The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege which has to do with the appointment, as I understand from the press the other evening or as reported in a speech of the Premier (Mr. Davis), of a three-person committee to study the expenditures of government at the Ontario level.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege with a certain amount of sorrow. My point of privilege is this: I feel that as a private member of this Legislature I have been downgraded in my parliamentary responsibility and in my accountability to the people of Rainy River and to the people of the Province of Ontario who elected me to come to this Legislature and represent them.

I have, along with the rest of the members of the House, a collective responsibility in the levels of expenditures and the programmes and priorities that take place under the Ontario government. I find it most personally insulting and offensive that the Premier would downgrade this responsibility and accountability to my constituents by appointing three people who are not directly accountable or responsible to anyone in the province. I say, sir, that individually and collectively this is our responsibility as elected members; this is the foundation of our parliamentary system of responsible government. We are responsible for the legislation --

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): He can hire any advisers he wants.

Mr. Reid: -- and the laws that are passed in this House. Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to you I consider it a breach of the privilege of myself and other members that these appointments should be made. I would ask, sir, that you would look into this matter at your leisure.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure of the exact point of privilege. It seems to me that the Premier or the government -- I overheard a comment a moment ago -- may appoint as many advisers, or whatever these people might be hired for, as they wish.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mostly at the insistence of the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I hear your points and I am sure the record will speak for itself.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On the other hand, the rights of the House were abridged by it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Timiskaming.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): May I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the members of the House to welcome two groups of students from the great riding of Timiskaming. In the west gallery we have 52 students from Sacred Heart School in Kirkland Lake under the able assistance of Mrs. Carol Anne Conway. We have 10 students in the east gallery from the New Liskeard Public School and 50 in the west gallery from the New Liskeard Public School under the able supervision of Mr. C. E. Sweetman and his able assistants. Please welcome them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The hon. Attorney General.

CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, some days ago in the House I was asked by one of the opposition members the role or position of this government with reference to the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender which is to be held here in Toronto, next September, with particular reference to the possible attendance of members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and perhaps certain other terrorist groups. I responded on that occasion that the Premier would, in due course, undoubtedly be responding to that inquiry.

In the absence of the Premier today, I would like to respond on his behalf, Mr. Speaker, as to what has transpired to date with reference to that particular question.

On May 9, 1975, the Premier of this province wrote, to the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a letter which I intend to read and file with the Clerk of the House; it reads as follows:

“My Dear Prime Minister:

“Re Fifth UN Congress on Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender.

“It has come to our attention that members of certain international terrorist organizations may attend this conference, which is to take place in Toronto from Sept. 1 to Sept 12.

“It is my obligation to provide for your consideration the views of my government on this matter. The government and the people of Ontario would consider it an affront and a provocation if members of terrorist organizations which have openly claimed responsibility for the massacre of innocent civilians at the 1974 Olympic games and at several international airports were permitted, under the guise of ‘observers,’ to enter our country.

“I appreciate the problems which this poses for our country in view of the actions of the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 12, 1973, and Nov. 22, 1974, which contrary to its own charter, accorded observer status to certain ‘national liberation movements’ which are not, I understand, recognized by Canada and many other members of the United Nations.

“It is our understanding that we will not know for certain the intentions of the groups in question until the end of May. Our hope would be that the groups in question do not plan to attend the UN congress in Toronto. However, if they do seek to attend, I would appreciate being advised of the measures which your government proposes to take. Furthermore, I am obliged to inform you that if they are permitted to attend, the government of Ontario will be obliged to reconsider the extent, if any, of its participation.

“Yours very truly,

“William G. Davis”

Mr. Speaker, on May 14, a letter emanating from the office of the Prime Minister of Canada, over the signature of Claude Desjardins, correspondence secretary, was sent to the Deputy Minister to the Premier of this province:

“Dear Mr. Stewart:

“I have just received the May 9 letter which your Premier sent to the Prime Minister regarding the Fifth UN Congress on Prevention of Crime, and the possibility that members of certain international terrorist organizations may attend it.

“Kindly note for the hon. William G. Davis that his concerns in this regard are immediately being brought to the Prime Minister’s attention.

“Yours sincerely.”

I would like to file this. Thank you.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Thank the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer). It was the member for Downsview who did it.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD MINISTRY

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, you will recall the recent introduction of the young farmer credit programme during the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In line with this new intermediate credit programme to develop and assist our young farmers from the ages of 18 to 35 years, I would like to announce certain administrative and reorganizational changes within the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, particularly relating to the ARDA branch, whereby all the ministry’s credit-related programmes will now come under the jurisdiction of a reorganized branch to be called the rural development branch.

The newly reorganized branch will serve as a central administrative focus for the expanded rural development activities of the ministry. It will permit the ministry to have all of the credit and credit-oriented programmes in one branch at the Toronto head office. Consequently, the new young farmer credit programme; the industrial milk production incentive programme presently under the extension branch; the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp. mortgage administration and the former ARDA branch will form the nucleus of the branch. Under these special self-help programmes for Ontario farmers, we estimate close to $170 million will have to be managed and processed by officials of the rural development branch in 1975.

I would like to emphasize that while the administration for the credit programmes will be in the new rural development branch, the counselling and farm business management advice at the county and district level with regard to the several lending programmes will continue to be the responsibility of the agricultural representatives located in each county and district.

By including ARDA under the umbrella of the rural development branch, we see the present rural development activities being broadened and enhanced under the rural development branch. As a unit with the new structure, ARDA will continue to be the vehicle for implementation of the federal-provincial rural development agreement. I might point out to the members that negotiations have been under way for some time now with the hon. Donald Jamieson, the federal administrator of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to extend the present ABDA agreement for an additional two years.

Mr. Herb Crown, the present director of the ARDA branch, will be the director of the newly reorganized rural development branch with responsibilities for administering the ARDA agreement. Mr. Norm Watson, the present associate director of the extension branch, becomes associate director of the newly reorganized branch with administrative responsibilities for the credit oriented programmes falling within the branch. Mr. Lou Tompkins of the ARDA branch will assume supervision of the farm enlargement programme within the rural development branch.

TORONTO JAIL

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the House on the situation in regard to the threat of an illegal strike at the Toronto Jail.

Perhaps I may preface my remarks by some general comments about the ministry’s expectations of correctional officers in today’s correctional system, with particular reference to correctional staff at the Toronto Jail. In this connection I will quote from a statement that I made approximately six weeks ago. At that time I stated:

“Over the years, as its methods and programmes have become more demanding and sophisticated, the ministry has come to expect much more of its staff. In the old days it was enough that a correctional officer be a humane custodian. In those days he was called a guard. Today, he is called a correctional officer. This is not simply an exercise in semantics. Staff in our adult institutions are called correctional officers because we recognize, and expect them to realize, that they play an important role in the correctional process. They are the people who, daily, are in close personal contact with inmates. Often, therefore, they are the people with the best opportunities to form helpful relationships with inmates. Today, in addition to his responsibilities in regard to security, we expect the correctional officer to be a teacher, a counsellor, a motivator and, in the fullest sense, to be an agent of rehabilitation.”

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister have a copy of this?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Yes. In regard to the Toronto Jail, let me say that I believe that it is one of the most difficult institutions in the province in which to work. At the present time, it is the largest institution in the provincial correctional system. The population of this jail has risen dramatically during the past year. On May 23 of last year, 1974, there were 585 inmates in the jail. On May 16 of this year, there were 870 inmates in the same facilities. The inmate population at the Toronto Jail is composed of some of the most difficult, unpredictable and potentially dangerous inmates being held in custody in any institution in Canada.

In addition, a section of the Toronto Jail is over 100 years old. The physical structure of this outdated facility complicates the problems of supervision and the management of the inmate population.

These are only some of the factors which make working at the Toronto Jail extremely difficult for the staff. In addition to the pressure that these circumstances place upon staff at the jail, a royal commission has been holding hearings for many months into allegations that unnecessary force was used by staff at this jail in dealing with inmates. These allegations are being dealt with thoroughly and in a fair and impartial manner by His Honour Judge Barry Shapiro. However, as can be readily understood, the officers at the Toronto Jail find themselves under a cloud which will not be lifted until the findings of those hearings are published. The daily reporting in the news media of articles which use the names of various correctional officers adds an additional measure of anxiety and concern to the daily lives of correctional staff at the jail.

This ministry, Mr. Speaker, is aware of these many pressures and of others placed on correctional officers at the Toronto Jail by the demands of their jobs in the day-today operation of this institution. We are as anxious as the correctional staff themselves to find ways and means of reducing tensions and problems related to their work. In the case of the hearings of the royal commission we, of course, must await the findings of the Commission.

However, we have moved on a number of other fronts to alleviate the overcrowding and, in the long term, to ensure that we can vacate the old section of the jail as soon as possible. I will not go into great detail about these plans but I will outline some of them.

Two new detention centres, each with a bed capacity of 200, are under construction and the work is 10 per cent completed. Located in Scarborough and Etobicoke, these two facilities will replace the old section of the Toronto Jail. The Ministry of Government Services forecasts that they will be completed by June, 1977, at a capital cost of $29 million.

The ministry will begin use of the Salvation Army House of Concord facility very shortly. Located at the northern fringe of Metropolitan Toronto, this facility will accommodate approximately 96 carefully selected offenders who would otherwise be housed at the Toronto Jail serving short sentences and/or involved in pre-release and intermittent sentence programmes. The target date for the use of this facility to provide some relief at the Jail is June 15.

The ministry is also involved in helping to plan the creation of a forensic court clinic in Toronto, which clinic would divert approximately 500 to 600 of those persons who are remanded to the Toronto Jail annually for mental examinations.

A second forestry camp near Barrie has been placed under the jurisdiction of the jail to accommodate 40 inmates who can function in a minimum security setting. The other forestry camp also accommodates 40 persons.

The ministry is currently examining the use of other facilities to relieve the overcrowded conditions at the jail. I am not at liberty at this time to specify the details of those plans. However, we are hopeful that these alternative facilities will permit the removal from the Toronto Jail of approximately 220 inmates, including the approximately 120 persons who report to the jail on intermittent sentences each weekend. This space would be in addition to the accommodation of 96 persons at the House of Concord, which I mentioned earlier.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to the matter of the threatened wildcat strike. As I have already stated, the work of the correctional officer requires a combination of skills and ability which not everyone possesses. We are constantly striving to obtain the most qualified and most suitable people who are sensitive to the rehabilitation process. As I stated in response to the questions in the Legislature on May 27, we have recently found it necessary to release two correctional officers from employment at the Toronto Jail for failure to meet the requirements of their position during their probationary periods. You will appreciate that it is universally recognized that probationary status is a testing period during which the employer has the opportunity to ascertain the suitability of the probationer for continued employment or advancement to permanent status.

As a public service employer, we have the responsibility to ensure that only the most suitable staff are granted permanent status. Standards for correctional officers relate not only to the quality and quantity of work, but other factors such as character and general suitability. Strategic posts in the correctional facility must be manned continuously to ensure the safety and security of the public. Quite apart from the apparent financial burdens an absent employee places on the public purse, the fact that his post must be manned places additional demands upon his fellow officers who are required to work extended hours. The standards for correctional workers are continually being reevaluated because of the growing complexities in the correctional process. The two officers who were released by the ministry were clearly unsuited for work in the correctional environment, as they failed to meet our standards.

As you are aware, it is recognized that the probationary employee does not have an opportunity for a hearing to appeal a decision to release him. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the ministry, at the request of the CSAO, agreed to meet with the union representatives and review the circumstances of the release of these two staff members. This meeting was held on Friday, May 23, and both cases were discussed extensively with the union representatives. At that time the union representatives appeared satisfied with the circumstances surrounding the release of one of the officers; however, the union expressed the view that the other officer was not fully apprised of the reasons for his release. As a result, a further meeting was arranged by the ministry on Monday, May 26, attended by senior ministry officials, the employee, and union representatives.

During this two-hour meeting the ministry explained in detail the reasons for its decisions and the employee and his representatives had every opportunity to present their position in this matter and did, in fact, do so.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the ministry has gone to considerable lengths over and above what would be normal practice whether in the public or private sector on release of probationary employees. In my view, the ministry has been more than reasonable in this matter. I understand, however, that despite our detailed explanations the CSAO has approached His Honour Judge B. Shapiro to review these matters.

The ministry is, of course, pleased to cooperate with Judge Shapiro should aspects of these matters fall within his terms of reference.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the members of the Legislature that I have agreed to respond to the request from the regional council of Sudbury for an inquiry into certain financial and administrative problems allegedly occurring at the Laurentian Hospital in the city of Sudbury.

This inquiry was unanimously asked for by the regional council some weeks ago following the hearing of the reports from its delegate on the Laurentian Hospital board.

Terms of reference for the inquiry and the person who will conduct the inquiry will be decided upon as quickly as possible. The inquiry will be conducted under the authority of the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Inquiries Act.

HYDRO BLOCK

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief statement regarding what is commonly referred to as the Hydro block.

The land for this project was originally assembled by Ontario Hydro for a transformer and switching station at a price of nearly $2.5 million. My colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, as early as May, 1970, opposed this use of the site and later succeeded in having the property transferred to Ontario Housing Corp. for the purpose of housing development. Hydro sold the land to OHC for about $500,000 less than the asking price.

My colleague recommended residents of the area form the Hydro block working committee. He also suggested the establishment of the technical steering committee, which included Ontario Housing Corp. representatives, and requested them to come up with a proposal for the site.

The constraints placed on the project by low density plus the costs of inner core land, proved to be the most difficult matter we had to deal with.

In December, 1972, the Hydro block working committee adopted a policy statement which read, “This housing shall be available for sale to owner-occupants and for rent to both families and roomers.” Currently, Mr. Speaker, they have requested that the block be developed as a 100 per cent public housing project.

Public participation can be most time-consuming. That has been the case with the Hydro block.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That is not true. It has been the government’s response which has caused the delay repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t the member for Ottawa Centre listen; be might learn something.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: However, Mr. Speaker, while we were exploring the financial alternatives, my officials have been proceeding through the various city committees with applications for zoning and other approvals.

I have now received recommendations from the board of directors of Ontario Housing Corp. and have consulted with my cabinet colleagues. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that my ministry will be presenting a proposal to the city of Toronto that we feel will result in the development -- as soon as possible -- of the Hydro block in a way which will provide viable, attractive and affordable housing for people of an integrated mix of income levels.

Mr. Cassidy: No. The minister has sold them out.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Basically, the proposal is as follows: The province is prepared to lease the land on a long-term basis to the city of Toronto through its non-profit housing corporation. The land rent paid by the city would be low enough to permit affordable rents to persons or families in the various housing units with the federal and provincial governments absorbing part of the land rental costs.

This new approach was made possible through an agreement which I signed May 1, 1915 with the hon. Barney Danson, Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It has already been discussed in Ottawa with Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.

The property would then be developed along the lines previously worked out between the province and the community-oriented Hydro block working committee and the technical steering committee, which was comprised of representatives from the city of Toronto, OHC, CMHC and members of the working committee.

The committees agreed that 21 of the existing houses would be rehabilitated to provide 39 dwelling units and the remainder of the land would be used for the construction of 114 apartments in a low-rise building. This development would be assisted through my ministry’s community-sponsored housing programme by means of a subsidized rent on the land. As well, the federal government’s non-profit programme will provide a 10 per cent grant of the appraised cost of the project.

As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, the project would provide accommodation for a mix of income groups in accordance with policies concerning this type of integration set out by my ministry and the city of Toronto. To do this, some of the dwellings would be rented to families at the moderate income level at what we term full-recovery rents, which would result in no operating losses or subsidies. The rest would be rented to those of low incomes at rents they can afford, that is, Mr. Speaker, at rents geared to their particular incomes. These would be rented through our rent supplement programme, with the subsidies shared in the usual manner: 50 per cent by the federal government, 42.5 per cent by the province and 7.5 per cent by the municipality. The proportion of units to be rented under the two plans, full-recovery rent and rent supplement, would be established jointly by my ministry, the city and CMHC.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this will permit us -- and by that I mean the city, the federal government and the province -- to create a very worthwhile and socially integrated residential community in this older core area of Toronto.

EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD FOR LEGAL ACTION

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1975; the Fatal Accidents Act, 1975; and the Trustee Amendment Act, 1975.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Now the minister is beginning to move.

Hon. Mr. Clement: These three amendments concern the extension of the limitation period within which an action can be commenced. The amendments increase the present limitation period in each Act from a present length of one year to a new period of two years. Since these matters are essentially related to civil liability and civil procedure, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) has asked me to introduce the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, which Act normally falls within the administration of his ministry.

At present under section 146 of the Highway Traffic Act no one can be sued for recovery of damages occasioned by a motor vehicle after the expiration of 12 months from the time when the damages were sustained. Persons injured in automobile accidents, unaware of this short limitation period, may fail to initiate legal proceedings in time, with the result that they are precluded from receiving compensation for their injuries.

