Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to the House the grade 10 class of R. H. King Collegiate Institute in Scarborough with its teacher, Mr. John Lord, in the west gallery.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House members of the grade 10 class of Haliburton Highlands Secondary School in the west gallery, under the guidance of their principal, Mr. Rouble.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I know the Legislature would like to welcome a dozen students and their two teachers from Westminster Secondary School in London South riding.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I rise here on what I suppose could be partly a matter of personal privilege and partly a ministerial statement.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Right, entirely predictable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Being at the beginning of statements, both would be in order.

Sir, on May 16 there was some discussion in this Legislature on the subject of certain statements attributed to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How about that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At that time, the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) asked “whether the government approves of the statements attributed to the hon. member for Timiskaming in relation to Maple Mountain and in relation to Indians.” At the time, I indicated quite clearly that since I had not read the article containing the alleged statements I would not comment.

Saturday’s and this morning’s Globe and Mail reported a portion only of the dialogue which took place between the hon. member for Downsview and myself --

Mr. Lewis: Typical of the Globe -- right out of context.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and in so doing took out of context one of the statements, thereby leaving what could be a very misleading impression.

Mr. Lewis: Those nasty Globe people. Boy oh boy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A reading of Hansard makes it quite clear that my comments to the effect that it would be stupid to answer that question referred to my previous answer, that not having read the article in question, I would not comment on it.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Does the provincial secretary mean he is not stupid?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having checked the quotation attributed to the hon. member for Timiskaming as to its accuracy, I am therefore now, sir, in a position to make it very clear that his views in this matter very definitely do not reflect the views of this government.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Then dismiss him from the ONR.

Mr. Lewis: Get him out of the chairmanship then. Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, it is the policy of this government to do everything within its power to advance the social and economic well-being of our native peoples.

Mr. Lewis: Sure. It shows.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We dissociate ourselves from any comments which might give even the slightest impression that this government’s commitment to this policy is less than total.

I would like to add too, sir, that my own work in matters dealing with human rights, civil liberties and my direct involvement with Indians, speaks for itself.

Mr. Roy: The provincial secretary doesn’t have the guts of Stanfleld.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, I am responsible for dealing with Indians and their representatives on a number of fundamental policy issues --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): So that’s his job!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and it would be most unfortunate if news reports of public statements, taken out of context, were in any way to impair my ability to carry on this important task in co-operation with the Indians of this province.

Mr. Roy: The provincial secretary doesn’t have the guts of Stanfleld.

Mr. Deans: What is the provincial secretary going to do about the member for Timiskaming?

Mr. Lewis: What kind of statement was that? What is the provincial secretary going to do about the man who was involved?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions. The member for Kitchener.

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Mr. Breithaupt: Following the statement of the provincial secretary, will the provincial secretary now advise, since the member for Timiskaming was not expressing government policy, whether or not the government intends to discipline that member, perhaps to encourage the others, by removing him immediately as chairman of the Ontario Northland Railway?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, of course, I am not in a position to discipline any member.

Mr. Breithaupt: The provincial secretary is in charge.

Mr. Roy: He was making a statement.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the fact that this is a matter for the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Does the provincial secretary mean by simple personal dissociation he therefore attempts to exonerate the man and keep him in his present position?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s called brown-paper- bagging.

Mr. Lewis: Does the provincial secretary not understand that the logical extension of what he has done today is that the Indian communities of Ontario should be saved from dealings with the member for Timiskaming by having him removed from the ONTG, and why is that not part of the provincial secretary’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already explained that that is a matter for the Premier to deal with; he will be in the House shortly and I am sure he will deal with it.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In the light of the provincial secretary’s statement that he has no power to discipline the member, will the provincial secretary recommend that to the Premier? Is it the provincial secretary’s recommendation that he take that action?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, what I recommend to the Premier is a matter between the Premier and myself.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Kitchener have further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: We will help him lose his seat, and that will work both ways.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Now that we apparently have the springtime election put off for some time, and breathing space as well with respect to teacher negotiations within the province, can the minister advise us when he is intending to bring in his proposed teacher legislation which will allow the ground rules for negotiations between teachers and boards to be set out for the benefit of everyone, hopefully, in the province?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, very soon.

Mr. Roy: How many times is the minister going to make that statement? It is misleading.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The minister said that in March.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He has been saying that for months.

Mr. Speaker: Any more questions?

PENSIONS FOR RETIRED TEACHERS

Mr. Breithaupt: A further question of the Minister of Education with respect to the pensions for retired teachers: As I recall, the minister said these matters would be reviewed annually, especially with respect to those teachers who had retired some years ago. Since I believe this was last brought forward in June last, can the minister advise us if changes will be made to the benefits received by those teachers who retired some years ago, to catch up with the cost-of-living pressures that are no doubt upon them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter. It would be very helpful if my friend spent a little time researching it and finding out what is going on in this particular area. My friends make a lot of statements about education, usually none of them based on any fact.

There has been a committee meeting with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation for the past number of months working on this very problem. They have come to some conclusions which are now being studied and there will be some determination on those very shortly. The situation is much different to other years and there has been much work going on in this particular area.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur first.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Would the minister inform the House if one of the recommendations that the committee is considering is to establish a base pension for those on full A superannuation pension, somewhere around $4,500?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, when we make a statement on it, he will learn then.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George with a supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may, how many pensioners are on the Field committee or commission, as I understand it is called, as opposed to representatives of the federation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not sure there are any pensioners on that committee, Madam Chairman, but they are represented by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, but I am not Madam Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. They are represented by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. They are present at all the meetings that we hold and they come along to talk about it. I can’t recall whether one of them is on the committee but their particular case is part of the study. It breaks itself into two parts: those who are already on pensions, and some kind of a programme for those who will be on pension at some time in the future and toward which they may start contributing now.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Can she advise us when the government is going to act on the unanimous request by the Sudbury regional council of about one month ago for an inquiry into the administrative and financial situation of Laurentian Hospital?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): I will have to take that as notice.

DAY CARE

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, with respect to day care. Since there is a report in today’s press that some 12,000 places will be needed additionally within Metropolitan Toronto by 1980, is the minister able to give us any comments with respect to plans that the ministry has to resolve this particular problem, even though it is not as politically interesting as child abuse perhaps might be?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that we have given substantial funding for day care. There is the recent daycare expansion programme of $15 million and, at the present time, we have plans for expanded programmes. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have no additional comment, except to say that we are well aware of it and we will make provision for additional day care.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Attorney General, if I may, Mr. Speaker. When the member for Timiskaming was asked about the damage to a Moosonee railway car some three to four weeks ago and who did it, he replied “the Indians.” Does the Attorney General think it is appropriate that a member of this Legislature should level that definitive accusation when charges, though laid, have been suspended? The court proceedings, in fact, have had a remand until May 28 of this month. Does it strike the minister that justice can be seen to be done in terms of the behaviour of a member of the Legislature if that kind of unqualified assertion is made?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I was not familiar with the comments or the allegations which have been attributed to any member of this House until I read them in the Globe and Mail this morning, in that I was absent from the city Saturday, Sunday and yesterday.

I don’t think it is appropriate for anyone to make any commentary about any matter before the courts. Once it is done with, that is fair game. But I don’t think it is appropriate for anyone to make any comment about matters before the courts.

Mr. J. F. Bullbrook (Sarnia): He has obviously read Scott Young’s column.

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In the light of what the Attorney General has just said about the behaviour of the member for Timiskaming and in the light of what the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development indicated earlier, is the minister, as the minister responsible to the House for the operations of ONTC, satisfied that its present chairman can tentatively maintain his post and is he prepared to recommend to the Premier that he be removed from that post?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has indicated, any recommendations I would make to the Premier would be between the Premier and me; and I think, as the hon. member knows, the Premier is expected in the House shortly to deal with those matters.

Mr. Lewis: I will ask the minister by way of supplementary, however: As the responsible minister reporting to the House for the operations of the ONTC, is he willing to accept without reproof the statements made by the chairman of the ONR and does the minister think that is appropriate conduct for him?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the statements made by anyone. I reserve the right to make the judgement as to the validity of those statements. I don’t feel it’s proper for me to comment at this stage on the statements made by the hon. member. I certainly am not going to say I approve of them at all.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, did we understand the minister correctly when he said that the Premier, when he attends the House this afternoon, would be making a statement on this particular matter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker. What I said was that the hon. Premier will be in the House to answer questions such as have been placed to me, and I don’t feel it’s my position to answer on behalf of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions by the member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: I don’t understand this little exchange. If the minister is the minister responsible for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, as he is, and its chairman, the member for Timiskaming, made the statements he made about the Indian communities with whom he then deals, how can the minister wash his hands of those statements and pretend it is not his responsibility to indicate his views to this House? Why does the minister conspire in his behaviour?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s like being a policy secretary in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting a little carried away. Yes, I am responsible in this Legislature to respond for the operations of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. I accept that responsibility. I do not accept the responsibility of being responsible for the statements made by any member of this Legislature on either side of the House.

Mr. Lewis: He is the chairman of the ONR.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The appointment of the chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission is not made by me.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He is the minister’s right-hand man.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I do not make that appointment. Any recommendations that I wish to make, I will make through the Premier.

Mr. Stokes: He is the minister’s parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Breithaupt: As Chico would say, “It is no my job.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary. The member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Surely the Minister of Transportation and Communications must accept the full meaning of the word “responsibility.” Does he not believe that when someone for whom he is responsible, in this case the member for Timiskaming, has apparently committed a grievous error, the minister should do something about it? Is that not the true sense of responsibility?

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is treating the member for Timiskaming the way the provincial secretary treats the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows that I am responsible for the actions of the chairman in his capacity as chairman. I cannot be responsible for the actions of any member of this Legislature outside of that particular position --

Mr. Stokes: He is the minister’s parliamentary assistant.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- the hon. member knows that’s correct -- any more than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) would be responsible for the actions of the member for Downsview or the member for Huron-something-or-other.

Mr. Breithaupt: And the Islands.

Mr. Stokes: That is not the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Does the minister mean he removes himself from responsibility over what he says as the chairman of the ONTC -- I refer now to the specific Moosonee incident -- or as the minister’s parliamentary assistant? Is the minister trying to say that he will not admit either embarrassment or being offended by what his parliamentary assistant said and that the minister won’t ask for his removal?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again: If I were to make any recommendation, it would be made by myself to the Premier; and it is my understanding the Premier will have some comment to make when he comes into the House.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HEALTH SURVEY OF ELLIOT LAKE MINERS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, if I can: May I ask the Minister of Labour, if it has been brought to his attention that the head of the industrial chest disease service in the Ministry of Health in Ontario, Dr. Cowle, gave directly or inadvertently -- I think directly -- to a Dr. Douglas Warren, the names of the miners who are presilicotic in the health and labour surveys done in Elliot Lake, and that those names were then passed on to Rio Algom Mines Ltd. by Dr. Douglas Warren? Since the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the union, in discussions with his ministry, have tried to protect the anonymity of those names for almost four years now, how does the minister account for such conduct?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I had a report that the names had been released to the doctor who worked for the company. I am sorry, sir, but I am most upset by this piece of information, which came to me Friday. The Workmen’s Compensation Board was attempting to protect those names. I had a brief discussion with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) on it. The names had been released before he had knowledge of it, or before I had knowledge of it. As I say, I’m concerned, but I don’t know what remedy I can take at this point.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, apart from the possible breach of medical ethics involved, what defence can be provided for the workers who, for the first time, have now been identified to the company as having pre-compensable conditions, on the basis of their chest x-rays? What can be done to protect or defend those workers from behaviour or dismissal or other practices on the part of the company -- the kind of thing the Labour ministry and the Workmen’s Compensation Board have been trying to avoid for years?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Sir, that, of course, is our concern. I think Dr. Stewart requested the doctor to whom the names were given not to pass them on, so I don’t know if they have been passed on to the company directly.

Mr. Lewis: I believe they have been.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think we’ll have to take steps, sir, that they are protected. This is, of course, our concern. If we find that presilicotics are discharged in some way simply because their names have been passed on, then it’s a serious matter and we’ll have to take steps to see that that doesn’t happen, or if it does happen that some protection is given to those workers.

Mr. Lewis: Of course.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There is the other side to the case, of course, that in most cases where an accident does occur, the company, which eventually picks up some of the bill for it, is informed of those accidents and knows about them. The problem here, of course, is that these people may not make the choice that we’re giving to them. That is, we’re giving them the choice to remain, or if they decide to get out we’ll give them some financial help. They may not want to make the choice to get out. They may want to stay. Our problem is, what if the company, with this knowledge, then discharges them? It’s an onus that we have, sir.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister indicate to the Legislature in the next few days what inquiry or protection or defence he intends to initiate to protect the workers whose rights have been violated?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will try to do that, sir, I don’t know whether I can do it in the next few days, but as I say, it is a matter that I and the ministry regard seriously and we hope to have some answers on it shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

AUTO INSURANCE RATES JUSTIFICATION

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Given the findings in the Toronto Star Insight piece, I guess it was, by John Doig, over the weekend on the premium rates of public automobile insurance in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba being so much lower than Ontario, even when taking into account any provincial subsidy of any kind, what kind of public review of the present rate increase is the minister now going to grant, since premium rates in Ontario are obviously so much out of line and so illegitimately out of line?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I don’t enjoy the advantage of the hon. member in being able to read the Toronto Star over the weekend. I haven’t seen the article he refers to, so I don’t accept the premise that the premiums in those other provinces, which have the kind of insurance system that he would like to impose on the people of Ontario, are in fact lower premiums than those which are in effect in Ontario, or which are likely to be in effect in the next few months.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to enter upon any kind of rate review for automobile insurance in the Province of Ontario, prior to the new rates coming into force?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that once before. We do, in fact, do an automatic rate review, but we do it internally and in confidence.

