Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to draw to the attention of the hon. members a group of students in the west gallery from St. Mary’s School on Portugal Square in my constituency, who are here with their teacher, Mr. Kolek. I am sure the hon. members would like to give them a hearty greeting on their presence here today.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I wish to announce today the membership of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses.

As the members are aware, the commission comes under the Election Finances Reform Act, which I suggest is milestone legislation. In my view, it is the most progressive and toughest legislation of its kind in Canada and makes Ontario the first jurisdiction to have full and effective disclosure of political contributions.

The chairman of the commission will be Arthur Wishart of Sault Ste. Marie, who has served this province in many senior capacities, particularly as Attorney General, and more recently as a special adviser in my office.

Assisting Mr. Wishart on the commission will be the following members, as required by the legislation:

Edward Kowal of Toronto and Mrs. Elizabeth Dreger of Breslau, who have been nominated by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party; Dr. Gordon Blair of Ottawa and Harold Young of Oakville, nominated by the leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That is D. Gordon Blair.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am sorry -- D. Gordon Blair.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Liberal leader just doesn’t spell right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I will have to confess I’m sure it came in as D. Gordon Blair -- also, Stewart S. Cooke of Don Mills and, believe it or not, one Kenneth Bryden of Toronto, a former member of this House, nominated by the leader of the New Democratic Party; and John Cameron Pallett, QC of Mississauga, a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The chief election officer of the province, Rod Lewis, will be an ex officio member of the commission.

These appointments, Mr. Speaker, are effective immediately.

FRANCHISING GUIDELINES FOR PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the Legislature today franchising guidelines for the petroleum industry which the Ontario Petroleum Association has undertaken to follow in dealings with their lessees. These guidelines, which I believe will greatly improve the relationship between the petroleum companies and their retail gasoline station dealers, were developed in consultation and co-operation with the Ontario Petroleum Association, representatives of the Ontario Retail Gasoline Association and the Automotive Trades Association. The effect of the guidelines can only be beneficial to the entire industry.

The guidelines deal with the major areas of concern in the relationship between the lessor and the lessee. The terms of leases will now be clearly defined. The lessees’ rights to sell other manufacturers’ brands of products, with the exception of motor fuels, have been further clarified. Hours of operation will now have clearer definition, with assurances against losses on the part of the station dealer for operation outside the normal business hours as determined by the guidelines.

A set of mutual commitments and covenants has now been established between lessor and lessee. The conditions for the termination of a lease have now been established. A procedure for review has been instituted by each petroleum company, which will be followed in case of a dispute between lessor and lessee. The petroleum companies will now disclose to prospective lessees specified facts and figures, so that the prospective lessee can make a proper evaluation of the lease under consideration.

These guidelines are the result of lengthy negotiations in which my ministry played an active role, and it is with a good deal of satisfaction that I am able to place these guidelines before the House.

I am certain that the spirit of co-operation which guided the negotiations will continue through in the application of these guidelines. I have the assurance of all the petroleum companies that the guidelines will be implemented immediately and that their relationships with their present lessees will be conducted in the spirit of the guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, my ministry will monitor closely the adoption and application of the guidelines. They will be reviewed as sufficient data becomes available over the next year.

I hope these guidelines will win the acceptance of the entire petroleum industry and that they will strengthen this important sector of our economy to the benefit of those working in it and to the Ontario motoring consumer as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in January, 1973, as you may recall, a health planning task force was established by a cabinet directive to develop a comprehensive plan to deliver services to meet the health needs of the people of Ontario.

Dr. Fraser Mustard, dean of the faculty of medicine at McMaster University, was appointed chairman of that task force, which was made up of members of health professions, universities and the field of economics, together with senior ministry officials. All members provided a wide background of individual knowledge and accumulated experience in their own fields.

Their report, a comprehensive study of health care delivery in Ontario, made proposals and recommendations that could bring about wide and fundamental changes affecting the entire health care system -- changes in the roles, structures and practices at all levels. These proposals required close examination and wide discussion before any other action would be taken, since if they were implemented, they could affect the lives of every individual in the province.

The government decided that the subject matter of the report should be regarded strictly as a green paper. We are committed to the principle of public involvement in the planning of health services. Changes on so wide a scale as the report proposes could not be undertaken by the government without the understanding, co-operation and full support of the public, health professions and health agencies.

As had been expected, Mr. Speaker, response took time. In all, 611 responses were received from professional organizations, institutions, municipalities, universities, public and voluntary agencies and from other individuals associated with health care delivery, as well as from community and church groups and members of the public. Comments were also received from ministry staff. All of these were carefully read and individually studied before an overall analysis was started.

In its analysis of the report of the health planning task force and the reaction to it, Mr. Speaker, the ministry was able to group the 12 recommendations of the task force into six broad areas. The first three, development of the primary care sector, rationalization of secondary care and local involvement in health service planning by district and area, form the foundation for the most significant changes the task force indicated as necessary in the present health system.

On these fundamental principles, a consensus emerged. There is general agreement among those outside the ministry who submitted comments, and this agreement coincides with the ministry’s analysis of what is required to improve our health system.

The next three -- redefinition of responsibility within the ministry, greater involvement in manpower planning and control, and improving the delivered quality of medical care -- were not subject to the same degree of comment or consensus from the public.

However, it should be pointed out that while there was a thread of consensus on the fundamental principles of primary care, secondary care and community involvement, there were many areas of concern, questions, problems and outright disagreement with individual recommendations at the detailed level. In fact, concerns or disagreement emerged regarding one or more aspects of all bitt the last of the six fundamentals.

The report of the health planning task force, the reaction to it and the ministry’s response, all deal with a complex and detailed subject. I will table that response shortly, in printed form, in the House.

However, today I would like to briefly summarize the response of the ministry in three points:

First, we agree in principle with and are prepared to act upon the key recommendations of the task force that received wide support, such as development of a strong primary care system, rationalization of secondary care and local involvement in health planning.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Like the closing of hospitals up our way.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He’s back! The member’s back! Well, where has he been? First time this term.

Mr. Sargent: Now the minister’s going to close all of our hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It’s a voice from the wilderness.

Second, we’re prepared to be flexible and not impose rigid solutions, allowing concepts to evolve and learning as we proceed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister must have written that himself.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Is the grammar that bad?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: “Prepared to be flexible.”

Hon. Mr. Miller: For example, we will continue to encourage the development of district health councils where communities are ready and anxious to go ahead, while remaining flexible on boundaries, membership, powers and relationships to government. We will also continue to test special funding arrangements to stimulate development of primary care groups and use of allied health professionals.

Finally, we will not be implementing, at present, those recommendations with which the public and the health community found many problems; for example, creation by statute of area health services management boards, establishment of district quotas for physicians, reduction of the responsibilities of public health units or creation of a decentralized ministry structure under regional directors.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry feels that the report, the reaction and the response have been a highly productive exercise. A task force of knowledgeable people produced a comprehensive and, to a degree, controversial report; the public responded, taking a great deal of time and effort to react logically and carefully; and the Ministry of Health distilled and examined both the report and the reaction carefully before responding.

The report of the health planning task force has provided the ministry with much valuable information and opinion, as well as concrete proposals. In some areas, the report and the reaction have provided reinforcement to directions already chosen by the ministry. which will be reflected in accelerated implementation of actions along these lines.

In addition, the wide response to the Mustard report has helped the ministry to gain a clearer knowledge of the Ontario health community’s thinking. This, perhaps, is the most valuable element of all. Through mutual understanding and discussion, we can move closer to realization of the World Health Organization’s definition of health as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

INCREASES IN SOCIAL ALLOWANCES

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that effective May 1, my ministry is taking a number of steps to improve the situation for recipients of family benefits allowances and general welfare allowances.

The first change is an increase in allowance for those receiving benefits under the family benefits and general welfare assistance programmes. The other changes, which I feel are even more significant, will alter the focus of the family benefits programme by providing more incentives for part-time employment and help in returning to the work force.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): At long last.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Family benefits and general welfare assistance rates are being increased to offset the loss in purchasing power due to inflation. This move is in line with the Throne Speech of March 11, 1975. Its purpose is to protect those on a fixed income from inflation, and in addition it complements the GAINS increase of May 1. For example, under the new rate a mother with three children aged 10 to 15 years now receiving the maximum under family benefits will get an increase of $45, for a monthly total of $423. This figure does not include the federal family allowance of $66.24, which would bring the gross income to $489.24.

The cost to the province of these increased benefits will be $30 million for the 1975-1976 fiscal year.

In addition to the increased monthly benefits, I am introducing additional features for those receiving family benefits. The first is a back-to-school allowance of $25 per child for children four to 12, and $50 per child for children 13 and over.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It’s about time.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: These amounts will help meet the added expenses these families face at the beginning of a new school year.

Mr. Lewis: I still think it’s in the fall, but one begins to wonder.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Also the province will assume responsibility for the cost of eyeglasses and hearing aids for those receiving family benefits or GAINS. Previously these items were provided at the discretion of the municipalities.

These new programmes will cost an additional $4.4 million.

In addition to the provision of adequate support, the family benefits programme will now furnish increased incentives for mothers wanting to work part-time and further assistance to mothers who wish to return to work.

Mothers who wish to supplement their allowances by engaging in part-time employment will be provided with additional incentives. This goal will be accomplished in two ways. First, earned income may be averaged over a three-month period. The benefit here will be especially valuable for someone who has the opportunity to work for short periods of time, for example at Christmas-time or during seasonal employment periods. Second, I am introducing a work expenses provision to cover some of the actual costs, such as transportation and clothing, incurred by working part-time.

The second incentive programme is aimed at mothers desiring a full-time return to the work force. This programme is threefold. Cash benefits payable under family benefits will phase out during the first three months of full-time employment.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The ministry is not raising the levels. It is only $100 maximum a month.

Mr. Lewis: What a put-on that is!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister not raising the level? Why isn’t he raising the level to $100 a month?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The province will also continue drug, dental and OHIP coverage during this period.

Finally, all recipients of family benefits who leave the programme and later, due to circumstances such as sickness, loss of employment and so forth, require help, can reapply directly to the programme any time during the first year.

The incentives programme has a cost of $2.1 million to the province.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, the changes I am introducing today will mean increased monetary benefits for almost 50,000 on family benefits and 158,000 people receiving general welfare assistance. Changes to current programmes will mean an increased benefit to Ontario residents receiving social assistance of $36.5 million for the fiscal year 1975-1976.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Government Services; and then the member for Nipissing.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to the members of the House a group of 50 students and several staff members from the Martin St. Senior Public School in Milton who are with us this afternoon. I believe some are in each of the east galleries and the west galleries. Mr. Speaker, I have a special connection with the students of this particular school because it happens to be the school I attended a number of years ago.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the Legislature 38 pupils from Temagami Public School along with three of their teachers. Mrs. J. Klem is in charge of the group.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

INCREASES IN SOCIAL ALLOWANCES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services following the statement that was made. Can the minister make any statement now with respect to the other 7,300 persons reported to be receiving some $70 less in benefits than they otherwise would under the GAINS programmes as a result of this difficulty in describing disability and permanently unemployable persons?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, I’m pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker. If I may give a bit of background, the hon. members will recall that about two years ago, at the request of the municipalities, we transferred about 12,000 persons who were classified as unemployable and who became the responsibility of the province. Out of that number, I believe 5,300 have been transferred from that category to the GAINS programme.

When the GAINS programme was introduced by the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) about a year ago, he said in his announcement that as of July 1, 1974, I believe, those who were 65 years of age and over, and those who were disabled -- the permanently disabled, the blind and the physically handicapped who would therefore have extraordinary expenses, as a result of their disabilities -- they might be in a wheelchair or they might have extra costs -- should be considered for the GAINS programme. Those were the reasons.

Since then, as I have said, we have transferred 5,300; and, as I indicated in our estimates discussions a day or so ago, we realize that there is a difficulty, that there is sometimes a very thin line between a disabled person and one who is permanently unemployable; therefore, we are going to broaden that definition and have only one definition. I would like to remind the hon. members that there are currently more than 7,000, and a certain percentage of that number will be transferred to the GAINS programme. But there are a certain number who will not; and the reason they will not is that they really do not have the special circumstances, the special disability and special extraordinary costs to be transferred.

I also mentioned during our estimates that we will establish a review board in various areas of the province, comprising doctors and perhaps others who can provide social information, in order to get as good an assessment as possible of each case that comes to our attention. We will also be revising the medical form, which we understand could be simplified. These changes will be made in the very near future, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the hon. members that they will clarify the issue. I think they will be accepted by all. I hope so.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have a supplementary question with regard to the minister’s statement about the announced increase in benefits under FBA. Can the minister guarantee me that the change will restore to those people on FBA the purchasing power they held four years ago? Or will this not be a catch-up increase, but only an increase to meet the inflation of the past few months; which it hardly does because it’s only 11 or 12 per cent, whereas the rate of inflation has been at least that high and the catch-up was needed before that time?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my statement -- and hon. members will be getting copies of it -- these increases are adjustments to compensate for the rate of inflation; the total involved is $36.5 million. I think the hon. member is in agreement with the back-to-school allowances, the provision of hearing aids and glasses to those on family benefits and GAINS. There are other features that were mentioned in the budget with respect to the overall picture, such as free drugs to everyone 65 years of age and over, the 450,000 low-income wage earners who have been removed from the tax rolls. All of these are benefits, Mr. Speaker, to those who are on social assistance or who are low wage earners in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Since the minister will recall that the single most urgent request made to him by those on the equivalent of mother’s allowance under the Family Benefits Act, apart from an increase in the allowance, was an increase in the number of dollars that they could earn per month over and above the allowance for which they would not then be penalized, why did he not increase the number of dollars rather than institute the travel costs? Why did he not increase the number of dollars, since it costs the government not a penny but makes a world of difference to the recipient?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there is a cost factor. The hon. member knows that in October we increased the earnings exemption by $50 for one person and $100 per family, which is about one of the most generous earning ceilings in Canada, although there might be another province where it is higher.

This subject was discussed again last week at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa. There were certain guidelines under the Canada Assistance Plan involving the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces; this is one of the areas, one of the several guidelines, presently under discussion with senior officials of the federal government. As the member may have noticed in my statement, we have added $30, I believe, for working expenses in addition to the $100.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry, the minister is not answering the question. If he allowed people on mothers’ allowance to earn $150 more per month before they were penalized, or had deductions made, rather than $100, what would it cost the government in comparison with the immense economic relief for them?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question to answer. The reason is if we raise the exemption; for instance at present, as I indicated in my statement, a mother with three children will now be receiving with our increases plus the family allowances, $489.24. She can earn $100 extra and that would bring her to $589.24 plus $30 in expenses.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not the point.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: If we raise that too much, there are a lot of people today, Mr. Speaker, and this is an important thing, there are thousands of people in this province today who are working at very low salaries.

Mr. Lewis: Ah!

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Exactly.

Mr. Lewis: So the government should raise its minimum wage and not discriminate against these people.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We have to keep a balance and this is a valid point, if we wish to provide incentives to keep people working.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): If that is true, why doesn’t the government make the executives --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are giving increases to those who need them. They have a choice -- do they want to look after their children or do they want to get into the work force. There are incentives for part-time work.

This, Mr. Speaker, is in conjunction with this whole very complex question and what we are doing here is in line with what is being done in other provinces, but we are ahead.

Mr. R. S. Smith: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing with a supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: A short question in regard to his announcement insofar as it concerns averaging over three months the incomes those on mothers allowance will have earned above the allowance: Does this now make them equal with other family benefit recipients as far as averaging is concerned; or are some of the other recipients allowed to average over a longer period of time?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’m not sure I understood the member’s question. What we are doing here is extending the three-month period to all recipients of family benefits. We had it before for the blind and for those who were on rehabilitation vocational training. We are extending this to all those under family benefits.

Mr. R. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The answer then is all family benefits recipients are on the same basis for the three months’ averaging?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I wonder if the minister could tell us or give us some assurance that when these additional grants are being paid his colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) is not going to grab a substantial share of them for rents paid to the Ontario Housing Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, as the members knows, we pay the amount for family benefits recipients. If Ontario Housing is, say $50, we pay that $50.

