The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. McNie) I would like, through you, sir, to introduce to the members of the Legislature a group of senior citizens from Hamilton West who are in the gallery today.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House 80 grade 10 students from William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute -- they are in the east and west galleries -- and remark that this is the third group from William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute in Downsview that has visited us, and ask you to join with us to welcome these students.
Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 65 students from Parkdale Public School, with Mr. D’Oliveira and a couple of other teachers, who are sitting in the east gallery. I hope the members will welcome them.
Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.
LONDON YOUTH DETENTION CENTRE
Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Nov. 19, the hon. Leader of the Opposition raised a number of questions relating to the juvenile observation and detention facility at London. I think this perhaps would be a more appropriate place to make a more detailed reply, rather than taking up time in the question period.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Good idea.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It is essential to my answer that we place this matter in perspective. Accordingly, I would like to review briefly the chronology leading up to the current events.
In 1968, as the House will recall, the Ministry of the Attorney General assumed the responsibility for over 300 physical facilities from the municipalities in this province relating to the administration of justice. Included in that number were three observation and detention homes in the cities of Hamilton, London and Ottawa. The observation and detention home in the city of Toronto had been assumed in 1966 under a special agreement with that municipality.
In order to establish a programme of priorities for the renovation and replacement of these many facilities, the ministry instituted a systematic review which documented certain inadequacies in these facilities. Insofar as the observation and detention homes were concerned, those in Hamilton and in London were identified as needing extensive renovation.
Between the years 1970 and 1972, minor repairs and renovations, including the installation of smoke detectors and other safety devices, were effected to the London home as an acknowledged temporary measure. In the fall of 1972, the ministry received government approval for the construction and leaseback of a new facility in London. Tenders on the matter were closed on Sept. 26, 1973, and a contract was awarded in October of that year. Regrettably, for financial reasons, the contractor withdrew from the contract late in January of this year. Since that time, I am advised that negotiations have been under way in an attempt to conclude alternative construction arrangements.
On Oct. 31, of this year, Mr. Speaker, I received the report of the county of Middlesex grand jury which was delivered on Oct. 23 to the judge of that court. In that report, this particular home was identified as old and crowded, with a lack of recreational facilities and surrounding grounds. The report drew attention to the need for repairs and recommended a fire inspection report, as well as indicating that in the view of the grand jury the premises were not suitable for human habitation.
As a result of this report, I directed an immediate inspection by the fire marshal and a review of the premises by the chief judge of the provincial court, family division. On Nov. 12, I received from His Honour Judge Genest a copy of the report of the fire chief of the city of London, dated Nov. 7, 1974. That report concluded in summary that the facilities were not adequate for the present type of occupancy, and in case of a fire, escape from the building would be seriously hindered by the measures taken for security reasons. It also concluded that the construction of the building and its condition are conducive to fire spread and recommended a series of remedial alterations.
On the very next day, Nov. 13, I received a telegram from His Honour Judge Genest of London, in whose court jurisdiction the observation and detention home in question is found. I would like to read this particular telegram in full. I am now quoting from the telegram:
“GRAND JURY CONDEMNS JUVENILE DETENTION HOME AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH RECOMMENDS SIX IMMEDIATE CHANGES AND FOUR EARLY ONES. FIRE CHIEF SAYS THE BUILDING IS A HAZARD TO THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF THE OCCUPANTS. CITIZENS’ ADVISORY BOARD PASSED A MOTION YESTERDAY [which would be the 12th] CALLING FOR CLOSURE OF THE FACILITIES FORTHWITH. I URGENTLY SOLICIT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PROBLEM. JUDGE GENEST.”
Acting on the obvious urgency of that message, Mr. Speaker, and with considerable concern for the “life and safety of the occupants” of the home, I instructed my officials to take immediate action in accordance with the tenor of that telegram to ensure that the occupants were placed in safer accommodation. Under the direction of the chief judge of the provincial court, family division, and in the company of the local child-care supervisors from the London court, these children were remanded to the closest available facility, which is in the city of Hamilton.
Having satisfied myself as to the safety of the lives of these children, which was my paramount, if not my only concern at that particular point in time, I then directed my officials to immediately explore in detail the alternatives available for local accommodation for these children. These alternatives were to include the feasibility of effecting the repairs outlined in the various reports which I had received, as well as seeking alternative interim accommodation.
It is the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, of my officials and other government and municipal representatives who have now looked at the situation that the remedial measures suggested by the fire chief are inadequate as an interim step in resolving this problem. They have concluded that the observation and detention home should be discontinued and a suitable alternative interim accommodation be sought. I approved this recommendation and arrangements are now under way, with the assistance of the advisory board -- and I have a telegram from the chairman which I appreciate very much -- for the provincial court of London to secure suitable accommodation at the earliest possible date in the city of London, pending construction of a new facility.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add and emphasize that since the transfer of the young people from London to Hamilton daily communication has been maintained between the family court at London and the detention home at Hamilton. I would also point out that those child-care supervisors whom I referred to earlier from the London court have been added to the staff of the Hamilton court because of their knowledge of these particular juvenile cases, thereby ensuring continuity in the treatment and care of the London children at the Hamilton home.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food.
CONSUMER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to inform the members of the appointment of consumer representatives to the Milk Commission of Ontario and the Farm Products Marketing Board. Her Worship Mayor Robin Jefferey, Belleville, will become the fifth member of the Milk Commission and Mrs. Ruth Jackson of Kitchener, Ont., will become the consumer representative on the now six-member Farm Products Marketing Board.
Both Mrs. Jefferey and Mrs. Jackson come highly qualified for these very important positions. Born and raised in Elgin county, Mayor Jefferey received her early education in St. Thomas, Ont. After graduation from the MacDonald Institute, Ontario Agricultural College, in 1956 with an honours degree in household science, she taught for several years at Quinte Secondary School. Elected an alderman to Belleville council in 1967, she became mayor in 1972. On Nov. 12 of this year she was acclaimed mayor for another two-year term. She is presently a member of the Business and Professional Women’s Club of Belleville, of the University Women’s Club of Belleville and the Women’s Investment Club of Belleville.
Mrs. Jackson, a native of Toronto, received her Bachelor of Arts in food chemistry and her Master of Arts in public health nutrition from the University of Toronto. She was a charter member of the Kitchener-Waterloo District Consumers’ Association of Canada (1957) and has since held several executive positions. She is currently president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Ontario section, and teaches consumer economics and experimental foods on a part-time basis at the Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology.
Both appointments are for a two-year term. Mrs. Jefferey’s is effective Nov. 1 of this year and Mrs. Jackson’s becomes effective on Jan. 1, 1975.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources.
LOGGING IN ALGONQUIN PARK
Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, on Oct. 22, 1974, I tabled the Algonquin Park master plan and at that time I stated I would soon be introducing a bill to establish the Algonquin Forestry Authority. Later on today I propose to introduce a bill for that purpose.
Also today I will table a report entitled, “The Availability of Wood outside Algonquin Park to Satisfy Industrial Requirement,” written by Mr. Pierpoint of the forest research branch of my ministry. Mr. Pierpoint, a research scientist of high repute, has made an objective analysis and assessment of alternative wood supplies for the mills now dependent on supplies from Algonquin Park. Specifically, the Pierpoint report examines the hypothesis that wood from a 50-mile zone around the park can satisfy the requirements of both the industry now dependent on wood in this zone and the industry now dependent on timber from the park.
At this time I wish to stress that I have reconsidered the need to harvest timber from Algonquin Park and I can reaffirm unequivocally that the 50-mile zone is not a feasible alternative source of supply for park-dependent mills for the following reasons:
Pierpoint’s independent study confirms the earlier assessments made by my forest management staff that there is not enough high-quality material physically available in the zone to satisfy the particular requirements of the industries hitherto provided with veneer, sawlog, and pole quality timber from Algonquin Park.
Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I just don’t believe that. I don’t believe it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The industry of the region presently depends upon private woodlots for 40 per cent of its wood supply, but based on current trends in woodlot owner characteristics and attitudes, this source of supply is not secure and cannot be guaranteed for the future.
The large area covered by the 50-mile zone, the checkerboard pattern of private and Crown land, and the scattered nature of the excess Crown timber present serious operational and financial problems which limit the recovery of this wood.
Mr. Renwick: It is not worth taking up the time of the House to read that statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Renwick: It is not worth taking up the time of the House to read that statement.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. members to refrain from interjections. The hon. minister will continue.
Mr. Renwick: I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I rise on a point of order -- and if they turn my microphone off up there, I intend to have an inquiry made.
Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Has the member for Riverdale been drinking early today?
Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is one of those days, is it?
Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): That is for interjections;
Mr. Speaker: I don’t think the microphones are off.
Mr. Renwick: I am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am not prepared to listen to that kind of a statement made in the House disguised as a ministerial statement, when it’s an apologia related to a bill which he is going to present to the assembly, and he is trying to precondition it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Renwick: The ministers don’t have an all-embracing right to make statements and the minister knows it and the Speaker knows it.
Mr. Speaker: The matter can be debated later. The minister has the right to make a statement.
Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He is trying to get the first word in.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, at this point to take a closer look at each of the four points that I have mentioned.
Mr. Renwick: This is an abuse of the procedures of this House, and he knows it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Pierpoint report shows that in the 50-mile zone there is more wood available than is currently being used, but this excess material does not include sufficient conifer sawlogs, poles and pulpwood, or hardwood veneer logs, sawlogs and poles to replace wood being harvested in the park. The deficit is, at the very least, over five million cu ft per year. This deficit is based on wood operations carried out during 1971-1972 and 1972-1973, two years in which woods operations were generally depressed. When one takes into account that the average annual cut in the park --
Mr. Renwick: This is an abuse of this Legislature. The Speaker should throw him out.
Mr. Eaton: The member for Riverdale is an abuse of the House. He’s been drinking.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Renwick: The minister should be thrown out of the House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s the matter with the member for Riverdale?
Mr. Speaker: Shall we continue?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, when one takes into account that the average annual cut in the park as set out in the master plan is considerably higher than the cut during the two years examined in detail by Pierpoint, a deficit of as much as 7.5 million cu ft emerges. In attempting to support their claims that more than enough excess material is available, the proponents of the 50-mile zone concept have improperly used my ministry’s calculated allowable cut data. The apparent cause of their misunderstanding, which I can appreciate --
Mr. Renwick: This is cheap.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- is the forestry term “allowable cut” -- and just what the term does and does not mean. First of all, “allowable cut” is defined as the volume of wood which may be cut under management during a given period.
When calculating allowable cut for an area, it is assumed that harvesting and manufacturing techniques and markets exist for all trees with a diameter of 3.6 in. or greater, regardless of tree species, form, and size. Thus, allowable cut is only a broad planning tool showing the maximum amount of fibre that could be harvested under ideal conditions. This is as it should be, because industry’s ability to use trees of various qualities, sizes and species cannot help but vary depending on many social and economic factors.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He is on much weaker ground than I thought.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: In general, and in the particular case of Algonquin and the surrounding zone, markets and manufacturing techniques effectively limit the wood that the industry can actually use commercially to a volume significantly lower than what the allowable cut indicates.
I must say again that there is simply not sufficient usable material in the 50-mile zone to support both the industries dependent on the park and those dependent on the 50-mile zone.
Private woodlands supply: Approximately 44 per cent of the 50-mile zone is private land and the industry of the region is presently dependent on private landowners for 36 per cent of its sawlog and veneer and 45 per cent of its pulpwood. The traditional supply of private wood to the industry cannot be guaranteed for the future, as the province has little direct control of either wood allocation or forest management on private lands.
The characteristics of the private landowner and his attitudes have changed in the past 10 to 20 years and the trend appears to be toward owners who are uninterested in selling timber from their lands. A few statistics from a 1972 study by the government, entitled “Rural Lands and Landowners of Southern Ontario” illustrate the attitudes of private woodlot owners in southern Ontario toward timber supply.
1. Only 10 per cent of the woodlot owners stated that selling timber was the purpose of forest ownership;
2. Forty per cent of the woodlot owners have never undertaken any kind of woodlot activity such as planting, cutting, pruning, protection, etc.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s like saying the Woodlands Improvement Act is a total failure.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Lewis: Is that part of the Pierpoint report?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: 3. Sixty per cent of woodlot owners have never sold any forest products.
Mr. Renwick: Give us the report, don’t read it to us.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: In addition to considering the absolute shortage of available quality material, it is useful to look at the 50-mile zone from an operational or industry standpoint. First, the 50-mile zone is extremely large in comparison with the present operating area of the park-dependent mills. It is five to six times the size of the park and --
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this is an abuse of the procedures of the House.
Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It is not; it is a statement.
Mr. Renwick: It is not a statement at all; it is an abuse of the procedures of the House.
Mr. Eaton: He’s been drinking. Throw him out.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is five to six times the size of the park --
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is the statement finished?
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Those in attendance will view the members’ actions, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West.
Mr. Lewis: I do want to make this point to you respectfully, sir, that it is one thing to table a report in the House and to draw attention to its contents; it is another thing to use the Legislature before question period, through ministerial statements, to reply politically to a statement which was originally made in June, 1974, some considerable time ago. That is not an appropriate use of the ministerial statement. That should be reserved for the debate on the bill; otherwise you abuse the rules of the House.
Mr. Renwick: It is totally abusive.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is my understanding -- and I must confess I am not familiar with the material and the report you are talking about -- that it was a statement preliminary to introducing a report, which has to be done now. The statement has to be made now rather than when the report is tabled.
Mr. Cassidy: The statement is longer than the report, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we wanted to approach it this way because we wanted to give all the members of the opposition all the information that we have in order to make the debate very meaningful.
Mr. Renwick: Give us the report and tell us the study was being made.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Furthermore, the checkerboard pattern of ownership and scattered nature of the excess Crown timber would cause the park-dependent mills to experience prohibitive wood procurement and access problems, inefficiencies in logging operations and increased hauling costs.
There are over 140 primary wood-using mills in the 50-mile zone and others outside the zone that depend on this area for their wood supply. As well as these mills, the mills that are dependent on the park also rely on this 50-mile zone for a large percentage of their total mill requirement.
The viability and the competitiveness of all these mills must be protected, and to do this I must be able to provide a continuing supply of timber within a reasonable proximity of these mills. The greatest part of the zone is already committed to the industry in the form of Crown timber licences and volume agreements. In addition to existing licences and volume agreements the excess quality wood reported in the Pierpoint report is essential to allow for fluctuations in the year-to-year wood requirements of the industry and to provide for an anticipated increased dependence on Crown timber in the total industrial simply due to changing attitudes on the part of private landowners. As evidence of the total commitment of Crown timber in the zone, new mills and major mill expansions in the area have been limited to those mills that require only the lowest grade of wood or those that are replacing existing capacity.
In conclusion, while the shortage of suitable raw material and the operational problems in the outside zone tend to rule against its consideration as an alternative source of supply, I would like to mention the future direction of the Algonquin Forestry Authority with regard to wood supply in the park. The authority will be holding the companies to their present cut levels in the park. It will operate in such a way as to improve utilization in the park so that wood requirements of the dependent mills are met with fewer trees being cut. Through such efforts of the Algonquin Forestry Authority and the continued programmes of the Ministry of Natural Resources the government will help ensure the continuing economic and social stability of the Algonquin region and the recreational values for which Algonquin Park has become world famous.
Mr. Cassidy: This is a sellout.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the privileges of the House are to permit ministerial statements like that, then I would ask very seriously of you, if opposition members are to be restricted from interjections, that the two opposition parties be given the opportunity to respond at the time of the ministerial statement rather than at some future date.
Mr. Speaker: This is a statement, as you said, by the ministry, before the orders of the day, which is quite in order. There will be opportunity, I am sure, to debate this at a later date. I can’t rule on the body of the statement.
Mr. Renwick: But that is not a licence; it is an abuse.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): On a point of order, might I ask whether there is any possibility that there will be a House committee to study the recommendations of Camp, which included a recommendation that there be an opportunity for opposition spokesmen to respond to ministerial statements briefly?
Mr. Lewis: That’s right.
Mr. Singer: It is not the Speaker’s responsibility.
Mr. Fenwick: It is the Speaker’s report.
Mr. Deans: It’s the Speaker’s responsibility.
Mr. Speaker: I can’t answer that question at the present time.
Mr. Cassidy: To conclude the point of order, Mr. Speaker, anticipating what may happen over the coming months, may I just say that the level of frustration experienced by this side of the House, if we simply have to sit here quietly while this kind of statement comes day after day after day, will be intolerable, and I urge that changes be made in the procedure.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has noted a bit of frustration on all sides of the House and the quality of debate isn’t always the best, so I have no further comments on that.
The Minister of Health has a statement.
Mr. Renwick: Keep it short.
REPORTS ON LEAD POLLUTION
Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, later in the day, at the proper time, I will be tabling the report of the committee established to inquire into and report upon the effect on human health of lead from the environment.
I am pleased to welcome on your behalf the three members of that committee, who are with us today in the gallery, on the west side under the Speaker’s gallery -- Drs. Robertson, Chant and DeMarco.
The hon. members will know that this report represents one facet of our approach to gaining more information on this subject, in order to enable the government to effect an integrated approach to health concerns, working conditions and the environment. This report is one of two documents, the other being the report of the working committee on lead, which was received by the Ministry of the Environment about a month ago.
As of today, both documents are public. In order to assist the government in developing an integrated response to the question of lead pollution and lead ingestion, the Environmental Hearing Board will now deal with both papers and will invite briefs from the public. My understanding is that hearings will commence shortly.
I would like to publicly thank Dr. Rocke Robertson, Dr. Donald Chant and Dr. Frank DeMarco and their staff for the expenditure of time and energy that obviously went into compiling this report. I think it is a milestone document in a number of ways.
First, it is in my opinion the foremost paper now available in Ontario dealing with the effect on health of lead from the environment. I would think that this report will be read with great interest by other jurisdictions that are as concerned with this problem as we are.
