The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to introduce a group of students from Bloorview Children’s Hospital, who are located in the Speaker’s gallery, with their teacher, Mr. Vincent White.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

CITY OF THOROLD BILL

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Later today at the appropriate time, I will be introducing a bill intituled, An Act to erect the Town of Thorold into a City Municipality. That should be noted now. This is at the urging of my friend, the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar), and it’s a progressive move in Thorold’s centennial year.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Another massive step forward.

PARKWAY BELT

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am also tabling today the interim draft parkway belt west plan, and would like to make some remarks about it.

In 1970, a concept for the central Ontario region of the province, then known as the Toronto-centred region, was published, becoming Canada’s first truly regional plan. In my budget statement of 1971, I announced the government’s decision to endorse the basic plan as a guideline for decision-making in the Toronto area. Later that same year, a status report was published which further refined that decision. Another status report, the COLUC report, was published last December.

One of the major elements of the plan is the parkway belt which is intended to structure urban development in the Lakeshore corridor between Oshawa and Hamilton.

Two other significant studies which resulted from our 1971 decision are those being conducted by joint municipal-provincial task forces in the Simcoe-Georgian area and in the Northumberland area. These task forces expect to report their findings to me in June and September respectively.

The public debate, which was brought about by the release of various aspects of the central Ontario plan, was expected and is welcomed by the government. We realize there were, and are, different views and a variety of interests. Nevertheless, the government decided to proceed with the development of a detailed plan for the parkway belt. Accordingly, in June, 1973, a further report was published on the parkway belt west and my predecessor, the member for London South (Mr. White) introduced the legislation by which this bold and imaginative step would be implemented. Today I’m pleased to table an interim draft of the plan for the parkway belt west as the next major phase in the development of our overall planning strategy for the central Ontario region.

This plan has been prepared by the joint efforts of the staff of a number of ministries and agencies of the government. It is therefore an overall concept, combining policies for the preservation of open space, parklands and agricultural lands, with the provision of corridors for highway, transit and utility purposes.

As set out in the legislation, we have consulted with two advisory committees during the preparation of the plan. One committee was chaired by Mr. Lou Parsons, the chairman of the regional municipality of Peel, and comprised of the chairmen of the regional municipalities of Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton and York and the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, together with one representative from each of these municipalities.

The second committee was chaired by Mr. Warren Hurst and made up of representatives of groups with diverse interests in the fields of housing, conservation and agriculture and also citizens at large. These two committees have reviewed the proposals put forward by staff in some detail and have made recommendations on the plan for our consideration. We are extremely indebted to the chairmen and members of these committees who gave so freely of their time and efforts in assisting us with the onerous task of plan preparation.

The purpose of this interim draft is to provide an opportunity for consultation with all of the local municipalities affected by the plan. At a brief meeting later today, copies of the interim draft will be distributed to the councils of these 19 municipalities. I would ask them and their staff to review the plan as quickly as possible since it is our intention to publish the draft development plan within the next couple of months. It will be the draft development plan which will be the subject of the public hearings which, in turn, will be scheduled to commence not earlier than three months following its publication.

This interim draft plan will also be made available on request to all residents of the planning area as well as interested groups. Accordingly, copies of the plan can be obtained by contacting the staff of my ministry or the government bookstore. Detailed information will be published in the newspapers indicating whom should be contacted in this regard.

Although the interim draft outlines the plan in considerable detail, it is not possible to be specific in every respect. For this reason, an information centre has been established in the offices of the parkway belt group at 801 Bay St., where additional information can be obtained.

In addition, a mobile information centre is also being equipped which will tour the parkway belt west during the coming months. Dates and locations will be announced in the media. In this way, we sincerely hope that everyone will have available sufficient subject matter to enable them to determine precisely how the parkway belt affects them.

Not all will be in favour of our proposals since an undertaking of this nature will inevitably conflict with the hopes and aspirations of some who have purchased land in anticipation of building something somewhere in the parkway belt. I emphasize then that this is an interim draft plan which is part of an ongoing process. It will undoubtedly see some revision in the consultation process with the municipalities during the next two months and in the review of the recommendations contained in the reports I will receive from the hearing officers after the public hearings.

The finally approved plan will be announced following these public hearings and consideration by me of the hearing officers’ reports. The task of administering the plan will then fall on the municipalities which are required by the legislation to incorporate it into local official plans and zoning bylaws. Some ongoing co-ordination will be required at the provincial level following adoption of the plan. A major part of this co-ordination may well be an appropriate responsibility for my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). His ministry has a particular interest in the parks, open space and trail systems proposed in the plan and would be in a favourable position to co-ordinate parkway belt open space and recreational activities with the plans and programmes of the conservation authorities, the provincial parks, the Niagara Escarpment plans and, of course, local parks and recreational activities.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Too bad we didn’t have an official land-use plan for the province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Now for some more specific details. First of all, our work on the plan during the last two years has necessitated some changes in the parkway belt west and the Niagara Escarpment planning areas that were established in 1973. These changes have been filed with the registrar of regulations and are effective immediately, subject to the resolution of this House. Briefly, the major changes are as follows: In Hamilton, Dundas, Flamborough and Burlington, the Niagara Escarpment planning area has been pulled back to coincide with the outer boundaries of the parkway belt planning area. This removes the overlap of the two planning areas which existed previously and which created considerable confusion in this area.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What does the Treasurer mean by pull back?

Mr. Lewis: What’s pull back?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In Hamilton, the lands of the Royal Botanical Gardens, parts of McMaster University, as well as Dundurn Castle and adjacent lands and water lots, have been added to the parkway belt west planning area.

The area immediately west of the old town of Milton has been removed from the parkway belt planning area and has been placed in the Niagara Escarpment planning area. This resulted from discussions between the staff working on the preparation of both plans, who concluded that this area is more properly part of the Niagara Escarpment than the parkway belt.

It should be noted, however, that in both of these areas changes in the plan, proposed amendments to the planning areas or land-use regulations and the like will be reviewed by both the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the parkway belt planners to ensure that the particular interests of both plans are protected when dealing with such matters. It is also the government’s intention to introduce new regulations to control development within certain areas of the Niagara Escarpment planning area in the near future as the next positive step to preserve this unique topographical feature of the Province of Ontario.

As announced by the government last July, part of Ontario Hydro’s 500 Nanticoke to Pickering transmission line has been included in the parkway belt west. This has necessitated some additions to the planning area along the northern link of the parkway belt between Milton and Markham.

Lands at Bronte Creek have been removed from the planning area to permit the incremental expansion of vital energy-related facilities. We are requesting that Shell Oil Canada Ltd. and BP Canada co-operate with us in every way possible to ensure that their plans for these lands are compatible to every degree possible with the parkway belt west by providing adequate buffer areas and landscaping and by maintaining their existing parks.

Some additional lands have been added to the parkway belt west planning area in the Oakville-Mississauga mini-belt to increase the physical separation between these two communities and to provide additional buffering for future highway and hydro facilities. Additional lands have been included in the parkway belt west planning area in the airport mini-belt between proposed Highways 403 and 407 to provide additional open space and additional highway requirements. The Black Creek Pioneer Village and open space in the Humber River valley south of Steeles Ave. in the borough of North York have also been included in the planning area.

Corresponding changes in the parkway belt land-use regulations where appropriate have also been filed with the registrar of regulations and are also effective immediately.

Amendments to or exemptions from the parkway belt west land use regulations have been granted on formal applications since the regulations were introduced in 1973. As of May, 1975, some 413 formal applications for amendment or exemption to the regulations have been received. Of this total, 140 have been refused, 44 are closed, 123 are pending and 61 amendments and 45 exemptions have been granted.

The amendments that were granted generally involved expansion of existing facilities in the parkway belt west, or residential infilling, both of which are in accordance with the proposed policies outlined in the interim draft plan. Exemptions to the land use regulations have been granted where the property in question, although located in the planning area, was not included in the design portion of the parkway belt.

The total area now included in the parkway belt west, as outlined in the interim draft plan, is 57,878 acres or approximately 90 square miles (originally there were about 55,000 acres included). Thirty-four thousand, two hundred and forty-five acres or 59 per cent are designated as the public use area. This includes 17,494 acres or 31 per cent for existing and future highways, rail, transit, hydro and utilities, and also includes 16,751 acres or 28 per cent for existing and future buffer strips and open space purposes. The remaining 23,633 acres or 41 per cent of the parkway belt west is designated as the complementary use area and will remain in private ownership, with uses being permitted which will preserve the existing open space rural character.

Estimates of the cost of the 17,733 acres to be acquired in the public use area now total over $400 million. About half of this amount is required for planned highway and hydro facilities in any event, regardless of the parkway belt.

An advance purchase policy was instituted by the government to recognize situations where individuals, whose land is designated for acquisition, could offer it for sale to the government, thereby removing undue hardships that were created as a result of the parkway belt west. To date approximately $30 million has been spent in acquiring land under this policy. In addition, leaseback arrangements to provide for continued occupancy and use of buildings can also be made where they are considered appropriate. The interim draft plan proposes the continued application of policies such as this, designed to minimize the impact of the parkway belt west on affected landowners.

The parkway belt west has been confronted with many problems since its inception as government policy. It in turn has posed many problems for individuals who are directly affected by it. We are confident. however, that most of these conflicts can be overcome by honest, straightforward discussions and negotiations.

This imaginative plan is designed to control urban sprawl and strengthen community identity. It will also physically separate communities by providing buffer areas and open spaces linked to one another by recreational trails through river valleys and cross-country. Much-needed transportation, communication, utility and energy facilities will be provided for without continually cutting swaths through the urban fabric of our communities.

Following release of the original policy statements in June, 1973, tremendous support for the parkway belt west was evident. Indeed, I know of no other proposal flowing from the central Ontario planning process which has generated greater public approval. I feel strongly that this support will be even more apparent following the review and consideration of this interim draft plan by the municipalities and those directly and indirectly affected by it.

This government, sir, commends this interim draft plan to public review as another project that distinguishes the Province of Ontario in seeking and finding better ways to plan for today and for the future. Thank you.

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

PARKWAY BELT

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Following the statement of the provincial Treasurer, can the Treasurer advise us whether there are any programmes in the interim plan which will protect those persons whose property may have been downgraded in zoning so that any loss of rights which they would have had would be compensated for?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I assume the member is referring to those properties which are in the complementary use area. The government’s position on that matter has not changed.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supplementary to that question: Does the minister not feel that this is a theft of the rights of people in that the municipalities had been given approval by the province to zone and these people in many cases acquired land on the basis of industrial or other zoning use and therefore these lands have now become virtually valueless?

Mr. Lewis: That’s the best private enterprise kicker in the House.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there may well be some instances where that is true. I think the member would concede that the greatest number of people who perhaps are affected in the complementary use area are what are referred to as speculators who took their chances and who may well in this instance have lost. That’s part of the speculation process. I, for one, am not going to get terribly hung up on overly protecting or bailing out one who engaged in that kind of activity and lost, any more than I think that he should be unduly punished when he wins.

Mr. Deacon: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I feel the same way the minister does about those who have bought for speculation. But I’m asking about those who bought lands on which to build a plant -- lands that were properly zoned -- and who now find that the conditions under which they believe they bought the lands -- conditions that were approved by this province -- have been changed and therefore the game rules have been changed in the middle of the game. Will the minister not concede that this is, in effect, requiring that these people carry the burden for the benefit of all the others?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am as Treasurer concerned about the burden which is borne by all the people of this province and I think that must be paramount.

Mr. Deacon: Doesn’t the Treasurer think the people want to be fair about these things?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As are detailed, there have been exemptions and amendments to the regulations. I think some of those situations have been fairly and properly dealt with and no doubt others will be fairly and properly dealt with in the consultative process which will go on in the next couple of months by representations of the municipalities and others. Certainly others may well he dealt with in the hearing process. But the interest of the public in this matter and the interest of the taxpayers of this province can not be forgotten. If the hon. member wants to arrive at a definition of those who bought for legitimate purpose and who bought for a speculative purpose, we on this side would love to hear that definition. It is not easily defined.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I have a couple of supplementaries. I take it, however, that in the public hearings that are to follow individual cases of this kind can be brought to the minister’s attention. He is not being absolutely categorical.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Most certainly.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. Then the next question I would like to ask is when do we get the parkway belt east which we’ve waited for with some anticipation for almost as long as this document?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As my predecessor said and I think I have said, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we haven’t been able to move on the parkway belt east planning as quickly as we would have liked. We are probably two or three months off the timetable which we have set for the parkway belt west -- perhaps a little longer than that -- mainly caused by the decision to include part of the 500 km line in the parkway or adjacent to the parkway. That set us back some months. We simply haven’t the staff or all the available resources that we would like to have; nor have those we do have been available to move on to the parkway belt east as quickly as we would have liked.

