30th Parliament, 1st Session

L046 - Wed 17 Dec 1975 / Mer 17 déc 1975

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 p.m. we had just completed the minister’s amendment to section 3, subsection 2, clause (c). Mr. MacBeth has an amendment to section 3, subsection 4, clause (a). Is there anything prior to that?

Mr. Samis: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Samis moves that section 3, subsection 3, clause (c) be deleted.

Mr. Samis: I realize, Mr. Chairman, that in moving this amendment I run the grave risk of totally antagonizing the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), but seeing he is not here I will do it anyway.

We just think there is a principle involved here. We realize there are possible problems, and that we risk totally alienating the dog lovers of Ontario and thus committing total political suicide.

Mr. Nixon: Is this the pet shop amendment, the great pet shop amendment?

Mr. Samis: We just think there is a principle involved here, that the purpose of the bill --

Mr. Nixon: Are you opening them or closing them? I forget which you are advocating.

Mr. Samis: Closing.

Mr. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Wildman: I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t kick my dog.

Mr. Samis: We think that the principle of the bill is to restrict Sunday openings to essentials only.

Mr. Nixon: You voted in favour of vivisection too.

Mr. Samis: That’s later. That’s just on political leaders.

We feel that this is not a necessity. It’s obviously a convenience. We realize some merchants obviously profit from this convenience, but society has survived quite well on the six-day basis.

We feel that if anyone wants to purchase a pet they have six days a week. With modern transportation, even in a small town if they have to go out of town 10 or 15 miles to a so-called outlet, that can be done very easily during six regular shopping days. We would oppose the inclusion of this and propose as a result that it be excluded from the bill.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, our dog Cleo is 12 years old, Mr. Chairman -- I am serious about this.

Mr. Nixon: I know what happened to her last Sunday.

Mr. Kennedy: She’s a family pet we got from the humane society.

Mr. Nixon: She was Thor’s sister; little dog Thor.

Mr. Kennedy: There are certain occasions when she comes up not feeling well. I think the hon. member is bringing in a trivial amendment to withdraw that small section of the bill.


Mr. Wildman: Are you talking about pet dogs or are you talking about people?

Mr. Nixon: Here comes Thor’s master now.

Mr. Kennedy: I am talking about the dog. His amendment is trivial and I am opposed to it.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, the member for Cornwall made note of the fact that the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) wasn’t here.

Mr. Deans: No he didn’t; Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt).

Mr. Jones: Huron-Bruce, I am sorry. The member said something to the effect that he was glad he wasn’t. He might also look to his right to see whether his colleague who was on the committee --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What has he got against pets?

Mr. Jones: -- the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is here; because the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, as I remember most clearly from the committee discussion, also saw the light as we had representations come before the committee to help us in our decision on this pet shop matter.

Several things were brought out rather clearly. First, we literally would be putting out of business, small family businesses throughout the whole of this province. They would be put out of business I because, coming back to the principle of this bill, families gather on a holiday or a Sunday, very often the only day available to them for this purpose, and drive into the country to pick up the pottery they have talked about and to purchase a puppy. We heard of this and how very much it was a family outing and that was the intent of this bill.

I say to the member for Cornwall that for certain, I will be opposed to his amendment. I think he knows full well that, with all the considerations which came before the committee, also brought out rather clearly was the number of people who had to be in their shops in any event to service, clean and give health care to these animals. They are there on the premises in any event. Of all those which came before us none was large by nature, which was always one of the member’s concerns. These were people with small businesses in rural areas. They visited the caucus and visited the members of the committee and we saw pictures of these people in their homes and learned that 80 per cent of their business was done on those days you propose to take away from them. You would be putting them out of business.

Mr. Samis: Nonsense.

Mr. Jones: You know it and other members of your committee -- two are missing -- also voted for this clause (c) to be in the bill I urge the House to support this bill. A great deal of dialogue went on in committee and this comes as quite a surprise -- although, in light of some of the comments we heard in the committee and earlier before the dinner hour, maybe it is not so much of a surprise. This was well discussed and I only wish your other two members of the committee were here because I remember clearly how they voted in the committee.

Mr. Nixon: We will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Great riding.

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the amendment for the reason that I think purchasing a pet is more of a sporting event. It’s an activity and it’s questionable whether it’s retail business or more of an investment in the future, especially when children are involved.

Mr. Nixon: In your party, it is a political event.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is cultural event.

Mr. Ziemba: I would like to explain to members of the House why pet stores were included in the bill. They are the result of a perfectly outrageous presentation by a Mr. Bedolph.

He came to us with the argument that he was providing a service and it could be explained away as doggy drug stores or, failing that, rabbit jug milk stores. He got a fairly good reception from some of the members but then he came to visit me the following day he explained that he had 40 summonses in his pocket for breaking the Lord’s Day Act all these years. He treated them simply as a fine. He just paid the fine and continued in business.

He’s operating three stores and it was to his advantage to be open on Sundays when his competition was closed. It’s as simple as that. He’s taking business away from people who would normally get it the rest of the week. I’ve since talked to a number of pet store operators and they feel they would like to have Sundays and holidays off like the rest of us and not have their competition take their business away from them.

I urge the members to support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one or two words. This section was not in the original bill. It looks as though the government’s side may be defeated on this issue but I hardly think it’s an issue to bring the government down.

Mr. Nixon: We haven’t heard from the Premier on it.


Mr. Deans: What day of the week did you buy your dog?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was bought at a home and school auction on a Thursday night at 8 o’clock for $2.75 but our goldfish were bought on a Sunday.

Mr. Nixon: Were the minorities represented?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will you please give the minister an opportunity to reply?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, I don’t feel very strongly on it.

Mr. Ruston: Join the crowd.

Mr. Deans: You mean your bark is worse than your bite? It is a cultural affair.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It was put in the bill by the decision of a committee that I commended earlier this evening, and in view of the commendation I passed to that committee I want to support, at this point, the work of that committee. I think it was done as the Premier (Mr. Davis), who was not there, has so aptly suggested; that buying a pet was a bit of a family outing and a bit of a fun thing and since the people were going to be on the job anyway -- they had to attend the pets that day; they couldn’t just ignore them for one day -- they were on the job and this was not a bad thing to include, and on that basis it was passed by the committee and here it is.

I say it was not in the original bill and I don’t think it is a matter which the government should be defeated on, sir, so that we have to go to the people.

Mr. Samis: You can go to the dogs.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would rather go to the dogs than the people on this point.

Mr. Good: Roll over Rover and let Billy take over.

Mr. Samis: One final comment, replying to the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones). I just make one very small point, that this particular type of purchase is one which is done, I would guess on the average of once every five to 10 years. It is quite unlike most other forms of consumer buying and, therefore, I think that reinforces the argument that this exemption is not warranted and should be deleted.

Mr. Jones: The minister misses the point. It wasn’t just that this purchase could only be made on those days. The point that was brought out rather clearly in the committee was that -- in fact, these people were not the people the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) spoke to, because I for one, as a member of the committee, didn’t meet them, but there were people from many rural areas who came and visited and brought pictures of their establishments -- the point was you would literally be putting them out of business, that was the point I was making. These people travel on the weekends to those establishments, notably the one in Peterborough. I see your colleague has arrived; maybe he could add something to this.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I might mention that was a point that I overlooked, and it was made, that many of the pet establishments are on the outskirts and they do rely on the Sunday trade of city people.

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

All those opposed, please say “nay.

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Shall we stack this? Agreed.

The hon. minister has an amendment to 3(4)(a). Anything prior to that?

Mr. Samis: Section 3, subsection 3, clause (d).

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Samis moves, in clause (d), subsection 3 of section 3, that the words “30th day of November” be deleted and the following inserted: “31st day of October.”

Mr. Nixon: This is on the vegetable stands? Sorry, Mr. Chairman, we can’t go with this.

Mr. Kennedy: You are against animals but not against vegetables.

Mr. Nixon: It is a long time since you have worked for a living, Dougie.

Mr. Samis: The purpose of this amendment is to get back to the original bill, which did say “the 30th day of October.” We feel the reason for the change in committee was representation made by a select group of people involved in this business. We feel the farming season and the vending season for most of these operations has been concluded by this time of the year.

The concept again is that you are trying to keep Sunday restricted as much as possible by giving an extra month here and, in fact, this is opening it up to greater commercialism, which we don’t feel is necessary. If someone wants products sold beyond the harvest season he can also set up a store within the confines of section 3 and sell those products as long as he adheres to section 3, subsection 1. Therefore, we don’t feel the extra 30 days are necessary.


Mr. Ruston: Being from the sun parlour, I’m afraid I cannot go along with the amendment. Sometimes in the month of October we still have plenty of warm sunshine and we’re picking fruit down there. Anyone living in Cornwall would do this -- would make the amendment -- but not in Essex county. It is such a funny climate down there we think it should be open the year round, however we will go along with this and restrict ourselves to the 2,400 sq. ft. for the other four months. We’re against the amendment.

Mr. Jones: I’m sorry to be speaking, as it seems always opposed to motions by the member for Cornwall, but again, I’d like the record to be clear.

Mr. Kennedy: Don’t bother about that.

Mr. Jones: No, it’s not bothering me terribly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re right all the time.

Mr. Samis: Far right.

Mr. Jones: These people represent what you referred to as a select group. Always you have this fear of shadows, of select groups, as I’ve noticed in committee. We had very clear representation that there were many of these roadside farmers -- again family businesses -- whose very survival as a viable operation depended on their being able to be open on Sundays and the holidays to which this bill directs itself.

It was quite clear that some of the apples, for example, were of the Delicious variety or the most sought-after type. In the early period of October and on into the later period that you propose to take from the bill, these people are still very much, as a family unit, on their family farm selling these apples to people who are out for countryside drives. The committee very clearly thought the extension to November was needed. I’m opposed to the amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

We will stack this one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Another victory for the farmers.

Mr. Nixon: If the Conservatives would be that sensible and accept the Chairman’s ruling, we wouldn’t have to have a division on it.

Mr. Kennedy: If you voted for Cleo, I would be with you.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves that clause (a) of subsection (4) of section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “for religious reasons” in the second line.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m sorry you haven’t felt too strongly about some of these other clauses but I regard this as fundamental to the success of this bill and I hope the House will support it this evening.

Mr. Samis: We will support this amendment even though the strange anomaly is that we are talking about religion here. We all know that the section here deals entirely with religion, but the legal eagles tell us, apparently, that to include the word “religion” would jeopardize the constitutionality of this bill. Rather than give any extra business to the legal eagles of Ontario and delay the process of justice, we’ll support the amendment.

Mr. Nixon: We were very concerned when the minister said at the conclusion of the committee hearings that he felt the inclusion of the phrase would make the entire bill unconstitutional. If he has had further advice along those lines, we’re certainly not trying to throw a sensitive matter like this into contention in the courts. I felt myself that it could possibly be phrased in other ways, such as “for conscientious reasons” or something like that.

