Hansard Transcripts 1982-Dec-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, last spring we confirmed our commitment to improve mental health care for our citizens. At that time we also announced a substantially expanded network of community-based mental health programs. Today I am pleased to announce the finalization of some additional mental health initiatives with a total funding of over $1.3 million.

As members of the House are aware, there is a real need to strengthen substantially our follow-up programs and community-based services to help former psychiatric patients adjust to life outside the hospital. The fact is that many former psychiatric patients need someone to identify their overall aftercare needs in the community and someone to facilitate delivery of existing services to those patients who are not already linked to aftercare services or who are not utilizing available services effectively.

To achieve this goal, specifically in the Parkdale area of Toronto where former psychiatric patients tend to congregate and the problem is most acute, we will implement a new model of aftercare to link individual needs to available services. Many former patients are in need of, and qualify for, existing services, but are not aware of their availability or do not know how to access them.

Therefore, we will hire one team co-ordinator, 10 case managers and three support staff to bring community services such as appropriate housing, as well as financial, vocational, social and medical services directly to the former patients who need them; for example, family benefits could be arranged with the local welfare office, assistance could be given to find proper accommodation and routine checks could he made to ensure that medication is taken as prescribed.

With a budget of $430,000, this new program will operate from Archway, a satellite clinic of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. The Queen Street Mental Health Centre will hire the required staff to initiate this program early in the new year.

This new program has been created as a result of advice we received from the Parkdale Working Group, representatives of various agencies and levels of government particularly concerned about the Parkdale area of Toronto. I believe that the smoother transition to life outside the hospital offered by this new program should not only alleviate many of the problems faced by former psychiatric patients but should also provide substantial community benefits to the residents of Parkdale as a whole.

In addition, we have been allotted $300,000 for project PAL, psychiatric assistance and leadership, which is the Ministry of Health's component of the winter Experience '82-'83 program announced by my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) earlier this week. As members know, winter Experience '82-83 is an initiative of the Ontario youth secretariat spearheaded by our colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and designed to provide job opportunities for unemployed youth.

Specifically, project PAL will provide jobs for unemployed youths between the ages of 16 and 24, who will work in the community to assist former psychiatric patients. Duties will include a wide range of activities such as friendly visits, assistance with basic daily life tasks, and office and maintenance duties. Twelve community-based mental health organizations will participate in this project, which will employ 100 young people until March 31, 1983.

In addition to these new community-based initiatives we are moving to improve mental health services in our institutions by instituting a new measure to assist patients during their stay in psychiatric hospitals. A comprehensive patient advocate service for each of the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals is now being implemented. A patient advocate co-ordinator has now been hired by the ministry to oversee the smooth operation of this new program to protect patients' rights in our institutions. We will hire 10 individuals with a mix of medical, social or legal backgrounds as patient advocates by the end of February 1983.

The role of patient advocate has been designed to provide a "patient friend" who informs the patient of his or her rights, acts as a mediator with the hospital staff and serves to overcome irritants before they develop into major complaints.

The patient advocates will have, and must be seen to have, impartiality and independence. They will be there to safeguard a patient's rights, whether legal or health. Regular reports of activities will be provided to the community advisory board of each hospital as soon as these boards are established.

Specifically, the main duties of each patient advocate will be to investigate concerns, inquiries and complaints; to assist in referring patients to appropriate services, including legal services, and resources; and to make recommendations to hospital administrators and the ministry's mental health division. We have allocated $612,000 for the patient advocate program, which includes salaries and operating expenses for the patient advocate co-ordinator, 10 patient advocates and their support staff.

I know all members recognize that appropriate mental health programs are essential components of an effective health care system for the people of this province. These latest initiatives in our communities and in our institutions, in addition to the district health council studies on mental health throughout the province and our expanded thrust in community-based mental health services, demonstrate our government's ongoing commitment to meeting the difficult challenges of mental health head-on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DUTIES OF MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the government benches are a little thin this morning, it being Friday. Perhaps I will ask a question of my good friend the cabinet minister from Middlesex, who I do not think has ever been asked a question.

It being Friday and all, a number of us who are concerned about restraint in government are obviously concerned about the size of the cabinet and the leadership the Premier (Mr. Davis) is showing in that regard. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to take this opportunity to tell us what he does for a living.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I thought the honourable member would never ask. I can run over my duties for the member very briefly or I can take quite a while, whichever he pleases.

10:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Take a long time.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If this is his most important question, give it the importance it deserves.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: I am sure it is of great public interest --

Mr. Peterson: It is.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: and I would like to cover a few of them, such as chairman of regulations committee of cabinet. I am on Management Board of Cabinet, the Board of Internal Economy and the northern Ontario resources transportation committee, and have other duties as well that are assigned from time to time by the Premier; perhaps to meet with delegations or to carry out other duties that may he involved as far as cabinet is concerned.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That's no reason for missing hockey games.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: I haven't got to playing hockey yet this year.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister enjoying his job?

Hon. Mr. Eaton: I am finding it very interesting and I would say enjoyable. I think perhaps I am able to serve the public across the province and in my riding and to make more of a contribution than the Leader of the Opposition, who just stands up and questions and criticizes.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister could indicate to the House exactly what he has accomplished since he has been appointed to cabinet, what specific projects he has taken on and what justification there is for his portfolio?

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, as for specific projects, I probably cannot go over a series of them because it would take quite a while, but I think they have all been accomplishments. All the involvements we have had in Management Board have certainly been accomplishments for this province.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister, he is a member of Management Board, and if I understand correctly, the Management Board is meeting this morning. Would he exert whatever influence he has as a cabinet minister to see that approval is given to the new office and workshop for the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority? I wonder if he would make sure that approval is given, as I understand it is coming before the board some time today.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, we are not meeting this morning, but let me assure the member that the problem in his riding is being looked after by me and will be taken care of.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) would be arriving this morning and I assume he is. Is he going to arrive? I could wait. Does the Premier know when he will be arriving? Will he have a statement with respect to the meeting yesterday? Perhaps I should just address my question to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He will he here shortly.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps the Premier would be good enough to tell me when he is going to arrive?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In a few minutes.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer's appointments secretary tells me he will he here in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. in view of the seriousness of the meeting yesterday, I would assume the Treasurer has a statement for this House, because we are very concerned about what transpired and how quickly the governments will be moving.

Could I ask you, sir, to stand down my next question until such time as the Treasurer arrives?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could recognize the member for York South in the intervening period.

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure the minister will have had an opportunity by now to read the report of the standing committee on social development on wife battering. As the minister will know, I am sure, there are some very specific recommendations directed to his ministry.

I would like to ask him if he is prepared to implement recommendation 22 which, as I am sure the minister will know, calls for him and his ministry to introduce without delay a bill devoted exclusively to the issue of wife battering. In particular, the bill should ensure that the capital and operating costs of transition houses for battered women and their children, including the costs of support services, are adequately funded and that standards for the houses should he prescribed.

Is the minister prepared to introduce such a bill to make sure that capital funding for transition houses is, in fact, provided?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, one of the great disappointments I have is that the report --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member wants a bill and he wants an explanation.

One of the problems is that it really rehashed an awful lot of old ground instead of trying to do what I hoped it would do -- focus on the real problem. I commend the committee for its recommendations and the deep sensitivity it showed to what I considered to be a significant problem.

However, it was a great disappointment. Why I am somewhat concerned about what I will do on the basis of the report is it lets the wife beater off absolutely scot-free. Why should the woman have to leave the house? Why should the taxpayers have to pick up for the woman? Why not throw the man out of the house? Obviously the report was written by males.

Ms. Copps: I object to that. I was a member of the committee, as was the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden).

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously it does not reflect a female viewpoint.

Ms. Copps: What are you talking about? Have you read this report? Do you know what is going on? Unbelievable.

An hon. member: You did not even show up for committee.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I was not asked, my friend. You were scared to have me.

Ms. Copps: Talk about insensitivity. You should resign. That's disgusting. Ask the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). It was a unanimous report.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I consider this to be a very serious report. I would like to be able to talk about it without a number of interjections which do not do the cause or the problem any good, as was reflected by what happened in Ottawa prior to the commencement of the committee here.

There are a number of recommendations, many of which I have already implemented or am in the process of implementing. The fundamental problem in this is that the available amount of dollars is being used in most cases to provide shelter, accommodation and a place of refuge for the innocent party. At the same time, the male remains in the family household and remains in the dominant position.

In terms of the report and the recommendations to my friend and colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), it dealt with one aspect of it. It seems that the point is being missed, to put it in the vernacular, when a banana who beats his wife or lady friend remains in charge of the domestic home and the taxpayers are expected to provide some of the basics because there apparently is no other resort.

In terms of the counselling and workshops which I am already funding, and in terms of the per diem which is already higher in Metropolitan Toronto than the amount stated in the report and which is going higher across the rest of the province, those are absolutely necessary. Before I will consider a bill or any legislation for "battered wives," and I prefer to use the term "dispossessed," I think we have to come to grips with why the men are allowed to stay in the houses and the others are driven out as refugees. Period.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the minister knows and I am sure he would not want to give the wrong impression, but the report does deal at some length with the very problem he has described. It refers to amendments that are necessary to the Criminal Code and amendments that are going to he necessary to the Family Law Reform Act, and also refers to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the reference in the family relations act.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: So all of those things have been dealt with, and I felt the fact had to be put on the record because the minister has been talking balderdash in responding to the first question.

If the minister rejects one of the most important recommendations with respect to setting up a bill that would provide for capital funding, would provide for clear authority for transition houses right across Ontario, would not rely on municipalities as to whether or not they are even established, I would like to ask him if he is at least prepared to accept recommendation 23, which states that the Ministry of Community and Social Services should fund shelter services on a block funding basis and not simply on a per diem or an occupancy basis?

Is he at least prepared to guarantee that these hostels, these transition houses have an acceptable basis of funding, that they are not continually looking from week to week or from month to month for acceptable funding and that the services that are provided go beyond simple occupancy to include things like counsellors?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is very interesting that the leader of the third party now has a position where he turns his back on virtually every woman in rural Ontario where such a home is not possible and where block funding would deprive her of the services that either are now available or I guarantee will be available to her by March 31.

Mr. Rae: You are a disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What was that?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Rae: I said you are a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister will just address himself to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I also do not need any free legal interpretations of the clauses in the remainder of the report that deal with the Attorney General.

The problem with block funding is that in many areas of the province there is not a sufficient demand to constitute the building of a centralized transition house without obviously having to move or force people to move many miles from their homes. The present situation, which is the funding under the General Welfare Assistance Act, means that the municipality has to provide for that person. If there is not a transition house, then they have to provide some type of accommodation and shelter.

When the draft report of the committee came out, I pointed out that a directive had been sent to every municipal social service department in the province that said they had to specify in writing exactly what their plan was when they had one of these cases, and that those must he filed with the ministry by March 31 of next year.

While block funding may appear to be an interesting solution, it would not accomplish as much as the present system does. It would remove the municipal component. The municipality would not have to have anything to do with it.

Second, if there was block funding it obviously would be an amount. What do we do when we go over the amount? As it stands right now it is based on need. If a person comes in, regardless of the budget or regardless of the financial numbers and so forth, he must be served as a person in need. If we remove the municipal component, then we are very seriously going to set back the transition and interval house movement.

There are three new interval houses coming into operation in Metropolitan Toronto next year. Every one of them prefers the present system over block funding, including the one in my own riding, which got precious little support from somebody on the other side.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, regarding the minister's first answer, would he like to describe to this House how he is going to achieve a situation whereby a woman who has just bean battered by her husband is physically going to eject him from the house? I would like the minister to explain how that is going to happen, so that we can all understand how we will have less need for shelters for battered wives.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member, in his usual simplistic fashion, has chosen to interpret my words to suit himself.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is what you said.

