REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (CONTINUED)
REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
REPORTS, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
COMMENTS IN RIDING REPORT
Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with your indulgence to make a personal statement. As a private member and as a Roman Catholic, I hold very strong personal views about the abortion issue and school funding which were reflected in a constituency letter, the Queen's Park Report, which I recently mailed out to my constituents.
Following reflection about the discussion in the Legislature earlier this afternoon and on the advice and, in fact, firm direction of my leader, I wish to sincerely apologize to members of this Legislature and to the public or such members of the public who believe I have misrepresented the positions of others, most notably the position of the leader of the New Democratic Party and the position of that party.
I apologize to the members present and to those perhaps not present for my use of excessive language in Italian and for any inaccurate portrayals of the positions of others. I also wish to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, in the position which you so ably represent in this assembly.
In order to ensure that there be no misunderstanding, I have suggested to my leader, and will in fact carry out at my own expense, a clarification by way of an additional householder notice to all of those who received the original notice. The clarification will be in form and substance acceptable to all parties. Thank you for your indulgence.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his comments.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to say to the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) on behalf of our caucus that we accept the prompt response and retraction and apology by the member for Yorkview for the statements which were made. They were matters touching deeply this party and the views it has evolved and stated from time to time in its conventions and in this assembly. These matters were deeply felt and we were deeply hurt by the allegations made by the member for Yorkview.
I am particularly appreciative, as my colleagues in this caucus will be appreciative, of the clear, straightforward statement that the member will circulate to all of the people who received his report, a clarification and a retraction about the remarks made about this party in order that the damage that has been done or could be done by those statements would be rectified to the extent a retraction can do so.
I noted particularly that the member stated it would be in terms acceptable to all parties and we look forward to that retraction. We appreciate the immediate response by the member to the concerns that were expressed and so deeply felt by the leader of this party earlier today.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, let me say on behalf of my colleagues on the government side of the House that we are equally impressed by the steps the member for Yorkview has taken tonight to correct a very dangerous, damaging situation with regard to the democratic process here in Ontario.
I would be less than honest if I did not draw to the attention of this House that the government party of this province is not composed of the specific religious groups alluded to earlier in the translation from across the way. On behalf of those members of other faiths, particularly those faithful to the Roman Catholic Church on this side of the House, we hope such an incident will never be repeated in these halls.
REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the third report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.
Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, it appears no one is very anxious to speak to this report. If we have the concurrence of all members of the House, we could continue along at great speed with the report on procedural affairs, a debate in which I would be more than willing to participate.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Durham East for his comments. We are waiting to see if anybody wishes to address order 25, the motion to adopt the third report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something briefly about the regulations report. There are two of them before us. I think it was thought they might be adopted without much delay. I have my own feelings about the necessity for the continuation of that committee. Having talked to some of my colleagues who have laboured long on the committee, the idea is often expressed that perhaps that work is something less than the most valuable work we are called upon to do.
I know in the traditions of the democratic process a watchdog committee on regulations has usually been part of the process, although I recall we went many years here without a specific committee on regulations. I think it was mostly because the work is so deadly boring and useless that we feel we might think in the future of forgoing this particular safeguard.
It seems to me that any time members of the public in Ontario feel they are somehow injured by regulations promulgated by order in council, they can bring their complaints to any member of the Legislature or any officer of the law in government and we could perhaps review on petition, if that were to be the case.
I did not want to allow this occasion to go by when many of our colleagues have spent so long on these reports. There is absolutely no interest in the report whatsoever in the House that I can see, mostly because the most careful examination of the committee did not turn up anything of significance.
8:10 p.m.
I should also point out that the committee has been well served by its counsel, but the counsel's advice and assistance come at no mean dollar cost. The counsel is retained by the committee and is obviously worth every dollar charged. I am not arguing about that. If we are looking for some minor economy around here, however, we might consider dispensing with the committee on regulations and the inherent costs associated with it, I think there would be a sigh of relief from the members who have been representatives of the various parties on that committee.
Mr. Speaker, I put that suggestion forward for consideration by yourself and our colleagues in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: If there is no further comment on order 25, shall the report be received and adopted?
Motion agreed to.
REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Consideration of the first report (1984) of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You will realize that we do not have the order of business on Orders and Notices. We may have missed which order was being called. Can we have it repeated?
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the table will assist us in that, but I recall the House leader referring to order 25 which, as you recall, we just dealt with. Now my understanding is, as we heard earlier, the House leader outline that order 29 is the next order of business.
Mr. Cureatz: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I am so pleased that the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is so concerned about the orders and procedures. He has all the reports in his hand.
While speaking of all the reports in your hands, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of reviewing them in great depth and you will realize that both report seven and eight fall hand in hand in terms of the committee work. I am going to refer to both of them in my humble remarks.
I might add with interest, as quite often happens around this learned place, that those who have not spent much time with respect to preparing the report wind up having lots to say about it and such is the case with myself. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to sit on the committee at the time when the various boards and agencies were being reviewed, but it will not hinder me whatsoever.
Mr. Gillies: You are on the wrong one.
Mr. Cureatz: No, I am not.
Mr. McClellan: No prompting.
Mr. Cureatz: However, it having been brought to my attention with great interest that I could very well be on the wrong report, I might save my remarks until we finally get to it.
The Deputy Speaker: To the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) and his coach, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) --
Mr. Cureatz: I have no further comments.
The Deputy Speaker: -- this report is simply for consideration so there is no comment.
Would any other member like to speak to order 29, the regulations report?
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, in order to try to speed things along, and since I see the chairman is not here and since I know the government House leader did have a reason for calling this urgent piece of public business here this evening, perhaps the vice-chairman... perhaps the vice-chairman.., perhaps the vice-chairman --
Mr. Foulds: If we could have the attention of the vice-chairman.
The Deputy Speaker: So we can dispense with this echo in the chamber, is the vice-chairman of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments available?
Mr. Gillies: I am right here.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine. Does the vice-chairman have any comments?
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment other than to reflect on a couple of things that have come to the attention of the regulations committee in the last year or so.
We had several issues, quite apart from the regulations themselves, that were considered along with the private bills and the other business that has come before the committee. It is a very strong feeling of the standing committee on regulations that we maintain our outside counsel for frequent consultation and for the use of the committee members.
I understand this has been contentious from time to time, particularly at the Board of Internal Economy, but if there is one memorable debate that has taken place in the committee in the last number of months on which there has been a degree of unanimity among the members of the committee, it would be on the issue that we retain our very able outside counsel. In so doing, the committee will have the ability to maintain a certain degree of independence in considering the work we do.
I think the work of this committee is important inasmuch as it is often reviewing business internal to the government. It is at this point that the members of the Legislature have the opportunity to review such matters.
With those few brief comments, I would ask that members give consideration to the adoption of the report.
The Deputy Speaker: Do any honourable members wish to add comments to this order? If not, that concludes discussion of it.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, since the House is back again fully occupied with urgent and important public business, we should have a quorum. Does Mr. Speaker see one?
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
8:21 p.m.
REPORTS, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions (No. 7).
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions (No. 8).
Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Chairman, now that I have finally got the right order, I apologize to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who rightly pointed out to me that he was concerned about what order was taking place on the floor of the House. I was speaking to the 30th order; the 29th was before it. For further clarification, I checked with the Clerk's table. Interestingly enough, with regard to the 30th order, we will be discussing both the seventh and eighth report, for the information of the member for Bellwoods. From time to time, when I refer to both, he will have an appreciation of why that is the case.
If all the members take a look at the report, they will realize that it is very intensive. As I explained earlier, I did not have the opportunity --
Mr. McClellan: Do you mean No. 7?
Mr. Cureatz: I am speaking to both reports.
I did not have the opportunity of sitting on the committee because I believe I was the Deputy Speaker at that time. Speaking of Deputy Speakers, might I add, now that I have the opportunity, that in my estimation you have performed your job very admirably. From time to time in that position it becomes very trying and anxious, as I well know, but with respect to my evaluation your adjudication has been superb. We look forward to the continuing fall session, along with yourself and the Speaker, in terms of the fairness and equity that are required in that position.
In any event, I am not going deal in depth with the various aspects of the two reports. What I am going to do is take a look at the one area of concern to me that I brought to the attention of the procedural affairs committee when I was Deputy Speaker, and that is my concern, which is well documented, with regard to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
In that regard, I would like all the members to refresh their memories by taking a look at report 7, page 28. I know the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will want to know again what the law society is all about.
Mr. Nixon: The Law Society of Upper Canada. Get that right.
Mr. Cureatz: The report says the Law Society Act -- no, the Law Society of Upper Canada. The member is absolutely right.
To read from the report: "The Law Society Act creates the Law Society of Upper Canada as a self-governing body for the legal profession. The society was originally established in 1797 in the reign of George III and incorporated in 1822 in the reign of George IV. Over the years, various changes in the act have been legislated, with the latest major revisions occurring in 1970. In that year, the Law Society Act was amended to reflect the modern conditions under which the legal profession worked. The amendments to the act sought to retain the traditions of the society while making the society more responsive to the public and the members of the society."
Continuing on later on that page: "The society is constituted as a corporation without share capital and consists of a treasurer, under-treasurer, various officers, the benchers and the general membership. The treasurer is the president and head of the society and is assisted by the under-treasurer as the chief operating officer. The secretary is the chief administrative officer. The benchers govern the affairs of the society. There are several types of benchers: those who are elected, those who are appointed honorary benchers and ex-officio benchers.
