The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the Legislature will agree with me when I say that the city of Toronto and indeed Queen’s Park are coming closer and closer to the great riding of Kenora because of the Young Travellers’ programme. In our gallery again today we have some very important visitors from the Kenora area, a group of grade 8 students, 35 in total, from the Evergreen Public School. I know that the members will want to join with me in extending to them a very, very sincere welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

GREAT LAKES ACCESS PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have a statement, Mr. Speaker, that will be of interest to every member of this House, but especially to those members whose constituencies border on the Great Lakes. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is not only blessed with hundreds of inland lakes and streams for the recreational pursuits of our citizens, but also with hundreds of miles of beautiful shoreline along the Great Lakes. For many years, much of this shoreline has been inaccessible to most people because of its rugged nature or because its ownership was in private hands.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to announce today, Mr. Speaker, a programme which hopefully will serve to provide the citizens of Ontario with greater access to their Great Lakes waterfront resource. In co-operation with the federal government, the programme will provide financial assistance to municipalities to develop waterfront recreational facilities for fishing and boat launching, moorings and the necessary access, parking and services needs.

Initially, we will be making up to $500,000 available this year to participating municipalities fronting on the lower Great Lakes toward land acquisition and capital development. In many cases, the onshore developments undertaken by the municipality will be associated with offshore breakwater or harbour improvements carried out by the federal government under its small craft harbours programme. The province will make water lots available to the federal government for harbour improvements or extensions as well as Crown lands or beaches required by municipalities participating in the plan.

The province’s Great Lakes access programme, Mr. Speaker, will provide for a fully co-ordinated provincial and municipal effort, ensuring with the federal government the integration of plans for both onshore and offshore needs of the boating public. A joint federal-provincial working group will co-ordinate the integration of planning and development. I have appointed within my ministry a special working group to develop the mechanics of apportioning grants among participating municipalities. A municipality could, if qualified, receive 70 per cent of its approved costs and will be able to recover future operating costs from the boating public utilizing these facilities.

The programme will be broad enough, Mr. Speaker, to provide access at other places on the Great Lakes for fishing as well as boat launching. Fishing piers are also under consideration for selected locations. We will be monitoring the success of this programme very carefully with an eye to extending it to communities on inland waters. The obvious success of the $20-million Metropolitan Toronto and region waterfront development plan for public recreation, which is 50 per cent funded by the province, has convinced us that smaller communities on the Great Lakes should be encouraged to undertake development of waterfront sports fishing and boating access where this is now deficient.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is a most opportune occasion to remind the members of the Legislature that the government in the Speech from the Throne on Nov. 27, 1962, announced a $200-million, 20-year shoreline and parks acquisition programme which this new access programme complements. Since that time 120 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and 135,000 acres of land have been acquired for public use. Also, since 1962, 30 new provincial parks and 202 conservation areas have been established.

OMBUDSMAN

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I wish today to introduce for first reading the bill to create the office of Ombudsman for the Province of Ontario.

In 1971, the government of Ontario and this Legislature enacted the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the Civil Rights Statute Law Amendment Act which gave the people of this province the most comprehensive programme for the development of individual rights within our society that has been enacted by any jurisdiction in our country. When these statutes were proclaimed, they brought into force as law a code of administrative law procedure which was designed to reinforce the rights of the individual wherever they come into contact with the many administrative processes of modern-day government within the provincial jurisdiction.

It has been and still is the policy of this government that the best safeguards of the rights of the individual lie in good legislation and good rules of procedure for the guidance and direction of those who make decisions in the administrative processes of government. With three years of experience behind us, it now appears that there are some areas in governmental administration which are not subject to the mandate of the existing legislative programme. It is the view of this government that the office of Ombudsman can serve a useful purpose as a safeguard in addition to and not in place of those safeguards established under the programme of civil rights legislation introduced in 1971.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, as society and government increase in complexity, it becomes apparent that an abundance of complaints with regard to administrative matters are not subject to the ambit of the earlier legislation. Accordingly, we have concluded that if we are to achieve our goal of ensuring that the rights of the individual are safeguarded wherever they come into contact with the administration, the office of Ombudsman will be a necessary additional tool to the already extensive programme for the protection of civil rights which exists under the law of this province.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Belated conversion.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Therefore, in bringing this bill forward, we are simply recognizing that there are still areas of administration in governmental processes which can be improved and for which there must be some vehicle for redress. The Ombudsman will provide that vehicle for the citizens of this province.

The principal function of the Ombudsman will be to investigate decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the provincial administration either upon receipt of complaints from affected persons or on his own initiative. Letters addressed to the Ombudsman by inmates of provincial correctional institutions or patients of provincial psychiatric facilities must be forwarded to the Ombudsman unopened. Following investigation, the Ombudsman may recommend appropriate remedial action including reconsideration of decisions, rectification of omissions, alteration of practices, reconsideration of existing law and generally anything which will lead to fair, just and responsive administration. If such recommendations are not followed he may report to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and to the assembly. He is required to inform complainants of his recommendation to the administration or of his decision not to investigate or not to proceed further with the investigation of a complaint. In addition, he is required to report annually upon the affairs of his office to the Speaker of the assembly who shall cause the report to be laid before the assembly.

Provisions of the bill respecting appointment, tenure, staffing, and financing ensure the independence of the Ombudsman. Except for lack of jurisdiction, his proceedings and decisions are not open to challenge in any court, and so long as he carries out his functions in good faith, no civil suit or prosecution may be brought against him or his staff. Effectiveness is ensured by the grant of broad powers to compel the giving of evidence, to enter upon any premises occupied by any governmental organization and to delegate his powers to persons holding office under him. Furthermore, the testimony of any person given in the course of any inquiry or proceedings before the Ombudsman is protected and no prosecution may be brought against any person for complying with the requirements of the Ombudsman respecting the giving of testimony.

Before investigating any matter, the Ombudsman is required to inform the head of the governmental organization affected of his intention to investigate, and the investigation is to be conducted in private. Before making any report or recommendation which may adversely affect any governmental organization or person, the Ombudsman must afford to such organization or person an opportunity to make representations.

Consistent with the previously stated principle that individual rights are best protected by legislation providing procedural safeguards, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction where the law has provided a right of appeal, review or other adequate remedy until after the time for appeal has expired or the appropriate processes have been exhausted. He does not have the right to review decisions of judges, the functions of any court of law and the deliberations and proceedings of the executive council or any committee thereof, as they are exempted from the operation of the Act. It will be the responsibility of the Attorney General to certify that the giving of any information or the answering of any question or the production of any document or thing would be injurious to the public interest or that it might interfere with or impede investigation or detection of offences or might involve disclosure of the deliberations of the executive council. There would be no power to compel the giving of evidence in such circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario has an enviable record of protecting the rights of its citizens, and this is a further indication of our government’s dedication to continuing that leadership.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce to the Legislature, 90 grade 8 students from the Ecole Cité des Jeunes, North Bay, and ask the Legislature to welcome these franco-Ontarian students.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) who is on his way to Pickle Lake, I’d like to welcome to the chamber 43 grades 7 and 8 students from Schreiber-Terrace Bay Public School, who are chaperoned by Susan Johnson, Bernie Romank, Don Davey and Tony Speziale. I hope members will join me in welcoming them here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brantford.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to join me in a welcome to students from the W. Ross Macdonald Secondary School in Brantford who are in the galleries here along with staff.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The member for York Centre.

SALE OF TAINTED MEAT

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the statements by Leo Arcand of St. Hyacinthe, who admitted that he had been shipping thousands of pounds of meat of dead animals into this province since 1972, and the suspicions that some others are involved also in this procedure, would the minister, in co-operation with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), carry out a full inquiry into the procedures they used to get this meat across the border and the destinations that it arrived at in Ontario?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, there are several things about this that I am somewhat concerned with. In the first instance, there is absolutely no proof or validity to the statement that was made, other than that it was a statement apparently attributed, that I read in the press report this morning.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Their trucks are seen here.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: To my knowledge -- there may be trucks seen here. My hon. friend, the member for High Park, says “Their trucks are seen here.” There are trucks all over the place; that doesn’t say what they are delivering or where it came from, or if it is uninspected meat.

Mr. Shulman: They were seen delivering meat.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That doesn’t say that. But I have to say this, Mr. Speaker, that as far as we know there has been no indication of any of that meat going into the human trade in Ontario. There have been three cases prosecuted that we are aware of -- two in Kingston, I believe, and one in Hawkesbury.

There is no indication as to where the meat came from. There was some understanding that it may have come from a source outside of Ontario. We are not even sure of that. The prosecution was launched on the basis of selling uninspected meat. No meat is supposed to be sold in Ontario retail, over a counter, that is not inspected either by federal inspectors or by provincial inspectors. Now, if that meat was sold uninspected, then they were liable and they were charged and fined for it.

The interprovincial movement of meat falls within the jurisdiction of the federal officials. Any interprovincial movement does. We have worked with the inspectors at Ottawa. We have relayed information to them about this very matter that I have referred to. We have worked with the Ministry of Health and the local medical officers of health, whose responsibility it is, really, as far as the retail outlets are concerned.

I am distressed about the publicity that is being given to this, that people would think that this is going on in Ontario. We cleaned the situation up, as far as we know, in the early Sixties with the introduction of the further amendments to the Dead Animal Disposal Act. This precludes the sale or disposal of meat from fallen or sick or disabled dead animals to anything but the pet, fertilizer or rendering trade.

All meat emanating from those processing facilities has to be identified with charcoal banding. We are very careful in our inspection in those plants to see that this is done. There are spot checks made from time to time of this meat to see that it is so identified.

We have felt that the matter was under control. If there are such cases going on, we are not aware of them. To my knowledge there has never been anyone call in saying that there is a problem. We have never heard a case of illness of anyone, and certainly we don’t want that. We want to be sure this kind of thing is not happening.

I discussed it all again this morning with my staff. I have assurance from them that there has been no instance of anything that has ever been found or heard of that they haven’t followed up on to the nth degree. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Ontario, that if there is such a thing going on, we want to know about it. If there is positive identification or even suspicion of such a thing, then we will check into it. But just to throw idle rumour out to set the public ill at ease over something, that is a despicable thing to happen. To my way of thinking it is a disservice to the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre -- a supplementary?

Mr. Deacon: In view of the fact there are indications that this meat has a Quebec approved stamp on it, and in that way gets by the problem of the retailer selling unstamped meat, and if there is evidence that there is meat now being sold in Ontario with that stamp on it, will the minister require immediately, pending an inquiry and the determination of this, that all meat shipped into Ontario or sold in Ontario have the Department of Agriculture Canada stamp on it, or the Ontario stamp on it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to insist on that, but it is not the Ontario officials who will have to enforce that. My hon. friends in the opposition know full well that the Province of Ontario enjoys no authority as far as interprovincial movement of any commodity is concerned. That is a federal responsibility.

Mr. Shulman: This government has control over what is sold here.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And if the member again wants to apologize for his federal counterparts and get us to do the job, then he can get on his horse and do it.

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went- worth, a supplementary.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The minister should pull himself together.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If my hon. friend -- the frenetic lawyer from Sarnia -- has a better answer, let him get up and say so.

Mr. Bullbrook: And I’ll defend the minister anytime.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Wentworth has the floor for a supplementary.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is it possible to put the politics aside for a moment and talk about the meat?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The member is sanctimonious today.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Deans: Okay. Now that we have that cleared up let me ask the minister what is he currently doing to investigate the claims made by Mr. Arcand that he did provide meat which he understands was for sale in Ontario and which he believes was sold in Ontario, some thousands of pounds of meat which he says he sold for purposes of sale in Ontario? Is the minister currently working with the federal government to investigate that aspect of it? When will he be able to report to the House on whether or not the statements attributed to him are accurate?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s responsibility ends when the animal is slaughtered and the meat is processed in the plant. The local medical officers of health are responsible in the areas where meat is sold in the retail trade. The Minister of Health’s officials work with them because they are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is responsible for the inspection of plants where animals are slaughtered for sale as meat in Ontario and not for interprovincial trade at all. If there is such meat coming in from outside and being sold in retail outlets, it has to be the responsibility of the local medical officers of health. I think there are several hundred of them working through the Ministry of Health out of Ottawa to take care of those situations.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. There is another supplementary. The member for Huron-Bruce has a supplementary and the member for High Park wishes to ask a supplementary. I think that will be sufficient supplementaries.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if as a matter of routine the ministry investigates all the reports of uninspected meat being sold in the province, but perhaps that question should be properly directed to the Minister of Health?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: I want to get this quite clear. The minister’s assurances yesterday, in effect, involve only meat slaughtered here; if meat is brought in from outside, is he saying his ministry has no control whatsoever over what is sold in our stores? Is that what he is saying now?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not saying we are not interested in it. I’m saying that as far as we are concerned, we have no authority at the store level. We are concerned that meat processed under the Dead Animal Disposal Act is identified in the plants where it is processed in Ontario. But we have no control of meat coming in from outside Ontario.

Mr. Shulman: But the local MOHs aren’t even looking at it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s not my responsibility.

Mr. Deans: It is. The minister is part of the government.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course, it may well be, but the MOH’s responsibility is at the retail level. It’s not the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We do not inspect retail levels for meat.

Mr. Shulman: Nobody does.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, the MOH is supposed to.

Mr. Shulman: That isn’t so; they don’t have the facilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre, a question of the Minister of Health?

