Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to present to the House today the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on support obligations.

This report completes the series of studies on family law. Taken together with the five reports presented earlier, it gives us a comprehensive picture of the changes that need to be considered to bring the laws governing family relations in closer consonance with the needs and expectations of contemporary society.

Although there are some aspects of family law which may be given independent treatment, as we have done in the Family Law Reform Act, most of the proposed reforms appear interrelated. In particular, the laws governing property and support obligations need to be re-examined as a whole. The receipt of this report means we are now in a position to consider in detail a series of overall changes in some fundamental legal principles.

The report recommends a general rethinking and modernization of the legal principles that now underlie provincial support legislation. It recommends that a court be able to award support to either husband or wife according to the circumstances of each individual case.

The report recommends that matrimonial misconduct, instead of dominating the issue of support, constitute but one factor in a series of flexible guidelines to be applied by the court in considering the amounts of support to be awarded.

Other factors to be considered by the court would be the income and earning capacity of both spouses, the responsibilities of both spouses, the need of the dependent spouse, the contribution of each of the spouses to the welfare of the family, the age of the parties and the duration of the marriage.

It is proposed that both parents have a civil obligation of support toward their own children as well as to children, such as stepchildren, who have been accepted and treated by them as members of the family.

The report recommends the procedural and jurisdictional rules be changed so that family problems of maintenance, property and custody may be dealt with, as much as possible, in one single court application without a multiplicity of proceedings.

Extensive powers for enforcement of maintenance orders, including the power to order a transfer of property to satisfy a support obligation, are recommended for both the Supreme Court and provincial court (family division). It is suggested that a tracing department be added to the enforcement arm of the family court in order to facilitate the location of persons who default on their support obligation.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): How about the CIA?

Hon. Mr. Clement: A number of constitutional and jurisdictional questions are also raised in the report and we shall be giving these close scrutiny with a view to raising these issues with the federal government if necessary.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that at the time the report on family property law was presented, it was indicated that a thorough public discussion of its contents would be undertaken. To facilitate this discussion, public meetings have been held throughout the province, a film outlining the main recommendations in the report has been seen by some 16,300 people individually and in groups to date, and an estimated viewing audience of about 305,400 persons has seen it on TV. Approximately 50,000 copies of the summary of the report have been distributed by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

With this period of positive and continuing public consultation to guide me, and the completion of the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on support obligations, I feel confident that in the near future we shall be in a position to propose a comprehensive programme for updating family law that will better reflect the needs of contemporary society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is trying to recoup his position of the other day, eh?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No way.

DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Ontario government emphasized its commitment to maintain and protect the high standard of living enjoyed by residents of this province. We are also conscious of the less materialistic but no less important consideration, the condition which we call the quality of life.

As a measure intended to enhance the quality of life, this government, through the Ministry of the Environment, has established a comprehensive policy on waste to deal with both the kinds and quantities of waste generated, and with the uses to which this waste can and will be put.

Under this programme we will establish plants to recover energy and material resources from waste, working in full co-operation with the participating municipalities. We are developing the necessary systems to channel waste resources into these plants. We are taking steps to reduce the kinds and quantities of waste generated. A waste management advisory board has been appointed and it is active.

It will take some time to develop systems and to construct resource recovery plants throughout Ontario but a positive start has been made. We are determined to structure an effective programme, since garbage is a valuable resource that we must manage and put to constructive use. If it can be avoided, it must not be buried in the ground because of the resource materials it contains. Consistent with our objective to reclaim and reuse resources from garbage we cannot encourage the burial and waste of resources by tolerating any unnecessary landfill activities.

We have therefore committed ourselves to a provincial programme of resource recovery with the same intensity with which the Ontario government committed itself in 1957 to the direct and indirect development and control of public utilities in the water and sewage fields. As we are all aware Ontario’s water and sewage management programme is now acknowledged as one of the most successful in the world.

This is an outline, then, of our long-term policies and intentions. But there are interim situations which we face and decisions which we must make. For a period of years we must continue with our conventional systems, including the disposal on land of our refuse, until our current programmes for resource recovery and reuse are on stream.

We have set a 15-year schedule for the implementation of this programme. Our success in meeting this time frame will depend on several factors. Perhaps the most important is the realization by the public that the throw-away philosophy of our consumer society is wrong. It is selfish and it requires serious reassessment from the standpoint of current costs and from an even more serious standpoint -- extreme cost in the broadest sense to future generations. We must face this debt and responsibility we owe to the future.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Going to ban nonreturnables?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Going to ban nonreturnables?

Hon. W. Newman: We cannot continue to bury our wastefulness and our past mistakes indefinitely. We will therefore not permit waste management programmes on a massive scale to develop --

Mr. Foulds: He is for motherhood and against garbage.

Hon. W. Newman: -- along traditional patterns of disposal if any such development is not considered in the public interest. Our times demand reclamation and reuse of our nonrenewable resources and, in fact, all of our resources.

Mr. Breithaupt: A ringing statement.

Hon. W. Newman: The development of the resource recovery programme will enable municipalities and others to be more selective in the choice of landfill sites. I believe we should concentrate on the restoration and reclamation of damaged lands wherever possible. There are areas which have undergone massive disruption as a consequence of man’s various activities. In their existing unsightly state they are an eyesore and of no public benefit.

To be useful again, such lands must be renovated in some manner. Landfilling is one method of reclaiming these areas. I am fully aware of some of the constraints and problems that landfilling can impose on land in the short term. But I am convinced that, through this process, we can restore to constructive use areas which now are only scars on the landscape.

It has been fairly common practice in the past to make use of unspoilt lands in our waste management programmes. Today, however, we are more cognizant of the value of our natural environment. We know we must value and cherish as never before, such facets of our natural inheritance as wooded ravines and wildlife sanctuaries. We must recognize the need to protect the streams and rivulets that flow through many of our natural areas of beauty. It is not in the public interest to add further destruction to the natural environment by clearing and recontouring land for the singular purpose of burying our refuse, when other less valuable areas are available and can benefit from these same steps with the result that these damaged lands ultimately may be put to fruitful use.

Mr. Breithaupt: To be known as the garbage lands.

Hon. W. Newman: It is only reasonable, therefore, to consider those lands for landfilling in which the maximum benefits can be effected and to leave other lands untouched and in their natural state for the enjoyment of everyone. By this means we will be placing as much emphasis on the preservation of the natural environment as we have in the past placed on the technical and economic considerations of a site evaluation. We know this to be in the public interest.

On this basis, therefore, we have established these three concepts as an inherent part of the waste management policies of my ministry:

1. Certain unspoiled lands, because of their potential benefit to the public and to the environment in their natural state, should not be violated.

2. The development of major, long-term disposal sites on these unspoiled lands is not in the public interest.

3. And, where there is any feasible alternative, the use of any unspoiled land for landfill is not in the public interest.

Consistent with these concepts, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the appropriate official of my ministry has today advised Canadian Pacific Rail, a division of Canadian Pacific Ltd., that the proposed landfill site in Hope township, for which CF Rail has applied, will not be approved.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why didn’t he just say that instead of all the garbage before it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Labour.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I don’t have a statement to make, but I was a little late arriving in the House and I do have a class of 150 students from Ridgeview Collegiate Institute in Etobicoke. I would ask the House to welcome them in its usual warm manner.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The member for Downsview.

DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: In light of the statement that he just gave us, the thrust of which apparently was that the Port Hope dump would not be used -- does his ministry have any plans for the disposal of Metro Toronto garbage.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A good question.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have bad discussions with the Metro chairman. I have assured him we will work with them very closely to look after Metro’s problems as far as landfill sites are concerned. At this point in time they have 3½ to four years’ dumping capacity for Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Breithaupt: At least past the next election.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, the minister knows this has been of great concern to Metro officials, the works commissioner and all the committees charged with this responsibility. What steps are now being taken in this “working closely” bit? This is a very urgent problem and certainly Metropolitan Toronto has to be able to plan for the future disposal of its garbage.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, of course they have to, and we have been working closely with them. There are several applications before the Environmental Hearing Board at this point in time on sites in the greater Metro area.

Mr. Singer: By way of further supplementary: Is the ministry co-operating insofar as the bringing of these applications is concerned? Is it supporting any of the applications?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, before any Environmental Hearing Board meets on any applications by any individual on a sanitary landfill site, our people will be there with their technical expertise as far as the desirability of the site is concerned from a technical point of view.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): A supplementary: Did I understand the minister to say there are alternative sites being looked at, and are the locations of those sites available for the public at this time?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, I said there were applications now before the Environmental Hearing Board for hearings, I believe on two sites. There are also the other sites -- the box sites, as we call them -- in Pickering; but there hasn’t been a final decision made on those sites as yet. They have been through the Environmental Hearing Board and they are still being evaluated.

Mr. Young: Are the locations of those sites not known as far as the public is concerned?

Hon. W. Newman: I think, Mr. Speaker, that all the applications before the Environmental Hearing Board are public information. There is nothing to hide. There are at least two applications that I know of before the board right now.

Mr. Young: Will the minister give the House the information as to where those sites are?

Hon. W. Newman: They are before the Environmental Hearing Board, which is an independent board. But, certainly, I would be glad to find out what applications are before it at this time and let the member know, yes.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Could he advise us whether the government approves of the statements attributed to the hon. member for Timiskaming in relation to Maple Mountain and in relation to Indians? His remarks were: “I could buy the Indian chiefs off with a case of goof.”

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Oh come on; get off that cheap crap.

Mr. Singer: He also said: “These damn Indians have gone absolutely wild. We should have given them a bunch of tepees, some cordwood and that’s all.” Is that the view of the government?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Cheap, cheap.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Downsview has got a real weird sense of humour hasn’t he? It’s pretty dirty when one gets down to the bottom of the barrel.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That is where the member for Timiskaming started.

Mr. Foulds: The member for Timiskaming should know.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, not being accustomed to starting my day and finding material for a day’s work by reading the morning paper, I haven’t read that and so I wouldn’t comment on it.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary: If those remarks are correctly attributed -- and they are in quotes -- would the minister not be able to say whether or not those are the views of the government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member must think I’m as stupid as he is to think that I would answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps the member for Timiskaming has a point of privilege.

Mr. Deans: Ask the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: The answer will speak for itself.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Downsview had better sit down.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Would he tell us, in relation to his tabling of the report this morning, whether or not it is reasonable to expect quicker action in connection with this report of the Law Reform Commission than with its earlier reports in relation to family law, and whether or not we can expect something more in this session of the Legislature than the one bill that is on the order paper at present?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the hon. member for Downsview anticipated this session. I can only conclude that he is not really too disappointed, particularly in view of the fact that this came in from the printers only last night, I believe, and I am tabling it this morning.

