Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

CONTENTS

Wednesday 18 November 1992

Ministry of Natural Resources

Hon Bud Wildman, minister

George Tough, deputy minister

Michael Williams, manager, Huronia district

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Allan Pilkey, minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)

*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND)

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

*Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Sorbara, Gregory S. (York Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Sorbara

*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr O'Connor

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L) for Mr Sorbara

*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Ferguson

*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Mr Perruzza

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND) for Mr O'Connor

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)

Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)

Clerk: Greffier: Decker, Todd

The committee met at 1528 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We have an hour and 20 minutes yet to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources. When we left off yesterday, there was a series of questions tabled and I believe the ministry has a majority of the responses, which they are circulating to committee members now.

Thank you, Minister and staff, for such a timely response. As that's being distributed, I would indicate that in the last rotation we ended up with the government, so I will be moving to Mr Brown. If we could take Mr Brown right away -- Mr Brown, we're in your hands for about 20 minutes.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I have the answers for Mr Brown to the questions he asked yesterday.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mrs Fawcett has a question and then perhaps I could go on.

The Chair: Well, that's the thing circulated. Mr Brown, I think you'd like to open. Mrs Fawcett, please proceed with your question.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I appreciate Mr Brown allowing me a chance to ask the minister a couple of questions.

Concerning Presqu'ile park, Minister, I'm sure you know I've been receiving several letters and calls about the uses of Presqu'ile park. We know it certainly has a lot of recreational-type uses: hiking, swimming, cycling, bird-watching and all those good things, but also the waterfowl hunting is another use and it does cause some concerns to a few constituents.

It's my understanding that the long-awaited management plan for Presqu'ile Provincial Park -- I think it was initiated in 1979 and has maybe been delayed or postponed. I just wondered if I could find out just where that's at at the present time.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a matter of some considerable local and provincial interest. The finalization and completion of the master plan has been stalled by three governments.

Mrs Fawcett: Right.

Hon Mr Wildman: It's just a matter of the financing and the costs involved. We want to ensure, obviously, that there's a proper consultation around any proposed master plan and any changes there might be in usage, and the question is how much that might cost.

It's been estimated to be anywhere from around $25,000, if there's not a lot of controversy, up to as high as $250,000 or more. Frankly, in the current fiscal situation, that's difficult for us to proceed with. We had hoped we would. This spring we had hoped we would be able to proceed and to complete it.

I think Ms Fawcett has identified the particular issues. It's a tremendously important and significant waterfowl refuge, and there are a lot of naturalists across Ontario who are very, very interested in the future of that site and how it's to be managed.

I guess I'm a little bit in the hands of the member. I'd like to hear what advice she might give us. There are a number of options that obviously have to be dealt with in any development of the master plan and completion of it. Should we allow hunting to continue or should there perhaps be -- I don't know -- sanctuaries on the island? Maybe there could be changes to the kind of hunt, along the lines of Point Pelee and other options. I'm certainly aware that the bird-watching fraternity or sorority -- I don't know what you call it: community? -- is very concerned and would like to see an elimination of hunting as part of a completion of the master plan, but I must say that at this particular time we don't have the funding budgeted to complete the plan.

Mrs Fawcett: What you're saying, then, is the plan hasn't been completed yet.

Hon Mr Wildman: No. We wouldn't want to go --

Mrs Fawcett: Is there ongoing consultation with the groups, or has there been?

Hon Mr Wildman: No, that's the problem. We would not complete the plan without a consultation with all interested groups --

Mrs Fawcett: But that involves cost.

Hon Mr Wildman: -- and that's where the cost is.

As I said, if there were no controversy, it might be as little as $25,000, in which case we obviously would be able to proceed, but if we're looking at a major consultation around particularly the issue of hunting, it could be 10 or more times that amount of money involved because we'd want to ensure that it was a full consultation and that all groups, the naturalists, the local people, the people with interest in parks generally, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Federation of Naturalists and so on, would be consulted, and the tourist industry as well. This might in fact entail a significant effort at a great deal of cost.

Mrs Fawcett: I know that it is quite unique. Is there another park where there is a real problem like that with the recreation versus the hunting?

Hon Mr Wildman: Point Pelee is similar. That's why I referred to it before. At Point Pelee, as I understand it, they have eliminated the use of lead shot. They allow the hunt to continue but with steel shot rather than lead shot, and that's on sort of a pilot project basis.

Mrs Fawcett: So you don't really foresee a time frame yet. You haven't got down to a time frame where you might make a decision on this.

Hon Mr Wildman: No. As I said, I would be interested in your views as to whether or not we might proceed with some of the changes and consultations around any changes that might be proposed by the various groups prior to the completion of a master plan, whether we could begin those consultations now on a smaller scale.

Maybe that would be a way to approach it, as a way of gauging what kind of interest there might be from the public. If there was a good deal of interest, that would certainly give us an indication that we would be looking at an enormous or significant cost.

Mrs Fawcett: All right, I won't take up any more time, Minister, but I will be in touch. Thank you very much.

Mr Brown: While I would love to have the opportunity to hear all your responses --

Hon Mr Wildman: They're very brief. Did you get the material we tabled?

Mr Brown: Yes, but I haven't had a chance to peruse it.

Hon Mr Wildman: But I have some comments in response to some of your questions yesterday.

Mr Brown: Sure. Chair, how are we doing?

Hon Mr Wildman: I won't take very long.

The Chair: Yes. The minister has indicated his understanding of the time constraints, and he'll be brief.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. I think we dealt with the $6 fee on the outdoors card yesterday, and we dealt with the sports fishing licence, which will be keeping pace with inflation after three years of no increase.

You asked a question about the total classified complement, I believe, on the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr Brown: I think that's in the estimates.

Hon Mr Wildman: It's 4,836. Yesterday you asked about salary increases and wages. Mr Tough pointed out that salaries and wages includes a 4% salary award. We're tabling further information with you on that today.

There was a question yesterday -- I'm not sure if it was Mr Brown's -- about the cost of the old growth advisory committee's work. The ministry budgeted $300,000 for that, and that includes support staff, a very small staff, and salary.

There was a question about new provincial parks. No new provincial parks were created last year. No new protected areas were established under the endangered spaces program. However, we've made a commitment that we will identify new areas for protection of various types. There may be parks; there may be other methods of protection. We will be announcing those in the Parks Centennial Year next year. As you know, 1993 is the 100th anniversary of the establishment of Algonquin Park.

We dealt with the crown lot rentals yesterday. We're tabling further information today to what was discussed yesterday. Information is being tabled regarding park fees.

I think it was Mr McLean who asked a question about yellow perch. I won't go into that here.

Mr Brown: I think I asked it also.

Hon Mr Wildman: The rest of the questions that were either put verbally or were then tabled by Mr Brown yesterday are in the material that we're tabling with you today.

Mr Brown: I think I'll ask a few questions about my own riding.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's allowed.

Mr Brown: I wonder if you could give me the status of the Misery Bay Provincial Park, which was created among the 52 that were created in 1988 or 1989, and what the park plan is for the Misery Bay Provincial Park.

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't have that information offhand, but I can get it for you.

Mr Brown: Fine. The other question that relates directly to my riding is information regarding the Lake Huron fisheries research unit that is located at South Baymouth. This is a cause of some great concern to the people in the South Baymouth and Tehkummah area, where the research station is now located. They are concerned that the ministry may be consolidating that particular station.

Obviously, it would not be in the interests of the community, and in my view, not in the interests of the ministry. There's a first-class facility there that I've had the opportunity to tour, which was just recently upgraded, as a matter of fact. So the people in that area are very concerned with that, given the fact that the ferry season has been shortened this year by two weeks and given the fact that the government has seen fit to again raise the ferry fees. As the minister would know, that's terribly important to South Baymouth, which is located at the far southeast of Manitoulin.

1540

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't have specific information in that regard today. Mr Tough might be able to comment.

Mr George Tough: We did have a look at facilities, such as at the last round in which we were developing proposals for expenditure reduction, and we decided in the short run that we would not bring that forward as a candidate. We'll do what we can to preserve it as a function. We recognize its significance. No guarantees for the future, but for the moment we're satisfied that its contribution against its cost is a very definite plus.

Hon Mr Wildman: Perhaps I could just add that when we say "its contribution," we mean its contribution economically to South Baymouth, but also in terms of biological research in the fishery in Lake Huron.

Mr Brown: Thank you. I and my constituents appreciate that response. We understand that you cannot commit long-term for the future, but in the short term that's good and we hope that you will remember your words of today as time goes on.

Hon Mr Wildman: The same way I remember the words you quoted, at the beginning of the estimates, from last year's estimates.

Mr Brown: George is quite the conjurer.

I was concerned that I didn't get a direct answer, or at least I didn't think I did, to the question of third-party compensation in regard to land claim settlements. I expressed the concern that people in the non-aboriginal community have often been there for three or four or five generations adjacent to these lands, and have not had a process in place where they've had input before the decision seems to be made. I wondered what the government's view is regarding third-party compensation, not as to individuals, but as to businesses and perhaps even communities.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, that's a very important question. I'm sorry; you're right. I hadn't responded to that.

Perhaps if I could use one of our negotiations as an example, it might help me to answer you, and it's a claim that you're probably familiar with since it's in my riding, very close to yours: Mississagi number 8.

In that particular case, the federal and provincial governments and the first nation have been negotiating off and on for a long time. There has been some consultation with the municipalities and with the other local community over that period of time on a sort of hit-and-miss basis. All three parties came to a proposed settlement and there was, I think, understandable desire on the part of the federal government and the first nation to finalize that agreement. I felt, though, and I think you'd agree with me, that it would not be appropriate to move to a final agreement without proper consultation around issues such as the one you've raised.

We've set forward a three-month consultation period with the local communities -- Blind River-Iron Bridge area -- the municipalities, tourist outfitters, property owners, loggers and other businesses, to try and get their views and input before developing a final proposal. This is not a done deal. We're serious about this consultation and hope that the input we get in this consultation process will enable us to finalize an agreement that will take into account the concerns of the local population and local businesses.

