The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1502, item 5. The hon. member for Riverdale.

On vote 1502:

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Do we have enough members present?

Mr. Renwick: Does it matter if the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) is not here?

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): It is entirely up to you.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He only worries about a quorum when he is here.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The member for Lakeshore is not here. He always worries about a quorum.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, at the adjournment I had asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Clement) the first of two or three questions -- sort of more or less at his request -- because we were continuing a debate about the death of John Henry Doyle and the problems that that inquest pointed up in relation to the facilities available.

The first point which I had made, just to refresh the chairman’s memory, was that the Police Act provides provisions for regulating lockups and other minor detention centres. And, of course, one of the recommendations of that jury was for a much more formal schedule for surveillance within the drunk tanks of the police station, if I could use that rather vulgar term. My first question concerns that recommendation.

I recognize the validity of the statistics which the Solicitor General has put before us about the implementation of the recommendations of coroners’ juries, and the vast improvement which has been achieved.

My second question: Has the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and those responsible for the detoxification centre programme responded to the evident need which is obvious from the death of this man in Metropolitan Toronto? I’m quite certain that the members from other urban centres could tell exactly the same story that I --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, when the House reaches a point where there are fewer Tories in the chamber at any time than there are members in the opposition, and then they fall short of a quorum, I think it’s time to call for one.

Mr. Worton: I don’t see a quorum.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Riverdale didn’t agree with the last vote.

Mr. Haggerty: We were very weak.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, there is not a quorum present.

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

Mr. Chairman: We now have a quorum.

Mr. Renwick: I’ve always been a believer in the quorum referred to in the Bible: “Two or three are gathered together.” I don’t think it would have anywhere near the force if it had been “20 or 30 are gathered together.”

Mr. Stokes: In your name.

Mr. Renwick: In my name? In the name of the Solicitor General. There are three questions I have in connection with the death of John Henry Doyle. My first is: Why are there not regulations with respect to the lockups? My second is whether or not, in the implementation of the recommendations of the coroners’ juries, they ever filter through to the other ministries of the government. And whether or not the Solicitor General accepts any responsibility for continuing dialogue in this instance with the Minister of Health as to whether or not there will be --

Mr. Stokes: There goes one of them already.

Mr. Renwick: -- an increase in the detoxification centre programme of the Province of Ontario? It is a crying need in Metro Toronto. I’m quite certain that in most urban areas, and also in rural areas, it is a very necessary method of attacking at least one aspect of the problem of alcoholism.

My third question is directed specifically to the police commission. How is it that a man named John Henry Doyle dies on May 24, 1974, after having had 200 convictions for drunkenness and vagrancy in a four-year period, without an inquiry being made as to what is wrong medically with that man? I’m not suggesting there’s any magic about the answers to the question, nor am I suggesting that John Henry Doyle would be alive today. But it seems to me that if in Metropolitan Toronto that can happen, there is something disastrously wrong with the method of assessment of the alcoholism problem within: the courts of the Province of Ontario.

I’m dealing with this now because it is a police matter. If the Solicitor General, in his other role, prefers to refer it to the Attorney General’s estimates, that’s fine. But there is a crying need for the detoxification centre programme to be implemented on a much broader base than it is at present.

I assume next week that we will have an opportunity again to touch upon this problem when the new Liquor Control Act and the new Liquor Licence Act come before the assembly. I think it is tragic. I think it is disastrous. I think it has immense reflection on this ministry that John Henry Doyle died in those circumstances and I would like the Solicitor General to answer to my three inquiries.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Acting Solicitor General): The way the designation of a detoxification centre works is that it is made as a designated detox centre by the Minister of Health with the concurrence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) because of his involvement with both liquor Acts. I believe his concurrence is required.

I remember, in my prior responsibility, having to concur on receiving a request from the Minister of Health. I also recall I never, for any reason, refrained from giving that concurrence because the Minister of Health had satisfied himself that there was a need for this type of centre.

With reference to the late Mr. Doyle, I am advised that the results of the coroner’s jury, the recommendations, observations and so on, were forwarded, in due course, to the Minister of Health for his perusal and consideration.

To this date, I am not aware of any response that he has made. I am just going by memory from what I have been advised by my staff over the supper hour and the information they were able to glean.

Lockups themselves are dealt with under the Police Act, as the member noted, and also in the Municipal Act. The Ontario Police Commission developed guidelines for the style or type of cell. When renovations are completed in the lockup, or are about to be embarked upon, these guidelines must be met.

Many people die in lockups as a result of their own hand. Invariably alcohol is a very heavy contributing factor to these deaths. As you know, an inquest is mandatory under those circumstances. The results of the inquest are forwarded to the Ontario Police Commission. The results are also forwarded to all chiefs of police throughout the province. Meaningful recommendations dealing with deaths in lockups are also sent to every chief of police within the province.

As to the member’s question relating to why Mr. Doyle had acquired this number of convictions -- I believe some 200 from 1970 until 1974 -- what is the cause of that? I have no response to make. I simply don’t know. It’s pretty obvious to all of us that the man -- and I am just speaking objectively -- certainly was an alcoholic. It had been a very integral part of his life, certainly over the last four years, in any event, if the number of convictions is any indication of the lifestyle he was living during those four years.

I wish I could respond to the member for Riverdale and tell him that Mr. Doyle did not die in vain and that, as a result of the autopsy, certain medical knowledge has come to the surface that would be of assistance to other people. I just can’t make that statement because it isn’t correct.

I wish we knew some of the answers to alcoholism. The charge on the public for processing this man 200 times must be phenomenally high. Not only is there a life lost, but there probably have been thousands of dollars dissipated in processing him, from the time he was picked up each of those 200 times, and processed through the court system.

In all probability he served time for nearly all of those offences -- small though the sentences might be; a matter of days in each case. The taxpayers had to sustain him, had to clothe him, had to supervise him and discharge him back into the streets. I imagine sight unseen, that in many instances he was back in the lockup, probably many times, within 24 hours -- if not a shorter period of time -- for being intoxicated again in a public place.

