Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

OBSERVANCE OF RULES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: I had hoped that the Speaker would be here this morning. I wanted to talk to him directly. But now that it’s on my mind, I will put it through the Chair to the House.

On the point of privilege, with respect to same, I rise to question the use of the powers delegated to the Speaker of this House by our minority government. It may seem a bit out of character for me, in view of my past confrontations with Speakers, that I should question the Speaker’s methods of cracking the whip. I admit I’ve been ejected three times from the Legislature in 15 years. In every case the ends justified the means and I won my case with the government, amounting to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In commending the Speaker on his over- zealousness in his approach to his responsibility, I suggest he has at times been a bit drunk with power. I realize every member of the House has equal rights. Everyone has. I strenuously object to the past three days when I’ve been on the question period and to the fact that when I got on yesterday, he gave me one minute to have my question answered and then he cut me off in the middle of my question.

Finally, I would say I will try to adhere to the rules of this House. But if I can’t be heard I will challenge the Speaker, and he can use the inevitable result of ejecting me. In other words, I think he should start to cool it a bit.

Mr. Nixon: What does Claire Hoy think?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will say to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that I will see this message is carried to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: He will reply on Monday, I have no doubt.

VISITORS

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride this morning in introducing some guests who are visiting the great province of Ontario. They are three gentlemen who have made a great contribution to the agricultural industry of this country. I take pleasure in introducing in the Speaker’s gallery Hon. James Hewitt, Minister of Agriculture for the province of British Columbia, Hon. Malcolm MacLeod, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for the province of New Brunswick, and Mr. Mory King, the associate deputy minister of agriculture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Is there no significance in the front bench this morning?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to question the Premier if I might this morning. Can the Premier explain what seems to me to be an inordinate delay in replying to a question I asked him on November 1, about setting up a committee to look at Hydro and matters related to that corporation? At that time he said, and I quote: “I hope to have something for the House on November 3.” It’s now November 18. Is the Premier aware that his House leader has now said it will be only next Thursday or Friday before even draft terms of reference are available? We’ve been discussing this for six weeks. Can the Premier please explain why the delaying tactics are being used in this particular instance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the desire on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. My understanding was that this committee would start its activities early in the new year. There has been some suggestion in the past few days that it would be helpful to have the terms of reference and have an opportunity, on the part of the committee, to organize its work and timetable. I believe the House leader mentioned to the other two House leaders this week that we would have draft terms of reference and probably can have the motion put through next week.

There is no inordinate delay. We have had two or three other issues to deal with. The demand on time in terms of the personnel of members of this House is not insignificant. If memory serves me correctly, we did wait for several days to get reactions on the proposed terms of reference with respect to Inco -- I’m right in that observation, I think. I am right.

Mr. Reid: Why did you ask if you were so right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member nodded his head in a negative fashion. He can ask his own House leader. We were delayed somewhat in the establishment of those terms of reference.

Mr. Nixon: Why are you so hesitant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s important that we conduct the business in an orderly fashion. We did have that particular committee which I felt had some measure of priority. The Leader of the Opposition may not sense that same degree of priority that I do, but we were anxious to get it under way. However, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, through his own House leader who had discussions, I believe, yesterday morning at breakfast time -- a very cordial meeting -- when this was fully explained. I believe his House leader understands it, and perhaps if he’d have a consultation with him he might get all of the relevant information.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, since the Premier seems to be under the misapprehension that there is some agreement that we should wait until the new year, whereas really it’s his idea to wait until the new year, is it simply the fact that he hopes that he may have had an opportunity over Christmas to shuffle his cabinet and put a different Energy minister forward for the sake of this committee hearing in the new year?

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Send Taylor back to Community and Social Services and Norton back to Corrections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the questions being asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and the discussions that have been held, and the understandings that came from the previous select committee on Hydro, that it was, by and large, the officials and personnel at Ontario Hydro that the Leader of the Opposition was most anxious to question. If it is just a case of wanting to ask questions of the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor), of course that opportunity is open to the Leader of the Opposition four days a week.

Mr. Nixon: He won’t answer the questions in here.

Mr. S. Smith: He told me not to do that.

Mr. Nixon: He says to go ask Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is my intent, in what will be probably a relatively brief Christmas recess, on the assumption that we do prorogue on December 16, or perhaps 21, that I will be devoting part of that to public responsibility. I also intend, I must confess, to spend a little time in limited preparation for Christmas myself and that preparation will not involve any reorganization of the cabinet of this province. So if the Leader of the Opposition is expecting some significant Christmas Eve message -- I am sure he isn’t but in case he is -- I have got to tell him that that will not be the occasion.

Mr. S. Smith: I will have my chimney open for you.

Mr. Nixon: Have it enlarged.

Mr. Lewis: You think Jim Taylor is evasive, do you?

Mr. S. Smith: Well, privately I will discuss with the Premier the fact that his Energy minister told me to stop asking him questions in the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, they were becoming somewhat redundant.

Mr. Lewis: I have a petition to move him to ComSoc.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you place your second question?

INCIDENCE OF RAPE

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, forgive me, forgive me. I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. Does he share with us the grave concern which I think a lot of Ontarians have today about the rapid increase in crimes against women, and for that matter against children as well? In particular, I draw his attention to the 36 or 37 per cent increase in reported rape in Metro Toronto alone during the past year.

If he does share our concern about this, what is he doing about it? Has he undertaken such matters as setting up special rape squads, having more women police officers, educating women as to what they can do to avoid rape, doing studies in the settings for rape and trying to think of environmental ways of avoiding it? Has he any plans at all to deal with this very alarming problem which has afflicted Ontario in recent times?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, of course, we are all concerned about it and I am likewise concerned. I wish that I had some simple and easy answer for some of the ills of today’s society. During the estimates we talked about the matter of racial discrimination as though it was the responsibility of the police to clear these things up. Certainly the police are working in matters of discrimination just as they are working in all fields of crime, particularly the crimes the member is talking about, rape and crimes against young people. I suppose child abuse is one of the worst of those things.

I sometimes say, as I said in the estimates, it is a little unfair to expect the police to cure the ills of society, and goodness knows there are many of them. By the time these things are happening it’s almost too late to expect the police to do it, but certainly that doesn’t mean they do not have a responsibility to do their best.

The member asks what in particular we are doing in regard to this. The other day I noticed Chief Adamson of the Metropolitan Toronto police force said he thought little could be gained by special squads of one sort or another; that it had to be done by counselling of one sort or another and by encouraging -- I shouldn’t say encouraging, but by placing more women police officers into this field. This is being done.

Most of these problems are in the large municipalities, dealing with the municipal police forces across the province rather than with the OPP; not exclusively of course, but more particularly in the larger municipalities.

I can’t relate anything definite that I have done in regard to it, other than encouraging the local police forces of one sort or another to carry on the work, but I will have a conference with some of the police people. I think the suggestion is a good one to see whether there is anything more that we can be doing other than what the local police forces are presently doing. The suggestion is good.

[10:15]

Mr. S. Smith: I want to thank the minister for his constructive answer, although I do feel more could have been done. In his conference with these police officers, would he try to find whatever studies are available regarding the matters I did raise, such as teaching an education program, teaching women how to avoid rape, how to avoid settings where rape occurs, encouragement of self-defence programs and encouragement of people to report rape and to report it more quickly, so that there can be greater police work done in the area?

Can he try, in this time of restraint, to find some funds to assist those metropolitan areas -- not just Toronto -- where this is a problem, to make the whole problem better known to the community and at least to change some of the attitudes among people who regrettably seem to think, at least in some quarters, that rape is a minor matter, a sexual matter, when in point of fact it is a very serious life-threatening aggression against half the human race basically?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t want to leave the impression the police themselves are not doing anything about this because many of the forces are. In the matter of rape, the police are now showing films of one sort or another in various community programs. Some of them are controversial films. I have seen one of them myself and I know these films are available and are being shown. They do conduct various classes in various communities.

The whole matter of what a woman should do in this circumstance is very controversial. One says “submit” and somebody else says “no, don’t submit.” As I say, the whole question is very controversial, but the police are doing what they can.

The specific question the Leader of the Opposition asked me is what I have done as Solicitor General. I must admit that I myself have not called any conference. That is the sort of thing I will do and try to coordinate some of these efforts and put together the programs the various forces do have to see if we can’t have a provincial campaign to improve the situation.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one short supplementary? Why is it not possible to respond in a very specific way to some very compelling and specific requests for funding of the crisis centres, particularly the Rape Crisis Centre -- and those in other parts of Ontario as well as Metropolitan Toronto -- which has such difficulty and does such first-rate work? Is that not one of the obvious and compelling responses in terms of education and assistance? I don’t pretend it will solve it, but it doesn’t put all the reliance on the police.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think these rape crisis centres do a great deal in coming to the aid of women.

Mr. Lewis: Then why cut back?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have not regarded that as one of the police functions to date. There has not been any provision for such in the Solicitor General’s budget. Most of these would be dealt with in the police budgets and the municipal budgets as such. More likely, I think they would be in one of the social welfare budgets either at the municipal or provincial level. That is certainly one of the avenues we will undertake to investigate in the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Gigantes: They are getting cut in half.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Would it be possible for the Solicitor General to discuss this problem with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton)? Why should it be left to the municipalities to fund? Why should not the province at least take some initiatives in this area? Would the minister be prepared to have a discussion with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and with the Minister of Community and Social Services to try to ensure that at least in one field in this province there is a real desire to protect women, rather than creating discrimination by the government’s practices against them?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I really don’t follow the purport of that question. Certainly nothing we are doing is trying to discriminate in the way the member has suggested. I am trying to take a very positive approach to the problem. I have admitted that the question the Leader of the Opposition raised is a good question, and I may be at fault in not trying to co-ordinate this serious problem earlier.

But as I said, it doesn’t mean that people in the various ministries and the various authorities at both provincial and municipal levels are not concerned with it. They are doing things with it. In so far as financing is concerned, I’ll be glad to consult with the ministers whom she has suggested and take those various ministries into the conference that I have suggested I would convene.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister if he would consider utilizing the personnel who are currently working in the rape crisis centres to make an attempt to humanize the investigation and the reporting of rape by the police.

It strikes me that there are people working in the crisis centres who could be of great assistance to a police force that’s having difficulty in its investigation process. That awkwardness and that inhumaneness that goes into the investigation very often slows up the reporting system that’s there.

That might also be one way that the minister could certainly justify the use of funds from the police force, because he would be using people from the crisis centre as a resource for the policing system. Would he be prepared to consider that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to take into consideration anybody who has any helpful suggestions to make. I would think the people who operate these crisis centres would be some of the first we would consult.

But in that regard, I think the police system of dealing with sexual assaults has been improved very considerably in the last few years, and this is where women in the police force have been of great assistance to us in having a sympathetic approach to women who have suffered these attacks. The policewoman is able to deal with them in a way that a man cannot. So yes, we will certainly take these people into our consultation.

USE OF MEDICAL DATA

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: How do we reconcile the minister’s reassurances in the House, with the observation of the president of the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Loeb, from Ottawa, that hospital laboratory medical records are as vulnerable to “indiscriminate inspection by unauthorized parties” as any records in the province? How do we satisfy ourselves about the confidentiality of such matters when the president of the Ontario Medical Association expresses this kind of assertion? He relates it to the computer data.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I read the article this morning. I think what Dr. Loeb was doing was emphasizing, as I and previous Ministers of Health have, that security of information, whether it be an x-ray file in a medical or hospital laboratory or a file in the computer at OHIP, is something which requires the vigilance of everybody from the initial practitioner through to the person who finally punches the information into the computer system.