Ms. Copps: That is what you said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We recognized the member for Prescott-Russell. The minister will address himself to that question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously, the realistic fact of the matter is that when a woman is assaulted she needs a place of safety. I am not talking about a one-night or two-night accommodation which may be necessary. I thought I made that clear. I am talking about the problems of finding long-term accommodation for these people.

It seems to me a very simple solution to the matter is that when a husband has chosen to act like a bum, or wants to do that, there should be vehicles into the court where that husband can be faced with a restraining order so that he cannot go into the family home. Then the family can enjoy the home. Whatever counselling and so forth is needed to have them adapt to a situation where he has left can be made available.

It would seem to me this is a far more appropriate look at the matter, a deterrent, if you want. If you want to beat your wife, then you are going to sleep in the park with the muggers. Maybe that is the way it should he.

I do not see anything the matter with that and I cannot understand why a committee that was provided with as many resources as it wanted and studied the matter for a prolonged period of time could not --

Mr. Conway: That's the chain gang, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: A convict work gang is not a bad place for a guy who beats his wife. I do not understand why the minister is being asked to provide the intellectual stimulation to a committee that, as I say, had all the resources, all the hearings and whatever else it wanted.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, to say that I am disappointed with the tone of the answer of the minister would be a major understatement. He knows that our --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does the minister not know that our recommendations 40, 41 and 42 all point out the problem that he has indicated? Does he not recognize there is a major need for a safe haven for these women, whom I consider should be called assaulted or battered, not just dispossessed? That is missing the point of our whole thrust of this, which is that it is a crime and it has to be talked of in those terms.

How many spaces does the minister think we need and how much money is he willing to put into safe havens, whether they are just a room or two in somebody's house or actual full hostels as we have in other major areas around the province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think my record in facilitating this type of accommodation speaks for itself.

In 1983, there will be another nine; three in Metro, six across the province. When the member is being realistic, he will agree with me that in many of the smaller communities there is some difficulty with a central place without moving people around.

The reason I have some qualms about calling a woman "battered" is that it somehow brings up the image that she must literally be in bandages before she would qualify for this type of thing. I believe that if she is forced -- either for her own safety, which includes emotional, or for her children -- to do something about a family violence situation, she should have this type of service. I do not think she should necessarily have to he physically assaulted. She is a victim of crime.

In this situation, I do not understand why we do not treat the victims of crime as we do other victims. There seems to be a dichotomy. The committee's recommendations in the 40s just do not go far enough. I am disappointed.

10:30 a.m.

Our budget will be going up from $1.5 million to $2 million on a projection. If there are more clients than that under the General Welfare Assistance Act, obviously that will go up. I have pointed out already the per diem in Metropolitan Toronto is far higher than the $20 that was mentioned. It is $23. The existing three that are in Metropolitan Toronto have that and the new three will have.

Somebody said there are 50,000 battered or dispossessed women in Metropolitan Toronto alone. That is based on a one-to-10 ratio. I think that ratio is very substantially escalated. There is a study coming out that says the real ratio is about one in 300. By the end of calendar year 1983 we will have a sufficient program in place, not only in Metropolitan Toronto but across the province, where that type of emergency shelter will he available when it is required.

Ms. Copps: Does the minister not believe the London police officers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) please contain herself.

Ms. Copps: The minister obviously has not read the report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) should control the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr. Peterson: I will control her if the Premier (Mr. Davis) will throw the minister a little raw meat and settle him down.

Mr. Speaker: She was such a great elf the other night.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the Treasurer has chosen not to make a statement today in the House about his meeting over the last 24 or 36 hours with his peers across this country. I am sure the minister is aware there are 600,000 people in this province desperately looking for answers to the problems the ministers were presumably applying their minds to yesterday.

We, of course, have been pleading for months that the minister would do something -- that he would take the funds saved from the restraint program and apply them, not just to cutting down the deficit, as it appears he is doing, but rather to constructive job creation proposals. We can only follow the press reports, but is that now what he is going to do? How many jobs is he going to create in this province through these new plans. and when is he going to get going? Would the Treasurer not agree with me that we cannot wait until February?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have not waited. The Leader of the Opposition does not want even to accept the tact that we have not waited. We started co-operating with the federal government through the new employment expansion and development program and Canada-Ontario employment development program back in November. They are going into gear right now. They will be providing jobs, and they will be providing them in the short term. The member does know that Ontario put $50 million into the next three months and that will he providing jobs. Letters are going out to most members these days telling them where jobs will be, what towns they are in and how many people may be employed. I suggest to the member that we are doing quite a bit.

Yesterday, since the member asked about that specifically, we had perhaps the longest finance ministers' meeting I have ever attended. We certainly had the best in terms of the willingness of the participants to solve problems. We accepted the fact that no huge increase in the deficits of either Canada or the provinces would solve the problems, but we also accepted the fact that there was very good reason to co-ordinate our budget with theirs and to look at a number of major capital projects across this country, in all the provinces, that do not have to be shared but can be done by one level of government or the other. We were not talking about joint programs. We were talking about the total number of things that need to be done in the interest of Canadians.

I used a specific example in my little speech -- which I trust the member read -- that we would like to see the improvements in the rail system in the west. Now, that is not in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Double-tracking.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, that is the where Mr. Trudeau said he was going to double-track all the sidings, as I recall.

Mr. G. I. Miller: He has already given the money for that.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any case, obviously anything that improves the movement of western grain has a direct impact on Ontario in a number of ways. First, the steel for the tracks has to be made. I hope that is done here. Second, people have to be hired, who buy consumer goods, most of which are made here. Last of all it brings grain more quickly into and through our ports, where there are major employers. There is a spinoff to the farmers when there is better movement and I would hope that would spin off to industries such as the farm implement industries.

That was just one example. Mr. Lalonde went on to state the kinds of things the government of Canada owns all across this country that are in need of improvement and upgrading.

We agreed that every province had housing problems of one kind or another and that instead of increasing deficits, actions should he taken like those Ontario took. By the way, we are used as an example of taking good action; the $5,000 grant was seen to be not only creating jobs immediately but also almost paying for itself as it went along so that really it did not add to deficits while creating work.

Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I do not care if it was the longest, the best and the most co-operative meeting the minister has ever been at in his whole life. I am interested in results. What are the results? How many new jobs are coming out of that meeting of yesterday? Is there anything new, or is it just the same old stuff and are we going to see continued deterioration?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can give the member the phone number of Mr. Lalonde, who I know would be glad to speak to him. He would be glad to point out he believes that from his level of government and ours there is a lot more to he gained by being positive and working together in this country than by constantly carping from the cheap seats.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer reminds me of those signs and posters during the Second World War which said, "Loose lips sink ships" and "Loose talk costs lives."

I would like to ask a very specific question of the Treasurer. While he was away I was asking questions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) with respect to some very specific housing initiatives which the government of Ontario has announced but has not funded or, alternatively, has cut back. I know housing was one of the items discussed at the meeting yesterday.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he could give us a very simple, basic commitment that those programs, the InnoRent program and the rehabilitation program, which were announced in May but have not yet been funded, will now be funded? Will the Treasurer restore the cuts in the budget of transfers to municipalities for nonprofit and co-op housing, which he knows have been cut by $600,000? Can we at least have a go-ahead on those programs so that we will be providing affordable housing for people, housing that is geared to income, and so that we will also be providing jobs for our people? Can we at least go ahead on those programs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing yesterday, in answer to the member's question, pointed out that he has been having discussions with the housing industry and the municipalities of the province in terms of his second and third programs. Certainly the program we have funded so far has been a smashing success. The latest figures I see are over 11,000 new houses. Obviously, housing is going to be one of those areas where we emphasize priorities and we will be looking at that as I prepare my budget and the allocation of funds.

Mr. Peterson: Regarding his budget, which may be in March, April, May or June, depending on when he gets around to it, does he not agree with me, and the leader of the New Democratic Party too, that the biggest single priority in this city right now is for housing?

The minister has the capacity to build, to move on his own. We cannot wait until the next budget. He can not only take some pressure off the housing problems and the shortage of rental accommodation in this province and in this city, but at the same time have a tremendous economic ripple effect in creating thousands of jobs across this province.

What could be a higher priority for immediate action -- not in his budget, but immediately -- starting in the next few weeks? Why would he not display that sense of urgency in response to this most critical problem?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: When we went to the grant program for new houses in Ontario, we consciously decided that we not only had social objectives, we did free up rental space. The last figure I saw was more --

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second. Over 5,000 of the applications so far have been from people who vacated apartments or rental accommodation. I assume the others were not in accommodation at the time because they are first-time home buyers and I assume they were about to occupy space. I suggest to the honourable member there is more space because of that program and that we have been creating work in a meaningful way, while at the same time allowing many couples or families in this province to realize their major ambition, to own a home.

Mr. Rae: Just to come back to the Treasurer --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not like to interrupt the leader of my party but 32 minutes of the question period have elapsed so far.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite well aware of that.

Mr. Renwick: I would not have known it, sir.

Mr. Rae: To come back to the Treasurer with a specific program: The government announced two housing initiatives in May which have not set been funded. That is the issue. On several occasions, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has said the matter is with the Treasurer with respect to the funding of these two programs. I would like to get a direct answer from the Treasurer.

Having gone to this session yesterday, having reached what we understand was some kind of consensus with respect to stimulation and job creation, can we at least have a commitment that the Treasurer will give the go-ahead for the funding of those two programs now, rather than have to wait for March, April or May? Can he not give us that commitment right away?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am intrigued. I was listening to governments that reflect all parts of the political spectrum yesterday: two socialist governments, one Liberal government and eight Conservative or Social Credit governments. I recall getting some advice from one of the New Democratic Party finance ministers in terms of these kinds of programs, and I asked him if he would like to relay that message to the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition is obviously not anxious to listen.

What I am seeing today is that for a change some good financial news came out. For a change, people have said they want to work together. All of a sudden it is not bad and those members do not like that. That is one of the big problems. They cannot live with the fact we are actually trying to tackle these problems. We have agreed housing has to have priority. We knew that before we went down there. Ontario said that. Obviously, we will be translating our priorities into dollars.

Mr. Rae: I agree with the Treasurer --

Mr. Peterson: Are you guys dancing or talking about what is going on in this country?

Mr. Speaker: Given the time of year, I am prepared to he patient, understanding and tolerant. The member for Riverdale has brought to everybody's attention that time is slipping away. Let us recognize the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Let me try to go at this simple question another way. If the Treasurer agrees housing is a priority and if he went to Ottawa to say that housing is a priority, why is he not prepared at least to fund the programs which his government has already announced? Why can he not provide that funding so we can get jobs going in January and February and into the spring?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As my colleague knows, it is not the normal posture of Treasurers to say funds are allocated before they are given to a minister. The minister has the privilege to announce it to the House the day they are, and that is the way it will be.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had these discussions. To what extent were municipalities discussed and how might municipalities be involved in helping to create jobs with housing? Might the minister consult the municipalities so they would have some input as to how this money would be spent and jobs created?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I thought I heard the minister being reported as saying yesterday: that he was consulting the municipalities.

I am intrigued at the direction of the thrust of two questions from the Liberal Party on housing today. Both have been, "Do not let the private sector do it; have governments do it."

