Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

USE OF INFLUENCE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make in regard to my ministry and the administration of justice in this province. As you will recall, I tabled last Thursday a five-page memorandum from a senior official of my ministry in relation to Mr. Arthur Armstrong. I took this action in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and because I wanted members of the Legislature and the public to better appreciate the process by which certain decisions were made in this regard in the spring and early fall of 1975.

In response of this memorandum, the Leader of the Opposition has launched a most unfair and irresponsible attack on the administration of justice and the individuals involved in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition is reported in the Toronto Star of November 25, 1977 as stating that the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I quote, “obviously bent over backwards to find every conceivable reason not to lay a charge.”

That statement in my view represents an assault on the integrity of three senior law officers of the Crown and on the Ontario Provincial Police. I, therefore, cannot let it go unanswered. It further reveals a lamentable lack of understanding of the basic principles of a proper administration of justice.

Mr. Nixon: Do you think we have to agree with you?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: While it is perfectly legitimate for any member to question the competence of a minister or to debate the policies of the ministry for which he or she is responsible, it surely goes beyond the realm of political partisanship to question the integrity of public servants who are not in a position to respond.

Mr. Nixon: That’s nonsense. He was questioning your decision and none other.

Mr. S. Smith: I was questioning your judgement and I am entitled to do that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On page three of the memorandum which I tabled in this Legislature on Thursday last it clearly states that the investigating officer concluded he could not swear an oath that he had reasonable and probable grounds on which to lay a charge. In this province there is a long-established practice of leaving the question of whether a charge should or should not be laid to the discretion of the investigating officer who has interviewed the potential witnesses and assessed the available documentary evidence. In exercising that discretion, the police officer is entitled to advice from Crown counsel on the law and the application of the law to the facts disclosed by the investigation, and that includes advice on the questions of whether the evidence is sufficient to lay a charge.

However, what must be made clear, and what the Leader of the Opposition seems to completely misunderstand, is that the ultimate decision to lay a charge or not lay a charge rests with the officer who conducted the investigation. Neither his superior officer nor Crown counsel advising him nor their superiors can order that officer to lay a charge or to not lay a charge.

In the Toronto Sun of the same date, the Leader of the Opposition also said of Mr. Armstrong, and I quote: “. . . without calling him guilty, he should be charged . . . I would have gone ahead and at least provided Mr. Armstrong with his day in court.” It would appear in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition people should be brought before the criminal courts, even where there are no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence, simply, and I quote, “to give him his day in court.”

Mr. S. Smith: Read the Criminal Code.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This in my view indicates a very cavalier approach to the criminal process.

Mr. S. Smith: Utter nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and responsible members opposite that the matter was investigated thoroughly by the police in the summer of 1975. The evidence was reviewed by senior officials of my ministry in September, 1975.

It was the determination of all those who examined this matter that a charge should not be laid.

In recent weeks, as I have already stated, the matter has been reviewed again. It is the unanimous opinion of those who have examined the files that it would not have been proper to lay charges in the circumstances.

As I indicated before, the Leader of the Opposition is welcome to debate the facts, but I say he has no right to impugn the integrity of senior Crown law officers and the Ontario Provincial Police without so much as a shred of evidence to support his insinuations. It is my view that he owes all of those people an apology.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACTIVITIES OF RCMP

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Attorney General: Was the Attorney General correctly quoted in the Saturday Globe as saying there is a legitimate public interest in allowing the RCMP access to OHIP data and that he is looking at the possibility of amending legislation which would permit this? Does the Attorney General not agree that section 44 of the Ontario Health Insurance Act has been violated and that he has some responsibility to enforce the Act rather than speculate publicly about how to legalize illegalities that have already gone on?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I said on Friday, at the very most, any responsible law enforcement officer should not have anything more than the bare, so-called “tombstone” data, namely, names and addresses. I made it quite clear at all times that any information that should be made available to police forces should not go beyond those bare bones -- names, addresses and names of employers. I made it quite clear that this should not involve any of the confidential medical information.

I would say Mr. Speaker, that some press reports have very badly distorted what was said at that time. I also said if that were to be the case, it should be done within the law, not outside the law and it should not breach any of the hospital insurance legislation.

If an argument could be put forward that the names and addresses of individual subscribers should be made available then I’ve indicated that the legislation should be clarified to make it clear that that would be available. I made it clear that the police in this province, in my view, must operate at all times within the law, the Criminal Cede of Canada and the provincial statutes.

With respect to whether or not there was a breach of the hospital insurance legislation, as I indicated on Friday my officials and I will be meeting early this week with senior officials of the Ministry of Health. I’m waiting for further clarification from the RCMP to determine whether there was a breach of that legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, why has it taken this long for the Attorney General to decide whether or not the provision of the so-called tombstone type data has been a violation of the Act or not? Why has he taken this long to try to find what would be pretty obvious information, and has he located the source of this data? Can he assure us that none of that has come from the Statistics Canada data provided by this province to Statistics Canada?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think I have anything to add to what I’ve said. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the last part of the question with respect to Statistics Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: We provide data to Stats Canada; is the minister sure that wasn’t the source of the leak?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know. All I can do is reiterate that I don’t know at this moment the source of the leaks. I haven’t had a chance yet to meet with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to know whether they have determined any source of leaks.

I indicated I had sought further clarification from the RCMP to determine what information was in fact made available and they’ve already indicated it did not go beyond this so-called biographical material. But notwithstanding that assurance, I indicated that I wanted further clarification. As I indicated on Friday, I would be meeting with the RCMP and the Minister of Health this week to determine just what went on, and how and when the evidence or this information may have been made available.

Mr. S. Smith: And I indicated that I sought earlier clarification from the RCMP.

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to pursue it if I may, Mr. Speaker. Since in his vigorous attack on the Leader of the Opposition the Attorney General says at the bottom of page three, “this in my view indicates a very cavalier approach to the criminal process.” Does he not think that his own approach is, to say the least, a trifle cavalier when the Act requires a subpoena from a judge to get any information, biographical or otherwise, from such data from OHIP and obviously no such subpoena was sought? And why then is the minister prepared, even publicly, to contemplate legalizing that kind of behaviour on the part of the RCMP and the OHIP officials who tendered the information?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will repeat what I said several times in this past week, both in and outside the House, as far as I was concerned law enforcement officers in this province must operate within the law.

Mr. Deans: But they are not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If a legitimate case could be made for securing even the barest information such as names and addresses and employers, then that must be done within the law. I’ve repeated that and repeated it, and I repeat it once again.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may, does the Attorney General agree that since providing even the bare-bones biographical information, which is the way the RCMP describes it -- and the minister knows how much we can trust them -- is a breach because no subpoena was requested -- is he not prepared to prosecute on that basis?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am preparing. As I indicated I do not have all the information. I’ve indicated quite clearly that any breach should not be tolerated even if it is restricted to this bare-bones material. I don’t know how many times I have to indicate that in my view law officers must operate within the law of this province.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: Then the minister will lay charges.

Mr. Deans: Has the Attorney General been able to ascertain yet who in OHIP is authorized to give out the information even if a subpoena is produced?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not ascertained that yet. I assumed it was being ascertained by the Minister of Health, but as I indicated already --

Mr. Deans: I asked him two weeks ago for that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- I have not yet met with the Minister of Health this week.

Mrs. Campbell: This week? This is Monday.

USE OF INFLUENCE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise at this point on a point of privilege. In view of the statement which the Attorney General started off today’s proceedings with, I would like to respond, if I might, by pointing out that he bases his comment on the fact that the investigating officer, and I quote from his statement, “concluded that he could not swear an oath that he had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that interpretation (i) in paragraph 6 was the true interpretation.”

I note here that there were two possible interpretations in paragraph 6, and since the officer couldn’t choose between them he felt he could not lay a charge.

I’ll read the first one. It says, “In one sense, it” -- the account for $25,000 -- “is consistent, at least in part, with a demand for payment for obtaining the earlier hearing date.” The second possibility says, “In another sense, especially in light of other evidence with respect to what Mr. Armstrong did for the proposed partnership in late April and early May, it is more consistent with a demand for payment for the work done at that time.”

These are the two possible interpretations. The Attorney General claims that the investigating officer could not make a choice between those two. I would like to read into the record a letter from Mr. Arthur Armstrong to Mr. Jan Davies, which is the letter in question concerning the $25,000.

“Dear Jan,

“You may be assured that I have had some very deep heart searching to do and indeed some real agonizing with respect to the enclosed statement of account. During our various discussions, we touched upon the participation and/or consultant aspects of a possible relationship between us and never did come to a satisfactory conclusion. You will note that I am highly critical of the amounts charged by consultants in our industry but feel that the assistance I was able to give you was way beyond the realm of ‘consulting.’

“I think you will agree that if the amount shown on the attached statement is related to the potential profitability of your endeavour and to the savings made because you are able to proceed so much earlier than you had originally anticipated, it is a small amount indeed.

“Of course, I am thoroughly delighted that you have the opportunity to go ahead on a project which has been a very painful one to you. However, at the same time, I feel that honest effort and production is worthy of its just reward. Knowing only too well the problems of cash flow that are the nature of our business, particularly in the early stages of a project, I will not of course expect payment until mortgage draws are forthcoming.

“Kindest regards to Lil and the kids,

“Your very truly,

“Arthur.”

How is it possible, I ask, to entertain the second interpretation in the light of this letter? Since I don’t believe that it is reasonable to entertain that, I am here questioning, as I have the right to do, the judgement and decision of the Attorney General of the province in this particular matter and I feel I owe no one an apology. Thank you.

RECOVERY OF HYDRO MONEY

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Government Services: Can the minister advise the House as to whether there are any agreements between Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Government Services whereby Ontario Hydro would in some way provide funds to the government, to the Ministry of Government Services, for the purchase of lands within the parkway belt, not only lands needed for Hydro but other lands? What authority would Ontario Hydro have to make such advances of funds to the Ministry of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure whether there’s any written agreement about this, but there is an understanding that where Hydro requires land for its right of way and where it’s demonstrated by the owner that the whole property should be purchased rather than just the right of way, Hydro does in fact purchase the whole property and, upon completion of the hearing officer’s report and the decision by the Treasurer, the province will then refund the money to Ontario Hydro for the portions it does not need for the rights of way.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, is the minister then saying that Ontario Hydro is seeking to have a portion of those funds flow returned to Hydro from the Ministry of Government Services? Can the minister explain why, if this is the normal procedure, Hydro seems to be seeking to have considerable interest payments as well on the money which it has advanced the Ministry of Government Services?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the agreement was that after the report the moneys would be refunded. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect that the government would pay some interest as it would expect to recover some interest, if it was selling these properties to other ministries at a later date.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Is it the ministry’s practice, when it buys a whole farm and then hands over to Hydro that portion needed for the right of way to retain the remainder of the land and dispose of it in whatever is found to be the most effective way?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think that question was put backwards. Ontario Hydro is buying the whole farm and we are taking back from Hydro what it doesn’t require.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister saying Ontario Hydro buys the whole thing, retains what it needs for the right of way and then hands the land back to the government which disposes of it?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, we don’t. We would retain the parkway belt unless it would be required for MTC or some other ministry.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a final supplementary, may I ask the minister whether he will table the agreements that his ministry has had with Hydro with regard to parkway belt purchases, and would he give us a list of exactly what was purchased and what use the land is being put to?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Maybe it might clarify as to what use; as I understand it, we’re buying the property for Ontario Hydro. If it’s necessary to buy the full property, as I said, we will do that. Otherwise, it will be kept by the government as part of the parkway belt.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister undertake to table the agreement and a list of what property was purchased and what portion of it was used by Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, if there is an agreement.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, if there isn’t an agreement to the minister, surely there will be some piece of correspondence or memorandum fixing this transaction or exchange, since it is public money. Can he table that document?

Mr. Conway: Ask the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McCague: If it’s an agreement, I will give it to the Leader of the Opposition. If it’s an exchange of correspondence, I will give it to the leader of the third party.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister share either with both of us, please?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. member can have mine.

Mr. MacDonald: Table it, and we’ll all have access to it.

AVIATION SAFETY

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications a question? Is he at all familiar with the study of air traffic, particularly in northwestern Ontario, that has been carried out, apparently, for the federal government, with the designation of a remarkable range of serious hazards for the air traveller in northwestern Ontario? Is it his intention to act upon the information that is now emerging?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sure the hon. member realizes I have no authority to act officially in any way relating to air regulations. This is one area that is the total responsibility of the Minister of Transport of Canada. I did request in a letter to Mr. Lang on two occasions that the minister carry out a review of aviation safety matters in the north, and really in general, but especially in northwestern Ontario.

I believe my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) also asked that an inquiry be carried out the first time. Then at a following date, I wrote another letter to Mr. Lang and at that time got a reply from him stating that he would be having a review of aviation safety matters in northwestern Ontario which, I trust, was this report that I have not seen. Whether I will have an opportunity to see it or not, I probably would not have expected to see it unless Mr. Lang decides to send me one. I have not seen the report, only what I have read in the Globe and Mail this morning.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the provincial Minister for Northern Affairs seriously contemplated at one point holding our own inquiry into problems of air travel in the north because of what was emerging, can the minister on behalf of this Legislature undertake to request the report when it is available, obviously imminently, and will he be prepared to name names? Will the minister be prepared to tell the Legislature, and therefore the public, the offending airline companies and charters and the risks and hazards that they apparently demonstrate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will be most interested in reviewing that report if I am able to obtain one.

Mr. Reid: Try the Globe and Mail

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the report is made public, of course I presume the information within that report will be there.

Mr. Lewis: It won’t be made public, but the minister can get it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now, as I say, I haven’t had an opportunity this morning, since hearing of this report, to review the matter at all with my officials or to review what our legal position in Ontario is regarding a matter that is totally federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that since he requested the inspection in the first place, he should be privy to the results of that inspection? Would he also not agree that it’s in the public interest that the people who have offended against air traffic safety should be named -- as well as those who haven’t, who are being tarred with the same brush as those few who have been violating the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I would agree with that position, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I have not received a copy of the report. I will ask for one. Whether I will get it or not will remain to be seen.

Mr. Lewis: You will get it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But I do agree that the excellent safety-minded operators are put in the same mix with the few -- or maybe more than a few, I don’t know -- who may not be operating under the present air regulations. If unsafe practices are being carried out, then I think those should be made public.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister why he seems to indicate that the chances of his getting the report are so slim, when in northwestern Ontario in particular he has made a particular point of stressing that his request would be for a ministerial investigation? If there seems to be any obstruction on the federal part, does he not think it now time for his ministry and him and his cabinet to put every pressure possible on the federal government to call for a full public inquiry into air safety in northwestern Ontario, in that so much of the traffic in the northern part of the province requires air carriers where norOntair service does not run and where there are no highways?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am the first to agree that I, along with others, requested Mr. Lang to initiate a review of air safety matters following certain accusations -- certain information that’s come out at one or more inquests, and after several serious and fatal accidents in northern Ontario. Unfortunately, we have had aviation accidents in southern Ontario and other parts of Canada as well.

[2:30]

I believe Mr. Lang was quoted in the press as saying there was no evidence to indicate a higher degree of accidents in northwestern Ontario than anywhere else. Today we read an article which quotes figures that would seem to contradict that statement made by Mr. Lang. I certainly feel it is necessary, one way or another, to get to the root of this problem.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the ministry still have agreements with private air carriers in northern Ontario to operate at least part of the norOntair service, and does the minister not think it is essential for his ministry to get the names of those carriers named in the report to ensure that the carriers it has contracted with are not among those included in those having unsafe flying practices in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The contracts with the private carriers are between the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and those carriers. That commission now reports to my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs. To my knowledge, prior to that responsibility being transferred there were contracts with four private carriers. Certainly nothing that has come to my knowledge indicates those carriers are involved, but I certainly will try to ascertain that information.