Mr. Singer: The minister didn’t answer. Is there going to be an actual cash benefit to tenants of Ontario Housing or is the Minister of Housing going to grab that for his increased rent?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The member would have to ask the minister.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: What about the private landowners?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member means the federal government.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Lewis: They won’t take it all, just 70 per cent of it.

Mr. Cassidy: The private landowners will take it all.

FAMILY UNITY MONTH

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the great helmsman, Mr. Speaker -- of the Premier. I am wondering if he can advise us what the costs in the newspapers have been for the publishing of the advertisements, some quarter page in size usually, announcing that May is family unity month in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will get that for the member. I am sure the member for Kitchener, knowing his own background and very great commitment to these things, would be totally in support of family unity month in the Province of Ontario during the month of May. I am delighted to have him really endorsing this. It’s the first time, I think, that the government, by way of proclamation, has supported this sort of effort.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in that I have been asked this --

Mr. Lewis: Quite a refreshing change from violence.

Mr. Singer: He doesn’t like families -- is that what the Premier is saying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am saying I think the member for Kitchener likes families. I am sure he and --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the members opposite would all support this concept.

Mr. Lewis: That is safe.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We were approached to consider this and issue this proclamation, that has been done in several other jurisdictions. --

Mr. Ruston: In an election year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The matter was supported by all the denominations and all churches in this province, Mr. Speaker. I just want to take the opportunity of saying in a very personal way, I totally support it. I think it is a wonderful concept, and I’m sure I speak for all members in this House when I say it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are any of the members opposite opposed to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order. The member for Ottawa Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Has the Premier got them doing that for him too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We were asked to do it, yes.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Since I'm sure there is not a party or a member who would be opposed to the goals of supporting the family, I wonder whether the government is now prepared to act to protect those families in Ontario who are shut out of one-half of the accommodation in our big cities because of the discrimination of landlords?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that is not perhaps a supplementary, but since the member for Ottawa Centre always tries to express the point of view, in the questions he asks, that may or may not be related to the initial question, I will answer him very simply by saying this: This government has a better record than any in Canada, including the ones to which the member is more philosophically related than this one, in terms of providing accommodation for the people that we represent, and the member knows it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My God, the member for Ottawa Centre found two places to live in at the same time.

Mr. Lewis: Coming from the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development it’s a surprise it wasn’t called the “family compact.”

Mr. Breithaupt: I appreciate the Premier’s answer as he proceeds to continue to become the greatest Tory ever sold. Perhaps I could turn to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Lewis: That was a very good line.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): It won’t sell any laundry.

LIQUOR LICENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. Breithaupt: Has the minister received certain correspondence, particularly from certain ethnic groups, with respect to establishing an advisory council to the minister with respect to the representations that could be made from ethnic clubs and others, dealing with the liquor laws and their particular enforcement or development -- not only for ethnic groups but perhaps through the Legion branches and the other private clubs -- that might resolve some of the problems that have been coming up in the administration of the Liquor Licensing Act?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When I introduced the two liquor laws which are now on the order paper, I announced that since there were about 170,000 special occasion permits being issued in the province every year, that a special advisory committee to the minister would be set up to deal specifically with those types of permits. Certainly I have received the representations to which the hon. member refers and we will be giving consideration to the request.

I would like to see a broad cross-section of society represented on the advisory board, and I think I can assure the hon. member and the House that we will be very favourably inclined toward giving representation on that committee to the ethnic groups.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier, if I may, Mr. Speaker: The Premier will have seen that Scott Young, when he accepted the appointment on the royal commission which the Premier has established, announced that he would cease the publication of his column, since he found it to be a likely conflict of interest to be involved both in the media and in a commission examining the media.

Since Judy LaMarsh is in active negotiations with the CBC -- one of the most important media purveyors in the country -- since I understand that she’s in active negotiation for the purpose of the possible hosting of “This Country in the Morning,” does the Premier not think the ground rules which Scott Young so appropriately set for himself, might also be applied to the chairperson of the royal commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that there is a parallel. I haven’t discussed this with Miss LaMarsh at all as it relates to any particular programme. I must confess that I don’t listen to or watch -- is it watch?

Mr. Lewis: Listen, as a rule; Michael Enright will be pleased.

Mr. Singer: It’s listened to by families every morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well listen, if the member for Downsview is opposed to families, say so. I make no apologies for our support of families. I make none whatsoever. I happen to think they are pretty great.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Is that going to be the Premier’s campaign?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must confess that on days they create certain problems, but I am not opposed to families.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: What has the Premier got against the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett)?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Getting back to Miss LaMarsh, is this on radio?

Mr. Lewis: “This Country in the Morning” is a radio programme.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I have been on it, that’s right. It is very pleasant. I don’t know that there is any real parallel. I’ll think about it.

Mr. Foulds: With Miss LaMarsh.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Apart from whether or not there may be a question of conflict of interest --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t see it but --

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure I do. I don’t really know how to evaluate it, although I think what Scott Young did was appropriate.

Is the Premier at all concerned about it being possible to combine a programme of that demanding a scope -- and it is; when Peter Gzowski and Mike Enright have done it, they have started at 5:36 in the morning and gone eight or 10 hours or more -- with a royal commission over a period of 18 months?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Get some input.

Mr. Reid: All she is going to do is collect the money.

Mr. Lewis: It is a fair income, I will admit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the hon. member has a thing about the payments made to chairmen of royal commissions. I don’t want to prolong this discussion, but he has made a point of it. I will only say this, that I don’t know what the total will be, but I will try to get one before this session concludes.

I would only say that if one measures whatever that total cost is against the cost to society today with respect to violent crime and with respect to those things that are happening in terms of dollars and cents, one is talking a minimal amount of money in total cost.

Mr. Martel: Then the government might clear up some of the poverty in this country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wonder if the hon. member would think of the parents of that young person in Scarborough.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is going to take it one step too far.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not a bit. The member is taking it too far himself.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Premier suggesting the royal commission will do anything for that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Do something about it. Do some real things about law and order and not appoint a royal commission.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think this has become a debate. Does the member for Scarborough West have a further question?

Mr. Lewis: The hypocrisy positively reeks at this point.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the member for Scarborough West have a further question?

SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Mr. Lewis: Not of the Premier; I daren’t. Most of the ministers of whom I wanted to ask questions aren’t here. I have just one of the Minister of Health.

Did the minister notice the picket that was set up outside the Natural Resources office in Sudbury yesterday? It may be going on today; I frankly don’t know. Does the member for Sudbury East know if the picket is still outside the Natural Resources office?

Mr. Martel: It went on.

Mr. Lewis: The picket was protesting against the amount of sulphur dioxide emission in Falconbridge being some 13 times about the permissible level. Since the enforcement of the health standards are now in his ministry, what does the minister intend to do to bring Natural Resources into line and the company into line?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have any fast answer for that one in Sudbury. I suppose the attempts to put sulphur dioxide up into the upper atmosphere have been on a temporary basis.

Mr. Martel: It is in the plant.

Hon. Mr. Miller: At this point in time, I think it can be said there has been no technologically feasible method of eliminating sulphur dioxide, under any conditions, including scrubbers, that has worked. There have been attempts to do it, but to date they have not proved successful.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that we are talking about in-plant gas and we are not talking about the staff that is going up the stack?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I thought he was talking about out-plant gas in that case. I can take a look at in-plant gas very quickly.

Mr. Lewis: Could he? Good. I have no further questions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

STEEP ROCK MINES

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Can he tell us at what stage the Lake St. Joe project of Steep Rock Iron Mines is? What is the holdup and what has the government agreed to do to see that project go forward?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, there is a study being undertaken. At the present time, the study is being held up because of the participation the Indian community wishes to have in respect of that study. At the present time, we are just discussing it with the Indian community. Indeed we offered the Indian community an opportunity to give us their views as to how the terms of reference should include those matters which they think should be included.

It seem to me I saw a letter on my desk this morning. It awaits a study. I am not suggesting to the member that the Steep Rock project is necessarily going ahead; there are many things which have to be done before they would consider proceeding.

I would suggest to the member, too, that he might concern himself with those matters which some of the Indian community are concerning themselves with in that area. They are not too anxious that we proceed “as hastily,” as they put it, as we would like.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: Is the minister providing any funds for them so they can do their own studies and have some input into this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it isn’t necessary to provide them with funds. There is no point in the government having consultants do the job and then having some other group do their own consulting at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. What we have done is offer to have their views incorporated into the terms of reference. It seems to me that would satisfy the Indian community in respect to having their concerns looked into.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

OHC BRIBERY CHARGES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General, arising out of my question of March 25 when I asked the Attorney General if any of the companies dealing with the employees of Ontario Housing Corp. who had been convicted of accepting bribes had been charged. At that time the minister said he wasn’t so sure and would check. I wonder if the minister can now say whether any of the companies which have bribed the convicted employees of Ontario Housing Corp. have, in fact, been charged?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry I didn’t get back to the member specifically as a result of his question, which arose some weeks ago. I am advised that at present there are seven companies which have been charged, and there may be other charges pending. There is an investigation still continuing.

Sorry about that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

OTTAWA CENTRE FOR THE RETARDED

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Would the minister explain if his ministry has cut off the funding for the Ottawa-based centre for adult retarded; and if this is the case, why this action has been taken?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, that we have suspended -- I think his words were “cut off assistance to the Ottawa retarded centre.” This is a centre for the mentally retarded?

Mr. R. S. Smith: The adult mentally retarded.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am not aware of this, Mr. Speaker, and I will be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

MINES HEALTH STUDY

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health arising out of the report tabled yesterday inquiring into the hazards at Elliot Lake uranium mines. Now that the minister has alerted 973 miners by testing, would he take under consideration a programme to locate the 14,127 miners who are no longer in the industry and may not be aware of the hazards they face?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult, as I am sure the member knows, to locate all the people who may have been exposed but of the things we tried to do in that report was to get as much information as we could on those who had some evidence at least of work risk before the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I don’t know how feasible or possible it is to contact others. We hope and trust they are getting some routine examinations in their present places of employment. Certainly I am interested in their health care and if the member can help me work out a practical way, I’d be glad to look at it.

I have to say before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, that I discovered the other member from that area quoted me as being a dim bulb in an unlit chandelier this week.

Mr. Breithaupt: You could try the newspapers; and place ads to find them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: A dim bulb. That’s the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), I think it was. Was it?

Mr. Lewis: He has a nice turn of phrase.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He was in my riding and described me as a dim bulb in an unlit chandelier.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Highly inappropriate.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I want to know --

Mr. Foulds: Perfect turn of phrase.

Mr. Martel: I would never admit to that.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have to point out that at least there’s some potential if one is still a dim bulb. The voltage may be raised; and secondly, it’s better than being a burnt out bulb in a powerless machine.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Foulds: The minister should know about machines.

Mr. Germa: Is the Minister of Health not aware that precedent has been set in a similar situation, whereby his government for the past several years has been trying to locate people all over Europe and Canada who were involved in the sinter plant catastrophe in the International Nickel Co.? Now why doesn’t he direct some of that “save the bacon” money into a programme to find these miners who are no longer at Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is assuming we aren’t, and I can’t say we are or we aren’t. I would be glad to check with Dr. Stewart of the WCB who happens to have, I think, the best contact with those other people who have potential trouble.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

LONDON PAIN CLINIC

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Health: Now that Dr. Spoerrel has written him regarding the closing of the London Pain Clinic, something about which the minister knew nothing the other week, will he reconsider this matter, as this has been an important facility for all southwestern Ontario and its closing will be a hardship to those people who have received help from this clinic in the last three years?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to reconsider things, but I think the member has to realize it was not our funding that was withdrawn. Does he accept that? It was PSI funding on an experimental basis --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, and the problem with experiments is that when they are withdrawn there is always a hue and cry to have the service continued. What I have to do is assess the value of that service and whether I could make it generally available. That is one of the things I have to do before I can make that decision.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Dr. Spoerrel has made it clear this was not an experimental clinic but a patient treatment clinic which bore good results. As he states in his letter to the minister no one has really given him the criteria on which he can make application to receive funds; he has only been told that on the basis on which he had submitted an application he was rejected. Now he says his letter wasn’t answered. Surely this is not too difficult that they can’t get together and see whether this thing can’t be established. Will the minister do that personally?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in most cases a request of this type goes to the hospital in the area in which it is located, as the member knows, and it is the hospital that endorses or doesn’t endorse the request. An attempt to end run is often made by specialists. I bet there is not one hospital in Ontario where there isn’t a doctor wanting some specialized services that maybe his board is not yet in favour of. That’s one of the other things I have to take account of.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

STATUS OF WINDSOR CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware of the appeal before the cabinet for some two months now on behalf of Andrew Putnocki, a civil servant from the rehab division of Community and Social Services in Windsor, an appeal to restore some justice and remuneration to this civil servant on his attempted firing some 2 1/2 years ago? Is the Premier further aware that he has never been properly fired and the divisional court has been severely critical of the procedures the ministry attempted to use? When might we expect to have an answer to this appeal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know, Mr. Speaker. I shall find out for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

NEW ONTARIO HYDRO HEADQUARTERS

Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Premier: In the report of the select committee on the new Hydro building, Mr. Moog was to receive after-tax profits of $5.4 million. I would like to ask the Premier, is Canada Square going to be allowed to raise $45 million against the security of the building without investing that amount of money and without abatement of rental to Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I don’t quite understand the question. Perhaps the hon. member might state it again. I am not being facetious; I don’t really know what it is he is trying to find out.

Mr. Sargent: What I am trying to find out is this. If Mr. Moog only invests, say, $33 million in the project, is he going to be allowed to raise, against the security of Hydro, $45 million without abatement of rental to Hydro? In other words, is there going to be a repayment to Hydro of the increased profits of the capital gain?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I really don’t think there is much sense to the question, but as I understand it --

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Or the questioner.

Mr. Sargent: What controls does the Premier have on this guy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it -- perhaps the member for Downsview might be able to clarify it for him, I don’t know --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Isn’t he their solicitor?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but there is a rent paid on the square footage and I forget what the rent is. I read in the paper -- and I only go by press reports -- it’s around $4.80 a square foot, if memory serves me correctly.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): What does the Premier think he is --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I also read that comparable rentals were now around $9 a square foot. I don’t know whether that’s accurate or not. I don’t know the extent of the mortgage financing. All I can recall from the contract itself, as it was discussed, is that there was so much per square foot that Hydro was paying. I gather from the press reports it turns out to be fairly reasonable.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: There is great concern on the part of the select committee over the fact that Mr. Moog was going to raise $45 million with only an investment of $33 million and they were concerned about it. Who’s protecting us at this point?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What’s the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well protected.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

ST. LAWRENCE COLLEGE

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier satisfied that his election pledge to the people of Cornwall, regarding the expansion of St. Lawrence College, has been honoured, in view of the fact that no final decision has still been made regarding the expansion, no contracts have been called and no tenders have been let, even in view of the Premier’s stated recognition of the need of the expansion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s any question as to what I said when I was visiting that delightful community. I think I recall being at a public meeting reading a letter that was sent from the ministry to -- who was it to? Fr. Villeneuve?

Mr. Samis: A familiar name over there now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It rings a bell. I understand, and I'm only going by reports again, we may be bearing more of that name.

Mr. Lewis: It won’t help the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s one riding we’re going to get back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- whatever was stated in that letter still is the case. If the hon. member would like to ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), I’m sure he could help him with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Stormont with a supplementary.

Mr. Samis: Can the Premier, regardless of who the member is, make a firm commitment to the people of Cornwall that the project will be initiated before the next election?

Mr. Lewis: He did it in the House as well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to government policies and decisions, we never play partisan politics.

