Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 100, An Act to revise and consolidate the Law respecting the Organization, Operation and Proceedings of Courts of Justice in Ontario.

On section 135:

Mr. Boudria: I want to know about the official languages of the courts, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is about to contribute to that debate.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, you are aware that my colleagues in the Liberal Party and I have just finished another very democratic exercise.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: I do not know. The interesting part about democracy is that we do not stack the votes; we wait until they are counted and then we get the results. I am waiting for the results. As I said to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) before, if he wants to sit in the opposition, he should run federally and we will see him there.

Mr. Boudria: Or just stick around for the next election, when you get to cross over here.

Mr. Roy: At the risk of boring my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who was here earlier complimenting me on my in-depth knowledge of Bill 100, I shall continue to make certain comments dealing with section 135.

When I was interrupted by the hour, I was in the process of complimenting the Attorney General for the initiative taken in section 135, and I would say to him and to all my colleagues, especially the colleagues across the way who felt that the redneck hordes would be at the gate if he did something as momentous as declaring two official languages in the courts, that the province continues, that it was an important step and a step that is appreciated by a minority here in Ontario.

I think it not only serves justice in this province but also serves a very useful and meaningful purpose at the federal level on a national scale, and I hope these will be some of the initiatives taken not only by the minister but also by his leader when we move from provincial legislation to entrenching these matters in the Constitution.

When I was speaking about this legislation I was in the process of talking to my colleague the new member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve).

Je pourrais dire à mon collègue, qui est tout nouveau en Chambre, qui est tout neuf, que premièrement, je vais être poli avec lui, on va le féliciter d'être ici en Chambre -- Je sais qu'il est loin là-bas puis je le vois quand même. Tu vas te rapprocher parce que les francophones au sein de ton caucus, la compétition n'est pas forte, je ne veux pas insulter ton collègue du Grand Nord, mais tout de même, on est heureux de te voir ici, moi-même et mes collègues, on veut t'offrir nos félicitations pour ton élection et on a l'espoir que tu vas travailler pour tes électeurs.

Et je dois dire, M. le Président, que quand je parle d'une législation aussi importante que celle-ci, l'article 135, je dis à l'ancien trésorier de la province, si tu veux écouter un peu, tu vas comprendre exactement ce que j'ai à dire.

Interjection.

M. Roy: Tu veux parler français? Oui, certain, c'est un français que même toi tu peux comprendre.

Mais, M. le Président, ce que je voulais dire à mon collègue de Stormont, c'est que premièrement, il a fait mention dans un discours, je crois dans mon comté, que ce serait facile de prendre le comté d'Ottawa-est; si je me rappelle bien, c'était ses commentaires. Ii a mentionné le fait qu'il était au courant que la présence du député d'Ottawa-est était chancelante par bout; et je voudrais dire que j'ai trouvé ça un peu osé de la part du nouveau député, qui, M. le Président, n'avait même pas siégé une minute en Chambre, et déjà il commençait à critiquer certains des autres députés qui étaient ici. Je dirais à mon collègue, si je pouvais lui offrir des conseils, avant de te fier sur des commentaires, ou des calomnies, ou des rumeurs de d'autres députés, tu devrais essayer de comprendre le processus ici, et si toi-même tu vois des preuves sur les actions ou non d'un député ou de l'autre, là tu peux faire des commentaires.

Mais venir dans un comté sans avoir aucune idée de ce qui se passe ici en Chambre, même pas avoir siégé une minute en Chambre, et commencer à parler du record parlementaire d'un député, c'est un peu fort.

Mr. Chairman: Is this on section 135?

M. Roy: Oui, M. le Président, je parle de l'article 135.

Alors, je dirais ça à mon collègue: premièrement, quand tu vas avoir gagné comme on l'a fait dans le comté d'Ottawa-est, maintenant quatre élections, tu pourras peut-être venir faire des commentaires ici sur l'aisance ou la facilité de défaire un député. Monsieur le Président, je voudrais aussi dire au député de Stormont que considérant --

Interjection.

M. Roy: Je voudrais dire au député, M. le Président, que j'ai trouvé ça un peu curieux que les députés. qui représentent tout de même une minorité assez importante dans son comté, soient contre l'enchâssement ou des garanties constitutionnelles pour les services en français. Si je comprends bien, c'est ce qu'il a dit en Chambre. II voulait garder une certaine flexibilité; je dois admettre que je ne comprends pas cette position-là, et si c'est ce que tu acceptes, cette position-là, tu vas être obligé de voter contre cette législation-ci, parce que cette législation déclare le français et l'anglais comme les langues officielles ici en Ontario pour les cours de justice. Si c'est le cas, si tu veux être juste, si tu veux être consistant dans ta pensée, tu vas être obligé de voter contre cette législation.

M. le Président, je dis ça au Procureur général. J'ai hâte de voir si le député va faire des commentaires sur l'article 135, pour voir s'il est d'accord avec une initiative prise par le Procureur général pour déclarer les deux langues officielles en ce qui concerne les tribunaux ici en Ontario. S'il est d'accord avec ça, alors il n'est pas d'accord avec ses commentaires qu'il a faits ici il y a quelques jours.

Je dois dire que comme un représentant qui représente une minorité importante, j'aurais cru que tu aurais démontré plus d'initiative et que tu aurais démontré peut-être un peu plus d'enthousiasme pour cette minorité-ci, qui lutte maintenant depuis plusieurs années et qui a besoin de l'appui de leurs députés. Et alors, j'espère qu'ils vont l'avoir et que toi aussi tu vas voir, comme St-Paul l'a fait, tu vas voir la lumière, tu vas voir que maintenant si on donne des services, si on garantit des services au niveau constitutionnel, ii n'y a personne qui va se plaindre, ça va faire mal à personne --

Interjection.

M. Roy: Oui, ça existe. Le député dit que ça existe; malheureusement, ça n'existe pas au niveau de la justice, ça n'existe pas au niveau des services du gouvernement, ça n'existe pas au niveau des services de la santé, et ça pourrait exister assez facilement, M. le Président. Alors, je dis tout simplement à mon collègue qu'il devrait repenser sa position et essayer de se rapprocher de la position du Procureur général sur cette question.

Alors je voudrais dire au Procureur général, en terminant sur l'article 135, que c'est une initiative fort importante. C'est important parce qu'une fois pour toutes ça déclare qu'ici en Ontario -- je ne dis pas une fois pour toutes, car c'est une législation provinciale, on préférerait la voir au niveau de la constitution -- mais tout de même c'est une étape importante, et c'est une étape importante pour la communauté franco-ontarienne.

Je sais que le Procureur va être le premier à dire que le Barreau, comme groupe, a su relever le défi, et l'Association des juristes d'expression française, M. le Président, a su accepter le défi que leur posait le Procureur général et ont su devenir une association efficace, qui non simplement savent et encouragent la population à se servir des services en français aux tribunaux, mais aident beaucoup le Procureur général à continuer l'épanouissement du français au niveau des tribunaux.

8:10 p.m.

Section 135 is an important step in Ontario. In reviewing it, I note the Attorney General has brought forward an amendment to section 136 dealing with juries. That was something I had mentioned in a discussion. We were discussing sections 135 and 136 so I will be making comments on both.

Mr. Villeneuve: Surely the member can do better than that. He would not win his case in court.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I find it delicious that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is interjecting. We should hear something from this new member who came into Ottawa East a few weeks ago.

Mr. Chairman: Do not concern yourself with what the member says.

Mr. Roy: He had not even sat one hour --

Mr. Chairman: We are here to discuss section 135.

Mr. Roy: The member had not even sat for one hour when he came along and talked about my record in this House. I thought that was presumptuous.

I invite the member to come back, because the more members of the Conservative Party who come to my riding, the higher is my majority. So come back; you are all invited.

Mr. Villeneuve: Now the member for Ottawa East is boasting.

Mr. Roy: I do not have to boast; the evidence is there.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: If I have done nothing else, Mr. Chairman, I have awakened a few back-benchers on that side of the House. Some people are referred to as turkeys by one of their colleagues but I will not do that.

Mr. Chairman: That would be unparliamentary.

Mr. Roy: It would be unparliamentary. If the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will listen, even he will be able to understand this. I will go slowly just for him. I will read slowly so he does not miss anything.

An important amendment was brought forward by the Attorney General to subsections 136(2) and (3) that deal with the selection of juries or with juries that speak both official languages. I think it is an important amendment.

There was a concern raised by some of my colleagues in the Association des juristes d'expression française and I think the Attorney General has responded to this; the concern that an individual who speaks French and decides to pick a jury speaking both English and French not be frustrated by counsel on the other side who may well have decided that consent was needed and could have frustrated the process. That is an important amendment to section 136 of Bill 100.

In closing, I think the whole process dealing with French-language services in the courts is one of the most important aspects of the initiative taken by this government in giving services to the minority in Ontario. It is one of which all members should be proud and one for which the Attorney General certainly deserves a lot of credit.

I would hope it is a first step in moving from provincial legislative guarantees to constitutional guarantees, something I proposed.