In this particular case, there has been this negotiation going on, and we're now in the consultation period. To be honest with you, Mike, in future I would hope that it's done the other way around, that there will be the consultation and then we get into the negotiations, and that the consultation will be ongoing while the negotiations proceed.

Having said that, in terms of compensation in the Mississagi situation, we have and are seeking input and we haven't made final decisions, but it is conceivable, based on the input and the matters raised, that there might be compensation for businesses.

For instance, if you take a logger who has built roads in the area, obviously we will have the obligation of finding alternative timber limits for the logger and we will probably want to pay compensation for the construction of the roads the logging company has built in the area, and other improvements perhaps. Those moneys would, in our view -- this is certainly not something the first nation has agreed to -- be deducted from the moneys we would be involved in transferring as part of a final settlement.

We are prepared to look at other businesses, tourist outfitters and so on, if they can show a detrimental impact. Also, both for them and for residents, we have to deal with guarantees for access -- road access and access to lakes in the settlement, and questions about how management will be carried out in the future so they will not be detrimentally affected. If they can show some such effects, we would consider questions of compensation. We have not considered monetary compensation for residents whose access is guaranteed.

Mr Brown: Thank you.

The Chair: Keep going, Mr Brown; you're doing great.

Mr Brown: Good stuff. I understand that the Manitoulin land claim with the act has not been proclaimed. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't know the answer to that question. I'll find out for you. I was under the impression it had been.

Mr Brown: You may be right.

Hon Mr Wildman: But I will check that and find out for you.

Mr Brown: Thank you.

Hon Mr Wildman: There have been some questions, as you know, around shoreline reserves.

Mr Brown: I think there are also some questions -- I raised it in the House in the debate and I think you concurred with a description of properties.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes.

Mr Brown: I think that may be the holdup.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes.

Mr Brown: I would just like confirmation of where we're at.

Hon Mr Wildman: We've got somebody checking that now.

Mr Brown: Okay. Yesterday I had the opportunity to be out in the Rouge and I'm wondering what the government's position is with regard to the Rouge Valley provincial/national park. Will the provincial government be following the advisory committee's 70 recommendations?

Hon Mr Wildman: Currently, within the government, we have an interministerial task force working on the response. I've made a commitment to the Rouge Valley committee that it will have a response before the end of this calendar year. This is an ambitious timetable because, as you said, there are a lot of recommendations and they affect not just the Ministry of Natural Resources, but a large number of provincial ministries and agencies and their plans for the area, municipal plans as well as individual property owners. We are currently working on that and I've made a commitment that we will have a response, as a government, a corporate response, by the end of the year.

Mr Brown: So the document is being well circulated through the ministries now, I suspect, for comment?

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, it is, and we also have had discussions with the federal government about what its response will be and how we will be able to cooperate with it. I hope to be meeting with the federal minister, Pauline Browes, next week I think, to have further discussions with her.

1550

Mr Brown: The final question I have is regarding your MISA involvement. I think you, in some respects, spoke to Mr McLean, the member for Simcoe East, about the pulp and paper --

Hon Mr Wildman: I said it was intense and intimate.

Mr Brown: Yes, I was hoping to flesh that out slightly.

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously, the Ministry of the Environment is developing the proposals with regard to AOX, absorbable organic halides, and the pulp and paper industry, the whole question of chlorine, and has had significant discussions ongoing between the Ministry of Natural Resources staff and the Ministry of the Environment staff, along with discussions with the industry.

The assistant deputy minister, Mr Valley, who made a presentation before the committee yesterday, has been central to those discussions with the industry and with labour and also with the Ministry of the Environment. I understand that the Minister of the Environment hopes to finalize the position very soon and to make it known to the industry and to the public in the next few weeks and months.

Mr Brown: This is of course a significant decision.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, it is. It will have a significant impact on the industry.

Mr Brown: And on the environment.

Hon Mr Wildman: And on the environment. They estimate that the capital cost over about five years would be in the neighbourhood of $600 million.

Mr Brown: That depends of course, Minister, on what the actual regulations say.

Hon Mr Wildman: If there were a zero chlorine --

Mr Brown: We are concerned that the regulations, as they come out, are based on science, and I shall leave it at that.

Hon Mr Wildman: I understand what you're saying.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Brown and Ms Fawcett. Mr McLean.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Perhaps I could continue in the vein that I started off on yesterday. Because I haven't got time to wait to get replies to the few questions I have, I'd appreciate having them sent back to me in written form.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think the questions you raised are among those we've tabled the answers to today.

Mr McLean: I have some more questions, Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: All right.

Mr McLean: I went looking for some answers and I'll leave more of the time so that I can deal with the issue that I asked to be dealt with.

Hon Mr Wildman: Could I ask, since Mr Williams has come, if he could respond specifically to the question Mr McLean had about Rowntree Beach so that his trip will be of benefit to Mr McLean and to the public in Ontario?

The Chair: Mr Williams, do you have a plane to catch?

Mr Michael Williams: No.

The Chair: Fine. When Mr McLean's ready for you we'll let you know.

Mr McLean: That's right. The questions to start with, for the record: Has the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of Revenue recently reviewed the assessment on conservation lands? I have a question that was brought to my attention by a conservation authority.

On page 34 of the briefing book, vote 2903, we note a 1.5% increase in the ministry's allocation for resource management and protection. On page 57, vote 2903/5, we have what amounts to an 8.3% reduction in allocations to conservation authorities for administration and program operations. The 8.3% figure is arrived at by adding the $11 million for administration with the $13 million for program operations, for a total expenditure of $24 million. This was down from last year's expenditure of $26 million. Could the minister explain the variance between the allocation to the ministry and allocations to the authorities? I'll be looking for that answer in writing.

Hon Mr Wildman: Could I just tell you, as I've said in the estimates earlier, that we don't quarrel with your figure for the conservation authorities. Our position is that this is very similar to the total cut the ministry has experienced, which was in the neighbourhood of 10%.

Mr McLean: Tax revenues related to wildlife: I want to relate some of these figures, because of the figures that we were given yesterday, of what was indicated that this money is revenues from licensing and the amount that goes back out in tax revenues related to fish and wildlife. According to the figures of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, it's some $360 million. They indicate that wildlife activities generate more than 62,000 jobs. Wildlife expenditures by residents alone contribute more than $2.2 billion to the gross domestic product of the province annually, and that's the Ministry of Natural Resources' Looking Ahead: A Wild Life Strategy for Ontario.

When we look at the Ministry of Natural Resources' wildlife budget, there's only $28 million, and the amount is tax revenues that are raised through the various aspects of the ministry. We were looking for some clarification on that very issue.

The other issue that I wanted to raise is on the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. In some things they have been very critical of the ministry, and I just wanted to address a couple so that you'll have the opportunity, Minister, to clarify for the public some of the comments they have made. I think that's only fair.

They say that the ministry is underfunded, understaffed, and overstressed, they're not even getting enough to cover the costs of inflation, and that the same level of stress on the Ministry is beginning to take effect in our forests and our waters. They're indicating that wetlands forest management, poaching enforcement, wildlife and stock assessment, fishery stocking and research are just a few of the items that are suffering because of the lack of ministry funds in that direction.

Mr Morgan has said that the government cannot justify the ministry's tiny $59.4-million fisheries budget alone, because anglers contribute $105 million to the province each year through fishing licences, taxes and sales tax. They indicate that the MNR wildlife budget is even smaller. So there is a concern that the hunters and anglers have raised, and I think it only fair that you should have the opportunity to address it.

Hon Mr Wildman: In that regard, in addressing that, I indicated yesterday what the figures are. We agree that we certainly could use more resources, and we would welcome additional resources for fish and wildlife management. Having said that, though, a figure of over $300 million is just completely off the mark. It includes everything from sales taxes to gasoline taxes, income taxes, I suppose -- I don't know if it's income taxes, but sales taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on booze, taxes on cigarettes, taxes on any kind of gear or equipment purchased. Those kinds of taxes are paid by everyone in the province, not just by anglers.

Mr McLean: I understand that, and I wanted it on the record. That's why I asked those very important questions.

The other policy your government has is with regard to biologists. I read somewhere that the credentialism of biologists is not necessary.

Hon Mr Wildman: Are you in favour of credentialism?

Mr McLean: I would like to hear from your ministry why you are looking at changing that very policy. I think the biologists are looking to know why it's being changed also, and I haven't seen anything in writing that would show me why they should be changed, the credentials for the job description.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think Mr Tough would like to speak to that, but it relates to the whole philosophy of ecosystem management on a team basis, the reorganization of the ministry and the responsibility of professionals within the ministry and technicians within the ministry to be able to deal not just in a narrow focus as a forester, for instance, but also to be able to take into account fish and wildlife. A biologist should be able to look at not just wildlife, if he or she is a wildlife biologist, but at forestry values and so on. That's the reason for that, particularly when it comes to someone who's going to be a team leader. But I would like Mr Tough to be able to respond.

Mr McLean: Well, he can reply to me in writing.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters had another -- it's my time and I haven't got much --

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, sorry.

Mr McLean: -- so I'd kind of like to get it on the record so that he can reply.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, I'd just like to have on the record the correct information.

Mr McLean: Well, you'll be able to do that in writing.

The other aspect that's been brought to my attention is with regard to spawning walleye in the Thames River. Your staff have estimated that the Movaran band --

Hon Mr Wildman: Moraviantown.

Mr McLean: -- Moravian? -- takes 600,000 pounds of spawning walleye in the spring. Clearly the abuses of the conservation principles of the Sparrow decision -- this exceeds the food requirement for 300 people. What did you do to ensure this didn't happen this year? Why were you unsuccessful? And what charges were laid and what is planned? Perhaps we could get answers to those questions.

1600

The other news release I have here says, "Save Algonquin Park: Supreme Court Reasoning Suggests Golden Lake Band Does Not Have a Valid Aboriginal Right to Hunt in Algonquin Park." All indications have been that they do have that right, and some are saying not; perhaps we could have that clarified.