As you know, we have made such amendments -- I don’t know what the legislation was -- allowing people for conscientious reasons, or religious reasons in fact, to withdraw from their commitment to pay union dues, for example. I felt the same concepts would apply here. We’re prepared to accept the minister’s advice in this regard as long as it doesn’t change the rights of those people who for conscientious reasons, and maybe even religious reasons, are going to avail themselves of the alternatives contained in the amended bill.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves that clause (c) of subsection 4 of section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “7,000” in the last line and inserting in lieu thereof “5,000”.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Just very briefly, this is not done in connection with any religious reasons or anything of that sort; it will allow anybody to make this choice. We thought there should be some type of restriction and that the 7,000 sq. ft. area was too large and that 5,000 might be a more practical restriction to have.

Mr. Samis: We will support this amendment. We thought the original figure was somewhat excessive. We are rather surprised when it was introduced that we noticed there was a lack of support in terms of factual evidence for that arbitrary figure. The figure 5,000 strikes us still as somewhat high and somewhat arbitrary but we will accept it and support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Semis moves that section 3, subsection 4 be amended by replacing the period at the end of part (c) with a semi-colon, adding the word “and”, and adding part (d) to read as follows:

“Such business must be registered with the appropriate municipality as described in section 4, subsection 1 to obtain a licence specifying the exemptions provided for in section 3, subsection 4 and the licence shall be prominently displayed in the store area used for serving the public.”

Mr. Samis: The purpose of this amendment is to provide a protection for the enforcement of the law. We feel those who are given the sabbatarian exemption should somehow register with the appropriate municipal authorities so that those who have to enforce the law will know who the people are who are legally exempted for sabbatarian purposes. I think the British legislation has provisions to this effect. We think it would be fair to those who operate on the six common days of the week as well as to those who are getting the sabbatarian exemption. This is why we should propose it.

Mr. Nixon: We have an antipathy toward another licensing procedure, although the structure of the bill as it now is, grants these exemptions under these circumstances. I would like to know from the minister, who is also the Solicitor General, if he feels the enforcement of the law would be in any way improved by requiring a licence to be displayed in the premises.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I don’t think it would help the enforcement of it at all. I think it might make it more awkward. The results of the debate in the committee were admittedly that most people who decide they want to come under this section will be doing it. We hope all people who decide to come under this section will be doing so for religious reasons, and it was the consensus on the committee that they didn’t want to force people, as it were, to display what their religion was.

I do not see that this will help us enforce it in any way and, furthermore, I think in many municipalities they would not have the machinery to license the people. I would be against this amendment, thinking it would be a detriment to the carrying out of the purpose of the bill rather than furthering it.

Mr. Davidson: I would like to suggest to the House, now that we have taken “for religious reasons” out of that section, the purpose of the amendment now is to put it into the context of preventing someone from moving into a smaller community in the province, taking a look at the probability of being better established or better committed to business on a Sunday and thereby closing on Saturday.

To some people it may not sound as though this has any meaning, but I might put forward at this moment that it was one of the concerns of one of those on the committee; and I say this in terms of respect because he was very much concerned about this. Unfortunately, he is not in the House at this time.

The Conservative member also looked at it on the basis of the probability of someone moving into a smaller community and taking a look at the advantage to him of being open on a Sunday. When you take out the religious concept, as we have now by deleting the words in question, he could, under his own conditions, decide he wanted to remain open on Sunday and close his shop on a Saturday, knowing full well that the competitive value of his operation would be to his advantage on that day.

This is why we are moving this amendment and this is why we ask you to support it.

Mr. Jones: If I may, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Davidson) would have us believe there are a whole host of business establishments -- I have searched my thoughts and ask you to search yours as to where are these people who would have such a great advantage in closing on Saturday. Give us some examples, if you could, of someone who could close on a Saturday and be open on a Sunday and whom it would benefit.

Mr. Davidson: It was your member who put it forward.

Mr. Jones: Now you propose that people go around and post and declare their religious convictions on their sleeve, as it were or, as you would have it, on a plaque on the front of their business establishments. It just doesn’t make sense. It conjures up images of people being dragged from their shops and asked “What religion are you?” or “Is this plaque valid?” and having this all displayed.

Mr. Davidson: Might I suggest it was your member who supported this and he is not in the House.

Mr. Jones: His suspicion is almost paranoid, with due respect, and prevails through all the comments on these amendments. I thought that had died on the floor of that committee room.

Mr. Davidson: It is amazing. Your people support things in committee but they are not in the House to support them on the floor.

Mr. Jones: Here you are, asking us --


Mr. Jones: -- to post or have these people post their religious convictions and --

Mr. Davidson: Don’t stutter.

Mr. Jones: I suggest, with respect, that you wouldn’t have someone coming to you asking your religion, whether it be in a business connection or otherwise. You would rather resent that.

Mr. Davidson: Is that what we are talking about here?

Mr. Jones: I very much urge this House to spurn this amendment.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I wanted to add that I don’t see anything in this provision which will stop the type of thing my hon. friend is suggesting. In other words, there are no grounds for either granting or refusing the licence.

Mr. Davidson: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If anybody came into town, they could simply say, “I want to operate in this way.” I don’t see in the proposal any basis for either granting or refusing the licence.

In accordance with the McRuer recommendations if you have some sort of licencing board you have to set up an appeal board and all the rest of it. It is the point I was trying to make earlier -- that a lot of municipalities are not geared for this sort of expense and this sort of procedure.

That was the reason for having a limit of 5,000 sq. ft. and seven employees. They don’t have all the rights of the people who are open on Saturdays. There are some restrictions on the people who want to use that, and I can’t see many businesses forfeiting Saturday and staying open on Sunday with these restrictions. Saturday is the day on which most people do business and Sunday is the exception.


Mr. Samis: As a closing comment, I realize there may be some odium attached to the concept of licences and the possibility of bureaucracy. The prime reason for this, I point out, is that under the bill there is no form of registration for people who are exempt. I assume most of these people are well-intentioned in principle, but to prevent the possibility of anyone exploiting the exemption -- I point out it is a special exemption based on religious grounds -- this would give the municipality, or whatever local authorities that would be involved, a registry which could be forwarded to the police so they would know in advance what stores in their territory would be specifically exempted. I suggest that would assist the police, assist the municipal authorities and make law enforcement easier; and this is why we are proposing it.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Shall we stack it? Agreed.

Any further comments, remarks or amendments to any other section?

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on something that has eluded us over the years. After you, sir, as Chairman, take the “ayes” and “nays,” which is a legal vote in this House, is there some advantage that has eluded us to this macho sort of compulsion on the part of two of the parties, that we have all got to listen to the bells and come in and stand and be counted on these matters?

Mr. Lewis: That’s what it is.

Mr. Chairman: It has been common procedure and usage to allow people to record in a standing vote.

Mr. Nixon: Their numbers, not their names; right?

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, right. I thought perhaps there was some compelling importance in a standing vote that is really an appeal toward the Chairman’s ability to count.


Mr. Chairman: By unanimous consent of the committee, we agreed to stack all of these votes until the end of the consideration of the bill.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes. Well, we will look forward to that, right; because we will win them all.


Mr. Chairman: In practical terms, I think you are attesting to the hearing abilities of the Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, it really is an appeal over your judgment. I was surprised that the Conservative Party wasn’t prepared to accept that judgement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, no. You were standing a few moments ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just stretching my back.

Mr. Nixon: That was over the pet shop principle, remember?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move, second by Mr. Samis, that section 6 be deleted and the following words substituted:

“No person to whom section 2 applies in respect of holidays shall: (a) offer for sale any goods or services by retail in retail business establishments, or (b) admit members of the public to a retail business establishment after the hour of 6 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday that is not a holiday; after the hour of 10 p.m. on any Thursday, Friday, that is not a holiday; or before half past eight o’clock in the forenoon from Monday to Saturday inclusive. However, during the period from the 11th to the 23rd of December inclusive, the hour after which no customer shall be admitted shall be 10 o’clock in the evening; and on the 24th and 31st of December, it shall be 6 o’clock in the evening. Further, that section 7 of the bill be amended by inserting after ‘two’ in the first line ‘or six.’”

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment out of order. There is nothing in the bill dealing with store hours. It was permitted in the select committee, and no discussion will be permitted here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are a good chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, if I could be allowed to point out, although we are not going to challenge the ruling of the Chair --

Mr. Nixon: But you just want to debate his ruling.

Mr. Warner: I would like --

Mr. Chairman: You can’t debate the ruling. You can challenge it if you wish, but you can’t debate it.

Mr. Nixon: You can’t debate it.

Mr. Warner: On a point of information then, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Nixon: No such thing.


Mr. Warner: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman -- despite the rabble to my left -- has the Chair reached a decision --

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Warner: It is a point of information that may interest the Premier as well.

Mr. Chairman: Order, I may remind the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that there is no rabble in the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: Some come very close, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moffatt: The appearance is deceiving.

Mr. Warner: I will respectfully replace the “a” with a “u”.

Has the Chair reached its decision by considering that in section 6 there is a clear reference to the setting of hours and that it has left the discretionary power to the municipality?

Mr. Chairman: Order. If that had been a valid point, I’m sure you would have been successful with it in the committee. Is there any comment on any other section of the bill? The hon. member for Cornwall.

Mr. Davidson: It’s a point of information on which we want an answer.

Mr. Samis: If there are no others, Mr. Chairman, on section 7.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Samis moves that section 7 be amended by adding after the phrase “more than $10,000” the phrase “and not less than $1,000.”

Mr. Samis: This was discussed in committee. We feel quite strongly that the bill is reasonably good in the sense that it comes to terms with the basic issues of Sunday closing, but our worry is that the absence of any minimum fine might see a repetition of what we’ve been seeing in the last two or three years. There are laws on the books and they are openly flouted. The fines being imposed by the courts today are nothing more than a licence to violate the law.

Inevitably, it’s the small businessman, the small operator, who suffers, because to the big boys who violate the law it is just nothing more than chicken feed to pay a $40 or $50 fine for violating the law. The presence of a minimum fine, we think, would act as a sufficient deterrent. We’re aware of the argument that this might affect the small retailer who may violate by ignorance rather than by volition, but we think if the law is clearly promulgated and duly publicized this will act as a deterrent to any major operator, whether it be in the supermarket business, the carpet business, the furniture business, to observe the law of the land. We feel if the working man, the average taxpayer, is expected to follow the law of the land, just because a businessman or business or a commercial interest is rich and powerful, it shouldn’t give them any licence to run roughshod over a law that’s been passed by this Legislature, and regard the fine as so minuscule they can just pay it and continue to break the lay and create disrespect for law in our society, especially among young people.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I know my friend’s intent is to strengthen the bill and put stronger teeth into it. I’m afraid, and it’s the argument that was made in committee, that this will have just the reverse effect. I know his concern about the big operator and the person who can afford to pay the fine and carry on.

Mr. Cassidy: Typical Tory argument.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That was under the Lord’s Day Act, where the maximums were all out of line with today’s financial conditions. I think the maximum in some cases was $230 -- I’ve forgotten the exact amount -- but in any event it was a licence. People could pay this $250 and keep going. We’ve now corrected that with a $10,000 maximum.