MINERAL EXPLORATION

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, since he has been waiting for one and wants it badly. Would the minister like to clarify for the Legislature, since the reports were a little confusing, what exactly the licence is that has been given to Prospection Limited or something like that for, I gather, the exploration of the mineral resources, perhaps uranium, in a very large acreage of northern Ontario? In the answer, could the minister indicate, given the public concern obviously about northern Ontario development, by this was never made public as a kind of natural announcement just to let us know what was happening?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure the latter is true, to begin with.

Mr. Lewis: Oh? Maybe I don’t remember it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All Crown lands in the province may be prospected without permission by any licensed prospector, unless the ministry has removed those lands from prospecting by a deputy minister’s order.

About a year ago, Prospection Limited, which is a Canadian-owned company according to my information -- or at least has had three Canadian directors since 1961 -- evidenced an interest in a relatively large area up there. Because of the need to do a fair amount of heavy investment in the overall area, they asked if they could use a clause of the Mining Act which allowed them to have exclusive rights to prospect for a period of time.

After many months of negotiations, that licence was granted for a charge. As the member knows, there is no charge for non-exclusive prospecting. In the meantime, a number of talks were carried out. We did the unprecedented thing of sending our staff north to talk to the Winisk and Attawapiskat bands prior to any agreement with the company.

Mr. Lewis: Why should that be unprecedented?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It has never been done before in the sense that the action of the government has been to grant such licences, if --

Mr. Lewis: Just do it and the hell with it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- as by the way government should do, the government decides pro or con to issue a licence. In this case, we did send staff along with members of the company to both Winisk and Attawapiskat to obtain their opinions. One band did not favour it after a long discussion; the other band did not object. We then went through a long discussion with the company as to the terms of the prospecting licence. We ensured that pages of information -- they’re available, the member may have them -- of requirements to protect the environment during the prospecting phase be followed and that the conditions for any potential future mining lease be spelled out. We advised Justice Patrick Hartt of these and sent him a copy of them.

I believe that we touched all bases in so far as we could. I’m happy to say one thing: I have a memo from the company which, if it’s true, indicates something I’m pleased to see. It relates, “The headquarters for the operation has been in two locations -- Attawapiskat and on Sutton Lake. We have been able to hire a number of local Indian people. We have had excellent co-operation between the company and the community during this summer’s prospecting, which has mainly been by helicopter, taking sedimentary tests around the area and, I believe, doing the testing in Attawapiskat in a laboratory set up there, rented from the band.”

So I think we’ve tried very hard to meet the requirements of discussion. Certainly we received some objections -- I’m sure you know about these -- from Chief Andrew Rickard.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since this obviously has some very important significance about it, beyond the cultural and ecological matters -- the minister said it was several months in the making and involved a lot of discussion -- is it possible for him to table the agreements which he reached with the company and to let us take a look at the data? When exclusive licences of this size are granted, would it be possible to make some kind of public declaration of the government’s intent so that it doesn’t emerge by happenstance later on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can say yes to both. First of all, quite honestly, I’m pleased to table the agreement with the company. Secondly, it’s interesting that in early April, well before it was to be signed, we contemplated a press release. I was the new minister of the day. I must admit I don’t believe I was involved in it. Generally, my style is to go public on these kinds of things. I have no problem in saying that where major exploration licences are being contracted, I’m glad to have them public.

I think it should be pointed out that although the company has the right to look at a good deal of land -- 1.235 million acres the James Bay lowlands -- it can only operate on 10,000 of those acres, even if it found material over them, under the terms of the agreement. In other words, each year it must give up one third of the land based upon their exercise and concentrate on the remaining two thirds and then, finally, on the remaining third.

They must also spend a half a million dollars per year on the exploration during that period of time for their licence to be valid.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate who the people are behind Prospection Limited; who the major stockholders are and where they are located? Also, is it common practice, when someone approaches the minister in regard to a situation like this, for his ministry to do a survey or investigate the background of the company or companies, especially in a situation of this size?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on the one article I read over the weekend -- I’d be hard pressed to say it was inaccurate. But I thought it was misleading, to say the least.

Mr. Lewis: That may be inaccurate.

Mr. Reid: This is your chance.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It sounded as if everything was under the table, hidden et cetera, and that some major foreign company had made a deal with my ministry. First of all --

Mr. Foulds: It’s happened before.

Hon. F. S. Millet: -- according to the in- formation I have, Prospection Limited is registered in Ontario, has three directors, all of one family, who have owned it, according to my records, since 1961.

Don’t forget that prospecting per se, as the members well know, is a business all by itself. Prospectors very often are working in the hope of finding something saleable.

Mr. Reid: In the hope?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the hope -- not of developing a mine, but of finding something that they can sell to an organization that can develop a mine. Those companies are really one of Ontario’s basic industries. We export prospecting capabilities around the world.

This company has done that. It has operated in many spheres. But it is an Ontario-based and, as far as I know, an Ontario-owned company. Whom they are intending to sell any rights they may find, or whom they may have had some advance dollars from we would have to find out from the company itself. But currently, like most prospectors, it is an Ontario company.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would mind clarifying the formula he outlined a moment ago when he said the company was granted rights to 1.235 million acres, had to give up a third each year, but could retain 10,000 acres. Could he clarify that?

Secondly, does not the granting of such an exclusive prospecting right under the Mining Act amount to giving the company staking and filing rights? Can the minister indicate to us if any actual claim staking and filing of those claims has taken place?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I understand it, and I would have to double check the rules of staking in the province, they wouldn’t stake during that period of time because in effect no one else can lay claim to the land while they pay for that exclusive privilege.

We have a couple of advantages in this kind of agreement. First, we are paid for the privilege of prospecting; otherwise we are not. Secondly, we were able to set a whole series of environmental rules on the actual exploration; again something we normally can’t do. So we had certain advantages in having an agreement with the company. Thirdly, we defined the maximum area out of that 1.235 million as 10,000 acres that would be eligible for development purposes.

When I table this particular information the member can look at it. It says the lessee shall return one-third of the area at the end of the first year. In other words, area they have assumed not to have found anything worthwhile in. So they do a broad sweep and then start concentrating on those sections which appear to be most likely. The only thing I can say at this point in time is that they are cautiously optimistic at the end of the first summer’s operations.

Rather than give the member the details of the one-third/one-third/one-third, let me pass him the copy when it is filed.

[Later]

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I correct an error of fact before I table my report? I said one-third was surrendered each year. It’s 50 per cent at the end of the first year and 50 per cent of the balance at the end of the second year, that has to be surrendered.

DISABILITY ALLOWANCES

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the minister’s comments on the television program Ombudsman, will he tell the House exactly what he plans to do about the disability allowance for the mentally retarded as bureaucratic delays now ensure that they must wait up to one year after their 18th birthday when they become eligible before actually receiving the allowance?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I followed entirely the question of the hon. member. If she is suggesting that the current regulations require a waiting period of that length of time, that is not correct.

Mrs. Campbell: No. The bureaucratic delays.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There may be very exceptional cases where there are delays extending up to several months. But I personally am not aware at this point of any that have extended for a period of a full year.

As I indicated in the remarks to which the hon. member referred, I am proposing the regulation be amended so as to change the date of eligibility. At the present time the regulation provides that the recipient may be paid from the date on which the ministry staff have all of the information which would enable them to make a decision as to eligibility.

It has come to my attention that in many instances the delay is not the result of any default on the part of the applicant or the family of the applicant, and often not on the part of the ministry either, but there are other players and in some cases there have been several months’ delay in the receipt of the necessary medical or psychometric assessments. What I am proposing to do is to have that regulation changed so as to provide for the payment from the date of the application, as opposed to the date on which we have the information to make the decision -- in other words, to provide for a period of retroactivity to that date.

[2:45]

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister at the same time give consideration to permitting these applications to be entertained prior to the applicant’s 18th birthday, since one of the major problems has been that they have not been accepted prior to the 18th birthday, and then delays occur after the applicant has become eligible.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the hon. member knows of any specific cases where the applications have been rejected prior to the 18th birthday, I would like her to bring that information to my attention because, quite to the contrary, I know of a number of applications that have in fact been received within a matter of perhaps a month or two prior to the 18th birthday and the procedure has been begun before the 18th birthday. If there have been failures there, I would like to know about them.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I see enough of the minister in here so I don’t watch him on television, but I hear about him. Therefore as a direct supplementary I would like to ask: Why does the minister permit the continuing distinction between the physically disabled allowance and the permanently unemployable allowance -- that is GAINS and the permanently unemployable -- particularly in an area like this where it is so invidious, discriminating and offensive? The minister must understand that and appreciate it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is very difficult to explain to a recipient the distinction.

Mr. Deans: Because there is no distinction.

Mrs. Campbell: What’s the distinction?

Mr. Breithaupt: Try it with us.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I have indicated to the hon. members opposite at every opportunity in the estimates and elsewhere, that is a change that I would like to see made. But I hope the hon. members also will bear in mind that that is a complicated matter to change, in so far as the payments to the recipients under those programs are subject to the federal-provincial agreements under CAP.

Mr. Martel: We have been sharing that for years.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you start with the retarded?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The reason for the distinction at the present time -- a distinction that doesn’t exist in all jurisdictions, I admit, but in most of those jurisdictions lower amounts are paid on universal basis -- was that a few years ago in this province we tried to seek increased assistance for those who were more severely disabled. Therefore, in fact for some period of time a portion of that was paid 100 per cent out of provincial funds because the federal government refused to cost-share it. We finally have reached the point where the federal government is prepared to cost-share up to that amount. They will not unless we can establish that there is a higher degree of disability, and for that reason, we must rely upon medical evidence --

Mr. Lewis: You should not be a party to that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and there are great discrepancies, perhaps, in the medical evidence. I would dearly love to be able to wipe out that distinction tomorrow. If the member can explain to me how we can and still receive assistance from the federal government, I would be delighted to.

Mr. Lewis: Go it alone. Go it alone.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to remind hon. members that we have now 19 minutes remaining in question period. That was the first original question, other than the two leadoff questions from the two leaders. If this is the way members want to handle question period, that’s fine, but I thought I had a responsibility to draw your attention we have had one question from a member other than a leader and we have consumed 41 minutes of the question period.

Mr. Lewis: Did you include the point of personal privilege?

ATLAS STEEL

Mr. Mackenzie: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism if he is aware of the widespread concern by employees of Atlas Steel in Welland over the possibilities of yet another federal government loan -- this time to Cuba -- to develop another stainless steel mill that could produce 50,000 tons of nickel-bearing stainless steel in a country that consumes only 4,000 tons, and of the concern expressed also by Atlas Steel’s management over the expenditures of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars in a project that can endanger more jobs in this country?

Can the minister inform this House as to whether or not his government has made representations to the federal government over this particular matter and state the nature of the representations?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not aware of the application of Canadian funds towards the development of a stainless steel plant in another country. May I inform the House and the member, frankly, that would likely be a deal that would be undertaken by a private concern in Canada with the technology and the engineering capabilities to develop a plant in another country. The loan is likely being arranged through one of the development corporations of the federal government.

There would not be, at this point in time, a discussion taking place with the government of this province. I shall take note of the member’s remarks and have reviewed by the people of my ministry exactly who is doing it and what information is presently available to us.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Could the minister at the same time inform the House as to who was involved in the Canadian consortium that carried out the technical and economic viability studies that recommended this project? Wouldn’t the minister agree now would be the time for the government of the province of Ontario to intervene before we have another potential Inco situation on our hands?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I shall take the remarks of the hon. member under advisement and try to get the information for him. Whether it’s public information as to who is putting the consortium together is something I’ll have to seek from the federal government.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is he aware of the fact that he has left some question in the minds of many people across Ontario as to the capability of fabricating pipe at Stelco’s Welland Tube Works to build that pipeline on the Alaska Highway? Is he aware of comments made by Mr. Paul Hookings, manager of the Welland mill, as follows: “The heavy-walled pipe required for the high-pressure Alaska Highway natural gas transmission line has been produced and tested at the Welland Tubes Stelform mill of The Steel Company of Canada, Limited on Friday”? Is he aware that, “we know we can make it, we may not find anybody who wants to buy it,” is the concern of one of the top officials at that plant?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not believe I’ve left any misunderstanding in the minds of the people of the province of Ontario in what I’ve said about the technology being available in Canada, but maybe not in place at the moment. Last week I had the chance to speak with the president of Stelco in relationship to the potential of purchasing Canadian-made pipe for the pipeline being developed by the Foothills pipe line or transmission line people.

While it might be well to get into a full answer at this point, it’s my intention later on this week, after having further discussions with a number of people in the steel works, with Mr. Horner and people at the federal level, to have a statement that will try to outline as specifically as possible details in relationship to the capabilities in Canada in the manufacturing of low- and high-pressure pipes, in the manufacturing in Canada of 48-inch versus 54-inch pipe and a great deal of further information we hope will be made available to us this week.

May I suggest to this House very strongly that we’re not looking at a possibility of pipe purchasing in the next 12 months. The purchasing of pipe will likely come somewhere down the road after that period of time.

Mr. Foulds: Down the pipe.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, that’s a good expression, down the pipe.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is going down the pipe.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the House we will try to come back with as complete a statement as possible. If I can interject only one remark made to me by people in the steel industry, at this moment there appears to be a great deal of talk taking place both in the provincial Houses of Canada and in the federal House relating to the pipe and the manufacturing of pipe. A great deal of it is in areas we are not likely -- and I fully admit this and I think I said it last week -- to be capable of discussing in their completeness because of technology that still has to be developed and because of certain things that must he designed in the specifications and detailed reporting as to what kind of pipe is going to be used on the transmission line.

That determination has not been made at this point, and there are a great number of reasons why it has not been made. Some of them are political and others arise from the very fact of the lack of capability to produce them, not in Canada but in the United States. I will not try to go any further on this question. I will bring into the House later this week, I hope, a full statement on it.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Speaker: The minister has already indicated he will he bringing in a full report. It isn’t as though this is the first time we’ve discussed it. We’ve done it at least four times in the last week.

Mr. Kerrio: My supplementary has to do with what he’s going to bring to this House.

Mr. Swart: New question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: May I pose the question?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please clarify what the pipe company has said, that they are not lacking in technology to manufacture the pipe; the lack of technology is in the transmission of the gas within the pipe? That point should be made clear to this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will include that in my statement. I think I said earlier that I will try to cover the entire situation as completely in the technical and manufacturing end of it as possible. I don’t think I have left any misunderstanding in the minds of the people of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: You were wrong the other day. That’s all.

Mr. Conway: It’s on the record.

TEA AND COFFEE PRICING

Mr. Swart: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Martel: The coffee man.

Mr. Swart: As it’s now five weeks since I demonstrated to the minister that Ontario- produced coffee was selling at a substantially lower price in the US than it is in Canada --

Mr. Riddell: I thought he said a new question.

Mr. Ruston: Go down to Windsor. It’s cheaper than in Detroit.

Mr. Swart: -- and having read rather carefully the minister’s subsequent statement on October 31 on coffee pricing, knowing it doesn’t explain that issue or anything about coffee pricing, will he now tell the House why coffee produced in Ontario sells for 25 per cent less in the United States or didn’t he even bother checking it out?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Produced in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just to clarify some inaccuracies in the hon. member’s statement, firstly I would question whether it’s five weeks since he established some of those facts to my satisfaction.

Mr. Swart: It’s five weeks since I sent you those two boxes.