The statement, if the hon. member will recall, points out very clearly that many of these matters, in fact just about all of them relating to family law, are interrelated and cannot be acted on individually. Now that we have the final report in, hopefully we will be able to produce the legislation that the report and its predecessors recommend -- looking at the overall problem in its whole context, instead of individually item by item.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary: The Attorney General said we will now be able to “anticipate”. My specific question is, since he has had a flock of these reports already -- and granted today he is just tabling a new one -- is it reasonable to expect we are going to see further statutes in this session besides the one we have, which goes only a small part of the way?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think we will have one this session in view of the fact we have this report today. I think it would be completely irresponsible to think we could produce legislation within perhaps the next two, three, four or five weeks as a result of this report, which is very comprehensive. I have not read it. I presume perhaps the member has already?

Mr. Singer: No, I haven’t.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have been going for 20 minutes and I am telling the member I would rather err on the side of caution and come in with a comprehensive piece of legislation, than go forward for the sake of placating the member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: By way of further supplementary: Without placating me, perhaps the minister would care to placate some of the people of the Province of Ontario who have problems in this field and who might have liked to take advantage of the earlier recommendations --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Singer: -- the several volumes of earlier recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Is the Attorney General not of a mood to placate those people of Ontario to whom the Law Reform Commission referred in several volumes of much earlier reports?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, any legislation goes forward hopefully with the view of assisting all people who have problems. The member relates to those who have had problems in the past. The new legislation, once introduced, may well not be able to assist them in their unique situations but it will help those who follow. Those who are partially through some form of litigation will perhaps be assisted, but that will have to remain until we see what the report says and what legislation goes forward. If the member is suggesting retroactive legislation, I would be willing to debate that with him on any occasion. It could be privately or in the forum of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Lakeshore have a supplementary?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree that on the basis of the bill already submitted and on the basis of the thorough reading which I have just given this report, the law in question seems to be even more beneficial to men than to women?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t understand the question. Is the member asking whether I believe this to be true or is this, in fact, the situation? Is this what he is saying?

Mr. Lawlor: I asked if the minister believed it to be true that these reports, as they are coming through, are more liberating, not just as liberating, for the male sex as for women?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would be very disappointed in the Ontario Law Reform Commission if it came forward with legislation or recommendations for legislation which favoured any particular group. I would hope it would come forward in the best interests of all who might be served by that legislation.

Mr. Lawlor: I thought women were the ones who were to be most affected.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not had the opportunity to read this. I will perhaps, before 11 o’clock, to catch up with my friend from Lakeshore, and we can discuss it later.

Mr. Singer: Everybody’s ahead of the minister this morning.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would hope the recommendations herein contained, along with those in the prior reports, are made in an unbiased and equitable way to apply to all the people in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the member for Downsview?

SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer: In view of the reports in the media about the difficulty students are having in getting summer jobs and certainly in view of the experience of most members, I am sure, who are getting calls from students, does the government have any more plans to create new summer jobs for students who are shortly going to be released from the secondary schools and the universities?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection the Premier (Mr. Davis) answered a question about this yesterday. Perhaps the member wasn’t here. I believe the Premier indicated and certainly I would indicate, that our summer programme is at a high level and in any case we account for a very small number of summer jobs in the province. As I recall, my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), said the other day that about 10 or 11 per cent -- 13 per cent -- of the jobs are provided in one form or another by government.

At this late date it would be very difficult for us to accelerate our plans and give them meaningful work. We have had complaints in the past that ministries have taken on too many summer students and the students have complained they haven’t had enough to do. We are simply not going into non-productive make-work programmes. Even if we could accelerate at this late date, we wouldn’t make much of a dent in the total market.

I’m sure my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), would indicate to members and to any student that there will be far more jobs than there will be applicants, in terms of employment on farms this summer in the province. In my own county I noted that something like 5,000 are going to be needed. So I think there probably is work available; whether it’s as satisfying as some would like is debatable.

Mr. Deans: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the ministry considered trying to set up a programme that will co-ordinate a series of short-term jobs? I know there are a number of employers who might be able to hire people for one or two weeks, but not provide a job for the entire summer. Unfortunately, they don’t seem able to match up people with those jobs. Is it possible to do something along that line in the short run?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps the Minister of Energy, who did have the youth secretariat under his responsibility, might answer that question.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): I’ll try to add what I can, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), now has the responsibility for the secretariat again, but the type of activity that the hon. member is discussing really is carried on by Canada Manpower, which establishes student employment centres in the summer. We have purposely tried not to duplicate their activities. They assist students in finding both short-term employment and full-time employment for the summer.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: Is the minister satisfied that Canada Manpower does, in fact, do the job? If he is, he doesn’t understand it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would refer back to some of the things I said when I was responsible for the youth secretariat, in point of fact I don’t think we are satisfied.

Mr. Deans: Then let’s do it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But we don’t think there’s anything to be gained by duplication of effort by the provincial and federal administrations. Rather, we have tried over the years to put more pressure on the federal government to make the role of Canada Manpower more meaningful.

Mr. Deans: That’s not going to help.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, and back to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: In view of the present job difficulty relating to young people, does the government plan to continue with its advertising programme which runs something like, “Apply now. Hurry up and put your application in for a job.” Is that advertising programme really believed now to be productive?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the campaign is just about through. However, there have been areas within the government where jobs have not been filled.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Is the minister aware that the advertisements over the radio are programmed at a time when most of the students are in school and couldn’t hear them at all? They run at 10 o’clock in the morning and 2 o’clock in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions? The member for Wentworth.

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour, and I’m sorry the member for Timiskaming has gone. Will the Minister of Labour ask the Human Rights Commission to investigate the statements attributed to the member for Timiskaming, that could generally be considered to be a racial slur? Would the minister take whatever action is necessary to correct, both in the minds of the public and in the minds of the Indian community, any mistaken thoughts that that might well be the opinion of other than one member of the Legislature?

Mr. Breithaupt: Let the member for Timiskaming rise on a point of privilege if he wishes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a group of students yesterday and I asked some tolerance from them. I was trying to explain there are sometimes rights in conflict, one of them being the right to free speech and the other the right that we are establishing against racism.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The members are a little behind in their subjects over there.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I haven’t seen the statement that has been referred to this morning. I’ll be pleased to look at it. I won’t undertake to refer it to the Human Rights Commission, but I’ll be pleased to examine it myself.

Mr. Singer: Read page 10 of the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Would the minister agree that the statement, “These damn Indians have gone absolutely wild. We should have given them a bunch of tepees and some cordwood and that’s all,” only adds fuel to the fire of racial problems? The member for Timiskaming should be required to stand in his place and either withdraw the statements or apologize.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just as I invited him to do.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t like to pass judgement on a thing of this nature on the basis of a press report and hearing only one side of the story.

Mr. Singer: The minister is a little more diplomatic than the provincial secretary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The question was a little more diplomatic.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister realize the member is an official of the government? He’s not only a member of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Questions.

HOUSING PLANS FOR DURHAM REGION

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing indicate whether there has been any agreement signed between the Ontario Housing Corp., and either or all of Goldfan Holdings, Tatum Holdings and Alliance Ex-Urban Co., who make up something called the Courtice concept in the area immediately adjacent to Oshawa?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t. I will undertake to find out and report back to the hon. member.

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAMME

Mr. Deans: I have another question of the Minister of Housing. Can he indicate just how much longer it is going to be before the Province of Ontario will move unilaterally to establish a home warranty programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very important that we do have a home warranty programme. I’ve talked to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), and I would hope we would have an Ontario plan. We had expected the federal government would step into the breach but they have not and will not, as I understand it, before 18 months or possibly two years. Therefore, I would urge my colleague to endeavour to have legislation for this fall.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Can the minister recall almost 18 months ago when ministers of this government indicated there would be a home warranty programme in effect in Ontario within a very short period of time? How much longer do we have to wait before the government does something?

Mr. Lawlor: The minister knows that the government did indicate that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been doing quite a bit since I’ve been here as the Minister of Housing, whether the member for Wentworth agrees or not.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister had better go out and start building them himself.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, I understand the problem and I will undertake to see that we do have a warranty as soon as possible.

ADULTS-ONLY BUILDINGS

Mr. Deans: I have another question of the Minister of Housing. Can he indicate whether he is taking any action within his ministry to correct laws which will allow people to turn apartment buildings from buildings available for families to buildings that are for adults only?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there is no way I can have any control over that particular form of conversion.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister have any opinions as the Minister of Housing with regard to the practice that is currently taking place fairly frequently in Metropolitan Toronto and other metropolitan areas?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware that these conversions are going on from day to day in certain areas, but I don’t see it as being something which will be happening in the future to any degree. A few months ago we had a lot of condominium conversions; we don’t have as many conversions right now. People are beginning to understand that perhaps condominium conversion was not that good a deal, and I think we might find out that the adult conversion will not be that feasible in the future.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary: How can we ever expect to have a sufficient number of family rental accommodations available in the province if there is this continuous conversion from family rental accommodation to adults-only buildings, given that we don’t build nearly enough within the Ontario Housing programme and the private developers don’t build any?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ve always said to the hon. members of this House that the government of Ontario is not responsible for building all the housing in Ontario.

Mr. Deans: The government is responsible for ensuring it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s the private sector that must ensure that it supplies housing, and it will supply housing. We’ve have been urging the private sector to do so. I said only yesterday that we see very definite signs there will be a lot of building this year and that we will have housing of all types. The answer to it all is supply; if you have supply, you’re not going to have all these conversions.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? A supplementary from the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister think OHC will be able to complete 500 senior citizen units in Thunder Bay in the next month?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I certainly don’t, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t think the hon. member would expect OHC to do so. I would like to say to the hon. member -- and I was pleased to see him at our cabinet meeting and our meeting when we were in Thunder Bay --

Mr. Foulds: I’m glad the minister put that on the record.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that we have in Thunder Bay more senior citizen units per thousand population than in the majority of the municipalities throughout Ontario. Thunder Bay has certainly received a very large degree of building from the Ontario Housing Corp. We have, at the present time, if my memory serves me correctly, 600 units for senior citizens. We have another 120 coming on stream very shortly. We have a waiting list, an actual waiting list -- not, as was mentioned to me two or three weeks ago, of around 1,000, but actually only 347.

Mr. Foulds: It’s 519.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Those people may not all be eligible. So, as I understand it, we are keeping up very well with the people who want senior citizen accommodation in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, if I might.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that his predecessor assured me in this House last June that every senior citizen in Thunder Bay would be properly housed by June of this year? The minister himself admits today there are at least three hundred and -- how many did he say?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I said 347.

