The House resumed at 8 p.m.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock we were dealing with two sections of the bill that were stood down. I don’t see any indication that either the minister or the members concerned are interested in proceeding at this time. Would the minister care to proceed with an amendment to section 3 of the bill which sets out loaf, subsection (3) of the Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection (3) of the said section 103f as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by inserting after 2 in the third line, “or where the notice is served pursuant to clause (f) of subsection 1.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is really in relation to or consequent to the amendment to section 103f subsection which adds clause (f). Now again we have to come back to clause (f), Mr. Chairman, and I don’t -- perhaps you could hold that until we deal with clause (f).

Mr. Chairman: Do you have an amendment to clause (f)?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We added clause (f), as I recall, to subsection 1, and this was one of the clauses that we asked to have stood down. It is the clause we debated just before rising for the dinner hour, Mr. Chairman, having to do with --

Mr. Chairman: That is the amendment to which the minister agreed to give some thought over the dinner hour?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: “Knowingly misrepresented” I think is what gives the committee some problem.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. We have thought about it and we recognize there may be, in very isolated circumstances, problems that on the surface appear to contravene that proposed amendment. We were just wondering whether we could clarify it further. We are not proposing any amendment to that section 103f subsection 1. I am in your hands as to whether you would like to deal with that now.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) bad indicated she had considerable interest in this. Before the Chair reaches a decision as to whether or not we should put the section as amended by the minister to a vote I will listen to the hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: The concern here, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: as far as considerations of the income or the moneys produced by the family are concerned, if there is indication that people are trying to get away with things from a monetary consideration, that we can understand; but as the section now reads it would simply mean that if a son came home to live with the family for a short while, or additional members of the family came to live with the rest of the family in OHC housing, they could be in contravention of the Act if the family, as it was represented to be when the unit was rented to it, became larger for a short while.

I think experience has shown that many families do have more of a mobile arrangement with sons and daughters who are coming and going. This, I think, is the fear of the member for St. George -- you tie people down too closely and, as has been indicated by certain people, many of them in Ontario Housing are forced into multiple situations which normally would not exist. If you want to make them abide by the letter of the law, according to their lease half the families in Ontario Housing would probably be in violation of some section of this particular amendment. I think this is the concern.

No one wants to leave the door wide open for people to defraud Ontario Housing by saying they have four children so they get a four room apartment but end up with one child. I don’t think that’s the concern. The concern is the other way around -- when additional members of the family may be living there who weren’t covered by the original application filed with OHC. This, I think, is the major thing.

People are in those circumstances. Maybe they earn a little extra money here or there by going babysitting for a day of two which would certainly not, we hope, put them in violation of this section of the Act. Of particular interest is the matter of how many people can occupy that apartment which appeared on the application. That, I think, is the concern of the member for St. George.

Mr. Stong: In speaking to this proposed amendment, I would first like to state that I do not sanction or condone any dishonesty at all on the part of a tenant. However, in the event this section is placed in this Act, it leaves to the landlord a very substantial power. It will work substantial hardships, in my respectful submission, on a tenant who is a woman or a single parent of a family who finds herself in desperate straits and who, on application for this type of tenancy, indicates that she does not have as many children as she really has. She is in desperate straits and cannot find other accommodation so she lies or misrepresents the number of people who are members of her family. This leaves to the landlord the right to have her evicted.

In my respectful submission this ought to be left to the discretion of the judge and not the landlord. The judge should have this power to consider this particular situation. If we leave it as it is, the landlord has the right to serve notice of termination on a tenant, a single parent of a family who, in her application for tenancy in this type of accommodation does not disclose the number of people in her family. It leaves permission to evict entirely within the discretion of the landlord.

In my respectful submission, the Attorney General ought to consider leaving that power and authority to a judge who is considering an application under the appropriate section and not under this particular section. Perhaps it is a valid reason for a judge to consider eviction, but it must not he left in the hands of the landlord to consider. That is my respectful submission in non-support of this amendment.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t want to be provocative and suggest that some of our hon. colleagues have not read the legislation proposed.

What I am concerned about is that in the efforts to protect the case in which we think somebody might knowingly misrepresent the situation for an honourable reason -- if it can be termed that way -- we are going to leave a large loophole of which many people are going to take great advantage. This will be to the detriment of those who are truly in need.

I would caution the members on the other side of the House about leaving this very large loophole, which apparently they would like to leave, which can only tend to encourage the fraudulent practices nave presently being engaged in.

I would like to refer my hon. colleagues to subsection 2 of section 107 on page 14 of the draft legislation, which states as follows:

“Upon any application by a landlord for a writ of possession a judge may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or of the tenancy agreement, refuse to grant the application where he is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to do so.”

I appreciate the fact that this legislation is complex and, with all the various sections that one has to relate to back and forth, it’s certainly difficult for me to keep track of all the sections; but I think that section does answer the concern of my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong). That section of the proposed amending legislation does provide an over-riding discretion in the judge to relieve against any breach of the Act which would result in the unfairness about which my hon. friend is concerned. I would ask him to consider that in the light of his remarks, because I think that does answer his concern that we should direct our attention to avoiding the type of misrepresentation which really is fraudulent and does occur with a distressing degree of frequency at the present time; and which, as I have already said, does deprive families which are in true need of this type of accommodation, I would just ask my hon. friends opposite to consider that very carefully.

Mr. Lawlor: Every one of us in this House is opposed to seeing individuals in subsidized rental housing and geared-to-income housing ripping off the general public. I think two or three things should be mentioned. I am somewhat disappointed that your ingenuity wasn’t sufficient unto the day; in other words, that you couldn’t amend the thing. On one side of the fence there is certainly the incubus, the dwelling spirit of the superintendent in the dwelling, clocking people with respect to the overtime hours which they work, and saying, “Come on, George. You were out until 1:30 this morning and you weren’t with your girlfriend. You were legit. You were working” -- I don’t know if that’s legitimate or not and I had better be careful of that one -- “and you are reporting this income into the thing? This overtime work you do will increase the thing and take you outside of Ontario Housing.” Therefore, there is that; there is no question about it.

The second thing is the phrase, “has misrepresented his family composition.” What on earth is a family composition? Do you mean you can’t have a mistress? What goes on in this world? I mean, is it a common-law relationship? Do you have to disclose all your illegitimate children to the public authority? This is “the bedrooms of the nation” concept with a vengeance, so to speak.

[8:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The bedrooms of the nation.

Mr. Lawlor: I wish to God that you had given it deeper thought over the dinner hour.

Mr. Cassidy: Under the beds as well.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t like the terminology, “has misrepresented his family composition,” because I don’t know what it means. What are you after? Is it simply numbers, that he said there were going to be five people in the apartment when there are 17? Why don’t you say so? Is it all that difficult? But to say “a family composition,” that may have all kinds of racial, religious and a vast diversity of sexual connotations, which I find most peculiar in fairly liberated people. Having to deal with what we have in the contemporary world, regrettable as I find most of that is, and I don’t speak as a Conservative, nevertheless it’s there.

Your legislation is pretty weak stuff, eh? You bring it in; then you bring 18 to 20 amendments in, which is an indicia if ever there was one of how loosely, of how badly constructed it is initially, and so on.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Oh now, that’s not true.

Mr. Lawlor: Then, as a latter day saint, you bring in a piece of legislation, another amendment which we hadn’t been formerly cognizant of; you brought it in here this afternoon. I don’t think you really thought it out. I don’t think you know what the implications of it are. I don’t think you know what harm you can do to individuals.

I have no particular case against the guy who goes out and makes an extra few bucks by working hard and working overtime and doesn’t disclose it. So what? Is it your intent, as an economic measure, to foreclose the possibility of overtime on this kind of person? You don’t want them to work? It would be far better and more sensible for them to sit on their fannies and watch the idiot box? It would be almost better to come here -- almost.

Mr. Swart: A slight exaggeration.

Mr. Lawlor: I wouldn’t push that. Of the evenings I’ve sat home and watched television and the evenings I’ve been here, you won’t believe it, I prefer it here -- and this is a peculiar penchant on my part, because I’m a known masochist. But leaving little things aside, can’t you do something better with this section than what you’ve done?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, just one thing. The point has been well taken. No one wants to see fraud and I think that part of the section could pass because it says “has knowingly and materially misrepresented.” So, okay, a few bucks babysitting here and there isn’t going to matter; so that’s out, that’s not “materially.”

But the other part, “and has knowingly misrepresented his family composition” -- that’s the offensive part of this section as far as we are concerned. I think if you took that off, we might be prepared to support the amendment, being you have added “knowingly and materially” in to qualify “misrepresented their financial position” -- that part we can understand. I think the point is well made by putting in “materially”; it would have to be a substantial misrepresentation.

But the business of the family composition -- the member for Lakeshore brings all kinds of conditions to light, some of which we’ve dealt with as members, where people are living in Ontario Housing and the officials really don’t know whether the gentleman living there is a boarder in fact or a common-law husband. No one will ever really know, I suppose. That is the sort of thing that would be, I think, not necessary to legislate here. Those things will eventually sort themselves out.

If you could maybe delete “or has knowingly misrepresented his family composition,” I think we would be prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a question to the minister? I tried over the supper hour unsuccessfully to find out -- and maybe the minister or one of his officials has the answer -- whether or not there wasn’t something in OHC legislation itself dealing with this very issue. If there is, why do we have to have it here?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that this section remain reasonably intact because of the degree of fraud I have reason to believe has been perpetrated on all of us -- the people that we represent. I’m prepared to accept the amendment in relation to deleting that part of the clause “or has knowingly misrepresented his family composition.” I’m prepared to delete “or has knowingly misrepresented his family composition” in order to put to rest some of these fears, which have been expressed very persuasively. But, at the same time, in order to leave most of the section intact, because I really do believe it serves a useful purpose, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee that the following words be stricken from the minister’s amendment: “or has knowingly misrepresented his family composition”?

Agreed.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister able to answer my question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know of nothing in the legislation at the moment that would cover the situation. That’s not to say that there is not something, but I don’t believe there is.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments to the amendment?

Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: 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 “seven” in line 32 thereof and substituting therefor “30.”

Mr. Lawlor: Under the section there are five, and now six different grounds upon which the tenant may be thrown out or expelled from the building. In the clause in question it reads that the landlord may serve on the tenant notice of termination of the tenant’s agreement to be effective not earlier than the 20th day after that notice is given, specifying the act or acts complained of and requiring the tenant within seven days to pay to the landlord the reasonable cost of repairing the premises. That has to do with subclause (a), the question having to do with undue damage.

Subclause (a) is fairly widely worded, involving the tenant, one, in acts of malicious injury; and, two, in acts of negligence. That may or may not import elements of determination, will, deliberation or what not. Negligence is a fairly variable term. Finally, with respect to anybody who happens to come to be your visitor, one of your friends comes, gets a little turbulent, breaks something and you have had it.