Mr. Warner: Moving right along.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Secondly, what the hon. member means to say is why is it cheaper in Buffalo, not why is it cheaper in the United States. The member will agree with me on that.

Mr. Swart: No, in the United States. Canadian coffee in the States.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In point of fact, if the member has been paying attention and reading some of the material that’s available other than what he gets at the discount joint in Buffalo --

Mr. Foulds: Discount what?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he will find out that in some other cities --

Mr. Swart: It’s Canadian coffee in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he will find out that the prices in the United States vary substantially.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where do we grow coffee?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The one thing that even the hon. member’s analysis has shown --

Mr. Foulds: What do you mean, “even”?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is that the lowest prices in the United States, for coffee and a lot of supermarket items, are probably those in Buffalo. And just so the member’s question will be accurate let’s talk about Canada and Toronto versus Buffalo. Let’s be accurate.

Mr. Martel: Now the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Secondly, if the member will recall, and I know he really wanted me to come down with a definitive statement so he could be satisfied that I had conducted an investigation and rubber-stamped the prices as either acceptable or not acceptable --

Mr. Swart: That’s what you’ve done.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- if he looked back he would see that we were very careful to point out that --

Mr. Swart: Sure, not to offend the companies.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I saw my role not as one to do something I didn’t have power to do, that is, roll back prices, nor to send a select committee of the Legislature, the Swart committee --

Mr. Warner: Nor to protect consumers.

Mr. Mackenzie: Nor to do anything.

Mr. Warner: The minister of corporate protection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to Brazil to find out whether there was a ripoff in Brazil, but rather, I specifically

Mr. Warner: A great job.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Relax boys. Rather, specifically I said our --

Mr. Martel: You are a continuation of Sidney Handleman.

Mr. Ruston: Drink milk. We’ve got a surplus of milk.

Mr. Makarchuk: He talks big and carries a wet noodle.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order?

Mr. Warner: We want to hear him resign.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said that what I would do is assemble some information for consumers upon which they could make some buying decisions as they saw fit. I did not undertake to stamp those prices as acceptable or unacceptable. If the hon. members think the role for the ministry is to investigate prices and report back that this is satisfactory to us and this isn’t --

Mr. Warner: How about protecting consumers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that’s a position they can take. I never took that position. What I said was, ”I will see if there is --

Mr. Samis: Good luck to the activists.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- some information that consumers don’t have that we can get.” Specifically, I want also to remind the hon. member that I said I was asking the retailers and wholesalers to do one of two things; either explain the differential as best they could or change the prices accordingly if they couldn’t explain it. They gave us an explanation which may satisfy the hon. member --

Mr. Swart: No, it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- it may satisfy me, it may satisfy the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Warner: It doesn’t.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Or it may not. It’s up to the consumer, on the basis of the information that we were able to glean for the consumer, to adjust his or her buying habits accordingly. I might add, partly as a result of the entire exercise, consumers did adjust their buying habits and, accordingly, the prices showed some downward turn and they are staying that way.

Mr. Swart: May I ask, would the minister not consider that it is his responsibility to give protection to the consumers? In view of the fact that he did not investigate the relative price of Canadian coffee being sold outside of the country and what it had been sold at here, could I now make him aware that Sandra Coffee Company in Ajax produces Valuplus coffee for Mother Parker’s in Toronto, which in turn sells it wholesale in the United States through Peter Schmitt Ltd., a branch of Weston’s, Bell’s and Twin-Fair supermarkets, which retail it at $2.49 compared to the same coffee sold here in Loblaws, also a subsidiary of Weston’s, for $3.49?

Mr. Warner: That’s consumer protection.

Mr. Swart: Doesn’t the minister think he should have another look at this matter if he has any conscience at all for the Ontario consumer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell the hon. member what I deem as having a conscience in terms of the Canadian and Ontario consumer, and that is not to stand up every time there is a price differential, as indeed there is on all goods throughout the economy, and suggest that all the government has to do is roll down the price or go to Buffalo and conduct an investigation --

Mr. Makarchuk: We don’t expect you to stand up every time. We expect you to stand up at least once.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- so that the Ontario consumer can be assured that, in every instance, he’s not paying more than they’re paying in the United States. The member knows as well as I that there are an infinite number of products, most products, whether they be in the food industry or other industries, that cost more in Canada --

Mr. MacDonald: We’re talking about coffee.

Mr. Swart: Canadian coffee, yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- arid there’s a lot of reasons why they do.

Mr. MacDonald: Why? Name one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where the member has a specific item and be doesn’t want to take some steps to say to the suppliers of those items, “Can you tell me, the member for Welland-Thorold, what your side of the story is so that I can tell consumers?” he doesn’t want to do that because he doesn’t want to talk to the guy, I would be pleased to help Ontario consumers, but by doing what the member doesn’t want to do, and that is write the suppliers and say: “Look, here’s a gap, what do you say about it?”

Again, I’m not going to roll back prices. That is not my job.

Mr. Swart: You are the minister.

Mr. Warner: What is your job?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member thinks it should be, argue that case. I will get the information from the suppliers. I will not pass judgement on it. It’s up to the suppliers to do what they can.

Mr. Foulds: You won’t pass judgement on anything.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Listen, that’s the easy role the member has. He can play hero to every consumer --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has already answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’ll be responsible.

REFORESTATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder whether he can share with us this afternoon whether or not his ministry is undergoing a reorganization to give the forest regeneration policy the priority it deserves? Are there reorganization plans under way? If so, what are they?

Mr. S. Smith: Two trees for one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in fact there is a reorganization under way, yes.

Mr. Reid: When was the last one?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Five or six years ago. This is a step taken to do two things. First, the field organization does not change in any meaningful way. There will be slightly different duties assigned to our deputy regional directors, but apart from that the field organization remains in place.

We have had of late a number of retirements from the ministry and, following general provincial guidelines, we have limited or cut our numbers of directors by 10 per cent. Therefore, we have reorganized to accomplish that reduction of 10 per cent in key overhead staff.

Mr. Reid: There are too many overhead staff.

Mr. Conway: What then can the minister tell us in policy terms that he intends to do specifically to implement the renowned commitment from the charter that, in fact, two trees will be planted for every one cut? What’s under way at this point?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Effective about May 15 we transferred a senior person to that duty and to that duty exclusively for the balance of his working time within the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is estimated to be 18 months.

Mr. Nixon: He is out there with a shovel, is he?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That person has no other duties but to implement the decisions of the Armson report as amended by the ministry. Just last week, I spent two days with the British Columbia forest service studying their methods of tenure. I learned a great deal from them, in the past as have my staff. I can assure the member that is my number one priority and it is making good progress.

PRICES AT HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, it’s the updating of an old question brought up by our former colleague, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence). Can the minister tell us what price monitoring his department is doing on gas prices on Highway 401, and can he tell us if he’s satisfied that the prices are reasonable and do they accurately reflect the cost involved?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had any report on monitoring of the prices recently. I did announce in this House last spring a new policy and an adjustment in the leases of the operators, and the prices did decrease substantially at that time. I will ask my staff if they have any up-to-date figures since then.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that the leases were renegotiated and in view of the fact that in Belleville -- when comparing neighbouring service centres -- the difference in price is 17 cents a gallon, in Kingston 14 cents a gallon, and in Cornwall 17 cents a gallon, would the minister not consider those price differences excessive, if not verging on a ripoff? Would he investigate those differences?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, they do seem somewhat excessive but I would have to say that in my own community I have two service stations within a mile and there’s about a 10 cent differential there, and neither one of them is on Highway 401.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the Highway 401 service stations blame the terms of the government’s lease for this extraordinary differential, and that in fact it’s the amount of money that comes into the provincial Treasury that is, in their words, responsible for this large additional cost that the travellers on 401 must pay?

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I don’t care whether they blame the government or not. When those service station contracts were awarded on land owned by the ministry, tenders were called amongst the major oil companies to bid on the terms of the contract for them to construct their own building and to operate a facility meeting certain standards, which meant that they had to operate 24 hours a day; and they had to supply certain other services. Then the contract was awarded to the company offering the highest bid. As the rate they pay is a percentage of sales, the very large increases in the cost of fuel automatically increased our revenue, because we were getting that percentage on the extra 10 cent federal gasoline tax plus the cost of the oil from the wells. So when we renegotiated those contracts, we removed that percentage from those extraordinary costs so they are basically going back to the prices they tendered. If they are paying too much it’s because they tendered too high.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VILLAGE OF PORT MCNICOLL ACT

Mr. Maeck, on behalf of Mr. G. E. Smith, moved second reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, on behalf of Mr. Roy, moved second reading of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following were concurred in by the House:

Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Cabinet Office.

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, if I may just say a word about concurrence for supply for the office of the Premier: My colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) wondered if there could be some time set aside for this concurrence, in view of the fact that he wasn’t able to raise some matters with the Premier during committee consideration.

We have in our committee an additional 17.5 hours; so I raise the point with you, Mr. Speaker, and ask if the House leaders could concurrently agree to set aside some time to accommodate my colleague in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: We will leave that order on the order paper then.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1306, courts administration program; item 1, program administration:

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted at this point, it is my understanding that there has been some agreement to conclude these estimates by 5 o’clock, and that we would then take into consideration the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I thought it might be wise at this point to have that on the record.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is our understanding, that even though the Attorney General’s estimates might be concluded in perhaps an hour or so less than the time allotted, we are quite prepared to attend to that so the Attorney General may be convenienced for a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, just a word on it. As a matter of fact, I think we may release him from dunning and drudgery long before then.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, in that case the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations awaits.

Mr. Foulds: Without.

Hon. Mr. Welch: With.

Item 1 agreed to.

On item 2, Supreme Court of Ontario:

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the Attorney General could indicate to me how many judges there are currently in the Supreme Court of Ontario, and how many of them are inoperative because of illness, royal commission appointments, other duties that take them away from the bench, or any other reason?

Finally can he tell me why the Supreme Court assizes scheduled for October in Fort Frances were peremptorily cancelled when there was evidently a judge prepared to go there? There were five cases prepared to be heard, one of which I gather has been outstanding since 1971.

Whether or not the information in Fort Frances that the judge was ordered to stay in Toronto to hear cases is true, doesn’t that speak to something? Surely it is just as important for the Supreme Court cases to be heard throughout the province, and particularly in what I believe are called county towns or district towns, such as Fort Frances. Surely that is a thing that must not be condoned.

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In reverse order, I can’t speak specifically as to why those specific sittings were cancelled. If the member would like, I will attempt to obtain that information and so advise.

I must confess that I think there is a problem here with respect to the Supreme Court assizes. I really think we’re going to have to get into some form of regionalization in order to alleviate that situation. As a matter of fact, I am requesting Mr. Williston, whom I commissioned just under two years ago to review the rules of practice in order to simplify them, to add to his plate the concept of regionalization of the Supreme Court of Ontario. This would be to try to remove certain problems that have developed when these sittings are cancelled or when they’re just not completed or when there are cases left. I can say that I am not happy with the present situation at all.

With respect to the number of Supreme Court judges, it’s a timely question because there was an editorial in the Star today that contained a number of factual errors but was similar to the question. It raises the issue of delay of a certain case because of the alleged unavailability of a trial judge.

In the two years since I have been the Attorney General we have increased the size of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Ontario by close to one third. It will now be up to 41 judges with the legislation that we passed in this Legislature a few weeks ago -- when those additional four judges are appointed and the Minister of Justice has been so advised and is considering these four additions.

With respect to the number of judges who are involved in other activity, there is, of course, Mr. Justice Hartt and the Hartt commission. Coincident with his appointment, we increased the size of the Supreme Court trial bench by a judge, knowing that he would be detached from it for some time. We have Mr. Justice Hughes on the waste disposal inquiry.

I’m not sure -- I think those are the only judges that are not active in their duties. We had a judge, Mr. Justice Wright, who took very seriously ill and has resigned. So the Supreme Court bench, as I say, has been increased quite substantially during that period of time. But I think the points that are raised by the member for Rainy River is --

Mr. Foulds: No, the member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, for Port Arthur. I was thinking of our friend Pat Reid, who has talked to me about similar problems in his area --

Mr. Foulds: It is his area I am talking about -- Fort Frances.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes -- that are very relevant to our problems. I have just indicated the initiatives that we are taking to try to meet them.

Mr. Foulds: Just to follow up on that, and getting the assurance from the Attorney General that he’ll get me the specific information that I asked about, it did seem to me to be ironic that in previous days’ debate we were talking about trials folding because of lawyers not being prepared to proceed with cases. Exactly the reverse occurred in October in Fort Frances where, from my information at any rate, the lawyers on both sides of the cases in each of the five cases were prepared and anxious to go ahead and it was cancelled somewhat suddenly -- with, I think, only a week’s notice, if that. That does seem to me to be a great injustice, because the quickness of justice, I think, is important too in the outlying areas of the province.

Mr. Bounsall: Under the policy vote in this section, I would like to draw the attention of the Attorney General to a matter which we discussed in his office at one point with respect to another case, that is the speed with which his staff follows up and that there should be a good follow-up and a continuous follow-up on the reciprocal arrangements we have with various states on child support. I believe last February I mentioned to the Attorney General a case in the Michigan court. My point was then and is now that if these reciprocal agreements are to be worth anything, then there must be regular follow-up from the staff in his ministry to ensure they are carried out.

Quite briefly, I want to indicate in another case -- this one with the state of California -- my concern about the follow-up which took place and to give an illustration of the lack thereof for some months with the hope that the Attorney General will see that the particular office charged with following it up does a better job than it has done in the past.

Into my constituency office last August 12, 1976, came a complaint from a Joy Boorn that her separated spouse had fallen some $533 behind in child support payments. They were various payments in the months of March, May and June. On May 18, 1976, her lawyer had written the Los Angeles court and got no reply. Towards the end of the month, this information about it having come in around the middle of the month, I contacted Mrs. Boorn and got all the details of the arrearage and of the work that had taken place.

On September 1, having sorted out all the details, I wrote a letter to Mr. Ken Booth, who is the senior staff person in the ministry who looks after the reciprocal agreements, giving him all the details of the arrearage and the amounts, urging him that the reciprocal agreements Ontario has with California be followed up as quickly as possible and that the husband, Charles Leslie Boorn, be brought before the Los Angeles court as soon as possible with a view to regularizing his payments as well as collecting the arrearage. On September 7, Mr. Booth wrote to the district attorney for Los Angeles county requesting that action and enclosing a copy of my letter of September 1.

In my contacts with Mr. Booth I have had no problems whatsoever in having him do something. My concern, having sent that letter out, is that if that reciprocal agreement is to operate effectively, follow-up should take place immediately.

Two and a half months go by and the only thing that occurs in these two and a half months is that one half-monthly payment is made by Mr. Boorn from California. There is no reply to Mr. Booth from Los Angeles and no other indication that Mr. Booth has jogged the memory of the people in Los Angeles.

Finally, on November 30, I wrote Mr. Booth, urging him to ensure that the matters in hand get into court down there. I had heard nothing since my letter to Mr. Booth of September 1 and receiving a copy of his letter of September 7. Quite dutifully, on December 3, Mr. Booth again writes the court in Los Angeles.

My concern is that surely there must be some mechanism to hurry these things along. If one doesn’t get a reply within a month to this office in your ministry a follow-un should take place. September 7 was the first time Mr. Booth wrote. The next time was December 3 and that letter went out in response to my urgings in my letter to him of November 30.

As a result of the December 3 letter going out from Mr. Booth, Los Angeles court does reply on December 31. A Mr. Herbert Jacobowitz, the acting director of the Bureau of Child Support of the office of the District Attorney, county of Los Angeles, acknowledged the arrearage and said that his office was going to process a contempt citation. That copy of that letter to Mr. Booth was sent to me and I duly passed it on to my constituent and it looked as if some action was being taken.

