Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like very briefly to draw to the attention of the House something that I know members have all received, or I believe they have received, which is the three-volume publication called Legislators and Legislatures of Ontario: A Reference Guide, which has been produced under the very able hand of Ms. Debra Forman in the legislative library.

I have had the opportunity to peruse this document. It is very informative; it is excellent. As a former researcher myself, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I know it will be appreciated not only by members of this assembly but also by many others in the province and in the country.

I wanted simply to note the excellent work of Ms. Forman, who has set a very high standard of research in this very helpful document. As is always the case with the legislative library, in my view, they have discharged their responsibilities with excellence and with diligence. I certainly commend Ms. Forman for her excellent work in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: There is certainly no doubt about that, and obviously all members endorse your words.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: While we are on that subject, I ask all members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing in the Speaker's gallery members of the Association of Parliamentary Librarians in Canada, who are meeting in Toronto.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will no doubt be aware of the report today of the subcommittee on acid rain of the standing committee on fisheries and forestry of the House of Commons of Canada. It is an all-party committee, including the former Conservative Minister of the Environment, John Fraser.

I am sure the minister is aware by now of pages 41 and 42, which deal with his performance and that of Ontario Hydro. This is the most devastating indictment of the acid rain policies of Hydro and of this government that could ever be imagined. It questions not only the minister's policies but also his credibility.

I refer the minister specifically to the things it says. It feels that Ontario Hydro's stated acid rain control strategy is imprecise and undependable. It says it has forfeited its leadership role; it is at best unworthy and at worst irresponsible. Because of the many broken promises, the constant changing of rules in a self-serving way, I ask when the minister is going to install scrubbers in Ontario Hydro facilities.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, we have covered this question on a number of occasions in this House. On this side, there have been no broken promises with respect to either Ontario Hydro or the scrubbers issue. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the control order that has been placed on Ontario Hydro is triggered in 1986 and in 1990. That lead time was established with the specific purpose of allowing Ontario Hydro to put all its programs into place prior to the reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions being required of it.

There are no broken promises when 1986 is not yet here, to the best of my knowledge. The report the honourable member is talking about was released at 11 o'clock this morning. I have not had an opportunity to review it in complete detail.

Mr. Peterson: I have.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I intend to do so. Perhaps the member had the luxury of some time to do that. I have not had that opportunity as yet. I will be most happy to respond to the report, and I intend to do so when I have had an opportunity to read it in detail. Can I get to the issue of scrubbers, Mr. Speaker, and then I --

Mr. Speaker: You said you would address it when you have had time to study it.

Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be unkind, and I know the rules of this House prevent me from calling any member or institution a liar or accusing them of misleading this House, so I will not do that. Instead, I will read to the minister from the report, which he should have been briefed on by now. It never ceases to amaze me how the minister is briefed when it serves his cause and not briefed when it does not serve his cause.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I refer him specifically to page 41 of his copy. It says: "In October, when the corporation appeared before the subcommittee in Toronto, we were told that Ontario Hydro was an insignificant contributor to Canada's acid rain problem. Three months later, it was announced that the utility was planning to design and install two flue gas desulphurization units to contain emissions."

It goes on: "Since then we have heard a different story. In June, the utility appeared before the subcommittee in Ottawa, stating scrubbers were not needed to meet the new Ontario government standards. Since then, the corporation has revised its demand forecast upward and virtually juggled its forecast."

The committee does not believe the minister. It does not believe Ontario Hydro. Those are some of the minister's own colleagues. How does the minister expect us to believe him in this House when he has been making all these pious speeches about Ontario leading the way? His credibility is being ruined, would he not agree?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I would not agree with the Leader of the Opposition. He is the one who pours forth with all the pious comments. In this House I have answered him directly with respect to a very short-term increase in sulphur dioxide emissions from Ontario Hydro. I have indicated to him that if it is necessary for scrubbers to be installed, that matter will be reviewed by Ontario Hydro, with whatever changing circumstances, perhaps relating to the problems with the nuclear program, being taken into account.

At this time, I am not going to give the member an absolute undertaking that scrubbers are going to be required by my ministry, first and foremost because my ministry under normal circumstances does not require of any industry or public utility that a particular type of technology be installed. We ask an industry to meet certain target levels of abatement, and in the case of Ontario Hydro, the member knows full well what they are.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted the parliamentary committee has confirmed what we in our party have been saying for some time, that Hydro has not lived up to its commitments and that it has in effect cooked the books with respect to the reductions it alleges are going to take place because of the artificially high figures the ministry set out earlier.

Is the minister denying that Ontario Hydro at one time made a specific commitment with respect to the installation of scrubbers and then reneged on that commitment? If he is, how can he possibly do so, since the record is so crystal-clear as to what Hydro promised and that it reneged on the original promise?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, in no way has Hydro cooked the books, as is being suggested by the leader of the third party. The reality is that, as a result of certain problems with the nuclear program of which we are all aware, some plants are not operating with clean power, which was anticipated.

It would be interesting to hear what the third party's position is with respect to power. Does it want nuclear power now? Does it want coal-fired power? Is that party still on wind power or some other fantasy energy program? Why does the honourable member not tell us what his party's position is?

Mr. Rae: We want clean power.

Mr. Martel: Keep the promise.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We happen to be working in the real world where we attempt to solve problems that are real problems. In the short term, there has been an increase in sulphur dioxide emissions, but the member knows full well that Ontario Hydro is going to have to meet the abatement levels by 1986. That is the commitment I give the member in this House.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister, who seems to have found an alternative source of energy; that is, wind power. If that source could solve our problems, they would be solved singlehandedly.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: I would like to bring the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), posing as the Minister of the Environment, back to the real world. We reminded him that there are problems with the maple trees dying in Parry Sound. We reminded him of the readings in the Ottawa Valley which showed the pH levels had fallen to 3.7. We remind him now that the readings on May 28 in Muskoka-Haliburton were 4.6 and the readings on May 28 from Longwood, near London, were 4.5.

The minister must surely agree that this serves to underline the critical need for controls being placed on sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario. We had promises in the throne speech in 1982 --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: When will the minister live up to his promise to cut back the emissions, which are damaging not only areas in northern Ontario but also areas throughout the whole province?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, a similar question was raised, I believe last week, by the official opposition with respect to the so-called deposition levels in the Ottawa Valley area. The suggestion was made by one of my friends opposite to the effect that all the emissions came from Ontario Hydro. I can tell the honourable member that is unalterably incorrect. The reality is that only a very small part of the emissions came from Ontario Hydro. The emissions centred on the United States; that is where they came from.

We are concerned as well about the maple tree problem. I announced this week that I am undertaking a study to determine exactly what the problems are with respect to that part of our forest industry.

This government, in co-operation with the federal government, has made a commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent by 1994. That is a commitment we stand by. It is one of the strongest commitments I know of in any jurisdiction. We are undergoing meetings at this time to put the technology into place to meet that level of reduction. We intend to be successful in so doing. The member will just have to be a little patient.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer concerning youth unemployment in this province. As he knows, according to the figures we are working on -- last month's figures -- there were 169,000 unemployed young people in this province. He is also aware that the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto has published a report that disagrees fundamentally with those figures across this country and believes the real rate of youth unemployment is substantially higher.

The Treasurer will also be aware of one of his own documents. The Ontario Manpower Commission in a document stamped "Preliminary Draft -- Not for Quotation" says, "Among those not working but who are available and want to work there are some who are counted as unemployed and some who are not, i.e., the hidden unemployed." This document of the minister's government believes the real rate of youth unemployment is higher than that publicly stated in the figures commonly used by him and by others.

What does the Treasurer believe is the real rate of youth unemployment in the province? How many does he believe are unemployed in real numbers now? What are his targets? How many jobs is he going to create with his new, rearranged and renamed programs? How far is he going to attack this real problem?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which of those four or five questions the Leader of the Opposition wants answered, so I will perhaps select the ones I want to answer.

If he really studied the budget document, he would know it was not an attempt to solve or deal with the youth unemployment problem by simply pretending to create jobs for a few months. It will take a lot of those young people and give them educational upgrading, job training, job experience and some jobs.

In that sense the answer to his question is that they are not all going to get jobs. What they are all going to be offered is an opportunity to get retraining, to get upgrading, to get jobs and to get some job experience.

That is the right approach, whether the number is 40,000 or 169,000 or 180,000. The budget is not limited in the sense that we will cut off funding at any particular level based upon 169,000 people, and that is the important point behind the honourable member's question.

Mr. Peterson: It is obvious the Treasurer still does not know what he is doing and what his plans and targets are.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: This is obviously not management by objectives in any meaningful way.

For example, one of the promises in the Treasurer's budget was a hot line for unemployed young people. It was announced yesterday, or at least we became aware of it yesterday. We phoned yesterday and were told that no information is available about youth employment programs in this province other than what is in the budget, and the hot line counsellors can provide only the names and scanty outlines of programs already made public. They do not know when additional information will be available or when the programs will be operational --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- and all the young people can do is leave their names on mailing lists. Those who want to receive information on ongoing programs will have to wait two or three weeks.

The Treasurer is aware that for many of the unemployed students the summer is almost half over, or at least it will be when these programs and information are available.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Peterson: Why is the Treasurer trying to fool people into thinking he is providing meaningful information when his own youth hot line people do not know what his programs are?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, they did not say they did not know what the programs were; they said the information contained in the budget is the information that is available.

Mr. Martel: We phoned for the information. It is not available.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I told the members opposite and the House some time ago that the --

Mr. Wrye: Call back in August.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: It is malarkey. You phone for the information and it is not available.

Hon, Mr. Grossman: My friend has not made an important contribution to this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I indicated some time ago that the startup dates for these programs would vary according to the type of program it is. All of those programs are still on stream with respect to their startup dates. Therefore, when the young people call, we are taking the information with regard to their circumstances, and obviously we are going to notify those young people and follow up with them when the appropriate opportunity becomes available for them. That is surely the prudent thing to do; that is exactly what is being done.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the Treasurer give us any concrete examples and concrete dates for when his youth job creation programs are going to start? My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) phoned last week and asked, and no information was available from the ministry. Is the Treasurer's youth job creation program like the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program? He announced it and his successor came in and said there was no program, no money, no budget and no jobs. Are they going to have to wait until the real bicentennial to get a job?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I indicated in this House that those programs had various startup dates. Ken Dryden is in place; he started as of June 1. He is working now on several of the initiatives. The summer employment programs are running. The Ontario youth employment program with the new twists and features is now in place. They are being phased in as they are ready.

I know the member had a difficult time because we had so many new programs that he was left with nothing he could say we had left out. The member was prepared to say we had done nothing about youth employment, we had no new programs and it was the old traditional thing. However, the member could not say any of that. All he has left now is, "When are you going to start those new programs?"

I have no sympathy for his problem. I can only tell him they will all be ready over the next few months. Everything is proceeding apace. The member will find himself even more frustrated this coming fall when we are back here and if we are not back here this fall, he will be more frustrated than he is today.

Mr. Peterson: That is the silliest response I have ever heard. What does that do for students who are looking for work this summer? I will refer specifically to some of the figures. The number of students registered and looking for work in Ottawa is 12,127; the number of students placed in jobs is 1,410.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please place your question.

Mr. Peterson: I am placing my question. I am informing him of the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I think I have been very patient with letting you refer to facts and figures. Please place your question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would not want to be accused of being like the government and not caring about facts, figures and specifics. I think it is important that we educate these people as to the realities in this province. In Toronto, there are 34,553 students registered and looking for work; 9,435 of them have been placed. Sudbury has 5,400 students registered and 639 placed.

Mr. Speaker: Question now, please.

Mr. Peterson: The list goes on and on. What is the Treasurer doing immediately for students looking for work this summer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are now creating over 100,000 jobs this summer for those young people. Let us start there. Let us also agree that problem will come back year after year if we adopt the old tired Liberal approach, which is to send the kid out to paint a fence, stand up and brag they have solved the problem for the kid, and then spend another $100 million under their kind of program to create 14,000 jobs. That was their program: 14,000 jobs for $100 million. That is Liberal economics, Liberal philosophy and Liberal politics.

We will be here five years from today. The member's colleagues will be here but he will not be. A lot of those young people will have permanent, real jobs because of new, long-term programs introduced for those young people, not the short-term, old-time economics of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw to your attention once again that from my vantage point you appeared surprisingly unevenhanded in your treatment of the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer, whom you let go on endlessly with a litany of editorial comments.

I accept absolutely your intention to rein in those members who stray beyond the rules as you interpret them. However, from my vantage point, in that last exchange you allowed the Treasurer an editorial latitude which you appeared quite unwilling to allow the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: I first point out to the member for Renfrew North that he did not have a point of order. I am not going to stop the clock because we have 39 minutes remaining for all the members to ask questions. For your information, from your vantage point and from my vantage point, the Treasurer used less than a minute for his reply. New question.

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: No. This is an abuse of members' time.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, you badger people on this side five seconds into their questions, and yet you make no effort at all to rein in a minister, such as the Treasurer during his most recent response.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: If you are going to badger this side, I would like you to badger that side; then I will accept your treatment under those conditions.

Mr. Speaker: I will not accept badgering from any side. I make that very clear.

Mr. Conway: Nor will I, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: You will not, in my view, have successful discharge of your duties --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member sit down, please.

Mr. Conway: -- if you treat this side differently and more unfairly than the way you treat that side.

Mr. Speaker: While you have stated your position very clearly, you are obviously out of order. It is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Martel: He is using my time now.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is our time now.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is your time; it is all the members' time.

TRAUMA UNITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, together with members of my staff and my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), I toured the trauma centre at Sunnybrook Medical Centre. I was advised by Dr. Robert McMurtry, the clinical director of that hospital, that up to 400 people in Ontario are dying unnecessarily every year because of the failure of this government to designate certain hospitals as trauma centres and to create a program across the province that will save lives and time, and save, harbour and husband resources effectively to care for people who are dying unnecessarily from accidents.

I would like to ask the minister why there is this unconscionable delay in implementing central programs of designating trauma units and creating paramedic programs to deal with this tragedy of 400 people dying needlessly and tragically every year because of the failure of government to act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, regardless of who might have made such a statement, I can assure you that, in the opinion of most well-informed experts, that kind of statement is totally indefensible and irresponsible. I do not care who the individual is who made it; I think he does himself and the medical profession a disservice by engaging in those kinds of histrionics.

First of all, I would point out that the ministry has clearly indicated its approach to the establishment of trauma units and emergency health services across the province. It is something that can only be done responsibly, on a carefully planned basis, and implemented over time. It will also be closely tied to the establishment of paramedic programs throughout the province, and that is now under way in the initial stages, as the honourable member is aware.

I do know there is a request from Sunnybrook Medical Centre with respect to some additional expansion within its trauma unit, and that is under review at the moment by the ministry. But if the particular physician to whom the member referred thinks he is going to further his cause by making irresponsible statements, he had better pause and think about it.

Mr. Rae: That kind of cheesy intimidation from the minister will not shut up people with integrity in the medical profession, or in any other profession, and the minister had better learn that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I want to say to the minister that the evidence that has been compiled, not only by Dr. McMurtry but also by other people working in the trauma field, is overwhelming. There is now the expertise available, if we can concentrate and focus efforts in different parts of the province, to save lives today where lives are being lost.

Those are the hard facts. They have been assessed medically. They have been assessed by experts in the field. The minister simply does not know what he is talking about when he makes those kinds of cheap, incriminatory remarks about people in the profession who care about what is happening to people who are dying without cause when they could be saved.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why has the minister failed to move in developing, across the province, a paramedic program worthy of the name? Why has he failed to designate those centres that want now to be designated as trauma centres when the need is there, the demand is there and the expertise is there. The only thing lacking is the political will.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I made my comments earlier, not to attempt to intimidate anyone, but because I think it is important that members of the medical profession understand, when those kinds of statements are made irresponsibly, they are not going to intimidate the minister either.

This province has embarked in a most responsible way upon the development of an emergency health system across the province. We will have a paramedic training program second to none in the world based upon an extensive review of paramedical programs in other jurisdictions. We are benefiting from the errors that have been made there. It is now under way and it will be expanded across the province as it evolves appropriately. We are not going to get into some kind of irresponsible crash program. It is going to be developed in a way that will serve the interests of the people of this province very well.

