Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, 20 Girl Guides from West Hill, which is in my riding, along with their leader, Mrs. Jane Robertson. Would members please join with me in greeting them? They are in the west gallery.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, I would like to introduce Cub Pack 312 from Agincourt. Would members join me in welcoming them?

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock, I believe we were debating second reading of Bill 38. The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to range briefly from the ridiculous to the sublime this evening, constantly never quite reaching the sublime but only remaining ridiculous.

I would ask the minister right off to look at page 5 of his bill, section 3. If he can answer the question it may save the trouble of going to committee. Is he right with respect to the designation of clause (d) of section 4, as that which he wishes to amend? In looking at the statute, it appears to me, based on the 1970 statutes of the province to be clause (b) not (d). I could be wrong. I haven’t been through the statutory citator in order to see whether they brought it down to date, but that would appear superficially to be the case. I do this with hesitation because when I’ve brought these kinds of niggling points up before I’ve always been wrong.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Let the member not spoil his average.

Mr. Lawlor: No, I just may hit the jackpot tonight. The people who look after our statutes in the province are extremely pertinacious and extremely accurate with respect to matters of this kind.

What I want to say basically has to do with the transference of a number of sections of portfolios into this ministry, some coming from Colleges and Universities -- this section in question that I just mentioned -- other ones having to do with Community and Social Services and other ones having to do with Education.

Then there is kind of a preamble written into this legislation at the very beginning. It’s very sonorous and it rolls off the tongue. To what purpose I’m not quite sure. It says:

“The minister shall on his own initiative and through co-operation with the ministers -- ”

If you translate it into French, it would have a certain quality about it. In this particular body it lacks mellifluousness.

“-- in co-operation with the ministers having charge with the ministries of the public service of Ontario, with the ministers having charge with departments of the public service of Canada, with municipal councils, with school boards and boards of education, with other organizations and otherwise, in the cause of human betterment, advance and encourage the concept and ideal of full and equal citizenship -- ”

Blarney or baloney, take your choice, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Amen.

Mr. Lawlor: It goes on:

“-- among the residents of Ontario in order that they may exercise effectively the rights, powers -- ”

I’ve never seen such rodomontade written into a statute. If we had full and equal citizenship in this province we wouldn’t have the economic system we have. The whole system is denial of equality. People are not in the same status at all. The minister’s department is in no way designed to bring any alteration into that picture. He doesn’t know what equality is. With this particular concept in mind, it is just window-dressing, fabric-making, embroidering the edges of the garment.

If the minister wants to parade and primp and pretend in this particular way --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Lawyers have the edge in this country, don’t they?

Mr. Turner: Not really.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the god speaking? Did I hear Jupiter?

Mr. W. Hodgson: I just said lawyers have the edge here.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, we will bring some equality there too.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): They might have the edge here, but not up there.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I often wonder, in this business about culture, how different it is if we compare the city of Toronto, which I suppose is the metropolis here in this jurisdiction, with some lost little town in other portions of the world; or some city like Milan, comparable in size; or a city like Frankfurt, which is about a third of the size. Out of those cities, out of Vienna, comes something that may remotely be called culture.

Why the tremendous difference? Why does one city breed, because of the relationship of men with man in that city, composers of genius, writers of superb skill, poets galore, men of science making new inventions? This is true today. It’s not true here; it’s just not true.

What curious quality goes into those cities that doesn’t seem to apply to this particular city or to the cities that we have here? Is it something induced by government? Is it something to which subsidy is paid? I think not.

I tell you what it is, over against what we know; it’s something to do with the quality of life. And that’s what one means by the quality of life; a city rich in artistic works, a city rich with intelligence; where people sit down and have a cup of schnapps, if you will, or even coffee on occasion --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: -- stay away from the coffee, it will kill you -- and trade notes and talk over matters; where a large number of the citizenry is aware of what is going on in sculpture, what’s going on in affairs of government, what new constitutions are being engendered and what the hell is going on in the world.

An hon. member: He is swearing.

Mr. Lawlor: We don’t do it; we don’t. This is the fallacy in this ministry. That’s why it becomes a piece of tokenism; a totem for propaganda, that’s all we have there.

Where is the engendering spirit? Where is the vitality? The parliamentary assistant is not going to bring it in, Lord knows that; neither him nor the minister.

An hon. member: And neither is the member.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Where would you rather be?

Mr. Lawlor: I would rather be down at the open air cafe on Bay St. with the member drinking at this moment. I really would.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): That’s cultural.

Mr. Lawlor: But here I am, and being paid for it, so we’ll pass the time of day. Okay. You know, the member for York North and I got on better in London when we were there together than we do here. Does he realize that? That’s because there was a little bit of civilization present.

Mr. W. Hodgson: We are getting along good enough now.

Mr. Lawlor: We are, in this continent basically -- we’ll leave out Mexico -- and in this country and province, under something called the regime of quantity. Everything is quantitative; the nature of quality is missing. It’s a product of modern scientific development. Science knows nothing of quality. All science knows is quantity. Science can measure quantity and can conjure with quantity. It can experiment with it, place it in a test tube, place it in various comparative techniques, etc. It all has to do with technology. It all has to do with dead matter mostly.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): There’s a lot of that around here.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s the continuity of this ministry. That is what it represents. That’s what it continues, so that when they talk about these other matters they are somehow out there. They are external to the ministry. The ministry people visit them. They are not inside. They are like museums.

Know what the word museum means? It means a house for the dead; a place where one keeps dead things. One can’t make them live. They are from past civilizations. They were the things that were the common household objects of earlier men and other men.

Have we such household objects ourselves? Will the works of Ontario at this time in history inhabit museums into the future? I sincerely doubt it. It will be like Carthage. The vaunting of Carthage is not a stone was left upon a stone. They produced nothing, absolutely nothing of any worth. They were great warriors and great commercial men and they plied the Mediterranean Sea. They worked with the Phoenicians -- after all, they were a Phoenician colony -- all over the coast of Ionia. This is the work they did and this is all they were capable of. There is more to say even of the Romans and that isn’t very much either, if one looks at their total development.

Let me put it this way, and I’m not going to speak very long on this because it’s kind of a lofty thing, the Legislature doesn’t really go for these things very much.

Mr. Deans: Oh, we do.

Mr. Lawlor: The Germans, and people who have worked in this field, make a distinction which I think is a very good one between civilization on one hand and culture on the other. They are completely different things. In English, we don’t make nor do we think of that distinction. We use the words interchangeably with great ease but it ought not to be so,

I think of Oswald Spengler’s writing in this particular field on the decline of the west. In 1922 the man told us what our future was and what the fruits of late capitalism were likely to be and they are coming to pass, every one of them.

He was the first man to talk about the megalopolis in really penetrating terms. He almost invented the term. The great world cities are coming into being with their deadness, their drifting leaves and the hollow men who inhabit them. He condemned civilization. He said it was the fruit of the winter in our lives and he felt everything turned around, that civilizations were born and died just as the seasons changed. I don’t agree with the biological theory of history behind it, but there is certainly a good deal of truth to it.

A civilization is something concerned with organization, with institutions. Institutions are invariably of the past, they are generated in that way. They are traditional things and to a very great extent they’re husks. They’re the dead fabrics and leavings of a dynamic people; and only if they are entirely revamped constantly and all the time, with a deep sense of change operating in things, do they have any vitality at all. They’re usually clouds upon human freedom and upon our development by and large; and government is one of those institutions along with others. Particular governments entrenched in a certain mentality are double clouds upon either the senses of freedom or of development or what you will. This is what we face in the province at this time.

To some extent civilizations produce great organization men who produce machines and know how to work with high efficiency in terms of techniques. This is what governments have sought to become in the western world. My leader spoke today at some considerable length about the distinction between the Tory approach to government in terms of technology and in terms of efficiency, and the human element which ought to predominate and ought to be the driving force behind government.

Governments and laws are not ends in themselves, they are all means to something else. When we come to the justice estimates in a few more months, I’ll tell members what I think that something else is. In any event, at the moment they are distinctly means. They are devices to achieve a particular possibility. If that device is taken as a technical thing, as an organizational thing, as something which can be imposed, as something people get ground up in the gears of or get meshed into, as I see the government is doing with this cultural ministry all the way through, then look out.

Really, it’s not going to be a Ministry of Culture for the various reasons I’ve already stated tonight. It’s going to be basically a recreational facility. It’s going to give a certain amount of money for athletic purposes and I suppose that’s all to the good; but to pretend it’s anything beyond that, beyond a form of largess for various groups in the community.

The minister has had this portfolio before. When I was a fledgling member of this House eight years ago, he occupied a ministry called the Provincial Secretary. Since that time, the disease has got worse, we now have three of them and his was abandoned. But the functions he performed in those days are, by and large, precisely the functions of this ministry. The whole earlier ministry was abolished about three years after I came in here because it was thought to be ineffective, sloppy, and as for the old minister of soft soap, the soap had gone down the drain by that time; I am talking about this minister’s ministry -- and with that in mind it was abolished. He went off to more arid fields perhaps, to various justice things and things of that kind, where he is just as little effective as he is in this particular role.

But in those days what we talked about were ethnic problems; translation problems; problems of meeting groups in the community; the problems of immigration; the whole bit of languages, etc. This is what he is back into. In that area he had a special list that he produced year by year in the estimates. Namely, about 150 to 200 various organizations under his hospitality fund. He was an exceedingly hospitable fellow. It wasn’t his money of course; the hospitality comes easy in certain circumstances. Now he is back to hospitality again.

I suppose hospitality is a high part of culture. If you take a look at Homer and see the way that a stranger is treated there, as some kind of visitor from the heavens, over and against how strangers are normally treated among us who are little better than barbarians in this regard, then you may have a field in which to work. The welcoming of strangers, we might call it, taking some recognition and being aware of the plight of people who come to this province, not speaking the language well, and being introduced to a new, for them, more poverty-stricken culture.

