The House resumed at 8 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 20, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is really self-explanatory. It extends the provisions of the current rent review act for another 90 days to enable the committee to continue its deliberations on Bill 163.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think this is perhaps the fourth time we have been called upon to extend this legislation because of the continuing involvement of the committee and of the House in the procedure which is currently going on with respect to Bill 163.

We recognize, of course, it is necessary to ensure the whole project of rent review continues without interruption or delay to have this kind of an extension until the new legislation is in place. As a result, of course, this bill is in the tradition of the one line bills that require a certain extension. We will, of course, support the bill and I hope, particularly being the critic although not a member of the committee which is currently continuing the discussions with respect to Bill 163, that bill will soon be reported back to the House with the hopes that a continuation of rent review will be in place as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Ruston: The one and only.

Mr. Warner: There’s only one member for Scarborough-Ellesmere here. Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting Bill 20, in a spirit of cooperation of course. It is to be understood, of course, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you understand, this bill is made necessary because of the seriously flawed bill which the committee has before it, Bill 163. I think members of the committee understand the bill is quite substantial and we’re not likely to see, before the committee or before this assembly, major changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act for some time. I think all members in the assembly can appreciate that if we are to make needed changes in the legislation and ensure those changes will benefit the tenants of the province of Ontario, time must be taken and care must be given to ensure the legislation is the very best we can get. Therefore, that is going to take a while. Unfortunately, the bill we were handed was not as good as it perhaps should have been so the extension becomes legally necessary. That is why we have Bill 20 in front of us today. So we will support Bill 20, which makes the extension and allows us to carry on our work in the committee with Bill 163. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future that work will be completed and the bill reported back to the House. We support Bill 20.

Mr. Nixon: There are many things for which I personally am grateful. Near the top of the list is that I have never had to sit on a committee dealing with the series of abominations -- these bills the member has brought forward -- which have complicated the whole aspect of rent review to such a great degree.

Did it ever occur to the minister that the two concepts might very well have been separated so that we would not have to deal with these individual bills in this specific way? Landlord and tenant relationship and the law pertaining to it, as the minister knows far better than I, and my colleagues know far better than the minister, is a complex matter. It has been before this House for a decade in its more recent emanations, and even longer.

It seems really -- and I feel this often as House leader -- that we’re asking a great deal of our colleagues when they have to sit month after month after month --

Mrs. Campbell: Year after year.

Mr. Nixon: My learned colleague, and friend, corrects me -- year after year dealing with the intricacies of the changes that the minister, in his wisdom, has put before this House, and which apparently have been so unacceptable to the community and to many members of the committee.

My colleague, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) -- he’s always an optimist -- has expressed the hope that the bill from the committee will be before this House. I forget his words but --

Mr. Breithaupt: I think “soon” was assumed.

Mr. Nixon: “Soon”, perhaps, is the word he used.

Sensing the emanations from the representatives of all parties, but particularly the socialist party, I doubt if we will see this until June. I have a feeling that we may even commission the committee to deal with this matter for a further series of weeks during the summer. I really think that is an atrocious thing the minister is asking the House to do. I really think that’s so.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Would you like me to withdraw the bill?

Mr. Nixon: I really regret that he could not have brought forward a landlord and tenant bill that could have moved forward in the grand traditions that have been recorded in the Hansard records of this House by Vernon Singer, QC and so many other learned and advanced spokesmen on these matters.

As a House leader, and I think perhaps my colleague the government House leader would agree, I hesitate to ask my colleagues to work on that committee which has gone on for so many months.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It hasn’t gone on for so many months.

Mr. Nixon: It’s certainly gone on for more than a year. This is the fourth time we’ve had this kind of artificial extension. I just think it is really a shame the way the government has dealt with the situation.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the bill? If not, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just to set the matter straight for the House leader of the opposition party: First of all, the decision to bring forward the Residential Tenancies Act, which combined the existing Landlord and Tenant Act and rent review, was a decision made by all three parties. I draw that to his attention.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It was a decision made in the committee report.

Mr. Nixon: You should have had the initiative to cut them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I wasn’t the minister then.

Mr. Nixon: You are now.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just draw to the member’s attention that the bill, in the combination form it is in now, was brought forward by all three parties. Second, there has been --

Mr. Foulds: Too bad you don’t take all of our suggestions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I take a great many of them, like this afternoon’s. I would say this, too. The experience with rent review -- and prior to going into Correctional Services I did have experience with rent review -- showed that the most common difficulty was the lack of one-stop service. People were coming to rent review because they had a landlord and tenant problem; therefore, they should properly be put together.

Rather than saying that this committee is acting with a flawed act, the truth of the matter is that no committee has ever dealt with an act in such a participatory manner, where the public can come in and talk on any clause at any time. There is no question that when that happens progress sometimes is slow.

I, for one, prefer that with regard to something that is going to affect people for a great many years; something that I happen not only to know, but which as I have just learned from some of my colleagues in the province of Quebec, is considered now to be the finest piece of residential tenancy legislation in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, you are catching that old Tory disease.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, no, no. The government in the province of Quebec is not of my party, and not of yours.

Mr. Nixon: But you have the disease of repeating these carefully selected comments from among your ministerial colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Drea: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons I don’t want to get into a debate with the Liberal House leader tonight, but I say to him in all seriousness --

Mr. Nixon: Want to step outside?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- that when he does this type of thing he does a grave disservice to tenants across the province; and really, for the public perception of himself, coming from a non-tenant area, I would suggest that perhaps he might consult with his colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), about the process by which this is being done.

Mr. Nixon: I just thank my lucky stars I wasn’t associated with you in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for BON has already spoken.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting the County of Middlesex.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put two or three items on the record.

Firstly, this bill came about as a result of certain negotiations. Many members will remember that a year ago there was concern by the members from London about a similar bill that was proposed to be brought in as a private member’s bill. Following that concern, I have had the opportunity to meet with the federal officials and I have had the opportunity of meeting with the Middlesex county officials, and we agreed to a scheme whereby the province of Ontario will introduce this legislation which will remove a cloud from the title of the previous courthouse. At the same time, the federal government, in a letter dated some two years ago, suggested that they would share on a 50-50 basis with the province of Ontario the cost of the actual refurbishing of this bill -- building.

The actual cost, as the architect appointed by the county --

Mrs. Campbell: What did you refurbish?

The bill or the building?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The building. The federal officials suggested that they would share the costs equally with the county and the province, or they would share equally with the province on a 50-50 basis. The Middlesex architect suggested that the total cost of the building refurbishing would be $2.2 million. One point six million dollars will go towards the refurbishing of the building. The other $600,000 will be for additions that were not actually part of the previous building.

Mr. Peterson: What about the jail?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will come to that. The air conditioning, elevator and other items are not part of the refurbishing. For this reason I met with the county, and I could read the members the letter; the members for that area have all had a copy of the letter. I pointed out that we as a province are willing to supply $800,000 towards refurbishing, providing the federal government puts up $800,000, and providing that Middlesex county finishes the job at an expected cost of $600,000.

[8:15]

There was a question with respect to the jail. There was concern a few months ago about preserving the county jail.

