The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Evans), I’d like to introduce to you and the members of the House 50 grade 7 and 8 students from St. Charles Separate School in Bradford, under the direction of Mr. John Carlin.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RICHTS

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to report to the members on the federal-provincial conference on human rights, which took place in Ottawa on Thursday and Friday, Dec. 11 and 12 of this year.

I’m happy to report a major breakthrough in federal-provincial relations in reaching an accord with strong implications for all of Canada. I quote from the communique, if I may, sir:

“Canada took a major step forward today [that’s Thursday and Friday of last week towards ratifying the three United Nations instruments on human rights. At a federal-provincial meeting of ministers responsible for human rights, agreement was reached on the implementation procedures required under the instruments.

“It is anticipated that Canada will be in a position to ratify these agreements early in the new year.”

Mr. Speaker, these agreements include an international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; an international covenant on civil and political rights; and an optional procedure designed to ensure the highest protection of human rights.

The instruments, adopted by the General Assembly in 1966, are the result of 18 years of work by United Nations committees, and together they cover the entire area of human rights.

Canada has delayed ratification of the instruments until federal-provincial accord has been reached on how to apply the instruments to this country and also to determine the methods of operation in Canada.

I should like to report that Ontario played a key role in reaching this accord. Dr. Thomas H. B. Symons, chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, was asked, following a federal-provincial meeting of deputy ministers on Oct. 27, to chair a federal-provincial task force. This task force, Mr. Speaker, drafted proposals on the procedures and mechanisms for the implementation of the United Nations covenants and the optional protocol on human rights. The work of this task force under Dr. Symons’ chairmanship was instrumental in reaching that accord.

The Ontario delegation at the conference included the deputy minister, Mr. Johnston; Dr. Symons; Mr. McPhee, the director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission; and myself.

During this conference the matter of telephone hate messages was raised by the Ontario delegation. The conference discussed the question of control of these discriminatory messages. The federal Justice Minister, Mr. Ron Basford, expressed his sympathy with Ontario’s concern but recognized there are difficult issues involved concerning freedom of speech. However, he did undertake to explore the various approaches which might be used to meet this problem.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference also discussed Bill C-72, the federal human rights bill presently before the House of Commons. It was agreed that a federal-provincial committee of officials should be established goon to study the possible harmonization of federal and provincial laws on the equality of employee benefits relating to age, sex and marital status.

Mr. Lewis: That is about the emptiest and most inconsequential statement made in this House in a long time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry.

Mr. Lewis: Inconclusive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

HIGHWAY 400 EXTENSION

Mr. Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, a question first of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Has he yet worked out the estimates of cost per mile for the extension of Highway 400? Was he to pursue it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have partial figures, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t the complete ball park estimate the hon. member asked for. I should certainly have it tomorrow I expect.

Mr. Lewis: Would he say that the Leslie St. extension might be, apart from the levelling of property and other factors involved, a comparable base? It’s running at about $11 million a mile on estimate; would that be a fair approximation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I wouldn’t want to draw that conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I am not that familiar with the Leslie St. extension. I think those figures are away different from the figures I have.

Mr. Lewis: They are different?

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister assure us that the Ontario government does own the right of way down to Eglinton, and that it is not preparing to swap land with Metro Toronto to get that right of way? Is the minister aware that some of the diagrams in the Soberman report indicate that the province does not own all the right of way right down to Eglinton?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The maps I have seen recently show the province owning the right of way some distance beyond Eglinton; but north of Eglinton there are a couple of sections or small parcels needed. Basically, however, the right of way is owned; although there may be, I think, one or two parcels of land that have yet to be acquired.

Mr. Ziemba: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: On that area north of Eglinton the minister just spoke of, are there private land holdings involved there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two private properties that would have to be acquired, yes.

EXTENSION OF BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Chairman of Cabinet, the member for Cochrane North. Can I ask him whether he has before him the appeal against the Ontario Municipal Board decision involving the extension of the Buttonville Airport and when the results of the appeal to the cabinet will be made public, given the intense anxiety of the surrounding community?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, that has not been brought to my attention yet.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, is the minister saying that he does not yet know of this appeal, or is it simply not on the order paper for cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It hasn’t been brought to my attention.

Mr. Lewis: Could the minister look into it?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.

APPOINTMENT OF MINE INSPECTOR

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, who has just come into the House, Mr. Speaker? Is it correct that he is bringing in on his staff -- I’ll have to work from memory -- in the Sudbury basin, one Harvey Judges, in the mines inspection branch?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister explain to me how a man who was the chief safety superintendent for all of Inco’s operations in the Sudbury basin and has had, in the past, quite unhappy arguments with the workers and the unions in the provision of safety, can then be assumed to play a useful role in that branch dealing with those same people?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should realize and accept the fact that Inco employs and trains I guess over 50 per cent of the professional people in the mining industry.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that.

Mr. Laughren: They lose quite a percentage too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Many people in the member’s party have criticized my ministry for engaging these people but they are the most experienced, the most knowledgeable, the most able.

Mr. Lewis: They are also part of the company.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Does the hon. member want to get them out of those ranks -- the ranks in those benches?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ve got to take the best in the business.

Mr. Lewis: What about the working ranks? What about the workers in the mines?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to go to the major mining companies to get the best; the best, the most qualified, the most knowledgeable.

Mr. Renwick: You don’t have to go to the mining companies to get the people.

Mr. Roy: If you want the best you should resign.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We screen them very carefully, because we want the best to administer those rules and regulations. I know how the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) feels; he’s spoken to me about it already. It’s not a point of picking that particular individual to administer the affairs of my ministry at that mining company. We look for the best qualified people and we get them from the major mining companies. Where else can we get them?

Mr. Renwick: They just appear to come from Inco all the time.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Apart from a kind of conflict of interest, doesn’t the minister see what anxiety and hostility is induced in the work force employed by Inco, who have fought with this man through the years, when he brings him into his mines inspection branch to supervise their lives?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can’t accept that, really, because I have people in my ministry to whom industry takes exception. They say they’re out to get the industry and they’re former members of the industry, so it works both ways.

Mr. Laughren: There’s no fear of that.

Mr. Lewis: It’s the men’s safety.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to accept the fact that they will be unbiased and above board and they will administer the affairs of my ministry’s rules and regulations in a fair and upright manner.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Did the minister attempt to recruit someone from the trade union ranks to fill that job?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if we could get someone who is properly qualified, who has the experience and has the knowledge in the labour field, we would be glad to consider him but until that time comes we will have to get them from the company.

Mr. Renwick: Did you ask my colleague, the member for Sudbury East?

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Does the minister really believe that Mr. Judges can bring an unbiased position to his ministry when dealing with the people he has been in confrontation with as the chief safety superintendent for 25 years?

Mr. Lewis: It’s ludicrous.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Look at the number of qualified people we’ve picked up from the industry and seconded from the industry. They are administering the affairs of my ministry in an unbiased manner and I’m sure that Mr. Judges will too.

Mr. Martel: You haven’t convinced anyone of that. You should quit.

Mr. Laughren: You will have to go.

ELDORADO DUMP AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the Minister of Health aware that Eldorado may have provided landfill at cost, or indeed without cost, for other structures in the Port Hope area? If that is a possibility, could he undertake to get in touch with the company and in touch with federal officials to see where that fill might have been dumped; or to make available to the citizens in the area some sense of the levels of hazard, if any?

[2:15]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was talking to at least two of the members from the area yesterday about this very problem. We are very anxious to know of any potential dump sites or places where fill was drawn. I am sure that any source of information coming to our ministry would be followed up. We are trying to locate them ourselves.

I am sure, however, there will be people in the area who suspect they have fill from this site. If they do, they are free to contact us. In the event they are undetected by any other means we will be glad to check their home or their place of business if there is any doubt. I would welcome suggestions from the members or from any other organization which would lead us to places where the fill may have been used.

Mr. Moffatt: In that regard I have two points. Will the minister establish a public phone number to which people with such suppositions may call and report, to the ministry the known or suspected site? Two, will the minister co-operate with the demand by the federal member, Mr. Allan Lawrence, yesterday in Ottawa, for a full public inquiry into that situation in Port Hope?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly would always agree with a request made by such a reasonable member.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier (Mr. Davis) hasn’t always agreed with him.

Mr. Martel: Particularly after he defeated him.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say I am not so much interested in why it got there as in making sure there isn’t risk now and in making sure it doesn’t happen again. Those to me are the essentials. I believe steps have been taken in the last few years which would prevent such a recurrence. I am told that.

As far as a public telephone number is concerned, I am sure we could find a number for people to call which is already in operation. I’m sure the medical officer of health for the area would be pleased to receive any such calls from people and I am sure he would relay them to us if he got them.

Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the minister could make a further statement as to the level of radiation in the areas which have already been tested? In reading the press accounts, is the minister aware there has been some uncertainty? His officials have said the testing has not gone on to the point where the levels can be indicated and the minister, in a further part of the report I read, had refused to give the levels. Are the levels known? How do they compare with what is considered to be safe? What other information is available?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again I talked privately about this with the members. I haven’t as yet decided whether or not the information should be tabled and it is not in any attempt to keep in secret. I would be glad to show it to the member. The information is known. I am not trying to pretend it isn’t. I just suggest that in some of these cases --

Mr. Lewis: You are a peculiar person.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am a peculiar person? I am sure you could get it if you tried; let’s put it that way.

I only suggest to the member opposite or any of those who are interested that we have a rather interesting problem -- the real problem and the perceived problem. They are two different things entirely and I have to weigh, with members, what we will do to the perceived problem in releasing all the information.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister not think that, as a minister, he raises greater alarms than those he wishes to avoid by indicating that he has radiation levels which he cannot make public because of some perceived problem? Doesn’t he think he should make them public and, with a statement, try to explain them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, of all members in the House, the hon. member knows that I don’t normally keep information secret.

Mr. Nixon: That is why we are concerned about what you are doing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All right, on that basis, again, I suggest to any of the members that I am willing to discuss it. I am willing to weigh the value of making the information public. If several members give me this advice, including the members for the area, I would gladly do it. In other words, I haven’t got a predetermined position that it won’t be made public. I would like to weigh the pros and cons of this particular information.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am rather hesitant to pursue this by way of a new question because I sense that the minister, who has a very heavy responsibility, has some doubts about what information should be made public. Would he not agree, however, that the concern that the residents of the area must feel -- for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that the tests have been taken in a school -- would simply require that whatever information is in the public domain be released with whatever assessment the minister might feel that he had to put forward to accompany it? I don’t see that he has got a choice in that regard.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, many times in the past, specific tests and specific medical information have been kept confidential. I would simply say to the hon. member that I can recite the current level that we consider as acceptable as being three picocuries per litre for average contact. At the same time, I am told the acceptable level in a mine is 10 times that, or 30 picocuries per litre; and that’s a measure of radiation. The knowledge we have tells us that it is the sum total of absorbed radiation that indicates the risk a person is at from it; therefore, we have said in the case of miners, for example, that they may not have more than 120 working-level months’ exposure in a lifetime. This is the equivalent of having 100 picocuries for 170 hours in a month.

I have looked at the information very carefully. I am not totally convinced the kind of approach I have just given is readily understandable by a parent who may be frightened to death. I can assure the hon. member that my staff have told me we are nowhere near dangerous levels in terms of absorption, nor have we been; and it was on that basis that I could safely say we feel the risk is so negligible as to be almost zero to anybody who has been in that school over the past few years.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Since confidence in the minister and in the complete -- I don’t want to use the word “honesty” -- openness that the minister must have in whatever information is available to him -- since that confidence in the community is paramount when the minister said there is no danger, if that is going to be useful in alleviating the apprehension --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Nixon: Is the minister prepared to make a full statement -- and he may have made it in his answer to that first question -- as to the levels of radiation and to the professional indications of any dangers that there may be now or in the future to the people exposed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My staff have said without question there is no risk; in other words, the risk is in the tenths-of-a-per-cent type of thing. I accept that information and I simply say to the hon. member, if he talks to a couple of his colleagues in his party or any other party about the release of medical and scientific data, at times doctors do make subjective decisions that certain information should or should not be released. I have been listening to the arguments pro and con and I continue to do so.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is he now prepared to comment on the letter that I brought to the Premier’s attention, addressed to the Premier, from the two chiefs of Grand Council of Treaty No. 3, indicating their strong belief that we, as a Legislature, ought to move to stop all fishing in the English and the Wabigoon river systems on the basis that -- to quote from the letter -- “unless you act to close these polluted rivers, our people are doomed.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have still not seen that letter.

Mr. Deans: Send him a copy.

Mr. Lewis: Deliver it by hand.

