Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8:12 o’clock, p.m.

BUILDING CODE ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: When we arose at the dinner hour we had just introduced second reading of Bill 62. The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Does the minister have any statement?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs): No, I have no statement.

Mr. Speaker: No amendments?

Hon. Mr. Clement: At the time of the introduction of the bill, the bill was so crystal clear, I don’t expect that there will be any criticism whatsoever. We will have some amendments, rather minor in nature as a result of comments we have received from various municipalities, the Association of Municipal Building Inspectors, architectural groups and associations of that kind. I will touch on them as we come to them.

Generally it has been agreed that where we have the phrase “building inspector” throughout the Act we should delete the word “building,” because the municipalities have very properly pointed out that they have many types of inspectors. They have electrical inspectors, plumbing inspectors, mechanical inspectors and so on. For this reason it is the intent that all of these people play the very important role that they do in the construction of any building.

We don’t want to tie it down to the words “building inspector” which to the mind of the municipal people -- and I think to the public and certainly to me -- would indicate the existing building inspector who is employed by a municipality. The word “inspector” would also include people who do fire inspections and this sort of thing. So when we get into committee I will bring forward formal amendments to delete those types of references.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be providing both opposition parties with a list of those amendments prior to going to committee so that they can have an opportunity to approve them.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Is the minister going to committee tonight?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. Edighoffer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to make a few comments on this bill on the Ontario Building Code.

I was pleased to hear the minister’s few comments and to learn that he was going to delete that word “building” from building inspector. I think it will make a considerable difference to many municipalities. I recall that on a great number of occasions, members of this party suggested that such a piece of legislation be introduced. In fact, I recall mentioning it myself on one or two occasions -- I believe it was to the former Minister of Public Works at that time, suggesting that this should have been done a number of years ago.

But it is most interesting that this bill provides the statutory authority for the establishment and enforcement of an Ontario Building Code to replace the existing municipal building standards and the provincial plumbing code. I think it should facilitate those wishing to proceed with a building project, because in the past we have had up to approximately 900 or more different codes by which buildings had to be constructed. I’m quite sure that the council, as it is given the responsibility for enforcement of the code by a chief building official, and necessary inspectors will be able to discharge these duties to the satisfaction of all involved.

Going through this bill I was somewhat disappointed to see that this bill covered only new buildings or extensive renovations or substantial enlargements. At the present time the federal and provincial governments are assisting people in renovating or in repairs, and I feel that there should be some section setting out standards for rehabilitation of existing buildings. No doubt it would be a difficult task, but I believe it is important enough that it should be done as soon as possible.

This legislation, of course, is similar to most pieces of legislation in that it leaves practically everything to the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I see in one particular section where the building code commission is set out. I feel that this is very wide open. It does state that three members of the commission constitute a quorum, but we have no idea of whether the government will appoint 10 or 20 or 30 people to that commission. I’d like to see in this legislation a definite number of persons to make up that commission and have that embodied in the main part of the legislation.

As I stated, much is left to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I notice section 18(n) says: “exempting any building or class thereof from compliance with this Act and the regulations or any provision thereof.” I am just wondering if this is an opening for what I understand has happened very recently to Ontario Housing Corp., which has had a home project under way in the Chatham area. They are allowed to not go by the National Building Code. They are allowed to make structures with 24-in. centres instead of 16-in. centres, and I hope that this will not be an opportunity for any of this type of construction to go on.

Since this bill was introduced last spring, I have received a considerable number of letters from fire departments. I believe this change will probably assist in this matter, but because of the number of letters I have received from fire departments throughout the province, I’d just like to place on the record, if I may, the directive sent out by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs to all Ontario fire chiefs. I would like to quote, as this refers to Bill 62, which we are now discussing.

“The directors of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs voted unanimously on Saturday, Sept. 28, 1974, in Niagara Falls that the above subject be brought to your attention. Bill 62 is a bill presently before the Ontario Legislature to establish a uniform building code in the Province of Ontario. Therefore it should be of serious concern to every fire chief and firefighter.

“The proposed regulations do not provide for a fire department representative to have any authority in the areas directly involved in firefighting, with such examples as water supplies, alarm and communication systems, sprinkler and stand-pipe systems, smoke venting, highrise building requirements, and fire department vehicle access for life rescue and firefighting purposes.

“This will develop into a very serious situation and have a tremendous detrimental effect on the fire chiefs and firefighters. The fire safety protection required to protect the fire department personnel in fire and smoke conditions could be bypassed, as the fire department’s input into building plans will no longer occur.

“The fire chief of each Ontario municipality has the obligation and moral responsibility to his community and his firefighters to ensure that the proper fire protection and regulations for the saving of life and property are established in every building under his jurisdiction. Therefore, the directors of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs sincerely request that you bring this matter to the attention of your local council, local member, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, requesting that the fire chief be the appropriate authority having jurisdiction, as stated in the National Building Code of Canada, 1970 edition, or chief official in all matters pertaining to fire safety in respect to any building in the province of Ontario.”

That completes the directive sent out by the secretary, Mr. E. M. Crouch, of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. I hope the minister will include this request in the legislation because I feel certain the local fire departments and fire chiefs are well qualified to assist in this matter.

On looking further into this legislation, I notice section 26 deals with repealing a number of sections in the Planning Act. I notice that under this new Act the provisions of the Planning Act whereby bylaws may be passed by municipalities regarding buildings -- paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 -- are repealed, but not paragraph 4, which refers to the ascertaining of levels of cellars; nor paragraph 5, establishing grades of streets and levels of basements respecting street levels.

Also repealed will be sections 7 and 8. Section 7 includes bylaws to regulate removal and erecting of buildings and structures, and section 8 to regulate doors of public building. But paragraph 9, providing for bylaws prohibiting the obstruction of public halls, and paragraph 10, requiring owners to repair land in front of commercial buildings, and paragraph 11, compelling provision of fire escapes, are all left in the Planning Act to allow municipalities to pass bylaws on their own.

The authority to pass bylaws regarding the kinds of walls is left in the Planning Act, in paragraph 13. This seems to be in conflict with the building code in part, although I suppose it makes little difference under which Act the municipality gets its authority to pass such bylaws, except in the matter of sanctions. Breaches of bylaws under the Planning Act are subject to fines recoverable in the provincial courts.

The authority to regulate cellars, cesspools, sinks, water closets, and the like is also left in the Planning Act. It even leaves the controlling of termites in the Planning Act.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): That’s good sound planning.

Mr. Edighoffer: I feel, Mr. Minister, that since you have decided to pass this legislation, I see no reason for leaving these sections in the Planning Act. This should be a comprehensive Act to cover all aspects of building and if done in this way I can see no reason why we should oppose a bill with such a principle.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I must confess I feel something of a neophyte.

Hon. Mr. Clement: What are you?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): They are under the Planning Act too.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not going to clue the minister in tonight. He can remain in his anterior darkness as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on a vote of commendation, I simply want to mention that I spent the better part of the summer perusing this document, not having anything better to do, of course. It has its own peculiar attractions throughout.

My first question, in a very general way -- and I would ask the minister to make a note of it -- is to what extent does this remain the extant document? To what extent has this draft of an Ontario Building Code been embodied in regulations? And can you give us any indication of what amendments have been made as they were brought into regulations and how they stand at the present time?

Secondly, there are areas which are known to us that have not been encompassed within the draft itself. The business of screens, for instance, which was mentioned in the House the other day, has not been covered. Would it be the intention of the ministry to catch such matters within the terms of the legislation?

I had occasion during the past couple of days to phone a couple of building commissioners to find out their thoughts about the Act. Building commissioners are not either rhetorical or pugnacious fellows; therefore, they on the whole informed me that they had what they felt were fairly trenchant observations and misgivings about sections of the Act, and had communicated them in fair abundance to the minister’s office. We poor denizens in the opposition, of course, weren’t favoured by these communications. So we are not particularly clued in as to the particular pinpoint objections -- and, I understand, numerous objections -- that had been raised by building commissioners throughout the province at this time. I would appreciate if the minister would address himself to that and give us some information under this particular head.

Also, since it is long since this bill was introduced -- it first came into this House last spring -- perhaps he could give us some reassurance that these matters have been given adequate and very thorough, I would suggest, perusal and analysis. If they are as trenchant as I have anticipated, then I’m surprised that his amendments forthcoming at this stage are not more pervasive and more deep-reaching than what he has indicated to us tonight. Is the answer to it that in the résumé of the various forms of submissions, he did not come to the conclusion that they were well-founded and therefore not worthy of embodiment? What goes on in this particular respect?

The structure of the bill has it own curiosities. The minister, as usual, is the master administrator, with gemütlichkeit; and he is setting up a new department under his department, as usual. As a matter of fact, in getting ready to approach the Treasury, he has expanded his girth in more ways than one and tries to take in a wider and wider desmesne in this public realm.