Secondly, and this is of equal importance, the report does much to strip away the emotionalism that has surrounded this very controversial issue. The report deals in facts and figures. It will assist greatly in placing the real concern about lead pollution in a perspective which should allow rational approaches to everyone’s wish that a proper resolution be forthcoming as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, the report makes excellent reading. We are giving it wide distribution to those who are interested and involved in this issue and I commend it to the members of this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.
REPORTS ON LEAD POLLUTION
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question, further to his statement just delivered. Has he himself read the report and, if so, has he consulted with his colleagues about the immediate introduction of legislation which will reduce lead emissions from automobiles, which is called to particular attention in the recommendation section?
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report completely. I had a press interview in camera before the question period and this question was raised.
Mr. Lewis: A what?
Mr. Renwick: A press interview in camera?
Hon. Mr. Miller: In camera.
Mr. Renwick: That’s fine. Which members of the press attended that one in the interests of the public?
Hon. Mr. Miller: All were invited.
Mr. Renwick: A press conference in camera?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Miller: The issue is one that really passes any provincial boundary and we will do our utmost to see that legislation --
Mr. Renwick: That is a breach of the privileges of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Miller: -- is introduced encouraging or insisting upon the use of non-leaded fuels or other means of removing lead from automobile exhaust emissions.
Mr. Renwick: The minister is destroying the system and he knows it.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Attorney General.
Mr. Lewis: No, I have a supplementary, if I may.
Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Scarborough West.
Mr. Lewis: I just want to understand the processes here. My office called Dr. Rocke Robertson this morning and was told we couldn’t have the report. We called the Ministry of Health and were told we couldn’t have the report until it was tabled in the House. How is it that members of the Legislature cannot have a report simultaneous with, or even perhaps in advance of, an in camera press interview held by this ministry? How does that happen?
Mr. Renwick: And which members of the media attended?
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge all members of the media were invited and they were asked to stay in the room until the bells rang at 2 o’clock. This procedure I understand has been acceptable in the past.
Mr. Renwick: What are we supposed to do?
Mr. Deans: How do we know --
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Come out fighting.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Attorney General.
Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary if I may.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.
Mr. Renwick: This is destructive of the processes of the assembly and the minister knows it -- and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick can smile as much as he wants -- they are destroying it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member is an embarrassment to his leader; he is trying to speak.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of order, I really appeal to you to evaluate what is being done to the Legislature by the government.
Mr. Renwick: That’s right.
Mr. Lewis: Even in the budget papers, Mr. Speaker, prior to the introduction of the budget, members of the opposition and research staff are invited and allowed to attend. I suggest to you, sir, that it is wrong to deny members of the opposition access to reports in advance of their being tabled in the House, expect us to make comment on them and yet --
Mr. Deans: They don’t want us to make comments.
Mr. Lewis: -- take the opportunity to hold press conferences in advance which are in camera and not shared. That seems to me an abuse of the legislative process.
Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I might just underline that the minister has revealed that the press was released as soon as the bells rang for the House to open. The minister did not make his statement to the members of the Legislature until 2:25 p.m. There is at least a 25-minute time lag there.
Mr. Speaker: I’ll take into consideration the comments of the members. I know it does happen occasionally that ministers have released to press conferences --
Mr. Lewis: By all means have a press conference, but share the information with us.
Mr. Speaker: I’ll have to take that up; I’m just not sure of the procedure.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, what does the report say about the removal of the topsoil within a radius of a quarter-mile of the Canada Metals plant? Does it say anything and what does it say? If it says anything, what is the government going to do about it?
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all the purpose of this report was not to discuss that kind of problem.
An hon. member: Why not?
Hon. Mr. Miller: It was the effect of lead --
Mr. Renwick: Of course not, that’s where the problem originated.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Miller: Look, I’m answering the member’s question; please give me the time to do it.
Mr. Renwick: The minister is not answering. He is saying the report didn’t deal with it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Miller: This group had a specific duty and that duty was to determine the effect of lead from the environment on human health, regardless of its origin. The other report covered the more general thing that the member is talking about and made specific recommendations -- the task force report. This report endorses the recommendation of the task force report, if the member would like to know that.
Mr. Lewis: Do I take it, by way of supplementary, that the ministry is now therefore launched into a series of public hearings under the Environmental Hearing Board based on the two working documents, and that in fact no legislation --
Mr. Speaker: Order please, that’s a new question which the member is putting.
Mr. Lewis: No, it is not a new question. It flows directly from the report. It is part of the recommendation. I’d like to know whether that is the minister’s process.
Mr. Speaker: It is an entirely different approach to it, so it could be a new question, with all respect.
Mr. Lewis: All right.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you all straightened out?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. The Leader of the Opposition.
LONDON YOUTH DETENTION CENTRE
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Attorney General. In light of his statement on the removal of the young people from the London centre, can he explain why family court Judge Genest did not feel he could obey the direct instruction from the Attorney General’s ministry and evacuate the young people as per the procedure that was dictated to him?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to be very fair, I haven’t the slightest idea why Judge Genest had that view. I find in some circumstances it is strange for Judge Genest to send me a telegram, the contents of which I read in the House, impressing upon me the urgency of the matter and then being critical at all of me in taking action on that on the basis of the advice. I would rather stand in this House today and be criticized for acting as quickly as I did, rather than standing up announcing an inquest, I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary question: Has the minister or one of his officials consulted with Judge Genest as to the other aspects of the welfare of the young people who were bundled into a paddy wagon and taken to Hamilton under circumstances which he, as the family court judge responsible for putting them in there in the first place, simply found unconscionable?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, all the steps which I took as the Attorney General were done in consultation with the chief judge of the provincial court, family division.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would further explain why it was necessary to withdraw from the commitment to build a new facility in 1972 simply because, as he said, the person who got the contract got into financial difficulties? It is apparent that the company was making regular reports to the companies branch as recently as March 6, 1974. It is certainly not out of business. Was it not, in fact, the minister’s decision to seek a way out so that he would not have to go forward with the building of a new facility?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think, Mr. Speaker, that question might be better directed to the Minister of Government Services.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about it?
Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, government approval was received for the building of this facility on a leaseback basis. Tenders were called and several bids were received for the leasing of the building to the government. Under this proposal certain guidelines are given for the building, and then the successful contractor is asked to proceed with the design of the building.
Obviously, this company made a serious error or underestimate in its proposal, and after further investigation withdrew its proposal for the construction of this building. On my recommendation at that time, the building was changed from a leaseback project to a capital project and our own architects were engaged to design the building. That design was completed a few weeks ago, and I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that as of today the tenders have been called for the construction of the building.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can the minister indicate then that the government had nothing to do with the original design of the building that it was prepared to buy on a leaseback basis?
Hon. Mr. Snow: As I stated -- I thought quite plainly -- Mr. Speaker, the government gives certain criteria and preliminary sketches of the building that is to be required, but the detailed design is the responsibility of the bidder.
Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, in view of what the minister has said, can he explain why Peter G. Stonehouse of the project management branch of his department would have written a memorandum, dated April 24, wherein he states that the developer had been allowed to withdraw and that it is expected the project will be tendered by mid-July -- this is mid-November apparently, when the tenders are being asked -- and that the Attorney General gave the same information in a letter he wrote on May 2? If this project has been so urgent, why has the information contained in these letters and memoranda been ignored? And why has it taken so long to get the project under way?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the architect was engaged last spring to do the complete detailed working drawings. The working drawings were completed at the end of July. At that time a report was made to Management Board that the project was ready to proceed to tender. The project has been considered, along with other priorities, for the capital programme of the ministry, and it was just this week, Mr. Speaker, that approval was given at Management Board to proceed with the tendering.
Mr. Singer: Oh, that’s why the member for London North (Mr. Walker) said it wasn’t going to be built this year or next year.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he can now present to us the information on his negotiations with Gibson Willoughby, including how much he paid them for the advice that he received as minister in charge of Ontario Housing Corp. regarding the values of certain lands purchased. If he cannot put this material on the table -- and it has now been a week since it was asked for -- is he prepared to have an outside investigation into the business practices of Ontario housing Corp., which comes under his jurisdiction?
Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House several times, I believe, that I would be preparing a detailed statement and would be tabling the required information relevant to the transactions. One thing that has assisted me is the fact that the member for Downsview and the press have given us some relevant information.
Mr. Singer: I’ve got some more.
Mr. Renwick: Come off it.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: We want to make sure that --
Mr. R. F. Nixon: More every day; every day.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: We want to make sure that the member for Downsview --
Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Housing makes the statement when he wants to make it, and not when it is in the interest of the public, as does the Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Foulds: This is a government shrouded in secrecy.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- didn’t forget any of the pertinent information; and I am going to make sure that the statement is detailed in every aspect. Now, as to the question which the hon. member asked a minute ago --
Mr. Renwick: The minister won’t make announcements on public business when they are required -- and that’s his obligation.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has to understand that I will include, as I said before, how much the fees were to the firm of Gibson Willoughby. I have been meeting with our staff and with the firm --
Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): And the lawyers.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: What lawyers?
Mr. Singer: Holden and Ford.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will give all the detailed information necessary, in my opinion --
Mr. Renwick: Don’t qualify it. Don’t qualify it.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to make sure that the people of Ontario understand the full transaction. Even though the opposition can’t understand it, the people of Ontario will understand it.
An hon. member: That’s right.
Mr. Cassidy: In 1976.
Mr. Lewis: That’s why the Conservatives are losing --
Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since seven specific cases were put before him a week ago, does the minister not believe that the people of Ontario, as well as the members of the Legislature, are wondering why the specific questions cannot be answered by now? And is he, in fact, fabricating some kind of a justification?
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): He’s blushing red.
Mr. Cassidy: I was wondering about that million dollars.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the other day that the member for Downsview said that there is some misbelief now because I hadn’t prepared the statements as quickly as he would like. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to say the same thing --
Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is not the same thing; it is information that should be within the competence of the minister’s department.
Mr. Lewis: The minister should have had it within 24 hours. It should not have taken a week.
Mr. Renwick: It is the minister’s obligation to respond to questions.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say again that I will bring the statement forward in my time, when I have it correct -- and I won’t bring it forth as misleading as the statements that have been made by some members of this House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Misleading?
Mr. Cassidy: The minister is trying to cook up an answer.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister not aware that that information was simply excerpted from what is publicly available in the registry offices and from no other source? How can that be misleading? It’s factual. We need more facts from the minister.
Mr. Roy: It is embarrassing, but it’s not misleading.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is a bit impatient --
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, why wouldn’t we be? We have worked a week.
Mr. Lewis: Impatient? It should have taken 24 hours.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- but, in any event, he will have to be impatient, because I am going to make sure that when I bring the facts forward, even he can understand it.
Mr. Lewis: The minister is making sure he cooks the books. That’s what he is doing.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: We should have a royal commission within six weeks.
Mr. Roy: The minister should be embarrassed.
Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: When the minister tables the information --
Mr. Renwick: If he tables it --
Mr. Lewis: Yes, when and if he tables the information, can he indicate to the Legislature whether there is a single other case in the province of a real estate company which he has engaged to deal in this fashion with the Ontario Housing Corp. other than Gibson Willoughby?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will take the question as notice and I will include that in my statement.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: Answer it next week.
Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: When the minister does emerge with his statement, or gives birth to it, could he deal particularly with this case, which is a transaction where Robert Phillip Stewart and Louis Isobel Knox conveyed land eventually to Holden and Ford, government nominees, for some 92.9 acres of land situated in lot 7, concession 8, new survey, which land had been offered to Gibson Willoughby and Ontario Housing in the early fall of last year -- and they didn’t even have the courtesy to answer those offers -- at a price some $2,000 an acre less than the nominees eventually paid for it, with speculators getting in the middle and taking advantage of the profit that the government eventually had to pay and shouldn’t in fact have paid?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again this goes back to the original debate we had. I don’t think we have to dwell too much longer on this, but let me say again that the member for Downsview knows full well that in the latter part of 1973 and in the early months of 1974, land prices were escalating all over Ontario, especially in certain urbanized areas --
Mr. Singer: Oh yes, and the minister did it.
Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): This fellow did it.
Mr. Roy: Not by $200,000 in 30 days.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say to the hon. member for Downsview that he has been in the business of dealing in transactions similar to this for many years. He knows full well that if we hadn’t come in with the land speculation tax, the prices would still be rising --
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The government is doing it now.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it is time that he recognized that there is a difference between the values in 1968 --
Mr. Singer: There is evidence of very recent sales of the same properties for much less than the government paid for them. Why wouldn’t the government buy them at $2,000 less?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- the values in 1970 and today’s values.
Mr. Singer: Well, no, this was the 1973 value. The minister didn’t even answer me.
Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): The government hadn’t decided it wanted the land.
Mr. Cassidy: There is the vaunted reduction in prices.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want also to say to the member that when I make a statement, I think he can understand the full ramifications of it all.
Mr. Lewis: The minister may never make it. He may be transferred from the ministry by then.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Don’t worry about that.
Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The hon. member for Scarborough West.
REPORTS ON LEAD POLLUTION
Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Do I understand after the tabling of the Rocke Robertson report that what we are now engaged in is a series of public hearings associated with the two working documents but with no legislative initiatives in advance based on those documents?
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that the hearings preclude any legislative changes. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), as the member will recall, was the one who ordered the hearings a while back. He asked me whether this report would be available in time to be used. I assured him it would be. That’s one of the reasons we hurried its publication through. There are two areas on which action can be taken: the legislative, more importantly, at the plant or community level to alleviate the problems. I would like to think that there wasn’t a static state at the industrial level, and I am assured there isn’t at this point in time. It’s just that it is not likely that legislative changes per se will occur until Christmas.
Mr. Lewis: I have some very specific supplementaries. Will the government move instantly to support the city of Toronto in its effort to have the topsoil removed and changed in order to eliminate the existing health hazard outside the plant? Will the minister undertake what is suggested in the report itself, in a less than ideal situation, a cost analysis study to determine whether abatement could be achieved to bring levels to acceptable objectives, or whether the plant should be moved to a location which is acceptable?
Hon. Mr. Miller: On the first question, I really am unable to answer whether the government, because it will be a government position, will be assisting. I will discuss that with other ministers.
On the second one, certainly cost benefit studies are going to have to be made. I think Dr. Robertson, on being asked a similar question, aptly phrased it: “When appropriate measures have been taken and we still find a health hazard caused by a factory, at that point in time housing and the factory will be incompatible.” Either we have to find some way of removing people from that area or the polluter.
Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: One supplementary, yes.
Mr. Bounsall: Has the minister discussed with his colleagues in the cabinet the offering of low interest or forgivable loans to those offending companies to aid in abatement and achieving the low standard of emission so that workers would not be displaced from their jobs?
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether they are necessary yet in view of the factories involved, but certainly it would seem to be a worthwhile means of accomplishing our end if that were necessary.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.
LOGGING IN ALGONQUIN PARK
Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. The apologia which masqueraded as a report which he read at the outset of this session, was that a report, did he say, done by a member of the staff of his ministry or was it done by an independent forester associated, let us say, with the Ontario Forestry Association?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker. That was done by a member of my ministry and the biographical data on both the gentlemen involved is included in the report.
Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, doesn’t the minister think, since the object of controversy was the figures provided by his own ministry, that when dealing with something as important as logging inside or outside Algonquin Park, there should be an independent survey made of the potential in the 50-mile radius, rather than a self-serving survey to justify the ministry’s own figures?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think I made this very, very clear in my statement earlier today that the figures given the member for Scarborough West were misinterpreted. I thought it was only fair, prior to the introduction of a bill, that I would present to him all the facts and the proper methods of arriving at the figures to which he referred and which he misconstrued.
Mr. Lewis: I don’t think they were misinterpreted.
Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.
Mr. Foulds: Is the minister saying that the term “allowable cut” which was out so much, according to his latest statement, is equally inaccurate in allowable cut throughout the province?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no reference to what the allowable cut is across the province in this statement at all.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West, further questions?
SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION
Mr. Lewis: A question of the Attorney General: Does the Attorney General intend to pursue by way of investigation the facts which were put to the Legislature by the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) regarding the behaviour of the SIU?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter currently under police investigation. The question would be best directed to the Solicitor General, who could respond to that question.
Mr. Lewis: May I redirect to the Solicitor General? Is it his intention to pursue this by way of a commission of inquiry, given what has been presented and what may yet emerge?
Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under investigation now for a number of months by the Ontario Provincial Police. We have attempted to lay charges; one charge has been laid as a result of an assault on one of the seamen. The problem is that some of the seamen are reluctant to come forward because of threats made to their lives if they do lay charges.
However, the investigation is going on. We must remember that this involves an international waterway with seamen from both shores, involving at least two provinces and a number of states. Therefore, we feel that if there should be an inquiry, it should be at the federal level. It’s been suggested in my conversations with the Attorney General that we ask the federal Minister of Labour to reconvene the commission inquiry under the federal labour code, which really was never terminated -- because they can’t find Banks -- and in this way again investigate the operations of this union.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary: Provided that the federal Minister of Labour shows no enthusiasm for this particular project, is the Solicitor General prepared to take any action at the provincial level?
Mr. Lewis: The federal Minister of Labour may be showing little enthusiasm in a while.
Hon. Mr. Kerr: This is rather a hypothetical question. I am hoping that the Minister of Labour will co-operate. I think he will, particularly when he has a complete police report on this investigation.
Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?
Mr. Lewis: No further questions, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.
SEX CHANGE DATA
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Why will the minister not allow an amendment to the Vital Statistics Act to allow people to make amendments on their birth certificate after they have undergone a sex change operation?
An hon. member: How unfair can one get?
Mr. Stokes: He is setting the minister up again.
Mr. Roy: And the minister, with that beard, shouldn’t make any smart remarks.
Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I was going to give an answer to that question --
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Clement: -- but I don’t think I’ll give it in the form that originally had popped into my mind.
I have not objected to that; if the member has any particular problem he’d like to discuss with me in private.
Mr. Roy: I said, with that beard no smart comments.