Under these circumstances, you are expected to pay within seven days. The amendment simply says no. Under those circumstances, give the guy a chance, give him 30 days, give him an opportunity. The damage to the premises involved may be fairly ranging. It doesn’t take much any rose to cause damage of $500, $600, or even $1,000. Lord, to have things replaced in the present market is no minor matter. The tenant is really only vicariously liable to certain circumstances. He is liable because of someone else’s fault. Even if it is his own fault, it may be only a negligent fault, something to which he would be deemed to have out shown due care and attention; in a moment or in a fit or in a state of absentmindedness, or not really adverting to what he is doing, he will bring about a physical injury to some premises of the landlord. He’s perfectly willing to make compensation after the event. And his friend who has damaged the premises is perfectly willing to luck after it too, but he can’t find the dough in seven days. I’m saying that he should have a longer period of time. The period of time that I am suggesting is 30 days. I hope the Attorney General sees it my way -- that a greater time is really necessary in this circumstance -- and would permit this amendment.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, our caucus took an entirely different view of this particular situation. We thought there was valid reason to extend from seven to 14 days the time given to the tenant to make restitution for back payment of rent, but where damage is concerned, we think it’s an entirely different matter and that seven days is quite adequate for the tenant either to make restitution or --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Make satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s not hard-nosed.

Mr. Good: We feel that the amendment that you have put to make satisfactory arrangements is quite in order. We think there is quite a difference in dealing with the tenant who just can’t pay rent at the moment and the tenant who has wilfully or excessively committed undue damage. We think seven days is quite enough time for the tenants to make satisfactory arrangements or pay the costs of restitution for that damage. We deal with this section in an entirely different light from the section earlier where you are dealing with an order because of nonpayment of rent. We would not support that amendment.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear my friend from Waterloo North’s response because not only is this to protect decent landlords but it’s also to protect other responsible tenants from the sort of persistent activity that could just make life totally in tolerable for everybody occupying the premises. To provide more than seven days, in my view would be just to provide a licence to irresponsible tenants that just should not be given. I don’t think I need to add anything more than that, in view of what I’ve said.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment briefly on this. We had some thoughts about it and discussed it in our caucus committee.

Where money was involved, the House is agreed that 14 days is reasonable -- that the tenant should not be forced to come up with the dough in seven days or face all the perils of going through the courts. The matters which are contained in the five grounds for eviction in 103f are matters of opinion and discretion in many cases.

Is the damage that was done because the kids painted the walls, severe or not severe? It’s a matter of opinion in certain cases. Did the tenants have a noisy party because it was their 10th wedding anniversary and they were glad to have got through the first 10 years and they won’t do it again for another 10 years, or do they have noisy parties every Saturday night? Is it overcrowding that is causing them deliberately to flout the lease or is it a matter that the family just came in from a world tour and they had to be put up for three weeks while they found new accommodation?

Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the minister that in many cases where there is nuisance, which is the basic grounds for eviction, there is going to be a whole history of it before a landlord decides to go to the courts for an eviction order. He’s going to talk with the tenant, he is going to try to get the matter sorted out, and that’s the way it should be. We think it’s right; that discussion can carry on after the landlord has actually gone to the court, or given the eviction order, if you allow 30 days. But if you allow seven days, then it’s a kamikaze kind of a section because the tenant has no opportunity for rational dialogue with the landlord.

I can’t commit our spokesman on the bill, but if the minister wanted to say 21 days or 15 days, I personally think the House might consider it. But seven days is surely unreasonable when we allow 14 days to make up for arrears of rent -- a matter which is strictly economic and which affects the most basic obligation of the tenant in the leasehold contract, which is to pay his rent regularly.

[8:30]

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with my colleague in the Liberal Party who spoke to the retention of the seven days. There is a differentiation to be made between a tenant being in arrears of rent and a tenant who wilfully or neglectfully causes damage.

In the event of arrears of rent, we presume there are extenuating circumstances and a tenant ought to be given a chance to make that up, but in the case of damage caused wilfully or through neglect, the tenant knows before the landlord can even perceive to know the damage and he ought to be responsible for that.

Rather than cater to the tenant throughout this entire Act, when a tenant causes damage, as I say, either wilfully or through neglect, then he ought to be required to make good that damage within seven days of the landlord finding out. That’s all that Act says.

Mr. Cassidy: Make it three days then. Be consistent; make it three days.

Mr. Stong: Make it seven days, as the Act says.

Mr. Cassidy: Be vindictive. Go ahead; make it three days.

Mr. Stong: The Act says seven days. We are content with seven days.

Interjection.

Mr. Stong: I back my colleague, who would require that the tenant, who knows about the damage long before the landlord knows about it, make it good.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussions on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: By the way, through neglect is not quite the same thing as through negligence; there’s a hell of a lot of difference between the two.

Mr. Stong: It could be negligible neglect.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have a second amendment to the same subsection.

Mr. Chairman: The same subsection?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes. What do we do about that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Vote on the other one first.

Mr. Chairman: I think we’d better.

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 we stack it?

Agreed.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is not in his seat and shouldn’t be recorded as voting in this matter.

Mr. Chairman: That didn’t go unnoticed by the Chair. There were five others who stood in their places.

Mr. Makarchuk: The Chair was very observant.

Mr. Deans: It would serve the member in good stead if he paid more attention to real things.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) has a further amendment to this same subsection.

Mr. Makarchuk: In other words, stop nit-picking.

Mr. Chairman: I would remind the member for Brantford that if he wishes to take part in the debate, he should resume his own seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Lawlor: I would move that subsection 1 of section 103f of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding, after “premises” in line 34, the following -- and I want you to count up to 34 very carefully -- “or to make the repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord.” That is, if you purblind beggars will not accede to a little humanity in this particular.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, that amendment is acceptable.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we dispense with the reading of Mr. Lawlor’s amendment? Agreed.

Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed.

Mr. Lawlor: Hurray!

Interjections.

Mr. Lawlor: All you have to do is swear at them.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Does the member for Lakeshore have another amendment to the same subsection?

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member for Lakeshore try to keep up, please?

Mr. Singer: Where are we now, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Lawlor: I got lost in the --

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if those of us in the heavens back here might be advised as to what that amendment was that was passed so quickly. I suspect it might have been a plot to cut off Mr. Lawlor’s contribution to the debate tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Since the amendment has already been carried, I will re-read it only for purpose of information.

Mr. Lawlor moved that subsection 1 of section 103f of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding, after “premises” in line 34, the following: “or to make the repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord.”

Further, that subsection 2 of section 103f of the Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding after “costs” in line four the following: “or to make such repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, sometime soon --

Mr. Chairman: What section?

Mr. Cassidy: We’ve stood down a clause in 103d and at some point I would like to get back to that. I will do that now while the member for Lakeshore is collecting himself.

I am about to change it, Mr. Chairman. Can I read the new version rather than the old, so as not to confuse?

Mr. Chairman: You are prepared to withdraw the old one?

Mr. Singer: Without interrupting the hon. member, formulation of the amendment of subsection 1 and subsection 2 got a little confusing. I did want to speak on subsection 2. I don’t want to pre-empt the member when he speaks later, but I have some concern about the ramifications of subsection 2.

Mr. Chairman: Of subsection 103f?

Mr. Singer: Yes, subsection 2 of 103f. Now, you have a cumulative amendment that dealt with subsection 1 and subsection 3 of 103f, and I am a little worried --

Mr. Chairman: Just to keep things tidy -- if I may prevail upon the member for Wilson Heights -- we are going back to a section that we had hoped to stand down prior to the dinner break. And to keep things tidy, if we could take care of those amendments that have been stood down, and then work forward -- rather than working backward -- I would be prepared to listen to the amendment put by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, I am not sure that I understand the chairman. I do want to speak about my concern about the present wording of 103f, subsection 2. Now, I don’t want to let go of my opportunity to speak about that one, because I have some concern about that.

If the chairman is saying that I can speak about that in due course, I will be happy to go on. But I want to express my concern about that; I don’t like the way it’s --

Mr. Chairman: You will be given the opportunity in the fullness of time.

Mr. Cassidy: We are almost on that side of the House already, Mr. Chairman. I might say as well, Mr. Chairman, that I thought motion on the bill was rather crablike, rather than forwards or backwards.

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, and has indicated in writing to the landlord, before vacating the premises, that he wishes to have a first refusal to occupy the premises as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed, the tenant shall have such right of first refusal to occupy the premises at the lowest rent that would be charged to any other tenant, provided that the tenant informs the landlord by registered mail of any change of address.”

Mr. Cassidy: I apologize to the minister; I couldn’t get to his side because of previous amendments he was considering. But I have checked this amendment with Mr. Singer, with Mr. Norton, with our own people, and with the minister’s staff, so you are surrounded.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I might say, to save time, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is acceptable as far as I am concerned. I mean, I must admit I had to pause for a moment, because after having been informed by my hon. friend opposite that he had checked it out with members of my staff and my colleague, I wondered for a moment if the integrity of my office might not be at stake by readily accepting the amendment that had been thought that carefully through. I’m quite prepared to indicate to my friend that the amendment is acceptable as far as we’re concerned.

Mr. Cassidy: There was an attempt simply to accommodate the points made by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), and by the minister himself. On all three of those I think you’ve been covered in the amendment.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I’ve had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the member for Ottawa Centre. I have tried to analyse with him what he really means. I think I know what he means. I think I know what the section, legally, says. I am reasonably satisfied that once the renovations take place, the new unit goes out on the open market and it is available for rental at an equivalent rate to the highest bidder, provided that the former tenant gets first chance. It makes some sense, and on that basis we’re prepared to support it.

Mr. Williams: I would ask that the amendment stand down for the moment in order that further discussions can take place with the minister.

Mr. Lawlor: No.

Mr. Chairman: It has already been stood down. By general agreement it was brought forward again.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think that the relating of the rent to the --

Mr. Warner: Question?

Mr. Lawlor: Question?

Mr. Cassidy: Let him speak.

Mr. Williams: I think this is a favourite technique of the NDP, to ask for closure.

Mr. Lawlor: I hear it coming from all sides, even from your own members,

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Oriole has an opportunity to speak, as well as anybody else, on the amendment.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there is some uncertainty in the general proviso that the rent would be geared to the lowest rent available in that project if given time. This does raise some doubts in the minds of some of the members and I think we should be given the opportunity to consider that aspect of the amendment with the minister before we accede to the amendment that’s been put forward.

Mr. Lawlor: You have to think fast around here.

Mr. Chairman: I can’t accept that argument. The minister has accepted the amendment and it doesn’t behove the Chair to second-guess the minister.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but with respect, Mr. Chairman, the minister was the only person who wasn’t consulted in the matter over the dinner hour, as was acknowledged by the member for Ottawa Centre. I think it’s an affront to the minister that everyone but the minister should be consulted in the matter.

Mr. Good: If you don’t want it, vote against it.

Mr. Williams: I think he should be given an opportunity to assess the matter.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister can make up his own mind. He doesn’t need your help.

Mr. Ruston: He already accepted it.

Mr. Chairman: You have the opportunity to debate the amendment. You don’t have the opportunity to ask that it be stood down.