We expect, now that we have this out of the way, that we will be gearing up. We also think that what we’ve learned on the west will enable us to move more quickly on the east as we go through the decision-making process.

I may say also that we will be looking to, and we don’t want to sweep them off their feet, the planners, the staff and ultimately those at the political level of the regional municipality of Durham, and they have had more than a few teething pains. To involve them as fully as we would like, the time is probably now rather than a few months ago, but we will. I recognize the concern of the member. We will be moving ahead as quickly as we can.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Following the comment in the statement of the Treasurer that he doesn’t wish to cut a swath through good agricultural land, can the minister advise us on the circumstances in the Niagara area where it is reported that some 3,000 extra acres of land, which are designated for urban use, are being used in the regional plan -- lands that are beyond the existing growth rates? Will there be any requirement by the government of Ontario to have some definite plan to avoid the use of good agricultural land, particularly in the Niagara region, for urban sprawl?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This really has nothing to do with this statement. It pertains to the region of Niagara’s proposed official plan which is presently before the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) for review and which is occupying the attention not only of the Minister of Housing but of other ministers of the government, particularly myself and most particularly the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Deacon: That is why I asked the minister the question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think that in the process of consultation with the municipalities there will be a resolution of the concerns of various ministries, various citizens and various municipalities within the region, but that time has not yet arrived.

Mr. Breithaupt: Can the Treasurer advise when his development plan for the province will be in hand which was promised by his predecessor and when we might expect to see the Planning Act which, as I recall, was to be substantially changed and brought in in a new form?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The conceptual plan for the province or the statement of principles has been delayed. I would expect in the next couple of months -- I am not going to rush into this --

Mr. Lewis: Rush into it? It is 1975.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The planning process is evolving. There are plans in place for central Ontario. There are plans in place for northwestern Ontario. It would be my hope that there would shortly be plans for eastern Ontario and northeastern Ontario. That will leave southwestern Ontario, where we hope to approach it on the basis of a statement of policy, a statement of our thinking, either through a green paper or a white paper. It is obviously going to be very difficult, I think, to find a consensus and something that will work in southwestern Ontario. That is perhaps the thorniest issue of all.

As for the second part of the member’s question, pertaining to the Planning Act, the report of the select committee on the Municipal Board a couple of years ago --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The government hasn’t adopted any of those recommendations either.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- which recommended a review of the Planning Act, has been before the government. A couple of times, I think it is fair to say, we have come up to the mark in terms of obtaining the kind of highly qualified and independent staff person to conduct the review and both times, to my knowledge, for a variety of reasons it has proved to be either unacceptable to the person or to the government.

It is a concern of the government; however, I would have to say that while the Planning Act has been much criticized and much maligned --

Mr. Stokes: Section 32 in particular.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- it has been amended. The Ontario Planning Act still stands as a pretty fine example of planning legislation. Those who suggest drastic changes to the Planning Act, by and large, are complaining about the delays which are inherent in it. My colleague the Minister of Housing has moved with certain timetables in terms of plans of subdivision, for example, which I think will go a long way to overcome some of the criticisms of the Planning Act.

That is not to say that a review is not needed, but there is no enthusiasm in this province. Witness the select committee report which, with the greatest of respect, started off as a roar and ended up with not very much. There was no great enthusiasm by that all-party select committee, nor have I seen great enthusiasm for some of the reports which were done, for example, by the Economic Council in terms of a widespread revision of planning processes in this province.

There is real concern, for example -- I think this is fair to say -- among a great number of municipalities and people toward the tentative moves which we are making in the Niagara Escarpment toward development control. I am not sure that we should be looking forward to something which is going to turn our planning processes upside down.

OHC BRIBERY CHARGES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, with respect to a recent report concerning a former employee being fined for accepting benefits from firms doing business with the provincial government, without written consent of his department head: Can the minister advise if there are procedures within the Ontario Housing Corp. that allow the acceptance of certain gifts and benefits if there is consent in the matter? Further, is the minister proceeding through the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) to plan to deal, by the laying of charges, with those persons who offer the benefits in the first place?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the article that the member is referring to is incorrect. There certainly is no directive saying that one can accept gifts. That is certainly the opposite to what we expect. We have a strong directive saying that staff shall not accept any gifts whatsoever.

We have charges before the court at the present time. Some employees have been charged, some charges have been made against those who have given the gifts to the employees, and I expect there will be further charges.

TRUCK LOAD COVERS

Mr. Breithaupt: A brief question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can the minister advise us when we will be receiving the regulations, or at least some announcement, with respect to the matter of dump trucks that has been raised several times in the Legislature, on the requirements to avoid the nuisance of sand and stones blowing all over the highway, damaging other vehicles, because these loads are not properly covered and secured?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, that matter will be going to the regulations committee very shortly and should be in the regulations in the very, very near future.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister expect that it will be in effect at least before the tourist season is generally with us in the next month?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, my hope is that it certainly will be.

PARKWAY BELT

Mr. Lewis: I have two additional questions I would like to ask the Treasurer if I could, about the document he tabled. What did he mean in his statement when he referred to the pullback of the escarpment planning area in the Niagara-Hamilton-Burlington region?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are taking it off so that the particular area is covered by either the parkway legislation or by the escarpment legislation, but not by both.

Mr. Lewis: I see. There is, then, no change in the public sector area which would be covered. Okay.

The second thing is, I take it that to all intents and purposes the minister has now defined the northern boundary of Metropolitan Toronto by virtue of the parkway belt, so the Robarts commission will not be dealing with that now, as was once thought?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the Robarts commission will deal with whatever it wants to. The government made its position known when it created the regional municipality of York. I assume the member is referring to the commentary yesterday by a very respected planner, Mr. Blumenfeld, on where he thought Metro should go. I think the government’s position on that matter has been well known since the creation of the regional municipality of York, the creation of Peel and Durham. Certainly Mr. Robarts is quite capable of making comment or recommending anything he wants, but I think his arguments --

Mr. Lewis: But the minister has now delimited it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and reasoning would have to be very compelling, in my view, for the government to change its opinion. But Mr. Robarts is quite capable of compelling arguments.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, he is. The minister needn’t defend him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth with a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: The Treasurer indicated that some lands adjacent to the Dundurn Castle area in the city of Hamilton, particularly relating to water lots, would come within the jurisdiction of either this plan or the Escarpment plan. Does that imply that the province is going to take some steps to contest in court the CNR’s right to dump fill into the water lots and to claim that land as its own?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

WINDSOR WATERFRONT PLANNING

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer, now that we are spending so much time on planning: Will the Treasurer be responding positively to the request of the city of Windsor that it join with the province -- or that the province join with it -- in a major planning of the entire Windsor waterfront area, with public participation obviously, now that the efforts of Valhalla Inn and the CNR have been apparently finally thwarted by the decision of the committee of adjustment?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that request, other than through press reports, or whether something has gone to my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Certainly, he has been in touch from time to time with Windsor in terms of rail relocation.

From press reports this is not new. Windsor has had a dream, I suppose, for many years -- 20 or 30 anyway -- to clear the waterfront, which is a very expensive proposition. I don’t think we on this side are contemplating any major effort other than through the normal channels of the Parks Assistance Act.

Particularly since Windsor and Essex finally decided to form a conservation authority, there may well be a vehicle through the conservation authority, within their budget limitations and within our own, to move to acquire more waterfront land. So far as I am aware no special plea has been made in the last few weeks nor is it being considered to my knowledge by the government.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary; I may have misled the minister inadvertently. I am saying that Windsor is now in a position to study the entire waterfront usage free of commercial encumbrances which loomed in the background. Will the province help it with the funding, the planning and the public participation for a major waterfront study not unlike those the government has done in other parts of Ontario which doesn’t mean a commitment to the acquisition of land? It means a commitment to a total waterfront plan hopefully with recreational uses being primary.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Housing knows more about this than I do but we haven’t seen a request and I don’t know how we could say yes or not to such a request until we have seen it. Certainly, in the ongoing process, we are delighted through the vehicle of the conservation authority, as I say, or a host of other ways to try to improve the public access particularly to waterfront and particularly to as fine a waterfront, if I can put it that way, as exists in Windsor.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give favourable consideration to a request from the community if it made one to him?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I suggest it should be made to the Minister of Housing rather than to me. He can answer for himself but I am sure the government would.

Mr. Lewis: The resolution of council has been passed and it was my understanding that it is probably now in the hands of the Minister of Housing. Has he no such knowledge of the request for joint planning?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t personally seen the request. When the request is brought to my attention, I will certainly give it favourable consideration, if at all possible.

LANDLORD AND TENANT LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: Okay. A further question of the Minister of Housing on an unrelated matter: Can he tell the House in advance instead of through the media what amendments he intends to bring in terms of the landlord-tenant relationship in the private bills committee which is now considering the city of Toronto bill? I gather he has said something about minimum three month leases and other such possibilities. What does he intend to provide as amendments? Can he let us know in advance?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned yesterday to some of the media that I felt there was a good cause to recommend to cabinet the possibility of extending the leases which we have now to make the tenant secure at least for a period of three months. I have not proposed that as yet to cabinet but will be proposing that. I had full intention of saying this next Wednesday if we come to the point of voting on the city of Toronto bill.

I think this is one of the major concerns of the people we have had a chance to talk to, at least. They are on monthly leases or have no lease and I have said before to the leader of the NDP that I didn’t personally agree with that. I felt a tenant had full right to some security.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister intend to make any other observations about what he will propose to cabinet when the bill is again being discussed next Wednesday? I would hate for these revelations simply to slip by. Could the minister possibly inform the Legislature, in advance, of his intentions?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not absolutely sure when I will have a definitive statement for the House but certainly I will advise the House as to my intentions in regard to the overall problem -- rent control, rent review boards, security of tenure, and related matters.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George. A supplementary.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Since the minister in his answer spoke of tenant security, would he tell this House how he can secure a tenant without having some protection by way of a stay of execution of increased rents?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think they are related whatsoever. I think the tenure of the lease can be for a year, for six months, for three months or for one month; all I am saying is that I feel there is need to consider very fully the fact that a tenant should have at least three months’ security. That is what I am recommending to my colleagues.

Mr. Deacon: At the same rent?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They may or may not accept that particular recommendation, but I think there is some validity in the subject.

LANDLORD AND TENANT LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask the Attorney General, because I think I discerned the minutest shift in the Minister of Housing -- it is staggering in itself that there should be any shift at all -- has the Attorney General any intention to make amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act? Does he have any intention of bringing in amendments, this session, which would embody some new principles of the kind hinted at here?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): We are taking a very careful look at the Landlord and Tenant Act in view of the interest that has been generated recently. In particular, we received a brief from Mr. --

Mr. Lewis: Alan Borovoy.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Borovoy, is it? We received a brief from Mr. Borovoy one month ago, a very excellent submission, and we are taking a careful look at it. I am telling the hon. member that we are contemplating changes. As to the timing of bringing them forward, I am not in a position right now to advise the leader of the New Democratic Party that I can bring them forward this session, but we are looking at them. We have been meeting with the Minister of Housing’s officials for input from that area, in view of their interest and responsibility. When I will come forward with that I am unable to predict at this particular time, but we are looking at it.

Mr. Lewis: In the process of this internal discussion leading to legislation, is the Attorney General taking a look at the rent review area as part of the briefs and submissions that are coming to him?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I cannot say that we have looked at that right now. It is on our plate; we obviously are aware of the request for something of this nature. In our review and the involvement in which I have participated, we have been concerned primarily with the tenure aspect which has been put forward by various groups indicating an interest in this matter. I would think that at such time as we did come forward, we would have to come forward only after having considered the rent review procedure one way or the other. We cannot ignore it. We would have to come forward and say we have declined it for one reason or the other.