I wish I knew the answer, I just can’t answer the question because I don’t know. I know, from my previous responsibility, it was an ongoing concern in that ministry. It’s an ongoing concern, I think, of most members of this House. I don’t know if I have touched on the areas. I am sorry I didn’t make a note of each individual question the member asked me. If there is something I haven’t touched on, if you’ll ask me again, I’ll attempt to respond, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think in a sense those matters were rhetorical because I know the difficulty of the problem. I can’t help but think the whole question of the so-called swinging door in the courts, and the lockups of the Province of Ontario, and of Metropolitan Toronto, is a matter upon which there must be a direct focus of attention. Otherwise, it is just going to continue.

I don’t mean that we are going to eliminate it; I am not talking about eliminating the swinging door; alcoholism is probably pervasive through the society. But there must, of necessity, be a much better way to deal with it consistent with the dignity of the people who are involved and, consistent with the evident recognition of alcoholism as being a many-faceted health problem, not of any single origin or out of any single cause, but for all sorts of reasons.

I selected that particular coroner’s inquest because it points out so vividly what is wrong with the swinging-door system in Metropolitan Toronto, even with the addition of the sort of marginal aid that is provided through the detoxification centres. I say it not so much in criticism as in request to the ministry to do something about this problem. We raise immense amounts of revenue for the Province of Ontario through the sale of liquor but the problems involved in establishing detoxification centres, the problems involved in identifying men like John Henry Doyle, are problems of people in a society, and the government must be responsive to that kind of need.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chairman, just to pick up from the member for Riverdale. There are two or three things he mentioned that concern me very much. The fact that apparently the riding of Riverdale is not a riding that has available to it one of the 60 detoxification beds in Metropolitan Toronto, is I think, shocking.

There was a special announcement, and I can remember it, because I was thinking about it over the dinner hour. I couldn’t quickly come up with the Hansard announcement, but I can remember a former Attorney General, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Welch), who made one of the classic government announcements of the day: We were going to have detoxification centres. We were going to have a programme the like of which, well, certainly Ontario had never seen, Canada bad never seen, North America had never seen, and the whole world probably had never seen. That’s what was going to happen in Ontario.

Now, the evidence is there; what the member for Riverdale said; 60 beds in Metropolitan Toronto. If you happen to be a drunk in Riverdale, there isn’t a bed available to you. I looked this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, at the Liquor Licence Act, 1975, Bill 45, which has not yet been called for second reading, and section 37, subsection 2, says:

“Where a constable or other police officer finds a person in a public place apparently in contravention of subsection 3 of section 46, he may take such person into custody and, in lieu of laying an information in respect of the contravention, may escort the person to a detoxification centre.”

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): If there is one.

Mr. Singer: Now, what kind of nonsense is that? Really? You write the right words, and you make the right speeches, but you don’t do anything about it. It’s a collective failure of the ministry. It’s a failure of the minister’s predecessor. It’s a failure of the minister who writes that section into the Liquor Licence Act. It’s a failure that the coroner’s jury hastened to point out, and your comments this afternoon, saying that out of umpteen recommendations by coroners’ juries we have implemented such and such a percentage and aren’t we great, just avoids the point.

One can’t help but be cynical about your approach to this problem. It’s bad enough that you have no approach, but what you try to do is delude the people of Ontario into believing you have. Characteristic of your colleagues on the ministry benches, you get up and make these grandiose statements, saying that you have a programme; not only is it good it’s great; it’s the best in the modern world. “You watch and see what we are going to do.” The minister who said it is gone; he’s doing culture and sports or something serious like that, and he even gets into difficulty about distributing lottery tickets.

It’s sad. It’s sad, really, that you aren’t able to deal with this problem at least in your own words -- not you, the collective you; in the ministry’s own words. It’s sad that you write a section into the new Liquor Licence Act that you are unable to implement, and it’s sad that the member for Riverdale has to raise the recommendations of the coroner’s jury and say: “If you happen to be unfortunate enough to have been arrested by 55 Division there is no point in having a section in the Liquor Licence Act or expecting to get to a detoxification centre.” It’s a sad, sad commentary on the approach of the ministry to serious problems that face Ontario society.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am always grateful for the unbiased observations offered by my friend from Downsview. I don’t know how many beds there are exactly; he mentioned the figure of 60 in Metropolitan Toronto. I think he must not lose sight of this, that Toronto is not the only place that has hospital facilities designated as detoxification centres. In Toronto, you are running into arrests somewhere in the neighbourhood -- for being intoxicated in a public place -- of between 30,000 and 35,000 people annually.

I think that if we are going to embark on a programme that is going to involve 30,000 to 35,000 people -- albeit some of them may have been in that group collectively 10 times in one year -- are we prepared to undertake, at the expense of the public, to provide detoxification centres for every individual who is about --

Mr. Singer: No one said that; no one said that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right, but you are losing sight of the fact, with the greatest respect, that there are other centres throughout Ontario where the numbers are not anywhere nearly as significant as they are here in Metropolitan Toronto, for very obvious reasons, and the programme is working well.

I challenge you to go down tonight to Gerrard and Jarvis and pick up the people who are down there, probably at this very moment, and just find places for them to sleep, leave alone in a supervised hospital where the costs of maintaining that bed are really quite high on a per diem basis.

There are other people who have requirements, not just those who are unfortunate enough to have alcohol problems. I don’t set the standards for the detoxification centres. I merely, in this ministry, have to report to the people of this province, through this very process right now, and in question period, the activities of the ministry, and we are dealing now with the coroners’ investigations.

How we got on to detoxification centres as my responsibility I fail to see because, with the greatest respect, I do not have anything to do with detoxification centres other than to monitor, I suppose, the police function in carrying out the section of the Act where the constable can take them if accommodation is available.

Mr. Singer: You know how we got on to it, because the coroner’s jury talked about it, and we are dealing with coroners’ juries.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of course they talked about it.

Mr. Singer: All right. That’s how we got on to it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of course that’s how we got on to it.

Mr. Singer: Sure, so don’t look so puzzled.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are you suggesting that we have beds for every drunk in the city of Toronto at public expense?

Mr. Singer: No, I didn’t suggest that either.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, what are you suggesting?

