The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1201:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise a number of small points with the Attorney General. First of all, grand juries are still going on in this province. Didn’t we pass legislation in here doing away with them?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Attorney General): We need an amendment to the Criminal Code.

Mr. Roy: That’s what we are waiting for. When do we expect to get that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Lang has indicated he would be bringing in the necessary amendment to abolish the grand juries. He has been requested by the Province of Ontario to amend the code to abolish the grand juries in this province. As you know, other provinces have had the grand jury system abolished in their own jurisdictions, and he has indicated he will be bringing in an omnibus bill and that will be part of the package at that time.

Mr. Roy: It would appear that he is taking his time to bring that in, because I think he has been promising an omnibus bill for quite some time now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: I suppose that will include an amendment involving pinball machines as well.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I have a letter from him. He said -- and I asked for confirmation -- he would be bringing in an amendment to deal with that. He has also advised me and nine other Attorneys General that he would be bringing in legislation -- or he thought at the time when we talked in early March that he would be bringing in amendments to the bail reform legislation and he anticipated he would be introducing that in late April or early May.

Mr. Roy: I want to know as well if there are any further charges being laid in relation to pinball machines? You know we have had discussions about this before. I don’t know if I have --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): You are really hung up on those pinball machines.

Mr. Roy: Well, I am after justice.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you a pinball specialist?

Mr. Roy: I am not the one who is hung up on them. The Solicitor General and the police chiefs are the ones.

Mr. Lawlor: You must have played your first pinball machine at eight years of age.

Mr. Roy: You probably don’t know what a pinball machine looks like. Are you so naïve that you don’t know what a pinball machine looks like? It has got little arms and a little ball --

Mr. Lawlor: I once saw one in a fish and chip store. I was fascinated.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Did you win anything?

Mr. Lawlor: No, I wasn’t playing. I was watching someone else. I wouldn’t dare play.

Mr. Roy: I suppose you will support me when I start talking about body rub parlours, eh?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Tell us what you know about them.

Mr. Roy: Are charges still being laid in relation to the operation of pinball machines?

Hon. Mr. Clement: If we find someone using a pinball machine. At the present time it is contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, and we will prosecute until such time as it is changed.

Mr. Lawlor: You’re darned right you will!

Mr. Roy: You will prosecute in spite of the fact that Lang has promised to bring in the amendments? In other words, will you continue prosecuting up until the amendments are passed in the federal House?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have no other alternative but to do that.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Why don’t you prosecute the press gallery for their pinball machine?

Mr. Roy: Well, I really think my views on this subject are clear --

Mr. Lawlor: Clear? They are almost collusive.

Mr. Roy: I consider there are more important things to do in this province than to chase after pinball machines.

Mr. Lawlor: You are letting up on pinballs.

Mr. Roy: Are you going to be okay or are you going to have to pull yourself together?

Mr. Lawlor: I am going to give you a bad time tonight.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, what are we going to do about him?

Mr. Lawlor: I miss the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer).

Mr. Roy: You miss the member for Downsview? Did you go and visit him at least? You didn’t go and visit him?

Mr. Chairman, the other matter I wanted to raise with the Attorney General to get his views is that a number of firms are starting to give their employees lie detector or polygraph tests. Undoubtedly he knows that in this city, for instance, there is a restaurant known as the Old Spaghetti Factory that attempted to have its employees take lie detector tests; some of the people refused and were fired, I think. Lately, again in a restaurant, I think there was something missing --

Mr. Shulman: There was a steak missing.

Mr. Roy: A steak? Well, there was probably something else missing along with the steak. In any event, the whole staff apparently had to undergo lie detector tests. I find it somewhat offensive that people have to go through this type of procedure to retain or get employment. I am just wondering what your views are on this and whether any steps have been taken to curb this type of activity.

I personally find it offensive, and I think many of us here would raise a fuss if one of the conditions for seeking employment was that you had to undergo a lie detector test, or if one of the conditions of retaining employment was that you had to go through this type of practice.

Mr. Deans: Or one of the conditions for candidates. Can you imagine if that was one of the conditions for candidacy?

Mr. Roy: I suppose very few people here could pass that test, unless the old pros could.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d be pretty old.

Mr. Roy: I’d like to know your views on this as chief law officer of the Crown. I find this practice somewhat offensive.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It might well be offensive in terms of the Human Rights Code. In connection with the matter that you speak of, I read about it in the paper and to my knowledge we have received no complaints. According to the newspaper story, all of the employees submitted to it voluntarily.

Mr. Lawlor: What do you expect them to do? Do you expect them to rise up and lose their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They submitted to it voluntarily.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, order.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The next statement I read a few days ago was that everybody was exonerated as a result of it, so that might have some bearing on it. But I have received no complaints and as long as no assault was practised on them to which they didn’t consent there’s nothing that I can do about it. If they find it offensive as a labour practice then they should draw it to the attention of the Ministry of Labour. I’ve had no complaints on it.

Mr. Lawlor: It shows how fallacious the whole test is. How could everybody pass?

Mr. Roy: It was some time ago, and I have here a story from the Toronto Star where an individual --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I got it.

Mr. Chairman: May I remind the member for Ottawa East we are on item 2, the Deputy Attorney General?

Mr. Roy: No, we’re not. We’re on item 1.

Mr. Chairman: We passed item 1.

Mr. Roy: No, we never voted on item 1. I adjourned the debate.

Mr. Chairman: Did we vote on item 1?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: I’m sorry, it was checked off. Okay, item 1.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I want to bring to his attention that apparently a waiter at the Old Spaghetti Factory restaurant here in Toronto has been laid off because he refused to submit to a lie detector test, to be administered at random to 150 employees. This is quite some time ago; say six or eight months ago. It may well be under the Employment Standards Act or whatever, but surely as a chief law officer for the Crown, Provincial Secretary for Justice, Acting Solicitor General and the whole bit, I would have thought that you would have some views on the application of this. I think we clearly have some cases where individuals are given the choice of losing their employment or taking the test, and apparently this is what happened to this fellow here.

Hon. Mr. Clement: My position is this, I am a great believer in that you can consent to just about everything, unless excluded by law. Unless there is a specific complaint drawn to my attention, I don’t think it’s my initiative to walk into a place and say: “What’s going on here?” and they ask me what authority I’m moving under and say: “The authority of Albert Roy’s concern.” I must have some kind of authority and I must have some kind of complaint.

If I have a complaint of an alleged assault or coercion against the employee, then that is a different kettle of fish. But I have received no information to that effect and so, accordingly, I have demonstrated no interest in that particular practice. I can’t speak for my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth); he may well have received complaints. Maybe people feel they were coerced. I make no observation about that. I just say I have received no complaints and accordingly have not interfered.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t you practise any preventive law? You just wait for complaints?

Mr. Roy: Yes. I would have thought that when these stories are published and individuals lose their employment because of this, you wouldn’t need to have documented complaints; that you would, as a matter of course, make some policy statement, just like you did when you were Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and people started using credit cards in grocery stores. You made a statement about that at that time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Is the member suggesting that I should say if this practice continues I’m going to recommend to my colleague, the federal Minister of Justice, that he bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code?

Mr. Roy: No, you just make a statement that you find this practice offensive and that it’s an abuse of the rights of the individual.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Let’s make is clear, Mr. Chairman, unless it’s an offence under the Criminal Code, or what would appear to be a quasi-criminal matter, I would suggest to the hon. member that I would have no right to intrude in that particular arrangement. My colleague, the Minister of Labour, may not share that view, because he has different guidelines of responsibility, and I would consider that that might be, if anything, some type of an alleged offence under the Employment Standards Act or under the Human Rights Code; but there’s nothing in here to prohibit that in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Roy: No, no. The only point I’m making -- and I don’t want to get into a long diatribe -- is that if you want to follow the four corners of your position as Attorney General, you can always find excuses for not saying anything. The point I’m trying to make is that people look to you for protection of their rights in this province, more than they would look to the Minister of Labour, because you are the chief law officer for the Crown. I would think that you wouldn’t have to look at the Code.

You suggested a second ago that maybe the human rights legislation should be changed to include that sort of thing. I would suggest that it would be, but often directives come from your office to respective ministries. As you have said before, one of your jobs is to give advice to the government about legal matters or the rights of individuals. It would seem to me that that would fall into it.

I wouldn’t suggest you make an amendment to the Code. You can make an amendment to the Human Rights Code, not the Criminal Code. I think I have made my point on this. I think that if you felt there was enough pressure or politics in it, you would do something about it. I personally feel that a minister of the Crown should take some form of action even though not that many people are affected. But surely government is for everybody, including small numbers of people who might be affected by that type of practice on the part of certain firms in this province.

Another matter I want to discuss with you is one we’ve been hearing a lot of lately from various other cities -- Toronto and I think Ottawa; I don’t know about other cities -- their concern about the spread of what they call body rub massage parlours and the whole bit. They look to you, apparently, for some form of legislation or whatever to curb the activities of these parlours. As I understand it, if something is going on, the police can investigate and charges can be laid under the Code. That’s one way.

Apparently the municipalities feel there might be some other way, through municipal legislation or licensing or otherwise, to give some control over the activities of these people. Have you been approached by the city of Toronto or the city of Ottawa for some legislation at the provincial level to control the spread of these parlours?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not been approached, Mr. Chairman, but I believe the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has by Metropolitan Toronto, with the request that the matter be looked into. It would be an amendment to the Municipal Act, and if proceeded with, would be a licensing-type bylaw for the regulation of this type of activity.

Mr. Roy: Apparently some individuals maintain there could be some form of control -- this might not fall exactly within your jurisdiction -- of these people under what is called the Drugless Practitioners Act?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, but for a number of years the Drugless Practitioners Act has been the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. That Act sets out the requirements for the licensing of masseurs and masseuses as we once knew them.

Mr. Lawlor: Masseuses?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Masseuses.

Mr. Roy: Does the member know what that is?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They have existed for a number of years, have their own standards of education and training and this sort of thing. These people have to achieve certain standards before they are examined and are licensed, in effect, by the province as drugless practitioners. The people in the body rub parlours have no licensing requirements whatsoever. They have no training under that Drugless Practitioners Act. They are the first to -- well, it may be questionable according to the member for Wentworth; they may have some form of training.

Mr. Deans: I’ve read the same letter.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Drugless Practitioners Act would not apply in this particular instance. So it would have to be another type of licensing statute in order to regulate this particular type of activity.

Mr. Roy: Do you have any idea whether your confrere is in fact sympathetic or prepared to make some amendments to the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to have some form of control?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, before the member proceeds, I wonder if I could, on behalf of my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), who is meeting at the moment with the dentists of the province, introduce 110 grade 7 students from Sudbury Prince Charles Public School who are on a three-day tour of Toronto and are now seated in the gallery? Whatever number of members happen to be here, if you’d like to greet them, I am sure they’d be pleased.

Mr. Roy: Just one final matter, Mr. Chairman, and it has to do with the uniform store hours. You were quoted back in April as saying that you hope to recommend some action on uniform store hours this session. You were quoted in April as saying that. Can we expect some form of legislation to emanate from your ministry in this session about uniform store hours?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I hope to be able to make certain recommendations to the government during this session as to legislation, or the possibility of same, with reference to uniform store hours.

Mr. Roy: What you are talking about is recommendations to your colleagues, not necessarily legislation brought in at this session. You are obviously not too anxious, or your predecessors were none too anxious, in really taking a position on that. Everybody seems to be sort of backing off. Your predecessor as Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), when he was Provincial Secretary for Justice, went around the province having all sorts of meetings. I take it that this is the type of legislation we are not about to see before the next election?

Mr. Lawlor: No, you are not.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, there is a rather strange matter I’d like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, under this vote. It comes half under this vote and half under the vote of the colleague of the minister, the Solicitor General. Perhaps if he has an opportunity he could speak to his colleague on the half that --

Mr. Chairman: Under the Attorney General, eh?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, half comes under the Attorney General -- I believe the Crown attorney comes under there.