I have made it clear to the member for London South (Mr. Walker) and to others who have requested what are we doing with the jail, that before Middlesex will receive a clear title we will have an understanding with them that they keep the jail for five years.

Mr. Peterson: Why only five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We don’t feel that we should keep the building sitting out there for generations to come if no organization is interested in it.

Mr. Peterson: If they have clear title it is clearly theirs.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The purpose of it was that Middlesex, the day after they get clear title to it, can’t come along with a bulldozer and bulldoze it down. We want to preserve it. If there is a group in London which thinks it should be restored as a historical building, we want to keep it that way for up to five years.

Mr. Peterson: Then they will tear it down in five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We will remove the restrictions at the end of five years.

Mr. Peterson: But you are not accomplishing anything.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Maybe not, but I think --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable minister conclude his opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, we think we are accomplishing a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Ruston: We certainly have no objections to this bill. I am sure the member for London Centre may want to speak on the bill, and the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) will, I am sure, be speaking in favour of the bill.

Mr. Peterson: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Ruston: I would just like to put on the record the official stand of our party. We agree with this bill and will support it. I may have to use my whip a little, but I think we will manage all right. There may be some discussions on it, but we have no objection to the bill and will support it.

Mr. Nixon: Okay, Jack.

Mr. Riddell: This bill resolves a dispute which has been going on for some time now involving the city council in London, Middlesex county council, and other agencies I expect.

I want to commend the minister. It is not often I do that, but I want to commend him for bringing this thing to a head and in getting this thing moving to the point where we are going to get, hopefully, a federal grant out of it, although it is too bad we didn’t have a chance to debate this bill before the federal election was called. I don’t know what that is going to do; whether that will hold up the $800,000 that we were hoping to get from them or not.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: They will be quick to pay now, Jack.

Mr. Riddell: We certainly were hoping we might have had a chance to debate this hill before that time.

Mr. Nixon: Count on Trudeau; he will look after us.

Mr. Riddell: It involves the courthouse block in London, which is all of the property which has been used for the administration of justice since London was first surveyed.

As a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether you have ever had occasion to read the book The Black Donnellys, about a group that came out from Ireland and settled in Lucan. There was a little bit of feuding that was carried over from the days back in Ireland and there was a massacre.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Any relation, John?

Mr. Riddell: The trials were held in this courthouse in London and I believe there were maybe even some hangings at that time, if I am not mistaken, in this jail in London.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The rope broke.

Mrs. Campbell: Are you sure that is not discrimination?

Mr. Riddell: Originally it was the courthouse block and as buildings were needed for special purposes they were built by the county. I want to stress that fact to my colleague to my right. These buildings were built by the county. The city did participate in some of the costs, I will have to admit that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Not much.

Mr. Riddell: That is right, not enough. Since the province took over, the buildings in the block were abandoned. I believe only the registry office building is presently being used, but this is only on a very temporary basis. The buildings take up one whole city block and yet only one of the buildings is a modern building.

As a matter of interest, the courthouse goes back before there were counties or districts established and probably was started by the government of Upper Canada in 1827; I believe it was opened in 1828. That gives members some idea how old these buildings are.

In 1846 the district of London, the antecedent of the present county, built the county jail. The counties were formed in 1850 and the county was responsible for the administration of justice at that time.

The county had to build its administration building in 1860. At that time the province deeded this property to the county of Middlesex, but it was deeded to be used strictly for a courthouse, a jail and a registry office. As time went by, the county added on buildings as they were required and maintained them. The county bought land in London township and as a centennial project built a library. It was always felt when the present building could be sold a new one would be built on the land the county had purchased.

They approached the province to see if it would be interested in the present building, but the province didn’t want it. Then they approached the city -- and again I must stress this for the benefit of my colleague to the right; the reason I say that is because he’s going to get up and talk about how these buildings should be turned into something of great historical value, with fancy restaurants and all this kind of stuff.

Mr. Peterson: How could you possibly allow my colleague to put words in my mouth? I think you have to call him to order immediately, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hennessy: Which one of you fellows is the conservative man in the party?

Mr. Riddell: They did approach the city to purchase the property but the city didn’t want it. The federal government declared the courthouse a historical building and therefore was willing to contribute to the restoration to the extent of $800,000 to which the Minister of Government Services alluded.

The province has also agreed to pay 50 per cent, or $800,000, for restoration costs. As the county is involved, if they were going to use it as offices they would be responsible for certain additional costs, such as installing an elevator, lighting and to meet the standards of the building code and fire code. The estimated cost for this was $600,000.

It was going to be left up to the county whether to restore the jail for a public ball and banquet room. In addition, there is landscaping for a park area and additional costs for the parking area to fit in with the landscaping. The property, Mr. Speaker, and you’ll have to come to London to see it, looks down to the forks of the Thames River, which is a very historic site, just simply beautiful.

The county will use the building as an administration building and maintain it out of funds for administration. It will be open to the public. When completed the county will conduct tours. I’ve already indicated it’s a very historical building. It’s the original courthouse, although it was altered and a major reconstruction took place in the 1870s. People are very concerned that it be preserved as a historic site.

A group was incorporated back a few years ago known as the Middlesex Court Centre Board, and I believe my colleague here was a member of that if I’m not mistaken.

Mr. Peterson: That’s right.

Mr. Riddell: They saw a potential and they wanted to turn the property into a people place; build restaurants, have arts and crafts, theatres and all the rest of it. However, they did not include the county in their plans. They had a study made of the uses of the property. They had considerable funds committed to them from the province by the then Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett). They included the county later by asking them to make an appointment to the board. They never approached the county to buy the property; they wanted it given to them, plus funds for the project.

As indicated previously, the county had equity in the building, particularly the modern building that is standing now. They paid for it and they certainly were not going to walk away from it. They wanted some equity out of the place. If the county can obtain funds for restoring the courthouse, and providing they get clear title to the property, they can use it as the county administration building. We have a bill before us that vests the title of the land in the corporation of the county of Middlesex in fee simple. The county can now go ahead and turn the building to the purposes for which they want it. I think it will make an outstanding county building in the city of London, despite what my colleague may say in a few minutes time.

Mr. Eaten: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this bill because it’s a project we have been working at in Middlesex for some time. I had a private bill before this House about a year ago to try and clear the title, which was turned down by the commissioner of estates. I want to thank, on behalf of Middlesex county council, our colleague from Lambton, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), for his assistance in bringing this bill about and assisting in bringing about the funds to see this project through. As my friend from Huron-Middlesex has mentioned, it is a very historic site in Middlesex county, in fact in Ontario. It is modelled after Malahide castle and designed originally by Colonel Talbot.

Once, in fact, it was even designated the capital of Ontario when Colonel Talbot was first seeing that area of the province settled --

Mr. Peterson: John Robarts was representing the riding.

Mr. Eaton: I guess at that time it was the capital, when we had John there.

Mr. Nixon: Weren’t those great days, Bob? Mr. Eaten: I would say that this site will be a credit to the city of London. There has been some considerable amount of work carried on already; and if my friend from Huron-Middlesex had been around there lately he would know that the registry office disappeared last fall, it isn’t there now.