Mr. Rae: Can the Treasurer give us some indication whether he is going to make an announcement either before Christmas or in January with respect to the response of the government of Ontario to the meeting that was held yesterday? Is he at least going to give us some indication of the actual steps, the actual money, the actual programs that are being put into place by his government in order to meet some of the commitments and agreements that were arrived at yesterday?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is altogether possible that individual programs will be announced by the province. We did not follow the last model, the federal-provincial joint project. We agreed we should be going ahead on our own with projects the province or federal government could afford, but we would try to make sure we knew what each of us was doing before it was done.

The request Mr. Lalonde made was: "Please call me directly, write me directly, give me your specifics. I will he giving you my specifics. As soon as we have a good enough list, let us get back together. By that time, I will have made major progress in my budget. I will suggest to you the directions I am going in so far as I am able to do at that point and we should have some very specific things to talk about. At that point also, the decision should be made as to whether a first ministers' meeting is in order and could be called."

URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF BRAMPTON FARM LAND

Mr. Riddell: I have a question to the Premier. In the absence of the commitment of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to the preservation of agricultural land, making the food land guidelines policy of the government a farce and a sham, is the Premier prepared to take a stand on the Brampton official plan which will be taking over 7,000 acres of prime agricultural land, in view of the fact that Brampton's land is 81.5 per cent class 1 land?

Is the Premier also aware on this very important issue that between 1971 and 1981 close to 8,000 acres of farm land were paved over in Brampton and another 7,600 acres have been approved or are being developed in 1982 for a total loss of 16,000 acres of prime agricultural land? Now Brampton wants to take another 7,000 acres for urban and industrial purposes.

In addition there was a report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which stated that over the next two decades it will be necessary to provide the equivalent of 2.7 million acres of new food production capacity to maintain current levels of self-sufficiency while meeting future demands. In view of these reports, is the Premier himself prepared to take a stand, owing to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Food wishes to remain silent on this whole deal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member is not quite correct factually. That should not come as any great surprise.

In terms of Brampton, he should go back to the mid-1960s when, as a result of what was described then as the south Peel water and sewage scheme, certain proposals were made by the participating municipalities with respect to future growth.

The member will find that in the ground of that great area of Ontario, the sizing of the infrastructure was such as to accommodate the projected population Brampton is seeking to achieve. If he looks at it historically he will find that was then altered to a certain extent by the introduction of the Toronto-centred region plan which indicated a desire on the part of a number of people, including government, to redirect some of the western growth to the east of Metropolitan Toronto.

The member cites the number of acres that were included in the Brampton official plan going back before 1971. One can generalize as to the number of acres and the fact that it is, in his view, "prime agricultural land." However, I have been somewhat familiar with a good deal of that acreage over some 48 years -- I do not remember much earlier than that -- and I would say that is something of an exaggeration.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I am familiar with it too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One of the difficulties for government is to accommodate growth to economic activity. That is a viewpoint I hear expressed constantly from the Liberal benches, and incidentally I share it, but it is necessary for that growth to be accommodated in terms of the economics of infrastructure that is there.

This government has done a better job than any other semi-industrialized jurisdiction in North America of trying to decide those delicate balances as to where growth should take place. If Brampton continues to grow in an intelligent, logical fashion, there is no question the local council would like to see that happen. No one is suggesting these acres be used in the next three or four years. but the planners and the local council are anxious to see the plan in place.

If the member is familiar with the city of Brampton at all, he will find the request from the municipality, supported incidentally by the region, goes up to Sideroad 17 which is the northern boundary of Brampton and was part of the south Peel water and sewage scheme. From the very day of the introduction of that scheme, that was contemplated as being in the planning and ultimate development area.

I could oppose the wishes of the local council, the region and I guess a good majority of the citizens of the community in which I live and say that growth will be limited. That is where a lot of the housing construction is going on -- where that municipality is accommodating a lot of people -- more so than a lot of other municipalities in Ontario over the past seven or eight years. So in terms of housing, that growth is essential. If the growth is limited in Brampton, we will have it in some other municipality that may be further from where the economic viability of the community makes sense.

It is great to get up and try to be emotional about the preservation of farmland. But I would point out a good number of farmers involved are very much in support of this being included in the Brampton official plan. I know the member does not want to speak for the farmers, hut I still have a few in the city of Brampton and I think I am reflecting their point of view when I say some of them think it is good planning and it makes good sense to have this included in the plan.

I should also point out that no decision has been made by the government with respect to the addition to the Brampton official plan.

Mr. Riddell: If the Premier thinks this is an issue that just concerns me, I would have to --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: "Question, please"? The Premier just made an answer --

Mr. Riddell: Has the Premier read the reports in some of the major daily papers across this province, such as "Davis Mum on Farm Land Decisions." Brampton Lets Farm Land Go to Development." "How our Farm Land Disappears"?

One article talks about the Minister of Agriculture and Food remaining completely silent on the issue when he is supposed to be supporting his own food land guidelines. The article, written by David Lewis Stein in the Toronto Star, ends up saying, "Given how important the issue is, it would be appropriate, I think, to hear from the member of the provincial Legislature from Brampton, a one-time Brampton lawyer by the name of Bill Davis."

Does that type of thing not bother the Premier? Is he going to insist that his Minister of Agriculture and Food make comments on this official plan, as he is supposed to do if indeed the food land guidelines mean anything in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not going to get into a debate with David Lewis Stein. I read him with some regularity and he comments on a number of issues. With great respect to him, I would say I am somewhat more familiar with that community than he is and perhaps I have better understanding of the thoughts of the people in that community than he does. I think I also have a little better understanding of the history of this application for the official plan than does David Lewis Stein.

I am really not that surprised that he suggests I am staying mum, because David Lewis Stein does not totally understand the process. He does not understand that in the approval process for the official plan, the municipality is represented by democratically elected people -- not all of a certain political persuasion, incidentally -- and you just do not totally ignore the wishes of those people whom the citizens of Brampton have elected.

The recently elected mayor of Brampton said on radio, categorically and in a very forthright fashion before voting day, that it makes good sense in terms of the growth of the municipality. His statement got beyond the borders of the city of Brampton, incidentally. He comes from the Ottawa Valley, and has a great appreciation for agriculture and all that it means. Also, he is a good friend of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), so his political affiliations are not confined to a particular political party.

There has to be some balance, because there has to be growth. There has been agricultural land used, but I would suggest to the honourable member, before he gets all emotional and tries to suggest something is not appropriate because I have not said anything, that he too should understand the process.

I will say something at the appropriate time, but it will not he until the process itself reaches some form of conclusion.

LAKE SUPERIOR POLLUTION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. What steps is his ministry taking to examine thoroughly the potential danger to the fishery in Lake Superior in northwestern Ontario because of the threat of contamination by toxaphene? Specifically, has his ministry taken water and or fish samples from any of the inland lakes in northwestern Ontario? How many water and fish samples have been taken and are now being processed or tested?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I obviously am not in a position to give specific numbers in response to that question at this point. It is true that our laboratory is gearing up to do some testing in that field. Most of the testing to date has been done by federal laboratories, and I cannot at this point confirm with certainty whether testing has begun at our laboratory or not, although I believe some samples have been taken for that purpose.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell me whether or not the samples taken last summer are still being stored in Ottawa and have not yet been tested? Those are water samples. Can he tell me how soon we can expect those samples to be tested! Can he tell me why his ministry seems to be emphasizing the testing of water as opposed to the testing of fish, which at least has an easier and quicker methodology? Does he not think the immediate threat is to the fishery in northwestern Ontario and that the examination of the species should therefore take top priority?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think a thorough approach to examining the impact of any such chemical obviously requires the testing of both fish and water samples. In fact, I think the member will find that both have been tested in the past and will be in the future.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, toxaphene has been a major concern not only for Lake Superior but certainly with people around the Windsor area. Articles have appeared in some of the Detroit papers about toxaphene as well.

I would like the minister to comment to us today on the studies that have been going on, the sampling that has been going on and the results that have been promised to this Legislature for several weeks now with respect to the fish in the Detroit River. Can he tell us when that report will be available and whether or not the testing that has been done has shown any results with respect to the toxaphene problem, which had been outlined in several articles in September of this past year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall that two or three weeks ago, I believe, when he last asked this question, I indicated my information was that the results should be available for publication within two or three weeks. That should be, I would hope, before Christmas.

11 a.m.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on December 8, I undertook to report back to the House on a question raised by the member for York South Mr. Rae regarding the extent of protection afforded by the Occupational Health and Safety Act to a worker who is pregnant.

The factual basis of this question involved a pregnant worker at the Midwestern Regional Centre for the mentally retarded who had refused to work in fear of the possibility that her unborn child might contact hepatitis from one of the residents under her care. The employee was ultimately assigned to duties outside the area of exposure.

The honourable member's concern, however, related to a statement made by a ministry official during the investigation of this matter to the effect that protection of the unborn is not covered by the right to refuse unsafe work.

The issue raised by the member is of vital importance. In the interests of clarifying the ministry's position, I have obtained a legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General dealing with this aspect of the work refusal provisions of the act. I wish to advise the House of the principal conclusion in this opinion.

Quite simply, I am advised there is no distinction between a pregnant worker and her unborn child for purposes of section 23 of the act. In other words, assuming one of the hazards enumerated in the section is present, a pregnant worker has the protection of the section. If the conditions present are likely to endanger her, including her unborn child, risk to the foetus is attributed to the mother and thus the act provides the necessary protection.

I can assure the member that steps are being taken to communicate this position to all members of the ministry's inspectorate.

It must be remembered that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is public welfare legislation, designed to safeguard against injury and illness in the work place. Accordingly, its provisions should receive such fair, large and liberal construction as will ensure that the intended purpose of the statute is attained. I believe the opinion I have received from the Attorney General's ministry is consistent with these rules of construction. Consequently, it is unnecessary to consider amendments to the statute.

CATEGORY 2 MEDICAL SCHOOLS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder whether the minister can comment on the level of care that constituents in his riding are getting from physicians trained in category 2 schools. He may want to limit his remarks to the very large Chinese-Canadian community in his riding.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants to provide more details of her concern about category 2 schools, she might do that, and then I will be able to answer her question.

Ms. Copps: It is obvious the minister does not want to comment on the treatment his constituents have received from category 2 schools.

The minister is well aware that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has given notice that the college will not accept graduates from category 2 medical schools for any form of licensing in Ontario after January 1, 1986. In fact, only category 1 physicians will be allowed into this country, and that includes physicians from New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and Australia, but none from such countries as Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, India, etc.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: The minister was aware of this, and I wonder why he did not act on it and why it was up to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to bring this question of potential racism to the attention of the college. Why was it up to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to ask the college to rethink its position, when I would have thought that the minister, in view of his concerns about our multicultural community, would have done it himself when he met with the college?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not only does the member have a penchant for asking distasteful questions, and questions that show where her head is these days, but she also has a tendency to ask questions that allow her just to take her left foot out of her mouth and put her right foot back into it.

For the information of the member, I raised this matter with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario long before she could even spell category 2. I took it up four or five months ago with the college, and I pointed out that my concern about its current requirements for licensing in Ontario was related to the question of quality.

I told the college at that time I thought the regulations they were putting in place were leaving a whole number of medical schools from category 1 on the list simply because they traditionally had been on the list, while ending category 2 for quality reasons. Let us understand that; it is for quality reasons, because they believe a lot of the schools on category 2 are not turning out highly qualified, skilled practitioners for Ontario. Therefore, category 2, which is internationally recognized, was eliminated, commencing 1986.

The reason for that was the number of doctors coming to this province. I know the member, as one who has been very good at standing up and lecturing on the need for nurse practitioners and others -- which is a need I happen to share -- will, upon calm reflection, share our concern --

Ms. Copps: That is my responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Will the member sit there and be quiet for a second?