Hon. Mr. Clement: I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that there is an international set of standards that applies for the gathering of vital statistics and the information that a bureau or an agency gathering statistics is to use. I understand the matter that the hon. member has referred to has been the subject of discussion at a fairly recent conference, because, rightly or otherwise, we have had a couple of requests when somebody wanted to change his name from George to Becky, or something like that. But I must confess that I have developed no particular philosophy on it and I am waiting to see what --
Mr. Roy: Sit down; I have a couple of supplementaries;
Hon. Mr. Clement: -- the international conference is about to decide on it when it makes its views known.
Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.
Mr. Roy: Yes, one supplementary, at least, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: You’d better ask them all at once.
Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): This is of national importance.
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Oh, come on.
Mr. Roy: I’d like to ask the minister why he is showing so much reluctance on this, when the person involved -- it was brought to the attention of the ministry -- was probably the first person in Canada to have his sex changed from female to male and succeeded in getting her -- or his, now -- driver’s licence changed, social security number changed, as well as OHIP; and not her birth certificate, or not his birth certificate.
Hon. Mr. Clement: Well I think one must look at the difference.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Entergy): No. No.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Vive la difference!
Hon. Mr. Clement: I hope none of this goes back to my riding, they think I am over here working.
The whole nature of the Vital Statistics Act is for very official records, it’s probably the most official fact-gathering bureau at any level of government. One must be extremely careful in the facts which are put down pertaining to one’s birth or one’s death or one’s marriage. The other agencies are more for regulatory purposes in terms of automobile drivers’ licences and this sort of thing.
It is a problem that will eventually have to be resolved; but I have not personally disallowed it, I want the member to know that.
Mr. Stokes: Wait until you convert to metric.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can I ask one quick supplementary? This is my last supplementary on this.
Mr. Speaker: We will allow you one more.
Mr. Roy: Yes, one more. Can I say to the minister, just as a preface, I have corresponded with his ministry on this problem and can I bring to his attention, for his consideration, a situation, such as I mentioned earlier, in Ottawa. I have corresponded with his ministry on this matter where the sex change, the first one in Canada, has been from female to male.
Mr. Speaker: Is this a quick question?
Mr. Roy: Don’t confuse me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. McNeil: The member is confused now.
Mr. Roy: Would the minister not agree with me that when this person is presenting his birth certificate it now states female and that is not the case; it has been changed through medical surgery.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Whose side is the member on?
Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the medical fraternity hasn’t resolved this. These operations may for external purposes, appear to be a sex change; but whether the person has really been sexually altered by this type of procedure I don’t know.
And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I don’t want to know either.
Mr. Lewis: Now that was a good answer. That was the right answer.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.
GUARD DOG IN APARTMENT
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Does the Solicitor General think it appropriate that a landlord should send his tenants a notice which says:
“Upon receipt of this notice, this building will be strictly controlled by a highly trained guard dog. If the fire alarm rings, do not leave your premises unless you are advised to do so by either the management or the fire department. The dog is trained to search for any intruders and might be let loose in the hallways. Therefore, do not endanger yourself by leaving your own apartment.
“In addition to this, the dog will be patrolling the parking areas.”
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Going to be a busy dog.
Mr. Deans: To continue:
“I should warn you for your own protection, he will attack on my command, should it be necessary.
“Finally, as you know, no pets are allowed in the building, so I would suggest that any of you who have violated this rule rectify it immediately. The guard dog will not tolerate any other animals.”
Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is no pet, that dog.
Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of that notice about an hour ago. I have asked the fire marshal to check the information and verify that the notice in fact has been given to the tenants, and to discuss it with the Hamilton Fire Department and take whatever action is necessary.
Mr. Deans: A supplementary question; it may well be it should be put to the Attorney General, but supplementary: Is the landlord legally liable for any damage upon children or tenants or visitors to the building who may inadvertently raise the ire of the dog and cause the dog to attack and perhaps injure someone?
Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would think that anybody who is a tenant in the building, or is a licensee or invitee, if he or she was attacked by the dog the owner would be liable.
Mr. Singer: I’m sure the minister’s opinion just now will be available for argument in court and will be the final authority.
Mr. Cassidy: How about some rights for tenants!
Mr. Lewis: How about just eliminating the bloody dog?
Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, but I didn’t want to say that because of the Humane Society.
Mr. Renwick: Do away with the landlord.
METRO TORONTO HOUSING UNITS
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has an answer to a question.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 18 the member for Scarborough West asked me the following question: “When did the one-year residency clause come into effect in Metropolitan Toronto?”
I would like to point out to the hon. member that technically there is no effective date at this present time. Metropolitan Toronto council on Sept. 24, 1974, adopted the recommendation of its social services and housing committee that a one-year residency requirement be imposed. At its meeting of Oct. 16, 1974, OHCs board of directors considered the matter and recommended that the residency requirement requested by Metro be implemented, and that OHC’s agreement with Metro be amended to that effect.
This agreement will shortly go forth to Metro for approval. Until the agreement has been amended, therefore, and an effective date established, we are holding applications of persons with less than one year’s residency in abeyance and informing them of the above reasons.
I would like to point out to all the hon. members that the report in Tuesday’s Toronto Star which claims that the family housing waiting list has been cut in half to 4,000 applications as a result of the residency requirement is inaccurate. No one who applied for rental accommodation prior to Sept. 24, 1974, has been removed from the list because of this requirement. At the last regular count on Oct. 31, the list stood at 9,086 applicants for family housing.
Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to another question asked.
Mr. Cassidy: Attend to this one first.
Mr. Renwick: Let’s deal with this one.
Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?
Mr. Lewis: May I ask a quick supplementary? Do I take it that no one will be re moved from the waiting list prior to any effective date having been set?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: Okay.
SOLAR ENERGY
Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Sandwich-Riverside on Nov. 18 asked the following question: “How long has Ontario Housing been conducting feasibility studies on the use of solar energy to heat or help heat homes?” And the supplementary question was: “Is OHC promoting the use of heat pumps in new housing?”
Ontario Housing Corp. has been investigating the feasibility of using solar energy in housing as a source of space heating and domestic hot water since July, 1974. Discussions are taking place with the staff of the Ministry of Energy regarding the possible development of a prototype unit.
Heat pumps are generally used for both heating and cooling rather than for heating alone. While they are efficient, they are, in their dual capacity, less economical in terms of today’s increasing energy costs.
We believe that double glazing and insulation, both proven and economical methods of conserving energy, are more appropriate at this time; but we will pursue, with the help of others, any system that will provide more efficient energy utilization.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Supplementary?
Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.
Mr. Burr: Have the minister’s officials visited Solar I at the University of Delaware?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: I haven’t personally, Mr. Speaker; and I am not sure whether my staff has or not.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.
LAND PURCHASES IN MILTON AREA
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a question of the minister of Government Services: Could the minister tell us why his department has apparently made an offer to purchase land at the rate of some $5,500 per acre in the greenbelt parkway east of Milton, apparently for a transformer station for Hydro, when there are three recent sales of land in the same greenbelt parkway area, one about a month ago for $1,750 an acre, one about three months ago for about $1,500 an acre and one last summer for about $1,300 an acre?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the offer has been made based on two appraisals that were taken of the property.
Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, did the appraisals the minister received indicate the transactions with the west half of lot 11, concession 5 -- all of these are new survey -- or with lot 2, concession 4; or with the east half of lot 1, concession 5? Did they show those sales as a basis for their appraisal?
Hon. Mr. Snow: I have not examined the appraisals in detail, Mr. Speaker. I can check into that. I do know there were two appraisals made of the property. The offer made to Mr. Vanderbloom for the land involved was made on the basis of those two appraisals. I don’t believe the offer has been accepted as yet.
Mr. Singer: That’s my information as well. Will the minister table those appraisals, please?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I would be happy to do so. The appraisals, I believe, have been shown to Mr. Vanderbloom and they’re public information.
Mr. Singer: We’d like them.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no objection to tabling copies of the appraisals. I would point out there has been a statement as to the purchase of land within the parkway belt, to the effect that the land will not be purchased at a value less than that of June 3, 1973.
Mr. Singer: There were three sales there.
Mr. Lewis: Just one quick supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: This will be the last supplementary on this.
Mr. Lewis: Was one of the appraisals conducted by Gibson Willoughby Ltd.?
Hon. Mr. Snow: I could not say, but I would doubt it very much. I’ll get that information.
One of the appraisals was carried out by the staff of my ministry and one of the appraisals would be carried out by an independent, outside appraiser; but I can’t tell the hon. member the name. I will be glad to get it for him.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. We’re out of order, aren’t we? The member for Thunder Bay, it’s his turn.
HOUSING IN NORTH
Mr. Stokes: Thank you. I have a question of the Minister of Housing.
Will the Minister of Housing advise me whether or not the agreement for rural and Indian housing, which I understand is a joint programme between the federal and the provincial government -- CMHC and his ministry -- whether it has in fact been signed? If so, when is he going to be able to move forward to meet the need for 2,000 or 3,000 new homes in the rural parts of northern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to advise the hon. member. I’m not sure.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.
PULLET PRODUCTION
Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact that pullet growers in Ontario continue to live under conditions which threaten their existence, and in view of the fact that egg producers are now losing approximately 16.5 cents per dozen; would the minister consider bringing in production controls immediately, as recommended unanimously by his advisory committee?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration.
Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.
Mr. Gaunt: When will the minister have a decision on that matter; and further, could the minister report on the meeting between the Ontario egg producers and the Quebec egg producers, which was held in order to try and avoid a price war in eggs?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I’m not conversant with the meeting to which my friend refers. I do know there is great concern being expressed by egg producers in Ontario, and by pullet growers and by hatcheries as far as that goes. There seems to be a wide diversity of opinion as to whether or not there is surplus egg production in Ontario. There is a meeting in Ottawa this coming week between the federal minister and the provincial ministers, and I’m sure the matter of concern will be discussed at that time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.
Mr. Roy: Could I ask one supplementary?
Mr. Speaker: No, we said the last one was a final supplementary. We’re nearly out of time. If there’s time the member may get to a new question.
SUDBURY AREA HEALTH COUNCIL
Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could I ask the minister if he is aware that the model for a health and social services council for the area of Sudbury was rejected last Saturday? If he is aware of that turn of events, when can we expect him to institute an area health council as recommended in the Mustard report?
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that at the conference which was held -- or task force, whatever it was called -- in Sudbury last Saturday, the representatives of the community who were present turned down the community-designed programme. I think the hon. member realizes this was created by a steering committee from within the community, on its own. It certainly had our blessing, since we’re interested in seeing a health planning council created. I understand a new steering committee has been formed and it is to take into effect the sum total of advice and comment given last Saturday to the group present.
Mr. Germa: A supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.
Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the regional government has withdrawn any financial or secretarial assistance to this committee, so that it is impossible for them to function as presently envisaged?
Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but in the main where a steering committee was formed by my ministry, we have assisted them in the formative stages rather than expecting a local government to do so.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.
FATHER-LED FAMILIES
Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: In light of the report in the Star of today headed “Father of Three Loses Welfare, Blames Sex Bias”, could he tell me whether C. J. Williams, director, is accurately stated the policy of his ministry when he states in a letter dated Dec. 6, 1973 to Mr. Peter Griffith:
“To the general proposition that fathers with children be regarded as exempt from employment for general assistance purposes in the same way as are mothers, I do not assent. I believe that the legislation is written and interpreted so as to reflect well-established social customs and attitudes. In our society it is not considered preferable -- ”
Mr. McNeil: Question.
Mrs. Campbell: I am putting my question. I want to know whether this is a statement of policy:
“In our society it is not considered preferable in a father to assume the role of a mother to young children.”
Mr. Speaker: In view of the time, perhaps the hon. member has read enough of it for the minister to answer the question.
Mrs. Campbell: That ended the letter. Does that accurately express the philosophy of the ministry today?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, the hon. members know our legislation in that area is under review. Specifically in that case, Mr. Speaker, I think we are quite sympathetic. My people have been in communication with Simcoe county social services and it is my understanding that they will provide assistance to the end of November. Also, my staff, in conjunction with the local social services people -- I think we are all interested in keeping the family together -- will try and cope with that particular situation.
Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister use his power and make an exception? He has that authority.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’ve read the report of the board of review and they uphold the decision of the local administrator and in this particular case --
Mr. Lewis: The minister has the authority.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In this particular case they have made available homemaker’s services in order to provide assistance to the family and the person in question has rejected this. I think we have to take a really close look at this case.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: There is hardly time for another supplementary. A question by the member for Wentworth?
H.O.M.E. PROGRAMME LOTTERIES
Mr. Deans: Thank you, a question of the Minister of Housing. Would the Minister of Housing consider referring to the social development standing committee the matter of the method of conducting lotteries for HOME programmes and specifically invite National Trust and interested individuals who may have applied in the Hamilton case to make representation before the committee in order that we can try to come up with a better and fairer method of dealing with it?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider the question as posed by the member. I thought he and I were going to speak individually about this matter after the session today and possibly we will have a better understanding then.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine. The last question.
Mr. Roy: Ask the Premier (Mr. Davis) a question.
CSAO NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board: Has the minister had any communication the last day or so from the negotiators for the Civil Service Association?
Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is, of course, no I haven’t. As I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions we have made very strong efforts to communicate and get to the bargaining table, but there has been no response in the last few days.
Mr. Renwick: Did the minister pick up the phone and ask?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, we have communicated and we have also written.
Mr. Renwick: The minister?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I haven’t personally. However, we will continue to endeavour to keep this line of communication open. I believe it has been indicated that the CSAO is not prepared to sit down with us until after Dec. 3. In actual fact I believe that if we did get to the bargaining table in the intervening space of time we might well avert any chaotic situation that would arise later.
I think that the other parties of the Legislature might also assist us in supporting what I believe is the free bargaining process. I notice in the Oakville Journal this hasn’t been the stance of the Leader of the Opposition as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.
Mr. Lewis: What was that all about?
Mr. Speaker: Petitions.
Mr. Roy: Where is the Premier, we haven’t seen him?
Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House leader would care to clarify that rather obscure reference he made.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Hasn’t the Leader of the Opposition read the Oakville Journal? It is not obscure.
Hon. Mr. Kerr: They love the member in Oakville. Good Grit people too.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: It was not obscure, Mr. Speaker. I don’t want the opportunity to read the two articles; because they are rather damaging, as far as I am concerned. If the member hasn’t seen them, they are available to everyone.
Mr. R. F. Nixon: They do damage?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Pardon me?
Mr. R. F. Nixon: They do damage?
Mr. Roy: Take note of that; my leader is in big trouble.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a task force report on the “Effect on Human Health of Lead from the Environment.”
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report entitled “The Availability of Wood outside Algonquin Park to Satisfy Industrial Requirements.” This was very thoroughly put together by Mr. G. Pierpoint.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Renwick: I have been informed, Mr. Speaker, that within the last hour you have issued instructions to the security forces of this building that the Union of Injured Workmen is not to demonstrate peaceably within the environs of the lower hall.
If you are dumb, as an illustrious predecessor said, except with the voice of this assembly, what is the authority under which you made that ruling? Why did you make it? And can you justify it before the members of the assembly?
Mr. Speaker: I think I made a statement on that the other night, that organized demonstrations have been and should be outside the House, outside on the front steps. I don’t think there is any debate on that.
I don’t know what your other reference was about being “dumb.” What do you mean?
Mr. Lewis: No; mute.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: If you are talking about microphones, I know nothing about that.
Mr. Renwick: No, I was saying an illustrious predecessor of yours in the House, when faced with a similar problem many, many centuries ago, said he was dumb and had no voice except the voice of the members of the House of Commons in the Parliament at Westminster.
By what authority do you deny to citizens of the Province of Ontario the right to demonstrate in an orderly, in a peaceable fashion, within the environs of this House, of this assembly building, when it does not interfere with the processes of this government?
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter of judgment, I think. The same judgment has been carried out in years past, and I have no quarrel with it; that is my wish at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Kerr: It has changed over the years.
Mr. Speaker: I might just say that, as I understand it, there will be further consideration given to all these matters of security and demonstrations, in the near future.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Lewis: We have had, I will recall to your mind, teachers collected in large numbers in the foyer downstairs and outside the steps, both peaceably and not so peaceably, without any constraint on their behaviour. We have had students of high school level and at university level similarly involved.
Mr. Speaker, I want to put something to you on the point of order. This is a particularly vulnerable, anxious and defensive group of people, who are attempting to win by peaceable means what they believe to be justice from government.
I urge you not to drive them too far. To have locked them out of the building, to constrain their peaceable demonstration, is to impose on people already of great physical and emotional vulnerability, more than they should be asked to endure. And I ask you, sir, to reconsider.
Mr. Speaker: As I say, I think quite often it is a matter of judgment. I am not aware of the one example you mention about teachers demonstrating. I saw no demonstration inside the building.
Mr. Lewis: You saw no demonstration of teachers here? Ask the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) they nearly lynched him.
Mr. Speaker: There was somewhat of a noisy demonstration, though, in front of the chamber, if you recall, a few months ago. I forget just exactly when it was. Further, I understand the group to which you are referring is parading peacefully in the building downstairs.
Mr. Lewis: They have been stopped.
Mr. Speaker: No. I understand they are still parading. They were when I came up.
Mr. Lewis: They have been told by the security guards to stop. That is an abuse of their authority and they are doing it in your name.
Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that they are doing it very peacefully and they are still there.
Mr. Lewis: The government doesn’t have this Legislature open to people except those who agree with it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Renwick: This is a public building.
Mr. Lewis: This is a public place of the province.
Mr. Speaker: Order please.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT
Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Town of Wasaga Beach Act, 1973.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this is really a housekeeping bill. It corrects the deficiency in the description of certain lands in the township of Sunnidale that were annexed to the newly erected town of Wasaga Beach on Jan. 1, 1974.