We are now going to have appointed, under this rather slim bill alone, a director of the building code branch who will have specific authority in this regard. Then we’re going to be blessed with two brand-new entities never before dreamed of, or existing in this province. One of them is called a “building code commission” and another one with an even more munificent name -- euphonic, I think is the word -- the “building materials evaluation commission.” So we have three new burrs out of that single stone.

The minister therefore is doing rather well for himself on the basis of the proliferation of his agencies and the number of human beings he exercises sovereignty over, but that is the way of legislation these days. Having erected such a magnificent structure, then I think that perhaps more authority and power should be conferred upon them.

Most of the things I have to say tonight, Mr. Speaker, were arrived at in consultation with my good friend from Riverdale. We traded notes -- he gave me his notes and I gave him my wisdom on the matter. Therefore, in whatever I say I trust that he will buttress me, having got the deliverances from his own mouth, so to speak. But I have decided to refrain from mentioning certain portions of this legislation so that I may disagree with him, because I find that in this assembly it is a far more resilient thing to have a quarrel with my friend over here than with those fellows. They don’t give as good an argument -- they are too bland, too self-satisfied --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Too agreeable.

Mr. Lawlor: -- but this is a man who feels the tensions in life. Therefore, if he will just be kind enough to step out of the way a little later on, we will get down to the bare bones of this particular legislation.

Then the bill sets up a council -- no, it delegates to each council of each municipality responsibility for enforcement. I see nothing in the bill which would be any indication that the municipalities are under any kind of plenary obligation to adopt the legislation precisely as it stands. In other words, it girds them in, apparently, by the terms of the legislation and then it becomes a pure matter of how well it is going to be enforced.

The efficacy of the legislation, therefore, is not in the ministry’s hands in a very trenchant way. The ministry is not going to be at the centre of things and a municipality may be lax, a municipality may thumb its nose at the ministry, a municipality may go its own way, it may have its entrenched habits. Therefore this legislation may come very much to naught, throughout the province.

I would be most pleased to learn from the minister precisely what are his plans for this particular regard with respect to uniformity and universality of its enforcement. Is he going to have some policing mechanisms? How is he going to know whether it is being carried out in one area of the province or even in one small segment of the province over again the rest, and whether the laxity in the code would not be an in-built way to attract building to a particular locale and, for those who take your legislation seriously, would act as a detriment to their building growth and their economic development? These are serious questions that have been built into this legislation.

Then the council of each municipality may appoint someone called a “chief building official,” and there is mentioned the business of inspectors under him in turn -- whatever one may call them. This chief official is given very wide powers indeed within the terms of this legislation. He is the fellow who does the issuing of the permits to do with whether or not they can either build or demolish a building. Apart from that, under section 6(4) he may revoke licences and permits under quite stringent terms. As a matter of fact, I personally like the revocation clause, but I come to question the demolition clause in its wording, in its peculiar animus and emphasis.

Before the private bills committee in this House last spring we had a prolonged debate, and gracefully acrimonious at the same time. We were split down party lines, somewhat, as to the city of Toronto bill, where demolition was a critical and crucial factor to maintaining the vital life of the city and preventing blockbusting, as it is called -- a developer coming in and buying up one house, tearing it down or half tearing it down and leaving an eyesore in order to lower the value of every other house in the whole area so that he could come in cheap on the thing.

We had the devil of a time, as the members probably well remember, trying to move the Conservative minister in that regard to give cognizance to and to have the social good sense to recognize the merits in that legislation. But with a little vindictiveness and a good deal more cunning, we finally brought him around to making a commitment in this regard and the bill went through, like a latter-day saint, rather late in the session under some very severe pressure.

The minister seems to be niggling on the issue here. He seems to be pulling back. He set it up in fairly categorical and plain terms: “No person shall construct or demolish a building in a municipality unless a permit therefor has been issued by the chief official.” Then he goes down, with respect to a whole series of bylaws, touching demolition among other things, and then at (6) he says: “The chief official shall issue a permit ... ” unless he can find some reason for not issuing a permit. And the balance there is shifted. The balance there is in favour of a mandamus procedure.

In other words, the discretion does not lie in the municipality. The benefits do not fundamentally lie there. It lies, again -- and there is our philosophical difference -- in the private sector. They may do whatever they please provided that the law doesn’t stop them. The social good, the overall benefit for that particular community, that has a secondary force or weight in the legislation. He must come up with and pinpoint the precise grounds upon which he has to interrogate the law: “except where (a) the proposed building or the proposed construction or demolition will not comply with this Act or the building code or will contravene any other applicable law.”

I suppose in that connotation the term “bylaw” is well included in the term “law” and there is no misunderstanding about that, but we would like to make that point clear too in the course of the legislation. It’s up to them to come up with determinate legislation, specifying the precise grounds upon which to object; otherwise, go ahead boys, roar into it, put up what you can, put it up in any way you please and tear it down, however disaffecting it may be to the general public.

That is a somewhat minor feature of the legislation but one which we must seriously consider, both in principle and in committee, as to whether the weight, the purpose and the thrust of your legislation falls.

The business about the occupation of new buildings is particularly interesting because, with the press of individuals wishing to get into, say, new condominium dwellings, or as renters into apartment houses, the members and I well know that for the past seven or eight years now -- and more and more in the last three or four years -- there have been enormously long waiting lists of people who have signed into apartment houses months ahead of time; sometimes 18 months to two years.

People see a building being constructed as they drive along the street. They note the telephone number or even interrogate the builder as to who is building and what accommodations may be available in this area, to get their name down and get set up, and before the doors are open, while the building is only in a very partial state of completion, because they have very little alternative, because they are being forced out of where they are presently living, or the rent structure has got beyond their means, they are into the new building, and very often many months go by before that building achieves an internal state of good habitation. In the minister’s endeavour to do something about that, I suppose that is what the reason for the clause is -- to prevent people moving in under those circumstances.

I think that is probably all to the good. The minister is going to have a dreadful time enforcing it. Since he is not enforcing it, since the local building people are going to have to, they are up against that particular obstacle. I would be most interested to see just how efficacious he thinks his law is going to be in this regard. He can pass all the laws in the world, but if they are not going to be obeyed, if the press of circumstance is so great, the exigencies people suffer from so great, they will ignore them. They will have to overcome them; they are forced into it. All you do is render the law a little ludicrous because it is relatively unobeyable. It was never really meant to be obeyed. I would like to know whether you really mean this thing to be obeyed.

On this particular clause, five days is not a long enough time on the notice being served:

“No person shall occupy or use, or permit to be occupied or used, any building newly erected or installed until notice of the date of its completion is given to the chief official, and (a) an inspection is made pursuant to such notice, or (b) five days have elapsed after service of the notice.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are going to make that 10 days.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is going to make that 10. That is very good. I move, Mr. Speaker, that it be changed to 10 days. I want to leave an indelible mark on this particular piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member has convinced me.

Mr. Lawlor: The legislation is as draconian as the minister ever gets. When you give these extensive powers for an inspector to enter upon a building and inspect the premises; in subsection 2 with respect to unsafe buildings, he really can come down like a ton of bricks and move in on unsafeness. He can place a stop order on the situation; he may prohibit use or occupancy in the building. Then finally, he may demand repairs. Bang, bang, bang, one after the other. Is your building in a state of total erosion, or are you maintaining your equilibrium?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I think erosion would be the more appropriate word.

Mr. Lawlor: We don’t want the wormwood to fester. The repair situation particularly is bothersome because the minister gives the power to order repairs, then if the individual doesn’t do them -- and the minister doesn’t spell out any machinery by which this is all accomplished -- the municipality may move in and make the repairs, charge it off to the owner on the tax rolls, and make him pay back in his taxes. The minister is not very liberal about this. Usually legislation of this kind gives an alternative. Some kind of loan structure may be available, or terms may be arrived at between the building inspector and the occupants and owners of that building that they be given moneys or assistance on terms which would make it far less onerous if extensive repairs are being ordered.

Has the minister taken that into account? If not, I suggest it is a deficiency in your legislation as it presently stands and a matter that should be honestly considered in a possible redrafting of that particular section.

The minister was kind enough to make extensive alterations in the work of the building materials evaluation commission as a result of a tête-à-tête we had before dinner. After dinner, he’s probably more irascible. Before dinner, I understood he would give, at the least, good consideration to amending a clause.

This special commission being set up is full of experts and building materials. I suppose there are chemists, people who have a knowledge of physics, and also the constitutions of building materials, modes of construction, how it’s done and all this sort of thing. Their job is, as set out here, to examine and research, or cause examination and research into, new materials, techniques and building designs for construction.

As the hon. member who spoke just before me has indicated, the whole thrust and intention of this legislation has largely to do with new construction. It would certainly seem to me, if the minister is going to go to the trouble of setting up a commission of this particular kind, present and even past modes of construction, particularly the ones in the present, ought to be given some kind of surveillance. They would not have to concentrate upon that. Their concentration would be on new materials coming on to the market.

