Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CONTENTS

Tuesday 31 May 1994

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services

Hon David Christopherson, minister

Michele Noble, deputy minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

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

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)

*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)

Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)

*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND) for Mr Lessard

Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L) for Mr Mahoney

Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC) for Mr Arnott

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel: McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1539 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): We have convened today to begin six full hours of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

We are joined today by the minister, the Honourable David Christopherson, his deputy minister, Michele Noble,and the manager of resource planning, strategic policy and planning division, Mr Al Kosch.

Minister, in accordance with the standing orders, you have up to 30 minutes to present your opening comments, at which point I will call upon Mr Murphy to use his time for the official opposition, and then Mr Runciman to present his opening comments. We'll reserve a further 30 minutes for any follow-up and response you might have.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Members of the estimates committee, I'm pleased to join you today to begin the process of reviewing the 1994-95 estimates for the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, votes 2801 through 2805.

I'll begin by providing you with the context, in the form of an overview of ministry operations and activities, within the framework of the estimates submission. I want to review with you the ministry's mission and mandate, which now incorporates the goals and strategic directions of what were, up until one year ago, two separate ministries. I will describe for you the new organization and set out some of the key challenges we face as a government in maintaining public safety for the people of this province. Perhaps more importantly, I want to outline the key strategies and corporate directions to which we are committed to enhance public safety in Ontario.

I am joined today, as I will be throughout these proceedings, by Deputy Minister Michele Noble and members of her staff, who will assist me by providing details of the ministry's operations and by answering your questions about funding requirements.

Our objective is to outline ministry policies and operations and to illustrate the commitment of this government to manage its public safety responsibilities efficiently and in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

We will be asking members to vote on the total ministry appropriation of $1,178,506,400, representing both capital and operating expenditures for the fiscal year 1994-95. I remind the committee that this total reflects the activities of both the former Ministry of the Solicitor General and the former Ministry of Correctional Services. When you pare away increases attributable to cost escalation and amounts annualized from items funded for only part of last year, this total represents virtually no increase in the ministry's total request over 1993-94.

As this committee will be aware, following the reorganization of the public service announced on February 3, 1993, we began the task of integrating the two former ministries into a single entity. The single most important prerequisite of the new organization was that it be capable of meeting the requirements of an increasingly large and complex criminal justice agenda. I am pleased to report that we are on track with an integration plan which was developed with a view to providing an appropriate structure for the future needs of the new integrated organization.

We are now the largest Ontario government ministry, with approximately 16,000 staff members working in more than 750 locations throughout the province. That includes headquarters and regional offices, OPP district headquarters and detachments, coroners' offices, probation and parole offices, and correctional facilities. The ministry also has service delivery arrangements with over 260 community-based forensic pathologists and 360 community-based social service agencies.

We have direct administrative responsibility for two dozen federal and provincial statutes, all involved with the preservation and enhancement of public safety. Provincial statutes include: the Anatomy Act; the Coroners Act; the Egress from Public Buildings Act; the Emergency Plans Act, 1983; the Fire Accidents Act; the Fire Departments Act; the Firefighters Exemption Act; the Fire Marshals Act; the Hotel Fire Safety Act; the Lightning Rods Act -- we've got to get that transferred; the Ministry of Correctional Services Act; the Ministry of the Solicitor General Act; the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act; the Police Services Act, 1990; the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act; the Public Works Protection Act; and the Retail Business Holidays Act.

In fact, public safety is the primary purpose for the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Our mission is to contribute to the public safety and security of Ontario and to do so in such a way as to reflect community needs and enhance social justice.

The ministry carries out its work through the development of policies and the provision of services that are both fair and accessible. Specific responsibilities include: operation of the Ontario Provincial Police; offender supervision and rehabilitation in institutions and in the community; policy development and advisory services for regional and municipal policing services; forensic and coroner services; fire investigation and prevention; emergency planning; and animal welfare.

To offer some perspective on the breakdown of resources allocated among these various activities, I draw your attention to the pie chart at the top of page 7 of the estimates briefing book. As you will note, the operation of the OPP and Ontario's correctional services consumes fully 89% of the ministry's annual budget. It is worth noting, as shown in the chart at the bottom of that same page, that 76% of the total allocation goes to salaries and wages.

The challenges facing the ministry in both the near and long term are substantial. Despite a continuing climate of fiscal constraint in the public sector, public expectations of the criminal justice system are growing. We're also facing in Ontario an increasingly diverse population requiring specialized services relating to language, culture and level of physical and mental ability. The public expects and deserves a more integrated, more efficient and more service-oriented justice system.

In order to meet these challenges, the ministry recognizes that it must find better ways to conduct business. These ways cannot be simply less expensive but must maintain and improve upon the high quality of services currently provided in support of public safety.

The Ontario Provincial Police have taken the challenge of increased efficiency to heart with their approach to community policing. As with many organizations in the public and private sector, the OPP is undergoing a period of change, change that is being driven by the growing demands of an increasingly diverse public for a justice system that is more effective, more sensitive, more responsive and more accountable, and by the economic conditions facing our country and our province.

It is within this environment that we must find ways to work together with municipalities, police services boards and police associations to find more appropriate ways of delivering law enforcement services in partnership with the communities we serve.

The OPP is committed to the philosophy of community policing. This philosophy is based on the premise that the communities we serve have a right and a responsibility to be partners in establishing policing priorities. The OPP's strategic plans are based on this philosophy in recognition of the need for a well-trained generalist policing service supported by traffic management, crime prevention and detection, and administrative excellence. Its principal challenge for the future is to maintain the crucial combination of the right people, the right equipment and, perhaps most importantly, the right organizational structure, one that is capable of sustaining and nurturing an effective policing service throughout the 1990s and into the next century.

In order to position the OPP to be able to meet changing public expectations, a comprehensive organizational review was initiated last November. The review is based on re-engineering principles similar to those which have produced dramatic results in the private sector.

Among other things, we expect this organizational review to assist the OPP: to identify the proper balance between corporate and divisional responsibilities; to find ways to streamline operations, enabling greater efficiency and improved service; to maximize the use of technology; to guide the delegation of decision-making to the optimal level; to identify ways to maintain a strong corporate culture that will attract and retain the best people available; and to help create in the OPP a continuous learning environment that supports high-quality decisions and makes the most of employees' skills.

1550

I'm looking forward to the results of the organizational review, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of this calendar year, as a blueprint which will help the OPP to adapt to its rapidly changing environment.

Innovation and creative solutions are also much evident in offender management strategies employed by the ministry's Correctional Services division. It's a fact of life that offenders are in our midst, and locking all of them up is not and should not be our sole means of dealing with unlawful behaviour.

As with all other provincial jurisdictions, only a fraction of those under correctional supervision are in institutional custody. The remainder, more than 87% of offenders, more than 60,000 people, on any given day receive their correctional supervision while remaining in the community on probation, on parole or as part of another disposition.

Institution custody is none the less an important part of our mandate and one that is taken very seriously. Among those who are sentenced to provincial custody, the average sentence length is approximately 79 days for adult males, about 60 for female offenders. The maximum term of incarceration for adults sentenced to provincial institutions is two years less a day, and five years for young offenders. Others in custody include those being held on remand to await court proceedings. This group accounts for approximately one third of the 8,000 adult and young offenders held under this ministry's jurisdiction on any given day.

Nearly all offenders return to the community eventually. All are affected in some way by the way they are treated while in correctional custody.

The mandate of our institutions is to provide secure, humane accommodation and programs in respect of dispositions given by the courts, to maintain public safety and to promote the social adjustment of offenders in the community. Programs are geared to offenders' immediate needs. Due to the duration of provincial sentences, staff must focus on maximum benefit for limited time available in custody.

The ministry has no control over the volume of work coming to institutions. Inmate capacity is an ongoing concern. Workload patterns are susceptible to dramatic shifts resulting from external influences, such as periods of increased enforcement in recent years against such offences as drug abuse, spousal abuse, impaired driving, and other changes to legislation.

Correctional supervision has also been affected in recent years by the growing complexity of offender needs. We provide programs to respond to these special needs, be they educational or health-related; for example, inmates who require psychological or psychiatric help.

Work environments for some 6,800 institutional service employees are atypical. Some are rather harsh. Over half of all Ontario institutions were built before 1931; 14 of the jails are over 100 years old. Because of the enormous capital costs, community sensitivities and our ongoing climate of fiscal restraint, capital construction has been severely limited over the last decade.

Risk is a constant factor to correctional services. Our challenge is to manage the risk as effectively and efficiently as possible. As the Provincial Auditor observed in his report last fall, we are successful in managing correctional risk in comparison with other jurisdictions.

The Correctional Services division is undergoing a number of important internal studies, including a detailed institutional staffing analysis, a review of its recruitment and training methods for correctional officers, and an assessment of early release practices.

Despite the daunting scope of its role in society, corrections continues to attract competent, capable employees, administrators and volunteers who recognize the importance of hope and perseverance in the face of difficult odds. It is a very unique and demanding discipline, and those who work in it are to be commended.

Over the next decade and beyond, one of the key issues facing Correctional Services will be addressing increasing demands for offender supervision while facing the challenges of continuing financial pressure.

The ministry is committed to the development of an enhanced range of services based on assessed individual needs in both supervision and rehabilitation. This will allow existing resources to be focused on services for those requiring help and supervision according to individual needs and circumstances.

Rehabilitation is a guiding principle in the Correctional Services division's work with offenders. One of the most effective ways to protect society is to provide opportunities for rehabilitation to those individuals who have come into conflict with the law.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to unlawful behaviour, but there are many types of intervention, including psychological treatment, education, literacy training and work experience programs, which, in combination with appropriate levels of supervision, have been shown to reduce the likelihood of future antisocial behaviour.