Ms. Copps: You know darned well --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: She should put her eyes back in her head and take her foot out of her mouth for a minute. Let her listen to me.

Ms. Copps: The human rights commission has taken the college to task and you did not. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The honourable member, so to speak, has said the human rights commission took the college to task and I did not. I have already stated it for the record. Before the member trots outside and repeats that statement for the media -- and the college will confirm this for the member before she says it outside again -- I raised this with the college before the human rights commission raised it with them.

What is the member showing me? What is she showing me to prove I am wrong?

Ms. Copps: A bulletin.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a bulletin. What does it say? Put up; what does it say? Put up.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister just address himself to the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to make it clear, so there is no misunderstanding to those who want to take the member's propaganda, that I raised this with the college long before the human rights commission did and long before the member understood the issue, which still gives us lots of time because she still does not.

Let me make it clear that the question we were raising was one of medical manpower and whether we should have every one of those schools licensed by the college, with the graduates of those schools being allowed to come in and practise here. The college responded to that long before I got involved in this by saying, "Category 2 graduates should not be allowed in here, for quality reasons."

I raised this question with them: "Are you, the college, satisfied that all the schools you are eliminating on category 2 are schools that have inferior quality, and are you satisfied that all the schools on category 1, which you are retaining because of the Commonwealth connection, are schools that are turning out superior graduates?"

The member can shake her silly little head but, if she will call the college, they will tell her the truth. She should be on the back shelf of a car with her head going.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a result of that conversation -- I want the member to hear this before she goes out in the hall and tells a different story -- the college came back to the Ministry of Health and said, "We, the CPSO, agree that the review should include those schools on category 1 that might he dropped, in fairness, and look again at the category 2 universities, some of which are perhaps turning out superior graduates to those we are retaining on category 1."

Just to close off all the silly points she has raised in this ill-thought-out question, let me say that I personally resent any suggestion she wants to raise that this reflects on this government, this member or this minister in caring about the immigration of any particular group to my riding.

Mr. Peterson: You are offensive enough without --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) does not even understand the issue. Let her dig herself out. She got in; let her dig herself out.

Let me make it clear that there are legitimate points to be raised on this issue, but not out of the gutter. The member for Hamilton Centre should not raise the ethnic issue in here. My record will stand up against anyone over there. She should not kid herself.

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

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or a point of personal privilege: I am concerned at the minister's hysterical response to my question. I ask the minister to revoke his statement that he would like me to get out of the gutter, because I do not think I was in the gutter.

Mr. Speaker: It is neither a point of order nor a point of privilege. I ask the member to resume her seat, please.

Mr. Riddell: I think the minister is going to have a pretty lonely Christmas. He lives for himself and nobody else.

Mr. Speaker: Everybody has an urge this morning to make a speech. Now I recognize the member for Hamilton West.

PETITIONS

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table on the same subject; so I will simply read the one and table the other.

The first is from a citizen of Mississauga named Frances Catherine Steinmiller with respect to the Trent audio library, and the other one is from Erindale United Church. I will simply read the headings of one of them.

"The program uses volunteer readers to tape textbooks for print handicapped students in high schools and post-secondary level, enabling them to complete their education and become self-supporting citizens. Surely access to our public education system is a basic right for anyone, handicapped or not, and in the long term a money-saver for the government that would otherwise be forced to provide welfare and disability payments. We would like to see our tax money channelled in this direction."

Mr. Mancini: That was a real class action: first class.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Essex South just be quiet, please.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill 211, An Act to amend the insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make insurers responsible for the debts incurred by persons who are appointed by insurers as insurance agents while they are holding themselves out as agents of those insurers. It speaks to a problem that one of my constituents has with a debt incurred by an insurance agent in the riding.

OPENING OF DRAPES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I notice the pages opened the curtains and then they closed them. We stand the bright lights during the question period, and I think we can probably stand the curtains open and we can let the sunshine in here. Do we have to take a vote on that? I am in favour of opening the curtains.

Mr. Speaker: That is an excellent idea.

11:10 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL COURT (CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 196, An Act to amend the Provincial Court (Civil Division) Project Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) have a statement? No?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as you said to the House earlier, everyone seems to want to make a speech today; so this will be my opportunity. It will not be particularly lengthy.

As the members of the House are aware, this bill is particularly necessary because the provincial court (civil division) project that was developed in Metropolitan Toronto will end on December 31 unless legislation is brought before this House to deal with the continuation of that project.

This bill does that, but I regret to say that it does not do a number of other things that I think are necessary with respect to the development of the status of this project within Ontario.

As a result, I am going to propose to the Attorney General four particular amendments that I think he should consider with respect to the operation of this court project, and I am sending them over to him now. It seems to me that we will run a serious risk if we do not develop and properly establish this court, now that we have the opportunity to do so.

The Courts of Justice Act, which will be coming before us at some time in the future, may well deal with this civil division and upgrade its status to that of the criminal and family divisions of the same court. Indeed, the Courts of Justice Act may, when it comes before us, may also deal with the development of this kind of project in other parts of the province.

But that is not going to be for some time. In the committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General a day or so ago we were informed that while the Attorney General wishes that this Courts of Justice Act he before us as soon as possible, it is still going to take some time to complete the mechanics and to deal with the rule changes that are going to be necessary to have that legislation all in place. Certainly that is going to take quite some discussion. The justice committee and possibly others are going to be involved in dealing with all of the mechanics, as best we can, of an entirely new project in this province that will result from the Courts of Justice Act.

But that probably is not going to be before us in the spring session: indeed, it may well be that the necessity to look at this matter so thoroughly will prevent the implementation of that kind of legislation for a year or a year and a half to come. In the meantime, this civil division will continue being neither quite fish nor fowl. The civil division will continue without the possibility of being expanded across the province if it is the wish of the Attorney General and of the cabinet to do so.

As a result, in my suggestion for four useful amendments I have attempted to bring this civil division into a somewhat more permanent portion of the provincial court than it will be otherwise, by the simple continuation of what was a three-year project and now is set out as chapter 397 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario.

I think it is important that the Attorney General consider the provisions that appear in chapter 398 in the Provincial Courts Act, because he will see that in the development there of the two aspects of the provincial court -- that is, the criminal division and the family division -- we have an opportunity now to upgrade on an interim basis the civil division, which I believe has developed very well within Ontario.

There was a report on the recent development of the project and, while I will not refer to it at length, I do commend to the members the comments made on pages 195 and 196, as I recall, showing how well this court has developed, what a useful situation we have and that the commitment of the judges appointed to this court has worked out very well in this whole area. As a result, I think there is an upgrading that we can do and that this bill does not entirely address.

I commend to the Attorney General the comments that are set out in the four amendments I propose to make to this bill, which I believe would improve it.

First of all, I would change the definition of "judge," which appears in clause 1(b) of the initial act; that is, chapter 397 in our revised statutes. As a result, as is set out in my amendment, judges would be appointed, not under section 4 of the bill we are amending, but simply "under this act."

The second amendment I will propose would strike out the phrase "of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto" in the second line of clause 1(c) of the act.

11:20 a.m.

Third, I would change subsection 3(1), which reads as follows: "There shall be a court of record in and for the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto called the provincial court (civil division) of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto." I would amend that section to read: "There shall be a court of record in and for the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and such other areas as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate, called the provincial court (civil division)."

Finally, I would suggest that a useful amendment in the bill before us would be as follows: "Sections 9, 12 and 13 of the Provincial Courts Act, RSO 1980, chapter 398, shall apply to judges appointed under this act."

The results of those four amendments would be to give continuity to the present civil division, to make it an equal part of our provincial court system and to give the judges the same status and equality as the judges in the criminal and family divisions. It would also allow the ministry to expand this division of the court in other areas if it wishes to do so.

If the amendments are accepted, we will have acknowledged that this civil division probably is going to be a continuing aspect of the provincial court system. As I cited earlier, the report on the project after these three years has made that result a likely and worthwhile one.

I know the Attorney General is going to consider that the proposed Courts of Justice Act in due course may well sort out these concerns. But since we are a minimum of a year, and possibly two years, away from having that system in place, I suggest the House should take the opportunity now to settle formally the status and quality of the court so that there is not this sense of limbo, as I gather is the case.

These four amendments would bring this bill up to date and would complete the acknowledgement of the division of the provincial court as being something we expect to continue in the future. A year and a half or so from now, when the Courts of Justice Act is finally in place, I know, things may have changed and this civil division may not be seen to be a necessary and permanent category; but I do not think that is going to be the case.

I expect that as we deal with changes in the monetary jurisdictions of courts and as we deal with the suggestion made by the Carleton law association with respect to a new view of the courts in the province as to whether the county and supreme courts might merge, this kind of ongoing discussion about changes in the framework of the court system is going to be with us.

I am sure the Attorney General agrees that the project over these three years has been a worthy one. I do commend these amendments to him, because if they were accepted, in the commitment to a continuing and permanent civil division we would have an opportunity to broaden and to make secure the approach, which has been a successful experiment.

We have to change the legislation because, as I mentioned in my initial remarks, if this bill were not passed, the whole division and the project otherwise would come to an end at the end of the year.

I commend to the Attorney General the opportunity to have the system in place so that we are not called upon again in a few months to make amendments that could be attended to today. If the civil division is to continue, then let us do it in a thorough way and give an opportunity for its expansion to occur, should that be desired.

The third amendment I suggested only sets out that opportunity and, of course, does not require it, because I believe it would he presumptuous on my part to suggest that. However, it does give the opportunity, and I think that opportunity is worth while.

I submit that my suggested amendments, should they be included in this bill, would bring better legislation, would settle the prospects of the civil division and, I believe, would please the judges and the staff persons involved as they achieve the same status and expected continuity and prestige that the present members and staff of the criminal and family divisions now have.

This has been a worthy and worthwhile project. It is something that has been a successful and useful innovation in the attempt to resolve, in the traditional small claims approach, as many disputes between persons as is possible without the necessity of legal involvement or the requirement of great expense.

If these four amendments are included, as I have suggested to the House, I believe we will have a better bill. We will have a worthwhile result and will be able to build on the success of this project as we look to the permanent establishment of a civil division of the provincial court which may have the opportunity to expand in due course across Ontario, particularly into the larger metropolitan areas where this particular court will be of great use and value to the people of the province.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill with an ambivalent attitude towards both the bill and the way in which the court has functioned. I have no hesitation in saying that we will support the amendments proposed by my friend the member for Kitchener with respect to both the status of the judges of the court and with respect to the flexibility that would be designed in the amendments to permit, as time goes on, the extension of this particular court to the other areas in the province when it is seen fit to do so.

My ambivalence is affected seriously this morning, because in the riding of Riverdale there are two matters that touch upon people in Riverdale and the administration of justice. One is the whole process of the assessment of real property, and the second is the question of small claims up to the amount of $3,000, or $1,000, which is the present limit of the small claims court.

A few days ago, to try to give notice to the Ministry of the Attorney General, I mentioned that I wanted to discuss the assessment review court procedure in the estimates, in which there are 49 minutes left. But the genius of this House has managed to have the Attorney General, the Justice critic of the Liberal Party and myself as Justice critic for the New Democratic Party, here in the assembly dealing with a very important bill touching upon the lives of many people. In the standing committee on administration of justice, the question of the assessment review court is proceeding without the presence of the three of us.

11:30 a.m.

It takes a specific kind of genius to arrange the order of business of this assembly so as to bring about that kind of problem in the ordering of the business of the House on a Friday morning. Until we smarten up about the business of this House, there are going to he serious problems. For the government or the government House leader to chide this party about having wasted time on Bill 179 in the light of what took place in this assembly this morning makes a mockery of the whole process.