Mr. Deans: Wait until you hear which half at this time.

Mr. Shulman: I hate to tell shaggy dog stories in the Legislature. This is a sort of shaggy hair story, but it involves, if you will believe, the most extraordinary thing I have ever come across all the time I have been in the Legislature.

It turns out that a certain Mrs. Erna Martens died under some rather strange circumstances in the province, and, as a result of a post-mortem being done on her body, the chief coroner of this province, Dr. H. B. D. Cotnam, discovered that her pubic bone was missing -- on which there hangs a tale, if I may say.

In any case, as a result of this discovery he went to the Crown attorney and attempted to lay criminal charges against Dr. Fred Jaffe, the regional pathologist. Now the Crown attorney would not lay those charges, referred him to the police and the police wouldn’t lay the charges. And the whole thing has been the most extraordinary set of circumstances I have ever seen, and I am asking the Attorney General for some explanation of what this is all about.

I’ve given him notice that I was going to present this question to him.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, this woman died on Nov. 19, 1971. She was found on the floor of a garage in an apartment house where she resided. She apparently had only been there for a very few minutes, and was found by some other occupant of the apartment house. The back of her head was damaged. There were remnants of a wine bottle nearby, particularly the neck of the wine bottle and shards of glass. Then the police were called, and so on. She was unconscious when she was found by the other occupant; she died later on that night. In due course a post-mortem was conducted by a Dr. Jaffe, and the coroner’s inquest which presided found that she came to her death as the result of causes unknown, I think it was -- I have the inquest report here -- the inference being that she had perhaps fallen and struck the back of her head.

Up to that time that was the end of the story. Subsequently the then Attorney General (Mr. Bales) directed that she be disinterred in March, 1972, and some days later, on April 11, another post-mortem was conducted by Dr. J. Fisher. In the course of his examination, this being some five or six months after her death, he noticed that the pubic bone was in fact missing and tissue nearby. This was reported to the chief coroner, Dr. Cotnam. He questioned it, because Dr. Jaffe’s report of his post-mortem made no reference to it, and he questioned it by a letter to Dr. Jaffe who responded -- I’m trying to find the letter -- on May 5, 1972, as a result of Dr. Cotnam’s letter of April 27. Dr. Cotnam wrote on that occasion to Dr. Jaffe as follows:

“Examination of the x-rays taken at Toronto General Hospital on April 10, 1972, on the exhumed body of the above deceased shows that symphysis pubis has been removed along with portions of the superior and inferior pubic remi on both sides. It is my understanding that these bones were removed by you at the time of the initial autopsy which was performed at the coroner’s office building, 86 Lombard St., Toronto, on Nov. 19, 1971, although no notations or references are made concerning them on your official report of post-mortem examination dated Dec. 1, 1971, a copy of which was forwarded to my office. I would appreciate an explanation as to why these bones were removed, what examinations were done and what findings were revealed from them.”

I should add that as a result of the second autopsy the coroner’s jury came to the conclusion -- and I will read that and Dr. Jaffe’s response:

“We, the jury, find from the evidence submitted that Erna Martens came to her death as a result of a frontal attack in the form of a blow to the face inflicted by person or persons unknown, forcing a backward fall resulting in the back of the skull impacting the garage floor.”

There had been evidence in both autopsies that she had some damage to the front of her skull and rather massive damage to the back of it.

Dr. Jaffe responded to the inquiry of the chief corner. He said:

“Thank you for your letter of April 27 concerning the autopsy on Erna Marie Martens. It is quite true that I removed symphysis pubis and adjacent portions of the pubic remi at the time of the autopsy.

“In the course of my medical legal duties I am often called upon to examine unidentified skeletal remains. The changes in the symphysis pubis have in recent years been recognized as providing the best indication of age in the 20-to-40-year range. I have thus occasionally removed it in cases of known age and photographed the articular surface. [This woman, by the way, was 39.]

“In addition, in this particular instance, the possibility of a frontal assault had to be considered. Blunt impacts to the front of the body, particularly kicks to the genital region, can rapture the interior symphyseal ligament or split or detach the symphyseal cartilage. I found no injury indicative of a frontal impact. The photograph of the articular surface is available to you.

“I indicated to Dr. Fisher on April 11, in addition to the symphysis pubis I retained the neck organs and block of all organs for microscopic examination as well as the various specimens which were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. I would appreciate receiving copies of Dr. Fisher’s and Dr. Sander’s reports prior to the inquest. Your sincerely.”

Just as a matter of interest on this, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of articles in the press whereby police officers involved in the initial investigation still maintained in spite of the verdict of the coroner’s jury that death was accidental and to this date that is the position. No one has been arrested. No one has been charged with causing her death.

Insofar as the Crown attorney’s office is concerned, I’ll have to take advice from my staff. I am not certain what criminal charges the member for High Park suggests might have arisen out of this matter. I presume the charge of offering an indignity to a human body might well have been considered by some people at that time.

In view of Dr. Jaffe’s response, I presume, subject to receiving advice from my staff, that his answer to Dr. Cotnam’s inquiry was sufficient. No indignity was intended nor, in fact, rendered, in a criminal sense, to the body. He gave a specific reason why the tissue was removed and retained by him.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you completely; I agree Dr. Jaffe did nothing wrong. But the fact remains that following receipt of that letter, Dr. Cotnam went to your Crown attorney and attempted to lay a charge against Dr. Jaffe. There are two questions I’m asking you: What in the world was Cotnam doing? Secondly, why did the Crown attorney refuse to lay the charge? I’ve got another matter related to that which I’ll go on to once we get this straightened out, it we ever do.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can only presume, I don’t know. I assume what the member for High Park tells me are the facts. I’ve been unable to confirm that since our discussion earlier today. If the Crown attorney felt, if he was consulted by anyone -- be it Dr. Cotnam or anyone on Dr. Cotnam’s behalf --

Mr. Shulman: By Dr. Cotnam personally.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right; by Dr. Cotnam personally. Whatever Crown attorney was involved, if he concluded after the matter was brought to his attention and he had perused the documentation that it was a recognized procedure and that it was not improper, not a criminal activity within that offence known as offering an indignity to a human body, he would be within his right not to proceed to lay any charge against Dr. Jaffe.

Mr. Shulman: That answers my second question. My first question is what in the world was Cotman doing? One normally does not lay charges against one’s own pathologist. This is a rather unusual act, I would say.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would take this position on it, that presumably, if Dr. Cotman was not sure whether or not it was a criminal offence, he would have to consult with the Crown attorney to determine whether this was a crime. As I understand it -- subject to direction because I know very little about autopsies -- I am under the impression that if one retains organs from this type of post-mortem there has to be some record of the organs which were retained, so that in subsequent investigation, not necessarily another post-mortem, the documents would indicate that certain portions of a body were retained for a particular purpose.

Mr. Shulman: Not necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That not having being done, Dr. Cotman initiated the inquiry in the letter which I’ve just read into the record.

Mr. Shulman: Wait a minute. I’m not going to let this slur over. There’s another equally serious matter in this whole thing I want to go into. Dr. Cotman didn’t just initiate an inquiry. He went to the Crown attorney and requested that a criminal charge be laid. Let there be no doubt about that. I’ve confirmed it and reconfirmed that. It appears to me there’s something very strange going on somewhere within your department.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In what way? In what way is what strange? Crown attorneys are consulted almost daily by people involved in law enforcement and often members of the public.

Mr. Shulman: That was not a matter of consultation. Let me go a little further so you won’t get yourself into a hole.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The minister has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: All right. I want to help him. Sorry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They’re consulted and if they come to the conclusion that the matter described is not a crime within the meaning of the Criminal Code or the summary offence statute -- if it’s a provincial statute -- they have every right to decline to lay charge or see that one is laid. It’s a judgement call. If the Crown attorney in that instance felt no offence had been committed, I would say he’s well within his area of responsibility to decline to initiate a prosecution.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I agree with you but you’re missing the point I’m asking you about. Let me read exactly what happened.

“The supervising coroner sought unsuccessfully to press a charge under the Criminal Code against Dr. Jaffe of performing an indignity on a human body. The Crown attorney refused to press this charge. Dr. Cotnam then sought to charge Dr. Jaffe under the Coroners Act.”

This was not a question of going and getting advice. This was a deliberate attempt to charge the regional pathologist. The whole thing is the most extraordinary thing I’ve ever seen in my life. That isn’t the end of it. Let me ask you again: Do you not find this whole thing unusual; does it seem reasonable to you?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Obviously the chief coroner was under the impression at that time, because of the circumstances, that an offence had been committed.

Mr. Shulman: Right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He then initiated a step, from the facts as you give them to me -- and I’m not admitting to any of these, or denying or asserting it; I just don’t know --

Mr. Shulman: They are correct.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would presume he went to the Crown attorney, as you have indicated, and the Crown attorney, for one reason or the other, advised him, “I am not going to process this through the criminal courts, no offence having, in my opinion, been committed.” He has every right to make that determination; fine.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I agree.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Dr. Cotman, from your factum there, then attempted, as you say, to initiate some kind of a proceeding under the Coroners Act, for what offence I don’t know. Can you tell me what the --

Mr. Shulman: There is no offence.

Mr. Lawlor: Not under the Coroners Act.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am unable to answer because I am not that familiar with the Coroners Act. I can get a copy here in a minute and see what offences are set out in the Coroners Act.

Mr. Shulman: There is no offence. I’m sorry, perhaps I’m not making myself clear. I want to go on to another aspect of this, but what I’m asking you is, could you please contact Dr. Cotnam and find out what in the world he was doing and why?

Mr. Lawlor: What kind of a vendetta he had.

Mr. Shulman: Because there is a very serious outcome from all this, which you may or may not be aware of. Dr. Jaffe thought Cotnam had flipped his lid and he quit. That’s how you lost your regional pathologist and that’s why, for a period of close to two years, the coroner’s office did not have an attendant pathologist. You only got Hilton Smith, when was it, late 1973 or early 1974? I couldn’t understand why there was no pathologist down there. These facts have just come to light very recently, within the last few days.

Not only did Jaffe lose his job as a result of this, but one of the most experienced homicide detectives in the city lost his job. Det. Sgt. Crawford was given instructions by Dr. Cotnam -- and he will testify to this if you call upon him -- that he was not to communicate the information that was discovered in the case to Dr. Jaffe. Crawford thought this was a most unusual proceeding and proceeded to tell Dr. Jaffe this very fact. As a result of which, Crawford, after 12 years’ experience on the homicide squad, was taken right out of homicide and shipped out to the boondooks where he still is.

Mr. Deans: Boondooks?

Mr. Shulman: Boondocks? Boondocks, I’m sorry, I thought he was shipped to the boondooks but he was shipped to the boondocks.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Is the hon. member finished on this particular item?

Mr. Shulman: No, I am not finished, I am trying to --

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if you would relate it more to the item that we are discussing; the Attorney General.

Mr. Shulman: It has a great deal to do with the Attorney General and the Crown attorney, I should think.

Mi. Chairman: I think the hon. member was straying a little bit.

Mr. Shulman: I rather think not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I can only conclude from what I have heard here so far this evening that the member for High Park is not in any way castigating or criticizing the decision of the Crown attorney.

Mr. Shulman: Oh no, I agree with it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well then, with the greatest of respect, I wonder if we can conclude that. That ends my involvement here in connection with the Crown attorney, if you are not alleging any impropriety on his part. The impropriety if any, that you are alleging, rotates around the activities of the chief coroner.

Mr. Shulman: Not entirely; not entirely.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Tell me more.

Mr. Shulman: I am referring now to the transfer of Det. Sgt. Jack Crawford, which was done through your office.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have nothing to do with Metropolitan police as Attorney General of the province.

Mr. Shulman: Neither does the chief coroner, but the order came from your office. I suggest that to you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The order came from my office?

