Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1301, item 1, Attorney General:

Mr. Chairman: The Attorney General just informed me he will be here in about one minute.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. Nixon: I neglected to mention in our discussions before the dinner hour I was also rather pleased with another appointment the Attorney General had made, that is, in his information officer. I don’t see him under the gallery; it’s easy to miss him actually. He may be coming in. Ah, he’s arriving now.

I just wanted to congratulate the Attorney General on the appointment of Mr. David Allen to the position of information officer. Is that correct? I don’t know whether he has special responsibilities for dealing with the problems of the individual members, but I have found him most accommodating any time I’ve called. Fortunately, I don’t have to call the ministry very often, for which I’m thankful. But I must say that he is very attentive in assisting in that connection.

I’m not just sure why the Attorney General feels he needs an information officer, since all his predecessors have been able to carry on their duties without one.

Mr. Roy: And he’s been doing a good job himself.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, actually he must be getting very good advice from some direction because of the excellent information he’s been able to convey. I thought, since I’d taken the time of the House to mention it on another matter, that it would only be fair to indicate I feel Mr. Allen is indeed an asset to the staff. Frankly, we miss him from the press gallery. As Elmer Sopha used to call these appointments an elevation to a minor Valhalla, in some respects I’m sure Mr. Allen is enjoying the harp and wings.

I want to ask, however, a specific question of the minister. It was prompted by the presence of one of his prosecutors under the gallery. I don’t see him here tonight either -- oh, yes, I see him very much in evidence. Can he give us a status report on the famous Hamilton dredging trial? What’s happening over there? Is it going to be permanently delayed?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, dealing with Mr. David Allen, his correct title actually is director of communications. I might say for some period of time it was recommended to the Ministry of the Attorney General that there be a communications office as there developed an increasing interest in the court system and the administration of justice. I might put it this way. Because of the sensitivity of the ministry in dealing with criminal prosecutions and the necessity to carry out our responsibilities without partisan political considerations. --

Mr. Nixon: That goes without saying.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- we did not have a director of communications until we were satisfied there was a candidate who possessed the intelligence, the capacity and the sensitivity of Mr. David Allen. I’m very delighted that he was available.

Mr. Nixon: That’s why you haven’t had one all of these many years.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can only speak for the two years I’ve occupied this post.

Mr. Nixon: I knew he was good, but --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: For not quite a year and a half, we were without any director of communications whatsoever.

Mr. Nixon: You never know what you are going to need him for.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think it is important that we have someone of Mr. Allen’s talents because of the very legitimate interest there is in the public in relation to the administration of justice. There was a time, perhaps a few years ago, where there wasn’t this great interest. The courts functioned without much public scrutiny. I think part of the reason for that was the case flow the courts had to handle 10 years ago was very small compared with what it has to handle today.

There are a number of very legitimate concerns the public has with respect to the administration of justice. I think it’s in the public interest that we have talented people in the communications field who can assist the ministry in telling the public what we are doing and how we are spending the taxpayers’ money. I just wanted to indicate that I share the views of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk as to the wisdom of the appointment of Mr. David Allen. I just wanted to reiterate that we’re very happy to have him.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps you’d permit a question just before you go on to the other matter. Do you agree with the contention evidently of one of the surveys done on behalf of the government as a whole that the communications and information jobs in the individual portfolios ought to be consolidated, so that there be a communications and information office that would be available to the ministries as they were needed? In that way, Mr. Allen’s tremendous talents could be put to the service of some of the minister’s colleagues perhaps who need them even more than he does, like the Minister of Revenue (Mrs. Scrivener) and people like that whom he could assist in the course of his duties.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There may be some overall wisdom in this recommendation, but insofar as the Ministry of the Attorney General is concerned I don’t think it would be in the public interest to participate in a pool in relation to the distribution of information.

As to the dredging case arising out of the Hamilton activities and other activities involving dredging contracts, the trial date was originally set in September and the Crown was prepared to proceed at that time. However, several of the accused had appeals pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. There were two branches of appeals, one dealing with an application for leave to appeal, and the other with appeal as a right, having to do with habeas corpus proceedings. It was rather technical in view of the fact that no one was in custody. Because of the fact that these matters were pending before the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Parker ordered that these matters not proceed while these matters were pending.