Mr. Samis: Never? Not even in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

CO-ORDINATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Has the Minister of Education received from the board of education of North York its recommendations in relation to the co-ordination of the parochial schools and the public school system? If he has received those recommendations has he as yet come to a conclusion? What, if anything, is his department going to do about this problem?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the North York board asking eight questions. We’re preparing a reply which will be going to them the first of next week.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are questions going on up here. We would request fewer interjections. The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, could the minister advise whether or not we can reasonably expect a viable system to be in operation, say, at the commencement of the next school term in September?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that, of course, rests not with me but with the North York board and the Jewish schools. I think the ground rules that we would apply will be very clear, and I think they’re probably very clear at the present time. Whether a system can be developed will rest with those two parties.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister table what he sends back to them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ll be happy to table the letter as soon as I send it next week.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ORGAN DONOR DECLARATIONS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, related to the announcement on Tuesday by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) about the availability of donor consent forms on drivers’ licences. Can arrangements be made to enable a motorist to exchange easily his 2½-year-old or even three-year-old licence for one with the new forms?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which should properly be directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Rather than trouble the hon. member to repeat the question again when the minister is here, I pledge to draw it to the attention of the minister. I’m sure he will reply to the hon. member when he gets back.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

WINDSOR HOSPITAL FACILITIES

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the great discontent and unrest expressed by many residents in the Windsor area, by letter to both him and the Premier, concerning the closing of certain facilities in hospitals in the city of Windsor? Is the minister giving serious consideration to abandoning the original proposals so that the hospitals can continue to function in their present fashion in providing excellent service to the community?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I guess this is the third time we’ve talked about basically the same issue. I’m certainly aware of the reaction in the community and I’ve said before that I have not issued a set of orders for Windsor, but rather that our ministry staff set out certain recommendations for change.

The gentleman who normally sits on the member’s left, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), during debates on the budget has at times accused me of not doing any of these things, of not having the courage to go ahead and carry out the rationalization of hospital systems in Ontario. I have had to say that, in fact, it takes time and patience.

This is one of those areas where even the editorials in the Windsor paper, as the member will agree, say it’s time to do something. Does the member agree to that? Does he agree that the Windsor papers have said that?

Mr. B. Newman: I don’t necessarily agree with Windsor Star editorials.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m just saying that even the editorials in the Windsor paper agreed it was time for the ministry to do something --

Mr. B. Newman: They didn’t say that the ministry should close Riverview.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m not sure that the discussions, which are starting now, are going to result in the changes programmed by my staff, but at least I hope the reaction we get will permit us to make changes that will use the present plant better and more economically. That’s our overall goal.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that by distributing the chronic care patients from Riverview Hospital and scattering them to the four hospitals in the city of Windsor, he is breaking up a very efficient and effective health service delivery team and that this will be to the detriment of the senior citizens who need the services of Riverview Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have great respect for the staff of that hospital, Mr. Speaker. I have a great appreciation for the deficiencies in its plant and an understanding of the surplus services in other hospitals. When one can’t achieve the ideal with the existing plant, I think it’s incumbent upon me at least to make better use of what is there.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Does it seem reasonable to the minister that obstetrics should be removed from the one hospital, Grace, which is acknowledged to have the finest maternity care in the city and which was founded as and started out to be a maternity hospital?

Mr. Lewis: And in family unity month to boot.

Mr. Martel: The ministry doesn’t worry about the family.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t feel wedded to any specific change shown by our staff. Our staff in frustration, in a sense, have outlined what they feel is needed.

There had been a great deal of discussion prior to that letter in an attempt to get the hospitals to agree upon a plan -- I’m sure the member is aware of that -- but without much success. If all this does is make those hospitals reappraise their own priorities and come to us with a better plan, I will be delighted. Therefore, I am not saying any specific change will be done, but simply the changes are needed and let’s look at the response to that and see what they will be.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Premier. Will he use all of the powers of his office to change the Public Service Act in order that people like the justice of the peace from Grimsby, like the young man from Hamilton and a number of other people who are within the public service are not forced to give up either their jobs or their political affiliations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there already has been a statement made on this in the House. Certainly we’re interested --

Mr. Deans: There has not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, the Minister of Revenue related some of these thoughts the other day.

Mr. Deans: The Minister of Revenue said he would keep everyone from having those rights.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think reviews of these things are always necessary, but I cannot give a commitment to use all of the powers of my office to completely alter things when there are, without any question, some areas where I don’t think people should be in certain jobs and working for certain political parties.

While I’m on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the member for Wentworth who his tailor is. It’s very delightful and very attractive.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Midnight cowboy.

Mr. Foulds: It’s a used line.

An hon. member: How about his hairdresser?

Mr. Deans: I apologize for not wearing a tie. I couldn’t find one to go with it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is all part of the image.

An hon. member: That’s no excuse.

Mr. Deans: It’s nice to be friendly, but this is a much more serious matter. Would the Premier then consider a moratorium on the application of that law, until such time as the government has an opportunity to review the categories and to establish some more reasonable regulation or law related to participation in the democratic political processes, and work with the civil servants?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really question the advisability of declaring a moratorium on the application of a law that is on the books. Yes, I question the principle of doing that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, just a brief question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation: Following the question I’d asked with respect to the continuation of the advertising programme for Wintario, can the minister now advise us, since additional advertisements seem to be coming thick and fast, whether there will be an opportunity to advertise somewhat less, if the project is indeed as successful as it appears it is becoming?

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, we established by legislation the Ontario Lottery Corp. and assigned some responsibilities to them for decisions such as these.

I would offer a personal opinion that notwithstanding the initial success, there is always the question of keeping in mind that there will be a draw every other Thursday in the province. So there will have to be some necessity of advertising in order to sustain this interest. But I know that as a result of the question that the member for Kitchener raised a week or two ago, I sent that down to the lottery corporation and asked them to review that. I don’t have any report today, but I would caution the member, as I say, that initial success doesn’t necessarily mean sustained success. There would have to be a certain supportive advertising programme to keep the facts of Wintario before the people of the province.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Since I would agree that initial success doesn’t necessarily mean sustained success, would the minister at least ensure that we have no particular political connotation in the ads, and that the little check mark over the “we all win,” which didn’t give sustained success in the last federal election for the minister’s party, perhaps could be removed?

An hon. member: Is the member for real?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would think that Charlie Farquharson is non-partisan, Mr. Speaker. It may be that simply since he had his fingers crossed, he wasn’t able to dot the “i” just the right way.

Mr. Lewis: He is probably a New Democrat.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

SPEECH BY PREMIER’S EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Premier. Doesn’t the Premier think it inappropriate for his executive assistant to use extracts from letters the Premier has received, in which people writing with very real concerns have expressed those in somewhat illiterate terms and perhaps with some malapropisms? Doesn’t he feel it inappropriate for his executive assistant to ridicule those people in an attempt to warm up an audience at Tourism ’75?

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): What is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know anything about it. I shall read it and find out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

CITIZENS INQUIRY BRANCH

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Will the minister review one of his departments, the citizens inquiry branch, to see for himself what a waste of money this is for the taxpayers, and to see what it costs the taxpayers of the province for each special inquiry? Would he also assure himself that that particular department isn’t overly staffed with one director and two supervisors for something like 10 employees?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Rainy River has made some remarks with respect to the citizens inquiry branch. I would certainly give the undertaking that I will review it along the lines that he has suggested and report to the House early next week.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre for a final question.

HOME BUYER GRANTS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Revenue: Can the minister confirm that his ministry is spending $400,000 on the programme to advertise the home owner grants?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the budget is just slightly over $400,000.

Mr. Martel: We could have built 10 homes for that.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch presented the annual report of the Ontario Arts Council, from April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974.

Mr. Ewen from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate St. Margaret’s School, Elora.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Town of Kapuskasing.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London.

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing and penalties, if any, be remitted on Bill Pr16. An Act to incorporate St. Margaret’s School, Elora.

Hon. Mr. Handleman presented the 28th annual report of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1974; the annual report of the theatres branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, and the report of the Registrar General for the calendar year 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

POLITICAL RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to give Ontario public servants, except for those at the most senior level, the same political rights that are enjoyed by all other Ontario citizens. Their problem has been highlighted by the persecution --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We don’t debate the issue. We just state the principle.

Mr. Cassidy: All right.

Mr. Speaker: Which has been done, I believe.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the bill would give most of the civil servants in Ontario the right to write, speak, contribute, solicit funds, work, join, hold office and vote on behalf of a political party or candidate in a federal or provincial election.

It protects public servants from punitive action by their superiors or from being forced to carry out partisan duties as a condition of their employment. It removes those sections of the Grown Employees Collective Bargaining Act which restrict a public service union from exercising the same rights as those exercised by a trade union in the private sector.

Recent events, Mr. Speaker, make it amply evident why this bill is required at this time and I commend it to the hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Out of order.

POST-RETIREMENT INTEGRATION OF INSURANCE MONEYS AND PENSION BENEFITS PREVENTION ACT

Mr. Laughren moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to prevent Post-Retirement Integration of Insurance Moneys and Pension Benefits with Increases in Government Social Security Plans.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the reduction of moneys paid out under an insurance or pension plan because of a general increase or a cost-of-living increase in a government social security plan with which it may be integrated.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the principle of the bill that --

Mr. Speaker: We are not speaking to the principle, we are stating the principle, which I believe has been done.

Mr. Laughren: -- stating the principle -- that it would not cost the Treasury any money at all.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Germa moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, the bill would provide permissive legislation to allow the municipality of Sudbury to levy a minimum fine of $20 for dogs running at large. It would allow an animal control officer to enter on to private property, but not buildings, to pick up a dog. It would allow for a payment of out of court and would also allow for the assessment roll to include the number of dogs in any household.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before orders of the day, I would like to table answers to questions 14 and 16 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. J. R. Smith moves second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, before the motion carries, that is the very reason why I walked across the floor and asked what we were going to do, so that I could find out whether we were going to do private bills today. I don’t understand this place.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Haven’t they got any control? No self-discipline. Are they completely incoherent?

Mr. Deans: I want to raise a point here that is somewhat in contention and that I wasn’t aware of since I’m not a member of the private bills committee and didn’t quite realize what was occurring. I want first to say to you, sir, that I do think that the House leader could have told me that he was going to call these bills when I walked over and asked him, “Are you doing nothing but Justice?” -- and he said “Yes” -- not more than five minutes ago.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Earlier than that it was Agriculture and Food. What are we going to do this afternoon?

Mr. Deans: Anyhow, let me say something about --

Mr. Lawlor: Just ineptitude.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Ask your House leader.

Mr. Deans: -- a section of this bill.

Mr. Singer: It changes every minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: Section 3 of the bill permits the corporation which runs the theatre-auditorium not to pay taxes. What it says in fact is: “The corporation -- ” that corporation being the corporation running the theatre-auditorium -- “shall be deemed not to be, (a) a tenant or lessee who is liable to taxation; or (b) occupying the theatre-auditorium for the purposes of or in connection with any business or carrying on any business, for the purposes of the Assessment Act.”

What this effectively does is permit the theatre-auditorium not to pay municipal taxes. I understood from the discussion that I heard in the private bills committee that one of the reasons, if not the reason, was to save the corporation of the city of Hamilton from indirectly paying more than its share to the regional government. That seemed to be the argument put forward by the mayor.

There is another effect that it has and one that I don’t think has been properly understood, and I’m hoping that the bill won’t proceed until after I get some additional information on it. It effectively raises the mill rate which would have to be applied by the board of education in the city of Hamilton against the city of Hamilton taxpayers, because there is a substantial amount of revenue which would normally flow to the board of education as a result of this being a taxable property and which will now no longer be available to them. So, the board of education will perhaps have to raise its taxes by a mill or more in order to compensate for the loss of taxation from the theatre-auditorium.

Now I don’t think that the municipality intended that that would happen. Maybe they did but it certainly didn’t cross my mind. Perhaps the mover of the bill is familiar with that and could explain it as he understood it.

It would seem that what is about to happen is that taxes which were raised from all sectors of the community and which were previously paid by the corporation of the city of Hamilton indirectly through the theatre-auditorium by way of a grant, are now going to be levied directly on the public school sector. I believe we need some further explanation and a little more time to pursue the legal involvements of this particular move before we pass the bill.

What I would like to ask the House leader and the member who is moving this bill -- I am not going to do it with every bill -- is if they would agree not to proceed with this second reading, or at least not proceed beyond the second reading of the bill, until the opportunity has been afforded to all of us to check into what the actual cost impact of this will be on the public school supporters in the city of Hamilton. I see the member for Hamilton Mountain shaking his head in the affirmative. I am not sure whether he agrees with me but I think he probably does.

I don’t think anyone is really clear about what the impact of this might be and we could wait another few days to get the information. I would ask that that be agreed to by the government and the member who is moving the bill.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, all I can say in reply is that the mayor of the corporation did appear before the private bills committee and there were no objections from the Hamilton-Wentworth separate school board, but I would assume that if the Hamilton public board did have reservations about --

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t affect the separate board.

Mr. J. R. Smith: -- transfer of payments, it would have appeared. It would have appeared to oppose the bill. All I can do is assume they must be in favour of the principle of the bill or else they would have raised an objection.

Mr. Deans: May I? I realize this is very unusual but my understanding at this point in time is they may have inadvertently not been aware of the implications of that section. I am not suggesting that is necessarily so but I am trying to find out. I know that certain trustees -- a trustee at least -- with whom I have a relationship is not aware; I think that is true of most other trustees. I also think it’s true of the administrator of the powers, at this point in time. Because I have that information, I am worried that they might have made representation but misunderstood the import of the section when it was published.

There is no point in working a hardship just because someone didn’t understand it. There is no point in rushing it ahead. If the member would agree that it would go to committee -- in other words, committee of the whole House -- after second reading and not proceed with it today until we can get that information to assure ourselves that there is no hardship being worked against only the public school supporters, I would be quite happy to see that occur. Together with the member for Hamilton Mountain we might look into it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is agreed that it’s to go to committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. J. R. Smith moves second reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Yes, thank you. I have one word on the bill. I think it is a very bad principle and I think the member for Hamilton Mountain agrees with me. I think we all understand the circumstances surrounding the application of this principle but I think in general it ought not to have been agreed to.

I think the city of Hamilton should have been afforded another way of getting around the problem it inherited by way of taking over the land and the buildings which make up what is called Lakeland Cove from the harbour authority. The principle of agreeing not to collect back taxes owing and the principle of agreeing not to collect taxes owing in the future is a very bad principle for any government to involve itself in. I don’t think it makes a lot of good sense to agree to that at any time.

I made this argument in the private bills committee. I don’t think it makes very good sense for a government to give a municipality the right not to collect taxes for every year from now until 1989. I think that that’s the kind of practice that could well be abused. I am frankly of the opinion that it would have been much better if the government had granted to the municipality the right to make a grant in lieu of those taxes whenever they deem that to be appropriate, rather than to give them the right to waive the collection of the tax at all, as they have.

I think the obligation to pay taxes on properties owned is an obligation which falls on every citizen. When I look around me I see any number of families -- this being family unity month -- and little old ladies who can’t afford to pay the taxes on their homes and who have a great deal of difficulty in meeting their financial obligations in that regard. I don’t see anyone rushing out to offer to waive their obligation to pay taxes until the year 1989.

I say in all fairness that I understand John Sebo’s problems. I understand the agreement that was inherited by the municipality some five, six or so years ago from the harbour commission. I understand that the city of Hamilton, prior to actually acquiring the land on which the Lakeland pool is situated, did make a grant to the harbour commission which, in turn, was given to Mr. Sebo and which in turn, was paid back as a tax. I appreciate all of that. I am worried more about the principle of it. I am quite happy. to pay the grant to him because the service that he performs for the municipality is a very worthwhile service. I think the principle of waiving taxes for some time to come -- 14 or 15 years into the future -- is a principle which we really ought not to be involving ourselves in.

As I say, when I look around me I can see a great many people who could benefit substantially from that principle if there was a way to make that principle universal to those who can’t afford to pay their taxes. What happened in the case of one lady that I know is that her property went up on a tax sale. She was a widow with three children. It was only because of a great deal of behind-the-scenes raising of funds that she was able to hold on to the property. I know there are other cases, but that is only one that comes to my mind. She would have lost her home and the municipality didn’t have the power to waive the taxes. They don’t have the power to do that.