Even the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, who is concerned about getting his feet wet on this issue, will understand that the minority in Ontario is no different from any other minority. It wants constitutional guarantees. Even he can understand that.

Mr. Villeneuve: Speak to your leader.

Mr. Roy: My leader is in full support of a resolution I have here.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: He is.

Mr. Boudria: I would not trade leaders with you guys on that issue, or any other for that matter. You stand for nothing on that issue. The back-door policy on government; you have no lessons to give us.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Ottawa East has the floor.

Mr. Roy: It is interesting that I get some barbs from members who do not even understand the issue, members who are downright misguided on the issue. I have no difficulty in standing with my leader on this issue; none at all. Members opposite are cynical to no end. To a man they are --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Is the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry going to speak in favour of this bill? We are looking forward to his comments.

We are in full support of the legislation. I am pleased on behalf of my constituents to speak in favour of section 135.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to let this occasion go by without saying a few words. Section 135 of this bill is very important and very symbolic. On second reading of this bill, I congratulated the Attorney General for including this section, which is a precedent-setting section of the bill. I will read the first line, which says, "The official languages of the courts of Ontario are English and French."

It says "new" at the end of the line. That is certainly an understatement. It is not only new in this bill but, having inquired into other legislation of this government, as far as I can determine this is the only bill introduced by this government that uses the words "official languages" to describe French and English in Ontario.

Other legislation does say French and English are permitted. However, I believe we have created a very important precedent here today. All members of the House should be very proud of the initiative the Attorney General of this province has introduced. Very soon it will be a law of our province.

I would like to encourage the Attorney General to make many copies of the bill, especially that section, and hand them to some of his colleagues on the other side to convince them to use similar terminology in legislation they will introduce. While I am not holding my breath waiting for the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and others to be forthcoming with similar legislation, perhaps some members of the cabinet will move in that direction.

8:20p.m.

I have stated publicly in the past my support for the Attorney General's initiatives in the area of official languages, and I want to repeat that today and to repeat my personal support and, I am sure, that of all Franco-Ontarians on this issue.

We are looking at the annual report of the same ministry. The Attorney General of our province has recently issued his ministry's annual report. I note this report is also fully bilingual from cover to cover. This again is something unique from this government. It is no surprise, at least to me, that this unique new feature was initiated by that particular minister. I congratulate him on that initiative. As he knows, I have expressed my views on this before, both in committee and in this Legislature.

I am sure the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has already noted this document is in both official languages. We can use the term "official languages" as it pertains to courts of law now, because that is an accepted term. I am sure the honourable member is as pleased as I am to see this, although it will not give the flexibility the member claimed was so important in his reply to the throne speech. If I understood what he said at that point, enshrining anything would remove the flexibility that is there now. Of course, this flexibility is removed by having initiated such action.

Mr. Stokes: He was not replying; he was moving.

Mr. Boudria: He was seconding, was he not?

Mr. Stokes: Seconding the motion.

Mr. Boudria: He was seconding the motion in reply to His Honour. In any case, I am sure he has already taken note of that.

It is important at this time to remind ourselves of the contents of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our country that pertain to section 135 of this bill. You, Mr. Chairman, being knowledgeable in all those matters, have already noted that for all intents and purposes section 19 of the Constitution is enacted as it pertains to Ontario now. It would only be a small matter to include it.

I am sure the Attorney General, having taken this initiative, will want to take that extra step at the next review of our Constitution and amend subsection 19(2), which currently reads: "Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick." I am sure he will want it to read, "New Brunswick and/or Ontario." We have passed legislation that says the same thing as subsection 19(2) of the Charter of Rights.

All this brings me back to an issue I raised the other day. When I made my reply to the speech of His Honour, I indicated that I wanted the leaders of all three political parties in this House to get together and arrive at a consensus vis-a-vis the enshrining of the rights of francophones in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Two of them already have. The majority --

Mr. Boudria: It is interesting to hear the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) interject in this debate. On the issue of official languages, the New Democratic Party members are acting about the same way as 13-year-old boys who have just discovered girls. They think they are a lot better than they really are.

The Ontario Liberal Party has defended the rights of minority languages since the days of regulation 17, since Sénateur Napoléon Belcourt, Aurelien Belanger and several others. The member for Ottawa East and many more after him will defend the rights of francophones.

Interjections.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, the noise that is coming from our left on this issue as well as on others should be ignored by each and every one of us, because it is absolutely meaningless.

As I was saying, pertaining to section 135 or any other section, the New Democratic Party members are acting like a bunch of 13-year-old boys. They think they are far more virile than they really are on this issue. That is the best way to describe the New Democratic Party.

I am sure all members know where I am at on this particular issue.

Mr. Mackenzie: Where is the honourable member's party? We know where we are. Where is his party?

Mr. Boudria: Where is my party? That is an interesting question.

Mr. Chairman: And totally out of order.

Mr. Boudria: I have no lessons to learn from those folks. I will ignore their interjections. I am very proud of the party to which I belong, and I am very proud of the leader of our party in this province and of our caucus. It is a privilege, a pleasure and an honour for me not only to be a member of this Legislature but also to be a member of the very great Liberal Party of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: At 16 per cent, those guys do not matter.

Mr. Boudria: Sixteen? Eleven.

Before I was so rudely interrupted by the members of the New Democratic Party, we were discussing --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.

Mr. Boudria: We were discussing section 135 of this bill and how in effect we could now have a modification or an amendment to our Constitution to enshrine official languages in the court under subsection 19(2).

Without disturbing anything, without causing riots in the streets, as the member for Ottawa East has said, without having the flexibility we have, as other members have indicated in the past, or without really changing anything, we would be making an important gesture. We would be illustrating to all Canadians, not just the francophone minority of this province, that we in Ontario are not afraid to tell the people, not only of this province but also of this whole country, how civilized we are.

We know the civilization of a society is measured by the way it treats its minorities. We in this Legislature collectively, belonging to all political parties in this province, could demonstrate to the government of Manitoba, and especially to the people of Manitoba, and to the people and the government of Quebec, just how minorities are treated. That could be used as an example for other provinces in this country where francophones or anglophones are a minority. Either way, that could be used as an example that we in Ontario are not afraid to indicate our support.

Mr. Shymko: Tell us about minority rights in Quebec.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Boudria: I am glad the honourable member who thinks he knows a lot about Quebec is speaking like the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) --

Mr. Chairman: No, no. Just stay on the bill and on section 135.

Mr. Boudria: I will discuss section 135, Mr. Chairman, because it pertains to languages. Had the member for High Park-Swansea been in this Legislature when I replied to the speech from the throne, he would have heard me describe in every detail how the anglophone minority is treated in Quebec. While I am not claiming that is correct -- there are things wrong there -- it is certainly far superior to any achievement of his government in so far as symbolism and everything else are concerned.

As far as the treatment of the anglophone minority in Quebec is concerned, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, who lives only a few miles from the Quebec border, as I do, knows that anglophones in Quebec have their institutions; they have their schools, colleges and universities. Where are the universities for francophones in this province? We do not have them, and the honourable member knows we do not have them. He should not try to teach lessons to others. We have no moral lessons to learn from the member for High Park-Swansea or from any other member of that party.

8:30 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I thought I would bring to your attention that you have assumed the chair.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): I had come to that realization if others had not.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the interjection of the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), who often interjects in this Legislature on francophone issues. Whether it is when I am asking a question or whether --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I do not object and interject on francophone issues. I do object and interject when that member speaks, because he is so far out in space.

The Acting Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Boudria: It is not even a good point, Mr. Chairman. You were probably in the chair --

The Acting Chairman: The member for Prescott-Russell will speak on the bill.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, you were probably sitting in the chair last year and will recall some of the interjections. Hansard has duly recorded them, so I will leave those remarks that way as they pertain to the member for Mississauga East. It is unfortunate for the Attorney General that he has to sit so close to him. I will conclude my remarks by indicating my full support for section 135 of this bill. We have achieved --

Mr. Renwick: Why not let it pass?

Mr. Boudria: We will let it pass in a minute. We have achieved a milestone as far as legislation in this province is concerned. I am sure the member for Riverdale will understand, as I am sure he understands law far more than I do, the importance of this symbolic gesture initiated by the Attorney General of our province. The member for Riverdale, being far more knowledgeable in law than I am, will know this is the first piece of legislation in Ontario that has described French as an official language.

That initiative has not only my support and the support of the member for Ottawa East but also the support of the whole francophone population of Ontario as well as, I am sure, the support of the vast majority of the anglophone population of this province. They have not indicated any reticence towards this clause. That indicates to me the support it has.

Merci beaucoup, M. le Président, de votre patience d'avoir écouté ma présentation sur l'article 135 du projet de loi no. 100 de la province de l'Ontario. Comme je l'ai indiqué tantôt, et je ne me répèterai pas très longuement, sauf pour vous indiquer, à vous, M. le Président, et à toutes les députations ici de l'Assemblée législative, que la section 135 de ce projet de loi est très symbolique, et le symbole qui va être posé tantôt ce soir, lorsque nous passerons en deuxième lecture ou plutôt en comités pléniers de l'Assemblée législative, la section de ce projet de loi, nous serons en effet arrivés à une nouvelle étape en ce qui a trait à la reconnaissance des droits des francophones de l'Ontario.