Mr. Lewis: One of the minister’s colleagues wants to ignore it; it is nice to hear that not all of them do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth. A supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Given that the minister is not going to bring forward the legislation this session, is he prepared to table any kind of white paper, green paper, pink paper -- I don’t care -- in order that there can be public discussion and a hearing before a committee of the Legislature between now and the time that he might consider bringing in legislation, to allow people who have knowledge in the field -- tenants in particular, but landlords as well -- to come forward and make their views known?

Mr. Breithaupt: That will take place during an election.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not considered that --

Mr. Deans: Would the minister consider doing that, since we are likely to be here another month or two, and I am prepared to sit in August to consider it?

Mr. Reid: We might be here another year?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would be prepared to consider that approach; it has been suggested. I am not too impressed with that particular method of handling this problem at this time. I feel that perhaps it would precipitate quite a delay in the process.

Mr. Deans: It might get to the truth, though.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

CITY OF TORONTO BILL

Mr. Lewis: I am going to direct this question to the Minister of Housing. Is all of this just a devious method of undermining the city of Toronto bill, or does the minister have serious intentions? Is he finally feeling the pressure of the need to change the legislation in the areas of rent review, conversion to adult-only buildings, the condominium conversion problems and to deal with the enormous problems of tenant security, tenure, etc? Is the minister moving in fact, or is this just a device to shaft Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can assure the leader of the NDP and all the hon. members that I never act in a devious way.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): But does the minister shaft Toronto?

Mr. Lewis: Right. I take it that the silence on the one concedes the point my colleague made. What does the minister have against Toronto? What is this personal vendetta of his?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I love Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: What I am asking is, are we in fact moving in a direction of some legislative changes?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That made Friday morning worthwhile.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): He got nothing against Toronto; he just wants to build houses, that’s all.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on!

Mr. Lewis: Does the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development finally want to work with the Hydro working group? Finally, after all these years?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What has the hon. member done for them?

Mr. Lewis: For the Hydro working group?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Enough to plead their case against obdurate ministers like the provincial secretary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have had more than 100 meetings with them while we try to get something done --

Mr. Renwick: The provincial secretary knows what happened to him last Friday. I would be quiet if I were him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll be quiet when we get the housing built.

Mr. Lewis: Friday mornings are bad for the provincial secretary. He has to hustle out and phone Scott Young.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member doesn’t like the facts, does he?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the member for Scarborough West any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: One can’t cough in the provincial secretary’s direction before he is off to the media to explain the asthma.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Look who’s talking.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

TORONTO REFINERS AND SMELTERS LTD.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of the Environment when we are going to get the definitive control order on Toronto Refiners and Smelters? That has been under negotiation for a month or more in his ministry as the minister gives them delay upon delay.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): There was a meeting last week between my staff and the company -- I happened to meet the president when I was in Ottawa speaking to another group, and they were meeting then -- and they are trying to work out a satisfactory solution that will benefit the people in the area and all concerned. They are still working on it, and I don’t think we have reached any final conclusions at this point in time.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister have any date at all?

Hon. W. Newman: We are trying to work out a proper programme with the people within the company as well as protecting the people in the area. I can assure the hon. member that if we can’t, then we will take the necessary steps to do what needs to be done.

Mr. Lewis: One more supplementary: I don’t understand this. The minister places a control order on the company, presumably after considerable thought and appraisal within his ministry. The company, presumably through its lawyer, Mr. Outerhouse? --

Mr. Renwick: Outerbridge.

Mr. Lewis: Outerbridge.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: See where he has got his mind?

Mr. Lewis: -- presumably through its lawyer, says to the minister that it is going to cost too much, and the minister immediately retreats and begins to review it on the company’s terms. When will the minister ask the company to meet the requirements his ministry has laid down in good faith?

Hon. W. Newman: The notice that went out was a notice of intent to the company of what we want them to do. Now, there are certain technological problems on some abatement equipment in any plant; we don’t have all the technology, but we have most of it. I can assure the hon. member that when we set the final draft, we will not be worrying about Mr. Outerbridge or anyone else; we will do it in the best interests of all people concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: In view of the fact that a lot of people who live in that area do have a lot of common sense and they are reasonable, would the minister include some representatives of that group when he does meet with the company on these matters, so that there is a strong presentation of the other point of view at the same time the company tries to defend its point of view?

Hon. W. Newman: I have met with several groups in the various areas. I have been down to the plants; I have talked to people in the areas on several occasions. I am not averse to talking to the people who are directly involved.

Mr. Deacon: They could help the minister to press the matter.

Hon. W. Newman: Don’t worry about that. We are concerned about the people living there; we have met with the people in the area.

Mr. Stokes: It’s taking a long time. Is that a recycled beer mug the minister has on his desk?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

MANPOWER TRAINING

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, if I can have his attention for a moment. Has the minister or his task force arrived at any conclusions in regard to the Dymond report on training for Ontario’s future? Does the decrease in the budgetary estimate of $135,000 for grants for apprenticeship and training in industry indicate that the minister is not going along with that Dymond report and in fact is pulling back from having the apprenticeship programme in industry go forward, which was one of his recommendations?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I expect we’ll be doing the estimates very shortly and we can go into the changes in the estimates. There is no relation actually. In that report, as I think I mentioned some time ago, we had a great many briefs and we delayed the last day for submitting briefs because of requests we had to do this. We still are collating and going through the various comments and recommendations that came in connection with the recommendations of the report, and no decision has been reached. I haven’t seen the collation yet, but I understand it should be ready shortly. No decisions have been reached as far as the report itself is concerned.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: May I ask the minister is there within the government an interministerial group from his ministry, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education, working on this problem of apprenticeship?

Mr. Stokes: They have a manpower coordinator.

Mr. Reid: They have a manpower coordinator who doesn’t know what he’s coordinating. Is there an interministerial group looking at the entire problem of apprenticeships and job training and the requirements for Ontario in the next 40 years or the next 20 years, instead of everybody running off in different directions as seems to be the case?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There have been discussions going on in connection with that report, which has a good deal to do with it, between those ministries and several others in certain aspects.

Mr. Reid: One further supplementary: When can we expect something concrete? The report itself was tabled over a year ago now, and yet we still have no policies at all in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would doubt that there would be any legislative changes in the current session. There have been no decisions reached and it always takes a little while actually to get legislation written and though the legislative counsel and so on.

Mr. Reid: The minister is not providing any direction.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt, a supplementary?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): No.

Mr. Speaker: A new question?

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LEGISLATION

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Why has the minister still not brought before this Legislature the University of Toronto Act, which was promised about a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Auld: With any luck I may have it in next week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

CHRONIC CARE FACILITIES

Mr. Haggerty: I have a question I would like to direct to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Would the minister be kind enough to use her facilities in the ministry to get the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services to have a dialogue concerning the need for chronic care facilities in the Niagara region? There are a number of facilities there that are vacant, with available beds all ready. Would the minister not have dialogue with those other two ministries to resolve the issue of chronic care in the Niagara region?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that is already under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

SPEECH BY PREMIER’S EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I have a question of the Premier. Now that the Premier has dealt so swiftly and so severely with the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) for his slur cast upon native people, is the Premier willing to take some appropriate action for the slur east by his executive assistant upon people having to receive family and social assistance, which situation I brought to his attention some two weeks ago?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, no.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier think it is appropriate, does he think it is helpful, does he think that it helps put in context with the people of the province the kind of remarks made by Mr. Westcott, which were very derogatory to people on welfare, even though they may have written in other than bourgeois English terms?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, some of the quotes weren’t even from letters in this province.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: That is an interesting answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s the silliest thing the member has ever raised.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, I don’t know.

Mr. Foulds: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, does the Premier feel that the attitude expressed in using those quotes, whether they were from people in this province or not, is an attitude that a person who is very close to the Premier and in a very powerful position, should be expressing publicly about a disadvantaged portion of our society? Actually that’s my question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess it all depends on what the hon. member wants to read into anything that is said. I can only say that as far as that particular gentleman is concerned, the hon. member for Port Arthur can be here -- and probably won’t be -- for 20 years and in that length of time he will never do as much for people who need assistance as Mr. Westcott has done in his term serving the public here in this province. He will never do as much.

Mr. Breithaupt: That hardy excuses poor taste.

Mr. Speaker: I think there have been sufficient supplementaries. The member for York Centre would like to ask a new question.

OHAP ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Has the minister studied the report of the region of York with regard to the adequacy of the OHAP assistance programme, particularly relating to the Milliken Mills proposal? The report indicates that payments of $400 to $600 per annum are required in order to not place a burden on the existing taxpayers in the municipality. Has the minister decided to amend his OHAP assistance programme so that it does meet his preliminary contention that in any of these programmes of speeded-up housing there would be no burden placed on the existing taxpayers in the municipalities beyond that placed on taxpayers across the province?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the programme right now is applicable with regard to the extra costs which might be associated with accelerated housing. We feel that the average amount of $500 -- it goes up to $600 per unit, as the member is aware -- is necessary in most cases to offset any associated costs. We have also said in the past -- we say it today and we’ll say it again -- that if it can be proven that there are other costs then we will add whatever funds are necessary to offset the costs to the municipalities. We have done that in many cases in the way of interest-free loans or by additional grants.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: In view of the fact that a free loan doesn’t mean anything to a municipality -- it still has to be paid back --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It means an awful lot.

Mr. Deacon: -- will the minister assure the municipalities that where they can prove their case, as they have in the region of York, the OHAP assistance programme will, in fact, be amended so that they can proceed with these developments without having to place an undue burden on the municipalities affected? Does the minister not agree that this is the essential part of accelerating his Housing Action Programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t agree whatsoever that the region of York is right in its study.

Mr. Deacon: Then show it how it is not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the consultants they hired overemphasized the related costs; and when the member says there is no merit in an interest-free loan I think he must reconsider his statement, because I will tell him that municipalities are awfully happy to have an interest-free loan for 15 years.

Mr. Deacon: That’s right, for things that are definitely the responsibility of just the responsibility in the municipality. OHAP should remove the responsibility for low-cost housing from them.

ARMSTRONG ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Has the minister had an opportunity, since we last spoke about this question in the House, to speak to Ontario Hydro so that it will accept and exercise its responsibility to provide hydro power to the people of Armstrong at cost; particularly when the CNR is prepared to serve a segment of the population at eight cents per kilowatt hour when Ontario Hydro said it wouldn’t do it for less than 17 cents per kilowatt hour?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of statements which are confusing in respect of this particular matter. The hon. member raised it the other day with me and there is a series of newspaper articles running in the Toronto Sun currently. I think it would be better to wait until that series is completed, so that I could deal with all of those matters at one time.

The matter that the hon. member specifically refers to is presently being discussed with Hydro. I’ve already had some information which, at least at this stage, leads me to believe that it’s not quite as has been described by the hon. member -- and I’m not saying he did this deliberately; I think it’s a matter of the confused situation with respect to electric power in that particular community. But as he knows, we are and will be doing everything we possibly can for that community to make sure that everything that can possibly be done will be done. Again, I just have to say that I would rather deal with it all in one statement, which I imagine may be some time next week.

Mr. Stokes: Can we have the minister’s assurance that this community will not be left without power?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will certainly do everything we can to make sure it isn’t without power.

The hon. member will appreciate, of course, that it’s like the fellow who goes to church and is berated by the preacher for those who don’t come to church. Having picked up the can on this, this government, and myself in particular, are the targets of the criticism for things which, to a large extent at least, have been caused by the closing of the base by the federal government.

The hon. member knows, of course -- and he has said so in this House -- that as a result of the actions of this government, my colleagues and myself, we have done a great deal to help the Armstrong community.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t want the minister to fumble the ball. I want him to keep carrying it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are doing our best not to. Indeed, the hon. member also knows that as a result of our attaching this problem and insisting that the federal government doesn’t turn its back completely on this community -- and, indeed, on some others -- they have now established a committee. I just happen to have it in front of me. I felt the hon. member would be raising this question. They have even established a committee under the hon. Mr. Jamieson. The committee is called the interdepartmental committee on replacement activities for areas affected by reductions in Department of National Defence activities.

