Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing in the Legislature for first reading a new Securities Act as well as complementary amendments to the Business Corporations Act. The development of this legislation has for a number of years been a major objective of my ministry -- a process that has involved full and thorough consultation with the securities industry.

In its original form, as Bill 154, this legislation was initially introduced in the Legislature in June, 1972, for public comment. Based on that comment, my predecessor (Mr. Clement) reintroduced the legislation in a substantially revised form as Bill 75 in June of last year, again for comment purposes. Over 50 briefs were received as a result of Bill 75 and were examined in detail by the drafting committee. Draft regulations were issued about the same time as Bill 75 was introduced, so that those offering comments could examine and assess the intent of our total effort. On the basis of this public input, further revisions have been made to the legislation and the net result, we believe, is a rational and reasonable system of law which will serve as a model in Canada and elsewhere.

Those who have followed the progress of the legislation will note that the changes, additions and deletions that have been made along the way, based on the briefs and comments received, are extensive. The continuing public discussion has resulted in a bill that we believe will strengthen the securities industry and protect the small investor at the same time. All of the changes proposed by this new bill are consistent with the philosophy underlying the present securities legislation and the policies that have been developed by the Ontario Securities Commission in the exercise of its discretion under the present legislation. That philosophy, in short, is investor protection through disclosure.

In introducing Bill 75 last year, my predecessor outlined the four basic objectives of the proposed Act: A systematic ordering of the amendments that have been made to the present Act since its passage in 1966; the implementation of the major recommendations of the 1969 report of the Canadian Committee on Mutual Funds and Investment Contracts, a 1970 Ontario Securities Commission report on disclosure and the December, 1973, report of the select committee on company law regarding mergers and amalgamations; the development of legislation acceptable to other provinces as a uniform provincial Securities Act, making unnecessary the recent draft legislation at the federal level which was designed to implement the 1969 mutual funds report; and the development of further measures to protect the individual investor in the securities market.

The regulation of the securities industry in Ontario has from the very beginning been designed to prevent fraudulent conduct in securities trading and to provide adequate and timely disclosure to the market. The changes in this new bill will reflect these objectives.

The Act I will place before the House today will do a number of things. It will introduce statutory regulation of the mutual fund industry. It will improve the continuous disclosure system by introducing statutory timely disclosure and quarterly financial disclosure. The new Act will define with more precision the circumstances in which securities may be traded without a prospectus and it further revises the takeover bid provisions. Circumstances in which the takeover bid provisions do not apply have been limited. A directors’ circular in all takeover bids is now required and the circumstances in which conditional takeovers may be made have been expanded.

The new Act will also expand insider trading liability to cover all those who buy or sell securities on the basis of insider information.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Thank God for that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The new legislation will amend some of the provisions of the present Act in an effort to achieve more effectively the intent of the legislation. In this regard, banks, trust companies and insurance companies, whose securities were traded publicly, will no longer be granted exemptions from the continuous disclosure requirements and liabilities will be imposed on their insiders.

The new Act will widen the principle that has been developed that if any financial institutions wish to engage in the securities business as dealers they must obtain registration and comply with appropriate conditions. On the principle that the Securities Act should be primarily a vehicle for investment disclosure, the scope of these requirements has been widened to include corporations presently designated as offering securities to the public under the Business Corporations Act. In this area, the parallel amendments to the Business Corporations Act, which I will be introducing today, will require Ontario-incorporated reporting issuers to send to their shareholders the information required to be filed with the commission under the new Act. This will benefit all Ontario investors.

Mr. Speaker, I have barely touched on a few of the changes that this new Act will achieve. We believe that through the continuing consultations since 1972 we have developed a bill that will prove not only more efficient from the point of view of those raising capital from the public, but will directly benefit all investors, particularly small investors. Through this bill and through the operation of the Ontario Securities Commission, we hope to assure investors that their interests are being aggressively protected; that those who are registered in the securities industry are both honest and competent; that there is an equality of access to the information in the marketplace; and that market prices are arrived at in a fair and just fashion.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

OHC LAND PURCHASES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General. In the light of the story in today’s Star with respect to the comments that a former Progressive Conservative riding president in Sudbury, whose wife is a vice-president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, made a profit of $200,000 in a series of questionable land deals with the Ontario Housing Corp.; and in the light of the fact that similar questionable land deals took place in Milton with dozens of Ontario Housing Corp. employees involved and convicted of accepting bribes, will the Attorney General now consider, with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), the ordering of a judicial inquiry into the operations of the Ontario Housing Corp.?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the article referred to by the member for Kitchener. He said in today’s Star?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Or yesterday’s Star?

Mr. Lewis: Hasn’t the minister read today’s Star yet?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I haven’t read it yet.

Mr. Lewis: I will send the minister a copy.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will take a look at it and report back to the hon. member. If he has the article there, perhaps he might be good enough to send it to me.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, I will be glad to send it over. I think the minister will find it questionable that Mr. Eugene Vannier bought 40 acres of land on July 15, 1968, sold portions of it to Ontario Housing at a 50 per cent profit two weeks later, and that the 134 HOME houses have yet to be built.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: I will table at this time, Mr. Speaker, the various items referred to concerning the searches of title to the property and various Corporation Information Act returns.

Mr. Lewis: I want to follow with a supplementary on that to the Attorney General, if I may, while he is engrossed in reading the story.

If he is satisfied on the basis of what he reads, as would seem to be the case, that there may have been impropriety, will he, as the Attorney General, request, first, an inquiry into this particular series of land transactions? Secondly, would he require from the Ontario Housing Corp. a statement of explanation in the House to be delivered by the Minister of Housing no later than Monday of next week; and third, an explanation of why it is that the Ontario Housing Corp. operates in this questionable and, many would say, reprehensible fashion throughout the province of which the Sudbury areas incident is simply the latest? In other words, can he, as the Attorney General, take the initiative finally to confront the Ontario Housing Corp. on its land dealings over the last several years by using this as the focus of a public investigation?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I will read the article; I will ask for a report on it and then I will consider, along with my colleagues, whether that is the vehicle which should be used or if it is necessary. I will not undertake to get back on it on Monday next but I will report back later on next week when I have the information. I will not be in the city over the weekend but I will take a look at it and get back. I have no idea; I haven’t seen it -- it is in today’s Star. The member for Kitchener must have his subscription paid well in advance.

Mr. Breithaupt: I got it at 10 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the event the advice to the Minister of Housing is to make the kind of report referred to by the leader of the New Democratic Party, would the minister ask the Minister of Housing also if he would address himself to the large-scale acquisitions by OHC in the Carlsbad Springs area of Gloucester township and ask him to report whether or not those are according to proper procedures?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly discuss this entire matter with the Minister of Housing. I must say it is my obligation -- if there has been any offence committed under any statute -- to see it is prosecuted. Insofar as particular areas are concerned, I will tell him of the member’s interest in this matter with reference to the Carlsbad Springs in the Ottawa area and he will have to respond to the inquiry in that regard.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): If playing footsies with local Tories is becoming an offence, that will be interesting.

Mr. Lewis: It is offensive but it may not be an offence in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Kitchener?

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Chairman of the Management Board. Since apparently everyone in the province, except those of us in the Legislature, knows about the legislation the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) is going to be bringing in with respect to teacher-board negotiations, can the chairman advise us if the minister does intend to be present today either to make a statement on this matter or to introduce the legislation? Might he know that?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The minister will be here very shortly and will accept the questions the members have.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps I can save the question for him until that point.

Mr. Lewis: Will we revert to statements at that point?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If the members are generous enough to agree.

Mr. Lewis: We intend to be.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am sure we would be generous enough, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: It was a calculated leak by leaving a copy hanging around.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Not even planned.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps he couldn’t even organize a one-car funeral, as my friend from Waterloo North says.

Mr. Lewis: Actually it sounds not bad legislation.

SALE OF TAINTED MEAT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, again a question of the Chairman of the Management Board. Can the minister advise us if the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) will be present to make any statement this morning with respect to the developing problems concerning the provision of meat unfit for human consumption now presently under investigation in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, Mr. Speaker, I regret the Minister of Agriculture and Food will not be here. He is attending a conference at the Kemptville agricultural school.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with his questions.

Mr. Lewis: Sorry, I didn’t hear.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A conference at Kemptville.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): He has a meat conference.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the policy field of the resources secretariat? I am always hesitant about asking the provincial secretary a question on a Friday morning, for fear it will take the entire morning. Maybe I will hazard it on this occasion.

Can we ask the resources secretary, in his co-ordinating or supervisory role, to provide to the Legislature early in the week an explanation of why it is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in this province has not been able to indicate to us, with documentation and chapter and verse, the apparent export to Quebec of tainted meat and the reimportation from Quebec to Ontario of that meat? Could he go further and have the minister explain to the House how it is that many of the transactions have apparently occurred within Ontario -- that emerging apparently in the further inquiry next week -- without the Minister of Agriculture and Food ever indicating to the public what was happening or apparently knowing of it? I don’t understand how these things happen without the ministry being aware of them.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, in the first place the member laced this whole question with the words apparent and apparently --

Mr. Lewis: It has come out in the hearings. I presume it is real.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member says apparent and apparently. That doesn’t necessarily mean that everything which has been said is true or necessarily has been proved --

Mr. MacDonald: It is at least prima facie evidence; don’t slough it off.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I can assure the member that I spoke to the minister this morning in an effort to find out whether there was anything new on this matter. He assures me that the whole matter is being investigated. They have had observers at the hearings in Quebec and every rumour and every charge and every suggestion is being thoroughly investigated by his ministry.

I am sure the member will also appreciate that it is the responsibility of every minister in every government to not unnecessarily alarm the population until he has discovered that there is something to be alarmed about. There has been an alarm to the extent he is investigating this matter. The minister will be here, I think, on Monday. I am sure he will be ready to answer any questions in detail because government, of course, is concerned about these matters and his ministry is particularly. He is investigating them in great depth, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as it is less than a week since the Minister of Agriculture and Food categorically reassured us that no such meat had been sold in this province --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. How come he didn’t know?

Mr. Shulman: -- does the policy minister wish to back up his Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say I don’t see anything inconsistent in that statement at all. I could be categorically assured as of Monday and then on Wednesday I might find out something else had come to the attention of my officials. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

Mr. Shulman: It is Tory politics.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister means they have been sleeping at the switch and he admits it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not necessarily a question of sleeping at the switch. As a matter of fact, I recall my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, pointing out to this House that there have been three convictions, I think, on a matter related at least indirectly to this; he’s not asleep at the switch at all.

Mr. Shulman: Uninspected meat.

Mr. MacDonald: Missed another 30.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The people of this province can be assured they have a Minister of Agriculture and Food and a Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) who are very much concerned and will protect their interests.

Mr. Speaker: Anything further?

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary question: While we realize that perhaps only a very small percentage of the total meat used within Ontario is involved in this regrettable event, would the minister feel that some statement should be made, especially following the comments reported by Rejean Paul, a lawyer at the inquiry, that we have been eating this stuff for years?

Mr. Lewis: I can tell him where it is served.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the minister not agree that some investigation over these past several years might well be important, to advise and ensure that the people of the province are quite satisfied that even though a small percentage is involved the matter is being attended to?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I am just repeating myself now, Mr. Speaker. I am not too sure that the question was not a repetition of the earlier question.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I advised the House a few moments ago, whatever is coming out of that inquiry is being listened to. The observers are at the inquiry and they are paying attention to everything which has been said and charged; whatever anyone has to say in respect of that investigation or anything which comes out of it, relating to a possibility that there is tainted meat in this province, will certainly be and is certainly being investigated. I don’t know that I can add to that.

The minister will be here on Monday -- at least I presume he will be here on Monday; I don’t know what his schedule is for Monday. He is taking this matter very seriously, of course. Again, I repeat: Every matter and everything that can be done will be done. It is all being investigated with a view to making sure that the public in this province will be protected.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: A minor supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Who are the observers that we have in the Montreal hearings? Are they from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or the Ministry of the Attorney General or the minister’s own policy ministry? Just who are they? Would the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, one thing I can assure the hon. member -- I can’t answer the question, except to say they are not from the secretariat. The secretariat has a very small staff. We are not an operating ministry --

Mr. Lewis: It would give the minister’s people something to do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, we have plenty to do and we are doing it, we think, in a commendable fashion. We have good staff -- a small but good staff -- and they are doing their job.

I can’t answer the question as to who is doing the actual investigation. I have been assured this morning that there have been observers at these investigations.