Mr. Cassidy: It is still a licence; there is no guarantee.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think from there on we should have confidence in our courts, because what I’m afraid will happen is that rather than put teeth in this you will do just the opposite; some smaller operator will come before a court charged with breaking some section of this Act and the judge, because he doesn’t want to fine this fellow $1,000, will look for some way to upset this Act, and he may decide to hang his hat on the use of the word “sundries” or something of that nature, so that he will not have to convict.

We want the judges to convict under this Act, not be looking for ways to acquit, and if you have a $1,000 fine there and the judge has sympathy f or some first offender or for some small operator, he’s going to look for ways to acquit rather than convict. I think what you’re suggesting is going to achieve just the opposite of what you hope it will.

Mr. Warner: The minister talks about some concern over our putting stronger teeth into the bill. I suggest that what the bill has now is false teeth. There will be absolutely no bite on those large corporate interests which are now flagrantly in violation of the law on Sundays. There have been some of the smaller operators, such as a couple of the pet shop owners from whom we heard in committee, who have been in violation of the law. But for the most part, we fully realize that those people who have been violating the law to date, have been those who could very easily afford the $100 or $50, or whatever the minimum fine has been. And they will continue unless we put something substantial into the bill, to get away from the licensing fee of $50 or $100 which this represents to the large interests, and we know who they are. We are talking about Woolco, K Mart, Loblaw’s, Dominion and the rest; and $50 or $100 is absolutely nothing to them.

Mr. Nixon: So is $1,000.

Mr. Warner: Unless we put something substantial into the bill, such as a minimum of $1,000, we are not going to get any reaction to this bill. This bill, like the Lord’s Day Act, will be flouted and will be flagrantly disregarded and we are not going to bring about of pause, which is the principle of this

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are cynical.

Mr. Samis: He is realistic.

Mrs. Campbell: I have every sympathy with the expressions of concern which have been made by members of the opposition. I would like to point out, however, that not only is it true in this particular piece of legislation, but it has been found over the years at the federal level that putting in minimum fines very often results in an effect opposite to what you wish to achieve. Therefore, there has been a move, at that level, away from trying to establish minimum fines while strengthening the maximums. It would seem to me that the indication here is that this government, and certainly the members of this Legislature, do mean business.

I would suggest that we would support the clause as it stands. It is always open to us, if we find there is continuing abuse or abuse at all, to come back and to amend it; but I do warn that this has been the experience at Ottawa. I can recall trying to get some minimum fine revisions when I was at the city of Toronto, Having been sent a good deal of material on the subject, I decided that probably I was in error, and therefore, from that experience, I feel I would support this as it stands.

It is a fact that if the large operators start to flout this piece of legislation, then I would hope we would do a much better enforcement job than we have done in the past. One of the things that has been troublesome to me has been, not so much the fine situation but the total lack of enforcement of the federal legislation at all. If this should be the case, I would suggest that minimum fines probably would continue to have the same effect, and I wouldn’t like to see that happen.

I also think that when you look at some of the provisions in this bill, particularly the matters of the 2,400 sq. ft. for example, you could find violations there which would be rather minimal but perhaps a little over 2,400 sq. ft. You might then have some small operator placed in jeopardy because of it.

For this reason, I would support the government’s position at this time.


Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Ferris: Federal candidate No. 20.

Mr. Foulds: Quit while you’re ahead.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is difficult to rise and speak on a section of a bill or a motion --

Mr. Cassidy: An amendment.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- but on this occasion I feel compelled to do so, because what the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) is proposing is certainly not what I, or I am sure many members of this House could adhere to --

Mr. Eakins: Of course not.

Mr. Nixon: Great speech.

Mr. Yakabuski: It would appear that the member for Cornwall has no faith in the ability of our courts --

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Davidson: Your statement is out of context.

Mr. Nixon: Is the whole Renfrew Conservative Association listening to him in the west gallery?

Mr. Yakabuski: I would have to agree with the member for St. George and with the minister, that what he is trying to do is, more or less, to put our courts in a straitjacket when it comes to administering and making judgements on a very difficult Act. I don’t think there has been an Act that has come before this Legislature, in the time I’ve been here, that has caused in me as many mixed feelings.

Mr. Nixon: What about the wolf bounty?

Mr. Yakabuski: This is a very difficult Act and it’s going to be a very difficult Act to administer. I think the member for Cornwall, by his amendment, is only contributing to make an Act that is going to be very difficult to administer, much more difficult to administer.

Mr. Mackenzie: Wonderful.

Mr. Yakabuski: I am one who would have such faith in our courts that they would be able to determine what should be a minimum fine. If anyone would want to set a level for a minimum fine and apply it to this Act, I think it would be very wrong move. Therefore, I must say -- and I support my minister in so saying -- that in no way can I support this amendment, because I think the member is really trying to put our judiciary and our courts in a straitjacket insofar as administering the sections of this Act is concerned.

Mr. Samis: That sounds like a draft for leadership. Why don’t you run? Everyone else is, including the mayor of Pembroke.

Mr. Ferris: He’d be No. 20.

Mr. Ruston: Follow the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How can you debate after that?

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Chairman, I will speak when the rest of the House becomes quiet.


Mr. Davidson: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be very brief in my remarks, which I’m sure the people on my left will appreciate.

Mr. Eakins: No, the people to the right.

Mr. Davidson: I would like to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Renfrew South, I believe it is.

Mr. Moffatt: The King of Renfrew South.

Mr. Davidson: His words, I suspect, were very well chosen and he tried to imply that in our considerations we have been a little less than honest in what it is we’re trying to do. Let me assure my friend that is not the case. In fact, what we are trying to do, as the minister himself said, is to put some teeth into this Act so that in fact it does have some meaning and so that it does carry with it a conviction of what the whole Act itself says.

For far too many years, having lived under the Lord’s Day Act and having watched with careful consideration what has happened with regard to those who abuse that Act, and looking upon it in terms of $25 fines, $40 fines, $50 fines, what we are looking at, in effect, is a licence to operate. That is what we are looking at; and what, in effect, we are trying to do in this bill, with the greatest of respect, is to create a day of pause for the majority of people in this province.

We recognize and we respect and we understand the fact there are those small business people who will and should operate on a Sunday in order to be competitive with the large supermarkets and with the large organizations that exist within their area. They are independent owners, they are people who, with the greatest of respect, have to work on a Sunday in order to make themselves a livelihood. I think this is basically what we are talking about and what we are referring to in this bill.

For those of you who cannot understand that fact, and cannot recognize the fact there are those who require seven days of work in order to make a living, then perhaps I should point out a few things to you.

Mr. Riddell: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Are we back to second reading of this bill?

Mr. Chairman: No, we are not,

Mr. Riddell: Well, I say the member is out of order.

Mr. Chairman: We are talking of the imposition of a fine; section 7 of the Act.

Mr. Davidson: That’s right, and where that floe should be applied and where it should not be applied. If the member for Huron-Middlesex cannot understand that, then let him just listen and maybe I will clarify it for him.

Mr. O’Neil: Be brief.

Mr. Riddell: I sure won’t learn anything listening to the member for Cambridge.

Mr. Foulds: You just won’t learn anything.

Mr. Moffatt: He’s being provocative.

Mr. Davidson: There are those in this province whom we recognize as being small store operators -- people who do run what we normally recognize as the mama-papa store on the street corner on which you grew up, near where you live.

An hon. member: Becker’s?

Mr. Davidson: I’m getting to that right now, if you’ll just take your time.

There are also those who try to create the image of the mama and the papa store by setting up within little communities in plazas, outlets called Becker’s and Mac’s Milk and other organizations. They try to make you and me and the rest of the province feel as if they are the same corner variety store we are accustomed to.

Mr. McEwen: Why did you support it?

Mr. Davidson: They are not, in fact, and it is recognized they are not. What we are trying to do in this bill is to set it down so that those who are able to make a living and require that extra day to make a living, can do it. With the greatest respect I would say to the member -- who has now left the House apparently -- that the bill he was referring to was a bill that was drafted by his own member and put forward by his own member. All we are trying to do on this side of the House is make the bill effective by imposing a minimum.

Surely the large corporations will respect the minimum and will take a look at what they are doing. If they are going to defy the law, it is going to cost them some money. It is not going to cost them $50, it is not going to cost them $75 or $100, it is going to cost them at least $1,000 in the first instance and maybe higher at a later time. That is exactly what we are proposing this amendment for, and with very little inward understanding and knowledge that it will ever be accepted, I would hope that some of you would consider that point.

Mr. Samis: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address myself to points made by my lawyer friend, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth). The main reason we are inserting the amendment is, I suppose you would say, out of regret rather than out of conviction and lack of confidence in the courts per se. The example we look to is the federal field. If we had confidence that the full force of the law was brought against the business and corporate violators of our criminal law -- whether it is the Combines Investigation Act or the Lord’s Day Act -- if we had the feeling that the corporate violators of law were treated like the small individual violators of law, we wouldn’t bring in this amendment. We regret to say that the record at the federal level inspires no such confidence and this is why we feel compelled to introduce this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Samis’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Is there any further comment on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Lewis: That’s leadership.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?


Mr. Chairman: It can’t. It’s subject to the stacked votes.


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

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 11 of the said section 106 be amended by adding at the end thereof: “and subject to clause (b) of subsection 2 of section 107 in any such order may impose such terms and conditions as the judge considers appropriate.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That was an omission. It is to replace a section which was in the Act but, by mistake, had been omitted from the amending legislation.

Mr. Good: We agree with this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I move that subsection 1 of 106a of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out “15” in the sixth line and inserting in lieu thereof “30.”

Mr. Chairman: Was that an amendment to section 106a(1)?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, 106a(1).

Mr. Chairman: Your amendment doesn’t read the same as the one we have at the desk.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, I was reading the wrong amendment. There was a change but I don’t know if my hon. colleagues across the House have a copy of that or not. I apologize to them.

Mr. Chairman: It’s numbered 19.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, there was a new change.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish the Chair to read the one we have, to see if it coincides?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I have the correct section in front of me.


Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection (1) of section 10th of the Act as set out in section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(1) Where a tenant has given a landlord notice of termination of a tenancy agreement or where there is an agreement to terminate in writing the landlord may, not later than 30 days after the termination date specified, file with the clerk of the county or district court of the county or district in which the premises are situate a copy of the notice of termination or agreement in writing verified by affidavit, and the clerk of the court shall sign an order directing that a writ of possession issue, effective not earlier than the date specified in the notice of termination or the agreement to terminate.”

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We don’t have a copy of that amendment. Perhaps we should look at it if it changes more than the 15 days to 30.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if what I might do is just briefly explain the purpose and then perhaps have it stood down?

Mr. Chairman: That’s fine, to give the opposition critics a chance to study it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This amendment was only prepared as of yesterday.