ALGONQUIN FORESTRY AUTHORITY ACT
Hon. Mr. Bernier moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to incorporate the Algonquin Forestry Authority.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I tabled the Pierpoint report, and also indicated that the 50-mile zone around Algonquin Provincial Park could not support the park-dependent mills. In that context, I wish to say that the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a Crown agency, named the Algonquin Forestry Authority, to harvest Crown timber in Algonquin Provincial Park, to sell the logs, and also to carry out authorized forestry, land management and other programmes and projects. The authority will be responsible to and subject to the control of the Minister of Natural Resources.
BUREAU OF REPAIR SERVICES ACT
Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Bureau of Repair Services.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to control the repairing of household appliances, including television sets and radios, by devising a system whereby all persons engaged in the business of making these repairs are registered. This is somewhat similar to what has been adopted in eight of the states in the United States.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
ELECTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Election Act.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the explanatory note and in the comments the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) made when he brought the bill in. He said the bill was drafted at the request of the judges. I would be very interested in finding out how the judges make these requests. Do they make them through the chairmen of their associations? Is their request made on the Supreme Court level or the county court level? Is it made by a polling?
One of the reasons why judges were qualified to vote in provincial elections was because many of us on the select committee on election laws had been told by individual judges that there was no reason that they shouldn’t vote; they shouldn’t electioneer perhaps, or shouldn’t make partisan views public, but there was no reason why they couldn’t vote, because after all they too were interested in the affairs of the Province of Ontario.
The matter broke forth into print a while back and there was quite a controversy. Mr. Justice Laskin, now the Chief Justice of Canada, asserted quite firmly as I recall that the saw no reason why he couldn’t have the privilege of voting as well as having the privilege of paying income tax. I know many county court judges who have lived within the environs of Metropolitan Toronto -- environs that we are going to be talking about a little later -- who are very, very concerned about who represents them on municipal councils. After all, they own property, they own houses, they are concerned about sewer rates and water rates and all that sort of thing they have to pay municipal taxes and they are affected.
So I have some real reservations about this amendment that the Attorney General now brings forward, which says just flatly that no judge of any court is qualified to vote in any election. I don’t see what is wrong with letting judges vote in elections. I can see some kind of caution addressed to them, statutory if you will -- though I don’t think it is necessary to be statutory -- that they shouldn’t participate in any open, public way, that they shouldn’t be candidates, that they shouldn’t be financial agents, official agents, that they shouldn’t canvass, and that sort of thing. But I can’t say it any better than the Chief Justice of Canada said it not too long ago -- if he has the privilege of paying income tax, why shouldn’t he have the privilege of voting? And whether or not the judges feel embarrassed by being solicited by the Attorney General or myself for their votes, that’s something they can undoubtedly cope with adequately.
I would ask that the Attorney General reconsider this bill, because I can’t see that it serves any useful purpose.
Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, we have very few reservations about the bill. We simply oppose it.
Mr. Singer: Oppose it.
Mr. Renwick: I would have assumed that when the predecessor of this government, the family compact, was in power, and there was an open ballot box and how people voted was visible to anybody who wanted to enforce their judgment about a person’s political views, this may have had some merit.
What we are talking about in a democracy is the continuing extension of the franchise, not a delimination of the franchise. It is not a privilege to vote. It is a right. If he is going to take away the right of judges to cast their vote by secret ballot as they see fit, disguised as some reinforcement of the independence of the judiciary, the correlative nature of those two facts does not tie together.
The minister knows this, Mr. Speaker. I don’t quite know why he feels so exercised about it as to bring in a bill. The judges are entitled as a right as members of this democracy to participate by secret ballot in the elections of the governments of these provinces. They are sufficiently detached now as to be almost remote in many instances from the everyday world of the laws which they administer. If the minister denies them the right to cast their vote, he probably denies them the right to give any serious consideration to the immediate affairs of the communities on which they sit in judgment from day to day in many matters, be it civil, criminal or quasi-judicial function which they perform.
We are opposed to the bill; we believe that rather than start to carve out additional exceptions -- and we know that this was formerly one, which we considered a step forward in the past, but this is a retrogressive step -- the minister should be considering extending the franchise to all of the people who are presently disqualified under the Election Act. We simply oppose the bill. There is no wav in which the Attorney General can persuade us that there is a connection between the independence of the judiciary, the exercise of their judicial functions and the casting of a secret ballot in the privacy of the balloting place, whether in municipal, provincial or other elections in Canada.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.
Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to join my colleague the member for Downsview, and the member for Riverdale, in expressing some reservation about this bill and directing some questions to the minister on it.
I have discussed this matter with various judges. Some, in fact, have expressed some reservation about voting, but my experience has been that most judges-and surely this has been repeated by my two colleagues -- think a secret vote is not in any way going to impair their independence, whether they have to make an official recount or otherwise. I am trying to think of a valid reason for this particular legislation, and I can’t really see it. Mr. Speaker, when judges are called upon to make an official recount, does the fact that they have voted at a secret ballot really affect their independence? Do you think the public will not get the idea that justice is not only being done but appears to be done because they have entered the democratic process and put an X on the secret ballot?
The only other point I can see for this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it is just a reinforcement of the independence of the judiciary.
I think my colleague from Downsview said it well when he quoted the chief justice, who said simply that if they pay taxes -- if that is a duty imposed on them -- why can they not vote?
The other point I would like to ask of the minister, Mr. Speaker, is how can he in provincial legislation deny the judges a vote in any election? How can he deny them, for instance, a vote in a federal election? Or is he talking about provincial and municipal elections?
Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice, Attorney General): The Canada Elections Act disenfranchises them.
Mr. Roy: The federal elections Act? All judges? The provincial judges as well?
Hon. Mr. Welch: They cannot vote in the federal election.
Mr. Renwick: They are wrong.
Mr. Roy: Well, whether that is the case or not, I would agree with the comments of the members here. I think it is not right. These were the questions that I wanted to pose regarding the bill. I thought the bill was extremely wide when it said “any election,” and I wanted to know what elections he had in mind. Secondly, maybe the minister has some cogent reason for this bill, but I am certainly not aware of any.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I want to make one or two comments about the bill as well. Obviously the purpose of the bill is to try and reinforce the independence and impartiality of judges, and I would just say to this minister in particular, because of his general responsibility for the status of judges, that if the bill were even required, which we dispute, there are surely a number of areas which are more important and in which the qualities of independence of the judiciary are much more strongly compromised than in the area of the Election Act. As the minister knows, it’s quite common for people who have had a history of activity in one or other of the political parties to become judges in this country. This has been something which has been with us since Confederation, and occasionally just in order to dignify the system one even sees the appointment of some people who are New Democrats, like Justice Berger at the federal level, in order to dignify the general appointment of Liberals and Conservatives.
It’s not possible for someone who has been a party man for much of his or her life to simply abandon that the day they become a judge. Clearly the quality of being a judge is the ability to rise above one’s partisan past in making judgments, even in dealing with matters that may affect a political party or may affect the tendencies or ideals and polities one may have espoused during one’s active or partially active political career.
Now the fact that the judiciary, despite the manner of patronage appointments which lead to the appointment of judges, still enjoys the respect it has in this country, is surely a tribute to the fact that most if not all judges manage to rise above that kind of past.
The second point about the independence of the judiciary is that in rising above their past the single biggest problem they have is probably not their partisanship, or the existence or non-existence of the right to vote in a particular election, it is the fact that judges are drawn from a very narrow class basis, that is they tend to come from the upper middle class. They tend to have been raised as children in comfortable, if not prosperous homes, to have had a privileged education, and to have lived a life of privilege as well-paid members of society, successful members of the bar, before they entered the judiciary.
When judges embark in areas of economic and social policymaking or policy interpretation, as so often happens these days, it is clear that their impartiality is even more put to the test, I would suggest, than when it is a matter, say of sitting on a recount or a judicial controvert of an election in which a political party of which they may have happened to have been a member happens to be involved.
Standing above one’s past is an awful lot easier when it is just a matter of a controvert than when it comes to trying to escape one’s class origins and come to a decision, say in a labour-management dispute or a matter of economic crime in which one’s social and class peers, that is business executives, are being brought before the courts on a matter of combines, of price fixing or other kinds of illegal trade practices. In fact often we find that the judges fail that test. They will mete out a 30-day sentence to some business executive for an economic crime which has victimized thousands and thousands of consumers across the country, while not winking an eyelid the next week at giving a year-and-a-half or two-year sentence to somebody who stole small amounts in order to feed a family. That kind of anomaly still goes on because of the class bias of judges; they don’t escape their backgrounds in that particular area.
The minister should be thinking about ways in which judges can be aided to more truly apply justice in the kinds of example I’m giving. The fact that they have the vote, I would suggest, may in some slight manner help them come to grips with the economic and social policy problems that confront governments at the three levels or at the two levels affected by this bill. It would therefore, I suggest, be a more progressive step that they have the vote rather than not.
If the minister is concerned about the independence of the judiciary and about the problem of conflicts of interest, I would suggest that much more urgent on his agenda would be the question of why it is, some six or seven years after publication of the McRuer report, judges still sit on police commissions for the majority of police forces in the Province of Ontario. Now that is a clear, direct, ever-present conflict of interest, which I would suggest not only compromises the police, but also on a day-to-day basis violates the independence of the judiciary, because they are dealing with evidence submitted by police officers, or they are dealing with police prosecutors in the lower courts, over whom they may have very substantial jurisdiction as members of the police commission for that particular area.
If the minister is concerned about the independence of the judiciary, by all means let him move in that particular direction; but as the member for Riverdale has said, we don’t see why the government should now restrict the franchise. We believe that judges are capable, and have shown that they are capable in the past, of applying justice without being compromised by the fact that they may have exercised their right to secret ballot.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.
Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words to say. I, too, cannot understand why this particular amendment is being introduced.
While some of what has been said by the member for Ottawa Centre all too unfortunately still prevails --
Mr. Cassidy: Present company in this House excepted.
Mrs. Campbell: -- on the other side of the coin, I would like to say that if the judges don’t even have the right to vote, then their control by the civil service, which does exist today in many ways, would only be increased by the fact that they were disenfranchised. We might then see judges feeling even more forced than some do today to take to the public media to express concerns about the social aspects of the matters with which they are dealing and the persons who come before them.
I am sure the minister realizes that there are some very indirect kinds of directives to judges, if I may put it that way, which I feel should not be permitted to continue. Indeed, they should have complete autonomy in the affairs of their courts; and I am sure that the minister is aware of examples where this has not been the case.
I am of the opinion that if we deny them the right to vote, then we are further making them subject to the types of directives that they already have --
Hon. Mr. Welch: Can the hon. member give me some examples? I really don’t understand that.
Mrs. Campbell: Well, let me say this: For instance, when it is decided by the civil service that they will clock a judge in the court, then it seems to me that that is a directive or matter of influencing the way in which a judge shall deal with the cases before him or before her. I hope this has now been stopped, but it was indeed a fact of life. That is one example. There are many others, where the administration of the Attorney General’s ministry issue directives that affect the way in which a judge functions in that kind of way.
I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any influence on the way in which the determination shall come about. But I am saying that if we have people sitting clocking judges in a court, it has to have some effect on the way in which that judge is going to carry out his or her conduct of the hearing, unless they happen to be independent enough and perhaps Scottish enough not to go along with it.
We talk about autonomy, and there is no one who has a greater concern for the preservation of the autonomy of the judiciary than I have, but I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, this as no way to protect the autonomy of the judiciary. The simple truth is that for a long time judges were concerned about any kind of participation, and some of them didn’t vote when they had the right to simply because they didn’t know whether they should or not. But they welcomed the opportunity to vote, and I think they are big enough boys and girls who can avoid any of the problems of being canvassed in the very nicest way. I don’t think that they’re children, but I do think they have a lot to say about the shaping of justice in this country and ought to be able to have that kind of a voice. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak on Bill 140 before second reading? Mr. Minister.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, obviously I’m quite delighted that we would have this type of debate on a matter of principle such as this. I would like to respond as briefly as I can to the points which have been raised, all of which deserve a reply. May I start with the hon. member for St. George, when she talks quite properly about members of the bench having some contribution to make towards the administration of justice, particularly from an organizational point of view.
I think the expression used by the hon. member was having some involvement in “the shaping of justice,” and I would want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, the members of the House, that I respect that point. Indeed, the Law Reform Commission itself, in its report on the administration of the courts, makes a number of recommendations with respect to court organization and administration. I’ll be reporting to the House in due course as to how we hope to approach that report and its recommendations, particularly as it will involve the bench from all respects to be advising me and the consultation which I will have with the judiciary with respect to those recommendations, to satisfy myself that they are very much involved in the very careful consideration of those recommendations, which I assume will have a great deal to do with the whole question of the shaping of justice as it will appear to the public and, indeed, a system with which they have to work.
I’m at some loss as to how I might adequately respond to the point raised by the hon. member for St. George with respect to the concern she has that if, in fact, judges do not have the franchise there will be an increased domination of judges by the civil service, particularly in day-to-day administration. I really don’t know how being able to exercise the franchise would change that, if, in fact, that exists in any deterring way. However, the point has been made and I would certainly satisfy myself that most judges feel that they have control of their own court and their own situation. Indeed, this minister has said on more than one occasion, talking in terms of the administration of the courts generally, that I in no way want to interfere with the judges’ prerogatives in that regard.
The member for Ottawa Centre raised some very interesting points with respect to the whole question of independence of the judiciary. He raised some questions with respect to the methods of appointment of judges, and raised some questions with respect to the diversification of economic and social backgrounds of those who are called upon to accept this very important office in our society, from the standpoint of how this may or may not influence the adjudicative function of these particular people. This province, I think, can take some pride in having introduced legislation some years ago providing for the establishment of the judicial council, to which the Attorney General refers all names for appointments. Indeed, I found, certainly in my limited experience in this portfolio, with respect to the recommendations that I’ve made to my colleagues in the cabinet regarding appointments to the provincial bench, that this council has taken its responsibilities very seriously as it, in fact, takes on this particular job of analyzing and checking into the background and the material that’s made available to it with respect to those who would be nominated. Indeed, I think that forms a fairly important part of the appointment process.
Mr. Cassidy: I acknowledge that, yes.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I do want, though, to go on to the other point. Here, once again, I’m not able to generalize with respect to the social-economic background from which these appointees come. I think it would be a bit dangerous to generalize, as the hon. member has, to suggest they all come from backgrounds that, in fact, would be upper middle class -- was that the expression he used? -- or upper class. I think it would deny the appointment of many people who, perhaps, have come from backgrounds -- and I’m at some disadvantage because I’d have to take each individual case to be fair -- which, in fact, would not necessarily fall into the general classification to which the hon. member makes reference. Indeed I would take it that many people, notwithstanding the fact that they’ve been able to acquire the educational background necessary for their law degree and ultimately to be qualified for employment, may well have come from backgrounds like many of us. We are very proud of our backgrounds, coming from homes where parents have not been considered to be even middle class, but there has been a certain example set in those homes with respect to hard work and the acquiring of education.
I do want to be careful because I can’t make any general comment on this. It would be a case of having to take into account the individual people who now serve in this capacity and trace their background. I do regard the point made, from the standpoint of satisfying ourselves with respect to all of the things that are being referred to the bench these days, that we maintain this degree of independence and impartiality. I do recognize how important the role of the judicial council is.
The question of police commissions troubles this minister. I want to say to the hon. member that in our policy field, in consultation with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), and particularly now since we have the task force report on policing and the organization of policing, I’m sure I wouldn’t be telling any secrets to the House if, as even my predecessors have said in some occasions -- and I agree -- I express some concern with respect to provincial court judges serving on police commissions for some of the reasons mentioned by the hon. member.
Mr. Cassidy: Why doesn’t the minister do anything about it?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Before coming to any conclusions on that particular matter, I thought since we now have the task force report it was important to hear other points of view, and there are other points of view on the particular subject. There are people who feel very strongly about the police commissions and having judicial persons on those commissions. They see something in the impartiality from the standpoint of judges and maybe from the standpoint of enfranchisement too, to tell the truth, in an inferential way. There are people who have other points of view and I think in fairness it is important to satisfy ourselves that we have listened to all these arguments as well.
Mr. Cassidy: It is sort of like Plato’s guardians, in other words.
Hon. Mr. Welch: There are people who feel very strongly that there is some point in our law enforcement organization ensuring that the immediate governing body is at arm’s length away from the immediate accountability of being simply a committee of council, if the member knows what I mean. He would be the first to suggest that there are ways to respect that without necessarily going the judicial route, and I understand that argument. All I’m saying is that at this time I want to assure the hon. member that I’m not avoiding his point, but rather I feel that we do have to come to grips with that particular matter and we will.
I then want to make reference to the comments made by the hon. member for Riverdale, the hon. member for Downsview and hon. member for Ottawa East, with respect to some of the reasoning behind this. I think in all fairness I would have to admit that perhaps it is more on the basis of principle than practicality. It is more perhaps on the basis of appearance with respect to our system. Yet when I say that I don’t want to minimize the importance of principle and tradition and appearance in this particular area.
We have a system which I think we would agree is highly regarded. I don’t think this is the place to start making comparisons with other jurisdictions but we are very fortunate that we have built up a judicial system in this jurisdiction, in fact in our country, that has the public confidence that it does. I think the question of appearance and impartiality and so on is very important.
In attempting to respond to these points. I’m cautioned by what the hon. member for Riverdale quite fairly says, that he can’t be convinced with respect to some of these arguments. Nevertheless, I might say with the same type of conviction that I really believe that it’s important to underline the very simple fact set out in the statement at the time of the introduction of the bill itself. The disqualification from voting is designed to protect the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary, the appearance of which might -- and I underline that because I said it might -- be endangered, especially when judges of the Supreme Court and the county court are called upon to adjudicate matters arising in the area of election law.