There are extant materials being used, which are, no doubt, deficient in one way or another because of the way in which the ingredients are put together, or because of the stress factors worked into the various types of building material which are sold every day. Some may be faulty and some may be dangerous, as things exist at present. Why not expand the job of the commission to give them at least the power, should they so desire, to survey that particular field and to look into that kind of material?

The changes that have been made with respect to the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, are as has been indicated, interesting. I, too, had wondered why section 13 of the Planning Act had not been taken out of that legislation. When one drafts documents as sick as this one, I would think one would try to encompass within them, all aspects in every area touching a building code. It should not be dangling in a different kind of piece of legislation, namely the Planning Act, which has to do with precisely that, laying down contour lines to good planning principles, not good construction principles.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Does the member want it out?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’ll take it out.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay.

Mr. Renwick: Provided the minister has some reason. This is a debate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t want any reason. Take it out. As long as it is in this legislation, we’ll know where to look for it when the time comes. If it has any rationale in the Planning Act, which I doubt it has, then it will have equal lack of rationale here. We are all equal at the end of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: The member can be sure, if the minister accepts an amendment of his, they won’t proclaim it.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that right?

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He is still bitter.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister has taken out the excavating trenches in the one thing and placed them in the other thing -- I trust; I haven’t interrogated the trenches. I suspect it’s in there, however. Certain sections in the Municipal Act having to do with changes in the structure of buildings will reduce the great bulk of the Municipal Act which needs a thorough overhauling in order to give some streamlining to that massive piece of legislation. All that material is just effluvia within the general legislation. As you may have gathered, we don’t find this particular piece of legislation is so totally unpalatable that we can’t support it.

Mr. Renwick: But it’s comme ci comme ça.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, it’s comme ci comme ça. It was a toss-up there for a while. As we get into committee, we can take up the nice points of the thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I support the view expressed by my colleague from Perth that this bill is long overdue. The principle of having a building code that could be reasonably the same across the province is certainly an important factor in reducing the cost of housing and also maintaining a standard that we know will protect the public, not only against shoddy workmanship and shoddy materials but also protect people in the neighbourhoods against structures beside them that are unsafe and could cause hazard to their own person.

There are a couple of things in this that do bother me very much. One is the matter of this building materials evaluation commission. I do not understand the need for that commission when we have something called the Canadian Standards Association. I well remember a debate on this matter of an Ontario building code in the private members’ hour a few years ago when it was pointed out that the present system in many municipalities of setting a standard was on the actual material, not on the performance of the material.

For example, in Toronto, I think they required that a building be made of bricks with a certain length of horsehair inside the brick, or maybe that was to do with plaster in the walls. I know that there are some very, very odd definitions or requirements of the materials. I think they are being largely ignored today. Certainly they were in there from back 100 years ago. The National Building Code was primarily based upon the performance of a building material, whether it be its strength or its power resistance or whatever was the major requirement in that particular material.

Surely this is what we want to have determined by the building code commission. It will set the standards of performance. Then, should we not be accepting the decision of the Canadian Standards Association, which is equipped to test materials and does test materials and is therefore one place that any manufacturer can go to to know that in Canada there is one place that he can have the characteristics of his product certified? Why do we require these people to go through a different commission in every darn province that’s going to be evaluating them? I don’t see the need for it. I would appreciate the minister explaining why we would set up this additional obstacle to those who are coming forward with a material that meets a standard of performance that we set down or is set down by our building code commission, surely that is sufficient.

I also hope that the minister will go along with what the previous two speakers have mentioned and incorporate in this bill construction principles that are presently under the Planning Act, so that people do know across Ontario that there are certain construction principles that have to be adhered to when they are proceeding with a building of any structure.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will get satisfaction with regard to those matters, because this bill is certainly needed and we want to support it in every way possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the bill is needed. I am not as sanguine as the members of the Liberal Party who have spoken or indeed on this particular occasion as sanguine as my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, about the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: I am going to speak after the member for Riverdale the next time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Go for the jugular.

Mr. Renwick: If I thought there was any blood there, I would. Whenever the government introduces a bill that relates to anything dealing with the construction industry in all of its ramifications, and we in this party, of course, are mainly concerned with the problem of safety during the course of construction as well as the safety of the edifice once it is erected, we have got to recognize that there are in relative terms immensely powerful interests pressing upon the government in all of the aspects of this legislation.

There is no question whatsoever that the construction industry in the Province of Ontario is among the most powerful lobbies that are operating within the confines of the province. The construction industry encompasses not only the construction companies which are involved but the trade unions which are involved as well. If one looks at the press over the last several years in the Province of Ontario, an immense amount of print has been devoted to the problems of the construction industry in all of its ramifications -- everywhere from bribery and criminal offences to the problems of constructing houses for low-income people. In the range of that whole operation you are involved with immense numbers of professional people who also have powerful vested interests in the construction industry. The legal profession, in opposition to the height bylaw of the city of Toronto, has marshalled the greatest galaxy of legal talent before the Ontario Municipal Board, I suppose, that has been available for years -- in support of the construction industry.

There’s no question that the royal commission inquiring into criminal activities in the construction industry has also had some of the most powerful people in the province engaged in trying to understand what goes into it and to bring some rationale and understanding about the industry up to the kind of standards of behaviour that we understand.

I make no bones about it. There are areas of the trade union movement in the construction industry that have many things to answer for. I personally am acquainted with some of them. At all times we also have on the fringes, of course, the architects’ association and the professional engineers of the province, both interested in preserving their particular monopoly. This is sometimes for the purposes of the public good but also, as we must understand, it is to protect their own particular vested interests.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. When the Province of Ontario, after all these years, introduces a bill to create a building code, that deals with the quality of the construction and the safety of the structures which are involved, and it hinges upon the buildings in the course of construction as well as the finished edifices, and when -- I forget how long, we’ve had it so long --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Last December.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. We’ve had this particular document, which is really the guts of the bill, before us since last December. I want everybody to understand that the legislative assembly is not capable of dealing with this kind of a document. Yet this is the document which the minister brings before us. The basic definition is “An Act to Provide for an Ontario Building Code,” and the definition of a building code means the regulations made under section 18. Section 18 says, “It is the building code as provided by the regulations including -- without limiting the generality of the foregoing -- the ability by regulation to do so -- ” and so on. This is the document. I think we are entitled to put it on the record that neither this assembly nor any committee of this assembly will have an opportunity -- and so far as I know the public will have no opportunity -- to make any representations -- indeed, to have any intelligible explanation of the document which is the guts of the Act the minister brings before us.

I’m not suggesting, for one moment, that I know how this assembly can deal with that kind of minute technicality. There are many ways in which it could have been done rather than to provide us with something out of the ministry, brought down from on high, called, “Produced for comment and discussion.” And, of course, we are the body that is supposed to comment and discuss.

But no committee of this assembly has ever been designated as the body which is to conduct a discussion or to provide a forum under which the comment will be received about the building code. And I guarantee there is not a single member of this assembly who either has read or understood or comprehended the technicalities of this particular building code.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Well, now, I agree.

Mr. Renwick: Of course it’s agreed. It’s all very well to suggest -- well there are some people in the assembly who think that it’s a little bit too much for us to get involved in the detail of what we are doing. But the detail determines what is going to happen in the enforcement of this code.

I’m suggesting to the minister that if he had any respect and understanding, as he must have, because he was a chairman of a select committee, that there must be some kind of emanation of this body which, with expert advice and assistance, over a period of time could have provided a forum within which it could be decided whether or not this document is adequate.

We are being asked to pass an Act that is going to cover definitions, use and occupancy, design materials, building services, plumbing services, construction safety measures, public safety at the construction site, housing and small buildings. Then there is an appendix of a list of standards involved.

I want to make it quite clear, and I say it advisedly, that if or when -- preferably when -- but if we were the government of the Province of Ontario we would not enact into law such a code as this without having had some kind of public forum where it would have been the obligation of at least some members of this assembly, assisted by the kind of expert advice which would obviously be necessary, to understand what we are doing, whether it is adequate and whether it accomplishes the purpose of the Act.

Let me assume for the moment that this is the ideal building code in all of its aspects. What do we find that the government then does? Does it assume any responsibility with respect to the enforcement of that code? No, it is a typical Tory bill. Because what do they say? Disguised under something called municipal autonomy, they impose the obligation for the enforcement of this bill and that code on the municipalities. That’s one of the major provisions of the bill. They don’t suggest for one single moment in the bill that it is the obligation of the Province of Ontario, not only to establish the standard of construction in the Province of Ontario, but to provide for the enforcement being done by the Province on Ontario and at the expense of the Province of Ontario.

The minister’s bill is quite clear. The burden of the cost of the enforcement of this Act, which we are asked to delegate to the municipalities, is to be borne by the municipalities. I’m going to set aside for the moment that the government of Ontario has picked up the obligation for enforcement in the municipally unorganized parts of the Province of Ontario. Of course they had to do that. They had to fill in that part of it. But leaving that aside, in the major areas where the construction is going to take place they have said to the municipalities: “You will enforce this Act -- your obligation is to enforce this Act.” And they have not, so far as we know.