Mr. Chairman: You may explain it, if you wish.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. The purpose is to avoid insofar as the landlord is concerned, where a tenant has given landlord notice of termination or where there is an agreement to terminate in writing, the situation where the landlord might obtain a writ of possession without having to serve a formal notice on the tenant where there is a feeling, for one reason or another, that the agreement is not going to be honoured. It is intended to relieve the landlord in certain circumstances of having to make numerous trips to the county court office in the county in relation to a situation where a tenant has given the landlord notice of termination or where there is an agreement in writing.

Without this amendment, notwithstanding the agreement in writing or the notice of termination served by the tenant, it would still be necessary for the landlord to go to the clerk to obtain a date to serve the notice on the tenant and then return for a hearing, all of which seems to me to be completely unnecessary where this is an agreement to terminate.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to argue this now and I am prepared to argue against it.

Mr. Chairman: We will deal with the minister’s amendment now. Is that agreed?

Mr. Lawlor: I hate to state it so harshly, but there is a kind of breach of faith in this kind of amendment. We have before us a section which talks of overholding tenants. A tenant has agreed to get out and doesn’t get out, he sits. In those circumstances it seems to me fairly valid that the landlord then may move before the court and utilize the office of the clerk of the court rather than pulling a judge into the picture in order to receive his order. However, that is not what this amendment says. It doesn’t say that at all, as a matter of fact. It doesn’t talk about overholding of tenants in any one way.

The whole purpose, tenor and purport of the legislation is altered in this rewording. It says, “Where a tenant has given a landlord notice of termination,” this is in any event -- this matter is supposed to be taken before a judge. We didn’t want a judge but you have inflicted one upon us and that being the case, we are not going to take the second best or the fifteenth best, namely, the clerk of the court. The use of the clerk of the court is a suspect device in any event. He is a man who usually, true, has legal training, but on the other hand has not any particularly judicial functions, except sometimes taxing bills of costs. Beyond that he has never performed that function.

Nevertheless, as the bill came through, and in the case of a defaulting tenant end in the case of an overholding tenant, it seemed to me that in order to alleviate the heavy burdens of the court, to give some function and role to the clerk is a breakthrough in our legal setup end recognizes that he can have a larger role in the procedure and administration of courts. It is something of a minor breakthrough. But this is a monumental breakthrough as I read it. That’s the first one, wherever a notice of termination is given or where there is an agreement to terminate in writing.

I could go along with the second part. In other words, if both parties come together and agree to terminate the relationship and the relationship is not thereby terminated -- again we are back to the overholding tenant situation -- then this clause could have some merit and validity and, so far as I am concerned at least, I wouldn’t be prepared to fight it.

Therefore, under these circumstances I am prepared to move that the first two sentences to and including the word “or” in the second line be deleted from the section and we get back to what it fundamentally originally says and leave it with a notice of termination given to the discretion of the judge and to his determination.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member wishes to make an amendment to the amendment, would he kindly put it in writing?

Mr. Lawlor: I find that very difficult.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if I may take the opportunity of just replying briefly on this point. This is a case where the tenant has given the notice to terminate or where the tenant has agreed in writing. But we are concerned to alleviate the situation in relation to an overholding tenant, as my friend recognizes, and particularly when it is not only to protect the landlord but to protect another tenant who is expecting to move into the premises.

If a tenant has either served a notice of termination or entered into this agreement, it seems to me particularly in the interest of a tenant who may have entered into a lease in relation to the premises that the tenant be afforded the opportunity of moving in as quickly as possible. All we are trying to accomplish by this amendment is to simply expedite the process where the tenant himself has indicated a desire to terminate the tenancy and then changes his or her mind and decides to overhold. Then you have got a tenant, and we will say the tenant may have six children, which certainly appeals to me as I have six children, with nowhere to move in simply because the tenant who is there has changed his mind or just decided not to move out.

We are just trying to expedite the process. Again we are talking about many landlords, as my friends opposite well know, who may have one or two rented premises and to save them the trouble of constantly going back and forth to obtain a right which has been clearly agreed upon between the landlord and tenant.

Mr. Lawlor: I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore withdraws his amendment.

Shall the minister’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: Do you see how persuasive you are? I don’t want to argue with you anymore.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that the said section 106(a) be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, it is similar to a previous section; again the intention is that the notice of termination becomes void and of no effect unless it is acted upon not less than 30 days after the termination date specified in the notice. It is just again to impose a degree of finality.

Mr. Lawlor: Why 30 instead of 15?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Originally we had thought of 15, but it’s a case whereby the tenant may say, “Well look, I am going to move out. Just give me another week or 10 days.” And 15 days could go by very quickly where the landlord is lulled into a false sense of security by reason of his own decency perhaps. If it’s 15 days, then the notice becomes of no force and effect.

It seemed to us in the circumstances that 30 days was a more reasonable period of time and the tenant would be in no way prejudiced.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment that the minister has is on page 14, section 7.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, could the minister look at section 106b(1)? This is where there is a tenancy agreement with the caretaker of a building and as I read it, if the caretaker loses his job, he has only seven days to vacate those premises in which he does not have to pay rent. Granted, if he doesn’t move the landlord then has to move to get a writ of possession under 106, but I am wondering if that seven days is not too short? Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We considered that, Mr. Chairman, and the thinking was that the landlord cannot do anything until that week has elapsed and because it’s tied in -- the tenancy agreement is related directly to an employment contract -- it seems that if the contract is properly terminated that a week would give enough time for a tenant to make arrangements, assuming obviously circumstances leading up to the termination of the employment contract would have put the tenant on notice.

Normally a contract of employment cannot be terminated without reasonable notice and I think reasonable notice is generally regarded as two weeks, so that would be a two-week period in which the employee would have reason to know that he or she would have to seek other accommodation. So you have that notice period related to the termination of the employment, plus the additional week. In most cases you would be talking about a minimum period of three weeks.

Again, it seems in everybody’s interest to provide time limits which are fair to both parties but do encourage both parties to act reasonably expeditiously. I agree that if the employment could be terminated, say, on a day’s notice, the one week would be obviously unsatisfactory, but as the employment cannot be terminated without reasonable notice, the week is really in addition to that reasonable notice. For that reason we found it was satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to subsection 2 of section 107.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 2 of section 107 of the Act as set out in section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“(2) Upon any application of a landlord for a writ of possession, a judge may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or the tenancy agreement,

“(a) refuse to grant the application unless he is satisfied having regard to all the circumstances that it would be unfair to do so, or

“(b) order that the enforcement of the writ of possession be postponed for a period not exceeding one week.”


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this section is to restore a power presently given to a judge under the present section 106(10) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, but omitted from Bill 26; and it should not have been omitted, and it’s there now.

The period of one week was introduced into the present Landlord and Tenant Act in 1972, following a recommendation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which held or found that judges were abusing their discretion and giving writs of possession in proper cases, but giving periods of time, or sort of indefinitely suspending the order, which caused grave problems. So that week period was, again, acted on and enacted in 1972 at the suggestion of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, if the section had been left as it was previously, then it was our intention to insert the word “shall” rather than “may”. It’s rather difficult to do it in this particular amendment, but nevertheless I shall proceed to do so. The wording that we would like to put in is that subsection 2 of section 7 of the Act as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill be amended by striking out “may” in line two and substituting therefor “shall.”

There’s a further amendment having to do the same thing with the next subsection, Mr. Chairman, but it’s on the same sheet of paper. You can take it seriatim or you can take it together. Further, that subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill be amended by striking out “may” in line two and substituting therefor “shall.” That second “shall” should, in my opinion, certainly remain.

Because of the amendment, I’ve had to add as follows: “and inserting the word ‘may’ immediately before the word ‘order’ in clause (b).”

Mr. Chairman: The Chair understands that this would be an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Lawlor moves that subsection 2 of section 107 of the Act, as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill, be amended by striking out “may” in line two, and substituting therefor “shall.”

Further, that subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act, as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill, be amended by striking out “may” in line two and substituting therefor “shall,” and inserting the word “may” immediately before the word “order” in clause (b).

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, Mr. Chairman, with the addition of the postponement, I don’t think the Attorney General would be quite disposed to make that mandatory upon a judge -- and I would be quite willing to agree with that whether or not another week’s postponement ought to be given should certainly depend upon the circumstances of each individual case. Some of them would merit it and warrant it, and others would not

The breach would be so flagrant that the judge would not, in any good discretion, be able to postpone and give the tenant an extra week. But there are circumstances of mercy where this is very valuable -- and I would have to leave that discretionary.

But as for the first part, with respect to the judge being satisfied on the merits and the refusal to grant the application because of the surrounding context and circumstances of the case, having fairness in mind, by using the word “may” in that particular context you leave it too variable, indeed; whereas if you use “shall,” a mandatory thing, you place a new emphasis within the section, saying that the judge will relieve, unless he can’t do so.

You shift the onus, so to speak, in favour of alleviating from forfeiture, as I read the section. That being the case, I am very strongly in favour of the insertion of “shall” in this particular context and I would ask the Attorney General to give it very good consideration.

Mr. Good: I feel this would be most difficult to accomplish because the decision is based on such words as “unfair”. That, in itself, is a subjective decision which the judge must make and then we say he shall do this, relating to other conditions which themselves are judgements which may or may not be exactly 100 per cent definitive. It’s not a matter of complete black and white and I think that inserting “shall” in there would make it too restrictive for the judge even to render humane decisions in some instances.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I share the views of my friend from Waterloo North. I appreciate the point our colleague from Lakeshore is making but it seems to me that the judge’s discretion should remain unfettered and I think that replacing “may” with “shall” would indicate to the judge that the discretion is being fettered. I don’t think it’s justified if the judge is going to exercise a full and fair discretion.

We don’t want to see any interference at all with his equity jurisdiction and for that reason we cannot accept my learned friend’s amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one word; when you get a fettering on the side of right, on the side of fairness, I am prepared to endure those fetters.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this amendment?

All those in favour of the minister’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.


Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would indicate that the amendment is stacked and will be voted on later. The committee was divided and unless there is a real need for us to repeat the amendment, I think it will be dealt with when the votes are decided.

The minister has an amendment to section 109(1)(a) of the Act.

Mr. Lawlor: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, we haven’t dealt with the second amendment with respect to subsection 3 of this particular section. Again, it is the word “shall” but it’s a completely separate amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair had dealt with the two paragraphs on the one page. I gather the hon. member wishes to deal with them separately?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, they are two separate items.

Mr. Chairman: All right, I shall reread the second amendment.

Mr. Lawlor moves that section 3 of section 107 of the Act as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill be amended by striking out “may” in line two, and substituting therefor “shall” and inserting the word “may” immediately before the word --

Mr. Lawlor: No, I’m sorry. That was the previous one. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, Mr. Chairman. We could stop --

Mr. Chairman: After “shall”?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed. Will the hon. member speak to his amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Surely -- that’s always a good way to start an argument. Surely, Mr. Attorney General --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of information, I am a little confused, as to what section my --

Mr. Lawlor: The top of page 15 of the bill. The section --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have it, thank you. Mr. Chairman: Section 3 of 107.