Case load and workload issues will continue to be addressed by expanding community-based options for non-violent offenders and focusing more expensive institutional resources on those who pose a genuine threat to community safety.

Community safety is also the main thrust of the ministry's policing services division whose purpose is to promote policing excellence.

The policing services division was formed in 1988 following a realignment of the responsibilities of the Ontario Police Commission. The commission, now called the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, retained its quasi-judicial function while advisory and support services were transferred to the policing services group.

The division is organized into four key areas: police support programs; standards and new programs; the Ontario Police College; and intelligence services.

The overall role of the division is to monitor police services and police service boards to ensure the provision of effective policing in compliance with prescribed standards; to assist in the coordination of police services; and to oversee the development and communication of policing standards and policies throughout all jurisdictions in the province.

Through its police service advisers, this division provides support, guidance and advice to Ontario's police community, including police service boards and municipal police services. The division also operates the Ontario Police College.

The focus of the ministry's public safety division is to devise methods of minimizing or eliminating hazards to persons and property. The division comprises the office of the fire marshal, the office of the chief coroner, the Centre of Forensic Science, the forensic pathology branch and Emergency Measures Ontario.

The office of the Ontario fire marshal is responsible for fire safety and investigation and for supporting municipal fire services through a variety of advisory, training and other support programs.

Environmental changes facing municipal fire services, including growing public demand in such areas as hazardous material spills, medical emergencies and rescue, coupled with a continuing climate of fiscal restraint, have begun to signal the need for change in the traditional ways in which fire services are administered, operated and funded.

The office of the fire marshal is positioned to play a key leadership role in coordinating needed change in the delivery of fire protection and prevention services in Ontario through legislative amendments; review of the emergency response services; advisory services to municipalities; and training of fire service personnel.

Emergency Measures Ontario, formerly Emergency Planning Ontario, is responsible for coordinating the development of emergency plans to deal with incidents which pose significant risk to life, health or property.

Much of the emphasis on emergency planning is focused on reducing risks, particularly those posed by industrial accidents, at the source and in preparing an adequate response in the event of an accident.

EMO works with industry, municipalities, other provincial government ministries and responsible authorities to develop and test response plans and establish resource-sharing agreements.

The organization is currently implementing a reorganization plan which more accurately reflects its role in helping to develop preparedness and response plans at the local level, hence the recent name change from Emergency Planning Ontario.

Part of this reorganization involves regionalizing its resources, enabling greater community access to advisory services and augmenting its training and education capabilities. Through the reorganization of its resources, Emergency Measures Ontario is strengthening its role in emergency preparedness and response and contributing to the enhancement of public safety.

1600

The Coroners Act mandates the chief coroner to protect human life and to ensure the just application of the law by investigating sudden unexplained or unexpected death. The role of the coroner has traditionally been seen as investigative. However, in recent years the focus has shifted to prevention and public safety.

Today the coroner's office selects those cases in which an inquest will result in the in-depth examination of systemic problems that may be creating an undue risk to public safety. Such inquests may produce recommendations which can lead to the elimination of hazards and the prevention of future deaths.

The ministry's forensic services comprise the forensic pathology branch and the Centre of Forensic Science.

Forensic services play an integral role in the administration of justice by providing scientific analysis of evidence to assist police and the courts in the prosecution of violent crime.

The Centre of Forensic Science is currently revising and updating standards for the identification, collection and transportation of evidence.

Staff and fee-for-service practitioners under contract to the ministry are regarded as highly credible, expert witnesses in court proceedings and have earned the ministry a strong reputation for scientific excellence.

The Centre of Forensic Science recently received accreditation by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Laboratory Accreditation Board.

In conclusion, the ministry expects that all of its activities will be conducted in a manner that reflects service excellence.

The ministry will continue to place a high priority on recognizing the contributions of its employees. We are committed to developing specific activities to improve the work environment and to enhance job satisfaction among employees, while recognizing the changing nature of the workforce and the rapid emergence of new technologies.

We are committed to ensuring that all service providers have the skills and training necessary to discharge their responsibilities effectively. We also recognize the need to create workplaces that are fair, accessible and physically safe within the requirements of the work, and to respecting individual dignity and privacy.

To support our vital human resources, the ministry encourages innovative management styles that support employee participation, enhanced communication, accountability, flexibility and performance excellence.

The vast scope and complexity of ministry responsibilities, coupled with the current climate of fiscal constraint, combine to create a formidable challenge for our newly integrated ministry.

However, through sound fiscal management and sensitivity to our changing environment, I am confident that we can continue to meet the challenge of public safety in a manner that brings credit to this government and this province.

I hope that I have been able to give members a reasonable understanding of the complex and challenging work of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

I would invite committee members to further explore the areas I have raised in the time that remains for these estimates proceedings.

The Acting Chair (Mr Pat Hayes): Thank you, Mr Minister. Mr Murphy, you can make your comments. You have 30 minutes.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I think what I will do is briefly give a sense of some of the areas I want to touch on. I don't know whether you would have the officials here necessarily, and I'll go through it, and then hopefully we'll have a bit of time left and we can start talking about some of the answers.

I don't think there is any doubt that in terms of Solicitor General and Correctional Services at the top of my agenda items are crime and public safety and fire safety, and I want to explore a few things in that area.

What I'm going to start with is the current status of the Fire Services Review Committee, and I guess the 20 amendments that it has proposed. I know that you, Mr Minister, had to postpone a meeting you had scheduled for today because of the estimates interrupting that meeting, and I've heard different reports about whether you intend to proceed with some kind of draft legislation which follows up on the report of some, I guess, months or even years ago now. There is, needless to say, still some dispute over certain of the recommendations between various of the stakeholders, and I want to get a sense of that.

To follow up on a related item, what has also been a bit troubling to me is the degree to which the fire service review process will be or has been impacted by the social contract process at the same time. I have been led to believe that the Ministry of Labour and the social contract division, now renamed the productivity department or something like that -- whatever its new title is -- is independently through the municipal sector table doing some negotiations around budgetary items and right-to-strike provisions for firefighters with a view to having those kinds of issues come through that process to the Legislature at some point.

I want some clarification from your perspective on the status of what's happening at the municipal sector table as related to fire services and police services, but most of this arises in the context of fire services from what I hear, what the productivity group, the social contract group is doing. As much as anything else, this may be a process of calming fears that may not be valid. I am passing on what I am being told, and it may be that it's the Ministry of Labour that is proceeding without adequate consultation with you, I don't know, but that's one of the things.

Another area, moving on from fire service and police matters, I want to talk a bit about is the OPP in small communities. What I would like, if you have it, is a sense of those communities. I gather, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the historical relationship was that for communities under 5,000 you'd provide the policing through the OPP free. That is no longer the case and may not have been for some time. What I would like to know is, how many communities that fit in that category are getting free policing, how many are having to pay and how much they are paying?

Related to that, I'd also like to know what the current plan in the ministry is in terms of keeping open OPP detachments or closing them. Is there a closing schedule? That may very well be part of your organizational review that you've undertaken, but it may not be.

In addition, I have attempted to get some sense of what's happened with the Junger inquiry recommendations. A constituent asked for it and we've had to bounce around a bit. We approached the Civilian Commission on Police Services and it said, "You ain't going to get a response to it except by FOI," which I didn't think was a particularly helpful way to approach it. We've gone to the Metro police services board and haven't yet heard from it. I'm wondering if I can get a sense of what the response is and why the Civilian Commission on Police Services would tell me the only way to get it was through an FOI application.

In addition, and this may be under the Attorney General's bailiwick but I'll raise it because it may involve administration by the police, there's the question of release of offenders and notification of the public. A year ago or so I think the Attorney General had indicated setting up guidelines for that. I have not seen the guidelines. I may have missed them or they may not yet be produced, but I'm wondering what the status of that is.

In addition, and again you can correct me if my information is wrong, my understanding is that the fine option program has been cancelled and I'm wondering what impact that has had, if any, on how much resources that has eaten up in corrections in terms of more people being in jail versus other kinds of things. You may not have that, but I'd like to seek that from you if I can.

1610

Secondly, and I guess ultimately it's an Attorney General's bailiwick but of very great interest to police officers, is the special investigations unit. There is, I think, probably a reasonably widely shared view that the statutory mandate is not very clear, that the protocol between officers and the SIU in circumstances where investigations arise is not itself clear and that the SIU probably doesn't have the resources to do the job it seems to want to do.

What I'm wondering is, as Solicitor General, as my friend Mr Runciman calls you, "the top cop," what views you represent to the Attorney General in terms of where he should go with that. It was again over a year ago in fact, when Mr Hampton was the Attorney General, that he at one point had promised legislation.

Now I'm going to sort of jump around a bit, not that I haven't before. In regard to the Coroners Act, a couple of inquests have talked about requiring replies within a certain time frame. I believe the Chair of our committee has a private member's bill on the issue, and I'm wondering what the view of the government is on requiring mandated responses within a fixed period of time.

I'm sure this isn't on the top of your list either, but Raj Anand did report on private investigators and security guards ages ago, in fact in the previous administration, and that proposal had died. I'm wondering in terms of the number of registered private investigators, how many we have. Has there been a growth in that and the personnel involved in monitoring the licensing of private investigators and the money spent on that?

I'll give you the background of my concern so you can understand, which is I think we've seen a proliferation of private investigators with an ever-growing role for them as people come to rely on police to do some of that stuff less and less for good and bad reasons. In my private life I had an opportunity to act for some of these security guard companies. They operate in a grey area really, and I'm concerned that the training they get is inadequate to the task that they're often asked to do.

I also want to talk a bit about the Toronto Humane Society, which resides in my riding, and sort of what's happening with that. Now don't look at me suspiciously, Minister. I have to represent my constituents.