Mr. Foulds: There are 347 waiting -- my understanding was that it was 519. But even accepting the minister’s figures, doesn’t he think that kind of statement by his predecessor is one that he as a minister should have lived up to, and that he should have met that need?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t really know when my colleague, the former Minister of Housing, made that statement. I would like to say that as far as I’m concerned, I know full well that in any community we will not at any time be able to supply all the senior citizen units that may be necessary to house all the senior citizens for one very obvious reason: We haven’t got the federal funding to begin with, and we haven’t got the amount of funds in Ontario to supply the housing that the member is talking about. I doubt very much if the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) ever made that statement.

Mr. Deans: What about the $410 million the government gave away?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the member for Wentworth?

HAMILTON DUMP SITE

Mr. Deans: I have one final question, Mr. Speaker; it is for the Minister of the Environment. Am I correct in assuming that in addition to the stopping of the CF Rail project, we are supposed to believe that the government’s position with regard to major landfill sites is that they will not be allowed in areas that are viable or in areas that are useful either ecologically or productively?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member’s question, I would say yes, wherever possible. There will be instances, however, where the municipalities may have to use some unspoiled land from time to time, depending on the area and the circumstances.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Can I then take it that the minister will be informing the municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth that it cannot use the class 1 and class 2 farmland in Binbrook township that it intended to use for its 20-year dump site and that it will have to find an alternative spot or an alternative way of dealing with its garbage?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this point in time, because there is an application to be heard before the Environmental Hearing Board. The site must be the subject of a hearing by the Environmental Hearing Board, and the recommendations of the board will be taken into consideration when they’ve made their report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

DRUG BENEFITS ADVERTISING

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the Minister aware that the Ontario drug benefit cards are being used as part of an advertising campaign which indicates that for every Ontario drug benefit prescription filled at a certain chain drugstore, they will receive a 50-cent coupon, redeemable at that drugstore or at the local supermarket? Should this advertising campaign be going on?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I totally disagree with that advertising campaign, Mr. Speaker. If in fact there is 50 cents to be made, then obviously the price we are paying is too high. At the same time, we have been told by the pharmacists in Ontario that we are not paying enough. We are currently negotiating with the pharmacists so that the government will not We paying more than the price charged to a cash customer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

WEED CUTTING

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): If I might get the attention of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker; I believe he is still around.

Mr. Foulds: Here he comes -- around the corner, down the aisle, into the home stretch. lie can’t get away.

Mr. Samis: Thank you. Could I ask the minister what action his ministry is prepared to take regarding the implementation of his own ministry advocating a weed harvesting programme on the St. Lawrence River between Cornwall and the Quebec border?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we will be doing 1,000 acres of weed cutting this year. I can’t tell the member exactly the locations where they will be cutting but we are anticipating cutting 1,000 acres of aquatic weeds this summer.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary: Will that be on the St. Lawrence?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell the member at this point in time but we will find out where it is and we’ll let him know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

ACCOUNTABILITY OF HOSPITAL BOARDS

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Health. In view of the recent decision in the high division of the Supreme Court in the Macdonald and North York General case, in which the court found the board of governors of a hospital is required to determine the health needs of the community, is the Minister of Health now prepared to move to make boards of governors of hospitals accountable to the community?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that hinges on the definition of the word accountable and in what sense the member wants that accountability to be shown. I would like to think that boards of management of hospitals have been part of the community and accountable to it.

Admittedly, the method of electing them, in some cases, is based upon a very small number of potential voters. In the main, the volunteers who serve on the hospital boards of Ontario have done an excellent job of running the hospitals. I disagree with some of the things they do and I talk about these things with them on a pretty regular basis.

I want to see them take more responsibility in terms of some of the things which pertain to management of hospitals, rather than their assuming that the Ministry of Health should set guidelines which they must follow.

At the same time, I was delighted at the findings of the courts in the Macdonald case because I truly believe a hospital has the duty to limit the number of physicians on its staff to the number that the hospital needs and can physically accommodate.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may: The minister, as I take it, is talking about the management of a hospital; would he elaborate on the principle in that judgement, that the board has a far greater duty than simply the management of a hospital in ascertaining the needs of the community for health service? Are they not two different things?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, they are, Mr. Speaker. I would like to think this is evolving now in those areas where district health councils are forming. It is not going to be a quick process because to date hospital boards, in attempting to define the needs of the communities they serve, have sometimes ended up by competing to serve the needs of the community in which more than one facility is located.

In my opinion, that has caused costly duplication of services in some cases and a lack of services in others. Health planning councils were set up specifically without any one group dominating, so that the needs of the community could be determined in a more rational way and so that the hospitals, the physicians and the nurses of the community could be arranged and deployed in a way which would meet those needs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

LA SALLE RESIDENTS’ SUIT AGAINST U.S. COMPANIES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware that the 11 families in La Salle, in the township of Sandwich West, have settled out of court their suit against the Michigan air polluters across the river?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I am quite aware that the companies settled out of court. I don’t know what the final settlement was. I don’t know whether or not that has been made public yet but I understand they settled it out of court.

Mr. Burr: As a supplementary, has the minister any plans to facilitate this kind of group action in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said this to the member before, that certainly we are quite prepared to lend the expertise we have in the ministry to any particular group in a particular situation. We have the experts in the ministry and we are quite willing to co-operate with people -- and we always have been.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister care to outline the involvement of his ministry in that suit? In what way did he actually help the people from La Salle in receiving the judgement that they did receive from the US courts?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected, but I believe our people went down and talked to the people involved. There was some doubt as to whether they could be put on the witness stand in the case, but I believe there was a fair amount of data and technology available, which we gave to them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Environment. When might we expect Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, to be given second reading? Would he anticipate that this bill will receive second and third reading before the next election is called, and will the bill go to standing committee?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know when the next election is going to be called. Maybe he knows more about it than I do. But certainly the bill will be called for second reading just as soon as I can meet the various groups who have asked to meet with me. I’ve met with several groups now. I have other groups requesting meetings with me to discuss the bill.

I am arranging these meetings as quickly as possible, because I would like to get on with second reading of the bill. As far as going to standing committee or not, I can’t say at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

THUNDER BAY OFFICIAL PLAN

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing. I would like to ask him a specific question about his statement yesterday. Does the statement mean the amendment proposed by the city of Thunder Bay to the Lakehead official plan, which has been twice rejected by his ministry in the past four years, I believe, will now be accepted and they will be able to implement that without approval from his ministry or from the OMB?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Thunder Bay I spoke to the brief presented by the city. I gave an undertaking that our staff would be there forthwith, and by forthwith I hope next week. There are points that will be at issue, I’m sure. I don’t think we will resolve them all.

I did indicate to the city assessment planner, the mayor and members of council that I felt it’s time they give some ground and we give some, and that we get the official plan in Thunder Bay approved so the people of Thunder Bay know exactly what they can do with their land and where they can build. As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, I don’t think it’s necessary to have the 10-acre severance in Thunder Bay, any more than it Is in any other part of the province.

Mr. Foulds: I have a quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister see that process being completed say, by the end of June?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be very delighted if we could have it approved by the end of June. As the member knows, if there are objections from certain citizens it will then have to go to an OMB hearing. But as far as we’re concerned, I would hope most sincerely it will be finalized at the elected city level and appointed level in Thunder Bay, and also with our staff, by the end of June.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

RECREATION TRAILS

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Two years ago the then Provincial Secretary for Resources Development held a symposium on recreation trails. Last fall, the present Provincial Secretary for Resources Development made an announcement about new legislation he would be bringing in to support the construction and development of trails of all kinds around the province. The other day I asked him the question about what he is doing about that, since it’s now six months and nothing has happened, other than snowmobiles -- and people are interested in more than snowmobiles these days.

When will this minister, since he has the responsibility for this whole activity, be developing such a proposal -- for instance, councils -- or some means of getting on with some of the trails in the province, including bike-ways in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we’re quite concerned about this particular programme. I might say we have been working continuously since those original statements were made, in the preparation of that particular legislation and pulling together a wide representation of selected individuals who would act on the council itself. I hope I will be able to bring that forward in the very near future.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Does the minister mean to say it takes six months to get a group of people together in the province whom he can rely on to develop this? There is no need for six months delay in this.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is a very new concept, something that takes a lot of study and a lot of consultation with a number of groups, because it is a comprehensive trails programme dealing with everyone who walks on snowshoes, or skis, or rides horses or snowmobiles. We have to have their input to put the legislation together, and that’s coming together very quickly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

METAL CORROSION

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy, concerning the recent statement by a corrosion expert, Dr. James T. N. Atkinson, an associate professor of metallurgy at Queen’s University, that Canada is using 20 per cent of its total energy in replacing unnecessary corrosion failures: What is his ministry doing to combat this unpardonable waste of both metals and energy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen the comment and it’s obviously taken out of context. Corrosion in what? Is he talking about generating plants or is he talking about industrial applications of all kinds?

Mr. Burr: All kinds.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is continuing work being done by Ontario Hydro in improving its systems to reduce losses through depreciation in the workings of its plant, but it’s a very broad question that the member has asked. If I can perhaps have the article, we could discuss it in whatever context he has put it.

Mr. Burr: Yes, I would be glad to send it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

FLOOD DAMAGE ASSISTANCE

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: What additional assistance, if any, has the minister decided to provide to the flood victims of several weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have had an initial report from my staff and I think this particular matter should rest with the Treasurer of this province, because it is under his ministry that the disaster relief fund is administered.

Mr. Gaunt: May I redirect the question to the Treasurer? What additional assistance, if any, is going to be provided to victims of the flood several weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing. We have not been asked for anything, to my knowledge. I am sure if we were, it would come either to me or to my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources. It seems to me the local people seem to have straightened the matter away with dispatch.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Is it fair to assume, then, under those circumstances, that the only assistance that will be given is the traditional matching-dollar grant?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we haven’t been asked yet, so I really can’t give an answer before we are asked.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: What has the Minister of Natural Resources been doing in collecting all the information? Isn’t that tantamount to a request?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Minister of Natural Resources is one of the most capable, competent people I know.

Mr. Deans: Then why doesn’t he answer his own question?

Mr. Breithaupt: That doesn’t say much for the Treasurer’s acquaintances.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But unlike the divine right that Grits assume to themselves, he does not assume to himself the power to make a request on behalf of a municipality.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s Grit thinking and not part of our thinking over here. We wait till they ask.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Cheap shot. That is a cheap shot.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: It’s getting a little dull around here.

Interjections by hon. members.