Mr. Speaker: Further supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the article indicates the reason for the rate increase is the simple profit rate of return which the insurance companies exact, based partly on the interest they receive on the investment of premiums, can that information be made available to the Province of Ontario, since, whether the minister is prepared to admit it or not, the evidence demonstrates conclusively that the people of Ontario are paying illegitimately high premiums?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the question consisted mostly of conclusions rather than question. I haven’t read the article. I can’t comment on what was written in it. I’ll examine it, but I can’t commit myself at this moment to making the information available to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister says internal rate reviews are carried out as a matter of course, can he tell the House what has been the result of his most recent internal rate review? Will he make those results public?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker. I’ve just finished saying that we do not make those rate reviews public.

Mr. Cassidy: Why not?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): What does the member think Mayor Bigelow is spending?

Mr. Foulds: Why doesn’t the minister protect the consumer instead of the insurance companies?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary question: Why would a rate review of the insurance companies be confidential rather than the public’s right to know? In God’s name, what right has the minister to defend the private insurance companies who present their information to the minister for a rate review? Why shouldn’t it be public knowledge?

Mr. Cassidy: How will we know the minister made a good review?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the purpose of the rate review is to ensure that the insured consumer is properly protected.

Mr. Lewis: How will we ever know?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In our view, he is properly protected by the kind of rate review we undertake in our ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the Minister of Housing. What does the minister think of this apparent scare campaign on the part of the Urban Development Institute, playing on all of the more unlovely fears in Ontario, when dealing with matters of rent control and rent review? Has he been following its advertisements?

Mr. Foulds: Did the minister write them?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I certainly have followed the advertisements. I don’t say that the advertisements are scare tactics whatsoever. I think the industry is very much concerned that everyone will know full well what rent controls will do if they are enforced. We want to make sure that we, as a government, relate not only to the development industry but also to the tenants. We have done this. We are talking to both groups.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister accept the propaganda of the UDI “that matters are worse; the unrealistically depressed rents attract huge numbers of the poor and the disadvantaged from other areas leading to all sorts of extra social problems and welfare burdens for the city”? Does he agree with that kind of stuff issued as part of a propaganda effort to keep rents high?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t necessarily agree with the exact wording but what I have said time and time again is that supply has to be the answer. If we look at other areas which have implemented rent controls, they do have problems, but there may be some way we can resolve this problem which we have before us today.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary: What is he going to do with Mel Lastman, who believes in rent control and advocates it, when he becomes a Tory candidate?

Mr. Breithaupt: Make him a minister.

Mr. Lewis: How is the minister going to reconcile that?

Mr. Breithaupt: The Tories are not going to win.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll worry about that when it happens.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What did the NDP do with the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman)?

Mr. Lewis: Is he here? That’s what I have done with him.

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

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Disregarding foreign experience, is the minister not familiar with the experience in the Province of Quebec where a rent control scheme has been in operation since 1953 and has worked successfully over that lengthy period of time? If Quebec can do it and administer a scheme, is Ontario not capable of doing at least as well?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): What about BC?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member is not aware of all the implications in having rent controls. I wonder if the member has asked some of the tenants there if they had to pay any finders’ fees or anything else which might be associated with additional costs of rent? If he hasn’t, he should find out as I have.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

TRUCKING RATES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the fact that the consumers of this province are being ripped off to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year by not having the trucking companies justify their freight rates, and in view of the fact that the minister has in effect been misleading the House -- he has said repeatedly that this matter was being viewed by the Highway Transport Board --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: -- and in view of the fact he has told me privately that the whole thing stinks --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question, please?

Mr. Sargent: -- and further, he said last week that the province had nothing to do with setting the freight rates -- we know that; we’re not as stupid as he thinks we are.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So much for privacy.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Prove it.

Mr. Sargent: He has said that the whole policy should be rectified; why can’t he tell us the truth of what is going on? Is he doing something about it or not?

Mr. Foulds: What is the member for Oshawa (Mr. McIlveen) doing? Cleaning out the member for Timiskaming’s desk?

Mr. Breithaupt: Somebody else will be moving over there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the question of whether or not something stinks, I suppose, entirely depends upon with whom one is speaking at the time. On the question of misleading the House, I have not misled the House.

Mr. Sargent: Point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege?

Mr. Sargent: Will the minister please clarify his last remark?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The hon. minister is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will certainly repeat it if necessary.

Mr. Sargent: Will he please repeat it for the record?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have said -- and I’ve not misled the House -- that the matter is under review, but I have repeated again it would require a complete change of policy, as the hon. member knows. In the Province of Ontario we do not set rates. It may be that he feels they should be set. We are looking at the whole problem and it’s under review, as I’ve said before, so no one has misled anyone.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Bell Telephone and the CNR have to justify their rate increases, but there has never been any way to justify truckers’ freight rates. It is costing the outlying parts of the province hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your question?

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t the minister tell us, yes or no, is he going to settle this problem? I’d like to know why he is favouring the trucking companies. Why is he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I had always thought the hon. member’s party was in favour of the competitive nature of doing business. Even he knows that Bell Telephone is a non-competitive business and therefore is regulated by the CTC because of the fact that it does have a monopoly in that particular area. The trucking rates are established by a variety of companies.

Mr. Sargent: There’s no competition with the CTV. What is the minister talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Thunder Bay.

ARMSTRONG ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

In view of his statement a few moments ago expressing concern about the social and economic well-being of native people, and in view of his singular responsibility for the co-ordination of programmes associated with the provincial government and the people of Armstrong, a good many of whom are native, will the provincial secretary undertake to find some way of his government assisting the people of Armstrong in underwriting a portion of the cost of Hydro, which is 17 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to about the two cents that we spend down here? And will he undertake to co-ordinate a house-building programme with the Ministry of Housing to provide much-needed housing there, where we’ve got families of nine living in homes that measure 12 by 14 ft in size? Will the provincial secretary undertake to do both of those things?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in respect of Armstrong the secretariat has an ongoing relationship with Armstrong and we are dealing with any of the problems which arise as a result of the closing of the base by the federal government. I don’t think we can do all of the things we would like to do, or which the hon. member I’m sure would like to have us do. We are doing everything we possibly can to help that community. Indeed, we’ve already done a lot, as the hon. member has admitted in this House.

In respect to the specific question, all I can tell him is that both of these matters are presently under review.

Mr. Stokes: One brief supplementary: Does the minister not feel it is unfair for Ontario Hydro to charge one individual community -- which really isn’t isolated; it’s on the main line of the Canadian National railway -- 17 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity, something that one pays less than two cents for down here in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, this whole matter is under review and to give him an answer off the top of my head that he would be satisfied with would be impossible at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister consider it a higher priority to subsidize the electrical costs of the people of Armstrong than, say, the $3.5 million that the government has spent on Minaki Lodge? Aren’t the needs of Armstrong greater?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we could get into a great discussion on comparisons as to priorities. This is what it is all about; where do you spend the limited funds at your command? Sure, one could argue that you could spend more there than in Minaki; on the other hand, the hon. member might like to discuss the matter of Minaki Lodge with the people of Minaki and find out it creates a situation which is very helpful to the economy in Minaki.

Mr. Foulds: Not when it is closed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They might say, “You’ve done more for Armstrong than you’ve done for Minaki.”

Mr. Lewis: I think we would judge the people of Armstrong more important than the lodge at Minaki.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are other communities which say, “You have done more for Armstrong than you’ve done for us.” We are trying to do the best --

Mr. Lewis: Lodge versus people, it is a very simple equation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’re trying to do everything it is possible to do with the resources at our command.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the NDP takes this discussion very seriously -- he won’t allow the question to be answered.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the hon. member might discuss this matter with his leader. He appears to have more answers than I do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

HERITAGE HIGHWAYS ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Would he please explain why Hamilton is not designated on the most recent Heritage Highways full-page advertisements, such as appeared in the Canadian Magazine on Saturday?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Highways programme, as the House might be aware, is one that is run between the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec. At the time we went into the cooperative advertising programme we had decided, as two ministries, exactly the number of cities that would be advertised on the programme in the public media. It was decided there would be five municipalities in each of the two provinces.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if the members would look at the Heritage Highways booklet that has been put out by the two governments they will see that it covers a great number of communities in both Ontario and Quebec. I would suggest to the member for Hamilton Mountain that in that particular publication, Hamilton is well covered for some of the tourist attractions and some of the other facilities in that community as well.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

OTTAWA CENTRE FOR THE RETARDED

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Can the minister say today whether or not he has formally transmitted the decision he made last Thursday on his feet in this House -- namely, to continue the funding for the resource centre for retardation in Ottawa for at least another two months; in other words, to July 31?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Not formally, Mr. Speaker, but I made that commitment last Thursday in the House, as the hon. member said, that we would continue funding for the next two months. There are some ongoing discussions, as the hon. member is aware, between our staff and the people of the resource centre in Ottawa.

Mr. P. Taylor: I have a supplementary: Will the minister formally transmit that decision?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that part of this problem arose because of the fact that the mental retardation co-ordinator in the Ottawa area, although her office is only 10 minutes away from the resource centre, has paid only one short visit in the course of the last eight months? Does he not deplore that kind of neglect of a vital resource centre in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I wasn’t aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but again I would like to reiterate that there has been considerable discussion in the last few weeks between the members of the Ottawa centre and our staff, and I understand they have come to a satisfactory agreement. Again I would like to reiterate that we are prepared to fund them until the necessary changes are made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Why is the OMB about to hold hearings on the subdivision in Nosbonsing Lake, near North Bay, when the environmental studies of his ministry are not yet complete?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell the member whether our staff has completed studies there or not, but I will certainly get that information for him.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): If the minister has ordered studies, and if they are environmental impact studies on Lake Nosbonsing, is he prepared to recommend that the OMB hearing be postponed until such time as the studies are completed?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have no interference with the OMB, but we will make our presentations to the OMB when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

TOURISM ADVERTISEMENTS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, dealing with the “Ontario TV 1975 festivals” advertisements which are presently appearing across part of this province and in Quebec and the US. I wonder if the minister might consider that one of the advertisements that he has made available to me -- which reads, “It is always nice to be someplace that is not home and yet speaks the same language,” and which is being beamed into Quebec -- may well be offensive to the sensitivity of some minority groups, especially when an advertisement which appears to have been made for the US market is being beamed into television stations in the Province of Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if one wants to take any ad that the government of Ontario, through the ministry, happens to have, one could be very critical of it.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mrs. Campbell: He is right.

Mr. Cassidy: There sure has been a lot to criticize.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Three to four pages in every paper.

Mr. Singer: How much does it cost to put the names of three ministers in all Ontario papers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We look at the advertising, Mr. Speaker, and we word it the way we think it is most conducive to luring people into the Province of Ontario. We have advertisements which basically relate to the domestic market in this province, in which we persuade people of all tongues in this province to visit the north, south, east and the west. We also have advertisements that we send into the markets in Quebec, for example, and Winnipeg, both in English and French. We then have advertising in the foreign market, which is into the United States, which again on some occasions has a slightly different wording that will give them a distinct picture of the province.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not find -- and I have received complaints -- that minority groups may well be offended by this kind of ad in the light of the fact that we are living in a multicultural country? The government has created a ministry for that. Does the minister not feel this type of ad should not be beamed into Quebec and, in fact, should not be beamed into this country, but only in the US if he wants to?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

POLICE CONFERENCE TRAVEL EXPENSES

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the acting Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is aware of a resolution passed by the regional police commission authorizing an expenditure to cover the expenses of wives to attend a police chiefs’ conference in Denver, Colo. Does he consider this to be a legitimate expenditure of funds and is he aware that the various area councils have objected to this expenditure but to no avail? Will he intercede with the three government appointees to that commission in an effort to get them to reverse their decision?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the matter until it was drawn to my attention by the hon. member, in that the Sudbury regional police commission apparently authorized the chief to attend the conference in Denver along with his wife. That is the understanding that I have. I also have photocopies of correspondence being critical of that particular decision.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, has no right to interfere in the management of regional police forces or commissions so long as they work within or operate within the budgetary limits which they have prepared and submitted for approval. How they deploy those financial resources is a matter internal to them to be dealt with locally.

At this particular moment, my observation is that I have no jurisdiction. I will inquire further into the matter to determine if I do, but my understanding is that the Solicitor General does not per se have the jurisdiction to tell the regional police commission how it shall deploy its funds.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not think guidelines should be set and restrictive legislation passed to permit police commissions to expend funds on certain projects but not give them a blank cheque the way it is now?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that they are not given a blank cheque. They have a budget within which to operate, and presumably to deploy the resources within that budget for the best advantage of the responsibility which they bear. Again, if we develop legislation being somewhat restrictive, then I suppose we would be tarred with the brush of attempting to run the regional forces or the regional commissions from one central agency, instead of having it somewhat deployed all throughout the province.

As I said earlier, I will look into it and see if we do have jurisdiction. I will report back directly to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

DISMISSAL OF LORD’S DAY ACT CHARGE

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question of the Attorney General. What is the state of the investigation by the ministry, as begun by the Crown attorney at Sarnia in connection with the dismissal of a charge under the Lord’s Day Act, as a result of a purported forgery in the laying of the information, leaving the question of punitive action by the chief of police of Sarnia township to the police commission? What, if anything, is the Attorney General going to do about the justice of the peace who must have known at the time of the swearing of the information that the deponent allegedly swearing the information wasn’t the deponent mentioned in the information?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I was not familiar with this problem until the opening of the House when the hon. member for Sarnia mentioned it to me, which did give me an opportunity to check into it. I am grateful for that opportunity.

With the laying of information under the Lord’s Day Act, the practice is that the officer who completed the investigation does, in fact, sign the information. It is not sworn; it is forwarded to me to obtain a consent, which is necessary under the Lord’s Day Act of Canada. I consent on the face of the document in writing by affixing my signature, and it is sent back. At that time, the officer then appears before the justice of the peace and is sworn as to the contents of the information, and it goes forward in the usual manner.

In this particular case, I understand the information was drawn in the name of the chief constable. The officer who attended before the justice of the peace had, in fact, signed it. It went to the justice of the peace, who saw the officer’s signature. He asked him if the information was true; he then affixed his signature and the matter went forward. It was not a matter of the officer signing the chief constable’s signature, it was a matter of the officer affixing his own signature on a summons which bore the chief constable’s name at the top.