Another two and a half months went by and absolutely nothing happened. And this is my point: Nothing happens. Having gotten that letter of December 31, something should happen, I feel. When I took the next step, I wrote a somewhat angry letter to Mr. Booth on April 25, 1977. I just want to quote, if I could, Mr. Chairman, one paragraph:

“It appears to me that our whole system of reciprocal agreements is either falling apart or has been set up such that they were never intended to operate properly in the first place. It takes months it seems to achieve anything or even hear anything, let alone achieve restoration of regular support payments. Would you light a bomb under somebody with respect to this case or advise me as to where I may best throw my bomb so that results are achieved?”

In reply to that on May 18 another letter went out from Mr. Booth and another one went out unprompted on June 10. As far as I can see in my files, there was no reply from Los Angeles to either the May 18 or the June 10 letter. Your office can’t be held accountable for no replies to Mr. Booth’s letters of May 18 and June 10 sent in response to my letter of April 25.

I wrote the letter on April 25 and on April 27 a letter from Mr. Booth’s office went to Mr. Jacobowitz and again, unprompted as I say, Mr. Booth sent letters out on May 18 and June 10.

That’s the kind of follow-up I would hope would continue to take place on a regular basis. There were no replies to those letters.

And finally, on June 21 I phoned the appropriate person in Los Angeles, and followed it up with a letter, a copy of which I sent to Mr. Booth, indicating the results of the phone conversation which was a commitment by the Los Angeles court to put her on the docket. I actually phoned on June 20 and could not make connection but indicated the file under which I was interested. When I finally connected on June 21, they had put her on the docket. They said they may not get the person into court within perhaps 75 days, that being their length of time to get an open date on the docket but also a commitment that if an open space came up in that period, they would put them on.

I confirmed what they had told me in a letter to them the next day, June 22, of which Mr. Booth got a copy. On June 24 from Los Angeles I got a letter -- they wrote to the ministry hero indicating that same thing.

Here again, at this point, having made the personal contact and having got her name placed upon the docket, I would have thought things were charging along.

[3:30]

Finally, getting into court: I decided that I would do nothing until I heard that the case got before court, because really the office in your ministry should be doing the follow-up. They had dutifully supplied me with their copies of the letter and any letters that I had sent down to them independently and certainly the contents of the phone call which I had made.

I confidently expected to hear shortly exactly when the person was getting into court. I had asked Mrs. Boorn if, at the first instance she heard, she would phone me. Dutifully on November 21 she phoned to say that she’d received the letter indicating the court hearing would take place on December 14. But in that period from June 24, in which the Los Angeles county district attorney had written to indicate that in 75 days, hopefully, they would have Mr. Boorn into court down there, nothing again went forward from the office in your ministry charged with seeing that this should happen.

So finally we have a court date of December 14. The arrearage is now slightly in excess of $4,000. Mrs. Boorn, who has custody of the children, is a working person and this $4,000 is rather critical to her existence. I know one can’t control how quickly the courts in another jurisdiction respond in getting a court date set and so forth. But my concern is that there was a two and a half month delay in which your section of the ministry charged with dealing with reciprocal agreements did nothing last fall to ensure that the case got speeded up. It was the same about two and a half to three months the past winter between January and April, when I again wrote. There was some follow-up quickly on that, but you would hope something would have occurred between June 24 and mid-November when the court down there finally sent a letter. The letter was received on November 21 and indicated a court date in December.

I would urge the Attorney General that a practice be instituted in that division so that there is monthly follow-up with the courts in these other jurisdictions over these reciprocal arrangements. You could ensure that they are continually jogged, or from time to time that a phone call be placed, even if it’s to California. You could tell them a case has been down there three months, four months, six months, whatever it is and do they have a court date yet.

Does the minister not agree that that would he a reasonable way to proceed? Would it not ensure that you don’t have, as in this case, 15 months-plus between the time it was initially brought to Mr. Booth’s attention before this person gets into the courts in Los Angeles, with three periods of two and a half to three months in which nothing is heard and no follow-up is done by that particular division?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think, as the member appreciates, these reciprocal enforcement and maintenance matters to a very large extent were in the hands of a foreign jurisdiction. I suppose the only sanction we have ultimately is to cancel the agreement. I was under the impression that there was a regular follow-up mechanism through our own ministry with respect to the reciprocal orders and that there would be some communication back and forth. I think all I can do in this case and in relation to the others, is to check with Mr. Booth to ascertain just what the details of the mechanism are, and to advise the member accordingly.

Mr. Bounsall: If I could just comment on that, whenever I’ve talked to Mr. Booth he’s been quite agreeable and done something immediately. My point is, what would have happened, since the last correspondence between Mr. Booth and myself was in early December of last year with finally a reply from the Los Angeles court on December 31, if I had not written again on April 25 and Mr. Booth then sent off three letters over the next six weeks? What would have happened?

I feel that I shouldn’t always have to be the person who initiates letters going from this division to the court in whatever state is responsible for the case. There should be within your ministry a mechanism which checks up on this on a regular basis and it shouldn’t have to come about, each time some two and a half months apart upon urging by myself. One urging, a very angry letter on my part, did result in three letters going out over a course of six weeks, but they then stopped. As yet another -- what is it? -- from the end of June through to November 21 took place; yet another bit of correspondence in that time. I think a simple letter on a regular basis, asking: “What are you doing now?” to those appropriate jurisdictions, may well wake them up to the fact that we’re serious about reciprocal agreements and their enforcement.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Minister, I’d like to bring before you this case, the Verdon Rae case, again -- I can’t bring it to you in lawyers’ terms but I can in farmer’s terms -- where the victim got ripped off by the courts as well as the thief. As you know, we went over this some time ago and the farmer’s lawyer, Peter Fallis, has contacted you a few times. He is a bit disturbed that he hasn’t received a reply from you. I’ll send you a copy of his letter, and maybe you could see if there has been an oversight or there’s a reason for not having responded.

The farmer had $3,300 worth of cattle stolen out of his barn and the thief was caught and taken to court. In the court he was convicted and an order of restitution was made by the courts for him to pay back the farmer $3,327.28. When the farmer contacted his lawyer to find out where his money was, they found the victim had appealed the decision and the appeal court had upheld the conviction but wiped out the order of restitution. This leaves the farmer in a position where he now has to again go through the process of convicting the criminal in civil court. Apparently, the evidence produced in the first court cannot be used in the civil court. This will cost the farmer another $3,000. It gets to the point where if you don’t have more than $3,000 stolen you might as well forget about it.

I think this is a sad situation because I can’t figure out why, when he was convicted and restitution was ordered by the court, an appeal court would be allowed to overturn the order of restitution.

At one time I asked you the question in the House.

There seem to be a couple of things here which are a problem. The evidence of the first trial can’t be used in the second trial. At one time I asked you if you intended to amend the Ontario Evidence Act, whereby previous convictions for criminal or provincial offences would be admissible in subsequent civil proceedings as proof of the fact giving rise to the conviction. At that time, you said that you were of the view that there are amendments that should be brought forward to avoid the situation that was faced in the case of the farmer who lost the cattle -- that is to avoid unnecessary duplication of proceedings, namely, findings in a criminal court that have to be retried in a civil court.

You also said: “Until a complete review has been done of the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations, which are very extensive....” you didn’t think you could say anything further at that time. I was wondering if you could say something further at this time.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I recall the case well. I will find out for the member what has happened in relation to the response that should have gone out to Mr. Fallis’ letter of March 3. I’ll inquire into that and advise you accordingly.

We did touch on this issue of restitution earlier in the estimates. I indicated that restitution provisions under the Criminal Code had been challenged. As a matter of fact, the Manitoba Court of Appeal had ruled them unconstitutional in dealing with property and civil rights, which are within the provincial jurisdiction, as opposed to the criminal law, which is, as you know, in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.

Now the Supreme Court of Canada has a case on that aspect which, I gather, is going to be argued within the next couple of weeks. So there’s an issue, first of all, as to whether the present restitution sections under the Criminal Code are constitutional.

What happened in the Rae case was that the Court of Appeal, as the member stated, reversed the trial judge. Of course, the Court of Appeal can always reverse the trial judge; that’s the way our law has always been and, I expect, always will be. If there’s a right of appeal, which there usually is, then the appellate court does have the right to disturb any findings or any orders made by the trial judge.

But the unfairness to Mr. Rae in that case was not so much that the court reversed the order. He may, of course, have thought it unfair, but the court has that jurisdiction. The unfairness, in my view, accrued to Mr. Rae -- and I did mention this on the CBC Ombudsman’s program -- in that Mr. Rae did not know that that issue was being dealt with by the Court of Appeal. He had no opportunity to have anybody make representations on his behalf because the Court of Appeal was dealing basically with a criminal matter.

I certainly indicated at that time that I thought -- and I still think -- there should be some mechanism of letting a victim know when the restitution order may be an issue in a Court of Appeal. I made it quite clear that I am prepared to approach the Minister of Justice on that. But, of course, until there is some determination by the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether the sections in the Criminal Code are valid in the first place, the Minister of Justice isn’t going to amend the Criminal Code to provide that right to the appellate.

So, Mr. Chairman, that deals as best I can with the Rae case in so far as it came under the Criminal Code and in so far as the order of restitution was interfered with by the appellate court.

[3:45]

Now in relation to any amendments to the Ontario Evidence Act, as I recall, the report of our Ontario Law Reform Commission on the rules of evidence in this province recommended against allowing the introduction of a criminal conviction to prove that fact in a civil case. As I have indicated to the former chairman of the Law Reform Commission, now the Deputy Attorney General, who is a foot away from me, I don’t entirely share their views in that matter, but that’s what the Law Reform Commission has recommended.

What’s happening right now is the uniform law commissioners throughout the country are trying to arrive at a uniform Evidence Act for each province so you won’t have these differences and it’s presently being worked on. There’s a task force made up of federal and provincial people across Canada trying to arrive at a uniform provincial Evidence Act for every province because obviously, as the members opposite can appreciate, there’s some interest in trying to arrive at some uniformity of legislation in these matters. We will have their report hopefully in the near future.

In the meantime, all I can say is -- and it’s perhaps not much help to Mr. Rae -- we are naturally awaiting with great interest the determination by the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether the provisions in the Criminal Code which allow an order of restitution are constitutionally valid. I think everything will flow from there.

As I indicated earlier in the estimates and it had been pointed out to me if the Supreme Court of Canada rules -- and I think this is the important thing as far as Mr. Rae is concerned, not the issue under the Evidence Act so much -- where the damages are fairly clear-cut, the court dealing with the criminal case can make the restitution order, that’s preferable in my view at least, to forcing the individual to go into the civil courts, even if he can prove the conviction or just file the conviction to prove the fact of the theft.

What we would like to do is to be able to permit the criminal court to deal with it where the damages are not in dispute. As I indicated earlier in the estimates, Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court of Canada rules these restitution sections under the Criminal Code invalid, it’s our intention to introduce provincial legislation forthwith, to give our judges in Ontario with criminal court jurisdiction powers under provincial legislation, if the Supreme Court of Canada says you can’t get them under federal legislation.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that explanation. I find since I came in here, lawyers have quite a time agreeing too, just like farmers. They usually say if you ask three farmers, you will get three different opinions and I found this to be quite a bit the same with lawyers.

Mr. Makarchuk: They only charge more for theirs.

Mr. McKessock: I agree restitution should stay in the federal court -- this is what should have happened. I find it awfully hard to understand how an appeal court could overturn a clear-cut decision. The cattle were known to go through the sales barn and the receipts were there -- there was no doubt he was convicted and no doubt of the price of the cattle. For any court to allow an appeal on a clear-cut decision like that is unbelievable.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The court did it because there were two accused, two people had been convicted, and the order for restitution was against only one of the two accused. The court, on its own motion -- because nobody asked the court to do this, which made it more complicated -- looked at it and said, “For some reason the judge made the order of restitution against only one accused and not against the other. It is unfair to make one of the two accused bear the burden,” so they struck it out. I am not suggesting I agree with their decision, but I think this is the background as to why they interfered with the case.

Mr. McKessock: This case is kind of hanging on, to see what is going to happen, because as I suggested earlier it is going to cost Mr. Rae as much money to finish this case as he is going to get out of it. Could you tell me when you think there might be a change in the proceedings? Can they wait for this change to come into effect before they finish this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wouldn’t recommend it in this particular case. The machinery of justice and the law moves slowly admittedly, and generally speaking that is for a good purpose. I think any time you change the law or change the procedures you must move with a great deal of caution, and this sometimes results in a great deal of delay. I can appreciate this can create enormous frustrations for people in the position of Mr. Rae.

I would think in this particular case Mr. Rae would not have much trouble in recovering. It’s not for me to give him civil advice and it is really not the role of the Attorney General, but in a case such as this where the accuseds have been convicted I don’t think it would be a very costly business to get a judgement in, say the county court, for the value of the cattle. I doubt very much if the issue would be defended.

I am speculating and perhaps I shouldn’t embark on a speculative venture without knowing all the facts but I would think Mr. Rae’s problem is not so much in getting a judgement against the two accuseds who have been convicted, but in collecting it. No law is going to assist in getting blood from a stone. That often happens in cases such as this where you are dealing with criminal acts.

Mr. McKessock: Has there ever been any thought given to setting up some kind of compensation fund for cases like this where the victim could be paid? It could be collected later by the courts in some way. I think other Acts and laws have come into existence in the last few years to protect the victim. This is another case where I think the victim should be paid fairly quickly and somehow the funds be collected at a later date.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As you know, we have legislation for compensating victims of crime, but this is only in relation to personal injuries. As a matter of fact, I think I tabled the annual report of the tribunal in relation to compensating victims of criminal acts for personal injuries. This is exactly what happens.

Now with respect to damage, there is a problem of insurance. At this point in time, I don’t think any jurisdiction, quite frankly, has felt it could afford a scheme to compensate victims for damage to property. I think it is a desirable goal, but I don’t think any jurisdiction anywhere has felt the public purse could afford it.

Mr. Lawlor: A couple of points in the limited time we have left: On Mr. Justice Kelly’s report with respect to the Court of Appeal of Ontario. No doubt you or your department have perused the report carefully and its numerous recommendations. What is your reception and feeling about the report, particularly about the division of the court into two segments, one being called the “general” section and the other the “juristic”?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We think there are a number of useful recommendations. I am waiting for recommendations to my own ministry as to what we might be able to implement. The most significant recommendation of all is the one to which the member for Lakeshore has just referred, namely, the two-tiered system of a Court of Appeal.

I have to say at the moment that recommendation is being reviewed very carefully. I have received a number of letters from members of the profession opposing the recommendation and I must admit I have had relatively little support from the profession in favour of the recommendation. At this point in time, all I can say is we’re reviewing the recommendation very cautiously.

Mr. Lawlor: The Supreme Court is divided into two sections, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, in Ontario. It covers quite a bit of ground. In the Court of Appeal criminal appeals, the case load situation at the end of the fiscal year 1975 was 607. It rose in the next year to 694 and is now at 699. That’s on the criminal side. The civil side is at page three of your report. It has gone from 638 in the year before last to 699 and is now 815. There is an increase there.

My understanding, to make this kind of short, is that there is no real problem in the Court of Appeal with respect to case load. They’re able to handle it and dispose of the cases with the present number of judges and courtroom time. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. We think there are ways in which we can cut down their load but, generally speaking, they regard it as quite manageable.