Some hon. members: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we have to get on to other questions. The member for York South shall have the final supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary: With regard to this new piece of information -- new this morning -- that Ontario does have observers at this inquiry in Quebec, can the minister inform us as to whether or not either the government or those who are responsible for getting the information in connection with the inquiry are taking our observers into their confidence? Or are we sitting there just as passive observers and finding out like the public, through the newspapers, what may have been happening in Ontario for quite some years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that. All I can tell the hon. member is that I was assured this morning that there have been observers and still are observers at these meetings. Now, as to their particular role in respect to co-operation with the Quebec authorities, it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture and Food some time earlier this week advised us that they were getting the utmost co-operation from Quebec authorities. Now, that’s my recollection; I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

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

OHC LAND PURCHASES

Mr. Lewis: I have two unrelated questions of the Chairman of the Management Board. The first is, can he explain to the House, or can he find out for the House, why it was when he tabled the answers, I believe, to a Liberal request for a documentation of OHC land transactions, these very major transactions in the Sudbury basin, which were alluded to early this morning, were absent from that list? And how is it that the House cannot rely upon the quality or integrity of the responses which are elicited from the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I was not responsible for the compilation of the answer, I will certainly take the question as notice and reply to it.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: I have another question for the minister, based on the obviously authoritative reports on the teacher legislation. Leaving aside the right to strike altogether as an argumentative fact, can he explain something to me. Since the teacher legislation has apparently embraced (1) skilled conciliators, arbitrators and factfinders to intervene in advance of a breakdown of a dispute: (2) good-faith bargaining enforceable by law; and (3) a concept, through the education relations committee, of pay analysis to provide both sides with a measure of what is legitimate and to recommend a settlement, if not binding, on the parties; why will these appropriate and judicious principles of collective bargaining be available to the teachers of the province but are nowhere available to the civil servants of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that question -- of course I did. This situation is not yet before the House definitively and the hon. member is alluding to a newspaper article --

Mr. Lewis: Well, they quote from the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, that’s fine, that’s okay. We shall wait until it appears before us. In regard to the direct question that was placed to me, I believe that the matter is one that is somewhat different in regard to the people we are dealing with than the whole question that he has placed before me in regard to -- I assume the member is talking of the bargaining that comes under my jurisdiction with the CSAO.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, yes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now, I simply say to him that there is a difference; there is a difference in the group of people that we are dealing with. However, I would ask the hon. member to wait until the legislation is before the House and maybe those questions will arise more definitively.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I would be glad to wait, but would the minister like to explain to the House and to the world what the difference is in terms of free collective bargaining rights between groups of teachers and groups of civil servants? I fail to understand the difference.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In regard to the collective bargaining aspect of this function, I think there is some validity in posing the question to me; and, as the hon. member knows, I have been a proponent of endeavouring to --

Mr. Lewis: But it never changes. The minister’s advocacy fails.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well if I have the opportunity, it will succeed. The member is dealing now with a direct question in regard to what he thinks is going to come before the House, and I would just ask him to possess his soul in patience.

SALE OF TAINTED MEAT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pardon me for interrupting, Mr. Speaker. Just to give the hon. member for Kitchener some further information, which I didn’t have at the time he asked the question, I am advised the observers at the meetings in Quebec are members of the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t the minister tell us that last week or at the beginning of this week?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): He didn’t know.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Agriculture and Food may just have learned that there are observers there.

Mr. MacDonald: This is incredible.

Mr. Lewis: They probably took the Rapido, and he missed it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

WEYERHAEUSER MILL NEAR WAWA

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, is the Weyerhaeuser paper company intending to acquire land to build a major mill in an unorganized area about 20 miles from Wawa?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, we’ve been engaged in some in-depth discussions with the Weyerhaeuser people concerning this distinct possibility. Nothing firm is settled at this particular time. I might point out to the House that we’ve given authority to the Weyerhaeuser people to do an inventory study of the timber resources in that area to ascertain if there are sufficient volumes of wood in certain species to support a major development of the size to which the member is alluding.

Mr. Lewis: I have obvious further questions then. Has Wawa, as a municipality, been informed of the extraordinary potential influx of workers if it proceeds, as it may well? And, secondly, has he noticed as a minister the very difficult subdivision and housing problems in Wawa, which could not possibly cope on the present basis with a major influx of workers? Therefore, what will be available to help the community? What discussions has the ministry entered into with the community?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that to enter into discussions with the municipality at this time is premature, because no decision has really been made. I might say that, along with my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes), I visited the fine community of Wawa just about three or four weeks ago and looked at the situation. I can assure the members of this House that when and if a decision is made, the municipality of Wawa or any other community where they establish or wish to establish will be carefully and fully consulted.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, no further questions. I had intended to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about pillage and rape, but I somehow felt that it wasn’t appropriate this morning.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not on a Friday morning.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

STOL SERVICE

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could the minister advise this House as to whether there are ongoing discussions with reference to the STOL aircraft at the Island or in the environs of the downtown core of the city? If there is a committee, could we know about that committee and who sits on it?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): I am sure the hon. member is referring to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star just recently. The statement was made by a member of the federal Ministry of Transport, indicating that a four-level government committee was being established to do a study of the area; it comprises the federal government, the provincial government, Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto. An initial meeting, I understand, was held.

I haven’t heard any more about that, other than that there are apparently going to be two phases to this committee. One will be at the staff level of the four levels of government; the other one will be at the political level. These have not apparently been finalized. I haven’t been notified as to when the committee will be established or who the federal representatives will be.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are having difficulty hearing the answer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The committee is being formed, as was announced in the paper, by the federal government.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister advise us as to who from his ministry is to sit on this committee?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At the present time, I only know of one person who has been asked to take part in it, and that is the gentleman who served on the other committee, Mr. Gerry Johnston from my ministry. He is the only one that I know of so far. Whether there will be an expansion of that committee or not, I don’t know. As I understand it, this is in its very early stages. It is generally being promoted by the federal government to get this committee going.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

EXECUTIVE PAY INCREASES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to this statement “wage demands of 50 per cent and little-publicized fat executive raises at this time are irresponsible, almost obscene.”

In view of the fact that wage demands are well publicized, even though the actual results may not be, and that we know very little about the results as far as fat executive raises are concerned, I wonder if the minister would lay before the House the information in respect to executive and, I suppose, professional salaries including the MPs in Ottawa, so that we might know what the facts are behind his statement?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, that gives me the opportunity to speak of the economic pillage and rape which the leader of the New Democratic Party deprived me of. I wanted to point out in that speech -- and I would be very pleased to repeat it here today -- that I don’t think greed is the sole prerogative of the working man.

Mr. Lewis: That’s very nice of the minister. The old patrician speaks again.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are certainly people in higher positions who have the power to increase their own salaries --

Mr. Lewis: Just say that again. Let us hear it again. I like the way it rolls off the minister’s tongue.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s not the sole prerogative of the working people.

Mr. Lewis: It’s not the sole prerogative of the working people.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m saying that and I’ve been saying it to the business community, Mr. Speaker. There’s nothing hypocritical about this at all.

We have been saying that restraint is required at all levels and there is a problem because many of the higher income wage increases are agreed upon in the secrecy of the board room where they don’t receive the glare of publicity. As far as the facts are concerned, I believe in last Tuesday’s paper there was a story about one of the major corporations in the United States whose senior officers had reduced their salaries as a gesture in the fight against inflation because their losses were significant. Apparently this year, their losses are not as significant but they still haven’t made any profits.

Mr. Renwick: What choice did they have; being fired?

Mr. Ruston: The Chrysler Corpn.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They’ve restored their wages and, in addition to that, have taken an increase.

In that same speech, as the member mentioned, while here in this jurisdiction we are attempting, at least, to restrain wage increases, in other jurisdictions they have been adjusting salaries in a different direction. We think it exhibits a lack of leadership on the part of all of those who have engaged in that process.

Mr. Young: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would comment on the situation outlined in the federal Hansard of May 14, 1975, in which it was pointed out that even though these large demands are made and even though a 17.4 per cent increase in wages and salaries was achieved in the last quarter of 1974 -- based on reports of the highly organized trade unions -- the actual wage increase during that quarter was only 5.4 per cent on average; since the beginning of the year a rate of only about a 10 per cent increase has been achieved. I wonder if the minister would comment again on what the achievement is in the field of executive and professional salaries and what means we have of getting the information we need to compare these two?

Mr. MacDonald: Did the minister do a survey and will he table it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t do a survey. I do read financial statements from time to time. It is quite simple to compare executive remunerations for 1974 to those of 1973 and vice versa. It’s not difficult at all. I simply want to say that the whole concept of catch-up is self-defeating and if we can’t get off that type of treadmill --

Mr. Lewis: Self-defeating?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, it’s self-defeating because it feeds inflation. The whole idea of indexing is inflationary in itself. I’ve said this and I’m going to continue to say it.

Mr. MacDonald: Who introduced that idea in this country? It was Bob Stanfield.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly not me. All I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, is that somebody has to start standing still and doing the kinds of things necessary to bring back some kind of balance to wage increases.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

GAME AND FISH BOARD

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. It is my understanding that a game and fish hearing board was established on March 12, 1975. Can the minister tell me why it has taken practically a year and a half to establish this board when he was given the power to do so under legislation passed in November, 1973? Is he aware of the hardships that have been caused to fishermen by his procrastination or by the negligence of officials within his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the appeal board has been established, and we have searched this province for the right type of individual we wanted on that particular board. They have now been brought together and it is my understanding that they will be meeting very shortly to deal with a number of cases. I think some are ones that the hon. member has referred to.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

STRIKE AT NCR

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. What is the minister doing about the obvious bad-faith bargaining on the part of NCR Canada Ltd. when they wouldn’t even meet with the Graphic Arts International Union in the ministry when they were called together last week by the minister for the purpose of making some progress?

Further, will the minister ensure that no Ontario government contracts or orders are placed with that company while this legal strike is in progress?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, referring to my list here I see that they met on March 27 and again on May 16; I think it was the May 16 meeting that was called as a result of my instigation. Reading a little further, I see that both parties were firmly entrenched in their position and no progress was made, but we’ll follow up this matter again this coming week. That’s all I’m prepared to say at this time. My information is that both parties were firmly entrenched.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the minister aware that in the past when some of these companies dealing with paper products have been on strike, the Ontario government has continued, through subcontracting, to place orders with these companies? Since this is a company with which the government often deals directly, would the minister ensure by talking with his colleagues that orders are not placed with this company while it is strikebound?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’m not prepared to give that assurance, sir. The member can ask my colleagues directly if he wishes.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has the answers to certain questions.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, on May 20, I was asked a question by the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr), as well as a supplementary question by the hon. member for Huron, as to whether my ministry would request a delay of the hearing of the OMB on a proposed cottage development on Lake Nosbonsing until the environmental studies being done by my ministry were complete.

I am advised that my ministry is currently sampling Lake Nosbonsing to determine its capacity to assimilate additional phosphorus from further cottage development. We expect to have this information available for presentation at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for June 23 and we are doing extensive studies on the systems on the island at the present time.

DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

Hon. W. Newman: On May 16, the hon. member for Yorkview asked if I would advise the House of the applications presently before the Environmental Hearing Board for landfill sites to serve the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I am advised that the environmental approval branch of my ministry has received the following applications:

1. A site located in the town of Vaughan, owned by Crawford Allied Industries Ltd.; the request is for the use of 95 acres of a 245-acre site for landfill.

2. The second application, for a site also located in the town of Vaughan, and owned by Superior Sand and Gravel Supplies Ltd., is for approval of landfill on 385 acres of a total holding of 683 acres.

The above two sites are referred to as the Maple Pits and are presently being reviewed by my ministry staff.

I would also mention that two sites in the town of Pickering, known as Brock North and Brock South, have been before the Environmental Hearing Board, and the technical submissions submitted by Metropolitan Toronto are now being reviewed by my ministry staff.

Also, the board has had hearings on the extension of the Whitchurch-Stouffville site for additional capacity there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

NOISE POLLUTION

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding the minister’s abdication of responsibility in the matter of noise pollution enforcement.

Now that the municipalities have indicated that his model noise bylaw, which is really the only thing he has given them, is not operable, too expensive and can’t be worked by municipalities, is the minister reconsidering his position so that the province may in fact get back into the enforcement of noise pollution legislation across the province?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not planning to bring it back. May I say that the model noise bylaw went out to the municipalities across this province some weeks ago. We are having some regional meetings in various parts of the province to discuss the bill with the municipalities.

I agree that the model noise bylaw that we have is a very complicated bylaw. The whole idea of the bylaw is that it is very sophisticated for the larger centres. They do not have to use all of the bylaw. They can use a portion of it, depending on the needs of the municipalities and the sort of controls they want to have.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Since the minister said it is suitable only for the larger municipalities, how large does it have to get? The city of Toronto says it is useless, as far as it is concerned. How large a municipality is the minister talking about when the city says that it can’t afford to enforce it under its present condition and that it should be a provincial responsibility?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite obvious the member didn’t hear what I said. What I said was that if they want to adopt the bylaw in its entirety, they are entitled to. If they want to adopt part of the bylaw, that’s fine, if they want to do that. As far as the city of Toronto is concerned, we would be only too glad to meet with them to discuss what portions of the bylaw they need. Some of our smaller municipalities for a very minimal expenditure would be able to have a noise bylaw which would suit their particular needs.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): How many municipalities have actually passed bylaws such as the minister has suggested?