Mr. Riddell: The building was still there. Mr. Eaton: They have done some work on landscaping already. They actually own the modern building the member for Huron-Middlesex made reference to. I The land it is on is owned outright by the county now, and the land that has been in dispute is the land the courthouse itself and the jail sit on.

There hasn’t been a movement by the people in Middlesex, really, to raise the funds to see the jail preserved; although they have done some preparation in their plans for the refurbishing of the courthouse in that they did make provision for a museum and a large reading room and banquet ball in the top of the jail facilities. If there are people interested in coming forward with funds or other forms of support, people who want to see this section of the building preserved, then the county is willing to work with them to try to preserve that part of the building as well.

But it’s not as old, it’s not as historic, as the courthouse itself, and the county just doesn’t feel it has the funds to put directly into the jail project. They feel that by putting the funds into the courthouse, they can preserve it for history and at the same rime use it for a practical purpose, maintaining their administration within that building and keeping the building open to the public as a historic site in Ontario.

I would certainly like once again to thank the minister for his support of the bill. I am sure with the support of the Liberal Party, no matter what the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) might have to say about the project, it will go ahead and it will be a credit not only to Middlesex but the city of London and the province of Ontario.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, although the member for London Centre may be opposing the bill, I wish to speak in favour of it. After all, any bill which spells jail gaol can’t be all wrong. I think that was the first indication this was a bill definitely intended to help preserve a bit of history in the province of Ontario.

Mrs. Campbell: Don’t bring in Magna Carta tonight.

Mr. Warner: Certainly the Minister of Government Services has had an interest in preserving things. We are certainly in favour of preserving old jails and old courthouses. We are just not in favour of preserving old Tories. So we certainly will lend our unqualified support for Bill 2 and assist in its passage so that the jail and the courthouse can be preserved. Now perhaps we can hear from the one member of the assembly who is opposing the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[8:30]

Mr. Peterson: I want to bring sober rationality into this entire debate, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to know this probably has been one of the most difficult issues faced by our caucus in my brief tenure here. We had a major division today in our caucus; it occupied a considerable amount of time in the agenda. There was a major spread in the caucus; the Nixon wing of the caucus sort of went against me, Mr. Speaker, I should point out. You can identify the Nixon wing in our caucus; they are all the guys in the polyester suits and the white shoes.

I know it is going to take time but, with a lot of goodwill from my brethren and my sister in the caucus, I hope that we will be able to repair this damage, because it has been a most difficult matter of principle.

I have got a little surprise for you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to support the bill, just because I do not like to be left out; I have a feeling that, if it is 124 to one, there must be something the matter with me.

However, I do appreciate the opportunity to put a few facts on the record. We have been treated to an excellent historical dissertation by the two rural members who represent various pieces of Middlesex county, and I think they have done an admirable job of presenting the background.

Let me say that, in my judgement, this is the single most important historical asset in the city of London. It is the focal point; it is the centre; it is at the forks of the Thames; it is almost the geographical centre of the city. We bad a marvellous opportunity to make something out of that historic site at the forks of the Thames. It was the end of the old Highway 2; it stopped right there, coming all the way from Hamilton and indeed from Toronto. As my colleague from Huron-Middlesex pointed out, it is steeped in history.

Now we have taken that marvellous old building and turned it into an office structure, a county office building. I am not saying, given the circumstances of today, that it may not be the best choice. I just think that the local politicians, the former mayor of our city, fumbled this ball so dramatically that I, for one, am dramatically disappointed.

We had an opportunity, a wonderful opportunity, to turn this into a people place, into a building at the historical centre of our city where people were welcome all the time. It had flower shows, it had ethnic shows, it had art galleries the kinds of things that create activity. In so many of these county buildings, even though they are there for public access, who wants to go there unless you have official business, unless you want a severance, unless you want to go to a county council meeting or whatever?

We have lost the opportunity to breathe life into that old girl, and we will never be able to salvage a situation that we have lost. This was part of a whole redevelopment scheme along the banks of the Thames River, involving the old Eldon House, the Labatt’s restoration -- some of the most marvellous restoration you could possibly imagine in any urban area in Ontario. Then we had juxtaposed thereto, right on the banks of the Thames, the old courthouse -- and the old jail, I should add, which is of a different period in terms of architecture but is equally significant and equally meaningful, in my judgement at least, in the history of that particular city.

Of course, there were many other complications that went on with this issue because of the mishandling, as I deem it; essentially by the former mayor, but by the council and by a lot of meetings that went on in private. I will not bore you, Mr. Speaker, with all of the details attendant thereto, but a very strategic and important piece of property owned by the city that could have been park land at the end of a wonderful mall down Dundas Street, the main business street in London, which could have created one of the most magnificent urban atmospheres in this province. We blew that opportunity because we decided to build a brand-new concrete-and-glass art gallery in the middle of this historical skyline. We would have had an unparalleled vista in this province; we have lost that opportunity.

I have been intimately involved with this situation from the beginning and, with some humility, I say that I lost on almost every position I took on this matter. I am sorry about that, but I am sure that thoughtful people 20 years from now will say we made a mistake. We could have located that art gallery -- I grant that London needed an art gallery, and I would point out that the original concept some seven or eight years ago was that the entire courthouse and jail could have been turned into an art gallery; and it would have made a magnificent art gallery. Again, it would have breathed new life and purpose into that old structure.

We cannot afford the luxury of historical buildings sitting around doing nothing. The challenge is to breathe new life into them and to give them a new vitality and a new purpose. An art gallery would have been a marvellous thing and we would have had, beside it, a magnificent park on the banks of the Thames, with bicycle paths and paths all along the Thames from Fanshawe right through to Springbank Park.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have a daughter at the University of Western Ontario, a very intelligent girl like her father, and I am sure she has told you the identical thing. I am sure that if you are ever in a position to leave your nonpartisan role you would come down and agree with every single word I am saying in this House tonight.

We had that opportunity. Then, certain people decided they wanted a new, magnificent glass-and-concrete structure, an art gallery modelled on the Fort Worth Louis Kahn art gallery; and so it was brought and placed right plunk in the middle of this historic skyline. That is a reality and London will have that. I think it could have been much better planned. I think we could have used the strategic area to create, as I said, a totally unique area.

The art gallery proposition having failed then, Mr. Speaker, as I said the people looked for new purposes. Again, they wanted to make it a people-oriented place, to have it a community centre for ethnic clubs, for service clubs, for banquet halls; a gathering place in our community right smack in the middle of the city, and again a place of great historic and strategic advantage. That was another opportunity we lost.

I have to support this bill, because in fairness to the county the county had no other options. There were no other takers for the building. Had the county not come in to salvage this building it probably would have fallen to further wrack and ruin.

But the concept I have been talking about, of the people place and the magnificent structure in the middle of the city, had at one point the support of the province of Ontario. I remember coming, long before I was elected, as a private citizen to a committee. I remind you that the leader of our committee, the chairman of the Middlesex Court Centre Board at that time, was none other than J. P. Robarts. We came down before a committee of cabinet; we gave a presentation. I think perhaps the honourable House leader was there at the time, I am not sure. It was a magnificent presentation, I think members will agree.