Mr. Lawlor: In the Supreme Court, in the trial division, the figures are a little more horrendous. Taking the Ontario total, divorce, motor vehicles and what not, there were 37,400 the year before last, then 39,000 -- up a little over 2,300 -- and now in the last figures here, 43,300. That is escalating and we’re dealing with thousands of cases at this particular stage. With the new judges, is that situation manageable too?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They’re short about four judges at the moment. We’re listing divorce figures under the Supreme Court for divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act, It was explained to me why we listed them under the Supreme Court as opposed to county court and at the moment I forget the explanation. MCA is the Matrimonial Causes Act. They’re county court judges and local judges of the Supreme Court. That’s why it’s listed under this heading.

I think the Supreme Court feels the list is getting a little heavy. They are embarking on a number of pretrial procedures, criminal and civil, to try to cut down the load. As I indicated a few minutes ago, we have increased the size of the Supreme Court trial division by over 30 per cent -- close to one third -- in the last two years. We’re optimistic that with the appointment of the additional judges this will bring it within manageable proportions.

I think the key test is that delays in civil actions, both jury and non-jury, are not unreasonable. Those delays, in my own personal experience, have not increased over the years between the time that an action is set down for trial and a certificate of readiness served and a trial date is obtained. That is one area in which I can say there hasn’t been any significant increase in that time. In my own experience, it has fluctuated back and forth in the last 10 years.

[4:00]

It is pointed out to me that the backlog throughout Ontario this year -- up until the end of June of this year -- has actually decreased slightly.

Mr. Lawlor: Slightly, yes.

Item 2 agreed to.

On item 3, county, district and small claims courts:

Mr. Lawlor: Just a word on item 3 on case load and that vexing perennial problem that we have on trials de novo. The figures given to us are that in York on the county court set-up it went from 2,900 to 3,600 last year to 4,200 this year in the summary convictions appeals area. All kinds of nostrums have been presented to you on that.

By way of an aside, you are placing an enormous emphasis upon Williston. You think Williston, like some kind of lodestone, is going to solve all your magnetic compasses. That may not be so. After all this is merely procedural; no matter what he can come up with on pretrial matters with a little streamlining here and there, you have still the whole vast inertia of the courts and the way in which they have forever operated. I wouldn’t place a great deal of faith in it. Some, but not unduly in that particular area.

Back to trial de novo: Can you make a statement about that? Are you going to set a limit as to the sum that may be appealed in terms of the fine? Is there some scheme that you may have to relieve that load?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As you know the summary conviction appeal rules have been changed in order to permit an appeal on the record, not trial de novo. I think those sections were just proclaimed this fall. That will undoubtedly have a significant impact, I suspect, on the number of cases.

Furthermore, we will be introducing a new Provincial Offences Act, a very important piece of legislation, in relation to the trial of minor highway traffic matters. There won’t be the same number of minor highway traffic cases going to a county court judge. In some of these cases the right of appeal in a minor traffic case will end with a provincial court judge. They will be heard in the first instance by a JP and under the present state of the law they go from a JP to a county court judge. A lot of these appeals were initiated simply to delay in order to protect points in relation to an operator’s licence.

Under this proposed new Provincial Offences Act, for minor highway traffic cases there will be a right of appeal but that will be from a JP in many cases -- and I emphasize in the minor cases -- to a provincial court judge and from there to a Court of Appeal on a question of law. But we are optimistic that this will significantly cut down as well the volume of summary conviction appeals, particularly in places like the judicial district of York where it is very heavy.

Although we think the Williston committee is important with respect to civil cases, I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that I haven’t created the impression that we are putting too much reliance on Mr. Williston because that is not the case. While we regard his work as very important, we just regard it as one important element in the overall picture which requires a number of initiatives.

Mr. Lawlor: Just very quickly: In the general sessions for the peace -- that is, the criminal cases with jury at the county level -- the cases remaining in York have escalated quite a bit over the previous period. At least, on page eight of the notes you gave us from 592 to 706. What is the situation there? Are you getting complaints from the judges and from the Crown counsel and others handling these cases that there is a log jam in this area?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I don’t recall any specific complaints. I do discuss this problem from time to time with the senior judge in the judicial district of York, a gentleman who is well known to the member for Lakeshore because of his previous responsibilities. I am very open to suggestions he has in expediting these cases through the courts.

I think with respect to the judicial district of York where the problem is particularly critical in the county court, the decentralization of the Crown system will help. What we are trying to do is arrange for individual Crown attorneys to be seized with these cases at an early stage. We think this will be one effect, hopefully, of cutting down the volume.

Under the present system where you have a very large Crown’s office centralized for most purposes on University Avenue, many of these cases in the county court are assigned to a Crown attorney only a matter of perhaps several days or less prior to the trial. And the police are responsible for ensuring that the witnesses are present.

We think it will be improved with the smaller semi-autonomous offices. Then even if the case originates in North York, the Crown attorney will follow it downtown with the responsibility from an earlier stage, being “seized” as I have expressed it. It will encourage defence counsel to approach Crown counsel and vice versa with respect to cutting down the length of the trial, avoiding the calling of unnecessary witnesses. We are honing this is one way in which this backlog will be reduced.

Item 3 agreed to.

On item 4, provincial courts:

Mr. Worton: I would like briefly to bring to the attention of the minister a letter that I had written to him last week. I realize this may be repeating the situation but I believe the minister is a man who tempers justice with mercy. It involves whether or not the courts themselves are abusing the method in regard to collecting of what I would term NSF cheques.

I gave him an example of a young man who issued three cheques -- one for $10, one for $4 and another one for $4. Eventually he was picked up by our local police and jailed in the Kitchener jail. He then had to appear in the Cambridge court. He wanted to plead innocent but he was advised, I suspect by the legal counsel on duty that he should seek legal advice. Then it was postponed to be heard in Kitchener on January 10 of next year.

The father, who has a position with a utility in Guelph in which he deals with credit, came to me. The parents failed to understand the situation. The father said if half the people who send in NSF cheques to this utility were charged, the jails would be full every night. When he came to see me this Saturday he thought it was rather extreme that this firm should use the police as what I would term as a collection agency for such a small account.

It will no doubt mean charges against a young man of 21 when, with perhaps a little bit of discussion between the family and the firm they might have been avoided. I’m not enough of a legal mind to understand the procedures, but when this money could have been paid to the firm to whom he gave the cheques -- and oddly enough he had the money in a non-chequing account but not in his regular chequing account when he issued them.

So I’m just wondering, Mr. Minister, in view of people on the street who don’t understand -- when they read of situations like the member for Grey gave here a minute ago -- about a man who was convicted of taking cattle valued at $3,300 and was ordered to make restitution and then he appealed, and it looks from what I heard that the farmer is going to be out that money -- it is pretty hard to convince the man on the street that justice is equal for everyone. I’m just wondering what your feeling is on the courts being used in such a way for such a minor thing.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would share any concern of the member opposite for any abuse of the process which in my view would be the case if the courts are used as a collection agency. There’s nothing to prevent an individual from coming before a JP and laying a charge. They must swear they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed -- namely the obtaining of something by false pretences. But as I recall the law, the crux of that offence is that you must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the individual did not have the funds in the account when he wrote the cheque. I would think in many cases this would be very difficult. I know the chief judge of the provincial court, who has jurisdiction over the justices of the peace, continually reminds them that the courts are not to be used as a collection agency.

I’d be interested in following up the matter that the member has written to me about, Mr. Chairman. I haven’t yet seen the letter to find out why the JP would issue process, particularly when it was such a minor amount. The fact that it is a minor amount in itself does not mean that a criminal offence has not been committed. But I’m very concerned about the possibility of courts being misused in that manner.

It’s a very difficult area because it’s hard to generalize. But I will certainly pursue the matter that you’ve written to me on, and we will remind the JP, hopefully through the chief judge in that area, to be concerned about the possible abuse of the process in this respect.

Mr. Worton: I would appreciate that, Mr. Minister. I’m sure if the story as I’ve got it has been told in a truthful way there should be accommodation. Not that I want to ever interfere in the duties of the court. I’ll be most happy if you and your staff look into it thoroughly and see if there’s another solution to the matter.

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the minister. For some time now I understand that the provincial judges’ association has been dealing with the financial management branch of your ministry concerning their pensions. I wonder if you could give us an update as to just how those negotiations are proceeding and what the attitude of the ministry is toward the pension fund of the provincial judges.

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Shortly after I assumed my present responsibilities, I made it very clear I did not wish to have anything to do with the judges’ salaries, or judges’ pensions. When I speak of myself I must, of course, speak of my ministry in the same light, because I viewed it as something that could only give the perception of a possible conflict of interest. After all, it’s something that could have the appearance of affecting in an adverse way the independence of the judiciary. Obviously, they shouldn’t be negotiating salaries or pensions with the chief prosecutor, the person responsible for bringing cases before them.

So to my knowledge all of these matters are dealt with by the Management Board; and all negotiations, to my knowledge, have been carried on by my colleague, the Hon. James Auld, in this respect.

Mr. Stong: Am I given to understand that things have changed, since July 1975, at any rate, where the provincial judges were considered at that time employees of the ministry for the purposes of group insurance plans? And is not your ministry involved in the remittance of salaries to the provincial judges?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly it has changed since July 1975. I guess I was sworn in on October 7, 1975. It’s changed since that time. The mechanics of issuing the cheques may still be done through our ministry but that’s a mechanical operation.

Mr. Stong: Am I given to understand that the provincial judges are concerned about the very thing you have stated you want to avoid? That is, if they are not employees or servants of your ministry, they may be perceived to be so in terms of salary negotiations? In fact, they do receive their salary from your ministry and at the point of receiving their salary, unemployment insurance is deducted, for instance. They are concerned about that as well, as I am given to understand.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That may have been the case. It’s no longer the case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: On the matter of the horrendous figures that have to do with the provincial courts in criminal division: The case-load backlog for Metropolitan Toronto as of March 31, 1977, was 1,630,114 cases -- that’s quite a few cases; the rest of the province is around 1,600,000 to make a grand total in these courts for the province of over 3,000,000. The Attorney General has, to some degree, indicated his concern in estimates, although it was done far more thoroughly last year. But there is no use repeating yourself unduly. What has to be done is known and the mechanisms by which it can be done are being gradually seized upon.

But that surely is a startling figure. I suppose the chief weight of the figure comes with the highway traffic offences in which justices of the peace are playing a greater and greater role and for which tribunals of various kinds are being set. I think the Attorney General would agree with me that to some degree the siphoning away from the regular courts of that particular kind of offence, would do very much to lighten this case load, and the very heavy burden and what appears to be monstrous number of cases.

I don’t know how the filing systems in those courts can ever remain apace and whether there aren’t all kinds of snafus developing because of the sheer load. Once a problem gets up past a certain marginal point it compounds itself and all kinds of elements enter in which were not original parts of the problem and are really, from an operative point of view, quite unnecessary.

Without any great and elaborate reply, could the Attorney General comment on that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the figures referred to by the member for Lakeshore are not the backlog, but actually the disposition, so that in the fiscal period ended March 1977 the provincial courts disposed of 400,000 more cases than they did the year before. So the increases actually are in what they’ve been able to dispose of. The charges outstanding are significant and are contained on page 11.

Mr. Lawlor: They were two million.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We’ve indicated what we’ve done with respect to the provincial offences legislation, which will certainly help in relation to highway traffic offences. We’ve appointed a significant additional number of provincial court judges in the provincial division in the past two years. But, in any event, I don’t know that I can add anything further than what I’ve said in respect to the matter of the backlog.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Lakeshore have any further comments on this item?

Mr. Lawlor: No. As I say, Mr. Chairman, due to the time element here -- and I said we’d be out of here sooner than we are at this time -- I’m not going to press this matter any further this year.

Item 4 agreed to.

Vote 1306 agreed to.

On vote 1307, administrative tribunals program, item 1, assessment review court:

Mr. Lawlor: On the decisions of the assessment review court and the criteria upon which it operates -- those very elusive, those very esoteric grounds upon which assessments are shifted with respect to the same kind of building in the same sort of community, the house two blocks away probably ruled out because it’s not close enough. I always find that a very trying part of the thing when people come to see us in our constituency offices complaining and trying to nail that down. In other words, I’m asking whether there is more information by which to form an opinion obtainable as a result of the work of this particular court?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not sure that I totally understand the question. The criteria, of course, are laid down by the Assessment Act. All I can state is that, hopefully, in gaining experience the courts are more effectively able to deal with these matters.

Mr. Lawlor: Are the cases reported?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, they are not.

Mr. Lawlor: For the general guidance of the public and even the legal profession, this is a highly subjective area. I am telling you both on the part of the county court judges and on the court here. Just how the rules of thumb are linked to the chancellor’s foot and operated in this particular area bemuses me. Any information that can be supplied in a general way is far fairer to the public on going into this court, so they know what they are faced with and the type of argumentation that appears to be valid or non-valid by the court.

I don’t know if you have ever appeared before one of those courts. I have on numerous occasions. I never know what to say, what the best arguments are -- or if there are any, for heaven’s sake. You go in and it’s a little like this place. You talk through your hat for a few minutes and you might just come out with a favourable decision. Normally, if you talk long enough, you do.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not appeared before any of these courts, as the member will appreciate.

Mr. MacDonald: That classifies you to speak at length.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: A great volume of cases is handled. I will explore the matter with my senior officials as to how we might better assist the public to understand the process and whether it would be helpful to publish some sort of booklet to help the individual citizen. I must admit I don’t have any suggestions to make myself but I would be happy to pursue it and get back to the member.

Items 1 and 2 agreed to.

On item 3, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board:

Mr. Stong: I have just had handed to me immediately before we got to this vote the eighth report of the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Lawlor: Have you read it already?

Mr. Stong: I am sure that would have been very helpful. I do notice on page five there has been an increase in the awards of some 37 per cent. I am wondering in general about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board whether the attitude that seems to be prevailing among provincial judges and being leaned on perhaps more and more is assisting in this regard in keeping down the cost and the necessity of going to the board.

I am speaking about the reparation and restitution provisions under the Criminal Code that can be acted upon by provincial judges. I have even heard where some provincial judges are making awards for personal injuries, such as an injured thumb or some physical injury.

What is the policy of the ministry in this area? If it is the policy of the ministry to district provincial judges to make awards for personal injuries in criminal cases, I wonder whether that is viewed as being directed towards cutting down the number of cases that are going before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have some concerns about the matter of our provincial or criminal courts making assessments in relation to personal injuries. I know the Court of Appeal has recently struck down an award that was made by a provincial court judge for general damages. Although the federal government has suggested this might be a part of the process, I must confess I have grave reservations about protecting the rights of all parties, even the rights of the accused, in facing assessment of damages in a tribunal which really isn’t set up to deal with assessment of damages.

I have to say I am rather inclined to the view that in this type of case it is best to deal with it through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It’s quite clear there are many more people every year making use of the board and this trend is likely to continue. We are considering the suggestion I have just referred to, but I have to confess I have grave reservations about it.

[4:30]

Mr. Stong: Along those lines, have you or are you contemplating sending out a directive to your Crown attorneys as the chief Crown, in the event a provincial judge or any judge within the trial division asks counsel on both sides to direct their attention toward compensation for personal injury, that they ought to leave that to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and therefore a judge ought not to address himself to that particular problem?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I hadn’t considered that but I am quite happy to consider it because I hadn’t become aware of the fact this really had become an issue and counsel were in fact doing that. I think there was a decision reversing the order of the provincial court judge recently in the Court of Appeal. I think that decision is generally known. But I will certainly be happy to take under advisement the wisdom of sending out a directive to that effect.

Mr. Stong: I am glad to hear you say that, because I am personally aware of a situation where one of our provincial judges in the county of York ordered an award to be paid in the amount of $700 for personal injury arising out of an assault occasioning bodily harm charge. The Crown was obviously at a loss at the time.