The amendment to the Highway Traffic Act will allow a person injured in an automobile accident a reasonable amount of time to recover from his injury to assess the extent of his damages, to instruct his counsel and to attempt to reach a settlement out of court.

Mr. Lawlor: What about the rest of the limitations?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The spectre of an injured person issuing a writ from his hospital bed will at last disappear. Where the injured person dies as a result of an automobile accident, for the purposes of bringing an action for the wrongful death of the deceased --

Mr. Bullbrook: Has the minister ever seen them issue a writ from a hospital bed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- the amendments to the Fatal Accidents Act and to the Trustee Act assure that the near relatives or the executor or administrator of the deceased will benefit from the same extended limitation period for bringing an action that would have been available to the deceased had he lived. Also, the amendment to the Trustee Act will likewise establish two years as the period within which a person may bring an action against the executor or administrator for a wrong committed by the deceased.

These amendments effectively implement the recommendations with respect to these statutes made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its report on the limitation of actions. The hardship and pain and suffering which befall the automobile accident victim and his family are well known to all of us. These amendments represent a positive step towards diminishing such results.

While I hope in the fall to be able to introduce for first reading and comment a new Limitations Act embodying many of the recommendations contained in the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on limitations of actions, I believe that these amendments are significant enough that they should not await the adoption of the general principles contained in that report.

MECHANICS’ LIEN ON CROWN CONTRACTS

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have one other statement. Again, later on today in the appropriate time, my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, and I will be introducing for first reading three bills dealing with the subject of mechanics’ liens on Crown property, namely, the Mechanics’ Lien Amendment Act, the Public Works Creditors Payment Repeal Act and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications Creditors Payment Act. The purpose of this legislation is to bind the Crown to the provisions of the Mechanics’ Lien Act and to have that Act apply to all Crown contracts for public works, except for road building contracts entered into by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Prior to the enactment of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, 1962-1963, each claim against the Crown required a petition of right, subject to the grant of a fiat by the Lieutenant Governor as a result of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The enactment of that legislation allowed an action to be brought against the Crown in the same manner as against individuals and corporations.

At the same session, Mr. Speaker, the Public Works Creditors Payment Act, 1962-1963, was enacted. It was an attempt to ensure the payment of all those who contribute labour and materials to public works carried on by the Crown. That Act was based on the terms incorporated into the roadbuilding contracts of the then Department of Transport. Under that Act, discretion for achieving payment of creditors of contractors and subcontractors on public works is left in the hands of the Crown.

The total discretionary aspect of the Public Works Creditors Payment Act has created difficulties for all Crown agencies other than the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. These agencies have conscientiously attempted to provide for fairness and equality in dealing with contractors and claimants, but have been forced to do so without adequate statutory provisions. Contractors may be liable under this Act without fault, and payment out of amounts held back for the protection of creditors has sometimes been unduly delayed by the absence of a procedure for adjudicating claims.

Of equal importance, Mr. Speaker, there are allegations that normal market checks on the advancement of credit do not operate on public works contracts, since creditors are guaranteed payment at the expense of the prime contractors. Ultimately, the absence of effective market controls could, if allowed to continue, add considerably to the cost of public works as compared to similar works in the private sector.

In short, Mr. Speaker, what was intended to be beneficial to the construction industry has proven detrimental; except, we are informed, with regard to roadbuilding contracts.

After much thought, it was decided that the Crown should bind itself to the legislation that governs building contracts in the private sector, that is the Mechanics’ Lien Act. The enactment of this legislation would reinforce the principle that when the Crown goes to the private sector of the economy for goods and services, it should disturb the workings of that sector as little as possible.

The Proceedings Against the Crown Act is based on the principle that so far as is reasonably possible, the Crown should be bound by the same laws that apply to individuals and corporations. This legislation is designed to extend the operation of that principle.

With the exception of registration against and sale of Crown lands, the provisions of the Mechanics’ Lien Act will apply to all Crown building contracts, other than roadbuilding contracts entered into by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Notice to the Crown will function as a substitute for registration against the land. As the Crown will always live up to its financial obligations, registration against the land is, of course, unnecessary.

To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no other province or state has taken this approach to mechanics’ lien legislation as most have held steadfastly to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The formula of substituting a charge on the holdback in lieu of a lien against the land has proven effective under the present provisions of the Act pertaining to municipally-owned public streets and highways. These amendments to that formula are designed to extend its applicability to public works and to clear up any uncertainties that may exist as to its application. The same provisions apply to claims against municipally-owned streets and highways.

As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, the Mechanics’ Lien Act will not apply to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications roadbuilding contracts. That ministry, its general contractors and the suppliers of labour and materials to its contracts, are unanimously of the opinion that they should be bound by provisions similar to those in the Public Works Creditors Payment Act. Therefore, the relevant provisions of that Act have been incorporated into the new Ministry of Transportation and Communications Creditors Payment Act.

Thank you.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if I may, before the questions: On behalf of the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) I have the honour of introducing to the Legislature 30 students and three adult chaperones, under the direction of Mr. R. Hamilton from the Red Lake Public School. I would ask the members to join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

GUN CONTROL

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I should say that I’m sure all of us associate ourselves and support the comment and statement made by the Premier from his office yesterday after visiting the scene of the shocking tragedy in his own constituency in the city of Brampton.

In that connection, I would like to put a question to the Attorney General, to ascertain if he could enlighten all of us as to what he feels might be done with regard to gun laws, in conjunction with the government of Canada, so that at least we would take whatever steps are possible to move in the direction of the kind of controls that may have at least some effect, large or small, in situations that may occur in this way in the future.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have read with interest the comments of the federal Solicitor General wherein he stated in the House in Ottawa yesterday, I believe, that he would immediately instruct the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to embark on an investigation surrounding this bizarre tragedy which occurred in Brampton yesterday.

I further understand that a meeting on this very item, which has not arisen out of that tragedy yesterday but had been arranged some months ago, will be held, I believe, in Ottawa on Monday next, involving participation by the provinces and the federal government.

I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the two weapons used yesterday, according to the information that I received, were lawfully purchased and owned by the father of the young man who brought this tragedy about. All laws were complied with in that regard.

One must remember that handguns and automatic weapons today are the subject of registration through federal legislation. Each province has registrars and assistant registrars who, on behalf of the federal government and in fact the commissioner of the RCMP, carry out the registration of handguns and automatic weapons.

At this point, I am keeping my mind open to see what suggestions the federal Solicitor General puts forward on Monday next during this particular meeting. Then seized of that knowledge, I will be in a position to make certain recommendations to my government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I’m sure the minister recalls the discussion held in the debate on his estimates which included, I believe, the hon. member for Welland South (Mr. Haggerty), who expressed the view that it was practically impossible to register, or even further, to control long arms

-- rifles and shotguns. Is there a professional paper or a review available of this possibility and the cost of the registration of long arms? Is there an opinion within the OPP or the ministry that would mean that when we from Ontario send representatives to that meeting held by the federal authorities, they would be able to put something forward other than just our willingness to cooperate with any reasonable idea?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think when one talks about tightening the gun laws one is really not talking about registering. I think we are really talking of making firearms -- albeit handguns, rifles and/or shotguns -- less available when one makes that observation.

The registration concept, with the greatest of respect, just does not preclude the wrongful use of a weapon. It’s the situation of these things being available to those who would use them in an improper fashion that really gives rise to the whole problem. In my opinion, to bring in an up-to-date system of re-registration or new registration does nothing more than accumulate paper. It just doesn’t preclude the wrongful use of any type of weapon. We have to remember that.

This is a very emotional time right now, and rightly so, in view of the terrible tragedy which was so close to us yesterday, but I think we cannot lose sight of the concept that it is the accessibility of weapons and not the registration of same that is the issue. If you make it compulsory that all who own firearms, regardless of their size, must register them, those unlawful elements in society who probably are in possession of stolen weapons or unregistered weapons, will not come forward at the proper time.

That’s the concern I expressed here in my estimates a week ago and I’ve expressed it on other occasions -- that the registration of same is not the answer. I think that when our people meet with the other authorities on Monday next, they will have discussions along these lines to see if there is any way in which the accessibility of firearms can be more restricted for those who would use them for wrongful purposes.

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

Mr. Lewis: I’m like the Attorney General in that I don’t know how these things speak to the grief and the horror of it all. But I wonder, sir, whether the Attorney General’s ministry has not fashioned some kind of position itself, other than the expression of the problem or the expression of the concern, which would make a proposal around availability or accessibility, since all are now agreed that’s one of the primary problems though by no means the solution?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, for a period of perhaps two years in the justice policy field, at various times -- certainly not constantly, but on various occasions, perhaps numbering five or six over the past 24 months to my recollection -- we have discussed this very problem. It is not a one faceted problem because there are many areas to be considered.

People are able to obtain firearms for various purposes. Talking about those lawfully obtained, I direct the members attention to the fact that certain firearms, usually rifles, are available to the public and bear no serial number. This is one facet.

There is the accessibility of firearms to those who walk in off the street and to all intents and purposes appear to be reasonable. Their deportment is certainly one consistent with normal activity; they are over the age of 18 years and would lead the seller of that type of firearms to the conclusion that the person is perfectly rational.

We have explored possibilities as to whether one should require a medical certificate before being allowed to purchase a firearm. We have explored the possibility of making it compulsory that all firearms of every calibre and sixe be the subject of a registration programme which brings us right around to the situation I have discussed with the Leader of the Opposition.

We have expressed our concerns, mostly informally, with various policing authorities and they, too, have shared their concern. We are not blind. No one in this House is blind to the statistics indicating the use of firearms of one form or another in the carrying out of crimes of violence and robberies, particularly in the Metropolitan areas.

I would like to think the answer was a simple one. I must say that my observation is to the effect that the present registration system simply is not working and I don’t intend this as any criticism of any other level of government. It simply doesn’t work in terms of effectively curbing the use of firearms.

For some years the Ministry of Natural Resources, through conservation authorities and gun clubs, has encouraged the proper handling of rifles, usually, and teaching the young how to use them for target practice and for small game hunting. That is in terms of the hunter’s safety as opposed to the wrongful use in a manner which we saw demonstrated yesterday.

I would say to the members of this House I would welcome -- and I’m sure I speak for my colleagues -- any observations which any member of this House or the public might make in this very terrible area, as long as it’s effective. There is no sense in running off saying we need a tighter gun control programme unless we really know what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville with a supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Yes, Mr. Speaker, may I first ask the minister if he has looked into the situation in the State of Massachusetts concerning gun registration? There, a gun control, the Bartley Fox law prohibits any person from carrying a gun away from his or her place of business, and that includes the car, without proper authorization. ls the minister aware that the person violating this law is liable to a mandatory jail sentence of one year, up to five years, and no plea bargaining is permitted? Is he also aware that a judge cannot suspend the sentence or substitute probation? Massachusetts apparently has taken a forward step. I would suggest to the minister that his ministry look into what it has done and see if it would not be applicable in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of some of the particulars given to me just now by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, insofar as being unable to suspend sentence where this sort of thing is concerned. I am aware that many jurisdictions in the United States have and are attempting to effectively curb the unlawful use of firearms.

May I point out it is wrongful now in law to transport a small arm, a handgun, without a proper permit. It is wrong to transport a rifle or a shotgun which is loaded in a vehicle at any time under our existing legislation. What I would be interested in finding out, Mr. Speaker, is what, if any, value this type of legislation has provided in Massachusetts; whether it has effectively curbed or substantially reduced the wrongful use of weapons of any kind.

Mr. Bullbrook: It has only been in being for about eight months.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HYDRO BLOCK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing, further to his statement on the development of the Hydro block. Surely his statement today indicates that the aims of the government proposal is not parallel to or in support of the concepts put forward by the Hydro block working committee, which I’m sure the minister knows has been deeply involved in this for many months. Surely the minister cannot assure us that his proposals are acceptable to that group as he has expressed them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the proposal I am suggesting is acceptable to the Hydro block working committee. They have been fully involved in the discussions up to date and will be in the future. The greatest majority of the housing accommodation is going to be for low-income families; and this is what they wanted, as I understand it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, if I may: Does the concept envisage taking down a good deal of what is there? It certainly sounded that way from the statement that was made.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was stated very clearly that we are going to renovate certain homes as well as construct new homes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How much is going to be cleared off?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can’t tell the hon. member the actual acreage, but I can tell him that the number of units will comprise the majority of the balance of the land. That is my understanding. But this has to be worked out; I am putting forward a proposal which so far has met with the acceptance of the city; the federal government, through CHMC; and the working committee. There may be some changes to that proposal. I don’t want to have anyone suggest today that this is cast in stone; it isn’t. It’s a matter of discussion from now on.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementaries. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre first.

Mr. Cassidy: The present federal policy is that no more than 25 per cent of units in a non-profit housing project may be eligible for rent supplement. The minister, however, is saying that a majority of the units will be eligible for rent supplement in the Hydro block. Could he clarify this and say approximately what proportion will be rent supplement housing, since the working committee had requested 100 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the agreement I signed with Mr. Danson was that the overall programme was to have a minimum of 25 per cent as rent supplement, but each particular project could be judged on its own merits, so that we might go up to 50 per cent if necessary.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I would like a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I can get in again.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): I am somewhat concerned at the way in which this statement has been made. Would the minister clarify for me why he has taken the one statement out of the 14 points of December, 1972, to incorporate in his report? The statement simply says, “This housing shall be available for sale to owner-occupants and for rent to both families and roomers.” Why is there not incorporated in this statement that section, 4, which indicates very clearly that what is recognized by the working committee is that this full project shall be entirely and exclusively for people of low and moderate incomes? Why would this be the point picked out when CMHC refused to support that particular point out of the 14 earlier?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think what we have to recognize is that regardless of what project it is or where it is, it has to be a viable project; and CMHC has to approve the financing. We think that the involvement of the city of Toronto’s nonprofit organization, which is quite successful, I might say -- we have had various projects through them and we think we will have more -- means that this will work out. I don’t think what was said before is that much in conflict with what I’m saying now. I’ve brought out only one portion of the statement to show that there was a difference of the views then from what there is now. I’ll follow it up by saying that currently they have requested that 100 per cent be public housing. I wanted to point that out; that was all.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mrs. Campbell: Could I get at it this way and inquire what funding is contemplated by the minister for the subsidy that will be required to achieve the end of the working committee under his announced plan?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the income levels that we see applicable to this particular project at this time are ranging anywhere from $2,800 up to a maximum of $16,000 or $17,000. We want to start with those who are on a GAINS programme.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Bearing in mind that half or less than half of the units in the Hydro block will be accessible to the people who the committee said should have access to all of the units, can the minister give examples of the rents, say, for a two-bedroom apartment at the full recovery rents that are proposed for 50 to 80 per cent of the units there?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): What does the member charge for his two-bedroom?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t at this time. This is something which has to come out of the full discussions which we are proposing that we should carry forth. I think for all hon. members it would be a lot better if we proceeded with the proposal that we have -- we worked it out as quickly as possible -- because we do have to recognize there has been a lot of money involved in this.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, sure.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The more we delay, the more it’s going to cost. I think it is very important that we proceed with this project. I would like to proceed this fall.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Education.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has given them half a loaf and he has made promise after promise.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member doesn’t know what he is talking about. It is the people in the area who are going to benefit from this plan.

Mr. Lewis: Take it easy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is everything all right here? Anybody want to step outside?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): The Leader of the Opposition is getting tough.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Education: Does the announcement made by the Premier yesterday or the day before of a special committee made up of civil servants and three citizens to look after the examination of the public accounts and to cut the expenditure of government programmes recall to the minister’s mind a similar statement made before the last election by the Premier -- it was made on April 15, 1971 -- which appointed a special committee to birddog and watchdog the expenses in education? It was chaired by no less a person than Dr. J. R. McCarthy, the former deputy minister, who then became the executive director of this examination. Did they ever report? Are we still paying them? How did they reduce the costs of education? Does the government only concern itself with costs in the months immediately preceding an election?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): First of all, Mr. Speaker, no, it didn’t draw that to my mind because the committee that the Premier has announced is an entirely different thing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, they are both political façades.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s an entirely different group of people. It is an attempt by this government to involve people in the private sector --

Mr. Reid: A political smokescreen, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- with members of this cabinet to help hold down government spending.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know how my friend can be critical of this when he makes the kinds of statements that he does about government spending.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): What’s the matter with the cabinet? Aren’t they supposed to be responsible?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Surely he should be up there cheering and supporting this committee.