Mr. Lawlor: I hate to say it again. Surely, in a section of kind, where you -- very briefly run down the various sub clauses -- where “the landlord is in breach of his responsibilities” or, the “reason for the application” is the tenant has complained to some authority, which he has a perfect right to do or, thirdly, that his legal rights are in severe jeopardy or, that the tenant “is a member of an association” -- any of these grounds for seeking to rid himself of the tenant -- surely there ought to be the minimum of discretion offered to him in that particular context with these phrases. There’s going to be another one by the way -- the family rights clause coming up in a moment. You should know that in advance. But in this context I will argue that the word “shall” has validity. If these conditions obtain, then the judge should refuse the application.

Don’t you agree?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I don’t agree for the following reason. I’m sorry; I’ll be very brief. The landlord may be in a breach of his responsibilities, but on the other hand, on balance the breach of the tenant may be of such sufficient importance that it affects the rights and the enjoyment of a number of other tenants in the building. So while the landlord himself may be in breach, if the tenant’s breach is such that it seriously interferes with the enjoyment of other tenants of the premises, then in my view, the judge should retain an unfettered discretion to make the appropriate determination.

Again it should be a matter of the judicial discretion having regard to all the circumstances. It might very well be very unfair to other tenants if the landlord or the judge were not to have to this discretion, particularly as it would infringe upon their rights, quite apart from the landlord.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, on this particular section, it seems to me one has to support the amendment as put forward.

Mr. Lawlor: Hear, hear, Margaret.

Mrs. Campbell: This in view of the fact that even in clause (a) there is, as we have pointed out in earlier sections, a considerable degree of uncertainty. But having pointed that out and the minister not having been prepared to accept our position on that, now we say he is hoist by his own petard since he has not clarified “breach of any material covenant.” I don’t really mind too much if that has something to do with an allergy to animals, which I think was the case cited, or whatever it is. He is the one who knows what he means; hopefully, a judge will know what he means, and if not, we will have to come back.

But one of the things that we have to be concerned about is that so often, when because a tenant does seek to secure his own rights, or because a tenant has complained, or because a tenant is a member of a tenant association, that tenant is very often both harassed and finally dragged out to find his or her way through the courts. In my view, once you are this specific there is no reason on earth why a judge, once he or she has made that finding, should not then have to follow a procedure that is quite clear.

So I would support the amendment in this case.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just want to be on the record as stating that if that amendment is accepted and the judges’ hands are tied in this manner, our friends opposite will be just totally abandoning the rights of other tenants which may be seriously interfered with. That is the effect of the amendment and this is what should be faced up to.


Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I can’t let that fit of pique go unanswered. We are I not abandoning the rights of other tenants, we are asserting the rights of a goodly number, and a very pervasive influence in terms of intimidation -- the kind of thing where, say, you join a tenants’ organization and you’ve had it, boy, out you go; that sort of thing which the labour unions have faced through the years. The tenants’ associations have faced the same thing. This puts an end to it, and the “shall” double-indemnifies the answer.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

We will stack that vote.

The minister has an amendment to section 109(1)(a) of the Act. Any discussion before that?

Mr. McClellan: I have an amendment to section 107(3) of the Act. I believe the member for Lakeshore has a copy to send to the Chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof:

“(e) A reason for the application being brought is that the premises are or will be occupied by children except where the premises are restricted to persons 60 years of age or over.”

Mr. McClellan: This is the first of two family rights amendments that our caucus wishes to introduce as amendments to this bill. This particular amendment deals with existing tenancies and proposes to eliminate the conversion of apartments into adult-only apartments; and secondly, to prevent the eviction of tenants, either couples or single persons, for the reason that they have chosen to have a child either naturally or by adoption.

We think the time has come that the landlord-tenant legislation has to protect the rights of families in this province. The season we come to this decision is -- and I want to speak at some length, not excessively, but I think fully, because these two amendments are seen by us as major -- there is, as we all know, an urgent crisis in housing in this province. The crisis affects mainly low and middle income families. They are the ones who are driven out of the home ownership market and driven into the rental accommodation market.

There is an equally urgent crisis in the family rental accommodation market, and I would like the minister, even briefly, to note this rather interesting survey of family rental accommodation in North York. It was done by North York tenants as an information programme in August of 1975. It is a comparison of the percentage of family to non-family rental accommodation in the borough of North York between 1971 and 1975, and I believe it is indicative of what is happening in our major urban centres. In 1971, family rental accommodation comprised 75 per cent of the existing rental stock. In 1975, it had declined to 58 per cent. In 1971, non-family rental accommodation consisted of roughly 24 per cent of the rental housing stock. By 1975, it has risen to 41 per cent. That is clearly indicative of the trend that is taking place, the trend of conversion away from family accommodation to adult-only accommodation, and it is an intolerable situation.

We don’t pretend this is an easy matter. We are aware there is a balance of rights that has to be taken into consideration: The rights of landlords over their properties; the rights of other tenants to make choices as to whether or not they live in the same premises as children. We have tried to balance that by exempting premises which are restricted to persons 60 years of age or over. But we feel very strongly that on balance between the competing claims and the competing interests and the competing rights, very simply in 1975 in this province the rights of families, the rights of people to have children, and the rights of children come first. I would urge both my friends in the Liberal Party and the minister to accept this amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: I am completely in sympathy with what the opposition is trying to do by this amendment, but the amendment itself gives me a great deal of concern. For one thing, I suppose that the only premises one is talking about probably is senior citizen housing which is geared to a certain group in the community. I don’t know of any other housing where one is restricted by reason only of age.

My problem with this situation has been simply that I am very much opposed to the opportunity which has been taken by many landlords in Toronto to try to convert what have been family apartments into adult buildings. But I don’t think this amendment protects that kind of a situation. I have great concerns about forcing either a landlord or a family to live in a budding which has been, for example, built as an adult-only building, because usually in those circumstances the suites are small. They’re either bachelor or one-bedroom and may well not be suitable for children.

I have wrestled with this amendment. As I say, I would very dearly like to support what they’re trying to do, but I personally can’t believe that this is the way to go about it. I really think it is a contravention of the Human Rights Code if people in the private sector are limiting the use of buildings to people 60 years of age or over. I don’t know of any such building, so really what we’re talking about as an exemption are the publicly-owned senior citizens’ buildings.

I recognize we’re in difficulty as to time. If it were not for that, I would like this to be stood down to see if we could not come up with something which more clearly demonstrates what we’re trying to achieve here. In the circumstances, I cannot support this as it stands.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps I could just clarify one thing for the member for St. George. I can understand that she may not be able to support our next amendment on the basis of the argument she just put forward, but this amendment deals with conversions and evictions. We are assuming the people are living in what is presently family accommodation. This amendment is designed to prevent further conversion and, it seems to me, that the arguments she made against this particular amendment do not apply. She may raise them -- and I will argue against her -- with respect to our next amendment which attempts to eliminate new tenancy discrimination against families. This one deals with existing family rental accommodation stock and attempts to prevent this elimination. I would hope that at the least she would support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, I share almost entirely the views of the member for St. George. I can’t agree with what my friend from Bellwoods has stated about this tending to deal with a situation where people are already in family accommodation. It doesn’t say that at all.

We’re dealing with a case where people are in a building which for one reason or another may be totally unsuitable for children.

Mr. McClellan: This deals with applications for a writ of possession. They are already in the buildings?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We’re talking about where they’re not in the building.

Mr. Norton: He didn’t say they are, he said “or will be.” Read your own legislation.

Mr. McClellan: It is your legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We’re talking about a situation where people are in the building but not with children. The buildings may be totally unsuitable for children but if your amendment were to prevail, then, regardless of whether that was the case, as the hon. member for St. George would say, you would in effect be designating a building that was totally unsuitable for children as a family building when it had never been so utilized in the past.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m not quite sure what the minister is saying. A building in which a family lives is obviously in some way suitable for children. Does the minister agree?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, but what about one where they will live? That is what you are really dealing with.

Mr. Norton: They are living there by virtue of a recent birth.

Mr. Cassidy: This is to prevent an eviction on the grounds that the premises are or may be occupied by children.

Mrs. Campbell: Or will be.

Mr. Cassidy: Presumably, it’s when you get the situation where the wife becomes pregnant and she’s going to have a kid, or where a couple have decided, for various reasons, to adopt a child and a landlord comes along and evicts them for that reason. Surely that is an unjustifiable kind of an eviction.

It is our opinion that the purpose of this clause may possibly be covered by the other grounds that are spelled out in the rest of the bill. That is a possibility but it is not a certainty, and because it is not a certainty that the landlord is prevented from evicting where there may be children involved, we’re saying that it should be spelled out specifically. As the member for Bellwoods pointed out, that is different from telling a landlord he must accept a family with children because they have a child, or because a wife gets pregnant, or because the wife’s sister dies and somebody has to look after the two kids who were orphaned and that kind of situation. These situations exist. I would have felt that with the kind of compassion that the member for St. George has that she would be willing to support this particular amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall this be stacked?


Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion before we deal with the minister’s amendment to section 109(1)(a)?


Mr. Lawlor: As Marshall McLuhan said, you have to have a rear-view vision of history in effect. I’ll tweak you.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lawlor moves that subsection 1 of section 108 of the Act as set out in section 8 of the bill be amended by striking out “$1,000,” in line four and substituting therefor “$2,000.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is acceptable to us and I believe it is acceptable to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Lawlor’s amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion to any section prior to section 109(1)(a) of the Act. The minister has an amendment.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section 9, clause (a) of subsection 1 of section 109 of the said Act as amended and by inserting after “b” in the second line and after “sufficiently” in the third line the word “served”; and that the remaining sections of the bill be numbered accordingly.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, that proposed change is a technical amendment to provide for the service of documents by the tenant.

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment the minister has deals with section 111 of the Act, section 9 of the bill. Is there any further discussion before we deal with this amendment?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a few comments concerning section 9, if I may.

I am pleased to see that finally the government is introducing legislation which will affect and control mobile home parks and mobile home park owners. I can recall back in 1966 bringing this to the attention of the government and asking for some type of action but my pleas fell on deaf ears.

In 1973 I met with residents of a mobile home park in the town of MacGregor and at that time they presented me with a mobile home owner’s bill of rights. On April 10, 1973, I read it into the record hoping the government of the day would look them over and implement them. Starting today we finally do see some of the results of mobile home park owners’ please with the government for some type of legislation which would prevent a lot of the discrimination registered against them. I see a lot of the suggestions they made being incorporated in the legislation and I appreciate very much the ministry finally accepting some of these recommendations put forth by mobile home owners.

If there are amendments to the legislation, I would like an opportunity to speak to them.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 111 of the Act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection 5:

“A landlord or a tenant may apply by summary application to a judge of the county or district court of the county or district in which the premises are situate who may determine any question arising under subsections 3 and 4.”

and that the present subsection 5 be renumbered as subsection 6.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment provides that the landlord or tenant may apply to a county judge to determine any question arising out of the tenant’s right to sell or otherwise part with the possession of his mobile home while it is situate within the mobile home park. It is similar to section 91(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act which deals with, for example, consent to sub-lease with respect to a residential tenancy. We just want to have the same legislation apply to mobile parks as well.