Mr. Deacon: In view of the suspicions and the evidence and statements of Leo Arcand about the shipment of meat into Ontario with a Quebec stamp but which has not been properly stamped, will the Minister of Health, pending clarification of this whole situation, recommend to the medical officers of health that the meat be stamped by Canada Agriculture or Ontario Agriculture before it is to be sold in retail outlets in Ontario in order to safeguard the people of the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, after the questions in the House yesterday I did contact by telephone the medical officer of health in Ottawa specifically and asked if I could have a report back today in time for question period because of the very detailed nature of the charges that Reggio Food was selling meat in Ottawa. To say that in one day we’ve been able to find they are not might be risky, but up to this point we have not been able to find any evidence that Reggio Food is operating. The MOH has put a high priority on this and has all of his inspectors tracing all the potential outlets to see whether any food of this nature will turn up. They have found in the course of that day some products from unidentified manufacturers. They have seized these products and they are now trying to trace the source of that meat and other food.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: To repeat my original question -- in view of the indications that this meat is going not only into Ottawa but other points in Ontario, would the minister recommend to all MOHs that they require retailers to have a Department of Agriculture Canada stamp on it, or an Ontario stamp on it, in order to be sure, until we have clarified this matter of the Quebec stamps, that the meat is all right?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is the law, in fact, as I understand it. And as the Minister of Agriculture and Food mentioned a moment ago, we have quite a few inspectors in the various health units of Ontario, over 500, who routinely do this. Now, obviously in a case like the current situation, there is added importance to it -- and they are looking, and I am sure they will be looking. We are asking them to report to us any evidence they find with this type of problem. I have some instances -- but they only total four -- that have been reported to us over the past year, where uninspected or unstamped meat has been found.

Mr. Shulman: Nobody has been looking.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Given that there is no reason for this man to have made statements that the meat is, in fact, being shipped into Ontario if it weren’t so, and given that, of course, the MOHs are active right now looking for it -- but it’s been happening for the last three or four years, according to this source -- what changes does the minister contemplate making in the investigative procedures that are currently used to determine the sources of meat and the appropriateness for human consumption?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that implies that the present methods are no good, and I don’t agree with that.

Mr. Deans: That is exactly what it implies.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t agree with that. I think the state of the health of the people of this province is evidence that Ontario has one of the highest standards for meat inspection in North America and we are proud of it.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that, in fact, in this city at this time, and for recent months, there has been practically no meat inspection? Yesterday I went to the largest meat market in this city and I was told they hadn’t had a meat inspector around in over a year.

Mr. Deans: What’s that, would the minister pray tell?

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Hardly perfect.

Mr. Deans: How does he like his inspection procedures?

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am going to be eating mine pickled tonight, after what he tells me.

Mr. Deans: Stick to salads.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce, a supplementary then. One more supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I have some clarification with respect to the role of the MOH in this whole piece? Does the MOH, as a matter of routine, investigate all complaints or reports that uninspected meat is being sold in any particular locale throughout the province? What does it take to initiate that kind of action?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think any MOH who did not investigate a report of any kind in his area of jurisdiction would not be doing his job. I am quite sure that if specific complaints are brought in, they are investigated. That is not the issue. The issue is: What are we finding where no complaints are laid?

I am satisfied that while the MOHs claim they never have enough inspectors to do all the jobs they’d like to do, we have been doing a pretty good job of checking retail meat outlets and retail food outlets where foods are sold.

Mr. Shulman: Untrue. Just not true.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think one has to sit at the other end. I can speak very personally and say I never have a summer pass in the little operation I have where I am not inspected half a dozen times by inspectors of the local health unit. Maybe they suspect me; I don’t know.

Mr. Shulman: For weight, probably. Meat quality or weight?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Something rotten there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre and his question.

TEAGHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Education: In view of the fact that it is now 18 months since he first brought in some legislation as to the procedures to be used in teacher-trustee negotiations, and in view of the fact that delays are one of the greatest sources of aggravation and breakdown in any labour relations or negotiations in any bodies, would the minister get with it and bring in his legislation with regard to teacher negotiating procedures? When are we going to see this come into the House?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I answered that question from the hon. member a few days ago.

Mr. Deacon: When is he going to bring it in?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Supplementary: When is he going to quit misleading the House and bring it in instead of just making promises?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Roy: That’s all he is doing.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Playing to the gallery.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the greatest person to mislead this House is the hon. member who is talking right now.

Mr. Roy: Does he want me to get an answer?

Mr. Yakabuski: On all sides of this House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He wanted us to bring in legislation on Ottawa and then he didn’t want us to bring in legislation. He wanted us to take over school boards and then he didn’t want us to take over school boards.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those guys don’t know what they want.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He is almost as bad as the Tories about that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I read a publication the other day in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said he didn’t want teachers to have the right to strike.

Mr. Roy: The minister’s position is clear on that.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): What’s his opinion?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have heard him talking the opposite way around the province.

Mr. Roy: What is the minister’s opinion?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That legislation will be brought in this House very shortly.

Mr. Roy: He’s promised it about 15 times.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member will have a chance to act very responsibly in discussing it.

Mr. Yakabuski: He never does.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would like to see if he can do that.

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

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member for Ottawa East should sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: The members are noisy today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why does the member always look over there?

Mr. Roy: I can’t help it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He thinks there is a mirror on the wall.

Mr. Deans: Is it true the minister doesn’t intend to bring the legislation forward until the teachers are on vacation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it is not true.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has a supplementary question.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He has had a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister plan to include in the legislation negotiating procedures for those teachers in the special contracts section of your ministry, the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Health? Is that one of the difficulties he is finding in bringing forward overall legislation?

Mr. Roy: Can I have an autographed picture?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer is that basically this legislation does not cover those people. We are negotiating with them and they are really more closely tied in with the general civil service negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre with a new question.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Chairman of the Management Board: In view of the recent resignations of David Bell and Wallace Krawczyk from their posts in the NDP -- they are teachers at Lambton College -- would the minister not bring in legislation which clearly puts these teachers in the same position as other teachers and university staff members in Ontario --

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister change the law?

Mr. Deacon: -- so they are outside the rules which now prevent any civil servant in this province -- these aren’t really civil servants -- from being part of the political system and the political process?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Tackle the basic thing.

Mr. Deacon: Will the minister change the legislation in this regard, if he still continues with his present or past position that all civil servants should be prohibited from participating in the political process of this province?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I promised the House some time ago that I would review the matter with my colleagues and that is currently under way.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might ask in the same vein --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Bullbrook: They need all the help they can get in Sarnia.

Mr. Roy: -- would a civil servant who is on the Family Benefits Review Board --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is the member for Ottawa East and the distinction is very clear.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I will make a correction -- the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: He should be happy. He likes to point that out, I’ll tell the House. Sure he does.

What was my question?

Mr. Speaker: It is a supplementary. Have you a supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, and it is a good one.

Mr. Yakabuski: Great fellow he is.

Mr. Roy: Listen to this, this is the future candidate in Ottawa East. Would the minister think that a fellow who is on the Family Benefits Review Board and in the Conservative association in Ottawa East -- a potential Conservative candidate -- should be a civil servant on the Family Benefits Review Board?

Mr. Yakabuski: Great fellow.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if he is not on the list as we currently know it today there would be no restrictions against that particular individual.

Mr. Roy: No, but he is on the executive of the Conservative association.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He belongs to the best executive in town.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Health: Will the minister review his hospital appeal board procedure which has now been shown to be quite useless when the medical profession --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What was the question again?

Mr. Eaton: Come on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Give the member an opportunity to ask his question. The time is passing pretty quickly and I know there are a great many members who want to ask questions.

Mr. Deacon: Will the minister review his hospital appeal board procedure in view of the fact that the Ontario Medical Association is discouraging its doctors from making any appeals unless they have $40,000 to launch such an appeal. Doesn’t that make it a sham?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that any statute in the Ministry of Health is subject to review, pretty well on a continuous basis. I think the statements that it costs a doctor $40,000 to go through the process are not necessarily fair. After all, of the five cases that have been heard -- I believe five have been heard to date by the appeal board and the courts -- I think three were in favour of the hospitals; two in favour of the physicians.

The fact they were the initial cases caused people to take them through the appeal procedures, a fact that I don’t think would normally carry on too long, because once the ground rules are set, the rules by which one would win an appeal are pretty well understood and legal advice becomes much easier to give as to whether or not to appeal.

Mr. Roy: Yes. A supplementary on that question: Why wouldn’t the minister accept the private member’s legislation I brought in, which would limit the steps on appeal? Because no matter how good or bad the legal advice is --

Mr. Yakabuski: Question?

Mr. Roy: -- the hospital has unlimited funds.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, didn’t the members hear my question?

Mr. Speaker: Question, question?

Mr. Roy: Are they sleeping again back there? They haven’t heard my question.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard your question yet. Would you ask the question and let’s get along.

Mr. Roy: I am not accusing you of sleeping.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: I said why would the minister not accept my legislation which would limit the appeal, because if the hospital board has unlimited funds it can appeal right to the Supreme Court of Canada? It’s not fair.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think that applies to any appeal process on any point of law.

Mr. Roy: No, it doesn’t not when you have --

Hon. Mr. Miller: I might say if we had engineers running the legal fraternity it would be shorter.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for York Centre any further questions? The member for Wentworth.

SMOKING BAN IN INDUSTRY

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of -- where did he go? -- the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). I guess he disappeared. How about that?

I have a question of the Minister of Health: Can the Minister of Health indicate when he intends to bring in his regulations to ban smoking in certain areas of major industrial companies in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Hamilton Spectator had a headline one day saying I was going to ban smoking in the coke ovens.

Mr. Deans: The minister said it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is not so. It is just not so. I was talking about an industry that had an occupational hazard where the combination of smoking and the particular hazard on the job increased the workers’ chances of cancer by 100 times; a particularly unique situation. And just as companies require workers to wear a hard hat, safety shoes and goggles when in fact they are necessary on the job, it would seem only common sense that the companies and the unions would co-operate when the evidence shows that smoking plus the job hazard has a synergistic effect.

Mr. Cassidy: That is so Mickey Mouse; that is not true.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I thought that would get the member.

Mr. Roy: He should sit down while he is ahead.

Hon. Mr. Miller: For the press gallery, that’s s-y-n-e-r-g-i-s-t-i-c.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister care to tell us what that was all about?

Mr. Foulds: Do we have to wait until we read it in the Globe?

Hon. Mr. Miller: In the one industry I was talking about, it is interesting to note that, without an order from this ministry, the company and the union have agreed that during working hours there will be no smoking; and the company is enforcing a regulation, I believe effective June 1, to that effect and with our blessing.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister has chosen to ignore questions I have tabled on this matter, can the minister say whether there are now any programmes of the Ministry of Health in order to reduce, curb or stop smoking in the province; and if not, what programmes does the ministry intend to introduce?

Mr. Roy: He is all gung ho since he stopped smoking.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I suppose there is no sinner like a reformed sinner, is there? This is probably one of the most frustrating areas we face. I wish I could get more people to accept the great volume of advice and evidence that says smoking is very harmful. I see some signs that the medical profession is profiting from its experience, but I think the rest of us have been very slow to do so. I addressed a conference on smoking -- I believe it’s the day this quote was taken --

Mr. Deans: That is where it was.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- where I pointed out how discouraging the attempts to change lifestyles can be; and it is discouraging. The fact is, we can save more money by about three simple moves that involve lifestyles in health care, than we spend on all the research we are going to be doing into all the very complicated life-saving mechanisms.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why, when we get about $100 million a year in tobacco taxes in the province, and when the cost of tobacco-related diseases and lost time from jobs is probably more than $100 million, the ministry won’t even put two dimes together in programmes of public education and prevention as far as smoking is concerned, or anti-smoking clinics?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s not true. We have had an anti-smoking campaign going on for years and we hope to increase it as time goes on. I only point out to the hon. member that up to this point in time --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- almost every plan that has been put into effect has been counterproductive. The issue is: What works? It is not: How do you spend money?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A supplementary: Would the minister name the three simple steps that he had in mind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member for Sandwich-Riverside worried?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m leaving my favourite one out.

Mr. Reid: What one is that?

Mr. Deans: Which one is that?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Roller skating.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Smoking, drinking and seatbelts.

Mr. Reid: I was wrong on all three of them!

Mr. Deans: The minister had me worried.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is there an environmental assessment being undertaken at Temagami with regard to the proposed enlargement of the Sherman open pit mine in that area?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, that question was asked of me yesterday.

Mr. Deans: Was it?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, by the member for Nipissing, and I said I would look into the matter and report back. But as far as I know, I don’t think there will be. I said I would get more details on it and I will.

MOPEDS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. When does the minister propose to bring in legislative changes regarding the use of motorized bicycles? Does the minister intend that they will come under the same basic --

An hon. member: The member asked that last week.

Mr. Deans: I understand that. Does the minister intend them to come under the same --

Mr. Roy: They are called mopeds.

Mr. Deans: -- basic regulations as those applicable to all other motorized vehicles? And is it his intention to have separate regulations and laws governing those particular vehicles?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to be able to bring in some recommendations for changes in the existing legislation. It is not intended to put them into the same category as the motorcyclist. It is intended that we develop a special category that will overcome some of the problems we have been experiencing as a result of the present legislation.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Is it the minister’s intention to have a form of licensing which will be applicable to those 14 years of age and over, in order that they might be able to use these particular vehicles?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is intended to have some form of licensing, but I believe that it’s probably going to raise the age limit above 14.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Am I correct in assuming the minister has no intention of completely banning these vehicles?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I have no intention of banning them from the highways at this time. We do feel there has to be a better regulation of them though.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld).

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new question?

Mr. P. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has the answer to a previous question and he would like to provide it now; and then I will recognize the member for Carleton East.

APPEAL ON OHIP PAYMENT

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the case of Arthur Taylor vs. the general manager of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and asked if payment would now be made to Mr. Taylor as the appeal of the general manager in this matter was dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The narrow ground for the decision was that paragraph 12 of the preamble to the 1971 schedule of fees, entitled “Independent Consideration”, is part of the schedule of fees referred to in subsection 1 of section 53 of the regulations passed under the Health Insurance Act, 1972. The court held that the said item 12 is applicable to two situations, those being: (a) where there is a set fee listed in the tariff of the schedule of fees and there are exceptional circumstances; or (b) where there is no set fee listed in the schedule.