I would also point out to the member that if he thinks nothing is being done in the area of emergency health across the province now, then he ought to visit a few more hospitals. There are very competent emergency departments in hospitals across the province that are now very responsibly dealing with emergency trauma cases. In many instances where it is deemed to be necessary, once the patient is stabilized in the emergency department of a hospital, he can be transferred to a trauma unit, such as Sunnybrook. That does not mean there is any justification for engaging in a panic reaction and having a crash program based totally upon unsubstantiated statements such as the member has quoted here in the House.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware that there has been a proposal for a trauma unit at Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph Hospital in Windsor for some period of time. The proposal came to the forefront as a result of an inquiry in the riding of my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) into the death of an individual in the southern part of the county who might have been saved had there been a trauma unit at Hotel Dieu Hospital.

I received a letter from the minister some two weeks ago, which at best was unencouraging, in which the minister said there were a lot of proposals.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: What is the minister going to do about getting a trauma unit for Essex county in terms of establishing trauma units at various centres all over the province?

Mr. Martel: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, yes, I suppose that is an appropriate response. Obviously, the centres across the province will be considered as the program develops. Again, I think it is important that the members who are interested in emergency health services look at them in the total and proper context. What we are approaching in Ontario is not a piecemeal kind of emergency health response. The concept is for a comprehensive response capability, of which a trauma unit is only one part.

If the system is going to function very well, then there are a number of early planning steps that must be taken by the local community. It really ought at that stage also to involve integrated planning among the health services, the fire departments, the police and so on, so the planning takes place on the proper basis from the very beginning.

In some communities that has already taken place. If it is not taking place in Essex county, then I think the member ought to propose that they do that. There is responsibility at the local level for those early stages. I have encouraged local communities --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Rae: The hard fact is that people in Ontario whose lives could be saved are dying. That is the hard fact. There is substantiated, documented proof. That is what the medical professionals are telling us now. There is overwhelming evidence on that in the United States and from Europe.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Has the minister read the article in the January issue of the Journal of Trauma that substantiated the degree of the problem in Canada and the lives being lost today? Has he seen the studies from the United States, from Orange county, that show the dramatic reduction in the number of deaths when a trauma centre is established? Has he seen the studies done in West Germany that show deaths from car accidents were reduced by 25 per cent when trauma centres were established in that country? Has he read those studies?

Why is he failing to act on the clear recommendations of the health council, the clear recommendations from professionals in the field that the time to act is now, that lives are being lost unnecessarily and it is only the hideous lethargy and laziness and slothfulness of this government that are causing unnecessary tragedy today in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: My goodness, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member keeps that up, he is going to become articulate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I doubt it.

Mr. McClellan: That is something the minister will never have to worry about.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would never want to give the member anything to worry about, so I shall not challenge that.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the answer, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: To suggest we are not responding to the recommendations of the district health council is patently false. Of course we are responding to the report and I think the district health council is well aware of that. In fact, there have been meetings with the committee of the council that made those recommendations. Our formal response will be ready within the next few weeks.

Once again, I would point out it does not mean we are going either to plan or to be able to respond on all fronts at once. It will have to be a phased and planned evolutionary process. As the member knows, the committee is recommending three additional units for Toronto. I do not suppose all three will be approved at one time, but we are now looking at where appropriate locations for them might be.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the meeting he has just come away from, which apparently has agreed on some changes to the vesting rule in private pension plans from 10 years to five years, I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us how many workers in Ontario will benefit from that change.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information with me today.

Mr. Rae: Since the Treasurer does not have the information for the House and seems to have entered into a program without knowing how many people are going to benefit from it, can he confirm that about half the workers in Ontario do not have a pension plan and about half of Canadian workers do not last in a job for five years? Can he confirm those facts?

Can he please tell us why there has been so much foofaraw and focus on reforms that touch a minority of workers, and no focus on reforms that would affect and benefit all Canadian workers? Such reforms would relate to early retirement, guaranteeing pension plans for everybody, and ensuring a decent level of income for every worker when he or she retires. Why is there such a narrow focus when so many workers are excluded from all those discussions that have taken place over the last few days?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I would say the honourable member's facts are roughly accurate.

Second, as he would have it, attention is being paid to these activities because they are important; there is a half of all workers who are covered and who are very dramatically affected by the changes we all agreed upon last Tuesday.

Third, it is not that items were neglected; it is that in terms of the process, a decision was made that the private pension plan item, for which responsibility for uniformity largely lies with the provincial governments, would be the items dealt with by the provincial pension ministers.

2:40 p.m.

The larger question the member refers to relates to Canada pension plan changes. That obviously lies largely with the federal government. It has been put on our agenda as provincial pension ministers for this fall in order that we might try to reach some agreement with regard to CPP changes to recommend to the federal government. Ontario's position on those changes is quite open, acknowledged and public. Nonetheless, I want to clarify that Tuesday's meeting was on private pension plans, which are important. I know the member acknowledges them as important. CPP changes are largely for the federal government's attention.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister telling us 75 per cent of the work force is not covered by the so-called reforms that have taken place? Why did Ontario not push for major reforms with respect to early retirement, pension coverage for part-time workers and better benefits than have so far been given, other than the very minor changes that have been made to the guaranteed annual income system, to ensure that single people who are over 65 and below the poverty line will be given greater assistance than they are getting today? Why not make some immediate changes rather than this glacial pace of reform which has excluded so many workers from the process of pension improvement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is wrong. He has not studied at any length what we did last Tuesday. Vesting was one of about 25 items that were agreed upon. Those 25 items ranged from survivor benefits to credit splitting to portability. I do not think the member would want the public --

Mr. Rae: If it is not vested, it cannot be carried.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is just plain wrong on that. He does not understand what we did on Tuesday.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, when the member's leader -- never mind. I do not want to be that partisan this afternoon.

Mr. Foulds: If it is not vested, one does not have a pension.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party suggested it was time we did something for part-time workers. Item 8 or 9, which was agreed upon on Tuesday, dealt with the question of part-time workers and their eligibility for participation in the private pension plans that exist in firms. That is an important change we made that does deal with part-time workers.

The member's researchers may have failed to pick up the fact that one of the items that he complains was not dealt with was in fact dealt with quite specifically. When he checks off the list of 25 items, in fairness, he might want to acknowledge that vesting was not the only one, but one of 20 or 25 major initiatives.

Finally, I do not agree with the member and will not agree with him that only 25 per cent of the work force is affected by the changes we agreed to on Tuesday in what will prove to be a historic meeting of pension ministers.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Solicitor General. He is no doubt aware of a report in the Ottawa Citizen today that Mr. Jack Ellis has been under investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police for suspected arson and insurance frauds since last fall. Could the minister explain why the OPP anti-rackets squad was called in last November after a two-week probe by the Ontario fire marshal's office, when a year earlier the Belleville OPP attachment discontinued its investigation? Could the minister also explain why the Belleville OPP discontinued its investigation into this alleged incident?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confess I am a regular reader of the Ottawa Citizen, but I am not, nor am I aware of the article in that newspaper. I will take the member's remarks as notice to obtain the information, if it is available. I am not fully aware of all the matters he has raised.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is inquiring into the situation with respect to the Belleville OPP, will he assure us that before the House adjourns we will have a report on any delays that may have been occasioned in this matter?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I will try to get the information on this matter as quickly as possible.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour following from his statements in this House last week about the engineering controls and lead assessment at Mack Canada. I have copies of the lead assessment and control by Mack Canada and the subsequent studies related to that, the Industrial Accident Prevention Association study, the Concord Scientific Corp. study, and the Proctor and Redfern study.

Is the minister aware that in all those there is no reference at all to engineering controls, despite what he said in the House? None examines substitution, changes in enclosure, ventilation or the spray painting system. lf he is aware of that, does he not agree that the ministry's reliance on the 1975 ventilation system, installed by the company before it even started to use lead paints, and on respirators for the workers, makes a mockery of his ministry's lead regulation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that, even in this lead control by Mack, they recognize there should be further tests for ambient lead levels? If that is the case, is the minister prepared to agree today that a hazard exists for workers, if there are high levels of lead in the air, and that the levels at Mack are high enough to require engineering controls in compliance with the regulation? Is it not true that it is not enough to depend on blood level lead tests to determine whether there is a hazard at Mack Canada?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: First, I have to repeat what I said on previous occasions. It has been determined by the medical surveillance that there is no danger to those workers.

Further, the honourable member asked me about the spray-paint booth. I have here a document, which I would be prepared to send over to him, from the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Its standards have been followed with respect to the Mack exterior paint booth. It meets the criteria of the ventilation manual as per this organization, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

RECYCLING

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that the hundreds of newspapers that are read or unused at Queen's Park are not recycled? Is he aware that in one edition a large Toronto newspaper uses some 2,500 trees and that in a year it uses some 800,000 trees?

I wonder if the minister will agree with me that we are overdue in having a program here at Queen's Park to participate in a meaningful way in recycling newsprint to save energy and protect the environment.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Niagara Falls. First, we do have a paper recycling program in place now at Queen's Park.

Mr. Kerrio: That is for fine paper. Set that aside. What about newspapers?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Does the member want to ask the question and answer it too, because I will sit down if I am disturbing him?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It would save a lot of time. Then the member could perhaps check with us after he has resolved the issue.

An hon. member: Talk to yourself, Vince.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The member for Niagara Falls talks to himself all the time.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the answer, please.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: As to the second part of my answer, I would like to share with the honourable member the fact that my ministry does have some initiatives that I am going to be most pleased to announce to this House at the appropriate time with respect to further paper recycling. I know the member will welcome that news when it is released.

Mr. Kerrio: I wonder if the minister is aware that not long ago the government put $21 million into a $260-million renovation and expansion at the Ontario Paper plant in Thorold. The Premier (Mr. Davis) himself was there to cut the ribbon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Himself? So were you.

Mr. Kerrio: I was participating as a true free enterpriser and not like half of those so-called free enterprisers. The important thing here is --

Mr. Martel: That is true free enterprise -- the public purse. They got some government money.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, would you quiet them down?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Niagara Falls please place his question.

Mr. Kerrio: After having put such a substantial amount of money into that kind of program, why is it taking the minister so long to recycle actually tons of paper that comes through Queen's Park, where it could be collected very easily, in order to show some kind of leadership in this field? The city of Toronto is doing it and many other jurisdictions are doing it. The Boy Scouts have to go door to door to collect their papers. We have tons of it here. When is he going to do his job and do it properly?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: If the member for Niagara Falls were to speak to some of his colleagues on that side of the House -- from the city of Kitchener, for example -- they would quickly tell him that we in this ministry have a very ambitious program not only in that great community but in other communities across Ontario. We are going to expand that program to fill the needs of the Ontario Paper plant at Thorold.

I personally went through that plant not all that long ago. I am very impressed with the operation. There is no question whatever that they do require an additional amount of tonnage of paper to be recycled for their purposes. I will do what I can to encourage that program because I think it is an excellent one. I appreciate the question.

FOURWAY PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) have copped out in meeting their responsibilities to fund the full education portion of the Fourway Public School by approving funding for only $400,000 after they had approved the expenditure of $700,000 in the educational component, will the Minister of Tourism and Recreation assure this House that he will make an announcement before the end of this month about awarding the full amount of the application for Wintario capital funding for at least the recreational portion of that school?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Port Arthur joins the distinguished member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) in showing some interest in the Fourway Public School.

Mr. Martel: The absent member for Fort William.

Mr. Foulds: Where is he?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: He is here quite frequently. He is here all the time and he has shown a great deal of leadership, enthusiasm and enterprise in making sure that school is going to get the funding it requires.

With respect to the Minister of Education copping out, that certainly is not the case at all. If the honourable member has any further questions, he might want to redirect them to the Minister of Education.

As far as the recreational aspect of grants going to that school is concerned, yes, I fully intend before this session is over to make some announcement, which I am sure will once again indicate our governments contribution to the recreational field.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister be a little bit more specific? Can he tell us whether he will give approval for the full Wintario funding to that particular project, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Education deliberately underfunded the school? That is the school, as the minister will remember, which a grand jury panel indicated was in an unsafe and totally unsatisfactory condition, being a fire hazard and a health hazard with rats running around. That is the school for which those parents have been fighting for 12 years, long before the member for Fort William was elected to this place.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister give us the assurance that he will at least fund the full amount of the full recreational component of that school?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Of course, I cannot respond in detail to the actions taken by the Ministry of Education, but I can tell the member that if the record for that school is anywhere close to what it is across the province, then the Minister of Education has done exactly what she should have done. If the member wants to redirect the question, he may do so.

Mr. Foulds: She has like blazes. Just take care of your portion.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I told the member before, the member for Fort William has talked to me on many occasions about this, and before this session is over we will be making the kinds of grants that will solve the problem at this school.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment in regard to International Minerals and Chemical Corp. in Dunnville, which closes next month knocking 168 members out of work. This is a serious issue for my riding, and I do not want my people out of work. However, another problem, which the company did not tell us about, is that there are concentrations of radiation in the 100 acres of waste-settling lagoons behind the plant.

What is the ministry going to do about that? Is it going to have the company leave without cleaning it up? Will it affect our drinking water supply? Could that 100 acres ever be used for future development, or is the area ruined and will we have left on our hands another radioactive legacy which will have to be isolated and managed for the next several decades?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check with the staff to see what the levels of radiation are in the particular area the honourable member is speaking of. I will be most happy to determine the information he is seeking and get back to him. I have taken note of his question and I will report back on that.

Mr. G. I. Miller: IMC extracts phosphate fertilizer from calcium phosphate rock brought in from Florida. The rock has trace amounts of uranium. As it decays in the lagoons, the uranium produces radium and radon gas, according to a ministry official, Mr. John Vogt of the west central region office.

Has the minister had the company inform the workers that they may have been exposed to a slight amount of radiation? Have there been any radioactive hot spots found in the plant itself and will the lagoons pose a threat of contamination to the Rock Point Provincial Park, which the lagoon sits adjacent to? What has the impact been to the surrounding community over the many years the plant has been in operation, considering there has been an abnormally high rate of Hodgkins' disease in Dunnville -- two deaths a year in a town of 10,000 -- when the normal rate is one death a year in 100,000 through Hodgkins' disease?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I thank the honourable member for the supplementary. Normally, I am advised by my staff of anything even closely resembling what the member refers to as a hot spot. Before I indicate to him that I doubt there is a problem in that respect, I will check with the staff to be absolutely certain and report back to him on the questions he has raised.

STRIKEBREAKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of ads running in the Toronto papers which read: "Students: Packaging work available immediately in cosmetic industry at two locations. Apply in person. Schwartzkopf Ltd. Rate $3.85 an hour"? Is the minister aware that some 75 workers, most of them women, most of them making about S4.25 an hour, are on strike in that plant for a second contract and these are the replacements? Does the minister agree with this kind of use of students? Is this part of our youth employment program? What is he willing to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, first, I am quite aware of the circumstances and I must admit they concern me. This strike began only recently, on May 29. Prior to strike action, a mediator was involved in the dispute and a memorandum of settlement was signed; however, the membership voted against it.

In Ontario, in common with virtually ever other jurisdiction in the United States and Canada, there is no prohibition on an employer from operating during the course of a legal lockout or strike. It is up to the individual employer to determine whether he wishes to operate the facilities and, subject to compliance with the law, the means by which he will do so.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know the offer they turned down is $4.25 an hour for the majority of the workers. I presume he is also aware that Schwartzkopf makes top-of-the-line cosmetics while it pays these bottom-of-the-line wages. In my riding in the last year on picket lines two people have been run down. There was Mr. Claude Dougdeen, who was killed last year, and last night on this picket line a woman was hit by a car. Is it not time the minister brought in anti-scab legislation to protect workers on picket lines in this province?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in the Labour Relations Act to prohibit interference with lawful trade union activity. Further amendments were passed in this Legislature a year ago, in 1983, to prohibit professional strikebreaking activity. The legislation also forbade certain defined forms of strike-related misconduct. I have no plans at present to go beyond those present provisions.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will recall that I raised this issue during the last estimates of the Ministry of Labour and asked him to investigate the situation in Quebec. They do have such legislation there and it has eliminated a great number of problems.