Mr. Williams: Through you, to the minister, I would ask that --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister can speak for himself. Can I just make a comment, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Let me make this clear. The member for Oriole does have the right to debate the amendment, and that opportunity is open to him now if he so wishes.

Mr. Williams: All right, Mr. Chairman. If this is the only opportunity I have to speak to the amendment, I would say that my concern is that tying in the rent which the tenant would have the right to relate his right of first refusal to, is too open-ended to relate it to the costs that might be incurred by the landlord with regard to the renovations which brought about the eviction or removal of the tenant from the premises in the first instance. I think this point was well made and raised by the member for Ottawa Centre at the beginning of the debate.

I think it would be unfair to suggest that the only criterion that would apply to the fixing of the rent would be the lowest rent in the project where this particular facility is located, because it may be unreasonable and unrealistic to suggest that the lowest rent in the project would be a fair application of rent based on the cost of the improvements made to the premises by this tenant. So the reason I asked that it be stood down -- which you ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman -- was to give consideration to whether or not it would be equitable and fair to use that as the criterion for setting the rent.

[8:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of information, I wonder if the amendment might be read again.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can read the relevant portion for the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and seek to explain it, because I think the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) had actually seized what it means perhaps a bit more perceptively. It says if a tenant is told he has to get out because of the renovations and before he gets out he says he wants to get to come back, then he has the right of first refusal to occupy the premises “at the lowest rent that will be charged to any other tenant.” Normally the lowest rent that would be charged to any other tenant is the rent that the unit would command on the open market.

The reason for the words, “the lowest rent that would be charged to any other tenant,” is to avoid a landlord saying to this prospective tenant who wants to return that the cost is $600 when in fact the unit will only fetch $300 on the open market. The member for Wilson Heights quite perceptively says does that mean that it is the highest rent which is available on the open market. The answer in fact is yes. If there is a situation of rent review which governs the highest rent that would be available on the open market, then the highest rent available on the market with rent review would govern. If rent review has gone, then it is just the highest market rent, which is also equal to the lowest rent that would be charged to any other tenant. I think that should satisfy the member for Oriole.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Excuse me, I wonder if the hon. member for Ottawa Centre might be prepared to amend his proposed amendment in order to make it totally clear, that is, the words “at the lowest rent that would be charged to any other tenant” and add in the words “for the same premises”?

Mr. Cassidy: Certainly I would make that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the words “for the same premises” be included after the word “tenant”?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wilson Heights indicated that he wanted to talk to 103f subclause 2. Is there anything prior to that?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy. I am bothered by 103f, subclause 2, and while I am told by my colleagues that some of the words that bothered me very much, like noxious and offensive, have been removed at an earlier date, what interests me and puzzles me, and I suppose to a tiny extent amuses me, is the wording of 103f, subsection (2) that says where a tenant who receives a notice from the landlord under subclause (1) within seven days can either pay costs or remedy his beating up of the premises or cease and desist from carrying on.

Then when you get on into the section, if he ceases and desists for six months, he’s fine; and if he picks it up after six months you can go after him again. Mr. Chairman, let me pose this question to you: Supposing the difficult tenant has been carrying on a common gaming house and the landlord says none of that can go on here because we have police coming in every night. He says to those people who are gaming it’s against our Criminal Code, you don’t do that; and they cart them off to jail.

The landlord says: “Because I have nice respectable tenants” -- like you, Mr. Chairman -- “we don’t want to disturb the chairman of the committee of the whole, we want to let him have quiet and peaceful possession and we don’t want that kind of disturbance, let us evict that terrible tenant.” Even worse, supposing someone is carrying on a common bawdy house in that establishment --

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: That’s possible. I have heard of that being done. That is a reason to send a notice. You know what this section says. It says they can apologize. It says, if they say: “We are not going to do that again; we are not going to carry on a common bawdy house or a gaming house or whatever it is; we are not going to do it again”; provided six months have passed they are carefully, nicely reinstated.

Surely at this point we have exceeded all the bounds of reasonableness. We have become quite ridiculous when we allow that continuing kind of excuse. If someone has acted illegally -- and I don’t care, whether it is a bawdy house or gaming house or whatever criminal conviction is associated with their tenancy occupation -- if we are evicting on these premises, surely it should be enough to allow the landlord to serve a notice saying get out you are doing something illegal.

Subsection 2 is not going to allow this. I think subsection 2 should be deleted. I would be very interested to hear the Attorney General’s view. It is fine to be tolerant, but how tolerant do you want to be? Surely after this has gone on, even once, one should be able to say to the tenant who is carrying on the illegal operation, out you go. In context with the other subsection, the Attorney General should have a real concern about its effect.

Without moving anything particularly at this point, I would like to hear what the Attorney General has to say.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It would appear that my friend is separating one aspect of the clause, and that is in relation to illegal activity --

Mr. Singer: Well that’s all we have left, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, because we are talking about section 103f(1)(c). I think you should look at section 103f(1)(c) which talks about the conduct of the tenant, or a person permitted in the residential premises, as such that it substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises.

Mr. Singer: Don’t you care to talk about (b)?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: A lot of other activity comes into subsection 2. You made the statement that subsection 2 related only to illegal activity because the words “noxious and offensive” had been omitted. I just wanted to draw your attention to (c) which does talk about other activity that substantially interferes with the reasonable enjoyment of the premises. It is that type of activity that other tenants, as well as the landlord, should be protected against, but on the other hand for which we wish to provide relief from forfeiture.

Mr. Singer: I find what the Attorney General says is very interesting and maybe his remarks accumulatively apply to what he says, but let’s look at it. Let me invite you to read that section. He says, “or ceases and desists from the activities.” The activities surely include (b) and the activities include illegal operations. An illegal operation is a gaming house or a bawdy house or whatever kind of house you are not carrying on legally. You may be selling dope or you may be conspiring to upset the government.

Mr. Lawlor: Move the amendment and take it out. Do something positive; don’t be so purblind.

Mr. Singer: We would think that would be a terrible thing. We think that would be a terrible thing if there is a whole group of people conspiring in the riding of Eglinton to upset the Attorney General.

They could do that under (b). All they would have to do is say they were ceasing and desisting and they could stay. I would think all the members of this House who believe they were conspiring to upset you wouldn’t be satisfied to allow them to say they can apologize. They would want them out.

A little more seriously, I think the wording and the concept of this subsection are wrong. It should be eliminated and my colleagues and I are going to oppose it. The Attorney General in his wisdom is saying, let’s be fair, let’s be reasonable, let’s be honest and let’s apologize for everybody. I suggest it is not sufficient to cease and desist from carrying on an illegal activity. If you, Mr. Chairman, are a landlord and somebody is carrying on an illegal activity, the whole concept, the whole broad aspect of the Criminal Code is taken into account. If the tenant is carrying on an illegal activity in your premises, you should have the right to say, “You have no right to do that there here. Out you go.” You should be allowed to kick him out.

Mr. Lawlor: Your colleagues aren’t going to support you, are they?

Mr. Singer: I think the member for Lakeshore could be concerned about that.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Wilson Heights have an amendment?

Mr. Singer: I think subsection 2 should be removed.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have an amendment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer: Just forget subsection 2.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think the hon. member for Wilson Heights is suggesting that those of us from Eglinton or Lakeshore are any less law-abiding than those good people in Wilson Heights. All I can say is that if my hon. friend from Wilson Heights has an amendment which he would like to propose which would give a landlord the right to kick out a tenant, if I may put it in those blunt terms, without any right or relief from forfeiture -- for example for some breach of the Criminal Code -- I would respectfully suggest that the hon. member propose such an amendment, which I am sure he is well able to do, and the House, I am sure, will be glad to consider it.

Mr. Singer: Let me reply very briefly to what the Attorney General says. Let’s read subsection 12: “Where a tenant who receives a notice from a landlord under subsection 1” -- subsection 1(b) gives permission to a landlord to serve notice where a tenant has acted illegally. Let’s understand what that means; when a tenant has acted illegally a landlord can serve notice saying, “out you go.” The tenant can then say, “I am going to desist” and everything is fine because, having done that, the notice is null and void. I suggest this --

Mr. Lawlor: What is your amendment?

Mr. Singer: My amendment is that we don’t vote for subsection 2.

Mr. Lawlor: Come on. On again, off again. Wherever you give, you take.

Mr. Singer: It is not an amendment at all. I am saying, Mr. Chairman -- the member for Lakeshore should listen. I would ask the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: You are a purblind cynic. Come on, you can do better than that.

Mr. Singer: -- if he votes against what I am proposing --

Mr. Chairman: I would hope the hon. member for Lakeshore would not incite other members of the committee. Tonight of all nights.

Mr. Lawlor: Incite them? He incited me.

Mr. Singer: I am very sensitive. I wonder if the member for Lakeshore is prepared to rise in his place and say if, under the provisions of subsection 2 someone is carrying on a common gaming house or a bawdy house and they say they are going to cease and desist, that should allow them to reinstate their tenancy? If he votes for the keeping of subsection 2, that’s what he and his colleagues are voting for. I would be very fascinated to hear them stand up in their place and say that is what they are voting for. Let me go back and let me talk --

Mr. Lawlor: It is the only direction you know.

Mr. Singer: Let me talk to the member through you, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Martel: Where were you over the supper hour?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, could you restrain some of those men?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, would you ask him where he was over the supper hour? He speaks for --

Mr. Norton: I thought he was dining with you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wilson Heights has the floor. Will you allow him to continue uninterrupted, please?

Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martel: He is being provocative.

Mr. Singer: Subsection 2 says that when a tenant receives a notice “or ceases and desists from the activities” -- the illegal activities -- the notice is null and void. Illegal activities are such as carrying on a common gaming house, bawdy house or anything else in the Criminal Code. If he says, “I am not going to do it anymore,” he is purged.

I can understand my hon. friend from Lakeshore saying you can purge yourself but I wonder how that relates to the sort of normal enjoyment among people of what you share in an apartment house, If there is the kind of activity which I might object to --

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

Mr. Singer: -- my colleague from Lakeshore probably would enjoy it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point of order.

Mr. Kennedy: He says he has.

Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might assist the hon. member for Wilson Heights?

Mr. Chairman: That’s not a point of order. I can tell already.

[9:00]

Mr. Norton: I think that he’s clearly out of order or out of commission, I’m not sure which.

Mr. Chairman: You should have asked the hon. member for Wilson Heights if he would permit a question.

Mr. Norton: Then may I ask the hon. member for Wilson Heights if he would permit a question?

Mr. Singer: I certainly would. I’d be delighted.

Mr. Norton: Would it be of any assistance to you, hon. sir, if you were to propose the following amendment; that subsection 2 he amended to read, “where a tenant receives a notice from a landlord, under clause (a), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection 1,” and continuing with the wording? That, thereby, would eliminate what appears to be a very real concern, and I’m sure a genuine and deeply felt concern of yours, that there might be no way that one could remove a tenant who was engaged in illegal activities. I think that would surmount the problem you see

Mr. Singer: Let me answer the hon. member’s question. The answer is “no.”

Mr. Chairman: I might say that was predictable.