In the court’s view, the Taylor case fell within the first situation in that the circumstances were exceptional. The court then stated that the judgement was only to be read in light of the extraordinary circumstances of the case and must be confined to the extraordinary circumstances as described.

The circumstances were that while Mr. and Mrs. Taylor were on a visit to Florida, Mrs. Taylor suffered an injury and was taken to the Dade City Hospital. A surgeon and an assistant travelled from Miami to Dade City to treat Mrs. Taylor.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal I would like to advise that the Taylors will be reimbursed by OHIP for 90 per cent of the difference between the comparable OMA rate and the fees charged by the Florida doctors. This means that the Taylors will receive $519.84 and we have paid all of their legal fees in court.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary question on that, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Health plan to bring in legislation to clear up any future disputes like this?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, or I should say the legal adviser’s opinion in the Ministry of Health, a change made to the regulations some time ago will have removed the possibility of this happening again. Only a court ease will tell us, sadly enough, but the current opinion is that the loophole that was found here has been plugged.

Mr. Cassidy: It has been plugged.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Now that an exhaustive administrative and budget analysis has been completed at Algonquin College in Ottawa, and the board, at a meeting on May 14, has moved a resolution saying that additional funds are absolutely essential if they’re to carry on the existing level of service to the community, can the minister advise this House whether those funds will now be forthcoming?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I saw a bit in the Ottawa Journal -- as a matter of fact, I just read it a few minutes ago -- saying that the college had balanced its budget and had a nominal surplus, but it needed --

Mr. Roy: Just a few bucks.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I quote from the Ottawa Journal of May 15:

“The board authorized Mr. Thayer to seek additional government funds -- about $1 million -- to implement a number of courses which were planned and approved which have now been shelved. ‘There are local applicants for the courses and jobs waiting for graduates of such courses,’ Mr. Thayer said.”

I haven’t heard from the college as yet, although no doubt I will at any time. The only thing I can say is that it is unlikely that additional funds will be authorized for Algonquin College or any of the colleges at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

TRUCKING RATES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications. Following my notice to the minister regarding certain charges coming through the Greater Ottawa Truckers’ Association, I would like to ask the minister if he has determined whether Cruickshanks Ltd. -- which has a highway contract between Eganville and Kaladar -- is offering truckers only $12 an hour instead of the $16 established by the ministry? Has the minister determined whether or not the report is true that Harnden and King Construction Co. of Cobourg -- which has a contract on Highway 14 between Stirling and Springbrook -- is telling truckers that if they want to work in this contract they must resign from the Kingston branch of the Greater Ottawa Truckers’ Association? If these reports are true, is the minister contemplating action?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the figure of $16 rather loses me a bit because the information I have, as a result of knowing that this question was coming, is that the minimum rate on this contract that the member refers to cannot go below, on a ton-mile basis, 35.5 cents for the first two miles or any portion thereof, and over two miles, 5.5 cents per ton-mile. For renting on an hourly basis, single rear axle is $9 per hour and tandem rear axle is $12.50 per hour.

These are the minimum rates which the contractor must not go below. These rates must be posted on the job sites. On the $16 per hour one, I’m afraid I can’t comment on that, but our minimum rate is $12.50.

Mr. Young: Is that your 1975 minimum rate?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This is the information I have as of this day. I received it just before I came into the House.

Mr. Young: I wonder if I might ask the minister another question. This contract was let a year ago, and at that time the contractor must have realized he couldn’t complete the contract in one year, therefore he must have bid with the idea in mind that all costs would be going up in 1975. He must have allowed for this in his contract.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on that. I can only say that we have a minimum rate that must be paid to truckers on contracts that are carried out on behalf of the ministry. There is a minimum rate. Now there may be other negotiated rates, as there have been that may be higher than that. But the only rates that we are familiar with are those that we set as a minimum.

Regarding the second portion of the member’s question, the only requirement the ministry has as far as the contractor is concerned is that he does not pay less than the minimum rates that are stated in the contract. If the contractor wishes to negotiate with a group or any association, that’s entirely up to him and to the group. I really do not have anything I could use in the way of authority to challenge the question of requiring individuals to leave the association or the Ottawa association of truckers to work for him. That would be a matter of negotiation between himself and the particular truckers. I’m not familiar with that particular problem; I could certainly inquire into it though.

Mr. Young: Would the minister inquire into it? It seems to me that it’s a matter of a government contract, and in terms of contracts being let, would the minister agree that a contractor should not be allowed to say to which organization any person being hired could or could not belong? Such a situation seems incredible.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe they have the right to tell a person whether they can or cannot belong. But who they hire, of course, is entirely up to them. Our only involvement in my particular ministry is to see that they do not pay those truckers less than the hourly rate or the price per ton-mile as indicated in the contract.

MOBILE DENTAL SERVICES

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the ratio of dentists to population in the Northwestern Ontario Health Unit, which embraces the Rainy River riding, is one to 4,000, while that ratio is one to 1,800 in Toronto? Is he aware that the population of that area has 20 per cent higher decay, missing teeth and filling surfaces of teeth problems than the population of Toronto, and that there are 40 per cent higher unmet treatment needs in that area than in Toronto? Will he give approval to the Northwestern Ontario Health Unit’s request for a mobile dental service for the Kenora and Rainy River riding areas?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, sadly enough, of the facts that the member has just quoted. I would like very much to be able to provide more mobile dental coaches. I will continue to try to get the moneys for them.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: I sympathize with the minister’s monetary problems but in view of the fact that they are asking for only $30,000 to $31,000, I believe, and in view of the fact that these people, particularly the children, are being underserviced, I hope the minister will prevail upon his colleagues to get the money.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the $31,000 figure isn’t accurate. I think the operating costs for each dental coach are in excess of $60,000 per year --

Mr. Reid: Not the one proposed.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I realize the cost. I’m saying a coach costs over $60,000 a year to operate.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister has been aware of this for some time, what programme does he have under way for preventive dental care and what programme does he have under way, as they have in some other provinces, for paramedical or other health professionals to give the type of service or preventive dental care service which dentists sometimes are not prepared to go up there and give?

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the assumption that dentists aren’t willing to service the mobile dental coaches is wrong; it is just the opposite.

Mr. Roy: They are not that keen to go up there.

Hon. Mr. Miller: For some reason or another, while it is generally difficult to get professionals to go to remote areas, we’ve had very great co-operation in terms of getting staff for the dental coaches. So I’d like to eliminate that one concern. Secondly, if the member is suggesting that Ontario accept Saskatchewan’s methods of “fill-and-drill” nurses, I think his party should come forward and make that a policy issue in their platform.

Mr. Roy: We are prepared to look at it with other issues.

Hon. Mr. Miller: This province has done more in the last year to upgrade the dental auxiliaries than any other province. Just last week, on Wednesday I believe, the Premier addressed the Ontario Dental Association annual meeting --

Mr. Roy: Yes, and he said there would be no dental programme.

Hon Mr. Miller: Right. But at that annual meeting something that perhaps didn’t catch the headlines was the fact that he commented on a dental auxiliary training programme that will bring Ontario into an excellent position so that we will have trained paradental personnel in advance of any government plan, so that you and I can afford the cost of it once it is initiated, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICES

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that United Parcel Services of the US -- that huge monopoly which is now bigger than the US Post Office -- has been quietly moving into this province and this country? It has already taken over Noble Delivery and is in the process of taking over Delivro (Canada) Inc.; in fact is now in front of the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Communications for permission to do this. What is the minister doing about it? Does he intend to stop it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware this was happening. I will certainly find out what is going on. I didn’t realize it was in front of the board. As the minister I try to stay as far away from any of the hearings of the board as possible so as not to have politics involved, but I’ll certainly look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

DON JAIL

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you very much; I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. I am wondering if he could report to the House on the situation at the Don Jail and what his ministry is doing in connection with this situation?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Which situation does the member mean?

Mr. Roy: He is still minister, isn’t he?

Mr. Bullbrook: The situation in connection with the possibility of a cessation of work by the guards at the Don Jail as a result of their not being happy with the firing of some of their colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Two probation officers have been let go from the Don Jail. I am sure the hon. members realize the difficulty there is in obtaining well-qualified correctional officers.

We have heard a great deal over the past year or year and a half that I have been involved with the ministry about the circumstances under which some of our staff are working and we found it necessary to let two of our probation officers go. I understand that some of the union members felt they should not have been let go and they are having a vote today. They are voting at noon, at 3:30 and at 7 o’clock to determine whether or not they will in fact have an illegal strike. If they do, then of course we will have to use the emergency procedures that we have in effect to meet any emergency that might arise.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister put some of the cabinet down there?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Shulman: One supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: We’ve got one minute of the oral question period left.

Mr. Shulman: Three men have been brutally beaten within the last 24 hours in the jail. I was going to ask the minister about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding a question I asked a week ago today; it is a question to which I have not yet received an answer, about the holding of a hearing by the OMB before the Ministry of the Environment has completed its environmental studies at Lake Nosbonsing in connection with a large proposed subdivision. Is the minister aware that even in 1968 the oxygen content of this cottage-surrounded lake was as bad as that of Lake Erie at its worst and is therefore not able to tolerate any more pollution?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I took that question as notice a week ago. I said I would get further information on it. The only work that we were really basically doing in the area, and I will give the member more details on it later, was on the septic systems of the cottages on the island. We have done an extensive survey on that particular aspect of it and I will give the member further details, as I said I would.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

CANCELLATION OF FERRY BOOKING

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Speaker: He has gone.

Mr. Sargent: A question of the House leader then: Prior to the dismissal of the chairman of the ONR last week, 500 Bruce Peninsula resort owners had booked a cruise on the new ferry out of Tobermory and --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Chi-Cheemaun.

Mr. Sargent: The Chi-Cheemaun--and the captain refused to move from the dock. They were treated like cattle.

Who gave the order for the cancellation of the booking? Who is to run this show? Who is to be the chairman? And will this group’s former booking be honoured?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Without accepting any of the premises put forth in the question, Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared, of course, to take that question as notice for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who I understand is apprised of the problem.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, 500 people sat on that dock and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat when the Speaker calls order?

The oral question period has expired. In fact, it expired by two minutes.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Clement tabled the annual report of the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for the year 1974.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am pleased to table the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report on the international convention providing uniform law on the form of the international will.

I knew members would like that. The report is an historical development of the convention and uniform law. It analyses their provisions and recommends that the government of Ontario request ratification by the federal government on behalf of the province, and recommends further the enactment by the Province of Ontario of the uniform law appearing as an annex to the convention.

The report notes that it is becoming increasingly commonplace, Mr. Speaker, for Canadians to own assets situate abroad; and conversely, for foreigners to own assets situate in Canada. It notes also that the existing rules of private international law respecting testamentary succession are complex and give rise to difficult choice of law questions respecting both the formal validity and the intrinsic validity of the will. Adoption by Ontario, along with the international community, of the uniform law respecting the form of the international will is urged by the report, in order to eliminate needless complexity in choice of law and application of different rules to establish the formal validity of the will.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL TAX ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Tax Assistance Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make several amendments to the Municipal Tax Assistance Act. One amendment would delete the clauses that provide for valuation of provincial property in municipal areas. This is no longer necessary because all property in Ontario is now assessed by the Ministry of Revenue under the Assessment Act.

Under a second amendment, land acquired by the province for housing projects will become liable for payments in lieu of taxes. Under the present Act, such property acquired by the Ontario Land Corp. or the Ministry of Housing is exempt from these payments. The Ministry of Housing, which may now make payments under the Housing Development Act, will be amending its legislation when its present commitments expire. The amendment I am proposing is consistent with the government’s policy of reducing the number of exemptions.

Another amendment will permit the province to make payments for sewer and waterworks charges as well as garbage rates on its property. The province is now permitted to make payments only for local improvement and drainage. The bill also contains an amendment that clarifies the liability of Crown agencies operating telephone or telegraph systems for payments according to section 304 of the Municipal Act.

The final amendment would enable the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs to make payments to municipalities on behalf of other ministries and Crown agencies.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the Treasurer have a copy of that statement he just read?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Would the member like one?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains one amendment to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act. In the present Act all changes in municipal pension plans under this system must be approved by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. The amendment I am proposing would remove this clause. We believe the ministry’s approval is redundant, since municipal amendments to these pension plans must be approved in any case by the Pension Commission of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL ELDERLY RESIDENT’S ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled; An Act to amend the Municipal Elderly Resident’s Assistance Act, 1793,

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make two amendments to the Municipal Elderly Resident’s Assistance Act. These amendments were requested by the city of Hamilton in order to extend assistance under this Act to some elderly persons whose eligibility is not presently established.

The first amendment would establish that owners of condominium units are eligible for assistance under this Act. The second amendment would make it possible to provide assistance to the surviving spouses of former recipients who are now deceased, as long as they meet the other necessary qualifications.

Under the present Act, unless surviving spouses have been assessed as owners for at least one full year, they are not eligible.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

An hon. member: That’s a short title.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. M. Campbell moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to bring cleaning and maintenance superintendents within the scope of the Act. These employees would then be covered by the laws governing minimum wage, overtime pay, public holidays, vacations with pay, benefits plans and so on. The inclusion of this class of employees would also give an employee the benefit of the protection provided under section 57 of the Act when an employer threatens to dismiss the employee unlawfully.

A further purpose of the amendment is to limit the maximum working hours to 40 hours per week; any work in excess of this limit would be overtime work. Further, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where the spouse of the superintendent is required to work, such spouse will be paid the minimum wage for such work and any benefits that would accrue under the Act. The purpose of the amendment also is to give an employee whose employment has been terminated, adequate time to find new accommodation

Mr. Speaker: Before the regular orders of the day today, the member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens) has served notice, subject to the provisions of standing order 30(a), that he intends to move a motion to set aside the ordinary business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent importance.