Mr. Lewis: What does the government need them for? Is it incapable of cutting back itself? What a silly thing!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), should be answering this question, but I think if either of the two leaders of the opposition parties and the members of the opposition had ever had the opportunity -- which they never will -- to govern a province, they would have realized --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that the biggest difficulty the government faces in reducing expenditures --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are just going to count teapots.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- is to bring along with it in the economic process the people who pay the taxes and who also expect government money to be spent to serve their needs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And who vote.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): They don’t know; they will never know.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It would be very interesting to add up the comments of the Leader of the Opposition about his desire --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No doubt the minister will do this. He will hire people to do it for him.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): He will use his own civil service.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- to cut spending in this province and then add up his other statements about removing educational ceilings and about instituting this programme and that programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If he does it the way he usually does he will have the civil service do it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Time is flitting away.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I should think the Leader of the Opposition would support --

Mr. Lewis: Is that really his motive?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- any effort to help curtail government spending, and this is an excellent effort.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Insofar as the committee on the costs of education is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it has issued four reports and my friend has those four reports, I am sure.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the committee extant? Has it been disbanded? Has there been any statement that it is not operating?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The committee has been disbanded, Mr. Speaker. There is one report yet to be published and three others that are in the process of being edited by the executive secretary and they will be coming in shortly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Four years.

Mr. Breithaupt: What benefits has the minister gained?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Reid: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister advise us how much this committee cost us?

Mr. Breithaupt: And what were the ceilings?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t tell the member how much it cost.

Mr. Reid: How much did they get paid?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He can tell us that when he tells us how much his advertising campaign cost.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Whose advertising campaign? We don’t spend any money on advertising in our ministry.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We don’t spend any money on advertising in our ministry. All we do is attempt to cut costs.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): He is more evasive than the Premier; he’s getting better.

Mr. Bullbrook: Ask him how much.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Breithaupt: Ask him. It probably cost more than they usually do.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: No, I have other questions I would like to ask.

DON JAIL

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Correctional Services:

Since it must have reached his ears by now that the 2:45 shift at the Don Jail did not go into the jail, and since he knows that the deputy minister of his ministry is meeting with Judge Shapiro and the general manager of the CSAO, Jake Norman -- or intends to -- at 3 o’clock or shortly thereafter this afternoon to discuss bringing the cases of Bennett and Torrence before Judge Shapiro within the terms of the inquiry, will he, in the House now, indicate publicly that he would approve of the judge hearing the cases immediately, if he deems himself able to do so, so that this can be resolved without a prolonged and angry and disruptive and unnecessary walkout at the jail?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, if Judge Shapiro feels it falls within his terms of reference to hear these charges, he is at liberty to do so. Certainly there is no way I can tell him to go ahead and do it. I might also point out to the member that if, as he has said, staff of the Toronto Jail have walked off, I am sure they are aware of the consequences.

Mr. Roy: He is only the minister.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister going to do, fire them?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Section 25 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act says they are liable to a fine of up to $500 a day and the employee organization is liable to a fine of $5,000 a day. In addition to that --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Going to do that, eh?

Mr. Yakabuski: Why not?

Mr. Shulman: What about security in the jail in the meantime?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The minister mishandled it. He behaved stupidly in the ministry and now he reaps the consequences. What a silly thing. He could have it solved in 30 minutes. He could have it solved by 3:30.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was asking a question; I would be glad to answer it. If he knows all the answers, as he thinks he does, perhaps it’s just as well that I don’t say any more.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary question.

Since the workers at the jail, the guards whose difficult job he so carefully described in his statement --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Correctional officers.

Mr. Lewis: -- the correctional officers -- feel there has been such a gross miscarriage of justice and since on the face of it -- and I took some time to inquire myself -- it appears there has been a miscarriage of justice, why does he not say, as minister, that he would wish Judge Shapiro to look into the matter immediately? The CSAO has told the minister they will abide by the judge’s decision. It is acceptable to the two aggrieved employees. Why does he provoke a confrontation when he has the answer within half an hour?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, I am not provoking a confrontation. The staff are perfectly aware that probationary staff do not have an appeal; and until that is changed -- and I hope it never is changed -- I wouldn’t suggest any other change.

Mr. Lewis: That’s an intolerable stance.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementaries. The Leader of the Opposition first of all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, presuming that the minister is going to maintain that stance and that the wildcat walkout will not be ended in a half hour, what steps is he going to undertake so that his responsibility, as the chief custodial officer, I suppose, is going to be fulfilled?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, we have emergency procedures that are ready and we will carry them through, but I am not prepared to discuss them in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have the responsibility here, along with the minister; and for him to say that he is not prepared to discuss it in this Legislature!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A final supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister talking about? He is acting foolishly. It is like pushing those guards out into the street for no reason at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are not getting very many questions asked.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is really ridiculous. That should be the end of him in this ministry.

Mr. Lewis: He has gone from Health to Correctional Services; now he will go from Correctional Services to out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A final supplementary. The member for High Park.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Your point of order?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to point out to you, sir, that the Minister of Correctional Services says that he is not prepared to discuss in this House his plans for maintaining the custody of the prisoners who are not going to be guarded as of 3:30 p.m. -- in 25 minutes. Who has more responsibility than this House and the members of this House? Surely he is going to have to discuss those matters?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with the Minister of Correctional Services?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister assure the House and the province that there is no danger of these prisoners escaping?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Definitely, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question to put to the Minister of Correctional Services. Since the situation must surely bother the minister and obviously has greatly aggrieved the correctional officers, who have never walked out in the case of probation dismissals before -- this is a separate and qualitatively different issue -- why can’t he be flexible enough to say in the House that he encourages Judge Shapiro to hear the matters so that we don’t have to go through the absurdity of a forced walk-out? Why can’t the minister be flexible enough?

Hon. Mr. Potter: No answer.

Mr. Lewis: There is no answer? Okay. Most extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if I could, does he intend to make a specific public announcement about a special stabilization plan for the cow-calf operators in Ontario, particularly those who see themselves in a disaster situation on Manitoulin Island? I know he has met with them and I know others have. Does he intend to make public the plan that he has discussed with them privately?

Mr. Reid: I asked the minister that last week.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the member for Rainy River asked that question a few days ago; I told him it was under consideration. We have not finalized the details. I indicated to the people with whom I met that when we had given it further consideration I would again discuss it with them and I intend to do that. But I am not in a position as yet to give any positive statement. I can tell the hon. member that it is under very active consideration on a full-time basis.

Mr. Lewis: Fine. I recognize it was asked; I asked only because by coincidence of travel I met last night with Manitoulin farmers who feel as though the days are running out. Is it possible for them to have a time frame from the minister as to when he might make an announcement one way or the other, since so many of them are in such hardship?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), who has been very active in this campaign, is pursuing it with all the vigour at his command; and I can tell you I almost got both arms twisted off by him --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the problem.

Mr. Stewart: I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal to work out. There are a great many dollars involved and there is a procedure that is involved here. I am not in a position today to say that we will have it within five days, a week or when it will be. I can tell the hon. member that I am hopeful that it will be announced very shortly, but I am just working on it as yet.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Education. The corridors swirl with rumours that his teacher collective bargaining legislation will be brought in tomorrow or Monday. Is it, in fact, that close?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it will be brought in soon.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. I am glad the minister was more explicit this time than he was last time.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES BUDGETS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services? According to the legislation which this House has passed, the Ministry of Community and Social Services must within 10 days after April 25 either approve, amend or rescind the Children’s Aid Society budgets submitted to his ministry in February. It is my understanding that many Children’s Aid Societies, including the largest, have had no response from the ministry at all which contradicts the legislation passed. When can they expect it and what can they expect?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, there are some onging discussions with representatives from my ministry and the various Children’s Aid Societies with reference to their budgets. If the hon. member can give me any specific instances, I would be glad to look into them.

Mr. Lewis: When will the Metropolitan Toronto Children’s Aid Society learn from the ministry, as is required in the Act, and the ministry is over the time in the Act -- I don’t know whether there is a penalty section against the government -- whether their request is to be amended or altered so that if they disagree they can go to the child welfare review committee?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into that and let the hon. member know.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much. I don’t think I should take any more time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. The Minister of Transportation and Communications has answers to questions asked previously.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for High Park asked me a question on Tuesday of this week concerning a move on the part of a firm known as United Parcel Services of the United States to move into this province and this country and take over certain delivery operations.

Mr. Speaker, I had this matter discussed with the chairman of the Ontario Highway Transport Board and learned that there is no application currently before the board respecting the takeover of either Noble Delivery or Delivro (Canada) Inc. by United Parcel Services. The board is aware that United Parcel Services does have an application before the Foreign Investment Review Board seeking the right to invest in Canada in these two companies. The OHTB would not entertain any application before the Foreign Investment Review Board had dealt with the matter. Additionally, I understand that Delivro (Canada) Inc. is a Quebec-domiciled corporation and as such United Parcel Services would have to deal with the Quebec board first should they wish to take over the company.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. members that should an application come before the Ontario Highway Transport Board, the board will deal with the application keeping in mind public necessity and convenience and the best interests of the Ontario public.

CANCELLATION OF FERRY BOOKING

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) asked a question of the House leader on Tuesday, a question dealing with the cancellation of a trip by the Bruce Peninsula Resort Association on the Chi-Cheemaun.

Mr. Lewis: I had a trip nearly cancelled on the Chi-Cheemaun too. I will tell the minister about it some day.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member told me.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is fame of a sort.

Mr. Lewis: It was after the member for Timiskaming became chairman. When he was chairman, it didn’t go. Now that he has gone --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission arranged a booking for the Bruce Peninsula Resort Association and members of the local tourist industry. The intention of the arrangement was to familiarize the representatives of the industry with the facilities of the new craft, the Chi-Cheemaun. The arrangements were to include a sailing from Tobermory.

Non-sailing and limited facilities were imposed on these people because of an error made by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in making two bookings on the same night. Mr. Roy Bullen of the Bruce Peninsula Resort Association called my office and, as a result of this call, a news release was issued by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission apologizing for the impositions on his group. The news release indicated, as well, that a letter to Mr. Bullen will be sent from the commission and that the commission is hopeful that arrangements can be made to host the Bruce Peninsula Resort Association at another time when all of the facilities can be dedicated to them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia with a question.

HIGHWAY 402 EXTENSION CONTRACT

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Why has he permitted his ministry to award a contract for $12 million for the extension easterly of Highway 40 and not notified my colleague from Lambton so he could make the announcement? Why has he done that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A good question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my apologies to the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson). if I did not notify him, it was pure oversight because it should have been done.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want the minister to know that’s a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Ruston: Don’t forget to give him the cheque.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Could the Minister of Housing indicate what OHC has done recently -- and what success has attended its efforts -- in acquiring a larger stock of multi-bedroom housing accommodation for larger families who have a desperate need and have been on waiting lists for a long long time?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we intend to build as many units as we can. It depends, as I’ve said many times before, on federal funding and we will proceed with as many HOME developments as possible.

I want to say to the hon. member now, though, that we’re not going to be able to proceed with as many HOME developments as we had intended to.

Mr. Lewis: Announced; announced.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And we’re not going to be able to proceed with as much municipal land assembly as we had intended to. We had a meeting this morning and we talked to the various --

Mr. Lewis: Ah, those federal men, eh?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- people in Ontario who are very much involved. We want to make sure that they have a part, as far as the municipalities are concerned, in providing housing. We told them that $35 million was allocated to Ontario for land assembly and it’s just not good enough. I say to the hon. member that we haven’t got the funds to provide all the three- and four-bedroom units that we’d like to, but we will provide as many as we can.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: I was assured by people in OHC some months ago that efforts were being made to enlarge that stock. Is the minister saying, in effect, as a general reaction to the issue, that nothing has been done by way of a successful accumulation of the stock? And, secondly, may I ask the minister what he would do under this kind of a circumstance: A mother with five children, living in a single room, ridden with cockroaches, no window in it and sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities with three other people in the house? What would the minister do when faced with that kind of a situation? Would he get off his fanny and acquire some stock and not blame Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Here, here, watch that language.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I would do in that particular situation? I would do something myself.

Mr. MacDonald: What?

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean, build a house?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I wouldn’t depend on governments to provide all the housing accommodation in Ontario. That’s what I would do.

Mr. MacDonald: What does the minister mean?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the person has an obligation to improve the living accommodation, just as much as we have an obligation to provide some of the housing.

Mr. Lewis: Who has an obligation?

Mr. MacDonald: Who has? The mother?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Whoever the member is talking about; the person who is living in the accommodation. If he or she --

Mr. MacDonald: The mother of five children --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: -- who is living on $90 a week and working?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Would the member let me answer? If they are not satisfied with the accommodation they have, I think it’s up to them to try and improve it, and they can do it.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, will he stop! He is unreal. He is just impossible.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They can either improve it or they can move out into another accommodation.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what is called free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have around 90,000 units under OHC and that’s a lot of units.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay, final supplementary: How would the minister propose that this woman, earning $90 a week and raising five children, would go about getting a house? How would she do it on her own?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): He doesn’t care, that’s it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think we can provide, as I said before, every family in Ontario with accommodation, and I don’t think that’s the aim of this government. It may be the socialists’ aim, but it’s not ours.

An hon. member: What are we paying them for?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, to provide every family with accommodation. That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And they won’t make it work.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a copout.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Renfrew South with a question.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, my question will have to wait, because the minister I was about to ask it of has already left to journey to Cornwall to a very momentous event that will take place there tonight.

An hon. member: Sit down. He’s out of order.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t have to make a speech, just sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

BILINGUAL DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I would like to address it to him in the other official language, since I can’t seem to get across to his colleagues in English.

Qu’est-ce que le ministre attend pour parler à ses collègues, le ministre des Transports et le procureur général de la Couronne pour que le gouvernement accepte les applications des francophones de la province s’ils veulent les traduire eux-mêmes et les envoyer en français? Pour avoir des permis de conduire en français, pour avoir des contraventions en français. Est-ce que le ministre leur parle à ces gars-là pour essayer de les déniaiser?

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, the question is completely out of order, as you know.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: M. l’Orateur, il me fait plaisir de dire que cette question est très active et que mon collègue, le ministre des Transports et des Communications, va avoir une réponse bientôt.

Mr. Roy: I’ve a supplementary. Asseyez-vous Cassidy. Sit down. Est-ce que tu voudrais parler à ton collègue, le procureur général, le gars avec le barbe? Parler à tes autres collègues pour permettre plus d’usage du français dans les communications avec les gouvernements.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Order.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): What a way to waste a question period.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Notre gouvernement est très intéressé à promouvoir le bilinguisme et mon ami, le procureur général et qui, indique-t-on, attend patiemment d’avoir les résultats complets prochainement.

Mr. Cassidy: M. l’Orateur, question supplémentaire: Evidemment cela arrive que le ministre des Transports change les formules d’immatriculation des chauffeurs en six mois mais pour les rendre bilingues cela va prendre à peu près cinq ans.

Mr. Lewis: It sticks in their craw, doesn’t it? Just relax.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any answer?

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a supplementary? I didn’t recognize it.

Mr. Deans: Didn’t the minister understand the question?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside has an original question.

PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, regarding the building of a highrise apartment on the Niagara Escarpment at Owen Sound. Can the minister explain the situation whereby this morning the chopping down of trees was begun in order to make way for the building of a highrise apartment and a larger parking area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, I can’t explain that. I don’t know anything about it and it is not within my jurisdiction.

An hon. member: It probably belongs to the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Middlesex South.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re just about out of time. I think we should get on to new questions. There are three or four people who wish to ask them.

The member for Middlesex South, first of all.

MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is it the intention of the minister to reduce operating deficit subsidies of municipal transit operations, as has been suggested is happening in London?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to reduce the subsidies. The subsidy programme has been announced by this government. Operating deficits will be funded at 50 per cent of the total operating deficit.

I’m familiar with the story as it appeared in the London Free Press. I can say we do not intend to advance money to the municipalities. We expect them to have an audited statement of what their deficit is and they will be paid 50 per cent of that without any question.

In the London case, they had predicted they would lose something like $2 million and wanted us to advance them $1 million. We’ll not do that. They’ll be paid quarterly and we’ll audit their books quarterly to see just what the deficit is. At the end of the year they will receive the full 50 per cent of their total deficit.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill with his question now.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): The minister is not here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right; the member for Rainy River.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the House leader. Does he not consider that his function as Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and those people employed underneath him are now redundant with the appointment of this three-person committee? What is his responsibility? Why has he not been doing and carrying out his function which he was elected and appointed to do?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it’s a peculiar thing that the member takes this position now. I certainly do not feel that my job is in any jeopardy whatsoever and I welcome the public input the Premier has brought in.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s the way it is -- for the benefit of this province. We will use them accordingly.

Mr. Reid: Are these people being paid? Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member has had his question. The member for Wentworth.