Those are the basic remarks I want to make. I am going to reserve the balance of what I have to say on this particular head, because I think that somewhere in here with a ministry by this name, that there should be a fairly good analysis, a fairly scappling one, of what it should be doing, of really what it is after if it is a Ministry of Culture at all; what is embodied in the phrase; what it means.

I mean it doesn’t mean it’s something highfalutin’ or esoteric or anything like that; or elitist or way up there. Culture is what men do in their everyday lives. It’s the clothes they wear, the way they spit, the way they walk up and down streets -- and the streets they walk up and down and the condition of those streets. It means every commonplace thing around us. The way we live, that’s what it is about.

When you look at this culture, Mr. Speaker, it is no longer so. It is pretty damn close to civilization and that’s to be regretted.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In rising to speak to this bill I am aware it is probably the first of many bills of this type which the minister or his assistant will bring through the House in which he adds to himself and to the ministry various bits and pieces and programmes and chunks of other ministries. We have in this bill the bits and pieces transferred from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

When I read the original bill forming the ministry last fall, I realized it was a bill that gave the minister the power to form deputy ministries and gather unto the ministry the seal and various housekeeping chores of this type, but it did not mention any transfers from other ministries. Here we have the first of what should be a series of bills, as time goes on, transferring bits and pieces of ministries to this particular ministry.

I look forward to the inclusion of one of the omissions from this bill: That is, the transfer of the cemeteries branch from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I think this fits very ideally into the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. It may not have quite the vitality the member for Lakeshore was speaking about --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It’s dealing more with leisure time, you know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: -- but it certainly has every other aspect -- the museum quality that was referred to by the member for Lakeshore previously and, under culture certainly, the historical and heritage significance that one can find in cemeteries makes an ideal sector for the minister to gather under his wing, to mention nothing of the leisure time considerations which occur under recreation. There is plenty of leisure time for the persons with whom the Cemeteries Act must deal.

I would suspect that this is just the first of many as this ministry continues to build, and empire build in that sense. I will look forward to the minister taking the cemeteries branch under its wing rather soon.

Speaking of transfers from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, I gather this Act provides the force to take in some of the items which I see outlined in the estimates. I was kind of wondering just what would be included in the estimates and from the estimates be able to see clearly what was being transferred from other ministries into this particular ministry. This is the one which involves the area of historical sites and the Ontario Heritage Foundation, heretofore under Colleges and Universities.

Just quite briefly on that, I am rather glad to see that has come under this ministry and that they will be administering the historical sites, apart from cemeteries; although I believe that many of those could well be considered historical in order to be given rather more prominence than they were under the former Ministry of Colleges and Universities. The problem with that branch being under Colleges and Universities is I don’t think it really got its fair share of money or fair share of consideration. I would hope that under the leadership of this particular minister and his parliamentary assistant, a lot of time and attention is paid to that branch of the ministry; preserving the culture we do have in the Province of Ontario, and preserving the many historical buildings and sites we have in the Province of Ontario.

To mention only one, there is a very old historical church in Windsor, Assumption Church. It is on the list of historical sites to be preserved, but there is a continued need for operating funds to keep the church in repair. I suppose you do need some capital funds to restore it to good condition, but the continuing problem is one of operating funds to ensure that true historical sites do not further deteriorate or get to the point where they cannot be restored.

Therefore, to this minister and to his assistant, I would hope that more funds are reserved now that they have the authority in this bill to maintain our historical sites, to designate, around the province, a somewhat wider range of buildings -- like Assumption Church -- which the ministry will immediately start funding and helping to maintain so that these buildings are preserved in the condition in which they deserve to be preserved. The present occupants of many of these buildings are having a tough time maintaining them in the state of repair that these buildings deserve and which the community deserves.

I will talk further in estimates on this, I am sure, about the various other sites which interest me. But I say to the minister and his assistant that I am glad to see this move because of the additional funds and the additional importance within the ministry that I hope the minister will give to this area. This is an area, which, under the former Ministry of Colleges and Universities, I thought was sadly neglected. I bring this to the minister’s attention and hope that he and his staff will pay particular attention to the funding of this type of endeavour and encourage the people involved at the present time in maintenance; and that there will be funds coming, if not in the near future, at least some time in the not too distant future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about this Act. I welcome the indication that funding will be made available for communities and groups within communities for recreational and sports purposes. This is a breakthrough for us in the north who feel we have been neglected far too long because of budgetary constraints imposed on the former sports and recreation branch when it was under the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Now with the possibility of a good deal more funding hopefully we will be able to come into our own, so to speak, with regard to the Community Centres Act and its regulations.

The parliamentary assistant was north last Friday and had a preview of the kind of expectations held by people in the north, by virtue of the fact that he attended the annual convention of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association. I think he knows we expect a great deal from this ministry by way of additional funding to sporting groups and small communities which don’t have the wherewithal to provide a well-rounded sports and recreation programme.

My primary reason for getting up to speak tonight on the bill is I would like to spend a little bit of time, Mr. Speaker, referring to a particular section of the bill which transfers responsibility for the Indian community secretariat from the former Ministry of Community and Social Services to this new ministry. It means that a ministry whose primary function is to deal with cultural and recreational pursuits on behalf of the people of the Province of Ontario has taken unto itself almost total responsibility for the delivery of programmes to native people.

As I see its responsibility within the Indian community secretariat, it is to co-ordinate all the programmes available to the native people in the province and to perform a co-ordinating function for those delivery systems among all of the various ministries of this government and, hopefully, to provide some kind of liaison, some kind of rapport, between the government of the Province of Ontario and the federal government.

When the minister is hiving off what I consider to be one of the most important branches of this government into a ministry that calls itself Culture and Recreation, I wonder how serious he is about coming to grips with the social, economic, cultural and linguistic needs of our first citizens. When we consider that the federal government recently announced a new method of funding for all native groups in the Province of Ontario, whether they be resident on Indian reserves or classified as Indian settlements on Crown land without reserve status, if the minister is going to convince the native people of this province that he is even remotely interested in, concerned with and sensitive to their needs, I question whether it should have been placed in this ministry.

I would have hoped that with the reorganization and the transfer, maybe the government would have considered putting the Indian community secretariat in the charge of an entirely new ministry or in charge of a Minister without Portfolio whose sole responsibility would be to co-ordinate the government’s efforts on behalf of native people in the province and to effect some kind of liaison and co-operative effort with the federal government in the delivery of a total programme of assistance to Indian people.

While I would be the first to remind the parliamentary assistant that the primary responsibility for treaty Indians or status Indians falls within the purview of the federal government, either by design or by accident the provincial government has, to some extent, become more aware, more concerned with needs of treaty Indians, whether they live on or off the reserves, and for the non-treaty or non-status Indians and Métis. When one considers that, notwithstanding the primary responsibility for these services rests with the federal government, there are many areas as outlined by the Indian Welfare Services Act, as referred to in this bill, where the minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may make agreements with the Crown in right of Canada or an agency thereof to provide compensation to any Children’s Aid Society that extends its facilities and services to Indians, to provide compensation to any authority operating a home for the aged that provides accommodation and care for Indians, respecting the payment of the cost of providing general welfare assistance to Indians, respecting the payment of the cost of providing rehabilitation services for Indians and respecting the provision and payment of such other services as will promote the well-being of Indians.

The provincial government has taken over that responsibility and I am wondering just how serious it is about meeting that obligation as defined in the Indian Welfare Services Act.

In addition to that, this government does enter into arrangements for road construction with Indian bands; it is responsible for policing on reserves; it is responsible for many forms of social assistance; hopefully it will be getting involved in work opportunity for native people; hopefully it will become involved in firefighting in certain circumstances; homes for the aged, as I mentioned earlier; day care centres and education in non-federal schools. It has a legal aid programme that supposedly makes services available to Indian people living within the province. It will be called upon to co-ordinate land registry on behalf of native people, land surveys, federal-provincial agreements with respect to land, federal-provincial agreements with respect to resource development, and treaties and annuities, and will have responsibility for the managing of fish and wildlife having regard for the treaty and aboriginal rights of our first citizens, and child welfare.

I am just wondering -- and I see the Provincial Secretary for Social Development is listening -- I am just wondering if this ministry, this new Ministry of Culture and Recreation, fully appreciates the magnitude of the responsibility it has taken on when it is going to be responsible for the delivery of those services to native people in the Province of Ontario.

I have suggested that perhaps it should have been given to a person with ministerial status, whose sole responsibility would have been co-ordinating among the various provincial government ministries and liaising with their federal counterparts to co-ordinate a meaningful social and economic programme on behalf of our first citizens. I’ve even mentioned the possibility of a Minister without Portfolio whose sole responsibility would be this liaising and co-ordinating effort.

I think the very least the ministry could do, if it’s bound and bent on keeping it under this ministry, is to appoint a person with deputy minister status whose sole responsibility will be to provide the co-ordinating effort, both intergovernmental and interministerial, in order to make it meaningful and effective and to assure our native people that the government is really serious about coming to grips with some of their social and economic problems.

I don’t want to go into any great detail as to the kind of direction I think the government should be taking in this regard. I’m on the record as having taken advantage of every opportunity during the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services when it had the responsibility for the delivery of social and economic assistance to our first citizens, so I don’t want to go into any particular detail. But I think that if this ministry is going to tag the Indian community’s secretariat onto a ministry whose primary functions are culture and recreation, I don’t know how the government will convince our first citizens that it’s really serious about coming to grips with a good many of their social and economic problems.

I don’t know what kind of budget it’s going to be. It’s always been very meagre in the past. It may be in the estimates book that just came out this afternoon, I don’t know. I haven’t had the opportunity to look at it yet but I suggest that whatever form it takes and whatever the status of the person who is going to co-ordinate these various programmes, I suggest he be given sufficient funds so that the programmes can be much more effective than they have been in the past.