The Crown attorney, I am advised, has looked at it. It has been determined that there was no malice, no attempt to mislead. The justice of the peace should have caught it at the time, in the sense that he should have observed the signature -- presumably the officer was known to him; it’s only a small force -- compared it to the name at the top, and drawn that to the officer’s attention. That was not done, and the members of that particular force have been requested to be careful in the future so that this matter does not duplicate itself. But there was no intent to mislead or deceive.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want to emphasize this unduly, but do I understand from the minister’s answer that the name that was signed on the information was not the name of the deponent as typed in the information? That is my information.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That was my information.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary: Would I presume that if the facts were otherwise that if, in point of fact, the JP was provided with information by an officer in the name of the chief constable -- with the chief constable’s signature affixed -- that he would look with disfavour upon that type of practice?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would presume so. The situation -- so we are clear on it -- is that it had the chief constable’s named typed in, the officer signed his own, the justice of the peace then swore the officer, but when it got to court the discrepancy was apparent on the face of the document. I am sure my friend has seen affidavits which have had the same type of error, whereby the person who was typed in as a witness was not, in fact, a person who did witness or did sign. But the amendment was not made on that basis.

Mr. Bullbrook: I take the minister’s word for it. I will investigate further.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

GOGAMA HOUSING SERVICES

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: Would the provincial secretary make an effort to get together with the Minister of Housing and the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the people in Gogama are not further denied public housing units, which were promised to that community but then refused because the water table is polluted and the Ministry of the Environment will not provide a communal water supply because the community has no municipal status?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it will be no effort at all to get in touch with both of my colleagues; but, really, I think that is a question that should be directed to the Ministry of Housing.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, supplementary, if I might: I ask the provincial secretary whether he understands that the reason I am asking him the question is that each of the other two ministers passes the buck to the other, and nothing happens. I thought the provincial secretary was the one who coordinates the various ministries.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Housing, of course, is not in my policy field. I am sure neither of my colleagues would do such a thing as pass the buck.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: However, in view of the fact one of the ministries is within my policy field, I would be very glad to discuss it with both of my colleagues. As I say, it will be no trouble at all.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

PRIVATE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A question of the Minister of the Environment: Has the minister seen the full-page ad in Time magazine by Aquarobic Home Sewage Treatment Systems of Penetanguishene advertising private sewage package treatment plants? Is he aware that in this ad they give the impression that these have been approved by the Ministry of the Environment? Do they come under the jurisdiction of the local health officers to whom the minister has given the private sewage legislation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I haven’t seen the ad. As to the second part of the question; yes, we have given approval to the system. It has proved satisfactory. Third, we do at this point in time -- until we have enough trained personnel -- actually supervise installation of the aquarobic systems.

Mr. Good: A supplementary: Would they have to be installed under the jurisdiction of the local health unit? Furthermore, are they approved for whole subdivision sections within rural municipalities as held out in the ad?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the health units of the Province of Ontario have taken over the regulation of septic tank systems. Secondly, the aquarobic installations are a little more technical. I am not saying the staff can’t handle it, they can, but in most cases our staff handle the aquarobic installations. They can be used within limitations in certain areas on an ongoing basis, but certainly we don’t recommend them for massive subdivisions. We think water and sewage are the best solutions.

The aquarobic system is a kind of system which can work in areas where a normal septic system will not work.

Mr. Good: A supplementary Mr. Speaker: Will the minister look at the advertisement and see if everything held forth there meets with his approval?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes. What was it in? Time magazine?

Mr. Good: Time magazine.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Now that the minister has decided the handicapped should not be covered by the Human Rights Commission as far as discrimination in employment is concerned, what alternative has he in mind for giving to the handicapped equal opportunities for employment of the kind they are capable of doing?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, at the urging of the member for Sandwich-Riverside, I had a discussion with my deputy minister the other day to see what we could do. It is really only at the formative stages; we are investigating what they have in other places, as well as our own ideas of what might be done to try to assure that a reasonable number of jobs in industry and in business go to handicapped people. That is the stage it is at, it is no further than that.

Mr. Speaker: A final question, the member for Downsview.

ACHIEVEMENT AWARD ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Could the Minister of Industry and Tourism tell us the purpose of the ad that appeared in Friday’s paper expressing congratulations to REFF Products Ltd. of Downsview, Ont. for receiving the government of Ontario A for achievement award? The ad happens to mention everything except the achievement; but has in it the name of the minister, the name of the secretary and the name of the Premier. What useful purpose does this ad serve the people of Ontario and how much did it cost?

Mr. Roy: That is politicking at public expense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How do the Liberals do it in Ottawa?

Mr. Lewis: Who writes those ads?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That one I guarantee I didn’t write. On the question about the ‘A’ for achievement awards, Mr. Speaker, which have been given out by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism or its predecessor since 1966, we have advertised and indicated the successful companies in the communities they happen to be in.

Mr. Singer: Have there been 84 ads like this?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have had a number of ads. I couldn’t say the exact number nor could I tell the member the exact cost, which I am prepared to find out.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired. I’ll recognize the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Sargent: Where is the Premier? He is supposed to be here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Premier had planned on being here before the end of the question period.

Mr. Breithaupt: We will wait.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unfortunately, he has not been able to make it. He will be here shortly.

He had planned at that time to express the regrets of this House at the untimely passing of Leslie Rowntree, a former colleague in the Legislature and a former colleague in the cabinet. I am sure the hon. members present would want to pay tribute to the great service that Mr. Rowntree had given to this province, both in his capacity as a private member and as a member of the cabinet. Indeed, he was sworn in on the same day as my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and I were sworn in.

He served in a number of capacities and a number of ministries -- very difficult ministries -- and I am sure I can express the sentiments of all those present when I convey to his brother, unfortunately his only survivor, the regret of this House at his untimely passing.

Mr. Sargent: Here is the Premier; saved by the bell.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Premier wish to make some remarks?

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Friday questions were raised in this House in regard to remarks attributed to the member for Timiskaming about native people and the land claims they have made which affect the proposed Maple Mountain project. I have now had an opportunity to speak to the member about this matter and, while expressing regret and sincere apologies that a frustration caused by delay in a project which he feels so important to his area has caused him to make these intemperate remarks, he admits in all honesty that the reported comments are consistent with what he indeed said.

Under the circumstances, and so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the attitudes of this government in regard to Indians or any of our peoples, I have asked for and received the member’s resignation as chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Order, please. Before the orders of the day, I understand the hon. member for Timiskaming wishes to make a statement.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I stand on a matter of personal privilege.

Last week, while commenting on the difficulties encountered in proceeding with the proposed Maple Mountain project, I made certain derogatory remarks about the Indians whose land claims have caused a delay in the decision about that project. For those remarks, I offer my most sincere apologies both to the native people, about whom I spoke, and to all the people of Ontario who have taken offence at my comments. Unfortunately, my frustration in encountering delay in what I regard as a vital project to the area I serve caused me to lash out indiscriminately and indiscreetly at those I saw as standing in the way of progress.

This comment, however, neither serves nor is intended to serve as an excuse for remarks that were inexcusable. I know the difficulties the Indian people themselves face. I know the frustrations they encounter in overcoming their problems. I know that their desire to assert their rights is founded in a genuine desire to see justice done and I know of the contributions they have made and will continue to make to life in this province. They deserve better than they received from me last week and I shall do my best in the weeks and months ahead to show, through action as well as words, that my me feelings about native people are quite the opposite to those which, in a moment of frustration, I was quoted as having said.

I have been accused by some members of the opposition, particularly the leader of the NDP, of being a racist. These statements, Mr. Speaker, are vicious and a cheap way of trying to gain public support. For me to resign, as he suggests, would in fact indicate I was a racist. I should like to point out that I was born in Poland and I am hardly qualified to criticize any nationality regardless of race, colour or creed. I have lived in Kirkland Lake during the past 45 years. No one has accused me of being a racist and I have worked in perfect harmony with all peoples of all races, colour and creed. To be accused of being a racist is, to say the least, the lowest form of criticism.

I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that my lifelong and best friend is Jewish; another is Estonian and is married to a squaw.

Mr. Lewis: The member is beyond belief.

Mr. Havrot: I just happen to like people, and some I don’t --

Mr. Lewis: The member is beyond belief.

Mr. Havrot: Unfortunately, I also placed my trust in some of the reporters who have made a great issue of this. I’ve worked on behalf of the Indian bands in my riding. For example, on May 6 I arranged and attended a meeting with the Minister of Transportation and Communications, for the chief and his representatives to present their case for additional funding of a new road into their reservation.

Mr. Speaker, to all Indian people in Ontario and in Canada, I express again, my most sincere apologies for the remarks I made in a fit of anger, and beg their forgiveness and understanding; and I assure them of my full support as a fellow Canadian and a member of this Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr. Lewis: How can the government members applaud that kind of statement? Or are some of them their best friends also?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Did the member for Scarborough West ever ask anybody’s forgiveness? He should try it some time.

Mr. Roy: The member had better quit while he’s ahead.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Scarborough West has got his pound of flesh. What is he hopping about?

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 14th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview had the floor when we closed on Friday.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chairman, I had said on Friday pretty well all I wanted to say, except for one thing. I asked the minister -- and he will recall it, I’m sure -- if he had available to him the reports that the statutes require, and he shrugged his shoulders. And if I interpreted his across-the-floor remark correctly, it was that he hadn’t seen them. If I’ve wronged him in that interpretation of his shrug and what appeared to happen, then I’m sorry. But, certainly, Mr. Chairman, I have checked today with the Clerk, and there are not available to us, on May 20, the reports that the statute requires.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Acting Solicitor General): Are you referring to the annual report of the ministry?

Mr. Singer: No, no. I am referring to the reports of the Ontario Police Commission and the Ontario Provincial Police. And if I might draw the minister’s attention to a statute which I’m sure he is very familiar with, which he reads every day; it’s the Police Act, which is Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1971, chapter 351, and more particularly section 40(7), which says:

“The commission [the Ontario Police Commission] shall, after the close of each calendar year, file with the minister an annual report upon the affairs of the commission, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session.”

One would assume that the Ontario Police Commission would have had reasonable time, 4% or 4% months, to prepare its annual report, to deliver it to the Solicitor General, to allow him to present it to the Lieutenant Governor and to table it.

It’s not only the hanging on to the niceties of a specific statutory provision, Mr. Chairman, but it’s in keeping with the kind of criticism the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and I were levelling at the system on Friday, when, without notice, these estimates are called. You expect the opposition to reasonably intelligently criticize the activities of the department in the year gone by, and you haven’t gone along with the basic requirements of the enabling statutes which provide that we are to have in our possession an annual report of the Ontario Police Commission which will enable us to examine, with some intelligence and on some factual basis, what the commission has done in the year gone by. That’s one report.

In the same statute, Mr. Chairman, if my friend would come with me to section 44 of the Police Act, it says:

“The commissioner [the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police] shall, after the close of each calendar year, file with the minister an annual report upon the affairs of the Ontario Provincial Police Force, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session.” We haven’t got that one either.

As I say, the calendar year ended 4% months ago and the estimates are brought before us and we are compelled to debate them if we want to assert our rights and do our duty here as members at all. We are compelled to debate them without having either the notice or the usefulness, whatever it may be, of these two reports which the statute requires.

I say that the government continues to play ducks and drakes with the members of the Legislature. It has no consideration at all for the role that has to be carried out by the opposition members in reviewing these estimates. I recognize the Solicitor General was put into his third portfolio not through any particular fault of his own. He didn’t seek it but he’s there; he is the responsible minister and he’s bringing these estimates forward. He brings these estimates to us without having these two reports available and it’s just grossly, patently unfair.

The Ontario Provincial Police, for instance, is asking for -- how much money? -- some $44,389,000. No, I’m sorry; that’s only one programme. The minister is asking for $116,476,000 for the Ontario Provincial Police and we don’t have the benefit of having before us their report.

The Ontario Police Commission, which I presume is the more or less separate advisory body and somewhat administrative body of the ministry, is asking for the balance of what’s in this estimate. We haven’t got their report either. So it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to bring before the Legislature, to bring before the people of Ontario, the real problems that we have to face when we debate these estimates.

I would urge again that the minister himself seek an adequate adjournment so that the information could be brought before us and we could be able to properly and adequately debate these estimates.

I think, Mr. Chairman, while I moved the adjournment of the debate the other day for a different reason -- because of lack of notice -- my consideration of this matter over the weekend leaves me to move the same motion again. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will move that the committee rise and report and, hopefully, while it has risen and has reported, somewhere, magically, we will get the report of the Ontario Police Commission and of the Ontario Provincial Police, and then we will be able to proceed with these estimates intelligently.

Mr. Singer moves the committee rise and report.

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 37, the “nays” are 50.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost. Does the member for Downsview wish to proceed?

Mr. Singer: That concludes my remarks for now.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): All right, get up and go -- all leave. Go ahead, and we’ll get settled down to do some hard work.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): You go ahead and get ‘em.

Mr. Lawlor: Let quiet be restored, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, three or four weeks ago there was laid on my desk downstairs, through the intervention of our House leader, a certain document indicating what the purport, tenor and direction of this House was going to be for the next period of time.

From time to time the gods that exist over there, descending, deus ex machina, from whatever aviary they occupy, and however much the ozone stinks, descend and tell us what they are going to do around here. On that occasion there was this sheet of paper indicating what the layout was for estimates in this House, as I say, for the next intervening time. On that sheet it showed the estimates of the Solicitor General of the province to be done in committee, downstairs, and to be done at a time separate and distinct, by a long margin, because there were other estimates in between.