"Forty benchers are elected every four years, with 20 of these representing the Metropolitan Toronto area and 20 coming from outside Metropolitan Toronto. Two of the four lay benchers are from Metro Toronto and two are from outside the area. The lay benchers are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. When benchers meet, it is called a convocation."
We continue on with reference to the Law Society of Upper Canada. At page 31 the committee makes reference to the act, the act being, of course, the Law Society Act. It provides that only a member of the society may act as a barrister and solicitor or hold himself out as -- I suppose herself as well; we will eventually have to amend that portion of the act, but the committee did not make that recommendation -- or represent himself to be a barrister or solicitor or practise as a barrister or solicitor. If found guilty, the person may be subject to a fine, etc.
What are the problems in the report? I bring to the members' attention the general aspect of the Law Society of Upper Canada because from here on in we are going to be making continual reference to what I see as some of the major problems that were certainly brought forward by the committee.
We take a look at the report on page 37. The committee, very rightly, so brings to the attention of all of us some recommendations.
"The Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body of the law profession in Ontario, has been given a mandate by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to govern in the public interest, principally to ensure that the services provided by lawyers are of the highest standards. The committee believes that the society has sought to achieve this objective. The members of the committee, however, wish to point out that their perception of the public's attitude toward the legal profession and the legal system is at variance with the society's efforts to ensure the highest standards of service." Reading that sentence, it sounds like a lawyer has prepared it.
"Despite the society's efforts, the public image of the legal profession and the legal system appears to be somewhat tarnished. As the former treasurer of the law society has commented: 'Discipline matters are on the rise. Day after day the media reports of moneys taken or of counsel they discern to be acting improperly. Cementing an already cynical perception of the practice of law, a few judges repetitiously create headlines critical of counsel's court demeanor or style of advocacy. Some of this, of course, is perhaps deserving but it is disconcerting nevertheless and certainly it is not helpful to the profession's image, which most lawyers so sensibly strive to keep at a high level.'
"The general impression left with the public," the committee continued on, "is that the legal profession is not serving the public interest. It is in this context that the committee presents the following remarks and recommendations, which it believes will help the society fulfil its mandate.
"The first point the committee wishes to raise is a matter of the society's public image. The committee is of the opinion that the society would greatly benefit from an education campaign in which the public is informed of the society's functions, its purposes, its objectives and in what way the society can be of help to the public."
I bring that to the assembly's attention because I am focusing in now on the committee's concerns on the general, what they feel, attitude of the public as a whole, namely, that the reputation of barristers and solicitors in general across Ontario is somewhat at a low. Secondly, it would appear that the law society is not helping in any manner whatsoever in terms of upgrading that image.
I want to bring the members' attention now to what the committee reports in terms of specific problems. There are a number of specific problems that the committee investigated when the law society appeared before the committee.
8:30 p.m.
I am going to centre in on one area that is of continual concern to all of us, and that is the legal aid plan. If we take a look back at page 33 in the seventh report, it will come to the attention of the members that under the Legal Aid Act the law society is given general responsibility for administering the legal aid plan.
"While convocation retains ultimate authority in this regard, the society has established the legal aid committee, along with several subcommittees, to supervise the operation of the plan, and to make policy decisions. The legal aid committee is composed of 32 members and is divided into 16 subcommittees All of this is in the report, and I will not bore you with the various subcommittees. However, I do want to bring to your attention the terms of the legal aid plan.
"While the law society is made responsible for the general administration of the plan, it is the director of legal aid who supervises the plan's day-to-day operations. He is assisted by a controller and a legal accounts officer. The former is responsible for all accounting and financial procedures of the plan, for directing the clerical staff and for maintaining and analysing all relevant information relating to the operation of the plan. The latter is the officer responsible for settling lawyers accounts."
One final paragraph in regard to the legal aid plan:
"There are 47 directors corresponding to the 47 legal aid areas established under the plan. Each area director is responsible for maintaining an area legal aid office and for establishing and maintaining the duty counsel and legal aid panels for his area. The panels contain a list of lawyers from which applicants select the lawyer of his or her choice."
From report 7, and still in regard to the specific problem that the committee has centred on, namely, the legal aid plan, I would like to bring members' attention to report 8, pages 91 and 92.
At the bottom of page 91, we refer again to the legal aid plan. The recommendation by the committee is that "the Attorney General provide additional funds to enable the legal aid fee schedule to be raised to levels that adequately compensate lawyers who practise under the legal aid plan."
The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) responded to that recommendation stating, "Although the existing legal aid tariff remains one of the most generous in the country, I do hope to be able to provide a significant tariff increase in the reasonably near future, particularly having regard to the cost increases which members of the legal profession have encountered in recent years."
The treasurer of the law society, of course, appeared before the committee and stated, as follows: "We appreciate the standing committee's support of a revision of the legal aid tariff. As I indicated, this is now before the Attorney General, who will be pursuing it with the government and others, and I am sure that you will support the objectives of that revision."
Interesting enough, today about 5:30 p.m., being a member also of the justice committee, I had the opportunity of hearing the opening statements of both the Attorney General and the critics of the Attorney General.
Page 31 of the Attorney General's opening statement again referred to the legal aid plan:
"Members will recall my previous statements about the importance of the legal aid plan. I will not repeat those statements today, but I would like to applaud one important recent development. For years I have been urging members of the legal profession to demonstrate a stronger interest in and commitment to legal aid. I am delighted that the new president of the Canadian Bar Association, Claude Thompson, has decided to make legal aid his number one priority during his term of office."
To refresh all members' memories, and I know they will be making photostat copies and sending them out to all their constituents, we are again talking about report 7 of the standing committee on procedural affairs. I am dealing specifically with aspects of the Law Society of Upper Canada, bringing to all members' attention the concerns the committee had about the perception of the general public of the law profession, which, quite frankly, is bad. For the members' information, I am bringing to their attention what the committee felt was, among other things, some of the specific problems of the Law Society Act, and one is to take a look at the legal aid plan.
How was I involved as Deputy Speaker in terms of suggesting to the procedural affairs committee the possibility of taking a look at the law society? That goes back a long way, but I will be very brief about this because I know I have the interest of all members of the assembly.
It was brought to my attention that, interesting enough, there was a great deal of lack of concern by, first of all, the lawyers here in the assembly about the position of their fellow colleagues. By their fellow colleagues, I mean other barristers and solicitors who are practising here in Ontario.
It was also obvious to me that the Law Society of Upper Canada, to the best of my knowledge, had no or very little contact with all the members of the assembly. Granted, from time to time, the treasurer no doubt spoke with the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Attorney General or possibly sometimes with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). However, for the humble almost eight years I have been a member, at no time have I ever had a visitation, a letter of encouragement or a request for assistance from anyone from the Law Society of Upper Canada, be it the treasurer or other benchers.
Mr. McKessock: It has been nine years now.
Mr. Cureatz: Has it been nine? I do not think so. The member for Grey came here in 1975. I came in 1977.
Mr. Speaker, I know you will find this very interesting. The third point is that in my evaluation there was no group of lawyers across the province who were doing what I would term lobbying on behalf of banisters and solicitors. I am very conscious of what we term lobbying. I know it is a term with great reference to the United States Congress.
From time to time all members of the House have been approached by various interest groups, and I think it is legitimate for those groups to approach us in one way or another. I know from time to time we are all busy, but we do our best to hear them or answer them in writing.
I am very conscious of this because I can think about my own riding of Durham East with which all the members are familiar. If they are not, I will refresh their memories. It encompasses all of the town of Newcastle and a good portion of the city of Oshawa. I mention that because in Oshawa we have a particular industrial institution called General Motors of Canada Ltd. There is a very active -- and that is an understatement -- union there, the United Automobile Workers. From time to time they have brought their concerns to me and to other members here. I am very sensitive in terms of their approach to make their views heard.
I do not have to refresh the memories of the members as to other groups that visit us from time to time. I can think of the dental association. That brings to mind that it seems to me the time of year is fast approaching when we will again be visiting the dentists with our other professional colleagues. I can think of that infamous group, the chiropractors. I can think of an occasion where I was visited by the landscape architects. As all of us could, I could go on and on about lobbying groups.
However, what happened to the barristers and solicitors? Where are their spokespersons in bringing the concerns of the barristers and solicitors across Ontario to the members of the Legislative Assembly? It became obvious to me no one was speaking in unison on their behalf. Why was that not happening?
Interestingly enough, I found out that anyone I spoke to in the legal profession indicated to me, "Why should we bother to be concerned about having a lobbying group looking after the interests of lawyers in the assembly because most of the members are lawyers?"
Oddly enough, I took a look at the list. Do the members know what? Much to my amazement -- and I have been repeating this for quite a while now -- most of us in the assembly are not lawyers. In fact, there are more so-called private business people here. After that group, depending on the scope of the terminology, there are more teachers. Finally, the profession of lawyers comes to the front.
I said to myself, "Self, I guess the first thing we had better do is to take a look and speak with all the lawyers of the assembly to see whether they have any concerns about what is taking place for our fellow colleagues, our fellow barristers and solicitors across Ontario." At great expense to myself, I decided to call a meeting of all the lawyers of the assembly, and a grand occasion that was.
Mr. McClellan: Where was this meeting? What country was it in?
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Cureatz: It was here, down in the basement. I want to bring the list of people that I invited to all members of the assembly because I think it will be extremely important for Hansard to refresh all the memories of the members in the likelihood that on some future occasion, when someone is reviewing this, they will know who the lawyers were that I invited.