I’m just advised that the final appeal, and some of these appeals have been dealt with, will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. I’m advised by Mr. McLeod, who is the assistant deputy minister now and who is also in charge of the prosecution in this case and will be prosecuting the case, that December 20 has been set as the date to dispose of the final appeal.

I might say that this is a case in which the Chief Justice was requested to set an earlier date because we felt it was in the public interest to proceed with this long outstanding matter as quickly as possible. I’m further advised that the Chief Justice of the High Court, Mr. Justice Evans, indicated that in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada within the past week had set December 20 for hearing this appeal he would now be prepared to set a trial date, perhaps even this week, so the trial would commence some time early in the new year.

Mr. Roy: While we’re dealing with this item hopefully a lot of the matters can be covered at this time so we’ll not have to go into them as we proceed down the estimates, if you will be patient with us, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: A slight delay.

Mr. Roy: No. I don’t intend to offend the rules quite that obviously.

I’d like to ask the Attorney General a question about his timetable in relation to the establishment of the French language in our trial process. I’ve been one who has been talking about this for quite some time. I was pleased to see the establishment -- I shouldn’t say the establishment but the privilege given to francophones in this province in a limited way to have their trials in French in the lower courts; even though it’s done really by goodwill and the fact that everybody is prepared to accept it and nobody is opposing it. I still question the legality of that whole process -- in the sense that there’s a law objecting to it. I’ve said repeatedly that what is required is an amendment to the Judicature Act.

I’m told, by looking at certain schedules, that you’re proposing an amendment to the Judicature Act this fall. I would like to ask you, when can we expect to see that amendment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for Ottawa East is quite accurate when he relates that we have indicated our intention to amend the Judicature Act this fall. As you know, we have established an advisory committee to work with the ministry on these amendments. They have been meeting and my most recent information would indicate that there will probably be some legislation ready to be introduced, I would think, by the end of November. I would expect that I would be able to advise the member for Ottawa East within the next week of a more specific date since I know of his interest in this matter.

Mr. Roy: I don’t particularly want to get into the legislation. As one who has looked at this for some time I understand that there may be problems from a practical point of view in not having certain restrictions or certain guidelines in the usage of French. I’m looking forward to seeing the legislation and I trust the Attorney General will give us some background material on this to support what I expect to be the nature of that bill.

I don’t know what you have in mind, but I’d certainly be prepared to make some positive contribution to any legislation of this type and I would hope that consultative process would continue.

[8:15]

I do want to say something, though, about the committee the Attorney General has set up. In the past, of course, I have encouraged rapport with the province of Quebec to benefit from the experience in that province in conducting trials bilingually in their courts for 100 years. Certainly it’s an advantage; I think they can offer some contribution.

I was extremely pleased to see a committee had been set up to look into the implementation of this whole question, but I do want to say that I have received some criticism from the legal profession in the Ottawa area about the composition of the committee. I don’t have the names of the members in front of me but, as I recall, there are people from the Law Society of Upper Canada, counsel from the Quebec bar, some counsel from the province of Quebec. It would appear that the only person on that committee who seems to reflect the francophone fact in this province is Pierre Genest -- is there another one? Who would that be?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Pharand from Sudbury.

Mr. Roy: I see. But the point I wanted to make, and the criticism I have received, is that in view of the fact that the largest proportion of francophones are in the Ottawa area, I suppose, and since that’s where the largest number of lawyers are, if we are going to make the program work -- I am not saying it must work only in Ottawa but certainly that’s where it is going to have the highest profile -- it may well be a good idea to have someone representing the bar from Ottawa on that particular committee.

I think it would be helpful in view of the composition of the bar in that area and in view of the fact that in the long term a high proportion of the cases, if they are going to proceed in French, will certainly be in that area.

For instance, I would suggest that the president of the Carleton County Bar Association a Mr. Belanger, has been extremely helpful in assisting in the implementation of the process that we have now. He has the confidence of the faculty of law and, as the minister knows, the faculty of law as such is participating in this and will be offering a French program. I was in court the other day and I was impressed to discover they have already printed a bilingual lexicon, which is of great assistance to counsel and to those of us who still go to court occasionally and don’t know the proper terms in French.