Mr. Singer: That is another straw man that doesn’t work.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, tell me what you are saying. You are being very critical, but I don’t hear any alternatives.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I’ll tell you: When one of your ministers can stand up and say, chest-beating, back-patting, muscle-flexing, “What wonderful fellows are we. Look what we are doing about the establishment of detoxification centres. It’s going to be the marvel of the western world,” and when you get a report of the coroner’s jury which shows how inadequate you are, instead of saying you don’t know what we are talking about, you should be humble and apologize.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): How does that grab you?

Mr. Ruston: Good point.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the figures except that they come from unimpeachable sources, namely, my colleagues in our caucus. The revenues of the Province of Ontario, so I am advised, run at about $1 million a day or more from the sale of liquor and the taxes imposed on liquor. If those figures are relatively correct, then our answer to the minister s question about the 35,000 people, discounting that figure by the number who are picked up a number of times in the course of a year, is that, yes, it is the responsibility of the government to make certain that they do have the treatment which they require as individuals, consistent with their human dignity, to see what can be done to assist them. In the face of a very serious problem of alcoholism, whether one designates it as psychological, medical, pathological or whatever, our answer is an unequivocal “yes,” having regard to the revenues derived by the province.

I agree with the minister in the sense that there is a limit within this ministry that we can pursue it. We can pursue it with the Ministry of Health; we can pursue it with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; we can pursue it when the new liquor bills come through the House. I didn’t mean to prolong the debate about it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to add a few words. I may say that we have already raised the issue, oddly enough, with Community and Social Services, because that particular ministry is the one charged with providing the halfway houses.

The reason I would like to speak to this is that there has been a committee in the city of Toronto studying this problem under the chairmanship of Ald. Anne Johnston. The police are involved with the committee, as are social workers and others concerned with the problem. However, the tragic situation today is that those unfortunate people -- and for the most part they are men -- are now taking the position and, in fact, I had a request to speak to this House, asking if we couldn’t ensure that there would no longer be an open-door policy because they are facing malnutrition as a result of the little bit of detoxification that they get if they get it at all. That seems to me to be an indictment of the whole process.

Even if we had detoxification centres, and more of them -- and I am not one who could say at all how many we should have -- it’s likely that they would continue to be functioning on a relatively short-term basis. Therefore, there is the policy of the halfway house, but again there apparently is no way we can get that functioning either. When you have people in this helpless position -- the person who spoke to me is a person who works closely with a group of such people out of Central Neighbourhood House -- they are pleading: “If you can’t do anything else for us, we want to go back into the old system of going to jail because at least we get fed properly during that period of time.”

I would therefore ask the minister if he does not think that because the fact that these people recognize the problem, that they do need help and that they can’t get it either through detoxification centres or halfway houses, because we don’t have halfway houses, that he should indeed at least listen to what is being said by police officers who happen in this case to be voicing exactly the same concerns as social workers and others dealing with the problem. Therefore, does he not think there should be an effort on his part to bring together the other ministries which are involved in a provision, or not a provision of services, whichever way you look at it, to by to ensure that there is a proper procedure set up and adequate facilities?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of observations I would like to offer. I think the member for Riverdale mentioned an estimated amount of income derived by the province through the Liquor Control Board at somewhere in excess of $1 million a day. As I recall the figures, I think around $310 million is generated by the sale of liquor through the LCBO this year. That’s a projected figure, as I recall it.

You must remember that the detoxification centre programme was not started until, I believe, 1971 or 1972. The Doyle death that we are talking about happened in early March, 1974.

I don’t think anybody has ever painted any muscle-flexing picture of the detoxification centres as the greatest thing in the world. I think it’s an alternative only, and this is the way I view it, to the jail system. These people who are really sick and not in a sense criminals can be placed in a hospital-like institution or hospital concept as opposed to being put in the so-called drunk tank at a municipal lockup.

I don’t think anyone is naive enough to feel that the detoxification centre is going to cure the problem. There are many projects underway dealing with the question of alcoholism. There is the May St. clinic programme here in Toronto which has had, I would say, really a very spectacular success, bearing in mind its short life. Again you are dealing with small numbers of people whom you hope to help recover the dignity which they have lost because of their addiction to alcohol and to get them back into the working stream and give them some real objective in life.

There are other types of people who have alcohol problems who hold down regular jobs during their life but they still have alcohol-related disorders. In addition to those 60 beds, I would imagine at this very moment there are many numbers of people across this province in the hospital for alcohol-related disorders in terms of cirrhosis, in terms of blood pressure, ulcer conditions, emotional conditions and all kinds of problems. The detoxification centre really, as I see it, is directed towards those very unfortunate people who have lost all will to live. They are hell bent on a course of self-destruction. We see them all the time, particularly in the larger centres as opposed to smaller communities.

I would like to think that someone would be lifted out of that limbo in which they live and resurrected through getting into the detoxification centre and eventually being resurrected somewhere else. I am not optimistic enough to think that there would be very many. I can tell you I have personally met one. I shared the story with a member of this House earlier this evening of a man who come in to see me a year or so ago who is now associated with a very concerned group in this city called Alcohol and Drug Concerns Inc. He is a man who today is a senior executive in a major industry in this province but who spent nine years as a skid row drunk -- no other way. He says there are several years he can’t remember what happened or where he was. Through some family pressures and circumstances he did lift himself back into the world of reality. He has not gone through a detox centre, but he’s certainly gone through the Don Jail -- you talk about the swinging doors. He doesn’t even remember several years of his life; he doesn’t know where he was or what he did.

We have all these different grades. You cannot just point the finger at somebody lying down there in the Armoury grass tonight and say, “He has his drinking problem, and I don’t.” There are great degrees of drinking problems. So, hospital services are being provided for those people -- in law the so-called “common drunk picked up.”

The detox centre is an alternative to putting him into the lockup pending his trial. I’m not naive enough to think that the detox centre is going to cure anybody. It’s just a question, I suppose, of being practical. How much is the public of this province prepared to pay for detoxification centres for those unfortunate souls who, for one reason or another, have found themselves addicted primarily to alcohol? They can’t work; their health has generally deteriorated. They don’t want to work and have very few skills.

What do we do with these people? I don’t know. It’s a problem not unique to Ontario. It’s a problem that is growing, I suppose, throughout the free world, more and more. And not always in the free world. I understand they even have these problems in Russia. But they don’t have criminals in Russia; they call them “social discontents.”

