Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I wish this morning to introduce to the House the last four remaining members of that entertainment group from World War I known as the Dumbells. They were formed in France in 1917 and I think we all know the story of their successes and morale boosting. In the past, after that conflict, they appeared all over the world, one might say, but in particular they appeared at what is known as Lambert Lodge in Toronto, and through the courtesy of Mr. Bill MacNeil and Cy Strange of the CBC, they’ve been brought to Toronto for a reunion back at Lambert Lodge tomorrow evening before the destruction of that edifice.

I am then pleased to acknowledge these members here this morning -- Jack McLaren of Goderich, Jack Ayre of Toronto, Bill Redpath of Toronto and Jerry Brayford of British Columbia. I might say that they have been in Toronto since last Wednesday and I think they’re still able to do a little heel-kicking. Mr. Speaker, through you to the assembly, I would like to introduce these gentlemen.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House, we too would like to join in welcoming this group representative of a very interesting and distinguished part of the entertainment history of our nation. I suppose, coming into a room like this, they may find before the morning is over that some of the lines and some of the comments date back to the things they thought were funny 60 years ago. We are pleased to welcome them.

We remember the stories of what happened in the trenches and as I recall it, their brigade patch, which was in the form of a dumb-bell, started the whole thing for that happy troupe of those who were prepared to bring a little light and joy into lives that were shattered not only by war but by the aftermath of war. We are indeed honoured that you can be with us this morning.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our group, I would like to add to those words of welcome. Perhaps some of us in this House don’t quite remember when these boys did their stuff across the world, but there are some of us who were very small boys at that time who do have some recollection of the entertainment and the kind of levity and lightness which was brought to the whole situation in those days. I just wanted to add that word and to say that we’re delighted to see these men here and we hope they will be returning to meet us once more.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to welcome to the House, through you, 19 members from the West Hill Collegiate Institute and their teacher, Mrs. Tobias. Would you join me in welcoming them, please?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming 30 students under the chairmanship of Mr. Adam from Ecole Notre Dame de la Merci in Coniston. Thank you.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 35 grade 12 students and their teacher, Mr. Hall, from Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School, Mississauga. Would the members join me in welcoming them?

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 24, 1975, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) asked certain questions concerning a Ministry of Revenue employee, Mr. Brian Charlton, a property assessor in the Wentworth regional assessment office in Hamilton. I indicated at that time that some of the information the hon. member referred to was new to me and that I was looking into the matter. I wish to reply at this time in more detail.

My investigations show that Mr. Charlton has been involved in various aspects of political activity for some years. Following receipt of a letter sent to Mr. Charlton on Nov. 10, 1970, by the regional assessment commissioner, drawing his attention to certain restrictions on political activity contained in the Public Service Act, Mr. Charlton stated that he was involved in supporting NDP municipal candidates and that the NDP municipal organization was not sponsored by either the federal or the provincial party.

We understand that at the time this correspondence took place neither the regional assessment commissioner nor Mr. Charlton was aware of any regulations which applied specifically to Mr. Charlton’s employee classification. It was not until the fall of 1971 that the assessment commissioner became aware that employees in Mr. Charlton’s classification were prohibited from taking part in municipal and provincial political activities.

Further, the matter of schedule 2, which lists positions prohibited from taking part in political activities, was at that time under review, and there remained some uncertainty in the commissioner’s mind concerning its application to Mr. Charlton.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): My goodness, what a background!

Hon. Mr. Meen: Although we now know that Mr. Charlton expanded his political activities beyond the municipal level, and in fact, was elected president of the Hamilton Mountain New Democratic Party Riding Association, this information did not come to the attention of the regional assessment commissioner until it was reported in the Hamilton Spectator on Feb. 28 last. The regional assessment commissioner, upon learning of Mr. Charlton’s violation of these prohibitions, referred the matter to the head office of the ministry at Queen’s Park.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the fall of 1974, in response to a number of inquiries from different offices of my ministry, a memorandum was circulated to all our offices advising of the prohibitions contained in the Public Service Act.

Mr. Martel: Except if one is right at the top.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In respect of Mr. Charlton’s case, a review was held at head office which led to a decision to give Mr. Charlton two weeks to choose between his political aspirations and his job with the ministry. This decision was based on two simple facts: First, Mr. Charlton’s political activities are prohibited by section 13 of the Public Service Act, and section 16 of the Act deems such conduct sufficient cause for dismissal. Secondly, the ministry has in the past required other employees to make the same choice. In fact, the precedent by which Mr. Charlton was given two weeks in which to make his decision was based on a case involving an employee who had been elected as an officer of a local riding association of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Lewis: It was wrong then too.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refute in unequivocal terms the suggestion of the member for Scarborough West that the ministry was motivated in its decision by the possibility of an election or by any other political considerations. I can assure the House that we have enforced the prohibitions against political activity contained in the Public Service Act in a fair and even-handed manner, regardless of the political affiliations of the employees involved.

Mr. Martel: No, not if they are at the top.

Mr. Lewis: It is not the affiliations.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In making this reply, I would also like to correct some of the observations on this case made by the hon. member for Scarborough West. Contrary to the member’s statement on Thursday, April 24, Mr. Charlton never requested leaves to participate in political activity, as the hon. member for Scarborough West has suggested --

Mr. Lewis: Certainly he did. He took days off work to participate in political activity.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- an action which would have required the approval of the regional assessment commissioner. His absences for political purposes were taken as part of his vacation time and did not require the special attention of the commissioner. Mr. Charlton has confirmed this fact. I repeat Mr. Speaker, Mr. Charlton has confirmed this fact, as do our records.

Mr. Lewis: So?

Hon. Mr. Meen: As previously noted, the extent of Mr. Charlton’s activity came to the attention of the commissioner through a newspaper item in late February, 1975, and to the attention of head office immediately thereafter.

Mr. Lewis: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Therefore, the hon. member’s declaration that these facts are false is a totally erroneous statement.

Mr. Lewis: Well I believe them to be false and I want the minister to know that. I believe them to be false.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Finally, the hon. member suggests that Ontario should provide the public servants of this province with the same rights as are accorded them by the federal government.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Hon. Mr. Meen: He is, or at that time was, obviously unaware of section 32 of the federal Public Service Employment Act, which provides that no employee may work for or against a candidate for election --

Mr. Lewis: But he can take a leave of absence to run.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- to federal or provincial office, or for or against a political party.

If this government followed the suggestion of the hon. member, we would be adopting a far more stringent policy in this regard than presently exists in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. This government has the worst policy in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Finally, I would like to clarify a point Mr. Charlton raised in correspondence to the regional commissioner. Mr. Charlton writes that he is under the impression that, and I quote:

“Those sections of the Public Service Act relating to political activities and those sections of the regulations designating job classes ineligible for political activities are all under review. Further, any actions against myself will be postponed until the completion of that review.”

This is not the case. In this regard, I would point out that my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board, when asked by the hon. member for Scarborough West whether or not this particular dismissal would be held off until he reviewed the designated categories, disagreed and replied: “I am not going to stand here and say that I will withhold whatever action is legal in this particular instance.” Further, any such review of the Act would have to be fairly extensive and would not necessarily result in any change that would assist Mr. Charlton.

There is one aspect of this matter which I think should be emphasized, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Charlton’s conduct to date is grounds for dismissal; however, it is not our intention that he should be dismissed for his violation of the Public Service Act to date. It is our intention that further violation cannot be condoned or permitted. Mr. Charlton, who is an otherwise desirable employee, is, at present, knowingly in contravention of the Public Service Act, and the status of his employment will be determined by a decision solely of his choice.

Mr. Lewis: That’s fair.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Due to his apparent misunderstanding of the action we might take, as indicated in his recent correspondence which I have cited, he will be given a further week in which to inform us of his decision.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of my review of the facts surrounding this matter, I have concluded that Mr. Charlton is being treated in a fair and equitable manner, consistent with the treatment of other employees in a similar position.

Mr. Martel: Not those at the top. What about the campaign manager for the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch)?

UNIVERSITY GRANTS

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to advise the House today that the BIU value which will be used for calculating 1975-1976 operating grants for the universities will be increased a further $3 to $2,111. This is made possible as the actual enrolment on which the 1975-1976 grants will be based is slightly lower than we had forecast earlier.

The Ontario Council on University Affairs had indicated to me that should funds remain after the allocation of the extra-formula grants, these should be distributed as formula grants. This increase is being achieved with the global expenditure limit of $568 million that I advised the House of last November.

In addition, in order to relieve some of the pressure on university operating funds, we are reviewing the needs in the area of physical facility maintenance of the university system. I will inform the House when this review is completed and we see what action we are able to take to assist them.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the hon. members will undoubtedly have noted recent press releases and statements by the federal Minister of Transport concerning studies presently under way by his officials toward the preparation of a new and comprehensive national transportation policy. On Feb. 17 of this year, for example, Mr. Marchand told the House of Commons, in response to a question:

“The policy, which I hope can be announced shortly, will cover not only the regional air carriers, but it will cover the third-level air carriers, the railways, the highways -- it will cover everything that moves in Canada.”

I believe it is appropriate for me to take this opportunity to inform the House concerning the views of the government of Ontario respecting these developments, especially since I have been informed by persons in the transportation industry that federal officials have given the impression that Ontario is actively involved in the definition and the conduct of these studies.

It is my understanding that the present activities in Ottawa stem from the announcement in the federal Throne Speech of last September, as follows:

“The government of Canada is conducting a comprehensive examination of existing ground, air, and marine transportation systems to meet present and growing future demands for passenger and goods services. Also under review are the roles of the various bodies which manage, operate and regulate the transportation system. The aim is to determine the role of government in both the public and private sectors of transportation, the most rational use of available capital resources and the most appropriate means of balancing existing regulation and direct government intervention. While the co-operation of all parties will be sought, these problems are of a scale that they require federal government co-ordination.”

This statement, especially when it is read in context with Mr. Marchand’s remark, which I quoted earlier, raises some obvious questions concerning the role of the provinces in the development of policies to cover “everything that moves in Canada.”

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Does it include bicycles?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The review of national transportation policies which is currently under way has been conceived and is being carried out entirely within the federal government. The federal minister and his officials have been kind enough to provide briefings as to their work plans, but there has been no active involvement by Ontario to date.

I must confess that I personally am still rather unclear as to the objectives and the time frame of the federal study. If its objective is simply to resolve internal questions, such as the power of the federal minister to set overall policy for the various transportation agencies which report to him or to resolve specific national scale questions of undoubted federal competence, such as the capacity of the railroads through the Rockies, the requirements for a Canadian merchant marine or the retirement of the Seaway debt, then the federal initiative is appropriate, although affected provincial governments will undoubtedly wish to have an opportunity to express their views before final decisions are reached.

But if, as I suspect, the federal government is proposing to make decisions on a broader and more detailed scale which will directly affect this province and its ability to make appropriate use of transportation to achieve its own legitimate economic and social objectives, then the active participation of Ontario is required. The federal government does not have a mandate covering “everything that moves in Canada” --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Give them Krauss-Maffei.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- nor do the broad objectives of the federal government make it an appropriate body to embark upon a unilateral review of policies which will have a direct impact upon the regional development of this province or the service requirements of Ontario municipalities.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Krauss-Maffei doesn’t move, so this government’s safe.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I raise this matter this morning, Mr. Speaker, not out of any intention to make the federal government’s path more difficult -- and let me say that it is indeed an extremely complex task upon which my federal colleague has embarked -- but, quite frankly, because I fear that the political pressure which exists as a consequence of the federal Throne Speech and of the election campaign promises which preceded it may lead the federal government to use this review as a basis for snap decisions which will adversely affect the ability of this province to meet its responsibility in the transportation field.

The government of Ontario is in no way opposed to the idea of a comprehensive review and an updating of the national transportation policies, although from our perspective we have been reasonably satisfied with the operation within Ontario of the National Transportation Act and with its underlying principles of intermodal competition. While we would not go so far as the federal minster’s statement that national transportation policy “is a mess” --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Well, it is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- we do agree that there are a number of problems which are of concern, a number of them specifically related to northern Ontario. Ontario also recognizes that solutions to transportation problems --

Mr. Stokes: It is a mess. For heaven’s sake, don’t stop them. It’s the first time in 30 years they have ever undertaken to do anything.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- must be co-ordinated to make the best use of available modes irrespective of formal jurisdiction. It is especially important under current economic conditions that there be a rationalization of the use of the taxpayer’s dollar between governments to prevent wasteful expenditures at cross purposes.

For these reasons, Ontario welcomes the idea of a comprehensive review of transportation policies in Canada, but believes that this review, to be successful, must come to grips with the fundamental question of responsibility -- of which level of government should be involved with which aspects of transportation services. Let me underline my belief that the issue is no longer a simple question of legal jurisdiction, but of ensuring that each level of government in Canada has the ability to guide and direct transportation services where appropriate to serve its own legitimate social and economic objectives. This may well mean such things as greater federal involvement in the Trans-Canada Highway or greater provincial authority over third-level air carrier and regional rail services.

Improved transportation policies at the national and regional levels can only be achieved by a genuine co-operative approach to existing problems by the federal and provincial governments in Canada. The initiative is presently with the federal government. I know that given an opportunity to become actively involved Ontario can make a contribution toward a new and truly national transportation policy.