There happen to be six men suspended without pay in the Ministry of Correctional Services in direct contravention of the provision of the Charter of Rights of Ontario and of Canada. They are deprived of pay of at least $1,000 a month and will be in bankruptcy if the matters are not dealt with. But somehow we cannot manage to deal with what affects everyday, ordinary people.

I know I have strayed a little from the principle of the bill, but am going to come back to it because what happens in this court, which is the topic of the bill, affects the people in my riding directly, as does the assessment process in which I am now not allowed to take part because of the genius of this House. That is a matter of great concern to me.

I have no problem with the amendments proposed by my friend the member for Kitchener, specifically the creation of another class of judges in the province who are neither small claims court judges nor provincial judges, in the strange way the ministry deals with this matter. I think the status of judges is very important and I am delighted to know the matter of the status of provincially appointed judges is finally going to have a proper airing in, I hope, the Court of Appeal of Ontario, hopefully in January.

I do not know whether it is possible for the administration of justice to understand that delay is injustice. That is the problem with the administration of justice in every respect in connection with this bill.

If a person lived in Riverdale and had to attend a small claims court, either as plaintiff or defendant, he would have to travel to Scarborough to deal with it. He could not go to College Street; that is much too convenient. If one lives east of the Don River, one goes to Scarborough. Anybody who has taken public transportation in this city would understand what it means to get to the court in Scarborough from the riding of Riverdale and would also know how long it takes to get to College and Yonge streets from the riding of Riverdale.

The courts the people of the riding I represent deal with are the most poorly administered of all the courts. There are very serious problems in connection with this matter.

My knowledge of the provincial court (civil division) in its project phase is derived from two instances. One is a matter on which I personally had to go on an appeal, not at the original trial but on an appeal, and I was dealt with quite fairly at that time. The second one is this valuable evaluation report of the provincial court (civil division) by Ann Cavoukian and Steve McCann, both of whom are members of the staff of the ministry. The personal experience reinforces much that is said in the report.

I do find it extremely difficult to understand why reports have to be ambivalent; in other words, they have to come out saying that everything is fine and it is a highly' successful operation. On the other hand, when we read between the lines of the evaluation report, we find that the very things that have bothered us over the years about the small claims court are reinforced by the study. That is a very strange position to be in when one stands as critic to discuss this project.

I happen to support the concept I want to see it extended across the province and I want to see the small claims court abolished. We have inherited the small claims tradition through the court system in Ontario in a way which is almost a disaster for anybody who has been involved in it. I applaud, as my colleague the former member for Lakeshore did, the initiative taken by the Attorney General to try to get out of this particular morass by creating a court of status and standing and adapting it to the provincial court system when they introduced this particular project into the assembly in 1979, I believe.

I am totally in support of the concept involved. I want to see it extended across the province. I want to see the position of the judges given the identical status at the highest possible level of respect in all aspects of the appointment that the provincial court judges are gradually getting in this province. I want to see it continued and the small claims operation abolished.

Having applauded the concept and wholeheartedly agreed with the proposals made by my friend from Kitchener about it, I would like to take a minute or two to address what the report has said. It is a very good report, had they simply left it on the basis of a critical assessment of that court instead of talking about it as a highly successful innovation in the project. The road is clear, and the report points up very serious defects in the whole question of small claims.

The report is addressed to the rather limited sense of that court namely, it was an experiment to see whether or not something called claims between $1,000 and $3,000 could be appropriately dealt with in such a way as to relieve the congestion in the county court and, secondly, to provide an efficient, inexpensive way of dealing with that kind of claim. I think the study addresses that particular aspect of the problem very well.

In the preface to the report, it simply says that it "attempts to assess the operation and effectiveness of the increased jurisdiction in terms of the aims that were articulated when the project was initiated." It goes on to state, "It seeks to elicit information which can provide some basis for seeing whether the court can be said to be meeting the somewhat vaguely formulated goals that were set for it at its inception."

It goes on to indicate that, in the opinion of those who were writing the report, they believe it to he a successful experiment, that it provides an accurate profile of the Court and that any future decision to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the court should take into consideration a number of the comments which were made in this study.

11:40 a.m.

I want not to go through the details of the report but to draw to the attention of the assembly some of the matters referred to in the summary and conclusions related to the court. They bother me immensely when I think of it in relation to the area of the city of Toronto that I represent.

It is unfortunate, for example, that the figures in the study appear to indicate that claims between $1,000 and $3,000 are still perceived as being sufficiently large to justify or necessitate the use of a legal representative. I think it is appalling that we cannot devise a court system for adjudication, given the inflation factor of our lives and given the deflation of the value of the currency which automatically accompanies that inflation,

People not only find it inconvenient in my area to get to the court, but still believe that if they are faced with that kind of a dispute they have to have a legal representative. I could not find -- it is probably here in the report -- the number of cases where the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer and where that has a significant deterrent effect on the defendant.

Seemingly to be inherent in the report is the number of people who do not enter an appearance or a defence, coupled with the number of people involved and the extent and degree of the adjournments which are requested. Added to that is the very real expense to litigants in that court of time off work and legal representation fees, not the expenses of the court.

It would appear that in a financial sense the costs of the administration of the court have been quite successful in being kept at a very low level, but it is also very clear that time off work and the question of the sense that one must have a representative to deal with one's case in that court are two factors which must be addressed by the ongoing project in the court.

I would hope that it would be possible, without legal representation. for ordinary citizens of the province, whether they are faced with a claim by their bank or by a major corporation or by the neighbour down the street or by the local contractor, to be able to say: "I am going to go to the court, and if I dispute this matter I am going to state what my position is. I am going to expect the other side to state what it is and I am not going to get involved in an interminable court process." I think that would be extremely important.

It is fascinating to see in this report that only 23 per cent of the litigants who responded to the litigant questionnaire said they would have pursued a claim between $1,000 and $3,000 in a higher court if the provincial court (civil division) had not been available.

It is quite fascinating to see that only a quarter of the people would have bothered, in the absence of this court, to have pursued their claim. That is again part of the ambivalence, because I do not pretend to understand the implications of that statement. Does it mean that 75 per cent of the people who are defendants in that court would have got off quite scot-free had no such project been evolved by the ministry? I do not know the answer to that. It sounds like a real catch 22 to me.

The report then goes on -- and it talks in very lawyer-like terms; we as lawyers can understand it, but the ordinary citizen cannot understand it -- and is quite complimentary about saying that of the cases studied, 75 per cent were completed within six months. Anybody but a lawyer would think, "Why do you applaud that statement as being evidence of the success of the court?" It goes on to say that 84 per cent of the cases that went to trial had a trial date set within five months. That again is part of the ambivalence, because I do not understand the import of that statement.

Then it goes on and says, "One disconcerting feature of the provincial court (civil division) is the large number of adjournments, a problem which will he discussed below." I am going to take a minute or two when I come to it. "Even with this large number of adjournments. however, it can he fairly said that there is little unnecessary delay in the provincial court (civil division) proceedings." I do not know what that statement means, because the adjournment rate is horrendous in that court.

When we add to it claims that are filed in the court for which the defendant does not appear at all, and when we add on top of that the statistical information with respect to the adjournments, then we do have trouble coming to the conclusion that this has been a success. I would have liked the report simply to address the factual situation without making some qualitative, evaluative statement about success or failure.

It goes on, in the conclusions, to state: "On the question of expense, the expenses incurred by litigants would appear to be mainly time taken off work and fees paid to lawyers or agents. Fees for entering and serving a claim in the provincial court (civil division) are fairly low and are generally recovered by the successful party."

What have we accomplished? A day off work, in my judgment, is not just one day; as a practical matter it probably means two to three days off work. That is difficult enough to arrange in these times with your employer, and the hours are not convenient for most working people. Then the fees paid to lawyers or agents are the very guts of what we are trying to say about the court. We wanted to eliminate those costs. We wanted to make certain that ordinary people had access to that court on an acceptable basis.

"More than half of the litigants who responded to the litigant questionnaire reported that they had taken time off work to appear in the provincial court, civil division; almost all of them said they had taken at least one day off work." It is a real penalty in this province to take a day or more or a week or three days or two days or whatever it is off work, both with respect to the loss of pay and with respect to the difficulty of making those arrangements, let alone the concern about having to appear in the court.

There is some dissertation on the effect on the county court case load, which was one of the goals, and of course the report states that it was not able to assess that matter at all. "While much of the above is purely speculative, we are, unfortunately, reduced to such conjecture and speculation in the absence of recorded, quantifiable information," that for practical purposes that particular goal has not yet been either established as having been attained or not attained. Again, the ambivalence comes through when only 23 per cent of those who pursued their claims in this court would have bothered to go to the county court if this project were not available.

11:50 a.m.

Then there is a significant and valuable dissertation with respect to the court being used as a statutory form of a debt collection agency. That has been a matter that has been discussed forever in this assembly. That question is, is it simply that the state has established a statutory debt collection agency and that is all it is about?

The report has some very valuable points to make about that. It seems to reinforce what all of us have been really worried about over the years when it goes on to say, "Nevertheless, it must he realized that in the vast majority of provincial court (civil division) cases no one appears in court and, indeed, the defendant does not even bother to enter a defence." In a sense it is a statutory form of debt collection agency. I do not know what the answer to it is, but it is obvious that this experiment has not found the answer to that problem. I think we have to look at it in very serious terms with respect to the people in the riding of Riverdale.

It goes on in the same vein, "The rules of the provincial court (civil division) anticipated this problem -- that is, the statutory form of debt collection agency -- to an extent by the inclusion of rule 29, which provides for an admission of liability followed by a hearing to arrange terms of payment."

One would have thought that was an immense step forward for people to say: "Yes, I do owe $2,000 on my credit card, or I do owe this number of dollars but the times do not permit me to pay it all off. I want to arrange an acceptable form of payment." The report goes on to state: "Unfortunately this rule has been very seldom used, presumably because it is largely unknown. A positive step that could be taken would be to make the existence of this rule more widely known, perhaps through credit counselling agencies."

As I stated, the whole question of the value of this court is still open for discussion. I happen to support it because it is the first definitive movement that we in this assembly and the ministry have taken in many years to try to talk about ordinary, everyday people's problems with respect to relatively low monetary limits but matters which, the minister knows as well as I do, are of immense importance to the ordinary citizen.

Indeed, anyone who would suggest that a $1,000 or $2,000 claim is a negligible matter does not understand the world in which we live, because those are very disastrous claims. The lack of capacity of the court to say, "Look, you owe the money but these are the terms that can he arranged for settlement," and the fact that the court does not appear to have been able to move significantly in that area is a matter of severe concern.

I do not intend to go on much longer. It goes on to talk about adjournments. A large number of the cases are adjourned on the day set down for trial. Of cases appearing on the daily list for trial, 45 per cent were adjourned at least once and 21 per cent were adjourned twice. I do not understand that. I do not mean by that that I have any magic solution. If I were in the position of the Attorney General I would not have any magic solution, but it is a problem that simply must be addressed.

I quote from the report: "The court clerks estimated that while seven cases per day were scheduled, only three would actually he heard." That seems to be a matter that the assembly should understand is of severe import, if we are talking about efficient administration of the courts.

It would be very interesting, taking the number of claims that are filed in the court and the few people who actually enter a defence to them -- and then one comes to the question of representation in the court, let alone being able to go oneself and deal with those who come before the court -- to find out what the relationship is between representation and adjournments.

In other words, what is the relationship between those who seek out the assistance of a lawyer, because they happen to know there is a lawyer on the other side or because they feel disconcerted or concerned about the matter, and the legal profession in requesting the adjournments?