Mr. Shulman: From your department.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are you suggesting that I can call up Harold Adamson and say, “Transfer one of your police officers”?

Mr. Shulman: I find it absolutely incredible.

Hon. Mr. Clement: So do I.

Mr. Shulman: Yet the fact remains that here was an experienced officer -- 12 years’ experience on the homicide squad -- and as a result of his disobeying the instructions of your chief coroner he was transferred right out of homicide.

All right, I will not pursue this. I would ask the Attorney General if he would mind asking the Solicitor General --

Mr. Deans: And reporting back immediately.

Mr. Shulman: -- to ask his employees, specifically the man who was responsible for the transfer. Let’s look at it this way, we have two questions: Would he ask Cotnam for an explanation of this whole extraordinary series of events, and secondly, will he find out why Crawford was transferred? If, in fact, that was the reason, would he kindly reverse the request that was made so that Crawford can get back on homicide, where he belongs?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, of course I will look into it, but I want to make this perfectly clear, the Ministry of the Attorney General has absolutely no authority over the Metro police.

Mr. Shulman: You have some influence.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They may well be impressed by the Ministry of the Attorney General and I really couldn’t be critical of them if they were. I say that on no occasion have I ever heard, certainly not during my tenure of office, whereby the Attorney General of this province would have the power to pick up the phone or drop a note in the mail to any police chief or police commission, and say, “Transfer this man somewhere out of town” to what you call boondocks. There just aren’t any lines of authority there. It would be completely in excess of the authority of the ministry.

Mr. Shulman: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll look into it. I will request the reason why Dr. Cotnam initiated this inquiry, per your request and, secondly, why Det. Sgt. Jack Crawford was transferred, if in fact he was. I know nothing about it.

Mr. Shulman: All right. I’m not going to pursue it any further. I agree with the minister that the Crown attorney acted correctly. It is a most extraordinary thing that the Attorney General’s department at any level should be able to arrange the transfer of an officer. Yet we learned two nights ago that the Attorney General’s office has strange powers in the movement of officers. I don’t want to go back into that in any further detail, unless pushed. I’ll leave it with the minister and I suggest he get all the facts.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that might work both ways, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 1 carry?

Mr. Roy: Just one question.

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

Mr. Roy: You really have problems with my riding, don’t you? It’s East.

Mr. Chairman: That’s what the Chair said.

Mr. Roy: Some time ago in March you sent me a copy of a letter that you had sent to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) involving a report under section 178 (22) of the Criminal Code. That’s the wiretapping legislation of the Criminal Code. Looking at the offences involved under that section of the Code, I notice that you give a number of statistics, in other words, the number of applications made, the number of applications for renewal of authorization and all this.

I notice one thing that is not in the matters that were sent in that letter is that, as I understand it under that section of the Code -- and if I’m mistaken, you can correct me -- there was a subsection there involving disclosure to the individual whose phone or whatever had been tapped. After a period of time, 90 days after the tap, you would disclose to him the fact that the authorities had put eavesdropping equipment or whatever on his communication. I quite appreciate that this legislation came into force sometime in July, 1974. I note in the statistics that you give and I can be corrected on this, but I don’t see from the matters that you outlined in your letter any mention that these individuals have been advised after a period of 90 days of the authorization.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The taps that are put on are for a period of 30 days unless in the meantime extended by an order of the court. Some of these taps at the time of that report, which carries for a half year from July 1, 1974, to Dec. 31, 1974, which had been put on just prior to the end of the calendar year had been renewed by court order and carried over into January or February as the case may be -- probably January.

I can assure the member that everybody who had a tap on that was not renewed from the date of that in due course received a notice in writing that the tap had been on between the period such and such a thing, the two dates. It will reflect in the next annual report which I must publish some time at the end of the calendar year 1975.

Mr. Roy: So that I understand you -- what you are saying in the House now is that you only advise him once a tap is finished, is that it? You can then proceed --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Within 90 days after.

Mr. Roy: Ninety days after.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The tap comes off.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We don’t like to tell them while it’s on.

Mr. Roy: I can see that; I can see the reason for that. Why wouldn’t you put in this report the number of people who have been advised? I take it some of these tapes were off by the time you sent us this report in March, 1975. Or are you saying the 90 days had not expired?

Hon. Mr. Clement: In some instances 90 days have not expired and therefore we couldn’t include it in the report which, under the Code, I must prepare and publish at the end of the calendar year.

Mr. Roy: You say it is going to be in the following year?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sure.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Do you know if in the omnibus bill that Otto Lang is supposed to be bringing in, he is going to take out that section? Is there any suggestion on your part that --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I haven’t been advised that he is going to delete it. He has not advised me of it.

Mr. Roy: You made some suggestions, I think, to the Minister of Justice about certain amendments you would like to see or changes in the Bail Reform Act and this type of thing. Haven’t you?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I made them on bail; I made submissions to him in connection with the Bail Reform Act. I have had no conversations with Mr. Lang, as far as I can recall, about wiretap legislation.

Mr. Roy: What is your view on that? Do you see any necessity for advising an individual, 90 days after the tap is off, that he has been tapped? You will recall that when that was brought in it was a minority situation. As I recall it, Mr. Lang himself, the federal minister, was not very favourable toward that type of legislation. I gather from your attitude here today that you are not very concerned about advising someone 90 days after the tap is off?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am really not. I can tell the member that of the number of taps we have had on, which are reflected in the report, we have never received one complaint from anybody against whom a tap was placed. We have never received any complaint from them as to the invasion of their privacy or the alleged invasion of their privacy. As a matter of fact, after they get the notice from us they don’t seem to communicate with us very much any more.

I have no hangups on it. When the legislation was drafted, it was drafted with the idea of putting notice in there. It’s mandatory, we must give them written notice within 90 days. That is complied with in every instance. When the tap comes off we have 90 days to notify them and we do. As far as I am aware, in every instance that notice is delivered to them personally or by registered mail, I guess, if we can’t get hold of them individually or personally. I can tell you there has never been a complaint about it.

Mr. Roy: It is just that I find it -- I never quite understood why notification after the 90 days were up was in the Act. If any charges are laid, of course he will find out some time if some of the evidence is as a result of the taps; he will know then. I just wondered whether your people or you, in your dual capacity, know if the police had any strong reservations. As I recall it, at the time the legislation was passed, the police had quite a lobby in the Senate. I think I recall that; in the Senate. I think they convinced the Senate at that point to take it out when the bill was before the Senate. Then it was sent back. I was interested to know whether your law enforcement agencies had strong reservations about giving this notice after 90 days.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have had no conversation that I can recall with any law enforcement body about the notice or about the wiretap legislation at all.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Would the minister correct me if I am wrong: Is it not true that in actual fact, the OPP has not had occasion to give notice to anyone?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, that is wrong.

Mr. Shulman: How many have you had to give notice to?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I direct the member’s attention to the report which was published in the Ontario Gazette. I provided the leaders of the --

Mr. Shulman: Forgive me, I missed it. Tell me.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t have a copy of the report here in front of me.

Mr. Shulman: Approximately.

Hon. Mr. Clement: How many taps were put on?

Mr. Shulman: No, in how many cases did you have to give notice?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Every one of them.

Mr. Shulman: You only have to give notice if you don’t lay charges, isn’t that correct?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Shulman: In every case?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Shulman: Approximately how many were put on?

Hon. Ms. Clement: I think there were 50-odd in the six-month period.

Mr. Roy: There was something like 32 and 18 -- yes, it was 50.

Mr. Shulman: How many had charges laid?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think nearly all of them had charges laid, ranging from murder to arson, to possession of stolen goods. I am sorry; I filed that in the House some time ago and I thought the member perhaps had seen it.

Mr. Shulman: Sorry, my fault.

Mr. Roy: It is all here.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 1 carry? Carried.

Is there any further discussion on any of the other items? If so, which ones?

Mr. Shulman: Item 5.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before item 5?

Mr. Lawlor: Item 3.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2 will carry then; the hon. member for --

Mr. Lawlor: Wait a minute, I had a question on item 2, an individous type of question, thank heavens. It had to do with the Deputy Attorney General of this province traipsing about the face of the earth and making speeches. As I said earlier, I thought his speeches were far more contentful in both senses of that term than anything his lord and master had to say. You know we could get something out of the deputy’s speeches, which is a moot question, as the lawyers say, in the case of the minister himself.

Still, what authority has he got to make these speeches? It strikes me that under the Public Service Act or some remote statute that I trust nobody ever reads, he is out of his ambit -- out of orbit -- with his “Stop-the-world, I-want-to-get-off” kind of thing. He has no authority to make speeches -- he can’t do it under the present administration. I wish he could. It’s a great deprivation to the province for him not to be able to do so. But I put it to you in a totally niggling spirit that all the puritanism that came from my Irish ancestors -- and there are no greater Manichees, let me tell you. They hate the flesh. They hate sex. They hate women. They hate pretty well everything but a natural landscape -- and that they dissolve themselves into.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What about whisky?

Mr. Lawlor: That being the case, I want the law obeyed by the Attorney General’s department -- and I put it to you that the law is that the Deputy Attorney General of this province cannot make speeches on your behalf in the public forum and out there. He’s agin the law.

Hon. Mr. Clement: With the greatest of respect, there is no legislation expressly permitting the Deputy Attorney General, or any other deputy as far as I am aware, to make speeches for his minister; by the same token, there is no prohibition. My brief experience around government has been that deputies and ministers seem to get along much better if the deputies, in fact, do as their ministers direct.

On Jan. 6, the date to which you referred, the Deputy Attorney General was carrying out the mandate of the then Attorney General to attend the opening of the courts here in the city of Toronto and to deliver on that occasion an address in the absence of the Attorney General. The deputy did as he was told to do. The address, as a matter of fact, formed a very integral part of your colleague’s discussions, both Tuesday and today, when we were dealing with the west central pilot project piece of legislation.

Mr. Lawler: Yes, it gave all kinds of matter -- no mind but a lot of matter that he would have otherwise not have had.

Mr. Roy: What are you talking about?

Mr. Lawlor: All right. I so enjoyed Frank Callaghan’s speeches. Would he make more of them under your direction or suzerainty?

Let’s go to item 3 --

Mr. Chairman: Before the hon. member goes to item 3, the hon. member for High Park wants to comment on item 2.

Mr. Shulman: A rather extraordinary thing happened here involving item 2, the Deputy Attorney General, the Crown attorney, the Attorney General and one of the members of this Legislature who had a strange experience with your department some six weeks ago.

One of the privileges, at least I think it is a privilege of this House, is for members of this Legislature to be able to attend in your institutions and speak to your guests and hear their complaints about what may or may not have occurred to them as a result of treatment by your servants.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Correctional institutions? Prisons?

Mr. Shulman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Not my ministry.

Mr. Shulman: If a man has been charged by your department --

Mr. Chairman: I think you are talking to the wrong minister.

Mr. Shulman: Oh no, I am not. I am talking about the Deputy Attorney General. When someone has been charged by your department, then calls in an MPP -- and this happened specifically six weeks ago to one MPP-- and that MPP hears the complaint in relation to the charges by the prisoner, then your Deputy Attorney General subpoenas the MPP to come to court and tell what the prisoner was told. That happened. Now surely this is some form of abuse.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Now, let’s get this straight. This man is called the Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Shulman: Right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He has never subpoenaed you in his life.

Mr. Shulman: All right, it was signed by

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right, the Crown attorney for the city of Toronto is Mr. Peter Rickaby.

Mr. Shulman: That’s his name.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right, Mr. Peter Rickaby. Mr. Rickaby is not here tonight to my knowledge.