Mr. Singer: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if there has been an illegal operation going on, that the mere intention to desist is not sufficient and that we should accept the fact that if this kind of -- what is illegal? Surely illegal has to be so found by the court. Surely illegal has to relate to a charge and a conviction under the Criminal Code. And surely any one of the hon. members of this House who had a neighbour who was a tenant, a co-tenant and neighbour, who was convicted of carrying on an illegal operation -- and I hesitate to use these terrible words -- of carrying on a common gaming house, a bawdy house or that sort of thing, would not be happy to have that person continue as a neighbour.

Mr. McClellan: You have said that five times.

Mr. Singer: I would say that once that has been done, they should be able to get kicked out; but if we pass subsection 2, they can’t be kicked out, because they can apologize. I suggest that’s not good enough. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we should be against subsection 2, and I would urge the Attorney General to eliminate subsection 2. My colleagues and I are going to vote against subsection 2.

Mr. Kerrio: You’re right, Vernon.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the member for Wilson Heights whether the inclusion in line five of subsection 2, after the word “activities,” of the clause “other than in subclause (b) hereof” would not satisfy his concerns?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, it’s a little more clear now that my colleague behind me has indicated really what you had in mind and which didn’t come through too clearly. I would accept that if we say “other than in subclause (b)” I would go along with that. The alternative is either to eliminate subsection 2 or to say “other than in subclause (b)” I don’t really care which way the House wants to carry it. I just don’t want to go along with the licentiousness of my hon. friend from Lakeshore, who wants to allow people to carry on gaming houses or bawdy houses and be excused if they stop.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s not licentiousness; it’s somnolence. It puts me to sleep.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Oriole.

Mr. Williams: I would then ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, to consider the injection of that clause after the word “activities” as proposed; and whether it would be acceptable to meet the concern of the member for Wilson Heights and still be acceptable as being part of the intent and purpose of the legislation.

Mr. Lawlor: Could I speak to this just for a moment?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: The bluestocking -- against all bootleggers, even against common bawdy houses, common gaming houses. My God, Singer, when you celebrate for Christmas, the benignity of the season really gets through, doesn’t it?

Mr. Singer: Jealousy will get you nowhere, Lawlor.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply to the member for Oriole?

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Grundy.

Mr. Singer: Right. The Grinch.

Mr. Moffatt: He is the original Grinch.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether a formal amendment has been proposed. I think it was suggested, but I don’t know that it’s been actually proposed as of this moment.

Mr. Lawlor: Accept it; it’s okay.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Are you prepared --

Mr. Lawlor: Sure. We wanted the legislation, let it come in.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, it’s the Christmas season.

Mr. Lawlor: If it rouses such fervour and such dignity of your soul, then by God we’ll accept subclause (b).

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I assume then that someone, I am not sure precisely who, has moved an amendment to subsection 2 of 103f, “where a tenant receives a notice from a landlord under subsection 1 within seven days of his receiving” -- or under subsection 1, “with the exception of clause (b).” Are those the words that are being included?

Mr. Singer: Yes, I will accept that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, was that your amendment?

Mr. Singer: It’s along that line suggested by your colleague from Oriole.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, someone should propose a formal amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has not received any amendment.

Mr. Sweeney: May I suggest that the member for Kingston and the Island (Mr. Norton) proposed what I think is the best wording, and I think that’s been accepted. If I understand what he said, it was in the second line, under subsection 1; then he added subsection 1 (a) (c) (d) (e) and (f) and deliberately left out (b).

Mr. Norton: It was under clause (a).

Mr. Sweeney: I think that will get at it, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, would someone put that in the form of a motion please?

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has not received any amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: That wasn’t the amendment if I may so so. It had to do with excluding (b) from the cease and desist area of the section. I am not prepared to move it, but if somebody else is I won’t fight it.

Mr. Norton: I would like to propose the following amendment to subsection 2 of section 10Sf; that the subsection be amended so that it reads: “Where a tenant who receives a notice from a landlord under clause (a), (c), (d), or (e) of subsection 1,” and continues as recorded in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Good: What about (f)?

Mr. Norton: And (f). Sorry, I had forgotten clause (f).

Mr. Chairman: Could the member put it in writing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, now that the licentious activities are put to rest for the moment --

Mr. Singer: Okay, that’s good.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- are we to move on to another clause or do you wish this amendment in writing first?

Mr. Chairman: I believe the committee should wait for the amendment on this section before we move forward.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In writing.

Mr. Chairman: In writing.

Mr. Singer: While we are waiting for the amendment to be written up, could I ask the author to equally propose the amendment to subclause 4, because if we don’t have it in 4 as well as 2, we’ve perhaps missed the thrust of it. If it’s proposed in subclause 4 we will avoid a subsequent debate on subclause 4 as well, because subclause 4 sort of follows from what is in subclause 2. Perhaps the author could include subclause 4 as he is writing about subclause 2.

Mr. Hodgson: On a point of personal privilege, I would like to introduce the next Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Sinclair Stevens, and his wife, Noreen, who are in the Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. Chairman: While we’re waiting for the amendment, would the minister care to comment on the suggestion made by the member for Wilson Heights?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the suggestion coming from the member for Wilson Heights. I don’t believe that it’s necessary to amend that subsection (4) in order to include the amendment that is now being proposed to subsection (2).

Mr. Singer: Well, we can argue about that for a bit? Let me read subsection (4):

“Where notice of termination has become null and void under subsection (2) by reason of the tenant complying with the terms of the notice within seven days and the tenant within six months thereafter again contravenes any of the clauses in subsection (1)…”

“Any of the clauses in subsection (1)” -- and one of the clauses in subsection (1) is carrying on an illegal operation.

So, if you have that in, surely it’s going to throw some confusion into the mind of the learned provincial judges, magistrates or county court judges who are going to have to wrestle with that.

So, if we add any of the clauses in subsection (1) which include illegal activities, one might be in some doubt as to what is meant.

Perhaps if my friend the member for Kingston and the Islands could include in his all-embracing wording the reference to subsection (4), he would satisfy me -- and I’m sure my friend, the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I appreciate my friend’s point, but I think the operative words of the section, so far as my friend’s suggestion is concerned, relate to the first two or three lines where notice of termination has become null and void under subsection 2. It is only in a situation where it becomes null and void under subsection 2. If it can’t become null and void under subsection 2, because of the amendment that is being proposed to 2, which eliminates (b), then I don’t think we have to concern ourselves with it, with the greatest of respect.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect for my friend the Attorney General, I wonder about the loose draftsmanship. I get very bothered by it. Again there is the phrase “contravenes any of the clauses of subsection (1).” I would say, perhaps a judge, learned as he might be, a justice of the peace, a provincial court judge, a county court judge, might look at that and say: “For goodness sake, the Legislature told me if anyone again contravenes any clause of subsection 1 and subsection 1 says illegal,” the Lawlor gambling house, the Lawlor bawdy house -- whatever it is -- you could say that doesn’t apply. I think that by a simple, Anglicized direction, Mr. Chairman, I think very simply, a simple grammatical correction to the section could remove any doubt and perhaps provide guidance to our good friends who sit on the bench and are going to have to adjudicate these things.

Mr. Chairman: Are you about to rise on a matter of personal privilege?

Mr. Lawlor: I was going to back the minister. Doesn’t he want someone to? My good name is being taken in vain!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t feel totally defenceless, but I would just wonder whether or not we should direct our attention, Mr. Chairman, to the proposed amendment that is now in writing and being delivered to you. Do you want to ask for a response from the members of the House?

Mr. Chairman: I have now received the amendment to 103f(2).

Mr. Martel: He is calling for the question, in other words.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the Chair just asked for the commencement of discussion on subsection 4 while we were waiting for this in writing.

Mr. Norton moves that subsection 10Sf, subsection 2, be amended by inserting the words “clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e) of” before the words “subsection 1” in line two.

[9:15]

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, may I ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) whether he would be prepared to include -- what were the clauses?

Mr. Chairman: Subsections (a), (c), (d) and (e).

Mr. Singer: Would he be prepared to include that in sub 4 at the appropriate point as well? I would be quite happy if he would do that.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to remind the member for Wilson Heights that I think we could deal with that in due course.

Mr. Singer: It’s a very important point.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s one thing at a time.

Mr. Good: What about (f)?

Mr. Singer: Did you include (f)?

Mr. Norton: No, I don’t think (f) is an appropriate clause for inclusion. If you note, (f) is the one that deals with alleged fraudulent practice.

Mr. Singer: Let’s forget about it.

Mr. Norton: It seems to me it’s different in nature from the other clauses which have been included in the amendment.

Mr. Singer: How about (a), (c), (d), (e) in 4? Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Singer: On a point of order; again, I’m not quite sure where that goes in.

Mr. Hodgson: It’s carried.

Mr. Singer: No, it isn’t carried, not for a minute. Let’s not panic. Is that going to go into 4 as well?

Mr. Chairman: No, this is referring to sub 2 only.

Mr. Singer: As I understood it, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is prepared to let that go into 4 as well and we can move that at the appropriate time -- either he can or I can so as long as I reserve my spot.

Mr. Norton: I will leave that with you.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the minister has an amendment to 103f(3).

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection S of the said section 10Sf be amended by inserting after “2” in the third line: “or where the notice is served pursuant to clause (f) of subsection 1.”

Mr. Singer: What’s the significance of that? Could the Attorney General tell us what he has in mind?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The significance of that is (f) was added and the addition you will recall, was amended. That section is consequent; it is necessary to incorporate that amendment. It simply gives the landlord the right to make application under section 106 in relation to (f) as well as to the other subsections (a) to (e).

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on tbc amendment?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Wilson Heights wish to make an amendment to sub 4?

Mr. Singer: Yes, on sub 4, could I incorporate, or encourage my friend from Kingston and the Islands to move the same amendment to 4 as he did in the earlier section? I’ll support him or he can support use -- except I haven’t got his exact wording.

Mr. Norton: I will leave the matter in your hands although I’m not sure that I can assure you of my support.

Mr. Singer: Whatever you had there, Mr. Chairman, as moved by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, insofar as the earlier section is concerned, I move he inserted after the words subsection 1 in the fifth line of subsection 4 and the section he amended accordingly.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Singer move that section 103f(4) be amended by inserting the words “clause (a), (c), (d) and (e)” before the words “subsection 1” in the fifth line.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s pleonastic, redundant and the member for Wilson Heights in normal circumstances knows better than that. It is not relevant to the central purpose of the section. The Attorney General has already explained the reasons why. If you have encapsulated subsection 2, which had already been amended, into the section then you have done all you can possibly do. To go into a fit of repetition by simply re-enunciating the same proposition over again bespeaks a form of fanaticism. What sanctimoniousness is here. It is as though he weren’t content. They purge their vileness in whatever form they happen to exercise it once, but it’s never enough. He wants them to do it a second time. Sackcloth and ashes in the public square, if you please. You can’t stop the member for Wilson Heights tonight. He’s avaricious. He’s lusting after virtue and that doesn’t suit the man. I could go on, but I promised not to, and I have to keep my promise.