Mr. Lewis: What does all that mean?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s going on the record.

Mr. Lewis: What point is he making?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The member for Kitchener.

ONTARIO STUDY ON QUEBEC SEPARATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier or the Chairman of Management Board, perhaps I could put a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: Can the minister advise us whether a statement on the “As it Happens” radio programme last night was correct, to his knowledge, that the government of Canada has asked the Province of Ontario to do a study on the results of the separation of the Province of Quebec from Confederation, and the effects on Confederation of that occurrence, should it occur?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am personally not familiar with that. I will take that as notice and draw it to the attention of the appropriate minister.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Breithaupt: A further question of the same minister, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matters of mercury pollution which he was investigating. Can the minister now advise us whether members of his staff have contacted the research unit at the Hospital for Sick Children with respect to the new product penicillamine which apparently can help to remove mercury and other heavy metals from the human system?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I drew the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), to this question when it was asked in his absence -- whenever the member opposite did ask the question -- and he said he was going to take this matter in hand. I’m afraid the member will have to wait to ask this question of the Minister of Health. I am sure he will have something to report on it.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the information contained in appendix B to the budget about the Ontario Home Buyers Grant Act. Can the minister clarify for us the comment with respect to item 5 on that page in the budget concerning title or possession of the housing unit especially as in the matter of many condominium units possession might take place but the actual title might not pass for, perhaps, a period of even a year until the units have been completed and the necessary legal work has been attended to?

Can the minister clarify which of those two items is necessary for application for this grant or are both, in fact, required?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding both are required but it would not apply to a condominium.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, there are people who have moved in who have not yet acquired title to property, people who are renting and who subsequently buy; there are people who have moved into homes ahead of the closing date by special arrangement. Where do they fit into all this? Is the closing date the date to be used for purposes of this grant or some other date? What do we tell people?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s the registration of the particular building, whatever it may be, condominium or semi-detached or single home.

Mr. Deans: One other question. The minister says it’s the day it is registered in the registry office?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Deans: That’s the date? That’s different from what we are being told by the ministry. We were told the closing date; that’s a different day. Quite frequently they are quite far apart. Is it the day of registry? Could the minister put it on the record so that we know for sure?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is my understanding it is the date of registration. I am not the one who made the statement as to whether or not it is something different. If the member for Wentworth is saying that, I have not said so.

Mr. Deans: No, I didn’t say the minister did. I said it was from the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Minister of Revenue is the one who is responsible for the implementation of this particular Act.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister tap him and ask him?

Mr. Breithaupt: While the minister is being tapped, perhaps I could ask if condominium units are to be involved in the programme, which I understand they may be, then surely, if a person took possession of a unit on April 9 but because of registration difficulties the actual title to that unit did not pass until Jan. 5 of next year, that person would not receive any of these benefits? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that unless the condominium, as a whole unit, is registered the person is out of luck. It has to be registered.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, if I may, the registration is obviously there for the condominium unit as such. That is, that registration may have taken place, but I’m concerned with the actual title from that condominium corporation to the individual, which might not take place within this calendar year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Again, Mr. Speaker, I say it has to be the total unit that’s registered and not the particular unit. One doesn’t register one unit; the building is registered as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: I’m not sure what the minister means, Mr. Speaker.

MIRRORS ON CARS TOWING TRAILERS

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is he aware of some interest with respect to the use of additional heavy mirrors on passenger cars pulling trailers? Is there any policy within the ministry that would not only require those mirrors to be used while a trailer is being pulled, but also to perhaps have those mirrors removed when the trailer is not being pulled by a car because of certain pedestrian dangers that might occur from those very large mirrors?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some concerns on this. In fact, not too long ago I received a letter from the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), concerning this very matter, as well as letters from other persons.

All I can say is that we do require that there be adequate rear-view capability on all vehicles on the highway. I can’t quote the regulation and the section to the hon. member, but it is required that there be adequate rear-view capability when towing a trailer. At the present time we are looking at the situation as to the mirrors being left on the cars when they are not towing a trailer. The only restriction we would have there now is to the maximum width that is permitted of a vehicle on the highway. We are aware of it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a question?

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. What underlies this statement he made today before the orders of the day? Can he give definitions to this peculiar phrase: “ ... especially since I have been informed by persons in the transportation industry ... ”? Which part of the industry is putting on the pressure and asking him to clear it up?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all no pressure has been brought to bear at all. It has simply been in general conversations that are bound to occur between my ministry and the various transportation modes in the province. Federal government officials, who are carrying out this particular study, have indicated to them in their conversations that Ontario was actively involved in these studies. I want to make it very clear to this House and state this government’s position that we are not actively involved. We would very much like to be involved.

Mr. Lewis: And that is what the statement is all about. It is a request.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And we are concerned that Mr. Marchand may stand up in the House of Commons and make a statement as to national policy and give the implication that the provinces have been involved when, actually, we have not been.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of a supplementary question, would the minister let me know whether he has had any direct communication with Mr. Marchand about this matter, or whether this is his method of communication with Mr. Marchand? Surely it would be an easy matter for the minister to call his colleague in Ottawa and inform him of his views.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I have had a number of meetings with Mr. Marchand, the latest being within the last month and a half here in Toronto in my office -- meetings with the minister and his officials. We discussed these very matters along with others. I have indicated to him that we were concerned that there was no involvement with the provinces in the development of these transportation policies. I can say that there has been some improvement in the discussions at the staff level -- and I am gratified that this is happening. I did tell Mr. Marchand at the last meeting --

Mr. Reid: It’s a part of the government’s election campaign.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I told Mr. Marchand at the last meeting that it was my intention to state Ontario’s position on this matter in the Legislature, and he is aware of this statement being made.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. What is the nature of the areas in which the minister wishes to be involved? Has he a clear conception of the kind of involvement and active participation that he wishes Ontario to play with Ottawa in this national study?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the federal government have indicated that they want to revamp the total National Transportation Act and to develop comprehensive policies for the whole country. We totally agree that this is a very worthwhile objective, and we would like to participate in their development.

Our concern is about a statement made by the hon. minister that their policies will cover everything that moves. We’re concerned about the federal government making decisions.

Mr. Reid: Krauss-Maffei doesn’t --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I wish it would cover their own government. Maybe that’s the problem --

Mr. Reid: Krauss-Maffei doesn’t move --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The problem is, sir, that we want to make sure that the federal government remembers that this province has certain jurisdictional positions -- on highways, on certain types of carriers --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I think they are very sensitive to that -- almost too sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We want to discuss how this aspect can be integrated into a national policy without losing our initiatives within the province to develop our own systems for the social and economic well-being of this province.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We simply want to be part of the overall discussion and development and to have our input before any hard policy decisions are made by the minister, such as have been made by the Minister for Communications, which sometimes leaves us in left field.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): A supplementary --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary from the member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question of the minister: Is he really saying the provincial government wants to have complete control over any subsidies from the federal government, such as the one they announced in their last Throne Speech or before the time of the last election whereby they would be giving grants to municipalities for transit and so forth?

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): They withdrew that, didn’t they?

Mr. Ruston: Is the minister saying he wants complete approval of these and he is going to want to have the complete say over any of these things that come from Ottawa? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying initially is that we want to be involved in the planning. I hadn’t discussed the matter of subsidies, but as the hon. member has brought it forth, absolutely -- constitutionally, it is the position of the provinces that they deal with the municipalities and that the federal government does not deal directly with them.

We are simply stating our position, as we have to other ministers, that we are prepared to co-operate and deal with the federal government. But those subsidies and their funding methods quite properly must be processed through the provincial government to the municipality --

Mr. Deans: Why don’t the governments just agree on the system?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We don’t want to delay them or hold them up, but we want to have some control over what’s happening. It must be very clearly understood that if the federal government is allowed to fund directly to municipalities for various projects then in essence the federal government is doing the planning of transportation in this province, and we can’t allow that to happen.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Reid: A supplementary --

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are developing quite a few supplementaries. We’ll have one from each party. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Assuming that the minister is invited to actively participate in the formulation of this national policy, is his ministry preparing a position with regard to freight rates as they discriminate against northern Ontario, and particularly northwestern Ontario, in view of the apparent lack of success of his policy of trying to reduce freight rates through the ONR system?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the points we want to be involved in as part of the discussions at the federal level. We have seen the sort of paper that has been put out by the federal government in response to the western provinces concerned and we’ve read that material. We would like now to discuss the freight rate applications and how we can resolve these problems in northern Ontario. There is no question about that being part of it.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Could the minister at some time, perhaps next week, give us a fuller account of exactly what the discussions were about with the federal government? He has told us he had the discussions and yet he doesn’t seem to be satisfied. Is he perhaps --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked --

Mr. Reid: If I may, while I’m on my feet, sir, I would like to ask the minister if he is perhaps a little upset because they are including everything that does move and don’t move, such as Krauss-Maffei, things that he is trying to get in under this policy?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The minister wonders where Trudeau’s promises are?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think what we want to be able to do is to discuss with the federal government what sort of national policies they are developing.

Mr. Reid: What would be discussed?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, the federal government have a tendency to come out with federal policies and call them national; there is a distinct difference, because they don’t discuss them with the provinces.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Just like this government.

Mr. Reid: This government comes up with province-wide policies which it doesn’t discuss with municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The discussions I have had with Mr. Marchand have dealt with a number of subjects relating to the direction he and his ministry wish to go in developing these policies. He has told us some of the things he plans to do. I’m not at liberty to give this information here --

Mr. Reid: And we have no input?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He’s asked me not to discuss those subjects, rightly so, I think, because they are in the development stage. I have advised the minister that I am concerned about the lack of participation by this province and others in this study that is going on. We want to be involved, to know exactly what is being planned and how it’s going to affect our systems in our provinces. All we are saying to him is, let us take part in it. He has been told that our position would be made public here in the Legislature. He is aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I haven’t the faintest idea what the minister said, but he said it very well. He handled it in an accomplished way. It’s quite remarkable.

Mr. Reid: He’s been studying the member’s speeches.

Mr. Lewis: Well, apparently -- and catching on a bit.

STATUS OF PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services, has he now reviewed the number of people in Ontario who are categorized as permanently unemployable but whom he will not recognize as disabled for purposes of coverage under the GAINS programme? How many are there, and of what does the review consist?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, our estimates start on Monday and I will have a full statement at that time.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second. By way of supplementary, is the minister about to change government policy or is he going to clarify the present situation? If he is going to clarify it Monday, why can’t he clarify it Friday?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The member asked me this question on Tuesday I believe, and at that time I told the hon. member that I would get the figures, and also that there was an ongoing discussion in Ottawa. I was there yesterday and the day before at the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers. Our officials are meeting today with the federal officials in this very question of the disabled and the permanently unemployable, to get the guidelines defined.

Mr. Lewis: To get the guidelines defined? By way of supplementary, does the minister not think there is something really unacceptable, certainly mean to the recipients, in that he is applying the distinction without having the guidelines? Doesn’t he think there is something wrong with placing people in categories for which there are no guidelines, and now he tells the Legislature he is looking for them?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No. My understanding is -- and there have been several discussions with the federal government -- that if we were to transfer all the permanently unemployable to the GAINS programme many of those would not meet the criteria of the federal government for cost sharing and, at the same time, there was a possibility that we could lose those that are presently being shared. This is what our officials are meeting with those in Ottawa today to clarify.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I just singlemindedly want to follow on this for a moment or two longer. Does the minister realize what he is saying? He has just said to the Legislature that these people, numbering somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 in Ontario, are the objects of a cost-sharing dispute with Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the member not realize that this is developing into a debate?

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry. All right. May I ask --

Mr. Speaker: The minister has indicated that this same matter will be under full discussion in the estimates at the first of the week.

Mr. Martel: Well, we won’t get to it then.

Mr. Lewis: This is the question period and I have a right to use it.

Mr. Speaker: I agree, but it is not a debating period. The hon. member may rephrase his question.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the minister why people who are being penalized financially by the government, are now the subject of a cost-sharing dispute? Does he not think he should be evaluating them on their physical merits rather than on who finances the cost?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think on Monday I will have a full statement on the numbers being transferred and on this whole question of the permanently unemployables as well as the disabled, and I think it makes for a more meaningful discussion at that time.

Mr. Lewis: Well, maybe it will. I have one further question then. If these people who are receiving family benefits and are permanently unemployable are receiving a Canada Pension Plan disability pension, which many of them are, recognized for disability by the federal government, why has Ontario not recognized them for disability as a provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, again, the criteria for eligibility under the Canada Assistance Plan are different criteria from those under the family benefits programme as well as under the GAINS programme.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Revenue: What was that business in the first part of his statement today, that the regional officer involved didn’t understand the interpretation of the Act, that it was under review and that he just let it go as it applied to Mr. Charlton?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1970, about the same time as the correspondence was exchanged between the commissioner and Mr. Charlton, a regulation was passed, and I understand that it only came to his attention later in 1971. At that time the whole matter had been, as everyone had understood it, under review. But later in 1971 when the regulation was passed which took assessors 3 into the prescribed category -- prohibition of political activity -- he then notified all the people in his branch and others of the nature of the regulation.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister still hold to the belief that in the intervening four years of explicit and publicized political activity the superiors for this man never knew until early 1975 of his involvement? Does the minister hold that to be a believable statement?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I questioned the commissioner at length and I concluded that, however difficult it may be to understand with the degree of activity that Mr. Charlton had, he would not have known of it. I have concluded that, in fact, he did not know of it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Nobody knew he was in the NDP?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Why are assessors 3 excluded from participating in political activities? What justification is there?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, they are involved in the assessment of value of everyone’s home. They are dealing with matters of a very difficult nature, one might say. It has been felt that they were in an area in which it was not desirable that they should take part in political activity. I mention that the matter is under review.