The member may move his motion now and give reasons why the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to discuss this matter. He may speak for five minutes if he wishes, following which a representative from each of the other two parties may speak to the same question of the emergency nature of the motion, for five minutes if they so wish.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, can I introduce a class first?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I am sure the member for York-Forest Hill won’t mind.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the Legislature, 30 grade 8 students seated in the east gallery from St. Francis School in the riding of Windsor West. They are accompanied by Mrs. Armaly, Mrs. Jacques, Mrs. Ruttinger and Mrs. McIntyre; and are under the supervision of their teacher, Mr. Larry Hryniw. I ask you and the Legislature to give them a warm welcome.

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE MEMBER FOR TIMISKAMING

Mr. Givens moves that under provisions of standing order 30, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the remarks concerning the native Indian people of Canada, attributed to and confirmed by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), and that this House censure the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, I approach this question with a great deal of seriousness because I think it is a matter of great urgent public importance for the following reasons:

This has grown far beyond a mere matter of internal constituency business, and it is beyond a mere matter of internal party interest as the Premier tried to indicate to my leader in any answer to a question yesterday. I find we are surrounded everywhere with a rising tide of racism. There are manifestations of this everywhere we drive in the city and everywhere we drive in the province.

People are very deeply concerned about this and l’affaire Havrot has exacerbated this situation, I am sorry to say. People are concerned in the thousands. There are demonstrations and meetings being held all over the city and all over the province.

The things that have been taking place since the Premier has asked the member for Timiskaming to resign are ludicrous in the extreme. Since his resignation he has held a meeting of the commission; there has been a nomination; he has indicated that he has been shafted by the Premier; and his own riding association, by acclamation, has renominated him.

This nomination by acclamation would appear to him, I suppose, and to the members of his riding association, as a vindication of everything he has said and everything he has done. It would appear to be a legitimization of everything he has said and everything he has done, so that his resignation seems to be a lark, a joke, in the light of subsequent events that have taken place since last Tuesday.

I think it is important; it is not just a matter of internal party politics. I think it is important that every member in this House of every party, regardless of party politics, should have an opportunity to stand up in his seat. There should be an emanation from this cathedral of law and order and justice that we dissociate ourselves from and we disapprove of what this member has done.

There is no intention of being punitive; there is no intention of excommunicating this member. There is an intention of saying to the members of the minority groups in this province, of which we have millions literally, that we dissociate ourselves from these remarks, that we want no part of them, that we don’t vindicate them, and that we don’t consider this a lark merely to be laughed off on the one hand by saying that this member is forced to resign, while on the other hand we crown him again with a new-found glory.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we do this because this is the only way we can help to ease the minds of millions of those who are uneasy and who suspect we are practising hypocrisy on our part with respect to the subject of racism.

This is why I think this is a matter of public urgency and importance and it should be discussed this afternoon, in view of the rising tide of racism and the fact that this member has been renominated by acclamation in his own particular riding. This takes it out of the realm of internal party politics, takes it out of the realm of merely being a matter of local constituency importance.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, there are several points I want to make with regard to the motion put forward by the member for York-Forest Hill. I want first to reiterate that we in this party don’t subscribe one whit to the comments attributed to the member for Timiskaming. We find them most unacceptable and we have said so publicly.

We also think that probably most members of the Legislature find them unacceptable. We feel that all members of this party within the Legislature or otherwise find them unacceptable. In fact on Friday last, when they were reported, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) if he would have the Human Rights Commission look into the entire matter. I assume that is being done, since he said it would be, and that there would be a report made to the House at some point.

We don’t believe the views expressed by the member for Timiskaming reflect accurately the views of the people of northern Ontario in this regard. We don’t believe, even though he may well be supported by his riding association, that his riding association’s views necessarily reflect the views of the people of Timiskaming in this regard.

I am deeply disappointed that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) chose to endorse the views of the member for Timiskaming at the nomination meeting held on the weekend. I am disappointed because the minister has long been responsible for many aspects of the native peoples’ programmes in the Province of Ontario.

I do believe, though, that it is not the responsibility of the Legislature to make the final choice, and that the final choice will be made by the people of Timiskaming. That’s their responsibility and not ours; and the electors of Timiskaming must view the expressions of the member and must determine whether or not they can support a member who expresses himself in the way the member for Timiskaming has expressed himself. I don’t believe it would serve any useful purpose for us to spend an afternoon debating views which we find are unacceptable, and which wouldn’t have been expressed by any sensitive or reasonable person. We don’t believe that the views expressed by the member for Timiskaming were sensible views or views that could be or should be given a public forum for further expression or otherwise.

We think, if there had been a motion brought forward that would have allowed for debate on the social and economic conditions of the native people of Ontario, that would have been a worthwhile debate, because the social and economic conditions of the native peoples of Ontario have long been a concern of this party, and I suspect of a number of other people in the Legislature.

But we don’t think there would be any useful purpose served by carrying on this debate of the views which have been expressed. The member for Timiskaming is wrong. He ought not to have expressed those views, in my opinion and in the opinion of the members of this party. But he was elected to represent Timiskaming and for as long as he is their representative, I suppose we have to suffer with whatever views he wishes to express. I don’t think we should have such a debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Chairman of the Management Board.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion that has been placed before the Legislature, I would simply like to say that, in accordance with practice, I don’t consider that today that particular motion is considered an emergency. Had the member brought it up some time ago when the question first rose in the media, maybe there would have then been justification for you to rule in its favour. Following the logic of the speaker who just had the floor, it would seem to me he doesn’t agree on the same point, but he feels the motion shouldn’t be here in this forum, with which I agree.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think that’s sufficient. I would advise that it should be ruled against.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill gave notice of his intention to move a motion under standing order 30, as he is required to do by the standing orders. Therefore, I had an opportunity to give this matter some thought, and an opportunity to read the precedents and authorities, as well as listening to the matters raised just now.

I feel this motion is out of order for several reasons.

First, he calls for the House to censure the member for Timiskaming. This would be a highly unusual procedure, which if it is to be proposed, ought to be proposed by way of a substantive motion, notice of which would be given on the notice paper.

Second, the motion proposes to discuss certain remarks which were made outside the chamber by a member of the House. Remarks made inside the House are, of course, a legitimate concern of the Chair, where the Chair must weigh the question of freedom of speech against the possible abuse of privilege by a member.

A motion under standing order 30 must relate to a genuine emergency. I do not feel the remarks made several weeks ago outside the chamber by a member of the House who is not a member of the cabinet would be a sufficient justification for the House to set aside its ordinary business to debate the remarks of that particular member.

Therefore, I rule this motion out of order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, with respect, and knowing that your rulings are not debatable, I must, on behalf of my colleagues, appeal that ruling, since we believe very strongly that the whole matter of racial prejudice is becoming a matter of deep concern that should occupy the debate of the House without delay. So, sir, I do appeal your ruling.

Mr. Deans: That’s not what the motion said.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): We won’t dignify the member for Timiskaming by voting for that.

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Auld Bales Beckett Belanger Bernier Birch Bounsall Brunelle Burr Carruthers Clement Davis Davison Deans Downer Drea Dukszta Eaton Evans Ewen Ferrier Foulds Germa Gilbertson Gisborn Hamilton Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Irvine Johnston Kennedy Kerr Lane Laughren Lawlor Leluk Lewis Maeck Martel McIlveen McKeough McNie Miller Morningstar Morrow Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Potter Reilly Renwick Rollins Root Samis Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Stewart Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Wells Winkler Wiseman Yakabuski Yaremko Young -- 71

Braithwaite Bullbrook Campbell Deacon Edighoffer Givens Good Haggerty Nixon (Brant) Paterson Reid Riddell Roy Ruston Sargent Smith (Nipissing) Spence Taylor (Carleton East) Worton -- 19

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 71, the “nays” 19.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the Speaker’s ruling upheld.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. In speaking on this motion, the hon. member for Wentworth Hamilton said -- I just got a transcript and I quote:

“I am deeply disappointed that the Minister of Community and Social Services chose to endorse the views of the member for Timiskaming at the nomination meeting held on the weekend. I am disappointed because the minister has long been responsible for many aspects of the native peoples’ programmes in the Province of Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I do not and have not endorsed the views of the member for Timiskaming in this matter. I was invited some time ago to speak to the Timiskaming riding association by the riding president. I was asked because I am a northern member, I am fully bilingual and many members of the audience would be French-speaking persons. Also, at one time, when we moved from southern Ontario, we lived in Timiskaming, in New Liskeard.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I can stand up in this House and look at any member in this House, regardless of where he sits and say that I have as good a record as any person in this House with reference to my position and my attitude toward the native peoples.

I was elected in 1958, and I had, I would say, more than 5,000 native persons in my riding. I visit them as much as I can, and also visited those in other parts when the Indian community secretariat was my responsibility. Mr. Speaker, you can ask the native people what my attitude and what my views are toward the native people.

Mr. Lewis: The minister shouldn’t have to do this.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I know, and I have to do this because this member --

An hon. member: Keep talking. Just keep talking.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He’s doing it because of the NDP deputy leader’s cheap little shot.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Yes, yes, yes.

Mr. Lewis: He’s doing this because the Premier won’t discuss the member for Timiskaming. That’s why he’s doing it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, my views as the member for the riding of Cochrane North are well known, and my position as the Minister of Community and Social Services, when I had the responsibility for the Indian community secretariat --

Mr. Lewis: The minister should not have been at the nomination meeting.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- are well known, and the native people know it.

Mr. Lewis: How can the minister embrace the member in his party then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: He endorsed him.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I don’t want to prolong this --

Mr. Lewis: Why was the minister there? How can he run alongside him?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: How could the leader of the NDP run alongside some of his party?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, I wish to say that my record and the record of this government on our attitude toward the native people is a good record and we have everything to be proud of.

Mr. F. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Pretty sick.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Parrott: Withdraw those remarks. Apologize.

Mr. G. Nixon: Withdraw. Withdraw or resign.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Resign.

Mr. Martel: Don’t get carried away, Darcy.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Deans: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I assumed, when the minister stated he would do everything in his power to ensure the re-election of the member, that he supported his views.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister can’t separate them; he can’t campaign for him and then dissociate himself.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: What I said, Mr. Speaker, and I’d like to repeat this, and I’m proud to say this --

Mr. Foulds: In politics, action completes a thought.

An hon. member: Listen to the minister.

Mr. Lewis: He should get the Premier to do what is required.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- since the election of the hon. member for Timiskaming on Oct. 21, 1971, I have been closely associated with him. The member has been a hardworking member, he’s brought many matters to my attention and this member has a good record for working on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): The minister is abusing his privileges. He should sit down.

Mr. Lewis: The minister can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Lewis: If the Premier had a spine this would not have happened to the minister.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): This was a nice try but it won’t wash.

Mr. Lewis: It is not a legislative matter; it is the Premier’s matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Yakabuski: The opposition will get it back a hundredfold.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe.

ANSWER TO A WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a supplementary list of additions and corrections to question 3, the answer to which was originally tabled on May 16. (Sessional paper No. 37).

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Juries Act. 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have any remarks?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t at this time. I gave a statement, I believe, at the time when the bill was introduced in my absence. The amendment to the bill is of a housekeeping nature, generally speaking, and I am now awaiting the comments of the members of the House with reference to the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, as the minister has stated, it’s merely a housekeeping bill and there is really not too much in it. It talks about what the sheriff is allowed to do and it talks about the role of the jury.

I am disappointed though, Mr. Speaker, by the attitude of this government in relation to jurors generally. That has been one of our criticisms since 1971 about the administration of justice. We are dealing piecemeal, Mr. Speaker, with legislation affecting, in this case, an important segment of the judicial process such as jurors.

I would have thought that, once and for all, we would deal seriously with the aspect of the payment of jurors. This has been repeated ad infinitum. I may be corrected, but I recall since 1971 there has been one increase for jurors, Mr. Speaker. I would again point out to the minister that if we are seriously looking at retaining the jury in the judicial process, or in the legal system of this province, we should do something about the payment of jurors.

There is some mention in the bill of jurors who are not entitled to fees or expenses in respect of days when they are not required to attend. I mention this in this context because I really feel that in the administrative, judicial or legal process in this province we should not unduly burden certain individuals to, in fact, do their duty as jurors.

I come back to my experience with the administration of justice and its process, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough that we are herding jurors around. We’ve seen it time and time again; we hear judges make criticism of it. We bring in a whole panel of jurors and sometimes they sit around a courthouse, often in facilities that are totally inadequate. They sit there at the beckoning of the court or whichever lawyer is going to start to pick a panel.

That, in itself, sort of demeans the administration of justice. They don’t know what is going on. They are being herded about sometimes in a very -- I shouldn’t say rude fashion, but a sort of haphazard fashion.

To further complicate matters, Mr. Speaker, some jurors have to make a financial sacrifice to fulfill what is, I suppose, one of the basic duties of every citizen of this province.

That should not be. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, it gets to a point where, if you’re acting on behalf of the Crown or, very often, acting on behalf of the defence and -- I’ll give you an example of what happens in Ottawa, when you have a jury panel. At that point you make sure that for the jury you pick civil servants who are being paid; they are getting their regular remuneration on the jury. You don’t pick some individual who is self-employed. If you do, there is sometimes a certain amount of resentment by that juror of the Crown or the defence -- whichever individual happens to pick him. By being picked and being involved in a one- or two-week trial or longer, if he is self-employed or working for an employer who is not obliged, through a collective agreement or otherwise, to give him his regular remuneration, he is involved in a very big sacrifice in the sense that he is losing his remuneration. What do jurors get now per day? I think they get $8 or $10 per day.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): They are below the minimum wage.