The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), a QC in the Liberal Party; none other than myself; the Premier; the member for York East (Mr. Elgie); the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston); the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves); the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman); the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr); the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie); the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry); the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton); the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson); the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope); the member for York South (Mr. Rae); the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick); the former member for Ottawa East, Mr. Roy; the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri); the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling); the member for Simcoe Centre; the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor); the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven); the member for London South (Mr. Walker); the member for Brock (Mr. Welch); and the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams). That is the list of all the barristers and solicitors in the assembly, and I invited them all to a gala event of an hour an a half, a free meal here in the assembly, to talk about the concerns of barristers and solicitors.
I want to bring to members' attention all the people who showed up out of that remarkable group. I was there. The member for Carleton-Grenville very kindly attended. The member for Brock came, I think mainly out of curiosity and to make sure I was not rabble-rousing. The member for Riverdale very kindly appeared. The member for Kitchener and the member for Huron-Bruce were there as well.
I explained to those who did turn up the general concerns I have already related to members, that there appeared to be no lobby group on behalf of banisters and solicitors to bring to the attention of members of the assembly some of the concerns this profession has.
Interestingly enough, the humble little group that was there felt the same way. Very happily enough, as members can so interestingly see, I had a cross-section in attendance at that meeting representing all political parties. The first thing we did amongst those humble few of us was to decide to strike a committee. The committee was made up of a triumvirate, bringing back the days of ancient Rome, of myself, the member for Riverdale and the member for Kitchener.
This committee's purpose was first of all to bring to the attention of all members of the assembly the fact that barristers and solicitors in Ontario have concerns that are not getting through here. More important, it was to approach those various groups, namely -- and finally we are coming back to the point -- the Law Society of Upper Canada, and to instruct it in the method of getting some of its concerns across to the members of the assembly.
In that regard I wrote the then treasurer, Mr. Bowlby, indicating that this committee had been struck, that it was an all-party committee and that we were thinking only about the concerns of barristers and solicitors. Interestingly enough, Mr. Bowlby looked askance at us, and we had no reaction from him about our concerns with respect to barristers and solicitors.
However, as good fate would have it, shortly thereafter Laura Legge became the new treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and she expressed some interest and some concerns about how the law society could get across its points better to the members of the assembly than it had in the past.
Very kindly we met with her. The triumvirate committee of the lawyers of the assembly of Ontario -- the two Jims, as I referred to them, and myself -- met with the treasurer and the under-treasurer, Rendall Dick, who I think from time to time may have passed on various pieces of paper from a previous reincarnation.
We brought to the treasurer's attention the fact that the benchers in the Law Society of Upper Canada were missing the boat; they were not getting their point across. The treasurer said: "First of all, we thought the assembly was full of lawyers. We thought everyone was looking after our interests."
I brought to her attention the fact that there are only about 22 lawyers in the assembly and, funnily enough, those lawyers are not very interested in the concerns of barristers and solicitors. Those lawyers in the assembly are more interested in getting re-elected and in looking after the constituents they represent and in fulfilling the responsibilities that this great, august body requires of them. Unlike the farmers of this assembly, who are very concerned, I have noticed, about other farmers across Ontario, the lawyers of the assembly are not very concerned about what is happening to their colleagues the barristers and solicitors out there in the real world of Ontario.
That was a great enlightenment for the treasurer. Quite frankly, I think she was a little astounded. I give her much credit; she listened with great interest. However, she brought to our attention that she had a great concern that the Law Society of Upper Canada should not be lobbying on behalf of barristers and solicitors. Their responsibility, and the report indicates this, was the protection of the public by practising lawyers in Ontario.
The treasurer felt it was beyond their scope to take direct action in looking after the interests of lawyers and communicating with us here in the assembly. However, she did recognize the possibility of having contact with us in recognition of concerns that the law society has about the lack of funding for the legal aid plan and the possibility of seeking amendments to the Law Society Act. Instead of continuing just to approach the Attorney General, who goodness knows has great responsibilities with regard to the administration of justice across this province, it would be incumbent upon the law society to approach and explain to all members of the assembly the various amendments they might be seeking from time to time so all of us have a better understanding and appreciation on what, quite frankly, they are up to.
The triumvirate of the lawyers' committee of the assembly came to the conclusion that we made some headway with the Law Society of Upper Canada but that in recognition of the problems barristers and solicitors were encountering across the province, we had better take a look at those parent groups that might be lobbying on behalf of lawyers across Ontario.
The member for Kitchener, the member for Riverdale and myself then approached what we thought was probably the kind of organization that would take a great interest in looking at concerns of lawyers across Ontario, namely, the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division. There is a Canadian Bar Association that represents barristers and solicitors across the country, but that organization is divided into the appropriate regional divisions, and our area obviously is Ontario.
At that time, I tracked down Mr. Ray Ostiguy from Ottawa, the president of the CBA-O.
Mr. Mancini: Why is the member telling us all this?
Mr. Cureatz: It all works in. I see the member for Essex South is in a different spot lately. Has something happened to the honourable member? Does it mean there will be another leadership bid from there shortly? I am glad he did not run federally, I must say. I am much happier that he is here.
The three of us approached the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, and indicated they were doing a terrible job in bringing to the attention of the members of the assembly the concerns of lawyers across Ontario. Much to our astonishment, we went through the same procedure. This took a heck of a lot of time. This all started in December 1982, when we first had our general meeting and invited the lawyers of the assembly to a dinner.
Finally, we got together with the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, indicated our concerns and went through the whole procedure that the assembly is not made up entirely of lawyers, that there is no one lobbying on behalf of lawyers and that the CBA-O would appear to be the natural group to bring to the attention of members of the assembly that the bulk of the lawyers out there in the real world are not having such an easy go as one would think.
8:50 p.m.
At the same time, another interesting development took place. A new group, calling itself the Ontario Lawyers Association, was started by Gary Valcour, interestingly enough from the area I represent, the city of Oshawa. The Ontario Lawyers Association instigated some interest from lawyers across the province, indicating that indeed there was no lawyers' lobby group on behalf of barristers and solicitors and that, for a fee that they thought was reasonable, the Ontario Lawyers Association would hire a staff and try to institute through the direction of speaking with members here in the assembly a kind of lobby organization to get some concerns across to all of us here.
The three of us, representing all the lawyers in the assembly, met with Mr. Gary Valcour. The meeting proved to be successful, but right away we were concerned about what appeared to be a division among lawyers already. When one gets two lawyers together, one will have five different opinions of what is taking place and we were already running into difficulties as to who should be doing what in terms of representing barristers and solicitors to members of the assembly.
At the same time, Mr. Willson McTavish was the head of the Committee of Presidents of the County and District Law Association --
Mr. Mancini: Let us get to the point.
Mr. Cureatz: We are getting there.
This is a third group. I should give credit to Mr. McTavish because he was the original one who brought to my attention what he felt was some of the concerns of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Funnily enough, it seemed to me in my investigation that he never directly went to, spoke to and got the concerns of the law society that they should not be speaking on behalf of lawyers. Certainly he was speaking across the province, bringing to lawyers' attention that lawyers were missing the boat somewhat.
We got together with Mr. McTavish. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), the Deputy Speaker, who has since left, would be interested. He probably knows Mr. Willson McTavish. The triumvirate committee of the lawyers of the assembly wound up in a discussion with four groups on what was taking place in regard to the procedural affairs committee's concern about the specific aspect I am speaking to, which is the general problem lawyers seem to be having across Ontario.
Mr. Mancini: What is the problem? Tell us the problem.
Mr. Cureatz: I do not know whether the member missed my opening remarks, but as I indicated earlier, if he takes a look at the seventh report, pages 37 and 38, there is a public image problem for barristers and solicitors. To be specific, I chose one of the more high-profile concerns of the committee and that was, again refreshing the member's memory, the legal aid concern.
Continuing with this very interesting escapade in terms of the committee's report, how we got to this stage and ultimately how we hope to correct it in the fullness of time, as I bring to every member's attention --
Mr. Foulds: Which page is this?
Mr. Cureatz: We are getting there. We are not at a particular number yet. We are just refreshing the members' memories on how we got to the report. My little assistant tells me we are looking at page 7.
Mr. Foulds: Page 7? Thank you.
Mr. Cureatz: How we got to the report was that the committee of lawyers, the member for Kitchener, the member for Riverdale and I, struck off to see who was speaking on behalf of lawyers. The Law Society of Upper Canada was interested, but it could not do it. There was the Ontario Lawyers' Association, which wanted to try to do it. The Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, was thinking of wanting to do it. Then there was the committee of presidents of the county and district lawyers' association, which was trying to get together some interest in creating a lobby group to speak on behalf of lawyers.
Finally, beginning in December 1982, we made some headway. In February 1983, after the three lawyers who made up the triumvirate committee got together with these various groups, we established what we thought would be a good method of creating an adequate lobby group. We took a look at what the dentists had done from time to time. As we all know, when the dentists bring to our attention the concerns they have, lo and behold, who is waiting for us but quite often a dentist, if not our own dentist, meeting us with joyful smiles and indicating to us some of his thoughts and concerns. In my estimation, and I convinced the other two members of the committee, that might be an adequate approach.