The Chair: Even four-legged ones.

Mr Murphy: Yes, exactly.

Interjection.

Mr Murphy: That's right, yes. Very important to seniors in my riding in fact.

There was a review at some point and I wonder whether we are going to see any changes. I guess there's some concern about the possible financial failure of the humane society itself, whether there are contingency plans for that and what you will you do if that happens. I believe it was Mr Mills who spoke for you on that.

There was a private member's bill which came forward in the Ottawa area to exempt the humane society there from taxation because of a court ruling, if I'm not mistaken, and I'm wondering if that position still applies and what was going to be done, if anything, in terms of looking at the tax exemptions.

I have some other questions related to the humane society, but I will just give you the written copies of those and they can be responded to later or in written form, which is fine.

I also want follow up on a couple of particular things. I had been following the OPP statistics in terms of the number of officers versus the number of Criminal Code incidents. There had been an increase in Criminal Code incidents. I couldn't get the final 1993 figures the last time I did this, just because I think I was too early. The staffing level had dropped slightly, but I know there had been an announcement of a hiring of some new number.

So I would like if you could get for me, now that you, I suspect, have the full 1993 figures, the last two or three years of OPP staffing and Criminal Code incidences dealt with by the OPP. I know those stats are collected; it's just basically updating them.

Now, in terms of a couple of particular things. On page 19 of the estimates book -- and I'm just asking for an explanation and you can provide it now or later, if you know it -- but you'll notice, in terms of both coroners and forensic services and in fire safety services, there seems to be a reasonably significant drop in the number of cases completed: in the forensic sciences, almost 800, so a 10% drop; also a big drop in the number of coroners' inquests, and then also a fairly substantial drop in the number of investigations conducted under the fire safety services. I'm wondering why that is. It may be external events, but it may also be manpower, person power, and other training exercises, and I would like an explanation of how that has come to be the case.

Also, again jumping around, I just have a concern about the contingency emergency planning related to Darlington. What's the status of that and has it been done to the satisfaction of the local community? I don't know whether you've done an assessment of it, but I have some understanding that the hydronuclear emergency plans aren't entirely up to par and that some internal assessment has been done which indicates this. I'm wondering if you could confirm or deny, as they say, and indicate to me what the status is.

I know you issued a directive to police forces related to hate crimes, and two things I wanted to highlight there. One is a discussion of women being included in that and what the logic was for not including them in that directive. Secondly, I believe it basically said that police forces shall have someone whose job it is to be responsible for hate crimes.

My sense is that in some of the smaller forces, pressed financially for a variety of reasons, that's not happening. I'm wondering if you could confirm that for me and what those smaller forces are doing or whether there is an OPP officer. I know there's a Project H, although there's some debate about its utility in the community, and I want to know whether you are planning that it's going to provide a role to those smaller communities in terms of hate crimes.

Finally -- well, not quite finally -- but the social contract. I'm impressed that you spent a half-hour and never mentioned it once.

Hon Mr Christopherson: We're working on it.

The Chair: It happens in caucus all the time.

Mr Murphy: I wanted to talk a bit about the impact of the social contract and I realize there are a few levels.

In my riding, 51 Division is the downtown division that covers the biggest chunk of the riding, they've suffered. Basically, their full complement, I believe, is 24 and they only have 16 foot patrol officers in an area where, in a six-month period, they had 460 weapons offences alone. What they're telling me is, it's the social contract; that in order to make the cuts and accommodate the needs that are coming at them, they're having to take it away from foot patrol.

I know that you're going to say, "Well, go talk to the police services board and Metro council." What I'm wondering is -- there is a responsibility that rests on your shoulders as the person responsible for public safety in the province -- what monitoring, if any, you are doing of the impact of the social contract on policing in municipalities, especially in the context of community policing.

I know that foot patrols don't necessarily equal community policing, but in downtown places like my riding they really do. It's clear they're having a negative impact and it's putting a real strain -- there's a drug problem that 51 Division is trying to deal with, and in the last year nine of the 10 drug officers, for example, have suffered injury in the course of their duties and they're finding a great difficulty replacing them to go back out there, because, again, I'm told, of social contract impacts.

1620

So what I'm wondering is how you are monitoring that impact. Is it affecting the level of policing? If you're not monitoring that impact, is anybody else and if you aren't, why aren't you?

Great. Related to the social contract, I did want to talk about whether you've had enough time to measure your achievement in terms of social contract targets for savings versus actual savings. Let me just give you a sense of that. For example, on page 5 of the estimates, in your ministry administration category, your interim actual for 1993-94 is $67 million and your estimate for 1994-95 is $56 million.

In fact, your estimate for 1993-94 had been $60 million and you overshot it by $7 million. So what you're going to try to do is to achieve in this year almost an $11-million, about 16% or 17%, reduction in ministry administration expenditure in one year. Maybe I'm reading those numbers wrong, but I'm just looking for an explanation of (a) how come it overshot by over 10%, and maybe that's explained by the merger in part, and (b) how it is you're going to achieve the $56 million, or an $11-million cut.

On the same page, just following up on a different direction of questions, in terms of the estimates, interim actual for 1993-94 and the estimates for 1994-95 under the OPP category, you see that there's almost a half-billion-dollar estimate for OPP --

Interjection: What page are you on?

Mr Murphy: I'm on page 5 of the estimates book.

You'll see the estimate was $497 million, interim actual $482 million and then the estimate is back up to $497. How come the estimate is higher than the actual? Is there phasing in of something? Why are we going back up or why did the actual not meet the estimate? Just an explanation of that variation in the figures.

Your decision to go to the new weapons and how the ministry plans on funding the purchase, or whether it does plan on assisting in the purchase of the new weapons, holsters etc, my understanding is that will end up being about $1,000 per weapon, including the holster. That's just hardware expenditure and you'll have obviously additional training expenditure, I would assume.

So the question is if there is any plan for assisting the smaller forces in purchasing them, or any forces at all, whether or not there will be assistance in providing for the training or whether the municipal forces will be required to bear that themselves. What's happening with the old guns? I know you've sent out letters to some municipalities that have decided to destroy the weapons, but I'm wondering whether that has been a uniform response. What have police forces done with the old weapons as they've replaced them?

I want to go back to the fire services issue again, and that's the office of the fire marshal. You made a reference to a new role for it with supportive legislative change, and I'm wondering what that legislative change is. I didn't see, and I might have just missed it when I read through it, the fire marshal's line item pulled out somewhere. I may have just missed the page, but I'm wondering what the supports are for it. Is it continuing at the same level from year to year? Because my understanding is the Ministry of Labour is identifying the fire marshal's office as the training vehicle for some of the training that's coming through Occupational Health and Safety Act changes that may be coming out of the Ministry of Labour. I might be wrong on that, but (a) I want to find out what the current status of the funding of the fire marshal's office is, and (b) more specifics about the plans you refer to in your opening statement related to that office.

One of the things that I've had some people in my constituency approach me about is the relationship between expenditure control plan layoffs and social contract layoffs. Now, in theory there aren't supposed to be any social contract layoffs, but we all know they happen. The problem is that there's a fund in a social contract layoff to which employees can have access in theory, which I believe was 10% of the total savings, if I'm not mistaken, for retraining, which expenditure control plan layoffs don't have access to. I'm wondering, do you have that problem? Where has it happened? Do you keep separate lists for expenditure control plan layoffs versus social contract layoffs? This would be, obviously, in the areas within which you have direct jurisdiction.

The Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System report, which is ongoing, and an interim report on Corrections raise some significant concerns. There are also some concerns, I believe pointed out by correctional managers, about the methodology used. What's your response to the correctional managers' response, if you follow what I just said?

There are other little bits which we can pick up as we spend the last of our six hours together, which I'll pick up later. But that is sort of a bit of a scattergun approach to some of the issues that I want to talk about.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Can I get some clarification, Mr Chairman? In terms of responding, I'll respond at the end with everything that I have now. How do we handle the staff needing to go back to the ministry and provide information to give the member a full and complete answer in terms of the following day? How do we do that? Do we just take a few minutes and do it?

The Chair: What the custom has been is that staff who are present are making notes, as I'm watching, and your deputy as well. What materials you are comfortable responding to during your half-hour, fine. That which requires additional can be brought -- it's helpful if it's in print form. It's more helpful if it's given to the clerk at the front end of each of our days, so that it can be immediately circulated and therefore questions can flow from that. I generally like to start each session with a brief presentation of those questions to date and they can facilitate further discussion, if necessary, as we move through our rotation. That's how I would propose to continue with these estimates. That's been our custom.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Great. That's very helpful.

1630

The Chair: Mr Murphy, you have five minutes left.

Mr Murphy: Okay. I'll throw in a few more questions. We're here; what the heck.

I wanted to get from you, if we could, the number of escapes from provincial correctional institutions in each of the last five years. We had the deputy and her able staff in the public accounts committee at some point in the last few months, and I was wondering if there was an update on the response given at that point to the criticisms made in the auditor's report of functionings within both the Solicitor General and Corrections. There were, for example, the -- and I know that some of the response has already started -- but there was the example where a cook was left supervising the inmates, and there was a commitment to certain systems being put in place to correct that problem. I just wanted an update on whether that's happened, and if not, why not, and if yes, how far.

The Chair: Mr Murphy, for clarification, did you want persons who have escaped from a facility or persons who have been on some form of supervised program that they departed?

Mr Murphy: That's a good point. Both, actually, because I know there is the example in Hamilton some months ago of someone who was on supervised leave under supervision of someone else who had been an offender at one point, if I'm not mistaken. It may have been in your backyard. It was in the last six months.

Hon Mr Christopherson: We'll check.

Mr Murphy: Yes. In any event, the statistic I want is for both circumstances, and I thank the Chair for clarifying that.