Mr. Roy: I look at the leader of the NDP when we talk about Judy LaMarsh getting $250 a day while the jurors get $10. Yes, it is below the minimum wage.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government will not deal seriously with the jury process in this province unless it attacks that problem. We’ve made comments on this repeatedly. We’ve made them about the coroner’s jury. We had examples in Sudbury in relation to the coroner’s inquest involving the hospital where they sat for months on end. This was a real financial burden to some of these individuals. I say that if we can find money in the administration of justice to pay certain individuals, whether lawyers or people acting on commissions or judges or whatever, then an important part of our process is the jurors. I think they’ve been neglected for too long.

I think it’s time for us not to deal with jurors in a haphazard fashion as we are doing, and that we bring in legislation or regulations to see that any citizen in this country who is involved in a judicial process as a juror be not discriminated against. If he is a civil servant getting his full remuneration, being a juror is no financial burden to him. But if he happens to be self-employed or has an employer who does not pay him, then $10 a day, Mr. Speaker, is a farce, I think it’s ridiculous and demeans the process. God knows, in our legal system and in our judicial process we do not need any further matters which demean the administration of justice. There are too many now. A lot of people are very cynical about the whole process and become even more cynical when they become involved as jurors.

This bill will probably go to committee and we’ll be moving an amendment that jurors who are not self-employed or who do not receive their regular remuneration be paid by the government their regular remuneration when they serve as jurors.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): One can’t help but agree with the comments just made. However impertinent they are to the purpose of the very legislation in question, it has long been a running sore as to the way in which this has been handled. We have been promised by successive Attorneys General that the situation would be rectified and amended. It’s a very strong point made by McRuer many, many years ago now.

I will deal with the Act specifically as it appears before us. As has been mentioned, it doesn’t contain all that much matter that one can spend a great deal of time on it.

The move in section 4 to give the power to the sheriff to use jurors who are surplus from one panel into another is a beneficial one and gives legislative authority and some recognition to that proceeding. It worries me a bit in section 5. This section comes out of 40, which points out in subsection 1 that at the opening of the court and before any other business is proceeded with at the trial the clerk of the court or the sheriff or his officers shall call the list of jurors and find out who is there and who isn’t there.

I would hope to get on the record a statement by the minister about the wording of this amendment to this effect that “a juror is not entitled to fees or expenses in respect of days that he does not or is not required to attend.” The present legislation says that if he is not in attendance when he ought to be in attendance, then he does not get any fees. It has been broadened out slightly.

I want to know if the phrase, “not required to attend,” means that if at the beginning of the day, as very often happens, the jury panel is dismissed for that day, the word “required” doesn’t mean required in that sense. Although they are certainly not required for the purposes of the hearing that day, nevertheless they have appeared. They are there and ready to go, but for one reason or other the trial is not in a position to proceed. This happens fairly often. Perhaps that wording should be looked at to rule out any kind of interpretation of the kind that I am suggesting is a possible interpretation of the new subsection.

In section 7 we are taking out “articled clerk.” That is fine because of the otiose nature of that term. I don’t think the term “articled clerk” applies, and therefore it ought to be altered. I thought it might be of interest to the House to see how far this contempt power goes. The section reads as follows:

“Every person is in contempt of court who, being interested in an action that is or is to be entered for trial or may be tried in the court, or being the solicitor, counsel, agent or emissary of such person, before or during the sittings or at any time after a juror on the jury panel for such court has been summoned knowingly, directly or indirectly, speaks to or consults with the juror respecting such action or any matter or thing relating thereto.”

Then it goes on to say that where a solicitor, barrister or student at law is guilty of such an offence, over and above that, he can be struck from the rolls and no longer will be able to practice.

Two weeks ago in this city at the Royal Alexandra Theatre, we had the case history enacted for two hours of the life of Clarence Darrow, who became famous in California for having sought to subvert a jury and rather foolishly argued his own case in that regard. I say foolishly in the sense that the presentation wasn’t all that good, although I think he was acquitted at the end of the day.

The legal profession lives very much in fear of this kind of thing, so much so that when a jury has been released and is not going into an in camera hearing, if a juror happens to be a friend of yours and you meet in the hallways, you are very careful -- at least I am -- to avoid him. You have nothing to say to him at all -- about weather, flowers, gardening or any other thing -- for the very reason that just to be seen talking to him would cast suspicion and the penalties are dire indeed.

I don’t think I should take up a great deal more time in the House over these sections. If the Liberals moved an amendment along the lines indicated, then I think we are certainly quite prepared to support that.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate? The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about one aspect of the matter of obtaining a panel of jurors, and that is regarding the form that is sent out from Toronto to potential people who may at a later date form a panel of jurors. We will assume that, say, 1,500 or 2,000 application forms are sent out to be returned to the office here in Toronto, and from those a smaller number is then selected; the sheriff then notifies them and these people have to report.

In my riding we have a considerable number of people of the Old Order Amish faith and Old Order Mennonite faith who are never accepted for jury duty when the actual time of selection occurs. These people find that under the new system they must return the form. There is nothing on the form where they can indicate their religious convictions. If there were, the court at this point could say that we had better not send a second notice to them to report for jury duty. It’s not until they receive the notice to appear and they then go down to the court that they are recognized. As soon as they are recognized in court as being of that particular religious persuasion which does not believe in any court action at all -- neither in suing or appearing in court -- they are by mutual agreement excused from appearing as part of a jury panel.

When these notices are sent out it is now an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail to complete and mail a return that determines eligibility as a juror. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether there could not be some way devised whereby at that particular point certain groups of people could be excluded from being given further notice to appear for selection on the panel.

A case has been brought to my attention where it has been a pretty traumatic experience, with the lowering of our age limit, for an 18-year-old girl of the Old Order Amish faith to receive an application, to send it in, and then at a later date receive a notice to appear for jury duty. Her bishop and her family and the court and the sheriff would know that she would not be accepted because of the procedure. But the fact that she must appear there and then be rejected has, in a couple of instances, been a pretty traumatic experience for these people.

Perhaps this situation didn’t arise before when the jurors were selected at the local level by the township clerk, because he knew from the names and where they lived which ones would be acceptable and which ones wouldn’t But here in Toronto where the people are taken from the assessment rolls, I believe, and sent the notices, there is no way of checking as to who will be accepted and who will not until that person actually appears at the time when the panel is being assembled.

Perhaps the minister could give this some thought or consideration so that this difficulty might be avoided.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I was pleased that the member for Waterloo North had raised that particular question. I don’t intend to labour it other than to draw the minister’s attention to the most recent report made by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in reviewing the jury system of Manitoba. I commend the report to the minister and I am sure his advisers already have it. There are a number of interesting points made by the commission with respect to improvements in their jury system -- indeed, they pay tribute to the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report in volume 1 dealing with the whole question of juries.

But on the specific question raised by the member for Waterloo North they go into the purposes and the reasons for the information and the jury notice. They refer to the provisions of our Juries Act and to the provisions of the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act in the United States, and they discuss this whole question of whether or not it should be necessary to levy a penalty at all for failure to complete and return the form.

They make the following recommendation -- I know their procedure is somewhat different from ours, but there are points in their recommendation which would be worth considering by the minister. The recommendation is, firstly, that when a jury notice is taken to a prospective juror by a sheriff’s officer, as it happens to be in Manitoba, such officer shall also deliver a juror information form to be prescribed in a schedule to the Jury Act.

“The juror then shall have the opportunity of either (a) completing the form and handing it to the sheriff’s officer or mailing it in before arraignment day; or (b) orally relating any confidential material to the sheriff or deputy at the courthouse on or before arraignment day under circumstances which will preserve the privacy of the prospective juror and of making a declaration as to the truth of such statements.”

It concludes:

“Thus a prospective juror may elect to hand back or send back the form or, rather than fill in the form, make a declaration at the courthouse. There being no obligation to return the form, there will be no penalty for failing to do so so long as the person summoned actually turns up at the time and date noted in the summons.”

I commend to the minister that particular recommendation of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in its most recent report issued just this month, as I do a number of the other recommendations in that report.

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

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to add a few comments to this particular bill -- Bill 1 -- and I concur with the views of the member for Ottawa East, particularly as they deal with the fees paid to persons who have been accepted or selected for jury duty.

I have mentioned before to the previous minister responsible for this particular legislation that no person should have to go through a union contract to bargain to get a fair wage or fair income for acting on a jury. And I think $10 a day belongs to the horse and buggy era. In many cases I have seen that unions have almost gone out on strike to try to get this in their agreement in the bargaining process, and I feel that it is not necessary to do this.

Last year I think the previous minister stated that there weren’t sufficient funds in these estimates, but surely he must find funds in his estimates this year. We in the opposition bring this forth every year that there must be changes in jury fees. As the member says, the ministry just does not listen.

I feel that perhaps many persons chosen for jury duty go into the courts with a sense of resentment towards the courts. If I was on the docket, I would not want someone on a jury to say “Well, I am not here because I like to be here at $10 a day, and I will just take it out on him.” It could mean a sentence of five years more, or two years, or something like that.

I think this resentment should be removed from the courts and that we should pay these persons a decent fee for jury duty. Of course, as they often said before, it was a patriotic duty. This is quite true, but not all persons are called upon for jury duty.

I raise this most seriously with the minister that he bring in an increase and bring it up to date. I think they are allowing about $40 a day for a person to attend some other government duty or government services for a community event, and I think that $40 a day isn’t out of reach.

The other question I want to ask is how many exemptions are there under the present Act for which a person can be exempted from jury duty? My main concern deals particularly with a matter that was brought to my attention just the other day that firemen are a little bit concerned about the exemption. I understand that perhaps they have to go and receive a certificate from the clerk of the court for approval of exemption. Is this the case? How do they go about it and who do they see?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate? The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word on this. I have heard for years of people chosen for jury duty who have to hire somebody for twice as much money as they get as a jury fee. I think it is a real disgrace that we don’t pay the juries a reasonable fee for carrying out a very important duty -- not only to the county but to the country. I hope this minister will give consideration to increasing these fees. We have heard for so long and so many years of the ridiculous fee they have received for this very important duty. I have faith in this minister, and hope he will come up with a reasonable fee for these jurors -- the individuals who are chosen to carry out this very important duty, to serve on juries across this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to respond in the order in which the members addressed themselves to this particular bill.

My first observations are directed to the member for Willow Grove -- or I should say Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: They’ve lost themselves four seats down there. I will repeat that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He observed that he objected to amending --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister is not going to win the Saskatchewan election.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I happened to run into a friend of his not longer than two weeks ago.

Mr. Cassidy: Very hard to find.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, he has two; one is dead and this is the other one. He said that his friend and mine, the member for Ottawa East, was born in Willow Grove --

Mr. Roy: Willow Bunch.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Willow what?

Mr. Roy: Willow Bunch.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, Willow Bunch. I have had it written down here for a week trying to remember it. Well, Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan.

Mr. Roy: There are 200 people in Saskatchewan who will be very disappointed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I express my regret that he saw fit to leave Willow Bunch. But in any event he is here, and I have to deal with him.

Mr. Cassidy: Think how we feel about it in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We are not really piece-mealing the bill, Mr. Speaker. An entire new bill -- Bill 105 -- was brought before the House last year by my predecessor and dealt with at that time. I do note his observations on jurors’ fees, which have been echoed by many who have spoken here this afternoon. Please feel as free as you will to speak on the increasing of the jurors’ fees, because as I told you when we dealt with this in certain estimates in this House -- not longer than a week or so ago -- I am gathering together the Hansards on this to make a case for those who make these decisions in terms of dollars.

You are not going to find any opposition from me insofar as jurors’ fees are concerned, both for civil and coroners’ juries. They are simply inadequate. You won’t find any debate on that item from me

Mr. Roy: Who is opposing it? We have been for it for five years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In terms of priorities and in government funding and the limitation of resources, it just hasn’t had the impact that I think it should have had. I make this statement before the House: I will follow the tracks of my predecessors and go forward to those troughs where these dollars repose in another effort to become somewhat more realistic.

Someone touched on it -- we must bear in mind it is a patriotic duty. It is an exercise in citizenship, there is no question about it. We were on this theme the other night and I think the member for Lakeshore and/or Riverdale joined in this discussion -- that you can never get to the point where a person should be reimbursed for his total loss of income for that particular day because all kinds of inequities would then exist. You would have all kinds of internal bookkeeping, the likes of which you never saw before, in order to ascertain and confirm that juror No. 1 made $100 a day or juror No. 2 made $18 a day. There has to be a flattening of the daily fee. I think all parties in this House are in ad idem that the sum of $10 at present paid for jury fees -- I think it is $6 for coroners’ juries -- is simply inadequate in this day and age. The payments are not a salary; they are an honorarium -- payment for the person’s being there. We will discuss that at another occasion.

The member for Ottawa East advised that he was considering bringing a motion to increase the payment of jurors for their daily fees. I must point out to him that private members cannot move a motion in this House that would involve the expenditure of public money. Jurors’ fees, by the way, are paid by regulation under the Administration of Justice Act, which is not before us here today. And I am not trying to thwart him in his eagerness --

Mr. Roy: I don’t think the minister will. It won’t bother me a bit.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He can go ahead and I would find myself philosophically endorsing any increase.

Mr. Roy: I shall be asking the unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. Renwick: The member won’t get it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In the comments offered by the member for Lakeshore, he referred first to section 4 of the bill, which he endorsed, permitting the sheriff to transfer surplus jurors from one panel to the next. With reference to his observations on section 5, it is anticipated to go forward as follows: “A juror is not entitled to fees or expenses in respect of days that he does not or is not required to attend.” If a juror has not been properly informed that he is not required for service under the Act, then he is there under the original summons; he is required to attend and he is required to be paid. I have noted his comments relating to section 7.

The member for Waterloo North directed his attention to that sect known as the Amish or Mennonite brethren, I think they’re called. They are a particularly predominant sect in the area, very fine people and certainly good citizens, although they don’t share some of our traditional views of the process or the role of the courts. The member’s suggestion, as I understood it, was that perhaps the return might provide a box or an indicator there where the person could write “Amish” and return it and then not have to appear before the court on the commencement of the sittings.