Mr. Good: None.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we were having meetings across this province to meet with them to discuss their concerns, to discuss the bylaw and to explain it to them. I do not believe that any have been passed at this point in time.

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

PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, regarding the building of a highrise apartment on the Niagara Escarpment at Owen Sound, work on which began yesterday. Could the minister give us some information about this? For example, was an environmental assessment done? Has there been an OMB hearing? Could he give us a report on this, because it seems to come as a surprise to many people.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take that question as notice. I am not aware of the issue to which he refers, but I will endeavour to get the reply.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment had a further answer to another question, I believe.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

Hon. W. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to a question asked by the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside on May 26 concerning the proposed oil tank farm to be constructed by Shell Canada Ltd. in Burlington, I am advised that an environmental analysis has not been submitted to my ministry for this project. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this project, should it proceed, will be subjected to review under the existing approvals process of my ministry. I would hope that Shell Canada Ltd. will act in co-operation in a manner similar to other major corporations which have come forward voluntarily with detailed environmental analyses for this type of a project.

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

SALE OF TAINTED MEAT

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Would the minister, when he is preparing his answers to that series of questions about the Quebec crime commission hearings in Montreal on the subject of meat, tell this House whether or not the observer or observers from the government of Ontario can both speak and understand French?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall saying that I would be reporting back to the House. Any questions of a direct nature relating to the operations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should of course be referred to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. P. Taylor: Will he take the question as notice?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will take that as notice. I’m sure if they are there, they understand French, or obviously they would be useless sitting there.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

WCB PENSIONS LEGISLATION

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: How soon may we expect in the House the bill to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act, changing the pensions? There have been various announcements on it, but no Act introduced. Can we expect it in a matter of days or will it be next fall?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of a flippant answer to give and I shouldn’t be thinking that way. I hope it will be next week, sir.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s what one calls fighting off bad habits.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has certain answers.

COMPENSATION TO INDIAN FISHERMEN

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough West asked if I would table the figures on the dollar value of loans made to Indian bands in northwest Ontario as they relate to the Fisheries Loans Act. I am pleased to table those today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General and possibly the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter). Due to a statement the Attorney General made with regard to the United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender and his statement with regard to the Palestine Liberation Organization coming here -- I think his statement in the press said the government of Ontario will be obliged to reconsider the extent, if any, of its participation -- is he considering withdrawing some of his financial support since the Minister of Correctional Services has about $500,000 in his budget and this minister also has some?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of my having any moneys in my budget for this particular conference to be held in September. The province would have to consider withdrawing if the conference was attended by any terrorist groups; according to the advice of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to the Prime Minister of Canada, we would have to consider withdrawing from attending the conference. That would mean the province would not tender or host three luncheons which, I believe, are presently on the agenda as part of the provincial participation. The province would not attend; it would have its deputy delegates attend on behalf of the province. These are the sort of things the government would have to consider.

Mr. Ruston: A supplementary: Is the Correctional Services ministry’s $500,000 separate altogether from what the minister is talking about?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development relating to the telegram he has received from the citizens’ groups dealing with the proposed Bradley-Georgetown transmission corridor. Since the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) gave the citizens’ groups a firm commitment on March 25 that a statement on the corridor route would be provided within two weeks and it is now virtually 10 weeks later -- there is a major mass meeting planned for June 1 for further action -- how long can these legitimate citizens’ groups be maintained in limbo and anxiety while the government withdraws from one commitment after another in giving them a final decision?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall that we have withdrawn from any commitment we have made. Quite frankly, I must admit to the member that there are so many transmission lines now spoken about I’m beginning to lose track of which is which. The Bradley-Georgetown one was one of the early ones.

Mr. Lewis: The Bradley-Georgetown transmission corridor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m not aware of the fact there has been a delay in replying to them. I’ll certainly take a look at this. I guess they have been in touch with the Ministry of Energy -- there was a wire to me; I’ve had so many in the last three weeks -- I’ll look at this and reply to the member on Monday.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it just shows you how easily misinformation can travel without being stopped by anybody. Nobody seemed to have noticed that there was a typographical error in the letter to the Prime Minister of Canada about the congress of corrections. There was no such thing as 1974 Olympics; there were 1972 Olympics.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It went through all over and nobody picked it up.

CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO

Mr. Ruston: May I redirect my question to the Attorney General? I also directed it to Correctional Services and I understand maybe the Minister of Correctional Services has part of the answer to it if he may be allowed.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, the funds for the conference were in my estimates. Some of these funds were sharing costs with the federal government and others were there for entertainment purposes. I would expect that, in line with the Premier’s statement, we would be taking a serious look at how these funds would be spent or whether we would be spending them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Education has a statement or will be prepared to receive questions because of the various things, of which everyone else seems to know except the Legislature, concerning teacher-board negotiations.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, if we could revert to statements by the ministry I would be happy to make one.

Mr. Speaker: We have about four minutes left in the question period. Could it wait until then?

Mr. Lewis: That will be four minutes to question the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the members of the House that, as I guess is well known, next week I will be introducing a bill to govern collective bargaining between teachers and school boards in this province. Under normal circumstances, of course, there would be no need for me to report to the Legislature prematurely in this way and in the manner in which I am going to do this morning. However, I think the article in this morning’s Globe and Mail concerning certain details of the proposed legislation compels me to do so at this time.

Yesterday, in keeping with a personal commitment that I made some time ago, I met in private meetings with representatives of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, the Ontario School Trustees’ Council, the Ontario Association of Educational Administrative Officials and several other groups. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed provisions of the bill and to solicit constructive suggestions for improvement before every detail was finalized.

I believe that this kind of consultative process is a good practice for governments to follow, and I have always believed in following it in the different ministries that I have been in. Yesterday, however, before this process was completed, a copy of the draft bill was taken from one of the meeting rooms in which representatives were examining it, and this morning’s article is a direct result. I have received a letter from the group that was using that meeting room, apologizing for the incident that occurred.

I am disappointed, naturally, that the process of responsible consultation on the details of the legislation has been in the news before I’ve had a chance to present it formally to this Legislature --

Mr. Breithaupt: So are we.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and for that I apologize to the Legislature. I apologize on my behalf, but I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is not my fault that this occurred. It is someone else’s.

Mr. Lewis: I believe in a conspiracy theory here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is no conspiracy theory.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In any event, I feel I should now provide members of the Legislature with further details and background on the bill, which we intend to introduce early next week.

The overriding objective of the bill which we will introduce is to lay down fair and workable ground rules for orderly collective bargaining between teachers and school boards and to lay the foundations for successful negotiations by reasonable people bargaining in good faith. I believe that this bill achieves these objectives. In a clear, step-by-step manner it outlines procedures to regulate the bargaining process. It provides innovative measures to avoid bargaining impasses, it offers practical alternatives to confrontation at every step, and it recognizes clearly the realities of collective bargaining in the field of education.

Mr. Lewis: It only took 18 months for it.

Mr. Breithaupt: An elephant gestates faster than that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I believe that once this legislation takes effect and its provisions become operative in the bargaining process, we in Ontario will see more order in a situation that has been somewhat chaotic and unsettled in the last two or three years.

Mr. P. Taylor: Whose fault is that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly one of the most innovative and far-reaching provisions of the bill is the establishment of a new non-partisan independent body to be called the Education Relations Commission to monitor and assist all local negotiations between teachers and school boards.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that’s an interesting innovation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mainly this will be an advisory body consisting of five impartial persons backed up by a small staff of experts in areas like negotiations, finance and educational policy. It will have an expert overview of the processes of negotiations across this province, with a responsibility to ensure that bargaining is being carried on in good faith and to provide assistance when asked for or when it deems necessary.

The commission will compile statistical information on subjects normally discussed in negotiations, such as salaries of teachers and other professional matters. It will also select and train persons who may act as mediators, fact-finders, arbitrators or selectors.

The Education Relations Commission will play a vital role in ensuring knowledgeable, responsible and harmonious negotiations in Ontario education. It will act not only on behalf of teachers and school trustees, but even more importantly on behalf of students and parents who are not directly represented in the bargaining process. In other words, the commission is very much a body that will serve the public interest in tangible and effective ways.

Mr. Lewis: That’s an important step.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The bill lays down clear guidelines and procedures that should ensure the orderly conduct of negotiations. The following points, I think, deserve particular mention at this time:

1. Negotiations will be at the local level between teachers and trustees. Either party can obtain bargaining advice or assistance from outside sources.

2. In January, either party can serve notice that it wishes to begin negotiations, leaving seven months to negotiate a new agreement.

3. All agreements must take effect on Sept. 1 and expire on Aug. 31 and may be for one or more years.

4. The scope of negotiations will cover any term or condition of employment put forward by either party except for a certain limited number of items such as pensions, which are governed by provincial legislation.

5. Every agreement must include a grievance procedure to resolve disputes that may arise during the life of an agreement.

6. At any time during negotiations, teachers and trustees may ask the Education Relations Commission to send in a mediator or a fact-finder or to refer the outstanding issues to voluntary binding arbitration or to final-offer selection.

The creation of the option of final-offer selection is one of the innovative highlights of the bill. It is a form of voluntary binding arbitration which has recently been used successfully in Ontario and elsewhere, and to our knowledge this is the first time that it has been specifically provided for in legislation anywhere in Canada.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) called for it months ago.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Equally innovative and important is the creation of the fact-finding process. A fact-finder is an impartial person assigned by the Education Relations Commission when negotiations between a board and its teachers are at or near an impasse. His job is to investigate both sides of the dispute and to write a report that will expose any extreme or unrealistic positions on the part of trustees or teachers. The report is to be made public if no agreement has been reached within 15 days after it has been submitted.

Of all the difficult philosophical and practical decisions that had to be made in connection with this bill, the most difficult was of course the question of what ought to be done if a stalemate continued to exist between a school board and its teachers even after all the detailed procedures governing negotiations contained in the bill had been exhausted.

In recent years legislators almost everywhere have been attempting to face the question of strikes by teachers. While we found it interesting to compare notes with others pondering this same question -- and we did do this -- in the final analysis we came to our own conclusions on what is in the best interest for all the people in our province and, in particular, for our educational system.

The whole question of teacher strikes is a many-sided and complex issue not really given to easy answers and glib solutions. On the one hand it is obvious that strikes in many segments of society, and particularly in the public sector, are unpalatable to many people and perhaps are becoming more so. They are, in fact, no more popular with many of those who participate in them than they are with those who are inconvenienced by them.

More than the disruption, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by teachers strikes, we as a government had to face the reality of a growing public mood that appears, at least in a general way, to be anti-strike. In a day when inflation and unsettled economic conditions are straining traditional labour-management relationships in many fields, including education, we are all too aware of the deepening concern over what appears to be a pattern of more and more strikes causing public and economic disruption. On the other hand, we have at the same time had to consider a remarkable unanimity on the part of employer and employee groups -- in this case, the school trustee and teacher organizations -- over the strike issue.

Recent events have shown that the question of whether strike rights for teachers exist in Ontario is obscure, to say the least. Official provincial organizations of school trustees and teachers in Ontario have been of common accord, however, that such a right should exist. Both the Ontario School Trustees’ Council and the Ontario Teachers Federation have endorsed this position in official briefs presented to this government.

We have faced the teacher-strike question and have considered all the alternatives. In particular, we have given serious consideration to the concept of defining teaching as an essential public service and denying the right of teachers to strike on this basis. We came to the conclusion that while this clearly would have been the politically expedient course of action in the short run, it would not have been the responsible route.

Over the past year we have looked extensively, as I mentioned, at jurisdictions elsewhere in North America where governments have attempted to control collective bargaining in education to the extent of banning strikes. We have found that it is not realistic to believe that strike-prohibiting legislation solves most of the problems or leads to acceptable wage settlements and harmony -- or even to believe that it eliminates strikes altogether.

We found much evidence that restrictive legislation of this sort often leads to more disruption and continuing problems than it prevents.

Mr. Lewis: Like the hospital workers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Rather than eliminating confrontation, it magnifies and expands it.

We, in Ontario, have worked long and hard and invested a great deal of money and human effort to develop a high quality school system which is considered by most knowledgeable people to be one of the finest anywhere. We do not believe that quality in education can be maintained and improved in an atmosphere of continuing confrontation. Thus, the bill we will be introducing does not make it illegal for teachers to strike. It does, however, make the route to strike action considerably more difficult than at present. At every step in the bargaining process, it provides realistic alternatives to a strike. Diversions and deterrents stand in the way of hasty or irresponsible strike action. While lockout provisions for school boards are also included, the same deterrent to their use will apply.