I’d taken at that particular stage, that because of the member for Halton West’s (Mr. Kerr) problems, and his particular imbroglio, that the matter was being left aside, placed in suspension for his return -- for his possible return -- that you had sufficient on your plate al read with two other sets of estimates. The Attorney General’s being far more demanding than this set of estimates, I had taken it that you had enough to d:o without having to turn your attention to that particular area of estimates and that the matter was placed in abeyance. That was rooted in my heart. As Shakespeare says, buckled to my soul with hoops of steel. Sometimes we do get these fixed notions. But there was nothing until last Friday morning to indicate to me, contrariwise in any way, that it wasn’t the prevailing tenor of what you intended to do in this House.

I don’t think I’ll spend much more time on this. I confess I don’t know, nor do I pay particular cognizance to, what is to be done. I’m very short sighted. I can’t see now, standing here, who the members under the gallery are, or are not. That particular reference, I thought, went rather by the board before a myopic member like myself. Perhaps we will go out some afternoon and, at your expense, have a drink together; become all profoundly acquainted and get to know each other’s functions and roles in this assembly. The mere fact that you parade a certain number of people from time to time under the gallery is neither here nor there, so far as the opposition is concerned. We were zeroed in and very much concerned to proceed with the other estimates. We will take these as they come.

I want to make a particular tribute to the member for Downsview --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): A great man.

Mr. Lawlor: -- because of his alertness of mind. I was really impressed on Friday morning when he stood up and made an hour’s speech off the cuff, so to speak -- on the spur of the moment. He spoke well and spoke penetratingly on the basis of four insufficient pages that you had saw fit to present to him across the floor of the House.

That particular kind of alertness, that particular kind of ingenuity, is something that always takes my breath away. I suppose the best members of this House are able to do these things at the drop of a hat, so to speak. But I don’t wear a hat any more.

I find myself spiritually opposed to doing that. It’s fine, and sometimes it’s necessary. But I simply find it difficult to respond to a move such as this by the government. You are somewhat responsible in this particular context.

I directed all my fire at the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) but that’s because of the way he handles the general business. The whole business of introduction of bills and what’s going to be called next day or not called, is all up in the air. It leaves us in some sort of demonic limbo around here. I never know when I come in at 2 o’clock what in blazes we are supposed to be handling that afternoon. There may be four or five bills of some complexity. I think as the least gem of courtesy, instead of giving out amethysts, he might give out a little bit more information once in a while and let us know at least a day ahead of time what we are expected to address ourselves to the next following day. I say that the member for Downsview’s performance was something that deserves some kind of mention.

The amount of money being spent on this department is escalating at a very considerable pitch. Over against 1973, the 1974 estimates are $10 million more than that year, and now this year, over against last year, close to $20 million more, doubling the previous jump in the estimates. We will want to explore this massive jump in this particular ministry as the estimates proceed. I have made up over the weekend a hodge-podge of various items on which I would like to address myself. In part, for the next few moments, I shall be using the introductory remarks by your predecessor in office, the member for Halton West for the 1974 estimates over against the ones that you presented on Friday morning.

Just in preface to doing so, may I say that Mr. Kerr presented 16 pages of fairly full stuff. I suppose it’s because of the problems in your portfolio -- you have just too many of them -- although I am sure that you don’t draw these things up yourself, you were able only to engender or to give birth to seven pages. I hope you don’t consider yourself less than half the man he was in the presentation of the estimates of this particular department, but in terms of sheer folio additions that’s where you are ending up. The stuff that he talks about and you don’t talk about is equally as interesting as that which you talk about and curiously enough he does too.

As a matter of fact, it tickles the spine to see the resemblances between the two documents in many of their portions, one point to which I will return in just a moment.

As a matter of fact, I think I will come to it right now. On page 2 of his introduction to the estimates, as contrasted with page 6 of yours, there is almost precisely the same wording. I don’t know which one to read but it has to do in his case with the forensic tower. You did go to the enormous extent of changing the wording and saying “forensic sciences capability.” In this regard, I shall read just one paragraph. Most of them are almost identical. He said: “The ordering of specialized equipment for the building has been completed.”

You made a great change in this particular one. The imagination was turning over. I think the second time in a half year. Instead of “the ordering,” you say, “The installation of specialized equipment for the buildings has been completed.” The next sentence in both says: “It is anticipated that our ability to handle the forensic caseload would increase markedly when the new facilities are in use.” The next sentence is identical. “Additional fully qualified staff will be necessary so that expert service is available for this increased forensic capability.”

I would have given you just a bit of credit for rewording or slightly altering or maybe even rethinking, but to simply adapt word by word -- and this is done throughout your statement -- the statement made by the minister in this role in a previous year strikes me as a bit sloppy and a bit lax --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Bankrupt.

Mr. Lawlor: And my colleague suggests a bit bankrupt, on the part of your department. I hardly think I would pull out that particular one again.

If I may I will dwell on this particular heading just for a moment, and we will come to it in the second vote. First of all what is called the George Drew complex -- I don’t know what that does to it -- was supposed to be completed, according to Mr. Kerr’s statement last fall, before the end of the year. Your statement is that it will be finished in early June. I think some questions should be raised in the House as to the very considerable -- at least half a month -- delay in the completion of the centre. Is it really determined that it will be available and completed by June of this year, in about a month’s time?

A certain sagacity, a certain sense of the seer, should reside in the minds of Attorneys General who happen to be also the same people as their own Solicitor General; a certain sovereignty and serenity of mind which won’t go for some crassness and vulgarity that we could achieve, for instance, in the Minister of Housing or any other number of ministers. The judicial capacity is a different kind of bird.

But throughout these statements, and throughout yours too, is that whatever you do has to be the best in the world. You know, if it would save the people of Ontario say $50 million, I’d settle for second best. In terms of what you propose to do with this forensic sciences capability and your subsequent accolading, pinning on of medals on your breast with respect to the new police setup at Aylmer, Ont., again there is the same kind of wording -- that it will be the model for the rest of mankind. The Martians will turn red in face of this enormous capability that you have.

It’s beneath dignity and beneath intelligence. It won’t be that at all. It will be pretty good. I hope it is half as good as you say it is. But to make all these laudatory, salt-congratulatory pretences in your opening statement is quite beside the point and not, as I say, in line with the mentality that I would give you credit for. But whoever your speechwriter in the department is, he ought to excise that sort of nonsense at least from the Justice portfolio in all its dimensions.

As I say, there are a number of questions in regard to that forensic science place. The bringing together of the offices of the chief coroner, the morgue, I suppose, pathology, and the forensic sciences offices into a single complex is fine. You talk about specialized equipment. I would like to know what that specialized equipment may be, but we can delay that until we get to the actual vote.

Secondly, you talk about specialized staff, and so did Kerr. But I see that the figures being presented to us in your estimates don’t reflect, at least on monetary amounts, it seems to me, the kind of expertise, the kind of specialized staff which I would think would be brought into this -- chemists, biologists, physicists, people with analytical skills and so on -- who are pretty highly paid fellows these days in our establishment. As I say, this has been mooted and talked about but nothing has come to pass.

All right, so much for that. On the Ontario Police Commission, I notice that Edward Hale, I believe his name is, who was the chairman of the task force on policing, has been appointed to give advice as an advisory member of the OPC. I would like to know exactly what role he is playing in that area, what his salary is and what his tenure of office is likely to be.

Then you go on to say it’s because he was introduced into the network precisely to implement the terms of that report. Of the 170 different recommendations, you have given us an outline of quite a number -- 49 -- which have been implemented etc., 84 which are being implemented, whatever that means, and 37 deferred. If it is possible, some time throughout the course of these estimates I would like to have a more precise intelligence as to what has been implemented and what has not, and I am particularly anxious to find out what has been deferred and why it has been deferred.

Over the weekend I went through all of the recommendations again to look them over. When we reach that particular vote I would interrogate you very specifically with respect to various headings, on a test basis here and there, in order to see exactly what you have done in this regard. There is a fair number of innocuous recommendations and some so obvious you couldn’t help but implement them. Therefore, it may be the crunch ones are the very ones you are not implementing.

What you are moving ahead on, according to your statement -- and I give you credit for it -- is the business of being cognizant of the whole psychological and sociological role of police in the community in our society today. There is a heightened consciousness in this regard which wasn’t peculiar to the ministry in years past but with the police report which is, by and large, except for two or three things -- its attitude toward police commissions is purblind. It’s one of the black marks in the report.

Leaving that aside, as far as its approach to the police facilities of the province is concerned it is fairly enlightened. It is enlightened along the lines the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and I have been bringing forward to various Solicitors General -- and Attorneys General when they held that portfolio too -- for almost seven years now. I’m not going to take a great deal of time today to belabour it -- it’s been in Hansard enough. It’s on the record.

It has basically to do with the thesis that there are two different models for policing -- the British model, as we call it, and the American model. The American model is a highly militaristic, regimented, hierarchical concept, etc. in which men are dragooned.

The British model has enormous flexibility and self-determination on the part of the policeman; the kind of training that goes into it; the sense of community; the sense of helping others; the sense that he is not, in the strictest sense, a law enforcement officer but he is a community officer; the largest amount of work he ever does in his life is either to direct traffic or to aid individuals in one kind of trouble or another in the community.

As I say, I give you credit for the recognition of that proceeding out of that report. Perhaps, the recognition of it -- even apart from the report -- is paramount in the ministry. It is the only way by which a continuing accommodation is going to be made between the citizenry at large and the police forces as a very tight nuclear unit within that society, to break down the divisions and, if I may say so, the possible lamentable hostilities between the two groups.

In the American system it has got into a more or less Fascist, inverted, introverted police network in which the police themselves are very often the greatest criminals. We set them up, the Americans particularly, with enormous power and with enormous internal discretions. They are such a tight-knit community, all sharing certain values in common, and have turned their hand against the very society which brought them into being.

In other words, they have placed power in the hands of men who are not discreet, men who have not a deep intelligence and men who are not aware of the diversity of community problems which conflicts engender -- racial in part, social in much greater part -- the cause of those who are deprived in the society and, even more important, those who feel themselves deprived and determined to get their own back again. They can often be very wealthy people who are going to take advantage. By and large, the people in our jails, our courts and our whole penal system -- 80 or 90 per cent I would say -- are from lower income and deprived sectors in society who think, because the nature of society is to promise everything and give very little, that they’re going to take a little bit on their own. In this particular regard you set up antagonistic forces working one against the other and confer enormous powers upon a segmented group within the community which easily -- this is our danger and we must be terribly aware of it -- could turn Frankenstein on us. So there must be a surveillance and a constant vigilance with respect to the utilization of police powers.

Listen, I give no credence -- I want this well known -- to the Scientology crew. Rob Hubbard, as far as I am concerned -- well, I don’t like saying things in the House that I wouldn’t say outside, just for fear of slander. The fact is that he is in no great high esteem as far as I am concerned.

Nevertheless, they have done this documentation, which I trust you have at least glimpsed at. I don’t know how much faith you can put in what they say, but they have all these cases. I spent an hour or two reading them over. They are in a diversity of places in the province and they have to do with police violence, with police abuse and with the police taking advantage of people who are vulnerable and who aren’t likely to complain, because again they move in echelons, either having criminal records or because they are linguistically incapable or because they just look scared.

There is just enough there and there is just enough added to that in the hearings that have been going on for months now with respect to police violence in the city, to place us all on the qui vive, to watch it closely, and for you to exercise your Solicitor Generalship in a way that will bring some kind of harmony, some kind of an appropriate response back and forth from the community to the police.

You know, the minute they took police off the beats -- this may be provincialism; it may be archaic -- nevertheless, when they took them off, there disappeared that rapport, that sense of living relationship between the people, the store people and the homeowners, etc., that prevailed in this society before, and something mechanistic, something impersonal, something hostile -- because impersonality is always hostile -- came into being at that particular time. Now they are trying to restore it up to a point, but in no great measure. Nor will they ever return to that particular close liaison between citizen and policemen.

We all know that the policemen do make an attempt. I was talking to a policeman the other day. He said, “I was at a party a week or two ago on a Saturday night, and as soon as they found out I was a policeman they cornered me. Some guy had got a ticket and so on. All the caterwauling and all the wretchedness spoiled my whole evening”. It makes it very difficult to go out and move among your peers elsewhere when you are constantly up against that kind of bantering -- it’s more than bantering; it’s battering.

The natural inclination, although he resists it strenuously and runs against it, is not to attend; therefore, it drives the police into a closed circle and they have friends only among themselves. They only go to visit one another’s homes. And if there is a particularly questionable mentality, it spreads because it is in such close proximity. We must do everything we can to break that down.

If the police college in its courses could give this wider point of view -- I noticed your Indian policy, that 81 men, I believe, were being trained to give an insight into how the whole mind of the Indian works, what the philosophy of Indian affairs would be and the way of life there as it differentiates itself from our own so as to have sympathy for it. Sympathy again is the same as understanding. You can’t understand unless you sympathize with anything. This business lacks sympathy.

I do take issue with the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto and the two-man cruiser situation. Where did they find the soft spot in the budget? Possibly the place that is most crying for need, the most vulnerable -- the youth squads under various names. Those young police officers who go around in denims and jeans, who have let their hair grow and who have beards, and who move among the young people as young people and have a certain rapport. That’s where the slicing took place, and that is where we can least afford to have it done in any other number of areas. If I had to make the choice between the two-man cruiser and the youth squads, the youth squads would stay. It’s a shame that they are put to that choice. I don’t think that that should be, that if we have to have this pre-surveillance, that that choice had to he made nor the particular selection within the choice made in that way.

There is the English notion of what a policeman should be, what the courtesies of the trade would be and the fact that he doesn’t try to acquire badges for himself nor is he in any form of a quota system. I verily believe that quota systems exist plenarily in this province, across the board and not in any overt sense of saying you have to have so many. When his record is looked at for a promotion at the end of a period, they survey and assess, as it is recommended they do, in the police report the record and accomplishments of the police officer in question, his deportment and abilities, the tag-ups, the number of tickets issued, the number of arrests made and the number of convictions garnered out of the arrests.