I can remember very vividly, Mr. Speaker, when I entered this House a little over seven years ago, the Indian community development branch had a budget of $1.4 million. When the then minister was called upon to give an account of his stewardship for the previous year, over $1 million of that $1.4 million went unexpended. It was just returned to the general revenue or the Treasury of the Province of Ontario because the government couldn’t find any place to spend it.

Things have changed in the last seven or eight years and I really feel the Indian community’s secretariat, which has had its troubles along the way, is finally coming to grips with some of the problems that are facing our first citizens.

But if the ministry is not about to destroy what has already been started, and if it doesn’t want to create the impression among the native people that it’s prepared to forget about them and really treat them as second-class citizens and put them on the tag end of a brand new ministry like this -- where a good many of the people in the ministry who are setting the priorities and allocating the funds, I’m convinced, know very little about the problems of our first citizens; granted the people who transferred from the Ministry of Community and Social Services do -- I implore the minister, don’t destroy what they have started:

Give them the power to go out and implement programmes they know will work; programmes they have been working on for a good number of years. Allow them the opportunity and give them the financial resources to build on what they have already started, and for heaven’s sake, don’t leave it in the hands of a director. Give them ministerial status. Give them, at least, deputy minister status so they can sit around the money table and get the kind of resources they are going to need to carry on a meaningful social and recreational programme.

Sure, culture and sports are a part of it but only a part and, I suggest to members, not the most important part if in any realistic way we are going to solve the very complex and very long-standing needs of our first citizens.

I hope the parliamentary assistant and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development will heed my words and really reflect on where they are going with regard to coordinating all the efforts of this government on behalf of our first citizens. More important than that, they must effectively liaise with the federal government so we can complement what it is doing. Hopefully, in the process we will bring our first citizens into the 20th century, socially and economically, while preserving their cultural and linguistic heritage. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to this bill?

The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the very historic area I represent in this Legislature. We’ve heard so much about Canada’s first citizens; I really don’t know who Canada’s first citizens were. I presume the member for Thunder Bay was referring to the Indian population. If he was I would let him know that there are Indians in southern Ontario as well as Indians in northern Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: I said Indians. I didn’t say in the north.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We hear day in and day out about the plight of the north.

Mr. Lawlor: Come off it.

Mr. Stokes: I never mentioned the north.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: One would think there was no other part of Ontario but the north. The member had better start looking around in the southern part of Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: I never mentioned the north, not once.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If he wants to see heritage and wants to see culture and if he wants to see Indians, let him come to parts of eastern Ontario and southern Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: This member’s got a chip on his shoulder these days.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s what I’m here for and that’s what I’m doing. Before we cordon off Ontario and make special pleas for special people --

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I’m glad to see him start to do something.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That would be more than that member is doing anyway. He’s developed a very mean streak and I’m very surprised at the attitude he has taken in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to get involved in personality clashes with the Liberal member. At the same time we must --

Mr. Stokes: I think what’s wrong with the member is one of our first citizens took off after him and just missed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member has some remarks to make.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, I have indeed.

Mr. Lawlor: Very provocative, too.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we should be looking at some of the early architecture of this province. I would remind the parliamentary assistant to the minister of the United Empire Loyalists who settled part of eastern Ontario. They were people who developed what was once the capital of Canada and, of course, many were original citizens of Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: Who are our first citizens?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I have made submissions and --

Mr. Lawlor: He is almost the last of the Loyalists.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I have made submissions and have been trying to get foods from the existing ministry in connection with architectural sites, churches which have been mentioned, museums and so on. I think before we get the whole matter distorted we should be concentrating on the southeastern part of Ontario where so much of Canada’s history developed.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant to review those matters I have requested and to see when all that money rolls in from the lottery that we get our fair share in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Deans: Thank goodness he has finished.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Leluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I welcome the remarks of the members opposite in the Liberal and New Democratic parties. I just want to reiterate that there is nothing new in the bill, that this is of a housekeeping nature which effects the transfer of several programmes in other ministries to the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation. To be more specific, in reply to some of the members who spoke on the bill, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) stated that this is a propaganda ministry. I have to say that his statement has no basis in fact. I take exception to that statement.

These programmes have been in existence in other ministries for some time. What we are doing is bringing them under one roof. In other words, we are streamlining the operation of all these programmes. We are bringing them under the one ministry. There are other jurisdictions in Canada which have similar ministries -- to name a few, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. So really this is nothing new.

The member stated also that we were fragmenting programmes of the other ministries from which we transferred these programmes. I must say that really what we are doing here is co-ordinating these programmes by putting them under one roof so that people in this province don’t have to run around to five or so different ministries. They only have to go to one.

I believe also that the member for Windsor-Walkerville asked about why it was necessary to amend section 3(1) of the Act. I would just like to say to that that it is up to the minister who is responsible for the administration of the public libraries to approve the purchase of debentures from the public libraries by the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp. This amendment will give the Minister of Culture and Recreation that authority.

He also spoke of the involvement of municipalities or local participation in recreational programmes. I must say that, I am sure, he is aware that we have municipal recreational committees which have a maximum of 12 members, two of which must be council members, while 10 people are picked at random from among citizens at large. The municipalities run these programmes and we provide the operating grants for these programmes. So we do have involvement of our citizenry. I want the member to know that we are running a very open ministry here. In order for our programmes and our efforts to be successful, we must involve people and people must be involved in our programmes. We welcome suggestions and good ideas from all sources.

With respect to the member’s interest in fitness programmes, I would just like to say that our ministry is now investigating the promotion of fitness programmes throughout the province.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): I’ve heard that now since 1959.

Mr. Leluk: This ministry is just three months old and I would like to remind the member of that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: This government is 32 years old.

Mr. Leluk: It is a new ball game now. I can just say to him again that we are investigating the promotion of fitness programmes throughout the province.

Mr. B. Newman: I have heard that comment since 1959.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Leluk: Well, he is hearing it again.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): There were two fights down there in the first period tonight.

Mr. Leluk: With respect to violence in hockey, the results of the McMurtry report commissioned by the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) are being currently studied. There has been a noted improvement in the general operation of minor hockey in Ontario to discourage violence.

The member for Wentworth also mentioned his concern with violence in hockey. Again, I just want to reiterate that the McMurtry report is currently being studied by the Ontario Hockey Council which was established in November of last year.

The member also asked who the members of the executive of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association were. I understand these people on the executive are elected from the ranks of their own members, that is, the various hockey associations of the municipalities. There is no direct funding by the province to the Ontario Minor Hockey Association. We do provide moneys, however, to the Ontario Hockey Association to assist in the development of coaches and officials.

Mr. Deans: Would the member answer one other question? It was much more important than who was running. I want to know about this tying kids into seven-year contracts. Is the government going to sit by and allow that to happen?

Mr. Leluk: Well, I’ve taken note of the member’s comments and we will consider those with the minister.

Mr. Deans: It’s really vital. It has got to be done now, because their process has begun.

Mr. Leluk: I’ve taken note of those comments and they will be looked into.

Mr. Lawlor: The Attorney General (Mr. Clement) should pay attention. It is the juvenile contracts he is talking about.

Mr. Leluk: The member for Nipissing made some comments about financing of programmes from the receipts of the lottery. As I stated in my opening remarks, this will be discussed during the estimates.

He also spoke of unorganized territories or municipalities having to go through the local school boards in order to obtain their moneys. The member should be aware that under the Community Recreation Centres Act, 1914, capital grants can be paid to private charitable corporations and this legislation was specifically amended to assist in organized communities in this regard.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That doesn’t have anything to do with this.

Mr. Leluk: The member for Lakeshore made some remarks about the ministry, and I can only say to him that I’m pleased that the people of this province are somewhat more enthusiastic and positive about our ministry than he is.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s where he is mistaken.

Mr. Leluk: Well, I beg to differ with the member on that point.

Mr. Ferrier: Great member.

Mr. Leluk: The member for Windsor West spoke of funding for the Assumption Church, I believe; and I would just like the member to know that I’ll bring this to the attention of the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

With respect to the member for Thunder Bay, I just want him to know that the transferring of the Indian community secretariat to the Ministry of Culture and Recreation in no way is going to diminish the quality of the programmes which currently exist in this regard.

We were asked what moneys were in the budget, and I might say that the amount of money is approximately double that in the budget last year. This means that there should be more support moneys for some of these programmes in culture and recreation.

I’ve taken note of several of the other comments that were made and certainly they are appreciated and will be considered.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Mr. Lawlor: What about that point of subsection (b) -- is that wrong?

Mr. Leluk: Pardon? No, it is not wrong.

Mr. Lawlor: Better send it into committee and amend it.

Mr. Leluk: I’ll speak to the member about that after.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 38, An Act to amend the Ministry of Culture and Recreation Act, 1974.

EXPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Expropriations Act.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief comment with respect to this particular bill. I welcome this bill -- I support it wholeheartedly. I think it must be obvious to the minister, in view of the conversations we’ve had over the last number of months with regard to the problem which confronted a number of people in my riding.

The Expropriations Act, as it is drawn, didn’t take into account the fact that landowners couldn’t exercise an option which differed from the original expropriation and make themselves available to the Land Compensation Board in the event of a dispute over land prices.

In the particular instance with which I was associated, Ontario Hydro had come out with a new land policy, making a number of options available to landowners other than the fee simple option, which was always available to them. There were a number of people who negotiated with Ontario Hydro and who were prepared to exercise their option in one form or another in regard to dealing with Ontario Hydro. But in so doing, under the Expropriations Act these people were precluded from going to the Land Compensation Board in the event of a dispute over the land prices.

I mentioned this to the minister and I know he has had consultations with a number of people. I think he also had the Robinson report to fall back on. He has come in with this bill which corrects the problem; I certainly support it and welcome it, and I know a good many people who are currently negotiating with Ontario Hydro welcome the change as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I do not have much to say about this bill, Mr. Speaker, except to simply state that it is a broadening of the powers already contained in the Expropriations Act for a hearing before the Land Compensation Board. When land is acquired by public authorities and the acquisition of that land, whether by expropriation or not, is brought about, then the board may determine compensation.