The particular question related to the impact of the social contract on the correctional services and scheduling issues: how that is working out in correctional institutions. I gather one of the terms used is "backfilling," and whether that's happening and to what extent.

You may not be able to give this figure, but you and I have talked, Minister, in other contexts about crime prevention, and I know that discussions have happened at a federal-provincial level for a crime prevention council. I'm not certain at this point where that's at. It may, in fact, be weeks away. I'm wondering what percentage of your budget is allocated to crime prevention that you can identify. In a related question, there's a variety of community-based programs, from Block Parent, Neighbourhood Watch and a few others. If I'm not mistaken, you give grants, but it's a tiny amount. What amounts do you dedicate to community-based things like Neighbourhood Watch, Vertical Watch, Block Parent programs in terms of support?

The second thing in terms of community grants is that you administer the program funding for sexual assault centres, and there were two or three that ran into difficulties and I believe there were audits done. Again, I think there was one in the Hamilton area that had the difficulty a year or so ago, and what the status of those audits are and whether resignations have occurred, what the current makeup is and how that has worked out.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Mr Chairman, I don't have a half an hour. I thought we'd be engaging in some dialogue here, and I wanted to focus in on a few subjects, really.

I also am not sure how the process works in respect to inviting individuals who chair agencies, boards or commissions that fall under the jurisdiction of the minister. I would certainly like to have the opportunity to talk to the chief coroner and the chair of the Ontario Board of Parole. I know this doesn't fall under the ministry, but I think it's relevant to a concern of mine related to corrections, and that's Dr Richard Schabas, the chief medical officer of health, related to HIV testing in correctional facilities. I'd certainly love to have the opportunity to discuss that issue with him, because I know he has some strong feelings in that respect.

The Chair: For any agency, board or commission within the responsibility of a ministry, it is the custom and the practice that during the estimates process, with notice, invitations can be extended. To the extent that they're accommodated by scheduling, they're required to make every effort to be here.

Mr Runciman: As part of a six-hour review?

The Chair: Oh, yes. They are here either to make presentations as requested or to respond to questions, but it's helpful if we advise them what you'd like them here for. If it's for an extended period of time, it's helpful if caucuses can coordinate their questions so that it doesn't require persons coming second days, as these people are not always available.

Mr Runciman: In terms of Schabas, I think I've made it clear what I'd like to talk about, and that's mandatory testing for HIV of inmates in Ontario correctional facilities, including young offender facilities.

I'm interested in talking to the chief coroner about the Jonathan Yeo inquest, the recommendations flowing from that and how the government has responded or not responded.

With the chair of the Ontario parole board, I'd like to talk about the process there. I'm hoping the minister can respond to some concerns as well in terms of the release of Clinton Suzack, which I've been stonewalled on, in my view, with unjustifiable rationale presented by the minister as to why he hasn't been more forthcoming in terms of the report he received about the release of Mr Suzack and any actions he and/or his officials may have taken in response to that. He's used the justification of the trial of Mr Suzack in Sudbury, which I think just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I certainly intend to pursue that more with the minister in terms of how he can justify that.

If you take a look at the terms of reference of the study, the objectives: "investigate the decision to grant parole to the individual;" -- Suzack -- "determine whether the decision to grant parole was appropriate in the circumstances; report as to whether the decision was consistent with the mandate of the board; investigate whether the decision to grant parole was in accordance with the board's policies and procedures; provide any suggestions for action that may be indicated by the facts of this particular case."

Of course, the minister has hidden behind the privacy act and the supposed concern for the individual to have a fair trial. I and a lot of Canadians, and Sudburians especially, have difficulty in linking his justification for refusal to release the recommendations and action he's taken with the trial that is coming up at some point, I assume later this year. I want to pursue that and give the minister an opportunity to further elaborate. That's a major concern of mine, and the fact that this thing has been allowed to go under the carpet for the last number of months is something I have a great deal of difficulty accepting and that I know certainly the people of Sudbury and many police officers in this province have a great deal of difficulty accepting.

1640

In terms of the chief coroner, I also want to talk about the Centre for Forensic Sciences and the operation of that facility. We can relate it to -- not directly, because I know we will get more arguments -- the arrest of Mr Teale and the DNA testing. There were some concerns in terms of that which became public knowledge at the time, of the delays in getting test results, I think about a year before the results were made available. That's just from press reports. That's just an indication of the concerns down there and how much the administration of justice depends on skilled and knowledgeable people who operate that facility. I'd like to talk about the operation and any shortcomings that may be there and what we can do to address them to ensure that the public do not have to have any real concerns about the way that facility operates.

I want to talk a bit about the fact that very little information has been provided -- Mr Murphy raised it -- about the tender for the new revolvers for the OPP. I'd like to talk a bit about that, the tender bid, the process, how the decision was arrived at, how the tender was developed, and why there apparently was no requirement for any Ontario/Canadian component in that tender offer, just to explore that issue a bit more. I'd also like to discuss the ammunition that's going to be provided for this -- I gather it's a .40-calibre weapon --

Hon Mr Christopherson: Either 9mm or .40-calibre.

Mr Runciman: I want to talk about the kind of ammunition that's being discussed and the strengths and weaknesses of the ammunition that's being proposed.

I'd also like to explore a little bit more the issue -- it was raised in the Legislature today -- of the London situation, the youth porn ring. I've heard a story, whether there's any truth to it or not, that there's some consideration being given by the government to compensating some of the young males who participated in the production of these videos, compensation, I gather, on the basis that they're being looked upon as victims. I'd like to find out if indeed that is a fact.

I'd also like to talk about the employment equity programs within the OPP, how you see that proceeding, any problems you may see arising as a result of achieving your goals over a period of time in terms of the number of women and minority groups within the OPP ranks.

Some OPP officers approached me with concerns -- whether they're founded in reality or not I do not know -- about having a significant proportion of women in those roles, what happens in terms of a spate of pregnancies and so on, which could cause a serious shortage of person-power within the ranks of the OPP. The minister can shake his head, but those are concerns I'm hearing from police officers, so I think they should be addressed.

I'd like to also have some discussion at some point about the question of race and crime statistics and what the government is doing in that respect, if anything, what the views of the government are about that particular issue. I notice there's an article in one of the Toronto papers today by a member a visible minority in terms of his support for the compilation of these kinds of statistics and how, in his view, it would help visible minorities and others in terms of the concerns that are out there among the broader community.

What else? I'm sure there are other things that will arise during the course of the discussion that at the moment I can't think of.

The Chair: Mr Runciman, thank you very much. I've noted the three requests you've made. Are there any other requests of members to have either staff or representatives of agencies, boards or commissions affiliated with the ministry? And am I to understand that if the chief coroner is unavailable, the deputy coroner will suffice, or if the chair of the parole board is unavailable, the vice-chair?

Mr Runciman: I guess so. I'd prefer the chair of the parole board especially.

The Chair: That's understood. If the chair can't make it, that's it?

Mr Runciman: We'll try the vice-chair, sure.

The Chair: Just for purposes of instruction, I believe the chief medical officer assigned to do the HIV testing may not necessarily be associated with the ministry --

Mr Runciman: He's not.

The Chair: -- but may have done work. It's not a ruling on my part -- a request can be made -- but I'd need the support of the committee to take up the time in that area with that person being called forward. I'd need their permission, since we're in a bit of a dilemma there in terms of the fact that they're in a different ministry, even though they've been doing some work in corrections. The work is certainly the subject of discussion, but asking someone to attend with the standing order authority of this committee, we're on weak ground there.

Okay. I will leave that in the deputy's or the minister's hands to make those invitations, and they can report to the committee as soon as possible. Mr Duignan, a question?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): It's just that when I was in the public accounts committee we discussed the whole question of special education and how much that budget --

The Chair: I have to follow the standing orders in terms of recognition. I have to defer now to the minister and then we'll order our business. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I thought it was a question about process.

If I may, Minister, if you'd like to use your time to do some of your response now, that would be appreciated.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Thank you very much. We've certainly covered a wide range of the responsibility we have in this large ministry. Let me say at the outset that I will address the issues as I've caught them as best I can and then will attempt to provide, as was suggested by the Chair, in writing or certainly verbally tomorrow those things I'm not able to respond to in detail today or fully, and also any matters that I may have missed. As you were talking I took them down, but if I've missed any and you come back to me, I will be pleased to do that, given that the time is almost 5.

Fire Services Review Committee: I'll take them just in the order that I have them here. I've made a commitment to leaders of the fire services, both chiefs and the union, as well as others, that I would endeavour to move that process into some real results, meaning legislation. My sense, and the issue goes back to the time of Mr Murphy's party being in government -- he wasn't here but his party was in government -- is that it's been a long process, for two reasons, I think.

One is that the scope of the work that's being done is vast. It's taking 50 years of problems that have built up, because nothing's been done for that length of time, and also trying to merge all the existing pieces of legislation into one. So it's the scope of the work, and then also the complexity and, quite frankly, the controversy within the fire services community around the issues that were there.

Both his government and mine, my predecessors, have sought to find as much compromise and common ground as possible before moving ahead and forcing it down people's throats. I am trying to do the same thing. You've acknowledged the meeting that I shifted from today. The purpose of that meeting is so that I have a very clear picture where everybody stands and all the players, all the partners are hearing where each other is at the same time. Then from there we will decide what the appropriate next steps are, set together a time frame and goals and objectives and move on them. That's what I've committed to do and that's what we will do.