Je crois qu'en ce moment on devrait non seulement féliciter le Procureur général, malgré qu'il mérite toutes nos félicitations, mais également le personnel de son ministère qui l'ont encouragé à faire ainsi de ce projet de loi. Vous avez dans votre bureau des gens très compétents, vous avez travaillé en collaboration avec l'Association des juristes francophones de l'Ontario ainsi que votre propre coordonnateur dans votre bureau, monsieur Étienne Saint-Aubin, qui vous sans doute encourage à faire ainsi de la section 135 de votre loi. Je ne voudrais pas laisser passer l'occasion, monsieur le Procureur général, sans porter mes félicitations à vous, à votre personnel et à tous ceux qui ont participé dans l'inclusion de cette section à la loi.

M. Cassidy: M. le Président, je tiens à féliciter le Procureur général pour son initiative en présentant la section 135 de ce projet de loi et aussi, au nom du Nouveau parti démocratique, je tiens à accueillir cette étape historique dans l'histoire de l'Ontario, la reconnaissance pour la première fois dans la loi de notre province des deux langues officielles de la province, le français et l'anglais, et le fait qu'enfin on a maintenant cette reconnaissance par le gouvernement, soit que de nos jours, le français est une langue officielle de l'Ontario même si c'est seulement pour les cours de justice de la province.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to welcome the initiative of the Attorney General in bringing forward this legislation, which will make French and English official languages in the courts in Ontario.

I am sure the Attorney General knows my views and those of all New Democrats in this Legislature with respect to our desire to see French accepted as an official language and enshrined in the Constitution in acceptance of the Charter of Rights and the Constitution. We were on side in recommending acceptance of section 133 of the British North America Act prior to the current constitutional reforms. That is something I can say unanimously on behalf of all members of our caucus.

I want to say to the Attorney General that the sentiments expressed by the members for Prescott-Russell and Ottawa East are certainly as heartfelt as my own. There has been no question about where they have stood on this issue. I can join the Attorney General in regretting that their party is not quite as harmonious on the issue as I would like it to be.

This is an issue where some courage, leadership and initiative is needed. We have had it in this case from the Attorney General. I am not often one to congratulate the government on anything. I am likely to remain critical about some problems in the administration of justice in the province. But from about 1975 or 1976 there has been a steady and planned progress towards today, when we are now agreeing that French as well as English will be official languages in the courts.

This has been done not only by designating areas where French services will be provided in the courts but also by taking initiatives to ensure that the law school at the University of Ottawa in particular will be equipped to help meet the need for services in French by ensuring there is an adequate number of lawyers capable of practising, and prepared to practise, in French.

As I recall, an effort has been made to ensure that French-speaking judges are named to the bench or promoted to the appropriate places. Even though it is not ideal and one cannot walk into every court and expect the justice of the peace to be able to operate in French, none the less there is a realistic opportunity. In areas where there is a concentration of francophones across the province, there is the right to have service in French and to have French treated as an official language.

The minister may recall the time of the Carleton by-election in 1974. I believe he came in just prior to that by-election. St. George was a few months before. At that time this province was, to put it mildly, very backward in any effective recognition. I am sorry the member for High Park-Swansea has left. It would be worthwhile his knowing how little had been done in 33 years of Conservative rule with respect to the most ordinary things that would recognize the status of Franco-Ontarians in this province as one of the founding peoples of Canada.

In 1974, a prominent Franco-Ontarian, a former mayor of Ottawa, Pierre Benoit, was put forward as a Conservative candidate in the by-election in Carleton East. Yet at that time it was not possible to get one's marriage, death or birth certificate in French. Drivers' licences, we were told, could not be made bilingual because there was no room on the form.

Most documents of the province were unilingual in English, and no effort was made to provide any bilingual services in most areas of the province. The only area where some headway had been made at that time was in the program to provide French-language secondary education which had begun in 1968.

8:40 p.m.

Thanks to pressure from the Franco-Ontarians, from this party and from a number of members on the Liberal benches who are particularly concerned about it, being Franco-Ontarians themselves, thanks to goodwill on the part of some people in the cabinet and some civil servants in the provincial bureaucracy, there has been progress.

I regret this progress has not been universal. I regret in particular that this is because of what one can only describe as political opportunism of the worst kind by the Premier (Mr. Davis), who has constantly been prepared to pander to the worst instincts of his back-benchers on the right wing, the anti-French wing, maybe even the racist wing of the Conservative Party by saying, "Now is not the time." He was trying to dissemble even while, with the other hand, he was trying to tell the Franco-Ontarians that things were moving forward.

I do not want to treat what is being done tonight as an overall part of that. I would prefer to say that even with a strong minister -- and the minister has weaknesses as well as strengths -- a minister who has been in his position for many years and who has carved out an area of independence for himself, who can say, "I will look after this show on my own," and who has been able to take French-language services a long way in the province, there is still room for improvement. None the less, it is a historic day when we move to the point where French is now acknowledged as an official language.

I hope the minister might even share some confidence with us this evening and get up to say he is now prepared to speak out publicly and say it is about damn well time that Ontario as a whole was prepared to opt into the constitutional provisions with respect to the official status of French.

He is a minister who has hung around the back rooms with Mr. Romanow, with Mr. Blakeney, with Mr. Chrétien and with other people who were concerned with the Constitution over the course of the last two or three years. He was in a position to provide leadership then; perhaps he was frustrated because of the decisions his boss made.

I want to suggest that this country is sadly in need of even more leadership than is being shown tonight. There is a need for this province to demonstrate to people throughout this country that English-speaking Canadians are not bigots. I am not a bigot; we are not bigots, most of us. That is true, it seems to me, for people across this great province.

After the unsavoury events which, to the regret, I hope, of the minister, were carried out by his fellow Conservatives in Manitoba, where they not only pandered to the worst instincts of a certain group within that province but did so in a way that eventually brought the Legislature of Manitoba to a complete halt -- they showed absolutely no respect for law, no respect for the right of a government to govern when it has the majority of seats in the Legislature -- in order to provide some healing in terms of the way this country must to try to stay together, it would seem to me that this government could do a great deal by saying: "Fine. We are prepared to do what we would not do a couple of years ago. The situation in Manitoba, the passing of Pierre Trudeau and other such things have led us to the position where we are now prepared to move as we were not prepared to move before."

New Democrats in Ontario have made it very clear what we are prepared to do with respect to opting into those constitutional provisions, as New Brunswick has done and as Manitoba was preparing to do. We would argue that Ontario should be in a position to provide that kind of leadership. That being said, I want to go back to how I began.

Je tiens encore une fois à remercier le Procureur général pour son leadership en ce qui touche le système de justice dans la province de l'Ontario, en ce qui touche tous les services aux Franco-Ontariens. C'est un vrai accomplissement, une vraie réalisation de la part du Procureur général, M. McMurtry, que nous ayons maintenant en place un système de justice en français et en anglais dans la région de York, dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, dans l'est de l'Ontario, dans une grande partie du nord de l'Ontario et dans la région de Niagara.

C'est une grande réalisation et je crois que même si ça doit être simplement la première étape à une situation où le français devient une langue officielle pour toute la province de l'Ontario, dans la constitution du Canada, malgré tout ça, malgré le dossier du gouvernement en général sur cette question, j'accueille la réalisation de ce soir, selon la section 135, sous-section 1, les deux langues officielles des cours de justice de l'Ontario sont: l'anglais et le français. C'est un moment historique, M. le Président, et je suis très heureux de participer à cet événement historique.

The Acting Chairman: Merci beaucoup. Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Roy: Le député du Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry, non?

The Acting Chairman: Oui. Le député? Non.

Le Procureur général. The Attorney General.

L'hon. M. McMurtry: M. le Président, je veux remercier mes collègues dans cette législature pour leur support à cette initiative. Je suis d'accord que cette initiative, en particulier l'article 135, est vraiment une étape très historique dans cette province. Je veux en même temps devenir vraiment bilingue comme mes collègues. Pour moi, ça reste un défi très important. Peut-être un jour ce sera possible pour moi de parler aussi bien que mes collègues.

Je me rappelle très bien l'annonce que j'ai faite à Ottawa à la fin de novembre 1975 quand j'ai lancé la détermination de créer le système judiciaire en français dans cette province; à l'époque, dans l'histoire de ce pays, c'était une initiative très difficile, mais nous étions déterminés à faire des progrès et après huit ans, je suis vraiment très heureux d'arriver à ce moment dans cette législature avec le support et l'encouragement de mes collègues sur les deux côtés de cette législature. Je crois très sincèrement que c'est vraiment un moment historique, un moment qui représente la dualité de notre pays.

Mr. Chairman, I do think that we on this side of the House will be able to continue to demonstrate our commitment to the duality of our nation. I recognize there are different approaches to this very important area and I realize it is an issue about which reasonable people can and will disagree. I do appreciate that the étape par étape approach does produce some degree of frustration in some quarters.