I am suggesting that someone from that area, whether from the faculty of law or from the bar, could make a contribution. There was some surprise expressed by the members of the profession in that area that none of their members had been appointed to that committee. I wasn’t aware that Pharand was on it. The only one I seemed to recall was Genest. Is the committee closed now or is there any chance of getting anyone else on it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, it’s not a closed committee. As a matter of fact, we in the ministry are free to consult with whomever we want. I agree with the member that Mr. Belanger sounds to me like an appropriate individual to consult.

The history of this committee is that I requested the batonnier of the Quebec bar to recommend three of their members to sit on the committee; at the same time I requested the treasurer of the Law Society to recommend three members in order that the practising bars of the two provinces would be represented. We added Mr. Pharand to the committee.

This is, as I say, a working committee at the present time, but I want to assure the member for Ottawa East that we will continue to consult with practising lawyers who we feel might have a useful input in relation to resolving this matter in the most effective way possible.

Once the cabinet has decided on the nature of the legislation to be introduced, I will certainly endeavour to give the member for Ottawa East as much notice as possible prior to introduction of this legislation. We will, as we have been trying to do with other legislation, have a good compendium prepared to be tabled with the legislation. I would hope I personally would have sufficient time to discuss the matter with the member for Ottawa East before we proceed to debate the legislation. I would think somewhere throughout the process we would be able to ensure the input of any members from the Ottawa area who will be able to make a contribution.

Mr. Roy: In the Throne Speech at the opening of the federal Parliament, there was some comment about certain amendments they are going to bring forward to the Criminal Code to allow the use of French in criminal trials. I take it the amendments to which they are referring involve the empaneling of juries. Is there anything else you know of in the Criminal Code which prevents one having a trial in French in this province, apart from the provisions of the Judicature Act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, it is my view an amendment to the Criminal Code was appropriate in order to arrange for mixed juries, or perhaps bilingual juries in Ontario, in view of the specific provisions in the Criminal Code that now exist in relation to jury trials, or mixed jury trials in the province of Quebec and the province of Manitoba. The viewpoint has been put forward that the necessary provincial legislation, without accompanying federal legislation, might leave it open to someone to challenge the trial on the basis of the selection of the jury or on the basis of the fact the Criminal Code is silent in relation to any mixed juries or French-speaking juries in the province of Ontario. I don’t necessarily share that view, but I think it is important the federal Criminal Code be amended.

I haven’t heard from the federal Minister of Justice yet as to his specific proposals. He has indicated to me he intends to consult with us. The consultation process has not yet begun, but there are many aspects to this legislation and, as I say, this is something I expect we will be spending some time on in the Legislature, hopefully before Christmas.

Ms. Bryden: I think it was back in 1973 the government, by an amendment to the Law Society Act, ended the bonanza to the banks whereby they did not pay interest on trust accounts. Since the proceeds of that measure go into a variety of functions of the ministry, I thought it was appropriate to raise under this first item the question of whether the minister is monitoring the amount of money coming in and what interest rates are being paid by the banks on the lawyers’ trust accounts.

From reading the Act, or the amendment that was brought in in 1973, the rates are to be set by the trustees of the body that receives the money, which is known as the Law Foundation of Ontario, and the money is then to be disbursed, three-quarters to Legal Aid and the balance to be divided among legal research, legal education, and law libraries.

In 1976 about $4 million or a little more came in, but I would like the minister to let us know if he knows what rate of interest was paid for each year since the amendment was made, that is the years 1974, 1975, 1976 and the current year; whether the interest is paid on minimum monthly balances or on minimum daily balances, or on what basis it is paid. This is a matter of concern to us here because the more money that comes in through this interest charge, the more we have for these four purposes for which the money is to be used, and the less we need for Legal Aid and other things of that sort.