How would we do that? The method we struck upon was to create a lawyers' network. We devised a letter to go out to the various presidents of the local law associations across the province. The letter read as follows:
"If you recall, I wrote you about my concerns with the present method of electing benchers to our law society. Many of you responded to my letter and have indicated encouraging comments. Once the upcoming election of benchers is over, I will once again pursue the letter."
I will bring that to the members' attention shortly.
"In the meantime, I am co-chairperson of the lawyers' committee of all the lawyers of the Legislative Assembly. The other co-chairmen are Mr. Breithaupt and Mr. Renwick. We have been working on setting up a network of lawyers across the province. One of the functions of the network of lawyers would be to relate to provincial members of parliament concerns of lawyers.
"Ray Ostiguy, president of the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, Willson McTavish, chairman of the Committee of Presidents of the County and District Law Association, Bert Doran, a bencher and chairman of the public information committee of the law society, and we, co-chairpersons of the lawyers' committee of the assembly, have concluded that a possible network of lawyers should involve the local law associations.
"As a result, I am writing to you as president of your local law association to bring this matter up with the lawyers in your association to select a lawyer or lawyers to cover each provincial member of parliament that your law association covers. I cannot stress enough the importance of this task. A possibility would be to have you, as president, let your name stand and be the first lawyer of your association to be involved in the network. And I further take the liberty to suggest that I envision the possibility of your executive changing your choice of lawyer from time to time.
"This network of lawyers will be called upon to advance the concerns of our profession to members of the assembly. Material to help support such an advancement would be administered by the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division. I would be presumptuous to say that the law society would have input to this network of lawyers; however, the interest that Bert Doran has indicated makes me believe that our society will react positively, albeit cautiously, to the lawyers' network.
"I implore you to consider this request. There is a great need for lawyers as professionals to begin to have a say in matters that are taking place, or for that matter not taking place, in the Legislative Assembly. Contrary to popular belief, there are only 24 lawyers out of the total of 125 members of the assembly and, quite frankly, we lawyers of the assembly need a more united voice from you. Please forward your association's selection of your lawyer to the lawyers' network."
That was a step, albeit a small step, in the right direction, but happily enough we were getting some articles and concerns expressed by lawyers across Ontario, shaking them up, waking them up, bringing to their attention that they were left in the starting blocks a long time ago in terms of getting their concerns across to all of us here.
That letter about the lawyers' network was sent out in February 1983. Following that, Mr. Colin McKinnon, who was the newly elected chairman of the county and district law associations across Ontario, had met with us after Mr. Willson McTavish retired from his position. All the members of the assembly who get the Ontario Lawyers Weekly, instead of just perusing it or for that matter not looking at it at all, should take a little bit of interest in it and have a bit of concern about it.
Mr. McKinnon brought forward what he felt were some major concerns and what he was about to act on with respect to lack of representation by lawyers across Ontario to all of us here in the assembly. He indicated that in an exclusive interview. "Colin McKinnon, the former president of the County of Carleton Law Association, said that the CBA-O and the Law Society are sometimes fearful of getting involved in gut issues because they feel the public will not like to hear it or there will be a backlash."
In my estimation that is a misreading of what I regard as a pretty educated public in Ontario. I sometimes wonder whether there is a proper respect for the public of Ontario. I think if the issues are properly explained -- for example, incomes as they relate to work being done competently for the client -- how can any right-thinking individual be upset?
9 p.m.
Mr. McKinnon went on to say that he and the members of the executive committee of the presidents, the committee of five, will push the CBA-O and the law society on these issues. The mandate of the executive, he says, derives from the numerous resolutions that were passed unanimously by 32 representatives at the last meeting at Osgoode Hall, June 22.
I thought it was about time to do my best to bring to everyone's attention what I felt were some major concerns about the happenings over the last year and a half by bringing forward to the procedural affairs committee some of the concerns it was investigating; namely, the Law Society of Upper Canada. I brought this to the attention of the Ontario Lawyers Weekly through an article that I will not read entirely, but I will touch on some of the concerns.
Mr. McClellan: Are you trying to prevent other people from speaking? This is a filibuster.
Mr. Cureatz: I had some great support from the former member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Cassidy. I never thought that he and I would agree on an issue, but we did. The issue we agreed on in the committee was as follows. I indicated this in an article that was published in the Ontario Lawyers Weekly about October 1983, headed, "The Election of Benchers."
"There has been some interest expressed in having benchers elected on a riding basis outside of Toronto. As matters stand now, benchers outside of Toronto must campaign for election throughout the entire rest of the province. The alternative would be to have these benchers campaign in 20 distinct districts determined on the basis of both geography and the number of resident lawyers. A lawyer seeking election as a bencher would therefore represent and be easily identified as a bencher for a particular constituency. Lawyers' concerns would be directed in the first instance to that bencher.
"Failing a satisfactory resolution of the matter, other benchers would be approached. To further strengthen the connection between lawyers and benchers, the latter would be expected to establish and maintain contact with their constituents through an annual communiqué. Such a change, however, still leaves the 20 benchers from Toronto in a dominant position --
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, do you see a quorum in the House?
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
9:06 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): A quorum is present.
Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is procedural affairs. I just had one of the greatest compliments ever paid. One of my fellow backbenchers asked me what I was talking about. I think it is only incumbent upon me to bring what I was talking about to everyone's attention again. We were discussing the 30th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the adoption of recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions, number 8, but also number 7, as confirmed by the clerk.
In regard to that report, we are bringing to everyone's attention my concerns that the procedural affairs committee brought forth on the Law Society of Upper Canada, more generally in reference to report number 7 on pages 37 and 38, the poor public image of lawyers and, more specifically, on pages 33 and 34. the lack of funding for legal aid.
I was refreshing everyone's memory about how I had concerns about these various aspects and how I was very pleased, although I was not a member of the procedural affairs committee at that time and although I was in that august position of Deputy Speaker, that nevertheless, through various communiqués, I had brought to the attention of the procedural affairs committee some of the concerns I had about lack of representation of lawyers across Ontario to the members of the assembly.
I can see the member for Carleton-Grenville. He was at the great dinner meeting, was he not? Does he remember the basement affair that I paid for and he came. He was one of the six lawyers of 22 who came to that meeting.
The Acting Speaker: Is the member speaking to the resolution?
Mr. Cureatz: I am bringing to everyone's attention how I got to this point.
The Acting Speaker: I will appreciate the member speaking to the resolution.
Mr. Cureatz: Obviously you were not listening; if you were listening --
The Acting Speaker: I am listening. Please speak to the motion.
Mr. Cureatz: If you were listening you would have realized --
The Acting Speaker: Please speak to the motion.
Mr. Cureatz: -- that it is coming to fruition. That point was that the co-chairmen of the lawyers of the assembly were trying to tell lawyers across the province that those lawyers had better be speaking in unison to all of us here in the assembly so that their concerns could be reflected.
I was just in the process of bringing to all members' attention that, interestingly enough, the then member for Ottawa Centre and I, when he was on the procedural affairs committee --
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Where is he now?
Mr. Cureatz: Interestingly enough, I stand to be corrected, or be seen to be corrected, he is now a federal member at the august place referred to as the House of Commons, by some 62 great votes, as I recall.
However, I do not want to stray from the main point at hand. That main point was an article that I had written, and which was published in the Ontario Lawyers Weekly, about a concern that I had with the member for Ottawa Centre, namely the election of benchers.
9:10 p.m.
I was at that point stating that lawyers' concerns would be directed, in the first instance, to that bencher who would be representing a particular constituency outside the area of the city of Toronto. Failing a satisfactory resolution of the matter, other benchers would be approached. To further strengthen the connection between lawyers and benchers, the latter would be expected to establish and maintain contact with their constituents through an annual communiqué, very similar to what we have here at Queen's Park in terms of our biannual report. I know the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) regularly puts out such a report.
Such a change, however, still leaves the 20 benchers from Toronto in a dominant position, since the advantage of location alone makes it more likely that they will play a very active role in the affairs of the law society.
On reflection, with regard to the procedural affairs reports 7 and 8 -- and the clerk at the table is smiling like a Cheshire cat -- interestingly enough, I forgot to tell the members that when we had this dinner meeting the clerk was in attendance and took minutes, of which I have a copy. Does the clerk still have his copy? A little nod would be appreciated.
I went on to say that, at the same time, benchers in general need to establish an ongoing dialogue with members of the provincial Parliament. Since 1797, for example, the Law Society Act has been amended more than 40 times to ensure that members of the provincial Parliament understand the legislation. To avoid misconceptions regarding the role of benchers in the law society, the time has come to establish some formal channels of communication. That is only some 200-odd years and they have still yet to talk to us.
Contrary to the widely held notion that most MPPs are lawyers, the fact is that fewer than 20 per cent are. I continue on with reference to the fact that those lawyers who are here are not particularly interested in a great, general, emphatic way about concerns of lawyers across the province.
I went on to say that it is to the credit of the law society that the treasurer, Laura Legge, has shown a real interest in furthering this very type of dialogue. My discussions with benchers A. Burke Doran and Kenneth Jarvis, secretary of the law society, have also led to interest in strengthening relations between the groups.
Interestingly enough, I think it was because -- not solely, but partly -- of the discussions of myself, the member for Kitchener and the member for Riverdale with the treasurer that although the Law Society of Upper Canada was very hesitant to come before the procedural affairs committee, because there were great concerns that the law society was independent of the government of Ontario and as a result could not be reviewed by the procedural affairs committee, in any event, it did come forward and, as a result, we do have a very good report in terms of the law society.