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: I just can’t let that go without a modest reply.

Mr. Eakins: You can. Sit down.

Mr. Singer: I was enthused the other day when the Premier (Mr. Davis) rose and wrapped himself in his modest robe of sanctimony and put on his head the crown of divine right. He’s only been equalled in recent days by the remarks of the hon. member for Lakeshore. I think we should say loudly, clearly, legislatively and unemotionally what we believe in. If people carry on illegal activities as we have defined, our colleagues in Ottawa, our kissing cousins in Ottawa --

Mr. Lawlor: No, you have already done that.

Mr. Singer: -- have defined in the Criminal Code of our great country that that should apply in our simple and modest statutes like the Landlord and Tenant Act. I am not unduly moved by the emotion of the hon. member for Lakeshore, as floe a man as he may be.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on the amendment?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Mr. Martel: Good for you, I like to hear that.

Mr. Makarchuk: He stands alone, distant, denied, and not too steadily at that.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 103 he amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(6) a notice of termination given by a landlord to a tenant is void and of no effect unless

“(a) the tenant delivers up possession of the premises; or

“(b) the landlord brings an application under section 106 not later than 30 days after the termination date specified in the notice.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, to bring some degree of finality to the earlier sections, if the landlord doesn’t bring in an application within 30 days the notice of termination must be considered null and void. This is, as I said, to bring some degree of finality to the matter so that notice of termination simply can’t be held over the tenant’s head.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 1 of section 103g as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “15” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof, “30.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, this is in context of other amendments that have been made already to the legislation, substituting 30 for 15, just as the next proposed amendments will do.

Mr. Singer: Could the Attorney General tell me why we need 20 days; plus seven days; plus, now, 30 days? That is 57 days. Why should he need that much time for this kind of action? What is the rationale behind the further extension of these times? How long do you extend it?

You have built in so many safeguards. At what stage do you say, “Enough time is enough time”? You’ve got 20 days, you’ve got seven days, you’ve got 15 days, and you’re extending the 15 days to 30 days. If my arithmetic is at all correct -- and I’m not sure my colleagues are going to agree with my arithmetic at all -- I would say 20 plus seven plus 30 is 57 days. What sense does it make?

Mr. Lawlor: Wait a minute. Seven is your assignment.

Mr. Singer: As long as it’s an extension, you’re in favour, eh?

Mr. Lawlor: No, no. I am saying the seven is an assignment.

Mr. Singer: Is the Attorney General going to answer us?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no comment. I think the amendment speaks for itself. With all due respect to the member for Wilson Heights, I think the times he’s referring to have no relationship whatsoever to this section and this amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: Why should it be in the bill, then?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, let’s try to get an answer. I’m sure it’s going to be carried because I don’t seem to be getting through tonight. Why should it be -- 27 plus 15 is 42, and another 15 is now 57 days, rather than 42 days? What is the sense? What are you getting at? What are you trying to prove?

Mr. McClellan: Are you moving an amendment?

Mr. Singer: No, I think if we are getting an amendment for what is printed here we should have an explanation. Not just that it makes sense; why does it make sense?

Mr. Chairman: Do you have any further comment, Mr. Minister? Nothing further.

Mr. Singer: That is a very good explanation -- we just amend it because it’s amended because it gives more time. And the member for Lakeshore supports it bemuse it gives more time.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Singer: No. It makes great sense with the rest of your whole dumb statute.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

[9:30]

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 2 of section 103g be amended by striking out “15” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof, “30.”

Mr. Martel: Is this a new Act?

Mr. Singer: Why? No answer. Berger’s boys are all in favour. Good idea.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: That’s a good idea.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to really quibble about this. What I am telling you is that for some reason best known to the Attorney General he is making it completely impossible to allow a landlord ever to evict a tenant; and notwithstanding what his colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), has done in his publication of a pamphlet, saying, “Sign a lease for a year,” any tenant who signs a lease at all is crazy. All he has to do is sit there and nobody can ever get rid of him, no matter what he does. And we, the members of this Legislature, supposedly reasonably intelligent, are voting for all this damned nonsense.

I object, and I am going to sit here even as one voice and I continue to object. We are extending periods beyond reason, without excuse. We are allowing people to carry on all sorts of activities that nobody understands and we are saying, “Hurray, hurray,” because we are anxious to get out.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Singer: No, I am quite serious. It is no longer a joke --

Mr. Norton: Would you read it?

Interjection.

Mr. Singer: We are abandoning our right to protect people who rent premises. I am saying that, from here on in, anybody who voluntarily rents anything to anybody is crazy, because they will never get them out, no matter what they do. The time is going to run ad nauseam. The court procedures are going to be so complicated you will never get them out. The excuses are built into this Act. If we are going to sit here as 125 members of this Legislature and calmly accept the nonsense in this statute, we are all a bunch of nuts.

Mr. Martel: How many apartment buildings do you own?

Mr. Singer: I own one building; the one in which I live, and that’s all I own.

Mr. Martel: You could have fooled me.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Norton: I don’t know whether it’s of any solace to the member for Wilson Heights, but I might suggest that he read the amendment that is being proposed. This does not extend any period during which the tenant might be removed from the premises. It only extends the period in which the landlord might take action.

Mr. Singer: Might get him out.

Mr. Norton: He can do it in five days or 10 days; all the amendment is suggesting is that if he doesn’t do it within 30 days then the notice is null and void. I think the member has placed an entirely wrong interpretation upon the intent of the amendment. I would suggest that he read it more carefully.

Mr. Singer: My remarks stand, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: If there is no further comment from any of the members, shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Singer: No.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Singer: Fine.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that clause (e) of subsection 3 of the said section 103g be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(e) the tenant has breached a material covenant, which covenant is contained in a written tenancy agreement and which covenant is not contrary to the spirit and intent of this part.”

Mr. Lawlor: We object to the amendment. We have another amendment which we shall move in this regard.

Mr. Martel: We are opposed.

Mr. Lawlor: It says that the judge shall not consider any cause for eviction not specifically named in this part.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, we are discussing the amendment moved by the Attorney General, not the other amendments that are being discussed.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t have a point of order.

Mr. Singer: Let’s deal with one at a time.

Mr. Martel: Tell him to sit down. He doesn’t have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member of Lakeshore wish to comment on the amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: I very much do, but for a member of this House who can’t contain more than two ideas in his head or even one at one particular time that becomes quite a difficulty. I thought we might shorten the thing by knowing what was involved in the total picture.

In any event, the clause ought not to be there. The material covenant: No one in this living universe knows what “material covenant” means. You take a look at Williams on “Landlord and Tenant”; take any look at any of the major texts on the subject; when the word “material” comes up it is amorphous, it hasn’t been defined, it varies from situation to situation. No one knows what a material covenant is. That is one of the major loopholes in the legislation. It is one of the more vicious aspects written into the Act.

If you can convince me that “materiel” has some definite meaning I will go along with it. If it hasn’t got any meaning then, under six sections now of grounds on which you can get people out, plus three other sections -- eight or nine different sections written into this Act, covering the whole waterfront as far as I can see as to reasons of materiality as to why anyone would be forced to vacate a premise, giving full justification for good reasons why people should be kicked out -- you’ve covered it.

Why do you want to get the weasel message in, as you know too many Attorneys General tend to do at the end of a section? Just in case the omnibus provisions provided here in definitive terms previously didn’t quite cover every conceivable circumstances we will throw in for marginal utility the extra word or two which spoils everything, because how is a judge to construe this?

I mean we can be derelict in our responsibilities tonight and we can throw vagueness to the courts. We are very often criticized in terms of statutory interpretation because we haven’t got the courage or the intelligence or we are too bloody vague or we don’t know what we are all about. This is just the kind of thing that brings that particular criticism down upon our heads and justifiably.

Look what (e) says: “the tenant has breached a material covenant,” and as I say, no one knows what that means.

Mr. Singer: Now I agree with the member for Lakeshore,

Mr. Lawlor: Which covenant is “contained in a written tenancy agreement” and is not contrary to the spirit and intent of this and the judge is supposed to be so omniscient as to fulfil the role which you are unable to fulfil to tell them what the sprit and intent of the bloody section or the part happens to be! How is he to talk that out? It is up to us to say. He is supposed to pick it up it some way, by way of osmosis, by some relationship? Maybe he will hold a séance in his office and they can all hold hands around the table --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Would you like me to tell you?

Mr. Lawlor: -- counsel for the defence and counsel for the complainant, etc. They will all go into a deep trance and they will get the spirit of the part. That is nonsense nod you know it and I am surprised to see such a section. Nothing has been more vacuous, vague and vapid!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Would you like to hear from me?

Mr. Lawlor: In a moment, I am just winding down. So I would be very pleased to hear from you. The section I will be moving is saying: “No, Joe, we don’t go for it.”

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, fascinatingly enough on this point I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for Lakeshore. When he asks the very pertinent and intelligent question as to what is a material covenant, there having been no previous definition of a material covenant, then the Attorney General begs for confusion, irrationality, illogicality in the administration of the statute. He begs for it. He asks for it. He invites it. If there is any single clause which makes this statute meaningless, it is the insertion of this kind of an amendment.

I have noticed that my friends in the NDP are suggesting that there be some sort of compulsory provision that we have a uniform form of lease. I have advocated this for probably 10, 12 or 15 years. I agree with them on that and I would vote for that amendment when it’s moved if there was any reasonable expectation that we would have a standard form of lease in the Province of Ontario. I know that isn’t going to be and I know that tonight, notwithstanding the great wisdom and erudition of the new Attorney General, he is not going to produce out of his hip pocket a standard form of lease. In the absence of his being able to do that -- I know he is a great man and I know he has more intelligence and ability than any of his predecessors -- in the absence of what I think is his ability to produce a uniform form of lease, which is going to be a part of the law of the Province of Ontario, let me join with my colleague from Lakeshore and ask what is a material covenant? Unless and until you can define it, I don’t think a clause like this has any place in the laws of the Province of Ontario.

I think it is a bunch of bloody nonsense. I don’t think it should be included in the statute which we are trying to make meaningful. I think you should delete it and with him -- I don’t know if I can get five people to rise -- I will oppose it. At least the member for Lakeshore and I will oppose it if no one else does.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have been given an opportunity to respond briefly to the remarks of my friends opposite and I would like to remind them, with respect, that we live in a community which is not faceless but which is made up of individuals with individual needs and individual requirements.

In fairness to both landlords and tenants, there must be some degree of flexibility and landlords with special interests to protect should have the right to write such a covenant into the lease. For example, if you are renting a fiat in your home, you may be allergic to domestic pets or, in order to get this home with a little more vigour -- one of your children may be allergic to domestic pets --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Would you just listen for a moment, please? It may be quite appropriate to write a covenant into the lease which says you are prepared to rent your premises but not to people who want to have domestic pets because of the allergy your child might suffer. In many rented premises the units aren’t completely self-contained so there are interests of the landlords to protect.