Mr. Lewis: It’s forever under review. People lose their jobs in the process.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am not suggesting that any change is going to take place. I personally feel that civil servants should be apolitical.

Mr. Lewis: Apolitical, why? The minister is unbelievable. What does he mean by apolitical?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In the sense of overt activities --

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister know how many civil servants support the Tory party?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- on the part of a provincial or a federal political party.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean all those mandarins under the gallery there should be apolitical?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am expressing my personal view as to the role of the civil servant. It happens that there are still exemptions from the categories of exclusion --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and then there are other categories of preclusion from political activity.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Downsview.

LAWRENCE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Could the minister advise us whether or not arrangements and agreements have now been completed by his department, the federal department and/or CMHC and the municipality, either of metropolitan Toronto or North York, to reconstruct the community centre -- the one that was burnt down -- and other appurtenances in Lawrence Heights -- or are there still barriers between the various levels of government that haven’t been determined?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have a proposal which is agreeable to ourselves and to the federal government, but whether it is agreeable to the borough is another question. It has been before them for some while. I think it is a fair proposal.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, since the proposal that the minister now has in hand is agreeable to the federal government and is agreeable to the Ontario government, would the minister do everything in his power to get the thing under way so that the people in that community -- the nearly 6,000 of them -- can begin to use the community centre before the snow flies again?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would be only too delighted to go ahead as has been suggested. We have already said that we are in agreement. I am not sure that the borough is in agreement with the amount of money they are receiving. I think that’s the holdup.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

STAFF FOR ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the disappearance of the Minister of Community and Social Services, I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Why is it that new positions, which I believe are called protective counsellors and workers for the mentally retarded, are being advertised for and selected by the Ministry of Community and Social Services? Why are they being put on the staffs of the associations for the mentally retarded without guaranteeing to the associations for the mentally retarded funding from the government for paying these people?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that is an internal problem within the ministry itself, one I have no jurisdiction over. I find it very difficult to believe that such a situation does exist; in fact, funding has been approved for the mentally retarded programme to include just those kinds of people the member has been speaking about. There is every indication that certainly the local associations will receive the funding required to provide those kinds of workers.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that the associations, by and large, have not been guaranteed funding beyond, I believe, a nine-month period? They are very afraid they may have to phase out the positions -- obviously valuable and valid ones -- if the funding is not continued and guaranteed. Is this an attempt to sort of hide or keep down the number of civil servants so the government can keep its promise not to increase civil servants? Surely, this is not the sort of issue on which that kind of fooling around should take place?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I will take the member’s question as notice and get that information from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

LYNWOOD AVE. ENTERPRISES LTD.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Housing. Is the Minister of Housing aware of a situation relating to Lynwood Ave. Enterprises Ltd. when, on the purchase and sale of that property to tenants -- 40 per cent of whom are between the ages of 60 and 94 -- and who have resided there for up to 40 years -- two of whom, at least, are now facing a monthly rental increase of $200? Does he feel his present policy of waiting until he builds new housing is really going to solve that kind of problem?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular project the member has referred to. I would be happy to receive the details if she would be kind enough to give them to me.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Martel: Yes. A question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that it is now approximately one year since the conditions at Elliot Lake came to the fore and throughout that period of time the men have continued to work in the same conditions, can the minister indicate when some action is going to be taken whereby the men will no longer be exposed to dust levels which are considered hazardous?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely incorrect to say that in the past year nothing has been done in the Elliot Lake area by our mine safety branch on the working conditions in the mine.

Mr. Martel: Yes, it has done some studies but the conditions are still the same.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are not the same, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make that very emphatic.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): They are still dangerous.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Tremendous improvements have been undertaken in the Elliot Lake area. I strongly object to the NDP and the member for Sudbury East constantly saying there are no improvements being made in the Elliot Lake area. This is entirely incorrect. I think the member is doing a disservice to the people of Elliot Lake and the people of this province by continually saying that nothing is being done.

In addition to the improvements in the Elliot Lake area, we will have a major policy statement to make, possibly next week, dealing with the entire situation.

Mr. Martel: Is it not a fact that until last month the conditions in the majority of the places where the men worked were in excess of TLV limits? Is it not a fact that Dr. Stewart has indicated there would be another 100 cases of silicosis if we didn’t move and that conditions still are virtually the same?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a fact.

Mr. Martel: It is a fact and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is not a fact. There are certain areas within any mine where the dust levels are higher for a specific period of time.

Mr. Martel: A year after.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are dealing with the situation and I am very confident that we will resolve it to the satisfaction of those workers at Elliot Lake.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The final supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Could the minister table in the Legislature, the reports on the dust levels in the various parts of the mine over the last year?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, these reports are made public and they are posted at the mine site for all to see. They are available and I will attempt to see if I can get them to date and have them forwarded to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

WINDSOR PROVINCIAL PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Would the minister care to tell the House the status of the provincial public building that now has been promised for quite a few number of years?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): In Windsor?

Mr. B. Newman: In the Windsor area.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, the Windsor building. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe there really has been change in the status of that project since the member asked me last.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The architectural drawings have now been completed. As the member knows the site was settled some time ago. The architectural drawings have just been completed. The building was not included in our capital programme this year, as many of our projects that were in the planning stages in all areas of the province had to be left out of the capital construction programme because of budgetary constraints imposed by the Treasurer. So we do not have it in our capital programme for this year.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that there is some consideration being given as to the possibility of this building and certain others being considered as leaseback buildings, and there has been no determination on this as of this time.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister consider for the time being the use of the Steinberg block, that is directly across from the county courts building in the city, until he can construct a provincial public building? Mr. Minister, the government has been promising this since before 1959.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, in general, all of the government facilities in the city of Windsor are quite well accommodated at this time.

Mr. B. Newman: The registry office -- is the minister satisfied with that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The registry office is one facility that certainly does need improved accommodation, but in general the offices are reasonably well accommodated. I am still very strongly recommending to the government and my colleagues that we build a consolidated building to give the registry office proper accommodation and to bring the provincial offices together to better be able to serve the people of Windsor.

We have looked at the Steinberg building. I have had some of my senior staff visit Windsor and do a report on this building for me, or make some recommendations to me. The costs were going to be very high, although the rental rate, I understood, would have been quite low on a per square foot base. The costs would have been very high for transforming a department store with no windows and so on, into suitable office accommodation. We did not feel it was a suitable long-term arrangement to do this, and the costs were just too high for short-term.

I would like to put my energies into getting the building that is planned ahead as quickly as possible, rather than spend money on something that will not be a permanent solution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

REMOVAL OF RED GLASS FROM LEGISLATIVE STAR

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, a question of either yourself, or the Minister of Government Services. Perhaps you could advise us as to whom we direct questions relating to the building that comes under the Speaker’s jurisdiction. Can we ask it of yourself, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It would have to be the minister.

Mr. Bounsall: But, anyway, the question is: Are they aware that the red glass is being removed from the red star which shines in front of the building to alert the citizenry of Toronto when the members sit beyond the normal working hours? Why is that red glass in that traditional red star being removed?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know, Mr. Speaker -- do you want me to answer on your behalf?

Mr. Speaker: If the member would care to send me a letter, I would get the answer for him and forward it to him.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Really, I would like to see a blue light up there, but on the other hand --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Mr. Singer: There is little time left to be able to do that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe it would be --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the NDP gets in, it will be a big red light.

Mr. Stokes: A green one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I believe the instructions for the change came from the Office of the Speaker, I would suggest that maybe the member deal with this by way of a letter to the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The red light district.

Mr. Speaker: If you write to me, I will give you the answer.

A new question? The member for Rainy River.

REFORESTATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Since the Ontario Professional Foresters Association has written to the minister and expressed its concern about the way we’re falling behind in regenerating our forests, what action does the minister intend to take? And can he indicate to the House just how far behind our replanting and reforestation are behind what we’re using in any given year?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think if the member will recall the discussions during my estimates in committee, I did relate to him at that time the programme we were involved in. It’s a 10-year programme and we’re in the third year of that particular programme now. For the last three years we’ve been allocated funds over and above our regular programme for a regeneration programme. I might say in connection with the foresters that they’re quite concerned as to our position. In the overall picture, I’m confident that the moves we’ve made in the last three years are very positive ones. As an example, we have a total, I think, of around 800 people now involved in a forestry programme throughout the province.

Mr. Martel: The minister is being irresponsible, too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In fact, last year alone I think we engaged something like 35 or 40 additional foresters. So we are moving ahead in the direction that I think they would like to see us go.

I think that that particular letter was written prior to the woodland tax rebate programme --

Mr. Reid: It just came out.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- which we introduced just last week, which will further accelerate wood production on private woodlots.

I am confident that the direction we’re moving in is the correct one. To say exactly where we stand in the overall picture, I’m afraid I don’t have that information at my fingertips.

Mr. Reid: A short supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Is it not a fact that even with the ministry’s 10-year programme we’re constantly falling behind and that in about a 40-year period we’re not going to have enough merchantable wood to use either for lumber or for pulp and paper in the Province of Ontario, even with the 10-year programme?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, that is not correct, Mr. Speaker. We set a target for wood that will be available in the year 2020 and, to my knowledge, we’ll be able to reach that target.

WORKING HOURS FOR TRUCK DRIVERS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the minister had any success in finding a way of protecting truck drivers operating in this province from the excessive hours of driving now being demanded of them by trucking firms, some of which are now American-owned?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have not found any manner adequately to combat it. The problem, as the member knows, is a divided jurisdiction between the federal and our own provincial authorities. Our own province is quite strict with the trucking industry concerning the hours of work. We feel that there should be more control at the federal level because, as the member for Sandwich-Riverside realizes, people travelling on the highways who have not had adequate rest are a real danger. It’s a safety factor which I’m searching for ways to control.

Mr. Burr: How hard is the minister pressing the federal ministry on this matter?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s a question, I suppose, sir, of judgement. Probably not as hard as the member for Sandwich-Riverside suggests he would like me to do, but I will undertake to press harder.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

NEW HOME ASSESSMENT DELAY

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is the Minister of Revenue aware that in the assessment department of his ministry in many municipalities if people move into homes they may live there from six to eight months before the assessment is finalized so that the municipality can put them on its tax rate?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, I’m not, Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that through some mechanism, either in the municipalities or in my assessment offices or, generally speaking, in both, the assessors would be aware of the completion of a dwelling and its occupancy and there would be a supplementary assessment issued. I think it is under section 43A of the Assessment Act. To repeat, I am not aware of any great delay in that regard.

SMOKING BAN IN INDUSTRY

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of the announcement or statement by the Minister of Health that it is his intention to ban smoking in certain areas of industrial plants where the combination of smoke or smoking and industrial dust emissions is believed to cause cancer? Is the minister convinced that it is possible for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to deal fairly with employees who may have contracted cancer, given that the minister has established a correlation between smoking and dust emissions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I understand the medical authorities agree there is a correlation between smoking and dust for people working in dusty environments.

We can ban it, as I think we are prepared to do on the recommendation from the Minister of Health. We can say, “This is an area in which you cannot smoke.” I think there is some added danger from inhaling cigarette smoke; maybe one takes in more of the environmental dust at the same time.

The real problem is the fact that people smoke at all and there is no way of banning smoking when they are out of the particular environment over which my ministry may have some jurisdiction. It’s the fact that they smoke as well as work in a dust environment which is the real problem. I don’t know how the Workmen’s Compensation Board could try to differentiate between the two.

Certainly, banning smoking is one of the possibilities we are considering -- we do it in certain places now -- particularly tied in with this dust environment.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Can the minister assure the House that the Compensation Board will not attempt to use the fact that a person smokes as a reason either for disallowing or for cutting down on the degree of pensionability of any individual who has contracted disease in the place of work?

Secondly, doesn’t he think it makes more sense to do away with the emissions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot give my friend the assurance that the Workmen’s Compensation Board will not consider whether smoking away from the environment has caused the person’s condition. I don’t think it would be right to do that because we are looking at compensable injuries which have arisen out of the workplace. If there is some evidence, and I don’t know how they do it, to show this was not caused by the workplace but by smoking generally, I think it is the board’s duty to take that into consideration.

Mr. Lewis: Is he opening the door for the board.