HEALTH SERVICES FOR NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I have a question of the Minister of Health. When is the Minister of Health going to be less firm in his opposition to the kind of demands that people are making in northwestern Ontario for better health services, as manifested by the kind of brief that was presented to him by the Northwestern Ontario Health Council? In specific terms, when is he going to provide some mobile dental clinics for the school-aged children who need it so badly at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the implication of the first part of the member’s question, he knows is wrong.

Mr. Stokes: No, I don’t.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He knows it is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Somebody has got to support the minister.

Mr. Deans: That is why he is in the cabinet.

Mr. Foulds: Does the member for Don Mills know all about health in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I want to say he is applauding because today for the first time I pronounced his name right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I finally learned it was Trimbell.

Mr. Breithaupt: And not Tumbrell.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Trimbull!

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s the way they print it in Hydro.

Mr. Breithaupt: He has not made much of an impression on them either.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is shocking.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will try to be serious for a second. The brief that was presented to me and which I admit did not receive a very warm reception from me was one asking me to honour a retroactive budgetary change in certain hospitals in Thunder Bay. It had nothing to do with the provision of health services in that area at all.

I pointed out to the group present that under the constraints placed upon me and the rules of the game as they applied then, I could not retroactively make that change. I did not try to go around the corner and tell them I would come back home and think about it. I simply told them what the facts were, that Management Board and ourselves have considered it and that we had to say no. That is fair enough because I would rather tell them the truth, albeit unpleasant, than leave them thinking I was coming back with something that they might get.

The second issue is quite apart -- the question of provision of other services. I understand that in fact we have just renewed some of the physiotherapy services for the balance of the year and some $39,000 will be flowing to a group up there. I continue to look and will continue to look for ways to help them provide heifer services within the limits of my budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that the council of the borough of Etobicoke has endorsed private member’s Bill 19, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code? The purpose of this bill is to eliminate discrimination as a result of a physical handicap. Is the minister prepared at this time to accept that as legislation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept that into the legislation. I have said earlier that I think we can do things and should be doing things in our labour laws for handicapped people. I have a study under review at the present time to see what is the best way to handle it.

I think the Human Rights Code is something that is apart. We can dilute that code by putting other incidental things in it that really are not fundamental to it. I think race, colour and creed are the things we are trying to protect in the Human Rights Code. If we start putting things such as the handicapped in it, I don’t think it will do much for the handicapped and I think it will detract from the basic principles of the code.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, could I make a statement of personal privilege? Isn’t this the time?

Mr. Speaker: On a point of personal privilege, yes.

Mr. Root: The Globe and Mail carried on page 5 this morning a story with the heading “MPPs run out of things to say”. They said there were 16 members in the House when the House adjourned and then they only listed 15 names.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is real personal privilege.

Mr. Root: I will tell the members the personal privilege. My name was left out and I was in the House. I resent these backhanded slaps at the member for Wellington-Dufferin. This is not the first time the Globe and Mail has resorted to picking up some of the misleading statements that the member for Kitchener makes.

My question of personal privilege is that I hope the Globe and Mail, which I have always felt was a reliable and honourable newspaper, will publish with the same prominence the fact that I was in the House when the House adjourned last night. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports:

Hon. Mr. Clement presented the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on support obligations.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell presented the annual report of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Power Corporation Act, which governs the operations of Ontario Hydro. I have just tabled the 1974 annual report of Ontario Hydro. This bill is the result of extensive consultation with the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Municipal Electric Association and the Association of Municipal Electrical Utilities.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is customary to move the bill first of all.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the amendments contained in this bill will update and improve Ontario Hydro’s accounting and financial operations and will continue its evolution toward conventional corporation organization begun in 1973 on the recommendations of Task Force Hydro.

The amendments are proposed to come into effect as of Jan. 1, 1975. The aspect of the bill most relevant to the Energy Board review is the introduction of revenue smoothing. Other amendments will, for example, authorize Hydro, with government approval, to engage directly in securing reliable supplies of fuel for its operations and to improve enforcement of the electrical safety code.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to inform the House there is a group of grade 12 students from Wexford Collegiate Institute, Scarborough, in the House today. They have come in since the beginning of the session this morning, and I think the members would like to welcome them to the House.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the payment of interest by the minister on guaranteed student loans for prescribed periods. During such period, no interest would be payable by the student.

ANSWER TO A WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I want to table the answer to question No. 3 standing on the order paper. (Sessional paper No. 37.)

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, before the House begins the committee of supply, I want to ask a question on behalf of my colleagues. We now have two sets of estimates before the House again and we are now going to start a third set of estimates. Why would we not have completed the Attorney General’s estimates since he is the same person? Why would we not have completed those estimates to the end and then gone on with the new ones?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the minister is carrying the three estimates. I have allowed him to call them as he chooses. He is going to stay on the floor until his three departments are concluded so that whatever debate takes place can be done consistently within the terms of those three divisions.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, may I speak on this point of order? After all, I am one of the victims of this particular malicious stupidity. Is the House Leader mad or something? He is really disruptive, chaotic, anarchic and damn stupid. He said two weeks ago that we were going to stay on; we’re on to the Attorney General. We completed the superior ministry, broken up by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at his behest. Then it comes on this morning, out of the blue; five minutes ago I learn as a critic of this party -- the critic of the Liberal Party is not here at the moment --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, here I come.

Mr. Lawlor: Sorry, here he comes. I learn that he is going to visit upon our heads the Solicitor General. I sit here for days with stuff ready to go on the Attorney General; I prepared this stuff to give some kind of input to the estimates. I haven’t worked on the estimates of the Solicitor General; I can’t work at everything. Has he any notion of what goes into the work over here, that we should get a few hours’ notice so we can gen up on our stuff? Does he not give a damn? That’s the only thing I can come to in this particular regard: “The less we say the better; the sooner it gets over the better. We would rather not have any critique at all. The opposition is a damn nuisance. Let’s get out of here. If we can pull a fast one on them, pull a little wool over their eyes, so much the better.” He is the worst House leader and the sooner the Premier gets rid of him we’ll get some peace and some kind of intelligence in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. What is your point of order?

Mr. Lawlor: He is arbitrary, purblind --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You’ve made your case.

Mr. Lawlor: He needs to be told and he hasn’t been told sufficiently. No matter what you say to him, Mr. Speaker, he sits there with that bland somnolent smile all over his face.

I object to being treated this way in this House. I can’t perform my functions and duties as they’re expected to be done. I have a whole series of estimates one after the other to take. We did the Ministry of Correctional Services. That came out of the blue, too, as No. 1 and now this morning, I think it’s gone far enough.

I don’t want to go on with these estimates. I think it’s an imposition upon the membership. I can’t participate in any way, anywhere close. One can talk off the cuff and off the top of one’s head. The Tories do that all the time around here; they do it too much.

One of the things which turns members off the House is that things are done superficially. One can do a certain amount superficially but if there isn’t depth, if there isn’t meaning in this work and one is not getting down to it, the whole thing becomes a sham and a charade which is being cultivated over there every day and I’m not going to be the butt of that particular thing.

I’m asking the Attorney General to return to the estimates of the Attorney General. We’ve been prepared for two or three weeks to go on with that. I’m not prepared to go with the Solicitor General. If it’s forced it will be down my craw, I can tell you Mr. Speaker, and you will hear a good deal about it.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): That was well spoken.

Mr. Singer: I would like to join with the member for Lakeshore in the very great concern he has expressed to the House about the method of carrying on the business of the House. I think it is grossly, absolutely, patently unfair that the members of this Legislature should be treated in the way we are being treated.

The House is run solely as the private fiefdom of the government members. Estimates come on at the pleasure of an individual minister; if he’s going to be here for an hour or two we run into estimates. If he’s going to be away on a speaking engagement, it’s cancelled. If perchance the cabinet is going somewhere, as it was on Tuesday night, there is no meeting. If perchance there’s a dinner for one of the members over there, the House just disappears.

Suddenly, because something happened last evening, what the acting Solicitor General told one yesterday afternoon -- namely that I could expect nothing would happen in the Justice field until Tuesday -- has all gone by the board. It’s ridiculous. If there is a point in bringing estimates here for discussion and having them discussed by all members of the House and particularly by opposition critics surely, Mr. Speaker, we’re entitled to be treated as people and to be given reasonable notice; to be treated with reasonable courtesy and we don’t get that.

The government has the votes. It has 74 votes and the total opposition votes are 43. It can bulldoze through anything it wants and I don’t know why it doesn’t bulldoze through an $8.5-billion vote once and for all and forget about the estimates. Because the way it is playing with the house and playing with parliamentary procedure is a disgrace to the democratic process.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to correct an impression perhaps left in the minds of the members of the House with reference to the conversation I had with the member for Downsview yesterday. He asked me if I was going on with my estimates last evening and I said no, I would be going on at the end of the estimates of the Government Services, which I anticipated would be for me to commence on Tuesday, the House being closed Monday. I have taken the position all along that I would be going with the Justice policy field secretariat, the Ministry of the Solicitor General of which I am the acting minister, and then the Attorney General estimates. I have advised my staff, I have advised members of the House and I advised the House leader that this would be the order in which I would be taking them.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, he didn’t advise me.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I now find myself reading in the paper this morning that I did not appear last night. I was not expected to appear. I was out of the city on another matter. I just want to correct that. I’m not suggesting that the member for Downsview is misquoting our conversation, but that is, I think, the gist of the conversation that he and I privately had yesterday pertaining to my estimates.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That being the case, and that was my understanding, I do not intend to accept any of the personal charges that were made here this morning.

Mr. Lawlor: The House leader certainly deserved them, and he’ll get a good deal more. He’s a disaster over there.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That applies to the member for Lakeshore. He is speaking about himself and nobody else.

Mr. Lawlor: He has upset the work of this House for two years now. One can’t depend on a thing he says. He is completely unreliable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The order of business was called and the Speaker is not in control of that. Is the chairman here?

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Acting Solicitor General): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): You’ll bulldoze it through, won’t you, sweetheart?

Hon. Mr. Clement: is the member for Lakeshore talking to me?

Mr. Lawlor: No, I’m talking to that dunce.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I thought you were trying to tell me something, and I would ask for an adjournment if you were.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Can we have a copy of your statement?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my staff would provide the critics with the statement I’m about to read. I’ve always been under the impression that this Monday next is celebrated as Victoria Day. I know my children in the past have always called it firecracker day. I would anticipate that right now the date has been moved ahead by about 72 hours.