It is something every lawyer takes pride in every day. It would be highly unrealistic to expect every case in the provincial court to he tried on the date mentioned in the first notice of trial that is set out. That is part of the bible we learn in law school. However, it does not make sense to the ordinary citizen who is not a lawyer. A lot of people would say, "Yes, it is quite realistic to have the matter dealt with on the day that it was set to be dealt with." Most people would say that was common sense.

However, we who are brought up in the tradition that delay is justice, rather than expedition is justice, would well understand that because it is part of the principles that are inculcated in each of the law schools of the province, the speedy settlement and the closing of a file is the last thing to be desired at any given time.

The sending of a series of interim accounts to the client is, of course, a most important part of the process of delay, and there should be a rule that says that until the file is closed and put away, no lawyer can demand any money for anything. There would be an immense improvement in the administration of justice in the province. I speak as one who has practised in that tradition and am just as subject to criticism as even my friend the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) would be about a matter such as that.

The current situation in the civil division of the provincial court, however, is alarming in that it appears to be uncontrolled, leading to inefficiency and expense for both the courts and the litigants. It is extremely difficult to understand how the people who did this valuable study could talk about it as a highly successful experiment when that kind of statement is in the report. I am not putting down the report. I think it is an absolutely essential study. and I am deeply indebted to those who made it.

I have gone on at sufficient length to say that I accept what we have talked about for a thousand years in this province. The final conclusion is, "The 'debt collection' aspect of provincial court (civil division) may become a source of public debate; this evaluation can go no further than to say that there is nothing to indicate that the court is used to 'victimize' debtors."

That could have been said about the small claims court 50 years ago or 100 years ago. It does not answer the problem. I do not happen to be as sanguine about the court. I end up where I started. I support the concept. I look forward to the day when the small claims system is abolished. I look forward to the day when the specific work of this court, and the imaginative initiative which led to it, is an important part of the system of the administration of justice.

I want to tell the Attorney General that he has to provide the best judges in that court, A number of appointments in that court have been very good but he must not provide second-class status for the judges who are sitting day in and day out in an experiment to bring about significant and substantial improvement in the resolution of monetary claims which affect so many people.

12 noon

I would personally like to see, for example, the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the senior judge of each of the other courts assigned for six months to be the judges in that project so they would bring their experience from the high elevated positions they occupy to bear upon the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens.

If the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the senior judge of the provincial court, criminal jurisdiction, and the senior judge of the provincial court, family jurisdiction, along with those judges sitting in that project spent six months working in those courts, I think they would not tolerate -- at least I hope they would not tolerate -- the inability of the system of the administration o' justice to deal with this kind of problem.

To end where I started, it is a fundamental inconvenience for a person in the riding of Riverdale, despite the efficiency of the Toronto Transit Commission, to have to deal with his claim by taking time off from work to go out to the Scarborough court. It would be better if the court sat in the evening, or on Saturday, or if it were at College and Yonge streets. Then it might well be a person in the area I represent would say: "At least it is a convenient place to go and if there is an adjournment I do not lose the whole day's work. I only lose half a day if nobody has had the courtesy to tell me about it."

I think I have indicated my ambivalence. I support the bill. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus support the concept of the bill and I support the amendments of my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt).

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Justice critics for their thoughtful and constructive comments with respect to this legislation and, most important, for their support for the amendments. It has been our intention from the outset to make it as clear as we can that the provincial court civil judges enjoy equal status with those of the provincial court, criminal and family. A number of administrative steps have been undertaken to ensure there is no doubt about that.

I have no difficulty with the amendments proposed by the member for Kitchener. Frankly, we had considered similar amendments with respect to the extension of the court. Some concern had been expressed on this side of the House about whether we might be creating unrealistic expectations as to when some of these courts might be extended elsewhere in the province, given some of our financial and other problems.

But we would like to look at these amendments over the weekend and we are quite prepared to entrench them in the legislation. We are interested as to whether there may be any other consequential amendments that may be necessary as a result of these four, but I think we will be able to come up with a version when this bill goes to committee of the whole House. I assume that will be early next week. We will certainly accommodate the intentions behind the amendments proposed by the member for Kitchener, if not precisely in the terms he used.

We will look into the first matter raised by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) regarding accessibility of the small claims court to members of his riding and people east of the Don River. We will take this matter up with our court administrators and, of course, he will be very welcome to discuss this matter directly with Mr. Ron McFarland, who is the court administrator charged with the responsibility of administering these courts.

I am rather intrigued by the comments made in relation to the very term "small claims court." This has been a matter of some internal debate. Some of my advisers feel many members of the public perhaps are more comfortable with the term "small claims court" than with the term "provincial court (civil division)." The view has been expressed that they feel more comfortable and somehow less intimidated. The name "small claims court" encourages individual citizens, ordinary people, to make use of this court. Changing the name might actually discourage potential litigants from making the proper use of these facilities.

I have no view on the matter. I only mention it at this time because I think it is an interesting issue for further discussion. I wanted to make it clear why we had retained the name at least up until this time. It was not in any way to trivialize the importance of the issues determined in this court, but simply to make ordinary citizens, who are quite familiar with the term, feel as comfortable as anyone can be in going to any court, in issuing their own claims in this court.

We want to create a court that will encourage the individual citizen to resort to it without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer. Some have expressed the view that the name "small claims court" encourages this initiative. They were interested in knowing what influence if any the name "provincial court (civil division)" has had on making people feel they require legal assistance. But all of these matters will continue to be considered.

The authors of the report, Anne Cavoukian and Steve McCann, are here and will have appreciated the compliments that have been directed towards them with respect to their report. Also, I am sure they will find the comments of the Justice critics to be of great interest as we pursue the consideration of many matters related to the efficient operation of this court.

There are some other comments I would like to make. I do not know at what point we are expected by our House leaders to be downstairs to conclude the 49 minutes left in the Attorney General's estimates. Perhaps it would be sufficient to say that I found the comments to be very interesting.

To take an example, the issue of adjournments is one that has been of great concern to us. We have recently hired a trial co-ordinator to help reduce the number of adjournments. When we talk about trials being completed within six months, that is a relative term, particularly when one considers that a much longer time is usually required in other courts and considering that it includes the time required for service of the claim and the time for response. It is not a bad target date -- which is not to suggest we would not like to see these cases dealt with sooner. I recall that a very significant percentage -- I will have to check the report -- has been dealt with in three months.

12:10 p.m.

Because of the time frame we are apparently operating within, I would like to conclude my remarks by saying I think the importance of this court certainly is reflected in the quality of the appointments that have been made. I personally have been very pleased with the high quality of the candidates who have come forward prepared to accept appointments to this very important court.

Mr. Renwick: I agree with that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I appreciate there is no disagreement about that. They are small in number and as a result they are not as well known as the judges of the other courts. We are very fortunate in having an excellent group of men and women who could make a significant contribution at any court at any level. The fact they are serving in this court is an indication of the importance the Attorney General of this province and the ministry give to this court and the accessibility to the justice system of the individual citizen in our province.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I want to be extremely brief on this because I know we are within certain time constraints. But there is one thing I wanted to deal with this afternoon under this heading which I think is of great importance.

We here have always complained -- and there have been certain columns written on the subject lately -- about the fact that the Ontario Legislature does not receive the same prominence in media coverage as other matters do.

We have a press gallery here which covers all events that take place in the House and in committee but unfortunately many of these items, when they reach the editors, are either cut or put on the back pages in the case of the written media, and in the electronic media are often put well down among the items shown on national television or heard on the radio.

The reason I mention this is the great deal of fanfare given the federal auditor's report when it was released. There was one full page on it in one of the Toronto newspapers, and many of the other newspapers and the electronic media in the province gave considerable coverage to that report. I think it was on the previous day that the Provincial Auditor's report was published and received the coverage it usually does on page 36 of many newspapers.

The government members would like to suggest that is because there is not as much controversy in the report. I would suggest once again that the provincial Legislature of Ontario is not viewed with as much importance as a provincial legislature would be in many other parts of this country.

Mr. Boudria: That is the way the government likes it.

Mr. Bradley: Certainly that plays into the hands of a government which has been in power 40 years and that is just one of the reasons. I do not want to be political this afternoon. I just want to deal with one aspect of the Office of the Provincial Auditor which militates in favour of a change to the Audit Act.

Page 105 of the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario, dated March 31, 1982, talks about subsidiaries of crown agencies. It reads as follows:

"As covered in section 3.4 of our 1981 report, we sought a legal opinion from the Deputy Attorney General as to whether wholly owned subsidiaries of crown agencies fell under the definition of crown-controlled corporations per section 1(e) of the Audit Act (see exhibit 1). On July 21, 1981, we were advised as follows by the Deputy Attorney General:

"It is our view that there is some difficulty in characterizing the subsidiaries ... you refer to as crown-controlled corporations. It is our view that ownership of the shares of the subsidiaries would be held to be vested in the parent corporations and not in Her Majesty in right of Ontario. This interpretation is not free from doubt. I would recommend that the matter be clarified by an amendment to the legislation.'

"As a result of the foregoing opinion, the following subsidiaries are not considered to be crown-controlled corporations and have not been included in exhibit 7 of the report:

"Subsidiaries of Northern Ontario Development Corp.: Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd., Minaki Development Co. Ltd., Thunder Bay Ski Jumps Ltd.;

"Subsidiaries of the Ontario Energy Corporation: Ontario Energy in Transportation Ltd., Ontario Energy Resources Ltd., Ontario Alternate Energy Ltd., Ontario Powershare Ltd.;

"Subsidiaries of Urban Transport Development Corp. Ltd.: Metro Canada Ltd.. Toronto Transit Consultants Ltd., UTDC Research and Development Ltd., UTDC Services Inc., UTDC (USA) Inc.

"In our 1981 report, we suggested that, if it were the desire of the Legislature that such subsidiaries be treated as crown-controlled corporations, an amendment to the Audit Act be recommended by the standing public accounts committee. It is expected this subject will be covered during a fall meeting of the committee dealing with the accountability of crown corporations."

The committee has, indeed, talked about this. It is clear there is a need for an amendment to the Audit Act. Certainly the federal experience has shown us that there are many problems with the subsidiaries of crown corporations. If we were able to get at it through the provincial act, we might find many problems existing here and be able to look at them and correct them.

There is always the danger of embarrassment to the government when we find out that their subsidiaries are not operating as efficiently or in a manner that we see fit, but we in the public accounts committee like to think we are dealing with matters so that they can be rectified and improvements effected, as they are in many cases once we bring them to the attention of the various ministries or those responsible.

I make that comment in my brief remarks this afternoon on the Office of the Provincial Auditor in the hope that those on the government side will listen very carefully to our proposal for a change in the Audit Act.

Resolution concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Would honourable members in the House have any objection to the doors being opened so the background sounds of the choir and organ can waft in? If it is too loud, I will ask to have them closed; but there is a touch of Christmas outside.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Excellent idea.

Mr. Bradley: How can we be nasty in our remarks?

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, can we have an agreement to have no interjections for the next 45 minutes? That also will help us to hear the music.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Will you assure us that the interjections from below will be recorded by Hansard as a counterpoint to the debate?

The Acting Speaker: I would not make such an assurance.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Cassidy: I was planning to join the choir in the Hallelujah Chorus. If they begin while I am making this speech, perhaps you will excuse me.

Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Do you not normally start the rotation from the official opposition?

The Acting Speaker: You were not first to stand, or you did not stand fast enough. Certainly, I will come back to you very quickly.

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three comments to make about this concurrence. As a member for 11 years and as someone who cannot help but have some regard for this chamber and what it represents as Ontario's version of the parliamentary system, I have been concerned for a long time about the inadequacies of the assembly.