Mr. Deans: He is going to have an awful lot of problems.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to minimize the difficulty the board has. The philosophy of the board, which the government supports, is if there is a question the doubt should be in favour of the worker. If it is clear-cut that this man developed cancer from something other than the environment, I don’t think the board can take that into consideration as far as awarding of compensation is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Since the establishment of the Ontario Energy Corp. last December, could the minister inform the House in which direction this corporation is moving now to reduce the energy crisis? Is it doing any exploration at all?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This question should properly be directed to the Minister of Energy. I will take it as notice and draw it to his attention.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUBSIDIZED DINING FOR MEMBERS

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Government Services. How does the minister justify subsidizing meals in the legislative dining room to the extent of $1,000 a year when most of the people, the members, the press gallery and the government officials would not meet the means test for public welfare?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the member direct that question to you in writing as this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Speaker’s office.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

I recognize the member for Durham.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the members of the Legislature would be pleased to join with me in welcoming some 35 students and their teacher, Mrs. McCallum, from Clarke High School in the riding of Durham.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Ewen from the standing committee on the administration of justice presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendments:

Bill 35, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall these bills be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 35, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chairman, I’ve had the opportunity of reading, as reported in Hansard -- in fact, I’ve got my own copy -- the summary of the provincial secretary’s (Mr. Clement) remarks that were made on the introduction of these estimates.

I have to say that the ministerial approach this year is a little bit better than it was last year. At least we got 14 pages of paper with some words on them. Last year, we got no pages of nothing and we had no words. This year, the 14 pages of words don’t really mean very much, and I’m going to deal with them at some length during the course of my remarks this morning.

The first point I want to make is going to be pertinent to my ultimate conclusion, which will be a motion to reduce vote 1101, item 1, from the sum of $469,000 to the sum of $1. The first portion of my remarks is going to relate to the references made in the COGP to the system of secretariats and to express my continued wonderment as to why the government keeps this apparently do-nothing department still before the people of Ontario and why this year it is asking for $469,000.

The minister said during the course of his remarks that he had read last year’s debates, or earlier debates, and he was informed by them. I don’t know the extent to which he was informed by last year’s debates, but just to refresh his memory he will recall that his immediate predecessor introduced his estimates with about eight lines, saying he wasn’t going to say anything. That pretty well was his conduct through the whole course of his estimates. He didn’t explain anything and he didn’t say anything.

I pointed out fairly early in those estimates that the COGP reports make specific reference to the setting up of the system of secretariats. I quoted -- and I think it’s worth quoting again -- report No. 3 at page 17, which said:

“Therefore, as an extension to the recommendations made in previous reports, we now recommend that policy ministers without operating responsibilities [I don’t think the Provincial Secretary for Justice comes within that category, but this was their positive recommendation] be appointed to devote full-time attention to setting priorities, to providing leadership to policy development and to co-ordinating related programmes of government within their respective policy fields.”

If the minister had carefully read last year’s debates relating to this department he’d have grabbed that very quickly. As well, we can make a reference to report No. 10 of COGP, on page 6:

“We therefore reached the conclusion that a new kind of minister was needed -- one who would be completely free of the responsibilities and burdens of a chief executive of a department. Called provincial secretaries, they would provide leadership in the development of policy for those reasonably separate and distinct areas of public affairs arranged into relevant policy fields.”

The language is clear, and not open to any different kinds of interpretations. They didn’t say it once, they said it several times. The report goes on to say:

“There would be no reporting relationship between a provincial secretary and the other ministers within a particular policy field. Indeed, a provincial secretary would not have responsibility for, nor control over, a minister’s programme management or his policy proposals.”

The government embarked on the implementation of the COGP report, or so it said. But the whole secretariat system seems to have flown apart. Take TEIGA; I don’t know whether the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) believes he is a policy secretary. There’s one of the policy secretaries going out now. I was hoping he’d stay, because there are some remarks I’m going to make a little later on that should have concerned him.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): You have only two members on your own side.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): How long will you be?

Mr. Singer: He made some remarks about you and the great job you’ve done during his introductory remarks. I wanted to put that into a somewhat different context than the minister has. But we’ll come to that a little later.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll be right back, don’t go away.

Mr. Singer: Policy secretaries; what do they do? What do any of them do? As I say, I don’t think the Treasurer regards himself as a policy secretary. The secretary who is going out gets himself into great difficulty because he really doesn’t have any policy. He went up to talk to the Indians the other day and came back with a statement that nobody would believe.

We have the charming lady provincial secretary (Mrs. Birch) over there and I’m certain that she was very flattered when she was given that important-sounding appointment, but the extent to which she influences policy remains as a great conundrum, to me at least, and I suspect to many members of this House.

But we have really the ludicrous position that the Provincial Secretary for Justice is now in. He flies completely in the face of the recommendations of those COGP reports, because he has responsibility. He’s the Attorney General and he’s been the acting Solicitor General for four weeks or six weeks. As cabinet positions get shuffled around here, that’s a fairly long tenure in one department, even for an acting minister. So he’s got those two plus the secretariat, and if the secretariat is supposed to function along the lines that COGP had in mind then certainly it isn’t doing it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, the time has come that we should get, either from this secretary or from his leader, the Premier (Mr. Davis) some kind of a statement as to what good the secretariats do. This was the theme we were on last year.

I was directing a whole series of questions as to how the dollars were spent, one after the other. It became somewhat ludicrous when the then deputy secretary was trying to explain the number of positions on the list of positions available, or the list of people you can employ and who was holding the positions. We ended up with many clerks and a couple of drivers.

We found there was provision for two minister’s salaries. The minister of the day assured us he was only getting one salary. I didn’t disbelieve him. This minister indicates to me he is getting three salaries.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): I would like to get three.

Mr. Singer: Well, good for you. I’m certain a man of your ability deserves at least three. But if you’d only get into one portfolio and do a good job in there, perhaps I could go along with voting you three salaries for doing a good job in one department. But when you roam the field and really don’t get anywhere other than to produce this kind of pap, then I begin to wonder.

You see, we were very upset last year and the year before that with the provincial secretaryship for justice. I would have thought, rather than this kind of an introductory speech, you would have said, “In the last year we have done all sorts of things and here is the list of some of them that we are going to do.”

What do you get down to? You tell us that you are going to bring in an Act to amend the Land Titles Act. I guess every year that I have been here since 1959, I have seen some kind of an Act that is going to amend the Land Titles Act. If that is the job that the secretary for justice is doing -- he is going to tighten up a few other sections of the Land Titles Act and he feels that is important -- then I think it’s an awful waste of time and staff and people and public money and talent.

If you are concerned about the system of land registry in the province -- and I presume you are; in your day you were known in the Niagara Peninsula as a pretty competent barrister and solicitor, so I presume you are concerned about the system of land registry in the Province of Ontario -- I would have hoped you would have said: “We are moving to the point where we are going to make it very simple to identify the owner of the particular piece of property. We are going to have everything under land titles within a year or two years or five years. We are going to be able to eliminate and take off people’s shoulders the burden of having to pay five or six sets of legal costs as solicitor after solicitor certifies the title and charges them 1¼ per cent.”

That would have been the kind of thing I would have hoped you would say. What have you got in here? You are going to bring in an amendment to the Land Titles Act. What a great boy are you! I think it’s a farce, Mr. Chairman.

What did you do in the last year? We’ve had all sorts of reports. I don’t know whether you are going to be able to say you can’t answer these things until you put on your other hat a little later on -- your Attorney General’s hat or your Solicitor General’s hat -- but I would have been interested to hear from you.

I asked you in the House one day what you had done about implementing Judge Pringle’s report -- you know, the one on the Landmark. I was very disappointed in you yesterday when you sat on both sides of the fence about the role of judges on police commissions.

First you said Mr. James Chalmer McRuer recommended very strongly that they be not there.

And that we all know.

Then you said Ottawa is taking away their extra pay. Well, I don’t know that that is really the criterion, because Ottawa, in addition to taking away the judge’s extra pay, is giving them a very substantial pay raise. I don’t suppose to many judges it makes a great deal of difference. Probably they find it much more exciting to go and sit on a police commission instead of sitting in court on a particular day. As long as they are getting enough money in at the end of the month, it couldn’t matter less to them.

But what I would like to have heard from you is whether or not you are going to take judges off police commissions, because my good friend Judge Scott -- and I have never met him; I know him only by representation, having got to know him as Landmark emerged -- apparently continues still to be the head of the Niagara Police Commission.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They took one off in Windsor last week.

Mr. Singer: He, as that story began to unfold, said: “I have looked at it. I, Judge Scott, looked at it; nothing wrong.” That confirmed my view that McRuer was correct. Well, Scott now continues to issue statements. I noticed he had one in the paper the other day: that the intelligence section of the Niagara regional police unit has been reshuffled.

But I would like to have heard, perhaps as a policy statement, the extent to which the secretary for justice has read and digested and understood Judge Pringle’s remarks, and accepts or rejects them as part of the policy of the government of Ontario’s programme of administration of justice. We haven’t heard anything like that at all. I would have thought that that might have been a role for the secretary for justice.

We had a little flurry a few weeks ago about justices of the peace. You may remember -- I’m sure the secretary for justice remembers -- the kinds of remarks that McRuer made about justices of the peace. He couldn’t get an accurate count of how many there were. I re-read that the other day and he said there were justices of the peace appointed who knows how many years ago; there were no records of their being appointed, when they were appointed, who appointed them or whether they were still alive or dead. He said there was no actual way of counting them.

The Attorney General or the Solicitor General said there were 1,074 -- he produced some figure the other day. Well, presumably he has found a method of counting justices of the peace that escapes Mr. McRuer. If so, I congratulate him for that. But hasn’t the time come when you take officials charged with the administration of justice off the fee basis and allow individuals to make $30,000 a year?

Doesn’t Pringle refer to that in his very sarcastically phrased comments about the justice of the peace in the Niagara region who issued the search warrant? I think his quiet recommendation was that enough money should be given to that gentleman so that he could keep his duplicate information in the filing cabinet.

I happened to be there the day he appeared before the commission and he walked in with his day-book under his arm. He was being cross-examined by Mr. Kellock, the counsel to the commission, who wanted to find out the basis on which he had issued the particular warrant. He opened up his day-book and said, “Yes, on such and such a date I issued the warrant.”

Mr. Kellock said: “Do you have a copy of the information?”

“Oh, no, I never keep copies of the information.”

“Why?”

“Well, because nobody ever gave me enough money to have a file or a filing cabinet in which I could keep copies of the warrants.”

“Do you recall the discussion?”

“No, I don’t recall the discussion.”

“Do you recall who came in.”

“Well, my day-book doesn’t say it, but if Sergeant So-and-so says he came in, he must have come in.”

“Well, Mr. Justice of the Peace, why did you issue the warrant?”

“Well, I issued the warrant because I guess I thought it was appropriate.”

A nice retired old police officer, a fine gentleman, but what useful function is he serving in the system of administration of justice? None at all.

If you care that little about the so-called function of issuing search warrants, then let the police issue them, because it is obvious that that gentleman was issuing whatever the police asked him to do without any question, without any record, without any examination.

That system breeds the kind of thing we were reading about in the paper the other day, where justices of the peace are making $30,000 and $40,000 a year on a fee basis for a job that could be reasonably comfortably done and well done by a very junior person trained in administration and being paid, say, $10,000 or $12,000 a year and doing the job much more efficiently.

Surely that is part of justice policy, and that’s the kind of thing that you should have been extrapolating from the Pringle report and telling us what you were going to do about it.

The minister is quick with the word, he is fast on his feet, his answers are amusing and I enjoy his sense of humour. But when I try to analyse his answers to questions affecting the course of administration of justice, I just can’t bring them forward. In this particular secretariat, I wonder what its continuing function is. I just can’t figure it out.

Here’s the report on the task force on legal aid. It’s a very important document. Mr. Justice Osler sat for quite a time, heard a lot of evidence, was assisted by able counsel and produced this report. The report was in the minister’s hands for several months, according to the dating on it. We have yet to hear from the Provincial Secretary for Justice, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, or whoever is supposed to do it, what the government’s approach is. Do you agree with Osler or do you disagree with Osler? Has the time come to change the direction of legal aid in the Province of Ontario? Has the time come to say the system we’ve got is as good as it can be and we’re not going to change anything?

Surely that is what the Provincial Secretary for Justice should have been talking about in his opening remarks in these estimates. His predecessor fluffed the opportunity and I suggest this secretary has fluffed the opportunity when he introduced these estimates the other day.

I was intrigued by his questions. He throws out 10 questions; I counted them. Ten questions to whom? To himself or to the world? To me? To my colleague from Lakeshore? Ten very fascinating questions.

If you have these questions in mind, why don’t you say, “One question that concerned us was, do we wish to continue to pour people into the system or should we devise ways and means of diverting them from the system and handling in a less formal fashion those whose offences may be petty but whose apprehension, prosecution and conviction cost the province considerable sums?” That was question 1.

I would have much preferred it if you had said, “That was one question which occurred to my advisers and me and this is what we think about it.” It would at least show you are doing some thinking. It would at least show you had some ideas. But you have posed 10 questions and maybe, if we are all patient and we get some more estimates from you before the next election we will have another 10 questions because obviously it is a questioning civil service. It is not an answering civil service.

I’m not going to bore the members of the House with the other nine questions in their several parts. But you pose questions; no answers. Where have you been all these years? Not you, collectively you, collectively the secretariat for justice. What have you been doing if you have to ask questions like, “Do we have essential data which inform us how well the present system works?” There is a really intelligent approach. We’ve got a secretariat for justice and you are asking if we have essential data which tell us how the system works.

If you are making a pitch for a computer, you have enough power and authority to go and rent a computer and put your data together. Why do you waste the time of the House by asking us if you have enough data to see how the system works?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member wasn’t even in the House.