This is a progressive measure. As the hon. member knows, we were having a difficult time dealing with any minister in the federal government because there were so many involved. This is the result of about five months of letters and wires and visits to Ottawa. We now have, at least, one group and one minister with whom to deal.

In respect to power, that has always been a troublesome thing at Armstrong, as the hon. member knows. I think there were three sources from which they were getting their power. We are doing our best. I think I can assure the hon. member, as far as I can see it at this stage, they won’t he doing without power.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has a question.

DORE WRECKING CO.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the minister inform the House as to whether the US demolition company, Dore Wrecking, has received a contract to demolish the Norton-Palmer Hotel in the city of Windsor to build senior citizens’ housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the House as to the actual awarding of the contract. I know of the intentions of OHC to proceed with housing in that area. If you wish me to confer with you, I will certainly be glad to.

Mr. B. Newman: I would appreciate the minister informing me, either in the House or privately. But as a supplementary question, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the unpleasant experiences the Workmen’s Compensation Board has had in its dealings with Dore Wrecking. And as a result of that, surely some consideration should have been given to seeing that the contract was given to someone other than a company that has had difficult dealings with the province.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am totally unaware of the company having difficulties with other agencies of the province, but I will look into it.

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Wardle from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Revenue be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976.

Ministry administration programme ... $2,231,000

Support services programme ............. $2,186,000

Administration of taxes programme ... $18,785,000

Guaranteed income and tax credit programme ......................................... $98,097,000

Municipal assessment programme .... $43,883,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CITY OF THOROLD ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to erect the Town of Thorold into a City Municipality.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bounsall moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to prevent discrimination in employment on the basis of physical disability, criminal record or political affiliation.

The purpose is to remove questions on the application forms of some companies in Ontario -- invariably divisions of multi-national corporations -- which ask about past political support; has the applicant ever received workmen’s compensation or pensions; and has he ever been jailed? All of which automatically deny the opportunity of commencing employment. Should a worker answer these questions negatively in his desire to obtain employment it is grounds for termination.

Mr. Speaker: You are going into the principle of the bill now.

Mr. Bounsall: This bill would remove these obvious discriminations and outlaw employment application forms of this type.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answer to question 15 on the order paper.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that in a few moments students from Parkview Secondary School will be coming into the west gallery to participate in our proceedings.

Mr. Lewis: Does the member want us to applaud now in advance of their entrance? Is it so close to an election that even that has to be indulged in?

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 16th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1503:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1503, item 1. The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, I assume the minister took to heart the problems he created for himself by failing to adhere to the terms of the statute relating to the annual report of the Police Commission. I don’t intend to pursue that matter further although I am sure my colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) -- were he here -- would want to pursue it at some greater length.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the appropriate time for me to raise the matter. It was alluded to in some of the earlier comments prior to the first vote being taken on these estimates. I would like to ask the minister whether the Police Commission is engaged with a view to making recommendations to the Solicitor General (Mr. Clement) as to the nature of the arrangements which should be made by way of agreement between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada with respect to the relationship of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to policing in the Province of Ontario.

I’m quite confused about the discussion which did take place. I got the impression, from the discussion arising out of Mr. Choquette’s position in Quebec, that there was some idea that the government of Canada should contribute to the cost of policing the Province of Quebec and that you were engaged in some kind of consideration of the same problem. I may not have heard it correctly.

I have for some time been urging on the government the need to define clearly by way of agreement the respective roles of the police forces in the Province of Ontario and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the demarcation of those areas of law enforcement.

I want to refer again to the federal statute dealing with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In section 5 of that, it states that the Governor General in council may enter into arrangements with the government of any province of Canada or, with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province, with any municipality thereof for the use or employment of the force -- that’s the Royal Canadian Mounted Police -- or any portion thereof in aiding the administration of justice in such province or municipality and in carrying into effect the laws of the Legislature or municipality thereof, respectively, and may in any such arrangement agree upon and determine the amount of money that should be paid by the province or municipality, as the case may be, for such services of the force.

I recognize I am not talking about British Columbia or the three prairie provinces where as I understand it -- I may be marginally inaccurate -- the role played by the Ontario Provincial Police in Ontario is played by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as it is in Newfoundland. There is a definitive agreement with respect to the cost.

I’m talking about something which, in my view, has been overlooked in the Province of Ontario. That is, there is no clear understanding by way of agreement either as to cost sharing or as to the roles which are to be played by the respective components of the federal police force and the police forces in Ontario.

We all know it appears to be a traditional understanding that there is a line of demarcation. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are engaged, for example, in the enforcement particularly of the laws prohibiting the use of drugs of one kind or another. There are a number of other areas where they are involved. I want to set aside the whole question of counter-intelligence work as being a separate area dealing with the security of Canada as a national entity. I’m talking about police responsibilities.

It seems to me that the police in Ontario and the people in Ontario are having their problems compounded because of a lack of clear understanding by way of agreement. Again, I want to make clear that I’m not talking about co-operation. I’m sure the various police forces, particularly in these latter years, have been co-operating in the various aspects of police work in which they’re jointly engaged. Certainly there is no agreement and certainly there appears to have been no overall discussions with either the leadership of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to the respective roles of the forces and an understanding of how it is to be done and how the costs are to be shared.

I don’t want to labour the Landmark situation. That is one of those unfortunate police --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): In the minister’s riding too.

Mr. Renwick: -- faux pas which occur. It was a situation in which we had this problem of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the regional police of Niagara involved in the joint enforcement of laws. I don’t know whether it is wise to have a Royal Canadian Mounted Police law enforcement presence in the Province of Ontario at all. I don’t know whether it would not be sufficient simply to provide a communication network between the intelligence branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the intelligence branches of the Ontario Provincial Police and the various police forces in Ontario. I don’t know whether that should not be the only connecting link between the two forces.

It seems always passing strange to me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should by tradition more than by anything else feel that it is their role to enforce certain federal criminal statutes, whereas everyone knows that it is the responsibility of the police in the Province of Ontario to enforce all the laws of the Province of Ontario and all the laws of the Government of Canada which are in force in the Province of Ontario.

I want to set aside any question that I am suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be given a role in enforcing provincial statutes which, of course, is the case where they are the police force, such as in British Columbia or in Newfoundland, which has the total law enforcement role equivalent to our Ontario Provincial Police.

I trust I have both expressed my own views and asked a number of questions of the Solicitor General which he might now comment on. If necessary, we could have a very brief dialogue about it.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Acting Solicitor General): Mr. Chairman, I wish to advise the members of the committee that as I understand it, this concern was expressed by my predecessor to the federal Solicitor General some time ago and became a matter of discussion at an annual conference of Solicitors General and the federal Solicitor General about one year ago. We were advised at that time, as I understand it, by the federal Solicitor General that really there was no federal policy directed or created or in existence covering this type of situation.

We have the great variety of situations which the member for Riverdale has already touched on -- the Ontario situation, Manitoba, and so on -- where, as he so correctly put it, in some of the western provinces the Royal Canadian Mounted Police almost plays the same role, if not the same, as does the Ontario Provincial Police in the Province of Ontario.

The Solicitor General of this province, the Ontario Police Commission and the Ontario Provincial Police were asked to participate in a joint study with the federal Solicitor General’s office, and they did. That study has been completed to assist the federal Solicitor General in developing a policy to be carried out throughout the entire country. About one year ago, as I say, Mr. Allmand asked that the matter be deferred until he had an opportunity for this study to be completed, and it was deferred. I am advised that the matter is on the agenda at the meeting of the Solicitors General being held in Vancouver this very week, right now. The Deputy Solicitor General is there on my behalf.

The figures used by my predecessor would indicate some $370 million, I believe, insofar as the Province of Ontario is concerned. I think it was $359 million for the Province of Quebec. Mr. Choquette bears the responsibility as Minister of Justice of Quebec and hears the responsibility for policing and is very much interested in this.

The present situation is, we are awaiting the receipt of advice from the federal Solicitor General as to what the policy will be. Will it be new policy effective forthwith? Will it be policy reflecting some retroactive aspect so that Ontario might recover its $370 million alleged costs which should be borne, in my predecessor’s submission, by the federal government? This is the spot we are at. I have not talked to my deputy minister this week so I am unable to advise the member of the current discussions which I know took place and perhaps are taking place almost at this very moment in Victoria -- if they are up; I forgot about the time lag.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Solicitor General if he would be good enough, when the deputy returns and has time to do it, to drop a note to me and my colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), setting out the government’s present position in connection with these discussions with the federal government. I suppose it is easy to say in hindsight that it should have been done many years ago but I think it is a matter of extreme importance, not just with respect to the sharing of the financial arrangements of the overall policing but in respect to the substance of law enforcement through the police agencies in the Province of Ontario.

There is a second aspect I would like to draw to the Solicitor General’s attention because I don’t understand it and I don’t think anybody else understands it. You will recall in my remarks a few minutes ago I spoke about the counter-intelligence work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I take it -- and this is in the nature of a preliminary question -- that the police in Ontario, apart from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, do not perform counter-intelligence functions in the sense of political counter-intelligence? That is just a preliminary one and perhaps when the minister comments he can refer to it.

There is a particular man who has been in Canada for many years; his children were born here and are now grown up, married and firmly established, but this man has been unable to obtain his Canadian citizenship after all these years. He doesn’t know the reason for his inability to obtain his citizenship. He has been here, as I say, for about a quarter of a century; he comes from Portugal. His position is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will not advise him and the government of Canada will not advise him why he is refused, but in his country of origin something occurred which he doesn’t know about. He said, “If they will tell me what it is -- I have never engaged in subversive activities of any kind.”

He continues to be a citizen of Portugal in this strange anomalous situation because at the time of the 25-year or 40-year or 50-year dictatorship, for some reason or other, the Portuguese police blackballed him through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and he has never been able to find out about it. I am not asking the Solicitor General to do anything about that; I am using it simply to illustrate why I ask the question.

I wrote to Ottawa, to the Minister of Justice, to have him advise me under what authority of what statute of the government of Canada or under what other authority -- if there is any other authority of the government of Canada -- the Royal Canadian Mounted Police carried out counter-intelligence work with respect to political subversiveness in Canada. There is nothing in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act that I know of which states it. The reply which I got from the Minister of Justice was most inadequate.

As another facet, and I am not suggesting for a moment that I want the Ontario police or any part of them to be involved in counter-intelligence work, except for the purpose of communication of information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I would like perhaps to ask that in the course of these discussions with the Solicitor General of the government of Canada, we try to get some idea of where the authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is, to come into the Province of Ontario and engage in counter-intelligence activities, which they are doing. As everybody knows, that’s part of their role but there is no legal background for it. I don’t know whether it is just assumed that government, by God-given right, is entitled to conduct counter-intelligence work or intelligence work, whichever you want to call it, in the field of political concerns of one kind or another.

If there isn’t any such statute or any such law, then if we are talking about being governed by the rule of law, it would appear to me that we must have some statutory authority. I am not questioning the necessity in a modern state for counter-intelligence facilities for political purposes. I am not questioning the need for that. All I am saying is, if we pay respect to the rule of law tradition, let’s at least be able to spot the law under which those activities are carried out.

I may be completely wrong. The correspondence I had with the government of Canada and my reading of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act certainly doesn’t confer that kind of authority on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a citizen in Ontario, a member of this Legislature, I would like to know what is the legal authority under which the RCMP carries out its counter-intelligence or counter-espionage work in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the member’s assumption as to counter-intelligence is correct in that the Ontario Provincial Police and municipal forces do not have any counter-intelligence division or activities. The counter-intelligence work is carried out throughout all of the provinces, or certainly throughout this province, by the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am advised that under the present Citizenship Act where an applicant is refused Canadian citizenship there is nothing obligatory on the minister or the department to disclose the reason for the refusal.