Quite frankly, I don’t agree with that principle. I don’t agree with it whether it applies to union halls or whether it applies to swimming pools. I don’t agree with that principle at all. I make that known. I have said it in the private bills committee and I say it again. The government is getting itself on very dangerous ground. Let it change the law if it will to allow for a grant to be made, if that’s found to be necessary. But for God’s sake, let the government not grant municipalities the right to waive taxes because then it will have the job of policing it. That policing job is an immense job and it is not one that I think is really a worthy cause, although this particular case itself is worthy enough.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill Pr5. Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. J. R. Smith moves second reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Nuttall, on behalf of Mr. Wardle, moves second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a comment on this. Since it’s family unity month I would like to put on the record the fact that in the city of Toronto right now, by the best estimates that it’s possible to make, about half of the apartment accommodation on the market is not available to families with children because of discrimination by landlords and that one of the sections in this bill will deal with that problem insofar as the city of Toronto is concerned. It does not deal with the problem as far as the rest of Metropolitan Toronto, Mississauga, the Durham region or other parts of the Toronto-centred region are concerned or, for that matter, other parts of the province.

I would commend to the government that the principle in this bill is a good one and that it should be extended in general legislation to cover all parts of the province and not just be subject to municipal legislation on a piecemeal basis.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

HARFORD LTD. ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Apps, moves second reading of Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Harford Ltd.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Harford Ltd.

ST. MARGARET’S SCHOOL (ELORA) ACT

Mr. Worton moves second reading of Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate St. Margaret’s School (Elora).

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate St. Margaret’s School (Elora).

TOWN OF KAPUSKASING ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Havrot, moves second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Town of Kapuskasing.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Town of Kapuskasing.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Walker moves second reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr 28, An Act respecting the City of London.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: Would any member like to speak at the present time on the estimates of the justice policy field? The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I have just one more word. We are anticipating the minister’s reply to our various abjurations in this vote. It’s been going on for several days and, after all, there is only a single vote in this area. May I seek to inform and place some emphasis upon your role -- temporary though it may be -- as Solicitor General, and the liaison that you as Attorney General have with yourself as Solicitor General.

While we sit here there is a royal commission investigating police activities in the Province of Ontario, particularly arising out of certain incidents down here in Metro. That’s going on and we’ll be bringing it up, of course, before your Attorney General estimates in a more decisive way. But I’m continuing to get reports, by telephone and otherwise, from people, mostly constituents, that they are continuing to be beaten up at police stations, right under the nose of the commissioner and while the thing is being investigated, and there are some fairly horrendous disclosures going on. Nevertheless, the whole mentality remains.

I think we all fear -- and you in your plenary position must fear most -- the inception of a police state in the sense that citizens live in fear of being picked up, even only on the basis of an accusation, and subjected to what amounts to forms of torture in order to extract from them information which should be legitimately, under our system of law, obtained in other ways. In the last few days, with these reports coming in, it struck me as kind of an atrocious thing that the people would be pummelled, their arms twisted, a gun apparently taken and placed to the forehead of a young fellow. Sometimes I say, “Well go and report it to the police commission.” Apparently they aren’t well received. They say, “We have such a volume of cases and this is not all that important a matter. Therefore, we would like to get these hearings on and over with.” I don’t know what the individual is supposed to do under these circumstances, except to come to his MP or MPP with a view to raising these matters and pointing them out.

I think you’re going to have to get a much more thorough grip upon police organization, police machinations and the use of police methods of interrogation. The freedom of individuals to communicate with their solicitors is in jeopardy. It’s a product, not because our police are particularly predisposed in this way, but it’s an overflow from the American side. It’s the obverse face of violence. It’s violence being used by those in legitimate authority where they can get away with it in a way that other elements in the community cannot, because it’s the same police who are opposed to that particular perpetration of violence.

So, it becomes a can of worms which is eating at our innards in this society; not in any very terrifying way yet, but unless bridged and unless abridged, unless prevented, unless you know about it in your chief role and accept that this is an ongoing tenor, a subterranean current in the society and among police forces, and put a breach in it to stop it, to express official disapproval of these modes of procedure, then it will gain pace. Because violence, no matter where you happen to find it, feeds on itself. There is a certain relish about violence, you know. People get some of their kicks out of that particular area, not knowing any better, not having any wider horizons than that.

I am worried about it. I thought I would say a word on this occasion to tune you in, to say the thing is going on and that you must exercise your role and your responsibility in this regard if all our civil liberties are not to be eroded and eventually overcome.

Mr. Chairman: Any other member? The minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I would like to touch on the comments made by the member for Lakeshore today and then go back through the various comments which I have noted over the past few days while we were discussing the estimates of this ministry.

I concur with the member for Lakeshore in that matters such as he touched on should not in any way be or appear to be condoned by those in authority. I think there is no question whatsoever that we do not condone this type of activity and we should be ever vigilant when matters of this kind come to our attention.

I am speaking in generalizations, Mr. Chairman, mainly because the inquiry is still continuing in the city of Toronto. We will await the decision of the commissioner after he has had an opportunity to assess the evidence which he has been listening to over a period of some months now, arising out of alleged police brutality.

I believe it was a week ago Tuesday when the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) led off with some observations concerning the ministry. I think, as I understand the COGP recommendations, apparently at the time the study was being conducted by that committee, not only with relation to this policy field -- it had been the subject of discussions, I am advised, over a period of years -- in various areas of government activity pertaining to various programmes there was indeed a lack of co-ordination between the various then-departments of government in this province.

I recall reading, long before I entered this House, various comments -- perhaps some of them emanating from the lips of the member for Downsview -- that certain programmes being developed by one department of government were perhaps, in certain ways, duplications of existing programmes conducted by other departments. The Committee on Government Productivity recognized this, studied the situation, and brought forward its various recommendations which really were implemented on April 1, 1972.

One of those recommendations was the formation of a ministry, a secretariat, dealing with the whole field of justice. The four ministries within that field, of course, were placed under the umbrella of the secretariat itself.

He expressed his concern on the creation of such a ministry and he said -- I am paraphrasing because I don’t recollect the exact wording -- that COGP recommended that it required the full-time attention of a minister of the Crown to oversee the activities in the justice policy field. I think there is no question that as the programme developed, it became apparent that the full-time services of a minister in the secretariat at this particular time certainly were not required.

Accordingly, with the appointment of my predecessor in February, 1974, he wore both the hat of the minister of the secretariat and that of the Attorney General. With his transfer of responsibility in January this year and my assuming his role, the same pattern has continued.

The member asked the question: “What have you done in the last year?” And I don’t think he meant it with reference to me; I think he meant with reference to the ministry.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): To the secretariat.

Hon. Mr. Clement: To the secretariat, yes; that is the way I assumed the question to be.

Mr. Singer: The royal “you.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: He is using the royal “me.” I thought maybe the member was getting a little bit personal. It would be very disappointing both to me and to him if I told him I hadn’t done too much in certain areas of study. But in others I have been fairly active, particularly pertaining to the consumer field.

Mr. Singer: I will pursue those inquiries in another place.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you.

Firstly, I would like to respond to that inquiry as to what the royal “me” has done in the last year; that is, the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I will speak not of the royal “me,” but I will speak of my predecessor, because I was involved with him from the time he assumed his responsibilities in February, 1974. I think his responsibilities were probably almost identical with those that I have continued since January of this year.

The responsibilities of the minister are to be familiar with the programmes of all ministries, as much as possible, and to be made aware of changes in policy that are brought forward for discussion. As you know, the policy fields meet every Thursday, and the ministers within those fields meet and the policy which has been developed within a particular ministry is brought forward. And not only is the policy or proposed change of existing legislation brought forward, but accompanying that is financial data as to the cost of implementing a proposed programme in terms of dollars and in terms of people who might be required if such a programme were implemented. Invariably on the policy field agenda there are anywhere from three, to four or five items which are dealt with in a most informal way at those particular meetings. The ministers are there and in some instances the deputies are there; not in all instances are the deputy ministers there, although sometimes we do invite them.

It was the policy up until I took over the responsibility to always have the deputy minister there. I felt that it was to some extent a waste of their time and talents, if an area to be discussed was not going to in particular involve that particular minister. For example, I saw little value in having the deputy Attorney General present at such discussions on a Thursday morning if we were going to discuss some proposed changes dealing with a responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman). Now there are times when he has to be there because there are certain law enforcement implications that would well be within the purview of the deputy Attorney General.

I have followed the programme -- and I think my predecessor had the same type of situation with his deputy minister -- where we meet in advance to these meetings and make a determination whether a deputy minister or an assistant deputy of a particular ministry should be there, and what people of the various ministries should be present. My experience has been if you have too many people there, then not really very much gets done. My observation has been, rightly or wrongly, that we move through the agenda much more quickly and much more effectively if the group is somewhat small in size. Now, we do have to have resource people there from time to time, and we make sure that they are present and that the contribution that they can make is available to those who would ask the questions.

Insofar as what has been done in the last year, I can only point to the legislation which has gone through this House in the past 12 months relating to the justice policy field, because every piece of that legislation came before the field for discussion and consideration before it went forward for cabinet and caucus consideration. I won’t take up the time of the members, Mr. Chairman, to touch on each and every piece of such legislation, but I think the members will agree that the field was quite active over the past two or three years.

The member made reference to the Osler report, pointing out that it had been in my hands for many months. I will touch on some of these items in much more detail as we get to the different ministries, the ministries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General themselves. I think the comment from the hon. member should be responded to by me and not just left in abeyance until maybe next week or the following. While the report bears the date of Nov. 29 or some similar date, I am advised that is the date the report was completed by Mr. Justice Osler. It certainly was not in my hands until, I believe, late February or early March of this year. I looked at it very briefly before tabling that report in the House.

I’ve touched on what we do at the weekly meetings. In addition to those meetings with the various ministers and officials who are involved in discussions, from time to time I find it necessary to meet with individual members of the secretariat if some particular matter within the purview of their responsibility must be considered by me and/or the deputy minister. I do have discussions with staff on a most informal basis from time to time as required.

The member made reference to the pilot projects on delinquency, wanting some particulars as to what they consist of. There are three presently under way. There’s the youth action project. It’s a joint federal-provincial programme in which the Ministry of Correctional Services has been involved for one year. It was developed, I understand, by the Downsview-Weston Action Committee. Should the member like some particulars of that project in detail, I will be glad either to advise him now or provide him with a copy of them for his own information.

There is a proposal on juvenile delinquency put forward by the Ministry of Correctional Services itself in an effort to approach prevention of delinquency. That is the proposal. The money was contained in the estimates of Correctional Services. It was dealt with in this House a week or 10 days ago when the minister went forward with his estimates.

There is a project put forward by the John Howard Society of Ontario, dealing in adolescent diversion in Metropolitan Toronto. The hopes of this particular project would be to look into the special needs of adolescents appearing before adult courts in this province. The John Howard Society, the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Metropolitan Toronto police force are in the process of determining the most appropriate area in the city in which to undertake this particular project.

I have a note down here referring to the comments made by the member for Downsview as to what we’re going to do at the regional meetings and I take it that those are the meetings I referred to in my statement. Is that correct?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We think it is necessary to really heighten the public awareness and involve a cross-section of the public in justice issues, so we are proposing to conduct a series of workshops throughout the province over the next year. This would bring together general members of the public, people involved in the administration of justice -- in that group I include law enforcement people, court officials, probation people, case workers and social workers -- in order to discuss various proposals or policies that involve the justice field.

The format of the workshop would vary, depending on the group with whom we would be discussing a matter. I surmise that the format would be somewhat different when dealing with the general public as opposed to dealing with the professionals already involved in some facet of the justice field. It would take the form of a forum and we would test various ideas to try to develop something that is practical and economically feasible and to ascertain if new initiatives should be developed.

Not for one moment do we take the position that we have the corner on brains in the justice field. I would like to hear from some of the members of the public who are interested in any or all facets of our responsibility.

Mr. Singer: Are you doing anything to encourage particular representations or are you going to run another series of ads?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We will be advertising in the area in which we intend to appear. In addition, we will be writing directly to those professional areas within the field, advising them of the forum or of the regional workshop and inviting their participation, observations, comments and criticisms in an effort to encourage discussion and perhaps develop some new strategies in the approach that we must have in the --

Mr. Singer: How do you write to an area? Surely you must write to the people in it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: When I say an area, I mean we would write to the people in that area involved in the correctional system, to law enforcement agencies within that area, and to social workers within that area, in order to attract them to the forum if they felt they had any knowledge to impart to us when we meet with them.

The United Nations Congress will be held in the city of Toronto from Sept. 1 to Sept. 13 of this year. We anticipate about 2,000 delegates from throughout the world and in fact we will probably have in excess of 3,000 people.

The member for Downsview made some reference to the PLO, and at this particular moment I am advised that the Palestine Liberation Organization, as it calls itself, has not yet registered, although I think I would be naive to believe that it will decline to register or attempt to register. They are accredited by the United Nations as observers to United Nations activities.

I don’t think anyone in this province condones, even in a remote way, the activities of that particular group. My leader will be making a statement very shortly as to the position of the government itself in relation to the anticipated arrival of members of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The member for Downsview pointed out, in his observations dealing with what he described as the LaMarsh commission, that there are many studies available, both in the United States and elsewhere. I am aware that studies have been done in other jurisdictions, but I am not aware of any intensive studies done in this particular area of television on the Canadian scene.

We have already made reference in this House to the fact we are not merely an image of our neighbour to the south. We have certain areas of similarity and taste, but we are, we hope, a distinct racial group from those who live in the United States. Our social conditions are different, our economic conditions are different and we believe the commission will bring to the attention of the public our concern for what we consider to be an over-abundance of violence on the TV tube.

Again, I am not naive enough to believe for a moment that violence does not exist in life. We know that. We are just wondering if we are not having too much of it and perhaps we are creating a tolerance in the minds or the eyes of the observer by having this sort of thing available in large amounts, as it apparently is, each evening of the week.

The member for Lakeshore made certain observations dealing with various studies conducted by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. With his indulgence I would like to deal with each one of those specifically when we get into the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General in order that I can be a little more precise as to our progress on each individual one touched on.

Mr. Lawlor: Or lack thereof.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I also made a note -- and I am grateful to the member for Lakeshore -- that he said I am not so stuffy as some of my predecessors. I felt kind of good about that. Some of my staff afterwards took that as some reverse form of humour and I am not so sure if I liked it or not. In any event, if it came from your heart, I am grateful for the observations. If there is anybody in this House who knows I’m not stuffy it’s the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Your staff is very legalistic. They don’t construe the thing the way I do. They will have to reinterpret the statute.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Knowing the ability of the member for Lakeshore to tongue his way through the English language I really am not that competent on what his interpretation of the meaning of stuffy is, as I understand that meaning of the word. Perhaps within the next day or two we could have some kind of private dialogue as to what your interpretation of the word stuffy is.

He also made reference to the question of privacy in computers. As he knows, there was a study completed at the federal level -- I believe almost two years ago -- dealing with this very subject. The policy field did make a submission in writing at that time on behalf of the government of Ontario. I was not part of that submission. I played no role in developing that submission at that time and I understand it was put forward by the then minister, Allan Lawrence.

I am concerned about it. I think it is a valid matter to keep before the justice policy field and to keep before the people of this House. We tend to think that privacy is something we are entitled to by law. Those of us who have practised law and who have had some exposure to private investigators, have heard the evidence of such people tendered in court, particularly when wiretaps were almost the thing of the day. I take great exception to the invasion of one’s privacy and I think that is something we must be very vigilant about. I can tell you that I personally deplore the constant invasion of my privacy and that extends even as far as a telephone call late at night is concerned unless, of course, it is made by the member for Lakeshore.

He also referred to the federal Competition Act. I am sure the member is aware of the very strong position that we took on the proposed Competition Act.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister practically torpedoed it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, because we were very much concerned. When it came in, the original bill, as we perceived it -- and I recall discussing this -- was that we could foresee, without any real development or formation of an industrial strategy for the whole Dominion of Canada, that if we didn’t have a federal government plan related to the development of industrial strategy within this province then, in effect, the proposed tribunal under that proposed legislation would be developing the industrial strategy for this country.