Mr. Good: Many of the problems, I think, arising in mobile home parks have been when tenants wanted to sell their homes situated within a park and there were certain moneys that had to pass hands before this could happen. The bill does say that only expenses that are reasonably incurred in the coming in or going out may be charged and that the owner of the park may not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold permission to sell. This all sounds very good, but unless there is someone to adjudicate the dispute it is not going to be very effective.

We had representation before our committee in this regard regarding the amounts that are charged, and I think that this amendment should help to clarify that one problem that has existed in many parks. We would support this amendment.

Mr. Wildman: We would accept the amendment as well. The one question I have is: Does the minister feel that in making it possible for tenants to apply to the courts, he may be running into the same kinds of objections that were raised previously in other sections of the bill in setting hardships for tenants who may or may not be able to afford going to the courts? Again, we would reiterate our position that it would be better if you had a separate board, other than the courts or tribunal, to adjudicate such questions. If that cannot be, then we accept this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that subsection 4 of section 115 of the Act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be amended by inserting at the commencement thereof, “subject to the provisions of the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975, second session.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I want to state now that we have a series of amendments new sections going in from this point on. I think there is a new section in the bill so that the present section 10 is probably section 11. If I am I right on that particular point, the next amendment would have to be section 12. As I say, we have 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 -- we go on for a long time -- and into infinity; it is right around the corner; it is with us in the room. Well, we have two or three more on top of that. This one, I want to argue it quickly; I want to argue it well; and I want to impress upon the minister the importance of it. We consider this very important indeed. It is so important that I would ask my colleague to cease and desist and to allow the minister to listen to me and for the facts to penetrate.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sorry.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know; this may be the single most important amendment moved as far as we are concerned. You know what it’s about. I sent it over to you the other day. It has to do with retroactivity.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sorry. One of your colleagues had my ear for a very good purpose and I didn’t mean any disrespect.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, I have used up all my argument to no point. Do you want me to start all over again?

Mr. Jones: No, no, no.

Mr. Lawlor: All right. I will start all over again for the first time.

An hon. member: It is a good argument.

Mr. Lawlor: I would move that a new section 12 be inserted in the bill; I trust the Attorney General agrees with me that there is a new section in the bill, as we have gone through it; that section 10 would become section 11 --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and that there would be a new section 12 if we wanted to put one in there.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lawlor moves that a new section 12 be inserted in the bill as follows:

“Saving and excepting section 115(1), being part of now section 10 of Bill 26, this Act upon receiving royal assent will be deemed to have come into force on the 28th day of October, 1975, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions from and after that date.”

and that the present section 10 become section 11 and all subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have an extra copy of that? I know that he spoke to me about the proposed amendment, but I don’t think he provided me with a copy.

Mr. Lawlor: I provided you with a copy, with slightly different wording. The difference in the wording is that, at the beginning of this section, I put in -- I can’t provide you with a copy, I am sorry, without sacrificing the little intelligence I hold in my hand -- “saving and excepting section 115(1)”; that’s the section that has to do with rentals.

The rental section obviously is covered by retroactivity in another statute, and therefore isn’t a proper subject within the dimensions of this statute for the specific clause we are seeking to insert. So leaving out that previous section, all the rest of the legislation will be deemed to have come into force on the 28th day of October, 1975, and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give full force and effect to its provisions.

In anticipation of rental legislation, numerous landlords throughout the province gave notices to quit to their tenants. For a recalcitrant tenant, for a tenant who had given them trouble in the past, for a tenant who had elements of independence, for a tenant who spoke back, for tenants who felt that their rights were aggrieved -- for all those who were possible thorns in sides, instead of absorbing the pain like St. Paul, they thought that they would tear the thorn out and cast it to the byways; and they did it en masse and across the board. It was a very widespread phenomenon. We saw it all the time. There was holus-bolus giving of notices to quit. That was a routine thing throughout the summer in anticipation of this and then, after the election, when a minority government came into force and the role we played on the basis of our election campaign got through, it accelerated. It accelerated right up to Oct. 28.


I would have loved to have gone back on this retroactivity in order to cut off the Mohicans at the pass but I can’t do so and I wring my hands in perplexity. What do I do? I say, all right, the date on which it really became official, the date on which they really knew for sure without any animadversion that this was going to be the case was the date of the Throne Speech in this House, when you said you were going to introduce security of tenure legislation.

For landlords who, after that date, took it upon themselves to give notices to quit, indiscriminately and otherwise, to their tenants I think those tenants should be protected. If you’re going to make an announcement of the policies and open the barn doors and let all the horses into the meadow, your legislation kind of undermines itself. It is self-destructive in a certain way.

There’s a fairly powerful argument that the Attorney General is going to use against me. He’s going to say, “What about all those tenants for whom notices to quit have been given in this interim period and who have moved out? Am I to bring them back in and lock the barn door again?”

My answer to that is twofold. First, the section isn’t perfect and can be redrafted to accommodate that particular situation and I will give some possible wording in a moment, which I haven’t embodied in the thing, just in case. But if you express, of course, as I anticipate you’re going to -- maybe I shouldn’t say that; I withdraw that remark -- as I anticipate you’re not going to. If you accept this section we could work it out with fair ease, I’m sure, providing for these instances, if you really feel.

I can’t protect those who have been blistered or burned, who are out and I can’t pretend to be able to get them back in again. Nor am I particularly anxious to leave openings for lawsuits in this particular regard. The ones I am very much concerned to protect are the vast number of people who have notices to quit sitting on their tables at the present moment but whose notices of termination don’t expire until after today; and don’t expire, of course, until after Oct. 28. They are a very considerable number of people in this province and I have a fair number of cases in my files of this particular happening.

I said we’ll do our best at least to protect them. We could do some bloody good by the legislation; we can’t let it turn into a field day. We can’t, in effect, sanction what is effectively a breach of the intent and spirit of this legislation by allowing landlords to give these kinds of notices holus-bolus in this way and walk away with clean hands. I don’t think it’s responsible of us as legislators to do so and I would ask the Attorney General to give this some really good consideration.

If you should give good consideration to this clause you could put in, if you wish, something like this: “Provided that a tenant had vacated the premises pursuant to a notice of termination served or delivered prior to the said date, then this section shall not apply.” If you feel it is necessary to do that in the circumstances. I haven’t moved it; I’m not moving it. I’m suggesting it. If you go for the first part I’m willing to offer some kind of settlement on the second part. I will really impress upon you the gravity of this issue.

To leave this wide open is penalizing and bringing a great deal of punishment to bear on a lot of innocent people.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m going to say very briefly that everybody wants to relieve hardship where it can be relieved without creating chaos but retroactivity in legislation of any kind is a very dangerous precedent. It’s our view that once this bill comes into effect as of Jan. 1, on any notices to quit which are served after that date, the tenants will be protected by this legislation. To bring into force any retroactivity would create absolute chaos.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not so.

Mrs. Campbell: I do not have the form of an amendment before me, so I can’t debate that form or that amendment or that suggestion. I would draw to the attention of the minister, however, that we have had a number of discussions with reference to some of the problems created by mass notices to vacate. On one occasion we sat with members of his staff pointing out there had to be some retroactivity to this legislation, as there was indeed in Bill 20.

I must confess I wrestled with the question as to just how one could word the retroactivity, so that we weren’t in a position of trying to restore people to a position which they had left. There is a great deal of concern in the retroactivity, if it gives people rights which have already terminated in fact as well as in law.

Again I think of 1 and 23 Oriole Rd., where people have been given notice from time back to vacate in February and later, and I keep wondering how these gentlemen in that particular case seem to have been able to anticipate the legislation as accurately as they have.

There are also people today who have notices to be effective at the end of January. If the Attorney General believes that this type of legislation, if it can be properly and suitably worded would create chaos, I wonder what he thinks is happening right as of today.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if I might just clarify a point for the hon. member for St. George, which I think will provide an answer. On page 12 of the bill at section 106(2) it states: “This Act does not apply in respect of applications made under section 106 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, before this action comes into force.”

Mrs. Campbell: I am aware of that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: So there is a limited retroactivity inherent in the legislation. It doesn’t matter what date the notices to quit are for, if an application has not been made under section 106 as of the date of royal assent, which I assume is going to be --

Mr. Chairman: Maybe tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, depending on what this Legislature determines. Once this bill becomes law, regardless of what notices to quit are extant, if an application has not been made by the landlord under section 106, the tenants will have the full protection of that Act. So there is that limited retroactivity.

Mr. Renwick: Then there is no chaos. Isn’t that fantastic?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think you have been paying very much attention, with all due respect.

Mr. Renwick: Oh yes, we have, with all due respect. With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, what we are trying to say is that it’s not beyond the wit of your draftsmen to provide that those tenants who are still in possession but have received notices to vacate --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They have provided it.

Mr. Renwick: -- and whether an application has or has not been made, will be protected. That’s important, and you know that as well as I do.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to comment on this, Mr. Chairman. I don’t understand the minister. It’s an irrational way to apply the bill. People have known about the bill and have acted upon it in order to get rid of tenants they wanted to get rid of and those tenants have been deprived of the protection that is given by the bill. It’s as simple as that. Some of those evictions are clearly vindictive and have clearly been taken by landlords who have decided they want to get rid of tenants and they are evading the law by their actions.

If you wanted to go back and say that the date of publication of the bill was the date to which it could become effective -- I don’t know whether the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) would agree to that or not -- it is at least a position which is tenable. Surely the minister is aware that whenever the Treasurer gets up in this House to announce a tax change, that tax change is normally effective from the date it is announced. There have been times when it takes six months for the relevant tax bill to be passed by the Legislature to implement a commitment made in the budget or in a budget statement by the Treasurer, but the tax is collected retroactively to the date of the statement by the Treasurer, or the tax reduction is effective retroactive to the date of the statement by the Treasurer.

That is all that the member for Lakeshore is suggesting in this particular amendment -- that the protection against arbitrary and unjustified evictions which is provided in this Act ought to be made effective the date that the bill was announced, which is the date of the Throne Speech. If you want to quibble about when the bill was announced or when it became clear exactly what it meant, then that is another matter that could be debated in this House. It certainly is not today and not the date of royal assent and not the date of proclamation. It is a long time before that, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that the minister would take the amendment and treat it favourably rather than trying to wrap it up in legalistic and unhelpful arguments.

What is the minister going to do about the situation in Quebec Gothic, Mr. Chairman, where 50 tenants have been given notice by a landlord just prior to the beginning of this month and told they have to get out? Does he feel that is justified, when there are no grounds for those people to have to go?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Are you saying they will not be protected by this legislation? If this legislation is passed by this House, they won’t be able to get them out. In my view, they will have full protection of this legislation.

Mr. Lawlor: Not after the date the legislation comes into force, which may be some time in the new year. Of course it will be. What do you think legislation is about? But that’s not protecting those people who, in anticipation of this particular event, are mugged and are put down. We promised not to speak too long, so I won’t.