Mr. Lawlor: A point of order.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Lawlor: Why are you going on with these particular estimates rather than with those of the Attorney General? That’s what I’d like to know.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am going ahead on these estimates because when I had to make the decision some weeks ago as to where I preferred to go with my estimates, in view of the nature of the three sets of estimates, I said I preferred to take them in the House and I preferred to take them in the order in which, in fact, they have been called, namely, the policy field which we concluded a week ago last night, the Solicitor General’s estimates and then the Attorney General’s estimates. I have not deviated from that. I am not calling them in any particular order, save and except I felt it appropriate, Mr. Chairman, that the policy field estimates should be called first, so that we could deal with overall policy field.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that was quite agreeable.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that decision has found acceptance by the critics in this House. I have not deviated or hidden or deferred to discuss what order I was going to call them in, as I had already touched on a conversation I had with one of the other critics as late as yesterday afternoon. Hence my proceeding in this fashion.

I have no particular personal preference because I do, one way or the other, have the responsibility for the two sets of estimates yet to be discussed before this House. The very practical situation I find myself in, and I apologize to the member for Lakeshore, is that I have my staff here ready to go this morning, If we did reverse the order, then it would mean that I would have to have staff from downtown who are nowhere near ready to go in that they have other commitments and are meeting them today in terms of meeting with people and this sort of thing. I’ve told them right from day one that I would indeed be proceeding with the estimates of the Solicitor General prior to their ministry.

This is the position I find myself in. I have no particular preference between the one or the other. I can just tell the member for Lakeshore, and I mean this and I hope he accepts this, that I have not in any way attempted nor am I attempting now, to mislead him. I know the work he puts into anything that he is going to participate in. And perhaps his remarks or observations, which will undoubtedly come forward, can be deferred until next week, or on Tuesday, when I presume we will continue these estimates. I want to hear from you. Once in a while you do have a good idea. As a matter of fact, sometimes more than once in a while.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Would it have been too much trouble to advise him that these were coming on?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I look forward to hearing from the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Why didn’t the House leader get together with him?

Mr. Lawlor: I’m not likely to be mollified this morning, thanks. I could have been informed, at the very least. The Attorney General’s estimates ware assumed for two weeks to be going on. If you had come back last night, you would have done Attorney General, I suspect.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Lawlor: No?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I was going on with these estimates.

Mr. Lawlor: Then again --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I might add that I don’t recall the member for Lakeshore and I having any conversation or inquiry as to the order in which they were being called. The member for Downsview asked me, and I told him.

Mr. Deacon: The House leader didn’t tell us.

Mr. Singer: The minister is quite correct. In essence our versions of the conversation are substantially the same. My remarks to you were addressed with the idea in mind that the Solicitor General was the last one. I don’t know where I got that impression, perhaps I got it from the House leader.

Mr. Lawlor: I got that impression too.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t know until you passed by this aisle earlier this morning that it was Solicitor General and not Attorney General.

Mr. Lawlor: You were putting them over so the member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr) could come back and assume the position.

Mr. Singer: I don’t know if this makes any sense, Mr. Chairman, but I think it would be fairer, much fairer, in view of the concern of both myself and the hon. member for Lakeshore, that the minister introduce his estimates, make his opening remarks and the matter be set over until Tuesday; and let the House get on with whatever business the House leader has available. Otherwise, I think it is unfair.

There are a number of things -- I just had a quick glance at his remarks. He’s going to deal at some length with the report of the task force, and that sort of thing. I haven’t looked at the report of the task force for about a year, and I would like to refresh my memory. I don’t know that I can intelligently comment too much about its recommendations at this point. I have some things fresh in my mind that I could discuss them with him, but I think that to get a proper and appropriate criticism of these estimates before the Legislature that there should be reasonable notice to the member for Lakeshore and myself.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the hon. minister might continue his statement.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could terminate this discussion with these observations. At no time have either of the two members, the critics, who have spoken on this today called me or spoken to me, other than the conversation I’ve had with the member for Downsview as to the order in which we were calling them. That’s No. 1.

No. 2. For two days last week I had my staff from the Ministry of the Solicitor General here waiting for other estimates to be completed. I have at no time had the officials from the Attorney General’s office. I’ve had these people waiting, because that’s the order in which the estimates were to be called. So, with those observations I would like to open with a statement which should not take too much time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: Take as long as you want. I am going to obstruct.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I would like to present to you a review of the various programmes and activities contained in the estimates for the Ministry of the Solicitor General during 1975.

In relation to the task force on policing in Ontario. I make the following observations.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General established the task force on policing to conduct an exhaustive study of law enforcement systems in Ontario. The task force recommendations were submitted to us early in 1974. Of the 170 recommendations made by the task force, 49 have been completely implemented by the ministry or by municipal police forces, 84 are --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don’t see a quorum here.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I do.

Mr. Singer: Four Tories.

Mr. Deacon: Five.

Clerk of the House: There are 18 members present, Mr. Chainman.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Chairman: We have a quorum. Commence your statement.

Hon. Mr. Clement: At the time the bell was rung, Mr. Chairman, I had just commenced my opening statement.

Of the 170 recommendations made by the task force, 49 have been completely implemented --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the minister. Would the minister continue?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of the 170 recommendations made by the task force, 49 have been completely implemented by the ministry or by municipal police forces; 84 are presently in the process of implementation or under active consideration by the ministry; and 37 have been deferred. Many recommendations will take a number of years to implement and will require the combined efforts of the Ontario Police Commission, the Ontario Provincial Police and the municipal forces.

A study of present police recruitment and selection procedures has been completed. Guidelines have been prepared to standardize recruitment and selection practices, including attraction of applicants, initial screening, applicant evaluation and interviewing, use of psychological testing and probationary evaluation. Among others, the task force recommended that police training in Ontario today place stress on education in psychology, sociology and humanities; also, that more attention be paid to the psychological makeup of an applicant or recruit. We are proceeding to implement these recommendations.

Also in line with task force recommendations are the recent government amendments to Police Act regulations allowing individuals to join Ontario forces at 18 years of age; allowing individuals over 35 years of age to be considered as police officer candidates; making it possible for people of lesser height than 5 ft 8 ins to be considered as police officer candidates; allowing individuals with poor but correctable vision to be considered as police officer candidates; encouraging selection of recruits with varying educational qualifications, including high school, community college and university backgrounds; and encouraging recruitment of both male and female officers, with equal opportunity for advancement for all.

Mr. Singer: Like in Stratford?

Hon. Mr. Clement: In addition to recruiting standards, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is also acting on task force recommendations for recruit selection. These deal with the establishment of standardized procedures and psychological testing, to be used eventually in the recruit selection process by all forces across the province.

With reference to the new police college, much of the need for upgraded police training and education will be met at the new Ontario Police College at Aylmer, which began construction in May, 1974. The larger and more modern college, located on the site of the old facilities, will provide for increased recruitment training capability, introduction of new special courses, extension of refresher courses and provision of facilities for senior police officer training.

The college is intended to be a model for police forces around the world. The already high standard of police training in the province will be enhanced by the new physical facilities and by an upgrading of the curriculum which is already partly in effect. More social sciences, police refresher courses, technical training and senior management studies are being offered. Graduates of the new college should be well equipped to handle the increasingly complex demands being placed on police officers to safeguard the rights and safety of the public.

The new college will consist of interconnected low-rise modules built on landscaped acres. Included in the complex are three two-storey classroom modules with a total of 23 classrooms. A fourth module is a resource centre with a library, audio-visual area and study space. The fifth module houses administration facilities and instructors’ offices. The completion date of phase one is planned for the end of 1975. Construction of the new modules in phase two is scheduled for completion by the end of 1976.

With reference to new recruiting programmes, the province is interested in making every effort to encourage recruiting of more ethnic and minority citizens into our police forces. The Ontario Provincial Police has an intensive province-wide recruiting programme under way to help the force more accurately reflect the makeup of Ontario’s diverse society; this is in localities where French is the predominant language and in places where people from particular countries have concentrated their homes in various communities. In addition, the Ontario Provincial Police is keenly interested in recruiting more officers from our native population.

Because of these factors, its recruiting programme is paying particular attention to encouraging young men and women of diverse backgrounds to join. It is hoped to be able to have officers stationed throughout the province who speak both the primary and secondary languages of that area.

The year 1974 saw the successful introduction of women into the ranks of the OPP. It is expected that many more of them will join the force. Our female officers are required to perform all law enforcement duties and have the same rates of pay and promotion path.

The OPP encourages recruit applications through an extensive advertising campaign in local newspapers throughout Ontario. Other recruiting efforts include mobile displays, posters and descriptive literature.

With reference to Indian policing service, the province has made several major moves recently to improve Indian policing services. In late April, 1975, we have established a group within the OPP specifically to provide and improve such services for our native peoples. This move is in addition to our other Indian policing activities. Within the next month, Ontario will enter into a joint agreement with the federal government to share in a new approach to Indian policing here.

The improved police service will stress preventive policing and community relations. It will be staffed by Indian band constables recruited, trained and supervised by the OPP. The band constables will be assigned policing duties on the reserves and adjoining areas. They will have the complete backup support and facilities of the OPP for crime prevention and law enforcement.

To ensure that the policing service meets the specialized needs of Indian reserves, consultation with band chiefs and other representatives of the Indian people, the provincial government, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and the Ontario Provincial Police is a continuing policy.

Salaries received by the Indian constables will be comparable to those received by OPP personnel in similar positions. Advancement in the regular force will be possible by meeting established standards.

ln the fall of 1974, Mr. Chairman, another new programme was sponsored by the provincial government. This is the intensification of OPP presence in northern Indian communities. A continuous flying patrol has been implemented to make flying visits to a number of remote reserves in northwestern Ontario during regular and continual patrols which will provide improved law enforcement in the remote areas of our province. Twenty-seven volunteer OPP officers recently graduated from a course at Lakehead University where they received special training to prepare them for being stationed in these regions. Training was in subjects related to the heritage, psychology and philosophy of Indian culture and current social attitudes. A similar flying patrol is being implemented for the remote northeastern areas of the province.

With reference to community projects, two examples of police officers being brought into greater personal involvement in the community are the team-policing pilot projects in Halton region and Barrie. These projects are aimed at exploring ways of bringing police closer to the public. In these projects, groups of constables will be responsible for a given area of the city. They will get to know the people in that area better and become more conscious of what people expect from their police force.

The province is also funding a project in London to explore better ways of handling family disturbances by improving interaction between police and other social agencies. It is hoped that if these projects are successful, they may be taken up by other forces in the province.

With reference, Mr. Chairman, to forensic sciences capability, construction work is close to completion on the new George Drew complex of buildings for forensic sciences. The interior of this 20-storey building is expected to be finished in early June of this year. At that time the ministry office and several agencies of the ministry will relocate there. It will enable us to more conveniently group together our agencies in one building.