Mr. Nixon: Well, just so that the minister will get it -- I mean, I don’t think anybody delivers the mail faster to my office than to the minister’s office or the Premier’s office; it has got to be there in that pile of stuff the minister has got -- I would suggest that the minister undertake to pull it out of that pile of correspondence and make some comment because it certainly appears to be a matter of grave urgency.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education at the risk of infuriating him. Has he anything to report, now that we have been subjected to a news blackout for well over a week in the teacher’s strike situation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to get my friend all upset. He seems to get upset every time I give an answer.

Mr. Nixon: It’s when you intimidate me that you get so upset.

Mr. Lewis: You are a pretty strident fellow.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have nothing new to report --

Mr. Shore: Anything old to report?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- except the talks are still going on at the Royal York. The three mediators are still there and I really haven’t anything else that I can tell the House at this point in time.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not think that after more than a week of closed-door negotiation the time must soon be upon us when the public can make a judgement as to who is moving in these negotiations and who is remaining intransigent? Surely our concern and the minister’s are as great as, or greater than anyone’s; our concern is that the schools remain closed and there is no indication of any relief in sight.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, mediation is a very --

Mr. Nixon: I don’t.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He doesn’t, eh? I can tell him then that mediation is a very weird and wonderful process and all I can do is assume that the process is still in the motions of carrying on in some degree. At this point in time I can’t tell him what is happening there, but I am sure that at the appropriate time if that mediation is not working or if it is working we will hear the results, and I expect we should hear something in the next day or two.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister think he might ask the mediators to stop talking in different directions simultaneously whenever they are caught in a corridor by some reporter so that that might help the negotiations behind the scenes and the parties aren’t flapped every hour by a mediator?

Mr. Nixon: Did you say “flapped”?

Mr. Lewis: Flapped.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I must say that I agree with what my friend has said. The mediators agreed that there would be a news blackout --

Mr. Lewis: And they haven’t shut up since.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- I guess for everyone but themselves. They have held regular press conferences and I personally think it would have been much better if they also had decided not to issue any statements.

Mr. Shore: You have their telephone number. Perhaps you could get hold of them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But I suppose they have been listening to our friend, the leader of the third party, and trying to give some kind of indication of what is happening.

Mr. Lewis: He is inciting them.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is marvellous. Now he has outlived his usefulness.

Interjections.

APPOINTMENT OF QUEEN’S COUNSEL

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Attorney General: Is he going to accept the recommendation of the Law Society and abolish QCs so we can stop writing him those letters recommending our lawyer friends for this preferment?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Patronage.

Mr. Nixon: I should have said “writing those futile letters”.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wrote one for the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Oh, no. You wrote it.

Mr. Nixon: When is the minister going to acknowledge some of them?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the annual meeting of the Law Society of Upper Canada was held yesterday and that there was a recommendation in relation to the awarding of QCs. I am further advised that this recommendation is going to be carefully considered by the benchers of the Law Society who, as the governing body of the Law Society will, on behalf of the profession, undoubtedly be giving us their views in the months ahead. At the present time I can indicate to the House it is the intention of the government to honour certain members of the legal profession on Jan. 1, 1976.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister agree with the findings of the Law Society of Upper Canada that the QC designation is in fact misleading to the laity --

Mr. Roy: Not true.

Mr. Nixon: -- and that it does not indicate some special quality? Would the minister from the observations that he makes around himself agree with the Law Society?

Mr. Sargent: Give it to all your front row. It’s clearly deserved.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My only response is that I would like to exclude myself from the response, but I think that there are members of this Legislature who have been so designated and who I feel do enjoy a special expertise.

Mr. Stokes: Bestow one on Allan Grossman.

Mr. Lewis: Did the Attorney General know that I dropped out of law school on two occasions and would therefore be available for a conferral of title?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I always thought, Mr. Speaker, that it was a great loss to the legal profession.

Mr. Reid: He didn’t drop out. It was nonpayment of fees.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as one who can talk objectively, not having a QC, I would say that surely this recommendation of the Law Society should not come as a surprise to the Attorney General. Doesn’t he feel that it’s about time that when the government awards QCs it should look at the criteria for giving the QCs so that in this province it can give the QCs possibly more credibility? I’m not talking about my colleagues in the House who merit --

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Roy: -- possibly their QCs --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That isn’t what you said in Kingston.

Mr. Roy: -- and who have made a contribution to the province.

Mr. Shore: What he said in Kingston doesn’t count.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s give the hon. minister a chance to answer.

Mr. Roy: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, isn’t it time the minister brought back the original purpose of QCs -- as an award to people who have made a contribution to the courts or to the community of this province?

Mr. Shore: Do you have to be a lawyer for this?

An hon. member: You sure as hell can’t be an accountant.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, not necessarily.

Mr. Speaker: Is there no answer?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that any recommendations I make to my colleagues and to this government will be in relation to individuals who have distinguished themselves in the practice of law in this province.

Mr. Roy: Yes, in the party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And that puts you out.

Mr. Roy: I am not on my knees for a QC.

Interjections.

HEALTH OF COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: Given the potential time-bomb coke oven workers are now living with, is the minister now insisting that the companies continuously monitor and record the exposure time of coke oven workers and will this information be made available both to the unions and other employee representatives?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the answer to the last question will be yes in the future. As a matter of fact I am meeting with medical officials of the companies this week in order to try to assist in the development of a monitoring system.

APPOINTMENT OF QUEEN’S COUNSEL

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, by way of a new question, if I could to the Attorney General: Recognizing that so many of us in our communities have a good knowledge of people who are learned in the law -- which I understand to be a requirement for a QC -- I’m wondering if the Attorney General would entertain from us suggestions of who these individuals might be so that we might get a very sincere and objective approach?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend opposite that I have been entertaining many such recommendations from the members opposite.

Mr. Lewis: Is that so?

WCB BENEFITS

Mr. di Santo: A question of the Minister of Labour: Since the Canadian Manufacturers Association recognizes that the Workmen’s Compensation Board pension benefit is a social right, even though it suggests the provincial government should bear some costs, can the minister inform the House whether the government is ready to increase Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions and grant cost of living allowances? Also, as a result of the debate which took place last week, will the minister reassure the House that the government will not take the viewpoint of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, given the small amount of the payroll paid by employers toward Workmen’s Compensation Board premiums?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry, I had great difficulty in hearing the question. I think the first part of the question was whether I would give any indication of government action in the direction of increasing benefits. Was that correct? I can give no such indication at this time because this is under study and discussion at the moment.

The second question I really did not understand. I’m sorry; if I might hear it --

Mr. Reid: The COLA clause.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to summarize it?

Mr. di Santo: The Canadian Manufacturers Association suggests that the provincial government should hear some costs of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. My question is will the minister reassure this House that the government doesn’t take that view since the amount paid by the companies toward Workmen’s Compensation Board premiums is very small?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would get a very strong argument from those companies -- all of the companies in the Province of Ontario -- which are the sole financial support of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. That is the only source of funding outside of the investments which they have made in Hydro bonds in various provinces. The only source of funds for the Workmen’s Compensation Board at this time is the contributions made by industry in this province, and --

Mr. Laughren: Those injuries gave them their profits, you know.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- it is not inconsiderable and I say this feelingly --

Mr. Laughren: Don’t give us that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because I have been meeting this week with some of the representatives of industry who are quite disturbed about the increases in assessment for 1976.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: May I ask the minister, does she not consider that when a worker is injured and only receives 75 per cent of his pay that he is in fact subsidizing the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

Mr. Speaker: That’s not really supplementary. There is no question.

Mr. Martel: I thought he was right on.

HYDRO CABLE CHARGES

Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Can he explain why Ontario Hydro would in one increase raise their rate for new construction serving new homes from 45 cents a foot for underground cable to $1.25 a foot?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, but I take it there must be some particular instances where this has occurred that have come to the member’s attention. If he would like to send the details to me, I will get an answer for him from Hydro.

Mr. Ruston: It has been verified that the rate was 45 cents at the end of November and now is $1.25.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister answered that part of it.

RETIREMENT PAYMENTS BY EDUCATION BOARDS

Hon. Mr. Wells: The hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) asked me a question about the Muskoka Board of Education yesterday. I would like to tell him it is our understanding that the retired director of the Muskoka Board of Education was employed on a motion of the board in 1969. Included in that agreement was a provision to pay him, after a certain period of service with the board, a year’s salary upon the conclusion of his services with the board. It appears also to us that similar arrangements were made with other supervisory and administrative officials of that board.

This arrangement does not appear to be associated with the accumulation of sick leave credits, which come under section 155 of the Education Act. If it were, subsection 1 would restrict the payment on termination of employment to no more than one-half a year’s earnings at the rate immediately before termination.

Paragraph 2 of subsection 1 of section 147 of the Act provides that a board may appoint such officers as it considers expedient and determine the terms on which they are to be employed, prescribe their duties and fix their salaries. I might say that although the retirement allowance in question may have been ill-advised and may have been excessive, it was part of the retired official’s --

Mr. Nixon: There is lots of money up there in Muskoka.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- contract of employment. There is a copy of the board minute which so sets out the board’s arrangement in this regard.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: I believe I also referred the minister to section 154, which limits the retirement allowance to 60 per cent. Does his answer apply to that too?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The legal staff of our ministry, as I say, feel that subsection 1 of section 147 and the motion of the board defined this as part of the terms and conditions of employment set down for the supervisory staff. They feel there was nothing illegal about it, although it may have been ill-advised and it may have been excessive.

ACTIVITIES OF FUND-RAISING FIRMS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will he take some steps to bring professional fund-raising operations more clearly within the law of the Province of Ontario? Will he consider mandatory registration of such companies with their objectives and their principals registered? Will he consider whether or not it might be reasonable in the province that we register all of the projects that they undertake prior to the commencing of the undertaking?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are very much aware of some of the problems involved in the activities of professional fund-raisers. The director of investigations of the Business Practices Act has been conducting a number of investigations, as reported to me. I think I can tell the hon. member that we are somewhat reluctant to provide an aura of respectability to what may very well be fraudulent operations by the process of registering them.

I simply would like to say now that we are looking into all of these. Perhaps the hon. member would like to give me in confidence the names and specific details so we can investigate them without putting people on guard that we are going to conduct an investigation, because many of these investigations require undercover operations.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Is the minister aware that the Hamilton-Wentworth police force is currently conducting an investigation into one, perhaps two of those operations in Hamilton, and doesn’t the minister feel that it is better to deal forthrightly and above board with these operations and run the risk of authenticity, rather than to allow them to operate as they are now without any recourse for the individuals involved?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not prepared at this moment to accept that registration is the proper way to control these operations; but certainly this kind of investigation is going on, and my staff is co-operating with the OPP, the Metro Toronto police, and the Hamilton-Wentworth police in a number of these operations.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the minister if his officials have studied Bill 21 that I introduced this year, and have introduced for the last three or four years in an attempt to resolve the problem of the professional or non-professional fund raiser?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have examined the hon. member’s private bill and we’re certainly impressed by some of the thoughts behind it. As I say, we do have some difficulty with accepting legislation as the proper vehicle for enforcement.

AID TO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, if I may: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Would the minister be prepared to consider legislating a comprehensive levy and quota system for the Canadian film industry in Ontario, which would be self-funding and provide a sustained contribution to the economy of this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the hon. member will recall, in answer to a question asked last week, I think from the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), this whole matter is under complete review and the government’s intention with respect to this will be announced in due course.

Mr. Reed: Could the minister give us an indication of at least the month in which an announcement of that nature might be made?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I would be very frank with the hon. member if I was that specific at this time.

CHEMICALS IN WATER SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), and also the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), questioned me concerning the use of additives to potable water supplies for corrosion control. The control of the addition of additives is given to municipalities under section 24, of regulation 647 made under the Ontario Water Resources Act. This regulation states:

“No water supplied by a municipality or public utilities commission shall be subject to any process or treatment or alteration before it reaches the consumer, except where such process is administered under the complete control of the municipality.”

The city of Toronto plumbing department has records of some 24 apartment buildings which are adding rust inhibitors to their water supplies.

Recently, the city’s legal department initiated a test case under the OWRC Act charging that an apartment building owner unlawfully added sodium silicate to the water supply.

This case was heard by Mr. Justice Kennicks and his ruling was that the charge be dismissed on the grounds that the rest inhibitor is not a foreign matter, in that it is not toxic, while the intent of the legislation is to prohibit the addition of toxic matter. The city has appealed this decision and the appeal is still pending.

The total number of apartment buildings located in Metro now adding rest inhibitors is not known at this time. The location of these buildings using these inhibitors is the responsibility of the municipality, and they can be detected as a result of plumbing inspections by municipal plumbing inspectors.

Staff of my ministry are watching closely the city’s appeal on this matter, and if it is found that the regulations do not provide adequate protection for the consumer and ensure that safe water supplies are provided, the Act and regulations will be amended.