I was a member at one point of the select committee on the Camp commission which looked into many of those problems. I am afraid the kind of focus and priority we wished the assembly to have in our reports some six or seven years ago has yet to be achieved. Since the government House leader is here I will address my comments to him through you, Mr. Speaker, because while there has been progress in some areas, I think the dangers of the chamber becoming irrelevant and of its being ignored are something the government should be very much aware of.

While it may be convenient in the short term for the government to ride roughshod over this place or to ignore it and simply to use it as a place that validates what has been decided outside, I think in the long run it hurts us all. Members on the government side are also members of the parliament of Ontario, and if the parliament of Ontario is weakened, then democracy in the province is ultimately weakened.

I will make a positive comment first. Some six or seven years ago in our reports the select committee on the Camp commission made a number of recommendations with respect to the legislative library. I have had occasion in the last few months to use the library quite extensively in research, bibliography and that kind of thing. I think we can be pleased with the progress that has been made in the legislative library. It was literally back in the Dark Ages when Mr. Land and some of his staff began to institute some reforms. I think there were some problems with leadership and a lack of focus there, and I think the library has been able to come a long way in providing assistance to members and in providing research support. One would hope that support is reflected from time to time even in the debates around here.

But while that is the case, in other respects the Legislature, if anything, has lost rather than gained ground over the course of the last six or seven years. I read in the paper last night that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) has now engaged a series of management consultants to help the government -- and I suppose that means to help the Conservative Party as well -- map out an industrial direction for Ontario over the course of the next 10 or 15 years. They are preparing studies, having internal seminars and doing all kinds of things like that in order to see in which direction policy ought to go. They are spending, one would assume -- since those consultants do not come cheap -- tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on this endeavour in one ministry alone.

With respect to the contribution that members in this place can make, in the first place it is seldom the case that anybody beyond a parliamentary assistant on the government side would take a specific overall interest in the work of a particular ministry. Members over there may be concerned with the programs or the delivery of services from that ministry in their particular regions, but as a rule, government back-benchers have not taken much of a leadership role in suggesting new policy initiatives in a more general way.

In the official opposition and in the third party normally we have a critic for each department. The critic has some support, possibly, from an informal outside group and generally has a certain amount of research support from the caucus research offices. But the caucus research office in the case of the Liberals consists of maybe eight to 11 people; maybe, therefore, they can afford to devote a quarter or a half of a researcher's time to concern about the work of an important department like the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Members, as we know, have their attention divided among many responsibilities. They have to represent their ridings, do their work in caucus and so on, and this means that from each of the opposition parties only limited attention is given to many of the departments of government.

Some months ago in the federal Parliament they faced this problem and decided it was about time parliamentary committees began to do something on policy development, not just in looking at legislation. One of the successful innovations that came after the 1980 election -- when there were a lot of members cooling their heels who did not know what to do with themselves -- was the formation of parliamentary task forces. I think there were about seven or eight on such subjects as manpower planning, the disabled -- a particularly good report was produced on the disabled -- and on the area of export marketing. I forget what the other ones were about.

What was notable about those reports was that they were produced quickly and efficiently, the committees were kept relatively small so that they could move around and get from one part of the country to another, the public had a chance to provide its input and there was research done as well. I think those federal parliamentary task forces made a valuable contribution in terms of suggesting directions for policy which the federal government should follow.

When a ministry like Industry and Trade, which is an important ministry in this province, basically is floundering and saying, "We do not think we know what the directions ought to be," it seems to me policy input should be coming not just from hired guns -- from management consultants and people like that -- but from this chamber. Right now this chamber is simply not equipped in its traditions, its practices or its resources to play that kind of role. I think that is bad.

Back in the spring suggested the formation of a select committee of the Legislature on the impact of technological change. Perhaps what happened is characteristic of the problems of getting focus on what happens here. I had spent a month or two developing a number of ideas and fitting them into the policy process. Among other things, I suggested it should go further than just one member spending a bit of time on an area important to the future of the province.

My speech was not recorded in the local daily press, with the exception of the Toronto Star, nor, I regret, in the Ottawa newspapers. The idea that it would be important and useful for the Legislature to form such a committee was simply brushed off or ignored by the government side. Like it or not. given the majority, situation, it is the government that makes decisions about whether the Legislature will have its role expanded or not.

In recent months there have been suggestions that it is about time -- it is long overdue, in fact -- that there be a committee of the Legislature or a select committee looking at the economic future of Ontario. That, too, has been rejected by the government. One has to assume the reason it has been rejected is that the do not like anybody walking on to their turf.

None the less, I think it is probably a product of the debate that has been going on in this chamber in the last two months, the pressure coming from the opposition parties over the economic situation and the need to create jobs, which has led to the very substantial changes in the point of view expressed by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Back in the fall, he was adamant that no extra money was to be spent, that no problems really existed and that recovery was just around the corner. At Meech Lake, at the meeting of finance ministers yesterday, he in fact admitted that there is now a very urgent need for job creation projects to take place in this province as well as elsewhere in the country.

What kind of things should be done? What should we be doing for the long term as well as the short term? It seems to me it should not be just in the confrontation of the day-to-day debate and question period that these issues are raised -- often they do not seem to be having any impact at all. In the slightly less confrontationist atmosphere of a committee it should be possible for an issue like that at least to be ventilated. It should be possible there for different people -- academics, trade unions, manufacturers, business people, public service and public interest groups -- to make their contribution and for the Legislature to serve as a vehicle by which ideas can be developed.

I think that could be more efficient as well. Back in the early 1970s I was a member along with the former member for York South on a select committee of the Ontario Legislature on the Ontario Municipal Board. It came up with some recommendations that I think were excellent. It also produced a unanimous report in the course of only six months.

We then recommended that we be empowered to look at the Planning Act. The government thought we might meddle too much with the Planning Act and rejected the suggestion. Then it spent a period, which is now close to a decade, having work done by consultants and task forces and that kind of thing. Had it accepted the initiative coming from the committee, that work might well have been completed in the course of only two or three years, if not less, by the work of a group of strongly interested MPPs with some research support.

12:30 p.m.

That is an example of where legislative involvement would be important, not only because there was the problem of engineering consent and persuading people to look at the problems realistically but also because in terms of efficient use of resources we could have done it in a fifth of the time and, I suspect, for a fifth, if not a 10th, of the money.

The facts are that the resources available to the Legislature and to individual members and caucuses are too limited for that kind of thing to go on. I believe the imbalance between the resources available to the members and caucuses of the opposition parties and the resources available to government has become even greater over the course of the past five or six years.

If one looks in the government phone book, there now is an endless profusion and proliferation of policy analysts, research departments and other people whose job it is to provide policy advice and direction to the government. God knows they need it. There are tremendous resources and perhaps several thousand people available to government. There is a proliferating network of data bases and other computer-based services, and senior managers are weekly taking courses in how to use these for more effective decision-making and policy-making on the government side.

As far as this place is concerned, on the other hand, we still have a system that is essentially little different from the system that prevailed in the Legislature 30 or 40 years ago.

Granted, Hansard now is using word processing and computer technology rather than just using typewriters or shorthand transcribers. We now have a sound system that is a shade better than the system that was here way back in the 1970s. We do not even have translation available. We get a full television service in the Legislature only at the time of the throne speech and when there are major announcements on the budget.

In terms of the resources available and in terms of information, we are all bogged down in the mass of paper that comes across our desks every day. Everything that is done in terms of the work of this place is recorded on paper, whereas a number of legislatures, and I think notably of the Alaska Legislature, have moved to a system that uses electronic systems to make the work of the members and support staff more efficient.

The government House leader (Mr. Wells) is here. I am sure he knows how I feel, because I have not really differed in this view for a long time. I do not think, now that we have a $22-billion government, that we can continue to work as though this were a Legislature of the 1950s or the 1960s when government was small and the work of the assembly was correspondingly much smaller and much less important than it is today.

In a parliamentary democracy, I think it is taken for granted that 98 or 99 per cent of the actual work is going to be done by public servants who work under the direction of the political masters chosen through the electoral system. But it is a mistake to assume that because that is the case, therefore 99 per cent of the importance should go to the work of the public servants.

The work of the parliament is important to give the overall system legitimacy and to provide a window on a system that otherwise could become too closed, too rigid, too ossified and too insensitive and fail to respond to real needs in the community of our province. Whether we are perpetually or partly perpetually in opposition, or in government or whatever, we all ought to recognize the importance of what goes on here. I do not think that is done right now.

As someone who has spent a lot of time on this problem in the past 10 or 11 years, I have to say that at times I almost get a bit resentful when out of its budget. some government ministry can afford to send three or four policy analysts off to some important meeting on its particular area being held in San Francisco, Miami or perhaps over in London.

My resentment is not because it is not important in terms of the professional or career development of those people or the contribution they might be able to make, but because I think the members of the Legislature have a great deal to contribute as well. Those kinds of things never happen as far as the Legislature is concerned, unless it is a parliamentary assistant accompanying a minister on one of his extra-Ontario junkets.

The third thing I want to say is in relation to the question of television coverage of the Ontario Legislature. I was on the Camp committee when we recommended that television be permitted into the Legislature. That was in 1975-76. At that time, I will be frank, part of the reason we choose a very limited system, which was simply to allow the cameras to be set up on the gallery facing you, Mr. Speaker, was that we thought, given the conservatism of the institution, that the best thing to do was to let the cameras in and then let things evolve from there.

We thought that once we had accepted the principle that it was important that the people's business in Ontario be done under the most pervasive and influential medium -- that is, under the eye of the TV cameras -- then an improved system would develop from there. We were proved wrong, because the system that was introduced has simply stayed stalemated at that level.

Where we only had four or five cameras back in 1976, now we have eight, nine or even 10. They sit up there and look like a director's nightmare from the 1920s, back in the days when they had newsreel cameras all over. The results are patently inadequate.

I have been watching the coverage of the chamber on the TV news these past few nights. It looks like a throwback to the 1950s, when they ran the Jackie Gleason show. On colour television, it comes out an eerie blue. It is in colour, I suppose, but it is barely discernible as colour.

The camera angles are absurd. The lack of hair on the members is rather cruelly exposed, because the major things one can see are the temples and the pate and not much else as a result of the direction from which the film is shot. This is true for members like the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) --

Mr. Philip: I believe the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) has a point of privilege.

Mr. Cassidy: The camera angles even on the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), who essentially have the best positions to be photographed from, are such that if they walked full-faced into any room they probably would not be recognized, because the cameras see only the profiles of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

My friend the leader of the New Democratic Party is basically indistinguishable from Robert Redford, because all one can see is his hair.

An hon. member: Redford is a better politician.

Mr. Cassidy: Redford has better hair. Who said that anyway? Be it recorded that there is a Liberal interloper, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), on our benches over here.

An hon. member: It doesn't count as an interjection then.

Mr. Cassidy: The point I want to make is that we now spend more than $20 million a year on TVOntario, which is providing the good service -- I hope the government House leader does not go too far -- and we spend somewhere between $35 million and $45 million on various kinds of advertising by the government in terms of the "Preserve it, conserve it" campaign and all the other campaigns. Under those circumstances, we are spending $50 million to $75 million in various ways to inform the people of the province about what the government is doing, among other things.

I do not believe the question of funding an improved television system is at issue. What we are talking about is the question of priorities. Is it a priority to have yet another campaign with 20 people on unicycles? Is that more important than trying to give a better focus on the Legislature and providing the legislative sessions in such a way that they can be fed on to the cable television systems in the same way that question period now is available on cable television in Toronto and across Ontario from the Parliament of Canada?