Undoubtedly, it’s a problem. Undoubtedly, the greatest problem we have is the fact that various individuals do come into contact with the information. We are, therefore, always reliant on oaths of confidentiality, oaths of secrecy and, finally, the trustworthiness of individual people.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: What concerns me is the categorical assertion by the head of the Ontario Medical Association that there is indiscriminate inspection by unauthorized parties. He goes on to say that it is commonplace for insurance companies, lawyers, law enforcement agencies, et cetera, to request information generally from hospital files without the knowledge of the patient or the physician. Is the minister prepared to ask the Ontario Medical Association to give him some proof of these sweeping assertions?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, I meet once a month with the Ontario Medical Association as well as with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If they haven’t already put it on the agenda for our next meeting, which I think is in about 10 days’ time, then we will.

I am aware that there are all kinds of requests that come in to hospitals -- public and psychiatric and so forth -- but there are not all kinds of pieces of information that go out.

Mr. Reid: Can the Minister of Health table in the House a resumé of the security of information that exists within his ministry in regard to OHIP and those kinds of things -- I presume when he makes a report on the information that somehow got out in regard to people who supposedly had some medical problems we have read about in the press in the last few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Which one? Sotto voce.

Yes, this is being discussed in estimates committee at the present time. Hopefully it would satisfy the member’s interest if I do it there and therefore it is on the record. We have already discussed it to a certain extent. In fact, as I recall, we are on the OHIP item right now.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate whether, in the case of psychiatric hospitals in particular, there is a record kept by each hospital of each occasion when a file is requisitioned by any police force, and whether or not the purpose of the requisitioning or requesting of the file is recorded? If so, is it possible, with the appropriate safeguards with regard to the individuals involved, for us to have a record made available to the House of the numbers of occasions when files were requisitioned by police forces across the country from psychiatric hospitals in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is probably best if I take that as notice to include with the answer I have yet to give to the hon. member’s earlier question of yesterday, I think, in a similar vein. I would just repeat what I said yesterday: To the best of my knowledge and recollection of the statutes, there is no such thing as requisitioning a file.

Mr. Deans: It may be a bad choice of words.

An hon. member: How about pilfering?

Mr. Deans: I don’t know what you would call it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about leaving it on your desk for the press?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But I will take that as notice and include it with my response to the member’s earlier questions.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: I want to be sure the minister understands. I want to know whether or not each psychiatric hospital maintains a record in a logbook of each occasion when there are files taken from that hospital with regard to patients or former patients, and whether or not in that logbook there is a clear indication of the purpose for the file having been required and what documentation was produced in order to acquire it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question and will reply.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Did the minister notice -- I am sure he must have, he is such a perceptive fellow -- that his associate deputy minister, Judge Thomson, indicated that he felt the minister didn’t understand the extent and scope of the activities of the minister’s committee looking into the placement of children in the province of Ontario? Why is there, generously speaking, such a shambles within the children’s services division of his ministry that he, as minister, doesn’t understand crucial matters about it and that crucial decisions are not communicated to the judges involved?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I would agree with all the assumptions that were expressed in that question.

Mr. Lewis: But most of them, I am sure.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I must admit that whether it was my verbosity or lack of verbosity yesterday, I didn’t get a chance to fully expound upon, or respond to, the question that had been asked. Some confusion may have arisen as a result of my reference to a committee which is operating in Metropolitan Toronto known as Impact, in which people from our ministry participate -- several of the senior people in the ministry -- and also, as a result, my reference to the committee. I don’t think I made any distinction when I was talking about committees.

[10:30]

There is also a senior planning committee within the children’s services division composed of the most senior people there, who also receive from time to time requests from Impact, in the case of Metropolitan Toronto, from a variety of other sources about the province, for special assistance in the placement of difficult-to-place children. This, as I tried to indicate yesterday, would apply particularly to children where the courts have experienced difficulty in finding an appropriate placement or where they may have tried a variety of placements which have not worked, and in some cases results in our ministry participating in the establishment of a special placement for that child.

I know personally of one case where after a variety of efforts, there appeared to be no appropriate placement available; so, through a family who were friends of the family of the child, and with the active, almost full-time support of three professional people working within that family, a special placement was created for that child. That is the kind of intervention that we have tried to make available in very special cases of difficult-to-place children.

Apparently, according to comments in the newspaper this morning, not all judges have been aware of that. It is my understanding that the people in my ministry assumed that if this kind of problem were encountered, it would be logical that they would contact and make inquiries of the ministry for their assistance. Unfortunately, not all judges apparently have been aware of that.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, why would the minister expect judges to do that since there don’t seem to be any obvious additional places available in Ontario, despite the consolidation within his ministry? Or to put it another way very briefly, isn’t it a terribly disappointing business that after Norma Dean, after the consolidation, after the removal of section 8 from the Training Schools Act, we still do not seem to have achieved, in any way, a measurable, additional number of treatment spaces?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is important that the hon. member bear in mind that the amalgamation of children’s services has been in effect only since July 1 of this year. A great deal of effort has been put into planning for the development of further services for children in the province. I admit that in that period of time we have not been able to create miraculously across the province --

Mr. Lewis: That was promised us.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Listen, that was not promised. I made very clear statements in this House, prior to July 1 and on July 1, in terms of the objectives that we had set for this year and for into next year. At no time did I pretend that we had the capacity within a matter of a few months to create new placements across this province.

Mr. Lewis: When we removed section 8, we were told alternatives would be available.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In fact, in cases of section 8 children, we continue to maintain a special fund, again with the kind of involvement I have indicated, to assist those children. Where the placements that have been made within existing facilities or in communities across this province are not successful, then we participate in assisting to find or to create an appropriate placement for that child.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Could the minister explain to this House which committee the chief judge of the family court sits on?

Hon. Mr. Norton: He is a member of Impact.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Could the minister explain why it is that judges are reporting that they are still forced to send children in need of mental health care to training schools, despite all of the promises that were made before and since the removal of section 8 of the Training Schools Act? Secondly, what facilities does the ministry plan to build to meet the obvious urgent need for mental health treatment facilities?

Mrs. Campbell: We need the guidelines first.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure I can explain why judges are saying what they are saying. I can assure the hon. member that it troubles me very much that it is being said on the assumption that it is happening, in fact. I am not sure the statements I have seen indicate that they say they are forced. I think they admit there are times when the courts do place children --

Mr. McClellan: There are no options.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- who may suffer from mental disorders in training schools. I assure the hon. member that troubles me very much.

With respect to what do we propose to do, our plans for the most immediate future are to provide expanded facilities for juveniles, or in some cases, services where they didn’t exist in particular deficient areas of the province; that is, where there is a deficiency of services in the locality. One of our top priorities is to improve the service to children in northern Ontario. Particular groups include native groups and francophone children in the province, for whom there hasn’t been adequate service.

We have a whole range of priorities that we are working on; in terms of the first priorities, those will be the two we will direct our attention to.

Mr. Haggerty: Just table it and we will know.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us how soon we may expect any kind of facility for disturbed children in Thunder Bay, which now has to put children into either an adult ward at a psychiatric hospital, into the lockup in the jail or into a general hospital?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I cannot be more specific at this point than to indicate that it is my hope, and it is our plan, that we would be able to move ahead in northern Ontario and northeastern Ontario in the next fiscal year.

DEATH OF FORMER MEMBER

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to interrupt, with the permission of the House. I unfortunately have a rather urgent meeting and I thought the members would wish to know that I’ve just been informed that a former colleague of ours, Mr. Alex Carruthers, passed away this morning. I’d like to publicly address our regrets to his family. I don’t have any details for members of the House about the time of the service. I expect it will be on Monday and suitable arrangements, I’m sure, will be made. We will inform your office, Mr. Speaker, as to the arrangements. I wanted the hon. members to know this information I just received.

BERNICE BATTLE

Mr. Riddell: A question for the Minister of Health regarding the expenses of a Mrs. Bernice Battie, former patient of the London Psychiatric Hospital, now residing at Meadowcrest Home. Will the minister inform the House as to what action he has taken to assume Mrs. Battie’s expenses, as he was asked to do by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) a month ago? This is a matter which has now been going on for over two years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: The minister might remind the Attorney General that I have corresponded with him more than once about this matter. May I remind the minister that both the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General have said payment of the account is not within their powers. It surely cannot be up to Mrs. Battie to pay when she is being held under a Lieutenant Governor’s warrant. The Attorney General says it is within the power of the Minister of Health. Why wait for it? Why won’t the minister pay it before Meadowcrest Home has to stop operating?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it may surprise the member to know that I have a lot of correspondence with most members about a great many cases.

I must say it sickens me to see a member try to march along in power on the backs of the ill in this fashion. It really does sicken me.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will get you the information just as soon as it is possible.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: To suggest that I am marching along on the backs --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Final supplementary, and would you end with a question shortly?

Mr. Riddell: Is the minister aware of the fact that unless this bill is paid within the very near future, the group home approved by the ministry will no longer be able to stay in operation, and that it’s necessary that this bill be paid right away?

ASSISTANCE FOR ISOLATED COMMUNITIES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. In view of the fact that it is about 11 months since the Isolated Communities’ Assistance Fund was first announced by the government last December, and seven or eight months since the first group of grants for fire protection to northern communities was made, including Montreal River Harbour and Searchmont in the Sault north area in my riding, and further, in view of the fact that similar communities in the same area were denied funds and members of the minister’s staff asked me if I know the reason, when are we finally going to have definitive criteria set by the ministry for determining what types of communities are qualified and which aren’t and for what various types of assistance?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the hon. member has correctly pointed out, this is a new program dealing with the unique problems of unorganized communities in northern Ontario, and I would point out to him that in the first part of the program, which came into being a year ago, we gave out $238,000 in grants.

Mr. Wildman: That was Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. Since then, applications have been flowing into the new Ministry of Northern Affairs and these are being dealt with on a very regular basis. In fact, we’re looking at ways we can expedite those particular requests within our own ministry, possibly removing it from the NORT committee. As the member knows, they’re dealt with on a monthly basis there. We thought if we changed the direction maybe we could handle it on a weekly basis in our own departmental structure.

I would say to the hon. member that the whole aspect of the ICAF fund is being reviewed. I expect a report from my staff within a matter of the next few days. We intend to go very carefully because we know there are ways that we can improve the program. In fact, just last week I met with UCANO West and UCANO East in Thunder Bay to go over a number of the points they had brought forward and to review them in detail with them. We’ll continue that discussion and hope we can improve it some more.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: When will the fire protection committees in communities that have been granted funds under the program be advised by the Ministry of Northern Affairs or the fire marshal’s office how they should spend those funds? Why has it taken so long for us to get the report the minister speaks about, when I was first told it was going to be ready in September and now we’re told that perhaps it will not be until the end of November?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’re working very closely with the Solicitor General’s office, particularly the fire marshal’s office. I can say we’re getting the utmost co-operation from that particular group. There are a number of requests before us and, with the minimum amount of staff that’s available to cover that huge area of northern Ontario, it is causing us some problems. But I’m confident with the discussions we’ve had in the last two weeks that things will be speeded up from both ends.