Mr. Lewis: I have not been listening carefully enough and therefore I might well be accused of what the Attorney General has directed to others, but am I to understand that if the effect of throwing a tenant out, if the effect of the eviction occurs and takes effect prior to the bill becoming law, then there is no way of safeguarding them unless you do change the date? That is fair, is it not? Suppose they were effectively out of their homes in Quebec Gothic between now and the end of the year and the bill is proclaimed in January, those people would have no recourse. Is that fair?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: For anybody who is effectively out prior to the coming into force of the bill there is no recourse, and one can, fortunately, assume that where tenants are out, the likelihood is that other tenants will be in.

Mr. Cassidy: What is the situation where an application is pending in the courts right now, which application was brought very clearly because the landlord got wind of this bill and decided he would bring an application to get rid of his tenant before the bill prevented him from doing so? - For example, where a tenant has been involved in organizing the tenant association and is being given the protection, you’re saying, “No, it’s not going to work if the landlord was canny enough to move quickly,” or if he got a phone call from his favourite Conservative member or something like that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no comment to make and I have nothing further to add.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s unfortunate.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Stack it? It is stacked.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Does that finish the bill?

Mr. Chairman: Any further amendment or comment on any other section of this bill?


Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I will ask your guidance on procedure in this matter. I have spoken with the hon. Attorney General, the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) and the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), and I have their concurrence to ask for the unanimous consent of this House to return to subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act in an attempt to work out an acceptable compromise amendment around family protection. If I may, I would ask for your guidance with respect to that procedure.

Mr. Chairman: We will need to have consent of the committee to revert to a section that has been dealt with previously. Is it agreed?


Mr. McClellan moves that subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act, as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end thereof:

“(e) a reason for the application being brought is that the premises are occupied by children, provided that this does not constitute overcrowding.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My concern with respect to the amendment is that if a couple enter a building that is clearly suitable only for adults -- that is, it is clearly unsuitable for children, for example -- and if they simply represent themselves as a childless couple and enter into an adult-only building on that basis, according to this amendment there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from moving their children into the building at some later date. If this amendment is allowed to pass, then they would have effectively accomplished, by entering into an adult-only building -- and I use the term loosely, because in the context it is a building that is clearly unsuitable for children and then children are moved in -- whether it is suitable or not and regardless of what the agreement has been with other tenants in the building, the landlord or the other tenants would have absolutely no right. That is what concerns me about the proposed amendment and that is why we cannot accept it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, if I may say, very briefly, that is hypothetical in the extreme. I can’t imagine that instance is going to be prevalent. I simply can’t imagine that. I say again -- and I want to stress the urgency of the matter -- that conversions are proceeding in our major metropolitan areas at very alarming rates. In the face of the current shortage of housing supply, both rental and ownership, we need some protection. Frankly, we are prepared to water down the original amendment that we had proposed in the interests of trying to deal with at least a part of the problem, and I would ask the members of this House to support the amendment as amended.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, it has not been watered down at all. For example, if you have a building that is occupied largely by senior citizens, but not entirely, and unsuitable --

Mr. Cassidy: Are you a Conservative or something?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Would you like me to finish or do you want to make another speech?

I am just saying that where a couple move in, representing themselves as wanting to live in a building which is an adult-only building or unsuitable for children, and all the other tenants have agreed to this with the landlord, under this amendment it would just leave it open, once the couple obtained possession of the apartment, for them to move in their children. Again whether it was in the interests of their children or not. This not only defeats the rights of the landlord, I’m concerned about the rights of the other tenants as well, which may be rights that have been contracted for months before, if not years. I don’t think that those rights should be so lightly trammelled upon.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, if I may just rise for a moment to support my colleague. If we put forward a hypothesis like that in any other motion or debate, you’d laugh us out of the Legislature. That’s a very mean, nasty and brutish view of human behaviour. That suggests sinister intent of a kind that is not customary. What do you think; that they’ll bring their kids with their suitcases, hiding them en route? You Tories, you’re charitable people, but your view of the human condition is very pessimistic. On the other hand, we over here, sharing nothing but optimism about human behaviour would feel that you might as well accept an amendment of that kind.


Mr. Lewis: I understand the point you’re making about the contractual relationships or understandings which tenants may have had with landlords in terms of an adult-only situation. I understand that, but I would have thought that the ground is weak to assume that people would circumvent it in this fashion. If you believe it, I guess the amendment can be defeated, but I really wouldn’t have thought that could appeal very much to anyone in the House.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think it could be very easily circumvented. Perhaps by better draftsmanship vie could avoid the case where there is subterfuge. I don’t consider that difficult, avoiding a ruse to move in your children two or three days later.

In attempting to pass legislation which is good law; I’m not trying to pass a bad amendment. But to pass it on the basis that you cloak it in sanctimony is, you know, not really serving the interests of the community.

Mr. Lewis: No, it surely isn’t.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: On this issue, I think there is quite a difference between this amendment and an amendment proposed a little later down the line. Here we’re talking about evicting people and the other amendment is about letting them into an adult building.

I think there’s quite a difference and quite a marked distinction between asking for a writ of possession to get people out of a building because they happened to have had a baby arrive, or maybe even two, since they moved in and in saying you have to let them into an adult building. I would object to that; and I think one of the later amendments says just that. I see quite a difference here.

We won’t be voting on this until tomorrow; we will give it more thought. But basically I feel there’s quite a difference between this amendment, where you’re throwing people out because they have kids, and anther amendment where you want to preserve a building for people who, of their own choice, want to live in a building where there are no kids. There’s quite a difference in principle.

I think the hon. minister would have to agree there is quite a difference between whether you throw people out because they have kids or you don’t let them into an adult building.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m not exactly clear yet on the wording of this proposed amendment. I think it has been reworded. My understanding is that --

Mr. Chairman: Would you have me read it again?

Mrs. Campbell: Would you be so kind?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act, as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof:

“(e) a reason for the application being brought is that the premises are occupied by children, provided that this does not constitute overcrowding.”

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s what I understood it to say, and I just wanted to be clear. It seems to me that this particular wording new, while it might be polished over the evening, certainly does meet the problem I had with the earlier proposal. What this is saying is there are children there now and the children who are there are not overcrowding the premises. That is important in my mind and, I trust, this would affect the thinking of the Attorney General who used the adult-only building situation. Adult-only buildings usually have suites which are smaller and are not capable of being used for many people and certainly not for children.

If we have a provision that if there is overcrowding by reason of the children in the premises and if the children are at present on the premises, I would invite the Attorney General to rethink this matter before we come to the vote because it is a serious problem. I am sure he is aware of it. If, overnight, he would be inclined to have the matter reworked and present his own amendment to cover the point, I would be happy to accept that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of clarification on what the hon. member for St. George has stated: Would I accept any amendment which would protect families which entered into the tenancy with children?

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right: That’s what we are saying.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That, unfortunately, is not what this says.

Mrs. Campbell: All right. In order to try to have a bill or an Act which is equitable, may we stand this one down? Is it possible to rework it tonight?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I might be prepared to submit a further amendment. I don’t have it but we’ll try to get it in writing. It might be:

“(e) A reason for the application being brought is that the premises are occupied by children, where such occupation does not constitute overcrowding and there was a child or were children in occupation of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy”

or words to that effect.

Mr. Martel: Why not stand it down until the morning?

Mr. Cassidy: That doesn’t cover people getting pregnant, especially women.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is what was put forward by the member for St. George and I was prepared -- I wonder if we might try this out. This is, perhaps, somewhat unparliamentary: “where occupation does not constitute overcrowding and the premises are suitable for children.”

Mr. Lewis: That sounds all right.

Mrs. Campbell: I think that’s reasonable.

Mr. Lewis: You go ahead and put the wording in.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think all we need to do is add the words, “and the premises are suitable for children.”

Mr. Lewis: Move an extension now.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could ask the minister, I would assume the premises would be considered suitable for children if there had been a family with kids living in it but the landlord then came along and tried to evict them. If it had been suitable because kids were living there that would be covered, in that correct?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That would be very strong evidence.

Mr. Chairman: Are you suggesting, Mr. Minister, that you are prepared to accept Mr. McClellan’s motion by adding, “and the premises are suitable for children”?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that subsection 3 of section 107 of the Act as set out in subsection 2 of section 7 of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof:

“(e) A reason for the application being brought is that the premises are occupied by children provided that this does not constitute overcrowding and the premises are suitable for children.”

Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Chairman: Any further amendments to any under section of the bill?

Mr. Martel: It being 10:30 of the clock, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) begins, I think there was some hope that we might finish this bill by tonight and then have the vote tomorrow. If the members of the House would agree perhaps we could have five more minutes to finish up the amendments --

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t be so optimistic.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Six minutes? I mean, let’s be reasonable.

Mr. Lewis: Do I hear seven?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Six.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have agreement on that?


Mr. McClellan: I think we can proceed fairly quickly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the fallowing section:

13. The said Act is amended by adding thereto the following:

“Nothing in this Act restricts in any way the right of a tenant to be a member of and participate in the activities of a tenants’ association or organization.”

Mr. McClellan: It’s a very simple amendment that gives legal sanction to the rights of tenants to form tenants’ associations and prevents the kind of harassment that has, in the past, plagued leaders of the tenants’ organization movement. I want to say just very briefly that I think all of those in this House who support tenants’ rights movements, and I think that I include the present Attorney General among them, owe a debt of gratitude to the tenants’ movements and to the tenants’ organizations of this province for the momentum they have given in the past to the original Landlord and Tenant Act, to the present rent review legislation and to the present amendments. I think they are entitled to the kind of legislative safeguard that is being proposed in this amendment to Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I suggest the amendment doesn’t add anything to the Act. There is nothing in the Act which prevents such an association. In fact, section 107(3) of the Act, as amended, states that a judge shall refuse to grant the application where he is satisfied that “a reason for the application being brought is that the tenant has complained to any governmental authority” or that “the tenant is a member of an association, the primary purpose of which is to secure or enforce legal rights of tenants.” I would think it makes it quite clear that such a right is recognized, and very strongly recognized, under section 107.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, the minister must have been reading my mind. With the change to “shall” in section 107(3) -- “a judge shall refuse to grant the application if it was brought by reason of the tenant belonging to an association” -- we don’t see any need for this in the Act, and we wouldn’t support that.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member agree to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: No. I think it is a positive aspect and an affirmation of tenants’ organizations and legal recognition of the same, of which the other clause is simply a negative aspect.

Mr. Roy: Let me ask the Attorney General, is there not something in the Ontario Human Rights Code which prohibits people who are renting apartments from discriminating against people on the basis of association with associations or unions? If I recall, I thought the Ontario Human Rights Code prevents that sort of thing as well, and would further reinforce the lack of need for this particular amendment. As I remember the Code, there was a specific section on that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think there is actually, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: Neither do I.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the insertion of this section. It may well be that there is nothing in this Act that implies otherwise, but I suggest that it strengthens the Act if we add this to it.