I was under the impression then that the minister was going to review that legislation and, at one time or another, get back to myself or members of the House. If he has not had the opportunity to do so, would he be willing to give me a commitment now that he will review the legislation in Quebec as to whether it has affected the ongoing operations of business? Will he give me a commitment as to whether it has made labour relations in Quebec substantially better than they are here?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have done some review of the legislation; it has not been an extensive review, I must admit, because of other priorities.

The honourable member indicated that I promised to get back to him. Actually, I sent to the chairman of the committee, and fully expected he would send to all other members of the committee, a document about that thick which responded to all the various questions raised during the estimates. Has the member received that yet? Has he read it yet?

Mr. Mancini: Yes.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development with regard to the moral responsibility of this province in resolving a matter that has been allowed to drag on for some 14 years. It is in regard to the mercury pollution of the English-Wabigoon river system, and the damage inflicted on the Grassy Narrows Indian band.

He is no doubt aware that it is now six months since one of the companies responsible, Great Lakes Forest Products, wrote to the Ontario Indian commission stating that it is refusing to make any offer to the band even though it has a commitment to settle. It is apparently refusing because it claims it is actively pursuing the matter of health claims with the government.

Can the minister confirm this? Can he tell us the nature of these discussions with the Indian band concerned?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for asking the question because I would like to clarify exactly the two matters that are going on in tandem.

First of all, our government contracted in 1978 with each of the Whitedog band and the Grassy Narrows band to enter into an economic and social development agreement. Last December I signed the agreement with the Whitedog band and last month, along with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), I met with the Grassy Narrows band.

As for the dispute between Great Lakes Forest Products and Reed and the two bands, I represented the province at the last tripartite meeting in November. The tripartite process also requires the Indian first nations -- the four treaty organizations -- and the federal government to attend. At the tripartite meeting we split off and met with Great Lakes Forest Products as well.

At that meeting the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable John Munro, indicated he was going to do something by going to cabinet to force the issue; in other words, force the settlement. To date, I am not aware that he has been able to do anything in that regard. I indicated to both Mr. Munro and the companies that we should try once more to bring together the governments and the companies to clear away any problems so they could place a legitimate offer on the table.

Mr. Wildman: Great Lakes is stonewalling.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I am trying to explain.

Mr. Wildman: I did not say the minister is stonewalling; Great Lakes is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The agreement was that I would be responsible for bringing the president of Great Lakes Forest Products to a meeting and Mr. Munro would be responsible for bringing the president of Reed Ltd. to the meeting. I tried on at least a dozen occasions to ask Mr. Munro when that would happen. He has not yet indicated to me when he can convene that meeting, with all four of us there, so we can get a legitimate offer on the table.

Further, we requested a tripartite meeting to take place in May 1984. Since Mr. Munro seems to be preoccupied with other matters, we have had to put off the tripartite meeting until July. That is the reason for the particular malaise with respect to progressing with the resolution of this matter.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On May 25, I put an oral question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), and two weeks ago I was advised there would be an answer forthcoming. On April 24, I put a written question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz). I am still waiting for answers from both. I wonder if you could use your good offices, since the rules are being violated, particularly with respect to the written answer, to obtain answers for me.

Mr. Speaker: As you know, that is beyond my authority, but I am sure the ministers involved have taken very close note of your remarks and will govern themselves accordingly.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I asked a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) on April 30. At that time he said he would get back to me with an answer. Since that time the question has cost Ontario $5,000. I wonder whether he should not be doing something about it.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister has taken note and will reply quickly.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I asked the Minister of Energy two questions, neither of which he has answered. One related to one of his constituents and the other had to do with the battery backup system for a shutdown at a nuclear plant. I hope the minister will see fit to answer me before we rise. His constituent needs his help.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member representing the constituency of High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), I table the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

3:10 p.m.

FAMILY BENEFITS ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a group in Ottawa called Women for Justice and 1,200 signatories, I table the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislature as follows:

"The petition of the undersigned residents of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable Legislature will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth:

"That whereas women in the province of Ontario, as evidenced in the city of Ottawa, are being subjected to unnecessary harassment and unwarranted financial and social hardship by the Ministry of Community and Social Services in its arbitrary interpretation of regulation 424/82 (section 5(b)) of the Family Benefits Act (this section states that single women aged 60 to 64, sole-support parents and wives of institutionalized old age security recipients are not eligible for family benefits assistance if they are 'not living as a single person');

"That whereas the interpretation of the section of the act presently being used by the ministry is unfair in that it automatically assumes that the 'man in the house' is willing or able to assume financial support for the woman and her children;

"That whereas at present there is no protection under Canadian law to ensure financial support for women and children in such situations, which often prove to be temporary rather than permanent; and

"That whereas the present interpretation and application of regulation 424/82 (section 5(b)) of the Family Benefits Act by the ministry is inconsistent with the intent of the Children's Law Reform Act, the Family Law Reform Act and the Child Welfare Act, which first and foremost considers the wellbeing of the children involved;

"Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that this Legislature immediately direct the government of Ontario to investigate and review its related policy in this matter and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that women and children receive fair, unbiased and nondiscriminatory treatment in both determining eligibility for family benefits assistance and in reviewing cases which come before the ministry for reassessment."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $54,962,400; lands and waters program, $114,408,000; outdoor recreation program, $76,463,200; resource products program, $166,614,000; resource experience program, $9,528,900.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could make a few comments on what has just been presented.

Mr. Speaker: No. There is no question before the House.

Mr. Laughren: There is a lot I would like to say.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure there is.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the Scandinavian-Canadian Centre.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the Scandinavian-Canadian Centre.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GRAIN ELEVATOR STORAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 94, An Act to amend the Grain Elevator Storage Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the bill is intended to ensure that producers retain title until they receive their money for farm produce sold to or through the agency of grain elevator operators. The bill also provides for detailed monthly reports to the chief inspector by grain elevator operators.

This puts into effect the protection to grain producers that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) promised in February 1983 and has never delivered.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ruprecht moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, first reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to prevent landlords from evicting tenants to convert rented residential premises into temporary or hotel accommodation. The Parkdale area especially has been hit hard on this issue, and this bill will redress the imbalance.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ruprecht moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, first reading of Bill 96, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to prevent conversions of rental residential units to transient living accommodation, which are undertaken primarily to exclude the units from the rent review process.

It would also provide a procedure for setting the rent of a unit that has remained vacant for a year when there is no similar rental unit in the same residential complex.

3:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TENANTS SECURITY ACT

Mr. McClellan moved second reading of Bill 78, An Act to Extend Security of Tenure for Tenants.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and he may reserve any portion of that time for his windup.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve five minutes for windup at the conclusion of this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to introduce Bill 78 for debate here this afternoon. It is an attempt to put together a package of proposals that will deal with the issue of economic security for tenants -- security for tenants against being forced out of their homes as a result of economic pressures.

There are a number of people I need to thank for helping to put this series of proposals together. The Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, Metro Tenants Legal Services, Tenants Hot Line, Parkdale Community Legal Services and Mr. Jack de Klerk have all provided a great deal of very helpful and constructive advice.

While I accept responsibility for the content of this bill, I think it is fair and accurate to say the package of proposals that is before us in this bill represents a consensus on the part of activists in the tenants' rights movement around measures needed to protect tenants against the threat of economic eviction and to establish the rights in law, or statutory rights, to economic security against eviction.

As we start to discuss this issue, we should remember that 37 per cent of Ontario's housing stock is now rental accommodation. That is for all Ontario. There are over one million dwelling units occupied by tenants in Ontario. In our larger cities, we are used to the understanding that over 50 per cent of our citizens are tenants. That has started to be reflected in some of the political tasks this Legislature has undertaken.

In the 1970s we abolished the tyranny of common law with respect to landlord-tenant relationships and modernized the Landlord and Tenant Act. That was followed up with reforms establishing a form of rent review, now enshrined in the Residential Tenancies Act.

We do not pretend the six points set out in Bill 78 are sufficient of and by themselves to give security of tenure to tenants against the threat of economic eviction or economic action by landlords. It is essential that the whole package of reforms currently being studied by the Thom commission on rent review be brought forward and acted upon by this government.

There are some ideas in Bill 78 that are useful for us to put on the agenda. Quite frankly, I do not think we have had a clear focus on the issue of the right of tenants to economic security. When the Landlord and Tenant Act was revised in the 1970s, we did away with the tyranny of the common law and established certain statutory rights for tenants guaranteeing them the right of protection against arbitrary eviction and the right to due process in law with respect to their relationships with landlords.

We did make some major exemptions, however. We continued to adopt the attitude that if somebody owns a piece of property, he basically has the right to do with it whatever he wants in economic terms. If somebody owns a piece of property, if somebody invests his capital in residential rental accommodation, the Landlord and Tenant Act assumes he does have the right to maximize the profits of his investment, and those rights supersede the rights of his tenants to the secure enjoyment of their own home and to security of tenure in their own home.

I want to say that is a totally inadequate notion of the rights of tenants, and the sooner this government begins to grapple with this reality, the better it will be for the government and the better it will be for the millions of tenants who live in Ontario. How much longer does the government expect that people who are tenants are going to tolerate the perpetuation of basically feudal attitudes with respect to their right to secure enjoyment and occupancy of their own homes?

I am referring specifically to section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, where it is stated that a landlord has the right to demolish or convert residential rental accommodation to other uses. All we have done in the Landlord and Tenant Act is set out the due process by which the tenant may be evicted. We have accepted in the Landlord and Tenant Act the notion that the right of the landlord to maximize his investment through basic changes to what is somebody's home is entirely legitimate.

What I am trying to put forward in this act is exactly the reverse: To say that tenants have the right to secure enjoyment of their own home and that this right supersedes the right of an investor to maximize his profits if he has chosen to invest his capital in rental residential accommodation.

If somebody has chosen to invest his money in the rental residential market, then he is going to have to accept the rules of the game. Those rules of the game will have to change so those tenants will not be thrown out of their houses because some landlord wants to maximize his profit. Those rules have to be written into our statutes. We are offering the Legislature an opportunity to begin debating that concept this afternoon.

I have tried to deal with a number of aspects of the economic threat. I will start with them in reverse order, first dealing with the question of demolition and conversion control.

We have had a number of debates this year and last year on the issue of demolition control. It has been rightly argued that demolition represents one of the major threats to security for tenants in this province. We know from the report put out in March 1983 by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto that between 1971 and 1979, in the Metropolitan Toronto area alone, we had a net loss of 13,000 rental units as a result of the combined process of demolition and conversion to nonresidential use.

We know from debates that have taken place on Bill Pr13 and Bill Pr3 that at the present time, as we debate this bill, there are 1,448 units in 50 apartment buildings on the list of applications for demolition permits in the city of Toronto alone. That does not begin to deal with the number of apartment units that are in the conversion process. So far, when we have been debating the issue, we have been talking mainly about the issue of demolition, tearing the buildings down. On the other side of the same alloyed coin is the conversion of affordable housing, mostly older housing, to luxury apartment accommodation.

The net result in both cases has been exactly the same. Tenants, usually those with low incomes and pensioners on fixed incomes, find themselves thrown into the private housing market. We have a crisis of housing supply. The private housing market in the city of Toronto is not able to bring modest one-bedroom accommodation on to the market for less than $800 a month. We heard that in testimony before the standing committee on Bill Pr3 from the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies.

People on low or fixed incomes who are evicted as a result of demolition or conversions have no place to go. Our public social housing supply programs are in a state of disarray. We have a couple of hundred units being added to the supply every year. Far in excess is the number of apartments facing demolition on the city's hit list -- 1,448. I believe the city of Toronto is getting something like 224 affordable housing units in the current fiscal year.

This is the first issue that has to be addressed, and we have tried to set it out in the bill in a fairly reasonable way, not in a very draconian way. We have tried to empower municipalities with effective demolition and conversion control. If a municipality passes the appropriate bylaw setting out its housing policy and a minimum permissible set of circumstances relating to housing supply and vacancy rates, the municipality will have the power -- an effective power, not a sham one -- to stop demolition and conversion of affordable housing stock and to protect tenants from being thrown out on to the street and on to a market that simply cannot accommodate them.

3:30 p.m.

There are many communities like the city of Toronto where that is simply the reality. When there is a vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, we cannot tolerate letting affordable housing stock be demolished for other kinds of commercial uses. Neither can we agree to letting it be converted to luxury or condominium accommodation or the kind of thing the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) was talking about, this never-never world of transient hotel-type accommodation.

We also want to give the cabinet the power to set allowable rent increase maximums in any given fiscal year. We know that rent increases have been too high, from the latest report of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., on rent increases during 1983. The increases in the private market have been too high, both in buildings that were under rent review and buildings that were exempt from it. Increases were well in excess of the rate of inflation.

One of the great ironies is that buildings subject to rent review had an average rent inflation rate of 6.4 per cent. Buildings in the private sector not subject to rent review had an average inflation rate of six per cent. That tells one something about the quality of our rent review system. The average increase granted by the Residential Tenancy Commission was not just one or two points ahead of the rate of inflation but approximately double, if I understand things correctly.

That speaks again to the urgent need for a whole package of reforms which we hope will come out of the Thom commission and out of the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). It also speaks to the need for this government to take a more aggressive stand in protecting tenants from the kind of superinflationary increases which represent nothing more than gouging on the part of landlords. Many tenants simply cannot withstand them.

I realize my time is running by, so let me quickly run through the other things we hope to accomplish through the bill we are introducing here today.

We want limits on one of the most preposterous ripoffs that is taking place. That is the kind of cost pass-throughs for capital expenditures in the guise of repairs that are currently authorized under residential rent review. We want tenants to have a real and meaningful say in the kind of capital expenditures they are required to bear in the form of rent increases. We are saying that repairs should not be passed through on rents until the tenants have had an opportunity to review the proposals and to formally approve them.

We want an end to the exemptions in the Residential Tenancies Act, which makes absolutely no sense, particularly for buildings that are now almost 10 years old. We want tenants to be given the right of first refusal, if they are evicted, to purchase the property in the case of impending eviction as a result of a proposed sale, demolition or conversion to another use. We want financial compensation for tenants who ultimately may have to vacate their apartment or other accommodation they are renting.

I think that very clearly establishes the principle that the rights of a tenant must have priority. Their rights to security of tenure and protection against economic eviction should have a genuine priority over the right of landlords to maximize profits as a result of their investing in residential rental accommodation.

I have dealt with the financial compensation provision last and rather cursorily, but I think it is a very important notion. We believe tenants have a stake in their own house and that any landlord who is granted the right to dispossess them by virtue of privileges that are enshrined in law has to make a generous financial compensation in recognition of the tenant's prior right. We hope that kind of dispossession would become increasingly rare and we think other provisions of Bill 78 would ensure that it did become increasingly rare.

I urge the minister and the government to permit this bill to come to a vote and, indeed, to be passed so we can send it out to committee for further study. I want to stress that it is time to take the next step in the extension of tenants' rights. The kinds of steps we took in the 1970s were important, but they did not go far enough in abolishing what was essentially a feudal relationship; and the minister will agree that the common law relationships that governed landlords and tenants from time immemorial were essentially feudal relationships.

We dealt with a part of those feudal relationships, but we have not really come to grips with a very fundamental question: Does a person have a right to secure occupation of his own house if he is a tenant or does he not? Do the rights of investors to maximize profits because they have invested their money in residential rental accommodation supersede the rights of tenants?

We have not really confronted this issue yet; we have not had to as a society because we have not had a majority of people who were tenants. It has always been within the realizable dream of many Canadians, at least, to own a home, and tenancy was something you simply passed through as you were accumulating your savings and waiting to make the down payment on your first house. Those days are gone; I think they are gone forever and I think the minister, at least, knows that.

Many people will be tenants for all their lives. They will raise their families as tenants, they will retire as tenants and they will be tenants. They are as entitled as home owners are, if they meet their financial obligations, to be guaranteed security of tenure. If you pay your bills you should be guaranteed security of tenure, and it should be as simple as that. Nobody should be able to come along and throw you out of your house because he owns the deed to the land. If you are meeting your financial obligations, nobody really should be able to come along and throw you on to the street.