Better direction from the ministry would assist, because in my mind, as well as I can see in yours, it is a matter best left to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Lawlor: I notice pain and suffering is 70 per cent of the total picture; legal fees are six per cent, that is counsel fees in the hearings; and there were 609 awards given in the course of the last year. I just have one comment, and that is to thank the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for publishing their report -- a little late this year for the purpose of these estimates but better late than never -- and the way in which they set up their format and outline the cases. This gives you some insight into the basis on which they set forth their awards. That was my complaint with respect to an earlier vote -- you didn’t get any insight or facts of the situation which would give justification for any particular act they did. But here you do, and that’s valuable. Thank you.

Item 3 agreed to.

Item 4 agreed to.

On item 5, Ontario Municipal Board:

Mr. Gaunt: If I may raise the matter I raised a couple of times with the Attorney General, does the Attorney General have any further information with respect to the problem I indicated to him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is a trial date set for sometime in December, about mid-December. All I can say is I will lean on my office to get that for the member opposite. I am sorry we don’t have it for you now; I know it is under active review at the moment.

Mr. Gaunt: I appreciate that; if the Attorney General will keep leaning, I’ll keep leaning on him.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This concludes the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewis: You can go back to your office and lay some charges against nefarious scoundrels.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: While the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Grossman) is taking his place, I’d like to make this gratuitous statement: I was well prepared to answer a question, usually asked by the member for Lakeshore, in relation to the office of Her Majesty’s Proctor. I have to say I’m a little disappointed -- the question wasn’t asked.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, you are disappointed.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If I may, I’d like to deliver this brief to the member for Lakeshore. I’m sure he’ll find it of great interest.

Mr. Lawlor: John Hilton, the Queen’s Proctor.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d like to introduce our estimates with some statements about the short-term goals, and long-term philosophies and directions of my ministry. In short, what we feel we can honestly, fairly and realistically accomplish, with energy and dedication to the difficult job at hand.

As you know, this is a time of budgetary restraint, but there is certainly no restraint in our approach to service. By increasing efficiency, the ministry plans to offer viable, helpful services, programs and protection, and to show ingenuity at the same time. You will see in the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a continuing emphasis on efficiency. I have made a commitment to the people of this province to provide an aggressive and active response to consumer needs.

I intend to honour this commitment; and also to honour my commitment to permit, and indeed encourage, business to operate, expand and develop free of unnecessary, wasteful red tape, paperwork, rules and regulations. We do not see our responsibility in the areas of consumerism and commercial relations at cross purposes, rather they have common goals -- healthy, fair honest competition supplying dependable items to an open, effective and active marketplace, one in which consumers and good businessmen can operate safely and effectively.

My predecessor, Mr. Handleman, laid the groundwork, legislatively and administratively. I now intend to follow through with the performance consumers are looking for. The question is how to deliver more without spending more; that is the essential question which I hope to discuss with you during these estimates. Frankly, I welcome your views and your ideas. I’m a new minister and I have come here today to participate in a dialogue with you.

Basically, there are two types of consumerism. The first kind has government answering complaints; investigating, mediating and disposing of them. We do a lot of this, and we do it well; however, we do not think the taxpayer can afford to have us act as legal counsel for all of Ontario’s eight million consumers.

The second kind of consumerism is larger in scope and potentially much more powerful. It emphasizes consumer education in the schools and the provision of preventive information to groups and individuals in the community at large; it makes business groups more responsive to complaints; it establishes compensation funds for restitution and gives consumers direct access to claim against those funds, rather than relying solely upon our mediation or expensive legal action; it features highly visible action by the ministry against businesses or companies which do engage in bad or unfair practices.

To summarize in a sentence, this second approach means developing better consumers and encouraging better businessmen. It has the advantage of being inexpensive but visible, while helping a lot of people. It’s a good and effective way, and one which I have chosen to encourage. We are going to continue responding to complaints, but we are not going to claim complaint handling is our only business. Our attention is going to be focused as well on the big issues.

What I would like to do now is highlight two main themes in our estimates -- a more efficient ministry and a more active ministry.

First, efficiency: As you will note in the briefing material provided to you, there is no increase in the number of full-time, non-rent review, staff positions in the ministry. The actual staff of the ministry has dropped this year, compared to last year, by 180 employees. This overall reduction has been achieved while substantially increasing the service we provided to the public.

The total increase budgeted in our estimates for 1977-78 is $10.7 million, an increase of 15.6 per cent. The rent review program is excluded from this calculation. The estimates show funding of the rent review program for only a part of the current fiscal year, because they were prepared last November when the future of the program was uncertain. Since then, additional funding has been obtained from Management Board to continue the program for the remainder of the year.

The largest portion of the increase, about $6.3 million, is for salary awards. These are economic increases authorized by the government over the past two years.

These estimates don’t reflect some of the astute management which has resulted in savings during the past year. For example, we have instituted a records and forms management program which now yields savings of $130,000 per year. We also have a computerized fixed asset inventory control system. Next on the list of improvements are a consolidated purchase plan and a five-year accommodation plan, including office consolidation and workshops and records management. We anticipate average savings of $230,000 a year from these and similar measures.

Long-range planning is also being emphasized. By March of next year the entire ministry will be on an MBR program. All basic components of a modem management system are now in place, including strategic planning, operational planning, performance reporting, monthly expenditure control and independent auditing. We are now as well- managed as any of the businesses we regulate; in fact, we are probably more sophisticated than most.

I should add here that when looking at our increases in spending, consideration should also be given to the revenues we earn from our services. For example, the racing commission has obtained a 48 per cent increase in racing dates over the past five years with only a 14 per cent increase in daily costs. The result is an 80 per cent increase in revenues, to over $40 million. Our land registration activities in the Property Rights Division have resulted in an 84 per cent increase in revenues and taxes over the past four years, to more than $65.5 million in 1976.

This same trend to efficiency and improved revenues is visible throughout the ministry. We now rely upon the same conceptual tools as businessmen when deciding where to spend our money. Our analysts look at return on investment, cash flow and opportunity costs, just as businessmen do. A decade ago this form of management was not thought possible in the public sector; today it is a reality.

Perhaps the outstanding example is the new personal property security registration system which was inaugurated in April last year. This modern, computerized system informs a person intending to purchase personal property, or accept it as collateral, whether or not the owner has previously pledged the property as security. Any such property can he checked at any one of 49 branch offices across Ontario, in minutes, at a cost of just $2. This system is second to none, yet its development has cost not one cent of taxpayers’ money. It operates on a full cost-recovery basis. This year we added the capacity to check registrations by motor vehicle serial number as well as owner’s name, which makes the system even faster and easier to use.

To create a more active, pro-consumer ministry, we are pursuing five main courses of action. First, we are promoting the concept of self-regulation. It is now much more than a theory; it is a fact.

The best example is the new home warranty program. This program was initiated a year-and-a-half ago and registration of builders has now been mandatory for nearly a year. In this short period of time, much has been accomplished. Every new home sold in Ontario carries a warranty; over 3,800 builders have been registered, more than twice the number we expected. Another 700 are in various stages of the process. Every one of these 4,500 builders is being inspected.

Thus far the program has received 695 complaints. A total of 54 claims involving $87,926 are now being considered. Nine bankruptcies have been dealt with and 24 registrations have been revoked. There is no question the overall performance of the home building industry is being upgraded as a result of this legislation. This program was initiated by industry and is now being operated by industry under our guidance. It is a successful, working model of what business can do when it puts the consumer first.

[4:45]

There are other examples of this approach which are moving towards reality. For instance, the credit union movement in Ontario now has its own share and deposit insurance corporation, providing the same basic coverage to credit union depositors as the federal Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. OSDIC, as we call it, already has a board of directors of which a majority are from the movement. Staff are now being hired and procedures are being established. Later this week I will be able to report to the House the successful launching of this self-regulating consumer protection program.

Our provincial corporation will not be arbitrary, distant or bureaucratic. It will be responsible to those it serves, and that surely is one of the great advantages to self-regulation. Self-regulation requires the continued presence of government to ensure that the public’s interest is being served. It requires industries with a sense of social responsibility, but when it works it provides the greatest possible service at the best possible price by harnessing the expertise and resources of private industry.

Our second main activity is that we are establishing standards of conduct for various industries. In many cases these guidelines are voluntary. To quote our regimental sergeant major, “You can volunteer or you can be made to volunteer.” There is truth to that. Our position of power, both moral and legal, is considerable with heavily regulated industries like insurance or trust companies; but it is a real advantage not to require legislation. For one thing, it saves money; for another, it enables faster response to consumer problems as they develop. Perhaps most important, an industry which voluntarily accepts the rules is not as likely to spend a fortune on lawyers to find the loopholes.

The co-operation inherent in voluntary compliance is well worth having. Our voluntary guidelines on leases for the petroleum industry, for example, help to resolve serious problems and protect the lessee without the legal complexities which are inherent in any attempt to regulate an industry.

Voluntary compliance is one of the unsung but highly successful and useful concepts enshrined in the Business Practices Act. We have been able to use this technique to obtain redress and change business practices without the necessity of prosecutions in court. From strawberries to the size of tomatoes to $5 health club memberships, this technique has proved to be inexpensive and effective.

Some of the best examples of voluntary compliance concern financial institutions. The equal opportunity guidelines governing credit granting to women are an outstanding case in point. So too is the successful implementation of loss ratios governing sickness and accident insurance, which we implemented in July of last year. Individual accident and sickness policies now must disclose the anticipated loss ratio for that particular plan. Companies primarily in the business of providing low premium policies with very low payouts are going to run into problems because of the disclosure requirements. I suspect some of them will have to change their products or curtail their sales in Ontario, and that is just fine with me.

A third method of consumer protection we are emphasizing is restitution, using an industry compensation plan. The outstanding example here is the travel industry fund. Although less than two years old, this fund has proved its worth. Since the fund was established, we have paid out more than $638,000 on 800 claims involving more than 3,000 consumers. Travellers are now fully protected from bankruptcies of travel firms. Because of this success, we intend to introduce compensation funds to other major regulated industries.

A fourth activity we intend to pursue is high profile legal action against companies or industries which are especially hard on consumers. This year our business practices division will pursue about 140 investigations which will lead to an estimated 350 charges. A number of these will have the effect of cleaning up entire industries. Obviously I don’t want to tip our hands as to which areas we are investigating, but I can assure you we will have some excitement before this fiscal year is out.

Here are some of the initiatives we have taken in the past few months. In the travel area, for example, our investigation led to the arrest of a travel agent for fraud, charges against three agents for operating without a licence and the suspension of 15 companies for failing to meet their commitments to the compensation fund.

Concerning dance studios, we have now succeeded in four legal actions, three of which were unsuccessfully appealed by the business involved. A number of large contracts were rescinded by the Commercial Registration Appeals Tribunal, resulting in savings of thousands of dollars to consumers who had been subjected to high pressure sales representations as well as bait-and-switch tactics.

Just two weeks ago we issued a cease-and- desist order to put a stop to an operation which was promoting a Christmas dinner and evening out for senior citizens. Members of the public in Hamilton, St. Catharines and Ottawa were solicited to donate money to the enterprise which held itself out to be a charity. In actual fact it was a profit-making operation which was simultaneously asking local business to buy advertising space in a publication to help defray the costs of the Christmas party. The publicity surrounding these cases has proved to be a highly effective warning to consumers and to the industry itself.

In other actions we have stopped the manufacturer from advertising false fuel savings for a product called Thermojet; we successfully prosecuted an illegal pyramid sales scheme; and we issued a cease-and-desist order against a language school for falsely luring Mexican students to Toronto with the promise of accredited English courses.

The redress we have won for individual consumers in these cases has been significant, but more important is the use of investigative and legal resources to stop unethical practices. I believe our actions will clean up industries like the dance studios. This has incalculable long-term benefits to consumers and businessmen alike.

The business practices division is alerted to these cases by its direct, extensive contact with the public. This year we’ll respond to more than 60,000 telephone inquiries and we will process more than 13,500 complaints. We have extended our hours so citizens can now receive service from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. To increase our sensitivity to changes in the marketplace we are establishing stronger outreach programs making use of our regional office.

It’s more than just responding to complaints after the fact. Where we can, we anticipate potential problems and practice preventive medicine by alerting consumers to areas of thin ice.

Two recent information bulletins -- one dealing with mail order ripoffs, the other with home insulation -- are good examples of this. One of the greatest challenges we face is keeping up with changes in the marketplace. Products are multiplying in number and complexity, and consumers are more sophisticated and demanding. Markets are increasingly international in scope. We are, therefore, putting more emphasis on monitoring the marketplace.

Finally, we are accelerating our consumer education program. In order to make people aware of their rights and to help them be better consumers, my ministry has been active over the year. Twenty-two booklets are being distributed to over 50,000 people each month. In addition, the ministry has produced a television series and six films. Extensive research has been initiated in northwestern Ontario and North Bay to determine how people get information and how we can improve our efforts.

Already there are more than 350 teachers across Ontario using our materials as part of their consumer education courses. In addition, we will be opening a consumer information centre in January. It will act as a clearing house for consumer information put out by industry, consumer groups and governments, thereby implementing the resource sharing vehicle which grew out of the consumer education conference which this ministry hosted in April of this year.

This centre will initiate programs with consumer educators and with local information resource centres across the province. It will be the flagship. The major shift of emphasis, which I am commencing, is to reach those consumers in Ontario who are most in need; that is those who are vulnerable due to geography, age, language difficulties, disability or low income. To this end, the centre will conduct workshops with groups which reach those who are most disadvantaged.

With this accelerated effort, we will reach an even higher proportion of Ontario consumers, particularly those who need it. This major policy thrust, will be addressed in all our undertakings over the next few years.

These are the live principal ways we are moving towards a more activist ministry; self regulation, voluntary guidelines, restitution, prosecutions and consumer education. They represent the second form of consumerism I referred to earlier, by which the marketplace is upgraded in the aggregate to benefit the greatest number of consumers.

There are a number of other initiatives I would like to mention before ending my remarks. The condominium study group has conducted a series of well attended public meetings across Ontario. Recommendations are expected shortly which will lead to significant legislative changes next year. That group of consumers, condominium I owners, can look forward to greater legislative protection in the near future.

The aluminum wiring inquiry was appointed in April to investigate and report upon the safety and reliability of this product. This inquiry has also held hearings across the province and consumers can expect some much-needed answers to be provided by the commission shortly.

These two inquiries have created a necessary focus for public concerns and they have contributed to greater awareness of these concerns in government, industry, the media and among consumers themselves.

Our energy safety branch this year implemented new regulations on the safe use of fuels and is now working with the Canadian Gas Research Institute towards the development of more efficient furnaces and heaters, again to better protect consumers.

I should add here that our technical standards division is pursuing self-regulation with some of the industries which it regulates, with the goal of providing better consumer protection more efficiently.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund has increased its ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000. A computerized bookkeeping function has improved our revenue control, while increased fees have encouraged more people to obtain insurance, thus providing more consumer protection.

We have planned an extensive legislative program for the spring. At that time, we intend to introduce and have passed, finally, the new Securities Act, amendments to the Business Corporations Act, and a new Commodity Futures Act.

The Securities Act, as pointed out in my statement last Friday, is legislation which will expand the requirements for timely and continuous disclosure. It will also prohibit tipping and expand civil liability rules for those who abuse positions of trust. The new legislation also highlights the less publicized side of our ministry’s work, namely facilitating greater efficiency in the corporate world. For the next 10 years, Canada’s capital requirements will be staggering, especially in the energy field. To meet these needs, we must ensure our capital markets are as fair and efficient as possible.