The city medical officer of health advised the apartment building owner to notify the tenants that a rest inhibitor was being added to their water supply.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary as this was an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Notwithstanding the fact that this matter is under appeal by the city of Toronto, doesn’t the minister feel that as the Minister of Environment he should be in closer control of this? When they are putting foreign matter in a water supply it should not be the plumbing department that’s inspecting it --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, a supplementary question now?

Mr. Roy: Yes, right.

Mr. Nixon: Does he agree?

Mr. Speaker: The question? The question for information please.

[2:45]

Mr. Roy: My point is simply this. Notwithstanding the appeal before the courts, doesn’t the Minister of Environment feel that it shouldn’t be the plumbing department that’s reviewing this, but his ministry or the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, really, for us to take on the responsibility of inspection would require a whole new army of inspectors. Where municipalities are involved in issuing building permits, where there is inspection for plumbing equipment as well as electrical equipment and building generally, and where the medical officer of health is involved under our regulations, under the OWRC Act, it makes more sense that it should be administered at the municipal level.

I’m not happy with the fact that the present regulations do not require a landlord to notify either the city or a tenant. There may be a number of apartment buildings that the city doesn’t know about that have these inhibitors. It is my opinion there should be a stiff fine in the event they’re installed without a licence or without a permit, and I think we can amend the regulations to do that without too much trouble.

Mr. Ziemba: If the minister is so unhappy that the landlord isn’t informing the tenants that their water is contaminated, why doesn’t he inform the tenants that their water is contaminated? Surely to God these people have a right to know --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that was the gist of the last question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I realize that drinking water is a very sensitive subject, but as I said in my answer to the question, sodium silicate, if it is properly used, is not considered a contaminant. It is not considered dangerous to health if drinking water contains that particular substance; it’s the improper application of it. Certainly in this case, particularly in view of the decision of the court, it was held that it was in fact not dangerous to health. But at the same time, as I said in my reply to the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), I feel the tenants should be notified in respect to the addition of any additive of that kind, regardless of whether it is approved or not.

KELSON SPRING PRODUCTS LTD.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that his officials from the anti-noise branch congratulated Kelson Spring Products Ltd. of Brandon Ave. on Dec. 9. 1975, on dismissal of the charges by the residents against the company, is the minister not going to take any more action against the noise pollution? Is he going to support the noise polluters against the residents generally?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that particular press report. The particular director within the ministry denies he said that to the defendant. He did not congratulate the defendant. I’ve asked for a report on that. Certainly our anti-noise bylaw and the regulations under that bylaw are being applied.

Mr. Lupusella: In view of the fact that the residents have been fighting with the company for the last three years, how long will the residents he waiting to see this problem on Brandon Ave. solved?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the ministry, in conjunction with the municipality, is considering an appeal of that particular decision.

CHEMICAL SHIPMENTS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Premier. As a result of a very serious accident at the Hooker chemical plant in Niagara Falls, NY, where four people were killed and some 80 people were hospitalized to some extent because of the release of chlorine gas, there is some grave concern that Penn Central railway is transporting this type of product over rails between Niagara Falls and Windsor, and that going through some of these very densely populated areas, there may be very grave danger --

An hon. member: Question.

Mr. Kerrio: -- and I’m directing it to the Premier, not knowing what ministry to ask the question of. I would ask the question then: Do we, in fact, have control over rail shipments of chlorine and sulphuric acids specifically? Would he report on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite frankly I don’t know. I would guess that it comes under the control of the federal ministry, but I understand the hon. member’s concern and I will look into it and get an answer for him.

PORT ARTHUR CLINIC STRIKE

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the minister ready to announce the appointments to the disputes advisory committee in the Port Arthur clinic strike? And in view of the difficulty that the ministry seems to be having in appointing such a committee, has the minister given any thought to asking for cabinet approval of an order in council extending the time allowed for the provision in sections 49, 53 and 64 of the Labour Relations Act until such time as the fully constituted committee can bring in a report for a settlement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can announce the name of one member of the disputes advisory committee, Mr. Holt. The other name will be confirmed this afternoon.

The disputes advisory committee will begin functioning this evening upon the direction that has been given, and a report has been requested within a week. Within that period of time it should be possible to make some judgement regarding the future of this dispute.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can I have the assurance of the minister that on receipt of the report such a judgement will be made and possible thought given to the extension of the provisions I indicated?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

VIOLENCE IN BOXING

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the wandering Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is a happy wanderer.

Mr. B. Newman: He is just getting some of that 5-BX, Mr. Speaker.

In the light of the government’s great concern with violence over television, violence in society, violence --

Mr. Roy: On the ice.

Mr. B. Newman: On the ice.

Mr. Reid: In the Legislature.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister not concerned with violence in other sports -- and the sport I refer to is boxing?

Mr. Shore: Wrestling.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister either ban amateur boxing or make it compulsory for all amateur boxers to wear mouthpieces and headgear while they still consider boxing an amateur sport?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I am against violence in any form.

Mr. Reid: You are a lover, not a fighter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re having difficulty hearing the minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes; thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gaunt: You would rather fight than switch.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that during my estimates he raised this question with me insofar as headgear, mouthpieces and other protective equipment was concerned. The explanation at that time was and still would be that it is my understanding that there is some difficulty in arriving at certain standards with respect to this equipment. As I assured the member at that time, and as I would reassure the member now, the matter is under constant review.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Auld presented the report of the executive co-ordinator of women’s programmes on the status of women Crown employees in Ontario for 1914-1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

I believe the hon. House leader had a motion to present; he is still wandering.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No motions? All right.

Introduction of bills. I think there are none over here; are there some over there?

GREYHOUND RACING PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. Gaunt moved first reading of bill intituled An Act to prohibit Greyhound Racing.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to state the principles of this?

Mr. Gaunt: No, I think it’s self-explanatory.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure this bill will receive due consideration, especially from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), because the purpose of this bill is to require lenders to answer written requests by borrowers about incorrect accounts within 130 days. A 90-day period would then follow during which the lender could not request payment until the amount owing on the account was settled. Should the creditor fail to correct or explain the error the amount of the bill would be forfeited if less than $50.

The bill would also allow the borrower to bring a suit for damages when the damages were at least $100. This is a blow against the computers.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I should inform the House that, pursuant to the provision of standing order 27(g), the hon. member for Peterborough (Ms. Sandeman) has given me notice that she is dissatisfied with the answer given to her question directed to the Chairman of Management Board of cabinet (Mr. Auld) on Dec. 10, respecting participation and political activities by civil servants, and she will raise the matter on the adjournment of the House this evening.

Likewise, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has filed notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer given to his question directed to the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) on Dec. 11, concerning health examinations of coke oven workers and this matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening following the matter raised by the member for Peterborough.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the members, we might go into committee of the whole House and do the voting with respect to the rent control bill so that we have a shorter bell since most of the members are here now. We will then go on with a couple of second readings and go back into committee. I would call the second order, please.

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

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect to Residential Premises.

Mr. Chairman: When we were discussing this bill last evening, we had agreed that we would go back to section 13 in order to discuss an amendment moved by Mr. Cassidy. The minister had indicated he wanted some time to reflect on it.

On section 13;

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could comment on that. After some consultation there is a substitute form of the amendment which is very quick to read and which appears to have some support within the House. I would like to withdraw my amendment and move this as an amendment in its place.

[3:00]

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that section 13 be renumbered as subsection (1) of section 13 and that the following be added thereto:

“(2) No agreement between a landlord and a tenant under subsection 5 of section 3 shall have any effect except an agreement in the form specified in regulations.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment briefly. The House will recall that I commented yesterday on our distaste for the procedure adopted by the government with the support of the Liberal Party in subsection 5 of section 3. We felt that a form informing the tenant of his rights was desirable, and that if there was to be an appeal forgone or a rent increase permitted by an agreement with the tenant, it should be in a form that made sure the tenant knew what his rights were. It was difficult at short notice to get agreement on what the form ought to say, but there is some support for the idea that there should be that kind of form. That is why the amendment has been put forward with reference to regulations. We would hope the government would accept the spirit of the amendment, and would ensure that the form that is prepared by regulations tells the tenant exactly what he is getting into.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, we felt the original amendment as put forth by the member was just too complicated for a tenant to be able even to comprehend much less sign. Unfortunately, when the amendment was first put in, it was worded in such a manner that it did not specify that the agreement should be in writing. So I think this amendment would perhaps correct an emission made when the amendment was put through, and in regulations the minister could then designate in what form that agreement should be between the landlord and the tenant. I think that would correct the earlier emission in the amendments of subsection 5 of section 3 and would leave it open to the ministry to designate what type of agreement should exist between the landlord and the tenant under section 5. Se we would support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the amendment as read is acceptable.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes section by section consideration of Bill 20.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a great new section to move, Mr. Chairman, but the government is obviously ready to vote.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There are 17 questions to be decided by the committee.

The committee divided on Mr. McClellan’s amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 34, the “nays” are 70.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment that clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 5 be struck out, which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Rhodes’ amendment to subsection 2 of section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 43, the “nays” are 61.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. McClellan’s amendment to clause (d) of section 9, which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment to section 9, which was negatived on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Mackenzie’s amendment to subsection 1 of section 10, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 62, the “nays” are 42.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

The committee divided on Mr. Stong’s amendment to subsection 5 of section 10, which was approved on a stacked vote, the same count as the first vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to clause (a) of section 12, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 62, the “nays” are 42.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to clause (b) of section 12, which was approved on the same vote.

[3:30]

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Can we actually take the vote? The exemption clauses are the most important changes being made to the bill as a result of the work of this Legislature. Could we take the vote on 12 (b) and make sure that the government people stand when their turn comes, as well?

Mr. Chairman: It’s quite clear to the Chair that that’s the way the division was and the motion carried.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to Mr. Rhodes’ amendment to clause (c) of section 12, which was approved on the same vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment to the amendment carried.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to clause (d) of section 12, which was approved on the same vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to clause (f) of section 12, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 34, the “nays” are 70.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to clause (g) of section 12, which was approved on the same vote reversed.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Rhodes’ amendment to clause (d) of section 13, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 42, the “nays” are 62.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 13 which was approved on a stacked vote, the same as the previous vote reversed.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. McClellan’s amendment to section 15 which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 34, the “nays” are 70.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

Section 15 agreed to.

Bill 20, as amended, reported.

Mr. Lewis: That was an amazing exercise.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved second reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Mr. Lawlor: I marvel at the ingeniousness of lawyers. What tricksters we are! What great games we play! They have been able to circumvent the Planning Act by using the device of having mortgages on the property and not foreclosing on them, or by way of power of sale coupled with selling only portions of the property off under a blanket mortgage they have found a way to utilize the full powers to sell the land, but using nice blocks, thereby in a sense checkerboarding. In this particular legislation you have had to move in again to block the loophole and to circumvent the misuse of the statute. Eternal vigilance, not only for democracy, but for certain lawyers who earn their livings scouting laws. My own profession quite dazzles me as to its ingenuity in finding loopholes in the midst of the Planning Act and numerous other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I’m in favour of anything which will defeat the arcane art of the conveyancer. Our caucus will support it.

Mr. Breithaupt: We agree with the principle in this Act in that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It’s very difficult to hear what the hon. member is saying.

Mr. Breithaupt: We agree with the principle of the Act, Mr. Speaker. The points raised by the member for Lakeshore are sound in that there have been some difficulties, particularly problems in conveyancing. The principle and the practice of dealing with these kinds of matters have been quite separated through this device of foreclosing on only part of the lands. We think this amendment will be useful in order to evade the prohibition which it was the intention of the Legislature to grant and we will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? Does the hon. minister have a response?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might go to committee of the whole House for a moment? I have a major amendment I would like to make which I think would be even more acceptable. My lawyer friends will be even more pleased at the closing of another loophole.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, would it be more proper for us to continue with Bill 42 and then we would have to go into committee only once?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That would be all right.

CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Drea, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Handleman, moved second reading of Bill 42, An Act to amend Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I’m thoroughly devastated by the failure of the minister to appear on such an important, searching piece of legislation as this and deputing a parliamentary assistant to carry it through.

Mr. Drea: That’s why he didn’t.

Mr. Nixon: He certainly left it in good hands.

Mr. Lawlor: Lord, how can he possibly answer the numerous questions one has under the headings of this particular piece of legislation?

Rather than send it into committee, I have really only one question to ask. The legislation says that if there’s a lease in the case of certain lands of OHG -- as in the Home Ownership Made Easy plan -- and the lessor of that property subsequently obtains title to it in fee simple, the two titles merge. They not only merge but other interests which obtain at that particular time and which pre-existed will continue in operation as they stand.