THUNDER BAY COURTHOUSE

Hon. Mr. McCague: Earlier this week the member for Port Arthur asked various questions about the Thunder Bay courthouse. As he probably knows, the building was erected under a lease-back by John H. McCormick Limited, and we occupied it in June 1974. Since that date, there have been a number of problems, as the member has pointed out. There has been a lack of action on the part of the lessor, who has failed to rectify the problems as they occur.

Currently, rental payments are being withheld and will continue to be withheld until the developer is prepared to correct the problem. I should mention that since September 1976 we have deducted $4,500 per month from previous rents to offset expenditures we have had to make. He also asked what the monthly payment was. It is $9,286.15.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Has the ministry done an estimate of the costs that it would take to rehabilitate the building or whether the building is salvageable? Is the minister aware that the current figure being used in Thunder Bay, for example, is $250,000 and there is a structural fault in which one side of the building seems to have slipped off the piling so that the building tilts somewhat like the leaning tower of Pisa?

Mr. S. Smith: Like the scales of justice.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: One of the seven wonders?

Mr. Foulds: Does he know whether or not that is rectifiable? If it is not, would it not be better to abandon the building and find facilities elsewhere?

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s a good comparison

-- the leaning tower of Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is the opinion of my staff that the building is salvageable.

[10:45]

Mr. Breaugh: But will it sink?

Mr. McClellan: Or will it float?

Mr. S. Smith: Which salvage company is going to do it?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The hon. member pointed out that it might float. I understand we have some water problems. However, I’m not aware of what the costs would be. If the hon. member would like that information I will attempt to get it. It is the opinion of the staff that the building should not be abandoned.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister, in his further investigations, find out whether or not soil tests were done on that site, which is currently known as Jessiman’s Folly, when the previous minister had refused to locate the building at an Intercity location because he said, at that time, the soil tests at Intercity were not adequate? How is it that the soil tests at this site were so adequate when there was an artesian well running, over which they built the building?

Hon. Mr. McCague: If I went to the registry office would I be able to locate this property under the title of Jessiman’s Folly? What is the location? Could the member inform me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry, I’m afraid the questioning is going the wrong way here. Would the minister answer the question?

Mr. Foulds: On a matter of personal privilege, I would be glad to inform the minister of what’s going on in his ministry and what is wrong with the site.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: The minister didn’t sit here with Jim Jessiman. The whole thing was a folly.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that near Woodstock, Ontario, there are approximately seven homes that have had no fresh water since April 1976, since a nearby landfill site has contaminated their wells? Could the minister please tell me what his ministry is doing about this situation?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. The landfill site has been closed as a result of our investigation. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) contacted me about this earlier in the year. We’re now attempting either to restore the existing wells or to arrange for piped water to the seven homes affected.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Since this matter is a problem which affects every landfill site in the province of Ontario, when is the ministry finally going to set goals for resource recovery systems and set them up as a provincial goal and get us out of the garbage dump mentality once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this is a privately-operated dump that has been in existence for a number of years. It is not a sanitary landfill site in any way, shape or form. There apparently have been a number of long-term contracts with the municipality and, as has been said earlier this year, it was found that it was contaminating a number of wells in that area. We are closing the site. The site should really have been closed by the municipality some time ago.

As far as resource recovery is concerned, the hon. member knows that we are moving into that area. We are building resource recovery plants. We have arrangements with municipalities to get into that type of disposal, but we’ll always have some need for sanitary landfill sites. Sanitary landfill sites can be very safe if they’re properly operated, properly located and properly monitored.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Notwithstanding the fact that this is a private landfill site, and notwithstanding the fact that there will always be some need for landfill sites across the province, is the minister prepared to review the total commitment which the ministry has to landfill sites at this point in coping with municipal garbage?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The problem, as the hon. member knows, is that to build resource recovery plants, or a front-end plant, or to get into the type of reclamation plants that the hon. member has been looking at in the last couple of years, and I have as well, we’re talking about $12 and $15 a ton to the municipality to dispose of garbage rather than $7 to $8. So in some way we have to sweeten the pot, increase the incentive to municipalities so that they will get into resource recovery and rely less on landfill.

EPILEPSY

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: Is the minister aware of the rather tragic story in yesterday’s Globe and Mail about one Henry Michalec, epileptic, under Barbara Yaffe’s byline? Is she aware of the comments of her colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), who indicates that the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission that handicapped people be included under the code is one that is, if the quote is right, receiving a lot of attention but where she refuses to be specific as to when we may expect this action? Could the minister tell us when we might get some action on this? It has been raised with her time and again in the estimates, as she knows, by myself and others in connection with the cases of a number of epileptics. It is a very small step that’s being asked for here.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the recommendation of the review committee of the Human Rights Commission that those with disabilities, including epilepsy, be included under the code is one which I think could receive unanimous support within the House in very short order. The decision regarding whether we must have an all-encompassing piece of legislation regarding the Human Rights Code revision or whether we should attack this in a piecemeal manner is one which is in the process of being made. I shall be happy to report to the House as soon as it is finalized.

Mr. Mackenzie: That recommendation was made back in July. Whether it’s a piecemeal approach or not, it’s something that would really be of help to these people, as small a step as it is. I can’t see what money is involved. Would the minister say what time we are talking about in terms of when we might expect some action on this?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not sure that it does not have some money involvement in certain areas, but that is not the concern which is impeding anything right at the moment. I would hope that within the very near future we will be able to report to this House on the decision regarding that specific matter.

Mr. S. Smith: In view of the necessity and urgency to get on with a good many of the aspects of the proposed new human rights code, and in view of the obviously controversial nature of certain of the recommendations, would the minister undertake to enter discussions with representatives of all three parties to see whether, in a non-partisan way, we can find some acceptable means of proceeding, so that all the matters may be debated in some way and those which are acceptable may be proceeded with more rapidly in some way, realizing the thorny political nature of this problem? Would the minister undertake to call together representatives of all three parties on this particular issue?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to consider very seriously the suggestion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now backing away from any commitment to have revisions to the Human Rights Code next year? Can she give a commitment that there will be legislation or at the very least that there is a strong possibility or probability the legislation will come forward?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not backing away from anything. I am just not prepared to give a specific date, which is what the hon. member asked for.

Mr. Lewis: Because you are slow, tardy, unimaginative and inert.

Hon. B. Stephenson: All of those adjectives apply only to those who perceive that kind of behaviour in themselves.

Mr. Lewis: Yon just can’t look forward in that ministry. You can’t do anything except look backwards.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The behaviour of the leader of the third party puzzles me. He is never concerned with facts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have directed this question to the Premier (Mr. Davis) or to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett). It is with some hesitation I direct it to the Minister of Energy.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Don’t hesitate.

Mr. Breaugh: Now is the hour, Jim, and you are it.

An hon. member: Third choice, Jim.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware of a press release from the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen on the northern pipeline, in which he refers to a particular area and makes this comment: “I might add that we have maintained close contact with interested provincial governments. They have been kept fully informed during the course of negotiations.”

If such a statement is correct, was the minister aware at that time that no guarantee of Canadian content of pipe was within the agreements that were reached between Canada and the US on that over $10 billion pipeline?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am always sceptical when I hear that there are guarantees; and, frankly, I did not take that for granted. In our ministry, as soon as we got word as to what was happening on the pipeline, we made contact with our own industry -- I am thinking of heavy equipment, those types of operators -- to get right in there and get bidding on the work. So we have our ear to the ground and are very aggressive in an area such as that.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has his ear to the ground, does he?

Mr. Foulds: You know where that leaves his rear end.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A supplementary question.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware that it is that very thing which concerns many of us in this House? And that he hasn’t specifically answered the question. If he was aware at the time and was kept fully informed there was no real commitment to Canadian content, why did he not at that time make the feelings of the government known, and insist on some kind of -- a commitment if he doesn’t like to use the word guarantee?

I am asking the minister now, does he think it is too late to get going to see if we can’t still do something before the contract is let? I keep appealing day after day, asking the same questions --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Kerrio: I would like to ask it again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Would the minister try to do something?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that you have to be very attentive on these matters, and we are. I think the member well knows that Ontario as such was not involved in the negotiations in connection with the pipeline agreement.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It has made strong representations.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I can only speak for my ministry, but we follow these matters very closely, and are ever-mindful of Ontario industry in connection with projects of this nature. I can only speak, as I have, in regard to our interests and the contact that we have made with industry.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister take it for granted from now on -- knowing full well how the federal Liberals operate -- that every time they negotiate a resource deal or anything related to that the Canadians are taken to the cleaners? Can the minister bear that fact in mind from now on, and whenever any deals are being negotiated would he move in before the deal is consummated?

Mr. Lewis: Exactly, that’s right; do something about it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think we are becoming more aggressive in connection with these matters. And I would like to see Ontario more aggressive.

Mr. Lewis: You are right.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And it is happening.

Mr. Lewis: You know what your problem is, don’t you? You are a bunch of pettifogging, slow-witted bumblers.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Don’t take it out on the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: I am not even impatient this morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A new question from the member for Port Arthur.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Health: Can the Minister of Health explain the state of paralysis that seems to have seized his ministry in awarding the ambulance service contract for the Thunder Bay region, for which tenders were called in March and closed in April? Many of the bidders have not yet even had an acknowledgement of their submission.

Also, is he aware that unless the contract is finalized soon there will be a continuing deterioration of ambulance services in the Thunder Bay region, because many of the qualified drivers for the current ambulance services are leaving the service?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we reviewed that contract about two weeks ago. I am surprised that word hasn’t gone out, because we certainly decided who is the successful applicant. I’m surprised that we haven’t announced it in the area. I’ll make sure we do so as quickly as possible.

[11:00]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Why is it then that as late as Monday of this week many of the applicants did not know that? Was the successful applicant the applicant from within the ministry who could very well have had a conflict of interest while working for the ministry and making an application for the service?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m not aware of any connection with the ministry and I don’t know why they didn’t know of it the first of this week. As I say, it was discussed several weeks ago and we’ll get the notice out as soon as possible.

PSI MIND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker; it’s about Psi again. Can the minister confirm that he has a report from Dr. Craig Powell that definitely links the experience of the three young people from Kitchener with Psi and their ending up in the psychiatric hospital in London?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can’t confirm that. I have a report which I just got this week and which, with the pressure of everything else, I haven’t even had time to read. I hope to do so on the weekend. But what’s in it, I don’t know.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given that the Psi organization is now getting together weekend retreats for young children, if that report says what I suggest it says, will the minister prevent Psi from doing this?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I won’t break the law and I can’t make a law without approval here. But let me read the report and see whether any further action is recommended on the part of the investigators.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Has the minister as yet raised with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) the question I asked about the alleged use of hypnosis by Psi? If not, when will he do so?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That has, as the hon. member very well knows, or should know, formed part of the investigation as to whether or not there is any possible infraction of the Hypnosis Act.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Could we understand why it is that the Attorney General himself states that he is not pursuing that line? And why is the Minister of Health so reluctant to perform his own function as it pertains to the use of hypnosis, or the alleged use of hypnosis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member is twisting it around. What I said was that the investigation, which as she knows was launched some months ago, includes the question of whether there is any possible infraction of the Hypnosis Act.