I happen to believe that if there is any feeling left that this place is important, a system providing a direct feed that could be taken by the TV stations across Ontario, even by those that do not always necessarily find themselves represented up in the Speakers gallery, would allow important debates to be tape recorded at all times, and not just when one goes to the trouble of setting up the booths for the budget and the budget replies. I think that is vital. It is about time we went ahead and did it.

Technology has advanced to such a level that Saskatchewan now has a system which it expects to be able to run at maybe one fifth of the manpower and production cost per annum of the systems that exist in the Quebec National Assembly and the federal Parliament.

These things suggest to me, in addition to what the standing committees on procedural affairs and members' services are doing on this subject, that what is needed now is a simple declaration by the government on January 17, when we come back, to say, "We have thought about it over Christmas, and we are now prepared to get a task force from the three parties to sit down with the Office of the Assembly and with the appropriate technical people, maybe from TVOntario, and actually do it."

12:40 p.m.

It would take a year or more to find out where to put the cameras. There would be some problems in terms of structural changes to put robot cameras in. A certain amount of negotiation would have to be carried out to make sure that the system was fair and treated each of the parties fairly but those problems clearly can be ironed out, as they have been ironed out now in four or five legislatures and parliaments across Canada, and as we were able to iron out the situation about having the cameras come in here at the very beginning.

The importance of having televised coverage is that it is the major means by which people get their information these days. Right now, they see the Legislature on television as a kind of caricature, a kind of joke. Certainly the view that is given by television lends credence to the idea that this place is essentially irrelevant. Having better television facilities is not going to turn that around all at once. It will, however, ensure that other people besides the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party get on the tube from time to time.

As happened in Ottawa, people would be able to watch question period and see what goes on. Perhaps some of the slightly juvenile behaviour that is occasionally found in this place would diminish as people watched the Legislature more often, rather than just seeing the occasional clip of the Legislature taken from question period. When there are major debates, I think this chamber has proved it can rise to the occasion and make quite gripping television. I have in mind the cable television coverage of the Constitution debate in this chamber two or three years ago.

It might be appropriate to consider having one of the committee rooms, perhaps the Amethyst Room, also equipped for television, so that when a committee was carrying out work that was particularly important its work might be available for television or even broadcast via cable or made available in the off-hours to the TVOntario network.

Those are all ideas, and in this concurrence I simply want to say it is long past time that we put adequate television into this chamber. Not only are we denied resources -- and that is a problem -- but also there is a real denial of focus on this chamber. I think that is very dangerous in the long run, even with regard to the government, if the government quietly predicts it is going to be around for about 10 or 20 years.

To the extent that the chamber becomes weakened, it will encourage anti-social and dysfunctional behaviour, some of the juvenility we have seen or, I fear, some of the parliamentary confrontation we have tended to see over the course of the past few months.

As the Legislature weakened, if that were to happen, that in turn would undermine the legitimacy of the government itself at the provincial level in Ontario. That is a very important danger and a real threat. I do not want to see the legitimacy of government undermined in that way, because in the end I think all the people we serve will suffer as a consequence. If they do not believe that government is legitimate, they will be less likely to agree voluntarily to uphold and obey the laws and regulations that we pass here and civil servants are responsible for promulgating. That means we will move towards a system with more anarchy and more difficulty than the situation we have now.

I do not want to put the threats too loudly or too vividly. I simply want to suggest in a constructive way that it is about time this Legislature as a whole took the decision in principle to have improved television facilities that will provide an electronic feed to the cable networks and the television stations across the province, which will provide the potential for an electronic Hansard, and will ensure that medium can serve the people of the province with news of the Legislature in a more adequate fashion than it can today.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to take only a few minutes to express some very personal views on the functioning of this Legislative Assembly. I want to stress that they are personal views as opposed to those that may or may not have been discussed previously by other members who have spoken on this or who may speak on it after I do.

I am very concerned with what I consider to be a lack of respect for this great institution. I do not mean that necessarily to reflect only the incidents we have seen recently in the public galleries, although that is one of the areas I am concerned with. I am concerned when I see the public in the galleries failing to respect the Legislature to which they themselves have elected members. That worries me. I feel, when that kind of thing happens, democracy is threatened. However, I think respect for this Legislature must take a far broader format than just trying to impress upon the public of this province that they must not heckle from the public galleries.

In that regard, I want to take a moment to discuss this whole issue of the television cameras we see in front of you, Mr. Speaker. We see seven, eight or 10, or however many cameras are there, often disturbing the procedure of the Legislature, making a lot of noise. Many times I have wondered whether the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) or the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) was going to get a camera on the head if somebody ever dropped it from above. I think that whole procedure tends to take away from the importance this Legislature should have.

Another area that concerns me very much, and I will try to say this in a nonpartisan way, is the way government has, either purposely or otherwise, allowed itself to think the Legislature is only for government and not for members. In saying that, I must bring one thing to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because it involves the office of the Speaker itself. I have considered for a long time whether I should raise this in the Legislature, and I decided I would.

You no doubt will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on September 7 of this year the Premier of this province organized a reception for the annual meeting of the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It was held in this building.

All honourable members of this Legislature received in an envelope an invitation, such as I now hold in my hand, from the office of the Premier. There was a little piece of paper attached to that invitation that said something very disturbing, and I think everybody should pay attention to this. It said, "No admittance without proper identification."

There was nothing else described there, but what that meant, and we know it now, was that anyone attempting to enter this building was supposed to wear the little blue sticker I have in my hand. It would allow someone to enter the building. I, for one, had not taken this with me when I left the building the previous day. I attempted to re-enter the building and was refused admittance to the Legislature.

12:50 p.m.

I consider that to be very symbolic and very important. I do not think anyone has the right to refuse me admittance to this building. The only exception would be if a majority of my colleague members decided I was to be expelled and no longer readmitted to this place. History will tell us that one such gentleman was Louis Riel, who earlier on in the history of our country was subjected to this kind of thing. I do not believe there was ever another member, and perhaps other members can correct me and tell me whether this has ever happened. But I felt like that gentleman on that day when I was refused entry to this building because I did not have the card.

It would not have been half as serious if that card had been given to me by the Speaker, but it was not. It was distributed by a public servant -- I believe his name is Mr. Westcott -- who works in the Premier's office. It is very dangerous when that starts to happen in the Legislative Building. It undermines one of the very fundamental principles of democracy, that elected officials have the right to enter this building. We should all think of that sometimes. In all our actions each and every one of us, whenever we do anything in this building, should try to think of it in the context of what it is doing to specifically that.

I have had this card; I kept it. The next day I put it in a secure place. I always felt I should bring this up. I wanted to rise on a point of privilege and explain this to members of the House, but I did not feel it should have been done in that format, because we are usually cut off after 15 or 20 seconds of attempting to explain such a point. Today I felt that much more time would be afforded to me to explain what I am saying here. I say this not in an effort to attack the government in any way but, rather, in an attempt to show to each and every one of us how important the elected office that we have is and how we should respect in every way, shape and form the great office we hold.

In my view, this particular incident is far more important in that context than many others. Members sometimes will be expelled from the Legislature for a day for having made unkind remarks concerning another member and so forth; that has happened to some of my colleagues. But that kind of action is far less dangerous, I think, than what I personally experienced on that day. I do not know whether it happened to any other member on that day, but it happened to me at approximately three o'clock in the afternoon on September 7 at or around the east door of this building.

I discussed it privately with the Speaker a number of days later and told him about the grave concern I had for this. Mr. Speaker explained that the party had been organized in a hurry and maybe they had not given this type of thing as much attention as they should have. But it may be the first thing that should be thought of before doing anything in this building. If we are going to use this building as anything other than a Legislature, let us be sure that it does not in any way damage the legislative process. I would like to draw that to the House's attention.

I have other comments, but I know that some of my colleagues and perhaps others want to speak on this issue; so I will terminate my speech on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a couple of comments before we pass this concurrence.

I was very interested to hear the comments concerning the assembly made by several of the members. My friend the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is not here, but I jotted down what he said: "Democracy in this province is weakened if the operation of this Legislature is weakened."

I felt that on Wednesday evening the operation of this Legislature was weakened by the actions of people in the public galleries. I also felt that the safety of all members of this House was threatened at that time. Very thankfully, the things that were thrown down were not of a dangerous nature, but they indicated to all of us that what they easily could have thrown down here could have inflicted bodily harm on every member of this Legislature. I believe that must be addressed and addressed quickly by this House.

The clerks, the people at the table, and the Speaker are to be commended for carrying on with the recorded vote that was in progress, because democracy would have been threatened if that vote was delayed for one minute by the kinds of actions that were taking place in the Legislature.

The public's privilege to come here, and certainly we all want to have that privilege upheld, and watch their elected representatives in session is one we would all fight to have preserved, but with it goes certain responsibilities such as the responsibility to remain quiet and the responsibility not to endanger the members or to throw things on the floor of this House

We must address that problem immediately, and not put it off. I just want to inform the Speaker and the House that I, as a member of the Board of Internal Economy, joined by my three colleagues from this party, will be proposing this Monday at our meeting that some action be taken: actions such as erecting plexiglass shields perhaps on the public galleries in this House and certainly a study of other actions that can be taken.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very quick comment on the matter I raised last Friday. In concurring with the thoughts of the minister, I hope we do not have to take some very drastic action, but it seems to me that all members of the House want to ensure the safety of those of us who are down here as well as the safety of other people in the gallery.

It is a distinct problem and is not, as the first minister pooh-poohed the other day, something that has gone on for a long time. All members now recognize, having seen the actions over the past few months, that it is pretty consistent.

One area I would look at very quickly is related to the fact that those who are repeat offenders indicate to members of the House that they do not want to be in the galleries for any purpose other than disrupting. When we break the law often enough we come under suspicion and sometimes are prohibited from doing the things we would like to do to exercise our liberties. I would like to look at that aspect of it.

I hope we do not have to go to barriers. I hope we do not have to go to removing cameras and things of that nature, but those who have taken that action in the public galleries have pointed in the direction of a need for alleviating this problem.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I Want to say a very few words about this order of business. I do not think there is any question that the heretofore rather quiet and withdrawn Ombudsman of this province came into the headlines through some of the activity that was discovered within his office, and I am referring to the charges of nepotism that stemmed from the select committee's determination to learn more about the spending, the salaries, etc., within that office.

For a variety of reasons, I was personally provoked to a point where I submitted to this House a resolution which said, "That the Provincial Auditor be required to perform a comprehensive audit including a program of evaluation of the functions and administration of the Ombudsman's office." I worded it in that precise fashion so that the Legislature would be aware of my concern and the concern of my colleagues on the committee and that we might get the support of the committee within this Legislature that could order an audit, and I am referring to the committee that is chaired by my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid).

I believe we are at a crossroads as far as the office of the Ombudsman is concerned. Such an audit would assist this House in determining what future direction the Ombudsman's office should take, and that is most important. For example, the Ombudsman has spoken of further decentralizing and putting branch offices in other parts of Ontario. He now has his main office here in Toronto and two other outside offices, and he is intending to expand that.

Some of the criticism that has been directed to the Ombudsman may well be criticism that could be directed to his senior advisers and staff. For that reason, given that the Ombudsman will either have to retire in January or have his term extended by an act of this Legislature, such an audit would be in the best interest of that very important office, that is, the Office of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, since this may well be the last opportunity to speak on the matter of the incumbent Ombudsman.

I would like to put on the record, as I have told him personally, that many of the disputes I have had with him have been with his office rather than with him. I understand he is soon coming out of hospital and is recovering. Our objections were with the policy, not the person. I am sure all of us wish him well. We have the highest respect for him, and we know our comments were not taken personally by him.

Resolution concurred in.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

December 17, 1982