This whole mathematical, quantitative analysis of a policeman’s task is totally out of order, totally inappropriate. If the mentality at all persists, and I believe it does, as I wouldn’t speak about it if I didn’t, in the senior echelons of the police force, then the faster that is rooted out through your instrumentality again, the better it will be for all citizens concerned, because in exercising discretionary power every case is different.

I am no apologist for uniformity of sentences. That is just nonsense. You can’t do that to human beings. That is always based on some preventive notion out here that if you hang the pickpockets at Mulberry Fair you won’t have any pickpockets. The only thing you had at Mulberry Fair was pickpockets picking the pockets of those who were going to be hung and others who came to watch them. The whole thing is psychologically wrong. Human beings don’t operate that way. That ain’t the way it is. Therefore, to insist upon the punishment aspects of policing is totally inadmissible at this time in this day and age.

Another area -- and it’s quite distinct -- that I am concerned about in this regard and which wasn’t mentioned in your report was the business of the private police forces that are growing up. I am told that in the United States today the private police forces hired by industry and commerce and by private people are 10 to one to the established police forces under public control. Surely, that is a very questionable development in that society. To the extent that it is prevalent here -- it is here and growing; we know all about it -- to that extent again, it would be a prime area for your continued vigilance. I find it most questionable. It’s like a vigilante society, a feudalism where the noble over the hill has his entourage, his little retinue of knights, and can call upon their attendance in the field to come out and assist him with the odd crossbow or something. The masters of industry and private people usurp for themselves these enormous measures of police power. Police power is something which under conservative or any other philosophy, is peculiarly a measure for the state.

In his statement of a year ago, on the last page, page 16, Mr. Kerr says:

“We are developing legislation that will improve our ability to regulate private policing in Ontario. We have had an Act to provide this legislation since 1900. However, the industry has expanded so much during the past few years that it requires major changes to existing legislation affecting it. The objective is to form new legislation to take in all of this private type of policing, to improve the accountability to the public and establish minimum standards.”

It is curious that there is no mention of that in your statement. Where is the legislation? What are your intentions in this particular? Surely, the previous Solicitor General was right in this regard, that the impact of this particular area is something which is becoming quite overwhelming?

There are a few things I want to say about that, too. These great chain stores -- Towers and others -- display profusely, invitingly, on their counters all kinds of goods and services. Some fellow goes in and picks something up -- it is almost offered to him; it is sitting there. He puts it in his pocket and the plain-clothed, usually elderly gentleman, usually ill-paid gentleman -- running the store’s private security network on minimum wages; a retired policeman eking out some extra subsistence from these beggars -- follows him around the store.

Of course, he won’t give him a warning. He is probably paid -- some of them are -- on the basis of the number of captures or arrests he can make. He allows the individual to hit the door and the minute he steps out the door, he collars him and calls in the local police in order to press charges. The policy is invariably to press charges and not to drop them because of their huge losses. They wouldn’t have such huge losses if they weren’t so open-handed about conniving with the very thing they are supposed to be against.

Something else I am told in this regard is kind of interesting. These stores, or some of them -- I don’t know if it is in Canada; it may be in the States -- very often hire people to be shoplifters in order to find out how effective their security staff is. They capture him outside the door and bring him into the office and he, like some spy who came in from the cold, tells the fellow: “No, I was only hired to do this job. I am being paid twice as much as you to lift stuff in order to find out whether or not you are on your toes.” Such is the internal can of worms of private policing which is taking place in the province at this time.

A great deal in these estimates these days -- for the past several years -- has been taken up with various forms of communication services. I would hope to get into them in some depth but in approaching the issue I have listed at least four or five separate and distinct types of either data accumulation, data processing, radio or liaisons with other agencies.

You have this integrated radio services programme for a sum of $3 million apparently spread over three years. As far as I can discover that involves two-way portable radios, largely, supplied through your auspices to the local municipal police.

As I say, I would like to get a clear picture of what each one of these agencies or methods is. That’s where, as I see it, is the great amount of money. There are increases in police salaries, true, but purchasing computerized equipment and various forms of extended data control seem to be the areas in which the money is being used.

The member for Riverdale and I for many years have been concerned, as you well know in your other portfolio, about electronic surveillance by the police forces. I would like you, when you come back to this in reply, to bring me up to date as to what the score is, as you see it as Solicitor General, of the utilization being made of that by police forces, including the OPP of course, in Ontario at this time. Whether it is working, whether they find the federal legislation constructive, whether other changes should be made, it would be most interesting to learn, because of the impact on privacy that such matters have.

Now, let’s turn to the position with respect to the Indians. You advert to it and make some statements, as though -- and I take a little umbrage with this -- as though you were branching out into completely virgin territory, as though you were doing something no one bad ever dreamed of doing before. Well, the first person who dreamed of doing it before was your predecessor, again. You say, on page 4 of your statement:

“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 people. This move is in addition to all our other Indian policing activities.”

I found that last sentence to be amusing. In addition to precisely what other Indian policing activities are you talking about? You say:

“Within the next month, Ontario will enter a joint agreement with the federal government to share in a new approach to Indian policing here.”

I will pause over that, too, because I would like to know more. It was mooted that you would have 75 per cent agreement with the federal government, at least for an interim time. The hon. George Kerr talked about this. It was felt that when the document came to be signed it would probably be a 50-50 deal of some kind. As you are ready to sign the agreement next month, I would like to know what the terms of that agreement are.

Then you talk about the improved police service, that they will be staffed by Indian band constables, and so on. “Recruited, trained and supervised by the OPP, they will go through the Aylmer course,” and so on. Well, that ain’t news, John. That was all set forth in previous years. It is not breaking any ground at all.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) started that.

Mr. Lawlor: I would think so. Then finally, you come down and say, on page 5, there is a special course, fly-in patrols. “In the fall of 1974, another new programme was sponsored by the provincial government.” How many times do you announce these programmes? There was already a fly-in service.

Mr. Stokes: Regurgitation.

Mr. Lawlor: Again I will refer to the Kerr statement. At page 13 he says:

“Other programmes are being launched by the Ontario Provincial Police to infuse the OPP presence and protection of Indian communities in the north. It involves increased frequency of fly-in patrols to isolated settlements where full-time OPP constables cannot be stationed, [This was, if I am not mistaken, around May 5, 1974, that this statement was made; almost a year ago now or a little over.] The building of permanent police posts in isolated areas, the moving of more policemen to these locations, and orientation and training to help officers better understand the particular needs of our native people.”

Fine, and we applauded it at the time; but our hands get sore. What kind of a sound is made if you applaud with only one hand? That was a question asked by a Zen master of his pupil, and I thought maybe you would have the answer to that one.

You talk about 27 volunteer officers recently graduated from a course in which they too flew themselves in. You announced it as a new thing under the sun, which it simply isn’t, and I don’t think your estimates should be presented to us in that particular way.

If a policy has been agreed upon and reached, so be it and fine. Let the minister make the announcement. If he is slow on the implementation, if he doesn’t get ahead with it, then the next subsequent minister of the next subsequent year is not an occasion for reiteration in terms of self plaudits in the same damned position. It just doesn’t work -- doesn’t wash around here.

The last thing I want to mention in these leadoff statements has to do with some further information touching the OPP complaints bureau. I would like figures and facts as to what the incidence of those complaints are, how they are handled, whether the nostrums given in the police report are implemented.

May I mention too in passing that I tried desperately on Friday to get a copy of the Ed Maloney report. I got a little bit of a peeve with Maloney and I hope it comes to his attention out of Hansard. He prepares his report at the behest and at the expense of the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Metro.

Mr. Lawlor: Metro -- he certainly ignored us in any event. No copy is deposited in the legislative library; a few apparently were snaffled by your department. But the press, of course, got them -- they are lying dusty on some reporter’s desk at the moment, whatever was available. I would ask you to use your good offices, if you possibly can, to have a few reprinted. Singer had a copy -- I give him credit for that -- but we have no copy over here and I hear you have precious few. I hear that even the office of the commissioner of police for Metropolitan Toronto has few enough of these reports. I think it’s hardly fair, if they are around, that we can’t compare and work this into this set of estimates at this time.

The final thing I wanted to mention to you was your annual report. When do you anticipate that you might bring it down -- as though we had nothing else to do?

The last one we had before us was the 1973 report.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lawlor. Mr. Minister, would you care to respond?

Yes, Mr. Renwick.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, there are three or four comments that I would like to make to the minister during the course of the opening remarks of the estimates of this ministry. Some of them are ones which have been made on other occasions but have not been dealt with. I want to draw some of those --

Mr. Chairman: I wonder Mr. Renwick -- it was my understanding that --

Mr. Renwick: No, it is not your understanding Mr. Chairman. There is no understanding about this kind of procedure.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, then you anticipated what I was going to say?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, Mr. Chairman. With greatest respect, when you turn immediately to the minister, as if to say there wouldn’t be other members, perhaps even some members of the Tory back bench, who might want to comment upon the opening remarks of the minister -- this is not a regimented forum, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: No question about that, Mr. Renwick. I understood that Mr. Singer was the opposition critic and Mr. Lawlor was the critic for your party and that the minister would respond to those statements. Then if there were any other members who wished to make some general comments before we get into item 1, fine. Is that the wish, Mr. Minister? Or did you wish to hear all the general remarks and respond to the critics for the two parties?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I think it would probably be advantageous if we could hear the general remarks of all those who have remarks to offer. Then I will attempt to respond as best I can, and we can get into the item by item subjects in each vote.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I will, as usual, be brief in my remarks.

I think the major omission that I noticed in the minister’s opening remarks was any reference to an overhaul of the Police Act. I reread the items again this morning on which he commented in his opening remarks and noticed that there was no comment about that. It may be that the ministry has decided it is not necessary to overhaul the Police Act and to put in an entirely new statute, as was recommended by the task force on policing.

As the minister made no comment about it, I will assume that he, and those in his ministry, are relatively satisfied with the Act as it presently stands. This leaves my comment to be, as I have made it on other occasions, that the regulatory-making power under the Police Act is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

There have been certain minor changes, two of which the minister referred to in his opening remarks, related to qualifications for persons to become members of the police forces, having to do with the non-discriminatory aspects such as height, weight and age, which apparently at one point in time were all three of them qualifications which prohibited many people from becoming members of police forces.

I may specifically deal with the four regulations which have been passed under the Police Act. However, regulation No. 678, dealing with arbitration awards, I will not deal with.

Regulation No. 679 deals with equipment, which my review would indicate is a matter which has not been touched for some several years; indeed until the time the amendment was introduced under Mr. Wishart with respect to mace, and that is now a long time ago, there have been no changes in the regulations relating to equipment of police forces.

When one comes to the major so-called general regulation. No. 680, there have been the two minor, inconsequential amendments, to which I have referred, and an amendment which deals with the offices that may be established for police forces and the insignia which may be established for those in the police forces.

Apart from those changes, as I understand it, there has been no effort made by way of regulation, which is a method of publication, to deal with a number of very important matters for which provision was made in the existing Police Act for regulations to be passed.

There is an itemized list of powers, including the general omnibus power, going from letters a to q in the alphabet. And of those powers to make regulations for publication, really only three or four of them have been dealt with by the minister.

I’m particularly concerned about the failure to provide by way of regulation the courses of training for members of police forces. When one considers the elaborate provisions made by way of regulations for the establishment of curriculum in the education system of the Province of Ontario, then it would seem to me -- because of the emphasis and the necessity for the courses to be taken by police to be upgraded, to be modernized and to be subject to the light of day -- it would appear to me it is far past the time when the regulations should be made public prescribing the courses of training for members of the police forces.

There is the additional provision in the power to make regulations which states that by regulation it could “prescribe the records, returns books and accounts to be kept and made by police forces, or the members thereof.” There is nothing I know of in the regulations that prescribes those particular requirements which are an integral part of the functioning of any such force as a police force.

There are no regulations under the power to pass regulations respecting any matter relating to the commissioner and the Ontario Provincial Police force, as is considered necessary. I would have assumed that the Ontario Provincial Police force should have some public regulations available for perusal by those who are interested in police matters in the province.

There is a specific provision in the regulatory-making power to provide for regulations governing lock-ups and providing for their inspection. I would have assumed again that by now regulations would have been passed to deal with lock-ups. I make the very clear distinction that I well understand that the jails in the province, as distinct from the lock-ups, are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Correctional Services. In the Province of Ontario there are, as I understand it, no public regulations respecting lock-ups and providing for the inspection of lock-ups. Of course many of us know that to the extent there are punitive actions taken against persons who have been arrested, they generally take place in the lock-ups during the course of interrogation or in some other circumstances similar to that.

I mention these only because I have mentioned them on a number of occasions. I had had some kind of assurance these were matters which were going to be looked into and dealt with, but I find to my surprise when I review the work for this year that there have been no new regulations of any substance or significance. I would like the minister to comment about his intentions with respect to the Police Act as it is presently drafted and his intentions with respect to making public, by way of regulation, the very regulations which were foreseen in the Police Act when the Act was first established some long time ago.

The second matter which I am concerned about is again a matter which has been of great concern to my colleague and I over a period of years. That is the question of the extent to which the police forces in the province are being shaped by what I might call three forces.

One is the immense influence on the police forces in the Province of Ontario of police enforcement in the United States and law enforcement in the United States. The second aspect of it is the extent and degree to which our police forces are being shaped in their structure by adapting them to the corporate form of organization. The third aspect of that -- and one which is of concern to us -- is the whole question of the extent to which the police forces are being shaped with reference to a military or at least paramilitary formation rather than the police force as it is known in the history and tradition of the United Kingdom and was known in the history and tradition of Upper Canada and latterly of the Province of Ontario.

I think if anyone looks at the new regulation which was passed quite recently setting out the ranks of police officers and setting out the insignia which they may bear, one would note very clearly the influence of the last aspect of what I have had to say, namely the influence of the military or paramilitary tradition upon the police force. I say that very advisedly, because everyone knows that a large body of men requires some form of institutionalized structure under which it will act. But I am immensely concerned about the basic tradition that a constable -- and that term, of course, is used only with respect to the constables now, we don’t call the chief of police the chief constable any longer -- a police constable in the course of his duty cannot plead justification of superior orders if he is charged himself. I am awaiting with some considerable trepidation the time when some police officer will claim the justification of superior orders for an act which he has committed in the course of carrying out his police duty. That danger is reflected immediately you move into this military or paramilitary formation, with the various insignia and badges to distinguish the various ranks of officers; such as all the braid on the hats of the various police officers, depending on the rank which they hold.