Mr. Shulman: He comes under the Deputy Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Fine, and the deputy comes under me.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I haven’t subpoenaed you. He hasn’t subpoenaed you, but Mr. Rickaby did. The reason for your being subpoenaed --

Mr. Lawlor: This is respondent superiore.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- is because you had taken a position in a rather public area, namely this House we stand in right now, and that you had some very important information regarding certain criminal activity or an alleged criminal activity in this city. As a result of that, Mr. Rickaby served a subpoena on you so that you could come to the trial and tell your story where it would do more good. I remember your chasing me down so well, because when I arrived in Niagara Falls I received an urgent message to call you because you were going to do something.

Mr. Shulman: I had to go to the Middle East to get away from your subpoena.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You don’t have to go to Israel to call me. You can call me any time.

Mr. Shulman: I have heard of people running away to Israel but these were most unusual circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, well it seems that you felt it more important to go to Israel on Saturday than to remain and give this information of great interest and value to the court on the following Tuesday.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): You are not supposed to travel on Saturday, particularly to Israel.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Shulman: This was Saturday night.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You were going at noon and you know it. As a result of my contacting some of my staff, I understood later that Mr. Rickaby was able to make contact with you or vice versa. You went to Israel, had a great trip. I understand that the information you had was really not of much value and it was felt by Mr. Rickaby in his wisdom that you contributed more --

Mr. Roy: What else? What else?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- to the administration of justice in this province by going to Israel. I hope you had a good trip.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry?

Mr. Shulman: No. I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, doesn’t the minister find it rather odd that if someone in this House makes a speech on a matter not directly related to a charge but in relation to another matter -- or even if it was in relation to that matter -- he should then be subpoenaed to appear in court to tell about it? It does seem a little strange.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, because if you are telling this House and in turn the public of this province that you have information to the effect that you know that someone’s going to be killed -- and as a matter of fact you paid me the courtesy that day of telling me in advance, outside this House, that someone was going to be killed --

Mr. Shulman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and the first question, you will recall, I asked you “Was it me?” and you said, “No.” Remember that?

Mr. Shulman: I may have made an error.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I became rather cool then and you gave me the name of the intended victim. I at no time discussed that with Mr. Rickaby. It became a subject of a debate in the form of a question and answer later on in the day between you and me. Now, if you infer that you have got secret information --

Mr. Shulman: Secret? I said it right here in the House.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, fine. Then why would you object to saying it in the courtroom?

Mr. Shulman: Oh, now, wait a minute. Let’s get this quite straight. What happened was, I said in the House -- and I gave the name privately to the Attorney General or Solicitor General; I am not sure who it was I was speaking to at the moment -- that there was a threat that a certain individual was going to be killed. I was then subpoenaed into a bail hearing of another individual where I was to give evidence as to what I had been told in confidence in the jail by one of my constituents. I suggest to you that’s improper.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I think the hon. member feels he enjoys the same privileges that exist between solicitor and client.

Mr. Shulman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t want to shock you, but I want to tell you with all the authority I can muster that you don’t enjoy that privilege in law.

Mr. Shulman: Surely as a combined doctor and MPP?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I don’t know what you were treating him for -- bad politics or fallen arches.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, for the first time since I’ve been a member of this House, I have suddenly and traumatically become aware that the member for High Park really does want to be the Attorney General.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 2 carry? Carried.

Item 3. The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Item 3, policy development: I’m sure glad there are fellows like Norm Webster still around.

Mr. Shulman: Why?

An hon. member: He’s not here.

Mr. Lawlor: No, no, but he’s listening to the voice in the burning bush.

Mr. Turner: I didn’t know the member for Lakeshore was a Presbyterian.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I was going to join but I won’t mention it; I’ll lose some votes.

The sum has gone up somewhat from $840,000 up to $1,840,000. Could we have an elaborate, detailed, scappling and analytical type of explanation of that million bucks?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The increase, Mr. Chairman, $992,600, composed of the following: salaries make a total of $343,800; employee benefits, $23,500 --

Mr. Lawlor: What was that last one, I’m sorry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sorry, employee benefits $23,500.

Mr. Lawlor: Stop with salaries. Why $300,000?

Mr. Chairman: Maybe the hon. member for Lakeshore would like him to go through the whole list and then come back.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, can I go through it?

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t care which way you do it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Okay. Transportation and communication is $4,000. Pardon me, services is $599,200 and supplies and equipment, $26,500.

These live categories which I’ve just given you are broken down further as follows: Salaries, $50,900 for general salary revisions; $94,300 for five new complement positions. Both those figures include the employee benefits. The $219,400 is for unclassified and summer student staff employed in the management information system.

The management information system consists of development of the criminal information system, the provincial statutes and municipal bylaw system and the civil information system. The criminal information system is a case flow system that traces the activity association with an individual case through the entire court system. This requires collecting information at the time a charge is received in the court office, at each court appearance, and, at the time of disposition or recording of the sentence if applicable. This is presently being implemented in the central west development region and the regional municipality of Durham.

The provincial statutes and municipal bylaw information system is a case flow system. It collects information on all charges flowing through the provincial court, criminal division, Mr. Chairman, except for charges monitored by the criminal information system. Information on each charge is collected at each court appearance and at the time of disposition. The system is under development presently and will be implemented as a pilot project in the central west development region during 1975.

A feasibility study for a civil information system will be undertaken this year. The objectives of that system will be to monitor the flow of civil cases in the Supreme, surrogate, county and small claims courts. Information for each case will be collected at the time the case is initiated and at each court appearance until the case is finally disposed of. The feasibility study will be undertaken in the central west development region.

The $20,800 is a reduction, and reflects a transfer of one staff member from the system’s development to financial management. The $23,500, which is one of the initial figures I gave, relates to the salary changes indicated above. The $4,000 -- pardon me, $400 -- is a slight decrease in the transportation costs. With relation to supplies and equipment, Mr. Chairman, $26,500 relates to an increase in cost of supplies, replacement equipment and equipment for the new complement. The big item there is services. The amount is $599,200. Of this, $17,900 is an increase in the county and district courts project.

This is part of the continuing programme of reducing operating costs and developing a system of management controls. Studies are being taken in order to bring about a uniform process in administrative procedures and in the forms employed within the county and district court offices. Some of the tasks involved in this project are the observance of the requirements of the forms management and records retention programmes, and the visual identity programme.

The next sum I would like to give the member, made up in that $599,000 sum, is the sum of $16,300 relating to cost increases due to the inflationary factors in various items contained in the programme. That leaves a balance of $565,000 made up of new initiatives as follows. No. 1, unified family court.

Mr. Lawlor: How much was that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s $165,000.

Mr. Lawlor: What’s that for?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That $165,000 covers the development package on the unified family court programme.

Mr. Lawlor: You’ve got all the reports; you’ve got piles of reports.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The money will be used -- if the member will just bear with me for a minute -- the money will be used for diagnostic clinic, family counselling, conciliation services, other helping resources at the intake level to solve problems as much as possible without an actual court hearing.

The next item is the sum of --

Mr. Lawlor: I hate to interrupt you, you know. You mean you’re actually initiating concrete programmes in diagnostic clinics in the area of family law?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: An ongoing, working entity? Where? In Toronto? Elsewhere? It’s $165,000 here.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It will be in the Hamilton area of the central west project; a pilot programme.

Mr. Lawlor: This is interesting.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is, if Ottawa will give us an amendment to the Divorce Act. I can give you a further breakdown of the $165,000.

Mr. Lawlor: Otherwise, you are not using it, if the Ottawa people don’t do that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. We can’t go ahead with the unified court programme unless we get the amendment to the Divorce Act.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What vote are you on?

Mr. Lawlor: We are still on the same vote.

Mr. Renwick: First one?

Mr. Lawlor: Second.

You haven’t broken it down, just keep on going please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. That $165,000 is made up of the following sum -- $25,000, director of support services; $32,000, counselling, that’s intake and support; $2,000, study re expanding family court jurisdiction; $31,000 --

Mr. Lawlor: Wait a minute now, study be damned. We have heard enough of studies. We’ve got studies coming out of our ears. The support thing came through the other day. As you well know, and as the member for Ottawa East has indicated, we have studies on family alone which are 6 ft thick. I don’t know how you will get through them.

In my riding the other night we had a seminar on family law and invited an expert in, and I thought I would bring along the tomes in order to impress the epigonii -- and what happened? I would have had to hire a truck to bring them in. What’s this particular study, $2,000?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Re-election study.

Hon. Mr. Clement: This is a projected cost on a study re expanding family court jurisdiction.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Who did it?

Mr. Lawlor: You’ve done it all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, we haven’t done it all.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know what else you have to do. You know what jurisdiction; you know the areas.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We know about the unified family court plan. We have requested the federal minister to amend the Act. We have not done any study in connection with the proposed unified family court plan and the diagnostic services which we hope to utilize in concert with that at the practical level.

I would like to get onto these others, if I could, and then perhaps we could come back to this, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: You know I will get lost in the shuffle. That’s a trick of yours.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, we’ll talk about this $2,000. Again, it is an estimate.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: Where’s the extra million?

Mr. Lawlor: This one is worthless.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, $31,000 for observation and detention facilities; $25,000 for accommodation; operating expenses for stationary equipment and so on, estimated at $50,000. The total is $165,000.

Okay? Can I go on with the others?

Mr. Lawlor: No, let’s just stay one moment on the $25,000 for accommodation.

What are you doing, renting units? Are you hiring space? Do you not have adequate space within your present court facilities in the Hamilton area? Justify that for a moment.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe the member for Lakeshore will let the minister finish what the million dollars is made up of.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister sat down; he was pleading, practically, for the next question.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Then you wanted to come back to how the $30,000 in salaries was made up; do you remember?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, we will work our way back.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. Okay.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member was quite right, Mr. Chairman, when he touched on the $25,000 for accommodation for the staff and for carrying out this particular unified family court project. This is for the rental of accommodation for staff in carrying out this responsibility.

If I may go on again, that was the one item, I think, of $165,000 which we talked about and which was contained in the $565,000. We also have $200,000 for the civil courts procedure review; that is the study of the rules of practice which has been touched on in various discussions in the House over the past few days. That will cover the expenses of and salaries for a research director, researchers, travel, accommodation, supply services, forms and so on.

Mr. Lawlor: Come off it. What in blazes -- what travelling do you have to do to review the rules of practice of Ontario? Secondly, I would have thought the Law Society of Upper Canada, having a committee on practice, would have done this gratis.

Why does this $200,000, close to a quarter of a million bucks, have to come out of the public purse in this particular regard? It seems to me a pure gratuity.

They know the rules of practice; they live with them; it’s their lives. If you are a first-class counsel you know them, you have them coming out of your pores. If they want to revise them, it’s for their own benefit they revise them, not just for us. It’s internal for the Law Society. Why on earth would they insist upon being paid this kind of public funds to do something which is eminently beneficial to the profession as such?

Mr. Renwick: He’s got you there.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I haven’t run across any practitioner, No. 1, or any law school, No. 2, which is prepared to release one or more of its leading academic members, at no cost to this government, to become involved in a study relating to the rules of practice or anything else without payment of that person’s time and expenses. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Lawlor: I would’ve thought that the benchers in their role --

Mr. Renwick: You just tell the Law Society to do it.

Mr. Lawlor: They have a practice committee and it’s been going for years and years. Do they have to have a public benefit in order to perform that function? It’s incredible.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We feel the matter can best be handled by someone who can take a fresh and imaginative approach to it.

Mr. Lawlor: And who is this someone?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is not just a matter of rearranging the rules as they presently stand.

Mr. Lawlor: Who?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is not a renumbering type of process.

Mr. Lawlor: No; good for you, you have to boil it down.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’ve got to simplify it, I think the member will agree with that, for very obvious reasons.

Mr. Lawlor: Who is going to do it then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have requested the matter be chaired by a leading academic who also has had a vast experience in practice prior to his being involved in the academic pursuits in which he is now engaged.

Mr. Renwick: Who is that? Chief Justice Laskin?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t want to disclose his name at this particular time because we are still negotiating with the law school to which he is presently attached. I don’t want to jeopardize those negotiations.