One of the questions that arise out of it -- and I’ll ask it here, rather than send it in to committee -- relates to the fact that for many years the board has been under some degree of fire, if that is the word, or maybe it is drenching. The tendency of the legal profession is to scout the board.

I would like to know, therefore, if the minister has statistics as to the number of compensation cases taken directly to the Supreme Court of Ontario for adjudication and compensation over against the number of cases that are taken to the board itself independently of that process.

While one may go to the Land Compensation Board and can appeal up to the level of the courts, etc., the legal profession by and large has circumvented the board. Their attitude is: “What is the point of going to the board? If we are going to have to go to the courts anyhow, let’s go to the courts immediately and get the job done.” There seems to be very little gained.

On the other hand, it may be that the Land Compensation Board has acquired a certain expertise, that it has come into better odour with the profession, and therefore the number of its cases in the past year or so have increased substantially. I don’t know if I can say that -- I would trust that it would be so, because after all the board does exist and it should perform some kind of function. What role is it performing? What is its volume of cases at the present? Does the minister really feel, therefore, that this is an efficacious and effective instrument to do anything with this minor amendment to the legislation? Why does he bother with it at all?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill?

The hon. minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. members know, the Expropriations Act was studied by Mr. R. B. Robinson, QC, and certain recommendations were brought forward quite recently.

One of the recommendations which he brought forth is contained on page 28 dealing with hearings on consent. He very properly points out in that recommendation that at the present time the board, by the drafting of the existing statute, lacks jurisdiction to hear a matter on the consent of all parties.

It would appear that the board, which has now been in existence some 6% years, I believe, has in fact attracted a great deal of confidence from the public insofar as the amounts of compensation or the amounts awarded for the taking of lands by public authority are concerned. It became somewhat more apparent fairly recently -- it was referred to by the member for Huron-Bruce; it was certainly referred to earlier this year in the House in a question directed to me -- that there were instances in his area -- and members on this side from the same general area have mentioned the same thing -- whereby the owner has recognized that a strip of land would be taken, whether it’s in fee simple or an easement really doesn’t matter. But the owner wanted to be reassured that the value paid for the fee or for the easement was in fact a fair one, and wanted that determination made by an authority or by someone who was neutral to the whole situation -- and the owner felt that the board was the proper authority to make that decision.

But the Act as presently drafted does not allow the matter to go on before the board on consent, because the board only assumes jurisdiction when certain procedures under the Expropriations Act have in fact been made. I would draw the hon. member’s attention to section 30 of the Act, I believe it is, which says that upon certain things having occurred, the board may determine compensation. So here we have two parties, namely, the expropriating authority and the owner, really wanting a third party to make the determination and yet the third party lacks jurisdiction. Of course, the whole thrust of the amendment which is before the House now, Mr. Speaker, is to in effect give jurisdiction. On the consent of both the owner and the expropriating party, either side can apply to the board to make the determination.

I will have to refer back to the member for Lakeshore at a later date the approximate number of those matters which have proceeded to the Supreme Court as raised in his comments with reference to the bill. I attempted to call the deputy minister just now; he is chairing a function this evening and could not be reached, but I will get back to the member in connection with his inquiry as to the number of cases which have proceeded to the Supreme Court. Subject to getting the figures on it, it is my impression there have been relatively very few, and as I recollect it in general discussion with my law officers, they invariably have gone, mainly on points of law, to the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add this comment. Many of the recommendations put forward by Mr. Robinson are being very seriously considered by our ministry right now. I hope to come forward with a bill later on in the year to reflect many of the recommendations contained in the Robinson report. There was some urgency in this particular matter drawn to my attention by members of the House and for those owners who want the compensation board to make that determination, I felt that in order to give the board that jurisdiction, I would have to come forward at this time. Hence, my introduction some two weeks ago of the bill which is now before the members of the House on second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 43, An Act to amend the Expropriations Act.

FORESTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves second reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Forestry Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could give a brief outline of the bill before the hon. member debates the issue. I have just a short statement here that may clarify a number of points.

Mr. Speaker, the Forestry Amendment Act of 1975 provides for the managed forest tax rebate programme. You will recall when I introduced the bill on April 18, I said at that time it is the aim of the government to provide an incentive for private woodlot owners to manage their forests so as to obtain the greatest possible yield of wood and wood products from their lands. It is also expected that proper management of private woodlots under this programme would also provide those other benefits of a managed forest -- a healthy wildlife habitat, conservation of water, recreational benefits and a pleasing landscape.

You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that we estimate that up to 20,000 forest landowners could qualify and benefit through these rebates. It is further estimated that up to 90,000 forest owners could benefit from this programme, if their lands were placed under proper forest management.

I know there will be questions concerning the cost of the programme. The Ministry of Revenue estimates that a 50 per cent rebate on managed forest lands would average about $100 per owner at current tax rates or $2 million for 20,000 owners. I would point out to you, sir, that there are approximately seven million acres of small forest land holdings in those designated under the Woodlands Improvement Act and, of course, this does not include the railway land holdings, such as the ACR, of which I’m sure the members opposite are very much aware. We estimate that the current yield from these seven million acres is approximately 100 million cu ft of wood annually. And, of course, under a proper management programme we strongly feel that this could be increased to well over 200 million cu ft per year.

The question will come up as to who qualifies for this rebate programme. Any resident of Ontario owning forest land not assessed as part of a farm will qualify. Standards for the programme will be established through an order in council. We expect that the following standards will be sought:

A forest means that it will be not less than 400 trees of any size per acre; 300 trees per acre measuring over 2 in. dbh -- that’s the diameter breast high, or taken about 4.5 ft above the ground -- 200 trees per acre over 5 in. dbh; or 100 trees per acre over 8 in. dbh.

A managed forest means that a forest that is subject to an agreement under the Woodlands Improvement Act or subject to an agreement under the Forestry Act or subject to an agreement planned and certified by a registered professional forester, in which, of course, livestock does not pasture or roam. That means it is not less than an aggregate total of 25 acres on a separately assessed parcel of land, and in which frees are cut in conformity with a bylaw passed under section 4 of the Trees Act or in conformity with good forestry practice. Taxes mean taxes for municipal and school purposes imposed by a mill rate.

Trees mean any of the following species with any of the following genera: Pine, spruce, hemlock, tamarack, cedar, balsam, birch, oak, ash, elm, hickory, basswood, tulip, black cherry, walnut, butternut, chestnut, maple, sycamore, beech, locust, blackgum and poplar.

The administration will be with the Ministry of Natural Resources. We will set the forest management criteria and do the field audit of the programme. The Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs will administer the tax rebates, as it does the farm tax reduction programme in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Speaker, applications will be mailed out to about 70,000 forest landowners as identified by the Ministry of Revenue from the present tax rolls. I might say that we have the information here. It’s a very simple application. Along with that application goes a full explanation, provided that this is approved tonight, for a managed tax-reduction programme.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you. I welcome that explanation from the minister.

The kind of thing that I think that he is trying to do here is something that I have been advocating that he should do for a number of years. He can recall the rather heated debate and the rather heated exchange that we had when he was setting up the Algonquin Forestry Authority. It was our contention over here on this side of the House that had the government embarked on this programme a number of years ago that it may not have been necessary to violate what a lot of people in southern Ontario refer to as the wilderness or primeval forest contained in Algonquin Park.

Hopefully, as a result of the initiatives that he is taking or the incentives that he is providing to holders of private forests, either under the Woodlands Improvement Act or the Forestry Act, he will revive the interest of those owners in planting, husbanding and harvesting a forestry crop on their lands, particularly in southern Ontario where a lot of it has been allowed to grow into scrub.

When one considers the need in the future for fibre, it’s quite obvious that if we are going to maintain our position as one of the leaders in forestry -- having regard for what we consider to be a tremendous need for fibre, whether it be for newsprint, fine paper or for pulp linerboard -- we are going to have to make use of all available lands in order to get maximum production, at least to the extent of which we are capable. If there is this kind of programme, it will make maximum use of private forests.

A good many of those lands are far from No. 1 and No. 2 agricultural land, but they are ideally suited for the growing of tree crops. I hope that as a result of this programme the millions of acres that are not being used at all or are under-utilized will be regenerated -- particularly in the southern part of the province and even in some areas of the north; acres that have been brought to the attention of the ministry, a good many of them having once been held either under a licence or under a volume agreement by the prime licence-holders or the prime users of wood, but having been allowed to grow up in weed species until they have become weed fields rather than productive forest areas. If this Act and this incentive will give that needed stimulus to the regeneration of forestry in those areas, I am all for it.

The minister has mentioned that the government intends to provide a 50 per cent rebate which will cost the taxpayers, in total, an estimated $2 million. He mentions that is exclusive of land held by the ACR. The ACR holds, I think, something like two million acres. They are private lands. I can think of two other companies with major land holdings. Abitibi is one in our area which holds several townships. Ontario Paper hold a fairly substantial amount of land themselves. And, no doubt, there are several others. Does this mean that this programme will also be available to those large companies who, for their own reasons, have been sitting on these lands? They have done absolutely nothing with them by way of reforestation, regeneration or silviculture.

If that is the case, I don’t think they are deserving of this kind of assistance. One must realize that until a very short time ago we were only using between 40 and 45 per cent of the allowable cut in the prime species and maybe 10 to 15 per cent of what was once referred to by this ministry as the weed species. That is no longer the case. The allowable cut in many, many areas of the province is now reaching very close to the maximum we can tolerate on a sustained yield basis. It seems to me that we’re going to need this additional fibre, but I don’t think that we should bail out these people who have been sitting on huge tracts of land for decades and, all of a sudden, say: “Let’s give them a helping hand.” I hope that, in fact, is slot the case.

One other thing that I find a little bit objectionable is section 2, subsection 4 of the bill: “A programme may be made effective retroactively to a date not earlier than Jan. 1, 1973.”