We make no claim that teacher strikes will be eliminated by this bill but we believe its mandatory and optional provisions will place a greater onus upon individual teachers and school board members to make conscious and responsible personal decisions before deciding to take drastic action leading to a strike.

The bill strictly regulates events leading to a strike with the specific intention of attempting to avert a strike right up to the last minute. No strike, lockout or other form of sanction is allowed during the life of an agreement. No strike or lockout is allowed until after a fact-finder has examined both sides of the dispute and his report has been made public so that everyone can be informed about the issues. Even after the fact-finder’s report has been submitted, there is a further cooling off period provided of 30 days. No strike is allowed until after teachers have specifically voted on this action by secret ballot supervised by the Education Relations Commission.

Mr. Lewis: It is not unfair.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that in the light of these reasonable procedures we, of course, will not condone illegal strikes. In fact, the bill contains provisions for stiff fines for those who would take illegal action. Furthermore, if a strike does occur, it will be the clear responsibility of the Education Relations Commission to advise the government if it believes that the continuation of a strike or a lockout will jeopardize the successful completion of the school year by the students affected by the strike.

The government has no intention, Mr. Speaker, of allowing this legislation to be used -- and we believe and hope that it will not be -- to cause a major disruption in the education of pupils. It is our public responsibility, of course, to retain the right to take specific action, including legislative action if necessary, should serious disruptions of educational services occur.

We have that responsibility and, of course, we would not shirk it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a final word about how this bill specifically affects school boards in the bargaining process. There has been a great deal of discussion about the “management rights” of school boards and what is often called local autonomy in education. We have considered these matters also very carefully.

It is very obvious that the legislated responsibility and authority of locally-elected trustees to manage the schools are clearly spelled out in the Education Act. The trustees are given the clear mandate to make many decisions regarding their local schools and the right of final decision is theirs and theirs alone. But this does not mean that many such matters cannot be discussed with teachers, even at the bargaining table. With the Education Act giving trustees the authority to effectively manage the schools, a management rights clause in the bill we will be introducing would be redundant and quite possibly confusing.

However, if trustees wish to clarify or further confirm their rights on specific matters, nothing prevents them from attempting to negotiate such a clause in an agreement with their teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely convinced that the bill that we will introduce next week lays out procedures for successful negotiations by reasonable people bargaining in good faith with a minimum of confrontation and disruption. It will be put forward not in anticipation of serious future problems but rather on the premise that teachers and school board members will act in a reasonable and responsible manner. Indeed I think, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that the legislation we will be introducing is based on a second set of “three Rs” for the 1970s -- rights, reason and responsibility.

In assuring certain rights to teachers and to school boards, we expect that the bargaining process will be carried out in a reasonable and responsible fashion by persons of good will and with constant reference to the heavy responsibility that each bears for the education of our young people. If this is indeed the case, as I hope and expect that it will be, then the legislation we will introduce will work as a significant and necessary forward step in a return to more harmony and harmonious relationships between teachers and school boards in this province.

Mr. Speaker: As indicated earlier, we have four minutes left in the question period.

The member for Kitchener.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. Breithaupt: While the bill is as welcome, after its lengthy period of gestation and difficult birth, as a newly born elephant, I do suggest that it will be important to have this brought before standing committee. I’m wondering if the minister will agree to proceed with second reading of this bill promptly so that over the next several weeks, in standing committee, all of the clauses and details and expectations can be fully publicized and dealt with by all interested parties in the province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention to introduce the bill formally in the Legislature on Tuesday, then to proceed in the normal course to second reading and to standing committee for a complete discussion at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West. A supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: I preface it by saying that it’s an astonishing and intelligent reversal of government policy, and I congratulate the minister on bringing a number of his more intractable cabinet colleagues along.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s even better than standing still.

Mr. Lewis: What wonders the teachers hath wrought, not to mention an imminent election.

I want to ask the minister, though, whether the very intelligent collective bargaining principles finally contained in the bill, in addition to the obvious need for the right to strike and all that he said about it, and although we may quibble on some of the details, as doubtless we will in debate, has there been cabinet discussion of taking the same principles that the minister now has embodied in this bill and applying them to the Labour Relations Act, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, so that we can have the same civilized, harmonious, moderate collective bargaining relationships in other sectors of Ontario and so we don’t need to go through the confrontation that exists outside the educational field?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility rests with the Ministry of Education --

Mr. MacDonald: Isn’t the minister a member of the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and in discharging that responsibility, I have spent many months working on this particular piece of legislation. I think the question about how it might apply to other areas will have to be asked of others on the front benches.

Mr. Lewis: There’s such a gulf now between the minister and his colleagues that it is almost unbridgeable.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that is a very wrong assumption on the part of the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so. We don’t have good-faith bargaining in Ontario. We have no equivalent to the Education Relations Commission.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. My friend, the Minister of Labour, would deny that. I think we do have good-faith bargaining --

Mr. Lewis: Oh? The minister has finally been pushed into this 18 months after the event.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Even good-faith bargaining in this bill depends upon the attitude of both sides.

Mr. Lewis: Some of the minister’s colleagues were apoplectic during that announcement; they were traumatized. How can they be apoplectic and traumatized at the same time?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Oh, sit down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

FLOOD PLAIN MAPPING

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Was the current flood plain mapping, now being undertaken by the various conservation authorities throughout the province, initiated at the instance of the province or by the local conservation authorities?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is a joint undertaking. As the member knows, we’ve had some problems dealing with flood plain lands in some conservation areas, and it was thought in the interest of the general public and the province as a whole that we should jointly move ahead in the flood plain mapping.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary: So it is the policy of his ministry to promote this kind of planning input? Is there any statutory authority under the Conservation Authorities Act to do this?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I believe there is, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. Gaunt: Where it is done and there is a subsequent depreciation in the value of the property and the conservation authority decides to purchase the property, is it his ministry’s plan to share in the cost of that purchase?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is something that is being worked out in the policy decisions that are reached as we move ahead in the study.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

SECURITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, the Securities Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a statement?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, having already made a lengthy statement I don’t think anything further need be said.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply complementary to the bill to enact the Securities Act, 1975.

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I want to table the answer to question 23 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 15 students from the Blind River Secondary School. The persons in charge are Mr. Aylard and Mrs. Hamilton. I would like the members to welcome them at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 26th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1202:

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1202, item 1.

Anything on these items 1 to 4?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): What is this, Mr. Chairman, 1203?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1202. Is vote 1202 carried?

Vote 1203, item 1, official guardian.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have actually nothing to bring up other than to commend the officials of both the public trustee and the official guardian for taking care of any problems I’ve ever had. I found the co-operation of the officials first rate. I really appreciate that.

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

Mr. Chairman: Does item 1 carry? Carried.

Item 2, public trustee.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Wait a minute.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Get with it.

Mr. Lawlor: What do you mean, get with it? What do you know about it?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: We haven’t jumped legal aid? I am going to have to ask the indulgence of the committee on this matter.

Mr. Chairman: Legal aid?

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t spend a great deal of time. It’s the first item in vote 1202. It’s the only matter I wish to speak of under 1202 at all in these estimates this year.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreeable to the members that the member for Lakeshore revert back to item 1 of vote 1202?

Agreed.

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t take a great deal of time on it. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to avoid dealing with legal aid, but I think we could deal with it under 1205 --

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1204.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- pardon me -- on the courts administration.

Mr. Lawlor: Does it really matter very much? I’m going to tell you this, in advance, I am trying to finish these estimates as quickly as possible and I am not going to spend any time this year on 1205. We had a thorough discussion last year about this merger business, etc., and last evening we spent a certain amount of time on it. You are proceeding on the matter. I don’t see much point in hammering away at that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore can go ahead on item 1, vote 1202.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have before us this year a searching, fairly voluminous report on the whole legal aid thing, for which we have waited for a long time. Mr. Justice Osler has prepared it. I think we should have a brief and, if possible, penetrating discussion as to its merits, as to what your feelings about it are, what you are likely to implement, what you are not likely to implement, and the general picture.

In this regard, I want to refer to page 23 to give the setting, the background of this matter: “We have difficulty in reaching the conclusion that Mr. Robins” -- the former treasurer of the Law Society -- “would have us reach, namely that administration of the plan should be left exclusively with the Law Society.” The first monumental move in the report is to say no, it should have a more objective and independent role, with wide participation and not under the prime aegis or ambit of the Law Society of this province.

It goes on in this head as follows:

“The Legal Aid Plan is a large undertaking, both in terms of the number of people involved in its administration and in terms of budget. Our consultants have concluded that the net cost of the plan for the year ended March 31, 1974, was $13,325,000 including the direct and administrative costs of the legal aid assessment branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but excluding an allowance of $608,000 [you know, getting up close to another million] for payments by the plan to the province with respect to court fees, fees of the official guardian, etc. $3,970,000 represented the contribution of the government of Canada with respect to criminal cases and hence the net operating cost of the plan to Ontario was $9,265,000.

“In the light of what it accomplishes and in the light of the provincial budget as a whole, this is not a large sum indeed, if our recommendations are substantially implemented, and even if they are not, the overall cost is bound to grow and in our view should grow very substantially. Whatever the precise amount, however, these are public funds and they are not insignificant in size.”

Then he comes down to the crunch of the matter under this head, saying:

“A number of briefs were delivered and submissions made to us representing that the position of the Law Society under the present scheme involves a conflict of interest. The public good must be the sole purpose of the Legal Aid Plan, whereas the Law Society is by statute the governing body of the legal profession and must be primarily concerned with its welfare.

“The term ‘conflict of interest’ may not be one appropriate in the circumstances, and we state emphatically that no suggestion was made to us at any time that the Law Society or its legal aid committee has in fact permitted such a conflict to develop.

“Nevertheless, it is impossible to perceive the direction of the Legal Aid Plan as being sufficiently single-minded if it is left in the hands of a committee of the Law Society, reporting to convocation, the governing body of that society, both groups being composed overwhelmingly of lawyers.”

And so the lawyers were serving the lawyers up to a point. I think we all agree. Probably the response to your ministry, your feedback on this particular one, is altogether favourable. I trust it is so, though I could be wrong. I would like to know, if you feel free to disclose that information, as to what the reaction is under this particular head.

I want to raise one other point. As I say, I’m not going into this matter item by item and making an analysis of the various points. I just want to discuss two or three matters of importance. The report says:

“The restructuring of the plan and the development of a variety of legal service delivery techniques which this report envisages is intended to respond to the very wide range of needs and circumstances which exist across the communities of this province. The requirements of a community like Kingston are unlikely to be precisely the same as those that exist in Kenora. In neither community do the needs and circumstances approximate those that exist in Metropolitan Toronto. Because we see as an inherent weakness of the existing plan its inflexibility by virtue of its enabling legislation and its structure, the intention of these provisions is to create a scheme in which an independent, publicly supported board of directors and broadly based area committees will have the requisite flexibility to deal with particular delivery systems in a creative and innovative fashion. Student legal aid societies, an important support to the plan, will not in the nature of things exist in every community.”

Then they go on to private-enterprise legal aid clinics, of which we’ve had one in Toronto in the Kensington Market area which was not altogether a very resounding success, to say the least. There are other schemes by lawyers’ offices, particularly corporate lawyers’ offices, the large downtown ones, to enter into this area and participate by branch office situation, which are not and have not proved to be very successful.

We come to the third area that I’m particularly interested in, places like the Parkdale community clinic, the one run by John Bowlby in Hamilton and the mooted clinics elsewhere in the province. The Bowlby clinic in Hamilton was a yeoman venture. I think they really tried but, as the figures indicate either in volume of caseload or in costs per case per individual of administration, they were very far apart indeed. And so, in a sense, we must come to see, if we are terribly concerned about public funds in this regard as I’m sure we all are, that the Parkdale community which comes out at $16 and some odd cents per case, as I recall, provided some kind of yardstick or model of what the community legal aid concept should be.

Secondly, the move by Mr. Justice Osler working with young Scott and others, Scott being the counsel to the committee, to get salaried lawyers recognized with some finality, seems to me a major breakthrough. There have been dislocations in the scheme. There hasn’t been that measure of frequent participation by the bar at large in the scheme. There are many people who are frustrated by the slowness of payments and by the fact that they have to make some kind of gesture and cutback in their fees, of which incidentally 25 per cent is being proposed here and recommended to be eliminated. I trust you agree with that particular elimination and give the full fee schedule since you have set that very schedule. The schedule should be enough to induce support.

With the inundation of new young lawyers, some of us are very much concerned of what their future prospects and what their earning powers are going to be in a highly competitive market, particularly as many young lawyers coming out of the local law schools concentrate themselves in Toronto, rather than going to more outlying parts where there is more fertile ground to be tilled, at least in my opinion, and where they might enjoy a more human life and might go fishing some afternoon or be able at least to talk to their families on occasion, rather than having the money-hungry, somewhat grubbing attitude that keeps the concentration here in the big city; that type of thing.