Of course, the minister may have the facts and figures of the financial studies which have been made to indicate what is the additional financial burden imposed upon the municipalities by this simple clause that the enforcement of this Act will rest with the municipalities throughout the Province of Ontario. All right. The obvious answer, of course, for the ministry is: “Well, they have had the obligation before, and all we are doing is simply saying that they will continue to have that obligation.” But the minister knows very clearly that there is substantial additional cost being imposed upon the municipalities of the Province of Ontario by the imposition of the obligation to enforce this building code -- if this is the building code that, as I say, is the ideal one which should be enforced.

The costs are extensive, not only with respect to any municipality which in a bona fide sense proceeds to enforce that building code, but with respect to the calibre of the persons who are going to be the inspectors who will enforce the code, with respect to the salary levels which will be expected of those building inspectors to enforce the code, with respect to any training courses which may be necessary in order to qualify persons for the enforcement of that building code, and with respect to the costs which will be incurred for the enforcement, because there is a very elaborate procedure set out for applications to be made to the building commission.

Of course, if any constructor doesn’t want to go to the building commission he can start at the building commission and go back to the county court judge, and then there is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario. There are any number of problems related to the additional costs that are involved.

I am prepared to guarantee, without knowing it, that this ministry has not had any consultations with the responsible ministry in the area of municipal affairs for the purpose of making any estimate whatsoever of the additional financial burden which you are going to impose upon those municipalities in the Province of Ontario -- and I assume that if it is the law of the Province of Ontario, there will be a bona fide attempt to enforce the Act which this Legislature passes.

When the question came up, you know, “Comme ci, comme ça -- shall we pass it?” and I hear the Liberal pap about “Oh, yes, it is long overdue,” and, “Oh, yes, we must be glad to have it in the way it has come forward to this House,” one has always to stop and ask whether it is really that worthwhile.

When you look at the bill, the government says the enforcement will be done by the municipalities, and then you look up at what the backstop effective procedures are for the enforcement of it, and it is imposed on the municipality to lay the charges and to prosecute them to the point where there may possibly be fines imposed. Nobody else can bring it. There is no such provision that any individual citizen of the Province of Ontario can bring any proceeding under this Act because of unsafe construction, because of a death on the construction site due to faulty construction.

The minister may say: “Yes, there are other procedures which are available.” There are not other procedures which are available in any real sense. There is no way in which the municipality can be moved by petition of a citizen to take the action.

In the securities industry, of course, there is real money involved, so in the Corporations Act of the Province of Ontario there are elaborate provisions where a shareholder can bring a minority action and get into the court and have his day in the courts, and under the Securities Act the person can bring an application and the commission will be obligated to do so and so, and so and so. When it comes to buildings now, which affect more people than the stock market and the securities industry, under the same ministry, there is never ever the thought given to the enforcement provisions.

I am simply saying to you that the enforcement provisions of this bill are totally and completely inadequate as to how the enforcement is to be carried out. On the other hand, the provisions with respect to the application and enforcement of this Act for the purpose of frustrating the purpose of the Act, are very carefully spelled out. The minister is providing for a building code commission, which is the commission to which any disputes are to be referred. Who is going to bring the dispute? The construction industry. The constructor is the guy who is going to dispute with the inspector of the municipality about the application of the Act.

All right, so he brings his proceeding before the building commission -- and there is nothing about the composition of the building commission. As usual, the Lieutenant Governor in Council will appoint such and such people at such and such remuneration as will be decided at some point in time. They bring the proceedings before the building commission and if they don’t like it before the building commission, where do they go? To the county court judge.

The county court judges of the Province of Ontario are very skilled and able in various fields, but one of the fields that they are not skilled and able to deal with is the field of the building code and the technicalities involved in construction. What does the Act provide? The Act provides that the moment that application is made to the county court judge, any proceeding which is then in process before the building commission is not in abeyance, is not suspended, it is terminated. That is the language of the bill.

So what is the building commission going to do, because anybody who comes before it can play games before the building commission, can move it before the county court judge, and, of course, the construction industry and the constructors in the construction industry are the ones who have the money to finance this kind of procedure, but the burden of the cost will fall upon the municipality? Of course, if they then do go to the county court judge, what does the county court judge say? He says, “I am not qualified.” How can he possibly be qualified to deal with the technicalities of the building code and the specialist knowledge which is involved in this, and the need to consult with architects or professional engineers or other people?

So what does the bill provide? Having gone before the building commission and having withdrawn from the building commission and made an application to the county court judge, and terminated the proceedings before the building commission, what happens? The county court judge says, “I haven’t got the knowledge to deal with this. I will refer the matter to the building commission.” That is what the bill provides.

The building commission will then advise the judge as to what they think the specialist knowledge which he is lacking in requires him to be provided with in order that he can make the decision which is required, and then he can make the decision. He can bury the order, he can confirm the order, he can substitute his judgement for the judgement of the building inspector. And then, of course, there is the further appeal to the Supreme Court of the Province of Ontario should that step be necessary.

All I am saying is that regardless, and I go back to my proposition that even if this is the most ideal building code in the world -- and I came to that conclusion only by assumption, not by any study which will ever be made of the building code in any public forum of the Province of Ontario that we know of -- even if one assumes that, the procedures for its enforcement, for which the municipalities are responsible, are so costly to the municipality and so inadequate from the point of view of the protection of the person who may be subject to the defects which will result, or the consequences which will follow from an inadequate construction or an unsafe construction, that the bill really makes you wonder. It really makes you wonder whether we shouldn’t have left it all alone and left those municipalities, under the Municipal Act, under the Planning Act, to carry on as they have carried on.

People say the other purpose of the bill is to make it uniform across the Province of Ontario. There is not a single word in this bill about the qualifications of the persons who are to be the inspectors. I happen to know some of the inspectors in the city of Toronto but not across the Province of Ontario. With the usual caveat that I am not criticizing the existing inspectors across the Province of Ontario and with whatever requirement may be necessary with respect to grandfather clauses, and again by analogy to the securities industry, where you provide an elaborate provision for the licensing of persons who are to engage in the securities industry of the Province of Ontario, in this laconic bill there is not a single word with respect to the standards of qualification of the persons who are the ones in the employ of the municipalities of the Province of Ontario who will be charged with the essential responsibility of the enforcement of that code under what my colleague from Lakeshore referred to as the relatively draconian powers of the Act.

The quality of the inspectors for building purposes, despite the individual qualifications of those who may now in the various municipalities around the Province of Ontario be charged with that responsibility, is something which requires standards; something which requires testing; something which requires education; something which requires a medium within which the quality of their ability will be such that they can compete with -- and I use the word “compete” advisedly -- the skilled people in the construction industry with whom they will have to deal from day to day.

You’re talking dollars. You’re talking dollars in terms of salaries; you’re talking dollars in terms of skills; you’re talking dollars in terms of the educational requirements; you’re talking about the colleges of applied arts and technology and whether or not there are courses for the upgrading of the standards of the inspectors across the Province of Ontario.

All right. I said when we indicated in our usual congenial way that, yes, we would support the bill that it’s comme ci comme ça that we would support such a bill. One has to stand and fight some places and I guess one doesn’t stand and fight on Bill 62. Maybe we should stand and fight on Bill 62. I don’t know. I don’t think really, even with the remarks I made tonight and the flaws which are obvious in the bill, that I feel constrained to indicate that we will oppose the bill on the second reading. I really don’t think we will.

I want to say to the minister, as I said to the minister on a number of other occasions, the ministry that he is responsible for has got to get with it. It can’t play this kind of game. Where there are immensely powerful vested interests, it can’t play the middle ground between those vested interests and get away with it.

I want to talk a little bit about the composition of the building commission. I want an unequivocal statement from the minister at the closing statement about the intended composition of that board. If it is to be composed of representatives of the construction industry from the construction industry side, then I say to the minister we will require an equal representation from the trade unions involved in the construction industry to ensure that there is some skilled knowledge on the part of those engaged in the actual work on the construction which will counterbalance the immense financial power and manipulative abilities of the construction industry as such.

If the ministry decides that it is going to be divided in some way in a three-way split, then I think there must be one-third of the representatives from the trade union movement in the construction industry, one-third from the construction industry itself and one-third from something called the general public, who must be people who are not related to either branches of the construction industry.

I am not going to repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, because you know that I very rarely do that in the assembly, but my remarks apply equally well, and I hope with equal force, to the building materials evaluation commission. The representation on that commission also should be representative of the trade unions which are engaged in and deeply embedded in the construction industry in the Province of Ontario and have the knowledge and the on-the-job skills to evaluate the very things which the minister is talking about.