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think I misled the House unwittingly. I attributed the great announcement to the member for Lincoln. In fact it was not he. It was the then hon. A. F. Lawrence, who was a previous Attorney General. His announcement is reported in full on page 3569 of Hansard of 1971. At that point he announced the programme and he said the programme would be fully implemented by the fall of 1974. It was a breast-beating speech, and a muscle-flexing speech, and a back-patting speech about how wonderful you were going to be.

Mr. Chairman: We accept the apology of the hon. member for Downsview. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask of the minister the amount of coroner’s jury fees individually per day.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are $6 per day.

Mr. B. Newman: Surely, Mr. Minister, it is more than time enough to readjust that. I can recall back in 1973 when the Attorney General, the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales), said in the Legislature that he had fought for increases in jury pay, but that they had been chopped out of the ministry’s budget. Then his successor, the hon. member for Lincoln, likewise commented to us in the estimates committee in one of the rooms downstairs that this was going to be substantially increased.

Do you realize, Mr. Minister, that the $6 per day is less than the $2.40 an hour minimum set by your province? You are actually breaking the minimum wage law. You, as the chief law officer of the Grown, are permitting that to go on. Surely, it’s more than time that these be adjusted substantially upwards so that there is no financial sacrifice to the individual who performs his public duty by acting on one of these juries. Do you intend to substantially increase the fees, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Clement: You won’t find an argument from me on jurors’ fees, be it coroners’ juries or any other type of jury. I believe, the high court fees now are $10 a day, or something like that, plus mileage in both cases.

I can’t disagree with that. These were chopped. My predecessor did, in fact, ask for additional funds. I’m going to ask for additional funds. I think they are woefully underpaid. They are not paid on a basis of an hourly rate -- it is a fee, it is not a salary or a wage. That’s why the minimum hourly rate does not apply.

Mr. Haggerty: They’re low.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I agree that they’re low. Yet we must look at the overall priorities of government and the needs and areas of social concern. We’ve had some debate here this evening in terms of health costs. In the overall picture, apparently, the priorities have been placed in other areas. But I have to live with this. We will never get to the point where a person will be completely recompensed for the time he loses from his place of employment unless he is on an hourly rate. How do you pay the businessman who is running his own business who must be involved in the legal process for a number of days? He may have lost several hundred dollars a day.

I agree that the fees are woefully low. I’m going back to Management Board for additional moneys. Whether I am to be successful or not, I don’t know. One of the members sent me a letter a day or two ago from a sheriff in one of the counties dealing with a man who suffered financial hardship.

Mr. Worton: Do you want a few more letters?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would welcome them. Don’t send them to me, send them to Management Board. I would welcome them. I couldn’t agree more with the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to carry on a little longer on this. I appreciate the minister’s concern in that but he’s also got to realize that a lot of the people who are called up for this duty don’t work for one of the big automotive concerns when I refer to my own community. As a result, they are out of pocket. They are working in marginal paying jobs and it is a real hardship to them. One case that I brought up to your predecessor was such that his employer threatened to fire him simply because he had to report for jury duty. The employer assumed that he was simply goldbricking and refused to work. I hope you’re far more convincing with your cabinet colleagues, because certainly it is time that these people were paid at least a half-decent fee.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I just wanted to add a very brief footnote, Mr. Chairman, to the comments of my colleague from Riverdale and a response that the minister made with regard to the cost involved in the detoxification centres.

The minister himself indicated, in the specific case raised by the member for Riverdale of John Henry Doyle, the enormous cost of processing that man through the legal system and through the police system. Like the minister, I don’t see the detoxification centre as a cure-all and be-all. It may be an alternative, and it may be an alternative that is not as expensive as the constant processing of a person like that through the court system, through the jail system and through the delivery system, if you like.

I would just like to ask the minister to take that into consideration because I think he was bordering on a provocative remark, saying, “Are we going to supply every drunk in Toronto with a bed?” It might be cheaper to do that in the long run than processing them through the legal system.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 5 in vote 1502 carried? The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one comment about coroner’s jury fees. I understand the concern of the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I question the solution.

What the minister said is quite right. The public treasury cannot directly provide full recompense for wage loss and other losses by persons who are called to perform a civic duty which is an essential part of our system.

I would suggest that it would be a relatively simple method to provide by law that in the case of a person called to perform a civic duty, with whatever substantiation the employer needs, by way of jury service -- whatever jury it’s on, coroner’s jury or any other jury -- his employer be required by law to continue his salary at the rate or hourly rate that he is entitled to receive at that time, so that a substantial burden of the cost of performance of civic duty -- which is drawn by lot; it is not something a person volunteers for -- be borne by the employers and industry throughout the province. That would take up a great number of the people who are involved in it.

There are other people who are not employed or who are self-employed. Whatever their hourly rates may be, that is also readily calculable. It would appear to me that the way in which you really attack the problem is through the taxation system. A corporation or company which has had an employee performing a civic duty should be provided the opportunity to have the necessary deduction, which it now has, for the wages which are paid. The person who is an employer should have the benefit of that. The person who is self-employed should have the benefit of that kind of deduction through the tax system. The person who is not employed in the technical sense should be allowed a tax credit.

I am quite certain, with the intricate tax credit system which the Province of Ontario has at the present time, that the way in which you deal with the problem is not by raising the direct cost to the public treasury but by doing it through the law and through the taxation system to provide the adequate deduction. The person doesn’t suffer and there is a recognition that the person is performing a civic duty which is an essential part of the society.

I would personally regret the day when the performance of such a civic duty as jury duty was equated to whether or not the fellow got the same wages he got at his job, through the public treasury. I don’t think that’s the way in which you accomplish what you want to accomplish at all. You call a person for civic duty; he performs his civic duty. He continues to receive the remuneration which he otherwise would have received as an employee, as a person who is self-employed or as a person who is performing services for which he doesn’t receive a monetary award but for which there can be an attributed award. You compensate that person or that employer or that self-employed person through the taxation system for the service which he has performed. There is no other way. By raising it you can’t possibly solve the problem -- simply on a direct cost to the public treasury -- and in the long run you defeat the very purpose of the civic duty which the citizen is being asked to perform.