Also, I don’t think we should be permitting the banks to pay an interest rate considerably below the market rate for similar deposits. Therefore, I think we should be monitoring very carefully these interest rates and seeing whether they are going up as interest rates rise, or whether they are adjusted on a periodic basis or very infrequently. So I wonder if the minister could comment on what is happening in that regard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have those figures in front of me, Mr. Chairman. I will endeavour to obtain them from the Law Society. Of course, it’s a matter between the Law Society and the Law Foundation and the chartered banks.

Shortly after I became the Attorney General, I suggested to the then treasurer of the Law Society and to the Law Foundation that they seek to increase the amount of interest payable on these trust funds. To my knowledge there has been no increase within the last two years. I know it’s a matter that is being negotiated, and I’ll attempt to advise the member opposite before the conclusion of these estimates just what the rates of interest have been since this agreement was entered into with the chartered banks, and whether or not there has been any increase, and also the manner in which it’s calculated.

Ms. Bryden: I don’t quite understand the role of the Law Society in determining these interest rates. I know that they appoint three of the members to the Law Foundation of Ontario which receives the money, and which is given the power under the Act to approve the interest rates. The government only appoints two members to that Law Foundation, which does give the Law Society an extra voice over the government. But I don’t see that the Law Society as a body should be involved; it seems to me, it’s the foundation that sets the rates.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We’re dealing with the practising legal profession and the Law Society of Upper Canada just happens, Mr. Chairman, to be the governing body of the legal profession. Any arrangement in relation to interest on trust accounts would have to be negotiated by the Law Society or through their creation. Certainly, the Law Foundation was established pursuant to an agreement with the Law Society of Upper Canada.

It’s true that the Law Foundation does administer the amount of these funds, most of which goes into Legal Aid. It was a role for the Law Society to play fundamentally but they agreed to create this body, this legal entity known as the Law Foundation.

At no time, I want to emphasize, does one penny of this money go to the provincial government. The money all goes from the trust accounts to the Law Foundation and through the Law Foundation directly to Legal Aid, which of course is administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Then there are amounts set aside for law libraries, scholarships and whatnot. But 75 per cent of the money goes directly to Legal Aid. It’s not funnelled through the government.

Ms. Bryden: I can understand that the money does not go directly into the coffers of the government, but of course every penny raised this way reduces the amount of money the government needs for Legal Aid and for law libraries and law research and so on.

But the 1973 Act, chapter 49, sets up the Law Foundation of Ontario. It doesn’t say it is set up by the Law Society of Ontario. It is a public body set up by a public statute and it is given the power to approve the interest rates the chartered banks will pay on the trust accounts of lawyers. This Act is the one that requires that lawyers keep a trust account in a chartered bank and that the chartered banks pay interest on it.

[8:30]

I still cannot see that the Law Society should have a say in what rate of interest is charged. It seems to me it is the Law Foundation, a public body set up by this Legislature, which decides on those rates. I am just questioning whether the minister should be monitoring more closely what that foundation is doing and, if we think it is not acting promptly enough in raising interest rates, we should consider amending the legislation.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As the member herself has pointed out, we do have two out of the five members of the Law Foundation. The other three, or the majority, are appointed by the Law Society. To that extent you might say the Law Society has effective control over the operation of the Law Foundation, but we do have two representatives on the Law Foundation.

I have indicated, as I mentioned a few moments ago, my personal desire or request or suggestion, if I might put it that way, that they attempt to negotiate a higher rate of interest. I understand the Law Foundation has attempted to do that. My information at the moment is they haven’t met with too much success but I will attempt to find out where the matter stands and so advise this Legislature.

Ms. Bryden: One final question, does the minister have any rough idea of what is the current rate of interest that is being paid on the trust accounts?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would prefer to get the figure rather than guess. I do know, as part of this whole issue, the banks thus far have been able to present a pretty persuasive case in relation to the very significant accounting problem there is in relation to this fund. The rate of interest, considering the accounting that has to be done in relation to all of these lawyers’ trust accounts, would of necessity, be a fairly low rate of interest. I doubt it is above four per cent, but I will check on that.

Mr. Sargent: Would you advise whether the royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto was under this vote?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All royal commissions would be under item 5.

Mr. Worton: Come back later.

