of illegal rents charged by landlords against their tenants will come under the purview of rent review?
In other words, all the millions of dollars which have been stolen from tenants, except for that stolen in the last three years, will be somehow grandfathered in, according to the recommendation of the commission of inquiry. Is that a recommendation this government is prepared to entertain seriously for one second?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: A careful perusal of the report will not reveal the kind of harshness the member is displaying on this occasion. I have noticed that on other occasions he does the same thing. If one reads it, one will see that someone is thoughtfully trying to say: "Now in most things there is a limitation of action period. Perhaps that is a process that should be looked at here. For the sake of discussion, let us consider whether there should be a three-year limitation of action period."
This government is not saying it is going to accept that, or whatever, today or tomorrow. That will be part of the process of evaluation which will be carried out by the interministerial committee and subsequently by recommendations going from this minister to his colleagues for consideration.
Mr. McClellan: There are so many inadequacies in the commission of inquiry, and I mean this quite sincerely. I am just profoundly disappointed at the number of issues that were not even addressed.
I am not sure which ones to pick by way of a supplementary question, but from my shopping list let me ask the minister about the failure of the commission to deal with any mandatory disclosure of ownership and financing. If there was any lesson to be learned from the Cadillac Fairview ripoff, it was that the modus operandi of these kinds of ripoff artists is the failure of this government to enact disclosure legislation so it can determine whether ownership and financing arrangements are arm's-length transactions or whether they are simple frauds.
What does the minister think about the failure of the commission of inquiry to deal with that issue? Does he intend to allow section 93 of the legislation to remain a dead letter? Is he going to be serious about empowering the commission to determine whether sales of buildings are arm's-length transactions or whether they are flips and frauds?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I understand that member's role is to be critical and he will pick out areas he feels he is justified in criticizing.
My recollection, again from having read the report through once, was that the commissioner said it should be possible for counsel or individuals of senior stature involved in the businesses to file affidavits as to the bona fides of the transaction, but then in the discourse on the issue, he went on to say very clearly that should not in any way take away from the right of the commission to explore, to get down to the real nature of the transaction.
I suggest to the member today that is exactly what is happening in one of the cases that is before tribunal, where one of the parties to a number of these actions has been subpoenaed by that tribunal so it can get down to the very basis of the action and real merits of the case, which is what they are bound to do.
Contrary to what the member is complaining about, the commissioner indicates that power in the commission should remain, but we should also give consideration, if we accept that recommendation, to accepting affidavits with respect to bona fides from senior personnel. Again, I am not saying that is a recommendation we will or will not accept, but clearly it is something we will review as that committee proceeds with its considerations.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that has been expressed frequently by tenant groups and others is the lack of a requirement that evidence be given under oath. Is the minister sympathetic to that particular concept in the context of rent review regulation and legislation in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know this is a partisan place we live in and the member has not had the opportunity -- and I am not being critical -- to review the whole chapter dealing with that. What we have to realize here is that we are dealing with an administrative tribunal. We are not trying to establish a full judicial process with all the costs inherent in that process. We are trying to make it as effective and efficient as possible.
The requirement that there be transcripts of evidence taken at each hearing would be a considerable burden to place upon the public of this province. I have not got, from my reading of the report, any suggestion that any injustices have occurred as a result of the fact that it is behaving as an administrative tribunal. If that is an honest belief the member has, then I will accept it and it will be given to the committee as part of its consideration.
WATER QUALITY
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of one of the last ministers in the House, the Minister of the Environment, who was kind enough to stay today.
Mr. Nixon: Yes, he might get a call.
Mr. Conway: This might be the stalking-horse.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Bradley: We are running out of time. Hold on.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: Can the minister explain to the House -- this is the minister, by the way, who said. "Ontario drinking water is second to none in the world," and drew several laughs from the Niagara Peninsula -- how he can expect his new committee, the so-called Public Interest Committee on Drinking Water Quality, to have any credibility when he insists that its meetings be held behind closed doors, as the initial session in St. Catharines was last week? Would the minister assure us he is not going to hold future meetings behind closed doors and would he attempt to establish some credibility for this committee? I will throw in another question. What has he got to hide?
Hon. Mr. Brandt: I know the member will be most pleased to hear we have absolutely nothing to hide. I attended the first meeting in St. Catharines to discuss with the committee its initial activities and some of its initial responsibilities. The member is absolutely correct in indicating that meeting was behind closed doors.
I was not aware until I arrived there that the meeting was going to be held in camera. They received absolutely no direction whatever from me personally with respect to whether the meetings were to be held behind closed doors or in public. It was the feeling of that group at the time, and I am sure the decision could be reviewed in the light of some of the comments the member has made today, that it wanted to have the initial meeting, at least, behind closed doors in an attempt to establish the foundation of the fundamental thrust of the committee itself.
As the member well knows, it is made up of a broad spectrum of interest groups, such as medical officers of health, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Pollution Probe and Operation Clean Niagara. They are all involved in that organization. I can only tell the member we intend to have an active, open committee that will come to grips with very important and critical drinking water quality issues.
I assure the member the process will be as open as I can possibly make it, but I am not going to direct the committee on what to do. That is not my role. I have not done that to this point, but I can encourage them at least to keep the process open.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before we leave, so that no one is under any doubt about the order of business, it is my understanding we will begin with petitions when we return and carry through with the business there.
I should also indicate that it has been agreed that the standing committee on resources development can, by unanimous consent, meet at 8 p.m., even though routine proceedings are going on, if that is agreeable.
Mr. McClellan: Will we have the 14th, 13th and 11th orders after routine proceedings?
Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House for the committee to meet?
Agreed to.
The House recessed at 6:15 p.m.