This, to my mind, is fundamental and serious, because we have, if I can refer to the police force with which I have the most familiarity -- not to suggest for a moment that I have all that much familiarity with it -- that of Metropolitan Toronto.

You do, in fact, find there is something called the equivalent of a board of directors; if I can refer to the aspect related to the corporatization of the police forces. You do have a chief of police, who by the way appears to be something called the president or the chief executive officer of the police force; and you have any number of deputy chiefs now who fulfil the various roles which corporate vice-presidents perform in the corporate world. These include, of course, deputy chiefs who perform public relations between the police force and the public. And then, of course, you have the so-called people who are employed on the force and are termed the constables.

I don’t want to overstress the fact, but I want to say that the corporate form of organization of the police force also militates against the traditional theory of the police forces as we’ve understood them in the Province of Ontario.

The third aspect, going back to the three to which I referred, the Americanization of the forces, I think is extremely evident in the names of the officers designated for the offices held within the police forces in the Province of Ontario under that particular regulation -- which I had a few moments ago but I appear now to have misplaced.

The kinds of pronouncements the police chiefs and their associations across Canada tend to make appear to me to be significantly the same as those pronouncements which are made by the police chiefs’ associations in the United States of America. It is of particular concern because of the nature and kind and quality of the equipment which is now part and parcel of the armament or the arsenal of the equipment which the police forces in Ontario have.

It’s an amazing thing, of course, that an institution, being permanent in its nature, tends to always institutionalize its responses to pre-existing events. If I may use it as an illustration, there were the emotionally felt and emotionally considered responses of a large number of people at the time of the demonstrations relating to the war in Vietnam. Of course, the police force response was to arm themselves and to train themselves in the same way that the forces were trained and armed in the United States.

We have now, in the Province of Ontario, a period of time where there are relatively few mass demonstrations of any kind. Indeed, for practical purposes at this time, Ontario does not have any mass demonstrations about matters on which citizens feel very strongly. But the police force has institutionalized that so-called riot squad in a way in which it can be used in a manner detrimental to the public. That equipment is there and will continue to be there because institutions tend to perpetuate that kind of equipment, that kind of training, that kind of mentality.

We had its latest manifestation in the events surrounding the Ontario Science Centre at the time of the visit of the head of the government of the Soviet Union. The very things that are of concern to us were shown exactly in what took place with that particular riot squad. But it’s a funny thing that in the commissioner’s report he at no time referred to whether or not this was needed on a permanent basis in Metropolitan Toronto, whether we need to adapt our police force in its training, in its tactics and in its responses to mass demonstrations to the situations which have developed in the United States. I don’t recall any mention in the report, therefore I’m not going to say the report does not contain it, but my memory is there was no understanding within the Metropolitan Toronto police at any time during which I saw that riot squad operate, of the provisions of the Criminal Code, which carefully distinguish the stages through which an assembly, lawful in its inception, becomes unlawful. This concept encompasses the time during which it is directed to disperse, the point at which the Riot Act can be read and the point at which it degenerates into a riot.

If anyone reads the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, modelled as it is on responses by the police force in the United Kingdom to similar situations -- mainly in the last century and at the turn of this century but mainly in the last century -- it was carefully staged in order that the participating member of the public, the citizen, would understand what was happening in the demonstration in which he was participating and he would have the choice whether or not he would or would not disengage from that particular assembly at whatever point in time that was his judgement, but at least he was made aware of the consequences which would flow from it.

That did not take place at the Ontario Science Centre; or earlier in the demonstrations either at the city hall or outside the United States consulate at the time of the war in Vietnam demonstrations. For some reason or other our police forces don’t seem to have the kind of training which makes clear to them what their duties and responsibilities are.

I’m not going to labour it, because we’ve talked about it before. I labour it only because I’m still very much concerned that the public regulations covered by the curricula to be followed by the police officers during the course of their training are nowhere available for the light of day to be shed upon them.

I’m not going to deal now, Mr. Chairman, with another topic on which I’ve had occasion to speak. There is a television show tonight dealing with the composition of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, at 7 o’clock on the “24 Hours” show, in which a number of us were interviewed along with a number of other people. I’m sure a broad spectrum of views will be expressed with respect to the composition, the complement and the people who compose the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission and what changes should be made in the constitution of that commission. Again, I believe there is going to be an extensive article in the Toronto Sun, this coming weekend or the next weekend, on the same topic. So there is no point in going over now matters which we have discussed on other occasions with respect to the inadequacy of the constitutional provisions for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission.

I do want to deal with one other matter, and I want to try to deal with it because the task force on policing did not deal with it in specific terms, although of course there were references to the recruitment policies, the procedures for recruiting, the procedures for testing the potential recruits of the police force and the need to have some numbers of members of the police force drawn from the various ethnic groups that compose this multi-racial society in Ontario. But there was no specific recognition, and I don’t think there need have been at that time because it wasn’t so obvious, of the problem of racism and the response of the police force, the response of the Ontario Police Commission, the response of the Ontario Provincial Police and the response of the Metropolitan Toronto police to the question of racism in the province.

Strangely enough, today there was published the draft report of the work group on multicultural programmes of the board of education for the city of Toronto. This is a report submitted to the board of education under a mandate granted to them as an ongoing attempt by the board of education of the city to deal with multiculturalism within the schools, both in its positive and negative aspects, as they’ve appeared. It has been submitted to the board and undoubtedly will be taken into their consideration when they decide to implement other policies.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I am sorry; what did you say the name of that was? You referred to it initially as a report on racism; is that correct?

Mr. Renwick: It’s a draft report on multicultural programmes submitted to the board of education for the city of Toronto by a work group appointed by the board of education. The members of the group were all trustees -- Dan Leckie is the chairman of the work group, a trustee in ward 6; Irene Atkinson, a trustee in ward 2; Alexander Chumak, a trustee in ward 1; Judith Major, a trustee in ward 5; Sheila Meagher, a trustee in ward 9; and Frank Nagle, a trustee in area 3, represented the separate school electors.

There’s a very short statement which I want to take the liberty of reading into the record for consideration by the minister and the police of the province, particularly of the city of Toronto; and I would like the minister’s comments. It’s a brief statement on sensitivity and racism, which commences on page 96 of this report:

“For some time trustees and staff of the board and the community have watched the spectre of racism as though from a distance. Some watched with complacency and assurance. Others watched with the first almost imperceptible and vague apprehension that the spectre was approaching. But the victims of racism and the colonial foundations of history, have known that it was there all along, badgering their lives and quietly eroding their private sense of worth and acceptability. They knew it because it had visited them stealthily and often.

“Now it no longer appears as though at a distance. It is here in full public view. The work group has heard from students, from teachers, principals and other administrative staff and from the community, that racism is here in this city and even in its schools. It has read the newspapers, watched television, listened to radio; and it has listened to reliable accounts of racial tension bursting into violent contention in schools and on school playgrounds.

“The tension has usurped the sporting meaning of ice hockey on one occasion and of floor hockey in a school gymnasium on another. It has revealed itself in bands of young people prowling school hallways. Not long ago it claimed the life of a white boy. Just recently it placed one black boy in jail and another black boy died of it.

“Probably the most insidious characteristic of racism is that for the vast majority of people, it is buried deep in the unconscious. In current terms of transactional psychology, it is inextricably recorded on the personality tape and manifests itself in purely involuntary and certainly unintentional prejudicial responses.

“As the work group has discovered during its consultation activity, there are also a great many instances when racism is associated with classism and attitudes of cultural superiority. That, too, reveals itself involuntarily.

“It is suspected that only an infinitesimal segment of blatant racism is pathological in a purely clinical sense; that the psychological censorship apparatus which prevents unconscious racism from manifesting itself in blatant racist behaviour is susceptible to breakdown under stress. Sports, economic crises and various threats to individual and group security, whether real or merely apparent are occasions of such stress. Therein rests the danger.

“Under more conscious and deliberately organized circumstances, it is possible to bring unconscious racist attitudes to the surface in a positive, creative endeavour to confront them and disallow their functioning. Consistent and conscious effort to accomplish the disallowance itself should result in the eventual eradication of personal dependence upon the role that they play in one individual or group’s interaction with another. The link between the personal quality of sensitivity in teachers and in other school system staff and the eradication of racism in society, is clearly evident. It is equally evident that while the elimination of racism is everybody’s affair, it is the specific business of education to confront it squarely and to actively do everything in its power to prevent it from rooting itself either in the personality of the school institution or in the personalities of its students.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you really think a group of trustees are qualified to make those pronouncements? They’re not; of course they’re not.

Mr. Renwick: To continue: “Certainly to those people who are most conscious of racism and its implications, to ignore any of its manifestations, however slight, is to nourish and support it. The work group wishes to make its own position on racism known and to suggest the board’s formal adoption of that position.

“Terror and fear of violence, either as aggression or reprisal, ought not to form the basis of decision to work toward the eradication of racism, even though we can predict violence as a consequence of racism itself. Racism is an assault upon the human dignity of its victims, and it addresses itself to the destruction of the individual’s right to live in peace and at full liberty as a member of the human community. It is reprehensible and unjust. It is this motive which should support education’s intent to eliminate it.”

I only drew that particular quotation from the report to the minister’s attention -- perhaps at overly great length -- because it does seem to me that one area where education is essential is in the education of members of the police force in the problems involved in a multicultural society; so that the police force develops an understanding in the communities it serves. In a multicultural society there are going to be tensions and there are ways of dealing with those tensions which will help, in some small measure, to eradicate that sense of group antagonism. And there are other ways of dealing with them which will exacerbate the situation.

All I’m saying, really, is that the problem of racism in downtown Toronto is significant. The minister knows that in his other capacities of Attorney General and Provincial Secretary for Justice I have had correspondence with his predecessors with respect to the inadequacies of the laws which we apparently have to deal with groups whose purpose is to foment racial tension in the city. We all observe the need, through the Ontario Human Rights Commission and elsewhere, to work toward eliminating it if at all possible. More particularly, we see an essential need for the minister at this time to comment publicly about the role which he expects the police to play when dealing with that topic.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other remarks at this time.

Mr. Chairman: The traditional procedure has been to have the opposition critics make their opening statements, and then hear the minister in reply. The minister has indicated he is anxious to hear from any member who wishes to make a general statement before we get on with item 1. Is there any other member who wishes to make a general statement before we hear the minister in reply and then get on with item 1?

Mr. Minister, would you reply then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We opened these estimates on Friday morning last, and the member for Downsview led off with his observations on the task force report on policing. He then was joined today by the member for Lakeshore, wondering just what recommendations made by the task force had been accepted, which ones were in the process of being implemented and which ones were deferred or rejected.

On the task force report and the recommendations contained therein many of the problems generated in that document and the solutions recommended by the task force are most practical. Some are somewhat theoretical and will take time and tremendous resources in order to implement, if at all.

For the benefit of those who have taken time to discuss this, I’m anxious to determine if the members of the House who have made some mention of this would like me to go through the task force report and give a status report on each recommendation. I don’t propose to take the time of the House if the members who are interested in this particular document don’t desire that at the present time. Perhaps I could make certain documents available to them which they could read at their leisure, but if they did want an up-to-date report I’m prepared to enter into that discussion right now in order that they may be advised. Perhaps the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: My only comment, Mr. Chairman, is that of course it’s under the first vote. I would like this detailed statement, but I think the minister has enough on his plate at the moment with respect to general comments and replies to hold it over until that first vote and then go into it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right, fine. I’ll follow that course, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

There may be other things. Some of the members who have made observations have pointed out that there might well be some matters to be discussed later on as we get into the various items. But in a general nature I’ll touch on those general items which arose both Friday and today during the discussions.

The member for Downsview made some observations on the matter pertaining to the young lady, from Stratford I believe. That was where the young woman was hired by the police force in that particular area; then, as I understand it, prior to her probationary period having been completely passed, her services were dispensed with. Some comment was generated by a member of that particular police commission, and the matter then was reported in the media.

I was asked in the House what procedures, if any, I intended to invoke; to which I recall I responded, “None,” in that the individual lady involved was still a probationary constable and I could not intervene because she was not protected by the provisions of the Police Act but in fact was dealt with under a collective agreement in effect at that time. Meanwhile, my reading has indicated that she has, I believe, been taken back on to the force. The matter is now regarded as resolved, at least certainly by me, and I presume that is the way it has ended.

The member for Downsview mentioned the two-man cruisers, and the member for Lakeshore offered some observations on that matter. As the members of the House probably know, that was a matter that was recommended by the person sitting in arbitration. It went through the process of the courts; it was appealed and eventually went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe, on a question of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to set those kind of terms. As I recollect the matter, it was held that it was in fact within his purview, and that was the end of that. Accordingly, certain priorities had to be realigned and the Metro Toronto Police Commission found itself having to comply with that particular finding.

The member for Lakeshore today has expressed his concern about reducing certain important aspects of the police function here in Metro Toronto; and he named, I believe, the youth bureau. I join him in that concern.

I have had the opinion of a parent whose 14-year-old youngster found himself in difficulty with the law. He could not be looked after, investigated or dealt with, by a member of the youth bureau, presumably for this reason. That parent felt the youngster could have been handled more gently and more understandingly, had a youth bureau person been involved in the investigation.

I suggest with the passing of time, when those in charge of the administrative side of Metro Toronto police forces can see how the new system is working -- that is two-man cruisers during certain hours of the day -- and as pressures mount for implementation or reviving of some of these programmes which have had to be somewhat reduced, it will find its own level. I certainly hope so.

We run into in these matters, involving the question of costs. A lot of these problems really boil down to the question of dollars. The general public insists on a high standard of police protection, and I concur. Like so many services we come to enjoy, and indeed come to expect, the cost is becoming increasingly high in terms of recruiting people for the police forces.