I find that a little bit hard to swallow, where we’re bringing in legislation and saying: “You can get relief retroactively under this amendment to the Forestry Act.” Granted, in most instances, it will be a fairly insignificant amount. From the ineffectiveness of the programme in the past, the limited amount of work that was done by private landholders on their own land, either through the Woodlands Improvement Act or the Forestry Act -- from what little bit I know about it -- was minimal, to say the least.

In fact, the minister’s colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) was decrying the fact that of the 70,000 people who own small woodlots, or small areas that might be suitable for tree farming, very few of them took advantage of it. I don’t see why the minister should make a thing like this retroactive. I think that if they are serious about making their lands productive I don’t know of any reason why we should make it retroactive for a two-year period.

I would like an elaboration by the minister on those few points that I have raised with him. I find the retroactivity a little too hard to swallow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a few comments to make on this bill, Mr. Speaker, particularly in regard to what the bill doesn’t do, as well as what it does do.

The first section of the bill is quite plain, simple and obvious. But in the second section, which establishes a programme for the encouragement of forestry, it is really something new within our province insofar as private forests are concerned. In effect it provides assistance to the private forests that will be established, or have been established, mostly in the southern part of the province. I’m not opposed to this, of course, insofar as the establishment of these forests is concerned. But, on the other hand, we must be selective in the areas where we provide the support.

For example, I don’t think it would be of any use at all to provide support for the provision of forests in the southern part of the province that would only duplicate that which is in abundance in the north.

On the other hand, it would be a decisive programme to establish assistance for the provision of hardwood forests in the southern part of the province to offset that which we may lose in the area of Algonquin Park when the government finally decides that that likely will be phased out over a period of time. Of course, the minister may or may not agree with me on that, but I think the day will eventually come when that is done.

I’m not saying it’s within the next five, 10 or 15 years -- it may be 20 or 25 years -- but on the other hand I believe that we should be establishing programmes, such as the one that can be envisaged within this legislation, that would provide assistance to the specific needs of our industry and not provide assistance to those forests which may be developed, which may not provide any requirement that the province now has for specific types of production.

The other thing that bothers me, of course, is the retroactivity of the programme. We always hear from the government that they can’t make things retroactive, but obviously when it suits their purposes they do make them retroactive, and in this case it’s going back to Jan. 1, 1973. I find that kind of difficult to understand, unless there are some people in the business now to whom these assistances are going to go regardless of the fact that the bill hasn’t been brought in.

I’d just like to make some general remarks in regard to the woods industry. I would say that this bill does not go far enough and it should deal at this time with the whole question of Crown dues and the question of stumpage. It has been my position, and I would think I’ve expressed this on a number of occasions in the Legislature, that as the economy of the woods industry goes up and down the stumpage charges should do likewise.

In Ontario, if one watches what’s happened not only in the sawmills but in the pulp mills, as well as in the veneer plants and right across the whole gamut of the woods industry in northern Ontario, it’s just like a roller coaster. It is up and down. There are periods of very high unemployment and there are periods of very high employment, and because of the nature of our industry in this province we have developed an industry that seems to bottom out on occasion. Those occasions have been becoming more regular, if one looks at a chart of the past 10 years.

It appears that what is happening is, when the world markets are good, business in the woods industry in Ontario is good; when the world markets are bad, then we are the first to suffer. That is because of our production costs and because of the fact that we have, large costs in transportation to world markets. In order to offset those costs, I believe any legislation that’s brought forward in regard to the woods industry should include within it a form of stumpage charge that will float inversely with the industry, so that when the industry is in trouble the government is not collecting as much in stumpage charges, and when the industry is viable and is producing big profits, then we are stepping in with a higher stumpage charge.

This hasn’t been done, and because of the lack of initiative on the part of the ministry to do this we have created in the north that type of employment situation which I’ve just described, which goes up and down like a roller coaster. That’s what the woods industry is in northern Ontario and that is how it is going to remain until this government can find some way of stabilizing that industry.

The other thing I would like to point out is to look at the export market. The export market is all-important in this area, particularly in pulp and paper; it is the mainstay of the pulp and paper market. If we look at that and look at the charts drawn up in a study by Peat Marwick and Partners we’ll see there are obviously decisions made in the boardrooms of the big companies in this country as to who will export where.

In Ontario, woods producers, insofar as pulp and paper are concerned, have obviously been the big losers. The markets assigned to us by agreement between the big companies -- and by the big companies I mean CIP, Abitibi, the whole works -- are those markets now being served by the southern United States where the competition is the toughest. We in Ontario are the ones who are suffering the most.

The ones in Quebec and the ones in the west are not suffering to the same extent as we are because the cartel which operates the sale on foreign markets of pulp and paper from this province has designated those markets which are the most competitive to Ontario. We have become the losers.

All one has to do is look at the Peat Marwick studies which were done for the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism and one will see graphs of where our product goes.

Our product goes to certain areas of the United States and not one drop of it goes to any other area of the United States. Our product does not go to the European market which is a good market at the present time but from which we are cut off because of the agreements made in the boardrooms of the large corporate woods producers in this province and elsewhere across Canada.

I believe this ministry has to take into consideration that it must step into that situation and decide that products made in Ontario are going to be shipped everywhere in the world, wherever a market is available, regardless of what type of contractual or non-contractual arrangement has been made between the big producers in this country. It becomes obvious to me as a northerner that we are suffering because of this and have suffered greatly over the past 20 years.

There are three things then. There is the stumpage charge which I believe should be geared to the market as it exists, geared to the profits of the industry as they go up and down like a roller coaster, and geared to the question of employment, which goes up and down the same way. The third thing is that the big companies have formed a cartel and have decided where the foreign markets are going to be for each of the different producers in this country. Through that, we have been the big loser.

This bill today, although it does not deal with those things, could well deal with those things and should well deal with them. What it does deal with is a very small segment of the overall woods industry in this province and it provides assistance to that segment.

I don’t oppose that in any way except it should be specific in that it provides assistance to that segment of the woods industry where we need production. I don’t think the fibre for pulp and paper should have any type of subsidization provided if it is produced in southern Ontario because there is plenty of that in northern Ontario in specific areas. Right now, most of those producers in that area are having some difficulty in finding markets. I think it is foolhardy to provide assistance to them.

Certainly, for hardwood production in southern Ontario we should provide assistance because there are no other hardwood forests in the province that are really productive, other than those that are in Algonquin Park. If we’re ever going to have a truly recreational area there, then we have to develop hardwood forests outside that area in order to provide the raw materials for the secondary industries that are so dependent on them.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to reply to the numerous questions I’ve put on second reading.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively short bill in terms of words but there is quite a bit in it. I might say that this bill is welcome at this time; I think that had we had it a number of years ago, the dilemma we recently found ourselves in with regard to Algonquin Park might not have occurred.

One of the concerns of the Algonquin Wildlands League was that there never has been much of an effort to get the Ministry of Natural Resources to manage the lands outside the park or to encourage the people living there to engage in an adequate silvicultural programme to provide hardwood in that vicinity. I hope the minister will move with dispatch in this area and encourage a managed programme so that it will be much more possible to get logging stopped in the park in a shorter time. I know this isn’t the government’s objective, but I think this is a policy that any government in this province should be undertaking.

One thing about this Act that I think is very worthwhile is that it does encourage more woodlots and more people in southern Ontario to buy some farms where the land is of rather poor quality as far as agriculture is concerned but which will provide very useful soil and conditions for forestry.

There are more and more people who are willing to invest in this kind of land to buy themselves a country home, so to speak, and who are willing to put it into forests but who have felt very strongly that it’s not fair that they should be paying full taxes, because those trees will not grow up for 50, 60 or 70 years and there won’t be any economic return to them. In fact, they will probably be dead before there is any economic return to their heirs. In a sense, they are providing a useful service to the people of the province, but they do not feel that they should have to pay full taxes. I think it was the professional foresters’ association that presented a brief to the minister, and I think that probably had a significant impact on bringing forth this legislation.

I happen to be one of the members of the drainage committee, and I know my friend from Essex South (Mr. Paterson) probably will be speaking on this subject following my remarks. But one thing we noted was that in areas where there was fairly good agricultural land, the farmers were not too happy about having woodlots in their area. Sometimes a person who did have one of these woodlots wasn’t too anxious to have drains built across his land. Farmers in many instances wanted to clear off all the land and use it for agricultural purposes.

I think this bill will be beneficial in some rural parts of southern Ontario for those people who wish to provide wildlife habitats, some water management and even flood control in some instances. If this encourages more people to invest in woodlots and tree farms in the southern part of the province, I think that it will have a very significant and worthwhile impact in a lot of the rural areas of this province.

I note that the minister said this announcement is going out to 70,000 people. It seems to me that a lot of this is through either order in council or regulation. It’s not in the Act. Why that should be, I don’t know.

Sometimes one would like to see more things in the legislation and not so much left to the regulations and order in council --

Mr. Lawlor: This is one of the minister’s easy bills.

Mr. Ferrier: -- where things can’t be debated. They should be, in fact, spelled out.

I don’t know that this is going to be very beneficial for us in the north. I think it is more for the hardwood industry here in the south and for the other things that I have said in terms of conservation, and in providing in the south an alternate source of hardwood to the only one that is now there in Algonquin Park. We may not necessarily reap the benefits of it in our generation, but if this programme is carried out with some determination and some real resolve by the ministry, then it can provide significant benefits in the future for our people.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is a progressive programme.

Mr. Ferrier: I think I have to admit to that. I don’t always agree --

Mr. Gilbertson: It is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Stokes: We have been urging the government to do it for eight years.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Progressive legislation by a progressive government.

Mr. Ferrier: I remember, Mr. Speaker, what one of my professors at Victoria College, John Irvine, used to say about Mackenzie King.

Mr. Lawlor: Give the minister an inch and he will take a mile.

Mr. Ferrier: He said he would wait, wait and wait until people all over the place were urging him to act and then he would go ahead and do something and say, “Look how progressive we are.”

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Those fellows opposite get a good idea every now and then.