While I recognize the importance of the grand symbolism, I also believe the Ontario way is probably to create the solid infrastructure that will provide some real meaning in relation to the provision of French-language services. We are not just dealing with French language in education, which has been a very integral part of the educational system in this province for many years.

8:50 p.m.

In the realm of justice we have worked very hard to find the necessary resources to make sure that the reality of justice in both languages was something that could be delivered on a day-to-day basis. Some might even say we took some risks because of the shortage of human resources in the areas that are necessary to create a bilingual court system. When one looks at the need for human resources, in so far as facility in the French language is concerned in a whole host of areas where the government is providing services, one can appreciate the importance of having the resources as we make each new important initiative.

I worry a little bit, I have to say. This is an issue about which I care a great deal. But I do worry about the cynicism that could be created with a grand declaration, on the one hand, of official bilingualism and, on the other hand, the obvious inability to deliver services across the board in the French language. This is something we have to be concerned about because what may appear to be a very attractive declaration from a symbolic standpoint on one day could create a lot of scepticism or cynicism very soon, once it became realized that our ability to deliver services in the French language across the board was somewhat limited.

We are going to continue to increase our resources. I think we have made enormous progress in the justice system and I do appreciate the kind sentiments that have been expressed across the aisle. As a government we have made it very clear that services in the French language in relation to health care and other vital social services have to be a priority. I just hope the day arrives not too far down the road when this is no longer an issue.

I can say with confidence, so far as the government is concerned, that we are dedicated and committed to enhance our delivery of services in the French language across the board and we will continue to demonstrate our commitment in this respect.

Those of us who have watched the progress of the justice system where bilingual services are involved would hope that what has been created here, as a result of the commitment and support of a number of people, will be a model and will serve as encouragement for the delivery of essential services in a whole host of areas. All of us on this side of the House remain committed to that goal.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, all I wanted to say was that I do not think anyone here has any doubts about the initiative and the commitment of the Attorney General in that area. If one were to base what has happened in the administration of justice as a criterion, I do not think there would be much criticism on the part of any member in this House, and I say that very sincerely.

I find it unfortunate on occasions as important as this where there is a very important initiative that other members do not avail themselves of the opportunity of speaking in support of such legislation, members such as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), whose ridings are involved in this. That is very important for a lot of their constituents. It is an opportunity for them to get on the record and support this type of initiative.

The only other thing I would like to say to the Attorney General is that I quite understand that some grand declaration which cannot be fulfilled can lead to serious frustration. But some of us have explained and some of us have given the government an opportunity to proceed in a methodical fashion as far as constitutional guarantees are concerned.

There is no reason, now the Attorney General is putting this guarantee in provincial legislation, that it cannot be put into the Constitution along the lines of the resolution I proposed. In other words, that constitutional guarantee can go in step with the services the minister is now providing. If he did so, it would gradually lead to the inevitable step of section 16. At that point he could make a declaration, once the services were in place and the other constitutional guarantees. He could proceed step by step in that particular area.

I do not want to be critical of the Attorney General. All I say is that for justice and for the sake of the unity of the country, his colleagues could avail themselves of an opportunity of proceeding methodically, even as far as the constitutional guarantees are concerned. That would be an opportunity.

I am not minimizing the importance of this particular piece of legislation. All I am saying is that having accepted the fact that many other minority people are getting constitutional guarantees, francophones in this province are asking for the same standard, the same protection and not without reason. In the early part of the century in this province we saw what happened to provincial legislation. We saw what happened to provincial legislation in Manitoba as well.

It is not a cry. It is not something based on fantasy or on a lack of precedents in the past as to what has happened. The struggle will continue and this legislation is an important step.

Section 135 agreed to.

On section 136:

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring the minister's attention to what may have been corrected already, but I do not believe so. Clause 136(4)(b) and clause 136(4)(d) appear to be repetitious. It looks to me as though there was some kind of typographical error there when the legislative staff were pulling the bill together after the changes were made in committee. I wonder if that can be acknowledged. I am sure we can get back to it. I have a couple of comments to make. I was not looking for that. It just hit my eye.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Ottawa Centre is quite correct. There seems to be a repetition. What is intended to be in clause 136(4)(b) should read: "Any other part of a hearing may be conducted in the French language if, in the opinion of the presiding judge, the hearing can be so conducted." I wonder if we should write this up --

The Acting Chairman: Could I just interject here for a moment? Do I presume you are referring to Bill 100, subsection 136(4), proceedings in English and French, and that you are drawing the Attorney General's attention to clause 136(4)(b) and clause 136(4)(d) of that section, which appear to be duplicated in wording?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am grateful to the member for Ottawa Centre for drawing this to our attention. The information I have is that this was an error in the printer's office and that clause 136(4)(b) that I just read was the way it should have read when it left the committee. Perhaps we could simply agree that the House would direct that there be this correction. I do not really think it is necessary --

The Acting Chairman: I do not have a copy of it; so I am not sure what we are dealing with.

9 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that whatever needs to be done could be done in 15 minutes when it has been worked out; either an amendment or just a short motion to accept that a statement be made.

The Acting Chairman: My understanding is that the committee agreed to a certain amendment to clause 136(4)(b), and that amendment would read:

"(b) Any other part of a hearing may be conducted in the French language if, in the opinion of the presiding judge, the hearing can be so conducted."

I am informed that matter was agreed to in committee and, through a printing error and through no other cause, that does not appear on page 66 of whatever reprint it is we have in hand at the moment. Unless there is some strong objection, I would simply ask the printing error be noted and the official record of the proceeding be corrected to reflect that wording without the benefit of an amendment.

Agreed to.

The Acting Chairman: Does the member for Ottawa Centre have further comment on section 136?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like a word here on the fact that section 136 implements, in every respect except enshrinement in the Constitution, the requirement of section 19 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, "Either English or French may be used by any person in any court."

It also relates to the qualification in section 20 that communications be available in both English and French if it is the nature of the office or if there is a significant demand for communication or services coming from government.

The designated status here is a shade short of the treatment of French in the federal courts of the land. I believe one has those rights in all federal courts in Ontario, but although one has the right to address a court in French anywhere in Ontario according to the law here, in certain cases one cannot guarantee the judge, or the people involved, will be able to understand it.

None the less, I think this substantially implements the spirit of section 19.

If I can just recollect for you, Mr. Chairman, the right to use English or French in any debates or other proceedings of the Legislature of this province has now been accepted over a period of a number of years. I suspect, although I cannot recall, this is enshrined in the rules of this Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: It is in the rules.

Mr. Cassidy: It is in the rules? Okay.

Mr. Stokes: It is in the rules, but it does not ensure quality of debate.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is perfectly correct. It does not necessarily ensure quality, neither in English nor in French, although those of us who speak French hope that on balance the quality of the debate in French is un peu meilleur than that in English.

The point I want to make is the use of French in the Legislature and the use of French in the courts are two of the most fundamental cornerstones of making French an official language in this province.

This province has also moved with respect to providing services in French as well as in English in a way which effectively aims to implement -- it may be a bit short -- the spirit of what is in the charter, which in section 20 says, "Any member of the public has the right to communicate with any head or central office of an institution," in this case of the Parliament of Canada, "or with respect to any other office of any such institution where there is a significant demand for communication with and services from that office in such language, or due to the nature of the office it is reasonable that communication should be available, in both English or French."

That is repeated with respect to New Brunswick.

We are very close to achieving that as well. We are about as close to achieving that in Ontario as we were perhaps close to achieving the officially accepted status of French in the courts of this province maybe two or three years ago.

It is only a little distance farther, and I would like to take issue, therefore, with the step-by-step approach that was advocated by the Attorney General. The difference between him and other parts of the government was that he began with little; he has moved quickly, albeit deliberately, towards the stage we have reached today, but other parts of the government are not so sure. A great deal has been done, though. We are very close.

I just want to put on the record that the only obstacles to accepting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to accepting sections 16 to 20 of the charter or to adapting them in a modest way in order to suit the particular requirements of Ontario, lie in the minds of the Premier of the province, the kaffeeklatsch he has every Tuesday morning up at the Park Plaza Hotel and those wooden-headed back-benchers and supporters of the Conservative Party who somehow think there is a nascent backlash that they run the risk of incurring if they show some leadership.

I just want to reiterate that, for God's sake, it is time this province showed leadership; and that means in the end not just the New Democratic Party, not just people such as the member for Prescott-Russell and the member for Ottawa East, but the government of Ontario. I appeal to them to do just that.

Section 136 agreed to.

The Acting Chairman: Shall sections 137 to 146, inclusive, carry?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one comment on section 145, the question of public access.

On section 145:

Mr. Roy: I note this was a further amendment by the standing committee on administration of justice, because great concern had been raised, as the Attorney General will recall, as far as public access was concerned.

I note the following amendment was made to the section: "The court may order the public to be excluded from a hearing where the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that court hearings should be open to the public." I noted this was a restriction of what existed before and I think it was a wise move on the part of the justice committee to limit any effort to exclude the public from our courts; and I think it was wise of the justice committee and of the Attorney General to proceed with limiting access by the public to our courts.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I will make my comments on section 145 rather than on section 146, if I may.