Mr. Chairman, I have one further comment. Does the Solicitor General know the coroner’s motto?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I saw it for the first time two weeks ago and it impressed me and I promptly forgot it. I have asked the supervising coroner for the province. The motto is, we speak for the dead to protect the living. I’m paraphrasing it but that’s it.

Mr. Renwick: I have only one further question. Would the minister please explain what that means to me?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Perhaps someday the chief coroner may have an opportunity to speak to you a little more closely -- as he’s doing a post mortem on you and he can whisper in your ear.

Mr. Renwick: I will listen intently.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: I have already disposed of all my living parts to the living tissue society.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 5, vote 1502 carry? The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I wanted to make one observation about the detoxification centres. In Windsor, the detoxification centre is for men only. There are no facilities for women and this is a problem in Windsor. There aren’t very many women who require these services but at the present time there is one compassionate woman who takes in these unfortunate sisters despite the fact that she has small children of her own in the house and it certainly is not good for the children to be in the same environment. If you have any say in this at all I would like to remind you that this is a problem.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t have any say in it as indicated by the member. I can express his concerns to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Burr: That is what I want.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think both you and the member for St. George have touched on the fact that there are really very few women involved in this sort of thing. They might well be better looked after in a smaller lockup sort of thing where there is a matron on duty rather than getting into a larger hospital institution where they may not have the same degree of supervision that they would in a smaller lockup.

I can’t speak for the Don Jail, but I think that down in our area it would probably be much better for a woman to end up at the detention centre at Thorold, where there are matrons on duty and constant supervision provided, than perhaps the wing of a hospital where the patient might well interfere with the activities of the staff and interfere with the rest of the patients who are there for other causes. I will express your concerns.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, a private home with small children in it is not the answer. There must be something better than that.

Mr. Chairman: Item 5 of 1502 is carried.

Item 6, vote 1502. The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could start this one off by having the Solicitor General tell us what it’s all about. What are you going to spend $431,000 for? And what does the forensic pathology vote mean?

Mrs. Campbell: The new building down here.

Mr. Singer: No, no. That was an earlier vote.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The $431,000? If the hon. member will look over at page J59 -- do you have your estimate book?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Salaries and wages $259,400; employee benefits $12,000 --

Mr. Singer: I read all that through, but I still don’t know what forensic pathology is or what is being done with the $431,000. Obviously, if you’re going to spend that much money you should have a staff and transportation and benefits and whatever. But what do you do?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The forensic pathology agency is to assist in determining causes of and mechanisms of death in unusual circumstances, and to aid law enforcement agencies throughout the province in the interpretation of certain aspects of sudden death through the application of expertise in forensic pathology.

These objectives can be achieved in three different ways:

1. Providing an advisory service to police, coroners and pathologists throughout the province.

2. Developing training programmes in forensic pathology.

3. Carrying out forensic pathological examinations in difficult or complicated or complex cases.

Mr. Singer: Could you tell me why that isn’t covered under the second item of 1502? Wouldn’t all this forensic pathology be done in the centre?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, apparently it’s not, it’s done as a separate agency. It will be done physically within the new forensic sciences building; it will be done within the confines of the same building because the whole ministry will be down there. But this type of activity is a very distinguishable activity from those encompassed in the Centre of Forensic Sciences under item 2, so I’m advised.

Mr. Singer: I missed this the other night, but I caught it when I was reading Hansard. I wasn’t able to be here the other night. I gather this centre where forensic pathology is being carried on or directed from is going to be called, for some peculiar reason, the George Drew Centre. For a couple of years I suggested to your predecessors that it might have been very nice, and certainly was justified, if it was called the Ward Smith Centre.

I don’t know whether the minister is aware of who Ward Smith was, but Ward Smith was one of those important and dedicated Ontario civil servants who really was responsible, if any one person can be said to have been responsible, for the establishment in Ontario of the Centre of Forensic Sciences. He made a very substantial contribution in developing new techniques. I suppose a lot of people won’t thank him for being the major developer of the breathalyser, but he was. That and many other contributions that he made were substantial.

He passed away a number of years ago. He died of cancer, having devoted his whole adult lifetime to working for the Province of Ontario. I knew him well, and I know that he was offered three or four times the salary he was being paid by this province to do similar work in the United States. He turned it down because he wanted to stay here and to continue to serve the Province of Ontario.

I recognize that George Drew is a former Premier but his noted contribution was really not in forensic science or establishing a centre. Surely you can find another building or something or other -- perhaps even in Guelph where he started -- that you could name after George Drew. Since this building is not open yet and since the nameplate obviously isn’t up on the building, let me renew my plea and ask if the Attorney General could not call this building the Ward Smith building. I think it would be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 6 of vote 1502 carried?

Mr. Singer: No, let the minister answer.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just want to make one observation, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The contributions, which are numerous and which have been touched on by the member for Downsview, made by the late Ward Smith are certainly well known to me. I have had an opportunity in the past to listen to him in a courtroom scene. I have had an opportunity of meeting with him in a social situation on two or three occasions -- really symposiums or small lectures that he has delivered. The library in the building will be called the Ward Smith Library.

Mr. Singer: Just the library?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The building itself, so I am advised, will provide, in addition to the activities of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, some accommodation to other ministries. It would seem inappropriate to have part of the building utilized by, perhaps, a computer, in a building dedicated in the name of a man who made such a contribution in the field of pathology and forensic sciences in this province.

Your remarks about the late Ward Smith, I would say, are very valid. Those who have had any opportunity to have known this man or watched him in action in years gone by would share your concern. I think he was a great individual. In spite of the fact that he invented the breathalyzer, I still think he was a great individual. Probably that’s one of the reasons I think so too.

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Item 6 of 1502 is carried.

Vote 1502 agreed to.

On vote 1503:

Mr. Chairman: Item 1. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Since the minister has been unable to give us the annual report of the Ontario Police Commission --

Mr. Haggerty: He must have it by now.

Mr. Singer: -- and since he is quoted in Hansard as saying that it is in the hands of the printer and might be available in 10 or 12 days, which I’m sure the minister hopes will be long after these estimates are gone, could we start by asking him if he could give us a reading of what it says and on that basis perhaps these estimates could be debated a little more sensibly?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give any detail of it because, like the member, I have not had an opportunity of seeing it yet. I am sure it will be made available to you as soon as we have it back from the printer. The information I have is still the same. On the day I made that statement in the House -- I think it was last Thursday -- I was advised it would be in your hands in approximately 10 to 12 days.