Mr. Singer: No, I know. I read it, though, very carefully and as you said you were good enough to send me a copy; I don’t know whether you sent everybody a copy. I have spent some time on it -- it is all marked and I am going to be talking about the various bits and pieces of it.

As I say, if you are making a big pitch for a computer I wouldn’t mind the Attorney General’s department having a computer. I am sure there are some computers out there somewhere; some of your colleagues have use of them. Why don’t you rent some time on a computer? Feed the facts in, get the answers out and stand up and say, “The data show there are so many recidivists who are in jail and maybe we can keep them out if we do something else and that is what we are going to do.” But to ask us silly questions and make a long pitch for a computer, what are you achieving?

You are very concerned these days about the effect of alcohol on many of our citizens. I think you should be but I notice in the redraft of the Liquor Control Act that while there is power for the police to take alcoholics off to these reclamation units there doesn’t seem to be much of a programme for building reclamation units to allow the police to take the alcoholics off to them. It is very nice to have the provision there but you don’t seem to want to implement it.

I remember a few years ago when not you but one of the ministers -- I think it was the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development who just walked out -- stood up and beat his breast with justifiable pride and said, “We are going to build all these drying out places and things are going to be different.” That’s part of justice policy, isn’t it? Or should be. Where is it? That’s the kind of thing you should be talking about, to my mind.

The minister says on page 5 of his remarks:

“I shall continue to meet at least weekly with my colleagues to discuss with them their policy submissions and propose legislation that will be subject to analysis by the secretariat staff with respect to their priority and their impact upon ministries within the field and indeed upon the other policy fields.”

I can just picture the minister meeting at least weekly. He walks in with three hats. He sits at the head of the table, “I am the secretary.” He runs over to his right, sits down and puts on another hat. “I am the Attorney General. Mr. Secretary, I want to say so-and-so.” Then he moves around to the other side and says, “I am the Solicitor General. Mr. Secretary, I want to say such and such.” Then he has got a new minister in Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) who must be finding it very, very difficult to wade his way through that morass of administrative confusion. The provincial secretary must be spending a considerable amount of his time helping his colleague and directing him to where the different offices are.

I would have thought it might have been an important part of justice policy to tell us what you are thinking about insurance in Ontario, automobile insurance in particular. We have had reports. We have had things commissioned. We had that Tory lawyer out in Oakville who wrote a great lengthy report about insurance. We have had submissions by the Bar Association, by the Advocates’ Society and by the insurance companies. Did we get anything from you about insurance as part of the justice policy? No.

I sympathize with your colleague who has direct responsibility for that ministry. He lost his superintendent. The superintendent unfortunately passed away. He was a gentleman who gave great service to the Province of Ontario.

In the meantime, what is our policy? Is that part of the secretariat? You need to look into that. It seems to me from the way you talk that if you have these weekly meetings, what do you discuss and what kind of policies do you emerge with? When you set up your approach to these estimates you have several meetings to say: “Give me 10 questions so I can put them in my speech.” Not answers but questions.

Well, what are we going to do? We are going to have a family law reform programme, a unified family court, subject to Ottawa paving the way by amending the Divorce Act. I would have thought that if there was a justice policy about a unified family court -- and I think it’s a good idea -- that there might have been substantial value in saying, “In justice policy, this is what we mean by unified family court. We can’t bring it into force until” -- it would have been another opportunity to make a terrible-Ottawa-people speech -- “those terrible people in Ottawa who move so slowly that they are frustrating their true paths of justice move, but this is what we think should happen.”

Think of the press you would get on it. You would even get support from, I am sure, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), myself and my colleague from St. George (Mrs. Campbell). We all think that’s a great idea. But how do you handle it? You handle it in one sentence once a year which is better, as I say, than your colleague did a year ago.

You are going to have a pilot project in delinquency prevention. I presume you are against delinquency. I think that’s great and so do we all. But what is your pilot project? How are you going to get at it? You have these weekly meetings. Tell us about it. Take us into your confidence.

And then there is the Training Schools Act. You are going to amend that and also the Land Titles Act. I spoke about that before. As I say, for every year for 16 years I have seen an amendment to the Land Titles Act. But there is no statement of policy that we are going to have a new system of land titles or certification of titles. You say, “We are going to bring in a new statute.” I think you have a phrase in here: “And in case anyone has any doubt, we are going to bring in a lot more new statutes too.”

I just picked up the Juries Act here, Bill 1. It is very important and very controversial. Did you have to have many policy meetings before you got around to drafting that one? I don’t know.

I turn to a very important area, and I am reading on page 7: “The secretariat this month assumed the responsibility for coordinating the services of ministries in this field in aid of people.” I was listening to a CBC broadcast the other morning out of Kenora. I don’t know how well informed the people who were participating in that were, but what they seemed to indicate to me was that presently in Kenora there seemed to be two bands of vigilantes, Indian ones and white ones, who seemed to be stirring up incidents of physical damage to each other at a great old rate.

As I say, I don’t know the authenticity of this report but if we are very concerned, and I think we should be, about services in the field to native people, I would have hoped that some of the problems in Kenora and other sections of the province would have begun to be lessened. This was on the CBC just the other morning, and I’m sure the minister, his secretary or his deputy could get a tape of that. I would think he should be very concerned about the suggestion that was made on that programme.

I’m puzzled -- and here you’re getting to the real crunch of your programme -- when you say: “This brings me to the whole question of input to the process from the overwhelming majority who are not directly engaged in the system on one side or the other .... We have a duty to perform in ensuring that the public is made fully aware of the many roles which citizens can play ... ” Therefore, you say, “We’re going to organize a series of meetings across the province.”

What are you going to do in your meetings? Are they going to be like the cabinet meetings you have in Kingston one week and Cornwall the next week, where you sit there and receive briefs and nod knowingly? Are you going to appose these 10 questions to the good citizens? I saw somewhere that your first meeting probably will be in Ottawa. Are you going to say to the good citizens you manage to produce at your meetings in Ottawa, “I asked 10 questions in the House the other day. Do you have any answers for them?”

What is it that you’re going to take out to the people? Goodness knows, you’ve got reports coming out of your ears. Are you going to ask them whether they like what’s in Osler’s report on legal aid? Are you going to ask them whether they agree with Pringle when he talked about Landmark and police? What are you going to do? Who’s going to go with you? And while you’re gone, who’s going to mind the shop? Who’s going to be Attorney General? Who’s going to be Solicitor General? I don’t know; I guess it’s election year fever that sends you all out scurrying around hither and yon.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): At public expense.

Mr. Singer: At public expense, to give you great exposure -- and the minister exposes very pleasantly. He tells good jokes, he smiles, he doesn’t antagonize -- he doesn’t say very much, but he doesn’t antagonize very many people.

I notice the comment in here that, “for example, the fact that in the past six months the total numbers of people held in the Toronto Jail increased by nearly 40 per cent.” I think that’s a very tragic statistic. I suppose that leads to another question: What are we going to do about it? There’s no answer from the provincial secretary or from his secretariat. There’s not even an answer in reply to the very urgent point, raised year after year by a series of grand juries, that the time has come to tear down that terrible building. If you’re unable to cope with the increased traffic, at least give them a little better facility. There’s no answer to that at all.

So many of these remarks go back to the question period. The minister talks about supporting the increased use of referrals by police, encouraging pre-trial mediation and community-based dispositions. How are you going to do that? Who’s going to do it? Whose responsibility is it? What people are charged with it?

It sounds like a very interesting paper that some eager student has prepared for his professor in about third year of university: “Give me 12 pages on the administration of justice.” It doesn’t sound like a responsible and thought-out programme of development of the system of the administration of justice in the Province of Ontario.

One thing that bothers me very much is the minister’s comments in relation to the Fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender. The minister pays tribute to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, “who, through his eloquent pleading at the fourth congress, was primarily instrumental in Toronto being chosen as the site for this year’s meeting.” As the secretary is undoubtedly aware, there are many citizens of the Province of Ontario who are very disturbed at the thought that the Palestine Liberation Organization, an organization of terrorists, are going to be welcomed into the Province of Ontario, apparently by the minister and by his colleagues, to take part in this conference.

I am sure the secretary must have seen the action taken by his colleagues and mine, the Benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, who rescinded their luncheon invitation to the delegates at that convention because among the delegates were going to be those terrorists from the PLO. The governing body of lawyers in the Province of Ontario said: “We are not going to have any part of them. We are not going to take them to lunch and we are not going to make our facilities available to them.”

I would have thought that the minister, in applauding himself and his civil servants and his colleague the secretary for the great work that was done in this regard, could have spared a moment or two to mention, in passing, the attendance of the PLO here in the city of Toronto and in the Province of Ontario. I would have thought that perhaps he could have shared the views of a federal Conservative, Claude Wagner, who is the external affairs critic in the House of Commons, who addressed a dinner in Ottawa the other day, and who said:

“Canada has no cause, no justification no rationale for opening doors, or standing back while doors are being opened for terrorists and those who support the terrorists.”

That was a direct reference to the attendance of the PLO at this conference, to their being admitted to this country, to their being hosted by the people of Ontario and to the conference being boasted about by the secretary.

Frankly, I am very unhappy and very disappointed, and very disturbed by it.

I am not suggesting either that this secretary, or the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) embraces or encourages the PLO; in fact, I know the opposite is true about both of them. But I would think there is a public responsibility on ministers of the Crown who know that this event has come about, albeit not by their choosing, that when they are going to refer to the United Nations and this conference on the prevention of crime, to say a few pertinent and appropriate remarks about how they too abhor the action of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

There are a lot of other topics I thought the minister and his secretary could have dealt with. My attention was caught the other day by Robert Miller’s column in the Star relating to the Premier’s war on sin. A great, great contribution, I think. I’m being deliberately sarcastic about it. I suppose it follows that clause in the Throne Speech:

“The government will seek the co-operation of law enforcement agencies and the general public so that our cities and streets will remain among the safest and most secure in North America.”

That’s certainly very important.

I think the press said: “We are all for law and order this year.” Nobody is opposed to law and order. We are opposed to juvenile delinquency. We would like a better land titles office, and that sort of thing, but we have to wonder about that fascinating appointment of Judy LaMarsh to inquire into violence in the media. It certainly achieved one thing. It removed any question of her being a candidate in the next provincial election. I guess the Provincial Secretary for Justice was happy that she was not going to be able to be a candidate in the Niagara region.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): For what party?

Mr. Singer: But what is Judy going to do about violence on television?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Eliminate it.

Mr. Singer: Yes, sure, she is going to stop all those terrible murders that we see on television night after night; those great detective stories that appear -- what’s the name of the fellow without any hair?

Mrs. Campbell: Kojak.

Mr. Singer: Kojak, yes. I don’t know whether Judy likes that programme or not. I find it rather entertaining. Is that what she’s going to inquire into? What is it that she’s going to do?

Is she going to tell the Toronto Star their news stories are too dramatic and they’re talking about too much violence? Is she doing to do anything about Yonge St. and the body rubs? No, that’s not the media; that’s right. What is it, really, that Judy is expected to inquire into?

The leader of the NDP pointed out you’ve got all sorts of reports in your files, if you want to read them, about violence and the effect of violence. What are you going to do about them? Are you going to say: “Isn’t that terrible? We’re the government of law and order and that sort of thing can’t go on here any longer”?

Then we hear the Premier saying, “Permissiveness is terrible.” What is permissiveness? What kind of permissiveness is he talking about? Is he talking about the ability of people to make up their minds about what they want to do? What permissiveness is he complaining about? If there is a permissiveness crisis facing the people of Ontario can’t you enunciate a little more clearly what you’re worried about?

Do you feel books should be censored? Do you feel magazines should be censored? Do you feel our newspapers should be censored? Do you feel we should pass meaningless resolutions about censoring television both in Canada and in the United States?

Do you feel that Don Sims should be tougher with the censor’s scissors down at his office? Maybe he should be. Why don’t you say it instead of picking out all these cute catch phrases and saying, “We’re against permissiveness, a sin of modern day society.”

My goodness gracious, some of us like to think we’ve lived long enough in this world that we’ve got some idea of what goes on. These pap-like phrases really produce nothing and when they’re designed solely, apparently, to influence an electoral process one has to wonder about the intelligence and the sincerity of the people who put them forward.

It must be the function of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, who wants our streets safe for people and on whose shoulders -- whether under this hat or some of the other hats -- is going to fall the responsibility of training police officers and instructing them in what to do to enforce these programmes and, perhaps, even to enunciate them. I think if there are thoughts within that justice secretariat about what we are attacking, what Judy is looking for and what terrible permissiveness which goes on in our society has to be stopped, now is the time we should hear about it. I doubt very much, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to hear anything along these lines at all.

Mr. Chairman, I’ve expressed, I think rather briefly and in a rather restrained fashion for me at least --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That is right. You are mellowing.

Mr. Singer: -- some of my grave concerns about this secretariat. I think it is a useless appendage upon the people of Ontario. It performs no useful function. It should be done away with and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I have a motion.

Mr. Singer moves that vote 1101(1) be reduced from the sum of $469,000 to the sum of $1.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The super ministry which covers the fields of the Attorney General, Consumer and Commercial Relations and Solicitor General has degenerated badly in the past year and before that. We’ve had precious little legislation before us, almost absolutely nothing. The only stuff introduced was withdrawn; it was a rather slender reed having to do with marital relations on which they got a lot of flak and haven’t had the courage or temerity, whatever it is they haven’t got, to bring it forward again.