We took umbrage with that. We very seriously questioned whether professional civil servants sitting on such a tribunal should be seized with that tremendous responsibility and, after all, was this not a matter for the private sector within guidelines developed by whatever level of government had jurisdiction? We made our concerns known to our federal counterparts and the bill eventually died on the order paper. Now it is coming forward again.

We must also constantly be aware of intrusion into what we consider to be the provincial responsibility, constantly aware of it, insofar as our commercial activities are concerned. The initial bill, for example, dealt with regulating the real estate industry. We are very much aware of the creation -- and I’m getting a little bit off the track now -- but, by analogy, what is in effect starting to become a duplication of the court system within this province with the creation of more federal courts.

Traditionally, in Ontario and across Canada, the federal court consisted of the Exchequer Court dealing with matters of excise involving the federal Crown. That seemed to be perfectly acceptable. After all, who would have a greater interest in one’s excise than the one to whom it is allegedly payable? That was perfectly proper.

Then, back in the early 1920s, there developed the use in this country, to a very slight degree, the drug known as marijuana. The federal government, at that time, decided that only it had the ability to prosecute these matters. Then, in 1928 -- I remember the figures very well; I was looking at them prior to my attendance in Ottawa some five, six or eight weeks ago to see my provincial colleagues and the Minister of Justice in Ottawa. In 1928 there were 300 prosecutions across the whole of Canada for all drugs. In Metropolitan Toronto only, last year, I think the figure approached close to 10,000.

My provincial colleagues and I questioned the federal authorities as to why they required federal prosecutors to handle, say, the possession of a soft drug. These are concerns that not only did I have on behalf of the people of this province but my colleagues, regardless of all political persuasions, echoed the same concern. The figures escape me right now; I haven’t seen them since early March, but I believe in 1971 there were 21 or 22 federal prosecutors in Metropolitan Toronto dealing with federal offences. At the end of 1974, there were 64 of these individuals.

Part of the problem that I described to the hon. Otto Lang is that I certainly am responsible to the people of this province on the floor of this House for the administration of justice in this province. And how can I answer responsibly and with knowledge a question from, perhaps, the member for Lakeshore or the member for Downsview. How can I answer that if it’s a matter that got into the courts, is being prosecuted by a Crown attorney over whom I have absolutely no control, and the investigation done by, perhaps, a federal police agency? How can I responsibly answer to the people of the province through this forum we are in today? The federal Minister of Justice said that they felt that they could move into any area of activity as long as it was of overriding national interest. When they assumed jurisdiction for prosecution of drug offences back in the late Teens and early Twenties, they felt that it was in the overriding national interest.

I couldn’t find out nor could my colleagues find out what the criteria are to make that determination. I said to him: “How do I know that someone someday up here in Ottawa may not say: ‘I think that embezzlements against banks are reaching astronomical proportions and I think that it’s in the overriding national interest that we assume all jurisdiction over banks. We know we have it in terms of the commercial activities. There is no question about that. So let’s from henceforth on prosecute all embezzlements, armed robberies and frauds involving banks.’ What assurance have I got that someone isn’t going to make that decision on the basis of the overriding national interest?” I wasn’t able to get any answer to it.

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s take a test case.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There are two ways to do this. You can take a test case to the Supreme Court of Canada. But then really what we are doing is amending the British North America Act in our interpretation through the judicial process. I see this as a political problem, not necessarily a legal problem. Probably to be dealt with at all the matter will have to be dealt with sometime at a constitutional conference called to discuss this very item. I am concerned about it, and I echo the concerns of my colleagues right across Canada.

The same thing can be said for any type of an offence, say, shoplifting, as an overriding national concern. Let’s move into that area. There are some interesting cases that have gone through the courts in the past few months.

Mr. Lawlor: You are just a little afraid that the Supreme Court of Canada might give an adverse decision, despite Laskin.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think the Supreme Court of Canada should be called on to amend the British North America Act which --

Mr. Lawlor: They are only interpreting it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- was a political creature. I don’t think we should be asking the Supreme Court of Canada to revise that Act through the court process.

These are some of my concerns and I share them with you. The members who participated in these discussions are people who practise law and who are aware of them. You are aware of the changes in the Criminal Code brought about in the last three or four years and the definition of the Attorney General. Some interesting commentary has been made in this country. One very senior court officer in determining a criminal matter, just as obiter, when asked by defence counsel, who said: “If I followed your suggestion, my Lord, then you are saying that the federal government could take over the administration of justice in every province and take over the prosecution of the Criminal Code,” replied -- I am relying on my memory -- to paraphrase it, they could build a courthouse, and the present courthouses across this country could be nothing more than monuments to their architects.

When you get into duplication of the courts, as they have in many jurisdictions to the south, you get into confusion insofar as the public is concerned and you get into expense the likes of which you’ll never see again in duplication of the process. We are all familiar with those people who have been involved in these duplicate processes in the south. Who was it, Chessman, who was 19 years on death row? They went up through the state courts and when they hit the end of the road they started off through the federal system. It took 19 years from start to finish before they pulled the switch.

Mr. Singer: Dow is going to break that record here all by itself.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You know the case that we have set that down behind, and I won’t refer to it here.

As for practice and procedures, the member for Lakeshore really impressed me that he was aware there are practice and procedures that involve the courts in this province. I commend him for his acuity in perceiving that these things exist. I guess I am also commending him for his awareness that --

Mr. Lawlor: Was that ironic or sardonic?

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): A little bit of both.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know. If I knew the meaning of ironic and sardonic I could probably help you in your misery, but that is something else we can put on the agenda for discussion at a later time.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, I will review alone, John.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, that’s right. It would seem to me, and it would seem I am sure to many, if not nearly all, lawyers in this province, that the rules of practice pertaining to the county and Supreme Courts of this province are so involved and complex that one really wonders wherein their origins came. There are jurisdictions in the free world which start a lawsuit, really, on the drawing of a claim -- a very common practice in certain US jurisdictions -- and the rebuttal of that claim by the statement of defence; interrogatories are conducted in the attorneys offices in many instances. I have been involved in some of them, where you send to me your questions in writing to be answered by my client and he is bound by them at the trial and vice versa. It would seem to me that we’ve really got a most ultra-complex set of rules and procedures in many instances.

I don’t think I have ever really understood -- nor have I been called on very often, because I think once or twice when I was I referred it to somebody else in town who knew it -- that when you sue out of the jurisdiction of the defendant you issue your writ and then you get notice of a writ and a concurrent writ and an order for a service out of the jurisdiction. I think one of the greatest steps forward to prove to us here in Ontario that we really can do things in another way and do them well, is when they brought in the Divorce Act in 1968. Can you remember prior to those days, regardless of the grounds, being consulted by someone whose husband lived in Calgary? You trembled at the thought of just having service effected, or the orders you had to get in order to effect service out of the jurisdiction. And heaven help you if you ever got one in South Africa, because you were involved in things great distances away and they were as complex as we could possibly make them.

There has to be a very, very intensive review done of the rules of practice in this province, and done by professionals with an imagination, in an effort to try and break out of these tunnels that we have carved ourselves over the past few hundreds of years. We’ve got to not just renumber them and reprint them, but really take an approach at the thing with a new, hopefully imaginative view in mind, of simplifying the process, not only for the profession but for the public.

I can’t imagine a client, consulting any solicitor in this House to sue someone in Buffalo, being impressed when you report that after a week and a half of hard work you’ve got an order for service out of the jurisdiction and you’ve issued the concurrent writ or notice of the writ; is he a British subject or not a British subject? And the fellow says, “All I want to do is get my car fixed,” or “I want to get my broken leg paid for.” And we are running off into all these little corners which historically have developed over the years. I think it is time that we take a hard look at that.

I am not at liberty to disclose his name right now but I have approached someone to chair this commission who I think meets the criteria I’ve touched on, and I am waiting to hear back from that particular individual as to whether he can undertake this responsibility.

I have touched on the federal courts. We have made our position clear in Ottawa at the Attorneys General conference in mid-March. We had a very pleasant meeting with our federal colleague. I think he was somewhat sympathetic. We are going to meet again in late September, touching on a variety of issues.

You may be interested to know that at the time when we talked to the federal minister we discussed certain amendments to the Criminal Code and in particular some proposed amendments to the Bail Reform Act. We have put our concerns in writing to him. Individually, each province has communicated with the federal minister and he indicated he would be introducing changes in the Bail Reform Act in late April or early May. That was his anticipated date of introducing these changes.

The member for Lakeshore spoke of gun control. As the member knows, we do have federal legislation making mandatory the registration of handguns and automatic weapons. It would appear the registration of such weapons is not an effective curb on the use of same.

Weapons are used in two different ways and I am talking about the violent use of weapons. There is the type of crime -- perhaps we describe it as crimes of passion -- committed by the person within his own home. The victim is known to him, he uses his own weapon and it doesn’t really matter, I suppose, whether the gun is registered or not. He is not using his head but he is using the weapon in an offensive manner.

Then there is the other type of offender who goes out and commits armed robbery with a handgun or an automatic weapon. It’s usually a handgun and usually it’s not registered; if it is registered it has probably been stolen. Very seldom would a man go forward and use his own handgun for that type of an offence. At least, this is what I am advised by the police.

I just question, assuming for a moment we had jurisdiction provincially to compel some additional registration programme, whether it would really work or whether it would be an exercise in the accumulation of more paper, more records and for what purpose. I can’t see there would be any advantage except that.

I am the registered owner of two handguns and I have read with interest over the years when someone has been killed by a certain type of handgun and they are looking for the killer. I have never ever had anybody come to me and say, “You have got a P-38 registered in your name; a Walther, a World War II pistol. We would like to run a ballistics test.” Nobody has ever come near me, yet I am the registered owner of that handgun.

What I am really saying is the registration of it hasn’t really assisted the police, the federal or provincial police, in any way that I can see.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Maybe they don’t suspect you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is something I didn’t think about so you may well he correct, but I am trying to make a point with this.

Mr. Singer: One might wonder why not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have never really been tempted to use it except in the last two or three years.

Mr. Singer: Wait until we are through.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I think I will have a lot to look forward to.

The member for Lakeshore also referred to the “Ombudsman” programme, the CBC programme, relating to some matters and he touched on a case called the Collins case.

Mr. Lawlor: On limitations.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It was dealing with limitations. There are two phases to that case, both of which are reported. Apparently Mr. Collins has been in touch with the “Ombudsman” saying he received a judgement for $61,000 but he had the judgement taken away from him, in effect. I have spoken to Mr. Cooper, the “ombudsman,” about this particular matter and we have read the cases together.

Collins apparently ran a chicken processing factory east of Toronto, in the Durham region, where he used certain by-products of the chickens, the intestines, for animal food or mink food or something. It was allegedly closed down by the health unit, this being in 1966. He considered that closing down to be wrongful and brought his action but didn’t issue his writ until 1970. For some reason unknown to me and to any reader of that reported case, no one at the trial mentioned the Public Authorities Protection Act. The health unit was sued in the wrong name and there was no effort made at the trial to correct the legal entity name of the health unit, but the health unit was in fact represented by counsel. The presiding Supreme Court judge found the health unit had exceeded its authority in closing down Mr. Collins’s businesses and assessed damages in the amount of $61,000 and costs.

I think that case was heard a year ago last November and judgement was reserved. Judgement was issued some time in January, 1974, I think. There was a motion brought before the same judge, and it was really a double-barrelled motion. The plaintiff applied to correct the style of cause so that the defendant’s correct name was inserted. The defendant cross-appealed to have the pleadings amended to include the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The judge accommodated both parties. He said the health unit had appeared through counsel and, while technically it was not an entity, he was going to allow that amendment; so he corrected the style of cause to get the correct defendant. He also allowed the defendant his request to apply that specialty statute known as the Public Authorities Protection Act, which of course has a prohibition disallowing an action against a public authority acting within that authority unless you bring your action within six months of the time you knew of your loss. Therefore, both amendments going forward, it really was a nullity, because once he allowed the amendment to plead the specialty statute, he then dismissed the action because the writ had been issued in excess of four years following the event.

The “ombudsman” met with me and spoke to me in connection with this particular matter.

Mr. Lawlor: How would the Attorney General look upon a private member’s bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: To correct that situation? Well, I posed this question to the “ombudsman.” I said: “Say for a moment that the judgment was right from day one, that everything had been done and the limitation period had been extended or it was brought within the time, let’s say, what assurance would Mr. Collins have from day one that the health unit in fact had any assets that were exigible?”

I am not being critical of his counsel, but I think one of the things I always looked at when members of the public came in with great causes of action -- I see my friend from Downsview laughing; he knows exactly what I am talking about, and so do you. You’d say, “Does the proposed defendant have any assets?” They’d say, “Oh, no.”

“Well, then, how do you expect to collect because there isn’t a public trough that comes forward and pays for bankrupt debtors?”

I expressed that concern to Mr. Cooper, the “ombudsman” for the CBC, and he said it was a matter that he hadn’t considered up to that particular time.

What I am saying is this: If a bill came forward allowing that Act to be extended for that particular case in the interest of justice, if that was the way in which he framed it, how does Mr. Collins recover if in fact the health unit has no exigible assets?

Mr. Singer: Surely we are not seriously going to legislate an individual action?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not agreeing to this. I am just posing some questions for my friend from Lakeshore.

Mr. Singer: You’re caught in a bad principle if that’s what you think.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It may be that six-month period is too short. That may well be the case; I don’t know.

Mr. Singer: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There are other periods that have always concerned me -- a woman falling on the sidewalk. You have to serve notice -- in what -- seven days to the municipality?

Mr. Singer: Did you ever read the Law Reform Commission’s report on limitations?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Singer: The McRuer report?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes I have, I’ve --

Mr. Singer: It is a good report. It has gone through four Attorneys General, and not one has said anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think you’ll find as we speed through these estimates and you allow me to get on through my other ministries, it will give me more time to go back and take a look at some of these things.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what you say all the time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And you and I had some dialogue before about limitation periods, which have concerned me and have concerned other members of this House and relating --

Mr. Singer: McRuer honestly admits it is one of the best reports he participated in.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Who is that?

Mr. Singer: McRuer.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Did he?

Mr. Singer: So do a lot of other people.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will have a little fun with the member for Lakeshore here, if I can find what I’m looking for.

Mr. Lawlor: No, just on that one point. I would think the bill would indicate some kind of compassionate basis for payment from the government of Ontario’s own funds. After all, he obtained a judgement legitimately in the Supreme Court of this province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He obtained a judgement against a nullity.

Mr. Lawlor: It happened because of some technicality on a six-month clause in some wretched, remote, public statute, which obviously nobody in the court knew anything about.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I suggest, while we can all be sympathetic to this particular individual, he’s no different than those who have failed to issue a writ arising out of a motor vehicle claim within the 12-month period. They find themselves with a twisted back or a permanent injury, and have nowhere to recover.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes he is; because most of us know about the Highway Traffic Act. But we don’t know about the Public Authorities Protection Act.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I didn’t think you did; that’s why I thought I’d mention it here today. It is something to keep before you.

Mr. Singer: How about hospitals and doctors? That is another one.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh yes.

Mr. Maeck: Pretty sharp fellow; pretty sharp.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You can’t just come out and say that all periods should be extended. I happened to be looking at the Limitations Act the other day with Mr. Cooper for the first time in a number of years, and found that section there dealing with the 60-year period when the Crown is involved, and I don’t think you’d want that extended.

But in any event, I think that these are matters that have to be looked into.

Mr. Singer: Is Mr. Cooper replacing that great idea you had in the Throne Speech?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, he came in to see me though.

Mr. Singer: Oh, that is what I was wondering.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Because he had this concern with this Mr. Collins, which was touched on by my friend, the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Singer: Are we going to get a provincial ombudsman as you promised?