The Acting Chairman: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Cassidy: I will make the comments I intended to make on section 145 rather than on section 146.

The Acting Chairman: Are they relative to section 145?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

The Acting Chairman: Please proceed.

Mr. Cassidy: Always relevant, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairman: I was not being facetious; I was simply asking where they were more appropriate.

Mr. Cassidy: That is probably it. I want to have a word or two with the Attorney General with respect to public access to the courts of justice with respect to television, radio and photography. It would be equally appropriate under either section, but the principle of public access is one that has to be relevant to the time.

The idea that the public would have access, including the reporters from the press, dates back to the 18th century, if not before. There was a time when the proceedings of Parliament were not accessible to the public in the sense that it was an offence for a reporter to go into Parliament and to report in the press and newspapers of Britain in the 18th century what actually had occurred in Parliament. That eventually changed.

It seems to me we are in that situation today with respect to access for the electronic media in particular to the courts. I appreciate a judge has responsibility for preserving dignity and decorum. If I were a judge and somebody was trying to poke a camera into the face of every witness or every accused from two or three feet away and constantly snapping electronic flashes and that kind of thing, I would be very disturbed and would very quickly bring it to a halt.

9:10 p.m.

But a judge always has that right, and I would like the Attorney General to speak about that because anecdotally, as I talk to people, few people outside the justice system get into the courts. I have talked to teenagers and to adults who for some reason or other have dropped into the courts in the old city hall in Toronto or the courthouse on Nicholas Street in Ottawa.

They are alarmed, disturbed and dismayed at what they see. In the periods when I have been in the courts for various reasons, to help someone who is there, observe for a period of time or something like that, I, too, have been disturbed and dismayed at what is there.

One of the reasons we have problems in the administration of justice is precisely because the courts have been allowed to be too much of a preserve, to be too closed off from the general public. The need for open exposure of what goes on is not adequately met by having 80 or 100 seats available to members of the public who can take time off work during the day to go in and see what is happening when the courts are open and operating.

As I understand it, the Attorney General was talking quite bravely about experimenting in this area. Then the Canadian Judicial Council or some other body of judges issued an obiter dictum. At that point, the Attorney General simply turned tail and decided he would not seek to make any innovations in this area at all.

When open access in almost every other walk of life, certainly of public life, means much greater access for the media to act as intermediaries on behalf of the public, can the Attorney General tell us about that and explain why that should not be the case, bearing in mind the need for dignity and decorum in the courts of Ontario?

The Acting Chairman: Does the Attorney General have any comments on section 145?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, are we going to comment on this section, because this comment is equally relevant to section 146?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to deal with it on this section and not deal with it again on section 146.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Our approach to television in the courtrooms has been consistent throughout the period I have had the privilege of serving as Attorney General. The suggestion that we suddenly had a change of heart because of the ruling that was announced by the late Chief Justice of Canada is an impression that may have been created by some of our media, but does not reflect what occurred.

Our position has been that television does represent a potential for a worthwhile education in the courtroom if it is done properly. We have agreed and we are continuing to agree that television can have access to the courtroom for certain specific initiatives which, in our view, have a genuine educational dimension. There are plans currently under way for a further documentary to be filmed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., subject to the consent of all participants.

There are a great number of questions that have to be answered in relation to the general presence of television in the courtrooms. As a practical matter, and we have already had experience of this, television is an expensive medium. What the public is going to see 99 per cent of the time on any given night is a few seconds of what has happened in the courtroom as far as reproducing the actual testimony of a witness is concerned. Because of the enormous impact of television, that has the potential to distort seriously what happens in the courtroom. A number of people within and outside the world of television have commented on that. This is but one of our concerns, that the medium not be used simply to sensationalize and at the same time trivialize the proceedings that are taking place.

In this context, there has been a certain amount of publicity given to the fact that in Florida, for example, where television is routinely involved in recording trial proceedings, there have been some serious disturbances in the community as a result of selective editing by the networks. They have given a totally distorted picture of what has been happening in the courtroom. As a result, the jury verdict does not seem to be in accord with the snippets of coverage people have seen day after day. In a couple of instances, there have even been very serious disturbances. I am talking about riots.

That may appear in the Canadian context as a rather extreme example. It may be, but I think it represents the ability of this very important medium to distort what is going on.

There are a number of other issues that have to be dealt with in relation to the impact this has on the ability of witnesses to give evidence. The issues in relation to invasion of privacy are an example. Victims of sexual assaults, for example, do not for the most part want to have their evidence and their identity known to hundreds of thousands of people who might see them giving testimony in a case of that kind.

There is a whole host of issues that have to be addressed, but anybody who thinks the public is going to have meaningful access to the courtroom because there may be a few seconds flashed across the television screens each night is deluding himself. I think such people have a very false expectation. The truth of the matter is it is a very powerful medium. In relation to the court proceedings, one has to be very cautious about the extent to which it is utilized.

The late Bora Laskin and his colleagues in the Canadian Judicial Council were obviously very concerned about the potential of this type of access to have a very detrimental effect on the overall public interest.

Our approach remains the same. It is an issue that has to be approached with a great deal of caution and a great deal of care. I expect the matter will continue to be debated in the months ahead; in the meantime, we are permitting television access to the courtrooms where there is genuinely an education dimension to be served and in cases where it would appear that the interests of any of the participants are not going to be unfairly affected.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on section 145 and the question of access and the matter of television to which the Attorney General has just referred.

He has said quite clearly, and I agree with him, there are a number of serious issues to be addressed in this whole approach. It is most important to take a balanced view to ensure that above anything else, the rights of no person are jeopardized because of the involvement of any extraneous activity in the courtroom, whether it be television, whether it be some other form of demonstration or whatever the case may be.

9:20 p.m.

I accept the fact that there have been a variety of reviews of this area. What very much disappointed me was the somewhat terse response the Canadian Judicial Council presented in reply to the request that these matters be considered. I would have hoped that the various themes of concern would have been set out and that the various principles involved might have been brought together in one discussion paper, however they might have decided to do it, with the various pros and cons considered.

What we saw in the committee was a simple letter of perhaps four or five lines to the effect that: "We have considered it and the answer is no. Yours truly." With the greatest respect, I do not think that is good enough. The whole system would be better served if some suggestion could be made that the matter be somewhat more thoroughly canvassed with the hope the various points could all appear in one form. No judgement on an issue could have been any more succinct than that was, but it is my understanding that, at least ordinarily, various reasons are given as to why decisions are made.

As there is greater familiarity with television, as we learn, for example, from the reports that come from the Grange inquiry, or as consideration is given to the impact on the US scene of that trial in Massachusetts, as I recall, I hope more thought will be given to this whole theme.

I recognize the desire not to compromise anyone's rights in these matters. When this whole subject was first discussed, my immediate response was that if it were a matter of whether or not one would rather have television in the courtroom, my view was that I would rather not. However, a variety of presentations have been made to us. The editors and managers of television stations are most interested in this theme; that is part of their enlightened self-interest, and I understand that.

As the Attorney General continues to visit other jurisdictions, as he and some of the senior judges have done, and as the impact of these events are discussed by polling, by review or by the learned comments made on some of these experiences, I hope he will at least attempt to encourage the Canadian Judicial Council to broaden its views and perhaps give us some guidance and expectations for the future rather than a simple rejection.

This may all come in due course, but I feel it is important to be on the record as someone who would like to encourage that, recognizing the difficulty that many judges possibly would feel their position was being compromised and recognizing the requirement, above all else, that the parties involved, whether it be a criminal or a civil matter, have the final say in this kind of approach.

I want to share my disappointment that we were not given more to work with. I hope that on another occasion we may have the benefit of more considered and explained views, which I believe will be in the public interest.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in a brief way on this. I had not intended to speak on it. I spoke in the course of the committee hearings on a number of the issues that have been before the committee.

I can understand the concern of politicians who want to be on the side of the media in an issue such as this question of access to the courts, but I happen to be a fairly unreconstructed person who believes that as long as there are no secret trials anywhere in Ontario, that is the important issue. It is not a question of who shall select what will be reported by the press or any media one way or another.

The rights of the individual citizen standing before a judge or a judge and jury in a court are paramount to any question of selectivity on behalf of the media, be it radio, television or print, with respect to the way that person will be dealt with in the courts. I am quite satisfied with the present method of dealing with the question of access to the courts.

I do not want to see any secret trial in this province, but I also want everyone to understand that the expression in the charter about freedom of expression or opinion or access to the media and so on is not an open sesame to provide the media with the opportunity of deciding what will or will not be selected for the purpose of reporting in the media. I feel very deeply about the question.

I agree with the proposition that with the consent of everybody involved, there may well be opportunities to provide an educational format for people with respect to the way the justice system operates. But in this society, which is dominated by the institutions of the society, one of the few places where a person is entitled to stand alone, in a way that will not be influenced by what goes on outside and have the decision made in accordance with legal principles, is one that will ultimately prevail in the courts.

It is a kind of slippery path to start on some proposition that we should be moving towards open access for selectivity purposes by whatever the media want to report about any trial situation. I do not think there can be a lawyer in the province who does not believe the requirements of the sensitivity of his clients, whether in small claims court, in a charge in front of a jury of the most heinous offence one could conceive of, is one that can be tampered with by our society, which is devoted to an idea something like, "The media must dominate the world." It does not operate that way if we are going to have respect for the individual.