The hon. member for Downsview quite properly says, “What do the judges feel about this themselves? They are the people affected.” I would point out to him that the unanimous decision of the judges of the Supreme Court, adopted at a meeting of their council asked us to do this. They were quite disturbed when the new Election Act came in and, in fact, provided the opportunity for them to vote. They met and the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court wrote to the deputy minister of the ministry at that time, pointing out the concern of the judges with respect to that, and asked that the enfranchisement granted by the Election Act be changed and that they, in fact, be disenfranchised.
Mr. Singer: What have resolutions to do with that? That is not the --
Hon. Mr. Welch: The point is that that may well be on the basis of information which the hon. member has. I am acting on the strength of the report to the Lieutenant Governor by the Council of Judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario, adopted at meetings of the council and so on, and the letter from the Chief justice, which would indicate in a very strong, well-reasoned way why they feel that way.
Mr. Singer: Did all the Supreme Court justices indicate this opinion?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it would be fair to say at this stage that a vast majority of judges feel that enfranchisement represents a retrograde step in that it ignores the principle that the judiciary is a third and separate branch in our system, which really shouldn’t participate in political affairs.
Mr. Cassidy: That’s American doctrine.
Hon. Mr. Welch: And at present, the Supreme Court and county court judges, I do remind the House, are disqualified from voting in federal elections. The disqualification from voting, I just simply repeat, is designed to protect the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary.
Mr. Cassidy: That is an American doctrine; we don’t find it here.
Hon. Mr. Welch: As the member for Riverdale points out, there are those who perhaps would see some difficulty in understanding that from the basis of simply voting, but I think the appearance and the principle and the tradition which has built up has indeed prompted me to introduce this amendment. I am satisfied that in doing so there has been this discussion on the part of the members of the bench itself.
Mr. Renwick: The minister is introducing the bill because the judges asked for it, not because the public interest demands it.
Mrs. Campbell: May I ask a question for clarification, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.
Mrs. Campbell: The minister has mentioned the Supreme Court judges and the county court judges. Could he tell me what resolution there was from the provincial court judges?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I have no such resolution.
Mrs. Campbell: Thank you.
Mr. Singer: Did he ask them for one?
Mr. Cassidy: Could I ask the minister a question too, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to ask questions of the minister at this time. If the minister wants to accept a question, it is all right with the Chair.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t mind.
Mr. Cassidy: In view of his insistence on the separation of the judiciary from the other two branches of government, does he propose, as a member of the executive, to leave the Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Welch: No -- well, I mean certainly not voluntarily, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cassidy: Well, the minister is obviously inextricably intertwined right now.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 140.
All those in favour of second reading of Bill 140 will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Agreed.
THIRD READING
Clerk of the House: Bill 140, An Act to amend the Election Act.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of third reading of Bill 140 will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.
Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.
STATUTES ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Statutes Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.
Mr. Renwick: I agree with the second part of the bill but I don’t agree with the first part. I know it has become the custom, and I think that the Legislature was extremely wise in 1918 in putting in that provision that unless otherwise noted in the Act, an Act would come into force on a specific date. I would like to ask the minister how many bills there are that have been passed by this assembly that have never been proclaimed. Does the minister have that information? I know of one, of course, and that is the amendment to the Corporations Information Act.
Mr. Singer: I know of sections -- of one section of the Insurance Act.
Mr. Renwick: I quite agree that it requires each bill to have the provision in it about the commencement date; that has been the custom and the procedure of the assembly. I think it is very wise to have that in the particular statute. If I understand this correctly, the deletion of this provision from the Statutes Act -- and I am referring to the first part of the Act -- would have the effect that a bill would not necessarily, in its terms, have to have any statement as to when it would come into force, other than if the government wished it to come into force on a particular date, because it would follow automatically that the last step in the passage of a bill is the royal assent, and the giving of the royal assent would bring that Act into force unless the Act provided otherwise by its terms. It seems to me that there is some merit in leaving the Act as it is.
I would be extremely interested to know why, at this particular point in this session of the Legislature, it was felt necessary to pass this kind of a statute. Probably, I guess, because I am a little bit concerned about the economy of time and the minister puts in a bill like this. It doesn’t have to be in there; I doubt very much if we are going to save very much by way of printing costs. I also doubt whether it would be worth our while to investigate five years from now to determine how much has been saved by it. I think it is a kind of a minor statement about the economy that is involved in it. That wasn’t the initiative.
I would like to know what the reason was and why they feel that what was done in 1918 should now be reversed in 1974. We got along with it -- I would assume that we got along with it -- for 56 years. I guess it’s not a matter of urgent public importance; it is not a matter which is talked about very much in the riding of Riverdale, I know. Perhaps on the Danforth on a Saturday morning people are concerned about it. I haven’t heard it myself.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak on the bill before the minister replies?
The hon. minister.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, one or two specific questions were addressed to me. I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Riverdale to Statutes of Ontario, 1973, and at pages 1671 and 1672 there are listed Acts and parts of Acts not proclaimed as of March 13, 1974; they represent about a page and a quarter.
Mr. Renwick: How many?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I haven’t counted them all, but they are listed there in part B. I can do nothing further than to point out that the removal of this particular requirement is consistent with similar legislation in all other jurisdictions in Canada.
Mr. Renwick: Does the minister mean we are lagging behind this time, that we are the last one? Instead of being ahead of the game, we are behind?
Hon. Mr. Welch: And I am told that it will result not only in savings in terms of printing costs, but also in reducing the time within which the annual volume can be published, and I think it would be fairly important, in the public interest, to have the volumes published as quickly as possible.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Agreed.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading upon motion.
Bill 141, An Act to amend the Statutes Act.
Mr. Renwick: Think of the number of dollars it is going to cost to print that amendment and this government talks about saving money.
EXECUTION ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Execution Act.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Who is the minister going to execute?
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Agreed.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading upon motion.
Bill 142, An Act to amend the Execution Act.
JUDICATURE ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.
Mrs. Campbell: No amendments?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 139. Carried?
Mr. Singer: No.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has several parts to it; some of them I am in agreement with and some I’m not. And I’m going to have to talk about the various principles in the bill on this debate.
The first principle is increasing the size of the Court of Appeal. I recognize with the minister and with others that the business before the courts has greatly increased and that it would be to the advantage of the system of administration of justice if our Court of Appeal bench was expanded in the manner suggested in the statute.
May I say that in recent years, in my opinion at least, Mr. Speaker, the character of appointments to the Court of Appeal has been outstanding, and the kindness, courtesy and attention which that bench in particular has been giving to matters that come before them is most appreciated by all members of the profession with whom I have had the opportunity of talking. So without very much hesitation I can support, and my party with me will support, the increase of the Court of Appeal by adding what will amount to, I guess, an extra panel; that will certainly help in the speedy administration of justice.
The next section, withdrawing of a lis pendens, can now be done by an order of the court in which the action or proceeding was commenced. I think that makes sense and really doesn’t need any great debate at all. We can support that one.
But it’s section 3, Mr. Speaker, that puzzles me completely; and I don’t really see how I can support it.
Mrs. Campbell: Or any employer could support.
Mr. Singer: In subsection 2(a) it says:
“Subject to subsection 3, no person shall,
“(a) take or attempt to take any photograph, motion picture or other record capable of producing visual representations by electronic means or otherwise, or make or attempt to make a graphic portrait or sketch,
“(i) at a judicial proceeding, or
“(ii) of any person entering or leaving the room in which the judicial proceeding is to be or has been convened, or
“(iii) of any person in the environs of the room or the building in which the judicial proceeding is to be or has been convened where there is reasonable ground for believing that such person is there for the purpose of attending or leaving the proceeding; or
“(b) publish, broadcast, reproduce or otherwise disseminate any photograph, motion picture, record portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of clause a.”
Subsection 3 is a qualification which allows any of these things to be done in connection with the judicial proceedings as ordered by the judge and “with the consent of the parties and witnesses, for such educational or instructional purposes as may be approved by the judge.”
It seems strange, Mr. Speaker, that today the Attorney General should suddenly express great concern about this sort of thing. Certainly in my experience in court these matters seem to have been well handled by the presiding judge. It’s almost been an automatic ride that pictures shall not be taken that you won’t bring in television cameras and go through the glare of klieg lights and that sort of thing. But why is a sketch offensive to the Attorney General? How does it detract from the process of the administration of justice? Why is an artist who sits quietly at his position in court, probably at a press table, any more objectionable than a reporter who sits beside him? Is an artist disturbing the proceedings of the court when he makes his drawing more than the reporter who makes notes in his book? What is the distinction? To what extent, if any, is the drawing of a sketch going to disrupt the proceedings in the courtroom or going to derogate from the quality of justice being administered in the court? I think that additional inclusion is unexplainable, and I would urge the Attorney General to delete it. I see no point in it at all.
The second difficulty I have with this section is the use of the word “environs.” I know that the Attorney General has his idea of what environs might mean. Some of the members of our press gallery have wondered about what environs might mean. There are dictionary definitions of what environs might mean. Whatever we say in this House, if we adopt this wording, really isn’t going to affect the wording. I suppose Judge A might consider that the environs of the new courthouse in the city of Toronto would include the city hall square. Perhaps it could include Queen St. or Bay St. It might, in fact, include the ground floor in the new courthouse, where administrative offices are, where the sheriff’s office is, where the county court clerk’s office is, where the surrogate court office is. I see that there is some assent over there under the gallery with that latest idea, but I don’t see why, if someone is walking across the city hall square on their way to the new courthouse, that word might be so broadly interpreted. Or perhaps they are walking up Bay St., as many lawyers do on their way to court. Is that part of the environs? Or if they are within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, is that part of the environs? I think that draws the swath far too wide.
There is one city in Ontario that someone was mentioning to me the other day where the courtroom facilities are on the 10th floor of a large building. Are the environs the other nine floors, where completely unrelated matters may be being carried on? I don’t know. I think the choice of that word is a very, very bad one, and I don t think the section should go through with the word “environs” being included as a part of it.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I don’t see any real reason at all for the inclusion of section 3 in this statute. “Every person who is in contravention of this section” -- the penalty section -- “is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment” for six months or both. Surely if a judge has seen fit to make the appropriate orders, as judges do, or to deal with decorum in his courtroom, and if someone has chosen to disregard the judge’s direction, the various penalties for contempt are available to that judge if he should, in fact, want to use them.
I would urge the minister to delete section 3 from the Act. I don’t think it adds anything to our system of administration of justice; in fact, it clutters it up with restrictions that heretofore have not seemed to be necessary in any way. I haven’t heard anyone complaining about sketches, and I haven’t heard anyone say that whatever prohibitions now exist should lie extended to environs, whatever environs may be. While we will support the bill on second reading in principle, we will ask that it go to committee and we will certainly oppose the inclusion in it of section 3.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a rather important engagement so I will of necessity be quite brier. But my colleagues will pursue the debate in some depth.
I don’t know of any reason why the Attorney General is increasing the number of Court of Appeal judges. I could understand, if the information were made available that there may be some need to increase the number of judges on the High Court of Justice. I just don’t believe that the number of cases before the Court of Appeal is such that the present complement of judges cannot deal with the matter. I certainly have not seen any information -- I may have overlooked it if it was made available, though I tend not to overlook that kind of information -- but I think you have to justify the increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, as far as I understand the amendment with respect to that matter.
A few minutes ago the minister was invoking Montesquieu and the American system. In the other section of the bill, he is excluding the American system. It has become customary in the United States courts, in lieu of taking photographs, which is necessarily detractive of the court procedure, that artists do sit in the court and make sketches of the various persons who are involved in the court proceedings, be they judge, prosecutor, defence counsel, witnesses, interested members of the public, jurors, or others. I know of nothing which would indicate that an artist sketching persons in the court would be detractive or disruptive of the court proceeding. We must, of necessity, be very interested in the openness of the court proceeding, the publicity attendant on the court proceeding, the publicity attendant on the court proceeding, so long as we are not interfering with the process of justice in those courts and so long as we are not interfering with the rights of the persons who are involved.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister had brought in an amendment to the Police Act to prohibit the photographing of persons who are apprehended by the police and are led out of a police station handcuffed to a detective -- and of course the caption always has to be perfectly clear to distinguish the detective from the person who is apprehended, you know; they have to be very careful about that.
Mr. Cassidy: The suspect is better dressed.
Mr. Renwick: Then there is the problem of providing him with a piece of cardboard so that he can hide his face. That is far more derogatory of the rights of citizens in the Province of Ontario than an artist being in the court and unobtrusively sketching what takes place. That’s public business. All of us can go there. I think it is immensely damaging to any citizen, before any trial has taken place, if he is apprehended by the police and then subject to no protection with respect to his right of privacy with respect to photographs that are taken of him when he is in the hands of the police.
If the minister had introduced that kind of a bill, we would certainly support it, but he always starts at the wrong end. There is absolutely nothing which can affect the process of justice in the Province of Ontario in an artist making a sketch. I agree entirely about the photographs and I agree entirely about the motion picture part of it, because the equipment necessary for that kind of activity, the positioning of it and so on, is disruptive of the quiet orderly process of the hearing of the case, is disruptive not of the decorum of the court but of the rights of the people who are involved, who are entitled to the undivided attention of the judge, the prosecutor, the plaintiffs counsel or the defendant’s counsel, and the undivided attention of the jury, if there is a jury. That’s a different matter. I agree with the question about other kinds of equipment, but in this day and age to rule out the artist’s sketch has no merit whatsoever in my judgment.
I would say, and I wasn’t being facetious, that the minister may well have occasion to look at the Police Act with a view to the question of protecting people who are arrested from having their photographs taken, which is much more damaging than any possible artist’s sketch could conceivably be to a person who, by the orderly process of justice, finds himself in a court. It is a normal hazard of everyday life. Which of us may not be there on almost any occasion?
Hon. Mr. Welch: In a sketch.
Mr. Renwick: Yes.
Mr. Singer: Or in the environs.
Mr. Renwick: The environs bothers me. It is a beautiful English term, derived from ancient Greek, I suppose.
Mrs. Campbell: It is hazy Greek.
Mr. Renwick: In any event, I think it is a very hazy term to have in a statute, but that isn’t my principal concern. My principal concern is that the artist’s sketch is an accepted way of providing the public with information about what goes on in courts, some visual reproduction of the persons who are engaged in those court activities. So far as the public is concerned, it would be much more important in my view to pass an Act relating to the protection of people under the Police Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre. Excuse me, the hon. member for St. George is first.
Mrs. Campbell: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to go over all the points which have been raised. I must say that I do have some sympathy with the incorporation of the prohibition against electronic devices and all the rest of it. I think that could remain there but the matter of sketches I cannot understand. We have reporters sitting there, they are taking down the proceedings, they are naming names, they are regurgitating some of the things which have happened in the court, and I can’t for the life of me understand why sketching should be prohibited.
My real concern here, while I accept all that has been said before, is the terminology and the use of the word “environs.” When one looks at the penalties, it seems to me it ought to be spelled out pretty clearly what it is we are talking about. When, in the first place, the bill says “in the environs of the room in which the judicial proceeding is to be or has been convened,” then possibly it is open to some definition. But when it adds to that the building, then truly I wonder how we can hope to interpret it adequately in order to protect those who may without any real intent violate what is proposed in this legislation. I have always felt, as with taxing statutes, those statutes which impose this sort of liability ought to be very clear in law. Therefore, I would ask that at least, if nothing else, we might have some better definition of what we mean in subsection (2)(a)(iii). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker: I have a couple of comments to make on this. The first comment relates a bit to the discussion we had on the previous bill this afternoon where I was raising the question as to why the minister would attack the gnat of whether or not the independence of the judiciary was affected by their franchise, while ignoring the beam -- it is the mote and the beam I am talking about, I guess, and the minister as a good Anglican would know of what I am speaking -- in the question of the judiciary forming part of police commissions. I have a feeling that the first two sections of these amendments are rather in the same kind of situation as well.
The member for Riverdale tells me, while there may be problems with the backup of civil cases before the High Court, he is not aware, as he said in the House, of any particular problems in the Court of Appeal. As I was reflecting on this, and I would confess that I am not of the judicial training that the minister or the member for Riverdale is, I recall there has been no action yet on the very important report submitted to the government on the administration of justice in Ontario. The recommendations there among other things included a better scheduling of business, the appointment of lay people to carry out the administration of justice, better scheduling and rather tougher treatment of counsel in particular, in order to ensure that repeated delays in the courts were not caused by dilatory actions by counsel or by the present practice where by certain very busy lawyers simply take on more than they can carry and still manage to keep their lives sane by a succession of postponements and delays of trials, which they achieve with the complaisance of their fellow gentlemen at the bar who are the lawyers who grant them these delays.
Surely those kinds of questions should be raised and resolved before the Band-Aid of increasing the size of the court of appeal is applied. I would hope that the minister might give us some of the information on which the recommendation to increase the size of the court is being made, and that he would give us that information during the course of our committee stage study of the bill; and that he would further explain, perhaps during the course of this debate, why it is that he is going ahead with this particular aspect, yet not touching the high court where it seems the problem is of a greater stature, and not touching the more general question about the problems of court administration that were underlined by the recent report.
If I can come now into the area with which I am more familiar, I categorically reject the proposals, which are made by the ministry or by the government, to prohibit the use of both television cameras, motion pictures and still cameras and sketching in or around courtrooms.
I find this a damaging, dangerous and retrograde step which is being taken by the minister. Perhaps by his nod he means that he agrees with me but that the officials sort of made him do it -- but no; okay, he’s shaking his head now, okay.
If I could work from the back forward; if there were any defence in the proposals by themselves, it would seem to me the enforcement should be by means of the judicial powers of contempt and that the fine that was laid out in this particular case is gross and quite out of line with the nature of the possible offence.
Clearly, if there is a question of privacy and it’s violated, you either can’t compensate for it at all or else you’re going to get involved with minor offences against the Act. To put people on penalty of a $10,000 fine is very substantial, particularly with a smaller news organization and particularly in marginal cases. I would suggest that it’s very much out of line with the penalties which are applied by Ontario statutes and by the courts in other cases.