1650

In terms of the social contract implications, I would look to the deputy to talk about the productivity committee aspect of it, but I will state that in my discussions with the fire marshal, he has been monitoring, since the implementation of the social contract, the impact in various communities, and at this point he has not determined that there has been a significant negative impact on the ability of communities to provide essential fire services, although he does continue to monitor that. I acknowledge that chiefs and others have expressed concerns, but the fire marshal is assuring me that right now there is no statistical evidence to support the fact that we have a significant problem. But again, I have asked him and he has agreed to continue to monitor that closely because it's obviously an important issue to us. Maybe the deputy wants to comment on the productivity committee.

Ms Michele Noble: I could just indicate that there is in fact, within the municipal sector agreement, a reference to certain aspects of bringing the labour relations issues in that sector more in line with the Ontario Labour Relations Act. There is not an actual piece of work being done at the moment, but there has been some recent discussion at the officials' level to simply note that this is in the agreement and it is something that needs to be addressed, and what's really being discussed at the moment is the degree to which these kinds of issues are already potentially being addressed as a result of other processes, as distinct from needing to be addressed as a separate issue, so that's not yet been determined.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Thank you. I want to touch on your -- because I want to try and touch on all the issues, if I can -- the policing in the small communities, what we call equitable financing within police services. You may have read the clippings lately where I characterize the whole thing as a mess, and I think all would agree that it is. One cannot defend with any credibility the why and wherefors of how police financing is taking place in the province of Ontario. I'm not going to suggest that I am unique to that. It needs to be resolved and we're undertaking to do that.

The specific questions you ask on under-5,000, how many, those kinds of stats, I will undertake to get for you.

Detachment closures: There's been a number of announcements recently that have been raised in the House and we've talked about it there. In all cases, the community has been consulted with. I realize there are some who are suggesting that they would have preferred more consultation. My understanding is that is a minority, in terms of the number of communities involved. In the vast majority, while no one is really pleased, they understand the undertaking and Commissioner O'Grady has assured me that we are providing at least the same level of service, and in some cases we're able to increase the quality of service and the level of service. I believe that some of the community acceptance of these decisions is a reflection of that.

In terms of other decisions, we are constantly reviewing all aspects. Quite frankly, there isn't a part of governing right now that isn't being reviewed and looked at in terms of: Can it be done differently? Can it be done better? Can we do this in a way that, if we approach it differently, we can provide the same service with less money? All governments, all levels, are doing that. I won't say to you that there won't be further announcements, but I am saying to you that there have been no further decisions taken beyond those that you've already seen and heard about publicly.

I would also add just parenthetically that when I met recently with officials from the RCMP, I learned that because of funding constraints in their budget they're faced with similar kinds of circumstances and their approach was the same as ours in terms of looking at the regional responsibilities they have, rationalization of services, but in a way that maintains or increases the level of service. I have to say to you very personally that it gave me a good comfort level to know that not only the same action but the same approach to that action was being taken by the federal police service, the highly regarded RCMP.

The Junger commission report: I'm going to follow up on that. You say the OCCPS had advised you. Was that in writing or verbally?

Mr Murphy: Verbally.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me follow up on that and I'll get a response to you. I don't want to venture into that until I know better.

Release of names: We undertook almost a year ago now, as a result of a number of high profile incidents in the province, to look at pulling together a set of guidelines that would be of assistance to police. As you know, changes to the federal legislation, certain court rulings, freedom of information laws both provincially and municipally, and constitutional rights that we all have in Canada make this a complex issue to deal with.

I think we had a good approach. We pulled together representatives from the major stakeholders, spent some time reviewing the various options that were available, trying to find the balance between providing clear-cut direction for police chiefs, in particular, but police services, always allowing as much as possible the discretion that we ask senior officers to make when they're fully apprised of the various circumstances under their jurisdiction.

We were very close to completing that and finding agreement, and then we had an announcement by, I think it was, an appeal court. I could be wrong on this in my memory, but I believe a three-judge appeal court panel ruled on an issue that had a direct impact on this. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding from the legal community is that they were quite taken aback by how far-reaching the decision was. It clearly had significance for the work we were all doing and that group has now had to reconvene.

We're at the point now where I believe there's a draft document now being circulated, and we're at this point trying to have everyone sign off or deal with the issues that they raise. Then it's still my intention, hopefully if we have agreement but regardless, at some point to issue guidelines that would provide police with some assistance as to how they should approach these things.

Until then, once a warrant has expired, then it really comes down to the police service making a judgement call as to whether they should or shouldn't. There are clear circumstances where they feel comfortable doing this and then others where it starts to get very murky and grey. I want to alleviate that as much as I can, but I don't want to be sending out guidelines that face major problems and complicate things rather than help them.

Fine option program: It is the Attorney General's bailiwick, although the new legislation should assist us in finding alternatives for a lot of people who currently are in jail for relatively minor offences and fine non-payment, which I think is consistent with not just our position but that of your party and that of the third party in terms of trying to find ways of dealing with those things. The deputy may have something.

Ms Noble: Just one clarifying comment: The fine options programs that we had been supporting were discontinued as a result of the revised Provincial Offences Act legislation, which is essentially in place to prevent people from going to jail for the simple reason that they cannot pay a fine. Therefore, the fine option program became redundant in that sense.

1700

Hon Mr Christopherson: If you have further questions to that, I'll take them and follow up on them.

SIU: You raised the question of statutory mandate and my thoughts on their operation. With regard to the statutory mandate, the Attorney General of course now has responsibility for SIU, based on the recommendation of the Lewis report. That was concluded, I believe, last year; early last year we made the transfer from our ministry to the Attorney General. So I can't answer directly, but I will give you some thoughts and comments on what I believe is the case.

The Attorney General has indicated it's her desire to work with the police community and the SIU to find a way to resolve the impasse in the short term without legislation, if possible. My understanding is that those sorts of meetings are ongoing. Beyond that, you'd really have to ask her directly.

My views have always been that the length of time cases were taking was unacceptable. I made that point very clear to the Attorney General, who also indicated she believed it was unacceptable. I understand they have an audit report and are meeting with the police to talk to them about how they can go about shortening that time and ensuring that the SIU is providing the same level of service to and for the police and the public as we expect from police services. I think she sees that as a priority.

Coroners' inquests, with regard to the Chair's private member's bill and the --

The Chair: Who raised that?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Do you guys want to fight it out in the parking lot and come back?

The Chair: No, I didn't hear him raise it. I apologize for interrupting. I didn't think anybody raised it.

Mr Murphy: We'll wake you up at the end.

The Chair: Okay. Once I get the right answer, you can wake me up.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say that the issue of responses by government agencies to coroners' inquests has become a significant part of what the public and juries and the chief coroner expect from those exercises. The coroner has instituted policies where such reporting is required. I know in the Stephenson case the jury itself built in a time frame, and we're seeing more and more of that, where they're actually putting in their recommendations in their report where governments have to respond within a certain reasonable period of time.

I'm not hearing a lot of people say that we should be taking the recommendations of coroners' inquests verbatim and they should be immediately turned into law, but I am hearing that the juries have a right to hear back from governments and it's been the experience in the past with all parties as government that this hasn't happened.

We haven't ruled out legislation. It's not on the immediate list of pieces of legislation that we're looking at, but that does not in any way and has not and will not prevent the chief coroner from utilizing this policy and certainly doesn't prohibit the movement of legislation in the future.

Security guards: Most of this was detailed answers that you asked for and I will undertake to provide those.

The humane society and animal welfare act review: As you know -- I don't have the paper in front of me -- we have had the initial consultation with the stakeholders. Then there's been a report as a result of that which was generated and submitted back to the stakeholders. We've asked them for their comments on that report and we're now in the process of analysing those responses and determining what the makeup of a new piece of legislation should look like. I'll doublecheck this, Tim, but I believe that is exactly what I'm answering to constituents such as yours who are writing to me. I'll confirm that with you again tomorrow. But in terms of where we are, that's where we are.

Mr Murphy: Mr Chair, if I can just interrupt, I think I indicated I would table some written questions related to that, and I'll do that through you now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon Mr Christopherson: On issues around the humane society, the tax exemptions -- I think some of those are in your written questions -- I'll review that and these questions for getting back to you.

Also, the OPP stats: You asked for an update of the stats, the number of officers and the number of Criminal Code incidents, and I'll undertake to give you the most up-to-date information I can get.

Mr Murphy: The drop in conducted investigations.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'll give you the best I can at this moment; if it's not complete, we'll give you more.

On the number of cases, one of the responses you'll hear from me many times throughout this ministry -- I suspect others too, but more ours, because we have so many people, 16,000, the highest number in the entire government, and also because the largest percentage of our budget is costs around staff.

On the issue of the early retirement factor 80, that's certainly, I think we would all agree, a good thing to the extent that people feel comfortable that they can retire earlier than they'd planned. That allows them to enjoy a longer retirement, but also it creates jobs. It also allows us, where we are eliminating positions, to do it in the way of attrition; it doesn't affect individuals. I think all those things are positive.

On the downside, however, as private industry has also seen, it does in many cases take away some of your most skilled, experienced people and there's an element of trying to catch up. It's not just a straight hire someone off the street or move someone from somewhere else in the government. A lot of these positions, particularly in the area of forensic sciences and coroners and other areas of extreme technical expertise require a while to get people up to steam and fully trained to do the jobs that are available. The number of turnaround-per-case days in forensics -- I believe that was the issue you raised.

Mr Murphy: The drop in number of cases, basically.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Right. The estimate is that it starts to go back up in 1994-95. In fact, a lot of these numbers are a direct result of losing the experienced people and the amount of time it takes to bring people back into the system and have them skilled. For instance, for some of the forensic staff, I believe it takes up to two years. Even when you hire them qualified to come in at line entry, it takes up to two years to train them before they can actually be in a position to take on cases and do them properly themselves.