Mr. Lawlor: And he’s going to need $200,000 of public funds as a leading academic in the area of teaching the practice of law, teaching the rules of the courts, etc. --

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Lawlor: -- in order to do that particular process. I think that is a ripoff.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, he will be the research director. He will be the chairman of the committee, but in effect will be the research director. It will be fulltime. It will be an independent study away from the Law Society, away from this particular building and the rules committee. I’d be glad to give you the breakdown in greater particular. We have allocated $20,000 for the research director.

Mr. Lawlor: No. You are an expert. You must have done very well in law down in Niagara. Why you ever ended up in this bedizened place is totally beyond me. You could have made yourself a fortune out there by simply traducing the opposition.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): And being devious.

Mr. Lawlor: I want to talk about the central point of this thing and stick to it just for a little while. You can leave the academic eliciting various individuals from the legal fraternity into a study of the boiling down of the rules, but as my colleague suggested a moment ago, do you not feel that the Law Reform Commission is already well salaried, and would have been an objective and impersonal enough body in this particular regard?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. I don’t feel that, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to carry out, as much as possible, the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. It recommended that the review of the rules be done by an independent body. I remember standing in this House on another set of estimates about three weeks ago and the hon. member took me to task in the Justice policy field as he read off all the items of recommendations that have come forward on which we have not acted. I stand now before the House --

Mr. Lawlor: I may do that again before 10.30.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- trying to act on recommendations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and you keep saying no, no, like a maiden, about to lose your honour.

Mr. Renwick: Because he is right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Boy, are you old-fashioned!

Mr. Lawlor: Go ahead with your breakdown.

Mr. Renwick: The minister knows we are right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Do you mean the one here or the one there?

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t you ask Betty Kennedy whether it’s a justified expense or not?

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is $20,000 for the research director.

Mr. Lawlor: Let’s have both breakdowns at once.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Then there is $40,000 for two lawyers and $30,000 for three graduate students or equivalent.

Mr. Lawlor: It is an exercise in futility.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is $25,000 for outside research; $20,000 for travel in other jurisdictions; $25,000 for accommodation and $40,000 for supplies, services and forms designed.

Mr. Lawlor: You know it’s an exercise in fatuity, ultimately speaking. We could pinpoint, we could scapple and we could dissect. Why all this money, this $20,000 for travel? What on earth would they need to travel three and a half inches for?

Mr. Renwick: You could set a precedent by allowing us to vary one item in these estimates. It never ever happens.

Mr. Lawlor: In the whole history of the Ontario Legislature never has all this exercise in fatuity brought about the saving of one farthing -- not that we deal in farthings -- not a penny.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Could we negotiate something right here?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In return for allowing you to negotiate a reduction, perhaps only a token reduction, and perhaps even a nominal dollar do you suppose we could move on through the items much more quickly? I’m prepared to knock $1 off each one and then we’ll all be able to make time.

Mr. Renwick: My colleague and I are prepared to revise the rules at half the cost.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Probably do a good job, too.

Mr. Renwick: We’re both leading academics.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 3 carried?

Mr. Shulman: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Under item 3, is any of this money paid to Hickling-Johnston?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Could the minister tell me the cost of the advisory committee in the central west region? How much is budgeted for that? Will the judges sitting on that committee be paid? Will the two legal representatives be paid?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, they will not. The judges will not be paid anything extra. The members of the legal profession sitting on the advisory committee will not be paid any per diem.

Mr. Good: Did you get some Liberals?

Mr. Chairman: Item 3, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I have only a very brief comment. I was looking at your submission to us about the activity report under this particular item of policy development. The whole of the descriptive part of that relates to information services and the information system you’re trying to institute.

If the matter has been dealt with before I had the opportunity to come into the House this evening, fine. If it hasn’t been dealt with, would the minister outline to me what the nature of this information system is and what the purpose of it is going to be?

I can understand that you need an information system but why did you decide that you needed it? What is the purpose it is going to serve? How much of the $1 million increase in policy development is devoted to that particular kind of activity?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I think your colleague from Lakeshore asked that question and I did detail it prior to your entry into the House.

Mr. Renwick: All right, that’s fine.

Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment that I omitted to make on item 1? Since the minister has been in this ministry we do not get copies of the speeches which he makes. From the other ministries, such as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which you occupied -- the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism -- we used to get copies of the public statements which you or your deputy made. We don’t get them, for some reason, from the Ministry of the Attorney General, except on occasion.

I think this would be true. I recall I wrote specifically to the deputy to get his remarks at the opening of the court in place of your predecessor. When we spent the one evening together and you made the address about the connection between crime and liquor the following evening, I didn’t get a copy of that address. I would have liked to have had it to see whether there was any causal connection in that situation. God forbid that we should want you to have a PR operation, but I think we would like to get your statements because, even though ill-founded, they’re obviously of significance to us in the opposition so that we know how to deal with your public pronouncements.

Mr. Shulman: An expert is not needed to hold those two jobs.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I will undertake to see that the Justice critics of both parties are provided with any public pronouncements.

Mr. Renwick: And speeches.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I urge you to take them home and read them and enjoy them.

Mr. Lawlor: No, we cannot promise that. That’s too much. There are limits.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Why you have been off my mailing list, of course, remains to be seen. There may be very good reasons, personal reasons, for the member for Lakeshore, but I have no reason to take the member for Riverdale off my mailing list. I’ll put you back on.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t want to be on your mailing list.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3.

Mr. Lawlor: On item 3, one other question as far as I am concerned. Last year you had a complement of 25; now you have a complement of 29. You mentioned five extra people; I see four. Last year you had three legal officers, now you have four.

The great excess of energy has come with three executive officers; you had no executive officers last year. I know these designations are fairly mobile. What do these executive officers do? How much are they paid? Would the department be unable to exist without their execution?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They are really technicians, Mr. Chairman. They are shown as legal officers. They are involved with the central west project programme and the information --

Mr. Lawlor: Electronic technicians?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Lawlor: Electronic?

Hon. Ms. Clement: No. They are really consultants in connection with the project. They consist of one legal officer and one secretary for the policy development division; and the two executive officers and one secretary for the management information system. The two executive officers are consultants who work in the region. They are involved in the gathering of the information.

Mr. Lawlor: How much extra money?

Hon. Mr. Clement: About $18,000 each.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 carried? Carried.

Item 4, the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Wait a minute, I’ll see what it is first. Yes, I have a nice little speech.

Every year, “Summer is icumen in” -- i-c-u-m-e-n, for the purpose of Hansard; it’s taken from Chaucer, the first line of Troilus and Cressida. I’m off on my tangent. It’s a famous phrase in middle English, frequently quoted.

“Summer is icumen in”; yah! Now we’ve got Chaucer off my chest, I now may proceed to the Law Reform Commission report.

Before us this year, we have the -- and with what a rush; what a rush of breath was there, in order that prior to the coming into being of these estimates in order that we not be hung up and would see what fine work was being done in the support obligations and family law which was tabled in this House three or four days ago.

I confessedly don’t pretend to have been able to peruse it to any depth. And then that monumental, I would almost say cataclysmic event --

Mr. Chairman: Is this item 4 you are on?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, yes. You used to be a friend of mine.

Mr. Chairman: I still am, but I’d like to stick to item 4.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): You are discriminating against my friend.

Mr. Lawlor: I was waiting for the cataclysmic, the apocalypse. It came, something to do with the uniform law and the form of the international will. I thought that might have been the will of some kind of master, but I discovered that it has to do with some kind of uniformity, particularly the assets of Ontario domiciles who have property abroad and who happen to die.

An hon. member: Like Hughes.

Mr. Lawlor: Hughes and Taylor and other people of that kind. These are the ongoing projects. The new reference to religious institutions, mortmain, is coming ahead. The change of name, the problem there. Women do tend to use Ms. these days. Sometimes, in a particular emphasis upon independence, they want to use their maiden name. I make no apology for the use of the word, they “screw” up the system.

I find it totally delightful, yet underneath it all, underneath all my radicalism, and on the other side of my gross small “c” conservatism, there is an anarchist. He wants to destroy the whole wretched works, in the simplest way. Not parading up and down Bay St., not presenting petitions, not growing hair, not laying outside the doors of this chamber, not doing most of the things that radicals, participatory democracy people, have sought to do. Simply change your name; having, maybe, to suit your tripartite personality, schizophrenic in the extreme. Having three different personalities, why not have three different names?

What it does to the system is devastating and the Law Reform Commission of Ontario are having great difficulty gestating a change-of-name alteration for the Province of Ontario. People can use any name they please, provided they are not seeking to defraud anybody. If one wants, one can have three or four names, etc. But the complaint is that the whole recording apparatus is upset.

These are the works they’ve done recently, the works in progress.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t buy it, Ed; don’t buy it.

Mr. Lawlor: The Ziegel report on the sale of goods, which has been put over, is an extremely interesting report --

Mr. Laughren: Don’t buy it, don’t buy it.

Mr. Laughren: Whose side are you on?

Mr. Lawlor: Whose side are you on?

Mr. Turner: That’s a good question.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): He just gets a bit carried away.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: You know, these guys on university affairs really get off the hook pretty easily, don’t they? I don’t think it’s the natural loquacity of lawyers --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): They are more liars than anything else.

Mr. Lawlor: -- that keeps us here in wounded suspension, about 5,000 ft up, week after week. Or is it? Sometimes I question it. Have they no matter? Or have we too much matter?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, that’s the answer.

Mr. Lawlor: What’s the matter? No mind?

Mr. Laughren: Not enough grey matter, that’s the problem.

Mr. Lawlor: What have you got in mind? No matter. That’s what it comes to. Listen, this is important, stop it.

We are dealing with the law of consideration. You know, the law of consideration is one at the most outmoded, damned pieces of nonsense retained from the 13th century. You have to produce a quid pro quo to enter into a contract or put a seal on it in the alternative. What bloody nonsense!

Mr. Renwick: I disagree. It is a most important item.

Mr. Lawlor: My colleague disagrees, so I’ll go on to frustration. What a frustration my colleague is in this particular context.

All this stuff is coming forward, but it is certainly taking a long time. What I really want to come to in this year, under this particular vote --

Mr. Roy: Yes, get to the point.

An hon. member: He’s getting to it.

Mr. Lawlor: This is why being in committee is ever so much better, because there is just the remote possibility of a descension from cloud 37 of a fellow by the name of Leal, who could drop in on the committee to report to us and give us a sense of the thing. I’m sure, and it’s been mentioned to you before, that prior to your accession, and even with that accession, there was and is an enormous amount of disillusionment, frustration and ennui inbred in the Law Reform Commission of this province, which I shall try to prove must exist in the light of the things that you simply have not done.

For a while again, as was mentioned earlier today, under Wishart we moved ahead. The report was presented; within two or three months it was law. What a lift. What a sense of getting something done. Vitality was in the commission. The whole thing has ossified --

Mr. Renwick: I disagree with that.

Mr. Lawlor: You’ll have an opportunity some day, I hope six months from now, to make your own speech. Keep quiet in the meantime.

On page 22 of their report this year they talk about the work that they had done on the enforcement of judgement debts having been deferred. It had to be deferred, they claim, because of the family law support project. I think that’s a great shame, because a good many people -- working class people, people unable to speak for themselves basically -- are deeply hurt by the enforcement of judgement debts. Some kind of alteration in that system is required, at least to the extent that when garnishee proceedings are taken against individuals in debt that they have the opportunity to appear before a judge in a sort of preliminary inquiry or on a preliminary basis to plead their position. As things presently stand the axe of 30 per cent falls.

And what happens when the garnishee is served on the employer? They are finished, normally. They have lost their jobs. They are dead. Ought not there to be a little buffer in between, where, in order to issue the garnishee, notice should be served upon the judgement debtor, and he have an opportunity to appear in the court before a judge, to plead his financial circumstances.

Mr. Renwick: Or outlaw it entirely, that’s the answer.