That is the basic principle of the guts of this bill, and I think the government is going to have to confront this situation. Whether it wants to listen to me or not is really quite irrelevant. The reality is that in our large cities the majority of people are tenants and the majority of people will always be tenants. They will insist on protection under law; they will not allow government to ignore this issue any more than they allowed government in 1975 to ignore the issue of rent control.

They will force the government to act whether it wants to or not, as they forced it to act on rent control. The sooner the government tries to put its mind to these questions the better; the sooner this Legislature tries to grapple with the very complex issues that are set out in this bill the better.

I hope we can have a good debate and that the bill will pass this afternoon so the debate can continue in committee. We can then have a serious discussion on some of these issues and we can bring people forward to help us try to work out ways and means of guaranteeing the rights of tenants to the secure enjoyment of their own homes. I urge all members to support this bill.

I do not know whether I have used up all my time. I think I have.

Mr. Williams: Look at the clock.

Mr. McClellan: I appreciate the opportunity to introduce this topic and I look forward to the debate.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker. on a point of clarification: The member for Bellwoods asked whether he had used up all his time, and I notice that the clock was flashing and so forth. He indicated earlier that he wanted to have five minutes left. As a result of that, did they count only 15 minutes from when he started or did they actually count 20 minutes?

The Deputy Speaker: The clock ran the full 20 minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill 78. First and foremost, I want to say with all sincerity that the member for Bellwoods has stayed true to form in expressing the great concerns he has about the rights and privileges of tenants in this province. There is no question at all he is being consistent in the concern he has expressed over the years about this extremely important social issue.

While I have put his concerns forward, at the same time and for the record I want to make it abundantly clear that his concerns are no greater than those of this government. He has talked about feudal attitudes prevailing, but I suggest that is an anachronism. Feudal attitudes from all sides of this House towards the rights and privileges of tenants and landlords have long since disappeared.

We have one basic difference in sharing concerns about tenants. That was expressed in the opening comments of the member for Bellwoods when he suggested his bill was designed to represent a consensus among activist tenants within Metropolitan Toronto. There is no question there is a large activist group of tenants within Metro Toronto which does a useful service in representing those tenants.

The divergence of opinion rests in the fact that the member for Bellwoods concentrates solely on the rights and needs of tenants. This government shares those concerns and provides in a legislative fashion protection for the rights of tenants and improves upon them where it sees the need. We also must bear in mind the other side of the equation, however, which is to ensure that the rights and privileges that the people who own the land as landlords have enjoyed in this free and democratic society are not taken away from them.

We have to balance the equation in a little more responsible fashion. It is not that the member for Bellwoods is being irresponsible, but he only deals with one aspect of the issue. To make it clear that this government has no less a concern with rights of tenants, I will simply point out the record of the government in this regard.

As the member for Bellwoods pointed out, in 1969 dramatic changes came about when the government took legislative initiatives that ensured that tenants were no longer limited to the common law positions of landlord and tenant. While the member characterized those common law rights as tyrannical in nature, it might be better to characterize them as outdated.

This government took the initiative in 1969 to enact significant new legislation that substantially improved the position of tenants and equalized the rights and privileges that existed, or rather failed to exist, prior thereto between landlords and tenants. Specifically, the government revised the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Two main features came out of that revision. On the one hand, a landlord could only regain possession of a unit under the authority of a court writ of possession, pursuant to a court order to evict. On the other side of the coin, and again providing much stronger legal clout for the tenant, the act gave the court the authority to refuse an order to evict where the tenant had attempted to enforce his legal rights and was not able to do so or where the landlord was found to be in breach of his legal obligations. The law was so amended to identify clearly the rights of tenants that heretofore might have been ignored or had remained limited to the common law provisions of the day.

The government then moved further in this field to provide even stronger protection for tenants in 1975 with the enactment of the Residential Premises Rent Review Act. All members of this Legislature participated at that time in ensuring that the rights of tenants were enhanced.

I can perhaps point out one or two ways in which this was accomplished. The grounds on which a landlord could seek eviction were much restricted. The basis on which a landlord was seeking eviction had to be specifically spelled out before the courts would consider that this could take place.

Most recently, security of tenure for tenants was further strengthened with the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act in 1983. I might say, in a modest fashion. I and my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) played no small part in bringing about the enactment of that legislation.

It protected the rights of tenants that were at risk at that time, based on the complex conveyancing schemes that had been developed by some landlords to circumvent the condominium legislation that exists in our province today. They tried to bring about ownership of units within rental apartment buildings, using the occupancy agreement scheme to accomplish that end purpose.

At that time, the member for Lakeshore and myself approached the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Through their quick response, we brought forward the appropriate legislation to protect the rights of tenants caught in that situation.

I point out that the legislation dealt with an apartment building in my own riding at 70 Old Sheppard Avenue. Through the efforts of Mary McBride, Mrs. Norma Wordingham and other interested parties who came to me in 1980, I was able to assist them to ensure they had security of tenure.

That is another example of how this government has responded to the needs and concerns of tenants and has given them a better shake, so to speak, in a landlord-tenant situation.

I might point out some interesting statistics with regard to the next major step forward that we took. That was moving into the residential rent review situation so that we have the finest residential tenancy laws anywhere today. It might be interesting to substantiate how well those laws are working.

In 1983-84 the average rent increase approved by the Residential Tenancy Commission was 10.6 per cent. They had been running as high as 14.2 per cent in 1982-83. While most landlords appeared to be asking for something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent or more, the commission responded in a responsible way by imposing increases limited to these averaging amounts.

It is interesting to note as well that fewer landlords appear to be going to rent review these days. They are accepting the six per cent allowance. In the 1983-84 period, the commission received less than half the number of applications it did in 1982-83. Only 2,000-odd applications were received in the past period compared to more than 5,400 applications in 1982-83. It is apparent that the protection of tenants is being ensured under rent review legislation, along with the companion landlord and tenant legislation.

I would like to dwell further on the matter, but I would only say in closing that the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) will undoubtedly be speaking of his resolution about the rights of property under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I think the members from this party and his party endorse as a right and a privilege.

3:50 p.m.

This legislation before us today would tend to distort that right that is being asked for in the amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why we have to oppose this legislation today. We consider there has to be a continuing balance of rights between tenants and landlords so that the principles of fundamental justice set out in the member's resolution regarding the Charter of Rights are preserved.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see you got my riding right.

The member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) has referred to my property rights resolution. I am glad he has referred to it and I hope he will support it when I get the opportunity to present it. As he knows, we have to wait for our opportunity as far as the ballot is concerned, and mine does not come up for a while. I imagine when it comes up he will support it with all the strength and force of speech he can mount.

We have no difficulty with supporting this bill. We have a number of concerns with it, but I will be supporting the private member's bill, as the member for Bellwoods has indicated. I am sure a number of members of my caucus will also be supporting it.

I was glad to see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in the House earlier. I notice he left a few minutes ago when the member for Oriole started to speak, but at least he did show enough interest to be in the House for part of the time. That is something that does not always happen on the part of the cabinet ministers, so I want to take this opportunity to single out that minister and commend him for at least being here when the bill was introduced.

It is particularly noteworthy and important for me, being the critic for Municipal Affairs and Housing, because we seldom see the ghost minister of that ministry. I should not say too much, because I expect he will be in estimates tonight. He is never in the House for legislation and never in committee for legislation, so I did want to commend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for his presence earlier.

Mr. Philip: He just walked out.

Mr. Epp: No, he walked out when the member for Oriole started to speak and he has not had a chance to come back here, but I notice his books are still on the desk, so perhaps he will come back.

As we have indicated in times past with respect to similar pieces of legislation, we believe tenants who are often discriminated against by some of the legislation introduced in this House need a greater security of tenure. To that extent, we will be supporting this bill. We wish the bill had gone further, that it had incorporated some of the important principles my colleague introduced in Bill 53.

One aspect we cannot support is to turn our backs on the commitment this Legislature made to people who have built units since January 1, 1976. At that time, they were promised that if they were to build additional units, the new units would not come under rent review. I think it is an error in judgement, all of a sudden six or eight years later, to turn our backs on that and say that promise was good enough in 1976 but it is not good enough today.

How can we keep faith with people if today we tell those people we are going to make a promise, but tomorrow, if it is convenient, we are going to abrogate that commitment? I do not accept that approach and I hope nobody in this Legislature accepts that kind of approach.

One of things I wish this bill had dealt with -- and it has missed a number of things -- is the interest on deposits. As members know, tenants make a deposit for the last month's rent. Interest rates are running at about 12, 13 or 14 per cent -- the prime was 12 per cent the last time I read the chart -- and yet they get only six per cent on their deposits. Some greater amount, equal to the prime rate as it now stands, would be much more convenient and certainly more fair. I wish this bill had addressed that point.

The principle of a register would have been important had it been included in the bill, as it should be. It would let people know who occupied a unit in previous months and the amount of rent paid. I only hope the Thom commission, which is addressing some of these matters, gets on its horse and gets its hearings over with, so it can come forth with some substantial and meaningful recommendations. This is something we in our caucus are looking for.

Another matter, which I am sure my colleague the member for Parkdale is going to address, has to do with evictions. People are evicted for a number of reasons from various units: because the owners want to demolish the building they are in, because they want to convert it to condominiums, because they want to do substantial renovations, or whatever is the case. I think there has to be greater protection for tenants who have to move to other units.

It becomes particularly important when people cannot find a suitable unit. I want to draw the members' attention to this. It is why rent review is becoming increasingly important. It has been important for 10 years, but it is becoming even more important because of the lack of government action to try to clear up the low vacancy rate. I want to cite some examples of the vacancy rate statistics as given by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. They include all apartment buildings with six or more units. I recognize that buildings with five or fewer units are not included in this, but that does not make a substantial difference to the statistics.

In April 1984 there was a vacancy rate in Hamilton of 0.9 per cent. The figures for other cities were as follows: Kitchener, 0.7 per cent; London, 2.4 per cent; Oshawa, 1.5 per cent; Ottawa-Hull, which these statistics take into consideration, 0.3 percent; St. Catharines, 1 per cent; Sudbury, 0.9 per cent; Thunder Bay, 1.4 per cent; and Toronto, 0.9 per cent. We can go on and on through the various areas.

If we include new completions, or those that have been completed very recently, we may be able to add a couple of units to each area. For instance, Toronto, rather than being 0.9 per cent, all of a sudden becomes one percent. We can add one tenth per cent on average because of new completions. Then we will get a figure that is probably a little more accurate. Irrespective of that, we find a vacancy rate of around one per cent, maybe slightly less or slightly more in some areas.

This is where part of the problem lies. People do not have an opportunity to choose where they are going to move to. It is not a matter of moving across the street to another vacant unit. It is sometimes a matter of moving completely out of their jurisdiction or their municipality. Not only do people have no opportunity to move within their immediate area, but also they have to redecorate and pay expensive moving costs. Some of these costs are going to have to be covered.

We support this bill. We wish it had gone further. Irrespective of that, we do not have any difficulty with it.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It is not only a bill to protect tenants, but also a bill to protect communities. A number of years ago, under pressure of municipal councils, this government accepted the concept that a council of elected representatives and its community had a right to set certain standards and to prevent conversion of rental accommodation to condominiums.

4 p.m.

In so doing, the government accepted the principle that people in the community and their representatives could best make decisions affecting that community, and they could protect themselves from having outsiders come in with the millions of dollars that some of these developers have and change the nature of that community by throwing people out of the community.

When one municipality, the city of Toronto, took this principle to its logical conclusion, stating there are many ways of converting -- not just the traditional way of conversion to condominiums but also conversion by demolition -- and introduced Bill Pr13, suddenly we were faced with the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) and the Attorney General stating we could not interfere with the property rights of the owners of those buildings.

If this government thinks it is consistent to interfere with the property rights of those buildings in one instance, why is it so wrong and so immoral in another instance? There is a certain inconsistency in that.

What about the rights of those people who have built those communities? What about the rights of those seniors in Wilson Heights who have built synagogues and churches, who have given their volunteer time and hard-earned money to build those kinds of institutions that make a community worth while? Do they not have more rights than some outside developer who wants to come in on a frontal attack with a bulldozer and plough down the housing those people have lived in for so many years?

If one looks at those communities, if one meets with those people -- and I have met with many of them and with their lawyers and advisers, people like Sean Goetz-Gadon and so many others who have worked so closely with them over the years -- one will see we are not talking about the rights of tenants versus the rights of a businessman landlord in that community.

Invariably what we are talking about is the rights of people in the community versus those of an outsider, namely, a developer who comes in, buys up a building for the cheapest price he can get and then bulldozes it down to create something that is going to make a large profit for him.

We are talking about the rights of a community such as Metropolitan Toronto to stop the ghettoizing of this community with all the problems that come from ghettos. Ghettos mean the rich will live in one part of the community and the poor and the middle class will live in another.

Unless we come to grips with the right of a community to stop that kind of thing, we are talking about a community that is divided along ghetto lines. It has happened in jurisdictions in Europe, and it has happened in North America.

We are not talking just about tenants' rights. We are talking about community rights. We are talking about the rights of a local council. We are talking about local autonomy. These are all things to which the Tories like to give lipservice, but when it comes to demonstrating it in a concrete form, they do not follow up.

I would have found the remarks of the member for Oriole somewhat humorous if they had not been so serious. He talked about the great job the Attorney General did in bringing in legislation to protect tenants in those instances where a percentage interest was provided as a way of selling a building or converting it to a phoney condo.

It is very interesting, given his sense of ethics -- and he is so pompous about his ethics all the time -- that he did not say anything about the ethics of the Attorney General in stealing my bill word for word.

When I introduced the bill, I told everybody in this House and in press statements that it was an interim bill to solve an immediate problem, namely, the legal problem caused by Madeiros versus Fraleigh, and that we would have to go further than that. It was simply a bill to protect the people who were being evicted in places like 41 Lake Shore Drive, 40 apartments; 22 Allanhurst Drive, 46 apartments; 30 Allanhurst Drive, 59 apartments; 785 Brown's Line, 50 apartments; and several others involving another 150 or so apartments in the lakeshore area.

I said it was simply interim legislation. Then the government plagiarized that bill word for word and said, "This is the end-all and the be-all, and the tenants now can go to court any time they want."

We have seen how tenants can be intimidated. I can tell members about the senior in Lakeshore who finally decided to move after repeatedly having lawyers rapping at her door with eviction notices and soon. She finally said, "I am going to go into government-owned and government-sponsored housing because I cannot put up with the hassles." If that is what this government wants, if the rights of that senior are not important to this House, then members opposite should not vote for this bill; they should not support it.

On the other hand, if the rights of the senior who had lived in that building for more than 20 years are important, so is this bill. I mean her right to remain independent, to remain in a privately owned apartment building in that community and not have to go off prematurely to a seniors building at considerable expense to the taxpayers. Surely her rights are more important than the rights of some outsider who wants to go into a building or who, in this case, uses a loophole in the legislation. The government said when it introduced the Condominium Act it would stop this kind of thing.

I am pleased the member for Waterloo North is in support of the bill. I found his comments about the bill not going far enough rather interesting. He is a member who censures my colleague the member for Bellwoods for not incorporating Bill 53 in his bill.

Bill 53 was introduced by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), who must have spent some time with the Attorney General -- he probably went to college with him; I do not know. That bill is a mirror copy, word for word, of the one I introduced. The only difference is that instead of amending the old Planning Act as I did -- because mine was introduced some time ago -- he amends the new Planning Act. Otherwise it is word for word.

When I went to university, one got an F if he did that kind of thing, if he did not put in his ibids and op cits in giving credit for places where he stole ideas. Worse still, if one stole a sizeable chunk, such as the whole document, one got kicked out of the college. Here they praise people who do that. I thought this House was supposed to be a House of honourable gentlemen.

The member for Waterloo North also says this bill does not go far enough because it does not deal with the issue of buildings built after January 1, 1976. During the minority government in 1977, when the Liberals had an opportunity to include those buildings, they voted against them; they sold out the tenants. Now they have this death-bed kind of conversion on behalf of extending rent review to those buildings occupied after January 1, 1976.