PRESERVATION OF FARMLAND

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Given that the representatives of all the major farming organizations in the Hamilton-Wentworth area have approached the regional government asking that it take action to ensure the preservation of grade 1 and 2 farmland within the region; and given that the regional government doesn’t have the finances to do that, is there a programme about to be introduced or will the government introduce a programme to assist the municipalities to maintain the most valuable farmland in the area in production?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will take that question as notice.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired. I’ll recognize the member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. members want to join me in welcoming Mr. Gregory Burr, principal of the Bosanquet Central School in Lambton, with 75 students plus their guides.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I wish, through you, to tell the hon. members of this Legislature that we have in the east gallery 33 students of St. Mary’s School, West Lorne, county of Elgin, and their principal, Mr. John Caruana, and Mrs. Carruthers to supervise them. I wish to ask you to join me in extending them a very hearty welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: I rise on a point of order and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling on this. I noticed during the question period that the member for Middlesex South was permitted to ask a question. Having in mind that the member for Middlesex South is a parliamentary assistant, as you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, in the federal House the Speaker there has made a ruling that parliamentary assistants are not permitted to ask questions during the question period. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to --

An hon. member: They are here.

An hon. member: We’re not in Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: The member lost that nomination, remember?

Mr. Roy: Would you make a ruling and advise the House whether it is proper that parliamentary assistants be permitted to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: We would be inclined to differ. Since parliamentary assistants have nothing to do anyway, at least they should be permitted to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker: I might just remind the hon. members that there is no rule in our orders and procedures that forbids the parliamentary assistants to ask questions.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As Barney Danson says, they do some dumb things in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

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

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

Ministry of Colleges and Universities Ministry administration programme ................. $5,610,000

University support programme ..... $654,918,000

Colleges and adult education support programme ............ $305,262,000

Student affairs programme .......... $52,586,000

Hon. Mr. Clement presented the 69th annual report of the Ontario Municipal Board for the year ended Dec. 31, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Horticultural Societies Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: We must be coming to the end of the session because this happens all the time -- no legislation until just before the end of the session.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the bill upgrades the amount of grants that are paid -- in fact more than doubles it in some cases and triples it in others.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): When is that drainage Act coming in?

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

FATAL ACCIDENTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Fatal Accidents Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

TRUSTEE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Trustee Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MECHANICS’ LIEN AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Mechanics’ Lien Act.

Motion greed to; first reading of the bill.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS CREDITORS PAYMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications Creditors Payment Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PUBLIC WORKS CREDITORS PAYMENT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to repeal the Public Works Creditors Payment Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ministry of Health Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. MacDonald moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make it necessary that a ministry or a board or agency or commission of the government of Ontario shall, upon request and without cost, make available as soon as possible any identifiable official document to any person who wants to examine or to copy it.

One of the features or one of the things which has bedevilled public life down through the years as I have observed --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We don’t debate the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: I am just commenting briefly on it.

Mr. Speaker: No, we just state the principle of the bill which has been done, I believe, quite properly.

Mr. MacDonald: Very good, sir. Sometimes your crispness and succinctness overwhelm me. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 10th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 80, An Act to enable the Establishment of a Project for Better Administration of Courts in the Region of Central West.

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS PROJECT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): When we recessed at 6 o’clock the other evening, I adjourned the debate on this bill and I want to conclude my remarks.

I had asked, Mr. Speaker, if the minister (Mr. Clement) would be sure to tell us, when he responds in the debate, why at this point in time the bill is necessary when one considers that the project has been in operation in the region of central west for at least a year and has been engaged in some of the very experiments referred to. I was referring particularly to the remarks made at the opening of the courts by the Deputy Attorney General On Jan. 6 of this year, immediately prior to the appointment of the present minister as Attorney General of Ontario.

One of the major things I was saying, probably simply because I am a lawyer by background and training, was I recognize the extreme difficulty of implementing change in the court system. I think there is an immense inertia in the structural system of the courts which militates against change. One is immediately faced with the problem, as stated by the Deputy Attorney General and many other people, that the courts are there for the purpose of dispensing justice, and justice, somehow or other, is not necessarily synonymous with efficiency.

I think it’s almost trite for those who criticize the lower court system to say that one of the major problems facing counsel in the lower courts -- be they the provincial courts family division, the provincial courts criminal division or the small claims courts, is one finds oneself becoming part of the process.

One feels as though one is playing a part within the institution, to expedite the flow of business through the courts rather than for the purpose of consideration and dispensation of justice.

I would be inclined to think that anyone who sat in the provincial court criminal division, in court No. 21 at the old city hall, these days would be very much aware of the problem of strict processing of the cases, let alone the question of dispensing justice in the hearing of the cases. I am sure that’s true in most of the other courts. Part of the inertia therefore is that those involved in the administration of justice take the view that if one tries to improve the efficiency of the courts, one somehow or other is lowering the standard of justice which is administered by those courts.

It can be variously expressed. It can be expressed in any number of ways but I think that is a fair statement and does reflect what the Deputy Attorney General said at the time of the opening of the courts earlier in January.

This advisory committee is to advise the Attorney General about what should be done with respect to court management in the pilot project area of central west. I assume that, since it will be chaired by the Deputy Attorney General, in addition to the advice the Attorney General will get from the advisory committee, he will also be getting very substantial input from the ministry itself through the Deputy Attorney General.

I comment so much about the Deputy Attorney General in dealing with this bill. It’s not only because of the remarks which he made, but because he provides such a focal figure in the way in which the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations are going to be implemented. When one looks at the duties the bill provides for the advisory committee, it will consider such matters with respect to the project -- the implementation of the operations -- as the advisory committee considers advisable; and, as I said, it is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General and will consider such matters as are referred to it by the Attorney General.

It is very strange that if the purpose of this pilot project is to reflect in a representative area of the province the experimentation involved in putting into effect the 351-odd recommendations which are in the Law Reform Commission’s report with respect to the administration of justice, I am surprised that the bill doesn’t make some reference to that as the framework within which the experimentation is going to take place. I am surprised in the sense that it would have made sense to have referred to that report and the recommendations in asking the question of the Attorney General as to whether or not it is his intention to refer to the advisory committee, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3 of section 1 of the bill, the 351 recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, or some part of them or all of them.

I’d like also to know, if I may, exactly what has taken place up to now. Obviously a substantial amount of the basic groundwork and framework of the work to be done pursuant to this bill has been laid, because of the references which have been made to the regional office which has been established in Hamilton, because of the reference to the fact that the advisory committee, or substantially the same body as the advisory committee, already exists, with respect to the question as to why there isn’t some different method by which these recommendations can be implemented.

I am always concerned when the Attorney General takes upon himself the implementation of so many of these recommendations rather than to have almost established a task force, not only to consider these mailers and make recommendations about it, but a task force designed subject to the approval of the Attorney General to get involved in the actual implementation of it. It seems to me that that is the important part of it.

I would like also to have some information about the court manager concept which is obviously embedded in the provisions of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations. As I understand it, a manager or a management team, was assembled some considerable time ago and has been working since in the central region. It must have made substantial progress as to what they think the time schedule is with respect to the implementation of those recommendations.

I’d like to know just what we will have accomplished if one looks forward two years from now to July 31, 1977, when this bill will be repealed. But obviously that reflects a time frame within which this pilot project will have implemented those changes which they consider necessary for the central region west and, presumably, they will then be implemented in other parts of the province.

We are in support of the bill. We don’t underestimate the difficulties and complexities of the problem. I suppose the appropriate place for us to deal with this aspect of this experimental project is in the estimates which will be coming along fairly soon. But I noticed in the first vote of the estimates of the Attorney General that in the area of policy development there is an additional $1 million this year, increasing from some $800,000 to $1,800,000. The natural question when one looks at the estimates is to ask whether that $1 million or some portion of it is the funding that is required f or the purpose of implementing the work of this pilot project and for establishing a rational and intelligent system of court administration consistent with the needs for the dispensation of justice in those courts.

Unless my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, believes it to be so, I don’t really consider that it is necessary that we should put this bill into committee of the whole House --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): No. I agree with you.

Mr. Renwick: -- assuming, as I do, that the minister will take the time in his reply to inform us and sketch in for us just what has taken place up to now, what will be taking place and what he anticipates this project will accomplish.

I think it is absolutely essential that somehow or other the question of the administration of the courts be looked at in the way in which it is going to be obviously looked at in the central region west. I only hope we will find two years from now that actual changes have taken place, consistent always with the overriding consideration that the courts are dealing with individual rights of persons before them and that those rights, of necessity, often take time to sort out and to come to decisions and to render decisions which are just.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, both of the two major recommendations in volume I of the law commission report on the administration of courts have come under heavy fire from those who would be in any sense even remotely or immediately affected. This is to be anticipated in matters legal because of an engrained conservatism and an unwillingness to adopt new perspectives and new attitudes, etc., however urgent, necessary and admittedly reasonable they may be.

I grieve over the failure to move in these two areas, one area being the one before us today, namely, the whole business of a systems analysis. It’s as though the IBM company never came into existence. The courts are wretchedly run internally. The amazing and even miraculous thing about the whole operation under the present management, the way the things are done, is that they manage to stay on the rails at all.

The expertise and the type of administrative skills that have been engendered by contemporary industry are simply not utilized within the structure. The attempt of the Law Reform Commission, which was far more visionary than most -- that commission deserves enormous credit -- and of the minister’s department and of his officials, in my opinion, was to promote that. They recognized the critical need and they wanted to get ahead with the thing. However, the wounded sensibilities out there were such as to make a more cautious approach necessary in the circumstances.

I can’t disagree with that. The hard realities of life are such that this is the best one can do under the circumstances against entrenched and purblind judgements. Sensibilities with respect to judges’ jurisdiction and their particular role in the courts on the basis of the community having been traditional have caused them to react in a serious manner. One can’t run a government or a court system without having the fullest participation obviously on behalf of the judiciary who are chief instrumentalities in that realm. If their backs are up then, one has to bow.

The second area was the area of the merger of the Supreme and county courts. In both matters, I trust, we may, during the estimates, get back to these fields. I won’t prolong my remarks just now except to say that while there’s possibly a certain inertia in the ministry with respect to future shock, the judiciary suffers from something I would term past shock -- the inability to come to grips or terms with a court system.

All right. Since the minister can’t get it across the board, since he can’t get the recommended director of courts administration appointed and the whole thing into gear and working, however tentatively, it was felt wise to compromise. To the extent Callaghan had something to do with it other people in the ministry came up with this interim compromise solution in the best legal tradition, taking half a loaf -- no, just taking a piece of bread -- rather than having the whole thing scuttled and held in abeyance. The solution was to initiate the central west concept, to get it going, to test it; in effect, simply to receive recommendations as to how it best might work, thereby softening or cushioning the impact of it.

All I can say is, preserve it, and I don’t think this is going to be all that difficult to do. Fear makes people blind. Preserve the independence of the judiciary at all the levels involved, which everyone in this House wishes to do. It seems to me fairly obvious that will not be impinged upon, and need not be impinged upon, and that all the cake-walking which occurs is really unnecessary; but, again, it is felt that it is necessary, despite the rationality in the matter. I think there is a knee-deep ingrained irrationality running here.

This is the best we can do as an interim measure, for the time being, to set it up in that region, Hamilton-Wentworth having, over against Toronto, a substantial court yet not taxing resources. It would be a good reflection of how the court system might operate and could be made to operate for an interim period. It certainly gets the ministry off the hook. I have to give the minister plaudits, if that’s the word, for that. In the meantime, he shifts it out there, gets it down to a geographical region, places everything in some kind of suspension.

The suspension is not a void. Previously it was a void and for about two or three years, he was avoiding really getting into this thing. At least he has a branch of the willow tree, although he is in the water; I hope he can pull himself out. If we can assist in this regard by giving no trouble with respect to this legislation, so be it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the observations of the members opposite who have contributed to this debate. I read Hansard again this morning in an effort to refresh my memory as to the observations offered on Tuesday last by the member for Riverdale. I am pleased to note that his party, and my perception was on Tuesday that the Liberal Party likewise, endorsed the concept of the bill, subject to the inquiries directed in this direction as to certain particulars.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) on Tuesday when we were debating the bill, produced to me an article from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record which bore the headline, “Co-Ordinating the Courts Hopeless Job, Crown Says.” An article followed allegedly quoting Mr. Morrison, the Crown attorney in that area. I’ve since heard from Mr. Morrison and without taking the time of the House, he has had a subsequent discussion with the reporter who conceded that the headline was placed on there by someone at the newspaper not by the reporter who interviewed Mr. Morrison on this. He supports the concept, but the indication to the reader is that it is a hopeless job. It was not stated that it came from Mr. Morrison’s lips according to Mr. Morrison’s letter to me. He also says the reporter concedes that he did not say it nor did he write the headline.

Mr. Lawlor: What does he say now? That it’s next to hopeless?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, of course not, but he is enthusiastic about it and he realizes there are all kinds of problems involved.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Maybe he had a change of heart after your comment about Moosonee.

Mr. Renwick: Would you like to take your letter to him?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know. I didn’t personally talk to the gentleman involved, but I am glad to see that he took the time to write to me -- I guess yesterday -- May 28.

Mr. Renwick: Isn’t that convenient.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I found that very helpful. I wanted to clarify that matter that was drawn to the attention of the member for Waterloo North, and, I know, of great interest to those present.

The member for Riverdale posed the question that the project has been under way for some time. Why do we need legislation now? The project really has been under way since last year in terms of developing the concept of obtaining the physical plant, if I may use that phrase, for office accommodation for the administration people, presently located in Hamilton.

But the reason we need legislation in order to support the project, is that certain legislation already sets forth or makes reference to certain court officials. For example, the County Courts Act in certain sections describes duties of court reporters, and they are mandatory duties. We are now met with the very practical situation that we cannot ask those people or direct them to abandon their responsibilities set out by statute in order to enable the project to come about. They say, “We are bound by the statute. Certain of our duties are detailed in a mandatory form in the particular statute, whatever it might be. You provide us with some legislative authority to go ahead, and we are willing to co-operate -- we want to co-operate.”

I am just going by memory, but there is also a section in the County Courts Act that says, for example, that a sessions court shall be held the first Monday in June, or words to this effect. We just cannot deviate from that mandatory requirement unless we legislatively deviate from it by the introduction of this bill. So that is the purpose in moving in a legislative form at this particular time.

The member for Lakeshore, in some comments earlier, wondered why we move in a pilot project way. The Law Reform Commission made broad, sweeping recommendation on, I think, 351 various matters. We just cannot, for very obvious reasons, implement all of those and thrust them upon the province at one particular time. It would bring the whole system into chaos and the cost factor would be absolutely astronomical.

I was pleased to listen to and to read again the observations of the member for Riverdale, who obviously appreciates what the problem is all about and why we have to move in this pilot project way. We have to see how it works, find out what our experience will be after the two-year period has gone by, and then by experience move hopefully in a broadening sense across the entire province. I think those other areas which are not touched by the pilot project undertaking would be very interested in seeing what the experience was in the pilot project area, and those areas which lend themselves to difficulty, and how those difficulties were resolved, and this sort of thing.

The member also would like an up-to-date report on who sits on the advisory committee. The chairman, of course, is the deputy minister, Mr. F. W. Callaghan. The rest of the committee members include Mr. Justice Tom Zuber of the Supreme Court, sitting there as a nominee for the Chief Justice. His Honour Chief Judge William Colter is there on behalf of the county courts. His Honour Judge J. L. Roberts is there representing the provincial courts criminal division.

Mr. Lawlor: You tried to give him something to do?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Does the member for Lakeshore know the man?

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t say another word. I will be sued for libel.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Top-quality man all the way. One of the finest criminal division judges that this province has ever seen.

Mr. Lawlor: Maybe I got the wrong guy. Sorry.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Yes, I think you have.

Hon. Mr. Clement: This man sits in Niagara Falls. He has been a presiding judge down there -- formerly a magistrate -- since May, 1952. He was appointed in 1952 and I personally attended his swearing in on that occasion.

Mr. Roy: Were you around then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Also on the advisory committee is His Honour Judge John Van Duzen, representing the provincial courts family division. Also, there are two members of the bar to put on there, and I don’t know if they have already been appointed by their bar associations or not. We decided a relatively short time ago -- I would say within the last three or four weeks, if I recollect correctly -- that the bar should be represented on this advisory committee and we have turned to the bar associations within the region, or in the pilot project area, asking them for the names of two nominees on behalf of the bar to assist in the deliberations of this particular committee.

I would just like to make mention, Mr. Speaker, of two or three things that I think will give credence to the pilot project concept in terms of why we have to move in this particular way. At the present time, we have over 300 court offices in the Province of Ontario, employing over 3,000 regular employees and 1,000 temporary employees as they are required from time to time. To administer an operation this large is indeed a very tremendous job.

With the Ministry of the Solicitor General -- and we have had some discussions within the last week concerning that particular ministry -- for example, the Ontario Provincial Police have divided the province up into 17 districts and each one of those districts has about 2,300 staff, dealing mainly in administrative matters covering a total field staff of about 4,600 out in the field. In addition, there are about 600 people at OPP headquarters here in Toronto, also involved in administration responsibilities.