The department itself has now devolved, as it should have initially from the very beginning, onto the head of a single man who holds, as a super minister, his weekly Thursday morning colloquies, mostly with himself, as has been pointed out, or with the last remaining potentate from another realm, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter). I’m sure they enjoy coffee together. The Minister of Correctional Services is an excellent chap.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I think he speaks to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, yes, he does speak to him once in a while, I suppose. But, it has become a farce. I agree with the member for Downsview, that the matter should be reduced to $1 and that the department should be wiped out.

After all, you have the three heads. I don’t think the Solicitor General should ever be returned, much as I’d like to give the member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr) a job to do, something to keep him occupied. I think that case is coming up on Monday.

Surely a man of his quality can be found in some other position, rather than simply using up provincial resources in this regard. It is a thing which you as a minister are perfectly competent to handle in your own right. It was done by previous Attorneys General of the province without turning too many hairs down through the many years. This technocratic nonsense of setting up echelons and departments and categories and stratifications very poorly commends itself to us. As I say nothing is emanating from your department.

We always exercise a very gentlemanly care not to be too acerb immediately but to give the new ensconced minister his leverage, his time to generate and to begin. Well, your time is up.

We have been waiting. We didn’t expect from Old Soft Soap, your predecessor, very much; and we got nothing. But we have respect for you and we think that you’ve got the qualities and the competence to move in this field.

An enormous number of things have to be done. I’m going to run through a list. Just the other day when these estimates were brought in, as they normally are deus ex machina from some seventh heaven, we were told in the afternoon they would be going on at night and that type of thing.

As for that wretched House leader you’ve got there, why don’t you confine him in the lower dungeons of this place here in chains? He has no regard for the opposition whatever. He doesn’t know what tasks we have to perform. We are expected to be downstairs, upstairs, in our nightgowns, anywhere. It’s incredible. And he doesn’t give a damn. He is the most obtuse man I think I’ve ever met. To have a House leader so insensate as that, is just disruptive of the life of this place. We ought to have an opportunity of at least 48 hours notice to prepare to come on. Well, we had it, but that was by -- was it the grace of God or the grace of the Law Society or the judges of Upper Canada -- because they wanted you to speak last night?

Mr. Singer: It was the judges who had a dinner at provincial expense, to which only government people get invited.

Mr. Lawlor: Right, yes.

Mr. Singer: He forgot to mention that, though.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, we will get back to it in the Attorney Generalship. As a matter of fact, we were promised a seat at those dinners just in order to kind of hob-nob with the boys and find out about that great collegium down at the end of the street here and how, as they put it, they live in such close collegiality. I’d love to see this collegiality working, particularly with beefsteak. I suspect there is more beefsteak than collegiality.

Mr. Singer: It is a very good dinner with several kinds of wine.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t doubt it. I suppose the cocktails in advance of it keep the judges’ minds working in a way which would not otherwise be the case.

Anyway, here you have three portfolios now. It has degenerated badly. You don’t call in and bring in and have the swath that you might have. The developing fields of law are not within your jurisdiction in a direct sense where everything is happening, or most things are happening.

There is the whole field of environmental law which is enormously interesting and important, all evolving and evolving rapidly. What real liaison have you with that particular area? Very little I suspect. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) is in the resources field and out there somewhere. Somehow you should encompass that.

It always struck me: What are questions of human life doing in the Ministry of Labour, where there are very little human rights at best? The whole figment is set up on the basis of a certain kind of inhumanity with respect to labour. That minister is the ensconced arbitrator over the whole thing.

Take human rights out of Labour and get them where they belong in an area where you are dealing with them every day in a decisive way in the actual mechanisms and in the flowing life of the courts and the administration of justice, not out there in some limbo, which is incidental and quite ancillary to his main function, which is arbitration of disputes, hard economic problems. These problems are of a different nature. They involve economic problems, true, but far more with its gravamen in your area and not over there,

As I said, with the visitation of the gods coming on this particular estimates, I sat at the desk here and wrote up casually, nonchalantly, 28 different heads on which I was anticipating in the last year some form of incremental movement. By incremental I mean you can just barely detect it -- under a microscope, let’s say, if you had a large enough one; as at Palomar.

I’ll just run through them very quickly without comment, then may I make comment.

In the whole area of family law, since 1965 we have had an outpouring of reports that stand about six feet high that one carries around to the various conferences on family law. We’ve had the major one, from the Law Reform Commission, and absolutely nothing has happened. The crying need for something to happen is just overwhelming. Is it because you are in the slough of despond, of election fever or something of that kind? Sometimes I think, looking around this House in the past two weeks --

Mr. Singer: But the minister wants to have these meetings around the province to ask them what they think about the reports.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, all we are doing at the moment, it seems to me, is marking time, and therefore the kind of impact one would wish to make on the proper life of the province is missing on this particular occasion of your estimates. It’s a shame but this is the way it is.

What I’m saying, in effect, is that I think you are afraid to upset certain male votes, certain chauvinist piggeries, if you will, or unpiggeries, or whatever it is that you fear with respect to elements in the population who, if you come on strong in this particular area, while you may garner here you lose there. So the whole thing is set up on some kind of political equation in which it doesn’t solve itself; just leave everything alone and do nothing and that’s probably the sanitary path.

In the area of franchising legislation we’ve had that wretched report sitting there. It’s turned green. It used to be a lemon yellow, but I noticed the other day that it was turning green.

Mr. Renwick: Sammy Grange is on the bench. We’ll probably be dead before the report is implemented.

Mr. Lawlor: That is right. Incredible. And you know more about franchising legislation than your predecessor. You know the interstices of that. You know its validity. You can move ahead. You were the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. You had delegations attending upon you for weeks there at one time. You had an avalanche, an inundation of people.

In the whole area of warranty legislation, the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) of this House has called meetings. He has been far more effective than any minister in the province in this particular field. He has tried to generate all kinds of movement. I attended many of them and we got all kinds of input. You -- not you personally, but your department -- did your best to obstruct him because he was showing some kind of vitality in the area. And nothing has come out of it. It all sits fallow. I don’t know if it’s vegetating, fecundating or simply rotting, but it ain’t moving. Nothing is happening.

Mr. Singer: But they are against juvenile delinquency.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, they are really going to zero in on those juveniles. In the field of court reform, look at all the volumes. We went over this, you know, with a fine-tooth comb pretty well last time, and we will return; as a mere exercise in self-flagellation we will return. We will come back to Corregidor in the early evening, just as the bloody sun is going down -- your sun.

Mr. Kennedy: Join the PCs; don’t be despondent.

Mr. Lawlor: Here we are -- court reform; volumes, most intricate stuff. The government is completely unprepared to alienate a single judge’s vote. Can the poor devils vote in our provincial election? You may not even have to alienate one.

Here he is, making some kind of gestures on the family law side of the fence and on the amalgamation side of the fence, unwilling to be determined and conclusive and clear and courageous. Say something. You haven’t the courage to stand up and speak. That’s what leadership is. That’s what government is all about. You don’t sit plump in the middle of the fence, usually on a spike, and do nothing. That’s a form of self torture I wouldn’t even wish on the minister. I’ve been just sitting and waiting to see what side you are on.

I think they should be amalgamated -- if you want my position. I think the benefits that would flow out would be overwhelming on a logical basis. As to the intertwining responsibilities of the court and as to which functions the county court judges perform vis-à-vis the Supreme Court judges or vice-versa, it would be for the mutual benefit of all. These childish jealousies in judges quite puzzle me.

There’s one positive note in the whole thing -- in all that internecine nonsense -- one positive note; it shows that the judges are human. Why, necessarily, do we have to be human in the most petty sense, seeking to preserve our personal prerogatives? That’s where we really take fire. I can’t believe it.

All right, so let’s get moving. It’s silly. If you don’t want to do that, say so. Say that you think it’s a misconceived document when it says that they should be amalgamated; that you’re going to affirm the status quo in this matter; that the benefits that flow from it are such and such. I’d like to know what they are. I want a reasoned judgement.

We never get that. We get arbitrary decisions that come out of the blue. What went into the formulation of those decisions? What was the raison d’être of the remarks? They never seem to come out anywhere along the fence here. There is always some kind of hidden faculty.

Why it is so quite puzzles me. I thought the job of democratic government was for rational men to speak of their reasons with one another and test the validity of them, weigh them. We never get that. Nor when you make your decision will you come out with a series of statements as to giving the background. You never do.

I’m urging that you begin a new regimen, a new outlook on the way in which you approach this House, on the way you approach your own responsibilities in this ministry and disclose your motivations and what goes into these decisions.

If you feel it is simply better not to step on eminent men’s toes, etc., because they might get ingrown toenails or some kind of malicious disease, then say so. I’ll understand. We’re all subject to similar afflictions in this life. I mean, I go around wounded like a beast, never having the possibility of being a cabinet minister. Well, what’s the point? Can anything afflict a human being more? Can you think of anything that’s more grievous than the thought that this will never happen? Well, my life is blighted by the thought. Sometimes it’s hard to get up in the morning knowing that today is going to be another day on which you can’t be a cabinet minister.

Mr. Kennedy: Don’t lose heart. Join the Conservatives.

Mr. Singer: That won’t help either anymore.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m afraid I have lost faith in that possibility, too.

The role that you’re supposed to be playing in these estimates, etc., has to do with the process. It has been pointed out in this opening statement that you made, as to the one piece, the serial whole that your ministry must perform with respect to the apprehension, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of human beings.

When I was speaking last week at some length with the Minister of Correctional Services in this regard, I deliberately omitted going very deeply into after-care problems. The problem was -- and I think you have the instinct of the indicia in your opening remarks, that you have the smell of the rose -- namely, that there are too many people in jail. In this jurisdiction, because of a very peculiar mentality -- indeed subsidized, encouraged and supported down through the years by diverse Attorneys General -- the judiciary, provincial court judges particularly, have as almost their first instinctive reaction the inclination to send the guy down, without very much cognizance of the cost to the public. And with very little cognizance, indeed, of the reformatory or what debilitating effects that precise action that afternoon may have on that human being; very little awareness of it.

You can point out the economic circumstances and say that it is costing an awful lot of money and doing damn little good; but they will say: “That’s not our responsibility. It is up to the government to provide the facilities in which to keep these men penned. We don’t care; that’s their job, it is not our job.”

What you have tried to do, and what you are doing, is to work with Mr. Justice Hart; I hope very closely indeed, because he has issued in the last two years a whole flood of reports and statements about the criminal process, about the various concepts that have to go into the process with respect to alleviating incarceration, as to the use of fines, as to the use of restitutionary measures, as to the North York group, etc. But that is not enough.

Mr. Singer: He doesn’t read his own reports, why should he read ours?

Mr. Lawlor: It should have the sense that women appearing for shoplifting or petty assaults or various forms of theft, that sort of thing, ought not -- and in first offences it normally doesn’t -- to bring about people being incarcerated.

The fact of the matter is that too many still are and that this penchant persists. I think statistically speaking we are one of the jurisdictions in the world which has the largest number of people placed in jail over against conviction. It’s an incredible situation. You, as the super minister, must begin to reverse that process, working in conjunction with your fellow ministers and in conjunction with your third selves. You haven’t got schizophrenia, you’ve got trichotomy or whatever it is that is divided into three parts.

Having a little consultation over a drink some evening with yourself in another role you could very easily do this. I think you would have to instruct the judges not by a mandate from above but by conversations with them in assembly, that policy is being changed in Ontario, and the use of the criminal sanction to start with in many offences is no longer justified, it must be handled in the community by way of community offices. This is particularly true of the juvenile field, of course, so that the whole operation with respect to policing will be obviated or at least very greatly modified in a humane direction and away from the courts.

Secondly, when you get them to the court the provincial judges and the Supreme Court judges must not move in that direction; they must look to other alternatives; a couple of which I have mentioned -- a greater use of parole systems; greater use of probation services.

The Minister of Correctional Services is doing a good job in this area, but he only deals with them when they have arrived from your basic demesne and he has to take it from there. It is the arrivals I am very much concerned with now. They are supernumerary, unnecessary, and it is not doing society good to send numerous people through to schools of crime. That is all the jails of this province are.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if I could interrupt the member for a moment to recognize the member for Yorkview who has some guests.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies to the member for Lakeshore for interrupting him at this point.

I am sure the House would very much like to welcome a group, which has arrived at the House and is now in the gallery, from Emery Jr. High School in the riding of Yorkview. It is a group of new Canadians, people who have recently arrived in Canada, some of whom have become fairly familiar with the English language, some of whom are still struggling very hard with this very difficult tongue. They are here this morning to visit the Legislature and to look around. I am certain all of you would like to welcome them here today.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Lakeshore continue please.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, it’s the tongue that Shakespeare spoke but nobody speaks it like that.

We have the central thing here, with your top hat, so to speak, in the middle, the Attorney Generalship. Aftercare probation is a crying scandal in the province. It falls within the demesne of this ministry and your ambit.