If they are going to stay here a fair number of them, in my opinion, are going to rely more and more upon the operations of the legal aid scheme in order not to make money but to subsidize in a sense their income, to give their income some measure of stability. The limitation of the criminal certificates to 70 a year, subject to review, is a good move, nevertheless, in this way. At least you have been able to set a definite figure -- or at least the Law Society has set it -- on the number of cases they think a lawyer can handle of a criminal nature in a single year.

There is a role, a growing function for the clinic concept, for the walk-in clinic, for the thing on the ground floor, if possible, people walk in off the street who would otherwise never come to see a lawyer; they are intimidated by his middle-class values, intimidated by his way of speaking, intimidated by his curtness. It can’t be helped; lawyers do like to get through to the heart of a subject, get to it with all the persiflage and all the embroidery at the edges. We all know in practising law that we have to go through a great deal of edges before we can get to what we think is the meat of the matter. Lawyers in this context don’t wear ties; they often wear beards -- believe it or not, they do.

Hon. Mr. Clement: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. Lawlor: It’s unbelievable that they should stretch their sense of social indecorum to those lengths; but there you are, this is what’s happening in the whole world. With that in mind, there is an easier approach; a sense that the lawyer in the clinic is available, is a guy like themselves, not putting on any airs and interested, sympathetically, in their problems as they come forth. It’s unlike the machine-like impersonality of the big law office, basically, where everything is done with timesheets and you have to justify your existence from week to week if you want to participate in the partners’ earnings. It’s a different atmosphere. It’s an atmosphere which we must support and engender.

The report gives a sort of cautious, not grudging, move in that direction recognizing that the need as it presently stands is not being met. It is not only not being met but is not being met in the right way, in the right dimensions and getting to the people we most wish to. As I say, it is cautious because it places all kinds of restrictions upon area directors and upon committees to give their sanction to the initiation of such a scheme in the various geographical areas of the province as though the hesitation were fairly extreme.

I trust that emanating from your department will be a spirit of welcome; a spirit of saying, “Yes, these things perform their function; they are not made precisely to displace the private lawyer in his operation.” On the contrary, as Osler points out, there will be a spirit of engendering a communication and a co-operation with the lawyers outside that legal aid office with respect to matters which may be litigated; with respect to appearances in criminal matters; with respect to drawing simple documents or complex documents, wills or otherwise; there will be this mutuality grow up.

It won’t grow up unless it is stimulated and unless it’s watered. Otherwise there will be division and the whole thing will come under fire. The lawyers in the clinics will hive themselves off and become a special little cabal, holding themselves defensively hostile to other lawyers who are, perhaps they feel, not as dedicated as they are; not as with it as they are. That has to be broken down right from the word go and so has the sense of infeeding.

This department and the Law Society have a role here in seeking to encourage the private practitioner to introduce himself to the storefront office, to go on in, tell them who he is, tell them what he is prepared to do, tell them what his fees are likely to be and how much he is willing to participate, give and take. In every community we practise law, we all come to know one another; we’ve all come to trust one another. We’ll do the most astonishing things, if we happen to know another lawyer who happens to be in a little difficulty, to ease the problem. It’s that mutuality of support that exists in lawyers’ communities.

We always have the fellow we know we can’t trust over the barrel and he is ostracized -- maybe there are two or three of them in a community. We just won’t play ball with him and everything has to be according to Hoyle with that guy. By and large, the tolerance and the amiability is quite striking; that is, until you do something really wrong and then your best friend comes to see you. In any event, this is the experience.

There are literally hundreds -- well, 96 -- recommendations in the report having to do with advertising. I have nicked quite a number of them, again in the interests of getting on with this and getting to other ministers with their estimates. I will not press it but I would like the minister to respond in the sense of how he appreciates and assesses this report of Mr. Justice Osler.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the report at the present time, of course, is being reviewed by the ministry. Many of the questions raised by the member for Lakeshore have not yet been determined because they will be policy decisions to be made by this government, i.e., the recommendation that the Legal Aid Plan be carried on under a corporation. These are things which are going to have to be determined and determined in the relatively near future, I would think.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, completely.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The physical implications are something, of course, that we cannot ignore because, as you’ve indicated, they will be rather substantial.

When Mr. Justice Osler’s report became available, I was immediately contacted by the chairman of the legal aid committee of the Law Society. He was anxious to see whether they could proceed with certain matters forthwith. I would like to read to the House the letter I wrote to Mr. John Bowlby, QC, on April 28 which, I think, will answer a lot of the questions raised by the member for Lakeshore this morning. I think, as a member of the Law Society, he would be interested to know what our response was:

“Dear Mr. Bowlby:

“Thank you for your letter of April 10 regarding the proposed projects which have been held in abeyance pending the receipt of the task force report on legal aid.

“My views are as follows:

“1. The Peterborough project: This project, having been commended by the task force, should be proceeded with, subject, of course, to any financial issues which may arise from the updating of the cost of the proposed project.

“2. Decentralization of York county: I agree that this proposal should be implemented. I would ask you to let me have your views as to the location of these offices, having regard to the task force recommendations and the comments of the Attorney General’s advisory committee. I am prepared to discuss the implications of this decentralization upon the present duty counsel clinics which operate in the metropolitan area, particularly in view of the task force recommendation that neighbourhood legal aid clinics be established.

“3. Lay representation on the legal aid committee: I see no reason why this proposal should not proceed. I am inclined to the view that these appointments should be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and I would appreciate receiving from the Law Society a list of nominees for our consideration.

“4. Repeal of non-disclosure provisions: You point out that this has been recommended by the legal aid committee, approved by convocation and recommended by the task force. I agree that it should be proceeded with.

“5. Class actions and group applications: Although these subjects have been dealt with by your subcommittees and by the task force, they involve rather fundamental issues of policy and should, in my view, be held in abeyance pending the government’s determination of its overall policy regarding the task force recommendations with respect to coverage.

“6. Public relations department: This proposal should, in my view, be held in abeyance pending determination of the government’s position regarding the overall administration of the Legal Aid Plan. However, I do not suggest that this should in any way inhibit the development of an advertising and information programme, and I assure you of my support of adequate funding of any detailed proposal in this regard.

“7. Bad debts: I am inclined to agree with the recommendations of the task force regarding the writing off of bad debts, and I propose to review this matter with Management Board.

“8. Panel systems: I would like you to direct your early attention to the task force proposals for amending the panel list to provide more information to the public. I suggest that you will face a problem in providing information about specific lawyers on the panel without appearing to steer the applicants, and I am concerned that we approach this problem from a functional point of view. I would appreciate your detailed recommendations as to how this may be achieved to best serve the interests of the public while at the same time safeguarding the professional canons which are related to this issue.

“There are a number of other matters I would like to discuss with you as soon as I have had an opportunity to review the task force recommendations in further detail. If you wish to discuss these matters I would suggest that you contact [and so on].”

That was the letter I wrote.

Part of the problem is that the federal government, as the member probably knows, has withdrawn a lot of its funding through LIP programmes that it initiated two or three years ago and it announced, I guess last fall or early this year, that it would be withdrawing from certain areas of programmes that it was financially supporting. The Parkdale operation was one of those type of undertakings.

Parkdale ran into a very critical situation in that, as I recollect, they were going to be out of funds about the end of March and simply were going to have to close the door. Our perception of the Parkdale clinic, and certainly the perception of that particular activity by the legal aid committee of the Law Society, was positive all the way; it was performing a very, very great service.

The legal aid committee wanted to support that activity but felt it should not do so in the absence of support from me as Attorney General. I orally gave my support to Mr. Bowlby and his committee upon his inquiry.

Mr. Lawlor: Good for you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I followed that up with a letter confirming my support, for whatever value it might have, but I felt that they should have something on record setting out the policy of certainly the Ministry of the Attorney General in supporting it. Immediately upon receipt of my oral support the Law Society legal aid committee responded and that activity is still continuing.

Those are the matters that generally have been touched on by the member for Lakeshore. I should say that, as a ministry, we have not received any formal reaction or feedback from the various county bar associations as to their reaction to this Osler report; nor have we received any formal submissions or representations from the law society. I think I can anticipate that I shall hear in due course; they are simmering now and perhaps moving the production of this from the back burner to the front burner.

I want to find out what the profession feels. I want their input and criticism and observations so that then when I and my colleagues most wrestle with the policy issues, which necessarily must be considered, we will really have the feeling of all those who would be willing to contribute their observations to it. I must be mindful, as I think you have indicated -- certainly if not today, on other occasions -- that we are dealing with a specific profession of which the member for Lakeshore and I both are members and we must try to take a detached view when coming to those policy decisions that are going to have such a far-reaching implication on the public, both in terms of social and financial impact.

Mr. Lawlor: Sometimes this place fills me with despair. Here we are on the most important judicial estimates that we do all year long and we have two lawyers in the House, you and me. To get back to John Bowlby’s letter to you, what did he say about group actions? Recommendation 70 says: “Class actions and group proceedings shall be funded in appropriate cases.” It is restricted somewhat, but for the first time real recognition has been given to this possibility. Does he mention that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The letter I just read was my letter to Mr. Bowlby. With reference to class actions, I said to him in my letter of April 28:

“Although these subjects have been dealt with by your subcommittees and by the task force, they should involve rather fundamental issues of policy and should, in my view, be held in abeyance pending the government’s determination of its overall policy regarding the task force recommendations with respect to coverage.”

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t press it at all. I would have the minister, Mr. Chairman, look at the report of young people in legal difficulty which I mentioned during the Solicitor General’s estimates. They’re seeking funds. I want to make a plea on their behalf and in this regard. I have before me a letter from Warren Allmand, Solicitor General of Canada, talking about the Kitchener-Waterloo project. It’s a letter to Mr. Max Saltsman, MP. I won’t read it all. The second paragraph says:

“I agree with you that a project of this type should be supported, but the decision to fund is based on many factors, one of which is the allocation of limited funds. If the decisions of other funding bodies are favourable, this ministry is also likely to fund the Kitchener-Waterloo project.”

As one of the ministers, under whatever hat you may be wearing, I would like you to give a look at it with the possibility of participation in some measure of funding. If you do it, Allmand will do it. It’s that kind of thing. If we could get something going on it, then this particular group could stay alive.

I would have you, without pressing the matter too much, take a look at page 23 of their report. It has to do with legal aid and their thoughts about legal aid. I won’t read it. It simply says in that first long paragraph that they think it is too restrictive, and the Osler report doesn’t do all that much to extend it either. Those summary conviction charges on which there is no likelihood of imprisonment or severe financial stress arising therefrom are not likely to become and aren’t presently covered. Their experience in the courts and in monitoring the courts is that many cases of real need are being jettisoned and not given proper cognizance because of that very severe limitation. I know it’s a question of monetary restriction.

Wouldn’t it really be possible that duty counsel in cases of summary conviction of offences might just take on the case? What duty counsel do at the present time is arrange for adjournments, cite a number of facts about a person, and not very much more. They are very critical of the duty counsel operation here. They take pleas of guilty and make submissions on behalf of an accused on a guilty plea. For those whom the Legal Aid Society does not make permissible, a certificate in the sense of going to Legal Aid and getting one issued and having it appraised and for those matters which can be handled right there on the spot as a summary conviction matter, might not they be dealt with?

I have a note here that in order to change the thing by $1 it would cost thousands. Therefore I withdraw your offer. It’s like the Greeks giving gifts.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I thank you on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, in the interest of the taxpayers we won’t make this a droll precedent.

On duty counsel they say -- this is a completely different heading:

“Where the trappings of the court may in many cases be considered just short of awesome, the role of duty counsel can be viewed only as almost inconspicuous and indeed duty counsel is a distant relative when it comes to making his presence felt and known both to the court and to the accused.”

They talk in congested corridors.

Osler has something to say about advertising and trying to make it clear. They claim the role of duty counsel is very much needed in the courts and all they want to do, in some way or other, is that they be made more conspicuous; that the sign up on the thing says: “There is a lawyer here prepared to act free of charge.” No fee -- because when a duty counsel comes outside the courtroom and walks up and down these crowded hallways and shouts, “I am the duty counsel, does anyone wish to see me this morning?” nine-tenths of the people in the court don’t know what a duty counsel is much less that they can approach him.

They have never heard of him. They think that even if he were a lawyer who is holding himself somehow available, it is going to cost them money. The fact of the matter is he’s there for advice, and simply to announce that he’s duty counsel is to assume a great deal which is not assumable. Some kind of printed matter on the walls of all these buildings to indicate that this man is available, is being paid out of the public purse and that he is prepared to give them either advice or representation in the matter, would greatly add to his ambit and to his efficacy in those courts. I would ask you to give some consideration to that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will be meeting, I believe, with that group a week from Wednesday in Kitchener. I have had some brief discussions with the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) concerning that particular group. It is my understanding that most of their activities really relate to the correctional setting. It may well be that should a programme of funding be considered by the government, it might well be funded by the Ministry of Correctional Services or a joint funding, hopefully with the Ministry of the Attorney General bearing a very small proportion of that.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, as superminister, you can co-ordinate that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I know where three of the votes are.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I’m sure.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sometimes that even splits two to one.