We can all remember a few years ago, certainly in reading about it if we don’t recall from our own memories, that if one could not secure employment in any area of activity the facetious comment was, one can always become a policeman. That seemed to be the regard the public had for the police force in years gone by. I turn the clock almost 40 years when I make that statement. However with the passage of time, coupled with increased demands on policing by the public, it has become for the first time a profession for which a young man or woman can train and become very skilled and proficient in a particular aspect, or even several aspects. Today it is a highly regarded occupation; but it did not enjoy the same type of high regard 30 or 40 years ago.

All police forces today must have competitive pay scales in order to attract people. They must also have competitive requirements as far as educational standards are concerned. It always seems amusing to me, and yet I can see the practicality of it, that the minimum educational requirement for a chief constable, or police chief, was grade 8 while under police regulations the requirement of a constable was grade 10. This seemed to be putting the cart before the horse.

I now understand why. Upon inquiry I found that in some of the older forces where the chief constable was, in fact, a man who had many years of service, the grade 8 requirement was, in fact, a grandfather clause recognizing that while he may have had minimal educational backing in a formal sense, he had more than compensated for that minimal formal education by years of experience as a police officer.

I had occasion some weeks ago to discuss this with certain police officers representing various forces throughout this province and members of the Ontario Police Commission. They quite agreed that this is now a thing of the past. It will ultimately be changed. This reflects what had to be done at the time those regulations were brought into effect to accommodate older officers who had risen to the rank of chief constable, yet had limited formal education.

The member for Downsview asked the other day -- and this will not emerge under an item in my estimates -- what I thought, as Solicitor General, about a five-year minimum sentence for crimes in which firearms are present. He asked my views, I was flattered that he would be interested in my views.

Mr. Haggerty: What are they?

Hon. Mr. Clement: My views on that type of thing have been demonstrated by the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Haggerty: What are your views, not the member for Lakeshore’s?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I certainly can’t present them in anywhere near as flowery a manner as he does, but if you are going to have a minimum mandatory prison term or penalty for every type of offence, then really what you are doing is just rubber-stamping the court process. The person who can sit up there in judgement may as well be a computer. You feed the information in one end, and if it comes out guilty then the card goes forward and the five years is punched on the card and it goes through the process. Now I am being somewhat facetious when I say that, because I don’t think we want our lives run by that sort of thing.

I recognize that the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission is very much alarmed with reference to offences such as armed robbery here in Metropolitan Toronto and has come out with certain observations. But my views are that the court must always have discretion. You cannot cover every situation where the use of a firearm during the commission of an offence can be dealt with through a minimum prison term; nor can certain other offences be dealt with in such a manner.

Mind you, there are some sections in the Criminal Code that do apply minimum mandatory terms, but they are few in number and they are for very short periods of time. I think of a second conviction for impaired driving, for example; or a third conviction for the same type of offence.

But I visualize the situation if you had a minimum five-year term for committing an offence with the use of a firearm involved. You know they don’t always use firearms in the commission of an offence to commit armed robbery. Sometimes people use firearms for other purposes.

I know of an instance in my own past -- when I practiced -- of a young man whose mother was being hopelessly assaulted by a drunken father; he seized a firearm and tried to kill his father. Fortunately, he didn’t kill him -- fortunately for the young man. That young man was so distressed he was put into a situation of agony. He acted to save his mother’s life; that was his belief at that time. I would hate to think that a young man like that would be subjected to a five-year prison term, along with the sort of a person who goes into a milk store and is prepared to shoot the proprietor in order to obtain the contents of the till.

So, I just say I question this sort of thing, because I think there must be a judgement by someone experienced in hearing these matters; and he should have some discretion.

Mr. Bullbrook: You know with that type of a philosophy and a little activity, you will make a great Attorney General. I mean that sincerely. We need somebody like Arthur Wishart, who is capable of leading in that portfolio and providing action.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am flattered by the remarks from the member for Sarnia. Perhaps if he could help me through these estimates as quickly as possible, and in the next estimates which follow, the Attorney General’s, that would free me to get down to my office and we can get the activity and the saliva flowing at the present time.

Mr. Bullbrook: You shouldn’t expect us to do these estimates without the reports.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Now the member asked me also for the rationale of small police forces disappearing. I would say that certainly a number of the small forces are disappearing. We will get into that, perhaps in detail, when we deal with the estimates of the Ontario Provincial Police. So many of these, Mr. Chairman, will be dealt with as we get into the item by item consideration.

He asked whether it is mandatory that all constables attend Aylmer Police College. No, it is not mandatory at the present time. It is hoped that when the additional facility has been completed -- I think later this year is the date -- that eventually this would be the ultimate we would like to see achieved.

The member for Downsview mentioned the Maloney report and asked me my views of it. He also asked me about that in the House the other day in question period. I have not read that report.

I have noted the observations of the member for Lakeshore that he has not received the report. I cannot speak for Mr. Maloney, but I’m sure that, knowing your interest in these matters, if you contacted his office he would probably see that one was made available to you and your colleague, the member for Riverdale. I spoke to him briefly Friday last, but I didn’t realize that you didn’t have a copy or I would have conveyed your concern to him at that time. And had he given me a copy or two I would have taken full credit for it, as I personally delivered them to you.

The member for Downsview indicated some concern about boards of police commissioners and wanted to know if judges are to continue. The Province of Ontario is going to have to make a judgement very shortly on whether county court judges are to continue on police commissions. You are mindful, of course, of the legislation which I touched on the other day in the House during question period -- that is, the federal legislation which is presently at some stage in Ottawa. I don’t know whether it’s gone to second reading yet, but when it becomes effective for the county court judges and, indeed, Supreme Court judges will not be able to obtain additional remuneration for such types of service other than their judicial salaries.

It is mandatory under our Police Act that there be a county court judge on a police commission.

Mr. Lawlor: The feds do more for McRuer than you’re prepared to.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not sure whether the federal bill has gone through yet.

I think that one has to make a judgement as to whether judges do have a place on boards of police commissioners. Perhaps they have in the past and perhaps we’re saying at this time we’ve reached the point where they no longer should be permitted to serve.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. McRuer has made those observations with those judges over whom we have control. Their appointment and their responsibility are part of the Ministry of the Attorney General. I believe there are only one or two provincial court judges still sitting on police commissions throughout the province. They have been directed to terminate their periods of service in order that other types of people may serve in their place.

County court judges are a different type of judicial creature. They have, in the past, served with distinction, I need go no further than the Niagara Falls police commission, with which I had some familiarity over a number of years. It had on its composition the late Judge Harold E. Fuller, who made a tremendous contribution to that police commission over a number of years and over a number of difficult periods, i.e. the annexation of the surrounding township by the city of Niagara Falls. He was a very, very capable man. He’s now deceased, but he provided a lot of leadership and a lot of good common sense to that police commission, and indirectly, therefore, to the people of Niagara Falls.

These are matters that are going to have to be decided upon rather quickly, in view of the pending federal legislation. Perhaps this also is a proper point for the government to review in depth the Police Act as queried by the member for Lakeshore. This might be a most appropriate time to explore all of the ramifications of the Police Act.

Mr. Lawlor: Even Judge Fuller sat on the commission at the expense of his judicial responsibility. He might have made a greater contribution to law --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I doubt that, I doubt that.

Mr. Renwick: If I may say so, I am not in agreement with my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, on this question.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m not talking about --

Mr. Stokes: You seldom are.

Mr. Lawlor: If he wants to express his views --

Hon. Mr. Clement: If you’re not, I’d like to hear your views on it.

Mr. Renwick: May I, just for a moment?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes I’d like to hear your views on it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this programme today and, again, in this article in the Toronto Sun which apparently is going to be published next Sunday or the Sunday afterward -- I was interviewed in connection with this question. I don’t think that there’s any question whatsoever that the majority of members of a police commission should be persons who hold a representative capacity. I say representative capacity because I am not talking about direct election, but persons who hold election to office of one kind or another, should be a majority of the members.

It seems to me that, if the evolution of police forces is as I perceive it, we should take the logical step and require the chief of police to also be a member of the police commission, in his role as chief executive officer. I am quite certain the chief of police in large areas is already involved a great deal of the time with the work of the police commission.

Also, when I listened, particularly to the Provincial Secretary for Justice’s opening remarks a few days ago it seemed to me to be important that members representative of the process -- the arresting process, the trial process, probation reporting, correctional services -- should be represented on a police commission. It therefore appeared to me, speaking only about the Metropolitan Toronto police commission, that what is required is a substantially increased membership for the Metropolitan Toronto police commission, perhaps in the nature of 11 or 12 people, of which the majority would be representatives elected to municipal councils, or indeed, perhaps one member of the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Lawlor: What he is saying is that the hangman ought to be on the hanging committee.

Mr. Renwick: No, I am not quite saying that. It seemed to me that, perhaps a member of the legislative assembly of Ontario, who represents one of the Metropolitan Toronto ridings, should also be one of the persons in a representative capacity. They should be the majority. There may be a place for direct civilian representation by appointment, as is now the case for one member of the Toronto board, but I think it does make sense to have a member who is involved in the judicial process at the criminal level, the county court mainly. Also, the provincial courts criminal division should be represented on the commission.

I think there should be a representative from some area of the correctional services, perhaps a person who is a member of the Ontario Parole Board or a person who has had experience in the probation field. Somebody within that area of concern and responsibility should also be represented. The time may have come for a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association to be a member of the commission.

Unless it is an enlarged body, you can’t overcome the evident defects my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, and my colleague, the member for Downsview, have seen over the years. When it is a small body it tends to become an in-group. It tends to resent openness in its hearings and deliberations. The basic premise would be open hearings with, of course, the right to close, as most boards do, if they are matters of a sensitive or security nature. An enlarged board, it seems to me, deserves substantial consideration by the government.

It may well be the problem of the salary won’t be the determining factor. It might be possible to second a provincial court judge from the criminal division to a police commission and relieve him, for a period of time, of his duties as a provincial court justice in the criminal division.

Very briefly, that’s the way my thinking has been going. I’m not at all certain that citizen representatives by appointment, or citizen representatives plus a combination of persons holding representative capacities, is necessarily the solution. I think a wise mixture on a wider representative basis, with a majority having a representative capacity, would be a sound way to approach a very complex problem of the governments of a large police force such as the Metropolitan Toronto police force.

Mr. Chairman: Before the minister answers this -- this is all dealt with in votes 1503 and 1504. We can go back to 1501 and deal with that and then we’ll deal with these later.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’re just talking in a general nature here, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: I think we should get back to the estimates rather than proceed in a general nature.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Fine. I thought maybe we could touch on some of these things and then perhaps it will speed it up when we come to item by item matters.

Mr. Lawlor: He is replying, Mr. Chairman. He hasn’t got to the first vote yet.

Mr. Chairman: But these are dealt with in vote 1503 and vote 1504.

Mr. Lawlor: They’re not likely to be duplicated.

Mr. Stokes: It’s not likely that they will be duplicated.

Mr. Lawlor: Not in depth.

Mr. Chairman: How will it be if we deal with 1501? We’ll start on 1501 now.

Mr. Lawlor: He hasn’t finished replying yet.

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to give a short reply, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would like to reply if I could, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Okay. Fine.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m scanning some of these because there are matters that will be dealt with on particular votes. They were raised by various opposition members during their opening remarks --

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t you realize that we’ve finished half the estimates and voting hasn’t started?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and I won’t deal with them now, but I will deal with them as we come to the votes.

Mr. Renwick: Here I was waiting with bated breath for your comments.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m on the same show with you tonight and I’ll be interested in watching that channel at 7 o’clock to see if what you say now in the House is what you said on the show which was filmed probably 10 days ago.

Mr. Renwick: I will see you here at 8 o’clock then.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I’ll look forward to being on the same channel with you.

Mr. Lawlor: You are not suggesting that he would change his mind in 10 days?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Downsview today took exception to the fact that the Ontario Police Commission and the Ontario Provincial Police are obliged, at the end of each calendar year, to file their reports in the House. I don’t have the Acts before me, but he read the sections whereby they have to file the reports in the next regular session of the House or, if the House is not sitting when they’re available, he files them with the Clerk.

Those reports are being printed together right now. There are two of them. They’re separate reports but they will be published together so they will come out as two reports in one and, hopefully, will be available in the next 10 or 12 days. That’s the advice that I have on those reports. The member for Downsview mentioned that, I think -- or one of you did.

The member for Lakeshore then discussed at some length his deplorable physical condition. He described in your absence, Mr. Chairman, his myopia. I don’t know what it is but we’ll sure find out and see if we can get something for him. I think it’s something to do with his eyes. He said he couldn’t see my staff under the press gallery.

Mr. Stokes: No, he said he wouldn’t recognize them if he did see them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, he wouldn’t recognize them. Don’t let him kid you. He knows them all very well and, as a matter of fact, he’s one of their favourites.

Mr. Lawlor: They keep on changing. Can’t you keep anybody on that staff?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll deal with his questions as to the specialized type of equipment which is in the process of being installed down at the forensic building, and Mr. Hale’s role, when we come to those estimates, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: What about the private police forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, you did bring up the question of private police forces. I think you indicated that you had some information that in the United States the private police forces outnumbered municipal forces 10 to one, or something in that area.

I am aware that my predecessor mentioned last year that legislation was being drafted, hopefully, to deal with this particular matter. That legislation has now been drafted, so I am advised, and is ready to go forward through policy field and be dealt with at that time. That’s the only information I have that I can pass on to the member for Lakeshore.

I would offer this observation: I think we must get on with the business of drafting pretty stringent legislation dealing with the security forces and private police forces, which are growing. I am not thinking particularly of those which just escort dollars from the store to the bank and that’s the only security they provide. As an individual, I’m concerned about the numbers of people I see walking around in uniforms. I wonder whether they are field marshals or visiting dignitaries and it turns out they are from some kind of police force or security force, the name of which escapes me.