The Ministry of the Attorney General has one administrative head, administering and supervising over 4,000 individuals. I am not trying to say one is better than the other, but I just wanted to use those figures to demonstrate to the members how the pyramidal structure or corporate structure really works between those two ministries. Quite simply, unless we go and embark upon the recommendations that are feasible in terms of cost and in terms of resources -- both dollars and people -- we simply can not implement any of the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

I really am pleased that certainly some of the members opposite have recognized the wisdom in proceeding in this fashion. The self-destruct provisions of the bill -- namely, the end of July, 1977 -- are self-evident. We are proposing certain case-flow standards through the administrator. We hope to develop these sorts of things. The member for Lakeshore has indicated his interest in case-flow management, as to the number of cases and how they are to be handled. A proposal that I have here before me may be of some interest in that area. We propose standards in the operation of the criminal division with respect to case flow in this region.

The proposals we put forward for the case flow are as follows:

A 90-day limit target from date of summons or arrest to the completion of all matters within the jurisdiction of the criminal division of the provincial court;

That judges should hear all Criminal Code matters and any unusual cases in other federal statutes. In addition, in exceptional cases, a Crown attorney may decide that a particular case is of sufficient import that it should be heard by a judge. Justices of the peace should hear most of the provincial statute cases and the municipal bylaw cases, except where it’s felt that because of the principles involved it should be determined by a judge;

That there should be limited movement of judges and justices of the peace to fill and assist where needed; this would be on a regularly scheduled basis where possible; and

That a judicial caseload average be established of 3,000 cases per year; the caseload average would include trials, guilty pleas and withdrawals and the issuance of bench warrants, and is based upon the statistical data centre’s statistical reports.

This is the sort of thing we want to move towards. I cannot, off the top of my head, give an individual caseload for the year just passed, 1974, but I can remember it wasn’t too many years ago when Judge Roberts at Niagara Falls, prior to his having the assistance of a full-time justice of the peace, used to hear somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8,000 cases in a year. It simply is too much work for one individual and gives rise to some of the questions which have been touched on in this House from time to time.

Mr. Lawlor: It is not the same Roberts I am thinking of. Okay?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am sure it isn’t. The judge on this advisory committee, that Judge Roberts, has had an extensive background in presiding at trials, as I say, for in excess of 23 years. He is a person who will really contribute a substantial amount of responsible input to this advisory committee.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s incredible -- 8,000 cases a year.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, sir, and subsequently -- I suppose I’m turning the clock back now maybe 10 years; I forget time moves so quickly -- he was given the assistance of a full-time justice of the peace who sits concurrently, in another courtroom of course, and deals with most bylaw and minor traffic matters. For a number of years prior to his appointment, the man was a clerk in the court, himself an ex-police officer; and he has distinguished himself, I might say, in a very, very creditable fashion in the Niagara Falls area.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s 40 cases a day!

Mr. Renwick: That’s 40 cases a day. On a 200-day working year, that is 40 cases a day. How in God’s name did he do it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I am counting all cases -- criminal, municipal -- both provincial summary matters and Criminal Code matters.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is including the pleas of guilty. He must be.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I am including everything -- pleas of guilty and everything else -- but those figures do not exist today because of additional judges having been appointed in that area.

My gosh, when I first went down there to practise law, they were called magistrates then and there was one in Welland, one in St. Catharines and one in Niagara Falls. They took all the courts right from there up to Hamilton in effect. They did Fort Erie, Ridgeway, Humberstone, Allanburg, Thorold

-- all in addition to the main centres.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister must remember that’s a long time ago when he first went there.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Sarnia points out that was a long time ago, and I suppose he should know, because he is getting on quite well himself.

Mr. Roy: The minister has been around a long time. I thought that was obvious.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But these are the sort of things that we intend to undertake. They have been undertaken right now in the administration centre in Hamilton. We have there a knowledgeable individual, experienced in court administration. We have another one who deals with administration of family court matters, again experienced in that area, and one dealing with criminal matters, experienced in that area, trying to utilize as much as possible the human and physical resources that are available to us. It all sounds so easy just to build another courtroom so that when one gets the situation where the high court judge and the county court sessions judge meet on the same day for the use of the one courtroom one determines that problem by saying: “Let’s build an extra courtroom.”

That’s simply ridiculous. If the caseloads and the flow of the cases and the use of the facilities are handled by one individual who can appreciate the idiosyncrasies of some of the people involved and of some of the special needs, then we can utilize these facilities much more than we are right now, as well as the human resources available.

I think those are the only comments that I have to offer at this particular time. We are embarked upon the project. We will watch it carefully. We’re really laying the keel for the framework of a judicial system insofar as administration of the courts is concerned. I hope, Mr. Speaker, it can be expanded with certain modifications across the entire province by the time this entire project is completed and that the bulk of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Ontario can indeed be implemented in a reasonable period of time for a reasonable cost.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister will permit one question because of our desire not to go into committee on the bill. Do I take it that at July 31, 1977, the time when the bill, as the minister says, self-destructs, he will have a full-fledged system, not necessarily perfect, but a full-fledged, revised or modified or approved court system in place in the central region at that time, or will it still just be very much in an experimental stage and not really in place as a going modified system?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, no, I can’t say that. I don’t think that would be realistic. I visualize by the end of July, 1977, that this project, insofar as the legislation is concerned, will self-destruct. Then we will be taking that experience of the past, say, two years and studying that and coming forward with something that can be expanded across the entire province. I do not wish to create the impression that we’ll have a full-scale provincial system ready to go in two years because that just isn’t feasible. But I think we’ll have had enough experience in two years to be able to see how we can implement that on an expanded basis.

If that was not feasible and if I bore the same responsibilities at that time as I do now and if we just simply didn’t have the information, I suppose I would have to come back in this very chamber and ask for an extension to that date and I would have to convince my colleagues in the Legislature that it was necessary. But, no, we will not have the system ready to go across the province on Aug. 1, 1977, I wish we could but we won’t.

Mr. Renwick: Without repetition we can probably touch on some of these things in the Attorney General’s estimates as well.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 80.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 80, An Act to enable the Establishment of a Project for the better Administration of Courts in the Region of Central West.

Clerk of the House: The 17th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Attorney General):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening statement in connection with this ministry insofar as its estimates are concerned. We have, over perhaps the past three weeks, discussed in some length the estimates of two other ministries in the justice policy field for which I am responsible. Rather than perhaps duplicate or triplicate, if that is the word, some of the discussions which have already taken place -- I’m sure certain members opposite may well wish to make opening statements -- I thought we could perhaps embark on the estimates starting with vote 1201 itself.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose the minister has good reason for not making an opening statement on these estimates. At the rate things have been going for him recently be would obviously be in the position of reading statement after statement because of his triple function as Provincial Secretary for Justice. Attorney General and acting Solicitor General -- and with all the legislation he introduced today.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I was surprised when he said three weeks. It seems like three months since he first stood up.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), of course, is not able to be here today and I have been asked to make some opening comments in relation to this ministry. Although I find the present Attorney General a very engaging and likeable individual, I think there are certain things which have to be said about the Ministry of the Attorney General and, I suppose, justice generally in this province. These things, I suppose, have been said since 1971.

I state this emphatically and this is supported very often by my discussions with members of the bar, members of the judiciary and the public at large: Justice generally in this province since 1971 or since the time this Premier (Mr. Davis) took office has not had a very high priority. Nothing was more obvious, as I recall the earlier days of the premiership -- or subsequent to the election in October, 1971 -- when I used to see the Provincial Secretary for Justice sifting about as far to the right of the Premier as possible -- out of the way, low in priority. Important changes which should have been made in the area of justice have not been made.

There has not been enough continuity in the job. You have had a succession of ministers. I recall the first Attorney General, Allan Lawrence, following the election in 1971, who was succeeded by the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales) who was then succeeded by the present Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), and now the present minister. I think the changes which have to be made in the justice field will require the closer attention of a minister than someone who stays in the job for a period of half a year or a year or possibly two years. 1 think it requires more continuity.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would like to stay for about 10.

Mr. Roy: You would like to stay for about 10? I’m sorry we might not be able to allow that. You may not be able to take it for 10 years if you continue to be provincial secretary, Attorney General and acting Solicitor General. I must say this -- and my attack is not on you personally because I think all of us here respect your capabilities and your sense of fairness -- the fact remains that no man in this province should be doing what you are doing, the three jobs you are doing. I suggest it is not possible for any one individual to give full attention to jobs which require the full-time activity of one individual.

I suppose it comes back to the point that if the Premier sees fit, for instance, to have you as Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General -- and I am sure my friend from Downsview has emphasized this point often enough -- it really doesn’t say much for provincial secretaries. Since the establishment of these provincial secretaries I think we’ve seen how they have been downgraded. We haven’t really seen any major results emanating from these provincial secretaries.

So, I think I should emphasize that it’s not fair to this minister and it’s not fair to any individual in this province to be acting in this triple capacity. You might not have a chance to serve much longer, if we have something going on here in the fall, but I say this -- we will still like you whether we’re looking at you from a different side or from the other side.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): He really gets funny at times, doesn’t he?

Mr. Roy: What are you saying? It’s a sure thing you won’t be there.

Hon. Mr. Potter: You really get funny.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): -- or in a coalition.

Mr. Roy: There will not be any coalition.

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

Mr. Roy: But the fact remains, I think that justice in this province, generally speaking, has not received the priority it deserves. When I say that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t mean to downgrade at all the officials in the Ministry of Justice, because I really think that we have some top-notch people and I know many of them personally in that ministry.

But I would suggest that in the field of justice, it is time to bring on new ideas. What happens very often is when individuals have been too long within the system, too engrained in a process or in a way of acting, very often you don’t see the deficiencies in the system as the public sees them. You become part of the establishment and at that point it becomes difficult to look at it objectively and say, “We think that this is a weakness”.

I asked the minister, for instance, to go back to his early law days when he was a student or a young practising lawyer, and he could see some of the anomalies within the system -- when he was prepared to challenge some of the old traditions which have no relevance to 20th century justice. After a while, as you keep practising -- and this was my own experience -- you seem to take them for granted. it is something that is necessary.

It really doesn’t come to mind until you see individuals who come to court, whether as witnesses or as jurors or in any other capacity. This is really how the system works. This has been mentioned by the member for Lakeshore, but somehow 20th century technology has not seemed to catch up in our courts.

I think that we would have a better system of justice in this province had the Premier given it a higher priority and had he appointed individuals as Attorney Generals who would have some continuity in the job. I mention for instance the hon. Robert Welch, your predecessor, who was in the position for only a matter of months. How can you expect a minister, no matter how capable he is, to really bring on new ideas?

And new ideas you should have! My God, you’ve got a stack of law reform reports, recommendations -- I suppose they’re 6 ft high. There are all sorts of areas where the Attorney General could be moving, Mr. Chairman. Things aren’t being done and I think it is important for us to emphasize these things.

I could see a man coming into that job -- in spite of the fact that you have capable people working within the ministry -- but it’s you in fact who has to defend these new policies. When they are your ideas and when you are prepared to go to the public with them, that’s when changes are effective. When you have seen a system work for a period of time then you can have more assurance with your ideas. In fact, when any problem comes up or any changes are proposed, you, as minister, can only reflect the statements given to you by your senior personnel. I’m not saying there is not any ingenuity within that head of yours, or behind that beard, but the fact remains that in your triple capacity and in the short duration of time that you have been there, it’s difficult for you to know where to start, where the priorities should come, how the changes should be made.

It brings me to my second point, Mr. Chairman -- some of the changes that we would like to see within the administration of justice. I see my colleague wants to make a comment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the hon member for Ottawa East. I am sure the members would like to join me in welcoming a class from my home town, Petrolia, under the direction of Mr. Douglas Dew, the vice-principal of Queen Elizabeth School there. There are 55 students plus the guardian.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member for Ottawa East continue his presentation?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, in my opening comments, I indicated I felt that there were some things or some matters or some institutions, some methods, within the justice system that should be looked at and should have been changed a long time ago, and I want to mention some of these.

Within the whole administration of justice and the court system and our judges, the thing that I find, in 1975, the most annoying, and I find that the public generally finds most annoying, is our system of family courts or our system of administration of justice for the families, the children, within this province. I know you have some recommendations for this, but I think it’s important to emphasize again.

We are all supposed to serve the public down there and the court is supposed to serve the public as well, but sometimes some people have a false sense of priority within the system. You and I, as practising lawyers, have experienced situations where often the presiding judges think the courts sit for their benefit, for their convenience and whatsoever, and the difficulties that that has caused.

I am pleased to say the new attitude by most recent appointments, whether it be at the Supreme Court level or at other levels, seems in fact to bring another approach to this -- that the courts are there to serve and for the convenience of the public.

But, for instance, when you get into the question of family court or family problems, it becomes exceedingly difficult for anyone in the public to understand how the system works. If you have a situation where an assault is involved in relation to husband and wife, or you have a situation where you have a deserted wife, you get into the situation where the court that you end up in -- and most people end up in that court because they sometimes cannot afford anything else -- is family court. They go to family court and that’s where the judication is made.

If there is a dispute within the family or the breakup or whatever about the children, then they end up in county court -- motions under the Infants Act and so on.

If there’s a problem involving separation or whatever, if there are grounds for divorce, then the parties end up in Supreme Court, and at that point there can be an election made as to whether they want to proceed before a county court judge or whether they want to proceed before a Supreme Court in a Supreme Court level.

If there are problems for instance of alimony, maintenance and so on, they can be in Supreme Court again. So you have a whole variety of avenues that are open. The public generally don’t understand this, and with good reason, because it is not logical.

Why is this the case in this province in 1975 when you consider the fantastic caseload involved in divorce?

I suppose legal aid had something to do with this, but the fact remains that the system, or our legal aid system, allowed certain people who did not have the finances to have access to the courts to get this access. A lot of this is taken up in the area of divorce, separation and family problems and so on.

These people can’t understand why there is such a variety of courts, and why in 1975 we don’t have a central court, a family court, which deals with all aspects of marital problems -- whether the people are there for divorce or whether there’s a dispute as to the children or whether there’s a dispute as to the amount of money to be paid. It should be one central court.

What happens today, Mr. Chairman, is that very often people are shopping around from one court to the next. If the judgement or the order given in one particular court is not adequate, then they go on to another court.

And so I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General is looking at a problem. This is not a new problem -- we started to see the problems of our courts who could not cope after legal aid was instituted in 1966.

I really do think, Mr. Chairman, that it should be a commitment of this province to establish one central family court to deal with all aspects of marital problems.

Now, I appreciate that that might require some discussions. In fact I am not sure whether it would not require some changes to the BNA Act or require some input by the federal government. But when the administration of the courts is within provincial jurisdiction, as it is, surely we should have a say in this, and I would like the Attorney General to advise us what discussions, for instance, have taken place with the federal government about instituting what I consider to be one of the most important changes in our whole court process.

I think that this discrepancy points out the weaknesses within our system of justice since 1971; how we have allowed the system to continue this way to the frustration not only of the lawyers or the judges but of the public generally, where justice is supposed to serve in this province.

The other matter that the public finds difficult to understand and which the Law Reform Commission has emphasised is the difference within our court system -- whether that type of system should exist. Why do we have, for instance, a provincial court? I can see some reason for the provincial court, but the big distinction that has been pointed out by the Law Reform Commission is the distinction between county court and supreme court, and the difference between a county court judge and the supreme court judge.

I really do think that in 1975 we should give serious consideration to having one court level -- whether you call it the county court or I suppose to please everybody we would call it the supreme court.

I know some judges will certainly not approve of this and especially I suppose the judges at the supreme court level. I suppose again this will require some discussion with the federal government about the changing of the operation or whatever changes -- legislative or otherwise -- have to be made.

I would encourage the Attorney General to look at this situation. The public doesn’t understand why it is that if your claim is for so much money you end up in county court and if your claim is for such other money you end up in Supreme Court; that if you have a particular type of action you can’t go to county court but you must go to Supreme Court.

We must simplify our system of justice. We have lost sight of the fact that justice is meant to serve the public. I think we should give serious consideration to looking at these things. I could see in some instances the arguments I have heard about the problems caused by changing the system of justice -- for instance re county and supreme courts -- but I think the overwhelming benefit would be to fuse these two courts.

In Toronto it is fine. You get your Supreme Court which is sitting here year-round. But in some of the outlying areas, if you have a Supreme Court matter you have to wait until the judges come down; you have to wait to have weekly court matters be heard by a Supreme Court judge as long as he is in town. Of course, most judges are here in Toronto.

As I understand the historical significance of the distinction between the county and the supreme court, there was some problem about the quality of the local judges of the county court in the early days. Then when you had an important matter or contentious matter within the community, it was always advantageous to bring in an out-of-town judge. A Supreme Court judge would come down and hear this particular case or hear a series of cases.