Mr. Ferrier: Well, all kinds of people have been urging the minister -- the member for Thunder Bay, this party, the Forestry Association. The whole province has been saying: “For gosh sakes, get on with the job and do it.” Finally, the government has done it and we can’t do anything but commend the minister for finally seeing the light. But it has taken a long time for the light to dawn. The light had a lot of barriers to break through before it finally got through and they perceived it.

Mr. Stokes: We finally brought them kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): It’s called leading from behind.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, the member for Cochrane South has sort of enticed me into this particular debate. As he knows, my colleague, the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) and I do represent that part of the Province of Ontario that has the least cover by trees in the province; that is, the Essex and Kent county areas.

I think there is nothing that disturbs me more on my travels about the county and on our way to Toronto than to see the bulldozers working knocking down trees in woodlots along Highway 401 and the other highways.

But this is somewhat of an economic problem, Mr. Speaker, these days when the land is worth several thousands of dollars and the returns per acre can mount into the hundreds of dollars to the individual farmers. It certainly has been trying to them to maintain lands and woodlots that aren’t in active production.

Many of them, I know, have taken advantage of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s grants to put the bulldozers in to knock the trees and the brush down, and the hedgerows, and clean up their farms for more economic production. This is further financing by a government that is destroying the very thing that this Act hopefully is going to combat and bring back the tree growth in our particular part of the province.

I think the minister’s explanatory remarks were certainly helpful, and I want to study them in more detail as they are of specific interest to me. As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, I represent an area that is rather unique in Canada. It is the Carolina forest region. It is the only area in Canada that has certain species of trees. I was pleased the minister mentioned there would be some assistance toward encouraging the sycamore and the blackgum, and possibly the Kentucky coffee tree, those species that are very unique in Canada, and I would ask of him if his ministry is planning to expand the operations of the nursery at St. Williams to add species. I believe they do produce approximately 15 species at the present time. I think their latest new one was the Norway spruce, but I don’t believe they are going into more of what we call the exotic trees native to the Carolina region for planting on private woodlots. Possibly they do produce some of these for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, but I don’t believe that these are available to the public at large.

In the minister’s comments, I believe he said something about wildlife management and indicated that the propagation of certain nut trees and berry trees was going to be encouraged. I wonder if the ministry is going to encourage those who are planting the trees to get a little better mix; rather than planting a block of 50 acres of conifers, which in fact do not support wildlife, put in a mix of both deciduous and conifers, and even get into the business of supplying types of shrubbery or bushes on which wildlife can feed and winter.

I know, as my colleague the member for Cochrane South has stated, on the select committee on drainage, and prior to that the select committee on conservation, that those of us who served on that became very aware of the necessity for the encouragement of planting, both along the ditches and the wet areas, various species of bushes and trees, both for wintering purposes and feeding purposes for the various wildlife in our province. But to this date I don’t believe anything has been done in that regard unless it has been carried forth by individual conservation authorities. So I would hope the minister would give that point some consideration and have his ministry propagate these particular native bushes and frees that can be used in a real managed forest wildlife programme.

The only other question I would ask is in relation to conservation authority woodlots. I don’t think it was spelled out in the minister’s remarks as to whether these tax grants or incentives were going to be made specifically for conservation authorities as opposed to individual woodlot owners, and I would appreciate a clarification of that particular point.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak briefly, I suppose in some respects the member for Essex South has covered mostly what I had in my mind. It’s probably a little difficult to realize that in farming in the area where we come from we are, on one hand, forced to clear our bushlands in order to make use of additional land and at the same time we are probably defeating certain ecological improvements that might be had by keeping the bushland. We know that it certainly does hold a great deal of moisture. The runoff from rains is of course much less in the woodland areas.

We had a resolution come to the county council recently which some of the conservation authorities had been pressing, that no farmer be allowed to destroy his woodlots without the approval of the conservation authority, and this was voted down in county council. I suppose one of the reasons, too, is that the cost of purchasing land in Essex county now has gone up to, I suppose, a minimum of $1,000 an acre and, depending on the quality of the land, it goes up higher than that of course. But for what we classify as Brookston clay soil it is around $1,000 an acre. So if one has 15 or 20 acres of bushland, by hiring bulldozers and clearing it and then having it tiled, one does get close to that sum by the time we figure the cost of tiling it, I suppose two rods apart, which is the proper drainage for it, and clearing it out. It’s always a lob for the first two or three years farming as well, because there are always new roots come around it. But that can be done for a little less than buying new lard, so naturally if it’s adjoining one’s farm he is going to clear out the bush if he wants to expand his operations. That’s one of the things. How does one conserve forest land when farmers are in a situation where they have to farm all the land they have in order to make a living?

I think myself we need this. It’s something that we are definitely going to have to look at from a long-range view; probably the province itself will have to do this. I don’t think we can expect individuals to keep wood-lots or bushland because it’s to the benefit of all the people. It isn’t just the individual farmer who benefits; it certainly benefits all the people in the area. If one notices, in the last few years, in flat country like we’re in, as the trees are cut and the bushlands cleared out, the wind makes an awful difference to some of the crops. With some of the lighter soils, we’re finding we have a little problem with the drifting and blowing of the topsoil. That’s something I think we’re all going to have to contend with.

I had thought a few years ago, when I saw the amount of frees and bushland being cleared out, that perhaps the government -- and I say all levels of government -- may have eventually to look at planting rows of trees, probably 200 ft wide, down every second or third concession. This would be a great asset as a future habitat for our wildlife, and it also would be an asset as wind breaks. It’s not a serious thing yet, but I think it’s a problem that could increase over the years as the bushland continues to be taken out.

I think that’s something we’re certainly going to have to look at very seriously.

Even in large areas where we farm with large machinery we have to have large fields. The day of keeping a few frees stuck around the end of the field or out in centre for shade is no longer feasible. Mr. Speaker, if you’ve ever farmed and worked around a large elm tree that takes all the moisture for about two acres around it, you certainly want to get it out so that you can get your crop in. Wood-lots are definitely the only way to go. It is going to take support from the province and all the people in Ontario to do this.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise and comment briefly on the bill before the House tonight, the Act to amend the Forestry Act. I would want to go on record as congratulating the minister and his staff for putting together and bringing this legislation before the House.

I cannot recall any single programme in recent years that will do as much toward creating healthy forests in both southern and northern Ontario as this amendment to the Forestry Act will do. We all know that great tracts of southern Ontario and the northeastern section, and for that matter many sections, are really not agricultural land and are best suited for the growing of trees.

Many years ago, a century ago, our forefathers came to those parts and the way of life was to eke out an existence from a clearing. They cleared great areas of this province which really did not belong in the area of agriculture. Later on, as times and things changed, and our way and mode of life changed, this became very apparent and right across southern Ontario we see abandoned farm after abandoned farm. None of these holdings really had soil which could sustain one in the industry of farming. Many of them were left and very little or nothing was done with them. They grew up on their own in a sort of haphazard manner and really are not too valuable in their present state.

I am sure their present owners will certainly welcome this legislation because it’s a real incentive for them to put these areas back to doing what I would like to say I feel the Lord intended them to do in the first place, and that was to produce trees.

I understand that any holdings of 25 acres or less will require a management agreement. I wonder, and I hope that perhaps in the distance the day will come when every holding which qualifies will be required to be under a management agreement.

I have seen in recent months and recent years that some private holdings have been harvested in a manner which I don’t think is very complimentary to the forest industry. This is why I would hope that at some time in the future the ministry would see fit to have all the properties or holdings which qualify under this legislation under management agreements.

I think it is perhaps going to be somewhat difficult in the early stages of this programme to determine what properties are eligible. I am told by some of the ministry staff that this doesn’t appear to be a difficult matter but I wonder if there will be areas with insufficient trees on them to qualify and I am afraid there will be many so-called borderline cases.

At any rate, this is great legislation. It will be welcomed, I feel, by some 20,000 or more property holders in Ontario and will certainly go a long way to stimulate the wood-lot industry and make our people, especially those people who hold title to those areas, more aware of the great need we have to put these lands back into forest production.

Mr. Stokes: Doesn’t the member wish it had happened 10 years ago?

Mr. Yakabuski: Yes, I think it is always great to look back, but a lot of things didn’t happen. We didn’t have the farm rebate tax until some two or three years ago and I think this follows closely on the heels of that.

It’s going to be welcome and I want to commend the minister and his staff for preparing this legislation and bringing it before the House at this time. Certainly, I would want to be on record as highly in favour of it. Thank you.

Mr. Stokes: It’s nice that we have one Tory member participating in this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, after hearing all the support and the praise we have had for this particular legislation, I couldn’t help thinking as I was sitting here of that great poem which went something like this -- I am sure all members will remember it, “I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree. A tree that looks at God all day and lifts its leafy arms to pray.”

Mr. Stokes: Boy, is he reaching.

Mr. Lawlor: More like a little babbling brook.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Look who is opposing that. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Lawlor: He couldn’t get to that nest of robins.

Mr. Stokes: In her hair?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I certainly think that this is a really historic night, because I’m sure relatives of those members who have supported this particular legislation, as history will record it 50 or 60 years from now, will look back and say, “Those were the type of men who supported really progressive-type legislation.”

Mr. Stokes: They may even say that they advocated it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Some of my relatives might even sit under the tree.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This type of legislation is difficult to bring in, because in these times of high cost and inflation, to ask people to put their lands into a productive position where they will see no real benefits for 50 or 60 years, it takes a certain amount of forethought, a certain amount of planning and a certain amount of faith in the future -- and, of course, that is what the 90,000 or so people in this province affected by the Woodlands Improvement Act will have as they come under this particular tax reduction programme.

Mr. Ferrier: There are a lot of genuinely conservation-minded people in the province today who will welcome this.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I’m sure there are. Right.