One could go on at some great length. I share the concern of the members of the Liberal Party, the member for York Centre and the member for Perth, about the exempting clause. As an aside, I would like to say I trust that the exempting clause is simply put in there as a traditional part of the provisions with respect to the regulations which may be passed. I assume it is not intended to exempt municipal government structures, provincial government structures or federal government structures, or emanations of the federal government, the provincial government or the municipal governments from the provisions of this building code. I assume that it is intended to apply, except in very exceptional circumstances, to all buildings which fall within the basic definitions set out in the original part of the bill, in section 1(b).

I really don’t want to repeat the comments that my colleague from Lakeshore made about the obvious lack of communication between this ministry and the Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs with respect to the problems that the city of Toronto had in order to get the authority to deal by way of bylaw with the demolition problem that was staring everybody in the face. But, as the minister well knows, the power is provided for the inspector to provide for the demolition of any building anywhere in the Province of Ontario. Apparently we are supposed to pass that without any debate and without even an editorial in the Globe and Mail complaining about it, even though the bill has been on the order paper for a long time.

I’m not going to deal with it simply because I don’t know what it is, and I wish my colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), were here because he understands it. I don’t know the effect of the provisions with respect to the issue of building permits so far as the authority and jurisdiction of the court to issue an order of mandamus requiring the issue of the building permit. I don’t know any of these things.

I was very pleased to note that the minister said he didn’t intend to put the bill into committee of the whole House tonight. I will await with interest his decision, because it is his decision, as to whether the bill is going to go into committee of the whole House at some other time or whether it is going to go to some standing committee, where there will be some opportunity at least to canvass, even superficially, some of the problems that have been raised by the members in opposition dealing with this bill.

I guess when it comes right down to it, I’m kind of a white Liberal in this kind of thing. I guess I’ve got to go along and say, “Well, it’s better than nothing.” I find it very awkward to do that. Undoubtedly, I will have another sleepless night tonight from having come to that decision.

My instinct, and all of the arguments, the range of the arguments and the force and direction of the arguments against this bill, would indicate it should be opposed. If we are not going to oppose it, I trust the minister will give us an opportunity to have a committee opportunity for interrogation, discussion and communication that will satisfy us. I also trust the act of faith which we always bestow on the government, and which impels us at this particular time to support the bill on second reading, will be justified.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, many of the observations that I was going to make, I must confess, have already been said. It concerns me, when we deal in principle with the bill which is supposed to cover the whole province in terms of building standards, construction materials, and so on, that it has taken so many years to study. The time required to develop a building code or a draft building code, I believe, signifies the difficulty of developing standards that would be applicable to every part of this province.

I appreciate the urban problems in terms of building construction, materials, and safety. When I perused the draft building code, which really is the essence of the bill before us, I must say it struck me as a rather formidable document that would probably boggle the minds of most municipal councils within my riding. As a matter of fact, I was afraid, for a while, that if it dropped off my desk, it might injure someone because of the sheer weight of the document.

The bill, as has been stated, rests with each municipality for its enforcement, and of course, the onus is on the council of each municipality to appoint a chief building official and building inspectors. If you read further in the bill, there is a provision for a council of a municipality to enter into an agreement with the province, which would provide for the enforcement of this Act. It strikes me, if the code we have seen is, in the due course, going to be adopted as a part of the regulations under the bill, many municipalities will have to enter into agreements with the province if we are really going to seriously see this Act enforced. This, of course, entails financial commitments. It entails a further centralization of authority and control with Queen’s Park.

I wonder whether the same regulations are necessary in every part of the province. When I look at the existing procedures under the Municipal Act, whereby a municipality can adopt in whole, or in part, the National Building Code, it seems to make some sense that the commitment then is on the part of the municipality at least to review those parts of the National Building Code which it thinks would be applicable to that particular municipality, and to consciously review those provisions, and adopt them by a specific municipal bylaw.

There isn’t the parallel here, in that there is no option on the part of a municipality to adopt the building code, which, under the provisions of this legislation, would be enacted by regulation. Therefore, the municipalities are really going to be told what provisions they must have in the laws, or bylaws, which affect those municipalities.

I am not suggesting we don’t need minimum standards. As a matter of fact, our standards today in construction no doubt are too minimal. I think the shoddy workmanship so obvious to so many has gone on too long, and that workmanship is not confined to the construction industry.

But, I don’t think we are going to legislate quality in workmanship. Some of the best buildings, including the one we are standing in today, I dare say were erected under legislation that was minimal -- probably a bylaw a page or two in length. Those are historic buildings, buildings of substance and solidity that many organizations are trying to preserve because they have stood up, and represent the architecture of an era. There are substantial edifices that can be preserved. It wasn’t necessary to have complicated legislation to construct that kind of building.

So it concerns me that all the municipalities in Ontario will be forced to enforce a building code which we have not seen, unless the building code distributed last December in draft form is, in fact, the code which will be enacted by way of regulation making the municipality responsible financially and physically for the enforcement of that piece of legislation and that code.

I question section 20 of the bill which provides that no action or other proceeding for damages lies or shall be instituted against the director or any member of the building materials evaluation commission, or anyone acting under the authority of the director, and so on. I don’t understand the reason for protection in this legislation, which seems to be coming more prevalent in other legislation as well. I wonder, as well, if this code is adopted by way of regulation, how much fun a civil service could have with the nitpicking I am sure would go on in terms of applying the code to any particular building. I am wondering what impact that might have, not only on the building industry, but on the little people who are trying to build their own homes in many parts of this province; in the rural communities where we don’t have giant building corporations putting together houses made of materials that were growing in the bush yesterday. This truly concerns me.

I would ask, Mr. Minister, that the bill be referred to the standing committee so all persons who have an interest in this legislation could make representations. I know the study has gone on for a long time. I am sure you have communicated with many segments of the province in terms of their interest in building, but I still feel that there is room for representation by the little man, by the ordinary person and by the small municipal councils which may want to know really what they are called upon to administer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do rise to support the principle of the bill. As far as I’m concerned the principle is simply to provide for an Ontario building code which I think we all agree we need in this province.

I must say I was quite impressed with the remarks of the member for Riverdale. He mentioned during his remarks that there seemed to be a lack of communication between the government and various ministries within the government. After listening to the member for Riverdale and his criticism of the bill, it occurred to me there must be a great lack of communication between he and the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, yes, we communicate. We agree to disagree.

Mr. Reid: However, I’d like to pick up where the last speaker left off. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, if I may be parochial for a moment, is just how this bill is ultimately going to affect us in northern Ontario, particularly in those small communities that cannot afford to hire someone qualified to be a building inspector. A lot of municipalities today have someone designated as a building inspector and often he is the bylaw officer or someone else that is in need of a job or some such animal. Very seldom do they seem to have any particular qualifications for the job. Though I understand that the province or the municipality can enter into agreements with the province, one wonders what happens in those areas of unorganized territory and so on and what they will do in this regard.

In any case, we already have some such agreements or some such control by the province in regard to environmental assessment and we are already dependent on Ontario Housing inspectors to come to the various municipalities to give their approval. I can tell the minister right now that we are having trouble with this kind of setup. We have trouble because of the geography of the area and the delays in getting the inspectors there to make the inspections and to give approvals and so on. It seems to me that we are going to compound this problem, particularly in northern Ontario, unless the minister has some kind of programme to change that.

I have a number of comments that I want to make and again many of them have already been made. I too am interested in the composition of the building materials evaluation commission. I agree that some of the members on that commission should be from the union side of the table or the working man’s side of the table, because these are the people that have to work with these materials and in that kind of atmosphere.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, when the minister, then rather new and fresh to his job but now haggard and grey with the responsibility of the times, brought in this draft of an Ontario building code. Having worked as a labourer in construction, as my father at one time also owned a construction company, I thought I would find it very good bedtime reading to titillate myself, so to speak, before I went to sleep. I must say that I’m not even sure an engineer can understand what’s in this draft. I too am somewhat bothered by the fact that we don’t know really what we are going to get when the smoke clears and the regulations come down. For some strange reason they always seem to come down or be promulgated in the Ontario Gazette in the issue I don’t happen to read. Months later someone will come to me and say, “Do you know what the government has done to us now?” I suppose in many cases there is really no way around that particular problem.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask one question that very seldom gets asked either on second or third reading. I wonder how much this programme is projected to cost the people of the Province of Ontario? How much is the commission going to cost? How much is the director’s office going to cost? How are these costs going to be recovered? How is the municipality at their end going to recover the cost of a building inspection staff, if they don’t already have one or if they have to expand?

Very often, sir, we pass programmes in this House that we agree with in principle or sometimes we don’t agree with in principle, but they get passed in any case, and we very seldom, if ever, talk about the cost. As a matter of fact, in my experience I can’t recall any minister standing in his place and saying, “This programme, as a result of this legislation that we are passing, is going to cost X number of dollars.” Maybe in subsequent years when we pick up the estimates for the department as a whole we then get some idea of what the programme is going to cost.