I went on to indicate very briefly, in recognition of the report that has since been put up by the procedural affairs committee, that as a politician I have been lobbied by some of the best organized groups in the province and have often wondered why there is no comparable organization acting in the interest of lawyers. The need for an organized voice for lawyers in Ontario has been widely recognized.
At least three separate groups of lawyers are now involved to varying degrees in exploring the issue further -- I have already brought that to the attention of members -- those groups being the Ontario Lawyers Association, the presidents' committee of the local law association and the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division.
I went on to specifically indicate what those three groups were up to, and I concluded in this article by saying: "While it is encouraging to see that preliminary steps have been taken to address the need for an organized voice for lawyers, much remains to be done.
"Given the nature of the task that lies ahead, it is vital that all three groups of lawyers, as well as individuals, work together to achieve a common end. Unless co-ordination and co-operation are established now the goal could well be lost in the morass of conflict out of which lawyers and the public would surely be the losers for some time again.
"To prevent such a possibility, formal meetings of the executive of the Ontario Lawyers Association, the presidents of the local law association and the executive of the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario section, may well be indicated."
That article met with a reasonable degree of success. The attempt was to bring to the attention of lawyers across Ontario that there were those of us in the assembly who are trying to instil in those various legal groups an interest in those groups speaking on behalf of other lawyers across Ontario.
Lo and behold, after almost two years of correspondence, work, dinner meetings and discussions, the Ontario Lawyers Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the three MPPs had what was termed a summit meeting to discuss who would ultimately speak on behalf of lawyers and lawyers' concerns to all of us in the assembly.
The article that was reported in the December 23, 1983, Ontario Lawyers Weekly went as follows, taking some of the more important aspects:
"All three MPPs," -- namely myself, the member for Riverdale and the member for Kitchener -- "put the case to their fellow lawyers bluntly.
"'With blissful ignorance, the lawyers have avoided any attempt to do other than confirm among the members of the Legislature their hidebound and inborn wariness of any lawyers,' says Jim Breithaupt (L-Kitchener), relating to Ontario Lawyers Weekly the gist of his remarks at the Albany Club.
"Mr. Breithaupt, Liberal provincial Justice critic, went on to say that 'unless I am the exception to the rule, lawyers have not been bothering to really deal with their elected members whatever their label is.'
"He suggested that lawyers should be lobbying their individual MPPs at the constituency level as well as at Queen's Park. Mr. Breithaupt noted that other professional bodies, particularly chiropractors, accountants, doctors and dentists, have to varying degrees done a more effective job of lobbying their members on issues of self-interest.
"'Of all the professional organizations, the lawyers clearly do the worst job of public relations,' he said. Mr. Breithaupt suggested that lawyers should remember that even though there are only a small minority of lawyer MPPs in the Legislature, most MPPs have a 'lawyer or two on their executive staff." Back in the home riding.
Those members who are listening should put up a hand if they know a lawyer who is on their executive back in their riding. Hurrah! We got one over there. Look at all the lawyers on the executive staffs. We have two lawyers. That is just the point the member for Kitchener was bringing to our attention.
"Mr. Breithaupt said that he cautioned the CBA-O, the OLA and the Committee of Presidents members...about the importance of speaking to MPPs with a unified voice on self-interest issues.
"'It would be difficult for one group or another to appear before caucus or to visit with individual members, some wanting one thing and the others wanting the reverse, because there is enough suspicion of the various legal associations by most of the members in the Legislature now, that unless they are all dealing together, it will be very easy to avoid coming out to support any one of them, so it is in their own self-interest.'
"Mr. Breithaupt said he thought the meeting was useful and was cautiously optimistic that it was an early step that will lead to more effective lobbying at the Legislature by lawyers." Across the province that is.
I was quoted. I echoed many of the sentiments of the member for Kitchener. Commenting on the meeting, I said that I first thought there was a little bit of defensiveness by the Canadian Bar Association because of what it was doing or had done in the past. The CBA-O had kicked the idea around. However, quite frankly, I had been saying all along that no group has been representing lawyers in terms of a specific lobby group to members of the assembly.
I complimented the member for Riverdale and the member for Kitchener for very forcefully bringing forward their views and criticizing the CBA-O in terms of what we all felt was a lack of interest. I can remember very clearly in my mind the member shaking his finger at Laura Legge, president of the CBA-O and saying, "You know, in the last 16 years" -- since he has been a member of the assembly; now I guess I 7 -- "the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, could not have done a worse job of representing lawyers to the members of the assembly."
9:20 p.m.
I stared at him and said, "I rest my case," as lawyers quite often say. There was a deathly silence. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that as the meeting continued the then president, Lorraine Gotlib, indicated that nothing much was accomplished. "We just chatted and I was frankly disappointed. I thought more would come out of it, but nothing did."
"Ms. Gotlib said the three MPPs prodded them, noting that 'they're always prodding us. Everybody's always prodding us. You get eight lawyers together; you get 39 opinions.'
"Ms. Gotlib said she was 'accommodating' Ontario Lawyers Association president Gary Valcour by attending the meeting."
Mr. Valcour said, "It was the first time when all the groups kind of sat around the table and said, 'Okay, where's everybody coming from and what's got to happen here?'"
That was a watershed meeting because, interestingly enough, after that meeting it would seem to me that the Canadian Bar Association, as negative as the then president was, took the responsibility for attempting a dialogue with members of the assembly.
The Ontario Lawyers Association, I think, was beginning to have some impact, but as in all associations, it takes a long time to establish and it takes a lot of work at the local level. I think the main core was starting to peter out.
In any event, many of us attended a get-together at the Canadian Bar Association headquarters in March of this year, the first of its kind ever. As I look about the assembly, I see one or two who were in attendance at that meeting. I give credit to the Canadian Bar Association because, as the then president indicated, it was a getting-to-know-you meeting, inviting members of the assembly to come, meet and try to understand what the Canadian Bar Association is all about.
They recommended a get-together, a second meeting. As a matter of fact, I had corresponded for the last couple of weeks and had indicated that the CBA-O should not get too excited in the event of an election. But it had tentatively set aside a date in November to invite all members of the assembly to get together again at its headquarters and at this second meeting to bring forward some of its concerns and relate to members of the assembly aspects of what is happening in the work place of barristers and solicitors. One of their concerns is the legal aid plan.
The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) keeps asking, "When do you get to the point?" I have finally got to one of the points, the legal aid plan, which was discussed with some concern in the committee report. The concern was that there was not enough funding in the legal aid plan. The committee asked the Attorney General, "What are you going to do about that?" The Attorney General said, "I am going to try to get some more money." The treasurer of the law society came forward and said, "We would like more money for the legal aid plan."
How does the Attorney General get more money out of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman)? One way is to try to have lawyers from across the province have a group that speaks on behalf of lawyers to put some pressure on all members of the assembly, who would then put pressure on the Treasurer and the Attorney General to beef up the legal aid plan.
Mr. Foulds: Why are those two lawyers not in favour of beefing up the legal aid plan?
Mr. Cureatz: I cannot speak on their behalf, but I think it is the responsibility of all of us to have a better working understanding of the legal aid plan. More important, it is the responsibility of the barristers and solicitors across the province to speak with a united voice through what would appear now to be the Canadian Bar Association to put pressure on us here and to put pressure on the cabinet to try to increase money for the legal aid plan.
We congratulate, after almost two and one half years, the Canadian Bar Association --
Mr. Mancini: And two hours.
Mr. Cureatz: Not quite -- an hour and a half.
We congratulate it for trying to speak on behalf of lawyers. Mind you, as I indicated, since 1797 is not quite 200 years. Finally, it has come around to the idea that it has to start lobbying and has to start talking on behalf of lawyers.
At the same time, happily enough -- and this has not come to fruition, but keep an eye on the incoming mail -- the treasurer of the law society, through advice from her benchers, indicated to the three of us -- myself, the member for Riverdale and the member for Kitchener -- that it would be a good idea for the benchers to get to know the members of the assembly so that they might express on a personal basis some of the concerns the benchers have with regard to the functioning of the law society.
I am quite sure many members of the assembly are not clear what the functions of the law society are, unless they have read the procedural affairs report. Of course, we are all so busy, and I can anticipate that not everyone will read the procedural affairs committee's report. We are all so busy I can anticipate that not everyone will read that report. That is why I am bringing it to everyone's attention because I know my personal remarks will be reviewed in Hansard later this evening by those members who had the opportunity of missing them.
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member is making such an important point, I think it is mandatory that we have a quorum to hear it.
Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Cureatz: Just before I refresh everyone's memory, I would like to thank the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) for bringing to my attention that there was not a quorum present. I was most embarrassed to think that colleagues on this side of the House were not interested in some of my thoughts and concerns about the seventh and eighth reports of the procedural affairs committee, more specifically the Law Society of Upper Canada and more directly and specifically concerning the very poor public image of lawyers and, interestingly enough, the lack of legal aid funding, which is what my remarks were all about.
I know that for the last five minutes of my remarks all members will remain at the edges of their seats. I do hope the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is close in the wings because he indicated to me he had one or two things to say about the Law Society Act and the Law Society of Upper Canada.
To refresh members' memories, I was indicating that the Canadian Bar Association had taken some preliminary steps to bring forward concerns of barristers and solicitors across the province to all of us here. Happily enough, the Law Society of Upper Canada was trying to get together a dinner meeting at Osgoode Hall which I know the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would be more than excited to attend because he has indicated to me he has been scared silly of the cow gates outside Osgoode Hall and that would make any invitation he had to attend there more exciting.