I know the names of three or four. The government, in fact, utilizes some of these forces in some of its outlying buddings. I think that’s fine and I’m not being critical of these forces -- I have no reason to be critical -- but I think we are going to have to recognize that tighter legislation, in view of their great increase in growth, must go forward.

This will not he touched on in my estimates, Mr. Chairman, but the member for Lakeshore brought about a question dealing with wiretaps. He expressed his concern about the invasion of privacy and the wiretap legislation as it now stands under the Criminal Code. We’ve really had only six months to work with it; I’m wearing another hat now.

Insofar as the Attorney General’s ministry is concerned, we had to file a report. You know the onus that’s on the Attorney General. As to the contents of that report, it must be filed and published and it has, in fact, been filed with the House and published in the Ontario Gazette. Copies were sent to the leaders of the two opposition parties at that time so the information would be available.

I have heard nothing, with reference to the office of the Solicitor General, to indicate any problems arising. I’m not aware of any complaints from those who have received notice that they have been tapped. No one has raised the question that their privacy has been invaded so I can only conclude they don’t feel that under the particular circumstances which apply to them in their particular situations.

Mr. Lawlor: Have you any idea how many wiretaps were carried out by the OPP in the last six months? I don’t care who they were against.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Attorney General designates an agent in each area; that agent is a Crown attorney who prepares the material on which the application to the appropriate judge is launched. I think that information could be available; I’m not saying it is, but I know no reason why it wouldn’t be in terms of there having been so many municipal taps, so many by the OPP and the RCMP. I may well not know because I’m not seized with that information. The federal Solicitor General must table the same type of information in the federal House as it pertains to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I couldn’t provide you with those figures but I think they could be obtained.

I’ve made a notation of the member for Riverdale’s concern when he said there was an omission in my statement as to the overhaul of the Police Act. I can tell him I don’t think it was omitted on purpose. It wasn’t touched on because when the statement was drawn, there was no consensus to not talk about that sort of thing; it just wasn’t dealt with.

I have indicated some of my feelings on the overhaul of the Police Act. I think a lot of it is outdated and I think when we’re turning our minds to the composition of police commissions and this sort of thing, it would be a most appropriate time to go ahead, review the whole Act and bring forward legislation. We are going to have to amend the Act, probably, in any event and that would be an appropriate time to have a thorough discussion of the entire Police Act.

I have a note of the member’s concern about Americanization, corporatization, and so on. I gather one must maintain order through a pyramidal type of authority, be it corporate or military. I presume Sir Robert Peel had a structure of some kind when he brought in his police force to Metropolitan London.

Mr. Lawlor: Pretty loose structure.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Whether it should now divorce itself from the paramilitary structure that it has always had, or not, I don’t know. There still has to be some type of structure. It is a structured organization. There have to be levels at which decisions are made and carried out. There must be people, or individuals, responsible at those levels for carrying out instructions.

Mr. Lawlor: He left a very large autonomy in the individual police officer on the beat. That is where his weight fell. There have to be decisions made above, of course.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have made a note of his comments about racism, a subject which I feel we are going to hear more about with the passage of time. I hope I am wrong.

If he wants my comments on it, I am not racist. I discriminate against the people if I don’t like them, I don’t care about their colour or their ethnic background. If I don’t like somebody, I just don’t want anything to do with them. In that way, I suppose I discriminate, but it isn’t based on religious, ethnic or physical appearances. If that were true, how could I possibly admire the member for Lakeshore?

In any event, I will offer no more comment on that particular subject right now. I think it has been well discussed in this House today. I am grateful for the observations of the member for Lakeshore on the subject. Perhaps the answer lies in education of the young, and education of some of the older people, in order that we might try to understand the problems of other people and their culture. However, I am not expert in that field.

Mr. Renwick: Important police training topic.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would think it would be a very important police training topic. I have met with groups who have come to see me in my official capacity and have made allegations of bigotry against certain individuals who are police officers. I have had those looked into to see if, in fact, they were true. I can’t just wave a wand and say they are not true. I hope they are not true, but I must inquire into them. I think it is one of my responsibilities. I cannot ignore it.

Those are the observations I have in response, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1501, item 1.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for --

Mr. Lawlor: I wonder if I could have a point of information before we proceed. Do the digital police communications system, the London area and the Burlington projects, the radio systems, and all these Indian matters come under vote 1505, or where will we discuss them?

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Lakeshore talking about special services?

Mr. Lawlor: Well, I don’t know. The digital project is done in York. I just don’t know quite where it does belong, to be quite frank.

Mr. Chairman: Well, let’s do it under 1505.

Mr. Lawlor: All right.

Mr. Chairman: We will deal with 1501 now.

Mr. Lawlor: And all the rest of these things, like the London area pilot project with respect to police and family disputes, is that 1505 too?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I would think it would come under item 9, Ontario government protective services.

Mr. Lawlor: I will put them all under 1505.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1501? The member for Welland South.

On vote 1501:

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister what has taken place, to this date, with the conferences between his ministry and the federal government dealing with the related police costs sharing throughout the Province of Ontario? The point I want to raise with the minister is I understand there eventually will be agreement between the federal government and the provincial government to pick up some of the costs of policing municipalities in Ontario. I am sure you are well aware of the cost in the Niagara Region. I think it runs at about 22 per cent of the total budget for the region and has increased by well over $1 million in the last two or three years. Is any assistance going to come from the federal government at all?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are you talking about the matter that was first touched on by Mr. Choquette, the Minister of Justice for Quebec, dealing with the fact that the federal government was not providing wide RCMP policing in the Province of Ontario, whereas it was to other provinces, and therefore there should be some kind of financial remuneration paid back to Quebec and Ontario?

Mr. Haggerty: I believe it was in that same vein, as I understand it, that your ministry was talking with the federal authorities asking them for police assistance -- I am talking about money assistance -- to bring it back to the Province of Ontario and eventually back to the local municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right, we are on the same wavelength then; that is what we are talking about. I wasn’t sure because there is another matter which is somewhat similar, dealing with shared costs. I thought that was what you were talking about.

Mr. Choquette made that demand on the federal government many months ago -- it was likewise put forward, I believe, by my predecessor -- to the tune of about $370 or $380 million. The matter is now being dealt with this very day -- or is subject for discussion, let me put it that way -- in Vancouver at a meeting in that city attended by Solicitors General from across Canada.

A formal request has gone forward from my predecessor to the federal government, to Mr. Allmand, in the form of a letter. The letter has been acknowledged, to my memory, but there has been no indication as to whether the request set forth in that letter has been accepted or rejected or will be looked upon.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, who is representing Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Deputy Solicitor General.

Mr. Renwick: The Deputy Solicitor General. Is that related to this recommendation by the police task force 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 relating to the enforcement of federal statutes, policing of waterways and ports, and co-ordinating of federal and provincial police forces.”

Is that the same area?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Basically that’s it.

Mr. Renwick: Could the minister spend a couple of moments on what is the relationship now between the RCMP and the police forces under provincial jurisdiction? This has been a topic I have raised on other occasions indicating my view that these forces should provide their services under some form of an agreement and some form of understanding as to what the demarcation line is, both with respect to costs and with respect to the police services which are provided.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute; this comes under the task force on policing. There are several items before that. Do I understand they are all carried, the seven items down to the task force on policing, or does some other member want to speak before that?

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, the point I raised with the minister was I thought there might be some policy statement by the minister that we were going to receive some cost sharing from the federal government for policing in the Province of Ontario. I think it does have a responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There has been no commitment made to this province by the federal government in regard to the question raised by the member for Welland South.

Mr. Chairman: Are all items carried? The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I have a couple of technical things. I notice, wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, that on the second matter -- the secretariat -- the amount of money being asked for has been substantially reduced over against the estimate of last year. I would like to know what the actual expenditure was for last year, that you come down from $530,000 to $400,000 in a year’s experience. That is the first thing.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is item 2, isn’t it?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The estimates for 1974-1975 for salaries and wages were $181,100. The actual cost was -- I haven’t got the right sheet here.

Mr. Lawlor: Salary and wages were $194,000 last year.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The estimates I have here for the secretariat were $181,100.

Mr. Lawlor: Wages.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am giving a breakdown of the secretariat. The total is $531,800.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right. How much was the actual expenditure? That’s the estimate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The actual expenditure was $533,421.

Mr. Lawlor: Then how can you reduce it by $150,000? What you are asking for this year is $400,000.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The difference is $130,800, made up of a reduction of $25,600 on wages and salaries --

Mr. Lawlor: I have to stop you there. How come? How do you get a reduction? That’s unheard of.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The complement in 1974-1975 was 11 and this year it is nine; hence the difference. The complement was changed in that three individuals were transferred to the audit services branch, and the 1974-1975 difference was $130,800. Also the $7,000 transportation and communication item covering postage and telephone services was transferred to the administrative services branch and the provision for travel transferred to audit services. That was $7,000.

In terms of services, there is an item of $77,500. That item was for projects for a total of $90,000 and was transferred to the Ontario Police Commission. General office services were transferred to administrative services branch. There was an increase of $34,000 for the project called ethnic community services, from $41,000 to $75,000. Another item of $16,800, dealing with supplies and equipment, was the budget for supplies and equipment transferred to administrative services. The last item was a $3,000 transfer payment, which was a grant to the centre of criminology at the University of Toronto. That is discontinued for 1975-1976.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, you haven’t saved a dime. All you’ve done is spread it around a bit. All these new items down here -- they’re new this year in the estimates -- beginning at financial services, through personnel services, through planning and evaluation, administrative services, audit services -- they’re all new items appearing on this vote which weren’t there in previous years. What has happened here, I take it, is a breakdown into these various headings?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: The sum is otherwise caught up elsewhere.

Why did you do that? What is the point in all that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That branch of the ministry was reorganized this past year and a lot of these things were transferred from the OPP. It gives greater detail rather than a lump sum under the appropriate heading. Hence, some of them speak for themselves -- like the $3,000 grant, that’s pretty obvious. But some of the others -- the rather substantial sum for telephone and postage, for example -- should be charged to the proper branch within the secretariat.

Mr. Lawlor: All right. I’m not going to take too much issue with that.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the minister a question? Since the overall vote is increased by a substantial amount of money, could he explain the need for the substantial increase under financial services and the introduction of a new activity, audit services? The difference between last year and this year on financial services and audit services represents a substantial amount of money, and the increase in personnel services represents a substantial amount of money. Could he comment on those two requirements to enlarge those areas?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, by having a centralized management function we’re confident that there will be greater control over the whole management function within the entire ministry.

Dealing with financial services, which is item 3, the 1974-1975 estimate was $609,000. In the 1975-1976 estimates it shows as $796,000, an increase of $187,000. This is made up of the sum of $168,700 for approved salaries and benefits which are included in there and were transferred from EMO, and increases in unclassified salaries; there is an item in there of $58,500 to cover the increase in temporary help in all services contracts; there is an item in there of $1,800 which is a guesstimate applied to supplies and equipment because of inflation. There is a figure smaller by $42,000 to cover Telex, telephone, and postage transferred to the administrative services branch; also, the OPP postage has been transferred to the records branch. It’s an attempt to bring everything into the one central agency.

Perhaps it might assist the members if I pass on to them the following information: During the 1974-1975 fiscal year, a reorganization of administration services for the ministry was undertaken and implemented. The following services were transferred from the OPP programme and were organized within the ministry’s administration programme. There were three of them: Financial services; personnel services; planning and evaluation.

In addition, two new services were also developed; internal audit and administrative services. These are now organized into one administration division with the prime objective of delivery of financial, personnel and related administrative services to all agencies and programmes in the ministry. The division is headed by an executive director who reports to the Deputy Solicitor General. The new division will be consolidated in the new building by the end of this summer. Certain elements of the financial services branch and personnel services branch will be decentralized to the OPP at 90 Harbord St., to ensure efficient and effective on-site service to that force.

Mr. Chairman: Shall items 2 and 3 carry? Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to discuss item 4, personnel services, where there is an increase of about $200,000.

Mr. Chairman: Let’s see if items 2 and 3 are carried. I think the member for Lakeshore has something on 2 and 3.

Mr. Lawlor: No, I am all right.

Mr. Chairman: No? Okay, items 1, 2 and 3 are carried.

On item 4, the member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, regarding the increase of $200,000 in item 4, how many new employees does this represent?

Hon. Mr. Clement: None.

Mr. Haggerty: Why, then, is there a $200,000 increase in expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The sum of roughly $200,000 includes approved salaries and benefits, and funds for summer students centralized throughout the ministry in the sum of $129,000. There also is $9,000 for moving expenses under the heading of transportation and communication within that item. In addition, there is under the heading of services, which covers an increase in interview expenses and advertising for vacancies within the ministry, with an offsetting saving of $12,500 on the item pertaining to supplies and equipment within the expenditure, which is now centralized in the administrative services branch.

Mr. Haggerty: How many students would be employed in this programme, then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: About 220. That does not cover the youth and the law programme, where there is another 182.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Lakeshore have something on item 5?

Mr. Lawlor: Just to continue with that for a moment, what do the 220 students do? What are their functions?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The ones dealing with the OPP mainly fill in for vacationing civilian personnel; the others are just file clerks and everything else within the ministry.

Mr. Lawlor: Have you hired that many already this year for summer work?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you interviewing at the present time to get your complement?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Did you have somebody in mind?

Mr. Lawlor: No, not particularly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just thought the way you were asking the question you had a niece or a nephew.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He might have a son or a daughter.

Mr. Renwick: He wanted a summer job himself.

Mr. Lawlor: If I might, I would like to ask a general question: When you cut out the centre of criminology, did they submit any final report to you? They were doing some work on private policing and things of that nature.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They undertook to report to us; we have not yet received that report.

Mr. Lawlor: You haven’t received it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have not yet received it.

Mr. Lawlor: The next matter that I am concerned with under the vote, Mr. Chairman, is the task force.

Mr. Chairman: Then everything prior to the task force is carried? Carried.

I think the member for Riverdale will be the first to speak on the task force.

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