Hon. Mr. Clement: You sure are.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Can we return to the estimates?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Okay, I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to mention a few things here. The member for Lakeshore said the other day, on May 2, that the Supreme and county courts should be amalgamated. You said, and, I’m quoting from Hansard: “That’s a form of self torture I wouldn’t even wish on the minister.” That’s when you had my head on a spike in the previous sentence. You said: “I’ve been just sitting and waiting to see what side you are on. I think they should be amalgamated if you want my position.” And you made that very clear and I was moved by that.

Then I read your observations last year. In supply committee last year you said “Therefore, as a kind of halting, minor measure -- which I find personally unpalatable -- I would retain the two levels.”

So that is something that you and I again are going to have to discuss at this private meeting at some other date. Because I want to know whether I should follow the 1975 or the 1974 position.

Mr. Lawlor: Take the later position.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Do you want us to arrange the appointment?

Mr. Lawlor: I am glad to see your staff looked at what went on in previous years.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if the minister would return to the estimates?

Mr. Singer: Very selective, though.

Mr. Lawlor: Very selective.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) -- I’m sorry he’s not here now, because I enjoyed his comments very much the other evening too -- but he referred to some of the statistics I had touched on in my statement and he “hoped they were not gleaned from a political survey source.” I assure him and the members of this House that they were not gleaned from any political source. They were obtained from Gallup polls and are available for public perusal.

I’m trying to move on here, Mr. Chairman. The member for Riverdale made a suggestion, and I think he was serious that he would welcome an invitation to attend the United Nations Congress to be held in September. I would like to point out to him, perhaps through his colleague from Lakeshore, that one is not invited to attend. One must register. Knowing the member for Riverdale, I think he would very much like to attend. If so, if he would contact me prior to the end of May, because the registrations are completed on that date, we will get the necessary forms to him so that he might register to attend that conference.

Mr. Chairman, I think those pretty well touch on the observations made by the members over the past few days. Those areas which I have not specifically touched on I will deal with when we arrive at that point wherein we are considering the estimates of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I listened with some very substantial interest to what my friend, the solicitor for justice -- the Provincial Secretary for Justice; he has all those titles and I get them all mixed up -- had to say. I must admit that while he keeps his sense of humour flowing he really doesn’t add a great deal of answers to the questions put forward by the member for Lakeshore, the member for Riverdale -- I’m sorry my colleague from Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) isn’t here; he had another series of questions he wished to put to the minister -- or even my questions.

Since the minister referred earlier on to having read last year’s debates, I thought it would be important when he first dealt with COGP to ask if he had read what Mr. Lawrence had to say. Do you remember Mr. Lawrence? He was the fellow who almost became leader of the Conservative Party. Then he was the Provincial Secretary for Justice. Then he left in disgust and now he’s a member of the House of Commons for the Conservative Party.

After he got up there he had some things to say about being Provincial Secretary for Justice. In case they might have missed the minister’s eye --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I said they hadn’t.

Mr. Singer: -- they were set out on April 16, 1974, in Hansard and I think they’re good enough to repeat.

The former Provincial Secretary for Justice, now a federal Conservative MP, said, according to an interview:

“He could see the changes were necessary to make the policy secretariat work.

“That is natural enough in any experiment but he felt the basic reason it didn’t work out as well was a matter of clashes in the approach to government.

“‘The tradition has always been that everyone in the cabinet was equal but in practice, of course, that’s not true,’ Allan Lawrence said. [These are all quotes out of an article written, I think, in one of the Ottawa papers quoting Allan Lawrence at some length.]

“The leader always had a trusted group around him. Premier Davis attempted to set the same thing up with people who ran against him in the leadership contest. ‘That was wrong,’ said Lawrence, ‘because the leader of the government comes to acquire a knowledge of people only through the experience of working with them.’

“The federal MP said, ‘The theory of secretariats is good but it went off the rails because of personality clashes.’”

I suppose you might comment that there won’t be a personality clash here because the minister is going to have great trouble fighting with the Attorney General and/or the acting Solicitor General, and perhaps that saves it. I don’t know.

Mr. Lawlor: No, he is schizophrenic.

Mr. Singer: Schizophrenic? Trichotomic maybe -- three? He can fight with himself in any one of those capacities.

The minister’s approach to the questions posed to him was very fascinating. It was commentary. It would be an interesting discussion some evening over liquid refreshment. We might have the same kind of discussion and all of us enjoy it very thoroughly. He didn’t give us any answers.

What did you do last year? What did your ministry really do last year? You didn’t tell us. You said you had meetings on Thursday mornings; sometimes the ministers met by themselves and sometimes the deputies came in. But what did you decide?

You said there were a few juvenile delinquency projects. There’s one under way in Downsview-Weston and the minister offered to send me a paper that somebody had prepared if I was interested. I am interested. I would like him to send it to me.

But what I would like to know -- and I think what the province is entitled to know, since we are continuing what I believe is a useless appendage of government -- is, what is the minister’s opinion? Does the provincial secretary have an opinion about the direction we should take in decreasing the incidence of juvenile delinquency in Ontario? If he has an opinion, what is it?

I don’t think he adds much to current lore on the field by saying there has been a study produced by a group and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) has another group that is also studying it. Do you have an opinion? Does the secretariat have an opinion? You are supposed to be co-ordinating it. What is it you are thinking? As I said, maybe a little too lightly, in my opening remarks, I am glad to see the provincial secretary is against juvenile delinquency -- and so, I am sure, are the rest of the members of the House -- but what do you propose that Ontario does about it? They’re the kind of answers we are looking for.

I don’t know yet the kind of forum you expect to produce as you take your show on the road. What are you going to do? How many people are going to go with you? Are you going to solicit particular people? Are you looking to deans of university law schools? Are you looking to the school of criminology at the University of Toronto? What have you asked the people at Western or at the University of Ottawa? Are you appealing to the academics at all for some input?

Are you looking to the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the senior county court judge, the senior provincial court judge? Are these people going to be asked to provide input? If their input is being sought, is it going to be a public kind of input? That is one thing that we have been after for a long time. If the judges are critical about the system of the administration of justice in the province I think they should be saying so in a forum where we can all hear them, not in secret memoranda that go only to the office holder over here, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, I guess, or under his other hat, the Attorney General.

Are you going to provide an opportunity for all judges -- Supreme Court, county court, provincial court -- to express opinions and not just have their opinions expressed on their behalf by the heads of those particular courts? I think that might be a very interesting and useful exercise -- and I know everybody is going to shudder and say you are going to get judges mixed up in politics and isn’t that a terrible thing? But I think the judges should be allowed to say something about what they believe is the direction the administration of justice is going to take. Maybe that is what you are getting at. If it is, why don’t you say so? You see, my friend from Lakeshore talked about the amalgamation of the courts and he said he was in favour of it, and if I heard your remarks correctly, last year he implied he was against it.

I don’t know where his files are leading this year. He may have more matters directed toward the county courts this year and last year it was toward the Supreme Court, because I happen to think that Supreme Court judges don’t think this is a good idea and county court judges think this is a wonderful idea. Between them there is a certain very obvious divergence of opinion and it gets pretty violent on occasion, depending on where you are and which judge you are with.

However, it is an important point. It has been put forward on many occasions. It has been wrestled with at the opening of the courts. The hon. member for Riverdale read some remarks Mr. Thom made at the opening of the courts. Your deputy Attorney General has been there at the opening of the courts. I have been there the last three or four years and listened. And it is a very fascinating inside exchange of barbs. The Chief Justice of the High Court looks down and tells the Attorney General what he thinks should be done, and tells the Treasurer of the Law Society what he should do, and they reply. And that seems sort of to be the end of what might be a very worthwhile and important kind of discussion.

One would have thought that if you are going to justify the continuance of the office and department of Provincial Secretary for Justice that you would stand up in your place one day and say: “This is what the Provincial Secretary for Justice thinks” -- not what John Clement thinks, but what the Provincial Secretary for justice thinks as a result of these Thursday meetings -- “We have come to the conclusion that the courts should be amalgamated or they should not be amalgamated.”

We are going to have another study. I have volumes and volumes of reports. We had one on the organization of the courts. You mentioned that you were going to set up -- you hope very soon -- somebody who was going to really tear apart and put back together again the rules of practice. You said you had consulted someone who might be the commissioner but you didn’t feel free to disclose his name because he hadn’t as yet made up his mind and advised you of his intentions.

We have got so many reports that they are coming out of our ears. I have got a whole bookcase upstairs dealing with reports that have been commissioned either by the Law Reform Commission or by the Provincial Secretary for Justice or by the Attorney General or by the Solicitor General or by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What are your opinions about these reports? There is no great point to be gained in the quibble about what day you received this report, but whatever day you received it you have had it for a while. Do you have any opinions about it?

I don’t really care whether you received it one week ago, one month ago or four months ago. Do you have an opinion upon it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sure I have. Would you like to hear it now or in my estimates of the Attorney General?

Mr. Singer: If somewhere along the line the Provincial Secretary for Justice is establishing justice policy, let him give us some justice policy. Don’t ask us 10 questions. Give us some justice policy; that is what it is supposed to be all about. You haven’t.

You spoke for half an hour or three quarters of an hour when you introduced your estimates and you spoke for the better part of an hour this afternoon. You haven’t given us any justice policy. You haven’t really told us what you did last year. That’s why, Mr. Chairman, I regret moving again my motion but it’s an important motion. I don’t think that the department you lead called the department of the Provincial Secretary for Justice is worth the dollar a year that we feel should be left in those estimates. You don’t do anything except apparently have Thursday meetings and then ask us questions.

On the PLO I want to ask one question. I hear what the minister said. It has been suggested to me and I don’t know. As a result of the PLO’s participation in this conference, has there been the refusal of certain Attorneys General of any of the provinces to participate because of this possible participation of the PLO?

I don’t know whether this is true or not. I am not asking this as a condemning question, but this was suggested to me. I am asking the Provincial Secretary for Justice if he knows the answer to it, and if he doesn’t, if he could find out for me, because it was suggested to me that that is the case.

On the federal courts and the invasion of the federal courts, the member for Lakeshore raised a very excellent point. The increase of federal prosecutors in the building down there on Wellington St. where the federal department has its local Toronto office I guess is a real problem. The discussion that took place was fine. It interests three lawyers here in the House, but again we have no opinion. If you are sufficiently concerned, what is your approach? Have you discussed it in the sessions of the Provincial Secretariat for Justice? Is there a government approach? Do you want it expanded? Do you want it decreased? If you want it decreased, what are the limits within which it should be decreased?

Mr. Chairman: Can I interrupt the hon. member for a moment? I think the parliamentary assistant to the minister would like to introduce some guests before they leave. The hon. member for Peterborough.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the hon. member for Downsview for his courtesy. It is my pleasure to introduce the remaining visitors from St. Peter’s High School in Peterborough who are hosting students from Ecole Jean Talon in Charlesbourg, Quebec. They are under the supervision of Sister Joyce Murray and Mr. Paul Bowman from Peterborough, and Micheline Plante and Steve Hartwood from Charlesbourg. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

So, I think it is a very significant thing. I don’t know that we have to get into litigation. It has to inevitably find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. What does the phrase in section 92 of the BNA Act mean, that it is a provincial responsibility to look after the administration of justice? It’s there. What does it mean? Do you have any opinions about it? Goodness knows you have enough people around that you can get an opinion. Do the law officers have an opinion? Does the Provincial Secretary for Justice feel that it is important that an opinion be expressed on behalf of the Province of Ontario?

I was reading the paper this morning and noticed that the Premier (Mr. Davis) was quoted as having some views about the Bail Reform Act, and about the severity of sentencing. I don’t know whether gun control got into his comments or not, I have forgotten whether it was in that story. And it’s interesting; I am glad that the Premier has some opinions. He feels that the Bail Reform Act is perhaps a little too loose, and maybe some of us agree with him. Severity of sentencing is a very interesting theory.

Now, is this the opinion of the Provincial Secretary for Justice? Is this the opinion of the government of Ontario? And if it is, then a good case can be made for both those arguments. Surely one is entitled to expect, with the fancy and expensive and elaborate legal machinery we have set up in this province, that the Provincial Secretary for Justice, or the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, or one of you would get up and say, “We have asked the Minister for Justice, Otto Lang, to change the Bail Reform Act along these lines because...” But, instead it seems to be tied in with this gimmick you have got, something about violence on television or violence on the media and safety on our streets and permissiveness -- all vague terms.

We had a fairly nasty debate, or what was developing into one during the question period this afternoon because you don’t define what you are talking about. Surely if we are going to maintain all this elaborate machinery of government and charge one of you people over there with being the Provincial Secretary for Justice and having a justice policy, we are entitled to ask, “What is your policy?” Does Ontario have a policy on the Bail Reform Act or is it merely a line the Premier threw into his speech last night? And if so, what is it, what is the basis for it, what studies have you done, what statistics are there, and what does it mean? And if we have that kind of a policy, let’s hear from you in your capacity of Provincial Secretary for Justice, or some other capacity.

According to the press, he chose not to put forth an opinion on capital punishment, a question that is very much in the public eye at the moment because of this man Vaillancourt who is awaiting the carrying out of the death sentence and is presently in the Don Jail, and the death sentence has been postponed at least until Oct. 15. I think, even though it is a federal responsibility, that Ontario should have an opinion about it.

We here, our party, the official opposition, and the NDP have to wrestle with this. I met the other morning, at a debate in one of the collegiate institutes in my riding, with a member of the NDP and a member of the Conservative Party, not an elected member but a very bright young man. He wasn’t afraid to say what his opinion was. The member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) said what his opinion was and I said what my opinion was, but have we got a government opinion on it? He thinks he can slough it off as a federal responsibility, but when you talk about what your opinion is on what the federal government should do, you say, “We have no opinion because those Ottawa fellows should do it.”

It’s easier, I suppose, to say the Bail Reform Act should be tightened up. Fairly obvious, fairly justifiable, fairly statistically provable. But this one on capital punishment is a toughy. Maybe the population is divided 50 per cent for and 50 per cent against. But if you’re the brave and courageous government that you pretend to be, tell us what your opinion is and what kind of representations you’re making. I think you have a responsibility to make representations and you’re not doing it.

As to the limitations thing that we talked about across the floor, I commend to the secretary, as urgently as I can, what I think is an excellent report on limitations from the Law Reform Commission. Not only was it introduced with some fanfare and commented on in the press, but I, at least, and I’m sure others as well, have dealt with it repeatedly since its come in. But we don’t hear anything from government about it.

Mr. Chairman, I’m far from through on these estimates, but I wanted to come back to some of the answers put forward by the secretary and tell him that I’m just not satisfied with them. My colleague from Sarnia mentioned something. I’ve got a couple of notes that he made here. He did mention a while back, in connection with the Morgentaler conviction in the Province of Quebec, what he felt was a very serious and dangerous reversal of a tradition of our criminal justice system. That was the overruling of a jury decision, the substitution of a decision by the court of appeal of another province for what the jury in fact decided, and then its confirmation by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Many jurists, many lawyers, John Diefenbaker, and many other people in this House feel that’s a very, very dangerous and bad thing to have happened, quite apart from the merits of the Morgentaler conviction. And I would have hoped that the secretary for justice of my province would have been saying something about that. I invite him to say something about that before these estimates are through. I invite him on behalf of the government of Ontario to say something to Otto Lang about it.

If we believe there is some importance in the system of criminal trials being conducted by a jury, and the jury’s verdict being accepted, then we have to regard as a very serious matter not only the throwing aside of the jury’s verdict by a court of appeal, but the substitution by a court of appeal of their verdict for the jury’s verdict.

On the use of the appeal tribunal, we have an appeal tribunal here in Ontario, and I happen to think that the gentleman who was chosen to head it, when he was appointed, was a very prominent, able Ottawa lawyer who came down to Toronto. He sold his practice in Ottawa and came down to Toronto to devote his full time to that appeal tribunal. I suppose I’m telling tales out of school, but I’m going to do it. I have reason to believe that he and the other members of that tribunal don’t feel they get enough work to do. I think that’s a crying shame because when we set up our revised system of administrative procedures review, one of the keystones of that was the appeal tribunal. Yet you keep on short-circuiting them and you don’t give them enough work to do. When the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations brought in his new liquor ideas, what are you doing? You’re going to have another appeal tribunal, apparently, with another seven people. Well, you’ve got one that is underemployed and it’s got some good people on it. Now you’re going to set up another one. Is that justice policy? It should be. Presumably it is. How many appeal tribunals do you want? Or each time somebody gets a new idea are you going to have another appeal tribunal?