I can tell you we have had great difficulty in getting printing done, in terms of other reports and so on. Last Friday I filed in this House the recommendations or observations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, dealing with the supportive role, and we had great difficulty in obtaining that. The anticipated date given in February to the chairman of that commission by the printing company was April 20, I believe. It had to be extended twice. We are finding ourselves in the same position here but I will personally deliver a copy of that report to the member for Downsview upon receipt of that report. I haven’t seen it so I can’t tell you what is in it.

Mr. Singer: It is all right, Mr. Chairman. I have accepted the minister’s word completely that it has not come back from the printer, but surely Mr. Bell or Judge Graham -- I don’t know; is it Judge Bell now or have they just made Graham a judge? -- Judge Graham or Mr. Bell should have some idea of what it is. For instance, what would happen if the poor old printing plant got blown up? Do you mean to say we would never have a report? There must be a copy somewhere and if the minister asked Mr. Bell or Judge Graham for a copy perhaps they could give him one, even hand written, and the minister could read it into the record.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that would be a great idea, Mr. Chairman, except the procedures in this House are such that the report should be made available to all the members of the House at the proper time of tendering it during the business of the House each day. I think I would be prejudicing your colleagues who are not here tonight by making it available to you this evening.

Mr. Singer: Let’s stop being facetious. There must be a copy in existence other than the one in the hands of the printer. In order to enable us to know what the commission says was its last year’s record of performance, surely the minister can get a copy from wherever it is hidden and read it to us and in due course carry out his statutory duty? Surely, when the Legislature wrote those sections into the Police Act, the purpose of writing them in was to enable members of the Opposition to examine reasonably the performance of the various arms of government, such as the Ontario Police Commission and later the Ontario Provincial Police. Somebody has it and you should read it to us.

Mr. Foulds: In total.

Mr. Singer: In total; or else you are avoiding your real responsibility. To hang your hat on the fact that you think you might be avoiding your duty in not giving every member a copy of it at the same time is a hunch of hogwash.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this observation. The Ontario Police Commission is under an obligation to prepare and to file in this House an annual report at the next regular sittings o the House after the end of the calendar year. Fine. I stand here and I tell you I have not seen that report. I have never discussed that report with anybody in the Ontario Police Commission. I do not intend to read that report. I am sure there are typed copies in the possession --

Mr. Singer: Sure there are.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wouldn’t deny that for a minute. I haven’t seen them.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t say you have. Get one and read it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t intend to deviate from what is the requirement that the report, when available, must be filed in this House and not tendered during estimates or read into the record or anything else. When that report is available it will be filed in the House in compliance with the requirement under the Act.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I might have a word on this question of the report. The Police Act has this rather unusual provision that the commission shall, after the close of each calendar year, file with the minister an annual report upon the affairs of the commission. I take it that the minister is saying the report has not been filed with him. I take that to be the first thing.

Then it has this unusual provision “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” and so on. This is the only Act I know of, unless I am grossly mistaken, in which there is a provision that the minister gets the report, then it goes to the cabinet and then it is tabled in the Legislature. I am very curious about the procedure.

I take it the printer has the report before the minister has it. I would have assumed, reading this in a layman’s way, that you would have got the report; you would have submitted it to the cabinet; then you would have sent it out for printing, and then it would have been put before the assembly when there were sufficient copies of it.

Mr. Singer: You are in breach of the Act.

Mr. Renwick: What you are telling us is that the commission somehow or other sends it to the printer; then, when there are sufficient copies, you get a copy. Presumably you submit it to cabinet and then you lay it before the assembly. It seems to me that it is rather a strange method.

If there are security matters in that report of significance to the minister, then the last place you want to have it floating around is the printer’s office. I would assume that it would be typed up or, as the member for Downsview says, in an earlier day it would be handwritten and handed to the minister. He would have received the report; he would submit it to the cabinet and then have it printed.

This business about the printer having it but we don’t have it, does seem a little bit odd to me, particularly when we are talking shout the principal body responsible for law enforcement in the province and the clear provision of section 40(7) of the Police Act.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 1, vote 1503, carried?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Singer: No. Stop, Mr. Chairman. Let’s allow the discussion to go on. Let’s not have the usual annoyance of having to fight --

Mr. Renwick: I don’t particularly want to belabour this procedural point, but it does seem to me something which requires attention.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the requirements are the same for the Ontario Provincial Police force; that is that the report shall be prepared and forwarded to the Lieutenant Governor and then filed in this House.

Mr. Renwick: I understand that, but those are police reports, as distinct from all other reports that I know.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wasn’t aware, until the member for Riverdale drew it to my attention, that you take it and file it with the Lieutenant Governor before bringing it into this House.

Mr. Singer: I read you the section the other day.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You read too fast.

Mr. Singer: Oh, I have a copy. I will hand it to you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In any report I have ever had to file before this House -- there was one today, as a matter of fact, the annual report of the Law Reform Commission -- I never take a draft copy of that to cabinet.

Mr. Renwick: It is just these two.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I have never heard of an instance of a draft going to cabinet and cabinet perusing it and saying, “Fine, now send it to the printers.” The thing is sent out for printing, filed with the Clerk of the House and made available to the members of the assembly.

Mr. Singer: You had better read the two sections.

Mr. Singer: You are hoist with your own petard, aren’t you? You were being so technical before. “It would be terribly unfair,” says the acting Solicitor General, “to read it if I had a copy in advance of tabling it, because that isn’t quite the way it’s supposed to be done.” Well, the member for Riverdale quite rightly points out what the section says. There it is. Why don’t you obey the section? Obviously you have breached the law -- and probably should have yourself arrested.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not being technical. I don’t appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw. Are you saying that I have broken the law? Where have I gone wrong? Tell me.

Mr. Singer: Let me put it phrase by phrase. Page 490 -- and I’ll read it very slowly, because you were complaining that I read too fast.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, do that.

Mr. Singer: Chapter 351, Revised Statutes of Ontario, section 40(7), says: “The commission shall, after the close of each calendar year” -- are you with me up to that point? -- “file with the minister” -- I presume that’s you --

Hon. Mr. Clement: It says the Solicitor General in my copy.