POLLUTION BY PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In a press release issued two days ago, the minister stated that his ministry had reviewed the pollution control programs of all pulp and paper mills in the province, and now has 16 control orders -- or I should perhaps call them “Kerrtrol” orders, as Pollution Probe does -- in effect covering 16 mills.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, since there are about 31 pulp and paper mills in Ontario discharging directly into our surface waters, what action is the minister taking against the other 15 mills, since none of the mills at the moment is meeting the 1965 cleanup standards for suspended solids.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, we don’t have control orders on all mills. There are some mills that are under a program and are meeting the provisions of that program. They are meeting our criteria and standards, therefore we don’t have them under a specific control order. There are about 10 mills in that category. Some of them are newer, but our monitoring and our checking of their program has satisfied as to the extent that a specific control order is not necessary.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Is the minister saying that the ones that are not under a control order are meeting the 15-milligram level, which is the objective for suspended solids set in 1965 for the entire industry?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In some cases that is true, Mr. Speaker. But at the same time, if they are on a program and the objective is to meet that criterion, and they are doing so, we don’t require a control order.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Davidson, on behalf of Mr. Philip of the standing administration of justice committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Certain Lands in the Township of Casgrain.

Bill Pr35, An Act respecting Shore and Horwitz Construction Company Limited.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1301, item 5, royal commissions:

Mr. Lawlor: I have to get this question in somehow --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Could I ask the member his indulgence for a moment? Could I ask for order in the House, please? The member for Lakeshore is now dealing with estimates of the Attorney General.

Mr. Lawlor: As I stated, Mr. Chairman, I have to get this question in somehow, so I’ll use the royal commissions: Do we have to appoint a royal commission for me to receive certain information I requested by letter from the office of the Attorney General a month ago, and which request I renewed a week ago last Monday, as to what the court situation is, what the loads are throughout the province? Is that too much to ask? If you wish a royal commission to do it --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have prepared additional notes. The document is entitled, “Notes on Estimates for the Fiscal Year 1977-78, Statistical Supplement.” This is a 13-page document. There will be a copy of this delivered to the member for Lakeshore within the next 15 or 20 seconds. This would indicate a pretty comprehensive response to his concerns, as the document does provide a complete statistical breakdown of the caseload in our courts.

Mr. Lawlor: I thank the Attorney General very much. No royal commission will be necessary then, and I shall have a very pleasant weekend.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask your indulgence, because when we carry item 5 we will be finished with the first vote, I presume. I just had a matter I wanted to discuss very briefly with the Attorney General, something I have discussed with him in private before. That is the matter of restitution arising out of vandalism or robberies or break-ins, both as it relates to those who are over the juvenile age and those who are under.

In my area of Rainy River we have had a great increase in the number of crimes of vandalism and break and enter. There seems to be a fair proportion of those who are under the age of responsibility, juveniles, but there is a fair proportion of those over that age and a lot of people are suffering property damage and destruction of goods and property --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This is in no way related to the vote that we are taking now.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I realize it is not directly related to royal commissions but I thought perhaps you would --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It is not even indirectly related.

Mr. Reid: That’s true, but I thought perhaps you would allow me some leniency and allow me to discuss this under vote 1301 generally.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hearing no objection, I will allow you to continue.

Mr. Reid: I will be very brief. I thought the Attorney General had indicated that he was going to give direction to his Crown attorneys to ask for restitution as well as the other penalties that would be imposed, but it doesn’t seem to sort of have filtered down yet. At least the judges do not seem to be imposing restitution for people who, in fact, are suffering these losses.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member is quite right, Mr. Chairman. We have discussed this in the past. At least a year and a half ago I sent out a memorandum to all Crown attorneys in Ontario instructing them to make greater use of the restitution sections of the Criminal Code, and it may be that these instructions are being followed more closely in some areas of the province than in others.

I might say that the issue of restitution in the Criminal Code is a matter that is coming before the Supreme Court of Canada before the end of year in a case by the name of Regina and Zelensky, which emanates from Manitoba. The Manitoba Court of Appeal has ruled those sections of the Criminal Code be ultra vires the federal parliament on the basis that the substance of the legislation is really property and civil rights, which, as you know, is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, as opposed to a criminal sentence. The government of Manitoba is seeking to uphold the legislation on the basis of the fact that it really is related to sentencing and only incidentally to property and civil rights.

This issue, as I say, will be determined before the end of the year, and if the Supreme Court of Canada gives an adverse ruling in relation to the constitutional validity of the present sections, then in my view the provinces should bring in legislation forthwith to fill the vacuum. That will be my recommendation to the executive council of this province if those sections are struck down.

I think that until this matter is resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada it is difficult for me to accomplish much more than we have, but once that matter is clarified -- well, I should also say, Mr. Chairman, in the meantime my instructions to make use of that section stand. Part of the problem perhaps may be that there isn’t sufficient communication in some areas of the province between not only Crown attorneys’ offices but also individual police officers and the victims, because these sections cannot be utilized effectively unless the complaint, the victim of the vandalism, brings to court proof of the damage.

It is something I am quite prepared to discuss further with the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) in order to improve the communication, because as you know in provincial court in most of these vandalism cases the bringing of witnesses to court and presenting evidence to court is largely in the hands of the police officer who happens to be in charge of the case. I think there has been a communication problem that we will hope to rectify, but I don’t want to do much more than I have until the legality of this section has been determined; and in view of the fact that it will be determined before the end of the year, I’m told, we’ll have more guidance at that time.

[11:15]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This matter really comes under vote 1304, which deals with Crown attorneys. You’ve had your question, and I would ask you to hold anything further on this matter until we get to vote 1304.

Mr. Gaunt: I have a very brief question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask the Attorney General if he has reviewed the matter I talked about. I asked a question about it in the House and I discussed the matter with the Attorney General in respect to a summons being issued to a constituent of mine. I just wonder if that matter bas been checked out.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The hon. member can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it was just earlier this week that the actual summons was delivered to me. I immediately gave it to my director of Crown attorneys to communicate with the local Crown attorney to ascertain just what has happened. Quite frankly, I haven’t got a report back as yet and I really didn’t expect to have a report before next week. But we’ll push it along as quickly as we can.

Mr. Gaunt: I appreciate that, and I don’t want the Attorney General to get the feeling I’m pushing him unduly. But I don’t want a month to elapse, because the hearing has been set for December 22, and I hope we can get the matter resolved long before that.

Mrs. Campbell: I suppose to comply with the way in which we are proceeding in the vote, I will preface my remarks by asking a question. I wonder whether the Attorney General of this province, being concerned with the administration of justice, would be inclined to consider appointing a royal commission to study the whole matter of the problems of women in the province before the courts and in all areas of the law, including legal education.

We heard earlier this morning the discussion with the Solicitor General, who apparently quite readily confirms the statements of Chief Adamson of the Metro police as to the increase in the incidence of rape in Metropolitan Toronto. We know there is no provision for this province to deal with the matter of rape crisis centres; there is no money for that service.

We know that this province has no money to deal with the matters of battered wives; and there is apparently no way in the law that lawyers are interested in moving these cases before the courts in a somewhat speedy fashion so women are not living under siege in their own homes awaiting some kind of disposition of a problem of battering. We see women powerless because the husbands in some cases, or former husbands, have been kidnapping children; and women are left absolutely powerless in these situations.

Then we have the outstanding contribution of the law professors to the whole situation of women in the law. I trust that the Attorney General has read Mr. Outerbridge’s interesting lecture to legal secretaries, and I wonder if he is not now concerned with the effect of this kind of publicity, the effect of this kind of adolescent thinking on the part of people teaching members of the profession who will shortly become lawyers, Crown attorneys, and maybe will grow up some day to be judges. Are we not going to look at this matter from the broad overview? Would it not be conceivable that this might be an important issue to at least half the population of this province?

I have mentioned before the Attorney General’s concerns about hockey violence. Why is there no commitment anywhere to a real study, by way of a commission or otherwise, of this total picture of the growing problems of women in our society? Why is there not? How can the Attorney General be a part of a society, a governing society, which permits this kind of thinking in the legal educational system?

It’s interesting; some years ago I refused to belong to the Canadian Bar Association on the basis that I did not belong to discriminatory bodies. I have refused to join other organizations where discrimination is shown. I would have hoped the Attorney General of this province, speaking not of administration of law but of administration of justice, would be concerned with the lack of it for, as I say, half the population of this province.

Much more realistically, I know the Attorney General is most anxious to proceed with the family law legislation, and I have throughout expressed my support of his thrusts. In fact, I have even said I would try to help to see it moved along, but I’m going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, with this kind of thing before us women are more convinced than ever that the Attorney General is not going to talk “discretion of the courts” to them; he’s not going to discuss “discretion” to those who appear to have gone through this system. I wonder if the Attorney General has realized just how sick we see this problem to be in Ontario today.

It was interesting to me that when we had lawyers before us discussing this particular legislation, when the women lawyers appeared the Attorney General couldn’t be there. That is understandable, but what they had to say, in reflecting their circumstances and their experiences, was rather disregarded while three men came and were listened to very carefully by the Attorney General -- and the men were the “experts,” the men were the “experts.”

I am rather saddened that when these issues are raised in this House we have the cackle of backroom jokes. This is the mentality prevailing today in circles which ought to be leading us against this kind of thing.

It applies too, to the lack of interest, for some time at least, in the alleged attack on a principal of a school and other women. Perhaps it was nothing more nor less than a Hallowe’en prank or some overzealous boys. The fact is that these were women who were frightened. There isn’t any question they were frightened. I cannot prove the allegations one way or the other, but they were frightened by something. If a gun is pointed at a person, can it be done as a joke in this province? Or is it only a joke if it is pointed to a woman? Those are questions that we have to face up to.

I thought there was a law that stated one cannot point a gun. I also thought there was a law that said one doesn’t pull the trigger. But apparently in our time in this province there isn’t any law; it’s a game. We leave it to those who apparently have no real interest in the matter, since they have no real interest in finding out where the incidents -- and allegedly there were three of them, not one -- took place. There is no interest whatsoever in discussing the matter with those who have claimed to have been victimized. It was only yesterday, I believe, that we began to think that there just might be some reason for the Crown attorney and/or the police to look at this as something serious in our society.

If we can’t view these things seriously then there is no wonder that there is a lack of confidence, a very serious lack of confidence, among many women in this province as to the quality of justice. I suggest that perhaps the only way we can regain some kind of real confidence is to have all of these issues discussed publicly. We cannot go on any longer shoving responsibility hither, thither and yon. There have to be answers, and I suggest that perhaps a royal commission is not the worst way to approach it. We have considered other matters of a far less soul-searing nature than this one.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the member for St. George really is suggesting a royal commission to deal with a very large percentage of the ills in our society today.

Mrs. Campbell: Only within your jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, I think she perhaps has more confidence than I have in what can be accomplished by royal commissions in such a broad area.

I have enough confidence in this Legislature to believe that this is the most appropriate forum of all to discuss pressing social issues, whether they relate to the administration of justice directly or indirectly, because of the issues that have been raised by the hon. member really do represent a very broad spectrum of social problems in the community. I will try and respond specifically to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. member.

[11:30]

In relation to the increase in the incidence of rape, or at least the reporting of rape, I should like simply to indicate to the members what the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General has been. We are not in a position to fund any community services. But in relation to the rape crisis centre in Metropolitan Toronto, which we believe is performing a useful service, I have met with representatives of this centre. I personally established a very close liaison between that crisis centre and the local Crown attorney’s office. I am advised by the women in charge of the rape crisis centre that the liaison is an excellent one and has worked out very well.