Our report on company affairs, the select committee, is going to suggest a further use of the appeal tribunal and I would hope that tribunal will be part of justice policy. However, if that appeal tribunal is going to be meaningful, its field of responsibility should be expanded. You shouldn’t go on setting up other appeal tribunals. Surely that should be part of justice policy.

On arms control, the secretary said he didn’t see much point in further registration of handguns. Perhaps his point of view is correct. Perhaps it isn’t. Is that the policy of the government of Ontario? If it is, I would like to disagree with it, and disagree strongly. To try to battle a casual remark made by the secretary of justice during the course of these estimates is really like battling a fog with a pitchfork. If one says: “But the secretary said on May 8 he thinks we are piling up too many pieces of paper and it’s not serving any useful purpose”; and the storm grows heavy enough, somebody is bound to say: “That isn’t the policy of the government of Ontario.” Then someone else will say, “But what is the policy of the government of Ontario?” We are never really going to find out whether you should or should not have a policy on gun control, whether we in the opposition like it or not.

Now those, Mr. Chairman, are the kinds of things I would have thought this department should have been doing. In the remarks made when the minister introduced his estimates, and in his reply, all he has given us is some amorphous ideas. Nothing was said about what they did last year except meet every Thursday morning. Nothing appeared to emerge from it except a few random statutes.

And this afternoon we are going to get another -- don’t let me lose sight of it -- we are going to get another amendment to the Land Titles Act. This thrills me no end. Give us some policy or abandon the secretariat. If you are not prepared to give us policy, then for goodness’ sake abandon the secretariat. Let’s deal with the Attorney General vote by vote, estimate by estimate. Maybe we can pin down you, and the rest of your colleagues, on something as the estimates come forward.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I shan’t seek to pillory the ministry or the minister any further. He is fairly fledgling in his task. He is still dripping, as I noticed when I was over to see him a few minutes, behind the ears. It may be just oil, or it may be any number of other substances, liquid or otherwise, that drip there.

There hardly seems to be much point. He has replied, reserving to the attorney generalship a series of points. I suppose the whole problem of family law, family courts -- that sort of thing -- applies to those particular sets of estimates. He is a vigorous man, and therefore I anticipate that if this House isn’t dissolved very shortly, it will be forthcoming.

It has been enormously disappointing for the people over here to watch the lethargy, the complete hiatus that reigns in this particular area when we see what is coming out of that department. It has gone on too long. What proceeds from these Thursday sessions is most undetectable and amorphous in the extreme.

If there was some kind of dribbling out, something we could put our finger on in terms of concrete legislation with wide policy perspectives, that would be fine. But a total dearth, an absolute lacuna in the operations is what has occurred. I suggest that it go on no longer because, while it is in disrepute, this present ministry, if it goes on very much longer, will be in a state of complete shambles and a nonentity -- a known nonentity to the individuals who are involved therein because of the ineffectiveness of anything they are bringing forward. Nothing is moving. That, internally, must be somewhat demoralizing for everyone concerned in the ministry.

As I say, let us look to the future. Let’s look to the immediate future as being productive in this particular regard. We are sure, and from the reply of the minister, have had the grounds staked out. We know the purpose and direction. We do think you should be more forthright, less cowardly, with respect to certain central issues in the secretariat of justice, upon which you are under some obligation to comment because of the peculiar role that you occupy.

When we passed the legislation through this House setting up the attorney generalship, and then the legislation setting up the superministry, it was always made abundantly clear that this is a unique kind of ministry, a far more impartial objective, transcendent type of ministry as opposed to all the others. In other words, your ministry, by definition, cannot be as partisan. It hasn’t got that function. It involves justice and equality and the balancing of scales, and a certain crucial openness. Otherwise, all that would seem to be simply suppressed. It’s a kind of subversion at the same time.

If you get that feeling in this particular operation that you are carrying out, then your whole intent and purpose, however beneficial it may be, will be undermined, and that by yourselves. That’s the thing that we fear. That’s what’s been happening over about the past two years now. Ever since Wishart left, this is what has been going on. While he never occupied this particular role, at the same time he played the role, which is a damned sight more important. He carried out the functions in a way in which they haven’t been carried out for a long time.

That being the case, there is very little point in saying, “Well, what about this point and what about that point, John?” You haven’t answered questions about the racetrack stuff. I notice it was one of those items on the agenda with the provincial attorneys general in your meetings of May 14-15, 1974. You weren’t there, of course, in this portfolio at that time, but it was one of the many matters there, including detention orders for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The difficulty with the ministry here is that it is so vast and there are so many diverse points of dislocation at the present time as to what your role might be and how you could perform it. I do thoroughly agree with what you have said on a straight statement of policy, about the operation of the federal government in the field of the administration of the courts. I think that’s a very suspect move on their part. The other suspect move is the adumbration of the powers at the federal level of their own court system. All these men are lusting after power, after their own little demesne being carved out. This must be resisted thoroughly by your ministry.

And if there is a moot question involved over what your authority is here or there, and what the construction is of that phrase in section 92 -- the administration of the court -- then that type of confrontation, the constitutional conference, may not be the most efficacious means of bringing it to a head. That gets into swaddling clothes and into forked language and into double entendres all the way through and you emerge from those conferences very often as woolly-headed as you went into the things.

Surely the Supreme Court of this country would lay down conclusively and definitely, not once and for all but as close as you can get in this line, what that stuff means and carve out the various dimensions. If it is really that you don’t want to know and would rather go on wrangling and confusing people so you may gain a little bit here and lose there, which is the political process, then why not say so?

There is not much you do want to say. You think it can be resolved at a different level. I don’t think it can be resolved at a different level. Somewhere along the way you are going to have to put the Supreme Court to work doing its primary function under the constitution, which is to construe and interpret what the British North America Act means in there. As the evolution goes on and the complexities and the interleavings of government increase, which is an inevitable thing, isn’t it better to get the demarcation line set up by the authority in question, rather than all the miasma of trying to work over ground which you are not going to agree on?

We’ve got a strong Attorney General up in Ottawa. He’s not going to give an inch on it, nor can you for loss of face. And that’s what the court is for. It has been an authority, in a way in advance and above these petty struggles for power down below to get us some clarification. We are most interested in this regard, too, as I said in the estimates, in the demarcation lines as to the authority of the provincial governments in controlling prices, as to the precise role they can play in the inflationary situation which we face. That role seems to the member for Riverdale and myself to be very paramount indeed, a role which is being neglected by abnegation at the present time on the plea you don’t know precise delineations. The fact is you don’t go after an authoritative determination of what those limitations are, if they exist, or are not.

I have spoken about this previously, I won’t press it again at this time. But these are matters on which you seem to shuck off your responsibility, always playing it safe, always balancing, always withdrawing when the crunch is on. If justice hasn’t courage, the society and your political role is very venal, very weak indeed.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to take part in the debate?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, what do you mean, take part in the debate?

Mr. Chairman: Before we put your motion.

Mr. Singer: I think we should give the secretary an opportunity to reply if he wants to. If not, I wanted to ask him a whole long series of questions about the $401,000 figure. Does he want that now or does he want to reply to what the member for Lakeshore and I have said?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d like to reply.

Mr. Singer: All right, please do.

Mr. Chairman: The minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have perhaps misunderstood or, alternatively, perhaps the member for Downsview misunderstood me. I can see he is a man of precise taste and would really like to have each item that I am capable of recollecting drawn to his attention specifically, wherein the secretariat was involved in the considerations over the past year, as he said. I apologize to him if my memory is not as precise, perhaps, as his and I can’t turn my mind back exactly 12 months and bring it forward. I will try to keep within that year.

I think you should realize -- perhaps I am not making the role of secretariat that clear. Let’s take, for example, when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations comes forward with a proposed piece of legislation. Your phraseology was something like a few random statutes. Let me tell you they were not a few random statutes. They took a lot of work and a lot of development within the ministry and a lot of consideration when they came to the policy field to be considered, sometimes for many Thursdays, by all those who participate as members of the policy field. There were certain areas that might well touch another ministry within the field.

I am just looking back here; I am not trying to mislead the House. I can go back over the three years and come forward very easily but I don’t intend to do that unless the member wants me to do it. I am prepared to touch on every piece of legislation which has come up through and been considered by the secretariat and where there has been input by the secretariat. it isn’t just a gathering place where we meet.

The secretariat people make their analyses and sometimes I have been a violent person to disagree -- if I may use that phrase -- I have very violently disagreed with some of the observations made by members within the secretariat, particularly when I had my previous responsibility. I felt it was my obligation to disagree and not just rubber stamp or have them rubber stamp what we do.

The member knows of the problems which existed, say, a year or a year and a half ago with the travel industry and some of the losses suffered by the public. As a result of that, we developed the travel legislation which went through this House. I believe it was introduced last December by me and carried through by my then parliamentary assistant. There were numbers of meetings with people within the industry involved.

Mr. Lawlor: Mostly after the legislation went through.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will argue with the two proponents of that theory who made it their responsibility to take that position. That simply is not correct.

Mr. Singer: We are only repeating what you said in the House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Singer: Your first reaction was, what can we do?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, no.

Mr. Singer: Do you want me to recall your speech for you? I remember it very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, at the time that bill was introduced in the House, Mr. Chairman, I said the regulations would not be proceeded with until there had been further consultation with the industry.

Mr. Singer: Before that you said bonding is no good.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We had to work on it. I didn’t notice anything coming forward from your side of the fence either. I didn’t hear anything coming forward other than gloom and doom, and, what are you doing about it?

Mr. Singer: If you want, I will get the Hansard and I will read those exchanges back to you --

Hon. Mr. Clement: We were considering these things.

Mr. Singer: You said it is imprecise.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I found I had one of two avenues to go; either dialogue, say, with the member for Downsview and get nothing done, or work within my own ministry and the secretariat, and try to develop some legislation.

Mr. Singer: And appear in the House and say you would discuss it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We found out that we could, through our input, not through the member for Downsview’s, and I point out that piece of legislation. The uniform building code came forward. I am trusting on my previous ministry because I am snore familiar with it. We went through that legislation at the policy field for some length. The current liquor legislation which is presently before the House is another.

Mr. Lawlor: Clause by clause.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Did you go through the code?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: Did you go through the code, or just the legislation?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I was exposed, unfortunately, to the code. I would confess to this House that I did not go through it. It was the theory of the legislation, the working on the legislation, we were concerned with. We had to leave the code to the technicians because of the very nature of the beast.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought that was taking all your time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. I can remember from my own memory.

Mr. Lawlor: That is honest enough.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I remember working -- this went away back nearly two years -- very closely with the policy field at that time, with my prior responsibilities, in developing a sire’s stakes programme for this province. That sire’s stakes programme was brought in about a year and a half ago and has been one of the greatest boons to the horse racing industry since horse racing became a sports activity in this province. There were cost implications that had to be considered at that time. I am not as familiar with the other areas of responsibility because I wasn’t working with those. I can’t remember what has happened in exactly the year, but I am touching on matters that are approximately a year or a year or so old. There was the Credit Reporting Act. Do you remember those hearings we had before standing committee?

Mr. Singer: I will never forget them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You will never forget them? Neither will I.

Before that legislation went forward, we considered that very involved legislation, and those who participated will recognize we just didn’t develop it over in the Consumer ministry and bring it forward and out and introduce it into the House. We considered the ramifications -- whether we would in fact be infringing on basic rights of people. The same thing with Bill 55. There were those considerations that took place at the justice policy field meetings.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Downsview says he doesn’t mind what we do if we would only say what we are doing. Perhaps, while he may not support that bill, he may support the fact that at least a position was taken. As I gather from the member for Downsview’s concerns, he says: “What bothers me is where there is no position, or where there is no proclaimed position or policy.”

You talked in terms of bail reform. What have we done about bail reform? I will be specific on that if you would like me to because I have been in touch with the federal Minister of Justice. The member for Lakeshore is quite right, these things transcend partisan politics.

Mr. Singer: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Clement: These things are of concern to every individual, really, across the country when you are talking --

Mr. Singer: Why do you keep them secret?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are not secret.

Mr. Singer: Then why don’t you talk about them here now?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are not secret -- because I have never been asked until now. You have not asked me what my position is on bail reform. I will tell you what it is if you want to know.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I would like to know.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Okay.

Mr. Singer: That is what the minister should be doing every day in the House, telling us what his position is.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Have you asked me my position or the government’s position on this, on bail reform?

Mr. Singer: I have asked for your position on so many things and never could get any answers.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Come on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Nor am I invited to your Thursday morning meetings.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the minister continue.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The first concern we have with the Bail Reform Act is that we say there should be a reverse in the onus in cases of multiple release.

There is one instance here in the city of Toronto -- the worst one I know of -- in which a man obtained bail 14 times before he stood trial on his first offence. I think that is the record across the country. It arose out of purse-snatchings in one of the subway stations.

We have communicated these concerns to our federal colleague, orally and in writing. We recommended that section 458, subsection 5, subsection (d) be amended to provide that when a person who’s been previously released under the Bail Reform Act appears in court, the onus shifts to him in order to obtain bail on the second or subsequent occasion.

Mr. Singer: That seems to make sense. Why didn’t the minister tell us? Maybe we could have --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Right; because the member never asked me and so that is why I am telling him now.

Mr. Singer: Better save it for the Premier and the election.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have made certain recommendations that should be followed to overcome the identification problem when persons use false identifications and what happens when that person fails to appear.

We have recommended certain technical changes by which certificate evidence can be used in prosecutions for failure to attend rather than producing officers or people who say, “I went to his place and we couldn’t find him and I conducted a search,” and so on.

If you used a certificate technique you wouldn’t have to call a fairly large number of people in some instances.

Mr. Singer: Don’t you think your hand would be strengthened in making those representations if you could tell the Minister of Justice you had discussed it with the opposition parties and they agreed with you? Don’t you think your hand would be strengthened in this kind of determination?

What you have been saying about bail reform makes good sense. Don’t you think your hand would be strengthened if you said to the media, “We are unhappy with the Bail Reform Act because we’ve asked the NDP, we’ve asked the official opposition and they agree with us. This is what Ontario believes”?

That is the thing I am complaining about. You know that is what I am complaining about.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know whether or not my hand would be strengthened. I don’t know the regard the federal Minister of Justice has for the opposition. I am taking a position as the man for --

Mr. Singer: He is going to have a greater regard for 117 opinions than 50 or 60.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have put forward a technical recommendation to the minister to reinstate the warrant --

Mr. Lawlor: Is the minister suggesting his position might well be weakened?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is right.

Mr. Lawlor: You may be right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’ve a recommendation to reinstate the warrant of committal in order to affirm the legal validity of an individual’s imprisonment. At the present time under the present Act, an officer in charge -- that is a police officer -- has no power to release the person who is charged with an offence for which the maximum imprisonment exceeds five years. We take the position that this is not always appropriate and the officer should be given the power, under certain circumstances, to be able to grant such release even though the maximum term of imprisonment would exceed that period.

We have expressed our concern on the vagueness of the serious harm test under section 457(7). We are wondering whether the section involving serious harm or interference with the administration of justice should be deleted. We say it’s so vague that we don’t know whether it means doing serious harm to members of the public or perhaps serious harm to the individual himself.

We have recommended that section 454, subsection 2 be amended so that a judicial officer may give the police power to hold an accused for a suitable period of time pending the arrival and execution of a warrant issued within the province. As you know now, it is only possible to remand an accused person to the custody of an officer, pending the execution of a warrant which is outstanding in another province.

We recommend that the Code and/or the Identification of Criminals Act and/or the Interpretation Act and Canada be amended to clarify the status of an offence which may be prosecuted summarily or by indictment. We recommend that release procedures for an accused apprehended on a bench warrant be clarified. We also recommend that the Code be amended to improve the consistency of the applicability of certain sections concerning compelling the appearance of an accused who has been released.