Mr. Renwick: I recognize that. I was just using that as an example.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. I thought the member might be interested to know, because I have just been advised a moment ago by staff that a new Act is in the process of proceeding through second reading in Ottawa -- or at least amendments to the old Act. The proposed amendments include a section which says that in the event an applicant is refused, then it is mandatory on either the ministry or the minister to disclose the reasons for the refusal. I just pass that forward to the member. I was not aware of it and it may be of some value to the member in that the member will be able to monitor the processing of that legislation through the federal system.

With respect to observations offered by the member for Riverdale as to what specific authority the Royal Canadian Mounted Police operate under in the area of counter-intelligence, I am unable to answer that. I am not aware of any specific statute. During certain emergency periods, they obviously would be able to take advantage of the War Measures Act and that sort of thing, but during peacetime I am unable to point to any specific statute and advise the members that the RCMP are carrying on these activities under such and such an Act. The question has never come to my attention before. I have never turned my mind to it but I am just not aware of any statute that gives specific reference to that type of activity by the RCMP.

Mr. Renwick: I happen to believe that, in perspective, it’s important. I know the Solicitor General has plenty of things to do, but at some point I would appreciate it if the ministry would formally raise with the government of Canada the question of the authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to conduct the counter-intelligence or counter-espionage work which they carry on, to see whether or not I am correct that it would be advisable to have an Act or a law in force through which this would be carried on.

I suppose this is an aftermath of Quebec and the invocation of the War Measures Act some years ago. The funny thing is there were all sorts of proposals for sort of a peacetime securities Act, but everybody is very gun-shy in touching that kind of a problem, and I don’t underestimate the difficulties of it. So that we are still, as I understand it, in exactly the same position as we were at the time of the invocation of the War Measures Act; that is the actual authority under which that kind of political problem for a government would be dealt with and enforced.

Perhaps the minister at some point would tell me whether or not he would raise that question of the authority of the RCMP to conduct these matters. I think, within perspective, it’s an important situation.

Let me go back to the preliminary observation made that the Ontario Provincial Police or municipal police are not engaged in counter-espionage or counter-intelligence activities. I had an occasion to act for a Canadian citizen of Greek origin whose character and reputation, both in his country of origin and in Canada, are impeccable, no question about it. This was conceded and the charges against him were withdrawn. The circumstances were quite significant. I must give full marks to the assistant Crown attorney, who, on his own volition, saw the problem and withdrew the charges against this man. It wasn’t a matter of plea-bargaining at all; he recognized the anomaly of the situation.

This particular man was a leader of one of the major segments of the Greek community in Canada, mainly Canadian citizens opposed to the dictatorship in Greece. There was a demonstration at Nathan Phillips Square. They had notified the police, had their own marshals and all of the rest, for the purpose of having a peaceful demonstration. There was never a demonstration of people of Greek origin, with respect to the activities of the dictatorship, that wasn’t peaceful. While they were in Nathan Phillips Square, sense of apprehension grew in the crowd because there was a person in plain clothes taking pictures of people -- not just of the crowd, but of people’s faces; it was quite clear. The marshals, who noticed this, sensed the apprehension in the crowd; there were all sorts of fears about families at home, with the thought that this was somebody from the Greek consulate compiling a dossier of photographs or pictures. It was a sense of apprehension that grew.

One of the marshals went to this man who was taking the pictures and asked him would he stop taking them because he was causing difficulty; he also asked who was he and what was he doing there. The man said he was one of the reporters.

The chief organizer, the man for whom I acted, was in charge of the overall arrangements at this particular demonstration. He became concerned about it and he approached this man. There was such apprehension at this point that there was a scuffle. The man, about whom I’m speaking was not involved in it, but the camera was knocked out of the other man’s hand -- the one taking the pictures -- and the camera was taken by somebody. The man for whom I acted was arrested by the police, taken to the police station and was held for some considerable period of time. The condition of his release was the return of the camera. Word got out through the community and the camera was returned; however, he was charged.

The man who was taking the pictures turned out to be a plainclothes police officer of the Metropolitan Toronto police. I can conceive of no reason why the Metropolitan Toronto police were trying to take pictures of citizens of Greek origin participating in an orderly demonstration in Nathan Phillips Square. I believe it overstepped the bounds of fairness; I think it was an intrusion on the dignity of the persons concerned.

Obviously the Crown attorney’s office took the same position. I don’t know whether they used the same rationale but they knew they were unwise to pursue the matter in the court and they withdrew the charges. But this man was detained and suffered the ignominy of that; and had to retain counsel -- retain me. As I say, the matter wasn’t pursued.

If it is the policy of the Solicitor General through the Police Commission that the police forces of Ontario do not engage in that form of counter-espionage work or counter-intelligence work or their version of counter-intelligence work, I think it would be extremely important that it not take place. This wasn’t as if here were one or two persons for whom, perhaps, there may have been some strange justification. This was obviously a planned selection of persons in that group, a decision to take photographs which undoubtedly would go into some police file of some sort. I have no idea what they were going to be used for.

If the demarcation that came when I put the preliminary question was genuine, with the nods from everyone, and the Solicitor General’s statement that you are not engaged in that, I think the Metropolitan Toronto police should be told what their role is in activities such as that.

If it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police role -- and I advert to the other question I raised -- all right; let’s know the basis and the authority under which they would be entitled or authorized to do that. This was a most upsetting experience for all of the people in the Greek community involved. Fortunately they are sane, intelligent people and they dealt with it sanely and intelligently.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the Metropolitan Toronto police on this occasion, and perhaps on others -- my understanding is that they have on other occasions -- have taken pictures of persons involved in demonstrations. Their experience has been to the effect that there are professional agitators not in any way connected with the group conducting a peaceful demonstration.

They will attempt to infiltrate a peaceful demonstration and appear to be part of it in an effort to agitate and to create an incident.

They are a relatively small group of persons, in the city of Toronto in particular. The Metropolitan police force has been concerned enough in its responsibility for maintaining crowd control to want to become familiar with these individuals. The taking of pictures was not for any purposes of counter-intelligence or for transmission to any other police agency but to accumulate a file or a dossier of demonstrations such as this in an effort to ascertain if there are common individuals attending all of these so-called peaceful demonstrations. That was the purpose on that particular occasion for the photographer from Metro police being in attendance.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t accept that. This particular group of people, these particular demonstrations -- I was involved in a great number of them over the years. I assumed that would have been the rationale. It’s always the rationale. This wasn’t the case, in my judgement, whatever minor rationale there may have been for the Metropolitan Toronto police getting pictures of this small band -- I suppose this is the same small band of revolutionaries who travel around the world causing trouble, mainly supported by the New Democratic Party at all times.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d never heard that theory.

Mr. Renwick: You know, the small band of revolutionaries; I would have assumed that police forces by now had the pictures of all of those fellows, because it is such a small band and it appears all over the world. They wouldn’t have all that trouble doing so.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Sometimes it appears in three places at the same time.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. It’s a very interesting group. It’s like that small band of intrepid judges that it was reported in the paper take on these royal commissions all the time in the public interest.

All I’m saying is I don’t accept that rationale, and I want the Metropolitan Toronto police to understand clearly what they were doing. They were taking pictures of persons with no criminal records and no background of agitation. They were citizens born in another country who came to Canada. As Canadian citizens, they were conducting themselves properly but were having their pictures taken by the police. And that’s wrong.

I’ve only got two more points, though there are any number of points one could raise on a vote like this. Has the Police Commission come to any conclusion about a uniform directive to be circulated to every police force in the Province of Ontario with respect to the destruction of photographs and fingerprints under the Identification of Criminals Act in those cases where a person has been charged, fingerprinted, photographed, gone to court and the charges have either been withdrawn or he has been acquitted? The procedure in Metropolitan Toronto is that if you wish to do so you can arrange to have them destroyed and you can attend and see that it is done. That is not true and has not been true in other places; and formerly it was not true in the city of Toronto.

I think it’s important that there be a uniform understanding among the police of Ontario about that question. It is a very upsetting matter for many people to find they are acquitted and that the police have in their possession fingerprints and photographs of them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Ontario Police Commission did indeed send a directive to every police force carrying on its duties in this province to destroy fingerprints and photographs of those persons against whom charges were placed and subsequently withdrawn and/or dismissed. The directive was accepted and agreed to by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. That is the position, Mr. Chairman, as it exists today.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have just one other comment. I revert to that question that arose again just recently in London, Ont., where presumably the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under writs of assistance entered the wrong home to make a search for drugs, and the woman inhabitant of the home complained about the problem. I couldn’t tell from the reports, but it did seem to me that it was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that they entered under writs of assistance, which we still have in Canada. Again, it’s a matter which has been of concern to me. The writ of assistance, that general writ which a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer carries around in his pocket, may have been issued 20 years ago or 15 years ago. It allows him to go anywhere, without any protection for the citizen for the specific purposes of the Narcotic Control Act and one or two ether statutes, and so on.

Mr. Haggerty: Like a bounty hunter.

Mr. Renwick: I can recognize the problem which is involved in it. There are always questions of balancing the one off against the other. It’s very interesting, at the 200th anniversary of the United States of America, to recall that one of the principal causes of complaint at the time of the American revolution were the writs of assistance that were then being used. The constitution of the United States prohibits, at the pain of being subjected to severe penalties for unlawful entry, the use of any such writs.

Will the Solicitor General, as his predecessor for many years have each agreed to do, raise with the federal Minister of justice whether in this day and age the processes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in enforcing the Narcotic Control Act and the Customs and Excise Acts cannot be carried out in the usual method of requiring an appearance before a judicial officer for the purpose of getting a writ of entry in order to proceed to carry out their police duties?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The incident to which the hon. member refers to in London was, according to my memory, in fact, carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I would be prepared to write my counterpart in Ottawa and ask if he would be prepared to amend the legislation so that writs of assistance were done away with, leaving the traditional appearance before a judicial officer and a warrant obtained in that fashion. I would be prepared to go along with that.

In my official role, I have received no complaints of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police abusing, or allegedly abusing, the writs of assistance; and I know of no specific complaints prior to my being identified with government; that is, when I practised law I never had a complaint about the entry of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under one of those writs. I asked to see one at one time, in a matter in which I was involved, and was not really that surprised but somewhat shocked to find the writ sealed in plastic. The member’s remarks about the 20-years possession by the officer may well be correct, because this thing was sealed in plastic like a birth certificate so that it would never wear out.

We have had a fair amount of exposure to the use of writs of assistance in my home town under the Customs and Excise Acts, with the thrust really being under the customs aspect, because, as the member knows, it is an offence to have in one’s possession goods which were made outside the country. Under that Act -- which is a piece of legislation you should look at some time -- the onus is on the accused to prove -- if you have that ballpoint pencil and it says “Made in the USA” -- the onus is on you to prove that the duty was paid.

I’ve had some personal experiences, but I’ve never had any complaint by anyone saying they have been abused by the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Perhaps the member has, or perhaps it’s the principle that he’s turning his mind to in this debate this morning. I would be prepared to communicate with Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Renwick: I thought I had the perfect case, as a matter of fact. One night a constituent of mine had his house suddenly entered by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who searched his place from top to bottom, took him away, fingerprinted him and all the rest of it. They had entered under a writ of assistance. I carefully questioned this man and reviewed all of the evidence and so on and I thought I had the perfect case. The only trouble was my man was convicted of having an illegal still in his house!

Mr. Chairman: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct a few questions to the minister concerning this particular vote. I was interested in his comments the other day, concerning the matters raised by the minister when he said he recognized the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission was very much alarmed with reference to offences of armed robbery in Metropolitan Toronto. I would like to quote from the Niagara Falls Review under the headline: “Court Treatment is Soft on Repeat Culprits, Chief Tells Audience.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: Excuse me, will you speak up? I can’t quite hear your comments.

Mr. Haggerty: This is an article from the Niagara Falls Review:

“Niagara Police Chief Albert Shennan told members of the Niagara Falls Optimists Club on Tuesday that he is tired of the courts mollycoddling people who persist in breaking the law.”

It goes on to say that the law is very lenient on those who are repeaters before the courts. I was a little bit alarmed at that statement too. I think this is one of the problems with the police departments throughout Ontario. The courts are, perhaps, a little bit too lenient with offenders, and sometimes it’s the case even in armed robbery.