In any event, we are still waiting for the upcoming two items; that is those are the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, invitation, and the Law Society of Upper Canada invitation.
Interestingly enough, and the report indicates this, the law society has an annual meeting at which all lawyers across Ontario can attend. There are about 14,000 to 15,000 lawyers. Embarrassingly enough, I had never attended an annual meeting of the law society and I thought to myself it was about time I went. Did the member for Niagara Falls ever go to a contractors' annual meeting, of which association I am sure he was a member? Maybe he never paid. How about the member for Port Arthur? Did he ever go to a teachers' annual meeting locally?
Mr. Foulds: Every year.
Mr. Cureatz: Exactly. Embarrassingly enough, I never went. I was a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada for 10 years and never went. I thought I had better go.
I finally went down to Osgoode Hall and ventured through the cow gates. I will say this cautiously. I thought maybe the acoustics were not appropriate for a meeting because it was very well attended and it was in a very old hall. As a result, one had difficulty hearing the concerns of lawyers who were in attendance.
If I can give a little advice -- far be it from me, a humble lawyer from the village of Newcastle, to give advice to the Law Society of Upper Canada -- maybe at another time a more suitable location could be found than what they have there within the halls of the law society. I think of the articling course where they have two huge lecture halls which would easily accommodate 1,500 people and is very suited with clear acoustics. I think that would be the way to go next time around.
In any event, notwithstanding the physical layout, some concerns were brought by resolution to the Law Society of Upper Canada and to the benchers in attendance that day. One of the concerns was brought forward by the procedural affairs committee in its seventh and eighth reports, and they were concerns that were reflected by myself and the former member for Ottawa Centre. Those concerns were very distinctively put out in resolution 7, which I think is important to read because, in my humble estimation, maybe not in my lifetime, resolution 7 will some day come to fruition. Is everyone listening to resolution 7?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Cureatz: Do I have everyone's attention, the member for Essex South because this is important? This is the whole thing. Here it comes. Are you ready?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Cureatz: "Whereas the increasing complexity and change in our society" -- that is the Law Society of Upper Canada -- "requires an extensive, imaginative and dutiful involvement by the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada in addressing the concerns of the profession and the public, and whereas a broader regional practice and economic representation of the profession is needed to ensure that all aspects of the profession in the province are acknowledged and considered, and whereas presently the bench is involved much of the limited time on an increasing number of disciplinary matters to the detriment of other concerns, now be it resolved that" --
Mr. Foulds: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cureatz: Blue Jay, have you got this?
Mr. Piché: What?
Mr. Cureatz: -- "at the next election of the benchers, the benchers be elected on a regional basis and that these benchers receive compensation commensurate with the time required of them to properly discharge their duties in addressing the concerns of the profession and the public and that all necessary steps be taken to amend legislation in order to bring these changes about."
Mr. Foulds: What has that got to do with our report?
Mr. Cureatz: The report, interestingly enough, makes that same recommendation.
Mr. Foulds: Read it.
Mr. Cureatz: I have just read it.
Mr. Foulds: From the report.
Mr. Cureatz: It says the same thing.
Mr. Kolyn: Tell him what page.
Mr. Cureatz: It is in my notes and I have read it already. Do I have to go through the whole thing again? I do not think so. We have made reference to it already to the honourable member. Wait a minute. I think it is in my concluding remarks. Page 90, report number 8. Let us just see. I think that is coming up. Here it is, but I am saving that for the grand finale, the bottom of page 90, where the treasurer indicates she is not too happy about this.
I am saying to members of the assembly I think this resolution which, interestingly enough, I had the wonderful opportunity of speaking to at the annual meeting of the Law Society of Upper Canada --
Mr. Foulds: But they rejected that recommendation.
Mr. Cureatz: No, they did not. Who rejected the recommendation?
Mr. Foulds: The treasurer.
Mr. Cureatz: That is right, and that is why I am speaking tonight, because the treasurer rejected it. I am saying to the humble benchers and the treasurer that, indeed, at some future time -- This resolution was passed at the annual meeting in May 1983. It was passed by all those lawyers in attendance at that annual meeting and a number of us spoke to the resolution.
Unfortunately, democracy does not always prevail because it is up to the benchers, it is up to that august body, to take the initiative and make recommendations to the Attorney General that the Law Society Act should be amended so there would be regional representation by benchers across Ontario.
Indeed, the member for Port Arthur is correct, because on page 90, report number 8, in response to that recommendation, the treasurer stated, and I am going to have to read this for the record:
"Regional representation has been a concern of the society ever since the first changes were made some years ago through which elections were divided between Metropolitan Toronto and the area of the province outside of Metropolitan Toronto. A difficulty arises when one considers the concentration of lawyers and their distribution throughout the province. If it were done according to population, there would be serious anomalies which would deprive geographical areas of the right to participate in the election of their representatives in the governing body. Regional representation would also introduce a concept of constituency that is perhaps inconsistent with the necessity for each bencher to deal with the matters of the profession on a provincial rather than a parochial basis."
The point of the matter is the treasurer said no. I want to bring to the attention of members in the assembly that in my humble opinion the procedural affairs committee was correct. We did not put down specifics as to how benchers should be elected across the province, but we put forward the idea that it was about time that democracy prevailed in the Law Society of Upper Canada. Are we so embarrassed about democracy? Why cannot the 20 benchers outside Toronto run on a constituency basis?
The treasurer did indicate -- and I must confess we have had discussions on this from time to time -- in her comments on the report that it would not be proper for a bencher to represent lawyers on a constituency basis. Why not? Is it not proper for us here to represent our people on a constituency basis? Goodness knows, geography is taken into account. Take a look at southern Ontario and the manner in which our ridings are distributed. Take a look at northern Ontario. There is not a great population in the respective ridings of the member for Port Arthur and the member for Lake Nipigon. His riding, I think, is larger than England. No response to that? I think it is larger than England.
9:40 p.m.
In any event, there can be accommodations made for this. A committee of the law society could take a look at the number of lawyers there are across Ontario, outside of the city of Toronto. They could take a look at the geographic factor and they could come up with a constituency basis so that those lawyers who want to run for bencher in that particular area would have the opportunity. Instead of trying to mount a campaign across the whole province to become a bencher, that lawyer need only mount a campaign in a constituency similar to what all of us here have.
Mr. Kerrio: It will not work. It makes too much sense.
Mr. Cureatz: I trust Hansard has those remarks by the member for Niagara Falls engraved on paper, because if I have the opportunity, I will send these humble remarks of mine for the last almost two hours to the various benchers, the 40 of them, and bring to their attention all the concerns we have. Indeed, I will bring to their attention the concerns the member for Niagara Falls had and just stated to Hansard.
In any event, colleagues, it has been a tremendous uphill fight, and the battle is not over yet. We will be pursuing with great energy, albeit with great difficulty, the aspect that benchers outside of Toronto should be elected on a constituency basis. We will be pressing forward with the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario division, to continue speaking in a united voice on behalf of lawyers across Ontario, and part of that united voice is the concern of the legal aid plan and the lack of funding. Because of the lack of funding, many lawyers are opting out of the legal aid plan. As a result, the legal aid plan might not be fulfilling the true intent for which it was originally conceived.
I have had the opportunity to discuss the procedural affairs committee's reports 7 and 8 at some length and I apologize to all members of the assembly for taking up the humble few minutes I have. This has been an ongoing battle with myself and the other two members of the lawyers' committee of the assembly and, as I indicated earlier, it is not finished. I give credit to the procedural affairs committee which made those particular recommendations I made specific reference to.
I am embarrassed to say I have not had the opportunity to make comments about the other recommendations, but I know only too well there are other members here tonight just waiting for the opportunity to let their comments be heard.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, as we sat here and listened to the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), I can say with great honesty that he has completely worn us all out. We surrendered about half an hour ago.
The facts the honourable member brought out and the time in which he took to bring those facts out showed just how seriously the members of the standing committee on procedural affairs take their work, I have been on this committee now for the past four or five years. It is the most enjoyable committee I have ever worked on, mostly because the partisan nature that is part of all other committees does not seem to be quite as noticeable. We have had the practice of all members signing all the reports that are tabled in the House, even though we may not agree with each and every single recommendation. That has made the work of the committee go quite smoothly.
The member may recall that when we met in committee this morning, at around 10:30, there was quite a bit of debate about the matter of conflict of interest. The procedural affairs committee has the other obligation of looking at procedural matters in the operation of committees and so on. However, we talked about the problem of conflict of interest for members. We were wondering how one could tell whether a member is in conflict. If a member is a farmer, are we going to prohibit him from speaking on farm issues? I think the member for Durham East showed very well this evening that one can be a member of an organization and speak for that organization while being a member of the assembly and not be in conflict. Anyway, that is something this committee is going to have to wrestle with in the future.
I do want to make some comments on report 7, dated December 15, 1983. One complaint I have is that it takes almost a year to get these reports debated in the House. Report 8, which we will be dealing with later, is dated June 21, 1984, and that is not too bad. I am somewhat disappointed it has taken so long to deal with report 7 because the work of the committee is very intense. We do get into a lot of detail and we are able to provide the House with a great number of facts which I am sure the members find interesting. In some cases members may be surprised at what we are able to find out in the operation of these agencies, boards and commissions.