I wonder perhaps if the minister can indicate to us how much he projects this programme will cost at the provincial level, how much at the municipal level, and how these costs are going to be recovered.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, my comments concerning the bill will be quite brief. There is no one on this side of the House who doesn’t approve of the principle of the Act to provide for an Ontario building code. However, one area that disappointed me as far as the contents of the bill are concerned is that there seems to be no protection whatsoever to the consumer, to the individual who is having the home built, in relation to the builder himself.

I thought possibly the minister would have had some licensing procedure in the bill so that at least the builder would have had to have some type of experience, some type of background, some type of skilled help, so that the individual having a home built would know that the builder is a reputable one. I have noted that in certain states in the union they do license builders; they don’t seem to have quite the problem that I am referring to.

In spite of any legislation that may be passed, we are always going to get fly-by-night operators and unscrupulous builders. But at least if they are licensed they would prequalify, and there would be some assurance on the part of the individual having a home built that the individual building it meets certain criteria.

I noticed that the State of Michigan has legislation that also protects the builder who has a good reputation, so that his reputation isn’t smeared by those who operate after a shady fashion. Rehabilitation contractors in that state must be licensed. An applicant for a builder’s licence must furnish names of all owners, officers, and directors of his own company. This at least gives the State of Michigan an opportunity to weed out chronic bankrupt builders who may go about the state from one municipality to another taking advantage of those who maybe are unable to read, or hesitate to read, a contract, or who are talked into signing a contract by some smooth, slick, high-pressure salesman. That state also calls for annual licensing.

I would have hoped that the minister would have had something in there that would have licensed the home builder so that we wouldn’t get the fly-by-night operator. I mention this to the minister because even in Ontario Housing projects -- we happen to have two in our community -- one, the Elizabeth Gardens, and the other, Essex Development I think it was -- in which the condominiums built for Ontario Housing by a contractor had such shoddy workmanship that the local paper carried two full pages of criticisms and faults that they found in the construction.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to protect in some fashion those who find difficulty in protecting themselves. In that category I could probably refer to the elderly or to the ethnic individual who doesn’t quite understand what he is signing simply because he may not have gone to get legal advice or, as I said earlier, perhaps he was simply smooth-talked into signing the contract. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would consider the licensing of not only contractors but also repair contractors.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in this debate?

The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add a few comments to Bill 62. My main concern is that the minister in proposing some amendments, indicated that a section of the bill would remove the words “building inspector” and leave it as “inspector.” The question I want to ask the minister is this: Does this include fire inspectors?

When one looks at the building code, there are a good number of pages dealing particularly with fire safety in buildings, and I was just wondering if by deleting the words “building inspector,” that would include the fire officer. In other words, section 19 of the Fire Marshals Act gives pretty good powers to the fire chief or the fire marshal or the deputy of a fire department to go in to inspect older buildings to see if they meet fire safety standards. Apparently this bill before us does not refer to older buildings at all, unless perhaps it is going to be renovated, but even then I doubt if it will come under that section.

As for other matters that have been raised here tonight, the member for Perth mentioned the Planning Act. I feel that there is a conflict between the draft of the Ontario Building Code and the Planning Act as to why fire escapes would remain under the jurisdiction of the Planning Act when the draft of the Ontario Building Code definitely mentions fire escapes and says they should be under its jurisdiction and not under the Planning Act.

In the matter of highrise buildings, I notice that the draft of the building code mentions a test of potable water system -- perhaps that’s another area of conflict with the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of the Environment -- yet we find nothing in the Ontario Building Code that says that there should be adequate water supply if you are going to build a highrise building. There is nothing there to guarantee that safety.

I do endorse the principle of the Ontario Building Code, but there were some questions raised tonight as to whether it should apply to all municipalities. Well, I can say this much: In the Niagara region, where there are about 12 municipalities, some have adopted the National Building Code in principle and some have adopted parts of it. There are some rather conflicting views in a community as to matters of safety.

I can recall raising a matter here in connection with nursing homes, where one municipality would say an old building could be renovated and it doesn’t have to conform with any fire bylaws or regulations, while another municipality that had adopted the National Building Code would say that those regulations have to apply. So a nursing home could be established in one area that would not be allowed to establish in another area.

I think one of the important matters here is that we have a building code that will apply across all of the Province of Ontario. I know there were questions raised tonight as to who would pay for this in the municipality. Well, the municipality that I used to represent had a building inspector and we charged a fee for building inspection. I forget what the fee was, but it was based upon the value of the home; if it was worth $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000, there were different rates. The fee may even be as high as $50 today. So they can recover part of the cost for the inspection.

Another point that is not mentioned in the Ontario Building Code deals with the inspections of hotels and the construction of hotels, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Liquor Licence Board. Again, we have two separate bodies there and this is where perhaps problems are going to arise.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there is the matter of an appeal system in the bill. When I look at that particular section of the bill I find that it’s an adversary system which is going to be established in the Province of Ontario to maintain the building code. If I can recall them, the present municipal controls that deal with the National Building Code do not have this approach, and there is not that hard-core feeling that you’re going to have to go to the higher courts to have a dispute settled. Usually, it’s settled right at the building inspector’s desk.

I feel that this is going to be a costly addition for a municipality which is going to have to pay the cost of the court action. The bill is going to shove much of this responsibility for inspection of buildings on to the local municipalities, with little regard as to who will bear the cost if it has to go to the higher courts.

As was mentioned before, there is nothing in here that says that the ministry is going to provide some protection for the consumer in this matter. All kinds of shoddy buildings can go up in a municipality, and there is nothing in here that says that the consumer is going to be protected from that shoddy work. Again, perhaps the minister should bring in amendments to that. I’m well aware that he has a certain jurisdiction under his ministry now to provide some protection for consumers in the Province of Ontario but I find there is nothing there for a home buyer in the province. Perhaps the purchase of a home is one of the most important and most costly items that a person will lay out huge sums of money for in his lifetime. I think there should be some protection provided to the consumer.

Those are my particular comments, Mr. Speaker. I feel that I shall support the bill in principle. I think that in the long run it will iron the kinks out, but I think it is going to be costly to the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, this bill does bring to fruition a lot of the comments that have been made in the House over certainly the seven years that I’ve been here with respect to the development of a building code that would be standard across the province. There are just two points that I would like to talk about tonight, Mr. Speaker.

First of all is the one dealing with the matter of screens, to which I referred in a question to the minister earlier on this week. As the minister is well aware, the press has had, unfortunately, quite some publicity this last while as the result of small children, particularly, falling from balconies or through windows which had been improperly screened, or whose screens could not stand the kind of pressure that an active young person might present to them. There have been several of these cases, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area, over these past several years which have unfortunately resulted in the death of small children.

When I had first asked the minister the question concerning the matter of screens, it was my understanding that the matter was in hand. However, I then advised the minister that in fact it would appear that the committee that was charged with this particular responsibility had not come up with a series of standards which would especially be useful in new buildings and which, of course, would serve as a guideline to municipalities as renovations to old buildings would be done, or as pressure could be brought to upgrade those standards for the safety of all.

I would like to hear from the minister how he proposes to handle this problem, because it seems to be one that is important to all of us. It is important not only because of the unfortunate publicity that such a tragic death occasions, but it becomes doubly important when we realize that perhaps higher standards with child-proof closures and screens fitted in frames that could withstand the pressure that a five- or seven-year-old might bring to them are things which could possibly be achieved. Obviously these events can occur from time to time, no matter how well-meaning or how well enforced the laws may be. However, I think if we have clear standards which we encourage, or possibly require be met, the chance of this kind of event will be lessened.

The second point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is that dealing with the matter of firefighting authority in relation to various items under the building code. Other members tonight have spoken regarding inspection of various buildings by safety and building inspectors. Another area the minister should consider has been brought to my attention particularly by Mr. Edward Johnston, the fire chief of the city of Kitchener. Chief Johnston writes:

“This code unfortunately does not provide for any real fire department authority in firefighting matters in which his department and other firefighting departments are directly involved.”

He cites water supplies, alarm and communication systems, sprinkler and stand-pipe systems, smoke venting systems, highrise building requirements, fire department vehicle access and various other safety features as the sort of things in which fire authorities should have some input in design, suggestions, and setting basic requirements.

This is a rather serious situation, especially as we may be dealing with highrise buildings, whose architectural design may not be the best as far as fire prevention and firefighting is concerned. There are architectural authorities; perhaps even through the fire marshal’s office persons are available to bring suggestions and expertise into the area of design so that these various amenities and requirements are built into the very tall buildings now being developed, particularly in metropolitan areas.

I think, though, that a building code should be somewhat more strongly used in setting out requirements for these various public authorities to be involved where they have the expertise that could be useful in design and control. If the code is going to be the first place people look when they establish new rules and guidelines, the code should clearly set out the kinds of persons and authorities with a responsibility to ensure construction work is done safely, so far as the construction facet itself is concerned. In such matters as fire safety, the code should set out the requirement and encouragement of persons in responsibility in fire departments across the province to have some input.