Mr. Chairman: We are on vote 1301, item 1.

Mr. Sargent: That is the Attorney General.

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Mr. Sargent: He is the Attorney General.

Mr. Elgie: Who are you?

Mr. Roy: Try it again.

An hon. member: Is he as good a hockey player?

Mr. Sargent: Does he want to speak for the commission or do you want to get down to commissions later on, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: We should be there very shortly, I would think.

Item 1 agreed to.

Item 2 agreed to.

On item 3, policy development:

Mr. Roy: I just want to make a comment before we let the Attorney General off that easy on item 3. I suppose my frustrations would be best taken out on your colleague to your right, the Premier (Mr. Davis). When I see in this vote we are going to spend something like $490,000 on policy development, which in my opinion is necessary, and then I see in the Justice policy field that ministry is going to spend $463,000 on what is supposed to be Justice policy as well, I am just wondering what the correlation is between the two.

I would have thought, just as a simpleminded person, that if we were going to spend this kind of money, $463,000 on Justice policy, that Justice policy would have been the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. MacBeth) and not be spent in the policy development of the Attorney General’s department. Maybe the Attorney General has some explanation that that’s the relationship between the two. I really don’t know.

But it does give me an opportunity to say again in case I might miss out on the $463,000 vote on Justice policy -- it may happen that I won’t be around -- so let it be recorded for posterity, as I’ve been saying since 1971, what a useless institution I think that Justice policy is. Not your policy development within your ministry, but I’m saying the secretariat for Justice policy, just like the secretariat for Social Development policy, is something that was theoretically in somebody’s mind. It seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent that we should be spending this kind of money on policy development when we are supposed to have a ministry that’s supposed to co-ordinate all these ministries and get involved in policy itself.

Co-ordination was supposed to take place. The flow chart looked good on paper. We were going to have everything work in a logical fashion and we were going to have this Justice policy field and policy was going to be made here.

If we want evidence that it’s not working the evidence is here in this vote. We’re spending something like $490,000 on policy development within this ministry. I do want that put on the record. I know it’s not this minister’s responsibility to defend the Justice policy field. It seems to me that if we wanted further evidence of how that ministry -- I’m talking about Justice policy -- is not necessary we have it here.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Of course, I’m not in a position to speak on behalf of the policy secretariat. We have a very able Provincial Secretary for Justice who will be dealing with this matter later on. But insofar as the policy development branch of this ministry is concerned we really have four areas of responsibility.

The first is research and analysis of all aspects of the administration of justice in Ontario. Second is a continual review of the approximately 130 statutes administered by this ministry. This includes initiating proposals for reform and analysing suggestions for reform from the general public, from other ministries and members of the Legislature as well. Certainly I would hope it has been the experience of members of the Legislature in their concern about various problems that we’ve always tried to provide assistance where reasonable in relation to these many statutes.

Third, they’re responsible for developing the legislative program in the ministry, by setting out and evaluating the range of government options for decision-making by the justice committee of cabinet, and by cabinet, leading to the creation, working in conjunction of course with the legislative counsel, of draft legislation.

Fourth, last but not least, they are responsible for advising the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General during the legislative progress of a bill.

Quite frankly, I would like to see a larger complement than we presently have in relation to policy development. I think the contribution that is made by these people to the administration of justice and all its aspects in the province of Ontario is very considerable.

That is what the general responsibilities are of the policy development branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy: The book gives what their function is -- and a necessary function in view of the fact you’ve been spending all this money in past years on law research. We should be doing something with all that law research. That’s the area to go into. It’s a question of policy.

If you propose a vote now to transfer this $463,000 from the Justice policy field, abolish it and give it to you in your policy development area I would support that move. I feel it’s playing a necessary function, but it does give me an opportunity and I know the Attorney General’s in a difficult position to agree with me on being critical of a ministry when he’s a member of the government, but the fact does remain we feel $483,000 is being wasted on the Justice policy field.

Mr. Sargent: You want $490,000 this year for research, review of statutes, reform, et cetera. What are you doing about the fact a few months ago two alleged wrongdoers, neither of whom was carrying a gun, were shot in the back by policemen? What kind of reform are you doing with regard to the powers of policemen to shoot undefended people in the back? I’d like to ask you what’s happened to the two policemen who did that.