But surely, in 1975, that is not the problem. You hear, for instance, the argument that sometimes it is better for the community, if you have a contentious matter, to get an out-of-town judge. But nowadays there is no problem about taking a judge someplace and bringing him in. You don’t need this circuit business of Supreme Court judges travelling across the province and ending up in Kenora for one week and then in Ottawa for the next and then in London for the next. Really, I think this has no validity in 1975.

About the quality of the individuals who are accepting appointment to the bench at the county court and the Supreme Court levels -- I doubt there is a great distinction any more. I think the quality for instance of the recent appointments to the Supreme Court are just excellent. It is really fantastic that these individuals are prepared to make, first of all, the financial sacrifice of accepting these appointments. I don’t want to start naming these individuals but we know their calibre and the financial sacrifices that they make to accept this type of appointment.

For instance, there has been some comment about the appointment or the acceptance by Mr. Maloney of the Ombudsman’s office and the $60,000 that goes with it. I walk down the street and I hear people saying, “Did you see that? This fellow has got a job for $60,000.”

You can imagine, knowing Arthur Maloney, his capabilities and qualities, the cut in income he’s taken to accept that type of appointment. The same holds true for the Supreme Court judges.

I was glad to see approved, for instance, in the federal House, what I consider more adequate increases. I don’t know what reading that bill is at in the federal House, but there is going to be substantial increase for the county and Supreme Court judges at that level.

I think there’s no question about the quality of the individuals who are accepting Supreme Court appointments. Some people will say the quality of the Supreme Court will be diluted if you fuse the county court.

I want to say, the appointments in the county court over the past number of years, have been excellent. You have very capable people. The fact that they end up in the Supreme Court, or the county court, is really a matter, I suppose, of accident or choice if they want to stick around their area.

The distinction, today, does not wash, as far as the public is concerned. For a period of time, it may well be, that you have some county court judges whose ability is questioned at the Supreme Court level. Surely that is only a matter of time. I think the overwhelming preponderance would suggest we should look at this. The advantage of this is, in my opinion, a more continuous system of justice in all areas of this province. If it’s necessary, certain individuals, or out-of-town judges can be brought in to hear a particular case.

I think the distinction should be eliminated. The less the public understands about justice, the less it will trust justice. I want to say to the Attorney General that it’s important we give this matter serious concern. I’m sorry to say there has not been that type of approach since 1971. In no way do I want to criticize this present Attorney General, or the people working with the Attorney General’s department, but the fact remains, because of some of these new ideas, there will be criticisms, and they will be contentious. It’s important to have enlightened individuals. The Attorney General of this province can advance, and give the reason to the public, why we’re prepared to look at the system, and why we’re prepared to change the system.

When you look at other levels, I think there have been some improvements. For instance, the idea of appointing certain individuals not Crown attorneys, to prosecute offences under the Highway Traffic Act, or provincial court matters, is one example. As I see it operating in Ottawa, it works well. We are fortunate. I can only relate back to the Ottawa experience because that’s where I practise, but the justices of the peace in Ottawa are doing a good job in hearing these cases. In fact, they have a fair sense of justice; a fair sense of equilibrium and a fair sense of giving the public the service they expect when they are going to court.

I think that’s exceedingly important because more individuals, I suppose, run across justices of the peace, or provincial court judges, than any other level. That’s the impression people are left with in the justice system.

Some time ago, in this House, we discussed part-time justices of the peace. I don’t think there is any justification in having large numbers of part-time justices of the peace in the system. It’s exceedingly important to attempt to set up a system of education for justices of the peace. If we want to keep them, we have to pay them better as well, when you consider what some people make at other levels in the government, and when you consider what other individuals make be it plumbers, electricians, and so forth.

I think some of these justices of the peace are capable and are doing a good job. If we want to attract a certain amount of talent to do that type of work, I think we have to start considering payment. I know we’ve had problems in the past with certain justices of the peace, but I think it’s important we have a system of education for them; that we have a system of training, maybe retraining to keep them abreast of laws and so on.

I think it’s so important because a larger percentage of the public sees these individuals administering justice than any other level of the courts. The ordinary fellow sometimes doesn’t know the difference between a justice of the peace and a Supreme Court judge. To him these are all people within the system, who are working in justice. If he gets a bad impression, if he doesn’t get a fair hearing at the lower level then his cynicism about justice continues, and God knows we’ve got enough cynicism, not only about the members of the profession, but about our whole administration of justice.

That’s why I stress again, Mr. Chairman, the importance of having as Attorney General, chief law officer for the Crown, someone who is in a position to show that the system of justice is for the people of this province, for the community and not for the people who work within the system.

Another point I’d like to mention to the Attorney General and surely that must give him and his officials some concern is the edict about cutting back on the number of civil servants. That might be fine in an area where -- I look at the former Minister of Health -- you have so many bodies working and you say, “I think we can get the machine or something to do something else. In this office instead of having 17 secretaries we are going to leave it at that level, or we are going to have 16.”

There’s more flexibility there.

But in the area of justice, you look at the fantastic increase in caseload that’s been caused partially be legal aid, partially by population increases in our major centres and so on, and yet you are saying to keep the same number of Crown attorneys. I think you are going to run into problems over this. What is going to happen is that if you start increasing too highly the caseload of your Crown attorneys they are going to be going into court with less preparation.

That’s never good, because you get yourself into a situation where people whom he has the evidence to convict are being acquitted because of lack of preparation. You get to a situation where the Crown attorney starts limiting the services he can give to members of the bar. For instance, he doesn’t have time any more to start giving out disclosure and that type of service.

I appreciate that disclosure is sometimes abused by members of the legal profession. For instance, they want to see what the evidence is, but they have no intention of considering a plea of guilty or whatever, which is their right, I suppose. But the purpose of disclosure in the long run is for the Crown to state clearly what its case is, and when you are faced with overwhelming evidence, you should certainly give some consideration to a plea.

But the fact remains that they are going to have to cut back on that type of service. Apparently this is starting to happen in certain centres in this province. For instance, in Ottawa I understand they are starting to cut back on disclosure for a certain level of ease. It may well be that when you are dealing with eases of shoplifting and minor matters under the Criminal Code disclosure is not required. But very often disclosure was a help, not only to the defence but to the Crown, because often there were special circumstances which the Crown would give consideration to, on sentence and whatever.

I would think you are going to start having some feedback on that. I’m not saying to lift the ceilings on civil servants. But I’m saying you had better start being careful in the area of justice that you do not put yourself in a position where there are far too many cases for the number of people to handle.

As I understand it, most Crown attorneys’ offices across this province have hired very few individuals this year. Yet if you look at the fantastic increase in the caseload, you begin to wonder how they are going to be handling all these matters.

I was, in fact, discussing last week with some of the judges and some of the Crowns in Ottawa how you can have a system break down.

You get into a situation where the Crown attorney is not adequately prepared. It is important that these Crown attorneys prepare because very often some of them do not have that much experience as Crown attorneys to prosecute and with a certain amount of experience you start being able to think on your feet. You start being far more flexible in court.

With their lack of experience and lack of preparation you get yourself into a situation very often where the provincial court judges who are concerned about the high crime rate in the areas, even though the Crown is not prepared, are satisfied with the evidence. They start acting as Crown attorneys, asking the questions and so on and very often convict not on the basis of the evidence as presented by counsel but on the basis of the evidence as elicited by the presiding judge. You run the risk, in that situation, that the judges very often appear to be losing their objectivity. When that happens at the provincial level, individuals start electing to go before the county court judges and juries.

Do you know the difference in cost? I would like you to tell me that some time. I think the cost of provincial court trial in front of the judge must be a fifth of the cost of a trial before a jury.

The county court judges mentioned to me the fantastic increase in caseload that is going on in certain centres of the province. I mentioned Ottawa specifically and I can imagine what it is like in Toronto. It is hard to keep that balance because I suppose there is some abuse by counsel of the legal aid system by pleading guilty and taking the matter up. There is more and more competition, I suppose, as the number of members of the bar increases. You have fewer cases so you drag them out longer and get more money out of them. I suppose there is some of this going on.

The fact remains that within your administration of justice, if you put a ceiling on because somebody decides that is the thing to do -- right across the board -- and your volume of cases keeps increasing, that severely taxes your administration of justice. I think you should give it some concern and you should consider whether you shouldn’t have more flexibility within your administration of justice.

Of course, the other thing that happens if you start having too big a caseload for the number of individuals you have in the office, is you end up having 10, 15, or 20 part-time Crowns doing work on a part-time basis for the Crown attorney. I really question whether you are saving any money doing that in the long run. You say, “We have limited the number of civil servants; we have limited the number of individuals within the administration of justice.” But have you really limited the budget when you start feeding an overwhelming percentage of your cases to part-time Crown attorneys?

Another matter I would want to raise with the Attorney General -- I suppose I do it, Mr. Chairman, in his capacity as Attorney General and Solicitor General -- is a situation which has happened in Ottawa recently and which undoubtedly he has heard something about. He might have had discussions here in the House. That was the fantastic publicity given to these cases involving what they call a sex ring involving young boys and what has happened there, and the great debate that has gone on about whether newspapers should be publishing names of these individuals and so on.

The point I want to make is that I personally feel that when you get involved in criminal matters we have a long tradition here of open justice which in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, includes the publishing of names, addresses and so on. I am of the opinion that that system should continue. Not only does it ensure openness, an open system of justice appears at least to be fair and it is, in fact, a fairer system of justice.

The other point is that it acts as a deterrent. There is a deterrent aspect to this approach to justice and in no way do I want to see curtailment of the publishing of names. But I want to say to the Attorney General and acting Solicitor General I think there can be an abuse of this publishing of names. I suppose newspapers have a certain amount of discretion. But you have no control over whether your name is put on the front page or on the back page of a particular newspaper. I think we have to be exceedingly careful about where the press get their information.

You can have an abuse and it can be detrimental to the accused when you get into a situation where the police or Crown attorneys are releasing names and making what I call gratuitous comments on the evidence. At that point, it could be seriously detrimental to the accused.

Over the past year, I’ve seen some of this go on, and I want to say to the Attorney General that you should give serious consideration to some of the criticism on this.

First of all, I really don’t think that the police should be the ones to release the names. The minute that you release the names, the press wants some comments about the evidence, and you know, as I do, that evidence seen in the press is something that we have tried to stay away from.

Individuals should be judged within our court system on the evidence as is given out in the court and not as they read it in the press. You know the great difficulty in having a fair trial when a case has been blown up and too much talked about. So the police in this province should not, in my opinion, be the ones to release the names. If you curtail that, then it would prevent the police from making comments on the evidence.

The press can get the names as the fellows are arraigned in court, and they could see at the time that he is arraigned what he is charged with and that’s it. In my opinion, that way you would avoid comments which can be very prejudicial to the accused and which sometimes are not borne out by the evidence when the trial takes place. But the damage has been done.

I think you should give some consideration to issuing directives. I think the RCMP now have decided not to release any further names. If the press want to know who is charged with what, they go down to the court when the accused is going to be arraigned and that’s when they can get their information.

The other point is this. Crown attorneys, as well, should not comment on the evidence -- about what the case is about, and what the evidence might be and whether this is a scandal or whether this is one of the biggest ripoffs in the community.

The reason I point it out is that I’ve read about one fellow who, within the system, I have a lot of respect for -- Clay Powell. I can recall that even before the evidence of the charges were laid in relation to the Hamilton harbour scandal -- and all the cases that came up in Ottawa have now been transferred here to Ontario -- he made some comment about the fact that this is one of the biggest scandals we’ll see across the country, one of the biggest ripoffs and this type of thing.

That type of statement by a Crown attorney might very well haunt him later on because it might prejudice the fairness of a trial to the accused. Whether they are successful in arguing against that or not, I think becomes irrelevant, but there must be an appearance of fairness.

I know Clay personally and I have respect for him, but I think I all the Crown attorneys, no matter who they are -- assistant deputy attorney general right down to Crown attorneys in the community -- should be careful about making comments.

They can make comments in court, that’s the forum to make them, but they should be careful about making them to the press before charges have been laid or during a pending trial or whatever. Whether the accused succeeds in getting a mistrial or whether he can have some success in enhancing his case later on during the trial becomes irrelevant. We must continue to give the appearance that the accused is getting a fair trial and I think we should be careful about this type of situation.

As you know in Ottawa, following the publicity about this sex case, one individual committed suicide. Whether it was because there was some comment about the fact that this was a sex ring involving boys and whatever, I don’t know.

I think we should be extremely careful, and I would encourage the Attorney General and the acting Solicitor General to give serious consideration to issuing directives about the giving of names by either the Crown attorneys or the police in this province. The names can be obtained from the courts -- our courts are open -- and I think that is where the press should get their information.

Mr. Chairman, if I might in closing mention one thing which is very parochial but I think is important, during the debates of this latest bill that we were discussing there was a mention by Mr. Morrison, a Crown attorney, about a courthouse in Waterloo. I think you are probably aware that there is a serious need for one in Ottawa as well. Our setup of the courts in the Ottawa area leaves something to be desired.

We have the old court house on Daley St. which has two or three courts and where both the Supreme Court and the county court sit. Then we have the police station next door, where there are two courts -- that is No. 1 and No. 2 arraignment courts. Then we have an office building just a street down on Nicholas St. where we have one floor for the judges and their offices and whatever, and the other floor is for the courts.

You have a system of courts there where you get pillars in the centre of the court and the judge doesn’t see where the accused is sitting or where the witnesses are. I don’t think it lends itself to a smooth operation or to a proper atmosphere for courts to be held in. There has been some discussion about setting up a central court system in the Ottawa area and I think that should be looked at.

I come back to my point that justice is not exactly a vote-getting type of ministry. But I think that when you reach a point in the administration of justice where the whole court apparatus setup -- where the facilities involved deteriorate to a point -- or do not lend themselves to a stable administration of justice. These are all matters that reflect on the administration and the public get concerned about.

The other point I want to raise with the minister, and I have raised it with him in question period before, is your approach toward language in the court. The government mentioned, in fact, in the Throne Speech of 1972 that it was going to allow the use of French in the courts. The answer that you gave on that particular day was the answer given by about three of your predecessors. It gets to a point where it is ridiculous.

You get a situation in Prescott and Russell for instance, where 80 per cent of the people are French-speaking and the judge is French-speaking, the Crown and the police and the witnesses and the defence counsel and everybody else speak English for the record and they can hardly understand each other speaking English. It is absolutely ridiculous.

If you go from Ottawa across the river to Hull, you can have your choice of trials -- you can have it in French or you can have it in English. But in the national capital of this so-called bilingual country -- no sir, it is all in English. You still have a rule in your statute book -- I don’t recall what it is, 142 I think -- but it says: “All procedures in our courts shall be in English only.”

It is not a new thing with this government, but you are going to wait until you get yourself into a situation where you are backed up against a wall -- in Sturgeon Falls for example or in Cornwall -- where you start splitting up the community. Some individuals are prepared to go to jail to see that they have their rights. And you really can’t blame them. You have made a promise to them and you have enhanced the situation in the sense that you have encouraged their aspirations. Then you backed off. It is all just words.

You talk about problems in setting this up. When one works within the system, you see the federal courts operating in Ottawa in both languages, you see all sorts of committees set up where they work in both languages, in fact you appoint bilingual judges or French-speaking judges. What is it for? Just to pacify certain Franco-Ontarians? Why do you appoint these people?

I suppose all the county court bench in Ottawa or part of the Supreme Court bench even in Toronto has spent months in Quebec City in different stages learning French. What the hell for? They are coming back for their own personal edification. That is why people start getting cynical about all this. That is why certain individuals are prepared to challenge that law and are prepared to go to jail to see that they get their rights. It is common sense.

If I was asking you to set up a bilingual court in London, Ont., I suppose you might say “You are in Ontario here” but I am not asking that. I say to you you should give this some consideration. The Franco-Ontarians are getting extremely annoyed about the pat answers and the difficulties about all this that keep emanating from a succession of Attorneys General in this province, including the answer you gave the other day.

In closing I would trust that the Attorney General would give some consideration to our comments because I think it is time in this province that the public see an administration of justice that is serving them, an administration of justice they can understand. Let’s uncomplicate the system, for God’s sake. I think that requires a certain amount of priority which this government has not given since 1971. It is something which would have a high priority with a Liberal government in this province. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any full-fledged normal introductory statement this year. That is for a number of reasons; one of them is, I am too tired. Since Correctional Services started five or six weeks ago, this is the fourth estimate I’ve been into; and that’s enough. By the way, I would be very appreciative, if it should be that you’re ensconced over there in future years, that you do spread them out a bit, for two reasons. Not only because it is very hard on the members of the opposition representing a series of estimates in the justice field -- that’s a secondary consideration; that’s our problem so to speak -- on the other hand -- I forgot what I was going to say --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): You are tired.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are getting older.