Mr. Deans: Why didn’t the minister say so, then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I certainly want, at the outset, to express my appreciation to all members who have so strongly supported this progressive legislation, which we have indicated to the members will take effect as of Jan. 1, 1973. I know there has been some question as to the retroactivity of this particular legislation but I would point out there is a certain reason for that. Section 4, subsection 4, provides that this programme will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 1973. It recognizes the government’s programme of farm tax reduction.

The members will recall that when that particular programme came into force on Jan. 1, 1973, we had several woodlot owners who made application for a tax reduction thinking that that applied to them. We examined it very carefully and accepted the philosophy that a tree is a crop and it should be treated exactly the same as agricultural land. This was one of the prime moves and the reason for bringing this type of legislation forward, so the lands are being treated identical to agricultural lands. It makes good sense, of course, to go back to Jan. 1, 1978, and bring both programmes in step. That is the particular reason for that section.

The member for Thunder Bay asked about the lands which would qualify. I would point out to him, as I did in my opening remarks, that the ACR, the railroad lands, the conservation authority lands, and blocks 7, 8 and 10 in northern Ontario will definitely not apply.

Mr. Stokes: Very good.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is very, very clear. It will just be those lands, of course, that are under the management programme of the Woodlands Improvement Act.

The member for Nipissing questioned the success of the woodlands improvement programme. I would point out to him that we’ve got about seven million acres of land under cultivation now in that particular programme. It’s yielding about. 100 million cu ft of wood annually and with this new incentive we hope to double that. So I think that while we have a good programme in place now it makes good sense to give an added incentive to increase and to double the output on those same acres of land.

I’m sure other people will join the programme, because there will be a tremendous amount of non-agricultural land -- maybe class 8 or class 4 land -- that’s not properly suited for agricultural purposes, as the member for Renfrew South correctly pointed out in his particular area. These areas have been cut over. They’re not lending themselves to the type of agriculture that we have in other parts of the province, and they would now have the opportunity to be given some incentive if those areas were put under cultivation for trees.

There was mention of the export of our finished products; I think the member for Nipissing was referring to our pulp and paper products. I think it’s fair to point to him that we have one of the strongest and one of the best customers in the world right at our doorstep. There are 200 million people just across the border --

Mr. R. S. Smith: We only have one strip of it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In terms of our free-enterprise system, I find it difficult to agree with his argument that it’s a cartel, because I know some of those people and they are very competitive and of course they will sell where they can get the greatest return, having due consideration of course for their costs, the tariffs and the high transportation costs involved.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Any study will show they have the market split up between them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If the hon. member fully informed himself about the production capacity of the Scandinavian countries, he would see that they do present tremendous competition to Canada in the pulp and paper industry. They do look after the European market, although I’m not saying we don’t get in there, because we do supply a tremendous amount of newsprint and pulp to Britain. It is to be hoped, of course, that we’ll be in the European common market in the not too distant future, but that’s another problem.

The member for Cochrane South also made reference to the Woodlands Improvement Act, saying that perhaps it is not as productive as it should be. Again I would point out to him, as I did a moment ago, that we have about seven million acres under cultivation and producing 100 million cu ft annually.

He mentioned something about the species we have listed in the regulations and how they will qualify. There are no exotic species per Se; I think we want to promote the trees that are natural and will lend themselves to production and growth in this particular province.

We are not interested in promoting shrubbery simply for habitat areas, as the member for Essex South suggested. I think it is fair to say that any well-managed forest lends itself for this purpose and does provide an improved wildlife habitat. This is something a well-managed forest will do, of course.

Of course, any land under this particular legislation would have to be a managed forest under the Woodlands Improvement Act or under a programme by a registered forester. I was a little disappointed that none of the members picked up that particular point. This is a new thrust to encourage the private forester to become involved on his own and to provide his services to these woodlot operators.

We think this is a good step in the right direction. It is something that the foresters have been asking for for some considerable time, and of course we are only too pleased to go along with that request. I think this is the first time they have actually been recognized in this particular way.

Mr. Stokes: They made that proposal more than two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, it has taken us a little while to pull the legislation together. I might say that when we were pulling the legislation together, we looked at other jurisdictions, and I was amazed to find there is no jurisdiction on the North American continent that has this type of progressive legislation dealing with trees. In fact, many people I contacted personally have said to me, “You’ve got to be out of your mind in the Province of Ontario. When I fly from Toronto to Kenora, all I see is trees; and you fellows are giving a tax rebate to grow more trees. Surely you must have enough trees now to keep you in perpetuity.”

That’s the thinking of some people who are looking at Ontario from a distance. But when you get on the ground and consider the demands of future generations and our capacity - to grow wood fibre, then I think it’s imperative that this generation take on the responsibility of putting those non-agricultural lands into woodland production.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again want to express my appreciation to all members of all political parties for their outstanding support and for their comments. I will certainly review their suggestions in detail as I go through Hansard, because of course we are most anxious to come tsp with the best management programme anywhere on the North American continent. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 59. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon s-notion:

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Forestry Act.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have a statement?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Yes, Mr. Chairman, and it’s not going to be about a tree.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be robins in your hair.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You will be barking before we are done, I am sure.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Try us.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): We’ll be barking up the right tree, though.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman and members, I have a rather lengthy statement, but I think it is most appropriate that I do open these estimates with the reading of this statement because it will touch on a number of matters which are of common interest to all members of the House and perhaps will explain certain matters to some of us and perhaps, hopefully, prepare a decent foundation on which to discuss the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Justice.

Mr. Lawlor: Also to give some rationalization and justification to a dead ministry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: As a newcomer to this particular portfolio, Mr. Chairman, I thought it would be appropriate if I refreshed my memory of past debates on the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Justice. While I found the exercise interesting and revealing, what particularly caught my attention as the extent to which the concept behind the establishment of a co-ordinating body of this nature was generally accepted on the one hand, while on the other hand there was a total lack of agreement on the manner in which that concept should be applied. The difference of opinions expressed were not, be it noted, differences between the two sides of the House but differences among individual members of each of the opposition parties.

It is my belief that there is, in fact, little disagreement on the necessity in these rapidly changing times for a body to co-ordinate the various segments of the justice system, to establish priorities in the field and to provide leadership in the development of policies aimed at achieving that essential but delicate balance between the protection of society and the freedom of the individual. Where differences of opinion have arisen, they have sprung from a variation in individual perspectives as to how the secretariat should carry out its mandate.

We are long past that point where the areas of consumer protection, law enforcement, the administration of the courts and the custody and rehabilitation of offenders can work or can be viewed as totally independent segments of the criminal justice scene. The aims, objectives, successes and failures of each have an effect upon the others.

As a very simple example, to respond to public demand for more police in order to control crime more effectively would be unwise unless additional staff were provided both to the courts and to the prisons to deal with the additional caseloads which would result. Again, a change in the law, such as raising the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18, would have tremendous repercussions on all three segments. It is, therefore, essential that we look at the field as a whole and be ever cognizant of the fact that no matter how advantageous it may appear to one ministry to take certain actions or propose certain changes those actions or proposals will indeed have an effect upon other segments of the system.

The function of the committee and its secretariat needs no justification for this purpose alone, but clearly there are other and equally important roles which it must play. One of these is the establishment of priorities in our efforts -- jointly and severally -- to protect society by limiting criminal activity without unduly trespassing upon the individual’s freedom. In establishing those priorities we must ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, many questions. Do we wish to continue to pour people into the system or should we devise ways and means of diverting some of them from that system and handling in less formal fashion those whose offences may be petty but whose apprehension, prosecution and conviction costs the province considerable sums?

Mr. Lawlor: The answer is yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thanks, I’ll note that. Are there alternative sanctions to those we have relied upon for many years? Should there be greater resort to arbitration and settlement and less to the adversary trial? If so, how is this to be achieved without impinging upon the rights of the individual?

Mr. Lawlor: You’re a great bunch of question askers over there.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m providing the questions for the member for Lakeshore, so he’ll look pretty sharp in Hansard. To what extent do our values, ideas and attitudes affect the numbers brought to the attention of the system?

Mr. Lawlor: There is another question.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Is the answer to some of our problems to be found solely in terms of more and more financial and personnel resources, or will we find, as our neighbour south of the border has found, that pouring billions of dollars into bolstering the existing system is not enough?

Mr. Lawlor: That’s the 64th one.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Do we have the essential data which informs us how well the present system does work and which influences the eventual choice of decisions which must be made?

Mr. Lawlor: Question 65.

Hon. Mr. Clement: What steps must be taken to ensure that native people are given the support and assistance which would enable them to look after their own offenders who presently are totally bewildered by and totally unaffected by our own system?

To what extent should the government intervene in the regulation of economic and market activities in order to achieve a sound financial and market environment?

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this is only a sampling of the many questions which have to be answered, but I need not elaborate further. Perhaps the manner in which the questions have been formulated will indicate to you my doubts that the answer to what has come to be known as the crime problem lies in simply providing more people to do the same thing. More police? Yes, but to work in the field of crime prevention. More court staff? Yes, but to ensure that those who can be are screened out of the system, thus helping to restore to the courts that dignity and to the offender that sense of fair treatment which tends to evaporate under the weight of ever-increasing dockets.

The experience of other countries leads me to believe that the answers are not to be found easily, but we must continue to search for them. An essential step in our exploration is to have a firm data base, to know how many people are arrested, how many are convicted, how many serve prison terms and how many repeat the experience, to what advantage our manpower resources are being used to the best advantage, to estimate future personnel and service needs and above all, to enable us to evaluate the worth of each individual programme within the system. Research and evaluation assume greater importance in a time of rapidly changing values and tighter budgets, but little research or evaluation is even possible without a modern computerized information system.

I have done no more than sketch some of the issues which I think our field must concern ourselves with. If I am open to criticism for having merely posed questions rather than offer solutions --

Mr. Lawlor: You sure are.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- I would make two points. The first is that I believe the initial steps to making progress in this or any other field consist in asking the right questions, not in rushing into simple-minded solutions -- with the greatest deference, of course.

Mr. Lawlor: Of course not. Let’s have no simple-minded questions either.