Our firefighting authorities have a responsibility which they will probably be delighted to take on if the minister will encourage them by requesting or requiring some of their input as the building code is used and developed.

With those two items, Mr. Speaker, to which I hope the minister may give consideration, I would say that we on this side of the House are pleased to see a building code being brought into Ontario. We will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with interest for some two hours to the various suggestions and observation offered by the members participating in this debate.

The member for Perth led off, suggesting he hoped the code would, as I understand his remarks, eventually apply to older buildings in an effort to update them. I think this will come eventually. The present legislation does not contemplate it, obviously. But I think eventually we will head in this direction to upgrade existing buildings so they comply in providing the necessary safety and hygienic features required in any building today.

The reason the numbers of people on the two commissions are not spelled out in the legislation is because at present we don’t know the full extent of their work load. We can anticipate. It may be necessary in certain instances where three or four matters will be heard by members of the commission at the same time in order to expedite applications before the commission, that is, grievances or complaints by an interested party on a decision of a building official and those other matters dealing with the evaluation of building materials.

The member for Perth also made mention, as did the member for Riverdale, of the exempting sections. I want to assure him that the exempting sections only apply to those types of buildings that are for a peculiar reason, let me say, correctional institutions or perhaps rural buildings, such as farm barns and sheds. It is not intended to exempt a series of buildings, government buildings or anything else, so that we arrive at a proliferation of standards. Exemption is for buildings for a particular specialized purpose.

The member referred to letters from fire departments which he has received. He particularly read one over the hand of the secretary of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. I met with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and Mr. Crouch, the secretary of that association, was present. I believe the day that we met was Oct. 7. I initially had had discussions with one of the members of the association, namely. Chief Manoll of Brockville, early last spring, within a few days after I had introduced the bill. The association was concerned -- and this has been mentioned by various members in the debate this evening -- that it might perhaps be overlooked or play no role in the operation of this bill. They presented to me their reasons, as have members here this evening, why they did, in fact, have a contribution to make. There is no suggestion that they don’t have a contribution to make and a very positive contribution for very obvious reasons.

I pointed out to them during our discussions, and they agreed once we had these discussions, that the chief building official might in many instances be the fire chief or a senior member of fire department in a municipality. I think there has been a tendency by many people reading the bill to think a chief building official is necessarily an existing building inspector or the head of the building inspection branch of any municipality. In any event, there is no doubt but that the fire departments across the province will be able to make a very positive contribution.

When the building materials evaluation committee is created, I intend to see that there is very strong representation, from members of firefighting forces, be they chiefs or safety officers or whatever they are designated, as members of that committee. They are very knowledgeable in the field of building materials insofar as public safety is concerned.

Also, as I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, the deletion of the word “building” before the word “inspectors” will indicate a broadening of talents that we wish to utilize. That will include the various inspectors that we have already touched upon, including fire people, plumbing inspectors, sanitary inspectors, and this sort of thing. I did appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and have the advantage of their observations.

There has been mention made, initially by the member for Perth and by various other members, dealing with paragraph 26 which relates to the deletion of certain paragraphs in the Planning Act. I propose at the time that we proceed to the debate on section by section of the Planning Act to delete, in addition to those sections already shown, sections 6, 11, 13 and 21.

Mr. Lawlor: How about putting the termites over there? Put some termites into your legislation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That may be a very interesting section to debate. I am not as familiar as I should be, not having spent as much time in Florida as my friend from Lakeshore. Perhaps I could have the benefit of his views.

Mr. Lawlor: Wormwood.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Wormwood, is that what it is? The member for Lakeshore with his usual charm persuaded me to accede to one of his suggestions. However, he breached the understanding I thought we had arrived at prior to the dinner hour. I must always weigh his suggestions very seriously, and I told him I might reflect positively on this one and grant it. But I said there must be a price exacted and the price would be that he wouldn’t dwell on it in his discussions. I am glad that he did, in all sincerity, adhere to that undertaking and reduce the duration of his remarks pertaining to that particular section from 45 minutes to 25. Therefore I can’t consider his undertaking as having been breached and I will honour the understanding.

Mr. Lawlor: Of course not. If you wanted to dwell on something, you would spend time on it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I must add that I am pleased that this summer the member saw fit to read some of our legislation rather than spending his time on literature of some questionable character.

Mr. Lawlor: It was one of the dullest summers I have had.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sure it has been.

He questioned whether there had been numerous objections. There have been many observations offered by municipal building authorities, plumbing people, people in different trades in the various municipalities in the province and from various trade associations. Most of them were technical comments relating to the proposed regulations. Most of the observations were very valuable. As a matter of fact, one of the most valuable comments we received came from a municipality up in the Dryden area dealing with certain technical objections. We welcomed those views and we are going to reflect the majority of them. Many were duplicated, of course.

There will be amendments going into the regulations. This is a draft put forward. They are not really amendments. There will be addenda. There will be certain things deleted and certain things amended. The member for Kitchener and I had some discussions over the past few days dealing with screens. That sort of thing will be dealt with in the new regulations once the Act comes into force.

The member for Lakeshore made some mention about the creation of the office of director and so on. I would like to point out that we have had a director in this division for approximately three years. He is present here tonight and has been very instrumental in the workings of the two committees, known jointly as the Carrothers commission. I think the office of director was created in 1970.

Mr. Speaker, I have already made mention of the fact that in our amendments we are going to enlarge the time period referred to by the member for Lakeshore from five to 10 days. We shall also take the advice of the member for Lakeshore and delete the word “new” so that the building materials evaluation committee can deal not only with techniques and materials that are new in concept but, in fact, those which have perhaps been accepted over some years and must now be re-evaluated for some particular reason.

The member for Lakeshore talks so much I keep running out of paper here. I am not trying to delay, Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to find out where we left off. The last word I have here is his usual transmogrification suggestion and then I seemed to run out of ink at that point.

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t use the word tonight; deliberately didn’t use the word.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Lakeshore made some mention of the occupancy certificates, or the permits for occupation. We are all aware of some of the inherent dangers of having people move into buildings when they are not really completed, insofar as safety and hygiene matters are concerned. We don’t intend that the legislation dealing with occupation will encompass buildings of low density -- we can see little problem there -- but basically buildings of high density, particularly highrises, to make sure that the heating, the elevating and the lighting and fire systems are complete before any persons are allowed to occupy those types of buildings.

The member for Lakeshore also spoke about the powers of inspectors, and may I point out, as I am sure he realizes, most of these powers are already vested in building inspectors under the Planning and Municipal Acts. He can now, at the present time, issue a stopwork order, but under our legislation only the chief building official will have that power. I haven’t suggested any plan of financing in the event that repairs are ordered, because I must point out that the legislation is intended for new buildings only at this particular time, and it was felt that the new owner or contractor creating the building would probably have arranged his own financing and we didn’t propose to finance the repairs which we, in fact, order. The power to add the repairs to the taxes has long since been part of the Municipal Act and this is not a new concept at all.

There was a remark or an observation made by the member for York Centre dealing with the Canadian Standards Association wondering why we need the building materials evaluation commission. I am advised that the CSA writes minimum standards pertaining to the qualities and strengths of materials and fastening devices, performance, and so on, but it only responds to the request of the construction industry and manufacturers per se, and doesn’t necessarily operate in any other area. I am advised that at this time there is no national equivalent organization to our proposed building standards evaluation committee, and, accordingly, that is why we suggest that the legislation is needed creating that type of committee.

The member for Riverdale pointed out that in his opinion the construction industry was a big lobby and that obviously the proposed legislation was industry oriented. I am advised that on the Carrothers commission, which consisted of some 60 technical people with varying backgrounds in all kinds of structural and design matters relating to the construction industry, there were only, I believe, two out of the 60 members of that commission who were actively engaged in the construction business. Others had been, or had backgrounds in engineering, or were working as consultants, but there were only two contractors involved on the personnel of that particular commission. We have had no significant number of recommendations for variance from the proposal from the construction industry, although we have received a number from municipal building inspection departments, fire departments and so on.

He also said that no committee of the Legislature has had an opportunity to deal with the proposed regulations which, as he quite correctly pointed out, are the guts of the Act. May I point out that it took some 60 people, all of them having a vast experience and background in the building business and in enforcement -- and there was representation from municipal building people nearly three years to develop these regulations.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): There are five Tories here and the minister is talking. If he is not careful, we will ring the division bells.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It would seem very difficult to have the matter go to a standing committee or a select committee of this House to be adjudged by amateurs.

Mr. Singer: Let the member for Humber get up and make a speech.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): The minister has the floor. Let us have some order in here.

Mr. Singer: About time. It would be the first time in the House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Is this the member’s first time in the House? I welcome him to the House. It is always nice to see him.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): It’s his last time in the House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I remember seeing the member for Downsview last year. I am very fond of him and I missed him over the past few months.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The same member said that -- I like this wording -- while the government would assume the responsibility for the enforcement of the proposed legislation, the municipalities would do it. As I noted his comments, he said this is typical Tory autonomy.