I’m not knocking the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, but I think it might not take that form because I’m sure it would only be a matter of time before the word would be out that if you don’t want to serve just write “Amish” on your jury notice and send it back and that is the end of your compulsion to attend.

Mr. Good: It is not as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the personal attendance of the person there would certainly demonstrate to the court that the person was Amish. As I understand it, they dress in a particular way and have certain adornments on their faces.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister is getting close.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Beards, I think, are worn mainly by the male person and I certainly find that a very commendable characteristic indicating strong character in the person of the wearer.

I have not read the Manitoba law reform recommendations pertaining to jurors as was suggested by the member for Riverdale. He was also charitable enough to say that probably someone on my staff had, and I can only echo his hope. I hope they have. I haven’t personally read those observations, but I will.

The member for Welland South again echoed his concern about the jurors’ fees, which we have already touched on. He wondered how many exemptions there were under the Juries Act. Under section 3, there are ineligible occupations which by their very nature do not permit that type of person to serve. Members of the Privy Council or the Ontario executive council, even if they wished to serve, are excluded. They are simply ineligible. Members of the Senate, the House of Commons of Canada or the assembly; judges, barristers, solicitors, students at law; medical practitioners and veterinary surgeons engaged in practice; coroners; persons engaged in the enforcement of law, including sheriffs, wardens of any penitentiary, superintendents, jailers or keepers of prisons, correctional institutions or lockups, sheriff’s officers and constables, police officers and constables and officers of any court of justice. Another exclusion is the spouse of any of those people named from judges down. An MP’s wife is not excluded by virtue of his being a member of this assembly, but judges, barristers and all those people involved in the process of justice are excluded.

Mr. Roy: The minister’s wife would be excluded because he is a lawyer.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am one of those people who doesn’t have one; I can’t afford one.

Every ordained minister, priest or clergyman under any form or profession or of any faith or worship, licensed to perform marriages in Ontario is excluded, and every person who is a member of a religious order vowed to live in a convent, monastery or other like religious community.

People who are under subpoena to be a witness in proceedings at that session of the courts are excluded, and any person who, within the previous three years has served as a member of a jury panel and has received fees, is excluded. These are people who are just excluded by virtue of their calling or their interest in a particular matter before the court.

There are also persons who are ineligible for personal reasons. Those include those who are infirm, decrepit or afflicted with blindness, deafness or other physical infirmity incompatible with the discharge of the duties as a juror; a person who is not in possession of his natural faculties; or a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence, unless a pardon has been granted.

Those are the people who are excluded under sections 3 and 4. The member for Welland South mentioned firemen, wondering why they are exempted. If he will turn his mind to section 21 of the Juries Act, it provides, under subsection 2, as follows:

“The sheriff may excuse any person summoned for a jury sittings on the grounds of illness or hardship but unless the local judge of the High Court [that is the county or district court judge in that area] directs otherwise and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, such person shall be included in a panel to be returned for a sittings later in that year or, where there are no further sittings in that year, in a panel to be returned for a sittings in the year next following.”

Also, I draw the member’s attention to section 25 of the Act, which deals again with excusing jurors for service, which says:

“A juror summoned for jury duty may be excused from attending the sittings on the grounds of illness or hardship, (a) before the day for attendance, by the local judge of the High Court; (b) on or after the day for attendance, by the judge presiding at the sittings, and the judge may direct that the service of a person so excused be postponed and that notwithstanding any provision of this Act, he be included in a panel … later in the year or [if there is no further panel] in the year next following.”

So there are those provisions available for those who have a reason to be excused because of the nature of their employment or because of health or similar reasons.

The member for Kent likewise echoed his concern about the payment of jurors’ fees and added his voice to those who have asked for higher fees.

We have a special Act, apparently -- I am advised of this by my stuff just now, and the member for Welland South may find this of interest -- insofar as firemen are concerned, where they have a certificate from the municipal council they can be exempted under the Fire Fighters’ Exemption Act, a specific statute. I didn’t know of the existence of it until this moment, though I --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have learned something together, assuming the hon. member didn’t know either; but I was not aware of that particular statute.

Those are the only observations I have to offer with reference to this piece of legislation; accordingly, I’ll sit down.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Lawlor: Why does the minister want to send it to the committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: Order for House in committee of the whole.

JURIES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 1, An Act to amend the Juries Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill? If so, which section?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 5 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 5?

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member continue with his amendment?

Mr. Roy moves that section 5 be amended by inserting subsection 3(a), to read as follows:

“All jurors, except those who receive their regular remuneration from their employer while serving as jurors, shall be entitled to fees and expenses at the same rate as if they were serving in their regular employment.”

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Are you going to make a ruling on that yourself or do you want anybody else to speak to it? I mean, it’s regrettable perhaps that the amendment runs afoul of British constitutional law and the constitutional law of this country. Many of us would love to introduce bills and make amendments and alter the thing from time to time on the basis of the expenditure of public funds to very good purposes.

I’m wholly in accord with the intent of the thing, but I’m lawyer enough to have to take some exception to the proposal itself. The wording of it bothers me too, but I don’t think I have to discuss the merits as things presently stand. Rather than basing it upon salary, I would have a flat rate that would be payable to everyone whether they are employed or unemployed, whether they are housewives serving on the juries without any fixed amount of income. Simply because a man is an executive and sitting on the jury doesn’t mean that he’s going to get $75 a day when the fellow sitting next to him is going to get $15. I just don’t see that. I think the principle of equality, which is the basic principle of justice should apply in this particular context too. So, on both counts, I find the amendment as it stands questionable. His heart’s in the right place but something is dislocated.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): But his head is crooked.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member wish to comment before the Chair rules?

Mr. Roy: Yes, certainly I wish to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. First of all, there is no mention of money in my amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: How are you going to pay them? With potatoes?

Mr. Roy: I’m a very naive person, Mr. Chairman. It may be that what I’m suggesting is going to be less than they’re presently getting.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Pay it out of your own pocket.

Mr. Roy: That very well may be, or out of the minister’s own pocket. My point simply is this, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that if such an important amendment is going to be ruled out on a common law principle that a member of the opposition cannot -- I don’t know what principle it is. Is it British law?

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a constitutional principle.

Mr. Roy: Constitutional principle, yes.

Mr. Lawlor: You made that constitution, as a member --

Mr. Roy: It should be interpreted very closely and against the government in this particular case. I think if it’s not obvious, Mr. Chairman, that I’m spending moneys -- and it’s not from my amendment -- then you should rule in my favour. I would really urge you to look at all the precedents before you make a ruling, because this is a very important decision you have to make; you should look at the precedents and see whether there are not exceptions to the rule.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s your job.

Mr. Roy: In fact, if you should rule against me or decide to go that way, then I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed anyway.

Mr. Maeck: Are you for real?

Mr. Roy: I understood that we were supreme in this Legislature.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): That’s this side.

Mr. Roy: No. no, all of us together. Should you see fit, Mr. Chairman, I would have you look at this particular alternative. If we in this House decide unanimously that we shall proceed with that amendment, then the vote should be put to obtain unanimous consent so that we might deal with this problem once and for all.

I have seen the enthusiasm of the minister about this amendment. We’ve seen the enthusiasm of his five predecessors about this type of amendment. We’re never able to propose it. You are hiding behind a veil of -- what is it? -- British constitutional or legislative approach -- secrecy or whatever. So, Mr. Chairman, your name would go down in history should you rule in favour of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman: First of all, the Chair feels that the unanimous consent of the House wouldn’t alter the British North America Act, or the terms of it.

Mr. Lawlor: We’re not even that supreme.

Mr. Chairman: It is a fundamental responsibility of a minister of the Crown to vote moneys. I would quote from the standings orders section XIV, supply, subsection 86.

“Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds may not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and may only be proposed by a minister of the Crown.”

Mr. Roy: Will you move the adjournment so I can get that message from the Lieutenant Governor?

Mr. Chairman: Consequently, I would rule that the amendment is out of order and would also point out to the hon. members that the matter is really outside the ambit of this bill. It’s a new subject. So my ruling is that the amendment is out of order and I cannot accept it at this time.

Mr. Roy: I am very disappointed.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments, comments or criticisms on this bill and if so, what section?

Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Bill 1 reported.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would move the committee rise and report, but before so doing I would like to add my comments to those of the member for Lakeshore as to your heart being in the right place. I wouldn’t want you to think that there was just one lone voice out of this chamber of 117 saying that, so you can go home and tell your family that there are two in this chamber that say your heart is in the right place.

Mr. Roy: You could do something about it; I can’t.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Juries Act, 1974.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Will the minister make any comments on this? I understand it is strictly housekeeping, but it is not every day that one has an opportunity to talk about masters. And I just wonder if the --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is not housekeeping.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It is not housekeeping.

Mr. Roy: It is. That’s all it is -- I mean your changing the senior master and this type of thing.

Mr. Lawlor: No, it is not. If the member can’t tell the difference between housecleaning and the vacuum cleaner --

Mr. Roy: There he goes. First thing he will be quoting Shakespeare again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: Where is the living room?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to say anything?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I made a short statement on May 13 when I introduced the bill. Now that we are turning our minds specifically to it, it is only some 2½ pages long and I wonder maybe if I could beg the indulgence of the House to go through it, unless the members have the statement before them, because I think it will be of some assistance to them.

I said at that time that the purpose of the legislation was really twofold. The first was to implement the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on the administration of the Ontario courts with respect to the office of master. Those recommendations are contained in part 3 of the report which came forward, I think, in November or December, 1973.

Secondly, it was to ensure that the county and district court judges, acting under appointment by the Governor General as local judges of the Supreme Court, have jurisdiction to deal with alimony and the maintenance and custody of children when a claim for such relief is joined with a petition for divorce.

I have already mentioned part 3 of the report on the administration of the Ontario courts and in that the Ontario Law Reform Commission made 23 recommendations with respect to the office of master, 13 of which require amendments to the Judicature Act. With minor variations resulting from our discussions with the masters themselves, the bill before the House, Mr. Speaker, implements the commission’s recommendations.

The office of master of the Supreme Court is frequently called up to determine issues between the Crown and private individuals, a function which is inconsistent with the civil service status that masters now hold. The first six sections of the bill relate to the title, appointment, tenure, conditions of employment, censure and removal from office of masters. They ensure judicial independence equivalent to that presently enjoyed by provincial court judges under the Provincial Courts Act.

Turning now to the second thrust of the bill, namely matters dealing with alimony and maintenance, subsection 3 of section 118 of the Judicature Act was enacted in 1970, to give divorce jurisdiction to county and division court judges acting under appointment by the Governor General, as local judges of the Supreme Court. However, the section, as presently worded, does not confer upon the local judge the power to order alimony or the maintenance and custody of children, where a divorce is not granted.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a recent case, held that rule 778(a), which purports to grant such a power to the local judges, exceeds the statutory authority of section 118 of the Judicature Act. Local judges have been exercising this jurisdiction on the basis that the said rules, as it was originally intended that they should be, were effective.

To preserve both the intention behind section 118 of the Judicature Act and rule 778(a) of the rules of practice, and to validate the present practice of the courts, section 7 of the bill before the House amends section 118 by conferring upon the local judge the power to order alimony or the maintenance and custody of children, whether a divorce is or is not granted.

Retroactive legislation, of course, Mr. Speaker, is often objectionable on the basis that, in many circumstances, it is unfair. Persons govern their activities by rules and to change the rules after they’ve been relied upon is frequently offensive to our sense of justice. This is particularly true of penal and taxing statutes. In the present matter of circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is most unfair to not make it retroactive. This is true when many persons have governed their activities by what they generally assume to be the law, when these assumptions have proven to be incorrect. This is the case with the amendment now proposed.

Subsection 2 of section 8 will make the amendment retroactive to July 1, 1971, the date when the divorce jurisdiction of the local judge commenced. It will restore what has been widely accepted to be the existing law. If we failed to make this amendment retroactive, Mr. Speaker, it would have the most undesirable consequences. Those who have been ordered by local judges to pay alimony might legally refuse to continue making payments, thus creating grave financial difficulties for women and children who are dependent upon these payments. They, in fact, Mr. Speaker, would have to go back through the courts in order to make their claims valid once again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Just a few comments about this legislation, Mr. Speaker. As members of the Legislature we find that -- and the minister knows this; I think he has mentioned it in his comments -- when legislation is retroactive, especially when you’re dealing with taxing statutes or statutes dealing with the rights of individuals, it becomes offensive. In this case it’s merely a matter, I suppose, of giving some legality to a number of decisions made since 1971.

Mr. Lawlor: It is just a case of the unanimous consent of this House.

Mr. Roy: Yes. We would not certainly find that type of legislation objectionable.

I would like the minister, when he replies to my comments, to state what masters are being paid these days. Masters are individuals whom, generally speaking, the public does not hear about very often. Yet they fulfil a very important purpose. Sometimes, if you’ve a client involved in marital problems, he can make a decision which can have some significance, especially when we talk about interim matters that come before the master.

I think that we would certainly be in agreement with the spirit of the legislation. Since this legislation will, in some ways, reflect the matter of a master being a civil servant and, working in a judicial capacity, means that we have to be in agreement with that type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question relating to masters in some areas holding various other functions? They act as local taxing officers and this type of thing. Would that be under this legislation? Would that be affected at all or would these individuals continue to act in a variety of capacities? I’d like the minister to answer that.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the office of master is becoming a more onerous one -- he keeps having more and more cases in Supreme Court, more and more cases in the area of family law and so on. I find, for instance, there is a real lineup to get into the office of the master in Ottawa on various mornings. I would point out while I have the opportunity here, that I really don’t think the facilities of the local master, Mr. Elliot, are adequate. The minister will be giving this type of individual added status, and will be encouraging him and putting him into the area of doing a judicial function. He is in a situation where the traffic in and out of his office is more like that of a registry office.