Where were the Liberals when they could have made a difference under the minority government and voted with us? Those buildings then would have come under that legislation, and we would not have needed to include that in this bill by the member for Bellwoods. The member for Waterloo North would not then have had to talk about it.

I am asking that members seriously consider this bill. We are talking about the right to preserve communities. We are talking about the right of seniors to grow old with dignity and to remain independent in their own apartments, in the places where they have lived. We are not talking about interfering with the rights of owners. We are talking about interfering with outsiders who otherwise would have the right to come in and destroy a community. I ask that all members support this bill.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. I think it goes without saying that Bill 78 is without a doubt one of the most highly charged political pieces of legislation we have before us. I say that fully cognizant of the fact that it expands on five or six very major and basic tenants' rights. However, the honourable member who proposes it is equally well aware, as are all members of this House, that in an issue as highly charged and as sensitive as this one there is not simply one side.

I, like my friend the member for Oriole, have no difficulty with the member bringing forth such a piece of legislation. It lays out some very exacting conditions for change, some very exacting new protections of what he calls economic tenure for tenants. But equally I do not think he would want to suggest to this House that in the fullness of time it is his firm belief an issue of this complexity has only one side.

Trying to find the balance is what legislative opportunity in a parliament is all about. I realize we have something of an adversarial system where there are people on a variety of sides of the issue. My respect for the member for Bellwoods is not diminished by the fact that he comes forth with a very strong position in support of one side, although it might have been more appropriate for him to have done that in the form of a resolution rather than a bill. He also knows that bringing forward a bill with no regard whatsoever for the other side of the issue will not likely have the same measure of success that a resolution might.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Send it out to committee and bring in the other side.

Mr. Robinson: It is not the responsibility of the government to send it out to committee and bring in the other side. The legislation is supposed to bring in the other side. The legislation is supposed to --

Mr. R.F. Johnston: We do that all the time with the government's one-sided bills. This one can do it the other way.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Robinson: In addition to the fact that the bill obviously provides no balance between the interests of the parties in this matter, it further complicates the already sometimes strained relationship between landlords and tenants. It creates new opportunities to enhance that conflict through mechanisms which in many instances, rather than establishing new ways of resolving disputes, simply set up new ways of airing disputes and bringing them to the forefront.

It also goes some distance to diminishing further economic incentive to put new housing stock on the market. We have to be cognizant that is a very real part of the issue as well. It is not enough to say tenants' rights are paramount. The member for Bellwoods concluded his remarks by asking whether the rights of landlords will always supersede the rights of tenants. I do not look at it as being a question of the supremacy of one over the other.

In the past number of years, and its record is obvious, the government, with goodwill from all sides of the House, has gone a great distance to maintain and achieve a new balance in this kind of relationship. That very delicate balance, from a fulcrum that is always shifting, would be seriously and singularly eroded by the conditions of Bill 178 in hand and nothing else.

Striking the balance in that relationship is a difficult task. It is a relationship that, through changes and new provisions, we have been trying very hard to prevent from taking on more of an adversarial role, characterized perhaps by mutual suspicion or in some cases getting all the way down to acrimony and even more unpleasant things than that.

There are groups and individuals who argue there is no balance in the system between the rights of landlords and tenants, but not everyone who approaches members of this House would say the balance is solely in the hands of the landlords. There are those among landlords, and there is no reason to deny they exist, who consider that the government's and the House's attempts and movements towards bringing in greater protection for tenants over a long period of time in a great variety of areas are creating an economic imbalance and hardship on the other end.

No one accepts either of the poles. No one in this House accepts that there can be instant solutions to the problems. It comes down to the matter of being able to express goodwill and to find that very sensitive centre point.

The bill also does nothing to find new ways to encourage landlords to participate with their tenants. Tenants' rights are very popular and very important, particularly in the metropolitan areas as we know them today, but they are hardly new. A friend of mine who died a number of years ago was a tenants' activist in Scarborough before it was popular to have anything to do with tenants' rights. It was through his efforts almost exclusively, going all the way to the Supreme Court of Ontario, that he secured for tenants the absolute right and privilege not to face any possibility or consequence of eviction if they involved themselves in tenants' organizations. He stood in the vanguard of that.

He stood evicted until the Supreme Court overturned his landlord's decision, and he was one of the true pioneers. He is now gone, but he also recognized that there had to be a balance. There have to be people working on both sides of the issue to provide a society where free enterprise can prosper as well as individuals, who now, as the member for Bellwoods says, can count upon tenancy as a way of life for a considerable number of years, if not through their lifespan.

It is also difficult to support the bill when one recognizes that the low vacancy rate is not prejudiced and balanced only on considerations of interest rates and other economic pressures. It is fair to say that rent control in Ontario has gone some considerable distance, good, bad or indifferent, in turning some potential capital investment away from the construction of new apartment units.

I will not insult the intelligence of my friend the member for Bellwoods by going through the pyramiding of what happens when new rental accommodation is built, how people move from one to the other and eventually there is a levelling off at the bottom. The bottom is always rising. The lowest level of accommodation is always rising, although not necessarily in leaps and bounds. However, if we prevent, discourage and provide considerable disincentive to any sort of new rental accommodation being provided, we will remain with exactly the same kind and amount of rental accommodation stock we now have. By the natural process of the situation, some of it will deteriorate. That is part of the situation we find before us today.

There is also a school of thought that says a lot of people would not necessarily want to have members of the third party as their landlords. I suppose we could have some fun and point to Mr. Spencer, who is a member of that party. For the record, he was the one who wanted to have more of an increase than rent review allowed. I know he applied for a hearing. Was it 99 per cent more he wanted?

Mr. McClellan: There are certain landlords we do not want as members of the third party.

Mr. Robinson: I see. I am sure their clientele, their broader philosophical constituency --

Mr. McClellan: We all have our crosses to bear.

Mr. Robinson: We do indeed. We will not look around to see where they may be at any point.

Mr. Ruston: You have Yuri over there. You have John.

Mr. Robinson: I hear my friend the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston). I see where he is pointing, and I do not know who is down there right now. I see my friend the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard). I am sure he is not speaking about my friend the member for Northumberland, in any event.

The point is that even among those who would strive to provide in a real and philosophical way that measure of service to a greater constituency, there are those from within who would find some way to satisfy the needs of their free-enterprise spirit. That goes to show that free enterprise, no matter where one looks, is still very viable.

There is the section of Bill 78, offered by the member for Bellwoods, that allows the right of first refusal for purchase. That was probably developed as a result of that particular landlord who, recognizing that a rent increase of that amount might not be entirely saleable or fair in terms of his own building, went back and offered to sell the building. Unlike what the bill provides, he offered to sell it for a considerably greater amount a short time after he had purchased it for a lesser amount.

I was not going to talk about that. I would not, except that I know the members of the third party would have been discouraged had I not made at least some mention of it.

I have a sensitivity for tenants. Tenants make up a good measure of my riding. Tenants' associations are active and vital. I work with them and support them. I have organized one or two in the past number of years. They work because both sides are prepared to work.

If it comes down to a point, either legislatively, on the street or in the halls of an apartment building, where there cannot be an attitude of equity and fairness between one party and the other, then the system we have before us, which we have finely tuned and balanced over nearly 10 years now, will not only have been for naught but the future of landlord and tenant negotiations and dealings will also be in even more dire straits in the future.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 78 to establish security of tenure for tenants. However, it is unfortunate that we have to introduce various bills on a piecemeal basis to establish rights for tenants.

We were given assurances in 1982, as members know, by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that the Thom commission he established would address itself to the major loopholes in the Landlord and Tenant Act. We are still waiting today, in 1984, for a comprehensive report. The latest we have been given is some sort of promise that, indeed, the Thom commission will probably report this year, but we will not hold our breath.

Most of us who support this legislation and support tenants' rights appeared before the Thom commission and expected the commission's report would address the main concern of tenants, namely, fairness and justice for those who rent. The government members speak today of balancing the rights of landlords and the rights of tenants, but what comes through loud and clear is that the majority of rights are falling on one side of the track and there is little in which to take comfort for tenants on the other side.

We believe we should have inalienable rights for tenants and they should be enshrined without ever hearing a rumour on the government side that it will reduce the six per cent rent control and will take away, day by day, some of the rights fought for so justly and for so long that guarantee security of tenure for tenants.

There should be one inalienable right for tenants and that is the six per cent ceiling on their rents. A rent registry is necessary because it is estimated by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations that even today rents of 70,000 units are raised illegally each year. That speaks to the problem of the six per cent ceiling and to the necessity of guaranteeing that these rights, and especially this right of a six per cent ceiling, not be whittled away.

Another very important right is the right tenants should have against anyone who wants to demolish their homes. As the member for Bellwoods has indicated, we are losing or have lost at least 1,400 units to the demolition ball in the city of Toronto. When we are looking at the larger picture of why and how dernolitions take place, we find the statistics are much higher. The statistics are that we are losing 13,000 units to conversions to nonresidential use and also, of course, to demolitions.

This is an important item because the right must be given to every municipality to ensure that tenants who pay their rents and who have established a home in their apartments for a long time have a right to not be kicked out by someone who suddenly comes in and purchases the building.

There is another inalienable right and that is the right of tenants to speak out against conversions. Members will realize that I introduced Bill 51 and Bill 52 in 1983. Our own area of Parkdale has been severely affected by changing some of the apartment units to accommodations of a much more luxurious type, specifically hotel-like accommodation.

Bill 51 and Bill 52, as I introduced them, sought to stop such practices. We know there are many landlords who are good landlords, but -- and this is why this specific bill addresses one of the major problems -- there are also some landlords who are trying to gouge and some who are not very conscientious in exercising their prerogative to establish good relations with tenants.

On Jameson Avenue in Parkdale, for example, we have had hundreds of units converted to luxury accommodation, or at least to hotel-like accommodation. Tenants had no rights and that is why these piecemeal bills have to be brought before the minister almost on a daily basis, in order to maintain some of these rights. That is why hundreds of tenants were literally thrown out onto the street because some person decided he wanted to make a higher profit and was not very much concerned about the whole question of maintaining a great and stable community.

The repercussions are very grave for a community that is suddenly faced with demolitions and conversions. The repercussions are great because they affect everyone in the community. They affect the garbage pickup. They affect the amount of noise. A greater number of cars come into the area. A different clientele comes in because hotel accommodations are rented to people who do not have a long-term commitment to the community. They affect children. Some of the schools will be empty because good tenants with families have moved out to make room for those who come in for only a few weeks.

This legislation is good, but when it goes before committee, as I hope will be the case in this specific instance, I also hope my amendments will be incorporated, because they speak as well to the security of tenure for tenants.

In short, we will support Bill 78 because it addresses itself to one of the major problems for tenants, namely, the right to a secure home.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak. I have six minutes, do I, even though the last member did not use all his time?

The Acting Speaker: A little less now.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you. Five and counting.

I am pleased to stand up and support Bill 78, and I am sure most members of the House, in spite of a couple of the speeches we have heard from the other side, will want to do so as well in view of the principles involved in the bill and in order to get it out to committee. There we can bring in the other side, as the member for Oriole and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) suggested, and give the impoverished landlords of Ontario a chance to come in and talk about the need to have property rights at least balanced with human rights.

Let us give them that opportunity. Let us not have the member for Bellwoods bring just one side of the issue here, according to which the basic human right to secure shelter should somehow transcend the rights of somebody who wants to invest in property to make money. Please let the other side have an opportunity to make those arguments of balance in committee. I beg members to allow this to go out to committee and not let it be held up here at this time.

The kinds of things we have heard today have made me think that members opposite must have been off looking at the Magna Carta, which is now coming across the waters to us, and they probably believe it is the be-all and end-all of the expression of the need for basic tenants' rights and the removal of a feudal system.

Mr. McClellan: No scottage without lottage.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Scottage without lottage? I will ask you about that later.

I was delighted to hear that the members of the Liberal Party support this legislation, although they feel, of course, as we know from their voting in the past, that tenants who spend $750 a month on rent should not be covered by rent review. We heard reiterated today that there should be no end to the free profiteering on buildings built after 1976, some of them eight years old now, and that the balance would be improper if we were to say to those landlords at this point, "Maybe you should come under rent control."

I am disappointed that there was no acceptance of those ideas by my friends in the Liberal Party, but at least they support the motion and want it to go out to committee so their progressive amendments can be brought into this and the bill can be expanded.

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking very facetiously, as I am sure you have understood. It would show in Hansard, at any rate; I would not even have to explain that at this point.

What I am trying to get at is that things are still really out of whack in Ontario with respect to basic rights. Property rights, the right to profit from the acquisition and ownership of property, are much stronger in this province than not just the basic right of tenants to have secure housing but the basic right to shelter.

4:30 p.m.

The basic right to shelter is not a right in Ontario; it is a privilege. There are many people in this province who do not have access to shelter. We know that. We have people who are living on the streets. We have people who are living in hostels that we would not consider to be adequate shelter; they have been living there for years. The last I heard was that there are in excess of 18,000 families and more than 9,000 seniors on waiting lists for Ontario Housing. They do not even have a basic right to shelter.

In bringing in his legislation, the member for Bellwoods is saying there are ways of helping overcome that and making it a right and not just a privilege in society, by taking away some of the rights of landlords or, if you will, by putting some rights into the hands of tenants so they will be able to protect themselves.

It is a myth, part of the old Horatio Alger kind of myth of Canada and the North American society that we can all become millionaires, that we will all have the capacity to own houses. We will not have the capacity to own houses.

Mr. Ruprecht: Spencer showed us how to do it.

Mr. McClellan: Spensieri helped him along.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure the member for Yorkview could help, and others as well.

Mr. Williams: He said Spencer, not Spensieri.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The point I am making is that to own a house in a place like Metro Toronto at the moment, one has to earn about $40,000 a year. We all know the average industrial wage is around $22,000 a year. A large number of people in this province do not have the capacity to own a house; they will be tenants for the rest of their lives.

Putting aside for a minute the myth that somehow tenancy is a temporary aberration in people's lives and not something that will be their state for the entire period of their lives, let us look at their basic rights to secure shelter. The member for Bellwoods has articulated, and I do not need to repeat, all the means a landlord has of making that tenancy insecure rather than secure.

What he has brought forward are a number of recommendations that would stop landlords from playing games with renovations, where they throw people out on the street; from playing games with demolition so they can make extra profits and take away the basic housing those people should expect to be theirs; from playing games with guaranteeing that people who are in buildings that have been built since 1976 will have some security of tenure and not be forced out because of the rent gouging which is taking place. There are a number of things we should be looking at in terms of means of addressing it.

What we are talking about, I say to the member for Oriole, is the fact that those rights are not here. He gave a list of progression, some kind of recognition of the political power of tenants. In my riding, tenants are almost in the majority; they must be almost close to that in his own riding at this point, I would think. Inevitably, as the member for Bellwoods has said, there will be some kind of recognition in this House of these rights and that they are not just privileges.

What the member for Bellwoods is suggesting now, in 1984, is that it is time for us to look at the question of basic rights of tenants. What is the balance? Why should the right to profit from property have seniority and greater power in our society than the right to be secure in the place one is living in, whether, as the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) has said, it is a senior citizen, a family benefits mother who cannot afford to live in private housing any more because of the amount of money she is receiving, or whomever it may be?

Now is the time to do it. Let us send this bill to committee. Let us have the kind of debate there that this bill deserves. Let us bring in the landlords of Ontario to tell me and the member for Bellwoods that we are out to lunch on this. Let us at least get the debate going. Let us not live back in the 12th and 13th century with the Magna Carta; that is not enough for the tenants of Ontario.

PAROLE PROCEDURES

Mr. Eves, seconded by Mr. Barlow, moved resolution 26:

That given the Canadian public is growing increasingly concerned about the parole system in Canada, and given the need to maintain public confidence in our system of justice, this House urges the government of Canada to review and reform the Parole Act and to consider increasing the minimum period of time required to be served by an inmate to be eligible for parole or for day parole to one half of the sentence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I remind the honourable member, having made this motion, you have up to 20 minutes for a presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for final wrapup.