The final thing I have is with regard to the county of Simcoe tree nursery, the operation at Midhurst. It's due to be closed in 1993. The county of Simcoe has now become very concerned with regard to the aspects of this closing. It always had been indicated as one of the better tree nursery operations in the province. The question is, what study was done to determine that this tree nursery should be closed? All indications from the county have been that it has been operating at 85% efficiency. They want to know what study was done.

Hon Mr Wildman: We responded to that before you were here but we'd be happy to respond to you directly in writing.

Mr McLean: Good. January 9, I sent you a letter, Minister, with regard to the status of beaches along Georgian Bay in Tiny township. You replied to my letter on March 10.

"The ministry has made a commitment to respond to matters raised at the meetings over the next several months. In addition, ministry staff from the Huronia district office will meet with individual area associations and request a meeting."

Yes, I was at those meetings and they were well attended.

The question I'm getting from my constituents is this:

"The answer given by your ministry at question 5 does not purport to indicate the intention of the ministry but states categorically what actions the ministry will take. As a result of the ministry's stated position, I can see no reason why the ministry should not take the necessary steps to abandon its claims immediately in order to remove the cloud which exists in the subject properties....

"1. This litigation has created a cloud as a title of all properties along the disputed strip in Tiny township. Therefore, owners are not able to sell or mortgage their properties. As well, the properties have been devalued."

They're looking at five to six years of litigation; that's what we're getting at.

"The issue warrants government action today. Deferral will only create anxiety for the persons affected. This letter is respectfully submitted for your consideration."

These are the letters I've been getting, and I've been sending some to your office, Mr Minister, for a reply.

I would like the people to know what's happening in that area of the tree line and all the aspects of it.

The Chair: The minister has indicated that a Mr Mike Williams is here. If you would, please tell us your exact title and position with the ministry. You've been present for the questioning today; please proceed.

Mr Williams: My name is Michael Williams. I'm the district manager for Midhurst district Ministry of Natural Resources.

In response to your question, Mr McLean, I can advise you that the status of the Rowntree Beach law suit is that the crown will be proceeding to trial with a target date of April 1993. At the meetings which have been referred to in the correspondence that you read I believe there were requests presented to the ministry to consider two things to help resolve some of the residents' anxiety.

The first one was the matter of the Ministry of Natural Resources quit-claiming its interest in those properties. I can advise you that it was investigated by ministry staff and determined not to be feasible.

The second alternative that was put forth was the issue of special legislation. That matter is still being considered by ministry staff. It's presently under review, and we expect to have a decision on that in the near future.

Mr McLean: How near is the future you're talking about?

Mr Williams: In terms of a decision on the special legislation?

Mr McLean: Yes.

Mr Williams: We hope to be able to present a position to senior ministry management and the minister in the next couple of months.

Mr McLean: Would that be in the form of a type of bill, or just some of your recommendations that you see would be appropriate for the interest at that time?

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously Mr Williams and staff will make the recommendations to the senior staff; then I will consider them and make a decision on behalf of the ministry.

Mr McLean: He will make the recommendations in two months; then your senior staff will look at them and determine whether they're going to present them to the minister or not.

Hon Mr Wildman: They will present them to the minister.

Mr McLean: The senior staff will present them to the minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes.

Mr McLean: Are we looking at five to six years or two years?

Hon Mr Wildman: No, in a number of months. We hope to resolve this. That was the purpose of the meetings we had. Mr Williams and his staff handled those meetings very well and we appreciated your involvement in those meetings and the commitment you had to resolving the issue.

It's quite true that this has been ongoing for a long time. We would like to have it resolved and certainly all of the property owners involved would like to have it resolved. We don't intend to stall this at all. We want to ensure we do it right but that we are able to resolve it as best possible in the interests of everyone involved as soon as we can.

Mr McLean: Within a year.

Hon Mr Wildman: Certainly, we hope that would be the case, yes.

Mr McLean: Good.

The Chair: Mr McLean, would you allow a supplementary?

Mr McLean: Yes.

The Chair: Could someone advise me just how much money within the current estimates has been budgeted for the process of dealing with the Rowntree Beach residents and/or legal costs associated with the ministry's involvement at this time?

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Williams will be able to respond to that.

Mr Williams: Mr Chairman, I can tell you that in the matter of legal costs, the crown is paying the legal costs for the Rowntree Beach Association to defend its action, and those costs are budgeted at approximately $100,000 per year. That is per the ministry fiscal year. The costs the ministry is incurring are costs of its classified staff to deal with the issue and also the Ministry of the Attorney General, which has assigned crown counsel to represent the ministry.

The Chair: So it's a combination of your current budget year allocation plus additional resources from the AG's office in order to conduct this suit.

Mr Williams: Yes, sir, that's correct.

Hon Mr Wildman: And we're paying the other side's costs.

The Chair: Yes, it's an intervenor funding type arrangement. No, I was pleased. Several of my constituents are affected and I've had occasion to read the detailed documentation. I certainly want to echo Mr McLean's concerns on their behalf.

Mr McLean: The other question I have, Mr Minister, and I don't know who's going to answer it, relates to the management plan for Lake Huron. This issue has been raised in the Legislature. I've made a statement, the member for Huron has also raised the issue in a question to you, and the concern is that the plan not be implemented in its draft form without public discussion. Can you give me an update on what's happening with the Lake Huron management study?

Hon Mr Wildman: No, but we took your comments and the comments of the member for Huron very seriously and obviously we would want to have proper public input. I don't know whether we have anyone who can speak more specifically to what's happening.

Mr Brown: Just supplementary to that, is this the shoreline management? What exact plan are we talking about?

Mr McLean: The proposed shoreline management for Lake Huron.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, the shoreline management plan.

Mr Brown: Fine, thanks.

Hon Mr Wildman: We're proceeding with shoreline management planning along the whole Great Lakes but obviously we have to ensure there's proper consultation with municipalities, property owners and so on. If you'd like an update as to where we're at with the shoreline management plan, we can provide that to you in writing.

Mr McLean: I wonder if it would be possible for the manager of Huronia district to send a letter to the people affected in Tiny township, indicating to them the processes that seem to be in place now, so that they would have some assurances of whether they want to sell their property or -- I mean, people are sitting there with a cloud over their heads. They really don't know what they should do, what their next move is or, as this person indicates, five to six years. Well, if it's one year or less, it would certainly sound a lot nicer to me. I wonder if the staff could --

Hon Mr Wildman: I'd like Mr Williams to respond, but I think, obviously, we must take the lead from legal counsel in this regard. Other than that, if Mr Williams wants to add in response.

Mr Williams: Thank you. One of the things we have been doing, Mr McLean, is discussing one-on-one with the area residents who have concerns. They come in and they deal with my staff on this and we've been trying to keep them abreast of developments. As well, I've had personal discussions with the reeve of the municipality to make sure they are updated on it.

As far as we believe, it's our understanding that the community realizes the trial is scheduled for this spring. We will be undertaking the examinations for discovery and hopefully have them completed some time this winter. That information is generally out in the community. I would be pleased to respond to any individuals who would come into the office with specific concerns around title of their property and give them the full story around the timing of the lawsuit.

1610

Mr McLean: Thank you. My short last question is this: On my expedition for my week off I was in a little restaurant in a little place called Plevna and they had placemats there, compliments of the Ministry of Natural Resources. They were laminated and they were pretty nice. As a matter of fact, I have one and I haven't got it with me. They had some nice pictures of tackles and lures on them.

Hon Mr Wildman: I hope you told the store you took it.

Mr McLean: My friend, I asked if I could have one. That's for sure.

The Chair: That's why I don't invite him over to my house for dinner any more.

Mr McLean: I would like to know what the cost was to the ministry to have them laminated and sent out to the restaurants in the province of Ontario.

Mr Tough: Were they sponsored? Was there advertising on them?

Mr McLean: Oh, yes, I presume it was probably the lures or something, but it said, "Compliments of the Ministry of Natural Resources."

Hon Mr Wildman: We can find out how that was done.

Mr McLean: I have a feeling they were sponsored.

The Chair: Sounds like a clever private sector cooperative venture to me. Mr Williams, thank you very much for being present today, and thank you, Minister, for inviting him.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): How much time does Mr Lessard need?

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): A couple of minutes.

Mr Bisson: A couple of minutes. Okay.

I've got a number of questions to ask you. As I said the other day, there is probably no ministry in northern Ontario that affects northerners as much as Northern Development -- the Ministry of Natural Resources -- Northern Development, if you like, because we do things to help them but as far as --

Hon Mr Wildman: It's just because you're the parliamentary assistant.

The Chair: Just sit back and enjoy the dancing here, please.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Moose tags, cottage lands, hunting issues and whatever are all issues that the people in the north feel strongly about. One of the things that's come up in my area -- and I know reading papers around the province, it's also an issue in other places -- is the whole question of overfishing, and I'll give you an example.

Lake Abitibi, part of my riding and part of Cochrane North, is a nice, beautiful lake up there that used to probably have some of the best pickerel fishing bar none around the province of Ontario. Over the years what's happened with the innovation of skidoos and people being able to get out to remote lakes such as they never were able to before is there's a huge amount of fish being taken out of those lakes in the winter.

There was one, I think it was somewhere around the Thames River, there was the same thing going on at the same time. I don't know if it's because of the winter issue, but I remember reading about it somewhere.

I know, talking to local ministry people, they feel somewhat frustrated because on the one hand the outfitters have their right to bring people in there -- nobody wants to be out there trying to stop people from getting on a lake at one point -- but has the ministry contemplated any way of trying to regulate fishing in areas like that that are somewhat sensitive at this point?

Hon Mr Wildman: You've actually raised two different issues. They're very different but they're also both very important.

There's no question that snowmobiles have made many bodies of water that were more remote and somewhat inaccessible easily accessible now in winter and, as a result, there is a lot greater pressure put on inland lakes than there might have been in the past.

It's a very difficult issue, as you would know, particularly if it relates to logging in the area where forest access roads have been constructed into an area where there weren't any roads before. Obviously then the snowmobilers can use the road right of way to access the lakes very easily. The local anglers, rod and gun clubs, local residents generally take the view that if a road has been constructed they should be able to use it.