Finally, our rent review program, which was extended earlier this year, is currently operating in an efficient and effective manner. The guideline of eight per cent has been reduced to six per cent in keeping with the wage guidelines imposed by the AIB. Plans are under way to develop a permanent and comprehensive package of tenant protection legislation for implementation by January 1, 1979, when the current rent review program expires. A report scheduled for this spring will be published as a green paper for broad public debate.

Mr. Chairman, this review of our plans and initiatives is very incomplete. However, I hope it will give you an idea of the direction we have chosen to take. A more efficient and activist ministry is our common objective. I believe we are progressing quickly towards that goal. We are aggressive and inventive. I look forward to exchanging views with my colleagues on these ideas, concerns and initiatives. You will find us interested, open and attentive. Thank you.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the statement by the hon. minister with great interest and there are some matters on which I would like to comment. We find ourselves in somewhat the same position. The minister is presenting his estimates for the first time and I, as the spokesman for the official opposition, will be speaking to those estimates for the first time as well. However, I’m sure we want to show every co-operation to the minister to carry out some of the very admirable items he has included in his initial statement. We hope from time to time I will be able to remind the minister of some of the things he said today in his initial statement.

The new minister, I think, is showing a bit more promise and perhaps a little better grasp of his ministry thus far than the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, his predecessor, Mr. Handleman. Mr. Handleman, I understand, is a man who believes in majority government, namely a Conservative majority government --

Mr. Ruston: They can forget it though; they’re going down the drain next time out.

[5:00]

Mr. Blundy: -- a government which is able to govern with a minimum of input from the opposition parties. We are hopeful that we are going to be able to increase that input in the business before the government as we go along.

Mr. Handleman was unhappy with the rent review program under his jurisdiction when he was the minister. He didn’t do very much to reassure the people of Ontario, the tenants of Ontario, that the program would continue.

Mr. Haggerty: He wouldn’t continue as minister.

Mr. Blundy: That’s right. Mr. Handleman found himself the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in a minority government, a position he must have found personally frustrating; so much so that he decided to throw in the sponge.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister is smiling at that one.

Mr. Blundy: However, the new minister has continued the rent control program at the six per cent basis of increase as suggested by the official opposition last April. You know what happened to it then, and what happened to them then.

I have to commend the new minister for having taken the action he has in continuing the rent review program. I have to commend him for the action he has taken in the income tax rebate discounters situation. His predecessor said they couldn’t do anything about it, that it was a federal matter; however, something has been done about it, and I know that the consumers of Ontario will be better protected because of it.

I am very happy to note that the minister will be bringing in amendments to the Securities Act. I believe this legislation is long overdue; many things within the securities legislation do need amending.

I would like to make particular reference to section 90(2) of the proposed bill covering take-over bids. I believe the Select Committee on Company Law talked in 1975 about some of these proposed amendments that hopefully, will rectify some of the situations. Here it is the end of 1977; it is time that legislation was dealt with; I would be very happy to discuss that matter when the amendments are introduced in the new session.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is a very diverse ministry. It’s a sort of an umbrella ministry handling many things to do with the people of the province of Ontario in all walks of life and at all levels of income. Even though the minister is laying out in his opening statement the many programs he is initiating, to further consumer education in Ontario, I don’t believe this is going far enough. The majority of people in Ontario, and particularly those people in the lower income groups who perhaps are most in need of protection under these Acts, have no knowledge of them.

You will recall the recent write-up in the paper about the Business Practices Act, saying how few people know about it, know what it involves and how it protects them. I think the ministry should be going out to bring these things to the attention of the people of Ontario in the media that they most see. Many people don’t read the papers; most people don’t read pamphlets which are handed out; but you know as well as I do when a provincial election is coming up all kinds of little goodies in the way of consumer protection, et cetera are put over the television at that particular time. Now I wonder, is it for the protection of the consumers; or is it for the re-election of the government in power?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am thinking of the federal election that is coming.

Mr. Haggerty: Oh, propaganda.

Mr. Blundy: This is the sort of thing that gets to the people more readily. Most people, unfortunately, do not read what is written in detail, in magazines and newspapers, but they do see this sort of thing. This can be very helpful in bringing to many people in the province knowledge they don’t already have about the Consumer Protection Act.

I was interested to note in the minister’s statement his comments about HUDAC and the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act. I believe when we hand over the control of legislation more or less to an independent group like this, we should have more frequent reviews of the work they are doing. Reviews to tell us: how many places have been inspected; how many builders have been rejected; how many home buyers have not only been talked to but have really gained back something on the problems they have had; and how many had conditions in their faulty homes rectified?

In my riding we have a subdivision which is known officially as Cardiff Acres. Because of the vitality of the Sarnia area, builders came in from all over the province, including areas where building was not quite so healthy. I must admit, most of them built before the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act came into force January 1. They have fled now. They have gone bankrupt. They have left the country and I, as the member for that riding, have a thick file.

I will tell you, in one house in Cardiff Acres, two big teenage boys ran into the kitchen and attacked the refrigerator at the same time. It fell through the floor into the basement along with the two boys. There are other places where the people have gone into the attic and found there is no insulation and so forth.

Now, as I said before, I admit most of these homes in this particular subdivision were built before this Act came into force. Building is still going on at quite a rapid pace in the Sarnia area. I know personally some of the people who are involved in HUDAC in our area and most of them are very highly responsible people. I am looking for great improvements in this area which has been causing so much of a problem in the past several years.

There is another matter I would like to mention to you, Mr. Chairman, and this is a matter of new cars, used cars and owner protection. I have a pet theory: there should be something done in the province of Ontario so consumers have a record of automobiles. This is done in some European countries. When a new car is sold initially a booklet goes with it, a passport if you like, and everything that happens to that car, every time it has any major servicing or repairs, is entered in the book. It’s amazing how many cars can grow 20,000 miles younger overnight in Ontario at the present time. It does happen in spite of many Acts and legislation to prevent it. After these cars have gone through their many owners, most are abandoned.

Abandonment of cars is becoming more and more prevalent in Ontario, and I’ll tell you why: Cars have less and less valuable recyclable materials in them. There are more and more pounds of plastic and rubber going into the building of cars now. Thank God there is, because it is all made in my riding, and it’s a great thing for us. The plastic is made there, the rubber is made there; but this is reducing the recyclable content of the cars.

At the same time, the people in Ontario who are in the business of picking up the cars which are blotting our landscape, the backyards of our homes and down the back concession roads, have to pay more and more in the way of wages and salaries to their employees. They are paying twice as much for the trucks that carry these abandoned cars to Hamilton for recycling, and at the same time, they are getting 30 to 40 per cent less for those abandoned cars. I believe the province of Ontario and the government of Ontario should take some leadership in this matter and create some incentives for the recycling of these automobile bodies which are becoming so prevalent.

We should have more leadership from the province in protecting automobile owners. You will recall the rusty Ford owners association which finally got together in desperation and took class action on their own behalf. This, I think, has had one good effect; the companies have put greater emphasis on anti-rust measures in their automobiles.

But these people are put to great trouble and expense to try to protect themselves, because nobody else is doing it for them. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the minister to truly protect the consumers of Ontario he should be looking at this sort of protection.

While I am speaking about car owners and so forth, I would like to mention the matter of compulsory automobile insurance. Everybody says everyone should have insurance. We certainly want everybody to have insurance. Public liability and property damage insurance by the automobile owner is just as important as having a driver’s licence. I know the Select Committee on Company Law has supported compulsory automobile insurance in principle, but has referred the matter to staff to investigate the technicalities.

I note my colleague, Mr. Nixon, has introduced a private member’s bill to require compulsory automobile insurance. I would like to draw to the minister’s attention these things that have gone on in the demand for compulsory automobile insurance. I am not talking about government insurance, I am talking about insurance provided by the well-established insurance dealers of this province but made compulsory for anyone who is driving.

[5:15]

Another item that I would like to touch on briefly and draw to the minister’s attention is the censorship Act as it has to do with movies, and particularly the advertising for movies. The basis of the existing censorship is much too broad, particularly in advertising. I am aware of one drive-in theatre where the advertising they put in the paper about their coming movies is much more dramatic and much more shocking than the actual movie itself. But it brings out the people. This is really not protecting the consumer, in my opinion, and I believe greater emphasis should be placed on this sort of thing, particularly for movies directed toward violence.

The views of the mayor of Toronto on the movie called Snuff, have been written up considerably. Great violence was shown in this movie, most of it directed to women. There has been great support for the view expressed by Crombie recently in this matter.

I believe we should look at censorship, with a view to trying to curtail some of this advertising particularly, and hopefully in this way doing away with some of the violence currently being shown in the theatres and the drive-in theatres throughout the province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you go to the drive-ins often, Paul? Do you go to the drive-ins often in Sarnia?

Mr. Blundy: No, I don’t go to drive-ins very often, but I do read the papers and I see the ads. Then I talk to those who have gone. Sometimes the movies shown at the drive-in don’t seem to bear very much relationship to the ads I see in the paper to get the people to come.

The minister’s opening statement put great stock on the number of inquiries he has had and the number of complaints he has processed. I’m very happy to see those numbers there, but I want to hearken back to what I said earlier. I believe there is a large segment of our population who are really not benefiting from the increased education he is trying to undertake. I can’t stress too fully that he really has to try to advertise in such a way that it will get into the homes of all segments of our community.

I think television, of course, is very good in that respect. The amount of consumer education in the schools, in my opinion, is questionable. I haven’t been to school for a long time, so I can’t say from personal experience, but I have a wife and a daughter who teach school. I have discussed this with them and they feel it’s very limited and that a great deal more could be done to teach students, particularly in high schools, consumer law, what consumer rights are and how they fit into everyday life.

On the condominium study group, we are looking forward very much to the Kealey report that will be coming in. This is an area that has a great need of amended legislation.

The aluminum wiring inquiry, I think, is a bit of a joke in some respects. I have been approached by people who have appeared before the various hearings of the aluminum wiring inquiry committee and they feel they have not been able to impress the people, even though they documented personal experiences and problems they have had with aluminum wiring. Many of these people are beginning to think that nothing good is going to come of this inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I really appeal to the minister that we do get a good report from that inquiry and that it be acted upon. These people are fearful that this will not take place. I urge you to take action on the report as soon as it comes in.

Those are largely the remarks I want to make in my initial reply to the minister’s remarks. I know we will have many opportunities over the next several weeks to discuss specific items under each vote and I will look forward to getting more information and hopefully giving some input as we go along in the vote.

Mr. Davison: Mr. Chairman, it gives me some pleasure indeed to rise and engage in the great ritual and tradition of the opening statement, where we watch the minister and hear the minister echo sentiments and words of his predecessor. In fact, in hearing and reading the minister’s statement I felt for a moment, with some exceptions, I was reading a Sidney Handleman speech.

Mr. Foulds: A short, thin Sidney Handleman, that is all he is.

Mr. Samis: So much for his image.

Mr. Davison: There were some notable exceptions, I must say, one of which I found on page 10. The dear former minister never would have said something like the second paragraph on page 10 wherein the current minister says, “Self regulation requires continued presence of government to ensure that the public’s interest is being served. It requires industries with a sense of social responsibility.”

The previous minister knew all about Inco and he would have had a great deal less faith and would have been a little more reticent about saying something like that. So there are, indeed, some differences. But essentially, the ministerial remarks in the opening statement serve to say basically how pleasant we are in the ministry; we are pretty good guys and we have some pretty wonderful legislation coming forward.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad you don’t have anyone to back you up now.

Mr. Samis: Two Tories in the House.

Mr. Davison: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t need it.

Mr. Davison: The opposition critics try fairly hard in their opening statements, traditionally, to find something nice to say about the ministry, something nice to say about the minister. But only six days ago, Mr. Chairman, we debated the income tax discounters legislation and I went on at some length about how nice the minister was and what a nice job he had done on that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t stop now.

Mr. Davison: So having commended you, Mr. Grossman, I will proceed to condemn you today in the finest tradition of an opposition member’s opening statement.

As tradition goes, Mr. Chairman, we in the opposition go on to outline some of the general problems faced in the ministry, which we will be addressing when we come to the vote-by-vote debate. In that sense, I would like to associate myself with about 79 per cent of the remarks made by the Liberal critic. Some of them, I am afraid, I just can’t touch.

As things change relatively slowly, if they change at all with this government, the opposition’s statements tend to be very much like the minister’s statement; rather an echo of past remarks. Not wanting to break with tradition, because I realize how important it is in the House, I would like to make some remarks and Mr. Chairman, if I stray too far from the historical guidelines, I trust you will bring it to my attention.

I feel compelled in dealing with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations estimates, to make some remarks on the degree of diversity in the responsibilities of this minister. I would like to thank the minister for the excellent briefing book I received -- the big red book.

An hon. member: It is worth about $20.

Mr. Davison: It is worth a great deal more, actually.

There are some elements in the big red book that show fairly clearly, in a rather concise way, the diversity within the ministry. I would like to take my colleagues on a tour, if I might, of the minister’s fiefdom. Let us consider, for example, the ministry administration. You guys have really got it all together; unfortunately, you have it all together in three of four different buildings, so I am not quite sure how the act keeps going. You’ve got part of the ministry administration at 555 Yonge Street; you’ve got part of it at 400 University Avenue; you’ve got part of it at 1 St. Clair Avenue West -- I hope you’ve got part of it in the Legislative Assembly -- and the rest of it is in the minister’s car.

We then find tucked away on 555 Yonge Street, the Ontario Securities Commission. Well not to worry, I’m not sure that any of us really understand what those guys are doing. That’s especially true of Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines, who write to us on a weekly basis to quiz us about just what those characters are doing.

We move along to -- oh yes, commercial standards are still with pensions commissions down at 8 York Street. I really think some days the prime responsibility of the commission is to frustrate the devil out of pensioners in my riding when they try to find out something about their pensions. I have thick files composed exclusively of correspondence between pensioner constituents of mine and the commission.

Then we have one of my favourites, the financial institutions division. They are at 555 Yonge, 950 Yonge, and 400 University Avenue. This is where we deal with the biggies of the finance community and the finance world; like the insurance companies, the credit unions and indeed the cemeteries. I’m not quite sure how we fitted them in. However, there is, I am assured, some guy in some office dealing with the cemeteries under financial institutions.

The guys in the business practices division are at 555 Yonge Street and 1 St. Clair Avenue West. Their prime accomplishment, as far as I can tell in the overview, is hiding from consumers the provisions under, and indeed the existence of, the Business Practices Act. We’ve got a pretty good piece of legislation in the Business Practices Act, but these guys seem to be engaged in a process of keeping it a virtual secret from the consumers.

Well we move along to technical standards. We have a lot of diversity there, everything from pressure vessels to elevating devious.

Public entertainment standards, including the Ontario Racing Commission -- which currently serves, as far as I can tell, as the second to final resting place of one Charles MacNaughton, who was a well known figure about the House -- is up on Millwood Road. Also located there, is the theatres branch. Those are the characters who view those films about which my colleague from Sarnia was so concerned. They see what kind of a relationship, for example, Snow White is having with the Seven Dwarfs in the latest Walt Disney movie. We’ll have more to say about those characters, I am sure.

The lotteries branch is included there as well. Then there is what I think is probably the finest example of decentralization in the ministry. This occurs under property rights where we have the provincial property registrar and his unit. It is the head office. I guess, for lack of a better word, and it is situated at 400 University Avenue. We then have regional property registration branch number one, situated of all places at 400 University Avenue. However, to make up for that, regional property registration branch number two, to show the diversity, is situated at 100 Queen Street West. Indeed, sometimes Metro forms the boundaries of ministries.

[5:30]

The Registrar General is in the Macdonald Block. Those are the guys in charge of hyphens; and they can use them, in many cases, in their names.