The province at that time agreed to give us $50,000 for a feasibility study by Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan; a feasibility study which said that the concept could be done, done cheaply, and done well. As I recall, the province committed $2 million at that time. That money was held back because of the failure of the city arid the internal politics carried on in secret; it was one of the most reprehensible series of transactions in municipal politics anywhere.

I wish some day I could stand up in public and tell members everything that I know went on. Because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of London were the only losers because we had missed this great opportunity.

Of course the county was resigned to this. The county had bought property in Arva, five or six miles out of London. They were prepared to sell their one modern structure, the beautiful green building with funny green glass, to the city or whoever and move out to Arva and be in a brand new structure. Because, you see, logically, even though London is the county seat for the county of Middlesex, the people of the county don’t necessarily identify with the old Middlesex courthouse in the same way that the people of London would, because it is physically in the middle of the city. This clearly should have been the city’s responsibility. I look back with great regret, I look back with great sorrow; because we had an opportunity to preserve something for our children, an opportunity to do something magnificently unique, and we blew it. I am convinced, as I said earlier, that people 20 years from now will look back and say: “We had so many good options then, why didn’t we take the far-sighted view?”

I just want to put in one disclaimer, one thing that worries me. I say this to the honourable minister, to the member for Middlesex and to my colleague from Huron-Middlesex. I am not very impressed with the sensitivity of the county towards that historic structure. The first thing they did, when it appeared they were going to get title -- and I remind my friend the county didn’t own it; if the county had owned it we wouldn’t have this bill here tonight. There was a reverter. The county had title for the purpose of the administration of justice, with a reversion back to the province. We are here to clean up that title tonight.

There are various legal opinions on it. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) had a legal opinion on it, as did various other people, but the consensus seemed to be, clearly, that titled probably rested in the province. When it appeared that the county was going to get title to this building they moved in and immediately tore down some walls around this jail, a unique property. Those jail walls that were the scene of various hangings could have been incorporated with all the local history in a beautiful plan, and they started to tear the walls down. Any organization that shows such lack of respect for a historical building I think has to be considered somewhat suspect.

I am disappointed, and I can say with some pride that my colleague the member for London South (Mr. Walker), who is the Minister of Correctional Services right now, and I were intimately involved in trying to prevent the county from doing something precipitous in tearing down an asset that in no way could be rebuilt -- and it can’t be, and we have lost that opportunity.

I say to the honourable minister, when we are dealing with a group that has displayed that lack of sensitivity towards a historical object, a historical monument, I would like to be assured by him that they are going to treat the jail and the remaining walls with great respect.

I understand the problem of raising the money to resurrect that building; but I am disappointed that the time limit on that is only five years. I would ask the minister, as a reasonable man, to extend that in perpetuity. They can close that building up now if they don’t have the funds to preserve it; but some day they will, and let us prevent them in perpetuity from doing something silly, from destroying a precious heritage -- at least in my opinion it is, and in that of various other people that I respect.

Let’s prevent them from destroying it, because I can assure the House that at some time in the future, and I cannot assure the members that it will be less than five years, some far-sighted, conscientious citizen concerned about the environment of the city will come forward with a viable proposition on how to salvage that jail. Let’s not let them tear it down. As I said before, I am somewhat sceptical, when they have demonstrated a lack of sensitivity in the past. I would like the minister’s assurance, and I hope he will give it to me, that he will use his good offices as well as the power of this Legislature to make sure the county does not tear down that jail.

I can say that I have seen the plans for the old courthouse and frankly I think the plans are magnificent. I think they are doing the best that can be done at this stage, now that the city has totally fumbled the ball. They have a magnificent architect in Norbert Schuller, who breathed new life into that old building. It will be an asset to the city; but it could have been a much greater asset. It could have been a public place, rather than a quasi-private place; it could have been a place that invites people to come in. It could have been a historical centre; it could have been a tourist centre. Now it is going to be a glorified, but beautiful, office building.

We lost the opportunity. I’m sorry about that. I am only imploring the minister to reassure me on that one point and then I will comfortably vote for this bill in the circumstances.

Mr. Lawlor: I have, Mr. Speaker, confessedly never been so moved by a speech in this House. I will not unduly prolong the fandango of the debate. Nevertheless, I can well understand how the Liberal Party must have been torn to pieces in caucus on the issue.

I know nothing of the issue, nothing whatsoever. But, of course, that doesn’t matter. I am standing here now to try to prevail upon the honourable member who spoke so glowingly, so bitterly and with such brilliance on this particular subject I would ask him to be a Don Quixote, if he will. I will vote with him, I promise the House. I will do anything for art -- I learned that a day or two ago.

Mr. Peterson: And I will buy your book, Patrick. That’s fair enough.

Mr. Lawlor: With that in mind, I just simply want to say I join forces with the members on this particular issue. Let’s give the House a real bad time.

[8:45]

Mr. Roy: The reason I am standing is the minute courthouses are mentioned in this Legislature anybody from Ottawa -- and my colleagues know that and I think the minister is aware of that -- get very hyper, get very enthusiastic, because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I have raised on many occasions the deplorable court facilities in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Is that in Middlesex county?

Mr. Roy: Well, I’m just coming there. I started in Ottawa. Just be patient with me. What I wanted to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is we always look on London, Ontario, with envy, because what my colleague from London Centre did not mention is the fantastic court facilities they now have in London, Ontario. I want to say this: We’re so desperate for court facilities that if we in Ottawa can be of assistance in any way to solving this dilemma -- especially a dilemma between some of my colleagues -- we will.

As my colleague the member for Lakeshore said, it was a vicious debate in caucus today about the situation about this bill, If I can be of assistance to the minister and propose this to him about the county courthouse and the restoration, if he has problems and if there is some conflict within the community, we will take it in Ottawa. We will take it and move it down there. We are so short of facilities in the Ottawa area that we would accept anything, and especially something of historical value.

Mr. Sterling: You can’t get the land from the feds.

Mr. Roy: My colleague from Carleton-Grenville is mentioning something.

Mr. Speaker: Now I see why you had so much trouble in caucus. Does anybody else want to speak to Bill 2?

Mr. Roy: I was just on my way to saying those are the only comments I have.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be able to respond to the proposal that has been brought forth tonight. If I might answer in reverse, any problem I am having with the court facilities in Ottawa will be corrected May 22, so that is not a worry to me tonight. I was in Ottawa yesterday morning and I had the assurance the people there would correct the problem I am having with court facilities there.

Mr. Roy: You mean the Tories federally will give you the land the Liberals won’t give you?

Mr. Sterling: That’s right, Albert.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, while the member for London Centre was speaking, I have been looking over the notes. I wouldn’t want to read everything I have in the notes, but I find myself tonight in the position of an arbitrator. All members here tonight remember a year ago when the member for London South (Mr. Walker) and the member for London Centre and the member for London North (Mr. Van Hone) appeared before some court down the street to oppose the clearing of this title. Two of those three people who appeared have been here tonight, the member for London South and the member for London Centre.