If I can give an example: When a landlord in my particular riding of Ottawa Centre illegally evicts a tenant there is no legal recourse and no fine. They have violated no criminal statute and that tenant, put out on the street illegally and forced to somehow make do -- move children, move furniture, the whole bit -- with their whole life disrupted by the wilful act of a landlord, that tenant can only have redress in the civil courts.
And the civil courts, if the case ever gets there which it seldom does, have tended to treat the whole thing very lightly and have seen the rights of landlord and tenant as being equal. Maybe they have compensated the tenant to the tune of the month’s rent that he may have lost and the living costs after the landlord had put him out on the street. That’s the kind of redress that a tenant has when his whole life is disrupted, and yet the minister comes in with a $10,000 fine in the case of the particular offence set out in section 3.
In addition I would like to suggest that, under certain circumstances, the offence is unprovable and a violation is unenforceable. Reasonable grounds for doubt can exist to the point where the existence of these very severe penalties is really objectionable. Namely, the minister will accept, I think, that certain artists are capable of recreating in their mind’s eye, a situation or a scene they may have seen, particularly if they have seen it minutes or an hour or so before.
Therefore, it is within the terms of the proposed amendment here for an artist working for the Toronto Star, or the CBC or whatever, to sit in and, at the dramatic moment where a suspect breaks down or a witness makes a dramatic charge, to fix that scene in their mind’s eye and then to go away from the environment of the court, back to their newspaper office or to the CBC building, and there, a few minutes later, to sketch from memory what they saw; and that is not in violation of the law.
We therefore get a situation where we have to catch the artist in the act, so to speak. We have to find him putting pencil to paper or we have to find in his possession, as he leaves the courtroom, some rough sketches from which he wall make his finished drawing. We have to search anybody who happens to be wearing a beret and a goatee as he enters or leaves the courtroom. If they happen to be coming in with a bit of charcoal or a couple of soft drafting pencils in their pocket, do we seize them? It is all ludicrous; it is really quite absurd.
I would suggest that because, as the minister acknowledges, artists are capable of recreating what they saw without actually being in the environs of the courtroom, what he is therefore doing is saying that a rather less exact record made by somebody who was not on the premises is permissible but a somewhat more exact record which may be made by somebody on the premises is not.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It is no different than a paper running a picture of the accused which was not taken in the courtroom.
Mr. Cassidy: The minister says it is no different than a picture taken of the accused -- well, taken where?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Or a television station putting on a picture of the accused or a witness. The important point in this is what goes on in the courtroom.
Mr. Cassidy: No, the minister should realize in fact that the Act extends further than that. For example, in the city of Ottawa, as I think the minister knows, the police station and the courtroom are almost in the same location. Certainly the courts are physically within the same block, although they are not connected directly with the police station.
There are detention cells in the police station for prisoners who may have been put into the drunk tank or who may have been held in the station for an afternoon session after having been brought in from the regional detention centre during the course of the morning. Is a prisoner who moves from the Ottawa police station around the block to the Ottawa-Carleton courthouse for a trial at all times within the environs of the courthouse? If that’s the case, then it becomes illegal for a newspaper photographer to take a picture of that particular prisoner or accused on his way from his jail cell to the courtroom.
I don’t know the physical arrangements of the courts here in Toronto, as to whether a similar situation exists. As I recall, I think the courts in Montreal, which are out of this jurisdiction, also have cells and courtrooms within the physical environs of the same building or the same complex.
According to the letter of this particular law, in the particular case I’ve mentioned, whether it’s Ottawa or possibly other parts of the province, photographs would be forbidden. You can’t take photographs outside the courtroom, you can’t take photographs within the building where the courtroom is situated and you can’t take photographs within the environs. Clearly, in that case, it’s the environs of the building, which I assume means around the entrance of the building.
What does one do if an accused who is out on his own recognizance comes by taxi or limousine or by motor car, gets out at the front steps of the courthouse and simply walks up the steps? In practical terms, the newspaper photographer or the TV photographer will want to be situated somewhere on the steps of that building to take their picture. Yet that, I think, is pretty clearly within the environs of the building in which the courtroom is situated. Therefore, what the proposed amendments say is that in many circumstances it will be impossible for news organizations to take any visual record of the accused or of other people involved in a particular trial on the day the trial is actually taking place.
I wish the press were here for this particular debate because I think it is an important one which affects the freedom and the rights of the press, the newspapers and the electronic media. For that reason, I wish that one or two of them were listening in.
The minister and the government are trying to sneak in the back door with a proposal which amounts to a form of censorship of the major means by which people receive their current news information in the province today.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not a fair comment.
Mr. Cassidy: No, it is censorship.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not a fair comment.
Mr. Cassidy: The minister says it is not a fair comment and that’s on the record now; fair enough. He can reply during the course of this debate. But this is a form of censorship and I’ll tell him why.
I’ve talked around the bill. I’ve talked about the fine being too great. I’ve talked about the practical problems of sketching from memory, off the premises, where one is away from the environs; and of the practical problems of TV or news photographers taking pictures in the environs of the building and maybe being ruled out, because of the physical arrangement of one courthouse as opposed to another, from getting any editorial record of a suspect or other people involved in the trial on the day the trial is taking place.
If I can expand on that for a second, the nature of news is that one wants the pictures today. If one has a trial which is dramatic and which is causing a great deal of interest, then one wants to know how Mr. Brown, the suspect, or Mrs. so-and-so, who was the motive for whatever, looked as he or she came into the courtroom at the very least, and not how the stock photograph of them that was taken two or three months ago made them look, because they may have changed quite dramatically. It is an aspect of news as to whether, for example, a suspect comes in jauntily, full of confidence and obviously quite sure of himself; or on the other hand comes in all sort of bedraggled and looking depressed and so on.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The member doesn’t think that a suspect’s privacy should be protected under those circumstances?
Mr. Cassidy: Obviously the suspect’s privacy is not protected from any observers who happen to be passing at the time.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I mean visual.
Mr. Cassidy: Yes. They are not protected from visual inspection by any person who was there.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Who was there?
Mr. Cassidy: Yes. Let me come to the third point, and that is this: That to be consistent, this section should have a third subclause, and that third subclause should state quite simply that no means of recording should be permitted to a newspaper or other kinds of journalists who are present. In other words, they should not be allowed to have a pen or a pencil or any other device for writing a record of what they actually see.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Is the member moving that amendment?
Mr. Cassidy: No, I do not move that kind of an amendment. Let’s face it, here we have a 19th century body right here, the Ontario Legislature; and we use electronics in order to amplify our voices, in order that we can hear each other better.
Hon. Mr. Welch: In court?
Mr. Cassidy: No, we do here. We use electronics here for that purpose.
Hon. Mr. Welch: In courts they do too.
Mr. Cassidy: But we do not permit the audio record of what we say to be used by radio or TV. In other words, the radio or TV journalists who are accredited to this Legislature do not have the right to keep an audio or hearable record. In other words, when the Minister of Justice gets up to make a statement about the problems of juvenile detention homes, or the Premier (Mr. Davis) gets up to make a dramatic statement about election expenses or some other important matter, or the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) talks about Algonquin Park; for print journalists the record can be kept in words. “Mr. Bernier said,” such and so. For electronic journalists the record, in fact, is being made as it is said, and they would like very much to hear what the minister has to say, here in the House where the news is being made and not have him putting his own pastiche on it out there in front of the TV cameras and the microphones at that particular point in time.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It is all right for the member though.
Mr. Cassidy: But we exclude from this Legislature, being a rather antediluvian type of organization, the electronic media, both television and radio. When we do so we make all sorts of excuses about how certain members might play up to the media and might play up to the cameras and that kind of thing. God knows, I’m sure the Speaker would say that certain members play up to all sorts of things right now. The Speaker has obviously had his hands full in recent days with some aspects of that and is trying to bring that under control.
This House is quite lively enough without TV cameras, and to suggest that it is going to become any different if there are TV cameras or if the electronic media are introduced, of course is clearly absurd.
The decorum of the House is something which is within the control of this House and within the control of the Speaker. If the Speaker starts to crack down on interjections and other things like that, he clearly has the powers to do that. The existence or absence of the electronic media is not going to affect that.
If I can force that analogy back to the courts, because that is what this debate is all about, the power of a judge to enforce decorum within a courtroom is pretty strong, and that power is exercised a lot more toughly, may I say, than the power to enforce decorum that belongs to the Speaker of the Legislature. I speak in a generic sense of all legislatures, not of this particular individual who occupies the chair right now. Judges can be pretty tough in using their contempt powers in order to enforce decorum and in order to preserve the dignity of the court. It seems to me that is where the question about the possible interference in transactions of the courts by the electronic media ought to be introduced and not here.
I don’t know whether a continuous TV record of a trial, say like the Demeter trial currently under way, would be disruptive to what goes on. I have a hunch the first couple of times TV cameras were introduced in to the courtroom it would be a novelty. The lawyers would be looking around, the judges would be looking around and so on; and then it would become accepted as a matter of just a way of life.
Arrangements would be made in order to ensure the cameras were put into relatively discreet locations and that the cameramen weren’t panning around in front of every witness, six inches away from them and that kind of thing. Arrangements would be made to make sure that the paparazzi, the newspaper photographers, weren’t also thronging in. Arrangements might be made with newspaper organizations to have a pool type of arrangement so that all the pictures in a trial will be taken by a pool photographer, whose pictures would then be used by the various news organizations involved rather than having half a dozen newspaper photographers at a trial that is particularly dramatic. It might be in certain cases that a judge would require that because of possible interference the TV cameras took a record of a particular witness beginning his testimony, but then after that the cameras would be shut off in order to allow the trial to go forward. All of that is regulable by judges, and that is the way it should be.
It is a form of censorship, I am sure the minister would agree, to deprive newspaper reporters of their pens or pencils. It is likewise a form of censorship, which we exercise in this Legislature, to deprive TV cameramen of their visual record of what goes on in this House, to deprive the newspapers of a pictorial record -- the right to take news photographs from time to time of this House -- or to deprive electronic journalists in radio the right to take a feed from the amplifying system here in order that they can get a direct record of what is said in the chamber, rather than having to get it second-hand in the form of two-and three-minute interviews outside of the chamber. It is equally as much censorship to pass a bill which says not only that under no circumstances can you sketch, but take any kind of a pictorial record of what happens in a courtroom.
Having said that, I want to say to the minister -- and perhaps this is a bit of a follow-on from our previous discussion on the previous bill -- one of the things that flows from this is that the vast bulk of the public doesn’t really have a sense or a feel of what goes on within the courts 95 per cent of the time. If it’s a dramatic trial, they follow it quite closely and it’s all like Perry Mason. The present case that is on in the courts right now is certainly that kind of thing. People know what to expect because they watch it on Hollywood television every night of the week.
The treatment of your common garden accused, the drunks, the break-and-enter fellows, the prostitutes and other people like that, the petty criminals who take up most of the time of the criminal courts, is often a disgrace and is often an affront to human dignity.
Those courtrooms, however, have their aficionados, a few people who go there from time to time. What happens in those courtrooms is known to people who are learned in the law and who practise there. It’s known to the legal aid people. It’s known to the social workers who come in to give probation reports, and a few other people who venture there from time to time.
I have to confess that some of the journalists who go and cover the lower courts tend to become awfully cynical and case-hardened at times, too. Occasionally a journalist will go in and, say, write a feature series on what’s wrong with our courts. He will describe what happens and the kind of assembly line justice that is meted out. But it doesn’t hit people directly. The general public doesn’t go there as a matter of course. School children come to this particular chamber; and I would suspect more school children visit the Legislature in the average year than there are school children in classes taken into the criminal courts of this province. The minister is nodding his head.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I would think so.
Mr. Cassidy: We could see on television, in full, glorious colour, the Vietnam war a few years ago; but you can’t see and feel on television what happens within the courts that are just a mile or two away. So many of us, as a matter of course, never get into them and never get any feel of them.
I am just as guilty of this as the rest. I spent a month covering criminal courts in Vancouver when I was a very green reporter. I’ve hardly been back there since. I hardly know what it’s all about. Very occasionally I might poke my nose in -- it would be about one day every three or four years -- and as often as not it’s because I haven’t paid a traffic ticket.
Now on the merits of censorship that is exercised -- which the minister may be about to get up and defend on grounds of the human dignity of suspects in a case like the trial that is currently under way -- one has to balance that kind of thing. The balance is, shall we say, the dignity of the “better class of society,” in quotes, and the opprobrium he feels they might have from seeing their face on television as suspects; against the curative and reformative and informative power the visual press, the electronic record, the audio record, the newspaper record and the television record can have, if under conditions regulated by the judges these media were allowed into the courts.
I think when you look at it what you really find is that the minister is really defending the rights of the upper class of society once again. Some guy who is accused of breaking and entering, or something like that --
Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m not defending anybody in the courts.
Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m not defending anybody in the courts, as a witness or as an accused.
Mr. Cassidy: Okay. But the point I would like to make, though, is that somebody whose picture appears on television because they were accused on a break-and-enter charge has got a lot less to lose, if you will, than Harold Ballard in court for example.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Both are entitled to their privacy; the most humble or the most wealthy.
Mr. Cassidy: The procedure which is going forward is a public procedure. They are not protected from the public gaze of anybody who cares to go there.
Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no class distinction in privacy; all are protected.
Mr. Cassidy: But it is wrong to do that, I would suggest. This is an open, public procedure. We have open courts in this country. Just as we are meant to have an open Legislature. It’s an anomaly that the Legislature is not open to the scrutiny of the various kinds of media. I would suggest that bearing in mind the question of the dignity of the court, which can be regulated, it is wrong that the courts are excluded from this.
If certain businessmen who were charged on economic crimes -- if I can come back to this again -- were to find their faces on television as they are convicted on a charge of misleading advertising or something like that, it may be that the penalty would have rather more impact than --
Hon. Mr. Welch: But their faces can be on television.
Mr. Cassidy: Yes, well if their faces can be on television, then the privacy can be interrupted anyway. Their faces can be flashed on television either way.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The only face that can’t be on television is that which would show in the picture of them taken in the courtroom.
Mr. Speaker: Order please.
Mr. Cassidy: I don’t see the distinction. The minister is being rather infectious in his interventions, Mr. Speaker, don’t you think so?
Mr. Speaker: I think so.
Mr. Cassidy: You might even think of tossing him out, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am engaging --
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member is straying from the pure principle of the bill.
Mr. Cassidy: No, I have made my points. I hope the minister applies them, Mr. Speaker. The courts should be open, under conditions regulated by judges, to these electronic media. I suggest it would be a powerful force for reform of our judicial system, and on that ground alone this particular proposal in this bill deserves to be defeated.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.
Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the member for Ottawa Centre when he says it’s unfortunate the press is not here in greater numbers to have input on this type of legislation which seriously affects them. But, after listening to his long discourse, Mr. Speaker, probably one of the main reasons they aren’t here is because he is talking.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That is not fair.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): They still stay away when the member for Ottawa East is here.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I don’t see them rushing in now for his gems of wisdom.
Mr. Roy: No, I don’t either -- and I don’t expect to see them rushing in.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, just from reading this legislation that while we agree with certain principles of this bill, the minister is bringing in legislation which, in my opinion, is not necessary. It seems to us that what the minister is trying to cure is causing many difficulties -- and they have been raised by every member who has spoken on this bill -- in terms of the enforcement of this legislation. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, as one who has experience in the courts and who has been around the courts during most of my short period in the legal profession --
Mr. Stokes: In what capacity?
Mr. Roy: In all sorts of capacities.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Does the member agree with the section 3?
Mr. Roy: With section 3? I agree with certain principles of section 3, but I feel that type of enforcement can be left in the hands of the individual judge, who has all sorts of power of contempt or otherwise to regulate regalia and the paraphernalia and the various though, that by trying to legislate it in this way, the minister is causing great difficulties in its enforcement.
For instance, one of the difficulties -- and I have discussed this matter with the member for Downsview -- is, first of all, what is meant by the environs of the courtroom or the building? This is extremely difficult to define. What happens, for instance, if an individual has a zoom lens on his camera; you know, one of these lenses with which he can take a photograph right on the steps of the courthouse from a building across the street?
And what happens when, as was often the case in Ottawa, the press comes around and wants an interview with the Crown attorney or some legal officer on the steps of the courthouse? This bill, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, would in some ways restrict that.
What is meant by the words, “make graphic portrait or sketch”? For instance, if a newspaper reporter decided to make a written sketch of the minister, and said he wore glasses, was short --
An hon. member: Ugly.
Mr. Roy: -- balding, aggressive, dressed in such-and-such a suit, that in a way would be a sketch.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Balding?
Mr. Roy: “Receding hairline” would be more complimentary. What if he gave that type of a sketch Mr. Speaker? Would that be prohibited under this bill?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Discriminatory.
Mr. Roy: But that is the type of problem we will be running into. Frankly, the minister should have put a period in the bill after the words “electronic means” and stopped right there. For what is the difference between a reporter who is jotting down notes and the fellow who is making a sketch in the courtroom? I don’t really see that much difference in terms of hurting the decorum and the order of the proceedings in the court.
I could see problems where photographers were coming in and jumping over the tables to take photographs of witnesses, counsel, the judge or the jury or otherwise. I could also see some problems if television cameras were zooming in and moving around, lights were going on and off and so on. But when we have an individual who is just sketching, what’s the difference between him and the fellow making notes?
My point is, Mr. Speaker, is simply that I don’t feel the legislation is even necessary. We attempt to appoint more responsible judges who can control the order and the decorum of the courtroom -- and in fact, some of them go too far. I don’t know if you read in the paper the other day, for instance, that a judge in Pembroke said that witnesses must come in wearing shirts and ties. Well, they were coming in for divorce proceedings. I think that’s a bit much.
Mrs. Campbell: Ladies would have to wear hats if --
Mr. Roy: On the other hand, when a judge is regulating a procedure in a courtroom in this province I have not seen many abuses. Maybe the notoriety of the particular trial going on now in London might have something to do with this type of legislation, but regarding the decorum of the courtroom itself, I have not seen, in my relatively short experience Mr. Speaker, any abuses of this.