On the other hand -- and this does lead to overfishing in some cases and a great deal of pressure -- we do creel census on lakes and we can put lower limits on what can be taken by an individual angler. We can also in some cases establish sanctuaries, actually close a lake to fishing. In other cases we can, as part of the timber management planning process, close the road. That doesn't prevent people from going in on snow machines, but they wouldn't be able to go in on the road right of way.

This is very controversial. In the past, I'm sure it was just a coincidence, but there seemed to be a number of flash floods that used to take place on roads that the ministry wanted to close, just coincidentally.

Mr Brown: Did you train the beavers?

Hon Mr Wildman: Anyway, the end result was a very, very deep trench across the road.

Mr Bisson: It's funny. Just on the road, nowhere else.

Hon Mr Wildman: In some cases, though, enterprising anglers, particularly if they were themselves bush operators, bûcherons, build bridges across those trenches. There are other cases where gates have been established, and this has been very, very controversial and caused a great deal of anguish. This is particularly a problem if a lake has got an outpost camp on the lake, where the tourist outfitter is paying a land use permit for a fly-in operation and suddenly this is accessible by snow machine or by vehicle.

In the past, we've been trying to work out a question of how we deal with these issues. My preference is to try to work out consensus agreements, if we can do that, through consultation in the local communities involving the forest companies, the tourist outfitters, if they're involved, the rod and gun clubs, the municipalities and so on to try to work out agreements.

These aren't always easy, because there are very diametrically opposed views held, but that's how we're trying to do it. In most cases it might be preferable if we looked at the question of posting roads for closure, if they must be closed, rather than putting up gates and so on, and perhaps designating that the road could not be used to access a particular designated tourist lake or a lake that has experienced overfishing, as opposed to closing out a whole area by closing off the road.

Mr Bisson: But I think the question of public education has a lot to do with what you can try to effect. Some of the suggestions I've heard from around the community are such as doing a public education campaign from the local MNR, talking about the overfishing in the winter on a lake like that. The other thing is possibly saying, let's limit the season to fish that lake in the winter. That's the other thing that's being talked about.

Hon Mr Wildman: The other proposal, as George has reminded me, is the option of catch and release, where someone can go in and have an angling experience but is not harming the fish stocks. There are all those options.

You talked about the Thames River. That's of course in southwestern Ontario, and it was referred to by my friend from Simcoe in his questioning. Moraviantown is a Delaware community, and it has had a long tradition for many, many years of fishing and taking substantial fish for the community use. That has been a difficult one.

I've had correspondence with the chief on this, and the chief has attempted to respond. There appear to be elements in the community, though, who are not as willing to respond to the concerns of the non-native community about its traditional use, because it is a tradition.

There have been accusations that this has caused overfishing. I, as a layman, have asked our biologists if fishing and spawning is in fact harming the stocks, and they say it's not easy to say yes or no to that. As a matter of fact, we've had a study done by a fisheries biologist in that area, and his assessment is that fishing by either natives or non-natives is not the main reason for the dwindling stocks, but rather habitat quality, the deterioration of the river, the water quality, is the reason for the declining fish stocks.

I've heard in the press about the seizure of a significant poundage of fish in the area. I want to emphasize I've heard about that in the press. I do not have anything to do with investigations or charges. In that particular case, as I understand it from the press, charges have not been laid as yet, but the investigation is ongoing.

1620

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I have two quick questions. First, I would like to hear Mr Tough's response to Mr McLean's question about the biologists.

Hon Mr Wildman: Accreditation.

Ms Haeck: Yes, accreditation.

Hon Mr Wildman: Credentialism.

Ms Haeck: Right. I was involved with Colleges and Universities at some time, so I am interested in what you have to say in that area.

Mr Tough: I very much appreciate the opportunity.

The Chair: If I might just suggest something here, my obligation as Chair is to get all the questions out.

Ms Haeck: Okay. If you want me to place my second one, I'd be very happy to.

The Chair: Yes, and if time remains, then we'll return to that, but Mr Bisson had an additional question, Mr Lessard has been waiting patiently, and since we are anticipating that written response, I would like to get new questions on the record.

Ms Haeck: The second one will be very short. Some people in my area are very concerned about wetlands. We have a major one in our area, in the Port Colborne area, and I know that is an issue. How are we, as a province, accumulating and saving wetlands in the province at the present time?

Hon Mr Wildman: Just on the wetlands, I indicated earlier in the estimates that we announced at the end of June a wetlands policy statement under section 3 of the Planning Act. Wetlands in southern Ontario have been classified. The class 1, 2 and 3 wetlands are protected under this policy statement. Municipalities and planning authorities have to take into account the policy statement in their planning processes.

In terms of the specific one that you raise, if you could give us the details of it after the estimates, we would be happy to respond to the specific one that is of particular interest to you.

Mr Lessard: My question is going to be very short. You may not have an answer today, but seeing as we have this opportunity to ask the minister questions, I know my colleagues from Windsor would be interested in what you might have to say about the Assumption seawall project on the Detroit River that we've been lobbying for since we were elected. It's a seawall that is required to protect some public parkland. I understand there's a sewer that runs through that park as well which may be threatened if there's further erosion in that park.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Cooke and Mr Dadamo have also raised this matter with me. As I understand it, we recognize there is a need for some capital expenditures on the seawall. We had hoped to be able to identify some funding for that and as yet we have not been able to, but I understand the need and I appreciate your bringing it forward. We would be happy to have some further discussions with you and your colleagues, and I'm sure we will have about this issue, to be able to see if we can respond to what is certainly a significant need. And a significant cost, I might add. What's the figure that Mr Dadamo gave us?

Interjection: Too large.

Mr Lessard: It's very high. Building seawalls on rivers is an expensive proposition. I understand that.

The Chair: Mr Bisson, you had a question that you wanted to put?

Mr Bisson: Just very quickly. One of the problems we're having is the question of adequate land being made available for cottagers around our area. I won't give you numbers, but there are quite a few. I would say probably 40 or 50 people have come to my office saying, "We're trying to get cottage land in order to build cottages up in our area." MNR is not making it available, for some reasons that are good and some reasons that sometimes I wonder about. This is forcing some people to build squatters' cabins, unregulated camping basically, without land use permits. They're just going and putting some things up, and that obviously inflames people.

Hon Mr Wildman: That sometimes inflames the cabin too if it's found.

Mr Bisson: Exactly. The point is, what can the MNR do? It would be a good thing for the local economy as far as the sale of local materials is concerned and tradespeople to build some of this stuff. It's obviously something people in our area want. What can be done?

Hon Mr Wildman: I'd like to answer that quickly, and I'll have some further discussions with you. Obviously, we have to do proper lake management planning because we don't want to allow for a lot development on a lake and find that it comes under significant pressure, such as Lake Simcoe has, which my friend raised in the estimates, and the question of phosphorus development, pollution of the lake and harming the fish stocks.

We have to take that into account and we only have a certain amount of money for such lake management planning, but I'd like to talk to you further about that. If there's any time left, Mr Chair, I'd like the deputy to respond, if he could, very quickly, to the question of credentialism. Do we have the time?

The Chair: Actually, I'll tell you, to be perfectly frank, I need some time to do the votes. I was about to compliment you and your ministry for what I have to say is one of the timeliest responses for questions. I want to commend your staff. We do not get that level of cooperation and support. If you can make that to your senior staff on behalf of this committee, I know all members will agree with me, especially those who are regular members of this committee.

Hon Mr Wildman: Thank you.

The Chair: But it should be noted because it has been exceptional and it is appreciated.

I'm not saying I understand all the content, but it was deeply appreciated because that does help this process and it's an important process. We thank you.

Minister, I'd like to reserve just a moment for you, and if Mr Brown wanted to say something, but I wish to proceed almost immediately to the votes. Although we have a bit of time left, by prior agreement we wish to call the votes in the matter of a minute or two.

Hon Mr Wildman: Okay. In that regard, we can respond to the question of credentialism by tabling some information with the committee, if that's acceptable.

I'd just like to express my thanks to the members of the committee, to my opposition critics, members of the opposition parties and the government party for their participation and their insightful questions and to express my thanks to the staff and also to express my thanks to you, the clerk and the staff of the committee for the way the estimates have been conducted.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Minister.

Mr Brown: I'd like to thank the minister and the staff for their help and assistance in providing the information. I would echo the Chair's comments that having the information provided quickly is helpful to all members of the committee. I'm not certain, because I haven't had an opportunity to go through the answers, that we have all the responses, but if we don't, I'm sure the ministry will supply them at the earliest possible date.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'm sure you'll ask.

Mr Brown: I'm sure I will too.

The Chair: They will be circulated through the clerk to all members of the committee. As I indicated earlier then, the time for estimates by this committee is deemed to be completed. I'd like to proceed with the vote.

Shall vote 2901 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall vote 2902 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 2903 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall the 1992-93 estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources be reported to the House? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

This estimates of the ministry are completed. I would like to declare a five-minute recess. This committee stands adjourned for five minutes.

The committee recessed at 1629 and resumed at 1638.

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

The Chair: I'd like to reconvene and call to order the standing committee on estimates to begin the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. By way of preliminary information, in accordance with our standing rules, we are required to report to the House by the third Thursday of November and, as such, today represents our last day. Unfortunately, even though we've been assigned seven and a half hours to complete our estimates of this ministry, we were unable to gain the additional time requested by the committee from the government House leader. For that reason we will proceed, and at 6 o'clock it would be the Chair's intention to call for the votes of this ministry so that we can report this ministry completed. In accordance with our standing orders, the minister has up to 30 minutes for his opening statement, if he chooses to use it as an opening statement, and then the Chair will recognize the official opposition, who will have up to 30 minutes. Mr Curling, you can use that time any way you see fit, sir. Then the final 30 minutes will be afforded to the third party. If I might, by agreement, when I recognize the clock, if we can each have approximately 25 minutes, then we can complete by 6 o'clock. With that understanding, I would like to welcome the minister here to his estimates, and his deputy. Minister, we're in your hands. Please proceed.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I do have a prepared statement that I'd like to reference. It will represent my opening statement. As I say, thank you, I think, for the opportunity to be here to present the estimates on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for the fiscal year 1992-93.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General's primary goal is to enhance public safety and security in Ontario. The ministry, as you know, is the civilian authority for the Ontario Provincial Police. We also oversee all municipal and regional police services in the province. Through the office of the fire marshal, we maintain standards for fire safety services province-wide. The office of the coroner determines the cause of death in unusual circumstances. The ministry also oversees forensic science and pathology services and coordinates emergency planning here in Ontario.