My question has to do with what the minister has in mind particularly. What is he referring to? I take it that he is referring to various forms of liens, governmental and otherwise; to lis pendens; to mortgages; to easements; to rights of way. That is about the range of things I can think of which would be continued and to which the title would be subject. Apart from that question, we agree in principle and accept the amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Lakeshore, I’m delighted the parliamentary assistant has carriage of this bill. It obviously explains, because of his preparation of it, his inability to be present for the votes on the previous bill. This being the case, we agree with the terms of the bill and we will certainly support it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, coming to the number of questions asked by the member for Lakeshore, which really evolved into one, it seems to me that the hon. member for Lakeshore would have been the last to ask it.

[3:45]

Mr. Lawlor: You’re the last to answer.

Mr. Drea: All we are doing in this is preventing one of the money lenders -- and certainly the money lenders should raise some hackles with the member for Lakeshore -- preventing one of the money lenders from blocking or arranging or getting a bonus for the conversion from a lease to freehold.

You can talk about all the encumbrances, you can talk about anything that you want, Mr. Speaker. All we are saying is that in the case of somebody who has a leasehold under OHG who wants to buy it out, that once it becomes freehold the very encumbrances that are upon it as a leasehold continue on into freehold. There can be no change in the interest rates. There can be no arrangements for bonuses. There can be no changes whatsoever.

Indeed, if you really want to pursue it, Mr. Speaker, if somebody who has an OHG leasehold wants to borrow upon that leasehold knowing full well that in the period of time it will become freehold, all right, that is registered against the lease. All that we want to do is ensure that when it becomes freehold there is no impediment, it just flows over; what was in the leasehold is exactly the same as in the freehold. I would really think, I direct this to the member for Lakeshore, that’s rather a people’s bill and I am rather surprised he opposes it.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t oppose it at all.

Mr. Drea: Well I am very glad he doesn’t. I would expect him to vote for it. And I am very glad that the --

Mr. Lawlor: You mistake me. Even when we agree with you, you turn a deaf ear.

Mr. Drea: I am rather glad the House leader of the Liberal party --

Mr. Lawlor: No reversionary chattel mortgages and leases.

Mr. Drea: Oh, there’s some chattel mortgages on leaseholds, and my friend knows exactly what I am talking about.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t think he does. I think you know what you are talking about but I don’t think he does.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will please continue with his remarks.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the House leader of the Liberal Party, when I move legislation I am always here; and we will just leave it as simple as that.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Breithaupt: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee?

Mr. Drea: Third reading.

Interjection.

Mr. Drea: We don’t want committee.

Mr. Bullbrook: We will be wanting to ask a question about the legal effect of a reversionary chattel mortgage.

Mr. Drea: Okay, put it into committee then.

Mr. Speaker: Is it ordered to committee?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: It then goes to committee of the whole House.

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

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 41, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

On section 1:

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, the first amendment I would like to put is in keeping of the spirit of the time, and following along with the comments made by the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rhodes moves that:

“Subsection 5(e) of section 29 of the Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out ‘in respect of land described’ in the first and second lines, and by striking out ‘described in’ in the fourth line; and inserting in lieu thereof “subject to,” and by striking out ‘subject to” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘included in.’”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This is merely to clarify the amendment as it affects a mortgage in which partial discharges have been given prior to the foreclosure or sale under the power of sale contained in the mortgage. We think it just tightens it up a little better for us, improves the wording and makes it a little more comprehensive.

Mr. Renwick: The section as amended.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. The section as amended will read:

No foreclosure or exercise of a power of sale in a mortgage charge shall have any affect in law without the approval of the minister unless all the land, subject to such mortgage or charge, is included in the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale as the case may be.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one question; you said “mortgage or charge.” There is an “or” in there, isn’t there?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Lawlor: Fine, okay.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to. Bill 41, as amended, reported.

CONVEYANCTNG AND LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 42, An Act to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Sarnia wish to comment on this bill?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, I would like to yield the floor to my colleague from Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I will yield, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: What about reversionary chattel mortgages?

Mr. Drea: First of all I would like to pay all due respect to my colleagues, the members for Lakeshore and Riverdale, who got hoisted. It’s the member for Sarnia who is asking this I am very glad to see the member for Sarnia in the House today; there are other places he is so frequently never seen.

Mr. Chairman: Order, can we come to the question?

Mr. Drea: However, Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to discuss the matter if they would like to bring this up under the shifting, leaping and springing uses. I would be very glad to discuss it if one of the hon. members who is a solicitor, and I am not, would like to bring it up under that particular topic.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have always regarded shifting uses as almost obscene.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on Bill 42 in committee?

Mr. Lawlor: What about public trust?

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have a further question?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, there is absolutely no change between the particular type of arrangement that is entered into because of the leasehold on a firm arrangement with Ontario Housing Corp. When the person buys it out it becomes freehold; that is the whole purpose of the Act. There is absolutely no change.

Bill 42 reported.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 26, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, with the concurrence of the House, that perhaps if there is a series of amendments for this legislation we might agree now that they would be stacked for one bell later on today; perhaps a bell tonight?

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreeable with the hon. members of the committee?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will stack votes until tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any of the sections? Perhaps the minister might indicate which section his first amendment would apply to, and then we can deal with any other amendment prior to that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of amendments I intend to move; two or three of these amendments have just been prepared and what I have just given to you, hopefully includes the up-to-date group of amendments that I will be proposing. Some of my friends opposite will recognize some of them, because they have been adopted in principle, I believe. I distributed copies of proposed amendments to the hon. members opposite several days ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: Are these amendments in addition to the ones we received earlier?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes; and there are a couple of amendments that were proposed by the members in the New Democratic Party that I am prepared to propose. There are several other minor amendments, but what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is to proceed --

Mr. Lawlor: Let us propose and you can dispose.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the additional amendments are being circulated now that were not already circulated to the members opposite at least two or three days ago.

Mr. Chairman: I gather that the hon. minister’s first amendment is to section 2.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s correct.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments in section 1?

On section 1:

Mr. Renwick: I have just one question. I want to be certain in my own mind that the definition of residential premises in section 1 of the bill is identical with the definition of residential premises in the bill which we have just passed, Bill 20.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I can’t give a definite answer with respect to that. I am sorry.

Mr. Renwick: Would it not be possible to stand that section down? The reason is I assume it’s not a matter of controversy that the definition should be the same in this bill and in Bill 20 and, if necessary, we could just stand it down until the comparison is made. Otherwise, it will lead to considerable confusion.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I agree, Mr. Chairman, that they should be the same. I just wanted to make sure that we checked this very carefully before I said categorically they are the same. It is certainly my intention.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can stand section 1 down until we have the answer to the question by the minister and at this point we could hear the minister’s amendment to section 2 and then we will discuss that.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that clause (a) of section 81 of the Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “manager” in the third line, “watchman, security guard”.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The purpose, Mr. Chairman, is to broaden the definition of a caretaker’s premises to include premises occupied by a watchman or security guard as part of the employment arrangements.

Mr. Lawlor: We agree.

Just one short statement: During the course of this legislation, it is my intention, having basic carriage of the legislation in co-operation with other of my colleagues, to make short, sharp, concise statements and sit down.

That is the way it is going to be handled as far as I am concerned; and when I make them sharp, I will try to indicate the importance of the legislation without undue elaboration.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman: The Chair recognizes the intention of the member for Lakeshore to be brief. We hope other members of the committee follow his example.

Is there any further discussion on the minister’s amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that clause (b) of section 81 of the Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(b) ‘mobile home’ means any dwelling that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent residence for one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer, or a trailer otherwise designed.”

Mr. Lawlor: Just one point: Again, you’re absolutely sure that this is in total correspondence with the previous Bill 20?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: The definition of “mobile home” was argued about here at some length. So long as there’s correspondence between the two definitions, I’m prepared to accept it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, it is the same.

Mr. Good: We accept this revised definition because it does correspond with the change made in Bill 20.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lawlor moves that section 81 of the Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following thereto: “(f) ‘board’ means the Residential Premises Rent Review Board established under this Act to exercise all of the powers of a judge under this Act”.

Mr. Lawlor: As a matter of fact, there’s nothing in the Act. This is a testing provision which we could go on with for some time. I would like, almost initially, in order to foreshorten the debate, an indication from the minister of his amenability in regard to substituting for the courts, which we believe should be done, the rent review officers and the panoply of legislation which has just gone through this House under Bill 20. That is, in our opinion, a better move.

We have had indications in the past that the minister was not very well disposed, predisposed or disposed at all. Therefore, I thought the best way to move it was to say that if you were amenable, we would move other provisions into the body of the legislation which would make this efficacious, and amendments would have to be made accordingly.

May I say, in support of the amendment, bless the shades of Lord Hewart and let the new tyranny go down the drain. The fact is that that all-benighted heathen up in the House of Lords lost complete contact, not only with his own times but with any other times and with the whole of reality. I don’t believe he died incarcerated but it might very well have been the case. The hatred of bureaucracy, without weighing its merits in a particular context or judging it according to the work that has to be done, is a purblind, Neolithic policy which is shared too often by people on the other side of this House.

I trust that this new minister is not a victim of that particular kind of irrationality. They have their role and their function; we all well know it and we invoke them and so on. Let us not simply return to the courts always out of some atavism, out of some childish liking for the operations of courts as distinguished from other bodies. The courts have a valid and terribly important and searching role to play in this society. They sift certain kinds of evidence extremely well, and if you’ve got an awful lot of money they’re great institutions to attend upon, by and large. But there is such a thing as the legal mind and it does tend to be a capricious, niggling, narrow vehicle for the detection of truth. It cuts itself back to far.

But leaving aside the sarcasms, the function of a board is far more flexible, far more out at the elbow, so to speak; it is informal in its operations and receptive of a range of evidence that the courts would shy from. Even if you make some provision in your bill, it doesn’t go any long direction toward amending all those intricate, exclusionary rules. It can come closer to the people. The problems of attendance, of being given a hearing, of time, of comfort; the sense of not being alienated, of not being outside the system somehow -- all these are apropos of this type of tribunal, which would adjudicate rents, amend the ills as between landlord and tenant and, particularly so far as this legislation is concerned, bring itself into the security of tenure picture and ameliorate it and make it work.

The courts are a harsh, obtuse vehicle for this particular purpose. I can well appreciate why you resort to them. First of all, they are there, even if they are not well staffed. Being there, though, if this thing is going to work at all, you are going to have to place a series of new county court judges on the bench in order to give hearings and to make themselves available so as to obviate the howling complaints that one hears constantly from lawyers as to their inability to get to a judge, to get a date for a hearing, and the ramifications that they have got to go through with respect to the filing of documents, the use of affidavit evidence -- the whole thing.

When launching into the scheme, it seemed to me that it would have been the part of wisdom, if not of valour, to have initiated that, and to have fleshed out your legislation to make that type of provision.

You haven’t seen fit to do so. No doubt you will explain the rationale, but at least I think we have some responsibility to inform you of our sentiments in this regard and what we think should come to pass and, I have little doubt, what will come to pass within due course as this legislation is extended for the next decade or two.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond to the brief comments by the hon. member for Lakeshore, or will we listen to other comments?

Mr. Williams: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Was it not the hon. member for Lakeshore who, a brief 15 minutes ago, suggested that the guidelines for this debate should include brevity and clarity?

Mr. Riddell: Right on. He is violating his own rules.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I shall deign to reply to that. There are things we think are important and we will take a little more time on them. I don’t expect, every time one speaks at a little greater length than you find palatable, that you will be jumping up like a jack-rabbit saying so. You consume more time in this House than anybody else, except perhaps one or two.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I think the experience in the United States has indicated very clearly that having a board or tribunal dealing only with landlord and tenant matters has been far more effective than the court route.

I wonder if the Attorney General could tell me -- and I am going to try to be brief in this -- just how he sees the procedures functioning as between the two statutes in view of the fact that, as I read the present legislation regarding landlords and tenants, you would have the applicant proceeding to the courts on the question of the validity of notice, for example, and then the applicant would be required to go to the rent review board on the question of the rent flowing from the notice given.

I have long felt that we were very backward in this province in that, for instance, we had so many courts and so many processes to deal with the family. It does seem to me that there was an opportunity, if I may plead with the Attorney General here, to show an enlightened approach to allowing these matters to be disposed of at least in one hearing and not have a multiplicity of hearings over the same documents.

I should like to hear his reply to that proposition.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I should assure the hon. member for Lakeshore that, transported as I always am to delightful realms of thought by his eloquence, I certainly have no objection to the time which he wants to take in making submissions with respect to some very important matters. There is no question that this issue of substituting the rent review board for the courts is a very important issue insofar as this legislation is concerned.

As I indicated to this House when I introduced the legislation, I was well aware of the fact that we as a government and I as Attorney General had a real responsibility to look at and review the possibility of establishing a court that would be able to deal with all matters between landlords and tenants.

As a matter of principle, I think it 15 something that should be examined very carefully, but at the same time I believe very strongly that this would be premature. We’re dealing with a situation that has obviously taken on the character of a very large degree of urgency and I think we would be very unwise not to make use of the court system, quite apart from the fact that I believe many of these applications should be heard by courts because they do involve legal matters.