I would suggest that the section referred to by the Attorney General only covers part of this Act and that there could be the possibility that somewhere else in this Act some legal mind might find a place where tenants’ associations would adversely affect the person’s right. We have nothing to lose by putting this in. I think it pays to highlight this by putting it in the Act.

Certainly the changes made in the rent review bill give added need for tenants’ associations and we want to make it clear in this bill, as in the other bill, that nothing in either of them would adversely affect the formation of tenants’ associations. Therefore, even though we may not be able to put our finger on any point within this Act, to me, there is certainly merit in emphasizing this and I support this.

Mr. Cassidy: A very brief comment: I have listened to some extent to the members of the Liberal Party as well because they do have the power to support the amendment and to allow it to pass. The Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) says this is simply legislating the obvious. I would say that the right of tenants to organize has not been obvious in the past because many tenants have been evicted or have risked eviction because they were involved in tenant organizations.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Read 107.

Mr. Cassidy: It is only with -- that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Read 107.

Mr. Cassidy: It is only with the passage of 107 that tenants acquire that right.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Then why have it again? Twice in the Act?

Mr. Cassidy: However, the right they acquire in 107 is the right to be protected against an eviction because they are involved in a tenant association.

We say let’s make it positive and not negative; let’s take what is implicit in 107 and make it explicit. That’s why it has been suggested in this section that we say that tenants should have the right to form an association. It is a positive kind of thing. If anybody in any party is helping tenants to get their act together we can point to this particular section when they say “What will the landlord do to me?” We can say, “You have the right to organize and for the first time and it is guaranteed by law.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will vote against it because it is already covered in 107.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack it?


Mr. Cassidy: Against the tenants every time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 107 enshrines it. Let’s not be foolish.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Bellwoods have a further amendment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is this the last one?

Mr. Chairman: Is this the last?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is either the last or second last.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following new section:

“14. Every tenancy agreement for any period beginning on or after the 1st of January, 1977, shall be in the standard form of lease as prescribed by the regulations.”

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to say very briefly that I think it is known by many members of the House that the Ontario Law Reform Commission is about to report on this very matter of a uniform or standard lease. I think it would be most unwise of this Legislature to direct the government to draw up a standard lease until we have had the benefit of the Ontario Law Reform Commission which has been studying this matter very carefully for some time and which indicates that this is a report it is going to make in the near future.

I certainly agree very strongly in principle with the desirability of a standard lease but I really do think we should await the report of the commission.

Mr. Lawlor: Very briefly, nothing in the passing of this particular section would tread on your toes or even touch you in the ribs. In due course, as you do with most things, regulations could be passed after perusal of whatever the Law Reform Commission has to say. It just gives you a nudge toward eternity and that’s a long time from now.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think in the amendment we have given plenty of time, until Jan. 1, 1977, to arrange for the development and production of a standard lease. I think many in this House are aware that a real Pandora’s box has been opened in recent months in terms of the variety of leases and some of the strange conditions you run into in them. I was going to read into the record one or two that I have here, but in the interests of brevity tonight I’ll not do it. I think that if we are really going to achieve some measure of assuring a broad understanding and fairness right across the province we need a standard lease. I think it is something that tenants will hang on to. It is something that can be an educational mechanism as well. I just think this bill is going to lose a lot of its effectiveness without a standard lease form across the province and it should be enacted now.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that’s ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” didn’t have it at all. The “nays” had it overwhelmingly.

Mr. Chairman: Stacked?

Mr. Lewis: You are just over-compensating for shooting us down earlier.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He is a real railroader tonight.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, this is the penultimate proposition we intend to move --

Mr. Good: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, lest there be any mistake, or maybe I am mistaken, I believe section 1 of the bill was stood down and we still have to deal with that, so I doubt if we are going to finish tonight. It doesn’t matter to me. If we finish these amendments, that’s the main thing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, to be reasonable, the understanding was we would be finished at 10:30. Let’s not take advantage of the situation. How much more time do we need? Are we going to finish or do we rise now, because we have not pushed this Legislature for one minute overtime, according to the rules.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I just happened to think of that. Am I correct that section 1 of the bill has been stood down away at the beginning and was never dealt with?

Mr. Chairman: I have no notation that any section had been stood down.

Mr. Good: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked a question regarding this and the section was stood down. It could be that my memory is all wrong on this, but --

Mr. Lawlor: I think the hon. member is wrong. There was something about bringing definitions into line, but I understood they were.

Mr. Good: That’s what it was.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, you are perfectly right about the definition of premises, whether it corresponded with Bill 20.

Mr. Good: That’s right, and that section was stood down, as I remember, when we started this bill, until the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) got further information. Whether that is going to be a lengthy procedure or not, I don’t know, but I think we could proceed with the two more amendments that the NDP has.

Mr. Breithaupt: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would be practical for us to complete these other two amendments and then perhaps we could deal with that other item, if there is a matter of definition change, tomorrow.

Mr. Good: We did have an amendment to section 1 when it was stood down.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we have had a very unique session in which we have never had any overtime and I don’t want to push this. If the opposition is prepared simply to put its amendments on the record -- knowing that they are going to be opposed and have them stacked without comment and we will vote on them tomorrow -- in the next two or three minutes, fine, but otherwise I think we are finished.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know about the next two or three minutes, but it won’t be long.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let’s proceed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Then, come on, let’s go.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Who has an amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following:

“15. The said Act is amended by adding thereto the following new section: 113. Notwithstanding this or any other Act, every tenant shall have the right to be offered a tenancy agreement for a term of not less than one year.”

Mr. Cassidy: Can I comment on it, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will just have it taken as read and we are opposed to it and have it stacked.

Mr. Cassidy: If the amendment can be taken as read, Mr. Chairman, this is really an amendment that would have been desirable to be moved on Bill 20 but we couldn’t bring it in there. Many tenants are receiving seven-month leases from their landlords right now because the landlords are trying to avoid the spirit of Bill 20 and get their leases up for renewal in August, 1976, in order to get eight per cent now and another eight per cent or whatever they can get in the middle of the year. That’s a real evasion of the rent review Act, and we think that tenants should have the protection that’s provided here by allowing them, if they want, to have the protection of a lease of one year. That’s why we have moved this particular section. We think, in general, it is desirable that if a tenant intends to stay for a while he should be able to have a lease and not just a month-to-month tenancy.


Mr. Good: Commenting briefly, we checked into this and our understanding is that Bill 20 will not permit more than an eight per cent increase per year, figured on a per-year basis. I don’t think that is a valid argument.

Secondly, I’ve spoken about this to many small landlords in my own area -- people with duplexes, triplexes, even up to sixplexes -- and there are literally thousands of them operating without leases at all, just on a month-to-month tenancy. To throw these people into the position where they would have to give yearly leases -- no, we can’t support that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We’re opposed to it too. I’d also like to refer to seasonal accommodation, which is another matter which will obviously be defeated.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack it?


Mr. McClellan: I have a final amendment -- the second family rights amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McClellan moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section 16:

“(1) No tenancy agreement may contain any restriction as to the occupancy of residential premises by children, and no landlord shall refuse to rent residential premises for the reason that children will occupy the residential premises.

“(2) Subsection 1 does not apply to buildings which are restricted to persons aged 60 or over.

“(3) For the purpose of subsection 1, ‘children’ means persons under the age of 18 years.”

Mr. McClellan: I think we’ve made our arguments around the necessity of tough family rights legislation. I don’t propose to repeat them. I want to say again that I feel, and our caucus feels, that in the conflicting claims to attention involving landlords and adult tenants, the rights of families in the present housing crisis have priority and must be protected under legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to comment, Mr. Chairman, because for the last two years I’ve been introducing a bill which would have had a very similar effect to this one; but because they were private member’s bills they could not be voted upon. It just breaks my heart that we have human rights legislation which protects people against discrimination in accommodation on the grounds of race, colour, sex or creed, but if they happen to have sinned in having kids they can be discriminated against by a landlord. They’re made to live in semi-basement slums because of the legislation that this government won’t bring in. That is true.

Half of the apartments in this city last summer were restricted as adult-only buildings. Parents were not permitted to make the economic decision about what kind of accommodation would suit them best, but were sent from pillar to post to find any kind of accommodation in a tight housing market. I used to think the Conservatives, like the people in this House, were devoted to a society winch nurtured kids, which nurtured the family, which cared about the raising of the family.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Do you really think that there is any individual of this House who is not concerned?

Mr. Cassidy: We live in a society which now has a lot of people who are tenants, a lot of families who are tenants, a lot of families on low incomes who are tenants and who have to have accommodation. Those people are doing a very important job in this society raising those kids. What a parent does for his child is far more important than all of the agencies and institutions and so on that we create to try to help that family. What still counts at the centre is the parent or parents and the kid or the kids. If that is going well then most everything will go well as well.

But so often those parents are handicapped because of inadequate accommodation and because they cannot get a decent place to live. The refusal of the government to accept this amendment in order to give families the same rights that we give people, whether they’re black or Jewish or have some other kind of situation covered by the Human Rights Code, is absolutely unjustifiable and indefensible.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’d like to make one observation.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll bet you go to church on Sunday too.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The proposed amendment totally contradicts the earlier amendment by one of your colleagues that we accepted -- namely, covering buildings where the building is suitable for children. This amendment totally ignores your earlier amendment and, in my view, totally contradicts it.

Mr. McClellan: If I moved an amendment to the amendment along those lines would you be prepared to accept it? Would the minister accept the amendment if I added to subsection 1, “provided the premises be suitable for children”?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would not accept the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re laying it on the line, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Why don’t you be quiet?

Mr. Cassidy: Boy!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Just grow up. You just behave like a spoiled child.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not true. The rights of capital come before people, that’s what you said.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack it?



Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of this bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, I would announce that tomorrow we commence at 10 a.m. Tomorrow morning from 10 to 12:30 p.m. we will have a Throne Speech debate; we will adjourn for lunch, and at 2 p.m. we will have the regular opening, following which we will have the bell for Bill 5 and Bill 26, to complete the work that has been done by the committee tonight. We will then do the order dealing with the Camp report, then we will do our third readings, and then we will have the windup on the Throne Speech debate and the vote, hopefully, by 6 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: Who is winding up for the government, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s a great big surprise. We will announce that tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Will there be a filibuster?

Mr. Good: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly that section 1 of Bill 26 has not been dealt with. The section was stood down when we were dealing with the bill in committee. I am quite certain on that. If the House leader will check Hansard, I think he will find that I am right. Now, if I am wrong, that’s fine, we can have the bells right after question period; but if we haven’t dealt with section 1 I think we will have to do that before we can have the bill reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we can satisfy that point by checking the records. If in fact, there is any unfinished discussion dealing with section 1 only --

Mr. Lewis: It would add a certain touch to pass it without section 1.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- we will follow through then. We will need section 1 or it will throw out the whole numbering system of the bill.

Mr. Good: We have an amendment to that section, that’s why I know it hasn’t been dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I see. Could we check that and then report in the morning?

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.