The member for London South has given in and I now find he supports the five years.

Mind you, we had to whip him pretty well to make him support it. We really had to go after him. I find the member for London Centre wants a further extension.

In the position of an arbitrator, let me say as chairman maybe for the moment, I would have to support the member for London South and the statements attributed to the Minister of Government Services, so that I will give the House the assurance that before an order in council is passed with respect to this bill making it effective, I will have an agreement with the city of London that this county jail will be kept for five years for any organization that wishes to assume the responsibility and preserve that jail for future generations. There is just one further thing, Mr. Speaker. The previous speakers have not brought out what I felt they would -- maybe the former speakers can help me, but I am not sure whether it was during the mid-1950s or the mid-1960s, and I’ve been rushing though my notes and I haven’t found it -- that the courthouse we are preserving was designated as a historic building. The jail we are referring to was not designated, so there is a distinction between the two buildings. Middlesex was caught in a very difficult position. They were caught with a building that they were not permitted to tear down.

I believe this bill is very acceptable to everybody.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of clarification, and I wanted to share something because I think it’s important. I just wanted to make a point --

Mr. Speaker: It’s not permitted on second reading, after the minister has wound up the debate.

Mr. Peterson: I know that, but I think the House would indulge me on this one particular point because I think it’s important. My point was earlier that it just was inappropriate. It was sort of like taking Bob Nixon to Winston’s for lunch. It just doesn’t fit. He’s not comfortable there. That was the point I wanted to make about the county having --

Mr. Nixon: Throw him out.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if you plan on getting to the committee stage of this bill tonight?

Mr. Warner: Not this evening.

Mr. Eaton: Why do you want it to go to committee?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If I might interject for a moment; honourable members over there and the member for Middlesex have mentioned the urgency of this. And it is urgent. The federal government has demanded this bill be through before we can go any further.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, the minister has no right to contest the decision.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right.

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McNeil, on behalf of Hon. W. Newman, moved second reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Mr. McNeil: This bill is necessary to resolve problems in milk levies arising out of the Supreme Court decision in the egg reference case. It has been concluded that the remittance of levies to the Canadian Dairy Commission collected from producers by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board was no longer legally defensible. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board has therefore ceased remitting such levies.

It is considered that the soundest approach would be to delegate levy authority directly to the Canadian Dairy Commission under the Commodity Boards and Marketing Agencies Act of Ontario. The CDC does not have any powers of regulation over regulated products marketed locally within Ontario, and therefore does not qualify under that act as a marketing agency to receive a delegation of levy authority.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Milk Act, to provide in a manner similar to that already found in the Farm Products Marketing Act for a delegation of marketing authority to the Canadian Dairy Commission. Implementation of this bill will qualify CDC as a marketing agency and allow it to receive subsequently a delegation of levy authority under the Commodity Boards and Marketing Agencies Act.

As a further explanation, section 1 of the bill enacts a new section 26 to the Milk Act which provides, first, for delegation to the Canadian Dairy Commission by the Lieutenant Governor in council of authority to regulate marketing of regulated products and milk products marketed locally within Ontario. Secondly, it provides for specific provisions aimed at ensuring that the Canadian Dairy Commission will come within the terms of the Commodity Boards and Marketing Agencies Act.

Honourable members will be interested in knowing that this bill will not affect provincial government expenditures or receipts.

Mr. Riddell: I’m certainly pleased to see that my good friend, the member for Elgin, is piloting this bill through the House. I’ve attended a number of agricultural functions where the member for Elgin has represented the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I think he does an admirable job. But it makes my blood boil when I go to agricultural functions and I see that they have completely bypassed my good friend, the member for Elgin, and have sent the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) to speak on behalf of the ministry at some of these functions.

I do not know who is responsible for this, whether it is the Minister of Agriculture and Food or the Premier. I have no idea whether it is an indication of some grooming they are doing for the next Minister of Agriculture and Food. But until my good friend the member for Elgin throws in the towel -- prior to the next provincial election, I assume -- I would hope they would get him to act on behalf of the ministry instead of the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Hodgson: That’s not your problem. Don’t worry about it. You don’t have to worry about those problems. Worry about the bill.

Mr. Riddell: It’s nice to have the member for York North around.

I am pleased that we are dealing with a bill that does not make the collection of levies by a provincial marketing board retroactive. I well recall the lengthy debates and the concerns that were expressed in the committee after Bill 48 was introduced by the minister. Bill 48 was introduced as a result of a Supreme Court decision in the egg reference case, indicating that the collection of levies by the Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board under the authority of federal statutes was questionable.

The Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board was collecting levies under the authority granted to it by federal statutes, and the court decision indicated that for eggs marketed in Ontario the levies had to be collected under authority given to the board by provincial statutes. The question was whether the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency could collect levies for eggs marketed in Ontario.

This led to the introduction of Bill 48, which gave the Ontario Egg Producers’ Marketing Board the authority to collect levies under provincial statutes. It did not give the board authority to turn the levies over to CEMA, which is a problem the board now faces. However, it is my understanding that the Lieutenant Governor can be asked to cancel the authority of the provincial board to collect levies and turn it over to CEMA, in which case CEMA would appoint the provincial hoard as a collection agency. In other words, the Lieutenant Governor by regulation could give CEMA the authority to collect levies.

We have the same situation in the dairy industry. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board has been collecting levies and turning them over to the Canadian Dairy Commission. If this practice were challenged in the courts by dissident milk producers -- and thank goodness there are none, to my knowledge -- similar to that in the egg industry, then it is likely the same decision would j arrived at as in the egg reference case. In other words, the remittance to the Canadian Dairy Commission of levies collected by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board would no longer be legally defensible.

With this in mind, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board has ceased remitting such levies. Thus, the Canadian Dairy Commission, in view of the reduction in its income, finds it difficult to continue payment of milk subsidies to Ontario milk producers.

Taking a leaf from the book in the egg case, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, after consultation with the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission and federal government officials, has considered that the soundest approach to resolving this problem would be to delegate levy authority directly to the Canadian Dairy Commission under the Commodity Boards and Marketing Agencies Act of Ontario. The Canadian Dairy Commission, as was the case with CEMA, does not have any powers of regulation over regulated products marketed locally within Ontario, and therefore it does not qualify under that act as a marketing agency to receive a delegation of levy authority.

The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to amend the Milk Act to provide in a manner similar to that already found in the Farm Products Marketing Act for delegation of marketing authority to the Canadian Dairy Commission. Implementation of this bill will qualify the Canadian Dairy Commission as a marketing agency and allow it to receive subsequently a delegation of levy authority under the Commodity Boards and Marketing Agencies Act which would allow the commission to collect levies directly.

The bill was inevitable, and I certainly intend to give it my full support on this side of the House.

[9:00]

I recall the debate that the member who just spoke referred to on the egg case, and wonder what the position of the member for Lincoln will be in this particular situation, but considering the --

Mr. Roy: That was a much different situation.

Mr. Riddell: Nothing retroactive about it.