Before examining in some detail my ministry's agenda on all public safety issues, I want to take a few moments to address head-on a current issue of primary concern to me, my ministry and this government.

Maintenance of the highest possible level of public safety is of primary concern to this ministry. This government recognizes its responsibility to provide police with the tools, training and support required to do their job. Policing in the current Ontario environment is a very tough task. But the policing profession faces a myriad of challenges, both externally and internally. In my view, I'd like to say that police are doing a very admirable job. This government supports them in their task, as does, rightfully so, the Ontario public.

It is my role as Solicitor General and that of this government to provide constructive leadership which assists the institution of policing in its evolution and to meet the needs of the community which it serves.

This government recognizes that listening is a part of that leadership process. It is important that positive adaptations and changes to policing practices are made in an atmosphere of openness, trust, dialogue and consultation. But as we come to the end of this process, it must be fully understood that government has been elected to make laws and that police are hired to enforce those laws. To question this relationship even at the most basic level is, in my view, to erode a principle which is vital to our democracy.

Having said this, I want to clarify a few key points surrounding the current regulation on the use of force, specifically the requirements for reporting, which are of most immediate concern to police. The new section 12.5(1)(a) of regulation 790 calls for a member of a police force to submit a report whenever an officer "draws a handgun in the presence of a member of the public, excluding a member of the police force, while on duty, or discharges a firearm." I have said publicly, and the Premier has said publicly, that the report is not intended for disciplinary purposes. I am going to quote four points from those draft standards.

Firstly, "Use-of-force reports are collected and used only to identify individual and group training requirements or organizational use-of-force policy requirements."

Secondly, "Use-of-force reports shall not be introduced, quoted from, or in any way referred to during disciplinary proceedings."

Thirdly, "Use-of-force reports shall not be introduced, quoted from, or in any way referred to during considerations of promotion or job assignment."

Lastly: "No information from use-of-force reports shall be held in an officer's personnel file. It may be held in use-of-force training files."

I might add that we are currently reviewing, within the legal branch of my ministry, the possibility of including provisions that would guarantee that reports filed by officers when they unholster guns would not be used against them.

These key points address what I understand to be the main concerns of police about this regulation, which will go into effect on January 1, 1993.

The ministry is working with the police community through the standards advisory committee to develop an acceptable, standardized form and detailed administrative standards.

There are a number of additional major benefits to both the police and the public, which I believe to be both progressive and beneficial.

Police, as you know, have a very special place in our democratic society and we give to them and convey to them very special powers. One of them is the authority to use force, including lethal force, in upholding the law. A high degree of civil accountability necessarily comes with this power. The public has the right to know that those vested with special powers are using the authority appropriately.

The legislation continues to provide police with clear direction and the legal authority to use force in certain circumstances. This protects the police from disciplinary action under the Police Services Act.

In the interests of officer safety, the legislation requires that less-than-lethal-force options must meet and be in accordance with technical standards that I, as minister, will establish.

The regulation also approves the use of aerosol weapons such as capsicum, often referred to as pepper spray, which expands an officer's ability to defuse a situation before it reaches the point where lethal force might be required.

There's also greater protection for police and public through enhanced training for police officers, both for new recruits and for officers doing in-service.

The use-of-force regulation is a good regulation. It balances the need of the police and the public and contributes to greater public and officer safety alike.

I would like to leave that area for a moment, if I may, and I'd like to speak now about the estimates that we have put forth for the fiscal year 1992-93 and to show you how these funds will help us meet our mission and our strategic directions and assist the government in meeting our identified priorities.

Of our total allocation of $582 million, you will find that most of the funds go to payroll and associated operating costs for essential services. Funding in transfer payments is largely dedicated to assisting community sexual assault centres.

Of the total 1992-93 expenditure allocation of the $582 million I mentioned, some $134 million was previously authorized under a special warrant. The ministry operating expenditure allocation is $577 million with another $5 million allocated for capital expenditures, adding up to a total budget of some $582 million.

The government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Solicitor General are committed to supporting the highest possible level of policing and public safety. To this end, the ministry has allocated some $498 million to policing for the fiscal year 1992-93, both in the policing services program and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The policing services program is responsible for promoting excellence in policing through training, development of professional standards and programs and for providing an advisory and liaison service to the police community. For 1992-93 a total of $22 million has been set side for operating funds for program administration, the Ontario Police College and policing standards and support services.

1650

Within the police services program, policing standards and support services have estimated their total operating costs at $11 million. These funds will be used to develop professional standards on police conduct and procedures, design new programs, ensure the effectiveness of current programs and assess the adequacy of policing services across the province. Information and assistance with law enforcement is provided to the police community. A further $1.6 million of capital funding have been provided to complete the acquisition and installation of digitally encrypted radios for the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario to enhance criminal investigations.

Also within the police services program, the 1992-93 estimates for the Ontario Police College total nearly $9 million. With these funds, we are providing a complete training program for all police services in Ontario, from probationary constables through to supervisory and management levels. This will ensure that all police personnel have the training required to deal with the multifaceted society in Ontario today. For the 1992-93 fiscal year, an estimated 17,500 student-weeks of police training will be provided.

The Ontario Provincial Police is our single largest program in the ministry. The OPP has estimated $471 million for both operating expenditures and capital for the telecommunications system. With these funds the OPP provides uniform and impartial law enforcement in all areas of this province which are under its jurisdiction, and renders assistance and services, upon request, to other law enforcement agencies.

Capital expenditures for the OPP telecommunications system are estimated at $2.5 million, and this funding will allow the OPP to investigate approximately 154,500 Criminal Code occurrences, 2,000 drug-related occurrences, 10,000-plus Criminal Code traffic occurrences and some 83,000 motor vehicle accidents.

In the area of public safety, our program of the ministry will spend some $47 million. Coroners' and forensic services require $25 million for their particular investigations. They investigate unexplained deaths and, if required, determine the cause of death and produce evidence in legally admissible form. They assist in the just and effective enforcement of the law by means of scientific examination, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of physical objects and materials. This funding will be used for a number of investigative activities, including an estimated 8,900 cases completed by the centre of forensic sciences, 31,000 coroners' investigations, 150 coroners' inquests and 1,400 autopsies.

The office of the fire marshal estimates total expenditures of some $21 million for fire safety services. This program aims to prevent or at least minimize the loss of life or property from fire by coordinating, directing and advising on fire prevention, firefighting, training and fire investigation. They will conduct an estimated 1,750 investigations and will train 2,170 students this fiscal year.

As well, Emergency Planning Ontario requires just over $1 million, and it will coordinate emergency planning activities in the province. As part of its activities, it plans to train 702 municipal officials in emergency preparedness.

To turn to ministry administration, I'm pleased to advise that of our total expenditures, some $36 million is allocated to this particular function. There are a variety of activities that are covered there, including policy development and coordination, representation in cabinet committees and participation in programs shared with other ministries. They provide financial services and accommodation services. They provide human resources services and employment equity programs, as well as communication services, French-language services and freedom of information services. Additionally, they are involved in legal services and information technology.

An additional $9 million is provided to the public through the ministry's community initiatives unit. Transfer payments go out to various agencies to fund services in a number of community programs. Sexual assault centres provide counselling to survivors of sexual assault, and staff also undertake educational and community forums.

Training for police who will be called upon to investigate sexual assault is also funded under this program. The wife assault prevention program provides a multitude of services to assist in the prevention of wife assault, including education. The victim assistance service program provides support to community groups in the development and operation of holistic crisis assistance services to victims of crime, tragic circumstances and disaster.

In conclusion then, the ministry is committed to crime prevention and to public safety programs and policies which respond to the needs of Ontario's communities. These objectives are achieved through fair policies and accessible services that reflect community needs and enhance community justice.

The ministry is committed to partnerships with the private and public sectors and with municipalities. We are responding to the changing needs of society through prevention and community-based programs.

We have identified strategies to help us implement our agenda, and these are through community policing, race relations and employment equity, victim services, implementation of the Police Services Act, training, first nations public safety and, of course, technology.

I am mindful of the fact that we do not operate just within our own doors. We must ask ourselves as well, how are we meeting the government's agenda? I'd like to say that we are contributing to regional and rural renewal through a decision to relocate the Ontario Provincial Police general headquarters and the administration division of the ministry to Orillia. As well, the ministry is participating in the discussions on disentanglement with respect to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario through their representatives.

We play a key role in the implementation of the Stephen Lewis recommendations, and we recently announced the establishment of a Race Relations and Policing Monitoring Audit Board. This particular board will help develop race relations audit standards, provide support for police services and ensure that progress is being made in improving the relationship between police and minority communities.

We also announced the transfer of the special investigations unit to the Ministry of the Attorney General as an arm's-length agency. A change was announced in the role of the Police Complaints Board, as well as requiring the agency to conduct initial investigations of all complaints of racial discrimination on the part of police.

With respect to the special investigations unit, I am pleased to advise as well that that particular unit has been resourced in a much stronger way than it had previously, and I'm sure that will be of great benefit to that particular unit as it moves to its new location with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Consultations have been completed by my ministry on police education requirements following the release in September of the final report of the strategic planning committee on police training and education. As you may know, the government announced a Commission on Race Relations in Criminal Justice to study and make recommendations on a wide range of issues, including the implementation of community policing and preventing systemic racism through the selection, education, training, promotion and discipline of decision-makers in the criminal justice system.