I have also indicated --

Mrs. Campbell: Provided it is still there to liaise with.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have also indicated to the Crown attorney’s office in Toronto that sexual assault cases must be expedited through the courts. I am well aware of the enormous emotional strain that any victim of such an assault is faced with, and I am well aware of the fact that any undue delay in relation to the trying of these cases can only add to the emotional burden.

I have discussed this matter not only with the Crown attorney’s office but with the chief judge of the provincial court and the chief justice of the high court in relation to expediting preliminary inquiries. I’ve also discussed the matter with the chief judge of the judicial district of York in order to see that county court trials proceed.

I have also met with senior police officials in relation to police attitudes towards victims of rape. In doing so I realize that I may be treading in an area that’s more properly the responsibility of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is well aware of my close association with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department by reason of my professional association with them as a practising lawyer, so he welcomes any of my initiatives in this regard.

I am sure the hon. member is well aware of a study that was done by -- I forget the woman’s name, a professor -- in relation to the treatment of rape victims. It is some time ago that I read her report, but she was very complimentary, generally speaking, as I recall, of the handling of this very sensitive type of case by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department. She had some very positive things to say, and I think there again it indicated a sensitivity in relation to the handling of these very serious cases -- very difficult cases from an emotional standpoint -- by the members of the Metro force who are given this responsibility.

A view has been expressed that these initiatives that have been taken have resulted in the increase in reporting of incidents of rape or serious sexual assaults. We don’t know yet, but I put it forward as a possibility. There may be more victims reporting these incidents than had been the case in the past, because perhaps there is some recognition on the part of the victim that these cases will be treated sensitively by Metropolitan Toronto police officers who are assigned to these cases, who have some degree of expertise, and that they will be treated more sensitively than it was believed they would be by the courts.

As the hon. member knows, there was a recent amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with the right to cross-examine a complainant on any of her prior history. It is perhaps a little early to attempt to make a value judgement as to the effectiveness of this amendment, but again that was directed towards according fairer treatment to complainants in rape cases.

It just may be that the combination of these initiatives has encouraged a greater percentage of victims to report this. That certainly is the belief of many senior members of the Metropolitan Toronto police department, but again it obviously can’t be proven. All I can do is express the hope that this is the case and that there is not an overall increase. Again, one cannot know. I hope these initiatives will continue. l am not in a position, in these estimates, to comment one way or the other in relation to public resources for community resource centres such as the rape crisis centre. I certainly have made it very clear that I am very supportive of the work that is being done by this centre. I think there should be such a centre in every community of any size, and I would hope that resources can be found to fund these very important social services.

The member probably knows as well, if not better than I, the strains and the demands that are made on our social service system. I have particular priorities in my own mind, of course, and I know the member for St. George has very laudable priorities in her mind. I would hope that if there isn’t sufficient funding from the provincial level -- and there are enormous demands made on our resources. Having arrived here only two years ago, when I look at the increase in the social service budget just over the last five years -- I believe it has more than tripled -- I believe it is an illustration of the demands that are being made.

I would hope that funds will ‘be found locally for rape crisis centres. Public-spirited citizens like the member opposite and myself, I am sure, may even be prepared to make personal contributions in that respect. I think we should also not neglect in these discussions -- although we may be going far afield -- the very valuable volunteer component that is available.

I must admit, having been very much involved with volunteer agencies in recent years, I don’t think nearly enough is made of the volunteer resources. There is always a difficulty with some resources in that there is always a pressure to develop a higher degree of expertise, and therefore to be looking for social workers that are well trained, which certainly is desirable. But when these funds aren’t available to hire this type of trained personnel, I would like to think that the community as a whole can -- as I know it can -- provide most of these resources on a volunteer basis.

I personally know many women who may not be trained social workers but who would be able to man and provide a very valuable and useful service in working and assisting victims of rape cases. I just regret -- and again I am going a little far afield -- that there hasn’t been a greater recognition of this fact. I am not talking specifically in relation to this one rape crisis centre, because my understanding is that they do make great use of volunteer help.

In any event, I don’t personally believe that centre will be allowed to fold. I have indicated to them that any assistance they will require from the Ministry of the Attorney General, although we’re not a funding ministry, any other assistance will continue to be forthcoming.

In relation to the matter dealing with legal education, I like to think that the incident that was reported earlier this week and that was discussed by the hon. member is not representative of legal education in the province.

Mrs. Campbell: Have you read that report?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I read the documents the hon. member forwarded to me and as I undertook to do, with her personally, I wrote yesterday to the treasurer of the Law Society indicating your concern about the possibility of a sexist-oriented legal education, which, as I explained, repeating your concerns, could lead on the one hand to a lack of sensitivity, in dealing with female clients or lack of sensitivity on the part of Crown attorneys in dealing with complainants in sexual assault cases, and, of course, the lack of sensitivity in dealing with female lawyer colleagues, or secretarial help, or any other women who do play such a vital part in the operation of any law office.

I will perhaps be seeing him later today and will discuss it with him in person, but the letter has gone to him, as I assured the member for St. George would happen.

I personally have visited most of the law schools in this province on at least one occasion and I’m impressed by the large number of women who are involved and are being trained in law school and receiving a legal education. As I indicated in the Legislature, when I was in law school I think there were less than a dozen women out of 250. It’s now close to a third, and although --

Mrs. Campbell: Were you impressed by the number instructing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I really don’t have those figures. Of course, I think one has to recognize that women in large numbers taking a law degree is a relatively recent phenomenon. The instructors, teachers and what not are normally people who have had a few years’ experience practising law, and of course a large percentage of the women practising law today would probably have been called to the bar five years or less. I would think and I would expect that there would he a dramatic increase in the participation of women in legal education at all levels as we develop these greater resources.

I can say that in this whole area of family law I personally have witnessed the phenomenon of the fact that we are developing a whole new generation of lawyers who are motivated to practising in this area. For example, I attended a dinner that was sponsored, by the Law Society as I recall or it may have been the family law section of the Criminal Bar Association in Ontario; it doesn’t really matter who it was. It was in the middle of the week and it was a dinner at a local hotel; some 800 lawyers attended this evening seminar on family law. I have to admit that 10 years ago, if you could have got a corporal’s guard out, 10 per cent of that number would have been remarkable. I do think that is a positive development, that there are so many lawyers who are obviously interested in practising in this very important field. I do think this really does, or should, bode well for the treatment of women in the legal system because with the enormous number of lawyers involved, I think it cannot help but do that. We have discussed the family law reform bill and we will be discussing it as it goes before the justice committee of this Legislature.

I think the unified family court is, of course, going to benefit women to a great extent because it is going to make the whole process more accessible. The member for St. George, having served as a judge in the family and juvenile court, knows the importance of that court, knows the potential of that court to serve the community in a very meaningful way in providing greater accessibility in relation to the average citizen. We hope that will be developed.

The hon. member for St. George is also pretty much aware of the make-up of the family court in Metropolitan Toronto, and perhaps throughout the province. I am more familiar, of course, with the judges, all of whom I know in Metropolitan Toronto, and I am cultivating a greater knowledge of the judges outside Metro around the province. I have been very impressed by the quality of the lawyer prepared to serve in the family court. I think we have attracted a clever, intelligent, but above all a sensitive brand of lawyer to that particular court, which again is a positive step, I think, in dealing with these very serious problems.

One of my own appointments in the last year was an outstanding woman lawyer, Judge Abella. I have to tell the member opposite that when I seek people out, not necessarily just for the family court but for various boards which require legal expertise, I have been turned down. I am not speaking specifically of the family court in this area, because I don’t want to suggest that anybody who has accepted has been a second choice; Judge Rose Abella, for example, was very much a first choice. But I have been surprised by the number of women lawyers who have simply turned me down in relation to these appointments because of success with their own practices and the fact they just aren’t interested in the salaries that we can offer or because it doesn’t fit in with their own professional development; they are not prepared to serve on boards such as the Ontario Municipal Board, Land Compensation Board and what not. So I have to say that I am perhaps more optimistic than the member for St. George as to what is going to transpire in the future, and indeed what has happened in the past.

The member for St. George is familiar with my family. She knows that my eldest child, a daughter, is presently working in a law office and hopes to pursue a legal career. I am not as pessimistic as the member is in some of her statements. But I appreciate that we all resort to a certain amount of poetic licence from time to time.

Mrs. Campbell: There is also a certain amount of truth.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Obviously I am optimistic for my daughter’s future, and that is not to suggest that the concerns that have been expressed are not legitimate concerns.

Mrs. Campbell: Is there a difference between Montreal and Toronto?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is true. I mentioned to the member earlier in the week that my eldest daughter, whom the member for St. George knows, is working in Montreal, although she intends to pursue a legal education and a career in Ontario. There are a number of reasons she is working in Montreal, not the least of which is to improve her facility in the French language. So I have to be optimistic.

I should also mention that the battered wife syndrome, which is a very serious problem, together with the battered child syndrome, is increasingly occupying the time of social scientists. The member for St. George and myself, and other members, are well aware of the increasing number of seminars that take place in order to try and arrive at solutions to this problem. As I read the reports that come out of some of these meetings I must admit I don’t see many specific solutions being proposed. Initiatives yes, and I am not criticizing the social scientists, but I think it is only indicative of the enormous complexity of this area.

The Family Law Reform Act does of course allow a wife, I believe for the first time, to sue her husband civilly for assault. To use an old expression, “get them in their pocketbooks if you want to make progress” might have some application.

Mrs. Campbell: We’ll have to wait and see.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: But we’ll have to wait and see.

In relation to the Moss Park incident, I was very disturbed when I read in the press reports that an unnamed member of the Crown attorney’s office had allegedly told the police that the matter should be left to the military. I am now advised that this was inaccurate and no such instructions had been given from any representative of our office.

I am further advised -- I don’t have a complete report yet, I have mainly just a verbal report from the police -- that there was some considerable degree of reluctance on the part of some of the women who were involved in this incident to proceed with the charges themselves. They did not encourage the charges to be laid at all. They themselves, I am told -- and this is only from the police -- were of the view, initially at least, that the military authorities should be involved rather than the courts. There may be some change in this attitude, but one of my senior Crown attorneys is meeting with the police again today; the director of our city of Toronto office, Mr. McGee, is meeting with the police. I’ll have some further report in relation to that.

Ms. Gigantes: I would just like to ask a followup question leading out of suggestions made by the member for St. George. I would like to ask the Attorney General what is essentially different about the request by the member for St. George for a commission to inquire into violence against women in this province and the setting up of the commission on racial incidents and racism in Ontario. When the commission on racism was set up it received approval by all members of this House. It was widely acclaimed by the public and by the press in this province. The need for the commission was well understood and well supported by everyone of good will in this province. It was a recognition that the problem existed. It was a recognition that the problem needed study, needed public examination --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of information -- if you could assist me by telling me what commission you are referring to?

Ms. Gigantes: I am referring to the commission headed by a former member of this House, Walter Pitman, which is studying racism in Metro Toronto. It seems to me that we are dealing here with the same kind of problem. We’re dealing in our society with the notion that there are suitable victims. In one case the suitable victim can be identified by colour of skin, physical traits or language traits. In another case the suitable victims apparently happen to be 50 per cent of this society.