At present the police commission, chief coroner, pathology and forensic sciences offices are widely scattered at several locations across Toronto. This centre will provide the province with ultra-modern forensic laboratories and research facilities.

The benefits of this building will be many in terms of improved scientific services to official investigative and public safety agencies. The installation of specialized equipment for the buildings has been completed. It is anticipated that our ability to handle the forensic caseload will increase markedly when the new facilities are in use. Additional fully qualified staff will be necessary so that expert service is available for this increased forensic capability.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sorry, I have one more page. Perhaps the member for Downsview was going to read it for me?

Mr. Singer: I was going to read it for you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you. With reference to police information intercommunications project, it is part of the ministry’s goal to provide police forces with the best technology possible and an information intercommunications project has been implemented. The project which is designed to encourage municipal forces to make use of modern communications technology and includes the provision of a common communication capability between all police forces in the province; co-ordination of police radio systems development; the extension of the Canadian Police Information Centre, which is a national data bank for police officers, and the development of an adequate data base on policing. Through the integrated radio services programme, the ministry is providing $3 million in grants to municipal forces for communications development.

The ministry is also funding a digital communications demonstration project in the York regional police force as part of an overall study of police management information. The computer-aided dispatch facility deploys manpower in the most efficient manner and provides information on the force’s workload in the way in which its resources are being used.

In conclusion, therefore, Mr. Chairman, these then are the highlights of the estimates for the Ministry of the Solicitor General during 1975. I shall look forward to discussing the items with the various members in detail. Thank you.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, in line with the comments that I made earlier, I will now move that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Singer moves the committee rise and report.

The committee divided on the motion of Mr. Singer that the committee rise and report, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 20, the “nays” are 38.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, in attempting to lead the criticism on the Solicitor General’s estimates, I would like to deal with some of the matters that he set out in his opening remarks.

I’m interested when he talks about the task force on policing. I’ve now had an opportunity to go through my annotated copy of the report and also the document that was tabled by the task force when they brought in their report. I note with some interest the word “guidelines have been prepared to standardize recruitment,” and so on. I think the guidelines are very interesting, but it seems to me that the task force emphasis was much more than on guidelines. They wanted positive direction and even mandatory instruction.

We’ve had an awful lot of guidelines about an awful lot of things in this province that often don’t mean anything at all. And I wonder why the government has been prepared to settle just on guidelines, and why there hasn’t been some kind of direction to the forces.

There have been many, many problems with police recruiting, with police hiring practices and so on, and one has to wonder about the categorization in the second paragraph that the minister makes. He says:

“Of the 170 recommendations made by the task force, 49 have been completely implemented by the ministry or by municipal police forces, 84 are presently in the process of implementation or under active consideration by the ministry, and 37 have been deferred.”

The numbers are interesting, but what do they mean?

Which ones have you accepted -- the easy ones or the tough ones? What do the 49 really deal with; and is it all summarized in the two paragraphs at the bottom of page 1 of the minister’s statement? What are the 37 that have been deferred? And is “deferred” a synonym for being refused? Or has the Solicitor General decided that these are never going to be implemented? Are they deferred indefinitely or for a short time?

There are 84 that are “presently in the process of implementation or under active consideration” -- what does that mean? We get into civil servant language again. This phrase “under active consideration” is a fascinating phrase. It could mean anything or nothing. There’s “active consideration” and there’s “very active consideration.” There are all sorts of unique phrases that the civil servants bring forward when they don’t want to give us an answer. What are you actively considering? And how active is active? I think we’re entitled to know that.

But let’s look for a moment, Mr. Chairman, at the task force’s own document that they tabled when the report was brought in. They called it the highlights of their report. They say, “Ontario is well served by its police,” and I think that most of us here can agree with that. However, there is “no room for complacency.” We agree with that, too, and the whole purpose of this report is to indicate that there is no room for complacency and to make very positive recommendations about a number of things.

On page 4 the task force zeroes in on it and talks about a financial crisis for policing. I would have thought that the minister at this point would have told us what the government has in mind to deal with this financial crisis. Let me refresh your memory, Mr. Chairman, in case you have forgotten what they said. They said:

“Policing is expensive, labour intensive and has experienced high growth in cost.

“We project under current methods and productivity that financial limitations will leave Ontario a minimum of 2,000 constables short of its requirements by 1980.

“Ontario cannot afford projected policing costs and there is little likelihood of major shifts in spending priorities, for example, from education, to help the policing. We [the task force] have recognized the solution to be in: surfacing the issue...”

That’s a good phrase, “surfacing the issue” and look as I might through the Solicitor General’s opening remarks, that issue wasn’t even touched on, let alone surfaced.

One would think that everything is fine and let’s go on for another year, but the task force, in high priority, says, “Let’s talk about the crisis in financing police forces.” The Solicitor General hasn’t heeded them too well and he hasn’t as yet talked about it. Hopefully, we are going to have a lot of talking about it before these estimates get very far along the way.

“Focusing on human resource productivity through: better selection, training and development programmes.” The minister talks about better selection, training and development programmes to some extent and he talks about guidelines. I think it’s important that we know there will be something a little more than guidelines because let’s go back to the task force’s real concern. It says there is “a financial crisis for policing.”

“New constable-centred management;” I didn’t see that one mentioned at all. Is that one deferred or under active consideration or where is that?

“Better use of community resources through referral and public education.” I suppose the Solicitor General gets at that under the heading “Community Projects” which he gives a couple of paragraphs to. He doesn’t really give it the kind of emphasis or the kind of direction the task force talked about.

He may have noticed the problem which presently exists in the Metropolitan force where it has been decided that there must be two-man cruisers in the evening and the night hours. There is no point in going through the bargaining and the awards of the arbitrator and the court testing of that, but the end result of it having to be done is that the chief of police has withdrawn from community services many officers who were previously employed in that way and put them into cruisers so that there can be two men in a cruiser.

What kind of answer to that has the Solicitor General? I think it is a very important thing.

“Spin-off of duties to more appropriate and less costly agencies.” I suppose we see something of an example of that here in the Legislature at least with the replacement of an OPP detachment by the new force we have to look after the security. I would like the Attorney General to deal specifically with that and to tell us if this is another one of the recommendations which has been accepted or is under active consideration or has been deferred.

“Greater use of civilian resources;” the same kind. To what extent are police forces in Ontario, not just the OPP, being instructed to use civilian resources? Before I leave that one, I notice that the Solicitor General made some comment about the use of women on police forces. “Our female officers are important and they are required to perform all law enforcement duties and have the same rates of pay and promotion paths.” But I also noticed his silence when there was a female police officer in Stratford who was in some considerable difficulty and had to fight the battle almost all by herself.

The suggestion coming forth from Stratford seemed to be that female officers were not really appropriate because they couldn’t arrest or subdue big burly lawbreakers and couldn’t be expected to. I noticed the silence of the Solicitor General in that regard. We raised it in the House a couple of times but got no response at all. She had to fight her battle almost on her own. If this was an important principle set out -- and I agree that it was in this recommendation here, and the Solicitor General has seen fit to mention it again today -- I would think that he and/or his officials should be a little more vocal about what goes on.

“Developing lasting solutions to criminal problems.” That’s a very good one. We touched on this when the estimates for the Provincial Secretariat for Justice were here. What kind of views does the ministry have about lasting solutions to criminal problems? What philosophies is it employing? What kind of speeches has the Solicitor General made about it? I did notice his article on the editorial page of the Star the other day. There was a handsome picture of you right in the middle of the article, Mr. Minister, but I didn’t get too much philosophy out of the article that accompanied the picture.

What is your philosophy? Is your philosophy the same as that of His Honour, Judge Bick, the head of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission? He’s quoted in the Globe and Mail. I don’t know whether some of the answers we got about another quote in the Globe and Mail which we were referring to earlier this morning apply or not, but presuming that the Globe and Mail has correctly quoted Judge Bick, these are a few of the things he suggests. He suggested mandatory jail sentences be imposed of a minimum of five years on anyone who commits a crime where a firearm is present. He suggests, in relation to bail granting, that anyone arrested a second time should forfeit the right to be out on the street again. That’s a fairly drastic kind of a recommendation.

Mr. Lawlor: That fellow doesn’t fool around.

Mr. Singer: No, no, he’s tough. When a lady in the audience asked whether a solution to the problem of recidivism didn’t --

Mr. Lawlor: You would have to build $50 million worth more of jails.

Mr. Singer: -- lie in finding better places than jails for criminals, Mr. Bick disagreed emphatically. He said he didn’t care if they rot in jail, and if the jails were to be changed they should be made more uncomfortable. This is a very senior gentleman engaged in police supervision.

Mr. Lawlor: Bring back the rack.

Mr. Singer: He’s the head of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, and I would like to hear if this is part of the Solicitor General’s feeling about developing lasting solutions to criminal problems, if he agrees with that.

Mr. Lawlor: They should be torn to pieces by wild horses.

Mr. Singer: If not, why don’t we hear from the Solicitor General? I’m going to come to police commissions very shortly, because that’s another thing he was absolutely silent about.

Mr. Lawlor: They should be burned at the stake.

Mr. Singer: The “rationalization of police forces in Ontario;” I think that one is dealing with the size of forces and it’s dealt with a little further on down in their report. There is nothing about that here at all.

Usually we got, from Solicitors General over the years, a listing of police forces, how many there were, how many men were on each force and so forth, how many have disappeared from the smaller forces, because that’s been a constant cry from those of us in opposition when we addressed our feelings to the government that the small eight or 10-man force cannot be efficient. I think we had more or less an acceptance from some of your predecessors, but the plan seems to have bogged down in recent years.

I would have liked to have had, in your opening remarks, some kind of updating of the success of that programme. Is there not a report? It occurs to me there is an annual report that you’re supposed to table. Should we not have had some kind of an annual report, either from you or the Ontario Police Commission? Has that come through or are we still waiting on that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Singer: We haven’t seen it yet; it hasn’t been tabled yet.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I haven’t tabled one.

Mr. Singer: No, because it would be a great help to us, and that is another reason why I am sure the hon. member for Lakeshore as well as myself have been quite perturbed about the calling of these estimates before we have the appropriate annual reports in order to let us know what has gone on in the past year. It makes it very, very hard for us to direct to you the kind of criticism that we would like to.

Mr. Lawlor: Not to go uncharged.

Mr. Singer: The next recommendation here by the task force is that there be a director of police research and information appointed by the police commission and a programme of special projects to be funded. Has that been done? Is there such a position created? Is there such a funding programme? What is it and what does it involve?