Mr Murphy: Is it the same for fire safety services and coroners' inquests?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Coroners' inquests: What is happening now is that as much as possible the chief coroner, again in trying to ensure that valuable taxpayer dollars are being spent in the right areas, and many times that involves a shift, is using more coroners' reviews to do a cursory review. I don't mean to suggest it's not a proper review, but rather than a whole day, full inquest to do a coroner's review, to make an early determination, a first-step determination, on whether or not there should be a full-blown inquest as opposed to jumping immediately to an inquest. Obviously, this can only happen in areas of his discretion.

They have to answer, as always, and be accountable to me and to the public for cases that they may not have done, but it's my belief that we haven't, as a public, lost anything in this. But it is a way to rationalize resources in a more efficient way, and that explains some of it.

1710

I would want to get a little more detail on this, but apparently it's quite deliberate. Again, it's a changed management plan which refocused the program from being a direct service delivery operation to one whose role is educating and advising client groups on a full range of public safety and fire protection and prevention issues. The results of the implementation of the changed management plan are most evident with the reduction of property inspections over the past three years and the increase in consultations with fire and municipal officials. Again, it's part of their mandate to help municipalities provide services. Let me get you more on that.

Darlington nuclear emergency plan: I had a meeting recently with a community group --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Durham Nuclear Awareness.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- Durham Nuclear Awareness, thank you, Mr Wiseman -- talking about this issue. There are a number of recommendations that have come from a panel of experts regarding extending primary zones, the use of KI pills and a number of other amendments.

Of course, I need to say for the record that we do have existing nuclear emergency plans that are adequate to meet the needs. The question is always trying to provide the highest level of safety and security for residents. There is some question on the part of Ontario Hydro whether or not these are steps that are necessary, fall in the category of being necessary or not, and always balancing that against the public need.

Also -- I'm going from memory -- there have been editorials from some of the communities that are impacted by this raising some of the questions of the necessity of taking these steps given the implications for communities even in their preparedness and the sorts of things that it says to communities.

I raise these points, Mr Murphy, only to advise you that this is not just a clear motherhood issue, but I have committed myself to continuing to work with the experts, with the communities, and to make whatever amendments are necessary to ensure that we have the highest level of protection that is possible, and always within the range of the practical because you could spend probably every dollar of provincial money available in preparation here if you so chose. There's always an element of having to draw the line somewhere, and that's what we're now talking about: Where is that line? That continues to be an active issue within my ministry.

Hate crime standards are part of the public safety and violent crime project through my ministry. We've issued a number of standards. We have a number of other standards that are coming out over the next year and a half. Many of those are in response to the Yeo recommendations and also deal with Stephenson inquest issues as well as areas that we've identified, that community groups have identified and that policing services themselves have identified as requiring standards from the ministry that provide an overall consistency in Ontario, as well as ensuring that all police services know what is expected of them in responding to these.

The hate crime standard was one of the first to be released publicly. We've been in consultation with the Ontario women's directorate -- the minister responsible is the Attorney General -- and we have commenced an interministerial committee to review the issue. It's not a final position, by any means, that women are being deliberately excluded from this. It is a question, however, of ensuring that this is the best way to deal with those concerns.

I am quite prepared to make the amendments, since it's under my ministerial responsibility, and we have communicated that to the women's groups that have contacted us. It's my understanding that while they still consider this a priority, they understand why we're doing it and are appreciative of the fact that we are moving on it. I don't have the time frames -- by the end of the year, Michele?

Ms Noble: Yes.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think it's by the end of the year. The review by the two or three ministries involved will be concluded and we will either advise how we're going to address this in an alternative way and how long that's going to take or make the amendments to the standard as recommended by this group. But we'll continue to keep the community groups apprised of this as we move along. How's my time?

The Chair: Another five minutes.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Five minutes. Oh, I'd better hit on some of Mr Runciman's or he's going to feel left out.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Oh, he left already. That speaks volumes.

The Chair: Minister, that's unfair. When nature calls, we'll excuse you too. But please proceed; he can read the Hansard.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Okay. I will come back to the other issues you've raised, Tim. I do need to make sure I address some of Bob's concerns.

The expenditure control plan and social contract: Again, much of that is a statistical response and wanting to know -- no, that's yours, Tim. You almost got more answers. Bob Runciman. There we are.

Talk to the chief coroner: The Chair has addressed that. I gather we'll work that out as a process.

Suzack: Again, Mr Runciman insists on making allegations from positions that I have taken based on recommendations from the Attorney General. He's certainly free to do that. It does not, however, in any way alleviate my responsibility to ensure that I am upholding the law and doing my job in the way that it has to be done.

Were I to do anything different than what I am doing on the advice of the Attorney General, I believe Mr Runciman and others would be the first to leap to their feet and want to know why I was interfering with the criminal justice process and, quite frankly, I think they'd be quite right in doing so unless I had an adequate explanation for such action.

Mr Runciman: Can I interject here? Is this the Ontario parole board you're talking about? I'm sorry I missed it.

The Chair: That's fine. I would not recognize any interjections, only points of order. We are addressing some of the concerns raised in your opening statements and we're talking about the Clinton Suzack case, just for clarification.

Mr Runciman: A point of order then: From my perspective, it would be helpful to have some dialogue and not simply ask a series of questions and have them, 20 minutes later, responded to and never get into the meat of the matter, but I'm not sure how the process works here.

The Chair: Mr Runciman, what will happen is, once the standing order portion of the estimates is dealt with, then we'll get into time allocation where you and the minister will be able to have the dialogue you're seeking in a more direct and immediate responsive way. The minister has a few more minutes left to respond to some of your initial concerns, and then I will consult the committee as to how we wish to order up the balance of our approximately four hours.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Just to conclude, I still maintain that it's the right decision and I look forward to the engagement later today or tomorrow.

OPP tendering process: I'll give you a detailed response tomorrow on the new Ontario/Canadian component, except to say to you that I've satisfied myself that the process was the proper one, that it met the needs of both the regulation that I changed as well as the standards set out in the response we gave to the Ministry of Labour.

Ammunition: We can talk about that in more detail. There are those in the police community who believe that it should be a hollow-point bullet. I have not been convinced that this is the right step to take at this time or that the need has been conclusively proven. The ammunition that has been authorized in the regulation is comparable to the ammunition that is now used with the existing .38.

1720

The issue of compensation for victims regarding issues of pornography in London is clearly a matter for the AG, and I'm not in a position to respond to that.

OPP and minorities and women: I found your position interesting, to say the least. But let me say again --

Mr Runciman: I wasn't taking a position; I was asking a question.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The question then. Fair enough. I'll provide you with some statistics that will allow us a more factual engagement tomorrow rather than just policy debate today.

On race stats, I think probably we need to have a longer discussion, but it's still the position of this ministry and the government that we're not undertaking to collect crime stats based on race.

However, the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System has advised us that they do intend to address this issue and offer their thoughts and recommendations when they bring in their final report. We await that, and I do so with an open mind to the extent that I want very much to hear what they have to say, but we will not be taking any action prior to considering what they may have to say.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. That completes this portion of the opening comments and questions.

Mr Runciman: If the Chair would allow me, since I used up very little of my time and I overlooked one subject area that I wanted to --

The Chair: The Chair would like to get guidance from the committee and then we'll assign the time. If I can get the direction of the committee -- I'm in the committee's hands as Chair -- we have five votes. Do you wish to stack the votes and do you wish to deal with the ministry by panel or do you wish to go by time allocation?

Mr Wiseman: Stack.

The Chair: We'll stack the votes; that's agreeable. So we'll vote at the end of our discussions.

We have about 35 minutes remaining today on the clock. Let's do 12 minutes each. We'll start with Mr Murphy and then Mr Runciman.

Mr Murphy: I used up most of my time and the minister used most of his time responding to me, so I think Mr Runciman could start. It's no problem to me.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Here you are giving him 12 minutes.

Mr Murphy: I'm not waiving my 12 minutes.

The Chair: If Mr Runciman would like to proceed first, that's fine.

Mr Runciman: I just want to put another comment on the record, which I'm sure the minister may have a brief response to, or maybe he'll reject it out of hand.

I was approached a few weeks ago by a crown attorney who expressed concern about the growth of organized crime as he saw it in the province of Ontario. He was concerned that there was not enough emphasis being placed on curbing organized crime and the growth of it in new areas. We've seen it in drugs and prostitution and so on, but he mentioned specifically credit card fraud. We saw one large arrest, I think, and charges laid recently in that respect.

He talked about cellular phone fraud and illegal gun traffic as well, illegal guns coming into the province through organized crime operations, and felt there was a lack of emphasis at the provincial level in respect to this. I know that the commissioner of the OPP is involved and I think he heads up a federal-provincial organization, municipal organization. I have not had an opportunity to speak to him about this concern.

The crown perhaps got into a political area here as well. He felt there was less emphasis placed on matters like organized crime and other serious crimes because of the government's focus on domestic violence, violence against women and those kinds of issues. He felt that some of the allegations dating back decades were being pursued vigorously by the police, with many of them not having merit in the end.

I'm not taking a position in support of this concern. I'm just saying that it's there and it was raised by a responsible and respected individual who felt that there was too much focus in these areas and who also made the allegation that even in terms of break-and-enters into private residences there's very little investigative effort to try and resolve many of these so-called crimes because police simply don't have the time or the resources any longer to direct their attention to the degree they once did because of their focus in other areas which have been deemed a priority of, I assume, the Attorney General and the government. That's something I'd like to give you the opportunity to respond to.

A couple of things may not fall necessarily in your area. I was talking to a sergeant of the Metro police force a couple of week ago. He had been assigned to a downtown division; I can't recall the number of the division. He was saying that a couple of years ago they had the highest vehicle theft rate in North America, which I felt was quite astounding. He said that compared to Detroit, New Jersey and those kinds of places, which you automatically think of, this district in Metro had the highest vehicle theft rates in North America.