Mr. Lawlor: I want to mention -- what I wanted to say was that there is only a certain delimited time with respect to which estimates may be discussed. We are consuming an enormous portion of it. No one says anything, I don’t know why, but the justice element, because it is coming first and because it is taken seriatim, is eating it away. When we come to other estimates which may have more immediate impact upon the economy and the society than even this one does there is going to be little time left.

Mr. Roy: That is the whole strategy of it.

Mr. Lawlor: We ought not, and it is our fault up to a point, play into their hands in this particular regard. I want to mention how regretful I am personally, and I am sure the House is, at the absence of the usual Liberal critic for this particular ministry, the member for Downsview, who is in the hospital at the present time. I know, standing here, I am going to miss him through the course of this thing and I am sure he himself regrets not being here for these estimates.

Mr. Roy: I spoke to him and he said to say “hi” to you.

Mr. Lawlor: Matters touching individual departments, the courts, the restructuring of the courts, will be treated, I trust, succinctly as we go along and we will make our remarks at those times.

Mr. Chairman: I assume we will deal with the individual votes item by item. On vote 1201, item 1.

On vote 1201:

Mr. Chairman: Any comments or questions?

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to speak to a matter which causes me concern in connection with the function of the Attorney General and the matter I brought up two weeks ago in the Legislature. It has to do with an information laid in the Sarnia courts by an officer of the Sarnia township police force with respect to a prosecution for a violation of the Lord’s Day Act.

I asked the Attorney General if he would report on it to me. The report that was given at the time -- and I won’t read it but I say it with respect -- was in error.

The factual situation is that an information was drafted in the name of the chief constable of the Sarnia township police force. That information was sent for consent to the Attorney General of Ontario for prosecution. The consent was given. A police officer then transcribed the name of the chief constable on the information. The chief constable then, and these are the facts, transcribed his name over the signature that had been signed of his name by the constable. That’s what happened. The story that you were given previously is in error.

It was then taken to a justice of the peace and sworn by the justice of the peace. It happened that the chief constable had an easily distinguishable signature, and the justice of the peace and defence counsel, both knew the signature of the chief constable. The charges were withdrawn.

I approached the Crown Attorney after having read this in the paper. I don’t make it my business to interfere with the administration of justice except to say this to you collaterally: Your deputy sits beside you and he knows that I am getting fed up with the appointments that are made in my city of Sarnia. I have said in this House many times, Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t care one tittle if they appoint every hack possible to liquor stores in the city of Sarnia. That has nothing to do with me and I don’t care about it. I make no bones about it. The Deputy Attorney General knows this; the Attorney General knows this; his predecessors know this. But we have to stop playing games in the justice field.

I wrote several years ago on the anticipated appointment of a man named Honsberger, a friend of my colleague from Lambton, as the registrar of the Supreme Court at Sarnia. He was the chief constable of the town of Petrolia and I didn’t attempt to be clairvoyant. I said, “What you are doing is an error. Please recognize that we must have somebody to undertake this responsibility (1) who has the capacity so to do, (2) who has a recognition of the obligation of public service, and (3) who has some background in the matter.”

I realize I am digressing from this information business because I want to tell you I have not done this in eight years in this House. I have never spoken publicly about these matters and it’s incumbent upon me so to do. That man eventually quit. I have had bad experiences with him. He quit that position as registrar of the Supreme Court to become the steward at the local Shriners club.

To give you some idea of the quality of people that are being recommended to you for these appointments, I then heard the rumour that a man named Jackson was going to be appointed to the registrar’s position of the Supreme Court of Ontario and local registrar at Sarnia -- a bankrupt, a man who had been bankrupt, a former Tory federal candidate.

I wrote at that time a confidential letter to the Deputy Attorney General -- perhaps it wasn’t marked confidential -- to express my disdain at this. I tried to convey to him with as much sincerity as I could, “Please don’t do this.”

Now he has been appointed and it’s coming back to me already. It was brought to my attention two weeks ago that there would be no examination for discovery on Mondays and Fridays during the summer months. Lawyers have been told that these days are cancelled out of his book. The only indicator I can grasp from that is, he loves long weekends.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, he likes long weekends. Isn’t that great.

Mr. Bullbrook: He loves long weekends. A lawyer came to me two weeks ago to complain that a default judgment sat in his office for 48 hours. When the lawyer asked why it wasn’t signed, the reply was, he was obliged to be in the Supreme Court upstairs. It would require only about 10 minutes to come down and sign those at night.

The essential wrong, Mr. Chairman to the Attorney General, is appointing these people by orders in council. Justice is much too important. You can’t do it. You cannot permit a situation like the Miller situation to continue without some type of rebuke, some type of public action on the part of your ministry.

The other day we had, and I want to be frank about this, Mr. Chairman, a motion to censure our colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot). I voted in favour because it was a matter of urgent public importance. I would not have voted in favour of censuring him. I believe in the quality of mercy. The man had apologized.

I’m not on my feet to get the justice of the peace, or to get the chief constable. I read in the newspaper a letter from Mr. LeSage in the Sarnia Gazette, where he characterizes the incident as an unfortunate error. It’s not an error. It’s an overt malfeasance, a wrongdoing.

If anybody else in Sarnia had forged anybody else’s name to a negotiable instrument, the detectives in Sarnia, who spend 90 per cent of their time between bicycle thefts and kids smoking pot, would have descended upon that forger immediately.

I don’t want a prosecution of the man, but I don’t want your ministry to characterize these things as unfortunate errors, because they’re not unfortunate errors. If that happened once, it will happen again. I ask you, sir, through the Chairman, to continue that investigation. I ask you to see that the justice of the peace is properly reprimanded, not by the local Crown attorney or the local judge, but by the minister’s office and the minister’s officers.

I ask you to make a report to the Sarnia Township Police Commission to deal with the officer, and the chief constable, on the matter. I regard these things as extremely important. The unfortunate aspect of it is, had I not brought the thing up, it would be all finished now, and it would have been glossed over. We can’t afford the luxury, frankly, in dealing with justice, of permitting those types of things to go on.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know the Attorney General was kind enough to write me a letter in connection with the matters of general concern I expressed with respect to appointments. If the appointments in Sarnia are exemplary of the appointments taking place throughout the Province of Ontario, your ministry is not undertaking its function responsibly.

You’ve given us two registrars that are nothing more than Tory hacks. I don’t like to say that, but that’s all they are because my colleague from Lambton is making these recommendations. It’s got to stop. We realize what a fine, congenial man he is. I love him. I have a great affection for him. He hasn’t got a mean bone in his body. But, unfortunately, he doesn’t understand what the administration of justice is all about. He equates the appointment of a registrar of the Supreme Court with getting somebody a job at the liquor store. He thinks it’s the same thing. He doesn’t understand. For you people to go along with that type of chicanery is wrong. Change it. Let there be no more orders in council. Let them become public servants. Let them go up the ladder the proper way and we won’t have problems of that nature.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the observations offered by the member for Sarnia. It escapes me as to the exact date. Relying on my own memory, I think it was probably some three weeks ago the member asked me in the House about this incident. Prior to asking the question he indicated after question period had opened that he would be asking it. I knew nothing about it, but I caused my office to be contacted and then the question came forward in due course. In the meantime, I had been instructed by my staff as to the matter in the form in which I told it to the House on that occasion.

The member for Sarnia some two or three days later spoke to me again and said the information I had given to him was in fact incorrect, whereupon I made a note to look into the matter. As I understand it, the information which I received came from the director of Crown attorneys downtown following a telephone conversation with the Crown attorney in the Sarnia area.

I must look my friend across the House in the eye and tell him that I have not had an opportunity to follow up on that matter. I made a note of it, and I have the note sitting on my desk, but I have been engaged here in certain other matters. I must say that if it is as serious as he alleges, if in fact a forgery has been practised down there, then I would really have no alternative but to proceed by way of a process through the court. We will get back to the member on it. If it is as he has described, I have no intention of tolerating that sort of situation. Whether it was a criminal type action or not remains to be seen. We don’t discuss that aspect any further here.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, that is true.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am distressed to hear the member describe some of the appointments which have apparently taken place over the years down there. I can make no explanation to this House for the simple reason I was not aware of them in particular. The member did see fit, following my appointment, as he has indicated, to write to me on a confidential basis, I think. I responded, and I think that is where that matter should remain.

Mr. Bullbrook: It doesn’t bother him?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have noted the member’s observations about local registrars, that appointments of that nature should not be by order in council but should be made through the system with the people becoming part of the public service. This is a matter I’ve turned my mind to long before I occupied this area of responsibility. I don’t know whether that is a valid way to proceed with it or not. I look at some of the public officials whom we have appointed -- I am thinking of local registrars, registrars in registry offices -- over the years and some of them are outstanding. In the main, they are. I can see there is the odd one who certainly leaves a lot to be desired because of personal inadequacies of one nature or other. However, I will think on that, if I may, as an extension of the correspondence which we exchanged some two or three months ago.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I say this -- and I won’t take the time of the House, I am most appreciative of that -- I want to clarify two things. The minister realizes I didn’t dwell upon the content of our correspondence, which was confidential, but the fact is that we had written a letter, an exception to the hearsay rule. May I say in closing -- and I am sure my colleague, the member for Downsview, would say it were he here -- that I really feel this ministry will be revitalized.

I had the opportunity for four years of being the critic when Mr. Wishart was the Attorney General and Mr. Dick the deputy. Those were the four most enjoyable years I’ve had. Liaison took place there and the ministry was a very vital one. I am thinking of the time that we debated the Expropriations Ad, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the myriad of statutes that went through at that time. It was good, healthy and vigorous debate.

I look forward to that type of response over the years with this Attorney General and a revitalization in the ministry, I must say, again without attempting to be offensive, that I was very disappointed in what his predecessor did in the portfolio. I have always regarded him as an extremely able young man and I just didn’t think that he carried it forward.

I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that I am most appreciative, when you sent me the notes on the estimates for the fiscal year -- Mr. Chairman, if I could bring this to your attention -- the letter is directed to me: “Mr. James Bullbrook, Parliament Buildings, Queen’s Park, Toronto,” and it says: “Dear.” It just says: “Dear.” There is no “Dear Jim.” It just says: “Dear.” -- So I took it to the Attorney General and I said: “You left something out,” and he said, “Yes, I did.” He has put “est” behind it. Now it reads: “Dearest.”

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, just a word on item 1 again --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It’s Thursday too, you know.

An hon. member: You want to be careful.

Mr. Lawlor: I just want to make a comment, by the way, on the rush, on the inundation of reports that we got in the last several hours. I suppose we fairly mauled you a bit on the Solicitor General’s estimates, with respect to being bereft of information with which to conduct the estimates, and so, in order to make up for good times, we have had municipal board, public trustee, eighth annual report, Law Reform Commission --

Mr. Renwick: All in the mail this morning.

Mr. Lawlor: And since I saw you bristling -- I suppose that is what you were doing over there, you sat up straight -- with respect to the wryness of this particular portion of my commentary, I want to give you an accolade, a persimmon for your buttonhole in producing for the second year in a row “notes on the estimates,” as they are called, which, while they reduplicate to a substantial measure what we got for the first time -- which is a real breakthrough in any department with respect to the whole field of estimates -- to provide that particular kind of information in a detailed way, as to what the complement of a particular ministry is, with adjoining notes where they are felt to be pertinent within the breakdown within a ministry, is worthwhile.

Again, I think you deserve credit, your staff deserves credit, for thinking about it and doing it. It shows a sense of accommodation to the opposition to make it just a little more possible to do this almost impossible job.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might just make a comment. The member for Lakeshore earlier expressed his regret at the member from Downsview, who is one of the Liberal critics, being absent. I too regret his absence -- sometimes. But perhaps the member for Ottawa East will be talking to him -- you have indicated that you were talking to him earlier today -- and would indicate to him that we miss him here in the House and we hope to see him back in a week or two in good spirits.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister I will say that. I would like to ask the minister, don’t you have any comments at all as to what I said, or is it just a broken record again?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am coming to that. The member indicated that three jobs are too much for me, I pass that off, Mr. Chairman, by saying no job is too big for a member of this side of the House, When we are called upon to do these things we just gladly roll up our sleeves and proceed.

Mr. Renwick: The problem is you are a triple threat to the public.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He also made an observation that there are certain changes he would like to see, and he would like to see some changes in relation to the family court. I would just like to bring you up to date on what, indeed, has occurred since the estimates were dealt with last year.

On Feb. 19, I wrote to the hon. Otto Lang, the federal Minister of Justice, and asked him if he would consider an amendment to the Divorce Act, 1968, with particular reference to the central west pilot project programme, to see if he would allow an unified family court to operate, certainly within that area, so that the family court might have the jurisdiction to deal with matters pertaining to children and so on, right up through the whole ambit of family court, plus divorce jurisdiction.

I sent him a proposed draft of the legislation and a rather lengthy letter on it, and I haven’t heard back yet. I did a follow-up letter on May 1, asking him for his comments and observations as to our request; I hope that will result in a positive response from the minister so that we can try a unified family court system.

Mr. Roy: You need an amendment to the Divorce Act.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh yes, because you have your Supreme Court vested with the jurisdiction in divorce in the 1968 Divorce Act, which was subsequently amended in 1971 to allow the county and district court judges to sit really as local judges of the Supreme Court. So to have the family division of the provincial court judges vested with the jurisdiction, they must of course have the necessary change in the legislation. We support it wholeheartedly, we are all in favour of it and we hope that the minister will smile upon our request.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask you a question on that point? Is it your approach to this -- and I take it we are leading toward a unified family court -- that the court that will do this will be the provincial court family division?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Roy: To deal with all aspects?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. We would like to see it dealt with by leaving the jurisdiction of the family court in that area.

You made some observations about merger of the county and district courts with the Supreme Court. There have been studies, observations and recommendations in the past as to that sort of thing. We traditionally have dealt with those two levels of courts. It’s a matter that perhaps we are going to have to turn our minds to within the next period in the future. I can’t give any undertaking that this will be done this year; I don’t know. I am really not that all-fired familiar with some of the historical situations that that sort of thing might give rise to. I don’t know whether we should have one court, whether you call it the Supreme Court or county court. It’s a difficult decision. I will look at that.

The Law Reform Commission did make many recommendations in the report which came forward a year and a half ago as to court administration and urged the decentralization of the Supreme Court from Toronto into all areas of the province -- and I am paraphrasing their recommendations. But in the Supreme Court you have weekly court in Ottawa, Sudbury, London and Windsor. I am not sure if you have them in Hamilton. I don’t think you do; I don’t know. I haven’t turned my mind to it yet.

I think we have to remember that we are here, the courts are here and the bar is here to serve the public of the province, and we have to approach it on that sort of basis. I know that when we go ahead with our central west project, which received second and third reading in this House today, we will know a lot more about it. I would suggest, with respect, that that is the time when we may have a great deal more of experience at our fingertips than we have today.

You’ve pointed out that we must simplify the system of justice. I have already made reference in this House on another matter -- I think it was when we were debating the central west region project bill the other day -- that we are going to review the rules of the Supreme and county courts, which I think now involve more than 800 separate rules. I don’t think you’d find any disagreement among the critics in this House that they should indeed be simplified. I hope to be able to advise publicly of the individuals who will form that committee within a very short period of time. I am talking in terms of very few days, if not a couple of weeks.

On the question of full-time justices of the peace and whether we have to pay them more, there are really two kinds of justices of the peace. There are the full-time, many of whom sit in judgement on summary matters. There are the part-time who are justices of the peace receiving fees for service.

There was some discussion in this House some weeks ago; an allegation was made that justices of the peace were earning $30,000 a year. Nobody, with the exception of me, observed that there was a difference between gross and net. Out of the $30,000, the individual had to pay certain secretarial services and so on.

If I’m given the resources to appoint full-time justices of the peace I suppose I would utilize them but I wonder if we would be really getting our money’s worth. To run three shifts of justices of the peace in metropolitan areas might well be providing a service and if they’re needed then there should be three, full-time around the clock. In areas which don’t have that high requirement, where a JP may be needed only two or three evenings a week or in the middle of the night, to have someone sitting there as a full-time employee would be a waste of financial resources.

A member suggested a system of training or retraining. We now have a system of training newly appointed justices of the peace which consists of a seminar of four or five days I believe -- two days. They are given information or advice on how to complete the documentation; what the requirement is; what the purpose is; the historical background of the functions and the role they play in the administration of justice. They are given these instructions in this training programme by the chief judge of the criminal court, Judge Hayes, Mr. Powell, and Mr. LeSage, respectively an assistant deputy minister and a director of Crown attorneys.

They give them the training. Some of it consists of videotaped programmes. They started this course in 1973-1974 and went back in 1974-1975. All active justices of the peace are required to attend in order to update themselves. It’s now a three-day course, pardon me, not two.

The member made an observation that perhaps the government should lift the financial ceilings on justice. I presume he means within reasonable lengths?