Mr. Wildman: I wasn’t trying to be derisive about his position.

Mr. Roy: You should understand the legislation you are talking about.

Mr. Foulds: It never stopped you, Albert. It never stopped you.

Mr. Wildman: When you consider the effect of the court decision, which makes it very difficult for the Canadian Dairy Commission to exercise what was considered to be its authority previously, since the OMMB has stopped remitting to the commission, this would make it very difficult for the whole orderly marketing and control of that commodity, milk marketing in this country, and in this province, to continue. We certainly support it.

I wonder if the ministry’s representative could relate this to the decision of the court, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Agricultural Products Marketing Act reference, in which the court said it agreed the Legislature may delegate powers to an agency as much as it sees fit. If that is the case, then that is what we are doing here, if the two relate. I wonder if he could answer that for me, since in that particular case the court stated that undertakings where primary agricultural products are involved are within provincial jurisdiction.

I wonder if the member can clarify that for me. Certainly, we in this party have argued for years in favour of orderly marketing and will support any legislation which makes it possible for the marketing boards and the federal agency to carry out that objective. For that reason we support the legislation.

As I recall the debate on the egg situation and the fact that there were dissidents who were concerned about retroactive payment, I realize, since the board is collecting levies and is just holding them, it is a somewhat different situation, so in that case we again will support the bill.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, first of all, on behalf of the minister I do want to thank the opposition party and the New Democratic Party for their support of this bill, which means so much to the milk producers of this province.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party, I rise to support the bill as well.

In answer to the member for Algoma, we are delegating in a manner approved by the court.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

TREES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved second reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Trees Act.

Mr. Nixon: No opening statement from the minister is necessary.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I bow to the honourable member.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know the hearts of many members leapt when we saw the Trees Amendment Act was being introduced. I recall at the time of the election recently that the Brampton charter dealt with frees extensively. The Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, after widely consulting with his colleagues and others, had come to the conclusion that it was time the government, after 35 years, should make the commitment that two frees would grow where one had grown before.

I can recall the embarrassment with which this cornerstone of the Brampton charter was greeted by the people knowledgeable in forest resource matters. Members of the public service were turning pale, white-lipped and trembling when they felt at one stage that this tremendous breakthrough was going to be ordered by the head of the government himself.

The bill before us, although of great importance and significance, hardly comes to grips with the matter that we had hoped for and truly expected. Like so many of the other concepts put forward in the Brampton charter, it has really turned to ashes in the hands of those who had expected something of worth. For this reason, we have a great deal of regret that the bill, while important in its own way, does not deal with the matter that we really had hoped would be brought to our attention at an early time. Nevertheless, after careful consultation with my colleagues, the many members of the Liberal Party from northern Ontario, we feel that the bill, disappointing though it is in that particular, should be supported.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, we in our caucus first thought, when we saw the title of this bill on the Order Paper, that finally we were going to get in legislative terms a commitment to regeneration and reforestation in this province. We do not have that commitment in legislative terms and, in my view, that is unfortunate.

When we made the first dip into the background material and saw that it dealt with permissive legislation, which largely has to do with municipalities passing bylaws about whether a person can cut trees on his own property, we were somewhat disappointed. However, we will come to the debate on two for one, three for one, one for one, an acre for an acre, a kingdom for a horse, or what have you, at some later time during this session, I am sure, when the minister announces his definite contracts with the pulp and paper companies with whom he now is negotiating for private reforestation. I am sure we can have a special emergency debate in the Legislature, if legislation is not necessary, or it can be worked out amicably among all parties when we come to discuss that matter.

I must say that our caucus supports this bill in principle, although we have some questions having to do with the detail of the clauses, particularly the exemptions that it grants -- from my reading of the bill -- to certain crown agencies and certain ministries to cut trees.

It would appear to me that, if this bill does not cover it, we should have some kind of protection to meet the situation that we ran into along a heritage highway in southwestern Ontario a few months ago, when the Ministry of Transportation and Communications got itself embroiled in a controversy about cutting trees along the side of what was in fact a heritage highway. I do not believe that this act covers that situation, and we will have some questions at the clause-by-clause stage.

For that reason, while we approve of this bill in principle, we would like to see it go into committee -- committee of the whole House is satisfactory to us -- so that some of those questions can be answered during clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. For those people living close to a metropolitan area, such as those I represent in the region of York, which is just half a roadway away from Metropolitan Toronto, it is very important that we have a bill of this kind.

A good many of the people I represent have asked me for this bill over the past two or three years. I am glad that this minister has had the fortitude to come forth with this particular piece of legislation at this time, which we hope will become law, particularly in areas in southern Ontario where our forests are getting scarcer and scarcer. They are being used up by land that is being developed for housing, industry, Hydro rights of way, highways and so forth. This will preserve some of our old forests.

An hon. member: You might not be able to get out of the forest.

Mr. Hodgson: Well, maybe not. But, however, we will go around the forest, we will go around the bush to get out of the trees and we will go into where there are no trees. I fully support this bill 100 per cent and I hope the members of this Legislature will see fit on third reading to pass this bill.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Very briefly, I was touched by the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, although he wasn’t talking about this bill really.

Mr. Nixon: I hoped you would be.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Honourable members will be delighted to know that I expect to bring in an amendment to the Crown Timber Act which will deal with the matter of reforestation and that sort of thing. I am happy that there is support for this bill in principle and I would suggest that it go to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT

Resumption of the adjourned consideration of Bill 74, The Provincial Offences Act, 1978.

On section 94:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I understand that when the committee last considered this bill, we arrived at and passed up to section 93.

Any questions on section 94?

Mrs. Campbell: Weren’t we bogged down on the appeal provisions, paying fines pending the appeal?

Mr. Sterling: That was section 95.

Section 94 agreed to.

On section 95.

Mrs. Campbell: I regret that I don’t recall the stage of our debate, but one of these matters which was raised during the course of the debate on section 95 was the question of the mandatory provision to pay the fine as a condition precedent to launching an appeal. I think we tried to point out at that time that one of the problems with this bill has been that most people tended to view it as a bill which related to somewhat minor offences, such as some of the minor offences under the Highway Traffic Act.

[9:15]

In view of the fact that we are dealing now with the major offences, it seems we need to have some clarification, because some of the fines and penalties could be very major and could preclude the appeals. I think that is the basic concern, although my colleague from Ottawa has a concern about the general principle of it. So I wouldn’t like anyone to think that in dealing with the major problems we are precluding debate on the principle itself: that is, as to whether or not someone should be required to pay a penalty as a condition preceding the launching of an appeal.

We would like to hear from the ministry on that point.

Mr. Sterling: I think one of the things that was not pointed out in the previous debate was that, in fact, this section deals with part III offences only. It does not deal with part I or part II offences. There is no parallel section later on in the bill, when we deal with appeals on part I and part II sections -- there is no parallel to this particular section in that part of the act.

You will notice from the section that there is, under subsection 2, a considerable power given the judge to aid compliance with subsection 1. If the fine should be of a higher amount, then it is our feeling that a recognizance could be put forward in order to alleviate a problem of the pecuniary penalty being too great for someone to launch an appeal.