He said a lot of them were through organized crime gangs and a lot of them were using ethnic young offenders, Vietnamese gangs and so on. One of the concerns they ran into, even though these individuals may end up with several convictions, was the difficulty to have them removed from the country because in their experience and on a regular basis -- he certainly indicated this was a fairly regular thing in his experience -- many of these people they were bumping into were sponsored by the federal government.

If that sort of thing is being relayed back to you as the chief law enforcement official -- I'm not sure; again, it's certainly not an area that falls directly under your jurisdiction -- if indeed it's accurate, it should be a concern, because certainly it's a concern of that one police officer. Whether he's reflective of others in the policing community I'm not sure.

This is just a modest issue but one I'm curious about. I know that Susan Eng is serving her second term on the Metro Toronto Police Services Board as a provincial appointee and I'm just curious as to whether or not any consideration is being given to a reappointment of Ms Eng to the services board. That's it for now.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The issue of organized crime is, and I know this at first hand, a matter of considerable priority with law enforcement agencies, both federally and provincially. There are a number of cooperative efforts that are under way, and I suspect you may know what I'm speaking of.

Let me also preface my remarks by saying that I will have discussions with officials in my ministry because I'm not clear at this moment, sitting here, how far I can go in terms of talking about what activities are happening, again not wanting to compromise any operational activities. But in my sincere desire to give you as much information as I can, I will go, regardless of what I say here today, and check. If there's more that I can add to that, I'll be pleased to do so.

I do know that one of the main reasons that the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario was formed was an attempt to deal with the law enforcement response to the growth in organized crime. In fact it was a recent project, codenamed Gunrunner, undertaken by CISO that led to the recommendations that came to me and ultimately to my cabinet colleagues on the development of the provincial weapons enforcement unit.

Most of that was the result of the intelligence gathered and the analysis of that intelligence within CISO as it pertains to the issue of illegal guns in our communities: the smuggling of them, the selling of them, the use of them. We are uniquely positioned in Ontario to respond to these issues.

1730

I must say to you that I have not had anyone of the level of a police chief or the commissioner of the OPP suggest to me that there is a crisis of any sort as a result of lack of priority or attention or funding in this area. That's not to say there aren't many areas in society that could use more money, that's not to say there aren't more things the police would like to do, but it is to signal to you that no one at that level of responsibility has brought that to my attention.

In fact, in my regular briefings of the activities of the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario and my regular meetings with the OPP commissioner, I am kept apprised at the appropriate level of detail of the kinds of activities that are undertaken by law enforcement officers. I'm generally satisfied that the police have the matter well in hand and that the partnerships they have with their federal counterparts and in some cases international counterparts are sufficient to provide the level of security that Ontarians expect.

Having said that, I will honour the commitment to talk further with my staff, and if there are more details that I can give you in this regard, I'll be pleased to.

I do want to say, though, that with regard to any aspect of policing -- by virtue of your question, the suggestion is raised -- that is suffering because of the government's focus on domestic violence, sexual assault, hate-biased crimes and matters of that nature, first of all, I don't believe anything is suffering as a result of this and I make absolutely no apologies whatsoever. In fact, I'm extremely proud of the fact that this government has made those priorities.

I think it reflects the kinds of needs that we have in society, and I support wholeheartedly and work in partnership with the Attorney General to continue to pursue issues like this in my role in providing standards to policing. I can tell you that, by and large, the response of the police has been positive in their recognition that they are dealing with these issues on the streets on a day-to-day basis and they want them treated as a priority. Enough said on that.

Two other issues: The other one with the gangs and deportation federally, I have to confess I didn't quite catch from that the salient question to me. I'm sure many staff took notes, or if you want to rephrase it, I'll certainly attempt to give you a response. I'm just saying to you right now I'm not sure what the question is.

Mr Runciman: I think it was police frustration with these repeat offenders and their inability to deal with them.

Mr Murphy: Fighting deportation.

Mr Runciman: And to see them through deportation, yes.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I couldn't give you an answer right now on that. I'll talk with my officials. If there is a part of this that I can respond to, I will. I'll let you know tomorrow, Bob.

On the last one, in terms of the appointment of the chair, the appointment of Susan Eng, that seat, the chair is selected by the board itself. It's the policy of the government that, with very, very few exceptions, we not go beyond two three-year terms. There have been I think one or two exceptions to that which are very unique and would clearly be seen as such. I can say to you that there's been no final decision in any direction, but any exception to the policy would indeed be a unique one.

Mr Runciman: Is this a ministerial appointment or a Premier's appointment?

Hon Mr Christopherson: They are the Premier's prerogative.

Mr Murphy: Upon your advice and consent.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Yes. I'm a party to those decisions, as I should be, in terms of advising the Premier, but the final decision and recommendation to cabinet is the Premier's in these cases. I can tell you that no decision has been taken and it would be an exception to the rule. That's not to say it can't happen. No decision at this point has been made.

Mr Runciman: If there's no discussion, then I'll follow that up with a supplementary. No discussion of that possibility?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Until a decision is taken, anything and all things are being discussed one way or another. It's not an issue that's being leaned on one way or the other right now, Bob. It's an important appointment and we're continuing to look at it. The Premier will make his recommendation to cabinet and they'll make their decision.

Mr Runciman: What do you look for when you make those kinds of recommendations to the Premier, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, since it is such a sensitive area in respect to these kinds of appointments? What sort of qualities are you looking for? What sort of message do you want to deliver in terms of the kinds of appointments you make to this board?

Hon Mr Christopherson: There are a lot of things that we look at. Metro certainly is the largest municipal police service in Canada and one of the most distinguished services in North America -- in the world, for that matter. However, many of the qualities we look for are not unlike those we look for on police services boards in much, much smaller jurisdictions. Again, let me say that there's no particular checklist. People can bring different strengths in different ways to different boards, so it's not a question that you have to have experience here, here and here and have this qualification in order to be considered.

I think it's pretty straightforward. We look for people who have a commitment to their community. It helps if people have a background with the law, in one way or another, but not everyone does. Sometimes we deliberately, in seeking a balance, will look for people who have no experience in the law, people who have experience in budgets, people who have served on community boards. On the other hand, Bob, if we have a board that is full of all those people who have budget experience, community service and expertise in certain areas, but no legal background, then we might deliberately seek somebody, because we're always looking for the balance on a board. It really is a question of looking at the community -- the board overall should reflect the community -- and then looking at the makeup of the board and what will help make it a balanced board.

Mr Runciman: You made reference, and we'll pursue this in greater detail, to the Clinton Suzack release by the Ontario parole board. You said you were following the advice of the Attorney General. I assume that you got that advice in writing, since it is such a sensitive area. Could I ask that the advice be tabled with the committee?

Ms Noble: I have to check if the advice is in writing. I think the question is whether or not there is anything in the way the advice was given that would also cause a problem in terms of the concerns being expressed.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I can see by your smile that this is not an unexpected response, but there is a letter and we'll get back to you tomorrow on whether or not we feel we can release it to you. If we can, we will.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm new on this committee. It seems to me that it's called estimates and it begs the question that we're talking about money. Having understood and known that your ministry has been amalgamated, the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Correctional Services, it automatically begs the question to me in this setting of, what are the savings? Maybe you could put some of that on the record.

Laughter.

Mr Mills: What are you laughing at? I think it's a very logical question.

Mr Murphy: Excellent, the way you are approaching the issue.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Murphy. It's estimates, for goodness' sake.

The Chair: I suspect the minister is dying to answer.

Mr Mills: I'm sure he is.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Absolutely, I'll see if I can reach for an answer.

Mr Murphy: Just read from the prepared response.

Hon Mr Christopherson: One of the purposes, of course, in the merger was an overall attempt by the Premier, in building his cabinet, to reduce the cost of government as much as possible. In the past, there have been many ministers who have had joint responsibilities in this government and in previous governments. I think that reflected the obvious attraction of formally merging the two into one, as has been done in most other jurisdictions in Ontario and certainly at the federal level. The Solicitor General is responsible for many of the same areas that I am.

1740

The obvious goal was to achieve as much savings as possible. That will be done through eliminating duplication, mainly in the areas of administration. Over the past year, we've saved approximately $2.8 million in administrative costs. A number of the corporate function mergers are the reason we were able to do that, such as the corporate policy and resource planning, legal services, communications, deputy ministers' offices and ministers' offices. At the end of our merger plans, in the second year, we'll see annualized savings in the area of $5.3 million being realized as a result of this merger.

I would say to you that the results have been significant. I think we've achieved the kinds of goals the Premier was seeking when he merged the ministries. I would also say, from a policy development point of view, that I think we're able to make much better planning decisions and operations decisions in our areas of responsibility in the criminal justice system as a result of having the formal merger take place and being able to, at one table, make a determination of the outcome at the corrections end of the system of actions taken at the Solicitor General policing end, as well as being able to save the cost of providing those services by eliminating the duplication.

In most cases we are enhancing our ability to provide a corporate service overall. I think you'll find that in many cases the response I am able to give in terms of efficiencies that we've wrought out of the system and money that we can save through rationalization is a direct result, or even indirect in some cases, of the merger of those two ministries into one new entity.

Mr Mills: Okay. Just briefly, it begs a supplementary question. That merging would obviously result in a great saving in staff. I was just interested to know if they were absorbed within the public service. No layoffs?

Ms Noble: In terms of the numbers of staff that were affected, for the most part we've been able to place individuals within the ministry. We still have some people who are affected by relocation as a result of the mergers, and they are being dealt with through the process. I don't think I can say there has been nobody who has been surplus; there are certainly surplus to positions, but we've been working through the government's redeployment plan to ensure that we can try and place them.

Mr Mills: Thank you, Mr Chair. I defer to my colleague, but I have more questions if we've got time.