It’s also my strong view that the rent review board, as envisaged by the legislation that has been just passed by this House, is really quite inappropriate in relation to dealing with these amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act. We want to establish rent review officers and boards that have, hopefully, a large degree of expertise or appropriate degree of expertise in dealing with accounting matters, bookkeeping matters, matters that relate to what is a proper rent in the particular circumstances.

These, in my view, can be quite clearly distinguished from matters relating to the Landlord and Tenant Act, which, as my friends opposite are well aware, do relate to a very large body of law that has grown up in this province over the years. I would think we would be causing tenants no end of grief if we ask them to have these disputes determined by boards that clearly aren’t qualified at this point in time to deal with matters that are substantive legal matters.

I think, quite frankly, in looking at it from a purely pragmatic standpoint, in view of the volume of matters that might be anticipated as going to be handled by the rent review officers and the rent review boards in relation to rents alone, that to ask these bodies to be able to determine matters that have been dealt with in the courts -- matters pertaining to these amendments under the Landlord and Tenant Act -- would, in fact, burden them to such an extent that the tenants and the landlords who require fairly early determination of these disputes are the people who are going to suffer.

Of course I can’t speak for the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), but I personally believe that it’s just going to be humanly impossible to establish rent review boards by the beginning of the year that are going to adequately handle these matters under the Landlord and Tenant Act and rent review at the same time. If it’s of any interest to my friends opposite, I am certainly not wedded to the principle that the courts or the county courts are the only forum for a determination of the matters pertaining to landlord and tenant.

[4:15]

I know my friend, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), has some strong feelings with respect to other courts that should be unified in dealing with, for example, matters under one roof rather than to have to seek relief in various courts. As a matter of principle, I adopt the principle that down the road we should be examining and looking toward the possibility or the probability of establishing courts -- or tribunals or boards; there’s nothing magic in the name -- that have a particular expertise to bring to bear on these problems, where these disputes can be resolved under the one roof, as it were.

I think that makes a great deal of sense and that it’s something that has to be explored very carefully. Certainly in making this determination, we are all going to want to look very carefully at the experience in other Canadian jurisdictions and indeed the American jurisdictions that the hon. member for St. George refers to.

There is a possibility of constitutional problems, but I don’t want to get into that area at this particular time, because I don’t think it’s going to add a great deal to the discussion. But I just want to caution the House as to the very real danger, as we attempt to have these remedies available for the tenants and landlords of this province by Jan. 1, that we would be making a very serious error if we wore to load all of these problems on the rent review boards.

For the reasons indicated, we on this side of the House, although we appreciate the thought that has gone behind the amendment and the importance of the principle, feel that it just would be totally impractical to accept the amendment at this time.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the minister as to his point in expediency, I would suggest that in the interim the courts could operate until you establish the board.

Secondly, in a separate matter; I think we have to have a good discussion now, or at least the warning signals should go up, that if this particular section should pass, then it flows from that that it will be the responsibility of the Attorney General. You can do it by cross-referencing to Bill 20, where the board is established, and all that would be necessary is to flesh out its powers, to designate its operation as an inspector and adjudicator under the terms of the present legislation. The role of the judiciary after that interim period would fade out and the boards themselves would handle the hearings under the security aspects of tenure, which are profoundly tied in with the rental aspects, as everyone knows.

In other words, I’m saying that because of the way these votes are being taken, this vote will not be taken until the end and we will not be conclusively sure up until that time that the board principle is accepted or rejected. If it should be accepted, then I would ask you to take into cognizance the range of your tasks in order to bring Bill 20 into line with this again and to designate those powers.

Mr. Bullbrook: If I might make a comment, that is one of the anomalies of a minority government and one of the things that we must, almost on an ad hoe basis, come to grips with. It’s easy enough for my colleague from Lakeshore to say we in the majority might carry the day eventually, but the fact of the matter is it’s incumbent upon the government of the day to administer it and recognize the repercussions of the directions that a majority opposition takes. So my comments are these, only for this sake, that those of us in the opposition might give some understanding to the plea put forward by our colleague from Lakeshore to the Attorney General, that when the government is administering it, let it do it in a good fashion; that is basically what is being said. I just don’t think we can put the onus on the Attorney General of this government to do that this quickly.

I must say I haven’t joined too much of the debate either in this legislation or in the rent review legislation because, to put it as mildly as possible, I wouldn’t have my heart in it anyway. I just haven’t suffered the impact that obviously many people have, nor have any constituents apparently suffered the impact, social and economic, in the city of Sarnia, that has impelled this government to undertake this type of legislation, almost emasculated in its intent by amendments -- 17 of them that we came to grips with today -- which impinge upon a government function and put upon our colleagues opposite the burden of administering these amendments, I think without an adequate realization of what role a majority opposition plays in this function that we have.

The fact is this: I, like the Attorney General, say, “What’s in a name?” I don’t care whether it’s a tribunal, a board or a court, but it has got to be properly organized, it has got to be properly functioning and set up. Your colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), has in effect said, “I am prepared to do this” with respect to those responsibilities under the rent review legislation, but I would ask members to recognize what the Attorney General has said in connection with the administration.

Aside from that, he has not given us an undertaking but he has certainly led us to believe that it is his intention to recognize some of the problems under the Landlord and Tenant Act and to give both the tenants and the landlords -- and while we feel for poor tenants, one has to feel for property owners whose property has been invalidated at best -- to give them a more expeditious, a more peremptory almost, right to some judicial relief, be it by a tribunal or otherwise.

Speaking for myself, and I hope for my party, we will not support the amendment because of the collateral impact of such support on the administration of the Landlord and Tenant Act I ask you in closing, Mr. Chairman, to recognize that the Landlord and Tenant Act is not just encompassed in this statute. It is a far-reaching and broad document that requires in many aspects, significant judicial interpretation.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, may I just say to my friend from Sarnia that I was not saying anything so platitudinous as that it should be well administered. I was saying that the terms of the administration have to be set up, but since you have indicated what your position is going to be, it obviates the difficulty.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment in response to the member for Sarnia. I think that the Legislature was elected in the percentages of party representation which it is for the purpose of carrying on the affairs of government and that the exercise of the legislative power of the assembly is not one which should be lightly set aside in favour of the problems of government administration. Everyone knows that the system is infinitely adaptable, and what my colleague from Lakeshore was saying is that the procedures are available, by way of providing that a section of the bill, or a particular provision of the bill, can come into force and effect on a date to be proclaimed in the future, to give the Attorney General and the administration the opportunity to set up the kind of tribunal that my colleague has been talking about.

My colleague knows, and the Attorney General knows, and the member for Sarnia knows that my colleague was not suggesting some instantaneous solution to a difficult transfer of jurisdiction, but an acceptance by the government of a change in principle of the administration of that part of the law of landlord and tenant referring to residential premises so that it would be expeditious, so that it would be so administered as to provide equity between landlord and tenant, and in a very real sense to relieve the courts of some burden imposed on them without in any way destroying the jurisprudence which has been built up over the years and which would be readily available to such an appeal tribunal.

It was in that spirit that my colleague was endeavouring to establish that principle in this bill. Obviously, if the principle were accepted in this particular clause, a number of ancillary provisions would have to be inserted in the bill to give it flesh, meaning and substance but that’s not beyond the wit and capacity of the legislative counsel, coupling that with what is a common device of government in administration to provide that such and such sections of the bill will come into force on royal assent; other sections will come into force on a subsequent date; other sections will come into force on a date to be proclaimed.

Then the government would have a clear sensation of what the intent of the Legislature was and it could move with all due cautious dispatch to implement what we consider to be an essential change in the way in which, and the tribunals before which, these difficult questions of landlord and tenant relationships could be resolved in the interests of landlords and tenants and in the interests of society as a whole. This whole area which has developed into being one of immense contention in the developing urban society could become one in which equity would prevail.

Mr. Bullbrook: I might add this -- I am most appreciative of the comments of my colleague from Riverdale but I point this out to him. It is easy enough to talk about fleshing out and I’m sure legislative counsel has the capacity to flesh out. Let’s flesh out. This is very important to me as far as my responsibility is concerned. We legislate, you govern, but in undertaking our responsibility to assist in legislating we do less than accept our responsibility toward the people through the government function. That is a very important point.

The fact is the review board to which my colleagues wish to transfer the responsibility is a self-destructing mechanism. It goes out in August, 1977, doesn’t it? Right? I would hope one would entertain that we’re not going to transfer it to a tribunal which is already self-destructive. I would trust that we would flesh out the legislation. If, in effect, we are going to give them the responsibility to develop an expertise, let’s keep them in being at least.

Mr. Good: The point I wanted to make was that our caucus had recognized that particular deficiency in the amendment, in that the rent review board is not a permanent body and we hope it will not be a permanent body. The Landlord and Tenant Act is a permanent piece of legislation. It will not expire and, therefore, the tribunal to administer that must be a permanent tribunal.

There may very well be merit in the idea of having something other than the courts do this but at the present time I don’t think it’s expedient to hand it over to the rent review board which will have all it can handle with Bill 20 after it is legislated.

Mr. Williams: Undoubtedly the persons who will be selected to sit on the residential premises rent review boards will be capable individuals and, undoubtedly, will carry out and discharge their duties well under the rent review legislation. I think it’s difficult to expect these people, who will be laymen in the sense of administering or interpreting the law pertaining to landlord and tenant -- which has developed over the centuries as a very substantive part of English common law -- it would be presumptuous and, I think, inappropriate and unfair to burden people who are laymen in this sense with such onerous responsibilities particularly as was indicated by members of the Liberal Party, since the rent review legislation is a short-term piece of legislation whereas the landlord and tenant legislation has been in existence for many years and was developed, as I indicated, as a very substantive part of English common law.

It would surely require the wisdom and experience of one trained in the law, such as a judge, properly to administer and adjudicate on matters coming up under landlord and tenant legislation. I don’t think you can magically impose on or bring to the members of a rent review board this type of wisdom overnight. It would appear inappropriate instantly to bring forward this additional responsibility without the parties being fairly trained and equipped to deal with this aspect of the legislation we have before us today.

[4:30]

Mr. Lawlor: Just one sentence. We all know of that great bird called the phoenix which was born from its own ashes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall this amendment be stacked?

Agreed.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that clause (d) of subsection 1 of section 99 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“where a notice of termination is given by a landlord

“(1) specify the reasons and particulars respecting the termination, and (2) inform the tenant that he need not vacate the premises pursuant to the notice but that the landlord may regain possession by application for a writ of possession to be obtained from the clerk or judge of the county court, which application the tenant is entitled to dispute.”

Mr. Lawlor: It is a thoroughly meritorious amendment on all fours with what we proposed, and I will say no more.

Mr. Good: We support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments or amendments to section 3?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a further amendment to section 3 on section 101 of the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any comment before section 101? The hon minister will continue.

Mr. Lawlor: Pardon me, we may have an amendment to his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 1 of section 101 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “30” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “60.”

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have an amendment to the minister’s amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: No, the minister has accepted the amendment that I had and that’s fine.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 1 of section 103 of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out “30” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “60.”

Mr. Lawlor: The minister indicates an enormous equilibrium. The amendments we had received had indicated that in areas where, rightly or wrongly, the landlord might feel chagrined or his toe-pinched movements were made, we felt that adequate consideration perhaps had not been given to the tenant side of the picture, but that has been rectified. So, tit for tat; if you were good enough to move with respect to the tenants, giving them some greater elbow room and leeway, we will bow to the requisites of this particular section.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think both the landlords and tenants are given greater leeway by the proposed amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments to section 3?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have an amendment to section 103d(1).

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have any amendment prior to the minister’s amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the minister is going to have to be a little more precise. I want to say a few words on clause (a) of subsection 1 of section 103d.

Mr. Chairman: I gather then that the member should continue prior to the minister’s motion.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, we are not going to move an amendment on this particular demolition clause. We simply want to state that the minister has been fairly virtuous in moving precisely into the area. Our chief complaint about this whole section, including clause (a), was that we didn’t want any of these clauses used as a rose or as a masquerade for getting rid of tenants; they should go to the end of the termination of a tenancy before they are invoked. If he wants to demolish after the tenancy expires, then fine -- well, it is not fine, but the fact is that at least some protection is given; there is the full amount of the time and then the notice of 120 days. That’s extremely valuable to the protection and consolidation of the rights of tenants and provides some stability in the community in the light of what is occurring out there in this regard.

I would like to say one other word: If you take a look at the British Columbia legislation, you will see that in the event of demolition, say, they make provision for the landlord providing some benefit to tenants in the way of moving costs; I think the sum specifically mentioned is $300. However, since you have again made the major move to obviate what could be an inequity, we will not press that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would move that subsection 1 of section 103d of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out “length of notice shall not be less than 120 days” in the 11th and 12th lines and inserting in lieu thereof, “date of termination specified shall not occur sooner than (d) 120 days after the date the notice is given; and (e) the end of the tenancy agreement”.