Mr. Eves: Mr. Speaker, about three years ago there was a man by the name of Ralph Power who used to spend a lot of his free time in downtown Toronto. Members of this assembly may well have passed Ralph Power on the streets of Toronto and we probably would not have given him a second glance. We would have absolutely no reason to suspect that Ralph Power was a psychopath who spent his time in downtown Toronto stalking beautiful women. In all probability, we would not have been able to foretell that a short time later the same Ralph Power would be found not guilty by reason of insanity of the brutal murder of fashion model Sheryl Gardner.

In Kingston about the same time, Duane Edward Taylor raped and murdered April Morrison, who was two years old. While Power and Taylor were venting their own murderous sickness in Ontario, on the other side of the country in British Columbia young children were disappearing. Later, a horrified country learned that Clifford Robert Olson had mercilessly slaughtered 11 children in British Columbia. In Hamilton, in March 1983, a 54-year-old man, whom a judge later described as almost helpless, was kicked and beaten to death by a 20-year-old named John Baddley.

These events are widely separated in terms of time and the places in which they occurred, but they do have a number of things in common. First and foremost, these incidents I refer to all involve brutal and senseless crimes that caused the death of innocent people. Second, all those innocent people fell victim to criminals who had been released from prison before they had served the full sentence imposed on them by the courts. Power and Taylor, for example, were out of jail under mandatory supervision. So was Clifford Olson. Baddley was out on parole.

Incidents of this type, and there are far too many of them reported across the country, have angered Canadians and have led them to question the viability and, in some cases, even the sanity of the procedures we use to handle violent offenders.

Most recently, the case of four-time rapist and murderer Wayne Clifford Borden, who, while on a temporary absence pass from Laval maximum security institution, managed to escape from his unarmed art instructor escort, has served to focus national public concern about all the elements of prison release procedures and the parole system itself.

In Ontario, the release of Richard Stephenson day parole after he had served only 10 months of a three-year sentence for manslaughter has caused considerable public outrage. Many concerned members of the public and, indeed, of this House, question the fairness of, and the degree of safety afforded to the public by, our national parole system.

It is because of incidents of the type I have referred to previously, the perception that such incidents are occurring more frequently throughout the country and the fact that I share with many of my constituents the view that the national parole system is no longer serving the public interest, that I am seeking the support of the members of this House for the resolution I have placed before it today. I believe this resolution deserves the support of the members.

I hope it will enjoy the support of members of all three political parties for three major reasons.

First, I believe it is imperative that this House send a very strong signal to the citizens of Ontario, our law enforcement and judicial agencies and to the criminals in our society that we in this assembly are not prepared to tolerate revolving-door justice; that we in this House will support whatever measures are necessary to keep the public safe from violent offenders and to ensure the punishments imposed by the courts, through due process of law and having full regard for the rights of the offender, are properly and fully executed.

Second, I believe it is important that the federal government be made to recognize the concern about this issue and that support for parole reform is extensive, broad-based and not likely to dissipate. With all due respect, the federal government's record of rapid response to public concerns in this area has not been a good one. Let us consider, for example, how the federal government has handled the mandatory supervision issue.

4:40 p.m.

The mandatory supervision program was introduced in 1970 and is quite distinct and separate from the parole system. Under the mandatory supervision program, a federal inmate, murderers excepted, is released from prison after serving two thirds of his sentence with time off for good behaviour. The prisoner serves the remaining third of his sentence on the street under the program of mandatory supervision, by law. The National Parole Board, the body best able to assess the risks involved in early release, has absolutely no say in this process except for setting the conditions which must be met during the period of supervision.

As long as the inmate qualified for remission, he qualified for release under the program. Unless he had been classed a dangerous offender, which must have been done at the time of his sentencing, the law requires his release. There is no discretion. This program had the effect of putting some very dangerous people out on the streets. After all, those inmates released under the mandatory supervision program were inmates who were unable to qualify for parole. For instance, the National Parole Board repeatedly turned down mass-murderer Clifford Olson's request for parole, yet could do nothing to prevent his release under mandatory supervision.

The mandatory supervision program in Canada has been the object of controversy since its introduction in 1970. The Canadian public, if not the Canadian government, had the good sense to recognize that little good could come out of this. They were rightfully suspicious of a program that would put an inmate from a maximum security prison back into the community without requiring a single piece of evidence of rehabilitation or reform on the part of the inmate.

Of course, the public's worst fears and expectations have been realized. The federal government's own figures show that in an average year nearly 50 per cent of prisoners released under mandatory supervision will be back in jail before that period expires.

In 1980, the Solicitor General of Canada commissioned a committee to examine the mandatory supervision program. Its report, released in 1981, contains some very interesting and some very disturbing information. The committee found that prisoners released under the mandatory supervision program between 1975 and 1979 had committed almost 2,600 offences while under supervision. These were offences for which they were convicted and readmitted to prison.

Their crimes included 31 murders, 21 manslaughters, 11 attempted murders, 15 kidnappings, 25 rapes, 23 sexual assaults, 394 robberies and 737 break and enters, not to mention 98 narcotic violations. The program has been nothing short of a disaster. Canadian citizens and law enforcement agencies have been telling the federal government that for years, yet the program is still with us in 1984.

A few years ago the federal government tried "gating" prisoners on mandatory supervision, but that procedure was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada introduced Bill S-32 in 1982. Had it passed, this bill would have tightened the rules of mandatory supervision and given greater authority to the National Parole Board. However, the bill was not considered important enough to be passed before the parliamentary session ended last December.

Now the Solicitor General of Canada has introduced a new bill which he hopes to get through before June 29 when the federal House rises for this session. I would not like to think that some other member of this House will stand in his place 14 years from now to encourage the federal government to get on with the job of parole reform. The costs of delay are much too high. The federal government must proceed immediately with the review and reform of the Parole Act of Canada.

The third reason I have introduced this resolution is that I believe the parole system is not achieving the objectives for which it is designed and which it hopes to attain. Furthermore, I think the system is out of touch with the values and expectations of the majority of Canadian people, the very people the system is designed to protect.

The present parole system in Canada is relatively new, having been established in 1959, when it replaced the old ticket-of-leave system which had been in operation in Canada since 1898. I do not like to think we have to wait another 61 years before we reform the system again.

Anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the Canadian conditional release system, including parole, would be impressed most of all by its complexity, lawyers included. Often it is said that if the public had a better understanding of the parole system it would be more supportive of it. However, the legislation and regulations on day parole, various types of temporary absence passes and mandatory supervision releases appear to have been written to defy understanding, by any lay person for sure. From the point of view of the average citizen, some of the decisions of the parole board must also seem beyond any understanding or comprehension whatsoever.

If the legislation and regulations on parole are complex, the concept of parole itself is relatively straightforwad. In Canada, the parole system was established to achieve a number of goals. Parole is thought to be an effective method of achieving the rehabilitation of a parolee and his reintegration into society.

Parole is also a method of protecting the public. Parole allows for the release of the parolee under controlled conditions, subject to a set of rules that maximize his or her chances of pursuing a noncriminal life and allow for reincarceration should he or she violate the conditions of parole.

The parole system in Canada is governed by the Parole Act and by its regulations and is overseen and administered by the National Parole Board. As members know, the province has its own parole board. The Ontario Board of Parole has jurisdiction over all prisoners sentenced to a provincial institution, that is, for sentences of less than two years, and over any federal offender who happens to be transferred to a provincial institution by federal authorities.

The Ontario Board of Parole, however, is subject to the provisions and regulations of the federal Parole Act as set out in section 5 of that act. Furthermore, subsection 9(4) of that act says that the Ontario parole system cannot have any rules or regulations that are inconsistent with the federal act. In part II of the national regulations under the Parole Act, sections 27 to 36, the eligibility for parole and when people are eligible for parole under the Ontario system are set out. There is no latitude at all for the province to move unless the federal government moves first.

In reaching a decision on parole or day parole, the board under section 10(1)(a) of the act must consider these questions: Would the prisoner's release be an undue risk to society? Would the prisoner's rehabilitation be aided by parole? Has the prisoner derived maximum benefit from his term of imprisonment?

What about the victim? What about the gravity and severity of the crime? What about society's abhorrence and the deterrent effect?

Under the regulations to the act, specifically part I, section 5, an inmate is eligible for full parole after having served one third of his sentence. I suggest that the minimum be increased to one half. There are exceptions for life sentences and for inmates serving time for crimes of violence. In the latter case, subject to certain conditions, the eligibility period for full parole may be half the sentence or seven years, whichever is the lesser. I suggest that for crimes of that nature it be increased to at least two thirds or perhaps none at all in instances of repeaters.

Repeaters who are out on parole have a repetition rate. Some 50 to 90 per cent of those people commit other crimes and have to be reincarcerated for different crimes. It could also possibly be for first-degree murder.

The general eligibility conditions for day parole are set out in part I, regulation 9. To generalize, an inmate is eligible for day parole after he has served one sixth of his sentence. Part II of the regulations to the act establish similar parole eligibility conditions for the provincial parole boards, to which I have already referred.

The question is, has the parole system, based on the decision-making criteria I noted earlier and the eligibility conditions set out in the regulations, furthered the public interest and the ends of justice?

It would be an unsupportable exaggeration to claim the parole system is a total failure. It is not. Failures of the parole system are bound to be more newsworthy than successes and, compared to the travesty of mandatory supervision, the parole program appears to be a success.

The National Parole Board estimates that last year there were some 3,881 inmates on full parole and that 70 per cent of the paroles were successfully completed. As of last month, there were 1,520 prisoners on day parole. This program has historically enjoyed a very high success rate. Last year the Ontario Board of Parole effected a 77 per cent success rate with some 3,600 parolees. At the federal level, on average, less than 40 per cent of inmates get parole. At the provincial level, the average is 26 per cent.

4:50 p.m.

That covers the upside of the story. Now we should look at the downside. Between 1975 and 1979, inmates on parole in Canada committed 705 offences for which they were convicted and returned to jail. Parolees committed nine murders, nine manslaughters, 10 rapes, six kidnappings, and 123 armed robberies. Last year in Metro, according to Metropolitan Toronto Police, 40 per cent of robbery charges were laid against people who had either escaped from jail or were on parole, bail or temporary absence programs.

Police estimate Metro Toronto is the region which attracts 70 per cent of all the parolees in the province. In 1982, 60 per cent of bank robberies were committed by people either on parole or out under mandatory supervision. If we have a 70 per cent success rate, we also have a 30 per cent failure rate. The price society and the victims of society have to pay for the 30 per cent failure rate is very high indeed.

Finally, as the Attorney General of Ontario (Mr. McMurtry) noted in his letter to the Solicitor General of Canada on May 24, parole board decisions such as that made in the Stephens case can conflict with the intentions of the courts in laying a sentence and thus bring the entire system of justice into disrepute. This also raises serious doubts in the public mind as to the credibility and the integrity of the parole system.

I am convinced that the parole system has a viable role to play in our penal and justice systems. However, I am equally convinced the protection of the public must be the top priority. I am not so naive as to think we will ever build a perfect system, but I think we can build a better system.

As a first step, I would urge the federal government to increase immediately the general eligibility period for parole and day parole to one half of a sentence imposed by the courts. I simply do not expect the existing eligibility periods are adequate to serve either as a deterrent or to express society's total rejection of a crime, especially crimes of a more violent nature.

I appreciate that increasing the eligibility periods may serve to exacerbate the problem of overcrowding in jails which exists at some of our national and provincial institutions. However, easy parole does not represent a viable or legitimate answer to an overcrowding problem. Nothing more quickly undercuts confidence in the court system than to have sentences routinely altered by the parole board. The answer to the overcrowding problem lies not in easy parole, but in other approaches, such as non-institutional sentencing options for nonviolent offenders.

I would hope the federal government would undertake a review of the Parole Act and give consideration to the matter raised by the Attorney General. The Attorney General has suggested the Parole Act is seriously flawed and dangerously inadequate in that the criteria established in clause 10(1)(a) of the act do not include the factors I mentioned earlier, such as gravity of the offence, societal abhorrence and deterrents. These inadequacies would have to be addressed in any meaningful reform of the legislation.

Now would appear to be an opportune moment for the federal government to review and reform the federal Parole Act. Bill C-19 will significantly alter sections of the Criminal Code. The Solicitor General of Canada has issued new regulations on temporary absences, and legislation is in place to reform mandatory supervision, if and when it is passed.

It is my understanding the federal government intends to undertake a year-long review of the sentencing procedures in Canada. Surely in the midst of all the changes to all these matters which impact directly on the parole system, it would make sense for the federal government to review the Parole Act and the parole system itself.

In response to Ontario's Attorney General, the federal Solicitor General has only recently written to the attorneys general of the provinces, inviting them to participate in a review of corrections. Let us hope the meeting does occur. Let us hope his government will not take 61 years to undertake the second reform of the Parole Act.

Mr. Mancini: The member talks about taking time to do things. The member's party has been in office for 41 years.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address this resolution. I have no difficulty believing this resolution to review and reform the Parole Act has been tabled as a result of the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) falling prey to the provincial Attorney General's own rhetoric of the past month.

The Attorney General's emotional and irrational outbursts of late have certainly aided his goal of fanning public fears that thousands of violent criminals have been set loose on society without having been adequately punished. Unfortunately, his outbursts have done little to represent the true state of corrections in Canada. I welcome the opportunity to present some of the facts in this matter.

The image Canadians have of crime is that it is violent, far more violent than statistics indicate is the case. Only 68 per cent of all reported crime is violent. Less than 40 per cent of federal prison inmates are granted parole. Their release under various programs is granted only after careful assessment, and most of the inmates do not abuse the system. For both escorted and unescorted temporary absence programs, officials consider the inmate's conduct in prison and whether he would be a risk outside. There have been more than 67,000 releases under the program and in 99.6 per cent of those cases the inmates obeyed the term of their passes.

I believe I am speaking for the Liberal Party of Ontario in saying we are always willing to consider urging the government of Canada to review and reform existing legislation. The member for Parry Sound, in proposing this resolution, may not be aware that such a review has been arranged, although I believe he said he knew it was.

Last week the federal Solicitor General reintroduced legislation that would give the board control over the release of prisoners it considered dangerous but only if a judge agreed with its assessment. In a letter to the Attorney General, the Honourable Robert Kaplan wrote:

"As to your initiative to marshal provincial attorneys general to change the parole system, the federal government has already acted to obtain provincial input into corrections under federal law. I have written to all attorneys general to participate in this review of corrections, including parole, and I have been waiting to hear from you whenever you are ready."

Rather than wasting more of the taxpayers' money in calling for a review, which the Solicitor General of Canada is already doing, I suggest this House consider a review and reform of the provincial government's parole policies. It is time the Attorney General of Ontario got his own house in order. I refer to the 1981 publication, Parole Decision-Making in Ontario. It says:

"Of the select group of offenders whom the Ontario Board of Parole had rigorously examined for their suitability for release on parole, 24 per cent of these offenders had their parole revoked."

From the annual report of Minister of Correctional Services we see that 22 per cent of paroles granted in 1983 were unsuccessful, that is, 630 provincial prisoners violated their paroles, and 725 or 32 per cent of the paroles granted in 1982 were unsuccessful.

I would certainly vote for a call to review and reform policies of the federal parole board if they at all reflect the sorry state of the Ontario Board of Parole. I refer to recent questions raised about the constitutionality of the Ontario Board of Parole's method of operation. Provincial prisoners are released into the community unsupervised. In contrast, federal prisoners must be supervised while on parole.

While Ontario does not have a day parole program, it is possible for a prisoner to be released into the community immediately upon entering a provincial institution under the temporary absence program. Under the federal day parole, inmates are not eligible for parole until they have served one sixth of their sentence.

With respect to the suggestion that eligibility for parole be increased to one half the prisoner's term, I again find myself in a position of having to correct the distortions this government has used to try to dupe the public.

5 p.m.

Violent offenders are not the ones granted parole. Under the Parole Act, an inmate becomes eligible for parole after serving one third of his sentence except for inmates serving life terms for murder. Those convicted of first-degree murder are not eligible for 25 years and those convicted of second-degree murder have their eligibility determined by the sentencing judge. It must be not less than 10 years and not more than 25.