The point I want to raise with the minister is, has the commission given any consideration to bringing in tighter gun control regulations or laws, particularly on small arms? I’m talking about revolvers, pistols and arms of that nature. It seems there isn’t a day goes by that you don’t pick up the newspaper and see an article about an armed robbery in the Niagara region, where somebody carried a gun into a store, held up the owner and got off with a little bit of money and that’s it.

What are we going to do to control guns in the Province of Ontario? Is there any direction coming from the Police Commission that we can put tighter controls on? The argument they put up now is the controls are there; why are they not being enforced by the Police Commission, by the police departments?

What is the hold up in bringing in some type of better controls on this? What about having all guns registered in the Province of Ontario regardless of what type of firearm it might be; a shotgun, a rifle or small arms? Have you taken that into consideration -- that all guns must be registered.

Of course, there are certain gun collectors who have said we can’t register them. You can always go out and put a number on a gun barrel any time you want. There are ways to register them.

I bring this to the attention of the minister. I think it’s time in the Province of Ontario, when you are talking about this permissive society -- and this is one instance of being permissive -- that people carrying these weapons should be stopped. There are certain ones who carry them who have permits. There are others who don’t have permits and this is where you should have a crackdown on the offenders. You mentioned yesterday -- I’m quoting from Hansard --

Mr. Lawlor: On a point or order, that is vote 1505, subsection 10, registration of weapons.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s a good time to bring it here. I want to know what policy the Police Commission has on this matter. I’ve seen days when the member has stirred around with these votes day after day.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m just pointing it out.

Mr. Haggerty: All right.

You mentioned, Mr. Minister, that you visualized the situation if you had a minimum five year term for committing an offence with the use of a firearm involved. You went on to say it’s left to the discretion of the courts and you brought in the matter of impaired ability under your comments. Sure, if you look at the discrepancies in the fines levied in these particular cases when persons are charged with impaired ability -- there are a number of cases I can perhaps quote. The fines are anywhere from $75 to $250 or $350. Suspension for three months is automatic; and of course for the second offence it is six months’ suspension. Surely you should be able to come in with some strong law in the Province of Ontario to control small firearms.

No person should have the right to walk in the streets with a gun on his hip or in a holster. Even when you look at policemen today in the Province of Ontario -- if I were a policeman I would sooner not be carrying a gun. I would have a better chance with a person --

Mr. Chairman: I think you are straying into vote 1506.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m right on. I raise this to the minister; I think you are going to have to come in with some stronger regulations to control firearms. If you want to reduce crimes in the Province of Ontario this is the first step, control the use of firearms.

Mr. Chairman: I do think the I matter of law and firearms should be in the law enforcement item under 1506.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I think it should be under the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is, already. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the member for Welland South and perhaps we won’t duplicate this when we get into the next vote.

An hon. member: That would be a good idea.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The registration of firearms, of handguns, is already mandatory under federal legislation. I just say to the member for Welland South if I thought that a provincially oriented programme of compulsory gun registration would substantially reduce the use of firearms and the commission of offences I would be the first to go forward with that legislation. It is not the responsibility of the Ontario Police Commission to develop that type of policy. It is the responsibility of the policy field itself, and we have discussed this matter on several occasions.

The registration of handguns today, in my estimation, is ineffective. I have said this in the House before. Those who have guns to use in offences, for robbery and this sort of thing, very seldom have been known to use their own weapon. They use an unregistered one or one which has been registered and stolen from the rightful owner.

If you made it compulsory to register all firearms, shotguns, rifles, handguns and so on, I would presume that about 99.9 per cent of the people who were compelled to register would indeed be law-abiding citizens who have the guns for useful purposes, for hunting, for target shooting or for collectors’ purposes; and that a very minute section of the municipality or the province that uses guns for unlawful purposes would not come forward. They are not going to be frightened about a six-month term of imprisonment for possession of an unregistered firearm if they have been knocking off milk stores every night.

Mr. Stokes: If you made the carrying of guns a criminal offence --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I made that, did I?

Mr. Stokes: No; I say if you did, only criminals would have guns.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The possession of an unregistered weapon is dealt with by the courts in this province under the provisions of the federal legislation. The member for Welland South made a Freudian slip, I think, when he asked his question -- take a look at Hansard -- “What is the hold up in getting ahead with it?”

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I pointed out that I have had handguns registered for a number of years in my own name. I have the permits and everything else. I think the one I have I got in 1943. Since 1943 I am absolutely positive there have been people shot in the Province of Ontario with .38 pistols. I am absolutely convinced there are people who have been shot in this province with .38 pistols and their murderer has never been charged. I can also state that since 1943, when this gun came into my possession, no one has ever come forward and said: “You are shown as the registered owner of a .38 pistol. May we have it for ballistics purposes please?” I have complied with the law. I have registered. What good has it really done?

Mr. Haggerty: You know where the guns are.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Add to this shotguns and rifles and collectors’ items and we will have to build another structure the size of this building to house the documents. Then what do you do with them?

It’s a very difficult situation. I am not being critical of the law enforcement agencies or the federal legislation, I just say it is a very difficult thing even to store that information. I presume it would have to be computerized. To go through files manually looking for owners of .38 pistols, would be a fantastically large job. Those who would be compelled to register are not the ones who are causing the trouble in the main. I concede there are good citizens who under emotional stress grab their handgun and shoot someone within the household. The registration of that gun is probably already completed and in our hands. They are lawfully in possession of it anyway.

Mr. Haggerty: You know where the gun is, though, don’t you? You know how many guns there are and where they are. If the person is in violation of the law, you can get hold of him and bring him before the courts.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We will do that right now if we find him in possession of a handgun not registered in his name.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with matters that are under vote 1505, such as data processing and law enforcement, both uniformed and civilian. I would appreciate it if you could relate it, Mr. Minister, to the Ontario Police Commission.

The member for Lakeshore has the floor next.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions. Looking at the last report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General in 1973, on page 1 there is mention of a task force being set up having to do with the training of all police officers. I take it this is quite distinct and separate from the task force on policing. I take it this is a separate task force; if I’m wrong on that, then the question goes out the window.

It’s on the last paragraph. It was to consist of a criminologist, seconded senior personnel from the Ontario Provincial Police, Metropolitan Toronto police, Hamilton-Wentworth, and one of the commission’s advisers. This matter was to be pursued and it was hoped that this group’s report would be available towards the end of 1974. What’s the score on that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am advised that this is the programme on personnel development under the supervision of Major General Sparling. They have completed phase one of the study and phase two, consisting of course content, will be available about the first of this week. Therefore, in essence it is completed, and there are no funds in the vote to cover that particular matter at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: I take it that the reference to funds is neither here nor there, really. I think you will agree with me, as the responsible minister, that the only opportunity we have to give surveyance to these matters is a date subsequent to the announcement. No doubt in that year the Solicitor General’s estimates were here again, well over before we received the report. Therefore it’s only in the next following year it is possible, in the absence of the next year’s report, to give these things some scrutiny.

I have not as yet received, and you’ve gratuitously and generously offered to let me have, that red book you had over there on the task force on policing so I could get a picture and a run-down -- perhaps in some subsequent year -- in matters of this kind.

I want to turn your attention, under this particular vote, to pages 12.2 and 12.8. The first has to do with personnel for the Ontario Police Commission. It says it is to provide consulting assistance to forces when appropriate and to develop meaningful performance evaluation systems. And 12.3 is an experiment to be designed and funded by the Ontario Police Commission to develop a performance evaluation system for medium-sized Ontario police forces based on management by objectives technology and drawing on the experience of other police agencies.

I would like you to comment on that, not having the opportunity before to peruse this -- what has now turned into a very dark document. It was previously scarlet, but now it has kind of dyed in the process. However, it will be valuable for future reference.

Could you comment on that? I’m not going to spend a long time trying to ferret out and interrogate or analyse the role of the Police Commission as contained in this vote, over against what has been recommended as its various objectives in jobs within the police report itself, just maybe a point or two.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think there are two areas where the matter referred to by the member has been evaluated on a pilot project basis -- Barrie and Halton.

The pilot project has been operated for the last two years under combined funding from the province, the federal government, the Foundation for Human Development and the local police commission. The annual cost has been about $30,000, borne equally between those who have sponsored it. The project has involved training, objective setting and performance evaluation. Objective setting and performance evaluation are concerned with the establishment of team policing in one zone of the regional force. This is aimed at improving decision-making at the constable level as recommended by the task force.

The pilot project study will be completed in about six weeks -- oh. I am sorry; this one on personnel evaluation has been completed.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman).

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, I am not finished, by any means.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, well, then you should take precedence.

Mr. Lawlor: Regarding that first one I asked you about, the study that was being done within the police commission itself, did you say it is almost complete or it is complete? Is that available to members of this House? Might we peruse it at some time to see what goes into police training?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It will be public in about six weeks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lawlor: It will be public. Could I make a plea at this stage of the estimates that one be sent over to my office once it is available? I would like to take a look at it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I won’t be able to deliver as quickly as the one I personally had delivered to you. I may ask for a receipt one of these days.

Mr. Lawlor: I expect you to deliver it personally; otherwise, I’ll feel offended.

I want to mention a letter I have before me from a firm of lawyers in Toronto -- I won’t mention their name; I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s a letter of complaint that came to me in April and it refers to a Globe and Mail article about Judge Bick. It simply quotes from what was said in the April 5 Globe and Mail, reputedly from the good judge:

“No one will ever know how much legislation has been enacted, making the work of a police officer more difficult to perform because of subtle and not so subtle applications of force by persons with a credit balance at the political level.”

I hope that you, as Solicitor General, in charge of all policing in this province, and having some remote form of suzerainty over Judge Bick, have taken cognizance of his dispositions, his various attitudes and his particularly piquant statements in this regard, and that something will be done to bring the man into some sanity and into line.

A series of rather provocative remarks have proceeded from Judge Bick of recent day. He is too full of himself. He has much too much authority and too little scrutiny. I hope our new Ombudsman, who knows about the interstices of that particular bureau -- he knows it perhaps more intimately than anybody else in the province -- will be able to move in on the Metropolitan Police Commission in some regard. Or do you deem that Maloney has that girth, that elbow room to move in on that?

Are they sacrosanct? It always appeared to me that they were, that the Ontario Police Commission enjoys and deems its role to be a transcendental, a remote and a very affable indeed relationship with -- and I am not concerned with the other police commissions throughout the province; that may be fine. I am concerned with where I live and the areas I represent in this particular regard -- where the crunch is.

As I see it, it is the Metropolitan Toronto commission that is the one that is most seriously offensive. Why? Largely because it is the biggest and probably the most important and because of its role of secrecy and its self-enclosure. When I find a great irritation proceeding from its chairman, it should be given greater interrogation and more weight should be levied.

I don’t think it’s an infringement of local autonomy or any other nonsense like that. There is a job to be done and a responsibility to the public to be carried out by the Ontario Police Commission, and it cannot remain lofty and impuissant over and against what is happening in that area.

As a matter of fact my long-established opinion is that Bick should have been removed. He shouldn’t be there at all. He hasn’t got the kind of feeling for that type of job as things are in the contemporary world which makes it palatable to a large number of citizens of the city and of the province as a whole. I think somebody should say so and I am prepared to say it.

That letter which, as I say, came in from a firm of solicitors is one of the indexes or indications of what the mentality operating on that commission is. I hope you take offence at it as I do and drop a line or say a word, in private or in public -- I don’t care

-- to Judge Bick to govern himself in a more judicial way, let’s call it.

I am interested in the Ontario Police Commission. I take it its basic setup is the same. I have an organization sheet here which was given to us a couple of years ago which shows four basic breakdowns -- advisory services; criminal intelligence; systems planning; and the Ontario Police College. Within criminal intelligence there is a breakdown of five different roles and functions.

I want to spend a good deal of time over each one of them; they all have their intriguing problems. The CISO intrigues me and the inter-relationship with other police forces, particularly RCMP. Let’s take a look at the most innocuous one, public relations. That is in (e) category:

“A good measure of public confidence and support is requisite if any programme for combating organized crime is to be effective. This is particularly applicable within the business community, the academic field and within the labour unions.

“A programme has been designed to ensure continuing liaison with these areas and speakers are sent out.”