We have not allowed photographs in a courtroom, we have not allowed television cameras in a courtroom; but people have been allowed to make sketches, just like they are doing, for instance, in the trial going on in Washington now involving the former right hand people of Richard Nixon. They are making sketches there. So I would say, just in closing, that the legislation is not necessary and by bringing in this type of legislation the minister is creating more problems than he is really solving and he is going too far with it.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Who asked for it anyway?
Mr. Roy: One of my colleagues is asking who asked for this type of legislation. Is it the judges, who feel they can’t control it, or is there some public demand? Where’s the public outcry for this type of legislation?
Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: As to the section on the lis pendens, I think that’s perfectly sensible and satisfactory.
Mr. Cassidy: There’s one good word for the minister. In fact, it is two.
Mr. Lawlor: We can concede that much. But hasn’t the regimen of courtrooms in the past 25 years become somewhat less formal, stodgy and sanctimonious than it was in the past? Isn’t the current thrust in law reform in Great Britain, and numerous texts have been written about this, taking issue with the continued prolongation of wigs and all the regalia and the paraphernalia and the various robes and rigmarole that go into this thing; and the interminable “Oyez, oyez, oyez” and all that blatant nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 3 is, in fact, part of the English law as well.
Mr. Lawlor: It is all tied in with the same thing, with the panoply, the pretence and the show. The thing is designed, basically, as some kind of puritanical mid-19th-century god with a big eye looking at the human race, particularly from the bench and from where the Attorney General sits, casting the fear of the Lord into as many culprits and otherwise perfectly reputable citizens as it possibly can. The chief motivation is coercion, fear and the imposition of authority for its own sake. This, basically, is what this section 3 does. It’s a prolongation of the same venal mentality in this particular regard.
Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): What has the member got against wigs?
Mr. Lawlor: There hasn’t been, so far as I know, any demand, any call for, any clamour in the minister’s ears or elsewhere that he bring in legislation of this kind. It’s out of the whole cloth, as far as he is concerned this afternoon. It is visited upon us. We have rather more important things to do around here, I suspect, than work in this particular area.
What he has been influenced by is certain rather notorious trials in the United States of recent years. The Milwaukee 10 or the Chicago Five or the Boston 4¾ have all come to his attention, and in his gentility he has been appalled by what he has seen on those occasions and he is not going to let it happen here.
Well it doesn’t happen here. Go into a courtroom. If one is sitting in the body of the court, any court in this province, one can’t make notes, one can’t make sketches, one can’t do a damn thing. One sits there and listens. At counsel table one just has a certain ability to make sketches and notes. I suspect the sketches are more to the point, in most instances.
May I point out that in the Attorney General’s hall here, and certainly if it’s not there -- and I haven’t inspected his office that closely -- in every legal office of this province, the walls are lined with sketches of Mr. Justice Croker, Lord Russell of Killowen, old fellows like Devlin, Mansfield -- all of them. They are all in caricature, admittedly, all getting the point through, sometimes with the sourest faces you have seen. Where does the Attorney General think they do those things? Does he suspect that they do them from memory out in some pasture when they are looking at the sunrise?
Mr. Singer: Beyond the environs?
Mr. Lawlor: They sketch them, and have done by tradition, in the British courts. They sketch them on the spot when the scowl appears, and even when the wispy little smile sometimes lightens up the countenance -- dreadful looks, anything.
So what the Attorney General is doing is making basic incursions upon the forensic artistry of this province, a thing that he should be very careful of doing. It will cut off a whole realm. You can’t have a judge go into his chambers and ask him to pose. He will put on such a pompous air that you could never possibly want to take a sketch, graphic or otherwise. But if you catch him unawares in his periodical tantrums or something like that, then you have got the man to the heart.
What is the Attorney General doing? He is working into this, cutting it all off, and there is no necessity for it. Powers of contempt, I believe, are very extensive even beyond the courtroom doors with respect to the doings in a courthouse. The Attorney General wants to extend them out into something called the “environs” -- whatever that means. I suppose 1,000 ft from the courthouse down on University Ave. one may not take a picture of the co-respondent in this particular divorce case. That is wiped out under severe penalty. You can’t do it in the body of the court, in any event, without being liable to possible contempt proceedings.
What is all this about? Why does the Attorney General consume the time of this Legislature in bringing in legislation of that particular kind? Well, he may argue that the purpose, at least, leaving the sketch business aside, is to prevent a circus occurring in the courthouse, and even in the environs in the sense of the front door, but when has a circus occurred in our jurisdiction? One doesn’t bring in supernumerary legislation to meet some kind of nebulous possibility; that is not the purpose of law, and the Attorney General of this province should know it.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one or two comments on second reading, and I understand that it would be the wish of members of the House that the bill would go to committee so that we would have the advantage of rereading the debate, and then going into some more detailed consideration, particularly with respect to section 3.
However, I would like to make some general comments with respect to the principle. The hon. members for Riverdale and from Ottawa do question the need for an expansion in the size of the membership of the court of appeal. They will recall that when I introduced this legislation I did mention the fact that we were expanding the size of the court of appeal from 10 to 14 because we felt it was warranted by the extremely heavy burden on this court.
Indeed, the criminal appeal caseload of that court has grown by 100 per cent since 1963, and at that time I did report to the House as well that between the Oct. 1, 1972, and Sept. 30, 1973, the list of criminal appeals pending had increased from 495 to 629. In addition, I pointed out that there had been a substantial increase in the civil appeal burden over the last 10 years, although not so great as the increase in criminal matters.
We could reduce this to percentages of workload and so on, but I would point out -- and I am glad the hon. member from Ottawa did make reference to the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on courts administration and on the advantages of giving some consideration to court organization. Indeed, as I mentioned, insofar as some of the legislation was concerned earlier today, we are very much into that report and, indeed, have established an advisory group representative of all the various benches in order to give some consideration as to how we might move with respect to those recommendations.
I would think perhaps one of the reasons we wouldn’t move into the High Court area, to which the hon. members for Riverdale and Ottawa Centre make reference, is that before we do we would have to satisfy ourselves with respect to what the implications might be with respect to the implementation of some of these recommendations. No matter how one looks at it, it would have nothing to do with the Court of Appeal, because however one organizes efficiently with respect to the lower courts doesn’t preclude the fact that there is an increase in the appeals to the Court of Appeal.
Anyone who has taken a look at this within the context of that report itself, agrees that there is an increase in the workload. There may be some disagreement as to how we might best solve the problem. There has been some thought that we might, in fact, refer some criminal appeals to the divisional court rather than to the Court of Appeal. There is a very logical argument given for that as well. But here, once again, in the consultative process I’ve been persuaded that the way to meet the particular problem of the increased workload with respect to appeal is to increase the number of justices in that court. In general, this is the reason and we can provide -- and I’d be glad to have that for committee stage -- some detail as to how that work has increased.
The member for Ottawa Centre made some reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act. Rather than prolonging my response, I would draw his attention to sections 107 and 108 of the Landlord and Tenant Act which would seem to correct some understanding he has with respect to that legislation. I have sensed that there is a general consensus that section 2 is of no concern.
Mr. Cassidy: I wall let the minister have that one.
Hon. Mr. Welch: We will then just take that as agreed upon. I am very anxious to discuss very generally some of the reasons behind section 3, which it is quite obvious concerns some members of the House. I have found the debate very helpful. I want now to review the debate, and I want to add to it the reasons for the introduction of this particular section of this part of the legislation. Then we’ll have the opportunity in committee perhaps to go into it in more detail.
Apart from the general power possessed by a judge over proceedings taking place before him and in the vicinity of his courtroom, I’m advised that there is no authority governing the matter of whether and under what circumstances the taking of photographs, the making of sketches or the televising of activity at or associated with a judicial proceeding is capable of being controlled. I think it’s quite right that over a matter of years certain customs and certain traditions have developed.
Mr. Cassidy: That exist within the courtroom but not outside.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Someone raised the quite proper question, how did this matter come to a head and why am I troubling the House with this? We did have a particular situation where the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. did request permission to have its television crews given access to courthouses in Ontario. They were particularly anxious to move in to televise some proceedings with respect to, I think, an adoption case of some importance at that time.
Mr. Singer: That’s inside the court.
Hon. Mr. Welch: This was brought to the attention of the Ministry of the Attorney General. It was a specific request and, in the review of the matter, it was found, as I have just mentioned, that there indeed did not appear to be some authority with respect to this. Certain customs had been built up and, therefore, having had a specific request to which there had to be some reply it was found that we perhaps should in some respects codify and place in the statute what had grown up to be the practice in this particular regard. Having done that, I sensed, except for some comments made by the member for Ottawa Centre in the general area of the visual media being denied access to the courts, there would be some agreement with respect to some of the electronic devices and the cameras.
I think the House is entitled to know some of the reasoning which then prompted us, because of this specific request and, therefore, the review of the matter, to bring in section 3 in the form it is in.
A review of the general problem, with respect to the taking of photographs and the making of sketches of the televising of activity, was undertaken within the ministry and I’d just like, as I say, to share with members, in summary form, what the results of that review produced.
No. 1: I think it was reasonable for us to assume that the protection of the dignity and the personality and the privacy of the individual was worthy of some consideration. Particularly those people who through force of circumstance have become participants in the judicial process, many of whom, of course, are certainly less than being voluntary participants in this whole process.
I would point out to you that it’s a well known phenomenon that a great many citizens who participate in judicial proceedings, whether they be witnesses or jurors or complainants or litigants or the accused -- well, I shouldn’t use “the accused” there, but certainly taking that out -- do so because it is their sense of public duty. Their interest in pursuing justice outweighs their reluctance to be brought into the public eye.
It is essential, I would like to put on the record, that these participants be assured that photographs or other visual reproductions of themselves will not be made during the stress, and indeed the occasional distress, that they undergo during the trial process or other proceedings associated with the administration of justice in the province.
I would just ask members, and there will be some time between now and when we get back into committee, to think about some of these things in the spirit of a debate. This isn’t a hard partisan difference of opinion; I think members are entitled to have some of these reasons to add to their own perceptions.
Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is undeniable that most persons are, at the very least, apprehensive about an appearance in court? In some situations, for example with respect to complainants in rape cases, the possibility of being filmed, sketched or photographed during their attendance at the proceedings, would result in extreme mental anguish or indeed in some cases even fear.
Mr. Singer: Has that ever happened?
Mrs. Campbell: Those are the cases that should be photographed; so often they aren’t.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The point is -- I’m not impressed by the question, “Has it ever happened?” Up until now we have never allowed pictures to be taken or the television cameras to be used. But wouldn’t the members of the House agree that when you have a request, a specific request for permission to go in and televise a particular proceeding or the people involved in it, that to be consistent, you would have to consider the whole area of visual recording?
Mr. Singer: I can just picture what would happen if the minister gives his consent and a particular judge disagreed with him.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m just asking the members to think about that. Wouldn’t my hon. friend be here today arguing with me, in some respects and I ask him to think about this, if I was trying to make some distinction about the type of visual recording that could in fact be undertaken?
I mean an artist can still catch the person at their emotional moment; he can catch the anguish they are experiencing as well as the camera.
Mr. Cassidy: But that can still be done under the bill.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The point is that that’s for each to consider from his own point of view.
Mr. Cassidy: That can still be done.
Hon. Mr. Welch: The judicial process, as I would remind myself and I’ve been thinking about this prior to introducing it, deals with ordinary human beings and not with a remarkable class of individuals who are above, or immune to, psychological strains.
In addition, what really would have to be recognized, is that many of the people who are present at judicial proceedings are really innocent people who are there under compulsion and most of them really don’t want to be there at all. They, in this regard, ought to be protected by law from unnecessary and indeed unwanted publicity by the taking of pictures or the making of sketches in and around courtrooms --
Mr. Cassidy: But their names appear in the papers.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I will get to that particular point: This would be an unwanted invasion of privacy and on these grounds, such activity is objectionable, whether done overtly or surreptitiously and without undue disturbance; I think there’s a point of view. Members may not agree with it, but that’s one of the reasons.
Secondly, there is the protection of the interest in ensuring the continued co-operation of individual members of the public with the machinery for the administration of justice. The proper functioning of the processes for the administration of justice in the province, I hope the members would agree, would depend to a considerable extent upon the voluntary co-operation of people who have some knowledge about or information relevant to pending litigation or proceedings in which the rights, either public or private, of themselves or others, are at issue.
The knowledge that photographs or sketches or televised recordings could be made and published of those persons who come forward to co-operate in the administration of justice may in some cases have a very serious effect. In fact, it might well influence whether or not there would be any voluntary involvement at all.
We’ve talked about maintaining the image of justice, and I know we might have different points of view with respect to what that image should be and how that image should appear --
Mr. Lawlor: Blind, with the two scales in our hands.
Hon. Mr. Welch: People themselves agree that the dignity and the calm and the dispassion of the courts and their surroundings really has to be maintained.
Mr. Singer: It is seriously threatened, then?
Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I am not suggesting that it’s being seriously threatened.
Mr. Singer: Then why does the minister need the legislation then?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am suggesting that we codify. The point is, up to now, cameras have not been allowed in. But in the reviewing the matter, we found there was really no authority for that. We’re now putting it into a statute, so there can be no question --
Mr. Singer: The judge has the authority.
Mrs. Campbell: Doesn’t the judge still have authority in those courts?
Hon. Mr. Welch: -- no question with respect to this. Courtrooms and court buildings exist solely, I suggest to you, for the purpose of the fair and impartial administration of justice. And so it is essential that the setting in which a court operates reflects the seriousness and importance of its test.
But I want to get to the point the hon. member for Ottawa East mentioned, about the publicity of proceedings and, indeed, the role of the press.
I think it is important to see the distinction that we are, in fact, not excluding the public from the courtrooms, and we are ensuring that there is a method by which the public is informed as to what is going on in the courtrooms through the print media and through the electronic media as reporters report to their constituency of the details of the proceedings.
Administration of justice in this province, as all members know, is carried on in public under the common law system. This is safeguard to the litigant and to the accused person, as well as to the public interest.
It is obvious that the customary presence of the written press has for centuries protected the participants in judicial proceedings. It is also obvious that the special capability of the visual press -- and I think this is really one of the points -- which, in addition to disclosing factual appearances, enables it to disseminate photographs, sketches and televised pictures of the participants if allowed, would not result in any greater protection to these individuals -- but only in greater publicity.
I think that point has to be made. They would become objects on display to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the community at large. It would be wonderful to have a picture of somebody cracking up under the strain. Nice to see somebody with their --
Mr. Singer: Now the minister is whipping a straw man.
Mr. Lawlor: He can stand a word picture, but he can’t stand a visual picture.
Hon. Mr. Welch: What does that add to the public right to be informed with respect to what’s going on in the proceedings?
Mr. Cassidy: What about the person sentenced to three months for failing to support his family?
Mr. Singer: Oh, come on -- how will that happen?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Just to satisfy some inquisitive people in the public who like to see people under psychological stress.
Mr. Lawlor: I wonder what McRuer will say to that.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this increased cost to the individual --
Mr. Cassidy: What increased cost?
Hon. Mr. Welch: -- this increased cost to the individual who attended before our courts would really not be balanced. I invite the members to think about this, because they used the word “balance.” I think this is what judgment calls are all about, when you balance various interests. I do suggest to you, with the greatest of respect, that this increased emotional cost to the individuals who attended before our courts would not be balanced by any increased benefits to them. The benefits coming to them and the protection to them is the fact that they are public and the proceedings are, in fact, being recorded to the general public or to the system for the administration of justice.
Further, it is clear that the public interest in seeing justice done is different in kind from the public interest in seeking that justice is done. The latter concept, I remind myself, includes the careful maintaining of the dignity of the forum, free from the pressures and distractions which could distort the solemn process of adjudicating upon legal rights. Now, I agree -- and I could go on with these particular reasons -- but I agree that there could be honest differences of opinion on this subject. I simply would want to assure the House of the validity of the reasons that I have given, along with this whole question of reminding ourselves that no more difficult task exists in any civilized state than to establish within acceptable legal boundaries the truth or falsity of any assertion of fact from which legal consequences follow -- the whole process of adjudication.
I think it’s important that we have people who are there either voluntarily or non-voluntarily, fully understanding that what they say is being recorded, fully understanding that the public is being informed with respect to the proceedings there, but not with the added cost of having people photograph them under these circumstances or, indeed, in those circumstances making some other visual representation.
Mr. Cassidy: The Attorney General is defending censorship.
Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I am not; there is no censorship here at all.
Mr. Cassidy: Yes, he is.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member wants public hangings.
Hon. Mr. Welch: All I am saying is that there is no added protection in our society to the individual simply by allowing some picture-taking as a further reporting to the public. All it is is more publicity to the particular case.
Mr. Lawlor: I think the government should pass a bill safeguarding us politicians from being photographed.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, the debate with respect to what goes on here is another matter. I am talking about the courtrooms.
Mr. Lawlor: I think it is just dreadful that we are subjected to that pillory.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I remind the members that if I were charged with any serious offence tonight my picture would appear, no doubt, in papers; if I were tried my picture would appear. There is nothing to stop people from returning from the courtroom and drawing sketches, or talking about what witnesses, accused people or litigants are subjected to in the courtroom or the environs of that court during the proceedings. We are not talking about the publicity that might happen under other circumstances.
Mr. Cassidy: But it doesn’t come through in the same way. Talk to the issue of censorship in addition to the other issues.
Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no censorship at all. I won’t accept that as an argument, but I do remind the members that for the reasons which I have set out, and balancing all of these matters, I came forward with this legislation to establish a known rule with respect to visual representatives in the vicinity of judicial proceedings. I appreciate the fact that there can be honest differences of opinion, and I wanted at least to put this particular point of view on the record, along with others that have been expressed, and ask the members of the House if they would in fact accept this. Then when we get into committee stage we can have some more detailed discussion with respect to the language that has been used.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 139.