Mr. Good: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We will deal with the minister’s amendment, but I believe the member for St. George has an amendment to clause (c) of this section, which is just a little prior in that section to the minister’s amendment. Maybe we should deal with the minister’s amendment first.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment prior to that again, as to clause (b) of section 103d(1), that has to do with conversion of property for a purpose other than rental residential premises. We desire to strike out the word “rental” from this.

I would move that clause (b) of subsection 1 of section 103d of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out the word “rental” in the first line.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just so that I could understand what we are doing, should we deal with clause (a) now? As I understand it, the Attorney General’s amendment is to add clause (d) and (e), and the member for St. George proposes to amend clause (e) as proposed --

Mrs. Campbell: Clause (c).

Mr. Renwick: -- clause (c) -- and as my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, wishes to move on clause (b), perhaps we should deal with them seriatim, in alphabetical order.

Mr. Lawlor: I think that is the only way we can do it.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair is having some difficulty finding which is the proper amendment. I have an amendment here and perhaps it will clarify it. The amendment that I had next was to section 103 of the Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Section 103d(1).

Mr. Lawlor: Top of page 5.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t have that amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Small “d”.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Small “d”. Section 103d.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps this is the one. They weren’t in order. I will deal with this one. I think I am reading the correct one.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 1 of section 103d of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “length of notice” --

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, if I may. Since that amendment simply adds clauses (d) and (e) to clauses (a), (b) and (c), and some of us wish to speak on clause (a), my colleague wishes to amend clause (b), and the member for Lakeshore wishes to amend clause (c), perhaps we should deal with those matters before we reach the Attorney General’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Renwick: If I may just make a comment on demolition, I wonder if the Attorney General might express his view as to what elements to support the intention of a landlord that he requires possession of residential premises would be required to be explained to the court so that a court would be satisfied of the bona fide intention of such a person. For example, we went through considerable discussion in the bills relating to the city of Toronto about demolition permits. Would it be a requirement that the intention to demolish would be evidenced only by a permit, or is it simply a statement being made by the landlord? In what way would he validate the bona files of his intention to demolish?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have tried to cover this under subsection 5 of 103d.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Good: On that point, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Attorney General could answer my question. Some municipalities will not give a demolition permit unless the building has become or is vacant. In other words, they will not allow demolition if it is going to mean the displacement of tenants in that building. Could he tell me what would happen as to bow an owner could get a demolition permit if his tenants are still in, and according to your bill he can’t get them out unless he has the permit? It is sort of a circle arrangement. Does that just mean that in municipalities where possession of the vacant building is required to get a permit, you just couldn’t get a permit under this bill? Would that be the final result?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In a municipality whereby that is the prerequisite for obtaining a demolition permit, then the landlord is in precisely the position that you stated. Subsection 5 talks about “all necessary permits” and of course it would depend on the municipality what the requirements were of that particular municipality. The problem, and whether it was inequitable or not, of course would be something that would have to be determined by the particular municipality that issues the permit for demolition.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps before we go on further, we could clarify a point for the Chair. I still feel the committee hasn’t dealt with the minister’s amendment to section 3, as set out in section 103 of the Act in section 3 of the bill, where you are striking out “30” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof, “60.”

[4:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, I’ve lost you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: It’s your number five, which would come, I would think, before we deal with (b) and (c).

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, that amendment was carried. Are you looking for just where that amendment --

Mr. Chairman: I think section 101 was carried.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, section 103 of the Act.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did we not deal with section 101 before?

Mr. Chairman: That’s right. We haven’t dealt with section 103 yet, and this is where I would like to have the --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ll move it again. I thought that we had.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 103 of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “30” in the second line, and inserting in lieu thereof, “60.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment by Mr. Lawlor dealing with section 103d(1)(b).

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, if I may explain the amendment. As a matter of policy, this party is opposed to the wholesale conversion of rental units and apartments into condominiums. It’s as simple as that.

The reason for it is that many people can’t afford condominiums; they haven’t the requisite necessary deposit or down payment and, therefore, they are kicked out of the building left bereft with very little place to go. It’s a trick or a subterfuge in some instances by apartment owners to shuttle off their responsibility with respect to these buildings on to tenants who are under the impress of a drastic market.

This has been happening and perhaps -- I have little doubt -- with the passage of this legislation it will go on apace, it will increase. We would like to do something to forfend against that and this is our gesture in this particular regard. It will protect innumerable tenants in the province if the Attorney General would see fit to accede.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. Attorney General wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. It’s our view, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter of policy relating to the Ministry of Housing; it’s related to the conversions to condominiums or covered under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act. It’s our view simply that this should be a municipal decision, firstly. Secondly, we believe that a municipality is better able to determine as to whether or not it’s in the interest of the community to allow such a change, and we believe that the authority should remain with the municipality in that respect.

We also fear that if this amendment were to be accepted, it might have the effect of accomplishing or resulting in what my friend, the hon. member for Lakeshore, does not want to happen -- that is to see residential accommodation go out of the market because, of course, it would not prevent conversion from residential to commercial use, for example.

Mr. Lawlor: No, it wouldn’t do that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This might be a result of the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s pretty far-fetched.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think there is anything I can add other than it is our view that this matter should not be determined in relation to an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act but that it should rest with the municipalities.

Mr. Good: In this particular amendment, I think the objectionable principle here is that under this section the landlord “may during the currency” of the lease -- that is, during the lease -- ask for an order for eviction of the tenant. That’s the way I read it: “May at any time during the currency of the tenancy agreement, give notice of termination of the tenancy.” I think that is unfair.

If he wants to convert to condominiums let him wait until his apartments are empty under normal circumstances, one at a time. This is a method whereby a landlord can ask for eviction under section 106 if the tenant doesn’t move during the currency of the lease. That is wrong. Let the landlord wait until the lease expires if he wants to get rid of his tenants and then he can apply for a writ of possession under section 106 in the normal course and let the judge decide whether he has a valid reason for getting possession. But during the currency of the lease this should not take place and we would support the amendment which would delete the word “rental” so that he could only convert to that.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s on that basis.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If I might respond briefly to that, I suppose there might have been some wisdom in proceeding with my amendment first. If the amendment we propose carries, it makes it clear that no landlord can, in effect, evict any tenant during the course of the tenancy. We recognize that this would be unjust and that’s the purpose of my amendment which was read but not dealt with. It clarified the situation.

We are of the view that a landlord should not have the right to evict tenants without cause during the course of the tenancy just for the purpose of converting residential premises whether it’s to a condominium or whether it’s for demolition or for extensive renovations. We are of the view that this should not be allowed or the tenant should not be removed or lose his rights under the agreement during the currency of the lease.

I think our proposed amendment would give the protection you are concerned about.

Mr. Good: I must find another reason, then, to oppose it.

Mr. Warner: Perhaps the Attorney General has forgotten the incident which was brought to light during the past election campaign and which dealt with 1 Chelmsford Spa in Agincourt. It wasn’t a matter of the tenant being forcibly evicted during the life of the tenancy agreement at all; it was a rather insidious plot which drove tenants from the building.

The landlord proceeded to inform the tenants that the building would be converted and did they wish to partake of that conversion? Those who said they did not wish to partake and didn’t have the cash for a down payment were informed that their rent would be increased 150 per month.

When he had succeeded in getting some 10 to 15 per cent of the building’s tenants to reach that agreement the landlord placed an ad in the newspaper stating that the building was available as condominiums. Regardless of the fact that the decision had not been made, had not even been discussed by the municipality, the owners took it upon themselves to place an ad.

They subsequently had to go through a fight with the municipality. Thank goodness, the municipality of Scarborough has seen fit to clamp down. There will be no more conversions to condominiums from existing rental structures past Jan. 30 of 1976. What about the other municipalities and do we have to wait for a fight to take place? Do we have to wait for tenants to be intimidated out of the building before we get some leadership from this government to bring about the kind of change that’s needed throughout the province?

I submit that this is a perfectly reasonable kind of amendment. It provides the leadership that you refuse to provide in an area where tenants are most vulnerable.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can’t resist the temptation to say that I’ve enjoyed participating in some debates in this House and certainly up to this point in time I believe the contribution of every member of this House has been very useful. I find it most offensive when my friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere gets up and makes a foolish provocative statement that absolutely bears no relationship whatsoever to what we’re discussing.

If you read the rent review legislation, you would know that that could not happen because such rent, for example, would have to be reviewed. If you have read this legislation, you would know that in my view it affords every reasonable protection. I think such contributions, if I might put it in that term, are something less than helpful.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to join with the minister in one of the comments be made. He says it is not government policy to accept the amendment proposed by the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) because it’s the government’s view that conversions to condominiums should be matters for the Ministry of Housing and for the municipalities. That’s a perfectly reasonable point of view.

What this amendment touches upon though is not the conversion to a condominium or not; it touches upon the rights of the residents in a building which it is proposed to convert to condominium. I would suggest that is something different. I would have thought the minister is well aware that often when a conversion to condominium takes place it is a conversion of property which is rented to people on modest incomes and a property which is to be sold to people on much higher incomes. The beneficiary is normally the owner of the building who takes a capital gain.

You deprive one group or class of accommodation which is affordable to them, or which is the best that they can find for themselves for the benefit of another class of people who are rather better able to afford the condominium when it is sold. We have some grave questions about that. We think in a housing market where people on modest incomes have been driven from pillar to post, that it was quite right for the Minister of Housing to come through with rent review legislation and we would that it had been tougher than the bill we’ve actually just passed. But we also think that it’s wrong that condominium conversion should be at the expense of people on modest incomes who are condemned to have no choice but to remain as tenants.

If the amendment of the member for Lakeshore is passed, then the situation will be slightly different. The sitting tenants will have a greater bargaining power, one might say. Obviously, nobody is going to try to interfere indefinitely with the rights of the owner to do what he will with the building, but it’s reasonable, if a tenant is going to accept a termination of his lease because the building is being converted, that it be interesting for the tenant. It can be interesting in the sense that he gets a reasonable price on the unit that he occupies in order that lie can purchase it, or interesting in the sense that the landlord is willing to compensate the tenant for the inconvenience that he may have experienced in having to move.

There is no such protection under the minister’s bill without the amendment proposed by the member for Lakeshore. The only protection is that this can occur only at the end of a lease. I point that out too to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) because I heard him questioning whether the amendment of the member for Lakeshore didn’t interfere with the rights of the owner as regards his property.

Take a building which is rented to a bunch of tenants and take a tenant who is fulfilling his normal obligations. Under most circumstances, the right of the landlord to do what he will with that particular apartment is circumscribed by Bills 20 and 26. He can’t raise the rent unreasonably under the rent review legislation. He can’t kick the tenant out unreasonably under these amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act. The landlord, if a corporate landlord, will not need or desire to move into the apartment for himself or his son or his daughter or his parent or his wife.

[5:00]

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the Attorney General understand what is being said, and your colleagues who sit over there, do they understand? They do, eh?

Mr. Cassidy: The Liberal Party has supported the bill as it stands in principle, and I would suggest that the amendment of the member for Lakeshore is thoroughly in line with the principle as proposed in the bill and simply gives lower income tenants protection against landlords seeking to change their property and make capital gains by selling to higher income condominium buyers.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s interesting, if I may say to the Attorney General, because this really vocalizes the discussion that goes on, and among really strange bedfellows, because the member for Lakeshore never pulls his punches. Never. He got up and he began:

“It’s the philosophy of this party that -- ” and what was the philosophy of the party? The philosophy of the party was that you can deprive an individual owner of certain property rights for the good of society as a whole, more so for the good of a certain segment of society as a whole.

Mr. Cassidy: You do that. You practice that.

Mr. Bullbrook: Understand for a moment --

Mr. Cassidy: You believe that. Don’t deny it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Understand for a moment, if you would, that this really polarizes the position. He puts it right to you. He says to you, in effect, “Because of our equivocation” -- it was obvious, our equivocation -- “we won’t interfere with existing legal rights”, and that’s what no Legislature should do, but then it becomes a question of philosophical rights, property rights, that’s what it becomes.

Mr. Lawlor: Equivocation is right; and Herbert Spencer revived.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to tell you something, I want to say this through the Chair to you: You know the way you translate partisan values into effective legislation? You get the majority of the people of a province to vote for you. You become the government. You enact legislation. You support that legislation with programmes and policies that take care of the very thing that the member for Lakeshore wants to do, and that’s the way you do it.

That’s why I get up again. You don’t play games in a majority position, impinging upon governmental administration and governmental policies and intergovernmental functions. At least, I don’t want to be a part of that.

Mr. Renwick: What are we here for?

Mr. Cassidy: What are we here for? Resign.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think basically, you’d better understand exactly what’s going on over there.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s ridiculous. That’s balderdash.