It puzzled me a bit and I thought I would like to know.

May I say in preface or as an aside, these estimates are difficult for members of the opposition because we are cognizant, and any sense of responsibility we may have -- which is little enough, thank heavens -- warns us that when we stand up and talk about matters of this kind, criminal intelligence, we are treading on eggs. We know there are matters which are of great confidentiality if the force is to be effective at all. On the other hand we are very much concerned with the public weal and realm and in what areas utmost disclosure can be made. This is the area, this particular subsection of criminal intelligence, which does, thou sayeth, give some of that intelligence to the general public including members of this House.

It is in this area I want to get more of a picture of what its operation is. It puzzles me what you mean by a special address to the academic community. I can see business and labour unions, of course, and the infiltration of organized crime in these areas and the impact they may very well have, using legitimate businesses as a cover. It is a well-known thing. We know the problems of infiltration of various labour unions; it has been over every newspaper for weeks now.

That particular area puzzled me a bit. That is, the academic community is not reputed to have a high potential for organized crime unless you consider the whole university establishment or one of those versions of it. That’s been with us a long time, that particular form, and it has something to do with classical learning. It may be incendiary. I suppose if we are talking the right way it would set some souls afire and it might even send them parading up and down the street if they learned the lessons some of the great wish to teach. But, leaving a little badinage aside, clue me in on this particular area of police intelligence.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member has touched on an area which is very sensitive by its very nature. The intelligence officers, or people working under that area, do speak to service clubs, church groups and this sort of thing upon request. They speak in a very general type of discussion. Rather than particularizing it, they attempt to keep the address as broad as possible, as simple as possible, so that the layman may have an opportunity to understand it. When we talk about selected meetings, they also talk to police groups where, for obvious reasons, they can become much more technical in their discussions.

They must at all times be very guarded in the information which they possess as intelligence officers to assure themselves and the commission that there is no leaking of that information. The member himself recognizes and very properly points out that there is a line somewhere beyond which one cannot make disclosures for public interest purposes. I suppose that I am seized of certain information in the course of my responsibilities that I would just have to, in the public interest, refuse to disclose in this House or under any other circumstances, and perhaps to a similar degree I know these intelligence officers likewise find themselves in a similar situation. Discretion has to be applied, hopefully always in a wise manner. They are walking a very difficult rail. How far do you go and where do you draw the line?

Mr. Lawlor: I think you probably draw it sooner than later.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that would probably, for a number of reasons, be the best place to draw it. I often wonder myself if I draw it soon enough. Maybe I have been far too generous with my colleagues across the House. I don’t know.

Mr. Lawlor: Ha! We will push that one. All right, I am not going to press the particular issue. It seems to me that I don’t know the particular relevance of the academic community to that field. It puzzles me. Could you comment on that? What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That would cover people involved in criminology and forensic sciences. I made a very brief appearance at a three-day seminar for coroners held here in the city of Toronto about two weeks ago. It is that sort of an atmosphere these people would attend and be referred to in the description of academic community. They wouldn’t, I visualize, go to a community college and just have a general chat on police intelligence with all of the staff just to fill in the entertainment portion of a faculty meeting. If they were requested to do that, they would direct their comments on a very broad basis, as they would when addressing a service club.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one other area; let me light upon it. In that particular year, 81 specially selected police officers were given training at the police college, particularly having to do with the extent and awareness of organized crime. Could you give me an indication of how many officers were involved in this in the last year, 1974?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, that information is available. I will get it for the hon. member in a moment. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, he might go on with his next question and I will dig out that information for him.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, Mr. Edward Hale, who was chairman of the task force on policing -- I asked you and you said we would come back to it when we hit the vote -- has been employed as a consultant. That is all to the good; I think it is highly beneficial that he should be so. I just wanted some figure. Could I have some idea what he was paid in the consultancy role and whether it is part of this vote or where it appears?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, it is a part of this vote, Mr. Chairman, and is approximately $28,000 per annum.

Mr. Lawlor: How long is it anticipated Mr. Hale will remain?

Hon. Mr. Clement: My recollection is that an order was made on an annual basis for Mr. Hale some five or six weeks ago. I am just going by my own memory.

Mr. Chairman: I will have to interrupt just for a moment so that the hon. member for Algoma might introduce his guests.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), I have been asked to introduce a school from his riding. It’s the McGillivray Central School in Ailsa Craig. It’s a privilege for me to introduce this school in the west gallery. The lady in charge is Mrs. Hamilton.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore wish to continue?

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t quite understand that it was five or six weeks ago. I understood that Mr. Hale had been engaged as one thing ended to come in and help. You have done a number of things. You have rehearsed and gone through and are implementing various sections from time to time. This is what this is all about. I would think that Mr. Hale would be retained until such time as this had been substantially completed, at least to the length that you intended it to go.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Hale came to the commission about 10 months ago and worked for the commission almost on an ad hoc basis. The contribution that he had made, not only to the task force but in connection with his past nine or 10 months with the commission, was recognized. He was asked to stay on with the commission. I believe an order in council went through to that effect, appointing him an employee of the commission.

I believe the task force itself recommended the expansion of the commission. When our minds are turned to that legislation, the commission will obviously have to be expanded. Mr. Hale, in the meantime, is the consultant to the commission and, hopefully, will remain with it for a substantial period of time.

Turning the member’s attention back now for a moment to the question of the number of officers who attended the course last year, it was 75 officers.

Mr. Lawlor: One final question on this, when you give your crime statistics in the report, you use the term “cleared by charge and cleared otherwise.” I would like to know precisely what the convictions were. I know at the end of the report in lumping together all police forces in the province -- that is, the OPP with all the municipal forces -- you do give the convictions. I am speaking specifically of charges as laid by the OPP and the full panoply of how they are disposed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The commission for the first time is using the statistical data provided by Statistics Canada -- 1975 is the first year that they have utilized this service. I have just been advised by staff that Statistics Canada will be providing that type of breakdown on the data which will be brought forward shortly.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on item 1?

Mr. Renwick: I have one brief one. I didn’t follow up the way I wanted to on the question of the destruction of fingerprints and photographs of persons who are acquitted or have charges against them withdrawn. Did I understand correctly that it was, in fact, a directive of the Ontario Police Commission? Is it binding on the various police commissions? And if not, why not -- and could we have a copy of whatever the directive was at some point?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Ontario Police Commission gave persuasive direction to this effect. I want to make it clear so the member can appreciate it. The Ontario Police Commission has no jurisdiction to order this or to direct it done. The notifications were sent out after consultation with the Ontario police chiefs’ association, which is in agreement with it, and undertook to go along with that request.

But I don’t want to mislead the member for Riverdale. I cannot stand here before you and tell you that I am confident that it has been done in every police department in the Province of Ontario, as of today; and I am not suggesting it hasn’t been done. But I want you to understand the role of the Ontario Police Commission, and I am sure you do. They have requested this, and as far as we are aware it is being carried out.

Mr. Renwick: Does the Solicitor General himself have authority to give such a directive, or would a directive from him be more persuasive than from the commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wouldn’t feel I would have that authority. I would have to look into it, but it is the federal legislation, the Identification of Criminals Act; and I would think I would be lacking in jurisdiction to order the destruction of such documents.

Mr. Stokes: We would be happier if you would destroy those documents.

Mr. Renwick: I just wanted to let you know I am a bit of a pack rat and I have here a historic document.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): You aren’t going to read the whole thing, are you?

Mr. Renwick: I don’t think so.

Mr. Stokes: That’s not from the last Globe and Mail?

Mr. Renwick: This is the Globe and Mail, Thursday, Nov. 30, 1961, containing a partial text of Liberal leader John Wintermeyer’s speech in the Legislature dealing with organized crime in Ontario. Perhaps you would like to have it on the wall of your office as the Solicitor General?

My last word on this is just an admonition to the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, in the hope that it will percolate through to his friends in the political world of the Tory party, with respect to the attitudinal surveys of people in the Province of Ontario respecting law and order as an election issue, or as a significant factor in the planning of the Tory strategy for the upcoming provincial election. And I would hope that he would be a cautionary influence on his confreres, both within the party and within the government. I refer particularly to “Law Calls for Justice,” an address by the hon. J.C. McRuer, Aug. 8, 1966. And I quote just one sentence: “Order, like law, to be respected must deserve respect.”

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I am not going to unduly prolong this, but I feel it incumbent upon me to say a few words of commendation about the Ontario Police Commission. Their job isn’t over by a long shot, but I do want to commend them for the assistance they gave --

Mr. Renwick: The party split on this.

Mr. Stokes: This is something they don’t know anything about, you see.

Mr. Reid: That is why you split.

Mr. Stokes: They are away up in the ethereal end of it; I am down to the practicalities. The Ontario Police Commission was particularly helpful --

Mr. Lawlor: You will land in jail one of these days, Stokes, and you will know where the ethereal end is.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Stokes: They did perform yeoman service in assisting us in setting up a special band police force in Gull Bay. Now, it’s working extremely well with the assistance of the Ontario Provincial Police, but it was as a result of our dialogue with the Ontario Police Commission that we cut through all of the bureaucracy and the red tape, both at the provincial level and the federal level.

Now, they have run into a few problems that are financial in nature, and hopefully, we will be able to resolve those. But I would just like to caution the commission, through you, Mr. Chairman, that their job isn’t over by a long shot. There are a good many special situations, particularly in the northern part of the province, where we have been less than successful in law enforcement and police surveillance through regular channels under the auspices of the OPP, and a happy blend of both a local police force and the OPP hasn’t worked. It is working well in Gull Bay and hopefully, with the assistance of the Ontario Police Commission and the Solicitor General in co-operation with the OPP, we’ll be able to extend that service to other areas where we’ve been less than successful.

I think the Solicitor General knows what I mean. I’ve brought specific instances to his attention as the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I’ve done the same thing with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch). The problems we face in a good many communities, particularly in the northern part of the province, are not just problems of law enforcement or surveillance. I want to get into more specific details when we get to the OPP vote.

I think I should mention the fact that the Ontario Police Commission were particularly helpful in assisting the community of Gull Bay. I hope they will continue to show an interest in it. I’ve since had some dialogue with many communities in the north that are looking at that as a pilot project. It might, in some small way, assist those communities to maintain law and order, which is a particular problem in remote areas where you don’t have sufficient Provincial Police personnel on hand or, where you do, it doesn’t seem to have the kind of effect that we would desire.

I would hope that the Police Commission, in concert with other provincial agencies, would look a little bit farther back to find out -- you know, it’s almost like talking about preventive medicine. The problems we’re having with acute alcoholism and all of the social problems that are facing many communities in the north are so deep-rooted that I think if law enforcement officers are going to get the kind of support they want and if they are going to be as effective as they would like to be, we’re going to have to go back much farther into the social and the economic causes of what we would consider to be undesirable human behaviour.

I have before me a series of three articles referring specifically to the town of Armstrong. We do have a committee there now dealing specifically with alcoholic problems, but a small community like that cannot solve its own social and economic problems unless we go back and find the root causes. I’m not suggesting that it’s easy. I don’t want to appear to be simplistic about the whole thing, but if we are ever going to resolve the problem of the high incidence of arrests and convictions, we must go back much farther.

I think that the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Provincial Secretary for Justice, in concert with the Ontario Police Commission and various other agencies of the provincial and federal governments, should convene a seminar of all of the people who have any responsibility whatsoever in that field.

I wouldn’t preclude the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), because I really do think that unacceptable behaviour is a result of the dietary habits of some people, where there is a lack of certain elements of a balanced diet. I think there is sufficient documentation of that, and I think there has been sufficient success with the use of megavitamins to control schizophrenia and acute alcoholism. I think there’s sufficient evidence that we should be at least looking at the problem. I’m hoping the Ontario Police Commission will play that kind of role in concert with you and anybody else who can help us.

This problem isn’t going away. It’s getting worse. It’s reached such proportions we should all be concerned and I think we should start right now to look at the root causes of it. Maybe, in 15 or 20 years from now we’ll say, “Thank God we started when we did. We took the thing seriously and we can see some daylight and we’re on the way to resolving it.” I’m not suggesting it is simple but I think everybody who is concerned and responsible for this area of concern must resolve to do something about it right here and now.