Mr. Singer: It reads: “ … file with the minister an annual report of the commission upon the affairs.”

At that point, if I can interpolate, that would mean Mr. Bell and/or Judge Graham and/or General Sparling should file with you, the minister, a copy of their report. They should not send it to the printer, but file with you. That’s step No. 1.

Step No. 2: “ ... the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council … ” Presumably that means that you, the minister, shall go to the Lieutenant Governor in Council with a report in your hot little hand and say, “Here it is, Lieutenant Governor in Council. Here is the report.” And you “shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session.” That is step three, and that must apply to the minister. The minister shall then do it.

Really, the commission would have discharged its duty, under section 40, sub. 7, when whoever is delivering the report to you -- whichever of the three gentlemen involved has assumed that responsibility has delivered it to you. It is up to you, the minister, to take it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to table it.

Since you feel it is most important that there be many copies, the printing must be in your hands, not in the hands of the commission. If you do anything that deviates from any of these -- as you were so quick to point out earlier, you wouldn’t want to be in the breach of the law, it must be you who takes it to the printer. Therefore, if you are saying there is nothing in your hand, somebody has broken the law. I think that’s bad and I think you should seriously investigate the advisability of having a charge laid against the minister.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to joke about these things, but it doesn’t talk about 117 copies of the report. There is nothing in that section about it at all. There is a report, a single report. Somewhere the police commission actually manually signs a report. It’s that report that goes to the minister; it’s that report that goes before the cabinet; and it’s that report which is tabled in this assembly.

As a matter of convenience, if you want to have it printed, and have 117 copies distributed, that’s a matter of convenience, but that’s not what the Act says. The Act doesn’t say anything about every member receiving a copy at the identical moment in time. I’m saying that it’s so very seldom I’m in complete agreement with the member for Downsview, that it’s a unique case.

Mr. Singer: Either publicly or privately.

Mr. Renwick: That’s also correct. But there is a report. It has not been filed with you; it’s in the hands of a printer. I can’t understand that; I don’t understand it. I would hope, without prolonging the debate any more, that that procedure will not continue to be followed in the future. You should get the first and only copy of the signed report. If they want to sign 1,000 others, that’s up to them. One report goes to you, to the cabinet, to the table in the assembly -- that’s the procedure. If there has been some other procedure followed, you are dead wrong. Let’s not joke about it; let’s correct it in the future.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the section, of course, that refers to the timing of the printing. I think it has been the practice of this House, certainly long before I was around here, that when reports are prepared on the activities of any particular board or commission, they are printed and made available to those who have an interest in them. On those that call, by legislation, for the preparation of an annual report, I would be more than pleased to file a handwritten copy with the House. However I know that the two members who address me now would be the first to object that surely we could have printed the activities and made them available for perusal.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on.

Mr. Renwick: No way.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of course you would.

Mr. Singer: No way.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of course you would. And as I read this thing that the report will be laid before the assembly if it is in session, or if not at the next ensuing session, I really fail to grasp where the printing becomes so significant.

Mr. Renwick: Because it is a confidential report of the commission.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just say I haven’t got it. And when I have it, I’ll make it available to you for filing in the House.

Mr. Singer: Then someone else has it.

Mr. Renwick: The printer has it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, where does the Solicitor General get the idea that things have to be printed? The Premier (Mr. Davis) made a very important statement today about the establishment of an office of ombudsman. He didn’t wait until it went to the printer and came back. Somebody somewhere, in that maze of offices over there, was able to produce a mimeographed statement that says it is a statement by the Premier -- and it runs five pages. Copies of it were available so that we could follow it when it was being read; so that we would be able to understand it; so that we would be able to comment on it.

Surely, this section 40, sub. 7, and section 44 dealing with the Ontario Provincial Police, are there to enable the public to be informed; and a particular segment of the public, the members of the opposition who are called upon to debate the estimates.

This is an important document. It relates to last year’s performance of the Ontario Police Commission. It must have statistics about police forces, about hearings, about disciplinary action, about the policy of the commissioners and about all sorts of things they have been doing. This is the form of their report. If it said anything less than that, I would be very surprised.

Surely those sections are there because the Legislature of the day deemed it appropriate that that kind of information be made available to, amongst others, the members of the opposition who are charged with the responsibility of debating these estimates. Let me urge the minister just once more to please ask the chairman, Mr. Bell, to give him a copy of the report --

Mr. Renwick: The report manually signed.

Mr. Singer: I am sorry, the member for Riverdale is right -- to give him the report. And then having received it, to put it on the table or read it to us. Until that’s done, let us not be called upon to debate this item of expenditure, vote 1503, item 1.

If the minister is not prepared to do that, I am going to again move that the committee rise and report. We started off at a fun level on this thing. It’s not funny; it’s very serious. I thought the message had got through. I am not going to be obstructed by obfuscation. It’s a clear point, it’s a simple point. The minister should be responsible and accept it as such.

If the minister is not prepared to get the report and to read it to us or lay it on the table in advance of our discussion of these estimates, I am going to use the other alternative available to us and I will then move that the committee rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, if I followed the advice of the member for Downsview, I think I would then be in breach of the statute. As I read the statute, it says that after I have the report, in effect I submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor and then lay the report before the assembly. It doesn’t say “read it to the assembly.” I would have to go and see Her Honour.

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 16, the “nays” are 26.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

Item 1.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, was there a quorum on that vote?

Mr. Chairman: The motion is lost.

Item 1, 1503. The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have only a small point. I’m not trying to usurp the position of my colleague, the member for Downsview.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: There is another minor item that I would like the chief law enforcement officer of the Crown to interpret for me. The provision we’ve been discussing says, “The commission shall, after the close of each calendar year, file with the minister an annual report.”

Perhaps the chief law officer of the Crown would advise me what he thinks “after the close of each calendar year” means in a statute such as this. Could the report he filed, say, in 1980 and would that comply with the statute? Or do you think it should be filed within 4½ months after the close of the calendar year? What do you think it means, really?