Mr. Lawlor: Well I would prefer that, but at least he has an intermediate step, that he be given a chance, as is normal in our system of justice, to make representations on his own behalf prior to being fired, because that is what invariably happens. If a garnishee is served on a major company, no employer -- how often have you heard this -- no employer is prepared to become a collection agency on behalf of a collection agency. That’s all there is to it. It messes up his bookkeeping badly. That is an area which I regret very much.

I looked over the reports last evening and nicked off, I would say, approximately 20 pieces of recommendation, 20 reports about which you have not done anything; or your predecessors have done nothing to implement. You tried to make up for lost time today. I was really amused, at 2 o’clock, where my 20 was reduced to perhaps 16 items that hadn’t been given any attention. I think for the moment it is worthwhile just to mention a few of the things that lie in abeyance, that nothing has been done about, and I can’t understand why not. I won’t mention any names, but you had some deadhead predecessors in this particular regard.

As I say, the whole situation has dried up since Mr. Wishart, and there is no fecundity in the situation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No what?

Mr. Lawlor: Fecundity.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, fecundity.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes; you know the difference between being fecund and infecund, don’t you, John? I mean, you have been there. All right, fecundity, damn it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, is that parliamentary language?

Mr. Lawlor: Proposed extension of guarantees, guarantor’s liability’ and construction bonds -- well, you did something along those lines, I suspect, with respect to the lien operations and with respect to the government’s responsibility in this particular regard today.

The proposed adoption in Ontario of a uniform wills Act; no, you haven’t really touched that yet. You resemble a sort of Kang dynasty mandarin.

Mr. Roy: Only you would know it.

Mr. Lawlor: That bow was completely out of place.

Mr. Roy: Can’t you stand tip straight when we talk to you?

Mr. Lawlor: Wills -- that was Feb. 5, 1968. Next, protection of privacy in Ontario, Sept. 10. You have moved on that, although this report doesn’t indicate it at all; but you have moved in a most efficient way. My colleague and I have remonstrated against your failure, really, to place certain kinds of privacy investigation, the investigative reporting aspects, under surveillance and to close in on it; it is a real porous aspect of the legislation in your department. Nevertheless, there is no mention of that in the area here which they set out having to do with implementation.

The Insurance Act of Oct. 3, 1972; Trade Sale of New Houses and the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor -- what’s wrong there? -- Oct. 4, 1968.

Limitations of Actions -- oh, we got some promises finally today; a move, in the Highway Traffic Act context, where how many firms of lawyers over the years have been really strung out, really eviscerated by the one-year limitation, finally going to two; and all the rest of that legislation.

Do you know when that came in? The date of the report was Feb. 3, 1969 and it is six years later now. It was six years before we got any action on that and we haven’t got the action yet. We have a promise. While we have deep feelings for the present Attorney General in this regard, we rely on his goodwill that some time in the fall, should he last that long, we will have a debate on this legislation.

The Sunday observance pledge -- I won’t even discuss it -- came in on Feb. 26, 1971. Nothing has been done and nothing will be done in my opinion subsequent through the next election. As for land registration in 1971, there is nothing here with respect to implementation. I had thought we had done something on section 16 of the Mortgages Act. I haven’t checked it out. Perhaps you could correct me, but it indicates that it hasn’t been moved on.

As for powers of attorney legislation, No. 10, January, 1972, I don’t blame you for not doing a damn thing with that. That was where the whole Law Reform Commission was placed in some kind of a suspect situation. It was the real problem of the academic against the practical; the problem of the theoretical, nice coherence, over against what works out there.

That legislation came to the House and was withdrawn, or at least never acted upon, for very good reasons indeed as to its disposition. Nevertheless, it should be reviewed and the particular assertions made by one of the law firms in Toronto about the deficiencies in that legislation should be caught up and assimilated into it.

The business of powers of attorney going on indefinitely after death is really a questionable thing. I think the intent was right but not the ultimate effect. If it could encompass the objections raised by that law firm, then the powers of attorney situation should be revamped, reviewed and presented again to this House.

Nothing has been done about occupiers’ liability. Consumer warranties and guarantees on the sale of goods -- nothing done to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the member for York Centre who is the prime mover; and not the Attorney General’s department of this province, might know if there is anything done. I think the thing lies in abeyance to say the least, and is probably sterile. The non-possessary Repairmen’s Lien of Oct. 4, 1972, No. 13 -- nothing done. Then there is the problem with the administration of the courts. I watched your tentative spastic gestures out there in the central west project as I sat this afternoon with some degree of cynicism and almost Montaignian scepticism.

Is the guy who is going to run that project and the appointment that you get it under going to become the master in Ontario? The one who has the inside track and who knows how this thing operates? It would seem to me that you will have to get an overall operation with a purview across the board as to the interrelationship of these various courts and as to their internal administration. Pilot projects are fine, but I don’t think you can take a model on that scale and really apply it to the large-scale model as to efficacy and efficiency over against the whole province on a wider perspective.

I think you have to add to some of these things in law and in government the courage to launch, and you ain’t got it. You want to go out and dabble in some remote laboratory and see if you can distil some sort of philosopher’s stone. I really have doubts about that operation. When are you going to act on the report on the Solicitors Act and the report on motor vehicle action and compensation?

That is No. 17 as I wrote down on my list here, leaving apart the business of the merger of the courts, which I suspect will come later in these estimates. There is in other words a very large number of things that lie fallow so to speak, and which you have plenty of room to move in upon. I only make a plea. It seems to me that the Law Reform Commission has slowed up, frustrated, and turned in upon itself in its work if it doesn’t see what it wants moving ahead.

What the hell’s the point in working away, in tendering legislation, making representations to a reactive, dull government which doesn’t respond? As I say Wishart did and I hope you do. I hope with a little prodding you will do even more than you might otherwise do over here. There are vast areas of the law, starting with the law of unjust enrichment, which they haven’t even begun to touch. The whole formulation as to the operation of the courts and the law in general requires constant revision, constant rethinking. That which they have done three or four years before could very well stand a second look in the light of ongoing circumstances. That’s the reason these Law Reform Commissions were generated. The law of expropriations in Ontario could stand a second look, if I may say so, at this time in history although we passed it under the Wishart regime and all elements in the House did yeoman’s service to get it through.

These are the things that bother me. I think you are almost like one lost, plodding in country lanes in the mud, rather than getting ahead. What are your prospects? What are your plans? What do you propose to do about this in order to give this some kind of efficacy?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the compliments heaped upon me by the member for Lakeshore and feel I must respond to his blandishments so he will know I am not taking it all too seriously insofar as his compliments are concerned.

Mr. Lawlor: I hope not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Many of the recommendations first initiated by the Ontario Law Reform Commission were really as to technical content or change of existing legislation. I suggest to him, with the greatest of respect, it was fairly simple initially to implement changes which were recommended after study.

As the Law Reform Commission has progressed over the years, many of the pieces of legislation brought forward by it are of tremendous social impact and cannot carry only the imprint of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. They must be considered not only in the legal but in the social and economic context. For this reason many of the pieces of legislation recommended by the Law Reform Commission have had to be considered with other ministries and agencies of this government.

The Marriage Law Reform Act was recently introduced in this House; it is the successor to last year’s Bill 117. At the time 117 was introduced the then Attorney General said he was going to let it die on the order paper and he asked for criticisms, observations and so on from the public and other groups.

You must wait. Some of these things are very ongoing and you must have input not only from the Law Reform Commission; you must have input from those who might be affected very much by proposed changes.

I draw the member’s attention to the summary of the Law Reform Commission -- or the appendix which he was referring to -- and I suggest there is no other jurisdiction in Canada today that’s achieved the recommendations implemented as are set out in those four pages, and I don’t intend to read them.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s inadmissible. That’s no argument at all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’re leading the pack and that’s not good enough.

Mr. Ferrier: You’ve got to come up with a better argument than that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Perhaps we could go through these and I could deal with those which have been mentioned by the member this evening.

Mr. Lawlor: Start with 66. Proposed extension of guarantor’s liability and history.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. This problem has not been found to be very serious in practice. The type of bond which the report discusses, namely labour and material bonds, really will have no relevance once the bills introduced today relating to the Mechanics’ Lien Amendment Act, the Public Works Creditors Payment Act, which is being repealed, and the other piece of legislation --

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that’s what I thought you’d say.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s what you thought I’d say.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what I said a few moments ago when I was on my feet.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. All right. We’re acting on it.

Mr. Lawlor: You’ve got some bright people in your department. They rush. “The Attorney General’s coming on at 3 so let’s get it in at 2.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, the reason we went ahead with a lot of legislation today is because I didn’t have to be in this House last night. It’s surprising what a good night’s sleep will do for a member.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I’ve tried it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If I could get out of here right now you’d be surprised what I might bring forward tomorrow morning at 10:30 or 11 o’clock in the introduction of legislation.

The next matter I would like to touch on is the Uniform Wills Act.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, what about that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have been concerned about how to draft wills. It’s proposed that as part of the estates package of family law reform this report be implemented together with the international convention dealing with the protection of privacy, bearing the date September, 1968.

Mr. Lawlor: Wait a minute. Is it going to be enacted in conjunction with and along with the international one?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’re going to bring in a family estates package and that item will be involved in there.

Mr. Lawlor: When are you bringing in the family estates package?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Probably this autumn.

I would like to deal now, Mr. Chairman, with the Uniform Wills Act -- pardon me, the protection of privacy.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, what about that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. This is a very complex item, not only in Ontario but across the entire country. The Consumer Reporting Act, which was introduced in 1973, was a necessary first step in this field and partially realized the intent of the report. An inter-ministerial committee has already been set up, to be chaired by counsel from my ministry, to deal with privacy in computers. I hope to be able to report later to the House regarding the progress of that committee.

The Insurance Act I cannot speak on, because my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) will have to deal with that report.

Dealing with the trade in and sale of new houses, again my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is working on a house warranty scheme which I have reason to believe is fairly close to implementation. The hon. member for Lakeshore will recall the discussions in this House over the past year or year and a half relating to the warranties on new housing. We’ve had discussions over the past year with the federal government, with representatives of the construction industry in this province and with insurance industries in this province who would provide the necessary bond.

The federal government has indicated a great interest in it -- and, I would suggest, a very necessary interest, because we cannot go ahead unilaterally on a provincial programme for house warranties unless it is acceptable to major banking and mortgage institutions and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. In my previous capacity, I stated on many occasions that I hoped the federal government would occupy this field and we would gladly back off but, if it did not, we would have to go ahead with provincial legislation.

Dealing with the limitation of actions -- the commission recommended that drafting should await the acceptance of the report’s recommendation and the commission itself points out at page 13 of the report that the task of drafting such a bill will be extremely difficult and time-consuming.

Mr. Lawlor: Six years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Perhaps the member noted today a step forward in a matter he’s already touched on and which was a subject of discussion last year when taking my estimates, dealing with the insurance branch. I was pleased to be able to bring that legislation forward today.

Mr. Lawlor: You said next fall again you would bring in the revised limitations.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I said I would bring in what?

Mr. Lawlor: You would bring in the revised limitations Act. You thought you may be --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I hoped to be able to go forward with it this fall.

Mr. Lawlor: Is it being drafted?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have people drafting it right now and taking a look at it. I’ll tell you, I don’t know whether we are going to wait for the drafting of the entire thing or do it in two parts.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s fine. That’s good.

Hon. Mr. Clement: What have we got next? I’m so full of progress reports here I don’t know where to go. Family law -- many of the recommendations dealing with torts are implemented in the Family Law Reform Act which is before the House at the present time. In the report on family law relating to marriage, some of the recommendations will be implemented by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations when the new Marriage Act is introduced by him.