People’s rights are being affected by decisions of certain individuals such as masters. I think the decorum of his facilities are important. He at least should have some atmosphere for making decisions which, in the long run, can certainly affect the rights of individuals.

Of course I have not visited all the courthouses in Ontario. The minister is undoubtedly aware that, for instance, in Ottawa-Carleton the court facilities leave something to be desired. And of course it follows that master’s facilities are not adequate. I thought I’d put that matter on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I think as we progress in the judicial process that the facilities and the atmosphere where some of these judicial officers work are all matters which the public regard in total in our system of justice.

I come back to a point that I have made many times in this House: that there is a certain amount of trepidation, of ignorance, on the part of the public about how the process all works. When you throw them into an atmosphere, for instance, where he is one individual and there are a bunch of lawyers sitting around a table and there is traffic in and out of the office, he will wonder what sort of equity and what sort of attention his problem will get.

I think it’s important that the decorum, the atmosphere, in certain areas like Ottawa, be enhanced. And I think it would go hand in hand with the responsibilities of the masters. I think that very often these individuals have been performing their function with very little noise. We don’t hear about them very often, and very often they are making decisions which are far more important than many other officers that are highly visible in the judicial process.

These are all the comments I have, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I’ll deal with the second thing first -- that is, the retroactive feature in the legislation. It is a well-cherished, deeply rooted, traditional, conservative -- with a small “c”; that’s the good type of conservative -- principle written into the very fibres of our law and our destiny, that retroactive legislation is something to be scouted and terribly suspect in principle in circumstances of this kind. It only occurs most rarely in this Legislature -- maybe two or three times in the years I have been here -- that legislation was asked for that had this retrospective effect.

On this occasion one can’t take issue with it. It serves a purpose and any other alternative, as the minister points out, would be really disaffecting and even devastating to some people. Once in a while when legislation gets overruled or reinterpreted in the courts, we are forced to go back on that legislation and in effect reverse what a judgement of the courts had to say. Therein lies the supremacy of the Legislature.

As to the legislation generally, the 22 pages of commentary from the office of the master are -- as is usual with Law Reform Commission reports -- extremely well worked out -- well thought through. The historical background of that office is given as well as the various functions that it performs. Its nostrums had to do with conferring or giving recognition to an element of independence of the masters analogous to that of judges, since they are of themselves court officers.

Here it particularly became somewhat crucial, because of the increased civil litigation carried on by the government itself. If these men were simply in the role of civil servants under the inspective legal offices and subject to a kind of civil service regimen, how can they, being salaried people directly under government supervision, give judgements against the very one who employs them? At least there would be some moot question as to their unbiased judgement -- or could be, in numerous circumstances.

So it was highly recommended that they be placed in the position of independence and that is basically what this legislation does. It grants them remuneration; it gives them some recognition in things like pensions. At the present time, being civil servants, they have to have 10 years of continuous service before they are even eligible for pensions. A man coming out of the practice of law in a law office of the city -- possibly an older man with many years of experience -- very likely may not put in 10 years in that particular post, and what’s he left with? How do you induce men of calibre to accept the masterships?

In some ways these so-called subordinate court positions are more important than the ones higher up. As the member for Ottawa East has suggested, there are often clutch decisions made. Sure you can appeal them -- but nevertheless if they are made in a way that shows a judicial sense they obviate many difficulties up above, and determine individuals’ lives in a far more concrete and down to earth fashion than may be achieved in the higher courts. Therefore, to give this kind of recognition to them is great.

I am a bit puzzled with the legislation. When I prepared my remarks about it I looked at 23 different recommendations and saw that about 13 of them are caught up in this legislation and the balance are not. My perusal brought me to ask why not. In certain cases the reason is obvious and in other cases the reason is not quite so obvious. In any event I want to work it out with the minister and find out why the non-obvious is that way.

First of all the obvious. Recommendation 13 has to do with the rules of practice. At the present time under the rules of practice, section 209 sets out what are the positive duties of the master. Rule 210 gives a whole list of exclusions. This is basically the negative approach to the thing, saying these are the things they may not do, and giving the kind of niggling feeling that all the rest are pretty well within their jurisdiction. As is said in the report, and in certain addresses that were made to the Law Reform Commission, that is simply not the way to approach this matter. Delineate their duties -- set them out -- and then we will know what powers they have and do not have. This would not leave some kind of hiatus in the whole situation. The Law Reform Commission itself goes along with that and refers it to the committee on practice.

What I want to know at this stage is what is the Attorney General’s liaison? What relationship has his office with the committee on practice of the bar association or the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada? Is he in consultation with them?

He certainly doesn’t move them through. It is not his job to draft them, I would take it, or his job to enunciate them, to place them into being; there is something internal to the Law Society itself which has weight solely within its jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, before the Attorney General could have brought this legislation in he certainly must have consulted quite deeply with them, otherwise much of this will be inefficacious if not brought in in the terms of the rules themselves. It is these other things not in the legislation, left wholly to the rules committees in order to bring about that I would like to know the status of; how far advanced they are; when are they likely to be enunciated; and I suppose ultimately whether or not the minister agrees with them.

The same thing applies basically -- no, it doesn’t apply basically; I don’t know if it does or not apply basically or at all. In the next matter, with respect to certain internal procedures on contested and uncontested motions, the suggestion is to speed up the whole process in the master’s office; to take interlocutory proceedings so that extra legal costs are not involved with respect to hearings; to file papers the day before so that counsel need not appear and charge enormous fees for standing around the hallway in the lineup that is in front of the master’s office all the time; and that certain things be done.

No reference is made to the rules committee. Does the minister, in this context, consider this solely and entirely a matter for the rules and not a proper subject matter to embody in the legislation in any form by way of direction or even within the terms of regulation? I will leave it at that on that particular one.

The same thing may be said again with respect to the taxation of costs. Leal et al in their report here have spent several pages -- four or five pages -- on the issue of taxation of costs by local masters and by other masters in the court system -- party and party; solicitor-client; the whole works -- and made numerous recommendations in this particular regard. I see absolutely nothing in the legislation touching this issue. After all that time spent and recommendations made, where does the minister think the weight falls? Does it devolve upon his head? Does it not devolve upon his responsibility to embody some kind of direction with respect to costs and to the jurisdiction of masters in this particular regard within the ambit of this legislation? I think it does. I don’t know why it doesn’t and I want the minister to tell me, to justify the fact that he has left out that particular matter.

The fourth thing that was mentioned: Again, I am in some doubt. I think legislation, when it is enunciated and brought before this House, pretty well should cover the waterfront with respect to matters that have to be rectified or new notions to be introduced. One of the notions is in section 16 of the recommendations -- the position of chief clerk shall be created for the master’s office and the chief clerk should be appointed with responsibility for the administration of the work of the master’s office on a day-to-day basis.

Again, that is in line with the overall managerial concepts of systems analyses that are being offered and being proclaimed for the whole court system and which, in the next bill we will be discussing in a few minutes, you are going to seek to apply in a test area of the province. This is internal to the master’s office.

They say masters should be engaged primarily in judicial chores; the senior master ought not to be swamped in red tape and paper work so he can perform his functions as a justice. It is his job to allocate to the other nine masters of the court here in Osgoode Hall, their various responsibilities; I believe there are nine.

I would have thought I would see a section in this legislation setting up, structuring, giving legislative sanction to the office of the chief clerk. If the Attorney General is not going to do it that way, how does he do it? Does he intend to bring in subsequent legislation to cover this thing when he gets an Administration of Courts Act, eventually, in a far wider setting? That may be a long time.

We have this experiment going on now and in the meantime that particular aggravation which is slowing up the whole process is not met. As on interim measure, and perhaps as a project suitable to the Toronto courts, the minister might have brought in the chief clerk operation and tested its possibilities in that particular setting, again in the light of the recommendations.

All the other matters, the security of tenure; the fact that the appointments ought to be sieved because of the judicial nature of the task they perform; I suppose the widening of the ambit of their authority, for instance in the area of being able to appoint guardians ad litem to people who are unable to handle their own affairs; such various things the minister would leave to the rules committee, I suppose.

There is certainly nothing against embodying the role, the jurisdiction of masses, within the ambit of the legislation, particularly if it were an area they themselves weren’t presently occupying. The failure to do that, as pointed out -- they have wide powers of winding up corporations with hundreds of millions of dollars and haven’t got other powers in infants estates which may involve a pittance -- these kinds of irrationalities in the operations of that office should be obviated; and again I think should have been obviated in terms of the legislation but aren’t. The legislation is fine to the extent it goes. It seems to me defective in what it leaves out and what the Law Reform Commission has recommended be put in.

Those are my remarks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to comment on second reading of this bill? The minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Ottawa East inquired as to the salary range for a master. It ranges from $28,138 to $32,202. Did the member for Ottawa East get those figures?

Mr. Roy: I would like to get that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: This inquiry in his commentary was he wanted to know how much masters were paid, and the salary range for a master is $28,138 to $32,202. As far as I am aware, all country court judges and district court judges are designated as local masters and in addition to those county and district court judges there are two local masters in Ontario; one in Ottawa and one in Windsor. Of course there is a senior master here in Toronto.

I think the explanation I gave in the statement is self-explanatory and has been appreciated by the members in their comments in that they are supportive of the proposed amendments.

The member for Lakeshore wondered why we have implemented only 13, I believe, out of the 23 observations and recommendations offered by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The reason for that is that the balance of the changes, 10 in number, are really administrative in nature and do not require a change or amendment to the statute or existing legislation in order to give life to the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s recommendations

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t agree with that description of their nature. Some of them are a mixture; some are procedural, sure.

Hon. Mr. Clement: For example --

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, for example.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Chief clerk, recommendation No. 16. He will he appointed under section 85 (1) of the Judicature Act. In other words, there is a legislative vehicle already operative to permit that. I will read that subsection 1 to the member to save him looking it up. It’s short.

“There shall be such officers of the Supreme Court as are considered necessary by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the due dispatch of the business of the court and such officers, subject to section 102 as to special examiners, shall be appointed by Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

So the legislation is already there.

You wondered what our liaison was with the rules committee; the ministry has two representatives on the rules committee. Mr. Gordon Beddis is a representative on the committee for the ministry and, ex officio, the inspector of legal offices is a member of that committee.

You also wondered how the rules committee works. The rules committee makes its recommendations and brings them forward to me for my signature and endorsement, to be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council; and they proceed in that fashion.

I play no role in those discussions. I suppose I am there figuratively through the representatives I have on the committee. But as I understand my role regarding the rules, I must go forward with the changes in the rules proposed by the rules committee. I stand to be corrected but that is my understanding.

Mr. Lawlor: By order in council?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The rules are changed from time to time, namely by a regulation done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I stand to be corrected, but that’s my understanding. I can’t say: “I don’t like that rule. I think I won’t go forward.” I am obliged, as I understand my role, to take it forward to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the change in the regulation is then brought about.

Mr. Lawlor: That is the only area where you have no discretion.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right, as I understand it.

You were wondering about the rules committee. As I said, a lot of these things are administrative in nature. We are going to establish a group to completely revise the rules. We have progressed to the point where we are now considering an individual as chairman of that committee. We know what the complexion of the committee will be except for the chairman -- or we hope we know those who will offer to make their services available.

We have concluded -- this is nothing novel; I’m sure the members across the floor of the House will have concluded this too -- that we have become so wound up with the procedural matters under the rules of practice applied in the Supreme Court and the county and district courts of this province, that you almost have to be a specialist in order to know how to get to that service of a notice of a writ or a concurrent writ which we dealt with in one of my estimates a few weeks ago.

I enthusiastically and individually support my predecessor, who said that the rules must be redesigned by a group who are, first of all, knowledgeable and imaginative, so that they cannot just rearrange them but get the job on to where you can issue the writ, get the defence and get into court or whatever it might be. That will be the responsibility of that committee.

You were wondering about the jurisdiction with reference to costs. The Ontario Law Reform Commission report on the Solicitors Act is now under review, and I am told all law associations have been contacted by the commission. They have asked for their views, and the reviews and briefs have been submitted and they are presently being considered. I think we will be able to anticipate receipt of that report on the Solicitors Act in due course, and I’m sure it will be not only reflective of the views of the various associations but perhaps impressed with the views of those who are doing the study over and above the position taken by those who have submitted briefs.

Those are the only comments I have with reference to the Act. I appreciate the nature of the observations as to the retroactivity, but it simply has to be in the Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Lakeshore have a comment?

Mr. Lawlor: With your permission, I don’t recall, but is there anything in here requiring the master to hand out his judgement within one month?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, there is nothing in there to make it mandatory in so far as issuing a decision within 30 days. I thought I was reading the legislation, but I notice it’s here. It’s in the recommendations, not the legislation.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall Bill 79 be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS PROJECT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 80, An Act to enable the establishment of a Project for the better Administration of Courts in the Region of Central West.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, my interest in this bill, and I have been asked to say a word on it, is that the project, which I understand is a trial project in the Province of Ontario, is to be carried out in the judicial region of central west which takes in my particular area. The project area includes the districts of Haldimand-Norfolk, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Niagara North, Niagara South and the region of Waterloo. There has been publicity in the local press regarding this particular project and I will likely refer to that a little later on.

The purpose is that there would be a better co-ordination of the administration facilities and the services of the courts, but then the section specifically says that this better administration must be “subject to the traditional independence of judges respecting matters bearing directly on the adjudication of matters coming before them.”

I think the Law Reform Commission report makes it very clear that the proper administration of the courts, that is the day-to-day administration of the courts, has been carried on in a rather haphazard manner. The purpose of this bill is to set up an advisory committee working in our particular area to advise the minister, who will then inform the Lieutenant Governor in Council and Cabinet can then make regulations to improve the administration in that particular area.