Mr. Good: I just want to say this, Mr. Chairman, I had not taken into consideration the minister’s amendment. I thought it was absolutely wrong during a tenancy agreement to ask someone to leave to convert; and secondly, with the additional section later on, which would require the landlord to indeed, I presume -- I hope this is right -- have a municipal permit for conversion to condominium of that unit before he could go to the courts under section 106 and ask for an end of the tenancy, which would by that time be on a month to month basis.

If the municipality says, “No, we won’t give you a permit to convert to condominium,” he’d be up against it then and I suppose couldn’t make the conversion.

So on the basis of local autonomy, I think that there is valid reasoning behind that and I don’t think we can now support the member’s amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: On the basis of property rights you are voting.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. My comment is directly, of course, on the amendment, it’s to reply to the remark of my colleague, the member for Sarnia, who’s left the House. He’s said that on a number of occasions in the course of this session, and he couldn’t be more fallacious in his remarks.

The Legislature is here to enact legislation. It’s not a question of what the percentages of the votes were, it’s how the votes are cast in the assembly. The executive authority and the administrative authority flows from the exercise of the legislative authority, and this distinction that the member for Sarnia is trying to impose upon this assembly, and which the members opposite applaud, is totally wrong and inaccurate.

You stand in your place and you vote. If you change your mind in the course of debate, as my colleague the member for Waterloo North just did, that’s fine. I don’t mind that. That’s part of the debate. But let’s not kid ourselves that we have no obligation in this assembly to amend legislation which is introduced by the government. That’s what the whole game is about. Let’s not get that distorted by the member for Sarnia.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I want to assure my friend, the hon. member for Riverdale, that I welcome the contributions of members from all sides. Any useful amendments will make it better legislation. I am not suggesting for one moment that the role of the members opposite is not to bring in amendments to provide better legislation for the people of this province.

I think I may say that I don’t share all the views expressed by my friend, the hon. member for Sarnia. But I do certainly share some of them when they concern the extent to which we, as a government, are prepared to interfere with individual property rights. I think we must recognize the fact that there are many people in the community who own property who may wish to change the character of that property -- for example to condominiums -- who have every right to be protected and to be allowed to make such a change. We are not talking about the fit cats of society, who I think many of these discussions involve.

Mr. Cassidy: But they will be the major beneficiaries.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are talking about people who are making a reasonable use of their property, often involving people using their life savings.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh no, no. Campeau Corp.?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And the fact that the municipalities shall retain the rights to determine whether or not this is in the interest of the community in which these buildings exist I think is a very proper approach.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, just briefly; the thin veneer of rationality, which is not typical of the Liberal Party, is constantly broken through by the mad ghost of Adam Smith from the 18th century.

Mr. Sweeney: Let’s deal with the question.

Mr. Cassidy: You are getting to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Lawlor: We expect it from you. Sometimes we think there might be some grains of sense left over there. To take the stance the member for Sarnia took is simply to opt out of the process, to grow passive, to be reactionary, to throw the whole gauntlet the opposite way and to take no responsibility. You must be prepared to do that.

The minister says that you have no right to make laws impinging upon property. The whole bill impinges. That’s what this place is all about. That is what we do every day of the week. You are forever impinging.

What you have to ask yourself is a different kind of question. You don’t start with some obtuse 18th century philosophical premise that property is sacred and never to be touched. You start with: Who is going to get hurt? If a whole group of tenants are going to be thrown not on the street and rendered subject to all the derelictions that kind of thing brings about, over against a few landlords enriching themselves, then I have no doubt on which side of the fence I stand.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may, what my colleague, the member for Lakeshore says is so eminently right. You do not call on 18th, 17th, 16th century concepts to support legislation which was first enacted in the Province of Ontario in what -- 1969?

Mr. Good: 1969.

Mr. Renwick: That was the Condominium Act. The purpose of the Condominium Act was, in a very difficult society of scarce accommodation, to provide an alternate method by which accommodation could be provided in which people could participate in an urbanized society. It was never designed -- and we would have had severe reservations if we thought it was designed -- not to provide alternative accommodation but to convert one type of accommodation into another type of accommodation to the detriment of this person who can’t afford to participate in the condominium scheme. It is just that simple.

It is not a question of ideology or principle, it’s a question of the relative protection of persons in different economic strata of society, and we must stand by the amendment. I wish that my colleagues, the members of the Liberal Party, would see it in that light; because in Metropolitan Toronto it is not sufficient to leave it to a municipal authority to decide what the balance of interest is in those cases.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney General, I would like to reinforce the appeal my colleagues have been making. It seems to me, from my experience in my area, that condominiumization is one of the real threats to security of tenants. And if security of tenants is what we are concerned about in this bill, then I think it is imperative that we give some kind of protection over the long-term, not just until the cod of the week, to tenants who are looking for very scarce apartment rental units. You know, as well as we all know, apartment buildings are not being built in Ontario at the rate they used to be and those that are being built are being turned over to condominiums for the profit of property owners who can capitalize their investment very much more quickly in the condominium arrangement.

You talk about municipal rights, but it has always been the policy of this government, and surely it is the policy of any provincial government, that it must take some leadership in areas of vital concern to the general public such as this. If it’s a question of guiding municipalities in this area, you’ve done it on condominium taxation, you’ve just finished doing that. This is another area of condominium loss which affects the security of tenants and I think this bill should include measures which are going to protect tenants who are subject to having their apartments condominiumized right underneath them.

There has been reference in this debate to our interest in protecting certain groups in society as if these groups were tiny minority groups. They are not. Tenants in our major urban centres in Ontario, are among the largest sections of home seekers. We would have many more tenants if there were many more apartments. People are being forced into the condominium market. We’ve seen it in Toronto, we’ve seen it in Ottawa and we’ve seen it in every major urban centre in Ontario.

This is not a certain group in society that we seek to protect. It’s a far larger group than the group whose property rights might somehow he guarded, might somehow be guided. These property rights did not exist before. People who applied to a municipality to build apartment buildings before the Condominium Act came into being did not have the right to turn this investment into the kind of investment that a condominium apartment is. Now that it is a right that is being granted, it needs to be curbed. It is not a pre-existent right. It’s a right that was created by the Condominium Act of Ontario and it should be curbed by the tenant security measures in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment.

If not, all those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we stack this along with the others?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Campbell moves that section 103d, clause (c) of the bill, as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “require” in the first line, the words: “a building permit and”.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is acceptable to me, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Campbell: Good: then we can look after the 1 and 23 Oriole type situations. I’m going to quit while I’m ahead, Mr. Chairman.

[5:15]

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on Mrs. Campbell’s amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 1 of section 103d of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out length of notice shall not be less than 120 days” in the 11th and 12th lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “date of termination specified shall not be sooner than

(d) 120 days after the date the notice is given; and

(e) the end of the tenancy agreement”.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing to add to what I have already stated. This is to give tenants security of tenure during the course of the lease and to see they are protected from being removed from the premises by reason of any of the changes to the character of the premises as contemplated by the section.

Mr. Lawlor: As we indicated a few moments ago when this amendment was first mooted, we are wholly in favour of it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall hon. Mr. McMurtry’s motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that in section 3 of the bill which sets out section 103d, clause 2 of the Act, subsection 2 of the said section load be amended by striking out “within the 120-day period” in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “prior to the date specified in the notice”.

Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that section 103d of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by adding after subsection 2 the following:

“(3) Where a tenant has received notice of termination under clause (c) of subsection 1 the tenant shall have the right of first refusal of a lease at the completion of the repairs or renovations and the rent for the premises shall be determined by the Residential Premises Rent Review Board.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Lakeshore points out that legally this is an unusual kind of concept because the suggestion that is made in the amendment is that the tenant’s rights in regard to the property he leased would continue after he had actually been evicted or had moved out, in the special case where he moved out because of extensive repairs or renovations.

Now normally that isn’t the case. If a tenant moves out and leaves, whether he is evicted or leaves voluntarily, that’s the end of it; he has no further rights, the landlord’s rights are complete. The intention of the section is to deal with the situations where you may have this section of the Act being used as a loophole by a landlord in a vindictive kind of way. It’s in order to ensure that where a tenant has a strong attachment to a particular area -- in fact, he may have lived in those premises for perhaps five or 10 years -- and the building requires extensive repairs, the tenant should not thereby be forced to move away but should have the right of first refusal to go back. That would mean that after the time of the renovations being completed, the tenant would have the chance to go back in. In most cases it might not apply.

On the other hand, it might also be a useful means by which the landlord and tenant could sit down and work out together how the renovations could be made without the tenant having to be moved. If the landlord saw that the tenant had the right to come back, and if the tenant indicated to the landlord that he was interested in coming back, then it might well be in their mutual interest -- and in the landlord’s economic interest, because of the rent he would otherwise lose -- to carry out the repairs that went into the flat or the apartment while a tenant lived at the other end and then vice versa or make some other kind of amicable arrangement.

We think that this is a useful kind of an amendment, although it breaks new ground. We have suggested that the rent for the premises should be determined by the rent review board; that’s the best body we can see to carry out that rent determination, which would have to be carried out anyway under the Residential Premises Rent Review Act.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, basically I support the amendment but I would hope that the mover might be prepared to amend the motion to an extent. Since the amendment provides that the tenant receive notice of termination, and then has the first right of refusal when the renovations or repairs are completed, it would seem to me that it would be appropriate -- and I simply put it to the mover -- that at the time of the receipt of the notice, the tenant would indicate his or her desire to return to the premises.

The difficulty I see is the fact that, once having moved out and perhaps undertaking other legal responsibilities, we might really negate the purpose of this section. I would think that if there were an indication at that time, both parties might know their rights at a point in time. I wondered if the mover would consider that position.

Mr. Cassidy: I think that is a useful suggestion. I would suggest that the clause be stood down while we consulted about how it might be re-worded. I think the wording that the member for St. George is looking for would be to make the clause read:

“Where a tenant has received notice of termination under clause (c) of subsection 1, and has indicated his intention or desire to return to the premises once the repairs or renovations are completed, that tenant shall have the right of first refusal.”

I think that would be the appropriate kind of wording. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the clause be stood down and that we might come back to it once we have worked out a satisfactory wording. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is agreeable. The only part of the amendment that gives me difficulty is the last two lines, which refer to the “determination of the rent by the Residential Premises Rent Review Board”. If there is no such rent review board in 1977, then of course it is rather meaningless. Since it is to be hoped that these amendments will survive the self-destruct character of the rent review board, I just wonder at this time about the reference to the rent review board.

Mrs. Campbell: We could look at that at the appropriate time.

Mr. Cassidy: We could look at that, Mr. Chairman. It may be that a consequential amendment might have to be made if rent review was not extended. The problem is to prevent a constructive refusal, if I can use the word -- I don’t know whether that is right -- but to prevent a landlord from saying, “Okay, you can come back in at $600 a month” and when the tenant refuses that, then the landlord turns around and rents the renovated premises for $300. That is what we were trying to get at; that the rent charged after the renovations to the returning tenant should be the same that is offered to anybody else that would want the premises.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that we will stand this amendment down? The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Norton: Prior to this being stood down, I would like to ask that some consideration be given to clarifying this question. It strikes me that perhaps what ought to be considered is that if there is going to be such an option or right of first refusal, it be offered at the time of the initial move of the tenant and that it be necessary that it be exercised at that time. In other words, that there be some sort of continuing binding relationship between the tenant and the landlord.

I foresee difficulty if that were not the case because if a tenant were to indicate at that time, “Yes, I would be interested in coming back -- and the wording of this section or this amendment makes it mandatory that the tenant shall have the right of first refusal -- and if communication between the landlord and the tenant becomes impossible during that period of time -- by virtue of the fact that the tenant may have moved somewhere and not let the landlord know -- he might, at the time the premises were ready for rental subsequently, be unable to contact the tenant. He might proceed to rent to someone else only to have the tenant show up and exercise his right which is guaranteed by this section and which would necessitate removing the new tenant in order to vacate the premises for the previous tenant. Do you understand what I am getting at?

Mr. Cassidy: I do.

Mr. Norton: If there is to be a right of first refusal, it seems to me it would have to be clear in the legislation that the offer be made at the time prior to the renovations or prior to the period of the premises being vacated and that it be important that it be exercised at that time, so that the tenant could not come back two or three months later and say “Now I wish to exercise it” after someone else has occupied the premises.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate the comments of the member for Kingston and the Islands. He suggests the tenant should actually exercise that right of first refusal at the time he vacates the property. The problem there is that with the renovation cost option being unpredictable, it may be that the landlord won’t know exactly what rent he is going to have to charge for his premises five months down the line when he has finished the renovations. It seems to me that the landlord --

Mr. Chairman: It was agreed that we would stand this section down. Are we going to plough this ground again?