A material covenant, of course, is a covenant which is material and has some significance and some importance for the landlord or to the tenant. The position may be reversed. The tenant might wish to rent a particular type of premises and to be protected by activity which might be considered to be normal and which might not normally offend any landlord-tenant relationship under the general terms of the Act. It is to recognize special needs that individuals in society have. I would think my friend from Wilson Heights, who has long been an advocate on behalf of individuals in our society, would not be so ready to desert the cause in the face of the eloquence of our learned colleague from Lakeshore. We are trying to inject into the Act a certain degree of flexibility which will meet these individual and totally legitimate needs. This is what we are trying to accomplish.

Under the original draft of the amendment, we said that the tenant had breached a material covenant contained in a written tenancy agreement. We were concerned about that because we realized that there is always some controversy over a material covenant. A material covenant is not necessarily a material covenant just because the landlord may say it is, and that is why, in these amendments, we added the words, “that it must not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the Act.”

[9:45]

Mr. Singer: Whatever that means.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If you people opposite -- and it’s about time you faced up to this -- if you’re prepared absolutely to abdicate your responsibility with respect to the individuals in the community, then stand up and be counted.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on, Bill Davis. Climb down.

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: I can say that the hon. Attorney General should wrap himself in his cloak of self-righteousness, put on his hat of divine right and make the speech again, because I’m not impressed at all. I say that of all people in this House bringing legislation forward that we should be able to understand, we in the Legislature and all of the people of Ontario should be able to understand what he is talking about. I don’t know that I’m the most erudite lawyer in the Province of Ontario, but I studied a bit of law over the past many years -- I’ve practised a bit of law -- and I don’t know what the Attorney General is talking about. He is talking about where the tenant has breached a material covenant.

Let’s look seriously at what he’s producing by this statute and its companion piece introduced by his colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes). Together, the two of them have produced -- notwithstanding their paid, phoney, Tory propaganda that issues at public expense -- aa atmosphere which is going to convince any intelligent tenant who seeks any advice or comes to the conclusion on his own, that he will never again sign the lease; he will stay as a monthly tenant and nobody is ever going to be able to get rid of him as long as these statutes stand extant on the statute books.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, what we have achieved, and maybe by necessity what we are achieving now as we push this one through the House, is the earlier one, Bill 20, together with Bill 26, would encourage anyone who is a tenant to say, “No, Mr. Landlord, I will never again sign a lease. I will stay on as whatever kind of tenant I may be, protected by the rent control statute, Bill 20, and this statute, Bill 26, and nobody is ever going to be able to get rid of me, even if I carry on a gaming house or a bawdy house or whatever; because all I have to do if I get caught at that is to apologize.”

What is the material covenant that the Attorney General is talking about? If you get a person who says, “I’m not going to have a lease, I’m going to take advantage of what you, the hon. members of the Legislature, said I can do; I’m going to stay on as a tenant. I’m not going to sign any lease, I could stay there forever, and I could stay there forever on whatever terms of a lease the common law implies,” what common law implication is there as to material covenant? Why should anybody sign a lease? Because Rhodes tells them to sign a lease? I’m advising my clients right now, “Don’t sign a lease; stay there, we’ll protect you.”

Mrs. Campbell: Sit.

Mr. Singer: What kind of a lease is going to have a material covenant? What is a material covenant, unless you have a companion piece saying this is the standard form of lease?

Really, Mr. Chairman, if we’re going to write law in this Legislature tonight, or before we adjourn for the Christmas period, surely to goodness it must have some meaning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How do you have time to advise clients?

Mr. Singer: All right, the Premier is here. I was telling your friend, the Attorney General, before you came in --

Hon. Mr. Davis: How do you have a full-time job and have time to advise clients?

Mr. Singer: -- that you wrap yourself in your cloak of self-righteousness and put on your hat of divine right and you are right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never wear a hat.

Mr. Singer: All right, the only thing is you don’t have enough votes to do it all by yourself anymore. No.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When do you get time to advise clients?

Mr. Singer: I’ll tell you when I advise clients. I look at this statute --

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I say, “When do you get the time?”

Mr. Singer: Oh, I do. I work 24 hours a day and I rather enjoy it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a full-time job.

Mr. Singer: I can’t resist coming back and arguing with you at night and there we are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a full-time job.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Wilson Heights has the floor.

Mr. Singer: I say this in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman: If the Attorney General wants this kind of clause included, surely it makes good common sense that he should tell us what is a material covenant. Recognizing, as he has to, that we are going to have the pattern that no longer are there going to be leases, that the common-law definition of what a material covenant is going to be is at least somewhat vague at present, it is going to disappear almost into absolute nothingness, because we are not going to have leases in Ontario anymore. By the protection of the two statutes that we have, people are not going to enter into any leases. Unless we have a companion piece of legislation, saying what is a standard lease and that every clause in it, or the first, third and seventh clause are material, the words “material covenant” are going to be meaningless.

I have to join, quite enthusiastically, with the comments of my friend from Lakeshore in saying the clause is meaningless, because you offer no definitions. If we are going to write a statute that is going to invite litigation, if we are going to write a statute that is going to encourage people to come before the courts, let’s put this section in; then anyone who wants a crutch to lean on, will say, “Ho, ho, there is a material covenant or there isn’t a material covenant. Let’s go to court. We can take it through a county court judge in the court of appeal and we can drag out our tenancy ad infinitum, or not drag out our tenancy ad infinitum, whatever our pleasure may be.”

Mr. Chairman, I am making a plea to the Attorney General to say that if we are going to write this kind of statute, let’s make it mean something that can be readily interpreted’. What he is putting in now is a bunch of nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know at this point in the proceedings if it will be of any assistance to my friend from Lakeshore, but I should point out to him, as it has just been pointed out to me, that the BC legislation in 1974 followed your advice and did not include a provision for a material covenant, that which would again recognize the special needs that might exist between a landlord and tenant Li special circumstances. But I am glad to say that the BC government -- and I am sure that this has nothing to do with their demise -- decided in their wisdom that even in a socialist province there was still a need to recognize special needs, and the provision for a material covenant was added to the legislation. I think you should consider it very carefully.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I attribute the fall of that government to the fact that --

Mr. Martel: We are going to be here until the New Year.

Mr. Lawlor: Now, it may be an omen, an emblem or a sign, a harbinger of your own situation. I would ask the Premier to pay particular attention to this clause, because on it hangs his fate.

Mr. Singer: He knows better.

Mr. Lawlor: Listen, I do continue to think --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You guys just don’t have that much advice to offer.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s as much advice as I have tonight. I don’t want to stimulate too much self-confidence before morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are too modest.

Mr. Lawlor: You don’t need it, really.

Mr. Martel: Oh, I don’t know; after that loss he sure does. He turned it into a victory; he’s the only person who could.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should learn.

Mr. Martel: He lost about 30 seats and turned it into a victory.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Lakeshore has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right; and you haven’t seen anything yet.

Mr. Martel: That was a superb victory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree with you.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s either triumphalism or Armageddon, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you remember Peel, that great riding?

Mr. Lawlor: Either you make it or you go out the door, if you want it another way. Yes, you hang. You hang, turning in the wind.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you remember running in Peel?

Mr. Lawlor: Listen, the damned clause is either meaningless or if it means anything -- to get back to the legislation, and I am anxious to finish it -- it means what you have said already. Could anything be more material than what is contained in the business of somebody damaging the premises or having his friends do so, or being part of that, or doing illegal acts, or that his conduct was such as to substantially interfere with a reasonable enjoyment of the premise? That’s so darned broad that it would cover any eventuality, as far as I can see, if you add to it clause (d), where the safety -- and lets not stop there -- or other bona fizzle and lawful right, privilege or interest of any other tenant is involved, I think those clauses are massive. I think they cover the waterfront. To come along and have to argue, as you seem to be doing, that over and above that you need great specificity, when you’ve got all you need and when in bringing that kind of wording into play involves the host of evils that we’ve indicated to you in terms of a judge trying to interpret our statute, throwing the ball to him with the misconstructions and statutory interpretations and a totally amorphous entity called materiality in contracts of this kind, it passes my imagination. As far as we’re concerned, Mr. Chairman, am I in a position now or do I have to wait to introduce an amendment wiping this pleonasm out of the picture? You have an amendment before you. May I move a sub-amendment?

Mr. Martel: You are just hoping. He’s an intellect.

Mr. Lawlor: I’ve spoken to it. I’ve said all I can say. Good night, sweetheart!

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, to whom did he say goodnight sweetheart? Was it to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis)?

Mr. Good: On a point of order, the House in committee had agreed at the beginning of the previous bill that if there were one or two or three ideas in the same section we would deal with them one at a time and that the defeat or passage of one could not preclude additional amendments being made to the same section. I really think we should deal with the minister’s amendment first and then put the second amendment, if the minister’s is lost.

Mr. Martel: Throw the minister’s amendment out.

Mr. Chairman: I will say to the member for Waterloo North that I was not aware of that, but if that’s the case --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t know enough Latin.

Mr. Singer: Move it in Latin.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I appreciate the comments of the member for Waterloo North and, if that’s the agreement of the members, I will place the amendment put by Hon. Mr. McMurtry.

All those in favour of the amendment, please say “aye.”

All opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Singer: What are you voting for, fellows?

Mr. Chairman: It shall be stacked?

Agreed.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I object.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lawlor moves that subsection 3 of section 103g of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out clause (e) and substituting therefor “but the judge shall not consider any cause for eviction not specifically named in this part.”

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, would it be appropriate to introduce this amendment in light of the decision taken on the last amendment?

Mrs. Campbell: We just covered that, if you were listening.

Mr. Singer: The last amendment was defeated.

Mr. Williams: By virtue of the last amendment being defeated, the clause is stricken from the section, but the amendment proposed by the member for Lakeshore deals with that very section which has been stricken.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, the last amendment having been deleted, the member for Lakeshore, in his usual erudite and this time correct way, has proposed a new subsection which is certainly in order. I think we should vote on it, even if no one agrees with it. I’m supporting it. He might not be so erudite on the next one, but on this one he is.

[10:00]

Mr. Chairman: I believe it is clear the House wishes to entertain this amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment?

Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Williams: Before discussion, I’d like to speak to the amendment put forward by the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Singer: It is too late. We have called the vote.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It is possible that it’s quite difficult to see all around. I will call on the member for Oriole.

Mrs. Campbell: You had called the vote before he got to his feet.

Mr. Singer: You called the vote twice before he spoke.

Mr. Williams: I’m amazed at the audacity of the proposal by the member for Lakeshore as a member of the legal profession to present an amendment that offends the very principles that relate to the judiciary system as we know it and have supported it in this jurisdiction over the years. There are no principles more sacred to us --

Mr. Lawlor: What are those sacred principles?

Mr. Williams: -- than the freedom of, the right of the individual --

Mr. Singer: Preservation of Toryism is the major principle we live by.

Mr. Williams: -- the freedom of, the right of the press; and more important, I suggest to the member for Lakeshore, the right of --

Mr. Martel: Where were you during the War Measures Act?

Mr. Williams: -- the judiciary to be unimpeded and not straitjacketed in their deliberations on any matter before them in legislation.