As to the general principle we discussed: perhaps I could summarize the Attorney General’s position on that particular matter. Basically, the position is that there have been too many frivolous appeals which either have been abandoned or the defendant didn’t show up when they got to trial. This is both costly and time-consuming to the whole justice system.

It is our submission that by putting in this provision that the penalty must be paid prior to filing the notice of appeal, the appeals will be made more bona fide in their intention.

We mentioned that we suspect the majority of the offences deal with demerit points. I realize the problem relates to demerit points and the solution relates to money. It is hard to marry those two. So we feel at this time, after discussion with the many people involved in the practical experience of the criminal courts, that this will act as a deterrent by diminishing the number of frivolous appeals.

I know it is hard. I have spent some time grappling with the total situation. But I think, because of the problem we have encountered, that we should allow the section to stand; especially because subsection 2 is there and the judge has a wide discretion to allow recognizance in lieu of paying the penalty.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I just have this to say. In so far as it relates to demerit points, I sometimes think we are in the position, on occasion, of some jurors who have general conversations with people out there. So far as the demerit points are concerned, I wonder if you have ever discussed with people how they can put off the inevitable until such time as they &op some of the demerit points they have picked up along the way.

I don’t think, with the greatest respect, this is any kind of a deterrent, and I don’t know how anybody dealing generally in the business of the courts in this respect could seriously think that is effective if that is what it is supposed to be doing. If people have gathered so many demerit points along the way and they see that by such and such a date some of them will be dropped off the record, there is nothing in the world that is going to prevent them from continuing their appeal and holding off the evil day as long as possible.

In any event, I have great sympathy with those of my colleagues who feel very strongly that if there is an appeal open one should not be faced with the payment of a penalty as a condition precedent to launching an appeal.

I cannot withdraw from that position.

Mr. Lawlor: I disagree.

Mrs. Campbell: Pat, and I bought your book, too.

Mr. Lawlor: In this particular matter, again, this is not supposed to be criminal stuff. It has been too long an abuse and I have been a party to it on too many occasions -- saying simply to appeal it and tie the whole thing up. I know the appeal courts are months and months in arrears of the cases and it has been a trick whereby you can retain the licence and you can keep the money in the bank in the meantime. I see no reason in these kinds of cases, since such a large number of the appeals are either fallacious or fictitious, that if they are in good faith they will pay that fine and give subsequent reimbursement.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment I think I made two weeks ago when we first started discussing this section.

I am a bit surprised by the comments of my colleague the member for Lakeshore, because I know he is a man who deals in principles.

One of the principles of an appeal is that once you give the right to appeal and that principle is enacted in legislation, it presumes that you feel there was an error made, or for some other reason. If that right of appeal is given it should be an absolute right; it shouldn’t be given partially or otherwise. If the right is given, than all the benefits that flow with the right should follow.

One of the rights is that people not serve any penalty, or suffer the consequences of the penalty, pending an appeal, because at that point there seems to be some impediment to that right of appeal. That right should be given unfettered. There should not be some attempt to discourage people from going on appeal if they feel they should be going on appeal. That is why I agree with my colleague the member for St. George.

If it wasn’t for the fact that there is a subsection 2 where the judge may waive compliance with subsection 1, and I quote my colleagues in the House who are with me, we would take serious objection to agreeing to letting this part of section 95 go through. But the fact is the judge can waive compliance.

As my colleague from St. George said -- and we have discussed this section together -- we are not only talking about situations where there is a $25 traffic fine. It may well be that this law will apply in circumstances where the fines are very substantial indeed, and where it is harsh punishment for the defendant to pay the fine pending the appeal.

But hopefully the courts will have an out in subsection 2, and may look at the situation and may feel that in no circumstances are they justified in not enforcing compliance with section 1. I take it I am correct in saying the provisions of subsection 2 say that a judge -- that is an appeal judge, I presume -- may waive compliance with subsection 1, one of the compliances being that the fine be paid in full.

If it wasn’t for that, I can say to the parliamentary assistant, I would take serious objection to section 95(1) in forcing an individual to pay the fine. Either we give him the right to appeal, or we don’t. If there is an abuse of that right of appeal, there are other ways of curbing that abuse.

What I am trying to say, basically, is that I am still concerned that we give a right of appeal, and that in some ways we are imposing an impediment to that right by forcing him to pay the fine.

Section 95 agreed to.

Sections 96 to 100, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 101:

Mr. Lawlor: I just want to make a comment. There was an alteration made: “An appellant who is in custody as a result of the decision appealed from is entitled to be present at the hearing of the appeal.” That was something that we argued and moved and fought for, and which is now embodied. I want to point out that it is an alteration and a beneficent one.

Mr. Sterling: I wanted to indicate that this has been dubbed by the committee “the Lawlor amendment.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: He has a number of those, Mr. Parliamentary Assistant.

Section 101 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any sections that members want to speak to up to the end of 122 before we get into rules of appeal?

Mr. Lawlor: Just 121(2).

Mr. Roy: I wanted to ask one question on section 110 -- on trial de novo.

Sections 101 to 109, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 110:

Mr. Roy: I take it that the gist of that section is that under the provisions of this statute the only way one will get a trial de novo is by way of an application. I want to get confirmation of this from the parliamentary assistant. It appears also that the only way the judge can grant it is if something has happened to the condition of the record of the trial, or for a similar reason.

The other thing, as I read that section, is that even though you don’t have a trial de novo, in the appeal process the court nevertheless has the discretion to bear viva voce evidence. Is my understanding of section 110 correct? I will wait for a response from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Sterling: The member for Ottawa East is correct in noting you can only obtain an appeal and a trial de novo by an application. Secondly, the intent of the section is to limit the number of trials de novo that will come from an appeal. Basically, the section says the only time the appellate court should order a trial de novo is when there has been a problem with the record. In other words, the record has not been transcribed, perhaps, and the recorder is no longer available to transcribe the record or something similar of that nature, in terms Of what has gone on during the trial. Something else has been wrong with the record of the trial; something is missing.

[9:30]

Mr. Roy: I understand that. The criminal code, in fact, a few years ago, amended the provision for trial de novo as well. Because, as my colleagues here were saying, in talking about abuses, there were clearly abuses in the trial de novo when the trial de novo statements were being used as extensively as they were. I understand the purpose of that.

Moving on to subsection 2: As I read that section it says that even though you have a trial de novo, you can put in evidence, I take it, with the consent of the appellant and respondent and if the court is satisfied that attendance of witness cannot reasonably be obtained. I take it that, even though it is a trial de novo, you could still read in evidence of the previous hearing; the evidence does not have to be all viva voce. Is that how I understand subsection 2?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, your understanding of subsection 2 is right.

Section 110 agreed to.

Sections 111 to 120, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 121:

Mr. Lawlor: Section 121(2). Just basically the same comment as before, for the purpose of the record, and in case anyone would be interested in this debate: I think it should be specifically pointed out that this section has been substantially changed -- that is, where the court directs a new trial be held in the provincial court presided over by a justice other than the justice who tried the defendant in the first instance. But here is where the change came. With the consent of both parties to the appeal, the same judge who heard the case previously, and who is being appealed from, may rehear the case. That is a very interesting and, I think, worthwhile change.