We have also brought to the attention of our colleagues in Ottawa that even though the provincial court judge who commits an accused for trial will usually be able to develop a complete understanding of the offence and so forth, any renewed application, as you know, must be made before a county or Supreme Court judge. We say that that may well bear reviewing very, very carefully. We recommend that the first-tier judge, the provincial court judge, or the magistrate as he was once called, who commits a person for trial should be given the power to vary the release conditions and to entertain any application for release or detention.

There has been some suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that an accused person remanded in custody pending sentence should be permitted to apply for a review of the order of the trial judge who has not yet passed sentence and is still seized with the matter. It has been suggested that an accused should be permitted of his own choice alone to substitute cash bail for release into the custody or sureties without deposit, and it is recommended that nothing be done to permit this substitution.

At the present moment, Mr. Chairman, there is no power to arrest without a warrant. In the case of a person who is believed to be about to violate the terms of his appearance, notice or summons, we have recommended that the Code be amended to give the power to arrest to a peace officer who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that the accused is about to violate his appearance.

Those are 14 specific areas that are of concern to us. A number are of concern to our colleagues in other provinces. I’m not taking credit or saying isn’t this unique? These are matters that common sense, I think, would dictate have to be reviewed. I’m confident that the federal Minister of Justice in his amendments to the Bail Reform Act will reflect a good number, if not all of these. I think it should come through my lips here today that the Bail Reform Act is a very, very successful piece of legislation, and we cannot lose sight of that.

Mr. Singer: Many of us clamoured for bail reform for many years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. I recognize that, and I think the public should be made aware of that. I have said this before on public platforms that it is a successful piece of social legislation, but there are those who take advantage of it. Those 14 specific things deal with those very small numbers of people who take advantage of it.

The member for Downsview touched on a very interesting matter, the Morgentaler case. We have not discussed that yet. I have personal thoughts on that; I will share them with the member, if he wants to hear them. We have not discussed them yet at the policy field.

There’s no question but that what the Quebec Court of Appeal did was valid in law. That was the test that was tried in the Supreme Court. My personal view is that it is not equitable. Again, I can tell by the way the member is acting that he probably shares my view or I share his. It seems to be a travesty of the whole jury system to have the Court of Appeal reverse the verdict and substitute its opinion, unless the finding of the jury was so perverse it had no other alternative.

I think that every lawyer who has taken a look at this case and considers it, says, “Why wasn’t it referred back for a new trial?” I’m unable to answer that and I sure don’t defend it. I’m not going into the merits of the case -- nor did the member for Downsview -- as to whether what Morgentaler did was a good thing or a bad thing. I’m not discussing that here today. I have not discussed this with any members of the bench. I don’t think it would be appropriate, other than in social discourse, to bring up such a matter on a conjectural basis.

I do not discuss decisions with any members of the bench, obviously. When I had my previous responsibility, even with the commercial registration of field tribunal, in many instances the decision of that tribunal was appealed by the ministry. And in my many discussions relating to administrative matters, I at no time discussed the quality of a verdict with a chairman or any members of that tribunal. I felt that was improper and I still hold that view.

In so far as the work load --

Mr. Singer: Let’s hope that’s all I was talking about.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In so far as the work load of that tribunal is concerned, I don’t think you’re telling tales out of school. The chairman of that tribunal and his membership are aggressive, capable people. And as an indication of his interest, he has shared with me many times his wish that he had more responsibilities.

I think, if he is patient, that as other statutes are developed he will have more responsibilities. There is no point in creating a maximum work load from day one and then find, as we have so often, that we’re going to have to substantially increase the thing before it is really under way and working. But I think the tribunal system has worked well, and I think the --

Mr. Singer: What about your tribunal under the Liquor Licensing Act? Why don’t you give it to them?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, that’s a matter that we considered at policy field, as a matter of fact, in our discussions which went on over an extended period of weeks. It was felt at that time that there should be a separate appeal tribunal dealing with the matters under the two specific statutes -- the Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Licence Act. It was felt that the other tribunal dealt with a multitude of statutes involving commercial activities within this province, and that the liquor tribunal should be separate and deal with matters pertaining only to that particular area of commercial activity. I recognize it’s commercial too. But that was the decision that was made, and perhaps the member for Downsview may agree or disagree. That was seriously considered, lengthily considered, and that decision was reached. It is his right to agree or disagree, as he sees fit.

I think those are the only matters I’d like to touch on at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I recall from the discussions coming forward a few minutes ago. I’m in your hands.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

On vote 1101:

Mr. Singer: I’d like to find out about the $469,000 that you’re asking for this year. Last year, there were a bunch of figures -- you’re a year behind. Let me start off by asking you how much of the budgeted $401,000 did you spend in the fiscal year that ended on March 31?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are you talking about 1973-1974?

Mr. Singer: No. If you turn to page J8, going from the right toward the left, you will see estimates and actual 1973-1974, and the $401,000 figure I have just quoted to you is under 1974-1975, where you budgeted $401,000. You were voted $401,000. My question is: How much of the $401,000 did you, in fact, spend during that fiscal period?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could go on? I am just ascertaining that figure. I want to be accurate.

Mr. Singer: This is the kind of questioning that I plan to indulge in for the next short period of time, because last year, if the minister would look at Hansard, starting at about page S-62, April 18, 1974, this was the field of inquiry I embarked upon and it turned out that the budget was substantially underspent in every year that the ministry has existed. It also turned out that the establishment of this ministry was understaffed and there was some difficulty in explaining what the existing staff did do.

Now, the minister can see the field of inquiry I am about to embark upon. The first part is, is my suspicion correct -- that you substantially underspent the $401,000 that you were voted a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It was underspent, but that is why I want to get the exact amount.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: So you will know how much --

Mr. Singer: All right. It makes it very difficult to construct this argument without knowing how much it is, because my suspicion is that you have perhaps underspent by as much as $100,000. I don’t know. You see, it makes it almost impossible to bring these figures forward, because if you only spent, say, $300,000 last year, why do you ask for $469,000 this year? To get these questions sort of flowing in any context and with any reasonableness, I have really got to have the figures of what you spent a year ago.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I have the same kind of question. It is a puzzling matter to see that in 1972-1973 you estimated it at $315,000 and you spent $228,000 -- almost $100,000 less. Then in the next subsequent year you were down $50,000. Now, we are most interested to see just how far you are off and, if such is the case, how come you are asking for so much more when you are spending so much less? What kind of a strange game are we playing?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t disagree with the question you are asking. I think it is a perfectly legitimate question and I want to get the exact figure. I am sorry I haven’t got it here, but it will be here in a minute.

Mr. Singer: Then could I suggest -- and I don’t want to delay these estimates unduly, but I think this is sort of a key kind of a question -- that we either adjourn now and call it 6 of the clock and at 8 o’clock we will start on this? Because I intend to spend quite some time on it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the question is proper.

Mr. Singer: I want to know who you have, what they are, what they do, what their background and training is and why you need so many of them.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, since we have this delay, there are a couple of other questions that I would direct to the minister, having not to do with money precisely but with policy.

What activities have taken place in the past year with your so-called co-ordinating committee on criminal activity, which is the anti-Mafia group inside the government? Can you give us a bit of a report, a bit of an insight, on that? Does it still exist? Who occupies it? And what have you done?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the member’s question.

Mr. Lawlor: It was directed to the ministerial co-ordinating committee for criminal activity in the province -- your own personal CIA, I guess, or that type of thing; I don’t know if they supply you with bodyguards or not, but there you are. It has been brought up -- I take it that it is working within this ministry -- and I would like to know who runs that -- which ministers or which groups -- how often they meet and what is the upshot of the thing so far as you are in a position to disclose.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry I didn’t hear the member’s question before; I know exactly what he is talking about now. That particular committee has not met in the past 12 months; at the present time it has not to my knowledge any activities under way. Any matters dealing with organized crime or alleged matters of that type of situation, as I understand it, have been reported to my predecessor and to me since my taking over this role. In some instances it has been necessary, of course, to convey that information to other ministers within the policy field.

When I occupied my previous responsibility I was a member of that committee, along with the then Attorney General and the Solicitor General. I was involved because we were interested in certain allegations dealing with the commercial life of this province; hence my involvement. Those matters subsequently took on another sphere and charges were laid, and I personally have not been back at any such meeting since.

Mr. Lawlor: Was the minister concerned with laundering money in his portfolio?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Lawlor: I have just one other question in this regard, now that you are handling everything yourself that comes in -- you deal with the police and give the information to the OPP and to whoever you think should have this particular kind of information, or you receive it from them and relay it on to your fellows.

In this committee, have you ever considered listening to delegations? Have you ever received delegations? I am talking about your superministry committee. Do people approach you or come before the committee as such? Is there anything in the structure of the committee that is preventive of that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are you talking about the policy field committee? Yes, we’ve had numerous delegations appear before the justice policy field committee. I cannot think of any within the last three or four months, but in my association with the committee prior to that date I can remember attending on various delegations which appeared.

Mr. Lawlor: Have we got those figures yet?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Lawlor: These are the actual expenditure figures for last year? You know, you really should know that -- how much your superministry spent last year. It sounds like a mystery, a conundrum; it’s incredible. It should be right at your fingertips.

Mr. Singer: We are not even talking about millions; we are talking about a $400,000 estimate.

Mr. Lawlor: If you take a look at vote 1101, the only matter I’ve seen in the whole history of government to actually decrease is services, from $100,000 down to $93,000. Is there any explanation for that decrease?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I would say the explanation for the decrease, Mr. Chairman, is because the experience has indicated that we haven’t needed the required funds. There is no sense in asking for them if we are not going to use them. I can give you a break down on what we estimate makes up that figure. We are asking for $93,800. In the last previous year it was $100,900. If we don’t need it, then there is no sense asking for it.

The situation is this. Our fiscal year is the end of March, and the figures are not completed. We don’t do our own bookkeeping; they are done out of the Premier’s office. I have the figures here up to the end of February, but I can’t give you the figures for March because they haven’t come down yet.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): To the end of February -- how are they?

Mr. Singer: You can give us 11 months actual, and the estimate for one month.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I can do that very easily. The actual expenditures to the end of February, 1975, were $214,899 and change.

Mr. Singer: March is a very big spending month, I guess.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I don’t know about March being a big spending month. I would estimate that at the end of that particular period you would have -- what? -- another $20,000 to $30,000?

Mr. Singer: All right, let’s split the difference and make it $25,000. Would that be a reasonable figure?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t disagree with that at this point but I would reserve the right to comment on it, because I don’t know whether there were any capital expenditures in terms of equipment or anything purchased within that period.

Mr. Singer: Then, Mr. Chairman, my obvious question is: Accepting the provincial secretary’s figures that the fiscal year 1974-1975 anticipated an expenditure of $240,000 out of a budget of $401,000, could you tell us what you didn’t do and why you budgeted nearly double last year over the amount that you actually needed? And your predecessor was so determined -- and we spent some time on this. As I say, if you look at pages S-62 and S-63, April 18, 1974, and on -- he was so determined that he needed every penny of those moneys.

Now, we are not talking, in the context of a budget of $8.5 billion, about it being an awful lot of money. But we are talking about a ministry that some of us feel isn’t serving the purpose for which it was originally designed, and isn’t being run in any kind of a business-like fashion.

I would certainly believe, and I put it to you, Mr. Secretary, that if after three or four years of operation your budget estimating is nearly 100 per cent wrong, there is something wrong in the way the secretariat runs it. Now, can you tell us why you are almost 100 per cent wrong in your budgeting?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The figures are substantially less than those indicated in the budget. One of the main reasons is because the complement at the present time and for some months near the end of calendar 1974 was reduced for one reason or an- another, and those people were not replaced because it was known at that time that the deputy minister was going to be going on pension about the end of January. The new deputy was to be seized with the responsibility of obtaining those replacements if necessary. For that reason, those vacancies were not filled. One of them has been recently advertised in Toronto publications. With the constraints financially, and the resources available to the ministry, it was felt they should not be replaced until the new deputy took over the responsibility, either at the beginning or end of February and we could see the situation that existed.

That accounts for a substantial amount of the difference. Insofar as any other sums are concerned, I don’t know. I just simply don’t know. I am not simply going to stand here and waffle, and try to tell you so.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister be assisted if we call it 6 o’clock, because I want to pursue this at some length? Can you find out over the supper hour? That is what I am asking because the minister knows what my line of questioning is going to be. I am going to continue in it. There is no point in my asking questions and the minister saying, “I don’t know.” I would like the answers, and I think I am entitled to them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We will dig up an estimate. We will find out, and make an estimate. But again, it won’t be 100 per cent accurate and you don’t expect it to be.

Mr. Singer: I would want to know. If you can answer it now we can go right on till 6 o’clock. I want to know what people in the complement you did not hire during fiscal 1974-1975, because, as I say, I could go back to this Hansard. You will see that we went through every one including the driver, the stenographers, the executive assistants, the people with one or two university degrees, what you were going to pay them, and what they were going to do. I want to know what people you didn’t hire in last year’s complement and why, specifically, with each one, you didn’t. You have given me a general answer; I want to be more specific about it. I want to know, if you managed through fiscal 1974-1975 as efficiently as you have told us this afternoon, and other days since these estimates have started, on approximately $240,000, why you now need $469,000. That is the line of questioning, and those are the things I’d like to find out about.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: To reinforce that you obviously don’t need $469,000 if you spent $225,000 in the first year. You know, the amount you spent last year in actual expenditure was very close to the amount that was spent two previous years before it. It is almost unheard of, and certainly a good deal of explanation should go into justifying it. Maybe you should be commended. Here you are spending far less money than you budgeted for.

Your answer very well might be that we were using extreme measures in order to keep down the expenditures on an area of government which has no basic justification at all from our point of view. To jump, when you spent $240,000, to over $474,000 in a single year, is virtual doubling. Your figures are all awry. What you are presenting to us to give perusal to, and to affirm, is a fictitious figure. There is no relationship to your actual portfolio at all. The figures appear to have been pulled almost blind out of the air.

Now, really, you can’t run government that way. I think you will agree with that. Let us know, therefore, what precisely you have in mind. You got an awful lot of swot to make up in this area. I have seen estimates off $50,000 to $60,000, but never anything on this scale. The estimates, in what is a very small ministry shouldn’t be all that difficult to calculate. The point is well taken. We should know a good deal more.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other questions to the ministry?

Mr. Singer: Yes, we are waiting on the minister.

Mr. Chairman: In relation to the actual moneys you are waiting to learn about?

Mr. Singer: If we get those figures it may lead to a series of other questions.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I anticipate they probably would.

Mr. Singer: Do you want to call it 6 o’clock?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think we are somewhat handicapped on both sides of the House until I have those figures for March, and then I wish to proceed. I also wish to make known that when the present deputy and I almost jointly assumed our responsibilities -- I in January and the deputy minister on the retirement of his predecessor in February -- because of attrition, for one reason or another, the staff had been reduced. We very cautiously approached this to take a look and, quite frankly, to see what replacements we required and not go out and replace people for the sake of replacement unless they had a definite role to fill.

Once having made that assessment we have proceeded, as I say, to advertise one particular job. It is the opinion of staff that we do require that particular person to replace somebody who has left and we cannot get along without them. We wanted to assure ourselves that because we had a crew complement of 14 we are always going to need 14 on the ship. If we don’t need 14 we are not going to have them. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Singer: That is a very good idea. If you can manage without them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, if I can get by with a reduction of staff and a saving of resources that is one of my obligations; there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Renwick: Maybe that is what my friend from Downsview is about. Maybe he wants you to eliminate yourself.

Mr. Singer: I wouldn’t get down that far.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He may very much want that. That’s why I wouldn’t go along with him the whole way because when we got down to the last one I would anticipate what the member for Downsview would have at the back of his mind or the back of his hand.

Mr. Renwick: Better say the last two or you will be deserted.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We will obtain those figures that we are lacking for March, Mr. Chairman, and on the resumption of the House we will provide those figures to the committee and then we will have a go. Fair enough.

It being 6 o’clock p.m., the committee took recess.