Mr. Lawlor: You don’t know much about legislation. That’s what it’s all about.

Mr. Martel: And he is also out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams: I think it’s incredible that a member of the bar would suggest that the rights of the judiciary would be impeded and straitjacketed in this fashion.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s the whole bill. What kind of Neanderthal are you?

Mr. Williams: It’s totally offensive to the whole principle of giving the judiciary the right of complete consideration of all evidence before it. It’s so incredible as to warrant even more serious consideration.

Mr. Lewis: You have used “offensive” and “incredible.” Are you finished?

Mr. Chairman: Will the Leader of the Opposition come to order?

Mr. Lewis: I take it you don’t like it?

Mr. Chairman: Has the member for Oriole finished?

Mr. Williams: I would confirm the comment by the Leader of the Opposition that the proposal is inappropriate.

Mr. Lewis: Now you are toning it down.

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

Mr. Singer: I rise in support of the amendment by the member for Lakeshore. I find it very difficult to understand or to follow the comments of the member for Oriole. I would suggest that he look a bit at his constitutional law and recognize that we in this Legislature in the Province of Ontario can tell the courts exactly what they should do and exactly what we want them to do in whatever manner we suggest that they do it. If it meets with the approval of the members of this House, that is the way it will be done.

For the hon. member for Oriole to suggest that we are affronting those fine gentlemen that sit in judgement upon the various laws of the Province of Ontario and the government of Canada, I suggest to him with great respect he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Why great respect? What is this great respect?

Mr. Singer: I’m only being very legal. I think what the member for Lakeshore says makes abundant good sense and we shall support it.

Mr. Williams: As a matter of privilege, I would suggest that while I’ve taken the comments from the member for Wilson Heights under advisement, I have respectfully to disagree with his suggestions that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

As a member, also, of the bar, I have perhaps a higher respect for the rights of the judiciary to consider any matter before them completely without any restrictions or impediment whatsoever as might be imposed by legislation. It’s a fundamental right that judges should have every opportunity to consider any evidence whatsoever before them that they think is relevant to the matter under consideration. This legislation is offensive to that basic principle.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

It will be stacked.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection (3) of section 103g of the Act as set out in section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

“(f) the tenancy arose by virtue of or collateral to a bona fide agreement of purchase and sale of a proposed unit within the meaning of the Condominium Act and the agreement of purchase and sale has been terminated.”

Any discussion?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the amendment speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: Perfectly sensible.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 106b of the Act. Anything prior to that?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, we’ve got about 23 before that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Section 4 of 104 of the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Section 104. Anything prior to that?

Mr. Lawlor moves that clause (d) of subsection 1 of section 104 of the Act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end thereof, “or a summary thereof, as prescribed by the regulations.”

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, we are saying: How would they ever get it up on the wall? Therefore, we would hope to summarize it. The minister accepts it, apparently, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about that amendment, because --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is my intention of course -- and this may or may not assist my hon. friend, the member for Wilson Heights -- that there still is the responsibility on the part of the government to see that the regulations prescribe an adequate summary, and that perhaps might be of concern to my friend.

Mr. Singer: This is my very concern. The Attorney General points out what I am concerned about. The very loose language posed by my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, bothers me because --

Mr. Lawlor: I knew I would fail.

Mr. Singer: No, it bothers me. If we are going to write a statute that is going to be legalistic in its interpretation, and going to be very hotly contested, paragraph by paragraph, and phrase by phrase, it well behoves us to be specific in our language. The mere suggestion by the member for Lakeshore that a summary of the statute be allowed to be posted is quite meaningless, because I don’t know who is going to do the summary. And I think it is most important that the summary be meaningful, and that it be all-inclusive.

I am not prepared to give allowance to someone whom I have never seen, someone whose skills I don’t know anything about, to prepare a summary which they are going to deem appropriate and proper to post in relation to this subsection.

I would say that with all the facilities -- and the Attorney General has gone part of the way -- available to government, that copies of the statute should be made available. If we are going to present summaries, and allow someone to come into court and say, “This is the summary I took from the wall in my building; and this is what I relied on,” and then the argument is going to be, “Well, the summary didn’t properly represent the statute,” the judge is going to say, “Well, somebody could post a summary. Am I governed by the statute or the summary?” We’re going to get into great and unfair confusion and improper treatment.

I would suggest if we are going to allow summaries, that the summaries have to have some guidance. I am reluctant about allowing summaries to be posted. I would think we should say instead that the Act should be posted and the Attorney General’s office or department should have the responsibility of providing copies of the Act.

With the great respect I have for the hon. member for Lakeshore, I am not sure I would be satisfied with his summary of what the statute said. I am sure he would try to be fair but sometimes, by omission, he is somewhat less than fair.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to let the member for Wilson Heights know that even our party would trust the Tories that far.

Mr. Singer: That doesn’t mean we do.

Mr. Lawlor: Very briefly, there are pages and pages in part 4. I don’t know how you would post it unless in some way or other it was summarized. They don’t post what they’re supposed to post now, much less try to get some kind of baked-down version of what the statute says. To be informed at all of their rights is better than the present circumstances in which they’re totally uninformed. I am willing to go a fair distance in terms of straight practicality to try to get something up under glass on the wall.

Apparently Mr. Singer would have every tenant in the province supplied with a copy of the Landlord and Tenant Act. So be it, if we could do it, I’d be delighted.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: Or would he put up the legislation in rings, somehow riveted to the wall so that it would be an immovable mass? What would he do if he happened to turn the pages and ripped them? It’s just a little preposterous. I’ve said enough.

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

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on any other section of the bill? The hon. member for Lakeshore; what section?

Mr. Lawlor: Section 5, 106. Torn over to the top of page 10, there’s a clause (f) on abatement of rent. Under that I want to move an amendment,

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have anything prior to that subsection?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I don’t.

Mr. Lawlor: It would be called (g), an extension of (f). I’ll get to it in a moment. This section outlines the grounds and bases upon which a judge may rule with respect to the writ of possession situation.

Do you want your judiciary to exercise the wide discretion to give them a sense of plenitude, to give a sense of importance and responsibility? I have three amendments to that. You have to renumber; that is all that is.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee that we deal with the three amendments in total or would it be too confusing? Do you want to take them one sub-amendment at a time?

Mr. Singer: I am lost. Could we find out what he was talking about?

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lawlor moves that: subsection 1 of section 106 of the Act as set out in section 5 of the bill be amended by adding after clause (f) the following: “(g) granting relief against forfeiture on such terms and conditions as the court may decide.”

Mr. Lawlor further moves that subsection 2 of section 106 of the Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by deleting “or (f)” in line one and substituting therefor “(f) or (g)”;

And further that subsection 3 of 106 of the Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by deleting “or (f)” in line two and substituting therefor “(f) or (g).”

Does the committee wish to deal with those items separately or in total?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think in total, Mr. Chairman, because the last two paragraphs are entirely consequential to the first part proposed by the lion, member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have any explanation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I want to say at this point that it is my view that the amendment is redundant. I have no particular opposition to the amendment but I think the relief the hon. member for Lakeshore would like to see inherent in the court is provided in section 106, subsection 11 and section 107, subsection 2. They do give a judge the right to refuse to grant a writ of possession and to impose terms and conditions.

Turning to section 106, subsection 11 says:

“After a hearing, the judge shall determine the applicant’s claim and may make an order declaring the tenancy agreement terminated, or directing that a writ of possession issue or give judgment for the arrears of rent or for compensation under section 105 found due, or for the return of the security deposit and interest thereon or for an abatement of rent, or any of them.”

Section 107, subsection 2, is perhaps more significant or more relevant insofar as my friend’s interest is concerned. It says:

“Upon any application by a landlord for a writ of possession a judge may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or of the tenancy agreement, refuse to grant the application where he is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unfair to do so.”

Section 106, subsection 11, which is an amendment I intend to move, will provide that the judge may impose such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate.

I suppose to some extent I’m influenced by the time of the night but I don’t see that the proposed amendment in any way detracts from the bill or interferes with what we are trying to accomplish on this side of the House. But I respectfully submit that the proposed amendment is redundant.

Mr. Singer: I am having great difficulty in following the member for Lakeshore and following the Attorney General. I did my best to come somewhat prepared for these discussions and I have here in front of me a photostat copy of the Landlord and Tenant Act, February, 1973. Maybe I am not up to date; maybe it goes later than that.

Mr. Ferrier: No, you are not.

Mr. Maeck: This is 1975.

Mr. Singer: This is 1975 and maybe Mr. Maeck can tell me the extent of the amendments and their effect during the course of 1974 and 1975 and the extent to which they have amended the sections we are presently talking about because my research doesn’t reveal that. If the hon. member could explain that to me, I would be educated and I could deal with more intelligence with the amendment before us. If the hon. member is prepared to tell me I would be glad to yield my position so he can explain it. I suspect he can’t.

All I am suggesting is that if the Attorney General could give me something later than February, 1973, which is a copy of the latest consolidated amendment that his department put forward, I could talk with greater knowledge about the amendment from the hon. member for Lakeshore and the comments of the hon. Attorney General. He has looked at the clock and we are getting into somewhat complicated and technical material. I would like to put these things into proper context. Just because somebody says this means such and such, I sort of have a feeling I would like to see what we are really talking about in the light of the existing statute with its latest amendments, together with the effect that it has, as suggested, by a possible amendment from the member for Lakeshore.

I am having great difficulty in putting all this into proper context, and to enable me at least to discuss it intelligently, could I ask that perhaps we postpone further discussion at this point so that perhaps the Attorney General can give us, or the members who are concerned, the most up-to-date copy of the Landlord and Tenant Act, with all its amendments to date, so we can understand what he means and perhaps what the member for Lakeshore means as he puts his amendments forward in context? Or maybe the member can explain it to me.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, that fit of self-flagellation --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are prepared to support the hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Good for you. You see, redundancy doesn’t matter, does it? In a fit of self-flagellation in terms of that false humility that he bears so well, which gets him absolutely nowhere, he pretends to be confused when, of course, he is confused! He is always is confused.

Mr. Singer: Naturally.

Mr. Lawlor: Why pretend? Okay, I won’t pursue it.

Mr. Singer: That is the process of my mind and I cannot help it. What can I do?

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

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the amendment carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member of the committee have another amendment to any section of Bill 26?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Section 106b.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that clause (b) of subsection 6 of section 106, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end thereof, “as substantiated by receipts filed or verified by affidavit.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 106(11)?

Mr. Singer: Can the Attorney General tell us why, in section 106(8), the limit is within four days?

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 106(8)?

Mr. Singer: Well, you have only section 106(7). Anybody for 106(7)? I will try 106(8).

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wilson Heights. Just a comment for clarification.

Mr. Singer: I am concerned about the words “within four days.” I don’t think it is enough, but I understand that my colleague has an amendment. Are you going to extend that time beyond four days?

Mr. Stong: Yes.

Mr. Singer: I would think that makes good sense; I will yield to him and let him move the extension.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Stong moves that subsection S of section 106 be amended by striking out “four days” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “seven days.”