Do you think we should amend the statute to “shall within a reasonable time after the closing of each calendar year file”? Or should we amend it to say “shall forthwith file”? Do we have to elaborate in the statute what a provision such as that means? “After the close of each calendar year” for any reasonable person in the Province of Ontario would mean within three months at the very outside. If we are talking about law enforcement in the province, let’s start to enforce the laws.

Hon. Mr. Clement: For what value it would have, I would interpret it that there is no question, when you determine the period for which the report is covered, insofar as when it is filed. I would interpret that to mean probably the Legislature intended it to be during the next calendar year.

I could argue that the 1974 report has to be filed obviously sometime after the end of calendar 1974. I might be able to argue very successfully that it doesn’t have to be filed until 1976 or 1977. I don’t think that was the intention of the House when that section was enacted. I think it was the intention of the House to indicate, probably, as soon it is available.

It indicates what you do if the House is in session or if it is not in session.

I can’t agree with our colleague from Downsview that the report should be read into the record this evening in order to comply with the Act. As I understand it, the minute I have the report I must tender it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and then file it here in the House if the House is in session.

Mr. Singer: Where does it say anything about the printer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It says nothing about the printer one way or the other. That’s why I took umbrage at your legal interpretation that it had not to be printed, that it should not indeed be printed.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, when the report is ready, as I gathered was your submission some time ago, that is when I present it to the Lieutenant Governor and thereafter to the House.

Mr. Singer: If you want me to explain what I’m saying, in case you didn’t understand it let me do it all over again. What I was saying was that since we don’t have the report here, certainly in equity and good conscience you are treating the members of the opposition and the public in a most unfair and unconscionable manner. In order to enable us to reasonably debate these estimates, you had a duty and a responsibility not to allow them to come on until that report was available to us. Quite apart from any of the legalities -- you are the one who got fancy about the legalities; you are the one who said you would be breaking the law if you did anything else. You are the one who talked so fast, you outfoxed yourself. Now that’s the point.

All right, you’ve got the majority. But I’m going to ask you. I have a report here and I’m going to ask you, page by page, for the 1974 statistics. We are going to get them and when we’ve got them we’ll consider them and then we’ll continue with the debate. If it takes us a week to go through this, it will take us a week. Is the member for Riverdale through?

Mr. Renwick: I’m through on that particular procedural matter.

Mr. Singer: All right. I’m looking and using as a guide something called Comparative Tables, Municipalities, which was in the 1970 report and which has been the feature of most reports. Can you tell me how many forces we had in metropolitan areas, cities, towns, townships, villages, improvement districts, counties and regional areas? What were the total number of forces in 1974 broken down into those categories?

Hon. Mr. Clement: What period is the member interested in? As of Jan. 1, 1975?

Mr. Singer: Jan. 1, 1975, yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Metropolitan areas, one; regional areas, nine; cities, 24; towns, 69; townships, 14; villages, 14; improvement districts, nil, and counties, nil, for total of 131 forces. Then there are additional areas under contract to the Ontario Provincial Police numbering 13.

Mr. Singer: How many one-man part-time forces were there?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Seven. Part-time or full-time?

Mr. Singer: Part-time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: None.

Mr. Singer: There were 13 in 1971 and there are none now?

Hon. Mr. Clement: In 1971?

Mr. Singer: According to this report, in 1971, there were 13 one-man part-time forces. That is what I asked you, how many there were on Jan. 1, 1975. You said none. Those 13 that existed in 1971 have now disappeared?

Hon. Mr. Clement: My impression is that there were not 13 part-time -- I stress the part-time -- forces in 1971. There may have been 13 one-man full-time forces in that date.

Mr. Singer: Not according to the 1970 report which I have here, and I am reading from it. That report says one-man part-time forces, 13. Is that figure wrong? The information that was tabled then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I can’t say it’s wrong. I don’t have the 1971 report before me. I’m distinguishing it on the part-time and full-time. My understanding was that there were not 13 part-time forces in effect as of that date. I may be in error and I’ll bow to the report. The report obviously is correct, but that’s the information that I have.

Mr. Singer: If the minister has information, I’m suggesting to him that either his information tonight is wrong or what was tabled here and what the minister says is so important, and has to be so letter perfect is wrong. Could the minister undertake, perhaps by tomorrow morning, to check on that and tell us which is right?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Singer: Thank you. Could you tell us, and these are full-time forces, I’m presuming, how many one-man forces we have in Ontario as of Jan. 1, 1975?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Seven.

Mr. Singer: How many two- to five-men forces do we have?

Hon. Mr. Clement: There are 30.

Mr. Singer: And six- to nine-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thirty-two.

Mr. Singer: And 10- to 14-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Twelve.

Mr. Singer: And 15- to 19-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Nine.

Mr. Singer: And 20- to 24-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Five.

Mr. Singer: And 25- to 49-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Nine.

Mr. Singer: And 50- to 99-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Twelve.

Mr. Singer: And over 100-man forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Fifteen.

Mr. Singer: For a total of?

Hon. Mr. Clement: One hundred and thirty-one, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer: And in the category of one-man forces, by how many has it been reduced since Jan. 1, 1974?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Three.

Mr. Singer: And how many two- to five-man forces have been reduced?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Seven.

Mr. Singer: How many six- to nine-man forces have been reduced?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Four.

Mr. Singer: How many 10- to 14-man forces have been reduced?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Nil.

Mr. Singer: And how many 15- to 19-man forces have been reduced?

Hon. Mr. Clement: There were no reductions; there was an increase of one.

Mr. Singer: Oh, that’s plus one, eh?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Singer: And the 20 to 24?

Hon. Mr. Clement: An increase of one. Yes, one.

Mr. Singer: And the 25 to 49?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s been reduced by one.

Mr. Singer: And the 50 to 99?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Increased by two.

Mr. Singer: And the more than 100?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Nil.

Mr. Singer: Now then, in light of the very strong recommendations by the task force, and the very serious debates that have taken place -- I read you the recommendations by the task force in my introductory remarks -- can you tell me why such reasonably meagre progress has been made in eliminating the small forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Could the hon. member tell me which recommendation, by number, he refers to in the task force report?

Mr. Singer: I could. If you just bear with me, it might take a minute or two to pull it out of the task force report.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Take about three minutes, that will spin out the time.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: It has been moved that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Mr. Stokes moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

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