Mr Duignan: When I was a member of the public accounts committee for a number of years, the last time we were there we had the Ministry of Education come in. There's some $1.1 billion provided in special education grants, and parts of the special education grants go to the correctional institutes for education programs.

Is it possible to have the individual in your department who has responsibility for education and rehabilitation be here as well to answer some questions? I would like to know what type of literacy rate there is among repeat offenders, and when they get some education -- for example, upgrade their education -- whether that offender stops coming back.

You mentioned that education, literacy training and other work experience programs have shown to reduce the likelihood of future antisocial behaviour. I would to see some stats around that and what you're doing. If that's the case, what are you doing to make sure there are more education/training programs in the institutions?

I have a real concern about young offenders, in particular with zero tolerance in the education system, and if they're thrown out of school and they end up in a young offender program somewhere, what opportunity they have to complete their education and not have any more antisocial behaviour. So I would like some discussion around that whole area.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I don't know if we have anybody here today who can give you the level of detail you want, or whether we need to do that tomorrow.

I'm being advised by the deputy that we should bring somebody here. I think what you would like is a fairly detailed response to these questions -- they're very specific -- and we can best do that tomorrow.

Mr Duignan: Exactly. If these programs are shown to work, what are we doing to make sure there are more of these programs available to the offenders going into our institutions?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Okay. Good question.

Mr Mills: Minister, I've noticed that there are some rather obvious changes between the budget for 1993-94 and 1994-95. I just wonder if you could help me with the major areas of significance that we should look to for why there is that variation between those budgets of the two years.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The most significant changes between fiscal 1994-95 and 1993-94, and I'm talking now estimates to estimates, would be the social contract savings target of $32 million, which is a reduction in costs of operating the ministry. The cost of the additional OPP officers which this government has approved and was phased in over three years is a $6.8-million increase.

Municipal policing contracts: As you know, a number of communities are deciding that the best way they can provide policing services in their communities is to go with OPP contracts, and we're doing a number of reviews right now and proposals. I believe we have about six or seven that are in this particular budget. That's about $3.2 million.

The outgoing cost for the OPP shows up in our budget. The income that comes in from the municipalities is shown in the consolidated revenue fund. So Floyd gets the money and we get the bill.

Mr Murphy: You didn't negotiate that too well.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think you guys set up the system; you or the Tories.

Mr Murphy: That was because of Nixon.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I had to live with what was there.

First nations policing agreements: $2.9 million, similar there. We have also provided grants to municipalities to defray the cost of training and providing firearms simulators across Ontario. That's given us a $3.1-million change in the budget. We've restated one-time expenditure reductions that were in the 1993-94 estimates for the OPP, such as the vehicle purchase, uniforms and other things. Those have been restated in the 1994-95 budget and show an increase of $3.2 million.

Mr Murphy: I want to follow up on just the Fire Services Review Committee stuff and the productivity committee stuff. The other things we can follow up later.

Minister, in terms of moving ahead with legislation -- and you said you were committed to moving that process forward -- I'm wondering if I can get a clearer sense of your time frame.

Hon Mr Christopherson: No, you can't.

Mr Murphy: That's honest, anyway.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It is; it's the truth.

Mr Murphy: Sorry; I'm shocked, actually, to get an answer.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Even if it's no? I don't have a detailed, critical path. Obviously, the Liberal SG didn't when he or she set out with this, and, to date, I don't have one.

The difficulty right now is that, again, because it's been, like, 50 years since there's been any significant change to fire services legislation, there's a lot of pent-up frustration around a lot of areas. Also, as you well know, we don't even have a basic requirement in the province of Ontario for a municipality to provide them. Theoretically, a municipality could eliminate its fire service and there's nothing that the Solicitor General can do about it; unlike policing, where we've got it regulated to the teeth, which it should be.

So this has led to a whole array of issues that need to be dealt with, not just a few things, not one or two big ones, but a whole array of issues, and very strong feelings on all sides, from those who want radical change to those who want things to stay exactly the way they are. Now, I'm speculating, but I suspect that my predecessors, Liberal and New Democrat, and probably why the Tories didn't do anything, were really concerned about suggesting to the fire services in Ontario that they were going to jam the legislation down their throats. I think that's why this thing has gone on so long.

1750

I've asked people, and I give a lot of credit to the leadership in the labour movement, the chiefs and municipalities who are prepared to go around, if you will, the table one more time to identify just how much common ground there is. One of the problems is that there was so much time gap between the last report and the last recommendations, and now I found that when I met with people, and I had numerous meetings with the associations, positions had changed. It made it very difficult for me to see clearly what I ought to be recommending.

Mr Murphy: It'll change when the new union leader gets elected soon too --

Hon Mr Christopherson: Sometimes, that's right, and the same with the chiefs. They have their association, although they in this case haven't changed their position. But those sorts of things can happen in AMO and other things.

However, the long and the short of it is that I'm committed to moving this thing as quickly as I can. At some point I recognize that I may not have everybody holding hands and singing from the same hymn-book, singing down the path, and I'm going to have to make some hard and fast decisions. But my goal is to have as few of those as possible and to try to find that consensus that meets the needs of the stakeholders but delivers the legislated service to the public.

Mr Murphy: Just to try and pin that down a little bit, and I know you've said you don't have a schedule particularly in mind -- there are two alternatives. Obviously, there's the "Don't do anything," and there's the view, "Well, at least we need the debate, even if we can't get agreement." People are saying, "Will there be an opportunity within the mandate of this administration for comment in a public forum on a draft of some kind following up on the recommendations of the Fire Services Review Committee?"

Hon Mr Christopherson: That is my goal. I cannot give you an absolute commitment; I could not do that with the stakeholders simply because I cannot, but I am comfortable saying to you, as I've said to others, that that is my goal. My goal is to have, hopefully, not just a draft document, because we've done that already, but draft legislation that we could circulate either prior to or just after an introduction in the House that would allow all of the stakeholders to take a look at some serious proposals with details.

Mr Murphy: Would it be your intention that you do it as a whole package, as opposed to, for example, if you had agreement on 15 out of 20 recommendations, to say, "Let's carve the 15 out and do just the 15 and leave the five for the succeeding mandate," or is it a commitment that it's 20 as part of a whole package?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Good question, a fair question. I'd have to say it would depend on what the pieces are that we've got agreement on and what the pieces that are that we don't. If we could do it that way, if we could parcel it in that way and it furthered the issue of enhancing fire safety in Ontario, then yes, I'd be prepared to look at it. But I'd be foolish to say to you now that I'll just take whatever we agree on and not move with the rest if there isn't a clear rationale for legislation, if those pieces that aren't agreed on don't fit. That's as frank as I can be.

Mr Murphy: I wanted to follow up on the deputy's comment regarding the productivity committee and the reference in the municipal sector agreement regarding bringing the labour laws in line. I don't care who answers it. The bottom line is, I'm wondering whether it is the current position of the government that firefighters and police officers will continue to not have the right to strike, or is that changed by virtue of the municipal sector agreement and somehow the government's view is that police and firefighters should have the right to strike?

Ms Noble: Maybe I can answer a procedural question, and that is that the actual note in the municipal public sector agreement simply says, "There shall be a review of those issues," so it's not a commitment to one position or another in terms of outcomes. It's simply saying that there shall be an opportunity to discuss the matters, and that's the procedure being looked at.

Mr Murphy: To a certain degree I'm being a cipher on this because I'm picking up and people are telling me that this is what they're hearing, that the right to strike will be given perhaps as an unwanted gift to firefighters, for example, in this circumstance. I think what they're waiting to hear is a clear signal from the minister clarify ing that this is not the case or perhaps is. Here's your opportunity, Minister.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The most direct answer to you is that there's been no decision made on that issue by cabinet. There's no announcement to be made of a change, nor is there an announcement to be made that there's no change. The deputy has indicated to you we'd made commitments to review it. That is part of a number of initiatives that we have agreed to undertake as a result of negotiations with the unions and municipalities and others in the course of the social contract legislation. I have no announcements to make at this time because there are none to be made.

Mr Murphy: I'm not sure what you just said. If I were interpreting that, I wouldn't take much comfort. If I were, for example, a firefighter who didn't want to have the right to strike and liked the arbitration or a municipal leader who thought, subject to some changes to the arbitration provisions, that not having firefighters be able to go on strike was a good thing, I wouldn't take much comfort in what you just said. So I want to give you another opportunity to make it clear. Is the policy remaining unchanged that the right to strike is not being given and is not proposed to be given to firefighters, or are you saying it's open and that we'll see what the review produces?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm saying that no decision has been made. I'm also saying that we'll honour the commitment that we've made in the social contract. I appreciate that this doesn't give great comfort to those who feel one way or the other, but it is the reality.

Mr Murphy: That's fine. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to be clear and that I didn't misunderstand.

Ms Noble: I think one of the things we might do to assist is we might bring in the actual agreements. The sector agreements are, as I understand it, publicly available. So therefore we could bring in the language in terms of the particular note, because it does speak to the bringing together but it also speaks to specific areas, and they don't include the one you're just raising; they do speak to questions of arbitration.

Mr Murphy: Perhaps the minister might want to clarify after he's reviewed the agreement, but I'm telling you what I'm hearing. All I want is the minister to say that I'm wrong or I'm right, and he's telling me, "Could be." So I'll pass that message on unless he wants me to pass on a different one.

Mr Duignan: You're going to be a good Liberal.

The Chair: I know it's hard for me to tell the difference between the two of you.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'll get back to you with a clearer answer tomorrow.

The Chair: It is 6 of the clock. This committee stands adjourned, to meet again following routine proceedings tomorrow, June 1, committee room 2. We have three hours and 40 minutes remaining.

The committee adjourned at 1758.