The task force notes in particular -- and I think this is important, because we are certainly very concerned about the size of the budget and about the projected deficit that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) talked about when he introduced it -- “We are not recommending massive new funding by the government. We have recommended that current police unconditional grants be dropped.” There was a change, but I am not sure that it was along the lines of the task force. I would like to hear the Solicitor General say whether or not what the Treasurer announced when he brought his budget in insofar as police grants are concerned is along the line of what the task force recommended, and if they differ, why they differ, and what the government’s idea is in either accepting completely or not accepting in the variance.

In its place, the task force recommends that new funds be included in general unconditional grants from the province to municipalities responsible for police services. I guess you get at that somewhat in the budget. They say:

“Our emphasis has been on community priority setting and productivity vis-à-vis community needs. A quality control check and general guidelines will still rest with the Solicitor General and the Ontario Police Commission. We have recommended continuance of an inspection function by the commission and expansion of support services to policing in Ontario.”

They stress a new approach to management need in policing, and I didn’t hear a word about that from the Solicitor General.

“The task force is generally critical” -- and that’s about as strong language as they use. That’s not as strong as the language used by the member for Lakeshore or by myself, but they say they are “generally critical of the Ontario police management system. The military command style of management has obviated the use of contemporary management methods to maximize the effectiveness of manpower resources.”

They said that, mind you, in advance of the Landmark report, and if there ever was a positive, illustrative criticism of police management, it is in this report that Judge Pringle brought forth. I am going to be dealing with that at some length. They were right on. They are critical of Ontario’s police management system and there wasn’t a better example of bad management than the management that existed in the Niagara district police as was illustrated by that nightmare effort, the raid on the Landmark Hotel.

I am reading again from their summary:

“We have recommended the adoption of a ‘constable-centred management style’ which recognizes that many of the most important police decisions are made by the individual constable. It emphasizes: development and support of judgemental skills and professional responsibility at the constable level.”

I suppose really that is one of the things that you are getting at in the building of the new police college.

I notice that part of it, stage one, will be finished by the end of 1975 and it is a continuing thing. Is it presently being used? I presume it is. Is it compulsory that all police recruits have a course and qualify to some level though that college before they are given active policing duties? I think they should be. I think it should be part of the control by the Solicitor General that there be regular refresher courses and promotion courses and so on. They should just not he at the whim of the local council; the Solicitor General, through his department, should actively supervise, direct and control the operation of police forces.

That college, when it is finished, should be in a position to say, “All right, John Smith, if you want to be a police officer, you have to come to our college and take the preliminary course and qualify before you can start to be a policeman. Every year or two years, you have to come back again and be told about our new techniques and pass courses in them. And before you are eligible for promotion, you have again to qualify.” I think you have to develop the kind of scientific training that the task force is in fact talking about. The minister’s opening remarks didn’t deal with that phase at all.

The task force recommendations include: “Dialogue among peers on objectives; joint group decision-making and greater delegation; flattened hierarchies and shorter communication channels” and so on along that line. It’s almost again as though the task force were anticipating what was yet to come. We now have in our hands the report of Arthur Maloney; granted, it’s only directed to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police and deals only with the police complaints procedure, but it seems to me that that phrase “flattened hierarchies and shorter communication channels” gets at that very well.

I would like to have heard this morning, in the minister’s introductory remarks, some idea of his view of the Maloney report and some idea of the usefulness, the effectiveness and the fairness of the present procedures, not only at the Metropolitan Toronto police, but throughout the province. I would have thought that he might well have agreed with what seems to be the universal approval of this report by most of the knowledgeable people who have expressed an opinion -- at least the ones I’ve read about, who include the head of the police association, various police commissioners, various lawyers who have criminal practices, various senior police officers and so on. I would have thought that if these estimates were to serve any useful function the Solicitor General would have brought us up to date.

I hate to be harping and to be critical just for the sake of being critical or even appearing that way -- I try not to be -- but I have the same kind of disappointment about the minister’s introductory remarks in this department as I did in his opening remarks in connection with the Provincial Secretariat for Justice. We’ve got a nice, polite, self-laudatory, seven-page statement designed not to offend anybody, designed not to show the government up in a very bad light, but also designed to dodge the kind of problems that have been dealt with by not only opposition critics but also the task force, the royal commission, Mr. Maloney, the press and all of the people in our society who are concerned with the greater effectiveness of policing in the province.

The task force says:

“We have recommended an objectives focused management. We believe that in seeking the threefold objectives of crime control, protection of life and property, and maintenance of peace and order, the traditional emphasis on crime-solving, law enforcement and response must be extended to include referral, prevention, and public education and must seek lasting solutions in each community.”

I suppose that is really the whole thrust of their report. The government really doesn’t come to grips with that at all unless you call the appointment of Judy LaMarsh some kind of an answer to this kind of a problem. I suggest it isn’t at all. Unless it is the paragraph in the Throne Speech which says, “We want to make our streets safe” -- that kind of approach. Or unless it is the Premier’s concern about this wonderful word, “permissiveness.” I’m still not sure at all what that means. We’d like to have it defined I and brought into the context of this department.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Don’t you know?

Mr. Singer: No, I don’t. I don’t, really. Will you tell me not only what you might think privately about it but what the government policy is about permissiveness and which parts of it are good and which parts of it are bad?

There is a piece on page 7 of their comments which is most important. I alluded to it briefly a moment or two ago.

“Many police forces in Ontario are too small.

“Response to the community is important but the meaningfulness of the response is equally important.

“We have identified certain minimum thresholds of size for police forces required in order to fully utilize manpower, to participate effectively in training and development, to deploy forces in an effective and efficient manner, and to develop an overall modern management style.

“Our recommendations constitute a rationalization of forces in Ontario. They establish larger minimum forces but also tie them closely to the communities they serve. We have recommended reduction of the total number of operating forces from 179 to between 30 and 40.”

Is that one of the accepted ones, one of the ones under active consideration or one of the deferred recommendations? If it is sort of in the middle, are you proceeding along these lines and what success have you had?

The task force says:

“We have recommended 21 city police forces, 10 regional municipality forces, 29 agreement areas in southern Ontario, 10 agreement areas in the north and certain specific options, e.g., in northern Ontario.”

They are very important recommendations. All you have to do is have another look at what Judge Pringle said about the Niagara region force to realize how important this is.

“Agreement areas will involve larger municipalities contracting with an operating force for delivery of police services according to an agreement to be established between the respective councils and the force prescribing the overall level of service and cost thereof.

“Our recommendations also specify the manner in which police forces should relate to councils and the role of boards of commissioners of police.”

There is not a single word in there about boards of commissioners of police. What is it that you are going to do? Are you going to continue the judges on those police commissions; is Judge Scott going to continue to be the chairman of the police commission of the Niagara Region; or are county court judges going to be allowed to continue on any police commission, and should they be? I say no, they shouldn’t. I say it is not a sufficient answer that the federal government told those judicial people who are going to continue on these commissions they are not going to get any extra money. That’s not the answer at all because I think there is a substantial pay raise for those judges either on its way through or they’ve already recently obtained one. Good for them; they work hard and they deserve good pay.

It’s not a question of money or extra money or not getting extra money. It’s a question of whether or not judicial persons -- who have day-to-day dealings in their courtrooms with police officers; who have to pass judgement about the police officers’ credibility and about the many things they deal with when those officers come before them in court -- can properly sit on the police commission and manage it.

Can they wear the two hats? I say no, they can’t. I say we need positive direction, legislation, from this minister in regard to police commissions.

Does the Solicitor General have any reaction to the suggestions being put forward by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto about the reconstitution of its police commission? It’s been talked about. It’s been debated upon. It’s been reported at some substantial length in the newspapers. It is a matter of substantial concern to those political elected persons who sit on the Metropolitan council and express their views.

We’ve had no reaction at all from the Solicitor General. We had a reaction from, guess who? From Judge Bick, who says if you put more politicians on police forces the whole system will become corrupt. I would have thought the Solicitor General would have been the first one to rise in his place and take exception to those remarks. Surely, Judge Bick must be wrong?

Mr. Lawlor: He put more optometrists on to get more myopic.

Mr. Singer: The member for Lakeshore is right on with that remark, I couldn’t agree more. Surely to goodness we do not need the puerile remarks of appointed people who are on police commissions, such as Judge Scott: “Nothing wrong with the Niagara police force,” and the head of the Ontario Police Commission, in advance of an investigation: “It’s fine, I’ve looked at it.” We had to bring in Judge Pringle and had to have a full-fledged inquiry before we got what I think is a very excellent report.

Surely those people should be taken off those forces, and surely we should allow more discretion to the local elected persons to control policing? Surely we’re not going to take refuge in the thought that if politicians have more to do with policing -- my friend the minister is in charge of policing -- does that make it corrupt? I would be the first one to rise to his defence and say, “No, no. No way.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: You’re very kind.

Mr. Singer: I would. I find a lot of faults with you, but corruption never, never. Quite seriously, there has to be some positive leadership from government in regard to police commissions. We’ve had enough experience and there are recommendations here. Do you accept them? Are they under active consideration? I got a note from one of your colleagues this morning that another matter I’m concerned with was “under very active consideration.” He underlined the word “very.” I think that means that somebody’s got a file on his desk at the moment.

Can you give us some opinions? Can you give us some leadership? What are you doing about police commissions? And provincial judges shouldn’t be on them either. They, equally, deal with police officers in their day-to-day duty, and they can’t usefully put on their other hat when they come to determine management mailers and discipline mailers and budget mailers, that sort of thing.

“Good police personnel the key to success.” Well, to that we all say amen. They deal with that at some length in this report. That task force on policing was a pretty good report, I thought. It said:

“In recruiting we have emphasized a shift from recruiting by minimum standard to using a well-developed selection process. We have recommended a more flexible set of standards, but have emphasized identification of the best possible candidates through more rigorous selection including use of psychological testing...”

Did you use the phrase, psychological testing this morning? I hope we’re really getting at that because it is a very important thing.

I was disappointed when you talked about drawing police officers from different backgrounds, and you seemed to emphasize only French and English as the backgrounds. In our very diverse society effort should be made to attract people from all groups who are part of our society. I know these efforts are being made, and it may be that I misread some of the general statements in here. But one of the points on the usefulness of a police force should be that it reflects reasonably on all groups that make up the community which the police force is serving.

Where you talk about languages, were you referring to all languages that might be used in the area, or just French and English? For instance, in Toronto and in other places there are large Italian populations, Portuguese and other kinds. Efforts surely have to be made to attract officers to the force who can speak in the language to the people they’re serving, as well as English. I think there has to be real emphasis on that, and not sufficient attention is as yet being paid. I suggest one of the reasons not sufficient attention is being paid is because sufficient direction is not being given by the Solicitor General’s Office.