Men are coming out with very little money in their pockets. What do you expect them to do? The whole of society is raised against them but there is nothing done by your ministry to foster understanding, to set up a greater reconciliation, an acceptance into the community. Some poor devil is accused of homosexuality and Charlie MacNaughton comes down on him like a ton of bricks and jettisons him from his job. This particular form of sanctimoniousness seems to permeate Tory mentality.

You are kind of a unique guy because you have been able to break a little away from that. You must find a lot of your colleagues rather stuffy and insufferable in this particular regard with their all puritanical nostrums and concepts. There is a little line in Jacques Brel’s thing, “I am alive and well and living in Paris,” the thing about the little nostrums from Kant, the one about the girl from the Salvation Army. Do you know the song? If you don’t, I will play it for you some time.

In any event, it is in the aftercare field that a great deal of emphasis and direction is going to have to be given. I would ask you to turn your mind to that area in this particular ministry, if it is going to continue to exist at all. The ministry could be abolished and the whole work that the ministry is supposed to do would be an ongoing work.

There is no necessity for the superstructure of the ministry to do it. You, in this tricorn portfolio that you have, can just as easily have an odd conversation with your fellows in a similar field and in broader areas than what you presently enjoy. There is no reason to have this superadded structure in order to do that.

Mr. Singer: It would be easier on your health too. You wouldn’t have to bounce from chair to chair.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s a point.

Mr. Lawlor: We would like to hear very much about the whole field -- this is point 6; it is going to take me a long time -- of uniform store hours. That’s a real clinker, isn’t it?

Mr. Singer: Sunday laws too.

Mr. Lawlor: If you move this way, you might lose 10 votes. If you move that, you might gain 12. Which way are you going to move? You will have to jump like a cat. It’s a hot tin roof.

Mr. Renwick: He’s not. He is just going to leave it the way it is.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, he’s not going to do a damn thing. He is going to sit back and smile.

Mr. Singer: He has still got a few more colours of papers he can bring in -- red and pink and yellow papers.

Mr. Renwick: Actually, it is a federal government problem, he will say.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, yes.

Mr. Renwick: If only the federal government would alter the law.

Mr. Lawlor: We have a green paper on it. We have heard precious little and we would love to see what’s going on. Some proposals have emanated from this side of the House, particularly from my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), with respect to a very sensible thing which you might weigh and consider in the process in these Thursday adjudications that you perform and from which, as I say, absolutely nothing seems to emanate. You are getting a darn sight more in the Justice portfolio from various members of the opposition, which you either disdain or adopt quickly, than from any kind of generation at source where we look to.

We come to what’s becoming again something of a hoary old document, sitting around here gathering moss and rolling no stones. I am thinking of the fifth volume of the inquiry into civil rights by Mr. Justice McRuer. Just to bludgeon you a bit, I am going to take time during these estimates to read out the chapter headings just to see what you ain’t done. It has all been sitting before you for many years now. What are your bright boys back there doing, the terror of the law profession? Everybody goes to the Court of Appeal and trembles in the face of the astute, scissor-minded, razor-edged members of the colloquium that you have backing you up there.

When it comes to drafting a little legislation and alleviating a lot of conditions -- the Air Pollution Control Act, the Archeological and Historic Sites Protection Act and the athletic commissioner ain’t been touched, the Farm Products Marketing Board is a sacrosanct body which no one must impinge on, particularly the superminister of justice; the fire marshal’s department sits there awaiting attention. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was somewhat modified. That’s the one thing that you have done.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario is much talked about and we are beginning to get some minatory, sneaking legislation on some internal aspects of that, but not according to the doctrine of McRuer and what he proposes.

The Liquor Licence Board’s procedures are abysmal in terms of what it does and its modes of hearing. Have you ever been down there? Have you ever tried to get a licence for a client? You must have when you were practising law, considering all those licences that just swamped Niagara Falls. They all have a little huddle in the corner as though it were some kind of football game, and they’re not going to tell you what the signals are, because you may be on the other team. It’s a most incredible performance.

Mr. Renwick: You can’t hear a thing. They just sit at a table.

Mr. Lawlor: You can’t hear a thing; the room is crowded with lawyers and people making application. You go up to a little table. It’s as though we were going to have the estimates, but instead of me prating from here, I sit in front of you and whisper at you. I’d probably get through a little better than having to shout. That’s the way the thing is performed; it’s a real charade.

I wanted to find out what to say for my own purposes, so I sat there straining my ears -- but not a word came, not an iota of life. When I finally got to the table myself, I thought the best thing probably was to shut up. Having reached that high estate of being able to whisper in the ear of the commissioner, I said to myself, “I am home free. I am not going to say a word.” He smiled and I smiled. Then he said, “Good day.” We walked out with the bloody licence, but I couldn’t figure out why.

Mr. Renwick: Did you refund the fee?

Mr. Lawlor: No, I didn’t refund the fee.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It pays to keep your mouth shut.

Mr. Lawlor: My client was extremely well satisfied. He said, “If you’d opened your damned mouth we would have lost it, I can tell you right now.”

Then there’s the Milk Commission of Ontario. What about the Milk Commission? Can’t you move a little bit in that field? It’s sitting there, palpitating, waiting for a little going over -- not a body rub, just a little new legislation.

The mining commissioner is the most derelict person in this province; he sits in a hollow aerie, removed from all human contact, and you won’t even speak to him. He’s crying for a little conversation.

The Ontario Energy Board -- well, I won’t bother with that one. With Bob Macaulay in front of it all the time, earning vast fees, that’s enough of an affliction for the Energy Board for one year, don’t you think?

The Ontario Food Terminal Board I didn’t even know existed until I read McRuer. You apparently don’t know it exists yet, because you’ve done nothing about it.

The Ontario Highway Transport Board is an iniquitous institution eating at the vitals of our national life, handing out various forms of licensing and so on in the most questionable manner and with its internal workings all awry. Did you know that? Well, that’s the case. Why don’t you do something about it?

They all sit there waiting for a great Provincial Secretary of Justice, such as we’re going to turn you into. Like Pygmalion, we’re going to have to fashion you, because apparently nobody does anything on their own over there.

Mr. Singer: We haven’t got enough time, for which I’m sorry.

Mr. Lawlor: The Ontario Hospital Services Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board -- all wait your assiduous and subtle attention. The Ontario Municipal Board --

Mr. Haggerty: There’s one that you should do something about.

Mr. Renwick: There’s one. There’s the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s been reviewed. There’s also a report from this House, done by a select committee, giving added recommendations over and above these.

I hope the message is beginning to penetrate. I sincerely trust that I am beginning to get through, slightly.

The Ontario Securities Commission hasn’t been revamped; it hasn’t been changed. Then there is the Ontario Telephone Services Commission, as well as the Ontario Water Resources Commission. There are all kinds of recommendations and comments with regard to their internal workings. I would also mention the Police Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Finally, there is the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, which I think we probably did do something about two years ago.

But there is a whole host of things which I thought would be worth mentioning. Why would a member of the opposition have to get up in this House and recite something which is common knowledge, which is before you every day of the week and which was submitted to you in the best of faith? Despite the rest of the report and the substantial measures you’ve adopted, you’ve allowed this particular field to remain hanging, dangling, inefficacious. I don’t understand the lack of response. There has been a number of new Attorneys General, one after the other, each one less assiduous in his task, and less willing. I get the feeling that they are interim, that they are really transitory.

Have you got that feeling? If you have, then transit, and let’s get somebody to do something with all this law that is awaiting. In the meantime, various injuries are being inflicted upon the people who appear before these numerous boards and commissions. The administrative law is defective -- it’s defective in gross part -- or the report wouldn’t be there. I think McRuer is much too sensitive, you know, to merely procedural matters; but it’s a necessary portion of law. The substance of law is infinitely more important.

These people who get caught up in civil rights legislation always think, their argument is, that in the interstices -- civil rights the basic law lies. If that’s straightened out, all the rest will follow. That’s not true. All the rest doesn’t follow. As a matter of fact, what follows is a sense of complacency. “Look what we’ve done.” And that’s what followed in your case, in the case of your government.

You have moved, under Wishart, in many areas. And those were jubilant days, you know, the days we were working like slaves here; the legislation pouring out; we were in committee all the time; we were analysing; we were moving. It was a sense of something happening. It is very hard for a few members of the opposition to have to carry that kind of burden and load. You, with your staff behind you, you are in a much more favourable position, and you should recognize that.

Nevertheless, if we are going to be here at all, and have a sense of fulfilling some kind of obligation to the public, then you have to initiate and we have to respond; and you are not initiating. And that gives a certain sense of fatigue and despondency over here. You are kind of lost in an underbrush. Nothing is happening.

That’s not what we are here for. I can be doing something better out there. If you don’t propose to do anything, and the justice ministries are stagnant, then all right, go and do something else. Life is too short and things are too important. There are too many injuries to be attended to, too many people who need help, to spend one’s time in this vacuous chamber if there isn’t any particular cause to be served, something that you can get your teeth into and do something about and see the law change.

I think maybe we are the only members who may feel this way, because we feel we are great participants in justice. We feel that we do have an input, that our voices are heard, that we do offer legislation, not just in some minor iota way, with the odd comma here and there. No; in a very deep way. And that has always been the rapport, as I have experienced in this House. Wishart would alter whole paragraphs without turning a hand, saying, “Yes, that’s sensible,” not standing on his grandeur or hauteur or sense of deportment or his portfolio, not at all. And you are that same kind of man; you’ll do it.

Mr. Renwick: So would Bert Lawrence.

Mr. Lawlor: So would Bert. But I won’t say anything about the rest; they wouldn’t. But they didn’t know the tradition, and they hadn’t the sense of the interrelationship of the communication that took place in his field.

I want to resume that as long as we have in this House a sitting. As I say, we may be standing here only marking time while the Premier downstairs is marching up and down, perusing his options as the newest poll comes in. The poll may delight him at 3 o’clock this afternoon, and this all then becomes a somewhat insufferable exercise.

Mr. Singer: Judy might never be able to find out if there is violence in television.

Mr. Lawlor: All right. Yes, the eighth matter had to do with new concepts in dealing with criminal cases to which we have reverted. It was a great shame; it was indeed a great shame that you were ill at the latter part of last fall. There was the whole field of advertising, substitutional advertising, the arguments with respect to class action. Again you showed a liberality of spirit during the thing, which of course couldn’t be replaced by your deputy, even if he were in the least disposed to show it, which he wasn’t. After you took ill, that unfair practices thing took a complete new shift. The whole atmosphere in that room changed; it became restrictive where there had been an opening up, a flowering and the legislation was taking scope.

I still think my friend from Riverdale was dead wrong on the whole real estate thing; he didn’t know what the panel for the legislation was all about. But leaving that aside --

Mr. Renwick: Unfair practices in the real estate trade don’t matter. As long as property interests are maintained inviolate, we socialists will stand together.

Mr. Singer: How did you con the committee to put that in for an hour?

Mr. Ruston: Some of his colleagues said that he didn’t do it, though.

Mr. Lawlor: At the end of the day, we got a somewhat restrictive and truncated piece of legislation, which was a great shame. I would ask if you would take another look at it.

There’s an enormous amount of work to be done in the field of consumer law. That is the second great field, after environmental law, that is evolving at a pace that most members of the profession can’t maintain.

The third field in which you don’t really have much to do either, I suspect, is the field of poverty law. After all, in every law school in the province now there are special courses in this field, which is novel over against our days in law school. Nobody ever dreamed or talked about going to serve the poor when one came out; you were going to serve the wealthiest client that you could drag out of the bramble bush. But that’s not the way any more because of the broadening perspective taking place.

There are good things taking place in the world. While you see a lot of viciousness and perhaps an increasing sense of violence, on the other hand there is an intermingling in all that of a greater graciousness and a deeper sense of sharing than has ever before existed in this wretched civilization.

What about the racetrack field? How can you have these particular estimates without even one word about that? Consider the cost to the public purse of Lawrence gallivanting over the face of the earth and looking at the rear ends of racehorses, then this voluminous report is presented and sits on our desks. It surveys the horse-racing industry from Guatemala to Dubuque, and nothing has happened.

Mr. Singer: They discovered some farmers have class B tracks and they don’t want to interfere with them.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that a field where the Tories are going to lose a lot of votes?

Mr. Singer: They think so. Ray Connell tells them that.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that right? I suppose there are people who might be offended if you set up these governmental-run computer betting shops around the city and, therefore, you might lose the odd vote here and there, over against maintaining the whole clientele of the bookies, the touts and that very underworld element which spawns it. It’s a cheap breeding ground of crime, and it’s all held in the private sector.

Do you respect free enterprise so much that you want to prevent laws coming in that might take the touts out of operation?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I hesitate to interrupt my friend but I don’t see a quorum here.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Lawlor: You notice, Mr. Chairman, the fairly large number of opposition members and the relative scarcity of Tories. If this quorum call wasn’t met, it wouldn’t have been met for very good reasons just as the other day. We expect you Tories to supply at least 15 members in this House at all times. If you are not prepared to do that you are going to get some of these embarrassing quorum things.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): With you bellowing it is cruel punishment you are talking about.

Mr. Lawlor: That is the least you can do out of 74 members. We don’t come in here to supply your quorums for you to keep this House going.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Lakeshore proceed?

Mr. Lawlor: It is government business we are attending to.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Let’s not fool around with percentages.