1700

As well, violence against women, children and the vulnerable has been firmly established as a priority for this government. Our ministry plays a lead role in this area with funding we provide to assist victims of family violence, sexual assault and other crime and tragic circumstances. The ministry also is pleased to be assisting the government in meeting our aboriginal agenda in a variety of ways. First, the first nations policing is a priority with the Ontario Provincial Police. We continue to support first nations self-policing through tripartite negotiations on the development of new first nations policing arrangements in the province of Ontario. We are increasing the number of first nation constables receiving training, and we are striving for enhanced public safety in fire and emergency planning services to first nations as well.

Mr Chairman, this, I hope, provides some general overview and insight into the 1992-93 estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I thank yourself and the members of the committee for allowing the opportunity and perhaps I can assist the committee members in responding to questions that they may have of the estimates.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Minister. Mr Curling.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I thank the Solicitor General for making his presentation. I must express, though, my disappointment in the time frame that an important area of this government like policing and public safety -- we're just given -- not given, but it seemed to have worked out for only half an hour, 25 minutes, of response and questions. I would say this has been one of the most hotly debated ministries, and ministers, in the last two years. It's unfortunate that only that time will be allowed.

The Chair: Mr Curling, I don't wish to interrupt you, but I should suggest to you, sir, that the selection of the ministries is done by the committee, so if it was not deemed to be a priority, it was deemed not to be a priority by all three parties until it got to this rank, and we have in fact run out of time. Just for the record, I appreciate your point, but I felt it important; the process is one that each of the three political parties chooses its ministries, and this is, I believe, the 10th out of 14 ministries in the selection for this year. I just wanted to put that on the record as well.

Mr Curling: I understand all that, Mr Chairman, but the point has got to be made, because it is an issue that has to be addressed, and I had hoped at some length. Maybe if it was a priority, seven and a half hours would have been dealt to this. However, we have 25 minutes to do so.

I'm sure the Solicitor General is quite aware, having read the mandate and his responsibility -- and I'm sure he takes his responsibility quite seriously -- we have seen over the last couple of years that crime has increased immensely, especially in the Metro area. There's a great demand of policing that's required by the government and by the police. We've also seen not only that it is a matter of the Metro area, but in the rural communities, that policing demands are needed. We've seen also a tremendous underfunding of policing in those areas, and the cry will be for more.

We've also seen in the couple of years that the police force is being demoralized, and there seems to be an alienation between the police and the government, the police and the community. I'm not here to lodge any complaint or to lay a complaint to anyone, but to make it emphatic that this is happening and it is causing tremendous concern in the community. I hope the Solicitor General will find some way in which to bring about a better relationship with the police, because the communities themselves are rather concerned and they need good policing.

The police confidence in the ability of the Solicitor General has been somehow -- they feel that he has mismanaged the situation, and I want to put on record that I believe that the Solicitor General is trying his best. I'm not quite sure if that best itself is helping out. It's a difficult task. In our regime as the Liberal government, we have seen three different solicitors general, so I know the challenge that you have ahead. I want to put on record too that my party is prepared to assist in whatever way to make sure that we have the best type of policing in this community. The mandate that you had expressed, Mr Solicitor General, of course, on public safety goes beyond policing in Metropolitan Toronto. We have seen somehow that a lot of time has been wasted; I would say wasted on issues like -- and I call it Sunday shopping. A lot of energy has been wasted there. At one stage, you know that your government tried its best to say there should be no Sunday shopping. It comes under your jurisdiction. Then, at the end, you succumb to it by saying, "Yes, we will have Sunday shopping." I just wondered if those types of energies could have been better used. I was just going to try to raise a couple of areas for discussion, just raise them and later on maybe some time, maybe in the House, you will take these under advisement and understand the concerns that we have.

The SIU, the special investigations unit: Osler, your former chairman, had criticized the inadequate resources to conduct independent investigations in the past, which has continued to remain a valid point in that the resources are not there. There are many questions about the quality of investigations that the unit is able to carry out, and I cite one case, for instance, the one in Ottawa, the Gardiner case, in which investigators have never been interviewed and have never interviewed the victim, not that I'm aware of. I wonder what type of investigation could be conducted without the victim being interviewed.

Another case that came to my attention: The investigators report that the victim had been shot in the chest, despite the fact that the pathologist's report indicated that the victim had been shot in the back. Also, the length of time the investigation had taken.

I'm just saying some of these things are so inadequate. Maybe these investigators need to be trained. The point was made about proper training for these investigators. We know, of course, that these investigators are former police officers. But we also know that the community has changed dramatically, so that the investigation has to be more sophisticated, and we fear their lack of funds with which to train those investigators. I think your ministry needs to look very closely at that.

We of course have seen that and we know that we have approximately 22,000 police officers, and the population of this province is approximately 10 million people. Maybe we should have some sort of comparison saying that if we have investigators, it should equate somehow with the type of population that we have. There are inadequate investigators within that area.

1710

Another area I'd like to bring, to point to is the forensic sciences centre. You and I know about the tremendous amount of backlog that remains, and there is a very serious issue which in some cases may be having an impact in regard to investigations and also prosecutions. I'm sure some officers must be saying to themselves, "What's the use in bringing evidence forward if it's never going to be dealt with?" Yet, Mr Minister, your ministry appears to have made very dramatic cuts in that coroners' and forensic services budget. I think the action really baffles me but is not quite surprising itself.

Furthermore, we have yet to hear you respond to the questions which have been raised about the way in which the centre handles evidence in cases where HIV may be an issue. An especially blatant example of this was the delay in dealing with evidence because of the victim's sexual orientation, and the Gligor case in Kitchener-Waterloo comes to mind.

Another area: the review of the tactical units. As a matter of fact, we have heard nothing from your ministry in response to this important public safety issue. Indeed, as late as this past summer, your ministry said the Solicitor General had not even read the report. I hope you've had some time. The report is not a very large report. As a matter of fact, I think it's about 72 pages long. One of the worst things to happen to anyone is if one is too busy to do one's job. In the meantime there have been other tragic incidents, and you may address that issue in getting to that report and be able able to respond to those recommendations.

You mentioned police training. Your response to this issue has been an example of too little, too late. The Solicitor General's view: Sir, if you had acted earlier, it is possible that the recent tragic shooting of the diagnosed schizophrenic could have been avoided. I'm speaking of the Sabatino case. Police have raised that. As a matter of fact, this is not the only case where it happened in that instance; I think training would have helped, and cooperation in other areas could have helped this situation. They're inadequate to deal with those instances, and I'm sure training could be helpful.

No matter what kinds of standards the Solicitor General has announced, the fact remains that municipalities, which would be required to pay the bulk of the costs of training, may not be able to afford to really effect the kind of police training that is needed. I'd like to know what guarantee you could give, sir, that the new training measures will be implemented.

The time frames for the implementation of the measures announced by you are unrealistic and the provincial support is inadequate. I gather you will spend $5.6 million to train 22,000 police officers. When I work that out, it's roughly about $450 per officer.

Coming from my background in community college and understanding about training and costs, this is completely inadequate. I think more has got to be given in that area and I don't know how far that $450 will go. Furthermore, it should be noted that you have actually reduced the budget of the Ontario Police College. How this will help training really remains to be seen.

It would be instructive to note that although spending in the policing services program has been cut by over $1 million -- and this one really baffles me and maybe the deputy is in a better position to tell me how this would come about -- the spending on the program administration bureaucracy appears to have been actually increased by $0.5 million. We reduce the work in the program and we increase the bureaucracy costs. Maybe we're paying some highly paid bureaucrats in there; I don't know. Compare this to the nearly $1.5 million cut from the police college and the police standards and support services.

I think the ministry needs to ensure and upgrade the emergency dispatchers, particularly in the rural areas. I don't need to cite examples to you. You have seen some of the instances that happen, that people who are poorly trained have done some awful jobs there because of lack of training. Training is an important part here.

An area that I feel has been neglected over the years is fire services and the Fire Services Review Committee. I'd like to ask, when will you take some action and get on with this vital review? It's been there a long time. I know you will respond and say that it was there and the previous government was working and all this, but that is no excuse itself. We must get on with it. Further delays, I would say, do nothing to enhance public safety.

Firefighters, fire department chiefs and municipalities are anxiously waiting to hear from you. They have visited my office and they've shown concerns about this and they would like you to get on with that so we can settle that matter. As a matter of fact, many people in the rural areas are extremely concerned.

I would like to know too, when are you going to come about and bring in some real initiatives concerning volunteer firefighters, and addressing the community needs for the communities across the province. Many of these brave people have contributed their time and money in order to protect and have safety for the community. I would say that the assistance of the governments -- I would even go as far as to even say present and past -- has not been adequate. They have tried in many ways to get assistance.

When I was the Minister of Skills Development, they were seeking funds for training, which of course in one respect was about training in my ministry, but the fact is that it is under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and I hope this area should be addressed and could be addressed immediately.

You mention also about the sexual assault centres, the rape crisis centres. I don't know if you're aware of the temporary closing of centres as a result of ministry investigations. My concern here is that the ministry must find ways to ensure that communities are not deprived of these services during these periods because the communities looked in the past and celebrated the fact that it was there as a service, and now it is closed. I think the lack of service there could really jeopardize some people's health and lives.

1720

The Timmins centre, as you know, was closed three months ago. The Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, as you know, is also in trouble now. I want to know what you will be doing in order to get those areas working again and settling the disputes there.

You mentioned in your remarks about the auditing and monitoring board. You have made the announcements. I'd like to know where the money will be coming from. What will this new level of bureaucracy do to improve race relations that the existing unit cannot do? I'm scared about all these duplications around the place, in governments. If we find one area that is not working, it seems to be much easier to rename another place, find another new bureaucracy, and then it could put some new life in the people and expectations and gradually nothing is done. In giving hope to people, I'm not quite sure that it's going to achieve what the others were set out to do, and now this new board, a new unit is set up to do.

If you're not really prepared to create the fully independent body that Mr Lewis called for, whatever its merits, simply renaming a branch of your ministry is not enough. It's not a worthwhile way and I don't think it will actually be effective.

It almost reminds me of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Employment Equity Commission. Many of the things that could be addressed through there are now a great expectation through the employment equity. Therefore, if we get the bureaucracy that is in place to do its job, maybe we can get some results.