Sunday observance legislation -- you will recall that a green paper was produced by the Justice secretariat dealing with Sunday observance legislation. One of the first things I did when assuming my new responsibility, Mr. Chairman, was to communicate by letter and subsequently by telephone and personal meeting with the federal Minister of Justice to ascertain if he and his colleagues would consider enlarging the penalty section under the Lord’s Day Act of Canada. He has acknowledged those inquiries and conversations and has advised me he will give it serious consideration.

As the member knows, it has been held by the Supreme Court of Canada that Lord’s day legislation is a quasi-criminal statute and therefore within the sole purview of the federal government. I would suggest that if the penalty sections of that Act which were drafted and implemented in 1906 were updated substantially, many of the practices now complained about would disappear after one or two prosecutions.

Mr. Renwick: The court may even decide it’s not quasi-criminal any more.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would be glad if they did. Land registration -- I understand from the executive director of the property rights division that they are moving toward this total land registry system but it will be a very gradual process unless substantial funds are allocated for this programme -- that is, survey costs and this sort of thing. Again, that is within the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

With reference to section 16 of the Mortgages Act -- I don’t even know what the section says. I truly don’t know what the section says; I haven’t had an opportunity to look it up. We have no complaints about it. It’s a feeling in the ministry that no serious problem exists with reference to this section. That’s the information I have on it and perhaps my friend can help me in a moment.

The Powers of Attorney Act, being Bill 1, 1973, was obviously designed to survive the death of the individual, perhaps protecting him during his incapacity preceding death and giving the necessary legal handle to those in whom he placed his authorization. However, the recommendations create conflict with our mental incompetency legislation and create a safeguard procedure for such powers that would result in the same type of distasteful proceeding that the report wants to avoid. While the idea is a good one, Mr. Chairman, the scheme worked out for it is not desirable. Reports on this subject have been made by the Manitoba and BC Law Reform Commissions and it is presently under study by us.

Consumer warranties and guarantees: The green paper has been released by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I understand they are close to implementing many of the observations set forth in that green paper.

Mr. Lawlor: You mean they are going to bring a bill in?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I think so.

Mr. Lawlor: Well!

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Non-possessory Repairmen’s Lien Act; that is presently being drafted. The Administration of Ontario Courts, parts I, II and III -- we have dealt with those.

Mr. Lawlor: Right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Report on family law.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s there.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, that’s in part III.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Report on the Solicitors Act -- this has been circulated.

Mr. Lawlor: Wait a minute. On the family law thing, you really can’t pretend you’ve done much yet. What are your intentions; honourable or what?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, those who have greater expertise in this area advise that there will be a great number of difficulties in implementing this. The amendments to the Child Welfare Act currently before the assembly will result in partial implementation by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The estate package of our intended family law programme, if implemented, will go a considerable way toward ensuring that all children, whether they are born in or out of wedlock, be treated equally. We’ll be coming forward with more on that in the not too distant future.

With reference to the Solicitors Act, this report has been circulated to the Law Society and the county bar associations. A policy submission based on the reports being prepared will recommend a new Solicitors Act, implementing many of the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission.

The next one -- the report on the motor vehicle accident compensation matter -- is over at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I cannot give you any up-to-date report on that at the present time. The administration of the Ontario courts, part III, dealing with masters, is already now history in this House, having been introduced a week or so ago.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, that’s only a small part one chapter.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have already dealt, in our discussions earlier today, with the unified family court, and I am waiting to hear back from the federal Minister of Justice to see if he will accede to our request to amend the Divorce Act in order that we might implement a unified family court plan.

Mr. Lawlor: On that one, which is so important, and on which the spokesman for the Liberal Party spoke, it’s so logical, there’s so much common sense in the proposals, have you any indication at all proceeding from Ottawa as to their amenability in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I beg your pardon? I was talking to my deputy and I didn’t hear you. I am sorry.

Mr. Lawlor: I was just saying, it is so logical that it seems so obvious that the family court should be restructured along the lines indicated by the Law Reform Commission giving a coherence and an amplitude in the whole jurisdictional scope to it. Whether some parts of that scope is retained in other courts or not, at least it is found there as a central unit, everything from family counselling through to divorce; the whole works. Have you elicited or been able to get in any way any indication of how amenable the federal people may be?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I have not, Mr. Chairman. I wrote, I think it was on Feb. 19 initially, to the federal minister and I wrote again on May 1. I don’t think I have received a reply. I wrote on May 1 referring to my previous correspondence and asking to hear back from him. But I have not personally discussed that with him.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. P. Taylor: I have some considerable interest in the issue of the amendment, and the bringing up to date of the statute of limitations. My interest was sparked when it was drawn to my attention that the CBC programme “Ombudsman” dealt with this subject on Jan. 5 --

Mr. Roy: That’s the programme the minister avoids.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- and that programme --

Mr. Roy: That is what the “Ombudsman” said.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- was considerably enhanced by the participation of the hon. member for Lakeshore, I’m glad to say. I have been reading his comments on this issue with great interest.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much, that’s the sweetest thing you have ever said to me.

Mr. Roy: And you don’t even deserve it.

Mr. P. Taylor: The hon. member for Lakeshore is a fine member of this House and we are happy to tolerate him when he gets a bit long-winded.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much.

Mr. P. Taylor: But seriously --

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t heckle you tonight.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- we have heard tonight at considerable length from the Attorney General as to his intentions with respect to an amendment to various limitation actions, but this discussion has been --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): No action at all.

Mr. P. Taylor: No, that is true, there is no action -- it’s a limited action, if there is any action at all. But I think it is very important in the context of this discussion to put on the record a slightly less ephemeral and more practical discussion and detail some of the situations that arise when statutes of limitations act against the interests of individuals. I’m quoting from the programme on Jan. 3 on CBC television, the major participant in this connection being Mr. John McLaren, dean of the faculty of law of the University of Windsor -- a fine university, I am sure. He said:

“The first piece of legislation was in England in the 17th century and one of the remarkable things is that the Act of 1623 provides the basis for the legislation in Ontario and British Columbia, in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. You look at the wording of the legislation in those provinces; it’s almost exactly the same as the wording in the English Act of 1623. There are just too many problems with the limitation laws as they are today for the law to stay as it is; too many injustices being done to citizens, and it seems to me that it is high time that those lawyers and members of the public started speaking out on these issues.”

In the course of the programme Dean McLaren outlined a number of typical situations that arise in this area. He said:

“One of the classic cases you get of a situation where a person who should be able to sue doesn’t know that they have the facts on the basis of which they can sue is where a medical man leaves something inside a patient. That may not become apparent until very much later, but because we don’t have in our law any provision allowing for an extension of the time period there is no way in which that person can launch the suit.”

He goes on to describe a situation in 1961 where a doctor did in fact leave an instrument in a patient and because the instrument was only discovered and became a problem for that patient many years later, the patient lost his right to sue the doctor.

Dean McLaren goes on to cite another case. He says another group is a group which deals with limitation periods within limitation periods.

Not only do you have a limitation period -- that is, you have to sue within a certain amount of time -- you also have to give notice of your claim within a certain amount of time. It’s what he calls a limitation within a limitation. The period for lodging the notice of claim has run out.

Mr. Roy: With municipalities it’s seven days; it’s ridiculous.

Mr. P. Taylor: Dean McLaren continues:

“One further problem which arises because you have different limitation periods in different provinces is that a person can sue successfully in one province but cannot enforce that judgement satisfactorily in the other province because that province has a shorter limitation period.”

Of course, my friend from Lakeshore has referred to the existence, as has the minister, of a report dated 1969 of the Ontario Law Reform Commission entitled “Report on Limitation of Actions.” It is Dean McLaren’s contention, in this television programme of Jan. 5, that that report has led to no actions whatsoever. I believe that statement may now be slightly out of date but certainly the field of the statute of limitations needs a great deal more attention.

To quote Dean McLaren, “It’s time that we got away from 1623 and the aftermath of 1623, and came up with a rational, fair system, which is designed to protect not only the people being sued but also those who are suing.”

I’ve listened with great interest to the statements and apparent intentions of the Attorney General. I realize he’s under quite a bit of strain; he’s carrying three cabinet hats these days.

Mr. Good: He’s dragging two of them.

Mr. Shulman: I like the precedent.

Mr. Renwick: He’s not. He’s not under any strain at all. He’s never looked more expansive, relaxed.

Mr. Lawlor: Never looked more rested in his life.

Mr. P. Taylor: He refers glibly to intentions of bringing in amendments along these lines in the fall. I presume he means after the election and I think that’s a presumption he can’t make at this point in the game. Of course, he has no idea whether he’ll be in that position in the fall.

However, I take the minister’s word that he is sincere in what he says about his intentions, should he be so fortunate as to be in his present position in the fall.

I merely ask the minister to deal very briefly with this and offer us a little more proof or try to convince us of the extent of these amendments. If he could recap in general terms without referring to special legislation -- could he recap and tell us just how extensive this legislation will be? Will it be in omnibus form or will it be a whole series of bills designed to amend an equally large group of Acts? How serious is the Attorney General in this field? Because it has gone many years without anything, or virtually nothing, being done.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, sections in the law dealing with limitations appear in two forms in the statute. There is a specific statute of limitations which is really a gathering of many types of actions in the one statute, imposing the limitation sections therein.

In the second group of limitations there are those that are specifically contained in individual statutes, such as the Public Authorities Protection Act and the ones I introduced amendments to today, namely, the Highway Traffic Act, the Trustee Act, the Fatal Accidents Act and so on.

Mr. Roy: The undertakers Act.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I suppose they really have to be done that way so that if one is going to bring an action under the Highway Traffic Act, one need only look at that Act and see what rights exist, including the limitation and so on.

Limitations are something which really have to be there. What we’re really saying is are the periods reasonable in this day and age? In many instances, it would appear to me they are not reasonable in this day and age and perhaps have outlived their usefulness. There’s nothing unique in this observation because the Law Reform Commission makes the same observation.

I think changing it in order to comply with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and in order to achieve one more tick off the list is not the approach to it. I indicated to the member for Lakeshore a few minutes ago we may well have to proceed by doing it, first, on the individual basis of the specific statutes, as I have initiated today with the Highway Traffic Act and so on, the Fatal Accidents Act and Trustee Act -- by doing those and then coming back to the statute of limitations itself. Because the statute of limitations itself, as far as I am aware, contains little of harmful effect; it’s the individual statutes -- the limitations in the actions against medical practitioners, municipalities and this sort of thing -- that should be looked after. In terms of my priorities, I would take that approach to it. That is where it stands right now.

There are limitations in the main Act, the Limitations Act itself, dealing with six years in contract -- I’m not concerned about that; I don’t think anybody in this House is at the present time. That is the approach I am going to take to it. I have the carriage of some of the legislation but certainly not all of it, and I will be bringing forward recommendations to my colleagues who have the carriage of these other types of legislation, asking them to be supportive in looking at and amending in accordance with the recommendations.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask another couple of questions? First of all, could the minister say whether or not what has happened today in this House, and what he says he intends to do in the near future, is kind of the culmination of a co-ordinated effort, if we can call it that, within the ministry, to bring these things into this House and to stop the stalling and making excuses as to why various pieces of legislation can’t be amended?

Is what you are doing now the start of a really substantive effort to clean up a lot of these injustices?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, that is the way I would look at it. I don’t think it’s a matter of my making up excuses. As I pointed out to my friend from Lakeshore --

Mr. Roy: You do.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I would like to send over to you, or perhaps you have a copy there in front of you, some of the achievements of the Ministry of the Attorney General over the past few years. We heard about the ones where nothing has happened but, of course, we didn’t hear about the ones that have been dealt with, page after page of them. You see, we don’t deal with those; we forget those. That’s human nature; I’m not critical. But that’s the way the system works, I guess --

Mr. Lawlor: The minister has nothing to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But, in any event, I will carry out my responsibility with those Acts over which I have jurisdiction, and I will urge my colleagues to do the same in those Acts over which they have jurisdiction in which the limitation periods are felt inadequate in view of today’s needs.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you. I presume that the minister means he is going to proceed aggressively in this area and that we can count on lots of bills to eliminate lots of injustices in the limitation field.