It seems to me that over the years the kind of attitude we’ve had towards violence to that 50 per cent of society has been such that the Attorney General can stand here today and say it’s an enormously complicated problem, a problem that has to be treated with great sensitivity by officials. This is true also of racism. Yet we see fit in Ontario, and I think rightly, to create a commission to inquire into the causes of racism, to see what steps can be taken in society to deal with it and to encourage those members of what some people in society obviously consider suitable victim groups to think of themselves with dignity and as having rights in society -- legal and social rights -- that they can ask this society to defend as a normal course of events.

It seems to me we really got a typical response from the Attorney General to the suggestion from the member for St. George for a commission inquiring into the causes of and the possible solutions, however slowly they may be developed, to the problem of violence against women. It’s a totally typical kind of attitude: It’s an historic fact; it’s somehow in human nature that these acts of violence should be perpetrated against women; this is really much too complicated for academics to deal with. The Attorney General tells us that seminars held on the subject don’t produce many solutions.

I suggest to the Attorney General that this very same kind of attitude used to prevail about the status of women. There used to he all kinds of claims on the part of a large number of elected representatives and officials of various sorts that in fact the status of women was too complicated a question to be dealt with.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is just so much nonsense.

Mr. Mackenzie: It certainly isn’t.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please.

Ms. Gigantes: Finally, when we came to the creation of the federal royal commission inquiry into the status of women in Canada, we found that indeed it was possible to identify all kinds of areas in which the status of women was under fire and undermined in this country, and to develop very specific remedial ways for helping to promote the status of women as equal citizens in this country.

I suggest to the Attorney General that it is a perfectly reasonable, normal request that is made by the member for St. George, that there should be a commission on this subject. I consider it really quite typical of the attitudes towards women that the proposal should be treated by the Attorney General as something which is dealing with an area far too complicated to be usefully studied, examined and suggested remedies brought forward through the activity of a commission of inquiry.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to say, having witnessed the hon. member’s performance in this House for over two years, that I’m quite confident I have a greater understanding and a greater sensitivity to the problems of women in this province than has come from any of the statements I’ve heard from her in this particular House.

Ms. Gigantes: Is this divide and rule?

Mr. Nixon: It is just the Friday morning putdown.

Mr. Reid: If he was Margaret Birch, he’d understand it much more clearly.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister knows more about women than she does?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To suggest that the lack of immediate enthusiasm for a royal commission or a commission to study violence in society generally indicates any sort of lack of ongoing concern about the problem is just a very foolish remark, but as I say, I’ve come to expect not much better.

The Walter Pitman commission --

[12:00]

Mr. McClellan: We’re bilious this morning, aren’t we?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- was a commission that was established by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to look at the issue --

Mr. Mackenzie: He must have watched a particularly bad hockey game last night or something.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- of violent activity in Metropolitan Toronto in respect to the south Asian community. Mr. Pitman has informally, by a series of informal meetings with various groups representing the south Asian community and other groups in the society, is preparing, I think, a very worthwhile report. I’ve had some preview of the report. I think he’s made a very valuable contribution.

Indeed, when we deal with any issue such as this, which involves a very serious form of disease in the community, the broader community, and when we talk about violence in relation to children, violence related to women, or just violence generally, we’re obviously dealing with a very core problem in relation to human activity.

I just simply express the view that this is a matter that requires ongoing study at all levels of the community, and the suggestion that any specific commission with broad terms of reference is going to add anything more than what is added by our social scientists in their ongoing study is very unrealistic.

I should point out, too, that the Ontario Law Reform Commission, in making the various reports that it has in relation to family law, has indicated very much the concern of this province in relation to the status of women in society generally. I must admit I and it very offensive, simply because the hon. member opposite happens to be a female, to play the old game of saying, “Of course, because you’re a man, you don’t understand. You don’t have any sensitivity to these things.”

Ms. Gigantes: Did I say that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That was very implicit in your remarks.

Mr. McClellan: You must be overly sensitive.

Mr. Lawlor: Unduly sensitive.

Mr. McClellan: She must have struck a sore point.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I find that sort of sanctimonious nonsense aggravating on a Friday. I really do.

Mr. McClellan: You have a monopoly on sanctimony today.

Ms. Gigantes: Only on Friday?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I’m quite prepared --

Ms. Gigantes: Should I try you on a Tuesday?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m quite prepared to recognize that fact. The member for St. George and I, we have disagreements. She beat me in an election, but we can have a useful interchange --

Mr. Mackenzie: Do you have more disagreements on a Friday than you do on a Monday?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- because she directs her mind to matters in a rational fashion, not sort of on this business of male versus female. You make it very difficult to pursue a similar sort of interchange.

Mr. McClellan: Poor fellow.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t be so sensitive.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: But that is really the member’s problem more than it is mine, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mackenzie: I think it is your problem.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t want to get involved in this controversy --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh come on, come on; do.

Mr. Nixon: -- but as sort of an innocent bystander here I felt that the Attorney General was perhaps a little insensitive to the comments made by the hon. member for Carleton East. I don’t ‘often support her, for some reason, but I thought in this instance that maybe the Attorney General was under the influence of Friday morning blues or something like that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I had such a lovely time with the member for St. George.

Ms. Gigantes: You said she was being poetic.

Mr. Nixon: Of course, I know precisely how you feel when you talk to the member for St. George, because she’s always rational and always takes a broadminded approach to the problems of the day, and we’ve known that for a good long time.

Ms. Gigantes: You accused her of taking poetic licence.

Mr. Nixon: It’s certainly great that the Attorney General now appreciates the same thing.

However, we are talking about the royal commissions vote and I wanted to express an opinion which the Attorney General may not agree with as well, and this will be twice in a morning.

I really find, Mr. Chairman, that the criteria used by the government in the establishment of royal commissions is appalling, wasteful and used almost entirely for political purposes. There are all sorts of occasions when it might very well be that a problem facing the community should be handed to a judge with a royal commission. But instead of that, we have had instances where, in many respects, a royal commission is not necessary and is used simply as a convenient shelf upon which the government can deposit matters that are somewhat embarrassing; and there they put them to rest for a while.

I would say, in the case of the commission looking into violence on TV, that the Premier (Mr. Davis) took a positive initiative. He decided not to deposit on that shelf something that was embarrassing, not to put it out of the way. Instead, he tried in the most cynical way, I thought, to make what I considered to be rather cheap political capital out of a matter that was of some concern to the community. The appointment of a royal commissioner to study violence on TV was a waste of money. It was an unwarranted expense. It was, I think, a crass political initiative taken at the time.

The report is something worse than useless and I regret that a friend of mine -- Judy LaMarsh, in whom I have a good deal of respect -- got involved in the thing. I really think that it is one of the most regrettable decisions taken by the Premier in his political career. It was just a silly mistake.

The second one that occurs to me is the Ronto royal commission, which was also a mistake. Since we’re not in question period, we can have a better exchange on a matter like this. The Attorney General may think there were no allegations or innuendos -- the words that the government uses -- or charges from the opposition or anybody else that there had been any political malfeasance in this Ronto business; there was, however, a very strong indication -- and you can call it a charge or any other word you want to use -- that the government’s decision in this regard was completely wrong. It should not have allowed Ronto to get away with their tremendous capital gains without paying the land speculation tax.

We were working with this in the public accounts committee. It became obvious that it was too involved and time-consuming for that committee. We would have had to come to the House for powers to get legal assistance and accounting assistance and spend many weeks, if not months, of our committee’s time -- and we only meet about two hours in a week -- in order to pursue that Ronto business to some kind of a conclusion.

We came to the House and asked that a special committee be appointed with terms of reference dealing exclusively with the Ronto matter. The government decided, under the circumstances, to give it to a royal commission with terms of reference indicating there were allegations of political malfeasance.

Whatever the Attorney General thinks, my opinion is that this was simply a way to give that matter to a commissioner, get it out of the forum where it should have been discussed -- which was here -- get it away from a committee that, with the evidence that was already available to the public accounts committee, might very well make a recommendation that the government should reverse its position. The ruling or the report of the commissioner was obvious from the first when we saw the terms of reference. I thought that the NDP, in going along with the Conservatives in the reference of the royal commission, were patsies. They were sucked in by the government in that regard. We should have had a committee dealing with Ronto here so that at least the terms of reference would have permitted us to make a recommendation that would have been meaningful and not just political baloney.

Mr. Lawlor: His testiness is rubbing off on you, Robert.

Mr. Nixon: The other thing that occurs to me is this matter about the granting of some garbage licence in Maple. Do you remember, during the election or just before the election, there were some allegations that some company down in Washington, after making a substantial contribution to the Tory slush fund before the 1975 campaign, was awarded this licence. I think of the defence taken by the Premier at the time when Fidinam (Canada) Ltd. gave a $50,000 donation to Mr. Kelly; the matter was not even denied by the representatives of the government or the Premier himself. There was a clear communication between Fidinam (Canada), which had a little hole-in-the- wall office in some building down town, and Fidinam in Europe about the disposition of the $50,000. That was a ease of very high political impact that wasn’t sent to a royal commission. We had the law officers of the Crown give us some kind of comments about that.

Then all of a sudden in somewhat similar circumstances, when the political heat was on, there was some indication that maybe a garbage licence was the result of a political payoff. A royal commissioner was appointed months ago, but we haven’t heard a thing about it since. There’s no doubt that, if we are waiting for anything of interest to come out of that, we may wait a long time indeed.

So I return to what I said to begin with, that there we have an amount of $1.25 million for royal commissions --

Mrs. Campbell: What about the Pickering one?

Mr. Nixon: My hon. friend who comes to the heart of these matters very effectively is right again. We have this great confrontation between the Ombudsman and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), and that thing goes to a royal commission with all of the ancillary problems and costs; the thing sinks into the slough of something or other -- not Despond, but I suppose the internal politics of the Conservative Party, with all the thrashing and so on that has been taking place -- disappears, and we don’t hear anything about it at all.

Personally I resent the criteria used by the government for he establishment of royal commissions. I feel this is something that has been substantially discredited by the decisions taken by the government in recent months and years, and I wanted to put my views before you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In relation to the several commissions, they seem to fall into about three categories. The LaMarsh commission, we have heard a great deal about in this House. I rather regret to hear the hon. member opposite describe the report that involved so much of his distinguished colleague’s time as being a useless report. I hope he has communicated that fact to her.

Mr. Reid: He said that at the time it was set up.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Even though she may not have always exercised sound political judgement, certainly in relation to the political party she chose to become affiliated with, I think Miss LaMarsh, in the recognition of most thinking people, has been a distinguished public servant and made a very valuable contribution in relation to this report.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, is the Attorney General suggesting in any way that I was criticizing Miss LaMarsh? The criticism was directed against the minister and his colleagues.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The hon. member just said her report was useless. If that’s not criticism, I don’t know what is.

Mr. Kerrio: That is fair.

Mr. Reid: It couldn’t help but be useless. It was useless before she started.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ll tell Judy --

Mr. Lawlor: Take her out for lunch and tell her.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- that you didn’t criticize her; you just said her report was useless. I guess when somebody spends as much time as she spent on this report and came up with what I thought was a very thoughtful reasoned report --

Mr. Nixon: That is certainly an indication of the minister’s capacities then. Why shouldn’t she spend a lot of time? What were we paying her every day?