Mr. Lawlor: And then if you are chairman, you may have a fourth.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I may. Thank you.

Mr. Lawlor: That is all I want to do on that vote.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1202?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, on the legal aid situation the member for Lakeshore mentioned, I wonder, Mr. Minister, about the individual who has committed some type of felony or some type of indictable crime, and is kept in a jail cell for an indefinite period of time without the legal aid counsel selected by him coming to his assistance and informing him? I mentioned to you the other night the one problem I was alerted to in my own community. It seems strange to me that this young lad, 17 years of age, who does have legal assistance through legal aid, is not being informed at any time of any of his rights by his legal aid counsellor. What does one do to get information to the young lad? If the young lad is in the cells because of an indictable offence and bail cannot be given to him, shouldn’t he be so informed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, he should be so informed. I would think he should direct an inquiry to the legal aid lawyer who is representing him and at least sit down and have a discussion as to, “What are my rights here? What do I do? What can I expect will happen to me? When is my case going to proceed to trial? What is the evidence against me? What have you found out?” The legal aid lawyer or any lawyer representing any accused should keep his client advised. He will coat his facts with his opinion, at the end, as to the probability of the young man being acquitted or convicted, but there should be an avenue of communication open here if one has not been established.

I don’t know whether the young man has directed any inquiries or not. In my previous ministry we got a great number of phone calls and I had many attendances on me by constituents complaining about the quality of goods or service provided by some retail house. When I said, “Well, what did they say to you when you complained?” They said, “Oh. I never complained to them. I came to you.” I always found it amazing that they wouldn’t go to the retailer or to the person involved in the first instance. Maybe, by analogy, the same thing applies here.

If the man has an inquiry, I am sure any responsible defence counsel would sit down and explain the situation to him, because it’s possibly the first exposure the man has had to the judicial process, although the fact he hasn’t got bail would make me think that he is either in there on a very serious matter or he has had some exposure to the process in the past.

Mr. B. Newman: What does the young lad do when he attempts to get in touch with his legal aid counsellor and never has a phone call returned?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think he should contact the area director of legal aid. He is obviously dealing with a busy counsel -- that’s fine, everybody is busy -- and if he can’t elicit a response, I think he had better contact the legal aid director and put his position very clearly before him. He can do that with a telephone call. The people at the jail will provide him with the number of the legal aid director.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, if I gave you the name of the individual, would you have your officials look into the situation?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We would contact the legal aid director, probably send him down a copy of the Hansard that is being produced at this very minute and say, “Would you look into this?” As long as you supply me with the name, we’ll do it.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I ask a little indulgence. There has been a considerable change in these driver registration things over the previous year, when there were 26,591 search requisitions and 8,799 suspension orders. Now, that 8,800 has gone to 76,400 in 1974. That’s a fantastic change in driver licence cancellations. Could we have a brief explanation of that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Exactly what is it the hon. member wants to know? Why there has been a substantial increase in suspensions?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, it is an enormous increase.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am advised that we are now on stream with the court case flow as well as in catching those in arrears, those who were on the books for a number of months. The programme started in January, 1974, and it has increased rather substantially. The drivers are also more aware. We are catching up on the backlog as well as keeping current with the current flow of cases through the court.

Mr. Lawlor: In other words, it’s on stream, as you say, and moving now. Okay.

Vote 1202 agreed to.

On vote 1203:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I just want to say a few remarks in regard to item 2, Mr. Chairman. Are you taking the official guardian first?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we’ll take them in order of item. The official guardian item, I understand, was carried.

Mr. Gaunt: No.

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: I understand the official guardian was carried, so we will be on item 2.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We passed that?

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few remarks in respect of the public trustee. On occasion, I have some matters in my riding which have to do with the public trustee. The public trustee is involved from time to time with constituents of mine and on the odd occasion I have pursued some matters with the public trustee.

I really just wanted to get up and pay a tribute to the public trustee, because the latest effort with which I have been involved in connection with the public trustee was a matter dealing with a lady in a small town who had been committed to the Ontario Hospital in Goderich. Her home was really her only asset. It wasn’t very much of an asset because it was just a little shack. It was worth no more than $4,000. But the public trustee initiated some action to sell the home and they put it on the open market. They notified a number of real estate people and they said, “Try to get as big a bid as you can for this home.”

It so happened that the lady in question had made a will and she had willed this home to one of her relatives; in actual fact, her brother. I was approached by the brother. He was rather disturbed that this home was going to be sold and that he was going to have to compete with people in the market for the home. His position was that the intent of his sister was to leave him the home. There was a price of $1,000 indicated in the will; that if he paid $1,000 he was to have the home. As I said, it wasn’t worth very much in any case. It was only worth, one real estate man told me, $4,000, so there wasn’t a great deal of money involved.

I contacted the public trustee’s office about it and they agreed that the intent was clear -- the lady intended to leave the house to her brother -- and so they decided to pull the house off the open market and abide by the terms of the will.

I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think that was the discreet thing to do. I think it was the prudent thing to do, and I think it shows a sensitivity on the part of the public trustee which is essential for this kind of post.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale. Did you wish to speak on this one?

Mr. Renwick: I think I just want to make one comment on this particular item. I hope that when the report of the select committee on corporations law dealing with loan and trust corporations is tabled -- which it will be, I understand, fairly soon -- some of the comments in there with respect to this whole problem of the administration of estates of any values -- well, I’ll guess a figure for the moment -- up to $300,000 or $400,000, has got to be looked at in relation to whether or not the public trustee’s office should be enlarged for the purpose of providing an adequate, efficient estate administration service.

There are many other aspects of it, but at the time the report is tabled I would hope the minister would make a note to make certain that he and the officials of his ministry look at it and not just leave it as a matter for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this vote carry?

Vote 1203 agreed to.

On vote 1204:

Mr. Renwick: The only question I have on 1204 is: Is it possible for the minister to list for us the major items, either by way of litigation or by way of submissions, that the Crown law office is engaged in that are of significance to the province at the present time?

For example, the question which our colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), raised about the position of the government with respect to the question of standing recently granted to the former editor of the Halifax newspaper. His question was, “Now that the substance of that matter is going to be tried, is it the intention of your ministry to intervene and make a submission?” I think you said you were going to make a submission but you hadn’t decided which side you were going to be on.

I am thinking of matters such as the status of the questions with respect to the Indian claims in the Maple Mountain district. I am thinking of submissions which you may or may not be making in relation to your colleagues in the government at Ottawa who may be proposing changes. I am thinking of submissions you might be making as sort of advocate for the people of Ontario with respect to Bell tariff increases; or before the same commission with respect to the fees being charged for air travel -- any of those matters which are of significant public interest where the government is actually taking a position and is either engaged in litigation or has intervened in litigation or is making submissions before public bodies. I believe this is the appropriate place to raise that question.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1204 carry or does the minister wish to respond before we carry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think I could respond to some of those matters. I have a detailed brief covering all civil litigation emanating from the Crown or involving the Crown law office. I interpret the member for Riverdale’s remarks to mean those that have some significance insofar as the public is concerned, dealing with constitutional matters as opposed to some outstanding prosecution or declaratory action.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, those which have a public aspect to them rather than a strict law enforcement aspect to them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will be pleased to provide that. As to the matter down in Halifax, we participated in that at the basis of our position that an individual could not involve himself in that type of litigation. That was the essential ingredient of that whole issue -- could he or could he not -- and, of course, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that he could. Once having found out that he has status, the matter is referred back and the merits of the action will now be determined in the inferior courts.

Mr. Renwick: Your intervention in that case is against him having standing?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: That’s rather unbelievable.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We take the position that is consistent with the law as we understood it at the present time. We always like to be on the side of the law, if at all possible.

Mr. Renwick: I didn’t think there was that much distance between you and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, there is quite a distance.

I would like to read this. It is rather short and I think it will sum up the present activity report involving this operation of the ministry. Some examples where we intervened, for example, in the Supreme Court of Canada, were: re natural parents, which involved the applicability of certain provisions of the Provincial Adoption Act to Indians; Morgan versus the Province of Prince Edward Island which dealt with the right of a province to limit the amount of land which can be held by a non-resident; John A. Macdonald Rail Equip. Enterprises Ltd. versus Vapor Canada Ltd. and AG for Canada et al; and Shellcast Foundries Inc. versus Sircast Inc., which involved the validity of section 7 of the Trademarks Act; that of Vadeboncoeur versus Landry, which raised the question of the extent to which the provisions of the federal divorce Act overrode the existing provincial law with relation to maintenance and alimony. Judgement has been reserved in all of these.

In addition, intervention has been filed in the following cases which have not yet been heard:

Tomco versus AG of Nova Scotia, which involves the validity of the powers of the Labour Relations Board to issue cease and desist orders; McNeil versus Nova Scotia board of censors, which now has been heard; Dupond versus city of Montreal, which involves the right of a municipality to pass bylaws regulating activities on municipal property. In addition, there are two cases involving the fraudulent practices Act and the right to control cable TV in a province.

In addition to those in the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Chairman, we’ve been involved with constitutional law cases at all levels of the courts. For example, we acted for the Ontario Securities Commission at a trial in the Supreme Court of Ontario dealing with insider trading, in which the case of the constitutional validity of insider trading provisions of the Securities Act is being raised. We are also involved in an action for declaratory judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada where we acted for the Farm Products Marketing Board in an action by Campbell Soup Co. Ltd., wherein that company has raised the applicability of the quota system to its operations by reason of its shipping frozen dinners out of the province.

We’re also involved in trial proceedings for the Ministry of Revenue, involving the Ford Motor Co. of Canada, in which the company seeks a declaration that the Gasoline Tax Act is unconstitutional and that all taxes previously paid, amounting to about $960 million, ought to be refunded. That would be an interesting one to take on a contingency basis; I’d like that one.

We are acting for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Attorney General in a trial involving the Egg Marketing Board, wherein the constitutional validity of the entire levy system is being questioned, and which said system supports all local boards dealing with the marketing of eggs in the Province of Ontario. Those are the main constitutional matters that we have been involved in over the past 12 months.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear any comment from the minister about the Indian land claims in the Maple Mountain area. I would like a comment from him either now or perhaps his ministry would drop me a note as to the present status of it. I know very little about it other than to believe that somehow or other they may very well have a claim and that it may be a case of immense significance if it goes to the courts, rather than being settled by way of some kind of negotiation and release and quit claim.

The point I would like to know is just what is the process by which, first of all, you hear of all of the cases which are being heard in any of the courts across the country? Then, how do you make your decision as to the ones in which you will or will not intervene? In other words, do you hear by happenstance or do you hear automatically from your counterparts in the other jurisdictions of cases that have a constitutional bearing? For example, if a constitutional case arises in Prince Edward Island, such as the question of non-resident ownership of land, what’s the process by which it comes through to your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: In constitutional matters involving actions within the province we have to be served with notice, and I’m aware that you’re aware of that. With reference to these other matters, we are in constant contact with our counterparts in all the other provinces. There is a very close liaison. The Attorneys General meet now twice a year, once in the spring and once in the autumn, and dialogue at that time. There’s a constant flow of dialogue back and forth through the mails and via telephone as to these things. That’s really how they come to our attention. Sometimes a court will determine or will perceive that there may well be a constitutional matter involved and will direct counsel to notify us formally, if we haven’t already been made aware of it.

With reference to your inquiry about the Maple Mountain matter, that involves the Temagami band. They have registered cautions on all the unpatented land in 110 townships in the districts of Nipissing, Sudbury and Timiskaming, involving some 4,000 square miles. The band claims it’s entitled to an interest in the land because it was not a party to the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850 and that, therefore, they never surrendered their aboriginal rights.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is considering various alternatives which are now available to them. We are providing the legal advice.

About a year ago I provided, in my personal capacity, some advice to a former client who went to purchase a marina up in that area and found that he was confronted with this difficulty. I said: “Has your lawyer gone and talked to the band chief?” And he said: “No.” I said: “Why don’t you?” Whereupon the band chief told my client and solicitor, some two or three days later: “If you will pay the cost of drawing up the necessary papers, we will abandon our claim on that specific marina land,” and the deal went through. You would have thought that I had just come up with the perpetual motion machine.

That, to me, would have been the first thing you would do, but he was frustrated because in anticipation of taking over title he, of course, had plunged all kinds of money into improvements on the premises and found himself unable to obtain title. I don’t think you could do that with reference to the whole 4,000 square miles.