Mr. Roy: No, I am saying the application of the financial constraints should be used very carefully when it concerns your administration, Crown attorneys and so on. You’re running into a serious problem if you get an increasing caseload and a static number of individuals handling it. That’s what I was talking about, I’m not saying you lift the ceiling on justice.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right. You won’t find an argument over here on that. I think it’s a realistic and rational approach and that’s the approach I hope to convince my colleagues they should take insofar as the justice policy field is concerned.

You touched on matters of the media. Your first example was the media publishing names of people charged with offences, particularly those which are currently being mentioned in the press. I agree that Crown attorneys and judges should not make comments about cases before the courts. I don’t know the position or the role the media should play. You suggested that maybe the name should not be released by the police when a person is charged with an offence. Of course, the minute the police don’t release it the media take the position you’re trying to hide something.

Nobody was ever really very thrilled at having his name released, I can see that, except in those cases we have heard about in other jurisdictions where people were taken into custody and their friends or their relatives didn’t know what happened to them. They would make inquiries of the authorities who would say, “We’re not going to make any comment.” They would become genuinely concerned that they couldn’t make contact with their friend or relative who at that moment was incarcerated maybe 10 ft from where the people were talking. I don’t know what position I take on it, but I do think that probably has some value in some instances, that the police, in giving information to the media, as an occurrence reported.

What concerns me is the undue exploitation by the media of a particular type of case. I will not refer to this matter in Ottawa -- let’s forget that. I will refer to matters in which I have been involved. In Niagara Falls a number of years ago some 29 or 30 people found themselves involved in the same type of case. Some of them pleaded guilty, and a certain Toronto newspaper at that time just made it its business to inquire into it. They published it here in Toronto, not only identifying the names of the individuals and the type of charges, but tying down their age and their occupation just to make sure that the public at large would really know that so-and-so had been charged with gross indecency.

I found that very unpalatable. I was emotionally involved, I suppose, because I was acting for a number of these people, but I found it repulsive that the whole public across this province should know that my client was charged with this type of an offence. If he was charged with lifting a licence plate off a car, this particular Toronto newspaper, I am sure, wouldn’t find it significant to report this very thrilling thing to the public of Ontario. Then, again, this is a matter of taste.

Mr. Roy: Could I make a comment, Mr. Chairman, just on that point? Of course, we can’t control the press.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: Jean Marchand gets his name on the front page of every paper because he left the scene of an accident. How many do you have leaving the scene of an accident? We can’t control the press, and I suppose when you get involved in that type of case that you mentioned, they consider news the type of things that sells newspapers.

But I was a bit concerned about your comment that if you tell the police not to release the names to the press that someone might not know that someone is charged or might not know how to get in touch with them. Surely, people don’t find out that their friends, relatives or whatever are charged with something after it is published in the press. The police can say to someone, “Your mother, your friend, your cousin or somebody is in jail. Do you want to have him bailed out?”

Surely you can have an edict. You can send guidelines to the police saying, “Look, no more giving out of names to the press.” This is what the RCMP are doing, apparently, in the Ottawa area. But of course, relatives, friends lawyers and this type of thing should be advised that someone is charged. There is nothing wrong with doing it that way.

My concern is that the police become friendly with the press and they come in and they say, “Who was charged today?” and the guy takes out a sheet and he says, “Oh, this will be a good one. This is a sex scandal involving young boys.” That’s the part that I am concerned about -- not the publishing of the name itself.

We can’t control the press. I quite agree with you that that they exploit some of these things. But the fact remains that if the press did like everybody else, went to an open court and got their information there, this would be the best safeguard that there would not be the type of comment that we have had, for instance, in the Ottawa paper, about certain things going on. What happens is that these individuals either are acquitted or whatever, sometimes the evidence that you hear at the trial does not correspond with what is in the press. That is the dangerous part of it I would like to see avoided.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that’s something that we certainly are unable to deal with here. I wonder maybe if it’s not to the advantage of the public and certainly to the police to let the public know that X number of people were apprehended last evening in connection with certain break-and-enters in the area. In this way the police, through making these occurrence reports available to the media, can let the public know they are apprehending people who are committing a certain type of an offence which may be prevalent in the area.

I know what you are going to tell me -- that that doesn’t make headlines -- that Johnny Brown, 16 was picked up on an attempted break-and-enter in Niagara Falls. You don’t see that on the front page of the Toronto newspapers. But if your father or mother is some person of note, or if the type of offence is something of a sexual nature, that’s news. I don’t know how we are going to resolve that.

You are quoting me -- the royal me. Your colleague from Downsview said last week, “You made a promise to them,” meaning the francophones. I am wondering if you can tie down what promise was allegedly made to francophones insofar as the use of the French language in the courts was concerned. I made a note of your words when you were speaking to me. Can you tell me and help me right now by saying who made that statement? Are you alluding to the statement made back, I think, in 1971 by the present Premier as to the support and encouragement that the government would give the francophones in the use of French in the province? Can you help?

Mr. Roy: I think I made available to you in my question of two or three weeks ago a statement made by the Premier in 1971. I was quoting from the Premier. Further than that, when I look at the Throne Speech of 1972 -- and I can’t read it word for word -- I recall it read by the Lieutenant Governor in that blue chair right there. He said at that time, “My government will endeavour to encourage the use of French in our court system,” or something along that line.

Hon. Mr. Clement: You have identified the one that I thought you were referring to.

I just say this. As you know bilingual signs are being placed in the court offices in areas where that language is predominantly spoken. In Ottawa-Carleton those signs are being installed if they haven’t already been placed in there. Stickers are being attached in summonses giving an explanation of the information in French. Certain documents are now being translated into French: appearance notice, promise to appear, probation order, undertaking and warrants for arrest.

The real problem is how extensively do you want the availability of the French language to be in the court system? There is no need, I would suggest, to put a bilingual court in an area where there are no bilingual people. That is obvious. There are certain areas, and conceivably the Ottawa area is one of them, where the ability of a person who is charged before the courts to use his or her native tongue, which happens to be French, should be available and is available. But if we are going to get into the situation where the court process should be duplicated and all the officials in the court should be completely bilingual and the judges -- granted a number of them are as most of them are down in that area -- and the whole evidence has to be transcribed by French reporters, there comes a point where there has to be an interpretation completed because of someone, be it the Crown or the accused -- speaking of the criminal process -- wants to appeal, then that French transcript is going to have to be interpreted into English if it is going to be used by the Court of Appeal in Toronto.

Until we have the resources available where we can duplicate the process and have all the members of the Court of Appeal completely bilingual, then I suggest the process that is presently used in most courtrooms, that is a translator or an interpreter to interpret from the French into the English with a transcript in English. Until we have those resources to do that, we are going to be in difficulty.

I won’t get into the situation that we have discussed in the House before, about the difficulty of translating charges under the Criminal Code or summary conviction matters into the French language. We are moving in this direction but at the present time I can not foresee that we can go “snap” and immediately have all the stuff in all the courthouses completely bilingual and all the processes completely bilingual where you can take your choice as to which way you want.

I recognize the problem, I recognize the undertaking as one supporting the increased use of French made by the Premier in 1971. That’s why I wanted to know which statement you were talking about. That’s where the situation is at the present time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know who has been talking to you. I don’t know whether it’s your officials or not, but you seem to want to emphasize the difficulties of our problems. Let me get back into this and really make it as simple as possible.

First of all you talk about the transcript. Most of your courts -- I don’t know how it is in Toronto, but I see in Ottawa -- are using machines to record the process of the courts. You don’t need, at that point, a bilingual court reporter. But let’s say you did need one, several are available in the Senate and the House of Commons. If you take it on a machine, all you need is a bilingual typist. If the procedure goes on in French, it is taken in French. You would only need a French-speaking typist. She would type it in French.

You talk about the other aspect of the Court of Appeal. Well, I don’t know how it is now, but you had a number of judges -- in fact you have a judge right now on the Court of Appeal, Lacourciere, who is bilingual. You don’t have to name everyone up there bilingual. All you would need is one, two or three judges who could speak or understand French. Some of the judges have been training in Quebec. They could listen to these cases. You won’t have to make your whole Court of Appeal bilingual. Two or three would be enough.

Hon. Mr. Clement: What do you do when five sit?

Mr. Roy: What do you do when five sit? You translate.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Take three of them, and tell the other two what was said?

Mr. Roy: No, at that point, if you need five, and two of them don’t understand --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Bring two in from Quebec.

Mr. Roy: No, you do it like the Supreme Court of Canada. They are not all bilingual at that point, but there’s translation. You have all sorts of translation services that go on at that point. That’s not really a problem. You see you keep emphasizing a problem.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Should the translation not take place at the first instance instead of the last? This is a question I would like to answer because there are books filled with interpretation of legal phrases. English-speaking people can’t even decide in this day and age what is a reasonable man. There are volumes. You have seen them. How are we going to change that, if you are going to get the French language involved in fine legal maxims? It’s easier said than done. You can stand up, and carry the flag, but I will tell you it’s difficult.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but you keep overemphasizing the exceptions. You are going to have problems. There is no question about that. Generally speaking, you are not appealing every case. You are appealing one case out of what -- 500, 1,000? What’s the concern there? What I am advocating is that you don’t turn your whole judicial system in this province bilingual.

I presented a bill in this House suggesting selected areas where it’s needed, such as some areas to the north, some areas around Ottawa and eastern Ontario. You have bilingual personnel now. You could have a system where, if you elect to have your trial in French you go into a court where you have bilingual personnel. You don’t have to change your whole staff overnight and pick bilingual people.

In areas of the province where there is a sufficient number of people who are French-speaking, you staff, whether it’s policemen, judges, or court officials, who can adequately serve them in their language. If we keep waiting at the rate we are going, you won’t need it. Give us another 50 years, and you won’t need any French in the courts because everybody is going to be speaking English anyway.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 1 carry? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I only have three brief and specific matters. I am prompted because of the interest the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) has expressed in the office which the minister holds as Attorney General. I'm curious -- and I’m not speaking about the member for High Park -- as to what the minister’s response would be to the idea that it’s about time a non-lawyer held the portfolio of Attorney General.

I think the one before was the Ministry of Health. It was kind of traditional that there be a doctor there. I think it’s fair to say that during the tenure of the former member from Carleton East, Bert Lawrence, when he was the Minister of Health, and again now with the present Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), that nothing calimitous has happened. Indeed, we have the sensation that a kind of draught of fresh air entered that particular ministry in that it appears to be more responsive and more capable of listening to what is being said outside.

Yet we still have the view that both the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of the Attorney General, and, of course, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, must be lawyers. I’m just curious for perhaps a brief comment from the minister as to whether he has any rigid conceptions about the need for that.

My second question is, would the minister at some point take up with his colleagues in Ottawa and look into the procedures by which pardons are granted? It is an extremely long-drawn-out and a very cumbersome system at the present time to apply for and obtain a pardon for any person who has been convicted of an offence. Then the document which the person gets is such a horrendous document that you wouldn’t want to show it to anyone anyway, because the connotation is that you’ve been convicted of treason or piracy on the high seas, or one of those more serious offences.

The other aspect of it, of course, relates to the fact that I believe the RCMP are the only officers who are engaged in the investigative work to interview the people that are involved with that man to establish his good character or continue the long term nature of his law abiding characteristics since the time he committed the offense.

My experience has shown that those procedures are immensely long, and there’s an immense backlog and it may well be that the Ontario Provincial Police or a police body such as the Metropolitan Toronto Police could also act in that particular role. That’s the second point I wanted to make.

My third comment is that at the time of the opening of the courts, the Deputy Attorney General, among other things in connection with the central west project that we’ve been talking about, referred to the conducting of a survey of the public attitudes toward the court system in Ontario, on a province-wide basis. I’d be anxious to know whether that particular province-wide survey has taken place, or is still in the process or in a formative stage at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I respond, firstly, to the question by the member for Riverdale as to whether the Attorney General of the province should in fact be a member of the bar.

The constitutional obligation placed upon the Attorney General under the British North America Act is that he, among other things, must provide legal opinions to the Crown. You and I know that you can’t provide legal opinions legally unless you’re a member of the Law Society, and, therefore, I think it would certainly be necessary that the Attorney General be a member of the Law Society in good standing in order to fulfil that constitutional function.

I’ve never turned my mind to it. I can tell you one thing. I will not be the Attorney General forever. I may not be the Attorney General at this time tomorrow, but I sure hope when there’s one picked that he’s a member of the bar of this province. I would hate to think of some of the legal opinions that we might receive.

On the other hand, I will concede that perhaps we might not be too much worse off by having a layman render the odd legal opinion, which may be superior, in some instances, to those rendered by our colleagues at the bar. But I have never turned my mind to it. The constitutional support for it, as I understand it, is that the Attorney General of Upper Canada was to have the same powers, as a lawyer or a member of the bar, as the Attorney General of England at that time, who was a member of the bar. The Attorney General of England, of course, is not a member of the cabinet.

With reference to the pardons, I can do very little to assist the member, in that it is a matter under the Criminal Records Act. The procedure is set out, of course, by the Act and by the federal Ministry of Justice. Five years must elapse after conviction for an indictable and two years, I think, for a summary matter, before it can be brought into being.

One of the things that has always intrigued me is that you can’t erase facts, and so many people think you can erase facts. You can erase facts that are stored in a certain spot, but you cannot turn back time and refer to the newspaper article that dealt with the conviction of the accused. I sometimes think that some legislation having certain definite social values creates too high an expectation in the public mind. I just don’t know how you erase these things. The plain and simple fact is you don’t, of course.

Mr. Renwick: I was just thinking of the time for the process. It just seems an extremely lengthy one, from the time you make the application until the investigation is completed, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have talked to my counterpart in Ottawa on a number of occasions, both face to face and by telephone, and it’s a matter that I have never discussed with him. I believe I will be talking with him in the not too distant future and I might take it under advisement to get his views on it. I have never discussed it with him.

With reference to the province-wide survey, we have not done the survey yet. We have tenders. We have described it and we have tenders out right now, and when the tendering date closes the successful bidder will be instructed to go forward.

We need a professional survey. First, I would like to tell the hon. member about the objective of it. Some of the administrators are concerned by the lack of public support for present policies which they deem good. Others emphasize the need for developing policies from the start more responsive to the needs of the population.

In order to avoid paralyzing debate between these two orientations, the concept of a bilateral responsiveness is offered as a guiding concept for research on public attitudes. Inherent in this concept is a quest for research projects which would provide the needed information for policy makers on where the public should be followed and where it should be guided.

This hopefully would lead to policies acceptable to both the ministry and the public, and we intend to cover some of the following areas with the public, in particular relating to jurors, notice, duration of service, accommodation, what they would expect, postponement, quantum of compensation for jurors’ fees, comprehension of their expected role, comprehension of courtroom procedures, suggestions to assist in preparation for the role and execution of it, witnesses, notice, duration -- this sort of thing. I can go on dealing with other headings -- plaintiffs, defendants, accused and so on -- to see just what the public attitude and response is. We expect that we will be awarding the tender probably some time about mid-July.

Mr. Renwick: And that perhaps the survey will be done when? Within the next six months or a year?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am advised that some of them may take longer than six months and some may take less, because of the range and the nature of some of the questions and the development of them.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 1 carry?

Mr. Roy: No, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Roy: I have other points I wish to raise under this item. The member for Riverdale mentioned something about pardons from the federal level. I couldn’t agree more with him. The investigation that takes place for these pardons is absolutely ridiculous. You could ask for a pardon for an impaired case that happened 15 years ago and they’d treat it the same as if you were asking for a pardon for a fellow who had committed two murders and four armed robberies.

I think you would be doing this province and the people of this province a service if you were to talk to your colleague, the federal Solicitor General, about this, because I don’t think you can get a pardon in anything less than a year at least.

Another problem with these pardons is that a lot of people are staying away from trying to obtain them because they cause more problems than they solve. I’ll describe one of the things that can happen: Say something has happened to a man five or 10 years ago, and he’s since forgotten about it. He’s got a good job and he’s well respected; none of his colleagues knows about it. These fellows come along -- the RCMP and other people -- and they start to investigate it with his employer; then his employer or his friends find out about his reputation and about his record for the first time. As a result, what was intended to be sort of a benefit to an individual can work a real hardship.

I think you would be doing the province and the people of this province a favour if you were to tell them to shape up. I’ve written the federal Solicitor General a number of letters. I can’t seem to get through to him. Every time you ask for one of these, you keep getting the same standard letter about how they’re going to go through a long, formal and involved investigation. I tell you, it’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Surely for a fellow involved in an impaired case or something, it shouldn’t take him a year just to find out; and they shouldn’t have to go back to his employer. I think somebody has lost his sense of perspective up there.

Mr. Chairman, I have some other matters to raise under this item and, since it is almost 6 o’clock, possibly could I move the adjournment of --

Mr. Chairman: It is not necessary to move the adjournment. However, the Chair recognizes that the hour of 6 o’clock is approaching very quickly.

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