I had hoped this government would have stopped trying to scare the public into believing the federal parole board was not doing its job. I had hoped it would have decided to stop its blatant misrepresentation of the Stephens and Borden cases when it realized the public was not as naive as it had hoped. Since the Attorney General pays no heed to the federal Solicitor General's presentation of the facts of the case, and since he is more concerned about the media's response than the public's or the solicitors', let me quote the Toronto Star:

"Stephens was released because, with the exception of one incident, he does not have a violent past. Stephens was not considered a threat. His trouble was alcohol and the board wants to ensure he stays away from booze before he is considered for full parole."

A crucial element in the parole decision-making process is the question of whether the inmate will present an undue risk to the community. In Mr. Stephens's case, numerous members of the community of Meaford have supported his release on day parole through letters to my office. Mr. Stephens works in the federal day parole program in Meaford to support his family.

In the Borden case, the federal parole board was wrongly blamed for Borden's release when it had nothing to do with it. Borden was released on an escorted temporary absence pass granted at the discretion of the penitentiary warden. Had the board been consulted, it likely would have opposed Borden's release, as it did in 1981 and 1983 when it rejected his application for parole. Board members feared Borden might kill again. Each time, the board ordered that he wait the maximum two years before applying for parole again.

Mr. Eves: That is exactly why the Parole Act has to be changed: to give the parole board that discretion.

Mr. McKessock: This has nothing to do with the parole board. It did not have any right, nor did it release him. Borden was released because officials of the Correctional Service of Canada, the people who run Canada's prisons, said he was not an undue risk to society. They said he had previously been issued a successful day pass, had been well behaved and had undergone therapy for his sexual problems.

Again, if the government members insist on attempting to deceive the public by misrepresenting the facts around parole, I must caution them to examine the record of their provincial parole board. I refer to the numerous offences committed by provincial parolees, including a recent murder.

In conclusion, I will vote in favour of the resolution to review and revise the Parole Act. I urge the Attorney General to work constructively towards improving our correctional policies and, to paraphrase the words of the Honourable Bob Kaplan, "assist to inform the public as to the issues in this debate and not to continue to confuse the issues."

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the resolution, so much so that I am going to ask for unanimous consent to use both time allocations for my caucus and speak for 20 minutes. Would that be acceptable?

The Acting Speaker: I do not think there is 20 minutes for your caucus. If it comes around, you can take your chance then.

Mr. Breaugh: Whatever time would be left to my caucus; that is fine.

The Acting Speaker: I think you can have 10 minutes now, and we can see what happens if there is unanimous consent.

Mr. Breaugh: Put it up on the clock, whatever you want.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, before my colleague starts, I was wondering whether we would get a kick at the can here again.

The Acting Speaker: You will.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent is great, but this really means one member is going to speak twice on a resolution in the House with Mr. Speaker in the chair. I think that is rather far-reaching.

Mr. Breaugh: It is obvious I do not have unanimous consent.

The Acting Speaker: That is what I figured.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak in support of the resolution. I think there are some difficulties with it, but I do think the honourable member has identified an area where there are serious credibility problems in the public mind and where there is now, I am told, a review of many parts of the parole system by the federal Solicitor General. It is perhaps not exactly an outstanding resolution to have in front of us when a review is already under way. None the less, I understand his intent and I believe it is an intention we should pay some consideration to.

As someone who is an advocate of the parole system and an opponent of the current judicial system, I think there are problems in the public's perception around the whole area of parole. In my view, both in the courts and in the correctional institutions, we have missed, by a long shot, the mark we intended to hit.

I am reminded of several instances recently in my own political career where we have pointed out gross errors. I will begin by making some mention of the Ontario Board of Parole. Donna Clark, chairman of that board, wrote a rather remarkable letter to the standing committee on procedural affairs which was reviewing that agency.

When she was before the committee, we discussed temporary absence programs and things of that nature. She pointed out to the committee in correspondence subsequent to the hearings that some developments in the Ministry of Correctional Services may indicate that expanded use of temporary absence and not parole is a desired future direction as far as the ministry is concerned.

Many members of the committee expressed some concern about that. We were familiar with the temporary absence program, as it now runs; that is, in most of our provincial correctional institutions, people who have a job and people who would be faced with the disintegration of a marriage or of a career are able to retain their job while serving their sentence. They live in the institution and they go to work or to school during the day and report back at night. For the most part, there is not much fear that such a person would be involved in a serious crime.

None the less, to extrapolate that into a system, as she pointed out further on in her letter, the rules and regulations are being written by the Ministry of Correctional Services. It is not being done by a decision made in a court and not even by a minister rising in the House to state what new policies are, but by people who are not known to the public and not known to the members of the Legislature. The decisions would be made by senior civil servants within the Ministry of Correctional Services.

We felt that was not the intention of the program by a long shot. The committee recognized, and I recognize too, that one of the problems about parole, temporary absences, day programs and all that, is that there is an element there that a cynic could look at and say: "This is a really good way to empty the jails. This is a really cheap way to handle the sentences handed out by judges." That, of course, is a perversion of the parole system.

The member has put his finger on the fact that the media certainly pay a lot of attention to criminal acts committed by people on a variety of programs. Some are paroled, some are on day parole, some are on temporary absence, and some are on a multitude of programs the public neither knows about nor understands. I believe, therefore, that a review of the entire process is most appropriate. I do not believe any of this has much to do with how many days of a sentence one has served, whether it is a third, a half or whatever.

I see the flaws in other directions, and I want to move to those as quickly as I can. I am very much interested in and an advocate of groups such as the John Howard Society. It is not made up entirely of volunteers but is in part a volunteer program with professionals who do some counselling. I have a society in my community, for example, which is now counselling between 40 and 50 people a day. It is in no way, shape or form set up to handle such a heavy case load, which means counsellors often burn out after a short time.

The John Howard Society is experiencing some difficulty in retaining its case workers, even though they develop an invaluable expertise and perform an invaluable service to the community. The society is running programs which I believe are quite remarkable. Several ministers of the crown have come to town and said: "This is a very good program you have here. It is addressing some of the needs of people who have run afoul of the law."

5:10 p.m.

I am looking for a support system that ought to take such a program that works well in our community and is widely recognized as being a good program, but I see a support system that is shaky, to say the least. I am looking at programs of parole, which it seems to me have major administrative problems and which are not well thought out or carefully monitored programs.

In fact, what I am seeing are parole programs that are essentially vehicles for emptying the jails and lowering the cost of carrying out the sentences of the court. It seems to me that is such a perversion of the entire concept of parole that it ought to be, in gentle terms, reviewed substantially. I could speak in stronger terms, but parliamentary language will not let me.

I want to point out one final example of what I think is a real tragedy. Just before Christmas a young man entered my office and told me he had just been released from a federal prison. His version of his life was that he had run afoul of the law when he was 16 years old. He was charged with three counts of armed robbery and one of attempted murder. He served nine years in a federal penitentiary. He had refused voluntary parole, had refused mandatory parole, had served every day of his sentence and was turned out on the street. Clearly, he was a young man with troubles.

With some reluctance, he went to the John Howard Society and some counselling took place. He went to social services in the region of Durham and some assistance was offered. When he first appeared in my office, he said: "I cannot cope with it on the outside. The only thing I can do is get back on the inside where at least I know how to live. I am going to rob a bank. There are ways to rob a bank where you tell them you are coming to rob them and nobody will get hurt, and I will get put back in jail."

I tried to convince him that was not a good thing to do, as did several other people. He seemed to be succeeding in adjusting to life on the outside for a while, but shortly before Christmas, that is exactly what he did. He walked into a bank in downtown Oshawa. He held three people hostage with a knife. They called out the police intervention unit. After a while, they were successful in convincing him to release the hostages. He then ran out into the street and asked the police officers to shoot him. They did not. He is now before the courts.

I have followed this case with some interest. I wrote to the Ontario Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I wrote to the federal Solicitor General. I have had conversations with many people, and I am more disturbed now than I was before. I get three clearly different versions of this young man's history.

How can our judicial system make a sensible decision on anyone's career, life or sentence if we do not all operate from the same set of facts? The court report that was printed in the Oshawa Times gave me a clearly different version of this man's criminal record and his career in jail, much along the lines of what he told me, quite frankly. The Ontario Solicitor General gave me a different set of facts. The federal Solicitor General gave me a different set of facts. It appears we do not have the sweetest faint clue about what is going on with this individual.

In the meantime, somebody who knew he had a problem could not get help. Innocent people working in a bank were held at knifepoint for the better part of two hours. Even though there was no money to run programs at John Howard or anywhere else that would solve this man's problem, the moment he walked into a bank with a knife in his hand, money was no object. The police were all over the street. The intervention unit was there. We do not have a task force or an emergency task force in Oshawa, but we have its equivalent; it was there.

It seems to me the whole system is so wrong, so cockamamy that the basic premise of providing safety to our citizens and some assistance to those who are incarcerated is being thoroughly thwarted. The system has gone completely haywire. Whatever might cause a review of that system is worth while.

I would probably disagree with the member who introduced this resolution on almost everything he has put forward. I could find reasons to disagree with him on the resolution here, but I believe he has pointed his finger at a problem that has bothered our society immensely and needs review. I am aware that a partial review is under way. I wish he had included the Ontario Board of Parole in his resolution, but I believe the problem must be resolved.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of this resolution, which has been introduced by my friend and colleague the member for Parry Sound. I want to compliment him and some of the other members on the research that has been done into this issue.

There is no question the Parole Act needs review and reform. I was not particularly attracted by the remarks of the first speaker from the Liberal Party, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), who said we on this side are here to frighten the public, to raise scare tactics and see spooks all over. This is not the case at all.

There is a real concern out there and we are addressing that concern. There is huge press coverage of this almost daily. I have many clippings about it, but my clippings fall short of the number that have been written. There is a problem, and that is why it is very appropriate that at this time our member has brought this forward.

Early parole is a real concern. Over the years it has developed as a manifestation of our easy, soft society. It is time it was turned around. In my view, the pendulum has swung far too far towards minimal punishment for serious crimes.

I cannot believe the parole boards, as is implied in some news articles, do not have discretionary powers to make judgements and decisions, despite their guidelines -- if one would like to call them that; I think they are more likely rules. But in these high-profile cases, they are too easy on decisions, in my view, and I think this should be turned around.

Individuals who commit these crimes must understand that the offences carry punishment. It seems to me some of the discussion here indicates that while the individual has committed a crime he will not do it again; therefore there should be only a minimal sentence, if any.

It has always been understood by anyone, in family life and in any jurisdiction, that crime and wrongdoing carry punishment. The sentence should be appropriate to the crime and the board should demonstrate this in its decisions.

In my view and that of the public, this is not happening. As members may know if they read Orders and Notices, I have a resolution or bill dealing with this. It says that in instances such as miscarriages of justice, there should be compensation; but that really does not address the problem.

Mr. Wildman: Are you opposed to the death penalty? And what about Marshall?

Mr. Kennedy: It would not matter whether Marshall got five or 10 years if he did not do the crime. That is the issue there. That is not a part of the item here today.

Parole boards, I think, have misread the will of the people. The will of the people is rapidly changing towards wanting tougher rules. It has only surfaced because of these headlines that have been created by some of those persons granted early parole who get into further trouble. Individuals being granted easy bail has not been touched, but that is another thing. It too is something our own provincial courts could address.

There is a misapplication of justice as perceived by the public and, in fact, with the soft treatment of those who have committed crimes. For crimes of violence there should be a minimum mandatory jail term. This to me means no early parole.

Some members know I am an ardent supporter of victims' rights and measures that would improve the lot and treatment of victims within our enforcement and court systems. To a degree, the issue of victims' rights has become a trendy issue in our society. It is now practically required that any person who speaks about the need for reform of our judicial system make mention of the fact that victims are the orphans of our justice system.

There is no question that the attitude towards victims, especially victims of crime, is changing. Governments, law enforcement agencies, courts and the general public have become much more aware of and sensitive to the special needs of the victims of crime. However, we need to back them up with substantive measures that will guarantee the rights and needs of victims are recognized and taken into account throughout our entire legal process.

I support the resolution because I believe our early parole system and other criteria for conditional release undermine the deterrent value of sentences handed down by the courts. I agreed with the Attorney General when he argued in his letter to the Solicitor General of Canada that decisions by the parole board, such as that in the Stephens case, make meaningless the concept of victim justice. Both levels of government are trying to assure the public this is very much a legitimate source of concern to the administration of justice and to the courts.

5:20 p.m.

I am pleased the Solicitor General of Canada is having this reviewed. I only wish that in the interim he had powers to change the rules, guidelines or whatever it is the parole boards have so they would respond in what I would say is a more responsible way in these very serious cases.

I agree with the Attorney General when he observed: "To the extent that parole officials are unwilling to take into account the personal harm and suffering to the immediate victim and his family and the community's revulsion with the convicted person's conduct, the decisions of the courts with regard to sentencing will continue to be undermined. The serious initiatives at the provincial and federal levels with regard to victim justice will lack serious credibility."

Members may not be aware of the degree to which victims' rights movements have been inspired by incidents caused by failures in our parole and conditional release system. A growing number of Canadians are angered by a parole system that does not seem to have any awareness of the effect its decisions have on victims. I am not arguing for the abolition of the parole system by any means. However, if it is to attain its goals of reintegration and rehabilitation without exposing the public to undue risk, the system must be tightened up and the eligibility period increased.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out.

I think that sometimes in our concern for the rights of the accused and the rehabilitation of the criminal we lose sight of the fact that we can also quite properly speak of the need to rehabilitate the victim.

Mr. Wildman: Your time is almost over.

Mr. Kennedy: It is almost over.

Barbara Turnbull cannot apply for parole from her paralysis; the Muglia family cannot apply for a temporary absence pass from its grief and sorrow. The victim of crime is sentenced for life.

I want to speak for a moment on the opportunity for the victims of crime either to make an impact statement in the court that would be available to a parole board or to make such a statement directly to the board itself. I prefer the latter arrangement.

In addition to the parole system, I am attracted by the idea of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) that when people are sentenced or fined, a surcharge should be placed on their fines, and this money would be used to establish a fund that would assist victims of crime. This, of course, would not cost the public anything. I think a surcharge such as that has a great deal of merit, and I am more attracted to it all the time.

During the last year or so we have made significant progress towards that goal. However, no one would deny that we still have some distance to go. It is not in effect, and I would like to see it in effect.

This resolution gives us the opportunity to demonstrate to victims of crime that we are committed to achieving that goal and that, for the members of this House, one third justice or one sixth justice is not enough.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in speaking to the resolution introduced by the member for Parry Sound. First of all, let me put on the record very clearly that I am truly disappointed at the tone of his comments and at the tack he decided to take in discussing a very important issue that concerns all the people of Ontario and, indeed, of Canada.

It is not uncommon in this Legislature to see government members spend most of their time, for crass political reasons, talking about --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of privilege.

Mr. Eves: Mr. Speaker. on a point of privilege: The honourable member is imputing motives. With all due respect, I suggest that perhaps he would like to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Wildman: Since when were political motives something to be considered imputable?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was why we were here.

Mr. Mancini: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker; that is why we are here. I would like to continue.

Mr. Eves: Perhaps the question is one of intent; crass political motives.

Mr. Mancini: Before I was so rudely interrupted. I was talking about the crass political motives and crass political reasons of the member.

Mr. Speaker: I am just going to observe that "political motives" perhaps, but "crass"?

Mr. Mancini: Crass, Mr. Speaker, very crass. It is not uncommon to watch the members and the cabinet across the floor take whatever opportunity is available to shift debate from this Legislature to the House of Commons in Ottawa. They have become masters at that.

However, in a way the member for Parry Sound has done us a grand favour because this gives us the opportunity to talk about the Ontario Board of Parole and the sad shape the parole board is in.

The Ontario Board of Parole is in such sad shape that the chairman of the parole board, Donna Clark, wrote to the standing committee on procedural affairs to inform it by letter, signed by her own hand, that as far as she was concerned we should consider sunsetting the Ontario Board of Parole because its responsibilities were being usurped on a regular and consistent basis by what is referred to as a temporary absence program.