One final question: The programme that I referred to earlier said that limitations vary in length from seven days to 30 years and that they are buried in over 60 statutes. Would that be a reasonably accurate statement?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have no idea. I challenge the 30 years. I can show you a section that says 60 years.

Mr. P. Taylor: Could the minister define for us the nature and extent of this project of bringing all these Acts and statutes up to date in this area? How big is the job?

Mr. Good: Bigger than both of us.

Mr. P. Taylor: In general terms, if you like -- in round numbers.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have recognized the extent of the job; let me tell you, it’s not just something you sit down and dash off before coffee and move on to the next bill. We have retained the services of Mr. Lachlan MacTavish, former legislative counsel, and now executive secretary of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, to prepare a draft bill based on the recommendations of the Law Reform commission.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would that be an omnibus bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It would be an omnibus bill. The other ones, of course, would he drafted within the ministry, assuming that we feel we can go forward with extensions of time if necessary.

Mr. P. Taylor: Well, if we perceive that the public who are interested in this field think that there is a lot of foot-dragging going on here, would the minister please try to give us an impression as to how great this problem is -- in round numbers, if he prefers? How many sections in an omnibus bill and how many other separate bills would we be talking about here? I think it is important that the public understand. If the minister wants to make a claim for a difficult problem I think he ought to try to articulate just how difficult it is or how massive it might be.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We’ll just take a look at the Limitations Act here and I’ll just tell you the number of sections that are in there right now. They are rather significant. You know, the public perception of a lot of this stuff is that -- you say foot dragging; I’ll bet you one of the biggest problems isn’t that the public thinks we are dragging our feet; as I understand it, the concern of the public, or those who speak for the public, is that they don’t know about these things. The CBC, in its “Ombudsman” programme dealing with limitations, was very concerned about the Public Authorities Protection Act used against the plaintiff in an action. The limitation period in that instance is six months. But let me tell you that the case wasn’t started until over four years after the incident was complained of. I met with the CBC “Ombudsman,” Mr. Cooper, and I asked him what period of time he suggested would be equitable. He suggested three years, and I said, “Well, the guy’s still out of luck.” There has to be a line somewhere. I realize limitations restrict and, in fact, extinguish rights, but there has to be a line, and I think all that we are saying now is, in today’s terms, are the lines realistic.

Mr. Lawlor: No, there doesn’t have to be a line.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, you can’t have open-ended things. My God, your mother would have an action against her doctor forever here.

Mr. Lawlor: Or, subject to discretion, you should be able to move before a judge of the Supreme Court, or the county, in order to have the time extended under special circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, and you bring your grandmother in and she tells about the time she got run over with the buggy and there’s nobody around because it happened in 1890? Come on, there has to be a limitation period.

Mr. Lawlor: Which century are you in?

Hon. Mr. Clement: You have a good positive action in view of the bill I introduced here a week or two ago for injuries before birth.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Your poor grandmother.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are going to lose your QC, Pat.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There happens to be, in the Limitations Act -- I’m just looking it up here -- in terms of limitations --

Mr. Lawlor: You are the most impossible Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- about 30 to 35 different limitations in here, some of them for actions which I don’t even think exist today.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Item 4 agreed to. Item 5?

Mr. Shulman: Royal commissions; inasmuch as we seem to be able to have a royal commission on violence in television, would the minister consider having a royal commission into organized crime violence?

Mr. P. Taylor: Real violence; organized crime.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Did you say files?

Mr. Shulman: I said real violence; I’m referring to organized crime.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Will I consider it? I’ll consider anything.

Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as I’ve been asking now for over a year -- I guess it even preceded your birth, perhaps -- has the wisdom of previous Attorneys General or Solicitors General -- I always get confused as to which I should be referring to -- been passed on to you, and why are we still having to request this royal commission, which should have been held long ago?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I am tonight here wearing not any hat, but if I was it’s the hat of the Attorney General. I am responsible for the administration of justice within the province. The Solicitor General is the other hat which I wore here last week.

Mr. Ferrier: You are going to put that on again?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wore that last week and that’s the one dealing with the investigative aspect of the administration of justice.

Mr. Shulman: My friend to my left said AGs call royal commissions, so you are wearing the right hat tonight.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I see, well I’m just telling you about organized crime. What really concerns me is that if the value of your allegations in the House toward organized crime have the same weight as the information you gave my friend whom we talked about before, Mr. Rickaby, I think we would be embarking on a rather expensive game of Russian roulette.

Mr. Shulman: I gave him no information; I ran away to Israel, remember?

Hon. Mr. Clement: And we missed you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Your leader says there is no increased violence.

Mr. Shulman: All right, well inasmuch as the minister is taking this particular note, let me point out that it was one of your predecessors who said exactly the same thing about my allegations about organized crime in the construction industry, and it was your Premier (Mr. Davis) who had to make him eat his words. And you will remember that particular royal commission produced very good results. I think everyone, in labour and in government and in industry, will agree that that entire situation has been cleaned up. Now we have other related matters in which organized crime is active and I think the obvious one is the loan sharking and the problem of bookmaking.

Mr. Kerr: It is particularly bad in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Shulman: Particularly bad in Niagara Falls, it is pointed out by my friend here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: I ask the minister, why don’t you give your honest opinion? Would you agree with me, inasmuch as many police certainly agree with me and the police commission agrees with me, that there should be such a royal commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Whether there is to be a royal commission or not is a decision to be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. We merely fund them through this ministry. I wouldn’t want to be uncharitable and point out that while the hon. member did make a contribution of sorts with reference to the construction industry, there are many others that are still in orbit out there. I don’t want to particularize, but really we are --

Mr. Shulman: Please do particularize.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Tell us about Mr. Cesaroni again.

Mr. Shulman: I have no hesitation. Mr. Cesaroni was convicted.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He is the one who entertained the Attorney General, my predecessor.

Mr. Shulman: No, it happened to be the former Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), if you want to be correct.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That isn’t the information you gave to the House a year and a half ago. This is why I question it.

Mr. Shulman: Oh, boy! I am not going to allow myself to be diverted for more than a moment, but just try to think who gave me the information. I don’t think you should be too proud of that when your former colleague was there. Let’s come back now. Will the minister agree with me that there is a need for a royal commission on the problem of organized crime in this province?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I believe that there is organized crime at any time in this province, yes. Would I agree that the way to look into it is by the vehicle of a royal commission? I am not so sure. I am not so sure that it is being ignored at the present time in terms of investigative procedures. Therefore, I would not say I agree that that is the way to get into this situation at the present time. It may well be later on that that is the correct vehicle. I don’t know; but I just can’t come out and say yes, I agree or no, I disagree. It’s a have you quit beating your wife routine.

Mr. Shulman: Let’s pursue it in another direction. Would the minister agree with me that in spite of all the major efforts that have been made by several police forces in this province you have not been successful in sending to jail the biggies?

Hon. Mr. Clement: From the boondocks? Crime allows no relaxation in the vigil that should be directed towards it. You have to watch for it all the time. You have to investigate it all the time; and be aware of its existence all the time. You know this.

Mr. Shulman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think you can ever eliminate organized crime. We must always be aware of the insidious nature of this type of creature. A royal commission might be a vehicle; it might be part of a parcel of vehicles. I don’t know. I can’t take one isolated suggestion. I can’t say no, that would be bad of course it wouldn’t; it might well be excellent. I don’t know. I don’t have that expertise. I know what is going on generally in terms of investigative procedures in a general or objective nature. I tell you that the police forces of this country are vigilant --

Mr. Shulman: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and are watching. I don’t think that we can afford to go out and ignore it. I commend you for bringing things to the attention of this government and you do a good job in that. But just because you suggest a royal commission today, I can’t agree with it unless I know all the facts. I would have to obtain them from briefing sessions which I hold at rather regular intervals with various law enforcement agencies. You may well find that some day this government may come along and make that order through Her Honour for such a royal commission. We had one on gambling here -- in 1962? But I can’t stand here tonight and say that I think that good and we have it right away. You know that.

Mr. Shulman: Let me just ask you one final question and then I will let someone else take over. Is it the present opinion of the Ontario Police Commission that there should be such a commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: As an official position of the Police Commission?

Mr. Shulman: Not official. I said is it the present feeling of the Ontario Police Commission? Has it been expressed to your department that there should be such a commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I don’t know whether it has. I can’t recall ever having any discussions with them of any formal nature.

I think the Ontario Police Commission would welcome at any time any vehicle that would permit an opportunity to investigate organized crime or a crime of any nature. I don’t think the Ontario Police Commission would oppose it; it would be somewhat contrary to their interest to do so. So I would have to say yes, I think they would be interested in it. So would I, but I wouldn’t want to see a royal commission start if it was going to impede certain matters that are presently in progress, I can tell you that.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I have two quick questions for the Attorney General.

First, of all, on the subject of royal commissions and the matter raised by the member for High Park. Can the minister say whether or not he feels that the two sessions that we have seen so far -- one complete session and one session now under way -- of the Quebec crime commission have proved useful in that province?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on whether I think it has done a good job or not.

Mr. P. Taylor: Useful.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I presume it is. I don’t think the Quebec government would allow its continuation if it was felt that it was not useful. So I think I would have to say yes, I am sure it is useful.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Second question: Can the minister tell us now the extent of the supplementary estimates to cover the costs of the LaMarsh commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have not yet received any projection of figures from Miss LaMarsh.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, what precisely is covered under this vote?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Royal commissions.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I know. What royal commissions?

Mr. P. Taylor: While you are waiting for that, could we know when we might have the projections on the LaMarsh commission?

Mr. Ferrier: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Lawlor: You have to tune in early in the morning for Judy.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The royal commissions’ total costs shown in this estimate I think is $620,000, made up of health and safety in mining -- remember we fund these; we have not initiated them particularly -- health and safety in mining, $226,000; Metropolitan Toronto $276,000 --

Mr. Lawlor: What is that one?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is the Robarts one, the initial estimate -- and $108,000, Metropolitan Toronto police practices.

Mr. Lawlor: That was $108,000?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Toronto Jail one is $266,500 to the end of March.

Mr. Lawlor: Could I make a deal with you before 10:30 p.m.? I won’t press for further interrogation with respect to this particular vote if you will make a deal with me to reduce it to $619,999. I don’t mean to be offering a travesty -- I just want to set what, I consider a very beneficial precedent to the House.

As far as I know, never before in this House, in human history, has any particular item been reduced by so much as five cents. Could we just before 10:30 p.m. tonight, as a gesture to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: I would like to go down in history as having changed. --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, we will see that you go down in history.

Mr. Lawlor: -- a $10 billion budget by $1.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I agree; you sure earn it.

Mr. Lawlor: Will the minister go that far?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I go that far, Mr. Chairman, so that you can go through life telling your grandmother, as she is bringing her action for your prenatal injuries --

Mr. Lawlor: Gee, that’s great, John.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- you can tell her that you actually got it cut by $1 by consent. But attached to that is a condition.

Mr. Lawlor: What is that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Could we, as we get together tomorrow, move on a little faster? I am looking forward to getting home for the weekend.

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t say another word about this vote. So moved -- Mr. Chairman, have you taken that down? Have you paid attention to that?

Mr. Chairman: Shall that section carry?

Mr. Lawlor: No. Have you taken cognizance of the most supreme gesture made by any cabinet minister in the history of this government? He reduced that vote by $1 and I want that to go on the record.

Mr. Chairman: Does the item carry?

Mr. Lawlor: No.

Item 5 carried.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1201 carry?

Vote 1201 agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report it has come to a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to inform the members that tomorrow we will proceed with the consideration of these estimates and, should we not conclude tomorrow, we will proceed further on Monday. However, before the adjournment of the House tomorrow, I will endeavour to inform the members of the business for next week.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

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