Insofar as your reform and research under this department goes, our courts are clogged, our jails are overcrowded and 80 per cent of the cases involve plea bargaining without giving the accused a proper trial. Is this what you’re spending $400,000, or half a million dollars for, to bring about rights in this regard? You can talk for hours about all of the great things your department is doing but it’s basic principles of justice that are affecting the ordinary man; shooting an unarmed man in the hack, or the man, as my colleague from Ottawa East said, who pleaded guilty because, even though he was innocent, he wouldn’t have to spend six month in jail, or whatever.

These things are my concern as a taxpayer. You ask us for half a million dollars and you’ve probably been getting that kind of money for years and we still have archaic laws which are persecuting our people. These are the gut issues. Tell us why you want half a million dollars.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, on the incident referred to which allegedly involved police officers shooting individuals, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the incident referred to by the member for Grey-Bruce. Secondly, as the member, I think, knows, the police forces in this province are not administered by the Ministry of the Attorney General and these funds would not involve policy development in relation to our police forces in the province. This, of course, would come under the Ministry of the Solicitor General and I assume you would have taken that up with the Solicitor General when his estimates were in the House preceding my estimates.

The issues related to the problems of many cases in the courts, which the hon. member refers to as clogging of the courts is, of course, a matter of serious concern and a great deal of attention is paid to this problem in the ministry. Our white paper on courts administration tabled a year ago was the product of a lot of work by people in the policy development of the ministry. There are certain proposals in that white paper that go right to the heart of the administration of the courts in this province, which has a great deal to do with relieving the pressures on the courts.

The member’s colleague, the member for Ottawa East, referred to this earlier. He indicated some concern about taking the administration of the courts out of the Ministry of the Attorney General because of the issue of accountability. I think some of the issues he raised are very legitimate ones, but again this is just an indication of efforts that are being made by the policy branch of the ministry.

In the material that has been supplied to the members we have set out a great deal of information in relation to the work of the policy development of the ministry. I may have different page numbers. I will be quite happy to take the time, if this is what the hon. member wants, to discuss what the policy development branch of the ministry does.

In the notes on estimates that we have supplied the members of the Legislature, pages eight, nine and 10 deal with the activities of the policy branch of the ministry. I don’t think it would serve any useful purpose for me simply to read or recite material that is in the hands of the members of the Legislature. But even a brief or superficial perusal of those pages would indicate that the people responsible for policy development in the Ministry of the Attorney General are indeed fully occupied and, I think, making a significant contribution to the administration of justice in this province.

Mr. Sargent: Going back, it’s unbelievable that the chief law officer of this province would not know that a man who was suspected of having used a wrong credit card ran away and was shot in the back by a policeman. It’s shocking that the minister didn’t know that. I’ll send him the clippings on it. In fact, he should have that in his files if he knows what’s going on. That happened in Toronto.

Mr. Martel: What’s the matter with you, Roy?

Mr. Sargent: The government comes up with all kinds of reports. Someone asked me if I had read one of the reports I received last month; I said, “Hell, I can’t even lift them, the reports you get here.” --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They don’t fit in your airplane.

Mr. Martel: You need a bigger plane, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: Regardless of the fact that the government is spending $500,000 on reports, the bottom line is that people are still being treated unjustly. Look at all the high-priced brass in front of the Attorney General; each one of those fellows is making more than a member of the Legislature. They laugh at us. They think we’re clowns because we are making peanuts and they’re making twice as much as we are. They’re supposed to advise the Attorney General, who leans on them to feed him the reports he talks about. But the bottom line is that the average man on the street is not getting justice in this province, and the Attorney General knows it. He leans back and says, “We’ve got reports that say we’re looking at it.” Hell, they’ve been doing that for 34 years under the Tory administration. The Attorney General sits there, smugly arrogant and aspiring to be the Premier of this province, saying: “We have reports.” I say: “Baloney.” Why doesn’t he take some action and get justice for the ordinary guy in this province?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Considering the source of the comment, it’s pretty hard to take it seriously because, in the two years I’ve been here, the member hasn’t demonstrated for one moment that he takes his job seriously at all.