Mr. Lawlor: The racetrack field.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: I think we came to the conclusion that was a vote-losing one and therefore absolutely nothing was going to be done. We’ve come to the same conclusion in the previous nine, I think, and very little can be expected pending the announcement which we all await.

How about a Bill of Rights? My friend from Riverdale has been asking for a Bill of Rights in this province for a long time. You moved on the ombudsman finally, after numerous urgings, in order to get some favourable publicity on the eve, and that’s fine.

Mr. Renwick: They haven’t done it yet.

Mr. Lawlor: No, we haven’t seen it yet.

Mr. Singer: Talking about it.

Mr. Lawlor: We’re anticipating.

Mr. Renwick: That’s equivalent to being done for the Tories.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t you think, in these weekly colloquies you have, you might get down to talking about a Bill of Rights for Ontario? I think that’s spelling it out. We are thinking of a number of Bills of Rights for various segments of the population.

No. 12: Nothing has been done for over a year now -- 18 months -- on the whole vast problem on which we spent so much time to so little purpose, the problems of privacy and computers. I would expect that with the research ministry, the ministry mulling these problems, once in a while some kind of statement might come out and you would distribute among at least members of the judicial committee and all the rest who may be interested some kind of observation -- not partisan, not committing yourself to anything -- showing that ongoing work and thought is developing in this field.

You are aware of the impingements of a modern technological civilization upon human’s rights, how they move in constantly, how it becomes more and more on the present, how the whole instrumentality grinds us down and would flood us if we aren’t aware and aren’t constantly reacting in the whole area of vigilance. Are you being vigilant? We have no assurance that you are aware, or staying up to date, or what input you are getting, or what papers you receive, or what you do at all in that area or, for that matter, in any area.

What are you doing in the area of the Competition Act? You remember the very considerable debate initiated by, again, the member from Riverdale in this field; largely a field having to do with federal policy, true, but such enormous implications for the Province of Ontario, upon which you took a stand -- I can’t remember whether it was you personally but in any event, it was a negative and obtuse stand, a destructive stand with respect to the policy.

Again, such is the power of Ontario, and such is the power of our ministers that when they speak conclusively, in a categorical way, about any subject under the sun, they do alter Ottawa. They do. And why should it always be always for the worst; always destructive; bringing in positive legislation which is going to have some fulfilling effect or shaping effect in controlling the economy and giving it direction, and you are just decimated with a machine gun. Then they immediately cave in. They always give in to you. So don’t tell me in this House that the provincial government is ignored by Ottawa. In every field which I think is important, when you speak you speak with a sword and you draw blood. This is an area which I would like to hear a little bit more about.

What are you doing on the whole range of constitutional questions? I mean, not just with respect to Indian affairs, the role of the Indians say in Ontario, native people’s rights? That is an ongoing, evolving and developing field, too, in which we over here are particularly concerned about. The nice balances on price control; what role or influence or what weight can we bring to bear in this province on the inflationary thing, over against multinational and interprovincial corporations.

What is under our constitution? It’s not spelled out. It has to be worked over.

We have come to the conclusion, on our interpretation, which we think is pretty shrewd, of the British North America Act that you have plenary powers in this regard, with respect to provincial rights over intraprovincial trade and commerce problems. But do we get any fill-in? Do we get any dialogue back and forth about the matter? Do we know how you feel about it, except again to do nothing and say nothing?

Whether you propose to move into these fields or not is a secondary question. That’s a question of political policy. Ours is a question of law at the moment, in which you, being the chief law officer, have a mighty role to play. You are not playing it. You are failing in your responsibility. Minister after minister is failing. Why is it? Why do democracies fail? Because ministers of the Crown find it is the most easeful thing to do nothing. They get away with it for a long time, and it brings dividends in ensconcement in office. But there is a point where it begins to work like a maggot in the fabric of society, where moves that must be made are not made because of timidity, because they are afraid. When that fear, the fear of moving, possesses that government it is finished. Not only is it finished, because it will show through in cracks, in the crevices, but it will also be finished in the sense of an internal rot and a kind of dislocation.

This is what some of us fear is happening over there. If you want, like Horatio at the bridge, to put your bony shoulder to the buttress and hold the thing for a little while longer, there you have a task cut out for you.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t think that is what Horatio did; not the shoulder to the buttress.

Mr. Lawlor: Isn’t that what Horatio did?

Mr. Renwick: I think you mean the Dutch boy and the finger in the dyke; not Horatio.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, whatever Horatio did at that damn bridge.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He was a denturist.

Mr. Singer: The member for Riverdale should take him outside and give him a few lessons in parables.

Mr. Lawlor: No. 15, you have set up an advisory committee with respect to practice and procedure. I would like to know a little bit about it. I believe it’s an ongoing thing. We have the first volume at least of the Osler task force on legal aid. This would be a more worthwhile subject just as the other one would be when we get into the Justice estimates proper. I won’t dwell on that today. I think many of the recommendations of Osler should be immediately moved into but, as I say, we’ll abide that particular event.

Mr. Renwick: What for? The Attorney General?

Mr. Lawlor: For the Attorney Generalship. The Law Reform Commission has slowed up along with you. I think they have slowed up because of you.

Mr. Singer: They are frustrated.

Mr. Lawlor: They get totally frustrated.

Mr. Singer: Yes, nobody pays any attention to them anymore.

Mr. Lawlor: They have all these reports sitting around and nothing is being done. What’s the point of producing novel law simply to have it obfuscate in some corner of your department? You’ve slowed them down too, one of the most vital sources of law in this province. Look at the areas that have to be covered. The whole contract law has to be resuscitated.

Mr. Renwick: The whole of women’s rights.

Mr. Lawlor: The whole of women’s rights and the master-servant relationship. The law of estoppel is in the state of terrible flux without any particular definition. There is the law on unjust enrichment, which is the golden crevice of contract law. There is a possibility of opening up remedial measures and not being hogtied by all these arcane rules of evidence and the internal rules with respect to contractual rights upon the whole field of unjust enrichment. I’d love to see a report of the Law Reform Commission on unjust enrichment and its evolving concept.

I recommend to you, by the way, in this particular regard -- and I’ll come back to it during the Justice estimates -- a book by Lord Alfred Denning called, “The Changing Law.” It’s getting pretty old, but most of the things that he says are changing in “The Changing Law” ain’t changed in Ontario. That book was 1953.

Mr. Renwick: Denning has recently denounced that book as a radical pamphlet.

Mr. Lawlor: He did?

We are disappointed over here that you haven’t moved on no-fault insurance. All these law things, these meetings going on in the province, the turbulence there was about 10 months ago are all washed over. I suppose there is oil on the waters and you’re the one who put the oil there. That’s a form of pollution, oil on waters. If it catches fire again, it will have very grave, detrimental effects to yourself and to this whole province and to the people who are anticipating some kind of action.

We are concerned about the report on credit unions of the select committee of this House and what you’ve done through past years. This is the one thing that each seriatim Attorney General has done. These reports came out almost immediately. They were reviewed within the thing. A task force perhaps was set up to assess it; turn it into law. It came out of one end and it immediately got attention. I know there are particular problems with respect to its trust funds and the way in which --

Mr. Renwick: There is really only one problem.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, really only one problem. As I understand that problem, it has been cleared away too. Why isn’t there anything before us? It’s getting to be two or three years now since that report was submitted and there is no reason in the world why it shouldn’t get action. We submitted a report last year, and I trust that we’ll get our final report on trust corporations into this House before the election is called. It’s being printed at the present moment. That’s in the laps of the gods. More importantly than the gods, it’s in the hands of the printers and we are waiting on that. But we had mergers, consolidations and amalgamations before you.

My friend, the member for Riverdale, tells me that in the Securities Act, which is not going forward apparently, there were a few clauses embodying some of the recommendations contained in that report. Nothing further has been done. That required very slugging hard work -- no one knows it better than you; you were the chairman during the thing. Nothing has happened.

It is cumulative. My point in this little speech is not to say you have faulted here, you are deficient there, you are inadequate here and you have not moved there -- that is not the point. That is understandable; you can’t do everything. The problem here is that you don’t do nothing in area after area. It is just a cumulative sense of ennui.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That double negative makes me think I was very positive.

Mr. Lawlor: I used the double negative to try to emphasize the point.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I see. I hope you feel better.

Mr. Lawlor: All right. I’ve got a particular little beef about the Petty Trespass Act and that sort of thing and the use made of it by Dominion Stores and other people against picketers, etc.

These wretched people set up themselves on public plazas and invite the general public to come and buy their wares from them. When the people come for the purposes of pointing out the kind of inequities the stores perpetrate on other human beings, by walking up and down and saying so in terms of free speech, they have the impact of that wretched, out-of-date, archaic and anachronistic statute thrust upon them. Take a look at that thing; even the very wording in it. I won’t read it to the House but I had some kind of mollycoddle reply from the former Attorney General on this particular thing. I thought it the Attorney General’s letter of July 23, 1974, when I brought these remarks to his attention was a disgrace. As I say I won’t read it because it is the usual mild, mellifluous stuff saying somehow the law has to be enforced; somehow the law is a very vital thing en masse. Yes, it is in favour of entrenched interests and great financial power. It is not in favour of those who go and put themselves out to speak for their brothers in California. In Montreal these days they are using the mandatory injunction procedure in order to achieve their ends by another means. I trust that if they try that in Ontario you will be very aware of what is taking place.

You talked about the new federal court. You must be concerned in your ministry, in your discussions, as to what its role and function is going to be and whether you have managed, along with your fellow Attorneys General, to scotch it because when they had this meeting here last year that was one of the things which was irritating them in the statement of a speech made by your deputy not so long ago. Frank Callaghan on Jan. 6, 1975, made some remarks touching on this subject.

May I just question you on a legal point? On reading one of the statutes and I don’t remember which one -- it just came to my head; the Public Authorities Protection Act or something -- doesn’t it say -- I don’t want to exclude Frank from anything; come to my surprise party -- isn’t it the law of the province that deputy ministers and members of the civil service are unable to speak in public on the minister’s behalf? Only the minister can do so or his parliamentary secretary? I am sure I can produce a text for you that says that, literally.

I happen to think you should look at it because if any ministry is going to have to obey the law it is your own ministry. If the law needs changing, then change it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Does the member want me to answer that?

Mr. Lawlor: I am sure all I have to do is phone your department and I get the text and verse taken right from the Talmud every time so they know what I am talking about in this particular regard. If you want further information I will seek to supply it.

Police commissioners. The member for Downsview has said enough about that for the moment.

Gun control. Do you have a role in that? It is very important. Some kind of palavering statements have been made about it, but very little is done.

You have moved in no regard with respect to what my friend, the member for Riverdale, mentioned earlier: the rights of women. To me, this is marital law, but not just in the field of property or the juvenile areas -- and all those volumes that concern these reports. In the specific area, you are playing that one out -- aren’t you? In terms of doing anything before the election or before moving at all, it’s being left to float. It’s in abeyance.

We have before us now the Expropriations Act. I trust you will move on it with fair certainty -- and you made a minor amendment the other day with respect to it. That certainly needs some review.

The final thing I am going to mention at the moment -- and it is not the end of my speech; it is just about the middle -- is the area of limitations law. You know that the programme “Ombudsman” on the CBC on Sunday night has done some yeoman service with regard to pointing out the various injuries inflicted by this, again, wretched ancient law where people are cut off.

I will be writing you shortly on a particular case, too -- you know, the Collins case. You know about it. Here is a fellow who won his case in the Supreme Court of Ontario and then some bright fellow -- would that some people weren’t quite so bright; a little more humane -- discovers in the Public Authorities Act a time limitation of three years. Under the regular negligence law --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Six months.

Mr. Lawlor: Six months, all right. You have to sue the Crown or take action against the local health authority within six months. He, of course, had failed to do that. Therefore, the whole of the operation was washed out. And are you offering him any compensation? Are you seeking to do anything for this man?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: You have got a line about limitations in your speech, but you don’t mention the excellent report of the Law Reform Commission on it.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that’s what I want to talk about. Here we have a very fat report with all kinds of recommendations.

Mr. Singer: And a good one too.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not going to flagellate you on this particular point. All I am seeking to do is to precipitate you into some form of action. The previous ministers have had this report. I suppose that one is four or five years old now. It’s an area where a great deal of harm is being done.

For weeks, “Ombudsman” presented case after case -- not just in this jurisdiction, necessarily -- but in Ontario, too. The recommendations call for some alleviations, some review power, some ability by a judge using discretion to give alleviation from that particular --

Mr. Chairman: Would it be a convenient time now for the member for Lakeshore to adjourn the debate?

Mr. Lawlor: I would be quite pleased.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would like to speak to the member for Lakeshore before he bursts forth from the House today.

Hon. Mr. Clement moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

ROYAL ASSENT

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 3, An Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses.

Bill 22, the Representation Act, 1975.

Bill 31, An Act to amend the Succession Duty Act.

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Gift Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 35, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 38, An Act to amend the Ministry of Culture and Recreation Act, 1974.

Bill 43, An Act to amend the Expropriations Act.

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Forestry Act.

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Sheridan Place.

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the Township of Goulbourn.

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Township of Bruce.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services will be held in committee on Monday. In the chamber we will consider, first, item No. 10 and then No. 9, and return to the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Clement).

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to:

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.