Mr. Roy: As I read it -- I think it’s a good amendment by the way; the fact that it should not be directed before the same justice unless the parties consent -- but, as I read that, even the judge granting the appeal can hear it. That’s the way I read it: that the new trial can be held before the justice who tried the defendant in the first instance, or before the judge who directs the new trial. You can have your new trial right there, can you?

Mr. Sterling: I think the section is self-explanatory. The appellate judge can order that the new trial be held before the justice. But he has to do a positive act in order to direct the trial by that same judge. The reason is that perhaps there is an exhibit missing in terms of the original trial; or, perhaps in certain areas of the province there is a limitation on the number of judges; that is why this particular part of the section is put in.

Section 121 agreed to.

Sections 122 to 131, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 138:

Mr. Lawlor: Section 138, subsections 3 and 4, particularly subsection 3: The reason I am standing up is because I don’t remember why we did this and I would like clarification of the purpose. Previously, at the end of subsection 4, the words “for non-appearance” were not present. What is this subsection 3 being directed at, particularly as subsection 4 covers the same ground but appears to be a little more restrictive? In other words, explain it all to me.

Mr. Sterling: I’m surprised the member for Lakeshore doesn’t remember, because that was a direct result of the delegation we had from the Quakers. We wanted to clarify the fact that the surety would only be responsible for a non-appearance and not for another condition of the recognizance.

Ms. Lawlor: I see. In other words, you say the surety only for non-appearance; the principle for everything; okay.

Section 138 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Where shall we go next? I’m looking at the member for Lakeshore, or St. George or Ottawa East. Can we go right to the end of the bill?

Mr. Roy: Maybe I can make a facetious comment. I notice that when we are dealing with search warrants in section 142 the bill seems to cover everything, you have really looked at every aspect of this. I take it one of the reasons you didn’t talk about eavesdropping or wire tapping is because you have no jurisdiction on this. I see one of my good friends smiling to the parliamentary assistant. You seem to have covered everything else.

As I was following through this, I was anxious to reach the point where we start talking about eavesdropping and wire tapping. I take it the only reason you have not gone into it is because you do not have any jurisdiction, is that it?

Mrs. Campbell: That’s a very good reason.

Sections 139 to 150, inclusive, agreed to.

Mrs. Campbell: I was going to have a comment at the conclusion before we finished with the bill, but do we have a section to go back to?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It’s my recollection we had to go back to the definition section.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s correct. I would like to speak before we finalize the definition section.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We’re finished the bill except for the definition section.

On section 1:

Mr. Sterling: I think there was some question in relation to section 1(1)(f). The reason for defining a police officer as a thief of police or other police officer or constable is that under the Police Act a police officer doesn’t include such people as a corporal, an inspector, a police chief, a deputy chief, and various other people whom the public recognize as police officers. So this is put in to define police officers as including everyone who in fact the public deem as being police officers. It’s because there’s a difference in the Police Act and this particular act in the definition of police officer.

Mrs. Campbell: As we’re coming to the close of this bill. I must just once more indicate my very real concerns in some general terms, notwithstanding the point at which we’ve arrived with the bill. It seems to me there should be something on the record here from the ministry indicating its intent so far as the educational process is concerned, and so far as the tightening up, which is now apparently all too obviously needed in the system which is currently in place. It seemed to me that at some point before we disposed of this bill there should be some such statement for the benefit of those who still have deep concerns about what is going to happen once the bill is through.

Mr. Sterling: I know that during the committee sittings when the Attorney General appeared before the committee he made a commitment to the committee. It perhaps should be repeated here in the House so that it can be on record. There will be an extensive education process of the justices of the peace as to their function under this act and under Bill 75.

The act itself, in the way it’s structured, will lead to a continuing education program of justices of the peace because of the appellate provisions, in that a decision of a justice of the peace will be directly appealed to his senior judge, so to speak, by the provincial court judge; so that not only will we have an education program but we will also have a continuing education of the justices of the peace through that force supervision.

I think the Attorney General and the ministry have also indicated to the committee and to this House that this bill will take approximately one year to come into full force. We also indicated to the committee that we will use this particular educational process to continue the education of the JPs with regard to problems in relation to other areas of jurisdiction that a JP has. I think that was mostly pointed out with regard to the surety problem the Quaker group brought to us. We have no hesitation in giving that commitment to this Legislature.

Section 1 agreed to.

Bill 74, as amended, reported.

PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Mr. Sterling: This bill basically sets up the provincial court to implement the provisions of Bill 74 which we have just dealt with. It is really a bill which deals with the nuts and bolts of setting up the court for purposes of using Bill 74.

Mrs. Campbell: Speaking for our party, I accept the fact that this is indeed the implementation bill to be the companion piece for Bill 74. I would just like to say that it is interesting to me that we have made every effort to somewhat decriminalize the provincial offences, but I note that we keep the rules committee the same. I suppose one can have two different approaches even in that area.

I have nothing to say so far as the bill is concerned. It has to be passed.

Mr. Lawlor: I think the very least one can do is bow obeisance to the fact that we spent time on this bill.

I do always find section 1 not so much of a puzzlement as a bemusement, I suppose. It reads in the last lines: “In the absence of express provision for procedures ... the judge, justice of the peace or provincial court judge shall exercise the jurisdiction in any manner consistent with the due administration of justice.” I am sure the parliamentary assistant, his advisers before him and any members of this House haven’t got the remotest notion of what that particular section means, but who would we be to question such omniscience? Therefore, I don’t want to make any major issue, unless you are particularly anxious to reply.

[9:45]

As for the rest, with the rules committee, that is very much in order. By the way, I would like to see Williston’s thing one of these days -- it should be due about now -- and then the contempt proceeding.

The bill is fruitful and worthwhile, but there is nothing contentious about it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any comment on that, Mr. Parliamentary Assistant?

Mr. Sterling: No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any comment. The only point is I believe that there is a certain law in relation to the criminal procedure that if the code hasn’t got a procedure for it, then in fact, the magistrate can’t do it.

This particular section of Bill 75 is put in there in order to allow the justice of the peace or the provincial court judge to fill in between the cracks where there doesn’t appear to be a procedure for a small technical point.

Mrs. Campbell: Catchall.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall all sections of Bill 75 as it appears before us, carry?

Agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall Bill 75 be reported?

Agreed to.

Mrs. Campbell: If we didn’t report it, we’d be in trouble.

On motion by Mr. Sterling, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment and one hill without.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 74, An Ad to establish a Code of Procedure for Provincial Offences.

Bill 75, An Ad to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

Mrs. Campbell: Isn’t Mr. McMurtry remotely interested in these bills?

Mr. Nixon: Quitting time.

Mrs. Campbell: Have you run out of business?

Mr. Bradley: Emergency.

Mrs. Campbell: You haven’t got your people here. Who’s your whip?

On motion by Hon. F. S. Miller, the House adjourned at 9:49 p.m.