I emphasize again that it is possible, either through staged presentations by television, radio or any other of the media, with the consent of all persons, to provide an educational format about how the justice system operates. The present restricted courtroom, with access to individuals who want to attend trials and listen to what goes on and the opportunity for the media to report as they see fit, is the kind of respect for the individual which in this area must surmount any consideration of a selectivity leading to exploitation or otherwise.

9:30p.m.

I do not have a problem with the decision of the royal commission. A royal commission is not a trial. But when an individual is there, his rights and his individual privacy must be protected. The countervailing protection he has is that he will not be tried in secret. I think it is that simple.

In the course of the long history of this province or of the country, I may be proved wrong. Perhaps I regret that the Canadian Judicial Council did not give some learned explanation of why it took the position that it did. Perhaps I could regret that somebody else would do it. But this is one area where I do not happen to think the position of the Attorney General was affected by that.

I do believe the course we are following is the proper and adequate course to pursue. When the day comes in this assembly that the Attorney General raises the question of an open sesame on the courts to the media, if I am still here, as I expect to be, perhaps into the next century, I will stand in my place on behalf of the individual who stands alone in a situation in which he does not expect to find himself, in either a civil or criminal trial, to protect that individual against the power of the media.

As long as there are no secret trials and our open courts provide for it as they do at present, that is also the protection of the individual. It is solely around the cluster of the rights of the individual in our judicial system that I stand, even if I must disengage myself gently, as I have on other occasions, from my colleagues and from the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). I do not believe there is some kind of polite path that will lead us to a different route.

To my mind, the individual standing alone in a courtroom, pursuing his civil claim, defending himself against a criminal or provincial offence charge, is entitled to be assured that his trial is open but is not to be exploited. He is entitled to be protected against a secret trial. He is entitled to an atmosphere that will permit him to express himself in the best possible way, either in the prosecution or in the defence of a civil matter or of a criminal matter.

I feel rather deeply about this kind of question. I do not want to play around with it. That is the position I stand by, and as long as I am around here, I will continue to stand by it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments on section 146. I tend to agree with my colleague the member for Kitchener on this issue. I have watched the debate on this matter proceed for quite some time. Like my colleague, I had certain very serious reservations about allowing television into the courtroom as to the circumstances and guidelines that would be followed and the constraints there would be on some of the scenes we sometimes see involving the electronic or photographic media.

Like my colleague the member for Kitchener, having listened to the debate and heard submissions from various groups, I was somewhat surprised by the categorical refusal of the Canadian Judicial Council. I agree with my colleague. Unfortunately, I did not have all the arguments that were presented. The judges may well have been justified in their approach. I do not know. I was simply quite surprised, when the debate seemed to be open and there were discussions about it, that it seemed quite categorical to me; there were no ifs or buts. It was clear to them that this was a dead issue and would not be considered in the future. I found that a bit disappointing.

The Attorney General has cited examples of abuses and some of the dangers. He has cited cases in Florida, where the media have access to the courtroom, and some of the results of cases that have taken place in Florida. But the Attorney General will agree that some of the trials there involved very volatile issues, such as charges against police involving minority groups.

I am not sure we would not have had the same results if television had not been in the courtroom. What seems to have triggered some of the riots that took place in some of those areas was a perception that the jury released police officers or that police officers were not dealt with from a judicial point of view, that they were allowed to go free after what the population considered to be very serious offences. I think that is what triggered some of the difficulties in Florida, and I am not sure what contribution television made to them.

I have watched with some interest the televising of the proceedings of the Grange inquiry. Again, there must be some setup whereby controls are imposed so it does not disturb the process. I do not know what guidelines are being followed, what editing is going on and so on, but I must admit I am not particularly offended by what I see. I am not offended by the pictures that are coming across about what has taken place in that inquiry, and I consider what has taken place in that inquiry to be an important experiment.

I listened to my colleague the member for Riverdale talk about the right of the individual to free, open justice but at least to have some protection against some form of exploitation. I think one stands the chance of being exploited by the written media, and even by other means where there is no television.

I know television is an important medium; I know it can be more effective or more damning than any other form of communication we have available now. But I still feel that if an individual is going to be exploited, it can take place in the written media and in other forms. I say to my friend, with respect, I do not see how making a decision to stop all forms of broadcasting on television, electronics, radio or whatever, prevents what he is concerned about in relation to the individual.

I understand that we must proceed cautiously, but I think we should have an open mind as evidence comes in. In other words, I do not think we should close this issue completely and decide it is an unfit medium to be reporting court proceedings.

I still have an open mind on this; I am still prepared to be convinced one way or the other. I did not have the evidence that was before the judicial council. It may well be that the judicial council was fully justified in coming to its decision. I, like my colleague the member for Kitchener, was surprised that it was so categorical and appeared to be so final, and I hope we will keep an open mind on this matter in the future.

9:40 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to respond. My colleague the member for Ottawa East has a lot more experience in the criminal courts than I have, having acted for the crown on a number of occasions, and I am quite surprised he does not understand the significance of what he is speaking about.

I am talking about the question of the slippery road. The road is not that simple. Whether he or I understand it, over the course of the history of English law, with respect to the defence of the individual and the rights of the individual in a court, either in civil matters or in criminal matters, the print media clearly understand the limitations under which they operate. If they do not operate within those limitations, then they are subject to whatever the punishment may be that the court will exercise against the print media.

Members know as well as I do there is not a newspaper of any repute published in Ontario where there is not a lawyer who scrutinizes that newspaper with respect to the questions of whether or not justice is obstructed or affected, or any way in which justice may be impeded, or whether or not there is a possibility of contempt. That is an integral part of the development of the justice system. I happen to believe responsible newspapers are well aware of those rules.

Members know as well as I do every edition of each of the Toronto newspapers is subject to that kind of scrutiny. That is an evolutionary development with respect to the relationships of the individuals to the courts. The courts have indicated continuously and constantly that during the day of the individual in the court, whether he is a plaintiff, or a defendant in a civil suit or charged under a criminal suit, or a witness in a trial in a criminal suit, the pursuit of the elusive question of the justice of the problem, the resolution of the problem, the truth of the facts which are placed before the court, is an ultimate part of the democratic process in which we are engaged.

There is no way the instantaneous communication or the delayed communication of photographic pictures can be subject to that kind of control which has been exercised over a period of time within the court system. I can agree with the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and with the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) that it would be nice had the judicial council given us a learned basis on which we could commence a continuous and ongoing argument.

To me, it is so elementary that to provide an open door with respect to politicians who are constantly seeking press attention, to start the argument that somehow or other the justice system will be served when it has nothing to do with us but has to do with the citizen of the province or the landed immigrant in the province standing alone before a court to assert either a civil claim or a defence with respect to a criminal charge; and to pretend that the electronic media with all their power can in some way be allowed to intrude on that person when he stands alone in a court system to have his rights vindicated or to pursue his claim, or to have his witnesses altered in the course of their testimony or decline to attend, or if subpoenaed to be affected by that kind of on-stage operation, is totally destructive of that in which I am involved.

If my colleague the member for Ottawa East has not understood what I have said and my colleague the member for Kitchener does not understand what I say, I believe the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) does understand very clearly what I am speaking about. If other people in the assembly do not understand it, I want to assert it very clearly. I do not want there to be any misapprehension that it is a question of ongoing study or it is a question that the judicial council is somehow at fault because it has not provided the fodder which will foster an ongoing debate, or for someone to think in some kind of an illegitimate legal argument that freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights is in some way going to destroy that freedom. I do not particularly want to be concerned with that argument. If, ultimately, my position is reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada, I will make my own judgement at that time.

In a world and particularly in a legislative assembly which seeks every day to get its views out through the media, I simply draw the line at seeing a constituent of mine who is pursuing a claim in the court being selected, under whatever conditions -- not by any educational process and not by his consent -- to have his position with respect to the state or with respect to another citizen transmitted through the electronic media at the whim of the media -- justifiable as it may be to them.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand my position. I do not believe for one single moment there is something called a continuing, ongoing, open debate about the question. If somebody wants to test the Charter of Rights in the courts, let him do so. I can assure the members it does not require an argument up to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court -- in the tradition of that court and with the reflection of our Charter of Rights -- came to the conclusion that a single individual pitted against the state or against a defendant would not be entitled to have the utmost security in the search for the justice or the truth secured to that person.

I simply want to avoid any suggestion that this is some continuing, ongoing debate which in the process of the evolution of the democratic society is going to say that every court in the land will have television cameras in it and all channels will broadcast at all hours of the day and night. That will militate against the very thing which I believe our courts are designed to protect.

The point that was missed totally was that the evolution of the court to access is involved with the privilege of the media and the right of the media, on our behalf, to make certain that nobody in Ontario or Canada is subject to a secret trial. Within the limitations of that principle, the privacy of that proceeding must be protected.