Mr. Stong: Section 106, Mr. Chairman, arises out of an application made by either the landlord or the tenant. It falls upon a default judgement being obtained from a clerk. Subsection 8 indicates that notice be served upon the respondent within four days.

Since we are dealing with tenants as well, Mr. Chairman, it is my respectful submission that four days is insufficient time for a tenant to respond, and he does not have all of the resources as a landlord probably would have in the circumstances. It would be much fairer to give him more time and extend the time limit by three days to seven days. We would then probably be able to avoid invoking subsection 9 so often, which gives a judge the power to extend the time limit for responding. If we extend the time limit under subsection 8 -- and I am thinking mainly to benefit tenants in this case -- it would be eminently fair and probably avoid an extra step that may be required under subsection 9.

Mr. Lawlor: I quite agree with the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment?

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Shall we stack it?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth 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 amendments and one bill without amendment, and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think you have some other business to attend to, but I understand the order for tomorrow will be continuation with Bill 26 -- the one we have just been discussing in committee -- followed by the review of the Hydro report, Bill 5, and then the Throne Speech debate.

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with standing order 28(a) then, I now deem a motion to adjourn to have been made and there are two --

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you missed in your recitation of items the Camp commission report, and I am sure you wouldn’t want to overlook it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I understand the House leader and the party whips are still discussing that, but subject to what they agree upon, sir.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House leader, are we going to continue with Bill 26 tomorrow afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding, yes, sir.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, it was my understanding -- subject to what the Attorney General has to say. I understood from the House leader that was the procedure tomorrow. But if the Attorney General is otherwise engaged, we can proceed with the Hydro report and Bill 5.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My information, Mr. Speaker, from our House leader -- and I assume after consultation with the other House leaders -- is that we were to proceed with other business tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Lewis: You will not be here?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I will be unavailable tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Singer: Are you cancelling the QCs again tomorrow?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest either the Hydro committee debate or Bill 5 in committee is perfectly appropriate; and the combination of the two will surely take the afternoon?

Mr. Singer: Well, let’s figure out which one it is.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think it was the House leader’s thought that we would probably be through with Bill 26 this evening but that has not happened; I just assumed that we would proceed with it. But evidently the Attorney General has made different arrangements so it will be, then, the Hydro report and Bill 5.

[10:30]

Mr. Breithaupt: If I might be of some help, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the understanding is that while it was presumed that Bill 26 might finish this evening, that not having been the case, we will likely proceed tomorrow afternoon with the consideration of two -- the Hydro committee report and then the Camp report, with those two items continuing until 6 p.m.

Tomorrow evening I would expect that we would continue with Bill 26 and then press on with Bill 5, the end result being that it could be that on Thursday morning we would deal with the Throne Speech debate, complete the legislation on Thursday afternoon and then return to the Throne Speech debate on Thursday evening. If that finishes Thursday evening, we could have the windup of the various Speeches in the Throne Speech debate Friday morning. If not, it might be possible to finish Thursday evening. I’m not aware of that at this point. But I think the legislation is such that that will be the likely result of its debate.

Mr. Lewis: I object in principle. Deliberate prolongation of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It seems to me we have enough business to get started tomorrow afternoon anyway.

As announced earlier in the afternoon, the hon. member for Peterborough (Ms. Sandeman) had expressed her dissatisfaction one day last week to the answer given by one of the ministers, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld), and she has now five minutes to explain her dissatisfaction. The minister, if he is here or if he has delegated someone else, will have five minutes to reply if he so wishes.

Ms. Sandeman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask you first of all if the minister has delegated someone to answer me in his place?

Mr. Speaker: I’m not aware of anything. I presume the minister was aware that this order of business was coming up this evening, but I have no guarantee of that. Whether he was or wasn’t, I haven’t been informed whether another minister has been delegated to reply. The order says he may reply if he so wishes. In the meantime, the hon. member has five minutes to explain her dissatisfaction.

Mr. Lewis: The minister should be cited for contempt.

Mr. Speaker: I know that in the second order we have tonight, the hon. minister has made it clear to the person that he is not available. I’m not aware of anything in connection with this particular item. The hon. member has five minutes and she may proceed.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY PUBLIC SERVANTS

Ms. Sandeman: Mr. Speaker, my dissatisfaction with the minister’s answer to my question was based, firstly, on the fact that it revealed to me that there is still considerable confusion, even in the minister’s own mind, as to how those sections of the Public Service Act which deal with political activities of Crown employees and civil servants should be applied. If the government feels it is necessary to have a piece of legislation that deprives many employees in this province of their right to participate freely in political matters, the very least that can be done is to make sure that that Act is consistently and equitably applied.

The minister told me that perhaps Dr. Quittenton comes under section 14 of the Act -- that section which prohibits speaking in public, or writing for distribution to the public, on any matter that forms part of the platform of a provincial or federal political party. But the minister concluded that he need not worry about this, as Dr. Quittenton only speaks about “peace and love.” This isn’t so, and I believe the minister knows it is not. Dr. Quittenton speaks across the province on such peculiar topics as, “How Socialism Is Bad for Engineering.”

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s peculiar.

Ms. Sandeman: His arguments may not be persuasive but they are certainly political.

The minister’s treatment of the president of a community college -- his apparent approval of the president’s untrammelled entree into the political life -- is at odds with the interpretation of the Act made by the administration of at least one community college. Conestoga College made a statement to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record which appeared in the Tuesday, Sept. 23, edition of the paper this year. The statement said that the college publicly reaffirmed sections 13 and 14 of the Public Service Act, with reference to a teacher who has been involved with a political party during the recent election campaign. It seems inconsistent to say the least that community college teachers may not speak on political topics while a president has free reign. This makes nonsense, too, of the remarks of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen). When he was challenged last May on the government’s handling of the Act, he said, “We have enforced the prohibitions against political activity contained in the Public Service Act in a fair and even-handed manner.”

I found the minister’s answer to me unsatisfactory not only because his joking reference to the content of the president’s speeches revealed the farcical level to which application of the Act so often descends, but also because he could not assure me that while he cannot enforce the Act fairly, neither is he willing to scrap it.

I cannot accept and the members on this side of the House cannot accept that the denial of free speech to civil servants and Crown employees protects, as the minister’s colleagues so frequently claim, in some magical way, the individual employee and the basic integrity of the public service. The government’s attitudes in this regard are paternalistic and the stand taken by the government spokesman, in the debate on the private member’s bill of my colleague, Mr. Cassidy, that employees’ political preferences must be private, has no proved validity.

If I may give a personal example, when I returned to the Ministry of Correctional Services, after an unpaid leave of absence during which I was a candidate in the 1974 federal election, my political preferences were obviously very public. I challenge the minister -- or at least I would if he were hereto produce any evidence that the basic integrity of the public service or I myself, as a civil servant, suffered in any way because of that; or indeed, that anyone is threatened by Dr. Quittenton’s announcement of his candidacy or by his political pronouncements. I suspect that not even his fellow candidates are threatened at this time.

Mr. Lewis: I would think that’s true.

Ms. Sandeman: It is time for the ministers of the government to stop giving evasive answers to questions in this area and to start giving serious consideration to allowing full political rights to Crown employees and civil servants.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone want to speak on behalf of the minister? If not, we will call the second order, which is the member for Hamilton East:

Mr. Cassidy: Let the record show that the government didn’t deign to reply.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let the record show the government didn’t have to be here.

Mr. Cassidy: You have no answer to this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker: No, there is no point of order.

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean there is no point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister of Tourism and Information (Mr. Bennett) is being provocative and unhelpful.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is no point of order. The member for Hamilton East has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: They are too embarrassed about Quittenton to defend him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You are cutting into the time of the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) did inform me that he would not be here tonight; I would also like to know if anybody is here to speak on his behalf?

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman).

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of anyone, but the hon. member should proceed.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Lanark.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me if, in his absence, I would answer on his behalf.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The hon. member for Hamilton East should proceed then.

HEALTH OF STELCO COKE OVEN WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the question period is that if one really wants information one asks a serious question and, to the best of his ability, the minister gives the answer to that question. On Nov. 12, I asked the minister, “Has Stelco given any information to the Ministry of Health as to the number of workers being found to have lung problems as a result of a stepped-up medical examination. His answer to me was, “AS I said, I am glad to get the information for the hon. member and I will make it available.” That was back on Nov. 12.

On Dec. 11, I asked him again:

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

Mr. Speaker, the reply, or the non-reply, of the minister, was almost a temper tantrum, apparently directed at my leader over some information which he had obtained and made available to this House regarding comparisons, if we like, between Stelco and Dofasco.

Mr. Singer: Terrible.

Mr. Mackenzie: There was certainly not a particle of an answer to the question. I don’t think the fact he was miffed over some other issue gives him an out in terms of the question I was asking, which was asked in all seriousness.

This is a key issue. It does relate to the health, safety and well-being of not hundreds, but thousands. There are that many involved in coke ovens and steel mills in this country. I think we have a right to expect that kind of an answer. It seems to me rather strange that only in the last two to three weeks at the Stelco plant, for example, have we seen the employees provided with shirts and pants as one of the measures to deal with this problem. Only in the matter of the last two or three months -- less than that I believe -- have we seen an increase in spell-off time for the workers involved in this operation.

It has taken a lot of pressure, and a lot of it has come from this party and from the leader of this party, to effect even these measures. I’m not denying there are some things the companies have been doing all along and some they have been pushed into. But it seems to me when we ask the minister for the results, which he was aware of, of a stepped-up programme of medical testing, if he is getting the results, he could at least answer and not engage in some kind of a temper tantrum over another issue altogether.

That’s been put on the record twice over a period of a month and there has been no answer from the minister. His answer on Dec. 12 didn’t deal with the question whatsoever and I don’t think that’s proper in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Lanark, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, will reply.

Mr. Wiseman: On Dee. 11 the hon. member for Hamilton East asked the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) if he had any results from the apparent stepped-up programme of medical examinations of coke oven workers at Stelco, had he any results to date and was he satisfied with the extent and thoroughness of the examination.

The medical consultants of the staff of the Ministry of Health consider the health programme in effect at Stelco to be a good one, operating under the direction of the company’s medical director with qualified professional stall.

The programme consists of annual chest x-rays, annual lung function tests and sputum tests after five years. While the programme itself has not been stepped up, there has been an increase in the number of employees voluntarily participating in the programme and 98 per cent of the workers are taking part in the advantages of this programme.

The hon. member went on to ask if the examinations were being conducted by doctors only in these cases or in some cases if there were nurses conducting the examinations of the coke oven workers. I am sure the hon. member will equate the following with a visit he has made to his own doctor for examinations which included x-rays and other tests. In accordance with accepted medical practice, the tests at Stelco are usually administered by a qualified nurse or paramedical person, that is, chest x-rays by radiology technicians, pulmonary functions by nurses or technologists and sputum tests by a technologist.

Again in accordance with acceptable medical practice, the results of the above tests are read and interpreted by a qualified medical practitioner.

Mr. Cassidy: Did you understand that?

Mr. Speaker: These items have now been discharged.

I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.