There are some other areas. I said I would have taken this opportunity to ask you many questions. Hopefully, some of the comments I make will be such that you can look into them, rather than asking you questions and you responding in 10 or 15 minutes to one of my questions, and I would lose the opportunity to give the rest of the comments.

The false alarm legislation is overdue and I think we should get on it immediately. The Solicitor General has not explained how he will ensure that the police services boards will be able to continue to do what they were intended to do when this government carries out its commitment to give control of police budgets to local municipal councils. Areas of waterways policing concerns have not been addressed by you, Mr Minister. Delays in the police board appointments remain a problem. I don't know what strategy that is. We have many, many outstanding citizens who'd like to serve and I hope that you use those individuals.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): You have trouble getting people to admit they're members of the NDP.

Mr Curling: As my colleague said, I don't know if you are selected in a particular way in putting people on those boards, but I have many, many Liberals, if that's the case, who are anxious, and I'm sure I have some Conservative friends who'd like to serve, but outstanding citizens. I'm sure if you are having difficulty finding adequate NDP members, that's not our concern or the committee's concern, that's your concern, but I think you must fill those appointments there.

There are cutbacks that we have looked at. I just want to put it on record and I want you to know and I'm quite capable, Chairman, and I want the public to know about grants to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There were cutbacks in that area, an area that is under your responsibility. There are grants for fire prevention; a number of cutbacks there, as a matter of fact, a significant cutback. Grants for emergency operations: I think you said something like $1 million is for emergency operations. Maybe we believe that we are like the Titanic, that we'll never sink, but when the disaster occurs, I'm sure that we'll be found wanting in that area.

Grants for the police association -- I think an important association -- have also been cut back; and this one grabs me, Mr Minister, because your government expounds the virtues of looking after the most vulnerable etc, grants to the Ontario Native Council on Justice, a cutback there. Maybe you could somehow explain to me why the area that is in great need is now having cutbacks. Maybe later on, cutting them back and giving them back in drips would be something that people may feel, "Wow, we have been looked after."

Grants for the Council on Race Relations and Policing -- they have all, as I've said, been reduced in their grants. I don't know what your strategy is. These are areas that would need the support of government.

In 1992, grants for victims' services totalled $1.2 million, and this year your ministry expects to spend a pittance of $528,000 on grants to community victim projects. I think it's a shameful decline.

The other area, as I said, that your government holds so holy, grants for employment equity have gone up to $250,000 from last year, a pittance of $6,000. The amount of it does not nearly reflect the cost to municipal police forces of implementing this important program.

In some ways, Mr Chairman, I think that the ministry itself lacks leadership. It is evident in the way that it deals with its employees, the police officers; it's evident in how it conducted its consultation with the groups. Because all must be heard.

Yes, the police officers, if we go back, are employees of the government who must implement the legislation that government puts in place, but again you have advocated very strongly about how we treat employees, and somehow there's some mistrust happening.

This one is very serious because it has implications in the community. It has implications with governments, and even long after you're gone, Mr Solicitor General, there are other governments that will be in place and another Solicitor General in place who will have to work with police officers. I urge you to conduct that type of negotiation and consultation in a manner that is seen to be fair to all.

I'm not happy with the state that we're in now. I know my time has run out, but I hope that during the time in the House, we have some questions to you, and maybe some questions I raised here will be answered. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. In fact the ministry is responsible for providing the written responses for any questions that are tabled during the time allotted. That is our custom and our practice, and since you did present your time in the form of many questions, it's understood that those will be circulated to the clerk, who in turn will circulate them to all members of the committee. Just so you're aware that those questions you posed will be treated as such by the minister and his staff and there's no problem with that.

Mr Runciman, you have up to 30 minutes. I do need two or three minutes in order to conduct the votes at 6 o'clock.

1730

Mr Runciman: Just on a question of clarification, Mr Chairman, if I pose a number of questions -- for example, you've given me 30 minutes and I ask questions for only 10 of those -- the remainder is available for the Solicitor General to respond to those questions. Is that how it works?

The Chair: It is entirely your half-hour, as you wish to use it. You can use it as Mr Curling has or engage the minister or any of the minister's staff, if you so choose, and you can, if you have written questions, submit them through the Chair before the vote.

Mr Runciman: Yes, I do have some.

The Chair: That will be deemed to form part of the estimates process.

Mr Runciman: I have some written questions which I'm sure we won't have time to get around to. I hope I can engage the minister in a bit of dialogue in any event.

The Chair: I'm in your hands, Mr Runciman.

Mr Runciman: I want to devote most of my discussion and questions really towards the situation that currently exists in respect of the relationship between police officers in this province and the current government. I think it's been described by many people as a crisis. I'm not sure that's the case, although I think it could certainly become a crisis given the state of the relationship. I know the police association is meeting in Stratford, I believe it is, today and tomorrow, so we're not at this juncture really certain what further action may be taken in respect of expressing its disagreement with the government and the regulatory changes it's proposing.

I think it goes well beyond that. I think it's essentially the attitude of the government, as it perceives it to be, in any event. Whether that's an accurate assessment or not, I think it's certainly widely held within the police community that this government is, to be polite, less than supportive of policemen and policewomen and the job they have to do for all of us out in the community. We can talk about the regulatory changes and the way you've approached this, and then I want to get into some other matters as well.

I met with Mr Morrison of the police association yesterday and we talked about relationships with past governments, Conservative and Liberal. Obviously the policing authorities didn't always agree with initiatives undertaken by past governments, but they felt they had a voice in the process. They feel extremely frustrated in respect of this process and of course, Minister, as you are well aware, very much offended by the last meeting that occurred where I think most of the players were led to believe that there were going to be serious and substantive negotiations undertaken, that there was some flexibility there on the part of the government.

Again, and I'm sure you'll have a response to counter this, their view of it was that in fact this was something where indeed you referred to a prepared statement which you read from, there was a press release issued during the middle of the meeting, and frequently when questions were posed to you you seemed to be looking for direction from a member of the Premier's staff.

They believe they were led down the garden path, that this was more or less a media public relations exercise, that nothing meaningful was going to come out of it and that it was going to give you an opportunity to perhaps stomp on the Hamilton police association executive director or whoever and really not accomplish anything other than perhaps deepen the rift that is already pretty deep.

My leader and myself have raised these issues in the House in terms of the process that occurred in respect of this change. Certainly the Metro association has raised this as a health and safety issue in terms of the one requirement about filing a report when you unholster a weapon. They see it as a health and safety issue, and certainly, talking to a lot of front-line officers, I can share their concerns about the stresses they're under on a daily basis.

I was talking to officers from 51 Division in Metro yesterday. There's something like 50 officers in that division. Talking about day shift alone, they're drawing their weapons on an average of two times per shift per officer. That's in 51 Division on a day shift, without mentioning a night shift. So they're under significant stress and pressures.

Mr Chairman, I'm not sure you or I can really feel that by travelling with an officer on a shift, but I've encouraged you to do this and I guess you've indicated to the media that at some point you're going to do it. At this stage, when you're bringing in regulations that are so distressful to police officers, I think it would have been in the best interests of all if you'd made a trip or two prior to bringing in those regulatory changes. I equate this to your being a farmer for a year and never going out into the barnyard.

One of the situations that was related to me -- you are refusing to allow police to modernize their equipment -- was that getting these revolvers out of their holsters is a difficult matter. When they do get them out, there's a problem with these in the sense that getting your initial grip on this revolver is not as secure as it should be. You cannot be certain of the aim, if you will, or certain of a shot, because of this initial grip. It takes them another second or two to get an adequate grip so they can feel comfortable and confident about the revolver in their hands.

In most instances, when they're going into a difficult situation or a potentially difficult situation, they feel much more comfortable having that revolver unholstered, in their hands and in a secure grip situation than going in and worrying about Big Brother looking over their shoulders and second-guessing every move they may or may not make.

I'm very much concerned about this initiative, the lack of consultation and the whole process. I'm also concerned about the general message that is being sent out to police officers in this province.

I'd certainly like to hear your comments, Mr Minister, in respect to things that have been said, not by you -- I think when you've made comments in respect to police, by and large they've been supportive, but there are others in your party who have made some very negative comments and I think they've had an important negative impact on police officers.

Your Premier made a comment, after coming out of a rapidly called meeting with a number of interest groups in this city, that there's a disturbing pattern of violence against blacks, specifically in the Metro Toronto area. There is no statistical evidence to back that up. Certainly, the inference was drawn by many police officers and others in the community that this was a smear against police officers without anything to substantiate it. I'd certainly like to hear your comments in respect to the Premier's comment.

The other one that has generated a great deal of discussion is the comment made by the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, Ms Akande, when in the view of most, she labelled police as racists and killers of black youth at a youth employment panel discussion. I've raised a concern about those comments, and I think others in the Liberal Party have raised it as well, and the Premier's reaction to those comments when he praised the contribution Ms Akande has made with regard to youth employment and improving the condition of all backgrounds and races in this province.

Of course, that has no relation whatsoever to the questions that have been asked. Her record isn't in question. What is questionable are her statements about police officers, made not only as a member of the Legislature but as a parliamentary assistant to the Premier of this province, and the impact they had. As I've said in the past, instead of distancing himself from those comments, the Premier attempted to defend the indefensible.

I'd certainly like to know, Minister, how you personally view the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Premier. Do you support those comments? Do you think they were out of place? Do you think they were unfortunate? Do you disagree with them? I'd certainly request your view, on the record, of Ms Akande's view of police officers in this province.

I want to ask you as well, Mr Minister, with respect to getting out of this quandary you face. I'm not sure you want to, although I'm sure politically you must want to, because the pressure is going to increase, it's not going to decrease. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground out there.

One of the things police authorities have been asking of you is the whole idea of putting the regulatory changes on hold pending a new review of the proposals. This could be done perhaps by a select committee of the Legislature or it could be done by a broad-based committee of citizens representing all interests in the community, including front-line police officers, and putting those regulatory changes on hold until such a committee, either of this Legislature or a public committee or a special task force, however you wish to describe it and formulate it, could review and meet with a host of people and come in with recommendations perhaps no later than mid-1993. Police have indicated to you that they're prepared to live with the outcome of such a review if indeed the makeup of the task force is fair and reasonable.