That is my position. I have perhaps reiterated it at some length.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, briefly, I would like to make a suggestion here in view of this debate. It is clear the views expressed have been largely as much individual views as views on behalf of the different parties in the Legislature. I think that indicates this matter does require or could do with some further study.

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and I do not see entirely eye to eye on this, partly because he is a lawyer and I used to be in the media before I became a politician. I acknowledge there are problems involved. I recall there were problems involved when the electronic media were introduced in this place.

For example, how does one deal with the question of parliamentary privilege over the electronic media? It is a different matter than when one is dealing with it through the print media. I recall the arguments that were made up on Parliament Hill when the radio reporters were trying to gain access to Parliament and were turned around then.

9:50 p.m.

I hope the Attorney General will not leave for a second. My suggestion would be that this is a matter of public policy. It is a matter which deserves some deep study, but I do not think the only opinion to be looked at should be that of the judicial council.

I would like to suggest quite seriously that one or two judges, one or two experienced trial lawyers, one or two people who are experienced and thoughtful from the media, who have either been involved as reporters or who had responsibility for electronic outlets for radio or TV stations, and one or two members of the public could all be brought together in some kind of commission, committee or task force to look at some of the problems involved in the electronic media gaining entrée to our courts of justice. On the other hand, they could also look at some of the theoretical and practical advantages in terms of our concepts of the court and justice system and democracy.

I suspect there is some balance to be had between the communal rights reflected in this section, which calls for the courts to be open, to have open access to the public, and the individual rights of the individual citizen. As an individual who might at some time come before the courts, I have a desire to have those individual rights respected and also a desire to ensure that the system itself is just and is seen to be just. Having it seen to be just may well entail having public access through the media.

It has been 30 years this year since television became a reality in Canada. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. began broadcasting in 1954. That means that half of our population basically grew up with television as a major or the major means of information. Under those circumstances, it seems to me we cannot simply ignore the reality of television. Just as this place has perhaps halfheartedly tried to adapt and other legislatures have more fully adapted to the existence of the electronic media and the coming of age of that electronic medium, that attempt should be made.

Bearing in mind, as I fully acknowledge, there are problems, it would be far better to find a route for access in that way than to have a case where the Charter of Rights was judged to say, "Yes, you have to have cameras all over the place." It would be better to find a sensitive way by which those electronic media can be involved in reporting in a way which both informs the public and also respects the rights of the court and the rights of the accused.

Mr. Roy: I want to make one brief comment, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairman: I have the feeling we are going around and around on this.

Mr. Roy: I want to speak on the section. That is okay; we can speak as many times as we want. Do not get impatient.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: How many times do we speak on each section?

The Acting Chairman: With respect, they can speak as many times as they choose; that is the rule.

Mr. Roy: That is right.

Interjections.

The Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Do not accept the advice from your colleague whose only experience is going back and forth in his limousine. That is the kind of advice you would not want to accept.

The Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Does the member ever wonder what he really performs around here?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am here once a day.

Mr. Roy: Yes, once a day.

The Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Oh, is the member awake now?

Mr. Hodgson: You are here once a week.

Mr. Roy: Did I wake you up?

Mr. Hodgson: How would you know? You are never here.

The Acting Chairman: Order. The member for Ottawa East has the floor.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Again.

Mr. Roy: Oh, Bette.

The Acting Chairman: There is no one here named Bette.

Mr. Hodgson: I am leaving.

Mr. Roy: Go fall asleep someplace else.

The Acting Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I thought I should make a few comments in respect of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who seemed to suggest that some of us did not understand the full implication of having television in the courtroom. I want to say to the member for Riverdale that I do understand the implications. We do understand that if something was televised live, it could certainly cause problems. We do understand that if there was some delay in television reporting, problems could be created by that. I think my colleague is taking a much too narrow and categorical position on the issue, and probably the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) agrees with me.

As the member for Ottawa Centre has mentioned, there were some serious objections to having television in this assembly, in the House of Commons and in a variety of other proceedings. I can recall at one time we would never have allowed television at a public inquiry or at a royal commission inquiry or whatever. In spite of the problems -- and they are serious problems and I am sure the judicial council considered these matters -- for my friend to say that somehow those of us who say some accommodation may be made are misguided or do not understand the problem is being too simplistic. This type of media publicity is something that should be considered.

I fully understand the problem, but I really do not think it is insoluble. I am surprised, frankly, that the member for Riverdale would take such a categorical position, that somehow if we were to proceed in that direction, we would be undermining the liberty and the freedom of the individual. That is being much too simplistic.

Sections 137 to 144, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 145 agreed to.

Sections 146 to 207, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 208:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, one of the interesting things in this statute in the last half dozen pages or so is the wholesale wiping out of a variety of statutes that have existed in this province for many years. Section 208 repeals the Quieting Titles Act, which is chapter 427 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario.

I wanted to raise with the Attorney General a submission the committee received from Mr. Evert Van Woudenberg, a lawyer with the firm of Gardiner, Roberts in Toronto. I thought it was important to raise it at this time because we did not receive any further comment on his suggestion, which was concerned with the repeal of this statute. The letter is quite brief, and I will quote it.

"By section 208 of Bill 100, otherwise known as the Courts of Justice Act, the Quieting Titles Act is repealed. There are some situations where the existence of this act provides essential relief, where there is no alternative remedy under current legislation. Specifically, where the owner of property under the registry system has disappeared and the mortgagee has a problem with title, the mortgagee has no other recourse.

"The Land Titles Act provides relief for title problems involving land registered under that act. Under the Certification of Titles Act, RSO 1980, chapter 61, by section 4, an owner or any other person claiming an estate in fee simple in land may apply. The result of such an application is a certificate of title as owner, by section 11. Clearly, there is no relief for a mortgagee.

"The only other avenue for relief would be an application under rule 610, 611 or 612. These applications are not meant for complicated questions of fact, and many title problems are not capable of being summarized into 'any particular question' as required by rule 610. Questions of legal description and possession are probably not questions of construction under rules 611 and 612.

10 p.m.

"Accordingly, this letter suggests reconsideration of section 208 of Bill 100. There seems to be no reason why existing legislation, which provides a remedy where other avenues do not apply, should be repealed. In the alternative, the Certification of Titles Act should be appropriately amended to allow any person with an interest to make application."

As I have said, we have dealt in the submissions with a great variety of comments with respect to a number of the sections of the act. This is the last item I had hoped to refer to. In just reading the submission, it seems to me that Mr. Van Woudenberg makes a point about the possible value of keeping this statute in place. I would like to hear from the Attorney General why, therefore, we are repealing it.

Is Mr. Van Woudenberg incorrect in his suggestion that this statute may still have a particular value and that certain rules do not cover the problems that could occur? On the other hand, is it preferable that the Certification of Titles Act should be amended in some way that is going to protect the very rare circumstances in which this might come up?

I would like to hear the view of the Attorney General on this, because if we do wipe out this statute, we may require something attended to in its place if the submission made to the committee has some merit.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My senior advisers have looked at this. They believe the rules and the Certification of Titles Act do satisfactorily fill the gap. In order that there be no problem and to assure everyone that this is the case, this matter has been looked at by Mr. Justice Morden and his subcommittee. That subcommittee has it under review right now. In the event that it is believed there is any gap, we will address it as quickly as possible.

The matter is under active review. We think there is no problem. In any event, Mr. Justice Morden and his subcommittee have the matter under review at the present time just to make doubly sure that our view is the correct one.

Mr. Breithaupt: If that is the case, would it be prudent to reserve section 208 out of the application of section 221 so that proclamation of the bill might occur, except for section 208, on a day to be determined, with a separate comment that section 208 would form part of the bill on separate proclamation?

It might bridge the gap if section 208 were reserved from the general proclamation of the bill until the Attorney General gets the opinion he is expecting. This is simply a suggestion that might help the mechanics to ensure that if a problem came up during the time in which the law was not in force, some party would not be irreparably damaged.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As we have indicated, the bill is not going to be proclaimed until January 1, 1985. If the matter is not clearly resolved by then, we can proclaim every other section except 208. I am grateful to the honourable member for bringing it to my attention.

Section 208 agreed to.

Sections 209 to 222, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

ARCHITECTS ACT

Consideration of Bill 122, An Act to revise the Architects Act.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Does the Attorney General have an opening statement on Bill 122?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any opening statement. This matter has been carefully canvassed in the justice committee.

The Acting Chairman: May I know which sections members may have an interest in?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, as the Attorney General said, the matter was canvassed quite thoroughly in the committee. There are only two items to which I wish to speak; one is a portion of section 7, and the other is section 35.

The Acting Chairman: Sections 7 and 35. Does the third party have an interest in specific sections of this bill?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. If you will bear with us for 30 seconds, our critic is on his way.

The Acting Chairman: Is there anything before section 7?

Mr. Renwick: On Bill 122, Mr. Chairman?

The Acting Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: I have no comment on Bill 122. I am satisfied with the bill as it has been reported by the committee to the House. The Attorney General assures me he has no amendments to propose.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had changed paragraph 7(1)6. When I look at the bill, as reprinted, as amended by the committee, the item that is before you appears to be printed exactly the same way as it was before we changed it. I thought we had changed it to read "respecting matters of practice and procedure before committees required under this act that do not conflict with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act." As a result, since we also dealt with that in Bill 123, I was wondering why it was reprinted as it had been.