I will be happy to play my part and I hope that you, as the minister, and the Ontario Police Commission will play your roles so that we can do something meaningful and see a breakthrough in this area where there is a dire need for action. I wanted to say those few words while given the opportunity here.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Lakeshore wish to comment further on item 1?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, one final burst at item 1, having to do with the money. As it appears to me, the escalation of money for the commission is very great indeed. Before us we have actual figures for 1973-1974 of $1,762,000. What is being asked for is $3,044,000. That would be I suppose, an 80 per cent jump.

Could you, in answering why this rather monumental increase is taking place, give us the actual figure for last year, 1974-1975, so that we will see by what gradations you’ve come from $1.7 million to over $3 million?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Last year the Ontario Police Commission estimates were $2,409,000. Actually expended was $2,413,066.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s quite an increase, too, isn’t it? That’s $700,000 against the previous year.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Pardon me. No, the 1974 estimates were $2,420,000. Actually expended was $2,413,066.

Mr. Lawlor: I won’t quarrel with the Police Commission or with you about a few thousands here or there.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The unspent funds were roughly $7,000.

Mr. Lawlor: Take a look at the previous year when it was $1.7 million; that’s up about $700,000. Now you’re leaping another $600,000. What’s the explanation for all that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: There are a substantial number of transfer payments involved in that sum, Mr. Chairman. For example, there’s one to municipal police forces totalling $290,000. In addition, you have an increase in the youth and the law programme: that’s a sum of $68,000. There is an increase in unclassified salaries of $120,000.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m sorry, stick with the first one first, the close to $300,000 transfer to the municipal forces. I take it that would be apart from any other transfers to municipal forces being made. Why is this specifically coming through the Police Commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s a communications programme; it’s for financial assistance in the enlargement of the communications systems. Some of these sums which have been sent out, I might add, are rather substantial. I can think of one not too many weeks ago -- it seems to me it was $60,000 or $70,000 -- to one of the major police commissions in the province.

Mr. Lawlor: The only question I have under this head concerns the substantial sums given in the past few years to the local police commissions on communications problems, with respect to radio equipment and what not. You are phasing out the Telex, as I understand it. I think we’ll come to this in the OPP vote proper. But in any event, is this all the money that is being transferred from the province, through any of the agencies of the province, to the local force for communications equipment? Or is there more money somewhere else in some other vote?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, this is not all of the money which is being transferred to municipal forces or commissions. There are substantial sums being transferred by TEIGA in various grants; one major one having been announced here in this House on April 9. That is the per capita grant increase for policing.

Mr. Lawlor: But I’m talking about communications equipment.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m advised that, insofar as the regional forces are concerned, the communications grants come directly from TEIGA, as startup costs.

Mr. Lawlor: So this money here, this money for communications equipment basically, is confined to those local forces which are not caught within regional government?

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s correct.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay. That’s where the big chunk of dough comes in that particular, and I think it is satisfactorily explained. May I say in parenthesis, whether it’s satisfactorily explained or not makes no iota of difference. I have never in my eight years of constant, serene perusal of these estimates seen the thing changed by half a cent. What the whole exercise is about always puzzles me. I suppose you could confess that it keeps you honest somehow -- not that you are not honest in any event -- but this particular kind of scrutiny of the actual monetary thing has some remote effect upon government. Do you think, maybe? Hopefully?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think it has. I would certainly tell you and your colleagues that everything is in order here, and if you wanted to prove the whole balance of the estimates, take my word they are in perfect order.

Mr. Lawlor: Sometimes I think that’s probably the best thing to do.

Mr. Chairman: Item 2, the Ontario Police College.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman: perhaps I could -- just for the sake of the record, on the comment I made a little while ago about writs of assistance -- read into the record the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed as one of the Bill of Rights immediately after the constitution was adopted:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

I make that comment only by adversion and I apologize to the chairman.

On the question of the Ontario Police College, Mr. Chairman, I really only have one concern -- it’s been expressed by my colleague and me on other occasions -- and that is the isolation of the police college, if I can use that term, in the educational system of the Province of Ontario. My colleague and I have felt for a long time the immense importance of the gradual integration of the Ontario Police College into the college of applied arts and technology and the university world, in the sense that we must not allow the police college to be the kind of isolated training ground or teaching college for the police which would separate it from the other post-secondary educational institutions.

I assume that there are courses given at the Ontario Police College which could be of reciprocal advantage to persons taking certain courses at the colleges of applied arts and technology. I am thinking of courses in social work and in other areas of concern, presumably probation officer training and that kind of matter.

It may be that students at the college of applied arts and technology would have the advantage, either by physically going to the Ontario Police College or by persons on the instructional staff of the Ontario Police College going to various campuses of the colleges of applied arts and technology, in providing some kind of an integration. It may be that the students would physically go to the Ontario Police College.

It may well be that students at the Ontario Police College in taking various courses, either of an elementary nature or of a secondary or refresher nature, should also have the advantage of going to the colleges of applied arts and technology or to the universities and taking certain courses related to the broader aspects of police work in a relatively complex society in which there are any number of disciplines apart from the singularly specific discipline of police training.

I recognize that in other years we have been advised that there is progress in this field. I think it’s a matter which should be pursued with direction and with vigour in order that we can avoid anything like a separate and distinct college being set up in the nature of a military officers’ training centre, if I may use perhaps a rather strong analogous relationship.

It’s more than a generalized statement on my part. I simply would like to ask that it be a policy that is adopted and vigorously pursued, and that there is an overall look at the curricula and at the qualifications of people at the police college to give instruction to the colleges of applied arts and technology in areas of their competence, and the reverse situation, the possibility of the interchanging of students and the possibility of a substantial number of police officers taking training at the police college and spending a good portion of their training time in the atmosphere of the post-secondary educational institutions, either at the colleges or at the universities.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The college already utilizes many of the staff members of community colleges in the area and of the University of Western Ontario and Waterloo; and with the expansion of the curriculum, which will be reviewed this Monday coming and has been touched on in the debate this morning, it would appear that the result will be an even greater exchange or flow of academics coming in from various institutions to lecture and to make contributions in that form. Also, people from the University of Toronto -- various people in the social field and the economic field -- do go to the Police College for the purpose of lecturing and assisting in the giving of the courses down there.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t know if you have this information; you probably have. Again, in the 1973 Solicitor General’s report, the first sentence says: “During 1973 considerable progress was made towards building a new police college.”

What I would like to know is if you have any capital cost figures before you as to what the estimated cost of the first module of the college would be, over against what the cost is today? I would like to know, in other words, was there a very considerable escalation in the projected cost of that college from the time it was initiated up until its virtual completion?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I cannot provide that information to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, because it is within the purview of the Ministry of Government Services. I just don’t have those figures available.

Mr. Lawlor: I was kind of hoping that it might possibly be in front of you.

I have just one further question: How many police personnel took training during 1974?

Hon. Mr. Clement: About 2,800.

Mr. Lawlor: Explain one thing to me. What is the difference between the college down here in Toronto -- it’s a kind of police college in one side -- in effect, what I am asking you is precisely who goes to the Aylmer college rather than here and why?

Hon. Mr. Clement: They go to both because the one down here in Toronto is in-service training and Aylmer, of course, is a separate entity by itself.

One of the problems I have had some personal identification with is to make sure that community colleges -- which offer, for example, courses in law enforcement or administration of justice in the hope of attracting young people and giving them some background of law for careers in policing or security work -- are not going to offer duplication of those courses which would be offered at Aylmer.

I might say that a number of years ago when I became involved in one of these courses at Niagara College of Technology in Welland, we worked very closely with the Ontario Police Commission which had this very concern foremost in its mind. We didn’t want to get into a duplication of the community college level, Aylmer and in-service training and so on and it has worked out extremely well. There has been great liaison.

Judge Graham constantly attended those meetings when I was working with that committee and ended up being chairman of that committee at Niagara College. We kept this foremost in our minds because we didn’t want to dissipate human and financial resources in this type of area. I mention that because I thought the member would be interested in it, Mr. Chairman.

The college in Toronto is for in-service training and is in addition to the training they would take at Aylmer.

Mr. Lawlor: Let me understand that further; I confess my ignorance in this regard. For the Aylmer college courses, somebody would be on a police force for a period of time and for a refresher course -- particularly with respect to senior personnel taking courses -- they would knock off their regular job for a period of five or six weeks perhaps at a time and take the course. Whereas the in-service training, I take it, you mean is from day to day. They go down for a few hours and take it and come back to the regular job, type of thing. Is that the way they work it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s continuous training at the Toronto college. Your perception of the Aylmer training is correct. They are assigned to Aylmer; they go down, they start their course and they are there for the duration of the course; the number of weeks involved. The situation in Metropolitan Toronto is that they take their training after their Aylmer exposure usually; I stand to be corrected, but that’s my understanding of it.

Mr. Lawlor: In a sense it is more advanced training?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Lawlor: Do you keep figures on the Toronto situation?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is run by the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Lawlor: By the Metropolitan police exclusively? Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry?

Item 3 is the Ontario Police Arbitration Commission. Any comments or questions?

Mr. Lawlor: My colleague told me he had some comments.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: I don’t know if it comes under this vote but perhaps the minister could explain what the very small items are, the $1,000 and $10,000? What are those, the statute ones? What is the money for? I see we voted it last year as well.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wonder if the member for Rainy River is turning his question to the statutory vote?

Mr. Reid: Yes, the $10,000 for the payments under the Ministry of Treasury. I would like to know what it is, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is involved with the Administration of Justice Act and the $1,000 is there for a purpose which I can’t tell you. Just a moment; I just don’t know.

Mr. Stokes: That is petty cash.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, it is a nominal sum -- this is very interesting. Perhaps you know the answers before I tell it.

Mr. Reid: No.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll be very suspect if you do. It’s a nominal sum that is put there in order to allow the matter to be shown in the estimates; and it is moneys that we use for the payment of information.

Mr. Reid: The $1,000?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s a nominal sum.

Mr. Reid: It’s a nominal sum. I am sorry, what was the $10,000 for? You mentioned the Administration of Justice Act. That doesn’t really tell me very much.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry. No, the $10,000 is for the information and the $1,000 is for the hearings. I am sorry, I have reversed that.

Mr. Reid: For the hearings?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment on item 3?

Mr. Lawlor: Just a word on item 3. How is it doing? It is that kind of question. It’s a fairly new commission. You make considerable claims for greasing the gears in the relationship on police bargaining. It is a five-member commission, as I understand it. Oh, that is the question I want to ask. How many full-time arbitrators are there?

Mr. Renwick: One.

Mr. Lawlor: There was only one a year or so ago.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That figure remains unchanged.

Mr. Lawlor: How many disputes has he arbitrated in the past year?

Hon. Mr. Clement: About 23 or 24.

Mr. Lawlor: Pretty busy boy, eh?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think so.

Mr. Lawlor: Do you think it’s time to employ somebody else? I mean, the first year he was in he did 14.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We use people part-time in addition to this particular individual.

Mr. Lawlor: I see. Mr. Chairman, as a point of grace perhaps -- if there is such a thing around here -- we in the New Democratic Party, at least, would rather not proceed to the OPP. These are all the questions we have to ask under this vote and we would ask that we could start fresh the next day.

Mr. Reid: Well, that solves that. Could I just make a comment that I’d like to get on the record to the minister? It appears that the $10,000 is for information is a nominal sum that perhaps is buried in other places. because it seems that probably the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) pays much more for information than the government does.

Mr. Stokes: How much does he pay you.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 1503 carry?

Vote 1503 agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler 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 that it has come to certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I’d like to say that on Monday we will proceed with the consideration of these estimates, and also the estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has been called for standing committee. On Tuesday, however, we will change the routine and deal with legislation. You might like to write down the numbers as they appear on the order paper; items 2, 13, 9, 14, 6 and 12. Then we will proceed during the course of the week beyond that, depending upon how we make out with the legislative programme on Tuesday. And I might say, Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned when the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) wants to come back fresh on Monday. We will take his word for that.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He is never free on Monday.

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

Motion agreed to.

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