1740

They're prepared to live with whatever recommendations come out of that kind of task force or committee. You have, as I understand it, dismissed that out of hand. Of course the police have also indicated that if you move on that proposal, they're also prepared to certainly put on hold any possible job action that they may be contemplating, or in some instances have already committed themselves to. So again, I'd certainly like to hear your views in respect to those matters.

I think it is indeed a regrettable situation that currently exists, an unfortunate one and one that did not have to occur. I think police officers in this province, by and large, are good people who care about their community and care deeply about the job they're doing for all of us.

There's no doubt there are a few bad apples in every barrel and we have to do whatever we can to weed those people out. I think these sorts of draconian measures, offensive gestures and words and smear tactics that have been utilized without considerable thought, obviously, and then defended by the leader of the government have done significant if not irreparable damage in terms of the relationship between this government and police.

I guess at this stage, Minister, we've got about 15 minutes or so. I'd perhaps like to hear some responses from you in the time allotted and then maybe I can respond to your comments.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I said at the beginning, there's certainly been a degree of consternation raised by the police associations with respect to the regulation. Regrettably, the question is sort of focused on the reporting element of it. The reason I say this is regrettable is because there was quite a lot of the regulation, as a matter of fact, probably almost the whole balance of the regulation, which included the centre pieces of the reg, that really was agreed to. So I guess what I'm really saying is that it seems to me there was more agreed to than disagreed with.

I say that because at the centre of the regulation was additional training. I believe everyone involved in the process agreed with that. It was, as I indicated in my preliminary remarks, to do with recruit training and in-service training. I think there is general agreement that it would be a benefit to all our officers presently in the field or who will become officers.

We also talked about less-than-lethal use of force where the police representatives had urged for some time -- and I believe Mr Curling was referencing that in his remarks -- that the ministry adopt a standard with respect to the use of capsicum or pepper spray, certainly not to replace guns or lethal force, because there are times and there are circumstances, of course, in which lethal force should be used for the protection of an officer or that officer's partner or the general public. As I've commented before, if lethal force is required to be used and should be used, people are trained to use it and they should proceed.

Capsicum represents a less-than-lethal force in areas where something else will do the job, and police urge to have that in their toolkit as well for those circumstances and we agreed to that. There was a question of not allowing the choke-hold to be used any further, and I don't think there was particular disagreement with that either. In consultations previously, we also had talked about political activity rights for police officers, which I admit is outside this particular regulation. There was general agreement on that as well.

Regrettably, though, there is a bit of a stalemate with respect to reporting. The government sees that as an appropriate tool in gathering statistical information and trends as any company or business would. I'm sure everyone would like to know what its branches are doing, in effect, so that information can be gathered and used for policy development or adoption of new training procedures to know exactly what is happening, what the circumstances are and how new policies and procedures can be fashioned to better suit the safety of the officer and the public.

This regulation, however, raised concerns and police had said: "We're afraid that you are going to use those reports for discipline and we're afraid that someone may come back and comb through our file because you might put this on our personnel file. Someone will comb through that after some speculative occasion perhaps where an occurrence occurred and someone would go back and try to make something out of the fact that an officer had drawn a weapon X times."

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We're using up time. I appreciate what the Solicitor General is trying to offer with respect to his views, but in terms of its being our time, perhaps I would be better off to ask specific questions and get specific responses, if that's appropriate. Since this is my time --

The Chair: It is. Please proceed.

Mr Runciman: I'll ask three questions about the regulations then.

I asked you a specific question in the body of questions I was mentioning about the proposal which seems to be acceptable to police officers about the formation of a new task force or a new grouping of people. I'm not sure specifically what would be acceptable, but indeed they have suggested that front-line police officers should be involved. Why are you not prepared to put these regulations on change, form this sort of a committee and, as the police have said, live with the results of it? Why are you reluctant to do that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The reason we're reluctant to do that is that the government has for some time undertaken consultations and received input and views from police stakeholder groups. In addition to that, we've received input and reaction from a committee we formed on public and officer safety, which reviewed the draft regulation and provided comments on it.

Of course, the government, having benefit of all of those inputs, reviewed those considerations and processed the matter through the normal government bodies and adopted a position and brought forward a regulation which it thought was fair and reasonable and covered a variety of areas, including when force should be used. It talked about lethal force, about non-lethal force, about training, accountability and all of those things. As I say, by and large, I think it's agreed. Most of the regulation is agreed to.

Given that there's one that isn't agreed to, I think that's unfortunate, and there's a disagreement in terms of viewer perspective with respect to that, but I believe we feel that the consultations were undertaken, the regulation brought into the House, passed and will be implemented on January 1.

1750

Mr Runciman: In short, what you're saying is you feel there's been adequate consultation. I guess, just as an editorial comment, obviously I don't share that view and police officers right across this province don't share that view. This is an unprecedented situation. I'm sure you recognize that. We don't know what's going to come out of the meeting today and tomorrow, but it's obvious that this stalemate is going to continue to exist unless somebody blinks.

I don't think there's any loss of face in this by establishing a committee which both of you can agree upon in terms of the makeup. Then both of you can accept the fact that we're going to live with the results of that. That's certainly been the indication.

My next question --

Hon Mr Pilkey: Just if I could add there, I'm not trying to be controversial at all, but I think the other telling thing about this, in addition to what I've already commented, is that it's interesting to note -- and I think it's a valid question for those police forces here in Ontario and in other Canadian places or US places that voluntarily have already adopted this form of reporting or some variation thereof -- that I'm unaware that there have been any problems or any difficulties in its actual use. All the comments I have heard or seen quoted in the media from chiefs or individual officers are that they can't understand what all the fuss is about.

Mr Runciman: On that basis, you shouldn't be nervous about establishing a committee and delaying this for another six months. That's my point. If you're so confident that this is not going to create difficulties, why not put it on hold for a maximum of six months and take another look at it with what all sides can feel is appropriate input?

I know the police have indicated to me too that they're prepared to live with this on the basis of the fact that there be no names attached to these reports, that they'd simply be reports filed. That's one of the things that's been tossed out in the mix of the discussion anyway, and your people have come back and said that's not acceptable because you think this is going to indicate the officers who may need additional training.

Of course, that sets off a lot of warning bells with police officers as well, and you've said these are not going to be used for discipline, but I understand that these reports are still going to be subpoenable and that they're still going to be available to the special investigations unit, so they can still create difficulties and concerns for police officers, as you can see.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes, but surely you're not saying if there was a criminal activity or charge that records shouldn't be available to the proper authorities, are you?

Mr Runciman: I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying police officers are afraid these are going to be misused and will jeopardize their careers, opportunities for promotion, a whole host of reasons, and you're saying --

Hon Mr Pilkey: I agree with you that they have those concerns. As I was saying earlier, and I'll try to speed it up because there isn't much time, that's why in the meeting where allegedly it was suggested it wasn't of value, we said it won't be used for discipline.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Minister, I must interrupt you in order to achieve a vote at this time. Mr Runciman, if you'd like to sum up in one minute, we're called to the House and I must conduct a vote.

Mr Runciman: I want to table these questions and I also want to ask the Solicitor General for a quick response to my question, does he support the parliamentary assistant's comments in respect to police officers, yes or no?

The Chair: Minister?

Mr Runciman: Without equivocation.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I guess I might be responsible in part for the comments of my parliamentary assistant, but I'm sorry that individual does not report to me and I wouldn't purport to be able to give comment with respect to the matter.

Mr Runciman: I would think that silence in a matter as important as this -- you're supposed to be the advocate in many ways for police officers, the person they count on around the cabinet table. Here you have someone making a statement like that, a colleague of yours, and apparently you do not have the intestinal fortitude to say, "This woman was wrong and I want to simply distance myself from any of those kinds of comments because I believe, personally, that police officers by and large are good people trying to do a damned good job for all of us." You should have the guts to say that right now.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I do say that.

Mr Runciman: So distance yourself from her comments. Don't stand there and say you're going to be silent on them. It's terrible; it's an endorsement.

Interjection: Calm down.

Interjection: Relax.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Runciman: Why don't you tell the police officers across the province to calm down about this? It's a serious matter. You go out and talk to them in your riding, Bob, and you'll find out. You'll hear about them and you'll hear more from them.

Interjections.

The Chair: Please, come to order. It is regrettable, but it has been noted that we do not have sufficient time to complete these estimates. Perhaps it would have been helpful to all sides of this debate if we'd had that time. However, as I said, the government House leader has not seen fit to extend the time. I would therefore like to proceed, by agreement, with the vote on this ministry, if it is your wish.

Mr Bisson: Proceed.

The Chair: Then we shall proceed with the votes. Shall vote 3701 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 3702 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 3703 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

Shall vote 3704 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

That completes the votes in the estimates for the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Shall the estimates of the 1992-93 estimates of the Solicitor General be reported to the House?

Mr Runciman: I have --

The Chair: Slow down. It hasn't been moved yet. I was just in mid-sentence, Mr Runciman. You had a point of order?

Mr Runciman: I have a request for a recorded vote.

The Chair: Fine. All those in favour?

Mr Runciman: Don't we have any discussion on the motion? Is it out of order?

The Chair: Not when we only have three minutes left. The standing rules tell us we can't sit beyond three minutes, Mr Runciman, so unfortunately I can only record the vote. All those in favour?

Ayes

Bisson, Cooper, Frankford, Haeck, Lessard, Rizzo.

Mr Runciman: I'm voting no because a yes is an endorsement of the current difficulties.

Nays

Curling, Eddy, Runciman.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

Mr Bisson: I'd like to thank our Chair for a job well done over the course of estimates.

The Chair: I wouldn't go that far. I failed miserably to convince the House leader that we deserved appropriate time, but we'll give it another stab in the spring with the new budget. I want to thank the members of the committee. This actually in fact completes our work. We will report this to the House tomorrow. I hope to be working with you in the new year. This meeting stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1758.