“We have recommended that more women be recruited into policing for general as well as specialist duties.” I commented on that and used as an example the case of the female constable in Stratford who fought her battle on her own, and eventually won. I would have thought that the Solicitor General would have been among the first to come to her assistance when it was being suggested that we don’t like female constables in Stratford because they can’t really keep up with the pace expected of police officers.

“Implementation” -- this is a very important thing, and certainly there is nothing about this in the minister’s opening remarks.

“Our recommendations imply fundamental changes to policing in Ontario, We have several recommendations dealing specifically with implementation:

“We believe these changes should be fully reflected in the legislation governing policing and have recommended the Solicitor General undertake a complete and comprehensive revision of the Police Act.”

Well, we have had something substantially less than a complete and comprehensive revision. We have had some changes.

“We have recommended an expanded role for the Ontario Police Commission, particularly in support services to policing in Ontario. We have recommended the commission be expanded from three to five members and that its organization be enlarged to include an executive director and greater resources, primarily in police personnel development and police research and information.”

Now, in the past I have been highly critical of the Ontario Police Commission; in fact, I have suggested on several occasions that it be done away with. The government hasn’t seen fit to accept my recommendation. The task force found there were things they thought the commission should be doing and it couldn’t do under its present setup and they recommended it be increased from three to five, that support people be added to it and that sort of thing.

Again, I would like to hear from the Solicitor General in a very positive way what he thinks about the recommendations concerning the Ontario Police Commission. Should it be done away with? Does he think it fine as it is? Should it be increased from three to five? Should it have an executive director and greater resources, primarily in police personnel development and police research and information? This is very important; it goes right to the core of the problem of policing in the Province of Ontario.

“The Solicitor General, the Ontario Police Commission, police governing authorities, police forces and police associations will all have major contributions to make in implementation. We have specifically emphasized the role of the Ontario Police Commission and the police associations of Ontario.”

I would like to hear how these priorities have been determined. Have they been determined solely within the department? Have there been regular meetings with the governing authorities, the police forces, the police associations, as these things are brought about? Have you sought the support of the police associations? I think it is important to know the method by which you have been proceeding.

“We have recommended that the Ontario Provincial Police undertake an organizational review to enhance the ability to effectively deal with the introduction of agreementpolicing and absorption of small forces.”

Well, I touched on that before; it is emphasized again in that recommendation.

“We have recommended that the federal and provincial Solicitors General carry out joint studies to more closely define the federal and provincial relationship in the area of policing, particularly in respect to the level of service and cost-sharing related to enforcement of federal statutes, policing of waterways and ports, and coordination of federal and provincial forces.”

A report on that at this time is certainly expected, and it is to be hoped that the minister will make it.

Dealing with federal and provincial cooperation, I was told a year ago that together with the Province of Quebec, Ontario was making representation’s to the government of Canada for a substantial payment of money by the federal government to the provincial government for policing done by Ontario at Ontario’s expense and the money saved to the federal government in not requiring the services here of the RCMP.

That matter seems to have not been talked about out loud in recent months. Are those representations continuing? The minister’s predecessor assured me that the department felt very seriously about it and that there was a claim for substantial refund from the federal government for those reasons. I would like to know how that has been progressing.

I could spend considerable time going through some of the recommendations made by Mr. Maloney, and as I say, in my opinion -- and I haven’t had a chance to fully read this report; it runs to 270 pages -- the recommendations in there certainly are meaningful and useful and I think they should be implemented, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but throughout the province. I would like to know what the minister’s attitude is in regard to it.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations of His Honour Judge Pringle, I think, are most important because there we were dealing with not theoretical policing but an actual event. There are major recommendations which Judge Pringle makes and I would like to know the extent to which they are being implemented not only in the Niagara district but throughout the Province of Ontario. His recommendations are on two pages and I think it’s worthwhile reading them into the record once again. His major recommendations are:

“Persons found in a place other than a dwelling house where there is no reasonable cause to believe that they are in possession of a narcotic or anything incidental to possession of a narcotic by themselves or others, should not be subject to search when the only basis for the search is their legitimate presence in such a place.”

I’m sure instructions could have come from the minister to all the police forces in Ontario that that be implemented. We don’t need to wait for an amendment to the Narcotics Control Act. That should have been here a long time ago but it isn’t the responsibility of this minister. It’s the responsibility of those terrible fellows up in Ottawa to do it but, to carry out the first recommendation by His Honour Judge Pringle, you don’t need the amendment to that statute. Instructions could be given to police forces.

Hon. Mr. Clement: How can you do that? How can you override the existing law?

Mr. Singer: Can’t you say, as Solicitor General, to all the police forces: “Mr. Police Officer, this is your Solicitor General talking and this is what I tell you to do. If you find a person in a place other than a dwelling house and there is no reasonable cause to believe they’re in possession of a narcotic or anything incidental to the possession of a narcotic, you should not search those people when the only basis for the search is their legitimate presence in such a place”? Surely you can tell them that.

What he’s saying is that if somebody thinks there are narcotics in a hotel you just don’t walk into the hotel and search everybody who is there. That is what Landmark was all about. Surely that can and should be emphasized by the Solicitor General, who says to all policemen in Ontario, “Please exercise common sense and do it that way.” This is what Judge Pringle said and if I were Solicitor General, I would agree with him. Certainly I, as the member for Downsview, agree with him and I would hope the Solicitor General would agree with that recommendation.

The second point:

“The senior officers responsible for the planning and execution of large-scale operations of this type should receive instructions so they are fully acquainted with the problems and necessity for close liaison and communication.”

Judge Pringle has a sense of humour not dissimilar to that of the Solicitor General. Some things he said in this report were written, obviously, tongue in cheek. That is so self-evident he must have had great fun when he drafted the particular formation of those phrases.

In the Niagara region, I gather, there has been a substantial reorganization. With that kind of recommendation in mind have you, have your officials, have the Ontario Police Commission looked at these regional police forces and determined whether or not there is a logical plan that senior officers use when they are carrying out larger-scale operations of this type? If necessary, send them a memo, too, signed by your friendly Solicitor General.

His third point is, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall recommend that the Narcotics Control Act be amended” and so on. I don’t know whether the Lieutenant Governor in Council did; I think Ontario has spoken quite loudly in that regard. I think that’s been done.

The fourth point:

“The justices of the peace of the Province of Ontario who have been categorized as being sufficiently competent to issue warrants to search, be equipped with sufficient office equipment to allow them to keep documents issued by them in the execution of their judicial acts.”

I like that one particularly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I thought you would.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I enjoyed that one. That was addressed to the one justice of the peace who came in with his records in his daybook under his arm. Mr. Kellock, I think, was the counsel. He said: “Mr. Justice of the Peace, did you on such-and-such a day issue a warrant?” He thumbed through his daybook and he said: “Yes, I did.”

“And what were the grounds?”

He said, “Well, they must have been good because I issued the warrant.”

“Do you have any files?”

“These are my records. They’re here in my hand.”

“But didn’t you have a complaint or an information or anything? Did you not ask the police for this?”

“I guess I did.”

“Where are those papers?”

“I don’t keep any papers around because nobody gives me enough money to buy a filing cabinet.”

The inquiry never did discover what kind of a process the justice of the peace went through when he issued the warrant that allowed this unusual happening to take place at the Landmark Hotel.

Officially, after the search of a room, person or vehicle has been completed, the searching officer must restore the room and/or vehicle to its original condition and return to a person any or all goods after the same have been found to be legitimate articles. I think that’s really one thing we could put a little emphasis on; that if police do go in, in the exercise of their duty and their responsibility, with reasonable cause to do certain things, and if they tear things apart and they find out that really nothing has been achieved, they should put them back together again.

Certain people can be very substantially inconvenienced by having their belongings hurled about by police officers, albeit with good motives, and not having them put back together again, if nothing results from this inquiry.

“Intelligence unit of the Niagara regional police department be either disbanded or integrated more fully into the existing command structure.” I think that has, in fact, been done, if I read newspaper articles correctly. But have you looked at intelligence units of other police forces? Are you satisfied with them? Are they good, bad or indifferent; and what are you doing about them? I think we are entitled to know.

“Sufficient physicians and registered nurses should be sworn in as peace officers to enable them to conduct searches of females who are suspected of secreting narcotics or similar substances in body orifices.” Have you issued instructions as to how that kind of search should be conducted -- if, in fact, the discretion is that it has to be conducted -- in order again to avoid the unfortunate incidents at the Landmark Hotel. The next recommendation is:

“That the plan of operation by the Brantford police force [Counsel Mr. Kellock comes from Brantford and he was very proud of his Brantford force and I guess that’s how it got before the commission] under Insp. Leonard O’Connell in respect of their operation against the Graham Bell Hotel on Nov. 23, 1973, be studied in depth as to how a raid should be planned and conducted, as well as the operations conducted by Det. Sgt. Sprague of the OPP of liquor enforcement laws, special services division.”

In other words, what he is saying is: “I saw one case in Brantford that I thought was pretty good, and I saw another set of operations conducted by Det. Sgt. Sprague at the OPP which I thought was pretty good.” Has the ministry in fact said, “Okay, this is a good way to conduct a raid and that’s a bad way. Here is what we think are good examples of how to conduct a raid and things you should do, one, two, three, four, and here you are, police forces in Ontario, do this the next time you have a big raid”?

Those are the things, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Solicitor General should have dealt with in his opening remarks, but he didn’t. Before the estimates are through, I hope we will be able to deal with each one of those items in some substantial detail.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk of House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 64, An Act to amend the Training Schools Act.

Bill 68, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Bill 74, the Royal Canadian Legion Act, 1975.

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting Protestant Children’s Village, Ottawa.

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

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

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Town of Kapuskasing.

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London.

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Harford Ltd.

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, could I have the concurrence of the House to present a report from the standing social development committee?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have consent?

Agreed.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Ministry administration programme ..................................... $3,938,000

Income maintenance programme .... $444,370,000

Social and institutional services programme ............................... $227,554,000

Mental retardation programme ....... $146,901,000

Services support programme ............ $32,283,000

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the House be adjourned until Tuesday, May 20.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): What is the order of business for Tuesday?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I’ve informed the right people that we will proceed with these estimates on Tuesday. The Ministry of Revenue will be in standing committee. Following the Attorney General and all his associated responsibilities, we will hear Health, Treasury and Natural Resources. I will supply a list to the House leaders of the other parties on Tuesday.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, before the House leader leaves the subject, one of the problems that we have is the confusion in names. We are now dealing with the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General. Is the implication that when we finish the Solicitor General, we then go to the Attorney General? Or will we have something in between?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, that is correct.

Mr. Singer: That is going on as long as the two sets of estimates continue?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is correct.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.