There may be a reason that amendment is not the right way to go, but I would have thought that if the committee had made the change it should appear in that form and that there might be some formality to change it back if such were the case. I do not know whether that wording was the best wording that could have been devised, but I thought that was what the committee had decided. Therefore, I would like to know where we are with respect to the wording of paragraph 6.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I gather there was some debate in relation to similar wording in Bill 123. My recollection, and it has been confirmed, is that there was no such amendment or change to Bill 122. We are of the view that it should remain the way it is, as printed.

Mr. Breithaupt: I thought, and I may be wrong, that both the bills had been changed so the wording would be consistent. Those were the instructions of the committee and the understanding that counsel for the ministry would make those necessary parallel changes. However, if that is not the case, then I have to accept the comments of the Attorney General and the subsection will have to go as it is.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

10:10 p.m.

On section 35:

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, in section 35 we deal with discipline proceedings, the examination of certain documents and certain hearings that can occur in camera. That appears in subsection 35(4). When you look at the bill, as reprinted, the bill before us, sir, under section 35 you will see that subsection 4 is reprinted the way it was. I was of the view that we were going to make certain deletions under subsection 4, particularly with respect to matters involving public security.

I have my notes here with the note, "To be removed!" I thought it was the understanding in the committee that counsel for the ministry was going to change certain of the words there. Yet I find in the bill before us tonight that those words remain exactly as they were.

Might I have some explanation as to why that is the case? I know there was some concern as to how it might be handled and what the appropriate way to do it was, but I was of the opinion it was the wish of the ministry that, effectively, clause 35(4)(a) was going to be taken out.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no recollection of any agreement on a change. I think we simply agreed that we would review the matter and determine whether there should be any change on the basis that there was an analogy to the Courts of Justice Act. I think the analogy is relatively tenuous, so at the present time I have to advise the honourable member that our intention is to leave it as it is.

Mr. Breithaupt: I will not make a serious case for it one way or the other. I thought the ministry was perhaps more particularly involved in those changes than the members of the committee actually were. If the Attorney General finds that leaving it in has a particular or general value, I will not quarrel further with it.

Section 35 agreed to.

Sections 36 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT

Consideration of Bill 123, An Act to revise the Professional Engineers Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement, but I do have an amendment to section 2.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Hon. Mr. McMurtry moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out subsections 5 and 6 and by renumbering subsection 7 as subsection 5.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Attorney General would like to explain why he is removing from the bill amendments that were included, particularly and unanimously, by the committee which had the hearings on this bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, this issue has been the subject of a good deal of debate outside as well as inside these premises. I am well aware that this particular amendment was made, I believe, unanimously by the committee in my absence.

I think it is important for me to read subsection 2(5): "It is not within the power of the association to provide a service for its members that is not related to the carrying out of the objects of the association."

The amendment was obviously prompted by the sincere belief that it is in the public interest to attempt to restrict the association in relation to its activities, which would be largely or primarily those of governing the profession in the public interest as opposed to being in the business of providing services to its members.

This obviously is a difficult issue and, quite frankly, it is one that has attracted attention in the past. It should be pointed out, first of all, that amending the legislation at this time, in my view, could provide encouragement for some unnecessary controversy, and particularly litigation, with respect to an area in which it is very difficult to provide any sort of rigid demarcation.

For example, none of the other professional statutes that were reviewed by the Professional Organizations Committee, namely, those involving lawyers, architects or accountants, has a similar provision. The reason for this is that we recognize that the fundamental responsibility of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario is to govern the profession and that services to its members normally would be expected to be carried out by other professional associations. The example that is sometimes used is that the Law Society of Upper Canada governs the law profession, while the Canadian Bar Association provides certain services to its members and, indeed, promotes the interests of its members as opposed to promoting the interests of the public.

As I recall, this issue was reviewed by Chief Justice McRuer in his landmark study of the public interest in the context of self-governing professions. He expressed the view that obviously this issue of providing services to the members is one in which it is very difficult to make a rigid line. While he recognized the fact that the governing bodies must be primarily involved in governing, it was impractical to suggest that under no circumstances would the governing body provide services to its members incidentally to its responsibilities as a governing body. Indeed, he recommended against any legislation in this respect.

10:20 p.m.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario has acted very responsibly during the eight years this legislation has been in gestation, beginning, of course, with the Professional Organizations Committee's report. I can understand that they would harbour some concern about what they perceive to be a very significant vote of no confidence in what they have done to date. Actually, I think, the activities of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario have been carried on in such a way as to demonstrate to the public as a whole that they have been carried on in the public interest.

It is also important to note the association is very much aware of this issue. It has stated in correspondence it is not its intention to be engaged in the business of offering further member services, as it has expressed it.

I appreciate this is not accepted by the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers. I regret there is clearly some tension, to put it mildly, between these two professional organizations. However, having reviewed the matter in cabinet and caucus, it is our view it is not necessary in the public interest to impose a restriction that does not exist in other professional legislation and that has the potential of encouraging a lot of unnecessary friction if one attempts to apply a very rigid line.

The issue has commanded the attention of many members of the Legislature. In amending the legislation or in introducing the proposed amendment, I think it is fair to say members of this Legislature are concerned about this issue. The situation will be monitored by members of the Legislature in the public interest.

In the meantime, I hope the members of the APEO and the CSPE will be able to continue to meet. The Ministry of the Attorney General will assist in any way it can in attempting to work out any remaining differences that may exist between these two professional groups. The public interest would be well served if that happens.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, the comments of the Attorney General in this matter are interesting. Members will recall this legislation is before us under the sponsorship of the Attorney General through the report of the Professional Organizations Committee. It was my understanding it was not before us on the basis of any government whip on the legislation.

After discussions were held, with submissions made on behalf of a variety of groups involved, the committee unanimously accepted these subsections with the hope that a clear distinction in duties and responsibilities would be seen by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario on the one hand and by the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers on the other.

It is clear there has been a variety of pressures brought to bear in the last several weeks. But in committee, with the concurrence of the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), both of whom are in the House this evening, and the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie), the themes brought forward were to the effect that even though it was not in other professional legislation, we thought this distinction was the right thing to do.

I now understand, both through cabinet and through caucus, those changes are going to be reversed. If such is the case, all we can do is vote against the amendments. In the meantime, I think we should put on the record the comments that favoured the inclusion of these amendments in correspondence that has gone to members of the committee, and perhaps to all members of the House, sent out by letter of April 9 to the chairman of the standing committee on the administration of justice, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn).

That letter, with its enclosures, refers to comments by Dr. Allan Leal as chairman of the Professional Organizations Committee, comments and a quotation from Mr. Justice McRuer's report on civil rights and even comments by the Attorney General when the bill was introduced into the House. Those comments generally refer to the requirement of a professional organization to look not to its own concerns but to the public interest. Indeed, the Attorney General stated:

"It is by now axiomatic that self-governing licensing bodies exist only to serve the public interest. The financial or other interests of their members should not be a concern. The economic benefits that may inure to the possessors of a licence are a possible byproduct of licensing, but they are not a reason for the Legislature conferring the licensing power on a self-governing organization."

That was what we strove to sort out when these amendments were suggested and passed in committee. The minor change seen in subsection 6 with respect to continuation of services was only to allow that continuity of certain group insurance and other beneficiary policies, which had been a program entered into long before group insurance was more generally available.

That was a minor aspect, something that had to have continuity, but something with which the APEO agreed it was not going to continue as a general service. The association was no longer in that kind of pension or other group insurance business, something many professions had tried some years ago with mixed success but still perhaps have an obligation to certain members who took that on.

That is why subsection 6 continued with the prospect that the sorting out of those continuing obligations was protected, had to be accommodated and was certainly not going to be expanded. The reason subsection 5 was placed before us was for an assurance that the APEO would, within its powers, deal with the sorts of things the McRuer commission and the Attorney General had referred to.

Since I have a few more remarks to make on this matter, it might be appropriate to adjourn the debate now.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment of the debate, I would like to give notice that if this amendment passes, I will be moving an amendment to section 8 of the bill when the appropriate time comes.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Renwick: I also ask either you or the Speaker when he resumes the chair, to give us some indication from the government House leader when the debate on this bill will resume.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported two bills without amendment and progress on a third bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that I think the continuation of this debate in a definitive way will have to wait until we have our House leaders' meeting on Thursday, but I will say in a preliminary way it will probably be next Tuesday, a week from today.

Mr. Renwick: Next Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, not on Friday. We have legislation on Friday, probably the legislation standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order just before we adjourn: I see the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) up in the gallery. I understand he is discussing the question of whether or not there will be a GO station at De Grassi Street.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I also table the answers to questions 1, 89 to 117, 234, 248 and 258, the interim answers to questions 2 to 88, 118 to 233, 236 to 247 and 249 to 256, and the response to a petition presented to the House in sessional paper 36 [see Hansard for Friday, April 13].

The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

April 10, 1984