I made some notations here and would like to speak briefly on a number of the agencies we dealt with. Let me start with the Ontario Status of Women Council. We had the council before us some time ago and were quite surprised by its operation. One of the things I was most surprised at was that the chairmanship of the agency was a part-time job. I felt something as important as the Ontario status of women council should have a chairman working pretty well full-time. If memory serves me correctly, I believe it is true the chairman was working on a part-time basis.
The committee also thought, and I have to agree, that now we have a Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), we are not so sure what the women's council should be doing or whether we should actually have such a council. Some members of the committee felt that the job being done by the women's council possibly should be taken over by the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. We will have to wait and see whether that happens.
9:50 p.m.
I would like to point out one thing. I am not trying to be partisan, and in no way do I want to question the abilities of Sally Barnes. I felt that when she was appointed to this job, and I know it is unfair to even think this way, because she was so close to the Premier -- I will not use the term "political hack," because I do not think she is deserving of that term -- it undermined the high view that many people had of the women's council. It was seen as just another Conservative being rewarded and going to Tory heaven.
I know these things happen federally and provincially, and I know Mr. Mulroney will be making similar kinds of appointments in Ottawa, but there was something about that appointment that left people not in a comfortable position. I recall getting a number of letters from different women's groups in Windsor and in Essex county expressing that view. I forwarded that information to the Premier, and he was kind enough to respond, saying, of course, that her relationship with him, with his office and with the Conservative Party certainly was not going to undermine the role she wanted to play.
When the government got into hot water over the proposal to establish equal pay for work of equal value in Ontario, we noticed, and we could not help noticing, that Sally Barnes was in the forefront defending the government's position that yes, it agreed with it in principle, but no, it was not going to put that principle into law.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you have a very good memory, the ensuing debate that took place between the Ontario Status of Women Council, with Sally Barnes at the forefront, and the news media and women's groups. It was not a very nice debate. It was a debate in which people had very strong views. Perhaps it is too strong to say that the chairman was just a puppet of the government, but many people felt that certainly the chairman was out there supporting the views of the government.
We on the procedural affairs committee raised the issue of appointments and how people are appointed almost on a regular basis. We were told by every organization that came before our committee that they definitely try to seek the most qualified person. When we asked them how they went about doing this job search, they said, "We know everyone out there who is involved in this field, and therefore we already have a list of people to choose from." That may or may not be a very good answer; frankly, I do not think it is.
There is one example of a high-profile person who had a fine reputation when she worked with the government, but none the less a political reputation, who was appointed to a very sensitive job and who was then caught in the middle concerning whether to come forward for or against government policy. Certainly when she took the position of being in favour of government policy, the cries of "government hack" and "just another political appointment" seemed to be able to stick. Whether that is true or whether it is fair, we are not here to judge; but that certainly was the impression that was left with at least the members on this side of the House.
With those few comments, I would like to move on to discuss the Ontario Manpower Commission, which our committee reviewed. I might say that never has the Ontario Manpower Commission been more important than it is today. We have a great dislocation between people who want jobs and the type of jobs that are available: we have an overabundance in some areas and a lack of qualified personnel in other areas.
To give members an example from the Windsor area, I visited the director of a local hospital. I wanted to tour part of the facility for some different reasons which I do not think the House needs to know at this time. However, in my tour of these facilities and in my discussion with the director of the hospital, it was explained to me that the department was short five physiotherapists.
I said, "Let's hire five physiotherapists if we need them to serve the people of Windsor." The director answered, "There is a problem." I asked, "What is the problem?" The director said, "There are not any physiotherapists available to be hired here in Ontario." I said to myself: "How is this possible? We have all these community colleges we have built. We have spent billions of dollars in our education system. Why are there no physiotherapists to be hired?" The administrator certainly could not answer that question. That is a question for this Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to answer, a government that has been in office for 41 consecutive years.
Mr. McKessock: That is the problem.
Mr. Mancini: That is the problem. My friend the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) points out that is the problem.
However, before I left that day, the administrator showed me where he had made a contract with five individuals from England to come over to work in Windsor. Five well-paid jobs were being given to people from outside of Ontario because our education system, our training system, is completely out of whack with what the market is demanding.
I have been informed that the physiotherapists are not trained at the community colleges, but at the University of Toronto and Queen's University. I certainly appreciate this information.
Be that as it may, that in itself does not change the basic problem. The basic problem is not just in the area of physiotherapists. In many skilled trades, we have a shortage of people to fill the jobs that are available. I have heard figures as high as 40,000 that we are short. Tomorrow, we could employ 40,000 people in certain skilled jobs across this whole province.
Therefore, I say again, never before has the Ontario Manpower Commission been more important. I am very glad the standing committee on procedural affairs had the opportunity to review the work of the commission.
While the commission did some research, we found that not all of its research and program evaluation studies were made immediately available to the general public and to the members of the assembly. In my view, that is protecting the government. We want to know how government programs are working. We have the right to know. We deserve to know whether the implemented programs of the government are working.
One of the recommendations of the committee was to ask the commission to make public at once all of its research and program evaluations. We also suggested to the commission that it continue to study such matters as the impact of technology on the Ontario labour market and employment strategies for women.
10 p.m.
We wanted them to undertake additional studies with respect to apprenticeship programs and employment in smaller urban communities. Not everyone can move to Toronto to work; not everyone can live in the Golden Horseshoe. Some people want to live in the communities in which they have been born and raised.
Mr. Foulds: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mancini: I guess that goes in spades for the north.
Mr. Foulds: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mancini: Why am I getting so much support from the member for Port Arthur? Is something going to happen? No; nothing.
I recall that recently during the Labour estimates we had the chairman of the Ontario Manpower Commission before us. He is now an assistant deputy minister. I had a real discussion with him and I was quite concerned about the view that the commission was working either for today and/or for what has happened in the past, and was not looking towards the future.
The chairman of the commission told me at that time: "It is impossible to guess what is going to happen in the future. It is impossible to forecast the future." I was quite perturbed by that comment, because in my view that is exactly the work that the commission is supposed to do. They are in the business of forecasting the future, of forecasting the needs of the people of Ontario, of forecasting what areas of the job market would be available so that this information can be transferred to the secondary school students before they go on to the community colleges and/or Ontario universities. That in itself told me a lot.
Possibly the commission is no longer of that view, but I was quite perturbed when the former chairman told me it was not in the business of forecasting the future. That is exactly its job. We need now, more than ever, a commission that will help us to forecast the future.
I will not touch in any detail on the matter of the law society. The member for Durham East did that in great detail. However, I would like to make a couple of comments about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I am sure all of us have heard of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That is the commission that tries to dispense a few dollars to people who have been victims of crime. That is something I thoroughly accept. People who have been the victims of crime should in some way be compensated if at all possible.
I have read a couple of the reports that have been put out by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I read about them in the paper every now and then. It seems they give $800 here and $1,100 there, $1,500 here and $1,600 there. It seems to me, and I want to be as charitable as I can, that the only person receiving substantial compensation from the Criminal injuries Compensation Board is the chairman, Allan Grossman. I believe his compensation is in the neighbourhood of $60,000. That is on top of his $30,000 pension.
Mr. Kerrio: Is that not criminal compensation?
Mr. Mancini: That is criminal compensation.
Interjection.
Mr. Mancini: Ah yes, but Brian Mulroney can change that if he wishes, I say to the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). That opportunity has now left. He can no longer point to my former friends in Ottawa. We are now talking about --
Mr. Robinson: Are they no longer your friends, or are they no longer in Ottawa?
Mr. Mancini: They are still friends, but they are no longer in Ottawa. From now on, at least for the next four years, we will be talking about their kissing cousins in Ottawa.
Do the members on that side not agree with me when I say that paying someone more than $60,000 a year for doing this little bit of work that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does is slightly excessive? Do they not feel uneasy when the Treasurer has to sign two cheques for his dad? Does that not make them feel a little bit uneasy? Gosh, I do not know.
Anyway, Larry has always been good at --
The Acting Speaker: I wish the honourable member would refer to other honourable members of this House by their offices or by their ridings.
Mr. Mancini: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry. I did not mean Larry Grossman. I meant the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.
Anyway, I am told this appointment may be up for reappointment.
Mr. Kerrio: He would be a triple dipper.
Mr. Mancini: Yes. I am told the chairman might have to take some time off to work in someone's leadership campaign; or that he may not resign from his job but may work in the leadership campaign just the same, and that would make it even more criminal.
Those are the few comments I have about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. If the government really means business about compensating victims of crime, let us get serious about it; let us review the whole process. As a matter of fact, one of the direct recommendations from the report made by the committee is, that "The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board strengthen the public's awareness of the board and its function of compensating victims of violent crime."
That is true, but the thing we forgot to mention in this report is that, while it does get headlines every now and then for compensating people, I think $600 compensation for being involved in a violent crime may not even be worth the process one goes through. To me this is set up more to give Allan Grossman a job than to compensate anyone else.
Mr. Speaker, it is almost 10:07. I was of the understanding earlier today that we would be debating the seventh report tonight and the eighth report at a future date. If that is the case, I would like to withhold my comments about procedural affairs report 8. Is anyone from the New Democratic Party going to speak?
Mr. Philip: Yes.
Mr. Mancini: We had worked out an arrangement today whereby we would adjourn the debate so that the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would be able to speak at some future time, but I would like to withhold my comments on report 8.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief observation to make.