Mr. Reid: It was $250 a day plus.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, it is very insulting to a distinguished public servant --

Mr. Nixon: Maybe it is insulting. The terms of reference were ridiculous. It is a waste of money.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- to suggest that she prolonged this royal commission simply because of her per diem.

Mr. Nixon: You were the one who said she spent a long time on it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If that’s not being critical of Miss LaMarsh, then I must admit I have difficulty with what the member means to say. I would hate him to be critical of anybody, if it isn’t criticism to talk about a useless report and prolonging the report because of a modest per diem --

Mr. Nixon: It was modest from the standpoint of a lawyer.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t take unfair advantage of him, Roy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have heard about problems caused by certain tensions and battles within the ranks of the federal Tory party, but what I am witnessing at first hand in the ranks of the Liberal Party in Ontario just makes me positively gasp. I mean, how two such distinguished members of the Liberal Party in this province -- namely how the former leader of the Liberal Party in this province could launch such a very serious, and I think almost a vicious, attack on one of his political colleagues, a former minister of the federal Crown --

Mr. Reid: What a bunch of baloney this is. Did someone order a baloney sandwich?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is almost worth getting elected just to have a ringside seat to such an event. It makes all these hours eminently worthwhile. I have witnessed some of these struggles in the federal Conservative Party, but what a wonderful diversion for those of us on this side of the House!

Mr. Kerrio: When are you going to stop stickhandling and shoot the puck?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for Niagara Falls almost shares ridings with -- they are neighbours --

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. minister get back to item 5 of the vote?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- to sit quietly by and hear a friend and neighbour, a supporter, castigated in such a fashion? Talk about Friday morning blues; this comes pretty close to violence in the Legislature.

Mr. Nixon: Come on, make sense of something sensible.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was just reminded, it was just suggested to me, and for that I should be very grateful, that as a result of the former leader’s contribution, he’s just made Friday a happy day again for me, and one must express one’s gratitude in whatever way one can.

The LaMarsh commission obviously falls into one category. It did not come into being as a result of any allegations in relation to any suggestion of malfeasance on the part of the government.

I think when we get into matters such as the Ronto and waste management royal commissions, these decisions, of course, are made by the executive council of this government, of which I am a member. Those commissions are administered by the Attorney General in so far as providing the resources is concerned.

Now I think when an opposition party, which of course has a fundamental role to oppose, goes beyond that and makes allegations, that’s another matter. Certainly by reason of statements that are made in the House certain innuendoes arise which really suggest that it is not merely a matter of mismanagement or mistaken judgement on the part of the government. Some of the statements that I have heard in relation to these two royal commissions really go beyond that. Without attributing them to anyone in particular, certainly I heard statements which, really, I think struck at the integrity of the government; not a matter of lack of judgement or mismanagement, as I mentioned a moment ago, but suggesting impropriety of a very great nature.

I think if an opposition party indulges in that type of tactic, then no government has much alternative but to allow an independent judicial inquiry into this allegation.

Mr. Nixon: You didn’t do it with Moog; you didn’t do it with Goodman; you are very selective.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The terms of reference were directed towards that issue, and they were supported by the New Democratic Party for that reason.

So when you criticize the government for unnecessary expenditure of public funds in this area, I think you really should remind yourselves of your own responsibility in making these allegations or making statements that give rise to this kind of innuendo, which I personally believe makes it almost mandatory for any leader of government to respond in order to maintain the integrity of the system.

I know all members of this Legislature, regardless of our differences in political partisanship, basically believe very strongly in the integrity of the system or we wouldn’t be here. When that integrity is placed in doubt, I don’t think any government has much alternative but to seriously consider an independent judiciary inquiry.

In relation to Pickering, as I recall the events, first of all the Select Committee on the Ombudsman, I think, was very reluctant to pursue the report in so far as making any determination as to whether any greater compensation should be made to those landowners. What led as much as anything else to the commission into Pickering was the reluctance of the committee; and for reasons similar to those which the hon. member opposite just expressed in relation to Ronto, the complexity of the matter and the fact that the committee perhaps thought it could have been tied up on nothing else for months and months.

So the select committee dealing with the Ombudsman and Pickering welcomed the decision that was reached between the Minister of Housing and the Ombudsman in relation to the constitution of that commission. It’s unfortunate that it has been delayed, but I think any delays are for reasons far beyond the powers of this government.

Again, I should remind the members, in relation to the waste management commission, this was scheduled to commence in September. It’s only because representatives of various community groups challenged the decision of the commission in relation to their status that that has been delayed. That’s a matter that has gone into the courts.

In relation to this whole issue of royal commissions, and particularly commissions thought to be useful to study social issues such as violence to women, I suggest to the member for St. George that again this is an area in which I have great confidence in the makeup of this House. If we think something useful can be accomplished by another study, in view of all the ongoing studies, there’s no reason we can’t consider establishing a select committee with terms of reference to investigate this problem, inasmuch as the problem might be resolved by changes to provincial legislation. I would welcome any such initiative. I want to make that very clear that I have sufficient confidence in this House that working together, if there were some areas which could be usefully explored with a view to bringing in amendments to provincial legislation, this is the forum. Perhaps we place too much faith in the idea of setting up, as has been suggested, yet another royal commission to study a problem that I think we ourselves are quite capable of looking at and pursuing with all seriousness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, in case the Attorney General thought I was in any way ambivalent about my views about the royal commission on violence, I made a political promise that my first responsibility had I been elected Premier would have been to discontinue the commission forthwith. I would like to ask him what the final cost for that commission was.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That question was asked during the estimates and I’ve already given that information, but I’m quite happy to repeat it.

Mr. Nixon: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is item 5, entitled royal commissions. Clearly the minister was out of order if he’s been answering it on another item.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ve been responding to a number of --

Mr. Nixon: You are not suggesting it is out of order?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- questions from across the aisle that might generally be considered to be out of order, but by reason of my basic generosity of spirit I don’t make these technical objections.

Mr. Nixon: What are you talking about now?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have it right here, but you keep interrupting me.

Mr. Reid: You are beginning to sound like an NDP member.

Mr. Nixon: Just give us the bottom line.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The total over three fiscal years, starting with the fiscal year 1975- 76 to this year, is $2,176,328.

Mr. Nixon: What has happened to that report? Have you got an implementation group in the committee or is one of your policy secretariats dealing with it in some detail?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Every ministry that might have an interest in the matter has been asked to respond.

Mr. Nixon: They all received copies of that report?

Mr. Reid: It is high on the list of priorities.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, and they have all been asked to respond with respect to suggestions or initiatives that they might be undertaking in their own ministries in relation to the recommendations of the LaMarsh commission.

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not agree that if there had been some imagination on his side, when it was obvious that Miss LaMarsh was available for one of these important long-term commitments, wouldn’t it have been a great thing if the idea that had been put forward by the hon. members for St. George and Carleton East had occurred to you people who are supposed to be so sensitive in the role of the affairs of women before the law and in the community? The minister himself has indicated that he is more forthcoming and more sensitive than the spokesmen from the opposition, who happen to be both women and ladies.

Isn’t it a shame that the government hadn’t spent that money in using the services of Miss LaMarsh for something that would have been much more timely, and might have had some impact and usefulness, not only to this House but Ontario at large?

I just feel it is a shame that $2.25 million has just gone down the pipe. I would say again that the report is not of significance or use to this House or to the community.

Mr. Reid: It’s not even within our jurisdiction.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I, like the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, am reluctant to encourage the government to set up more royal commissions because, as he described them, many of them are used for very partisan political purposes and coverup. Every once in a while in society violence does occur. The member for Carleton East cited one instance, as did the member for St. George.

I have been trying to get the minister interested in a form of violence in our society, and he just refuses to react positively to any suggestions that I make that something should be done. I am very reluctant to ask for a royal commission into violence in industry, the violence that is caused by negligent managers of industry which causes death and destruction to working class people. Probably the Attorney General is not concerned that over 300 people per day get killed on the North American continent in industrial situations.

Many of these occurrences should lead to criminal charges. Yet I am not aware of one single charge in the province of Ontario ever having been laid against an industrialist or a plant manager as a result of his negligence, even despite the fact I have brought a specific case to the minister’s attention over the past year and he refuses to respond. He doesn’t even follow up with correspondence that he promises to me. People such as myself then get frustrated.

Certainly the minister has demonstrated that he is interested in curtailing violence on TV, as in the case of the Judy LaMarsh commission. Violence in hockey is his priority. I can understand it, because I think his lifestyle has not been associated with violence in industry, whereas I come from a different end of society. My whole life has been spent in a very violent industry. In the plant where I worked prior to coming here, last year 11 men were killed, and I am sure the Attorney General has heard about the three men who were killed in Frood Mine within a 90-day period within 100 yards of one another when the roof kept falling in, and the company concerned just said, “Oh no, the area is still safe.” It was only after pressure on the floor of this House that the government reacted and closed off the drift. Otherwise, men would have just kept going down the drain.

[12:30]

At this time I want to mention one specific case which I have brought to the minister’s attention over the past year and in which he has absolutely refused and neglected to respond to my wishes.

On October 26, 1976, three men were killed at the Sudbury Metals plant in Falconbridge. A coroner’s inquest was held and the jury reported on February 28, 1977. Certain evidence was revealed, and criminal charges should have been forthcoming, the coroner’s jury recommended. One of the recommendations the jury made was that there should be a qualified process engineer or a metallurgical engineer on site or available at all times with authority to make decisions.

It is my opinion that those three men died as a result of negligence on the part of the management of Sudbury Metals. They did not have a qualified process engineer on the site to operate the kiln, with the result that the end of the kiln blew out and smashed three men against a brick wall.

They were operating a kiln in Sudbury, Ontario, from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I suggest that one cannot operate a dangerous piece of machinery like that from 1,000 miles away on the telephone. There was no one in the plant who understood that hydrogen gases could develop if they poured water on these iron ore pellets -- a simple chemical process that even any grade 12 student knows and understands. They didn’t even have that kind of expertise on site to protect the lives of those workers. I say that is criminal negligence.

The minister has refused to respond, although I tried to get him interested in the situation. I wrote him a letter on March 8, 1977, and suggested that because this company was negligent in not having a process engineer on hand, he should consider laying charges. On March 30 the minister wrote back to say he had received my letter of March 8 and would provide me with a reply in due course. To this point in time, I have not received a further letter from the Attorney General, which he promised me on March 30, 1977.

To try to interest him again in the subject matter, I rose during question period on Judy 6, 1977, and I asked him about laying criminal charges against the manager of Sudbury Metals. He said, “I will try to report back to him in the Legislature as soon as possible.” He was going to report to me again on July 6, but to this point in time I have received no report from the Attorney General. A month or two later, I rose again during the question period and asked the question. He said, “We are having trouble getting the transcript from the coroner’s inquest.”

He is just not interested. A year has passed now. It was October 26, 1976, when these three men were killed, and the Attorney General still cannot get a transcript in his office so he can scrutinize the transcript of the coroner’s inquest to determine whether criminal charges should be laid against this industrialist.

The man just isn’t interested. He doesn’t understand what violence there is out there in industry. In France and Great Britain this has taken off; there are managers in jail right now as a result of men getting killed on the job because of their negligence and disregard for life.

The minister purports to be a very sensitive person. But where is his sensitivity as far as industrial workers are concerned? Are we forever going to be expendable? Is that his attitude? Is that the class he belongs to, that those boys out there are just part of the cost of generating profit?