Shall this motion carry?
Carried.
I understand the bill is to be sent to committee. Which committee?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you not going to call the “ayes” and “nays” on the second reading? There were a number of “nays” that were registered at the time you called it.
Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear “nays.”
Some hon. members: Nay!
Mr. Speaker: Oh, were there “nays”?
Mr. Cassidy: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I am sorry, I did not hear them.
Those in favour of Bill 139 being read the second time will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to direct this through you to the minister. I think there are some fairly cogent problems of principle here which affect the press, who are the people affected by this particular bill. I don’t know if there is any reason for urgency in passing the bill tonight; I would like to ask the minister whether he would be willing to let the bill sit on the order paper for about a week and then hopefully have it considered for one day in committee outside, so that any news organizations that wish to comment on it could express their views, rather than having it go through now.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment, this bill was introduced on Nov. 14. We are having second reading today.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): You can see how eager they are.
Mr. Singer: You can see them hanging on his words.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I must point out that section 1 is a fairly important matter with respect to the expansion. I don’t intend to proceed with it in committee stage today. I think we could let it stand over until the first of next week. I can’t guarantee that it would be a week before it would be called again, but we will have it in committee, hopefully, with the concurrence of the House here, early next week.
Mr. Lawlor: There are an awful lot of judges out there just champing at the bit to get appointed.
Mr. Singer: The Attorney General doesn’t want to go to committee today?
Hon. Mr. Welch: No.
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRES ACT
Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves second reading of Bill 137, the Community Recreation Centres Act, 1974.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I would like to make on second reading, to give an explanation on the bill. With second reading of the proposed Community Centres Act, I would like to explain some of the highlights of the changes that the new Act contains.
First, it would be useful to review the purpose and intent of the grant programme and the degree to which it has been utilized in the public interest. The Community Centres Act became a part of the Statutes of Ontario, 1948, when it replaced the former Community Halls Act. It was originally administered by the former Department of Agriculture, later the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to ensure that community centres and recreation facilities would be established in all areas of the province. While both urban and rural municipalities, including Indian reserves, qualify for these grants, the impact of the programme has been much greater in rural communities and unorganized territories where prior to the introduction of the Act there existed few, if any, alternative facilities for recreation or other organized community activities.
Over the years, amendments have been made to the Act in order to update it in line with the times and as well as with the changing growth pattern of the province. Most important, as a result of this programme, it is fair to say that hundreds of communities, many without sufficient local resources, had been able to enjoy the benefits of well-planned and equipped recreation facilities, and a community centre where meetings and other social functions might be held.
With the reorganization of government, administration of the Act was transferred in April, 1972, to the new Ministry of Community and Social Services. Since my ministry assumed responsibility for this programme in 1972 and until the end of our last fiscal year, March 31, 1974, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has paid out a total of $6,419,100 in grants to help provide 1,500 community facilities. The growth of community interest may be illustrated by the dramatic increase in demand from the fiscal years 1972-1973 to 1973-1974. Projects supported last year almost tripled over the previous year, jumping from 364 projects to 1,136.
To explain the current amendments to the Act itself, the first obvious change is that of the name being changed to the Community Recreation Centres Act, which was made simply to clarify the intent of the grant programme. We have also broadened the definition of a community recreation centre to mean land or all or any part of a building or buildings or structure established under this Act that is maintained and operated for community recreation activity. This will provide a legislative flexibility through broader regulations needed to accommodate present and future trends in community recreation activity.
In the previous Act, the types of facilities eligible were named and strictly defined. In the new Act, only municipalities will have the authority to establish community recreation centres in organized areas. Grants to boards of education will in future, for the purpose of this programme, be restricted to unorganized territory. While the new Act clarifies that joint agreements may be entered into by municipalities for the joint establishment or joint use of community recreation centres, boards of education are excluded from joint agreements under this Act. However, joint establishment and use of centres by boards of education and municipalities can be effected under section 36(a) of the Schools Administration Act.
This change will not affect community recreation centres already established by boards of education in municipally organized areas. The proposed change will facilitate continued community planning at the local level, while enabling controlled planning and avoiding any duplication. This specific change, which also clarified that all assets and liabilities of the community recreation centre vest in the establishing municipality, was made in light of an amendment in the Schools Administration Act, 1972.
The 1972 amendment in the Schools Administration Act contained new provisions designed to provide a stimulus to the total community use of schools. School boards and municipal authorities are now able to work out agreements to share costs through joint planning of building and operating facilities for recreational, cultural, educational, administrative or other community purposes. Hence this change in the new Community Recreation Centres Act was made in light of this amendment to the Schools Administration Act, and is intended to avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities. Boards of Education will, however, along with Indian band councils, continue to have the authority to establish recreational centres in unorganized territories.
Also in the new Act, provision is made for the approval by the minister of non-profit, private corporations that may be paid grants for establishing community recreation centres in unorganized territories. These private corporations will be of a charitable, educational or social nature. We hope this provision will greatly improve the service to communities and territories without municipal organization.
By the new Act, the maximum amount of capital grants will be the same for all types of community centres. Moreover, it is proposed that the maximum level be raised. An increase in the amount in the maximum grant ceilings is defined as the lesser of $75,000 or 25 per cent of the project cost. This will provide equal encouragement for all types of facilities according to local needs. The increased maximum, up from $25,000 to $75,000, will allow for improved financial assistance more in keeping with rising construction costs.
Pre-approval of plans will be required in the new Act. Provision is made for repayment of grants where there is a change in the site or use of a community recreation centre.
The establishment of committees of management, previously boards of management, is discretionary rather than mandatory. This will allow greater flexibility to municipalities to manage their centres according to local needs and conditions. In other words, this eliminates the necessity of creating a board in a small community simply for the sake of operating a facility such as an outdoor skating rink.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I feel satisfied that this is a greatly improved Act. The amendments brought forward clearly indicate the importance with which this government recognizes the local community as a social, educational and recreational centre. With an improved level of financial support in light of the changing nature and trends in community recreation activities, we are not only assisting local communities in meeting the rising costs of labour and materials but we are encouraging our citizens, young and old, to participate in community activities.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.
Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has reviewed the whole Act, it eliminates the first part of my speech -- a rather doubtful procedure, I would think, in dealing with second reading of a bill. However, there are some comments I would like to make.
In the broad sections dealing with community centres, the definition of a community recreation centre would appear to me to give a broader scope of projects which can be included under the Act. I presume such things as tennis courts, bowling greens, ski slopes and curling rinks, which couldn’t be included before, now could be included in the projects. If that be the case, we are certainly in agreement with that.
In addition, the corporations defined here as being of a charitable, educational or social nature, without share capital, now would also be considered to be proper organizations, as well as municipalities and school boards in unorganized territories, that could apply as a body to receive a grant.
The council or a committee of management now can look after the community centres, which means that many councils that have brought their recreation committees back under council now will manage them directly.
The one question that probably is in my mind is that while a municipality is allowed to apply jointly with another municipality, is there any provision for a joint sponsorship by a school board and a municipality? And did I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, that this can be accomplished through the Schools Administration Act? The minister will probably answer that later.
The previous commitment of funds -- $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000, depending on the type of building -- now is consolidated into one section, which says the minister may pay up to $75,000 or 25 per cent of the actual costs, whichever is the lesser amount, and makes provision for larger grants if the minister sees fit.
Now, that’s the good news. I’d like to say a little bit about the bad news. It is simply that the minister brought to light in his statement the fact that the grants of 1973-1974 were triple those of 1972-1973. Well, is 1972-1973 not the year when the minister cut off grants to all municipalities over 25,000 and there was a time when no grants were being given at all? There were months and months and months when those municipalities that had projects in the works didn’t know if they were going to get approval or not.
In other words, the lack of funds slowed the whole system down to such an extent that I think the minister has deliberately taken the very low year to draw a comparison with last year, so that he can come out and say the grants have jumped from 364 projects, to 1,100 projects and the amount of money has tripled over the previous year. He is comparing a normal year with the year when he froze all of his grants for recreation and he did not allow any grants to municipalities over 25,000. Then in March, 1973, the minister reviewed the matter again and said that he would now allow applications from municipalities over 25,000, and we were back on the former schedule of events, except for one or two things. First of all, he said that he’d like to announce that there is now a preapproval system that will be introduced for a new project. This pre-approval system is carried forward into this Act.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Pre-approval of the plans.
Mr. Good: Pre-approval of the plans is carried forth into this Act. The second part of the statement which, I presume, is still policy of the ministry, which caused me great concern is that municipalities would need “to obtain approval of their project if they wish to obtain a provincial grant. Approvals and resulting giants will be based on assessment of municipal need and resources.” This is from the minister’s statement of March 28, 1973. I am greatly concerned that that is still the policy of the minister, that the need within the municipality and the resources of the municipality are going to be the bases on which the minister decides whether or not it is going to get a grant, because this legislation simply says the minister may, out of moneys appropriated make the necessary grant to the municipality.
There is wide discretionary power, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the minister is going to give a grant to that municipality. The reason I think we should be a bit apprehensive about this is that it is not many years ago since this was under the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and many municipalities were not aware of the grants. When they did become aware of them, my gosh, if the building was even half erected or erected, they could go back and pick up their grants. As long as they met the conditions that the municipality either through money or land on which the building would sit, as long as it had contributed their share, which I think was 25 per cent, there was invariably a grant coming through from the government for that facility.
The grant was not as large then, granted, and there didn’t seem to be very many instances -- in fact, as far as I am concerned, there were no instances -- in which a municipality made application for the grant that it didn’t get it. It was pretty much of an automatic affair in those days.
I am a little apprehensive now about the discretionary power given to the minister and of his statement last year when he said grants will be based on the assessment of municipal needs and municipal resources. I would like the minister to say a word on that when he replies for the second time at the conclusion of the debate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.
Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments that I want to make. We welcome any change in the Act that would provide assistance to municipalities, large or small, organized or unorganized. We welcome the changes that have been made and the intimation by the minister that there will be at least some relief. As the minister well knows, there are a good many communities which lack the ability to generate any amount of funds of any significance.
While he has increased the upper limits substantially from $25,000 or 25 per cent, whichever is the lesser, to $75,000 or 25 per cent, and this is welcomed by any community that can generate any funds at all and is able to come up with the other 75 per cent of the capital costs, I want to remind the minister that in a good many of the communities that he represents, and I represent, there is no recreational outlet available. Many people aspire to better use of leisure time, which people have on their hands to a much greater extent than they ever had before. A lot of them don’t like to sit and listen to a radio, and some of them don’t even have radio reception, as he well knows, and some of them don’t have television reception. Other than getting out and enjoying a snowmobile, this is the only recreational outlet they have in many, many areas in the far north.
I am particularly concerned about the inability of these communities to participate in the way that I feel and they feel they should, within the provisions of this changed Act, the Community Recreation Centres Act. I think it falls far short of the mark, unless there is something I don’t know about that is covered in the regulations and that was not indicated when the bill was introduced.
When we consider that the Lieutenant Governor in Council does have the authority to make regulations “governing applications by municipalities, boards, approved corporations and bands for payment under this Act, and prescribing the terms and conditions upon which such payments may be made and the time and manner of payment,” unless there is some considerable relief and some provisions within the regulations that gives the minister sufficient flexibility to take into account the special needs of people in these small communities, many of them unorganized, in many of them the only kind of formal organization they have, or legal entity that they might have is by virtue of the fact that they happen to belong to a particular school district.
Any participation that they may have in the provisions of this new Act will be under the auspices of the district school board, if they don’t have the ability to form themselves into some kind of legal entity which will allow them to participate. So the first allusion to any regulation is far too vague. Of course, I don’t want to be hypercritical but I think that I would like a much more definitive explanation of the ways in which those small communities may participate above and beyond the 25 per cent figure, which is the only one which is alluded to in the body of the legislation.
Another of the regulations says, “prescribing the uses to which a community recreation centre may be put and the accommodation which may be provided therein.” Of course, this will rest almost wholly and solely with the minister and I think its far too general, far too all-encompassing. Surely, if he is giving authority to small committees or boards in communities, whether they be with or without municipal organization, I think they are in a position to decide the best use to which these facilities are going to be put.
I think it’s far too restrictive to suggest that the minister, or whoever is given the authority, can dictate by “prescribing the uses to which a community recreation centre may be put.” As the minister well knows, in many communities in the north there is only one facility for all of the recreational or social activities that can be undertaken in a small community.
Mr. Good: Entertainment by the members of the Legislature.
Mr. Stokes: That’s right. We do that on occasion. Just hearken back to 1968; it was the only facility that could be used on that particular occasion and nobody took exception to it. Surely the minister has many communities in his riding where they have extreme difficulty just to find a meeting place. Whether it is for a home and school meeting, whether it is for a social evening, whether it is for bingo for a charitable purpose, whether it is to have a place for a visiting politician to speak -- there is only the one facility.
My own home town, for instance, has a population of 2,100. They are a closely knit unit in society and we do get a high degree of participation. But there really isn’t a facility in that town of 2,100, unless you use the high school gymnasium, which is quite often used for other things. We don’t have a facility that is large enough to accommodate the number of people who choose to gather together. It might be for a fundraising event that captures the imagination and where the entire community wants to participate.
I want to assure you that twice within the last two months we have had the entire community honouring couples who were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversaries. And do you know that we didn’t have a facility in a town of 2,100 that was large enough to accommodate those people who had come from miles around to honour these couples celebrating their momentous occasion?
Now say it is going to cost $750,000 or up to $1 million in order to provide that kind of facility. Now, if the municipality has to provide 75 per cent of the capital, you can understand, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have to debenture over a long period of time. This would not likely get approval from the municipal board, particularly when we have just completed installation of sewers in that town, when we are just in the process of spending about $1 million to repave all of the streets and do all of the things that you have to do after major construction of that kind.
So that there is nothing in this Act, as I say, that helps the small community of 2,100, that I represent, or even a much smaller community that the minister represents. And heaven knows, he knows as much as I do about the inability of many small communities to provide that kind of facility. Those are just some of the reservations I have about this. As I say, I don’t want to sound uncharitable or too pessimistic about it. I am hoping that when the regulations do come out that there will be sufficient flexibility in it to cover the needs that I have expressed.
Say you have got an unorganized community that doesn’t have its own school, for instance. They are busing children 30 or 40 miles to a larger unit to provide a much better educational facility for them. Rather than them having to commute 40 or 50 miles or remain after school in the larger community, couldn’t we find it possible to allow these people -- who will band together and they can seek incorporation for $20 through your colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) -- to make the fairly significant decision that are going to have to be made in terms of their recreational and social requirements.
A lot of these small communities and the people living in them are most apprehensive that when this comes out they are going to have to go cap in hand to the district school board, which may be 50 or 100 miles away, and be told: “If you want to engage in any recreational and social activities that may be possible under this Act, you are going to have to do it through the district school board.” That may be fine in Metropolitan Toronto or a small homogeneous area down here in southern Ontario, but I want to suggest to the minister that if every time somebody wants to do something with regard to recreational or social activities in communities that are 120 miles away from the location where the decisions are going to be made, this is entirely unsatisfactory.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Incorporation --
Mr. Stokes: As long as they are going to be allowed to do that and maybe take over existing facilities. In a good many areas in the north we have schools that have been closed down and abandoned. They’re not being used. Perhaps we can give the small, non-profit organizations the authority to band together in something that is considered a legal entity within the terms and confines of this Act and allow them to make this kind of decision as to the kind of facility they feel they need and to participate in the kinds of dollars, having regard for what I said earlier.
It might cost a small community $100,000 -- and that’s not out of the way these days -- to build a small complex where they can get together and hold a dance, have a bingo game or do whatever they may choose to do. Unless they can come up with $75,000, they’re not going to be able to participate in this Act. There is no community of that size, particularly in an unorganized territory, where they can come up with that kind of money, and yet there are very few facilities that can be built today for much less than $75,000 or $100,000. That is what I’m concerned about more than anything else, and when we start discussing this clause I will have more to say on it.
There is just one other thing: When the minister referred to non-profit organizations, is that going to be restricted wholly and solely to communities without municipal organization? I can think of many Legion branches where the people have a public conscience, they are genuinely concerned about the welfare and improvement of their community, and they’re continually raising money, as are the Kinsmen clubs in my riding, where they work unceasingly in trying to improve facilities. Are they considered non-profit or charitable organizations if they sort of spearhead a fund-raising drive?
There is one Legion in my riding which has said: “We will be happy to build a facility that will meet the needs of the entire community if we had some way of getting some kind of financial assistance.” Of course, the only way they can do it now is if they build the facility, turn it over to the municipality and then let the municipality try to get some kind of funds within the purview of this Act. If the minister had that in mind when he did it, I’d like to hear from him. There may be some technical problems of which I’m not aware, but I’d like the minister to answer that question as to whether or not he envisages Legion branches and Kinsmen branches as being eligible. They’re not in the business of making money; they’re in the business of serving the community and their members. Those are the few remarks I wanted to make in that regard.
There is a section in the Act which says the boards of management will have the right to let concessions for refreshments in these facilities that will be built. I suppose that in all communities throughout the province these concessions can be lucrative, depending on the number of people that are going to be going through them at any given time. I am just wondering if the minister is going to demand that these concessions be put out to tender, or is he just going to say, “No, the board of management will have the unilateral right to decide to whom it is going” and, according to the terms of the legislation, it could be for a period of 10 years.
Unless the minister gets into a bind where it would appear that the board of management, through his legislation is playing favour with one particular person over any other --
Mrs. Campbell: Heaven forbid.
Mr. Stokes: -- I hope that he would change that legislation to say that it should be by tender and that everybody would have an equal opportunity. That’s all I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, since it’s almost 6 o’clock, can I adjourn the debate now so we could carry on later? I prefer to have my comments following one after the other, rather than have them interrupted, if you don’t mind.
Mr. Speaker: All right. We won’t adjourn the debate. We can just call it 6 o’clock.
It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.