The Acting Speaker: May we have some clarification from the table? It could be that the member for Essex South is going to have a problem.
I think in all fairness that we will refer back to the member for Essex South, having regard to the fact that, if you do sit down now, you will not be able to regain the floor.
Mr. Mancini: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to speak on a great number of issues in report 8, but I would like to touch first of all on the IDEA Corp. Just in case time runs out, I want to make sure I have an opportunity to speak on this corporation -- another crown corporation, I may say, established by the Conservative government of Ontario. We spend a lot of time bashing crown corporations that operate from a base in Ottawa, but this is another crown corporation.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this was part of the 1981 Board of Industrial Leadership and Development announcement the Premier made just before the campaign, when he called a big press conference and had this huge billboard behind him that said "BILD." The IDEA Corp. was all part and parcel of that.
The IDEA Corp. is to try to improve technologies and obtain different processes that people want to put into business practice: it is to try to have a person with -- for lack of another word -- a good idea meet someone with money or, if he cannot do that, try to have some government agency help him along.
10:10 p.m.
I was quite impressed by the president of the IDEA Corp., Brian St. John. I was very impressed with the way he handled himself before the committee. He seemed to have a wide knowledge, or I should say a lot of knowledge, about many different things. I think we have a good man at the top. Whether he is a Tory, I do not know, but in my view he seems to be very capable.
The only thing that bothers me about the IDEA Corp. is that I am still not sure how it fits in with all the other agencies and crown corporations that were supposed to be doing this type of work prior to the formation of the IDEA Corp. We do have the Ontario Development Corp., the Ontario Research Foundation and a couple of other agencies like them. I am not sure where the IDEA Corp. fits in. In the committee's report we did not suggest that this crown corporation be disbanded or that we should sunset it, but in my view it could have easily worked from the ODC or from the ORF.
For example, I recently had a constituent come to see me who had a plan to develop a tractor that would not compact the ground as much as present tractors do. He would do that by pulling a different kind of plough, which would get its power to till the soil not from the strength of the tractor, but from some small hookup that would be on the plough itself. That in itself would force the plough to till the land, and there would be no need for all these huge tractors pulling all these huge ploughs, that heavy tractor weight needed to get the job done. At least that is the way it was explained to me.
Mr. Philip: Could we have a diagram of that? I find it hard to follow.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, we do have a diagram. I am sorry. My explanation was not as good as it could have been.
We have here the IDEA Machine and Automation Technology Fund Inc. The way it was explained to me is that when this individual wanted to proceed with this idea, he visited the technology centre that has been established in Chatham by the Conservative government to take care of ideas such as the one discussed. Then the individuals from Chatham and this farmer from my area came to see me in my constituency office and informed me, "We have a great idea here, but we do not have any way of getting a prototype built or getting the model on to the market."
To me, this just does not make any sense. Why do we have a technology centre to begin with if they are going to turn around and go back to their MPPs to see if they can find the money? That is not going to work. That being the case, it will now have to transpire that I or someone else will have to make representation to the ODC or to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to get money and have them transfer that money to the technology centre in Chatham, so they can build this prototype, and that should have been done right from square one by the technology centre.
Members of the Legislative Assembly and Citizens of Ontario are running around from agency to agency. Each sends us off to another office that has a fancy name. We go to the ODC and it has a nice fancy letterhead. It sends us to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, which at this time has more people running around in circles than I have seen in the nine years I have been in the House.
We do not need any more crown corporations, be it the IDEA Corp. or any of the other technology centres affiliated with the IDEA Corp. We need one clearing house for the general public and for the members at large where we can go and say: "This is what we have and this is what we would like to build as a prototype. What do we do?" We get sent to one office and it gets done or it does not get done. Maybe the government members do not have to do this; maybe they do not see that as a problem.
If I have one disappointment with the IDEA Corp., it is that it appears to be just another stop to which people can be sent. As I said earlier, I have great confidence in the man at the top who I think wants to do a good job. We talked about a lot of interesting things, but I see things happening in the field that are just not the way they should be.
I want to talk about a controversial subject at this time. All of us know and we are all saddened that in the past two months a great number of Ontario's police officers have been shot and killed in the line of duty. We had the opportunity to review the Ontario Board of Parole some months ago. Actually, we were quite astounded by the mixup between the parole board's jurisdiction and what the Ministry of Correctional Services wants to do.
I would like to read to the House a short portion of the committee's report. I think the members of the House will be as offended by this as I was along with the other members of the committee. This deals with the temporary absence program controlled and operated by the Ministry of Correctional Services. We are on page 18.
Mr. Kerrio: It is called "bed-and-breakfast incarceration."
Mr. Mancini: My colleague the member for Niagara Falls said it very clearly and very succinctly. He called it "bed-and-breakfast incarceration" and that is indeed what it is. I will quote from page 18, which says:
"Subsequent to the committee's meeting with the members of the parole board, the chairman of the board wrote to the committee providing further comments on the interaction of the two programs, highlighting the possibility that there may be an overlapping of mandates."
10:20 p.m.
We are talking about the Ontario parole board and the temporary absence program. The letter said in part:
"Currently, inmates serving a sentence of 124 days or less may be release outright through temporary absence. Inmates can be admitted to a correctional centre and be on their way back home within a day, or within any other period of time deemed appropriate by the institutional staff. Further consideration is being given to the expansion of this approach to all inmates serving a sentence of up to 180 days.
"In regard to longer-term stays, a proposal is being considered for an intensive supervision project whereby inmates not normally considered as suitable candidates for temporary absence or parole would be released under intensive supervision through the temporary absence program. We were recently informed that there were no limits to temporary absence release and that an inmate can be released at any time under the temporary absence program.
"It was once understood that temporary absence was an absence during the day from an institution for specific activities -- education or employment -- with inmates residing in the institution at all other times or away full-time for limited duration of one to five days or one to 15 days for special circumstances. We have been informed that the 15-day leave can be given repeatedly without a return to the institution. This means that the temporary absence program has a mandate which exceeds that of the board." This means the Ontario Board of Parole.
"It may be then that the board should not exist. I do not feel the committee was aware that parole was in question. While it is a difficult situation for us to face, it nevertheless is a question to be asked and answered.
"It may be that there should be some examination of the two mandates which leads to some clarification and dovetailing of the two activities, or the replacement of one by the other."
The report continued: "On reviewing the above letter and the evidence presented to it, the committee has concluded that there is some overlapping of mandates as regards the parole board and the temporary absence program. Consequently, the committee believes that the Ministry of Correctional Services should undertake an evaluation of each program to determine the extent to which these two programs overlap and whether there is any duplication of unnecessary functions.
"Your committee therefore recommends" -- and it is recommendation 8 -- "the Minister of Correctional Services undertake an evaluation of the mandates of the Ontario Board of Parole and the temporary absence program in order to determine the overlapping of the two programs."
I hope we have all understood exactly what this means. It means that a person can be sentenced to an Ontario institution for whatever crime has been committed and not have to appear before the parole board to leave that institution. Such persons can go before civil servants, or I should say civil servants would review their files -- I am not even sure whether they have to appear before these civil servants -- and they could then be granted parole on a continuous basis and never have to serve a day.
Whether that is right or wrong is not for us here to judge because we do not know the situation of every inmate who is being released. But to say that we have a parole board and then have the parole board's power usurped in this fashion is an injustice, because people who may be going before the parole board could be turned down and/or let out and people going through the temporary absence program could be given completely opposite treatment.
The ministry is going to have to make up its mind whether we want a parole board or whether we want it done by civil servants within a community. On the parole board, like all the other boards, agencies and commissions that operate here in Ontario, are a good number of people who are appointed by order in council. Some of them are full-time. I am told the vice-chairmen make salaries of anywhere from $36,000 to $45,000 a year. The chairmen have a salary scale of anywhere from $38,000 to $70,000 a year. The part-time members of the Ontario Board of Parole who are appointed by order in council get a per diem.
We have the mechanism set up. We are paying high salaries. The offices are all set up. Everything is in place. At the same time, we have the Ministry of Correctional Services usurping their role. What is the purpose of this? Why do we need the temporary absence program? It states very clearly in our report that there are five regional boards. Each region has a full-time vice-chairman. The part-time members are drawn from the surrounding areas to elicit community participation and co-operation. We cannot say that everybody has to come to Toronto to be heard. That is not true. We have five regional boards with a full-time chairman paid anywhere from $36,000 to $45,000 a year. There is a system set up.
The Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services Act of 1978 set up the Ontario Board of Parole, which was given the jurisdiction over "any inmate convicted of an offence under any act of the Legislature, any act of the Parliament of Canada or against a municipal bylaw It was given wide jurisdiction. Further, for the most part this refers to inmates serving two years less a day and in some cases to parole jurisdiction over federal inmates serving their sentences in provincial institutions.
When we hear what is happening, particularly on a national level, about people being released from jail who are dangerous to society, we are all very concerned. We do not want that to happen. We hope something is done to prevent dangerous criminals being released before their sentences expire.
Right here in our own province we have a situation where the people involved in the parole board say: "Look, you people on the procedural affairs committee, tell the Legislature that it should review what we are doing. Either it is going to let us do our job or it should abolish the Ontario Board of Parole."
That is exactly what should be done. We should review what is going on. We should let the parole board do its job or abolish the parole board and end this charade where the temporary absence program is now so firmly in place that people are let out on a daily basis and in some cases they do not even have to spend an afternoon in jail.
On motion by Mr. Mancini, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.