It is not the Ontario Board of Parole that is deciding who should leave Ontario correctional institutions and be put out on the streets; it is civil servants in the background whom we do not know about. We do not know their names. We do not know their experience. We do not know the responsibilities they hold. As Donna Clark told us, we only know that there is a feeling and a movement within the Ministry of Correctional Services that it will from now on decide and has been deciding who should go from the correctional institution to the street and back into public life.

I find that situation atrocious. When the member for Parry Sound was expounding on his ideas about parole-this and parole-that, I asked him why it escaped him entirely and he did not find the occasion to make one single comment on the difficulties being experienced by the Ontario Board of Parole. I really find that surprising. As I said earlier, the reason is that the main intention of this resolution is crass political politics.

Mr. Ruston: Planned by Roy McMurtry.

Mr. Mancini: Planned by the Attorney General. There is not a member in this Legislature who would favour putting hardened criminals back on the street without supervision and without proper permission from the parole board. There is not a single member on any side of the House who would favour such a system.

5:30 p.m.

What we are seeing here today is a cute way of once again shifting the political discussion from Queen's Park to Ottawa. Guess who is leading the charge? It is our friends across the floor doing that instead of working to improve what they have jursidiction over, instead of working to improve the Ontario Board of Parole which is utterly confused because they have had their responsibilities usurped from them. We hear not a word from the member for Parry Sound or from the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), who is trying to make a career out of attacking parolees.

Robert Kaplan aptly pointed out in his letter to the Attorney General that the Solicitor General of Canada does not have the right under law to overrule the parole board. That is exactly the way it should be. We do not want people in politics to make these decisions, for the simple reason they are available and suspect to political pressure.

That is the way these guys over here operate. They would love for all their ministers to be able to make all kinds of political decisions they have no right to make.

I have two and a half minutes left and I just want to touch on one other point that bothers me to no end.

The crown attorneys appointed by this government are always trying to expedite a case by wheeling and dealing with the accused's lawyer so the accused will plead guilty to a lesser crime. I have two particular cases from my constituency --

Mr. Ruston: Plea bargaining.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, it is called plea bargaining.

I have two particular cases from my constituency where the crown attorneys, appointed by this shabby government that needs to be defeated, plea bargained. One involved a murder and the other case involved the sexual abusement of three girls aged 10 to 12.

The only thing these crown attorneys know how to do is wheel and deal and plea bargain. That is one of the most difficult areas in our justice system that we must attack. We must convince crown attorneys that when there is evidence, they must use this evidence to get the maximum sentence. People should not be getting off almost scot-free because the crown attorneys are not doing the job they should be doing.

We have two points of discussion the government should be interested in: The work of the crown attorneys who are not, in my view, up to par; and the Ontario Parole Board which is in complete chaos. Never mind all these pious comments about Robert Kaplan. The government has a big job to do right here. It has lots on its plate.

Let the government in Ottawa do its job and be responsible. The government of Ontario should not give up its responsibility for a cheap headline, which is the favourite trick of the Attorney General.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I regret the tone the member has chosen to use to speak about this resolution.

Of course, there is a great deal of anger and concern and some sentences handed down in the courts in recent months have been very disturbing.

Recently, there was the case of the apparently senseless killing of somebody in Mississauga outside a tavern. The person who was responsible and found guilty was given a light prison sentence and was out on the streets again within a year.

The reason the accused was back on the streets so quickly was not because the parole system was unduly lenient, but because the sentence was out of proportion. It was far too light in relation to the crime when the crime was unprovoked, when there was no indication of any action by the innocent victim. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They got mugged, beaten up and killed.

Like everybody else, I share a concern when that kind of thing happens, but I am also concerned that traditionally there has been in corrections a strong desire to try to ensure rehabilitation and not just vengeance takes place. The tone of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and perhaps of other members participating in the debate is one of calling for vengeance and vengeance alone.

I ask myself what good that is really going to do. After a crime has been committed, after somebody has been hurt, killed or whatever, the vengeance on its own does not do a heck of a lot to restore to wholeness someone who has been damaged or injured for life, to restore to life someone who has been killed. It does not do that. Obviously, the criminal justice system and the system of law enforcement should do their best to try to prevent crime from taking place.

One way of preventing crime from taking place is rehabilitation, so people who have been incarcerated do not use prisons as a finishing school in order to graduate, as it were. They start with petty crime and spend a bit of time in the regional detention centres. They then go on to an offence for which they get three or four years. That puts them through the equivalent of high school. Then they get a 10-year sentence. That is like going to get a PhD in criminal activity. I am afraid that is too often the case these days.

My niece in Kingston is involved with Bridge House, which is an effort to provide reasonably priced accommodation and counselling for the spouses of prisoners at the federal penitentiaries located in the Kingston area. It has been very successful and very positive, because it has meant the spouses have an opportunity to maintain some kind of family relationship with their husbands or their men. It means the prisoners have something to live for when they come out, rather than just going and getting drunk and going and committing some further crime and getting right back into the penitentiary again.

As our select committee on procedural affairs established, I surely recognize there are overlaps between the probation service of the province and the parole board. There are a number of other problems to be ironed out, but for God's sake, we should be doing that in a constructive manner. We should also be looking at the reasons for which crimes continue to be committed. We must look at the various elements in the justice system that lead to a greater or lesser success in terms of securing convictions that people will accept are fair and ensuring there is a relative certainty that people who commit crimes are going to get caught and get punished.

If there is a reasonable certainty of capture and of conviction and punishment, then it seems to me it would be wrong to remove the flexibility in the parole system now, where with good behaviour and some indication of being prepared to rehabilitate himself, a prisoner can be released after serving a third of his sentence, as opposed to the proposal here that that be increased to one half the sentence. What do we do then? I suppose we let him go on and say, "You do not get a single day's remission." That would be the next step. Vengeance will be ours.

Anybody who knows how corrections work and how a prison works knows that if there was no flexibility there at all, then there would be literally no incentive for any inmate to do anything to shape up, be co-operative, try to improve his situation for life outside prison. It seems to me the degree of bitterness that would be created by doing that could be intolerable.

What happens then? We make somebody serve six years rather than let him out on parole in two or three years. In the first place, at the end of the time he is in prison, he comes out and the justice system has no further hold upon him, whereas if he is paroled and then breaks the terms of his parole, he can be pulled back in. Therefore, there is some incentive for him to go straight over the course of the last two thirds of the sentence or the period of time for which he is released on parole. If we have people serve the full sentence because we are going to have vengeance, then the justice system has nothing on them at all. It seems to me that is wrong.

5:40 p.m.

I have had some experience of watching the courts and crown attorneys and so on. Here we have a prison system that costs anywhere from $75 to $200 per inmate per day, depending on the level of security. It is extremely expensive and the return we get from it is low. Recidivism is high and the rate of rehabilitation is poor. There is no indication that prisons do anything much beyond keeping people away from committing crimes for a relatively short period of time.

A Harold Ballard can have fancy meals trucked in from the nearest steakhouse, smoke big cigars and spend weekends in Toronto. That is the kind of thing that brings the justice system into disrepute. Bear in mind that a lot of people who commit crimes are among the dregs of society. Sometimes they are not very nice people, but they have not had very many nice chances either.

We should be aware that what happens in the justice system is that the people who fall into the system are in many cases there for reasons as much social, economic and class-related as because they are vicious criminals. A lot of the stuff we see on television about crime is not realistic. People who commit crimes are often pathetic cases. They have led pretty pathetic lives, have pretty pathetic hopes and are pretty pathetic individuals.

The crown attorneys I talked to were desperately overworked. If they plea bargain, it is because they are faced with not having adequate time to prepare cases in order to have a relative certainty of putting up a convincing case and getting a conviction. If a death has been involved, they argue it is better to have a sure conviction for manslaughter than the chance of losing a conviction on second-degree murder. Such things occur all the time. Why are crown attorneys harassed and overworked? Why are they ineffective and why do they often do jobs many of us find unsatisfactory?

Defence lawyers have the opportunity to spend a fair amount of time preparing cases. Months before a case comes up, they can sit down with the accused and work out what the defence will be. They can interview witnesses and prepare their cases. They can time the case to come before the right judge or to avoid a particular crown attorney they know will be on holiday by having the case brought forward. In the meantime, the crown attorney's office in many cases is a way station for young lawyers learning about criminal law who intend to stay there for only a short time. They are given far too short a time to prepare cases, particularly in major situations. Then we wonder why the devil they cannot do the job.

Sometimes the investigative system is at fault. I draw to members' attention the Susan Nelles case. After three days on the spot, the cops came along and said: "Fine. We have a suspect," and then put the justice system to enormous expense for a preliminary hearing that probably cost three quarters of a million dollars and lasted 50 or 60 days. The crown attorney in that case was put in an impossible situation. He had to try to prove a case existed when the police had done a job which I confidently believe the Grange commission will find was quite inappropriate, inadequate and hopelessly unprofessional.

Rather than barking and baying after one particular part; rather than crying out for vengeance as though this were an Islam on the Don, as though we were going to recover what was in the Koran or the Old Testament -- an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth -- we should be looking both positively and sensitively at the whole justice system. If it requires spending more money on crown attorneys or in places such as that to ensure a conviction is achieved, then let us be prepared to spend it. For God's sake, let us not be stampeded by public emotions into situations that could have a devastating effect both on society and on people who are genuinely prepared to be rehabilitated.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, the member for Parry Sound has put a very important resolution before this House, one that deserves support in spite of what the member for Essex South has said. The member for Essex South took the opportunity, instead of debating the resolution, to take a few shots at this good government. He has been trying to discredit it for a number of years and it just has not worked.

However, I would like to debate the resolution. The issue of the state of the parole system and parole reform has been high on the public agenda. It is evident from the amount of coverage --

Interjections.

Mr. Barlow: Is anybody listening to me? Shall I go on?

An hon member: Yes, we are. You can go on.

Mr. Barlow: In the last month or so, for example, all three major Toronto dailies have run a series of articles and special reports on the Canadian parole system. Having followed the development of this issue over the past several weeks, I feel safe in making two general observations. First, it is obvious from the public debate on these issues and today's debate here, unlike what the official opposition is trying to claim, these issues are extremely complex. The debate is further complicated by the fact that parties on all sides of the issue have very strong views and feelings on them.

It is also readily apparent that the Canadian public has become extremely dissatisfied with the parole system as it exists and operates today. The Canadian public perceives that the balance in the parole system between its rehabilitation functions and its responsibilities to provide for the safety of the public has dangerously deteriorated.

The result of this deterioration, whatever its causes, has been to create a bias in the system towards early parole in situations in which it is entirely unwarranted and inappropriate. It has led to a consequent increase in the degree of risk to which the public is exposed. The average Canadian may not be sure how this situation developed and even less how it might be rectified. However, he is certain of one thing -- that the system must be changed. Perhaps the view of the law-abiding Canadian of our parole system is best expressed by my friend the member for Mississauga South.

A prisoner named Frank Warner, while on a temporary absence pass from Joyceville prison in 1981, subjected Dianne Perna to four and a half hours of vicious sexual torture. When the member for Mississauga South learned Warner was eligible for day parole as of December 1983, he said this demonstrated that Canada's parole system had "gone completely bunkers." I think that is a description of the system with which the majority of citizens of this province and the country would agree.

The source of discontent with the parole system lies in those incidents of the type described by a number of members where a paroled inmate perpetuates yet another crime. We hear it all too often. Inmates who obviously did not derive maximum benefit from their time of imprisonment, whose rehabilitation was obviously not assisted by parole and who obviously pose a very real danger to society have been released from prison to rape, murder or rob yet another innocent victim.

5:50 p.m.

Expressions of disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the parole system have come from many sources. For example, in an editorial entitled "Looking for Justice" on the Couture case in London and the Stephens case in Mississauga, the London Free Press commented on the issue. It noted that in both cases criminals convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in one case and three years in the other were out on day parole in less than one year. In both these cases the victims died as a result of unprovoked assasult.

As the editorial in the London Free Press observed, "Their killers are back in the community ready to start rebuilding their lives after only a few months in prison." The editorial writer asked, "Where is the justice in that?"

There is also, as an editorial writer of the Free Press wrote in another editorial, something "fundamentally wrong" with a system which releases violent offenders on mandatory supervision even in the absence of any signs of rehabilitation.

Mr. Martel: Who wrote that for you?

Mr. Barlow: It took a while to get all the facts together, but I wrote it.

In an editorial published on May 12, 1984, just a month or so ago, the Toronto Star said: "The public has every right to be outraged when a criminal on parole commits a violent crime, since he hasn't even finished serving the time the courts imposed for his previous offence. This happens all too often. Our too lax parole procedures risk undermining public confidence in the justice system."

A Toronto Sun editorial of April 19 of this year described the parole system as "a failed system." It characterized the Stephens case as an obscene travesty of our public justice system.

Mr. Leslie Crisp, whose daughter's fiancé was kicked to death by Stephens, collected more than 215,000 signatures in two months on a nationally circulated petition that called for stiffer sentences and an end to the easy parole system.

I just want to reiterate that this resolution is worthy of support by all members of the House.

TENANTS SECURITY ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 78:

Andrewes, Barlow, Bernier, Cousens, Eaton, Elgie, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Havrot, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Pollock, Ramsay, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Williams, Wiseman -- 33.

5:59 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Eves's motion of resolution 26, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Barlow, Bernier, Bradley, Breaugh, Cousens, Cureatz, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Haggerty, Havrot, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Newman, O'Neil, Philip, Pollock, Ramsay, Riddell, Robinson, Runciman, Ruprecht, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Boudria, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Rae, Ruston, Swart, Wrye.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) do not desist --

Point of order, the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, when someone in this Legislature on that side of the House stands there because we vote against something and accuses my leader of being a crime lover, I want to tell you that is the sleaziest --

Mr. Havrot: Grow up. You cannot take it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of rules --

Mr. Speaker: There are indeed. Order. I will be pleased to listen to your point of order, but you cannot interrupt this. As you say, there are a number of rules and we must observe them.

Ayes 55; nays 16.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of rules in this Legislature --

Mr. McClellan: Who are you running from, Ed? Are you running for cover?

Mr. Mackenzie: You are a sickie.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the standing orders of this Legislature do not allow members to impute motive. There is a certain code of conduct that you, I am sure, agree should be followed. When we on this side of the House oppose a private member's bill, that is our choice. We do it by conscience or any other way. For someone to accuse those of us on this side of this House who vote against a resolution, and my leader was one of them, that wants to lengthen the time of people in prison of being criminal lovers or crime lovers is simply unacceptable.

I say to you that member must not only withdraw, he must also apologize, because this is unacceptable in this Legislature. This member has a history of slandering Italian people; he has a history of slandering native people. This is not his first run around the block at taking people on. I suggest --

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable member has made his point. I must confess I did not hear any of the exchange any more than I witnessed the disturbance and I did not know what it was about. I will undertake to take a look at Hansard and make a decision in the morning.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is no Hansard when a vote is being taken.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then I am sorry, I just --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: So they can get up with impunity with that kind of garbage.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No. Why should we have order when they can get away with that?

Mr. Martel: Take out the sound track. That is what they did last time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, every member heard what he said. I certainly heard what he said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I certainly did not hear. Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate the business for the remainder of this week and next week.

Tonight we will have second reading of Bills 65 and 45 and, if there is time, committee of the whole House on Bill 67.

On Friday we will have second reading of Bill 77.

On Monday, June 11, there will be committee of the whole House on Bill 142, followed by committee of the whole House on Bill 141 and second reading of Bills 62 and 75.

On Tuesday, June 12, in the afternoon, we will deal with legislation left over from Monday night. On Tuesday evening we will resume the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 74, followed by second reading of Bill 88.

On Wednesday, June 13, the House will sit at 2 p.m. Following routine proceedings and ballot items standing in the names of Mr. G. I. Miller and Mr. Breaugh, the House will adjourn at 6 p.m. and resume on Monday, June 18, at 2 p.m.

The House recessed at 6:10 p.m.

June 7, 1984