Mr. Cassidy: No, we will stand it and consult privately. The point is well taken and I will try to satisfy him privately.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if I could be permitted to make one further remark before it is formally stood down and my friends have the opportunity to consider wording. What concerns me also is the matter of enforceability. How do you enforce that? I think there may be some real difficulty.

At the same time I would like to point out to my colleagues who have copies of our proposed amendments that on page 18 it’s our intention if the tenant wishes, for example, to have a right of first refusal, to give a judge hearing the matter the jurisdiction to impose such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate. I would like to bring to my friend’s attention that when this section or amendment was drafted, this was one of the things contemplated -- that when there was a situation in which a tenant did want to have that right, this might be a term which would be imposed. It would be something which would be enforceable whereas I think in the proposed amendment there would be some difficulty enforcing it although I have already indicated my support of it in principle.

Mr. Chairman: All right, it is agreed that we will stand this down?

I believe the minister has an amendment to subsection 3.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 3 of the said section 103 (d) as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “15” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof, “30.”

Motion agreed to.

[5:30]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On section 103d(4), Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 4 of the said section 103d be amended by striking out “15” in the sixth line and inserting in lieu thereof “30.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 103f(1)?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, section 103e(2) has to do with the actions of a landlord after non-payment of rent. He serves a notice on the tenant for non-payment of rent and declares that the tenancy agreement will terminate not earlier than 20 days after the notice is given. Then, according to the bill, the tenant has only seven days in which to pay the rent before the landlord can go to the courts under section 106 and apply for writ of possession or whatever it is.

During the hearings, it was put forth by many tenant associations and groups, and I think it was considered a valid point by many of the landlords, that that seven days is a very short period of time for the tenant to get his rent paid. The tenant could very well be out of town or perhaps just doesn’t have it until the next pay. When I asked the people before us what they would consider a better period of time, they said the longer the better, of course. The period of 21 days was mentioned; some mentioned longer and some mentioned 14 days. I am suggesting that the tenant be given 14 days after being given the notice, during which time he could make the rent payment, and the landlord would be --

Mr. Lawlor: Go for 15. Go one more day.

Mr. Good: Go one more day? What is the significance of 15 days?

Mr. Lawlor: I’ll support that.

Mr. Good: You would support it?

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on!

Mr. Good: The tenants during the hearing seemed to agree that 14 days was a lot better than seven days and we had their commitment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Good moves that section 103e(2) be amended by deleting the word “seven” in the third line and inserting instead the word “14.”

Mr. Good: After the 14 days has expired, Mr. Chairman, the landlord could then take action under section 106.

Mr. Lawlor: I suppose it would be petty of me in the extreme to cavil about a single day, but surely an extension should be made in regard to days.

As the law exists, there is an effective 17-day period; 15 days is the specific time set out in the present legislation. As things stand under section 103e(1), as set out in this bill, the tenancy agreement cannot be terminated earlier than the 20th day after the notice is given; then, once the notice of termination is given and that starts to run, the tenant has only a very brief period in which to turn around. I think it’s only fair in this context -- this is a considerable and substantial breach of the existing law -- to give the 14 or 15 days. I would like a longer period of time in some instances. But you’re trying to give relief against forfeiture and relief against being too onerous with respect to these matters throughout the whole section here now. I would just ask you to consider going this extra step.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My only comment at this time, Mr. Chairman, would be that it is not just the seven days -- it is not as if we are talking about the seven days in arrears of rent as a practical matter. The tenant is not going to be receiving this notice of termination for some few days, probably until after the rent is due and owing. So, in effect, the seven days is an additional seven days to that. What we are simply trying to do is protect the many small landlords who get conned by their tenants, if I might put it that way -- that’s unparliamentary language, I suppose.

If the landlord is put in the position where he or she must go to the trouble of serving the notice of termination, one can assume that a few days will have elapsed. We are just anxious to see that the landlords be protected, and that is why we thought the seven days was quite reasonable.

Mr. Lawlor: In rejoinder to that, it is perfectly possible on the other hand, under your legislation, that the day after rent is due the landlord serves the notice. And that seven days after that -- that’s the eighth day -- the tenant is expected to pay up. That’s the inequity. It isn’t as though the landlord is going to sit around waiting for two weeks to serve the notice. He is going to move very immediately. A few days is a pulling back on the thing.

My experience is that if you are acting for landlords, and I sometimes do, you give the notice the following day -- or maybe at the most two or three days later. But coming back to the extant legislation, he has 15 days as things presently stand; you are cutting him back to half that period of time.

Mr. Good: Coupled with this would also be a motion that “14” be substituted for “seven” in the fourth line of clause 3 and also in the second line of clause 14, which I will submit as soon as we get the response from the minister as to whether or not he would accept this without pursuing it to a vote.

Mr. Lawlor: How do you feel?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would just like to draw my colleague’s attention to subsection 5 of 103e, which does give the tenant some considerable degree of relief from forfeiture, because even if the rent is not paid within the seven days, subsection 5 of 103e provides that the tenant “at any time before the judgement has become final, pays into court all the rent in arrears and the costs of the application”.

Mr. Lawlor: “And the costs” -- don’t fluff over the costs now.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On the other hand, we are simply attempting to maintain a decent balance between the landlords and the tenants. It is my view that the seven days, considering this relief from forfeiture, which is provided in subsection 5, I think accomplishes that. I am not prepared, Mr. Chairman, to accept the amendment at this time.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, the basis of the argument is not whether or not the tenant can still make payment; he can make payment right up until the judgement is given, with costs. But this, of course, would give an additional seven days before the landlord could proceed under section 106.

Mr. Lawlor: Exactly.

Mr. Good: And the tenant then would have 14 days in which to make up his rent before the landlord would take him to court -- once he is taken into court, then, of course, the tenant has the court costs as well to consider -- if he wishes to make restitution before the matter is resolved in the court. I thought it was a reasonable request and I am sorry the minister doesn’t see it that way, too. But we will vote on it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I don’t regard that difference of opinion on seven days as a most momentous matter.

Mr. Lawlor: Well then, give in.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not suggesting that it’s a totally unreasonable request; I am just indicating the concerns that I have.

Mr. Lawlor: I repeat once more, it’s cutting back on the existing law -- the Good amendment is very good indeed.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. Good’s amendment?

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall we stack this?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, could we couple with it the amendments to the next two sections as well?

Mr. Good moves that section 103e, clause 3, be amended by deleting the word “seven” in the fourth line and inserting “14.”

Mr. Good moves that clause 4 be amended by deleting “seven” and inserting “14.”

Mr. Good: If it could be considered by unanimous consent as all part of one amendment and voted on at one time, that would be satisfactory.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: It’s agreed that we’ll vote on those at the same time and they’re stacked.

Does the hon. minister or any other member of the committee have any further amendments?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think there is a further amendment before my next amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore. What section?

Mr. Lawlor: At the bottom of page 6, section 103f, subsection (b) of 1.

Mr. Chairman: Anything prior to that?

Mr. Lawlor moves that subsection 1 of section 10Sf of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out clause (b).

Mrs. Campbell: As a point of clarification, could I have that before we proceed? I have an amendment which would delete a portion of this clause if it carried but not the whole. I would like to ask your guidance as to how you would proceed?

Mr. Chairman: It would seem to me, if it were the wish of the committee, that we should deal with the amendment which would have the effect of deleting a portion of it and then perhaps deal with the amendment which would delete the whole clause. With the permission of the committee, you can proceed with your amendment.

Mrs. Campbell moves that section 103f(1), clause (b) as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by deleting the words “any noxious, offensive or” in the fourth and fifth lines.

Mrs. Campbell: This gives the effect of retaining an illegal act and deleting noxious or/and offensive. Whereas, the amendment proposed by the member for Lakeshore would delete the whole clause including an “illegal act.”

Mr. Chairman: Yes, with the consent of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Could I have a copy of the amendment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would say it is acceptable.

[5:45]

Mrs. Campbell: It is acceptable? I am so glad I’m winning a couple around here.

Mr. Lawlor: Glad you showed up today.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment?

Mr. Renwick: Still hold the whip hand over the Attorney General.

Mr. Lawlor: I have my amendment now.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this amendment carry?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: I still want to strike it out. However, it’s much improved, infinitely improved. I have to concede that. When I think of legal acts or illegal acts on premises -- if you’re running a house of prostitution, the Criminal Code makes provision for shutting the place down. If you’re cunning a still, the Liquor Control Act and the code have all kinds of clauses with respect to closing up the place. I just don’t know that the illegal act they have in mind, which is involved with respect to premises specifically and not with respect to the deportment of people in premises, would be effective.

Interjections.

Mr. Lawlor: Then I turn to subclause (c) where it goes into the business of conduct on residential premises, such as substantially to interfere with other people, breaches of privacy and all that sort of thing. This seems to me to be covered by the requisites in (c). There’s no necessity for multiplying entities unnecessarily and this is what’s happening with the legislation. It’s my chief objection to the clause but, as I say, it’s much improved. I would welcome people to knock that clause out completely as illegality brings its own consequences.

Mrs. Campbell: There’s just one thing. I did move to delete “any” and I think “any” must remain before “noxious” so it would read “any illegal act.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: It is agreed then that we make that minor change that would put “any” back in?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Total agreement.

Mr. Chairman: It is agreed then.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare this amendment lost.

Shall this be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 1 of section 103f of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following:

“(f) A tenant of residential premises administered for or on behalf of the government of Canada or Ontario or a municipality or any agency thereof or forming part of a non-profit, limited dividend housing project financed under the National Housing Act of Canada has knowingly and materially misrepresented his income or that of other members of his family occupying the residential premises or has knowingly misrepresented his family composition.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the proposed amendment speaks for itself. We’re concerned that subsidized housing be enjoyed by people who have a real and legitimate need for this subsidized housing and, therefore, we believe that anybody who has knowingly and materially misrepresented his income or that of other members of his family, as contained in the proposed amendment, is just simply depriving a needier person of this accommodation which we know is limited enough as it is.

Mrs. Campbell: I do have some concern. I’m trying now to relate the two amendments, because he has amended, I take it, the first amendment we had. I suppose I am speaking out of concern rather than out of the legality of the situation.

What I have experienced in my riding is people who have been trying desperately to get into Ontario Housing, for example, and have waited for a considerable length of time -- years in some cases -- to get in; but, because of the family composition, they are denied that opportunity.

It is a fact -- and I don’t condone it -- that sometimes hope deferred maketh the heart sick, and in some cases there is a scattering around of the family in order to try to get into the kind of accommodation that is available. It is a knowing misrepresentation, if you like, of the total family composition, but there is the intent to try to work through to provide housing for maybe two or three members rather than six because there isn’t anything available. It would seem to me, in a situation like that, it is a pretty harsh provision because so often, after a person has been in for some time, there are breakdowns in arrangements which have been made and so forth.

I don’t have an amendment to offer but I just express my deep concern about this wording so far as that particular group is concerned. I would invite the Attorney General, if he might, to consider it over the dinner hour and perhaps then give me his answer as to whether he feels that we cannot improve that on behalf of these people.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In response to that, I want to say with respect to the knowing misrepresentation of family composition that we will consider a possible amendment to make that more specific, because we are really thinking of the families whereby it may be represented that there are four children when in fact there is only one child. It seems to be very wrong for someone to get into this type of accommodation claiming they have four children when in fact they may only have one; that is what we are attempting to eliminate.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Mr. McMurtry’s amendment?

Mrs. Campbell: Could it be stood down, Mr. Chairman? The Attorney General has indicated that he might give consideration to some amendment to that latter portion over the dinner hour so that we can be clear about the kind of case I am concerned about.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that this section be stood down until somebody has an opportunity to consider it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I am agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, could I comment on that? The next subsection, subsection 2, has to do with a save-harmless clause as it relates to the other offences; it says that if you make adjustments to do the necessary repairs or if you cease and desist the illegal activity, therefore the notice will not be effective.

Would it not be proper to soften the impact of your amendment to indicate that when a person has misrepresented his income, and at some consequent date he realizes he has misrepresented his income and makes the necessary adjustments, therefore the eviction notice would not necessarily be enforced? This would be somewhat in the same spirit that these other offences are forgiven in subsection 2; that if a person does make the repairs or makes the financial arrangements for doing the repairs, therefore the eviction notice is not in effect. I think the same spirit should probably apply to that last amendment you made, that he misrepresented his income.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I appreciate my friend’s remarks, but I would just like to make the observation now that I think the relief that is provided in subsection 2 is for activity of a different character. For example, if there is a man making $25,000 in subsidized housing we can hardly expect him to change jobs so that he is going to be making 30 per cent or 40 per cent of that income in order to qualify. That gives me trouble at this particular point in time. We believe that frauds should be eliminated from this type of accommodation which is so much in demand.

Mr. Chairman: Since we now have two items on this clause stood down, I’ll call it 6 o’clock.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.