Mr. Renwick: I have two brief comments about those particular claims. One is, what, if any, financial assistance does the Temagami band require in order to be able to go to the expense of processing a legal action in the courts to determine the questions of title related to that area? I assume it’s the kind of case which, if it went adverse to the government and in favour of the Indian band, might well end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s my first question.

My second point is, from what I can call a cursory knowledge -- simply from looking at the various deeds of transfer and the various so-called treaties, particularly the treaty to which the government of Ontario was a party in 1904 or 1905 with the federal government and the Indian bands in the area to the northwest part of the province on the east coast of Hudson Bay -- it would take a magician to find out whether or not, in fact, either the bands had given up all of their rights or that the definition of the boundaries of the lands purported to have been given up is accurate. Then you come farther south, and I was surprised at the position that the Indian band was not framed in the alternative; that not only were they not a party to it but even if they had been party to it the lands weren’t covered by the description, because the description in the Robinson treaty, as I understand it, talks about a watershed and the water flowing down to Georgian Bay and Lake Huron.

It would seem to me that, rather than have the Indian bands placed in the position that they have to engage in this kind of abstruse legal arcanery, they should be in a position to have the government of Ontario look at all of the deeds that were entered into, all of the transfers that were entered into, all of the treaty arrangements -- and there aren’t very many in the Province of Ontario governed by treaty in the sense that the western Indian bands are governed by treaties -- all of the cessions. The government could then determine whether or not in fact the Indian bands gave up, by way of metes and bounds description, which is mainly the case in the southern part of Ontario, all of their claims, and also to determine whether or not the amount that was agreed to be paid -- the annual annuity which the government of Ontario pays to the government of Canada to be distributed among the Indians in the northern parts of the province in return for the cession of those lands -- is, in this day and age, fair and equitable; or whether or not the Province of Ontario is not the beneficiary of an unjust enrichment at the expense of the Indians at that time -- despite the role played by the then Anglican bishop of Moosonee in persuading them to sign their rights away. The government could determine furthermore, whether or not the Indians, when the lands were conveyed, did in fact convey away their rights to all of the minerals under the soil and whether, in fact, under the law as it presently stands there are existing rights which can be defined through negotiations with the Indian bands that would represent a fair and equitable treatment of those Indian bands who wish to continue to pursue the traditional way in which they lived rather than to become of necessity acculturated into our society.

It would seem to me that it might well be that the minister would appoint a task force, presumably under the chairmanship of one of the law professors who is an expert in this area, to investigate and advise the government of Ontario as to what, if any, further changes should be made in order to either establish what the rights or the claims are, to establish those claims which are still open to dispute or to make recommendations as to whether or not a wealthy province such as the Province of Ontario has had the benefit of an unjust enrichment at the expense of persons who had no legal advice at the time that the Anglican bishop of Moosonee, along with some of the other commissioners, persuaded them to sign the various documents.

There is in the library quite a fascinating document, which at some point the minister might read, about the diary account of the trip made by the commissioners through that part of Ontario in order to round up the Indians and to persuade them to sign away their land rights to the Province of Ontario in conjunction with the role of the government of Canada. At the time I am talking about, of course, 1904 or 1905, the Province of Ontario was constituted under the British North America Act, as was not the case with the western provinces, which are not involved in the Indian treaties; but in Ontario the Province of Ontario is a party along with the government of Canada and therefore bears responsibility for that rapine and pillage, if I could take the language used by your colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman).

Hon. Mr. Clement: I guess what you are telling me is that the Anglican bishop at Moosonee may not be assured a seat in paradise but he should have one down here at Queen’s Park all the time, certainly in the form of a monument --

Mr. Renwick: Wherever Queen Victoria or Edward VII is, that’s where he is, because he was certainly acting in their names rather than in the name of the deity.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is no funding provided to the Temagami band by the province, but there is federal funding provided to them for research purposes. In this procedure they have followed, they do have legal counsel, of course, and they are availing themselves of the provincial process of registering a caution in order to tie up those parcels of land totalling about 4,000 square miles.

With reference to the question of researching, I was just sitting here mulling over in my mind the magnitude of such a task, which may well have to be done in any event; certainly as each individual claim comes to the surface, it is going to have to be researched by the counsel, be they departmental counsel or outside counsel. I’d like to take that under advisement and see just what type of a task we would be involving ourselves in.

I think it was about 1973 or 1974 the federal government announced as a matter of policy that it would recognize aboriginal rights. Various bands, including the Temagami band, are presently involved in the process of negotiating with the federal government; and the provincial government, through the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), is involved to some degree in those negotiations.

I’ll take it under advisement, if I may. I don’t know the magnitude of it, but when I start thinking of researching all of the history of this House, and in fact what may have predated the existence of this House, we may well need a rather large research staff to look into all the utterances that have been made and documents which have been entered into in the past 125 years.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that it is not a large task, but it’s not an open-ended task. There are available in the library here, and now have been republished and are available in Coles book store, the volumes setting out those documents by which the Indian bands, particularly in the southern part of the Province of Ontario, ceded their lands, many of the documents drawn exactly in the terminology of deeds of property, not in terms of treaties at all. Then there are various other types, as civilization encroached upon their rights and they moved further north, culminating in the vast cession of that immense chunk of land which now forms a goodly part of northern Ontario.

From the time the province was incorporated originally as Upper Canada, under the Constitutional Act of 1791, these documents are deeds transferring property. The position of the government of Upper Canada was distinct from the position of the government of Quebec or the former government of the province of whatever the land was that was governed from 1759 to 1791, where the claim was by right of conquest and possession. We are not talking about the way in which the Province of Quebec dealt with Indian rights. We are talking about John Graves Simcoe taking the position that when land was taken from the Indians it would be taken as if they were making a sale of the land in accordance with the procedures in England. The documents, in fact, are deeds of property. It is very difficult to tell, except by a surveyor and by the exact descriptions that appear in those blocks, as to what lands are or are not covered, or where there are grey areas where there can be legitimate disputes as to the boundaries that are designated.

It would seem to me a commission composed of one of the leading academics who has made this his particular field, someone from the survey office of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the land surveyors, someone interested in Indian rights from the archives of Canada or from the government of Canada or a person who has been closely involved in it, with a representative from the major Indian components of either Treaty 3 or Treaty 9 band councils, could very usefully, over a period of a half a dozen years -- and my guess is that it would take that long -- clarify, expound and rationalize what did take place. So, instead of a hit-and-miss idea of trying to have the Indian bands assert rights, the province would survey the whole matter and try to rectify what evident injustices -- to me in any event -- appeared from time to time in the documentation which is compiled already.

That at least would form the starting point, because it is done not only by metes and bounds descriptions but there are certain maps that are in there and there is certain other information. It is not as if it’s a horrendous job, but I think it is one that would well merit the appointment of a task force, having regard to the importance which is now attached to the position of the Indian communities in the Province of Ontario. It is an attempt to do some kind of equity and justice to what in many cases may be valid claims.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 1204 carry?

Vote 1204 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1205. The hon. member for Riverdale.

On vote 1205:

Mr. Renwick: On vote 1205, I want to make a plea, on behalf of myself as a member of the assembly and on behalf of every other private member of the assembly, and indeed of the government. It is a plea which my colleague and I discussed and which he made a year ago when this was out in committee. It’s a plea that legislative counsel will adopt the practice of the Parliament of Canada with respect to explanatory notes on the bills before the assembly.

I’m long past the point where I believe that a lawyer’s special training need have him spend three or four hours trying to work out what the amendments to a particular bill may mean in relation to what the former section may convey. These brief synoptic explanatory notes are of no assistance to members of the opposition and certain members of the government whose obligation it is to analyse bills and to make comparisons between what is appearing in the amending bill and what appears in the statutes of Ontario as they exist. It is an immense strain on one’s time and one’s patience.

The bills of the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons repeat verbatim the whole of the sections which are being amended and they have an explanatory note as well. One can take the single bill as it appears before the House of Commons and sit down and see that this section is being amended in this way because the whole of the extant section is there. If it’s repealed, the whole of it is there so you can see what is substituted.

It is possible to spend some time intelligently rather than having to get out either the Revised Statutes of Ontario and all the subsequent volumes, or the Revised Statutes of Ontario and the Ontario Statutes Citator and the bill and spending an afternoon on the legal equivalent of a crossword puzzle in order to try to find out what the bill means.

I’m very serious about this. In the time I’ve been in the assembly, since my colleague and I are lawyers, we’re saddled in our caucus with the responsibility of doing this with bills. We have spent an endless amount of time on useless work, doing this so-called legal work of either crossword puzzle or jigsaw puzzle to find out what it’s about, to be able to stand up in the assembly and talk knowledgeably about what is supposed to be the principle of the bill. The cost would not be of any significance.

I’m quite certain it would permit members of the assembly who are not lawyers or don’t happen to have the patience that, by nature, lawyers must have, to be able to pick up a bill and say “I have something to say about this bill, I don’t have to let the member tor Downsview, the member for Sarnia, the member for Lakeshore, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox or the member for Riverdale dominate the discussions in the Legislature because bills are unintelligible to anybody else.”

Quite seriously, will the ministry take that under advisement and see whether or not there isn’t some merit in that suggestion?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I will. I can appreciate the number of hours it would save in terms of laying it out in the way you have suggested. The cost, as you have indicated, would be insignificant in terms of a little additional printing.

There would be two problems involved. One is recruiting. We have difficulty recruiting the type and quality of people we want for legislative counsel work. That’s one difficulty, it’s a manpower difficulty.

The other one is time in terms of the demands on legislative counsel by both the government and private members for production of bills at rather short notice. I could see a little bit of a delay there but we will look into it. I would appreciate it myself. I think it would speed things up. It would certainly make it much more easily understood by all the members of the House, lawyers and laymen.

Mr. Lawlor: Just to enforce it, it seems to me that it would be a kind of research function. I wouldn’t want parliamentary counsel themselves, necessarily, doing it, but paralegal personnel with some intelligence could easily be trained how to do it. You would have to have final approval, I would think, by the parliamentary counsel, but we don’t want to ship over to them the job that we think we ought not to be doing in this regard, basically, except for them to peruse and say: “Yes, that is the section that we’re seeking to implement.” He’s already worked on it intensively in order to redraft, delete, or change, or alter or do any number of things and he knows precisely what it is and somebody in this capacity could do it. We have to redo all his work.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1205 carry?

Vote 1205 agreed to.

On vote 1206:

Mr. Chairman: Courts administration programme. Does it carry? The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My friend, the Attorney General, may be a bit surprised to find me speaking on this one, but there is a real problem in the Ottawa area with respect to court facilities; interviews rooms for counsel and the rest. I believe a committee was established recently by the Law Society there, the lawyers, who, of course, perhaps have the greatest interest in these facilities other than the plaintiffs and defendants. I wonder if the minister or his staff could provide us with an update of the development of new court facilities? It is my understanding that new property has been acquired on Alta Vista Dr. Can he say whether or not that is so, and what the timetable might be, the schedule of improvements in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are aware of the situation in the Ottawa area which, unfortunately, parallels that in many other areas. I am advised that the lease on the Nicholas St. property expires late this autumn, and we’ve already been in contact with the Ministry of Government Services to try and increase the space in that particular building, or in an alternative building, in order to consolidate the provincial court criminal division so that the present police building use will not be separate. This will be a temporary provision of space until funds are available so that we can have, in fact, a consolidated court complex constructed somewhere in that general area.

I’ve talked to the president of the bar association, Mr. Abelson, at some length concerning this particular matter.

Mr. P. Taylor: Can the minister address himself to the latter part of my question and can he suggest what the schedule of progress might be on that? Has any property been acquired?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. P. Taylor: Are there any plans for a building?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. This ministry does not have any property there for it. Government Services, I am told, does have some property in that general area. We have been in contact with Government Services. I cannot be more specific. I can be, in terms of getting to my colleague, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow), and finding out exactly what parcel or parcels they hold for one reason or another.

We have a programme, a priority type programme, in terms of all of the court facilities that we require across the province. I have seen that list. I don’t have a copy here with me today, but I can tell you that Ottawa was on that list.

Mr. P. Taylor: The bottom, the middle or the top?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know. I don’t recall it. The only one I recall was one in my area that was a long way down the list and, in spite of what I try to do, I wasn’t very successful in moving it up the list, because in terms of priorities with other areas you just have to try to exert the wisdom that is dictated under each set of circumstances.

What you run into in many situations, particularly with county court facilities, is where you have the cost of maintenance, or replacement of an integral part of the building -- like a boiler -- being so astronomical when you know you’re not going to be using that facility in three years’ time, you then have to make a judgement. Are we going to spend a substantial amount of money of putting a new boiler in there when we know we’re only going to use it for three years and rip the building down, or are we going to go ahead with a reconstruction programme? These are decisions we’re trying to make. We determine the priorities, but Government Services then has to provide the technical knowhow and input to it. Of course, Government Services looks at our ministry again in the total picture of hospital services, educational facilities and so on. So we are all doing this all the time with the Ministry of Government Services, trying to get our thin edge of the wedge in.