Mr. Singer: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Do you like that?

Mr. Singer: Oh, I like that. I am almost going to sit down and listen.

Hon. Mr. Clement: This is a good line and I think he should realize it, because it typifies a philosophy that I feel very strongly about. He knows how strongly I feel about things. We think that the local municipality and the inspectors of local municipalities are the ones who should do the inspections and the enforcements.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes, it is cheaper that way.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are aware of the local situation. In this business, you don’t win or lose. You are wrong both ways. If we do it from Queen’s Park, then my friends across the way say it is all centralized. Here we have the refreshing view now saying, “What is the matter with you? Decentralize it. We think that it should be done by the municipality in which the building is being constructed.”

Mr. Renwick: Oh, of course, because the government will be free of responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I welcome the member back. It is always nice to see him.

Mr. Reid: There is the great centralizer on the left.

Mr. Renwick: When the government ought to give them freedom it keeps it itself, but when it ought to show responsibility it delegates it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There was the question as to what it is going to cost the municipalities. We are advised that there will be no additional costs to the municipalities because the fees chargeable for building permits and demolition permits will offset the cost of the programme.

Mr. Renwick: Advised by whom?

Mr. Singer: Come on!

Mr. Renwick: Come on, the minister doesn’t have any --

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is no additional cost because they are doing this right now. They have building inspectors there right now.

Mr. Singer: Ask the former reeve of Etobicoke. He has got a great grin on his face. He knows better.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He consulted also with TEIGA and also with the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee and the concept of enforcement at the local area has been endorsed substantially by those organizations.

Mr. Reid: Wasn’t Pierre Benoit on that committee? I guess he will be back on it.

Mr. Singer: The member for York West (Mr. MacBeth) knows better than that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Riverdale suggested the composition of the two commissions should be roughly, as I noted, one-third trade union, one-third construction and one-third general public interest. I can’t give him any undertaking as to how the complexion of those commissions is going to be constructed. It would seem to me it would be in the best interests of all if those commissions reflected technical backgrounds of great diversity -- perhaps plumbing, electrical, mechanical, heating, air conditioning and all this sort of thing -- as opposed to a particular class of individual, be it construction or trade unions. I think we should have various trades represented, and technical people, engineers and fire department personnel. This is the sort of committee that I visualize the Lieutenant Governor should appoint.

The member for Rainy River asked what the proposed costs would be to the province for the programme. The proposed costs of the programme to the province is estimated at about $350,000. He also asks what it would cost the municipalities in total. I cannot give him those figures.

The advice we have received from both TEIGA and the municipal liaison committee was that no tremendous increase in cost was foreseen by the municipalities because of the fees they would derive from the building permits. If there was no construction there would be no fee, but there would also be no duty to perform.

He mentions smaller municipalities in northern Ontario. Those that are not organized are of course dealt with directly by the Act and become the responsibility of the province.

Mr. Reid: That’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Those that are organized can enter into agreements jointly with an adjacent municipality.

Mr. Reid: Yes, but adjacent can be 90, 100, 200 miles away.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I realize there is some concern because of the distances involved. I didn’t understand whether the member for Rainy River indicated there are people who are part-time building inspectors; or whether they had a multitude of duties, that being one. May I repeat that Dryden indicated tremendous interest in the programme and was very helpful in making submissions to us over the past summer.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville asked about licensing builders, pointing out there is no provision for this in the legislation. This legislation, of course, deals with standards of buildings, not with standards of builders. This would be proper content of a home-warranty programme type of legislation, but is not relevant to the legislation here this evening.

The member for Welland South commented about differences in physical standards of nursing homes. Nursing homes, as with other institutions, are always subject to provincial standards which apply to all, and I am not aware, in the Niagara area, of any great divergence of basic standards. I know some nursing homes are much older than others and they have been up-graded over the past two years.

I have already dealt with the remarks of the member for Kitchener dealing with screens. I am sure he is aware that, as far as I can ascertain, reports of inquests dealing with tragic accidents involving small children pushing screens away have indicated, without exception, some human interference with the barrier, be it a screen or some other device, by the removal of the screen, presumably by an adult, or interference with a lock.

I don’t know what the committee will propose regarding safety devices on screens; but there will be, hopefully, something introduced. I think his concern is that of all of us in this House; that youngsters cannot remove them or suffer death or serious injuries as a result of the thing failing.

I guess the screen is put in, in most instances, to keep the bugs out. Unfortunately, when you get into high-rise buildings, children play with them and damage or death results.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have dealt with most of the observations made by the members opposite. I propose that the matter go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Singer: Not standing committee?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Not standing committee.

Mr. Reid: On a matter like this?

Hon. Mr. Clement: On a matter like this, because --

Mr. Singer: The member for York West wants to appear at the standing committee.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the need for the legislation is very evident. I can see no purpose in proceeding before standing committee of the house.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 62. Shall the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of second reading of Bill 62 will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The 28th order, concurrence in supply for the Office of the Speaker.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker: Shall this order be concurred in? Carried.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to a question. There is no time for debate, of course, the time has expired.

Mr. Renwick: Well, if I may draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to rule 87(g) of the standing orders of the Legislature of Ontario, you will note that one sitting, which is defined in that section to be two-and-one-half hours, is allowed for debate on any motion of concurrence. We are no longer in committee; we are assembled in the full House to vote concurrence in those estimates.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member will recall that the time for concurrence has to be included in the time allotted to supply, which has all expired. So there is no time left.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is the ruling.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect --

Mr. Speaker: Well, not really. It has been the custom of the House and --

An hon. member: It is under 87(c).

Mr. Speaker: Under clause (c), it is pointed out; and that is the procedure we have followed. It has been in accordance with the orders of the House up until now and still is.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted --

Mr. Speaker: I have made the ruling.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your indulgence not to force an issue on the question of the rules; I would like to have an opportunity to comment upon the rules, since they are the rules of the assembly, and I would like the other members to have an opportunity to comment. I will, of course, abide by any reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Rule 87(c) has been pointed out to me:

“The proceedings in committee of supply shall be limited to not more than 90 sittings, including the presentation of and debate on reports provided for in clauses (g) and (h) of this standing order, to be reduced in accordance with the following provisions of this standing order.”

And (g) and (h), I presume, cover that. Well, it is someplace in here; I have difficulty in finding it right at the moment.

Mr. Renwick: May I, Mr. Speaker, without causing a confrontation, ask you to allow me to express my view on that rule and ask my colleagues in the Legislature to comment about it? We are most concerned about it. Would you, please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. I do not profess to be an expert in the rules. I would refer the Speaker to rule 87(g):

“Each report to the House shall be placed on the order paper for debate at a subsequent sitting, provided that such debate shall be confined to not more than one sitting.”

I refer back then, as to what the meaning of each report is, to item (f) of rule 87:

“All estimates which are referred to a standing committee must be referred within 30 sessional days from the day of the presentation of the budget, and the committee to which such estimates have been referred must report to the House within 75 sessional days from the day of the presentation of the budget; but in any case, a committee to which any department’s estimates have been referred must report to the House as soon as it has concluded its consideration of that department.”

Then, referring to item (g) again:

“Each report to the House shall be placed on the order paper for debate at a subsequent sitting provided that such debate shall be confined to not more than one sitting.”

And if I may refer to item (a) of section 87, in this standing order the term “sitting” means a period of 2½ hours.

I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I just point out that subsection 87(c) says: “The proceedings in committee of supply shall be limited to not more than 90 sittings, including the presentation of, and debate on, reports” -- which is the concurrence we are talking about -- “provided for in clauses (g) and (h).” So it’s included in the 90 sittings, all of which have been used up. That is the ruling and that is the interpretation that has been put on it since 1939.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That’s fine, that is right; but you’ve got to put it on the order paper first, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, isn’t it true that for every ministry that is referred to committee 10 hours are deducted from the time allocated in the House, so that, with the greatest of respect, we still have five sessional days in committee? We are still using that time, and until the time in committee runs out we are still entitled to 2½ hours for each concurrence that is referred back to the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is not right. The time has expired for consideration in the House and any reports thereto, which includes a concurrence.

Mr. Renwick: Have 90 sittings expired? Surely 90 sittings haven’t expired?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it has. It has all expired.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, if I might make a suggestion to you, sir, the matter that has been raised by the member for Riverdale may be worthy of some consideration before the House meets tomorrow at 10. If you, sir, would give it that consideration, perhaps the concurrences could be called tomorrow as part of the ordinary procedure, rather than to deal with the matter --

Mr. Singer: What could be more reasonable than that?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- here, in case there is some point that may be worthy of being discussed.

Mr. B. Newman: Sweet reason.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very worthy suggestion in that the rules will not change.

Mr. Singer: They’ll break down tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s correct, that is absolutely correct.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House -- I trust that’s in order -- I would like to say that tomorrow morning we shall proceed with the consideration of item 3, Bill 9; and following that I would call item 27, Bill 137.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.