The Law Reform Commission report, I must say, is one book I forgot to read when it was given to all the members back in 1973. But I have since found it most interesting reading. I have gone through the first part of it in the last day or two dealing with this particular problem as to the administration of our judicial system in the Province of Ontario. To get the proper impact of this bill, we should first look at the deficiencies of the present administrative structure.

The Law Reform Commission states that first of all there is a lack of clear definition of responsibility for the administration of the courts. The administration has more or less evolved and at times much of the administration has been left to the judges, which really isn’t their job.

Mr. Lawlor: The member missed his vocation. He should quit directing funerals and become a lawyer.

Mr. Good: The second thing that impressed me was that they make a clear-cut statement that there is lack of professional administrators when it comes to running the courts of our province. I’ll deal with that a little more as we go on.

The third point is the lack of integrated approach in the administration of all aspects of the court system. Then there is also a very great lack of persons charged with the responsibility of long-term planning and innovations.

I won’t go into it in detail, but the reading makes it very clear that the administration has more or less just evolved into a system where the judges have to do a lot of the day-to-day administration and there are really no professional court administrators.

I would like to quote just a few sentences here, Mr. Speaker, regarding the lack of clear definition of responsibility. The commission says:

“Many aspects of administration are carried out by the government through the Ministry of the Attorney General, but much of the administrative work has been left to the judges, except the day-to-day administration carried out by the court staff. [And it also says:]

“If we are to have maximum efficiency in the administration of justice, an earnest attempt must be made to find satisfactory solutions to the relevant problems.”

And they go on to show the lack of trained professional administrators in a business which is spending some $30 million a year to administer the courts. It states:

“Yet they do this almost entirely without the aid of trained professional administrators. It can be said with confidence that no business organization that approaches the courts in size or complexity attempts to function under such handicaps.”

One wonders, as a layman, how things are getting done. When we hear about backlogs of cases, judges taking the summers off, I’m beginning to think I should have read this book years ago. I found it most interesting.

Mr. Lawlor: And they’re all opposed to changing it.

Mr. Good: By the time I get finished, I’m sure the member for Lakeshore will agree with me that changes will have to be forthcoming.

Mr. Lawlor: The judges are against it.

Mr. Good: The other part deals with the lack of an integrated approach to the administration of all aspects of the court system, and they go into detail on that. What the Law Reform Commission reports on in greatest detail is a lack of any long-range planning. I would just like to refer to one sentence here.

“But what is almost completely lacking from our present structure are people or institutions with the clear responsibility, time and the capacity for long-term planning, monitoring and innovation.”

So certainly the case is made, Mr. Speaker, that there is great need for reform in the administration of the courts. The minister has now taken it upon himself to set up the advisory committee in the central west area of the province to look into these matters and make recommendations so that things may be better.

I would like to spend a moment, Mr. Speaker, to look at the bill and then compare it with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission as it relates to a very important item, that is the composition of the committee. First I would like to state that to correct the situation, the Law Reform Commission has seven detailed recommendations, and the minister in this bill is taking No. 6; that is the establishment of an advisory committee on court administration.

There is nothing in the bill before us which does anything about setting up a provincial court administrator or a regional court administrator, although I understand that could be a recommendation of this advisory committee at a later date and these professional administrators could be appointed.

The location of these people and the need for educational research facilities devoted to court administration is discussed, and undoubtedly there has been a tremendous lack of planning, and co-ordination in using the facilities that are available to best advantage, otherwise there would not have been this comprehensive chapter in the report.

So the minister has taken recommendation No. 6. He said this committee should be set up, composed of the Chief Justice of Ontario or his nominee; and the chief judge of the county district court or his nominee; chief judge of the provincial court, family division, and also the criminal division; and that two shall be members of the Law Society of Upper Canada who are practising in that region. And the chairman shall be the deputy attorney general. He can also designate a member to be chairman.

When we look at the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission about this advisory committee, we see there are two important additions on that advisory committee which the minister has left off. I think, as a layman, these two people are of great importance because I think herein lies part of the problem in the administration of the courts.

The Law Reform Commission suggests there should be the chief justice and the other judges and the practising lawyers; and McRuer also says the Deputy Minister of Government Services should be on that committee.

To me that makes sense and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. The whole squabble in our area is about the lack of proper facilities for the courts to be heard in the Waterloo region. Simply, we have no courthouse. How we can administer justice to 200,000 people in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo without a courthouse and do it properly and efficiently, is beyond me; the court now has to be held in the town of Preston.

The other representation which should be on this committee, besides someone from Government Services who has to do with the building of these court facilities, is that of lay representatives. The minister has made no allowance for lay representatives on this advisory committee. I think a great case can be made for Government Services representation and lay representation on that committee.

In the report, the premises underlying a sound approach to court administration are set out as follows: First: “The primary role of judges in the court system is to adjudicate and not to administer.”

We will assume that after this committee looks into things and makes its recommendations there will be professional administrators put in place so the judges can devote all their time to adjudication and not to administration.

The second is: “The primary goal of the court system is to serve the public. This involves adjudicative decisions which are not only fair and just but made without delay and at reasonable cost and convenience.”

Certainly it isn’t a reasonable convenience for the people in two cities to have to travel to another municipality where the court is held simply because the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) has reneged on his promise to build a new courthouse, even though the land is available and provided by the city any time the government wants to go ahead and buy it.

The third thing is: “Sound court management in Ontario requires a fairer share of financial resources than has been accorded to the Ministry of the Attorney General to date.”

I am sure the minister will agree with that recommendation. He is going to have to have more money if he is going to get these courts operating properly.

I would like to refer to one further part: “Court structures, procedures and terminology should be simplified so that the court system will be better understood, utilized and accepted by members of the lay public.”

That’s me. The lay public feels this whole aura of mystery surrounding court proceedings should be wiped away and brought up to date. I think a lay representative or two on this committee might even present a case for diminishing this traditional and extravagant pomp and ceremony which surrounds lawyers and the whole court procedure. Maybe that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

I think the layman understanding the court system and feeling it is not something remote, surrounded and cloaked in mystery and pomp and ceremony, is very important.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Good: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read what the Crown attorney, Bill Morrison, says. He says:

“Co-ordinating the courts is a hopeless job. [He is talking about this bill.] A committee of judges and lawyers to co-ordinate court facilities in west central Ontario will have little effect on the Waterloo region until a new court house is built, Crown attorney Bill Morrison said today.”

He goes on to say the Attorney General is introducing this particular bill. He described it as “an attempt to provide flexibility within a very traditional system without affecting the traditional independence of the judges.” This is what the minister is trying to do. Mr. Morrison said: “Court employees in the region are doing the best job possible now to co-ordinate the region’s courts in view of the problem of the inadequate and decentralized facilities.”

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in fact, does need someone from Government Services on this advisory committee, if they are ever going to understand that court houses are a necessity of the public and not a political plum to be passed out in certain areas of the province as seen fit by the government

“Transferring of cases from Kitchener-Waterloo area to other centres such as Hamilton, would not be a very workable system,” the Crown went on to say. Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Where was that said, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Good: This is an article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, May 23, 1975, and --

Mr. Roy: The minister is not going to censure him for that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: He will like Moose Factory.

Mr. Good: What did he say?

Mr. Roy: He said, “he will like Moose Factory.”

Mr. Good: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the minister will thank me greatly for drawing these matters to his attention, especially the relevant matters as to who should be on this advisory committee.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I think I must point out, is that when the advisory committee is set up it should look over the area and this central west region and make recommendations to the minister. The cabinet can then pass regulations affecting a long list of things, which perhaps should go a long way toward making the administration of the courts in that area more effective. These would provide for the sittings of the court within the region; provide for taxation within the region of costs and accounts that would otherwise have to be done here in Toronto; provide for holidays and vacations -- I hope they would make recommendations regarding the number of months in the year in which sittings are held and things of that nature.

One thing that does puzzle me is the fact that this Act is repealed on July 31, 1977. I guess the minister thinks their work will be finished by that time, and perhaps he will then be ready to set up a permanent court administrator for the province, as well as permanent court administrators for each judicial region around the province.

But I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the minister give serious consideration to expanding the members on this advisory committee to take in someone from Government Services -- they have to build the buildings -- and some lay people who might break down some of this cloud of mystery surrounding our courts. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the bill, because I have a number of comments to make. As a matter of fact, I must pay due to the Deputy Attorney General for his remarks at the opening of the courts on Jan. 6, which predated, so I am told, the appointment of the present minister to be the Attorney General of Ontario. The remarks of the Deputy Attorney General at that time -- I know I am at liberty to use his remarks because he was speaking in the place of the Attorney General -- are quite significant in relation to this particular bill.

I am curious, not critical, as to why a project which has been in force for some time requires, at this point in time, an Act of the Legislature in order to give it some formal existence. Because if my understanding is correct, pilot project central west has been functioning. The advisory committee has been functioning since some time in 1974, perhaps not with the exact composition projected in the bill, but certainly substantially the same advisory committee has been functioning, because the Deputy Attorney General in his remarks at the opening of the courts on Jan. 6 of this year commented that of course each of the various judges had been asked for advice and co-operation and asked to name a representative. The list of the members of the advisory committee was set out in those remarks.

So my second comment to the Attorney General is, would he bring us up to date on the names of the persons who at this time are, in fact, on the advisory committee, so that we will know exactly who the members of the advisory committee are?

I think I like very much the way in which the matter was put by the Deputy Attorney General in those remarks, because what came home to a predecessor of the Attorney General, at the time when he made his first comments on the final volume of the report on administration of the Ontario courts, caused quite a tremor throughout the members of the judiciary, and I am quite certain throughout all of the hierarchy of the judicial system in the Province of Ontario.

There was immense concern expressed, which focused itself almost in a personal sense between the then Attorney General, and the judiciary and the whole structure of the administration of justice, because of their immense concern about the principle which was involved in the separation of the judicial function from the function of the administration of the courts and its responsibility as it reposed in the government of Ontario, and particularly in the office of the Attorney General.

I think the concern was a real and legitimate concern about a significant principle, and that was that the political government of the province, even with the immense tradition of the office of the Attorney General in the Province of Ontario, should not become involved in the administration of the courts in the performance of their judicial function in such a way as could even lend any credence to the proposition that there was some kind of political interference in the court system.

Perhaps I have overstated that, but I think somehow or other that ran through the eruption which took place in the initial comments, made in very good faith by the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales), the Attorney General of the province as he then was.

The Deputy Attorney General, speaking before the court, said:

“Before outlining for you the steps which have been taken [that is, in connection with the implementation or the attempt it break the ground that was required to bring about some change in the administration of the courts] it would be well to acknowledge again the underlying complexity of the close relationship between the adjudicative functions of the judiciary and the day-to-day administration of the work of the courts. The Attorney General is keenly aware of the importance of preserving the independence of the judiciary and of reconciling that independence with the constitutional responsibility of the government for the administration of justice and the obligation of the government to provide adequate support and logistical services to the court system.”

I believe that was a very fine way of expressing the immense sensitivity which is involved when we begin to move into the areas of restructuring for administrative purposes an institutional framework such as the judicial system in the Province of Ontario, to make improvements in it. I think it leaves anyone who attempts to move in for that purpose subject to the possibilities of immense criticism.

I am not suggesting for a moment there is no need for changes and improvements and modernization in the administration of the courts.

I believe that most of the members of the judiciary and most of the members of the administrative staff of the whole court structure would agree from time to time as individuals, that things need improving. But apart altogether from the inertia which any institutional framework has against change, there was a legitimate and fundamental concern about the principles upon which those changes would take place.

I think the basic decision is one which we in this caucus would support, that the minister must start an experimental project, a developmental project in a limited area for the purpose of experimentation in a small area which can encompass the kind of possibility of change, which will provide a framework, perhaps, of experience and assessment over the period when this project will continue.

I agree also with the principle in the bill that this Act is automatically repealed on July 31, 1977, which would give it some two years. I suppose by the time that comes around it will be for practical purposes some three years during which this experimentation can take place.

I think I share some of the concern of the member for Waterloo North about the composition of the advisory committee. I would only hope that the fact the Deputy Attorney General or his nominee will chair the advisory committee, will make certain that the initiative with respect to change in administration of the courts will have importance in the minds of the existing establishment in the region of central west, and that changes will in fact take place.

It may well have been advisable to have had other representatives, such as lay representatives, such as a representative from the Ministry of Government Services. But because of the nature of the changes and the tremors which are caused by those changes, I am inclined to think this limited experiment in what is a carefully chosen area of the province will provide the kind of experience and background which may very well lead to the kind of changes which can be instituted in a way which will be acceptable broadly across the province.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this would be a convenient time to break my remarks. I could continue at 8 o’clock, should I be so lucky as to be able to return by that time.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think I could respond to all of the questions raised by the member for Riverdale between now and the hour that we adjourn.

Mr. Renwick: I haven’t finished.

Mr. Lawlor: He hasn’t finished.

Mr. Roy: He hasn’t finished.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Would he like to adjourn the debate?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought he had concluded his remarks. I was making notes here and I thought he had concluded his remarks. That’s fine.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has drawn to the Speaker’s attention that it is approaching 6 of the clock. Is it the Speaker’s understanding that this order of business will be called at the 8 o’clock hour?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, Mr. Speaker. In the order of business at 8 o’clock we will go on item No. 6, Bill 39.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps before we recess, could the House leader tell us what he intends to do for the balance of the evening? Does that mean that the Attorney General will not be returning this evening?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s correct. We will complete the consideration of this bill on Thursday before he proceeds with the balance of his estimates. As I indicated, we will call items 6, 12 and 10 this evening; to be followed by item 1 if those three pieces of legislation are concluded. If the hon. member would like, he can move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Renwick moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) can’t be here. Isn’t he downstairs in committee?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: This is a housekeeping bill. If the member objects, I’ll withdraw it. It really matters nothing to me.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) around? I haven’t seen him.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, he will be here.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.