Mr. P. Taylor: I don’t want to prolong this, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to get a statement of philosophy from the minister. It is my understanding, from talking to the law society in Ottawa and to a lot of the people who have frequent use of the courts and know a great deal about that situation, that the situation in Ottawa -- and probably the same is true in other centres in Ontario, as I believe the minister indicated -- the situation in Ottawa is actually contributing to a diminution or reduction in the quality of the individual’s access to justice. There are situations where lawyers can’t interview their clients in privacy; there are just not enough interview rooms. There are also situations where people remain in cells, in custody, for a very, very long period of time because there just aren’t enough courtrooms to hear their cases.

What I would like to get from the minister at this point is some kind of statement of philosophy. Does he feel this is a situation that is widespread across the province? Is there any suggestion that the physical facilities for the administration of justice in Ontario are actually militating against the proper carriage of justice?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I suppose one could always take that position. I think the practical aspect of this situation is that one cannot really counsel a client or receive instructions from a client if there aren’t physical facilities available in terms of privacy and this sort of thing -- and you have to draw a line there; if you happen to have 50 cases on the docket for today, I don’t think the province or anybody else should be obliged to provide 50 counselling chambers, because presumably you have been instructed before you attended at court in most instances.

I know that in the old provincial court building at Niagara Falls, which was built about 1870 -- they have since moved out of that, probably within the last eight or nine years -- you were congregated in a smallish hallway and there was no privacy at all. I think to that extent there is inconvenience to the profession and the public, and perhaps people become a little more irritated because of this type of inconvenience.

Whether it substantially deteriorates the quality of justice, I wouldn’t be prepared or knowledgeable to say. There are questions that do come up almost at the last instant or during an adjournment, more particularly, when you step out of the courtroom into the hall to discuss with your client something that has just transpired in the courtroom, and it would be most convenient to have some facility nearby where you could walk in, close the door and talk without being heard, rather than having to stand around in the hallway with perhaps a number of Crown witnesses within earshot. Some of these things just cannot be discussed except on a confidential basis between the solicitor and the client.

Mr. P. Taylor: How high is this in priorities?

Hon. Mr. Clements: What, in Ottawa alone?

Mr. P. Taylor: Across the province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are trying to involve ourselves in an ongoing programme of updating facilities and staff as we go on. It is a long programme. With reference to the county court buildings, of course, the province took them over in 1968; then, immediately after 1968, the province became the recipient of many requests from county councils, saying. “Why don’t you fix up our court house?” You know, they had let the damned things fall apart for 100 years and then immediately the province assumed responsibility, they asked us to come in and upgrade it and so on.

This is not true, of course, of the provincial court system. We have had to not only restore and replace county court facilities but in addition we have had to try to upgrade the provincial court facilities across the province. It is an ongoing thing, and you and I will never be alive to see the day when the then Attorney General can say, “There, everything is up to date.” It just will never happen.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. On which item?

Mr. B. Newman: On the same item -- not the updating of facilities but the addition of facilities to county courthouses. I am not going to talk about other areas; I know the one in my local community. I have, at times, brought to the attention of the Minister of Government Services the reports submitted by the grand jury. Certain recommendations have been made in the Windsor area. I hope the minister does everything he possibly can to expedite the addition to the courthouse building.

In the meantime, I think some of the problems there can be solved if you take into consideration the conversation I think you may have had with the judge -- that’s the senior judge, Sidney Clunis -- from the Windsor area. If he hasn’t been in communication with you directly, he may have been with your officials.

It’s a nice new county courthouse building. It’s first-rate as far as appearance is concerned but it doesn’t meet today’s need for facilities because of the increase in the number of cases, because of the limited court facilities in the area, and because of the increase in the number of cases being heard. For example, they mentioned that the number of cases -- I’m referring to criminal cases -- jumped from five to 63. A lot of this delay in the hearing of these cases may be as a result of the limited number of defence counsel.

Could some of these problems not be resolved by having night sessions? The judge did discuss this with an 85-member panel and of that 85-member panel only 13 members said they couldn’t be present as jurors for an evening sitting. The recommendation is really to sit between 6 and 11 o’clock in the evening. Couldn’t that possibly resolve some of the problems?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, it can resolve some of the problems but it also very substantially escalates the costs of maintaining the courts because in some instances you have to double staff. You have a day staff and you have a night staff. We have a pilot project in the north end of Toronto now in which minor offences under the Highway Traffic Act and so on are dealt with by a justice of the peace sitting during evenings. That’s worked out fairly successful.

Again, we’re met with this constraint situation in terms of costs; we’re using public funds for these additions and new construction. The Windsor courthouse addition is on the list for construction which is required. I could go around this chamber and I’m sure I’d find every member would feel as strongly about additional facilities or replacement facilities in his own riding.

As I said earlier to your colleague, within the ministry we have to make a priority determination in terms of safety and comfort. Some of these facilities are so old that they’re well outdated and I question whether they should not have been replaced 15 or 20 years ago. But at that time the replacement was not sought or not granted and now we’re looking at this massive demand for capital construction.

The pilot project bill, which I took to second and third reading in this House yesterday, will provide some of the alternatives; night courts may be one of them.

Insofar as Judge Clunis is concerned, I haven’t spoken to him on any formal basis. He was at a meeting I attended some weeks ago but to our knowledge he has not made any formal submission to us yet. I anticipate we will be receiving it.

Mr. B. Newman: I’m looking at the newspaper article and it does mention that he plans to discuss the matter with the Attorney General’s office. I would assume, knowing Judge Clunis -- and this press clipping is from March 14 -- that he more than likely did, maybe on an informal basis only.

What do we do to overcome the backlog if we don’t have the facilities? The only alternative really is night court, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. Night court or using additional facilities in terms of leased premises for the minor matters before the courts. This is one of the things that the study, the central west pilot project programme, will be able to bring forward to us, what the alternatives are. As I say, that legislation went through for second and third reading in this House yesterday.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 1206 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: I have three things in this --

Mr. Chairman: On which item?

Mr. Lawlor: I’ll take the whole thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Lawlor: The first one is, what is happening with respect to trial de novos coming from the provincial criminal courts?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are reviewing the Summary Convictions Act with a view to getting rid of the trial de novos.

Mr. Lawlor: That was the answer last year, Mr. Minister, and it still hasn’t been done. Do you anticipate moving in on it fairly soon?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have to go to Ottawa to discuss it with our federal counterparts down there, for very obvious reasons, but the trial de novo, I am afraid, is being used by a number of people as a delaying tactic. It’s clogging up the courts.

Mr. Lawlor: It surely is. That’s the point.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s just inhibiting the whole process, and I think it has long outlived its usefulness.

Mr. Lawlor: That is one of the abuses, one of the most grotesque abuses, left in the appeal system. It really shouldn’t exist. You can really tie up the courts, paying nothing practically, and put your case over almost indefinitely as things presently stand. All right, I am sure you are working on it and I await an amendment with respect to that.

Briefly, could you give me some expression of opinion as to how the North York traffic tribunal experiment is working? Just set out the basics. You don’t have to give me the facts; they are on page 48 of the notes that you gave us, and some of us were up there to inspect it 10 months ago. I just wonder if it’s as sound as what you had hoped it would be?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, it is working extremely well in terms of public acceptance and in terms of removing from the usual court stream those cases that are not even criminal in nature but are offences under the Highway Traffic Act and summary matters.

When I came to the ministry I believe the deputy at that time told me that he had received over 200 letters from people who, in fact, had been through the process, all of them complimentary, noting the fact that they were not treated as common criminals. It was done in an office-like atmosphere by someone who was courteous, and you sat at a desk, and it worked extremely well. I hope to see this type of thing enlarged.

Mr. Lawlor: That is what I want; that is my next question: Do you have any plans in that regard in other cities and other areas?

Hon. Mr. Clement: If I have got the resources I would like to see it expand all over; all the major centres.

Mr. Lawlor: It is relieving some courts and so it seems to me that it is just spreading the existing money a little bit, rather than having to find more, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: You may be quite right in your observation, but I think it is a very commendable project and I think it is here to stay. I would endorse it wholeheartedly from the information that I have been the recipient of with reference to it.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, some 15 or 20 minutes ago the member for Lakeshore -- who is usually not generous by nature, as we all know, but he was generous enough to withdraw, he said, his $1 item that he and I discussed last night. Technically I think I need the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member to withdraw his motion, and I would urge the members of the House that they do so. The motion was that one of my estimates be reduced not to $1 but be reduced by $1, and the tenor of the debate last night was, all right, fine. Now to do this would really result in tremendous expense in reprinting estimate books. The member for Lakeshore, in his generosity, agreed to withdraw that, but I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House so that it might be formally noted?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): You don’t expect to get it first time?

Mr. Chairman: You have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to that vote and subsequently to restore the vote to its full amount. Agreed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: See the trouble you get me into?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed?

Mr. Lawlor: Was that vote 1201? I guess it was.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Vote 1201 agreed to.

On vote 1206:

Mr. Lawlor: Yes. A final question as far as I am concerned in these estimates: Could you give me an assessment of what your position over there now is on the merger issue? It seems to me that there are several positions that you could take, and it would further appear that there is the one that you are taking; namely, sitting on the fence and stewing -- or whatever it is that you do when you are on fences -- and not taking a position.

I will say very briefly that the logic of the situation is quite powerful with respect to the merger. The arguments in favor of it on the interleaving basis, on the work that they perform -- the whole intelligence leads in one direction, but as a certain Mr. Justice Holmes once told us about things legal, logic and experience diverge. It may be that the forms of jealousies and the upsetting aspects to human personality involved in the merger are such as to make it seem unfeasible to you, at least in the immediate future. Have you come to any new decisions about it at all? Are you going to move ahead? Are you going to sit? Or are you going to go back?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The alternatives are to support merger, oppose merger or sit on the fence.

Mr. Lawlor: That is the one you are on.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have decided, in view of circumstances, to straddle the fence or to sit on it --

Mr. Lawlor: That’s honest!

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- because my friend across the House last year took the opposite view to the one he shared this year. He is hopping the fence and he is going to get caught on it one of these days, too, if he is not careful.

Mr. Lawlor: No, I’m not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The reason I am sitting on the fence is that I am not really sure what the best system would be. I wonder whether we have it now or, if there was a merger, what efficiencies or what greater degree of service we would render to the public in this province? I support very much the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations on decentralization of the courts in terms of having judges out and ensconced in certain areas of the province to be available to the profession and the public. I support that. If you have to merge the courts, do they all become the Supreme Court or do you change them to something else like a Superior Court of Ontario? I think this is not the time to be discussing or considering issues such as whether or not we have merger, as opposed to the delivery of the court service to the public, which I see as a very high priority in terms of my responsibilities.

Quite frankly, I don’t intend at this particular moment to get into any debate with the judiciary by saying yes, I support merger or no, I don’t. I say to them, there are enough changes in legislative programmes and this sort of thing -- that there is enough work -- so much work, indeed, that they are overworked. We will get around to the issue of whether or not to merge later on, but go ahead and deliver the court services that the public are really insisting on and let’s not worry about whether to merge or not.

Mr. Lawlor: If we get that family court thing done, that may make it easier.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1206 carry?

Vote 1206 agreed to.

On vote 1207:

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1207, administrative tribunals programme, are there any comments and if so to what section?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I think there will be lengthy comments with respect to this particular area, so this might be a convenient place to leave the estimates. We could return to them, if it is convenient, on Monday afternoon, depending upon the plans of the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Are these items to be discussed in their entirety?

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for Lakeshore had advised me that he felt there would be worthwhile matters that he would prefer to discuss on Monday. If that is not the case, the estimates can proceed.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t want to seem to cross the path of my friend. I have now come to the conclusion -- I wanted to discuss the Robinson report on expropriation matters a little bit, but I don’t think I will bother. We can get these estimates over with right now as far as I am concerned. The minister will be bringing in legislation on expropriation along those lines, I take it --

Hon. Mr. Clement: This fall.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, and we will get an opportunity to discuss it then.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I would think the member for Windsor-Walkerville and, I believe, my colleague from Downsview who may well be back on Monday, would have something to say, particularly with respect to this next vote. If it would be convenient, perhaps that last vote could be held over until Monday.

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee agree?

Agreed.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House; as was indicated, we will proceed with the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General on Monday, to be followed, I believe, by the Ministry of Health, which I will confirm early on Monday, but I think that is quite correct.

On Tuesday we will deal with legislation -- second readings. The first is No. 14 on the order paper. I am not certain with the order of the others but we will deal with these: Item 9, Bill 78; item 10, Bill 83; item 11, Bill 84; item 12, Bill 85; item 5, Bill 44; and item 6, Bill 45.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock p.m.