I object to being expendable. I’ve been lucky. I wasn’t expended. But many of my friends have been expendable in these various and assorted dangerous plants. Here was a classic case where this minister could have taken action, but a year has passed and nothing has happened.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I’ve had correspondence from both the member for Sudbury and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) in relation to this matter. I think the last correspondence was with the member for Sudbury East and copies were sent to the member for Sudbury. I’m not going to respond to the allegation that I don’t care about the plight of workers, because it’s a silly allegation; but the member for Sudbury is well known for making silly statements.

The Crown attorney in Sudbury, Mr. Sauve, reviewed the matter at the time of the inquest and discussed it with a number of experts in the field of mining engineering. At that time he decided that no criminal charges were warranted. Following the inquest, we requested Mr. Sauve to obtain a copy of the transcript so that the matter could be reviewed at the ministry level. This was notwithstanding the fact that the local Crown attorney, who I happen to know to be an excellent Crown attorney, had reviewed the matter with some degree of care and had made that decision. But in view of the concern of the members of this House, we requested a transcript so that it could be reviewed at the Ministry of the Attorney General here in Toronto.

I don’t understand why the transcript is not yet ready. The last communication we had with Mr. Sauve was two weeks ago in respect to this very matter, and at that time the transcript was not yet complete. I regret the delay in respect to that. I don’t anticipate our decision will likely overrule the decision of a very experienced, competent Crown attorney, but we certainly do intend to review it very carefully.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, how long do we wait to get a transcript made up? It was February 28 when the coroner’s jury report came out; and this is October, 1977. It indicates to me that if the minister was interested --

Mr. Mackenzie: November.

Mrs. Campbell: This is November.

Mr. Germa: if the minister was interested in laying these charges, he would take certain steps to get a transcript. It seems to me that is only a mechanical, technical thing that has to be accomplished. I think it substantiates my charge, that he just is not sensitive in this area.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I think the issue which was raised by my colleague from Sudbury is a serious matter. I don’t want to pursue the matter any further because he emphasized and made clear that it’s a serious problem, that a high number of workers are dying in the province. I’m more concerned from the statistical point of view, therefore I would like to ask the Attorney General how many cases have been reported by the Minister of Labour to your department in relation to cases in which the Minister of Labour requested that charges should be laid down in the last two years. Do you have figures for the fiscal years of 1975 and 1976?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have any such figures, Mr. Chairman. If there is evidence to warrant a criminal investigation that may lead to criminal charges we don’t need to depend on the Ministry of Labour for that information. Of course there are many prosecutions under the ministry’s industrial standards legislation which are not the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Our responsibility is to prosecute Criminal Code offences in this province. Where there is a death, regardless of how it may have arisen, the local police are charged with the responsibility of making an investigation in every instance to determine whether or not there is a possibility of criminality. The nature and scope of the investigation, of course, will depend on the nature of the tragedy. The prime purpose of holding an inquest is to determine the cause of death, but they may also assist any effort to elicit evidence that might be relevant to a criminal prosecution, although the latter is not the prime purpose of an inquest in this province.

Again our local police authorities, with the assistance of our local Crowns, monitor all these cases very carefully, and when there is evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution charges will invariably be laid by the police.

In relation to an industrial accident, it’s open to any citizen to appear before a justice of the peace to lay a criminal charge. Many criminal charges have been laid in this manner. Many thousands of criminal charges, I think it’s fair to say, are laid in this manner every year. I don’t know, so far as the tragedy in Sudbury is concerned, whether or not there was an attempt on behalf of any of the local citizens or representatives of the union or anyone else to lay a criminal charge.

Mr. Germa: It’s your responsibility, not mine.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, you see, that is, of course, where the member for Sudbury is unaware of his responsibilities. I’ve been a member of more than one union, working in industry, working in many different facets of industry, and I know many union people who, if they felt a criminal charge was warranted, would consider that their responsibility and they would make efforts to see a criminal charge had been laid. So I’m somewhat puzzled by the interjection of the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the comment which has been made by the Attorney General. I realize that in relation to industrial violence or certain prosecutions where negligence has been shown on the part of the employer and where workers have been dying as a result of such negligence, it is a criminal offence on the part of the employer. But my particular question is whether or not the Minister of Labour, for example, has been in touch with your ministry, asking you to lay those charges.

Workers have been penalized for following directions. Their pensions or their benefits are sometimes cut off. Surely, the Ministry of Labour should be in touch with your ministry to make certain that employers in the province of Ontario are diligent. And where there is negligence on the part of the employer and a death results from such negligence, it is, in my opinion, a criminal offence. The question is whether or not the Minister of Labour has been in touch with your ministry to lay those charges.

[12:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to my previous answer in relation to the procedure which is generally followed so far as the laying of criminal charges is concerned.

Item 5 agreed to.

Vote 1301 agreed to.

On vote 1302, administrative services program; item 1, main office:

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to belabour my remarks with reference to this entire vote 1302. Notwithstanding my earlier comments, I would like to state that I view with a certain degree of satisfaction the fact that we do seem to be putting more emphasis on the office of the Attorney General. We do seem to be increasing our budget, and in this case I for one have to say that justice merits that kind of increase.

In fairness, I would also like to pay some tribute to the work which the Attorney General has done. I have seen some very interesting thrusts this year. Certainly the conciliation procedures are one, and I hope the Attorney General will be able to iron out with the profession some of the dichotomies which have arisen in that area.

The experiment in Hamilton of the unified court. I would like it if we could get some further reports on that. I haven’t had an opportunity to review it, but again, this is a new kind of initiative and I am impressed by that sort of approach.

I don’t intend to continue in any detail in so far as the items in this vote are concerned. I still hope that we may see other initiatives which will be more useful as we go along, not more useful than those which have been undertaken but which will be ongoing and progressive. I have nothing further on this vote, Mr. Chairman.

Item 1 agreed to.

Items 2 and 3 agreed to.

On item 4, analysis, research and planning:

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Attorney General could elaborate on this matter. I have to state we received this material just as we started the estimates; our critics have not had a chance to review it. I, of course, not being in the justice area, haven’t read the material. Could the minister enlarge somewhat on the work under this function?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mainly what we’re attempting to accomplish, and I think it’s related to this vote, Mr. Chairman, is the combination of the ministry’s flow of information in relation to work load and resource levels. There’s been a combination of these information flows. What we’re trying to do is to more effectively and more objectively assess efficiency in so far as use of the resources generally throughout the system is concerned. They report to Mr. McLoughlin, the general manager of the ministry, who is on my immediate right.

This process involves overall planning, which relates to the development of future resource requirements that will be needed to continue to meet the basic objectives. It gets very technical, as far as I’m concerned at least, when we get into work load forecasts, work load per man, et cetera.

This is an attempt to monitor the basic expenditures of the ministry, hopefully to assure ourselves, or otherwise, that the money is being well spent. We, being a ministry that has never wallowed in resources, are obviously most anxious to get the best use of our resources because we do require additional resources to what we have and, therefore, it is absolutely essential to make the most effective use of those that we do have.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the cow has got out of the barn and I am going to ask for some indulgence all the way around the House. We obviously went past the Legal Aid thing rather expeditiously, while I was speaking to a colleague of mine here about a legal problem, and I would ask for your indulgence. I suspect it won’t be too prolonged. Nevertheless, on an item of $25 million which has always been a major bone of contention in this House, I think it’s worthy of at least a few words.

That being the case, I would ask to proceed. Towards the end of last week we had placed on our desks the 10th annual report of the Law Society of Upper Canada on Legal Aid, and it goes through its usual recitation. I had hoped that the whole Legal Aid spectrum in its various manifestations would begin to level off. There were indications earlier last year that that phenomenon was taking place.

If that was one of the facets, it would relieve the Attorney General enormously vis-à-vis his colleague, Mr. McKeough, along the way. It would stabilize and consolidate a plan that has been growing steadily for 10 years, and would be able then to give the fulcrum for new directions, not necessarily with greater expenditures of money but having reached a solid base and seen what the lie of the land was.

My defence of the continued surveillance and maintenance by the Law Society of Upper Canada of this particular plan, against the feelings of many of my colleagues, and against certainly a certain rumbling out there in this particular regard, has been largely based upon the yeoman service performed to this date, as I believe it to be, and as indicated in the report and in one of your recent speeches contained in the Gazette of the society.

This is an address at the 10th anniversary seminar at the Royal York Hotel on May 26 of this year. It was pointed out that close to $30 million has been, in effect, contributed by practising lawyers. They have instituted a 25 per cent reduction from what is considered as a fairly meagre, or at least conservative, tariff on which they work. When they take an action on criminal negligence in the courts they would not, in normal circumstances, accept a lower fee to conduct the case; they would want a good deal more.

Taking the relatively low legal tariff, and taking 25 per cent off that, the contribution of the society has been very enormous, and blast it it should be recognized. It isn’t giving much accord to numerous individuals out there.

Secondly, the chief need and emphasis of this scheme obviously, initially at least, lay primarily in criminal justice. There were accused people whose lives and liberties were at stake, who were coming, through generations, before the courts without adequate or any defence whatsoever being presented by capable people; and they were going to jail unnecessarily. That kind of thing stigmatizes, and has stigmatized for centuries, the British legal system and the operations of the courts. That had to be rectified as we became -- I hope -- slightly more civilized. And that’s what the whole thing was about.

The first instance, of necessity and centrally, in order to alleviate this sore thumb law, which had reeked for a long time, the lawyers, who are the defenders in this particular area, recognized they would be central to the whole operation and therefore it would devolve upon them.

From the point of view they would, of course, necessarily be the chief beneficiaries also. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have them coming before the courts and representing people and being stigmatized, criticized at the same time for doing so because there’s a rip-off of some kind.

Before I sit down, and before we wind up today -- and I am going to keep this debate going a little while longer -- those lawyers, and and they are becoming a more numerous tribe, sitting in pontification over their fellows and holding up the legal aid scheme as some form of munificent cornucopia, saying they are not going to participate and they are withdrawing; they will undermine the scheme.

There is a profound irresponsibility on the part of such people. We know who they are; they were in the paper two weeks ago. Faces large and blooming, and making all these slighting attacks; how it was going to all these second-rate, mediocre lawyers who are just coming out of law school, whereas I have practised for 25 years and I know all the judges and I know all the tricks in the book, and I am not going to participate any more. Not only because you don’t pay me enough but because the whole thing is being riddled by incompetents.

If they want a public defender system with the numerous inequities and iniquities written into that system as it is practised in the United States, so be it; we’ll have it, and it will be a lot cheaper.

I heard you say somewhere that it was not going to be cheaper probably, if we move to that other plan. I am of the opinion that it would be substantially cheaper, it would cost a quarter as much to run that scheme. But the price paid, in terms of human representation and defence, is much too great in the area of criminal justice.

Shall I continue or shall I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: No, I think a member of the government will move the appropriate motion.

Mr. Lawlor: I’ll listen to my friend for a few minutes and get a rest.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I didn’t want to interrupt my distinguished colleague from Lakeshore. In view of the fact that we appear to have run out of time, he may wish to continue on Monday, or I will continue on Monday. But I think in view of the time it would be appropriate for me to move that the committee rise and report.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McMurtry the committee of supply reported progress and asked for leave to sit again.

On motion by the Hon. Mr. McMurtry, the House adjourned at 1 p.m.