Hon Mr. Clement: The second is that there are few simple solutions in a field as complex and as bound by traditional procedures as this one.

Mr. Lawlor: What was your ministry supposed to be doing for the past 50 years? Holy cow!

Hon. Mr. Clement: Having drawn your attention to some of these issues, let me now indicate to you the major items which will be occupying our attention in the coming year.

Firstly, I shall of course continue to meet at least weekly with my colleagues to discuss with them their policy submissions and their proposed legislation. These will be subject to analysis by the secretariat staff with respect to, their priority and their impact upon other ministries within the field, and, indeed, upon the other policy fields.

Mr. Lawlor: You’re telling me.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Among the proposals which will receive our consideration are those concerning family law reform, a unified family court -- subject to Ottawa paving the way by amending the Divorce Act -- limitation periods for bringing actions involving negligence, a pilot project in court administration, a pilot project in delinquency prevention --

Mr. Lawlor: You must save an awful lot of cups of teas, you fellows.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- changes to the Training Schools Act, the Land Titles Act, and the Certification of Titles Act. Let me emphasize that this is only a sampling and by no means an exhaustive list.

Mr. Roy: You should be embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Because we feel that each member ministry in the field must develop its programmes with a view to their impact upon the other segments of the system, we consider it important that staff, and particularly senior staff, should be encouraged to develop their knowledge and awareness of each other’s role.

Last year, for example, an interchange at the senior level of personnel in the OPP and Correctional Services was undertaken, and this has proved to be extremely valuable in broadening the perspectives of those involved. While that programme will continue, in itself it is not sufficient. This year will see the establishment of residential senior management development courses for those working in this policy field.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I would remind you of my earlier comments in regard to developing means for collecting and disseminating hard data in regard to the offender and to the process. There is presently an inter-ministry committee on justice information and statistics. This is a very vital component of our system, for while each ministry understandably will collect the data which it considers to be important to pursuing its own aims, it is important that we understand the effects of the system on people and receive the greatest benefits from the costs involved. Wherever possible, therefore, each ministry should collect its material in a manner which is compatible with the other components of the total system.

Moreover, our own material should be gathered in such a fashion that it can be coordinated with the information system being developed by the government of Canada in order that, jointly, we may increase the total awareness of emerging trends and our capacity to cope with their effects. For many years, those working in this field have been frustrated by their inability, through the use of manual record-keeping and of separate and different approaches, to evaluate the failure or success of their programmes and to identify the causes of bottlenecks within the process.

The management information systems, which are presently well advanced in their development, will go a great distance in helping to provide answers which have so far eluded us. The secretariat carries the responsibility for co-ordinating the inter-ministry developments and the federal-provincial developments in this important task.

To turn to another very important area, Mr. Chairman, the secretariat this month assumed the responsibility for co-ordinating the services of the ministries in this field to native people. Those of you who have been able to attend the debates of the ministries will be aware of some of the significant changes which are occurring, particularly in northern Ontario. I will only mention as examples the recruiting and training of band constables; the native court worker programme; and the development of community residences for native offenders as alternatives to prison.

Again, since each of the many programmes which have been or are being developed to meet the specific needs of native people have impact upon each other, it is essential that the responsibility be assigned to one group, not only to co-ordinate these programmes but to maintain a close liaison with the participants in them and the recipients of them.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, get on with it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: A standing committee representing the various native associations in the province has agreed to meet regularly with the secretariat so I shall have full knowledge of the extent to which our endeavours do, in fact, accord with the wishes of that committee and its committees.

This brings me to the whole question of input to the process from that overwhelming majority who are not directly engaged in the system on the one hand or the other but who feel, quite rightly, that they have a stake in ensuring that public safety and protection, public order and equality before the law are maintained. Some take that responsibility very seriously and offer their services voluntarily in many ways. In one ministry alone it is estimated that there are well over 2,000 volunteers. Others are not yet willing or perhaps do not yet recognize the need to assume such a responsibility.

As I see it, we have a duty to perform in ensuring that the public is made fully aware of the many roles which citizens can play and, on the other hand, in ensuring also that those of us who are responsible for developing policy are aware of the specific concerns of individual communities. The secretariat will therefore be engaged in organizing meetings across the province with a view to studying the questions of how the general public can be more directly informed of, involved in and consulted on the whole process of justice.

It is also our intention at such meetings to do all in our power to increase the awareness of the public of the true nature of crime which is not always the same thing as the impression some may have from viewing films or television shows which emanate largely from another country and portray, accurately or inaccurately, a totally different society. Different or not, there is always a very real danger that given constant exposure, people confuse the image with reality. While it is true that surveys of the public’s attitude to crime indicate that people do not consider it to be one of the major problems facing society, those same surveys indicate that while there is no general alarm there is concern that what has happened south of us could happen here. And there is a determination that it must not happen here.

The cause for concern, in my opinion, is understandable, It could take very little to turn that concern into real apprehension if one looks only at an isolated statistic -- for example, the fact that in the past six months the total number of people held in the Toronto jail increased by nearly 40 per cent. I do not intend to be an alarmist but neither do I wish to leave the impression that there is a simple explanation for that fact or that the answer to such a problem can be found within this policy field alone.

Crime, its degree and its nature, is a reflection of the character of society in which it is bred, and to that extent every one among us has a duty to preserve the quality of life we enjoy by playing our part in crime prevention. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, this is a very complex field, since it impinges upon such areas as the strength and unity of the family, the social environment, the reduction of individual stress and many others.

To take the business environment as one example: This should be such that it is conducive to law-abiding behaviour in the world of commerce. For many years we have recognized that regulatory procedures must be established for certain components of our economic system where public trust is involved, such as the insurance industry, the securities industry, the real estate business and so on.

In this sector we have to be careful not to develop regulatory systems which are so onerous or oppressive as to discourage the establishment and development of responsible job-creating enterprises. At the same time we have to act in such a way as to ensure that individual rights are respected and protected in the potentially conflicting consumer and commercial relationships between individual groups and corporations.

Again, I touched on the need to re-examine our traditional approach to the criminal justice system -- apprehension, prosecution, conviction -- to assess if alternate means might not be equally, if not more, effective, more humane and less costly. I wish to emphasize here that I consider it timely that we devote our energies to crime prevention in all its dimensions -- strengthening and supporting community agencies to deal with problems, supporting the increased use of referrals by police, encouraging pretrial mediation and community-based dispositions. Through these measures we may be able to stem the return of an offender to the criminal justice system while building up the communities’ abilities to take responsibility for their members.

I hope I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, to make it very clear that we see crime prevention as being much more than a police function, or a function of a family or social agency or indeed of any one body. It is your business and mine, and it will be the secretariat’s business to promote and encourage initiatives in this area and play a role in co-ordinating them.

In this regard, I am pleased to report that we have already made a start. Jointly with the Ministry of Correctional Services we have been able to develop a plan for a unique pilot project in the area of delinquency prevention. We are supporting, with co-operation from the federal government, the applications of two private-agency groups to undertake parallel but quite different approaches in that same area.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to a most important event which will be taking place very shortly in the province and on which members of my staff have been busily engaged. I refer to the fact that from Sept. 1 to Sept. 13 of this year, Toronto will host the fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender. I would like to express my appreciation to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) who, through his eloquent pleading at the fourth congress, was primarily instrumental in Toronto being chosen as the site for this year’s meeting.

The congress is held every five years and has met previously in London, Geneva, Stockholm and Tokyo. The fifth meeting will be held on this continent for the first time. It is expected we shall have over 100 nations represented by delegations of various sizes, and that over 2,000 people will be in attendance. The five issues being addressed at the congress are those which concern all who work in the field of justice. They are:

1. Changes in forms and dimensions of criminality -- transnational and national;

2. The role of criminal legislation, judicial procedures and social controls in the prevention of crime;

3. The emerging roles of the police and other law enforcement agencies, with special reference to changing expectations and minimum standards of performance;

4. The treatment of offenders in custody or in the community, with special reference to the implementation of the standard minimum rules adopted by the United Nations for the treatment of prisoners;

5. Economic and social consequences of crime -- new challenges for research and planning.

While Canada is the host country, I need not elaborate upon the fact that the province has played a major role in the preparation of the programme, and in the arrangements for accommodation, visiting and so on. We have also contributed financially, of course, and by lending or seconding staff, particularly in those final stages of the preparation.

I have been personally honoured by being appointed one of the two deputy heads of the Canadian delegation. Accompanying me as Ontario government delegates within the Canadian delegation will be Chief Judge Fred Hayes of the provincial courts and the deputy provincial secretary. My deputy has also been involved, together with the Deputy Solicitor General of Canada, the Assistant Secretary for Social Defence at the United Nations, the Canadian co-ordinator of the congress, and a representative from External Affairs as a member of the senior policy committee of the congress. My colleagues, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) and the member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr), and some of the staff from the constituent ministries have been involved in meetings with the United Nations committee of experts, or in regional meetings.

Those of you, Mr. Chairman, who have been involved in international conferences can grasp the scope of the sheer volume of work which is involved. I wish here to pay tribute to those of our staff who have assisted in making these arrangements.

I will close by repeating what I said initially, namely that no ministry can operate in isolation or take unilateral decisions without society, and the public purse, suffering as a result. Whatever name you give it, whatever form it takes, there has to be a co-ordinated approach taken to the development of policies in this field or any other.

Man is inventing his future now, Mr. Chairman. He’s producing his own brands of crime and he’s developing or impeding his capacity and ability to deal with them. We intend to develop those policies which will provide us with that capacity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mrs. Birch moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday we will proceed with Bill 3 and Bill 22, and the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, not necessarily in that order.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Does the minister think there’s even the remotest possibility that what she has just told us might, in fact, come to pass on Thursday?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I indicated --

Mr. Deans: It means that every night we get told what’s going to come up the next day, and the next day it never happens.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, these are all on the order paper.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): She’s only acting House leader. It’s not fair to ask her that question.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.