The Liquor Licence Board, they’re down on the Lakeshore; and of course with those people we also have the Liquor Licence Appeal Tribunal, which is the current abode of one John Yaremko, another former figure around these halls.

We seem to have a lot of elements in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to provide jobs for former cabinet ministers.

I would mention the LCBO, which supposedly reports through the minister, but since they form essentially an independent kingdom I feel somewhat at a loss on what I can say, because we really don’t seem to be provided with a great deal of information about them.

The other great private organization, or separate organization within the ministry, is the rent review group, which is located all over the province.

That’s a brief tour of the ministry. Those are the areas we’re going to be discussing as the estimates go along.

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you visit them all, Larry, like Frank Drea with his ministry?

Mr. Davison: It indeed does show that the ministry is diversified.

There really is, I think, a need, Mr. Minister for reorganization; not just of your ministry but of the entire government. You have several components in your ministry that have nothing to do with what should be your prime function, which is consumer protection.

It strikes me that we could get on with the job a lot better if we got rid of some of the commerce-related aspects of your ministry, to one of your good friends like Hon. Claude Bennett in Industry and Tourism. Then we could take a look at the other ministers and the other ministries, and I suspect that we would find in ministries like Agriculture and Food, Health, Energy and Housing certain elements that dealt pretty exclusively with the consumer. Those elements then and those in other ministries of the government could be transferred and put under your responsibility so that within one ministry we would have all the consumer-oriented legislation and we could deal with it in that sense.

You wouldn’t then find yourself in the position of your colleague, the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) who has the same problem. She can’t really take the side of labour, she can’t really take the side of management, so she places herself firmly in between them, on the fence. You, sir, by the nature of your ministry, have a similar problem. How can you really act to protect the consumer when you have responsibility for some of these other pieces of legislation?

The test of this ministry is and always will be found in the response to two questions: One, does the ministry by word and deed protect consumers? Two, do consumers know what the ministry is doing?

Mr. Warner: No, no.

Mr. Davison: My experience today and obviously the experience of my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere is no.

Mr. Samis: Totally and entirely so.

Mr. Davison: That’s right, the ministry isn’t by word and deed protecting the consumers of Ontario and the consumers don’t have the foggiest idea what it is you’re doing.

Mr. Warner: They need protection from the minister.

Mr. Davison: Yes. I’ve really had an awful lot of correspondence from constituents and from other people in the province about the ministry. They ask essentially: “What are these guys doing? Who are they? What are they up to?” I was reading a group of clippings a few nights ago. I was reading some press clippings and I found an article from the September 30 edition of the Niagara Falls Review. A fine paper.

Mr. Samis: Vince’s favourite.

Mr. Davison: Yes, and it appears over the signature of one Colleen Brazeau. I’d like to read it to you, Mr. Minister. I don’t know how it passed your attention. By the way, in your absence, I did of course respond on your behalf to the paper. I’ll read you my reply later.

Mr. Warner: Thoughtful, wasn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m going to send you my mail.

Mr. Samis: He’ll send you a brown paper envelope.

Mr. Davison: “The Editor:

“Of what value is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations if it has no real authority?”

Mr. Warner: Toothless.

Mr. Davison: “How many of us are aware of its limitations until we are unfortunate enough to require its services? Let me cite you an example.

“We engaged a local firm to dig and pour the foundation for our home. Our basement was flooded from day one. We contacted the ministry which stated that the contractor must return to work and repair his faulty work. He refused. The ministry tells us that it has the power to order him to return, but if he doesn’t the department can take no further steps.

“If the ministry does not have the authority to make businesses comply with their instructions, then what protection does the consumer receive? I would be extremely interested to learn the number of our tax dollars that are poured into a branch of provincial government that is nothing more than a shadow of what we are led to believe it is.”

It goes back to the point I was making that perhaps, Mr. Minister, it’s a good thing for your ministry the people of Ontario really don’t understand what you’re doing, because it seems when they find out they don’t like it.

As I mentioned, I watched the paper for your response. You somehow missed it, so on your behalf, did reply.

“Dear Mr. Editor:

“I have just read a letter to the editor in your paper of September 30, 1977, entitled ‘Ministry is Toothless’” -- That was the title, “Ministry is Toothless.”

Mr. Warner: Nothing personal.

Mr. Davison: That’s right. Is it true through OHIP we can get your dental records?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not mine.

Mr. Foulds: Only if he’s been hospitalized for the work.

Mr. Warner: Just ask the Mounties.

Mr. Davison: To continue: -- “in which Colleen Brazeau expressed her concern as to the value of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I must say that I concur with her assessment of the ministry in many respects.

“The central problem is the ministry’s reliance on moral suasion rather than law as a means of dealing with those who have abridged the rights of consumers. It reflects the government’s lack of commitment to consumer protection. It in fact seems that the real function of the ministry is public relations.”

Mr. Foulds: Doesn’t even do that well.

Mr. Davison: “I can be of assistance to Ms. Brazeau in regard to the number of our tax dollars that are poured into this branch of government. In the fiscal year 1977-78 the ministry will spend $78,913,000. I have no doubt that the report of a cost-benefit analysis would take on a surrealistic quality. However, may I say to Ms. Brazeau that I would consider the expenditure more than totally justified if the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations performed the functions we are led to believe it does.”

So, I hope, Mr. Minister, you’ll accept that in the absence of your own reply as a reasonable, impartial judge of the situation.

Mr. Warner: Entirely objective.

Mr. Davison: I’ve been concerned. I’ve shared this concern with you privately and publicly and I’d like to share it with you again.

Could you tell me how consumers in Ontario can have any faith in or any understanding of your ministry if you won’t file an annual report like almost every other ministry in this province?

I’ve raised this with you privately. I’ve raised it in the House. On October 24, I introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 75, which as I’m number 80 in the lottery will be debated sometime around 1987.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You won’t be here then.

Mr. Foulds: You won’t be either.

Mr. Davison: I hope I’m not. If I am here, I hope I’m not still asking for the report.

Mr. Foulds: Your son may be here, but not you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’re pretty good that way.

Mr. Warner: You’ll be out grinding coffee beans.

Mr. Davison: I think it’s rather ironic that the one ministry most directly affecting consumers, or supposedly most directly affecting consumers, is one of the few that doesn’t file an annual report. I think my bill is important because it will give that report to the members of the House and, through the members of the House, to the public.

I would ask the minister today, because my bill won’t be debated until 1987 could you please take it upon yourself? It’s a very simple change in the legislation: It requires one paragraph to be changed in the Act that set up your ministry. I promise not even to enter the debate if you bring that in. I would blindly vote for it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So what else is new?

Mr. Warner: Get that off the record.

Mr. Davison: No, I have the paragraph written down.

Mr. Samis: He’s so desperate he’s making offers.

Mr. Warner: Add, “... in a like manner to the minister.”

Mr. Davison: Yes. I put that to you. I don’t mean to spend a lot of time on it, because I’m really out of order: It is a bill waiting debate in the House, but why couldn’t you do that? It’s not a big deal. Failing that, what is to stop you from producing a report on your own? Just because the legislation doesn’t force you to tell consumers what you’re doing is no reason you can’t. I would like to see either an amendment from the ministry, or a report.

I’ve been concerned for some time about the element of secrecy that surrounds the rent review program in Ontario, I have a suspicion that if consumers in Ontario find the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to be something less than totally open they find the rent review program to be absolutely top secret. I think people in Ontario know more about the Soviet KGB than they know about the rent review program.

This was a topic of lengthy debate in the last estimates. My colleague from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who unfortunately can’t be with us today to put the argument again, put it so well back in the last estimates. With your kind permission, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to read a few of his remarks, because I very much respect his opinion in these matters.

He was responding to the minister’s total refusal to make public this document -- the manual for officers of the rent review. The minister said that we were dealing with a quasi-judicial body, therefore it wouldn’t be right for the members of the Legislature to be interfering. My colleague from Riverdale said at the time:

“I can only analogize it to the court system, since you have raised the fact that it is a judicial process. I never understood what quasi-judicial meant. In fact, it is a judicial process. Decisions are being made which affect the relative rights of persons as owners and tenants of property.”

He went on to say, comparing it to a court:

“The rules of court are obviously available to anybody who wants to labour through them. The whole of the procedural question relates to the substance of what is before those boards. It is a relatively ancient saying, without being legalistic about it, that the substance of the law is usually found in the procedures which are followed. If you don’t know the procedures and if you don’t know the rules that are being played and the matters which are being determined, then you are not likely to get the substance of the justice of what is required.” He spoke about it at some length on May 11, 1976. I would read into the record one or two more paragraphs:

[5:45]

“All I am saying is that it does seem to me that if the judicial process of rent review is to be analogous to the court proceedings, the rent review officer sits in the position of judge, the players know what the rules are and it’s the contest between the players in accordance with the rules that leads to the resolution of the problem by the rent review officer. The rent officer is not established as some kind of person who in some mysterious way by consulting some crystal ball of arcane manuals makes the decision.”

Finally, in the last sentence, he said: “Make the rules public so that the administration can become regularized, so that people aren’t operating in the dark, with a view to both dispelling the concern which is around about the administration and also to take it out in the open and perhaps solve an immense number of problems in the future with respect to the actual administration of the rent review program.”

If I might, I would like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks made by my colleague from Riverdale on that day because they hit the nail on the head. The public has a right to know what the rules are. You can’t operate that kind of program and keep it in the dark.

If the procedures are changed through action by the minister and the manual is made public, we are going to have another problem. A number of months ago I requested this manual which I have on my desk today. After some lengthy argument with various officials in your ministry, I was able to get a copy on the condition that I return it by the end of 1977.

I want to raise some questions with you. I don’t want to sound accusative and I don’t want you to take my remarks as accusative about the former minister, about you or any of your senior staff.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Be careful.

Mr. Davison: There are some questions raised by the document I received, which is purported to be the rent review procedures manual. I have gone though it at some length and I am willing to let you have this copy so that you can take a look at it. I would like to know what happened to tabs 6 and 7 in this book, which supposedly deals with the legal and the records management program. In my copy of the manual, it only goes up to tab 5, which is appeals. A substantial portion of the manual just isn’t here. What was given to me as the manual just isn’t here. The glossary isn’t included. I would like to know why.

I feel a bit suspicious about the fact that the two tabs that were deleted from my book are the two tabs for which no table of contents is listed. If it had been one of the other tabs that had been removed from my copy, then I would have at least known what was in it and perhaps I could have calmed my suspicious nature and I wouldn’t have to be raising this with you now.

Consider this fact. I have in my copy of the manual, section 1, which deals with administration. I have document RR0101-02, which is the concluding page of that section. My copy of the manual then jumps to RR0103-01. What happened to the organizational charts that are supposed to be in this document? What happened to document RR0102, it just isn’t here? You will have to forgive me if that makes me a bit suspicious. I could continue for a long time, I suspect. What happened to document RR0103-08? I have got 7 and I have got 9, but I don’t have 8.

And finally, on this manual, I’d like to know from you, Mr. Minister -- and if you don’t know I’d like you to find out before we get to the rent review section -- after the manual was originally given to my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), what bulletins, what memos or what anythings that don’t appear in what I was told was the manual were added for the consideration of the officers?

I am sorry if I sound a bit suspicious of your ministry. I don’t mean to impute motives, but I would like to know before we get into the rent review discussion towards the end of the estimates exactly why I have got an incomplete manual.

So keep those two things in mind, please. One, why on earth can’t the people of Ontario see this red book? What’s so secret about it? Why can’t they be privy to the rules before they play the game? Two, when you purport to give somebody a copy of it, would you please make sure it’s all there?

There are a couple of other matters I would like to raise in an opening statement because they really don’t fall under any of the votes.

I got a letter, dated October 31, 1977, which was a copy of a letter to you from a Toronto alderman’s office. If I may, I would like to read this letter into the record. I have taken precautions to delete references which I feel might identify the people involved. The minister does, I know, have a copy of this letter in his files so he can go and refresh his memory in terms of the exact details. I think it is something I would like to read into the record of this debate.

“Dear Mr. Grossman:

“I would like to bring to your attention the plight of a small businessman located in the -- -- retail area. His problems are shared by hundreds of other independent retailers who are being driven out of business, not by large chain competitors, but by unscrupulous landlords.

“Mr. and Mrs. -- -- have operated a small variety store for many years at Such-and-such street. On July 31, 1977, they were paying $340 per month, including taxes and utilities, for an unrenovated 1,000 square-foot premise.

“On August 1, 1977, they received a $40 per month increase to $380 per month. In September, the property changed hands and their rent was increased to $1,200 per month. This was then written down by the new landlord to $1,000 per month, plus 25 per cent of the property taxes, plus utilities. In October, the landlord again reduced his asking price to $850 per month, plus 25 per cent of property taxes, plus utilities.

“In addition, the landlord has presented Mr. and Mrs. -- -- with a lease which is so restrictive that their lawyer has counselled them not to sign. As a result, they will be forced out of business.

“Currently there is no provincial legislation which offers protection for small business tenants. Is your ministry considering or is it prepared to consider legislation that will protect small business tenants against excessive rent increases and prejudicial lease agreements?

“I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.”

I don’t know how you have responded to them, Mr. Minister, but I will tell you this isn’t a new issue.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if I could just interrupt the member --

Mr. Davison: I’m sure you could, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: -- to inform the House that we have a guest, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Applause]

Mr. Davison: I realize we’re approaching the bewitching hour. This isn’t a new problem, Mr. Minister. This isn’t something that popped up on October 31, 1977, or August 1, 1977. I raised this problem with the Minister of Housing as long ago as October 30, 1975.

The minister was John Rhodes, still the current Minister of Housing. I asked him in the House, “Does the proposed rent review legislation apply to all rental premises -- specifically, small businesses, commercial and industrial premises -- and if not, why not?” The minister in his usual fashion managed not to answer the question and then finally answered it by bringing in legislation which didn’t protect small businessmen.

In November of the same year I raised with him the case of Mr. George Fenton, who was operating a store at 181 Church Street in Oakville that was owned by the town council. He had an increase in his rent of 60 per cent. It put him out of business.

I had a number of cases and I have had a number of cases come into my riding office. The smallest complaint I’ve had from a small businessman in my riding in terms of a rent increase was for 100 per cent. They’re not coming in and bitching about 12 per cent or 34 per cent or 16 per cent or six per cent -- 100 per cent was the smallest complaint. I had a large number of complaints. It’s a serious problem.

I tried again, in my own way, to use the rules of the House to bring forward a private member’s resolution, because we’re not allowed to spend money in a private member’s bill.

Shall I continue, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: You still have two or three minutes left.

Mr. Davison: Okay. I can probably deal with it in that time.

In June 1976 I placed on the order paper the following resolution: “That in the opinion of this House the government should introduce legislation to provide rent control for small business commercial and industrial premises.” I did a survey of my riding just before that in which I asked my constituents what they thought about the need for that kind of legislation. Eighty per cent of my constituents favoured that kind of legislation. Eighty per cent. We still didn’t get it from the government.

The gouging of those landlord’s had and still has two bad effects which the minister should know about. One is if the businessman stays in business the cost of paying excessive rent to the gouger is passed along directly to the very consumers he purportedly is protecting in increased prices. The second effect is if the businessman doesn’t do it he goes out of business, and another small businessman bites the dust in Ontario.

I would say to the minister there is need. When we’re restricting wage increases in this country to six per cent, when we’re restricting rent increases to six per cent, and when we have such a regulated economy there is need for action in this area. I would ask him to take a look at it. I know his colleague wasn’t very interested in it but perhaps the minister could show some interest and protect consumers in that area.

There are two very brief things I wish to raise, but I am afraid they will take five or 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.