Mr. Davidson: That was a cheap shot.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, it’s absolutely correct.

Mr. Sargent: At least I’m not a phoney; I’ll tell you that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As far as I’m concerned, the people who have built the administration of justice in this province over the years have made a contribution --

Mr. Sargent: You and your phoney police commissions.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Sure, we have problems with the administration of justice. We recognize these problems. But the fact of the matter is we have a system of administration of justice in this province that is second to none in the world. If the member were a little brighter, he would realize that.

Mr. Sargent: Now we’re getting down to the bottom line. Talking about policy, we’ll show the Attorney General how much justice we have in this province. If the minister wants to put the gloves on, I’ll face him any time, either in the House or outside the House. He’s such a hotshot, but we’ll get to him.

Mr. Gregory: Don’t get mad, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: You are the man who okayed the setting up of the court for the inquiry on Ronto. Right? You okayed it as the Attorney General? And you allowed, Mr. Minister, the court, the judge in charge of the inquiry, to subpoena Mr. Nixon, Mr. Peterson and myself and three members of the NDP the day before the election to give evidence on the Ronto hearing. This was engineered by your friend, your buddy, Mr. McKeough, a $2 million tax exemption and you get into bed with these people to use the courts to harass us the day before the election.

Somewhere along the line -- if we had the powers in this House to get you on the stand to find out how you and McKeough can get into bed to steer such a deal through in this free society. You can use the court to play politics -- and don’t you talk to me about my sincerity in this job. At least we are not phoney like you are.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t really have to respond to questions such as that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sargent: I didn’t think you would. You haven’t got the guts.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to continue in any orderly way, that perhaps the member for Grey-Bruce might consider what his role is in relation to these estimates and if he is just simply going to use this chamber for communicating gratuitous --

Mr. Sargent: You started it, Roy. You started it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- insults, I don’t think we are going to make much progress.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would point out to all the members we are dealing with item 3 which is the policy development item of the Attorney General’s department. The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: I would ask the Chairman’s guidance. I want to talk about the construction of the courthouse in Sudbury and I am not sure if you want to bring that under planning and research and analysis or under some other particular vote. I thought it would be under the main office, but I would ask the Chairman’s guidance on whether the Attorney General wanted to discuss that particular item.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Under 1306, Mr. Chairman. That is the vote, courts administration.

Mr. Martel: I wasn’t sure if the expenditure would be made with respect to construction and so on under main office or in that particular item. That’s all I am looking for.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think that would be the appropriate vote.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We will hold the item then to discuss under vote 1306. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to raise with the minister the question that the city of Windsor is attempting, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and also through your officials to have a change made in the Municipal Act that would enable the courts to increase the fines on those who leave ignition keys in their cars. The city’s whole intent in this is to reduce substantially the number of auto thefts which are a direct result of negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle who inadvertently, or otherwise, leaves his keys within the car.

The city is asking for an increase in the fine from a minimum of $25 up to $100. I understand you were supposed to assist the provincial Treasurer amend the Municipal Act or consider amending the Municipal Act so that such a penalty could be levied by the courts. Would you care to reply, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I assume what the hon. member is referring to is a municipal bylaw, because I don’t believe there is anything in the Highway Traffic Act that makes it an offence.

Mr. B. Newman: No, it’s a change to section 363, paragraph 8, of the Municipal Act in which you or the provincial Treasurer was prepared to consider Windsor’s suggested amendment, but he was going to review it with your ministry.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What I will do is take that under advisement and I will get back to the hon. member before the estimates are concluded. I just don’t have any information about that at the present time.

Mr. B. Newman: I would appreciate that, Mr. Minister.

Item 3 agreed to.

On item 4, law research:

Mr. Roy: I just have some brief comments on law research. I notice over the past years we have spent on an average something close to $500,000 a year on law research. We have had many reports and we have had very capable people working on the question of law research, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and so on. We have reams of volumes.

I don’t intend to repeat speeches I have been making on this for four or five years about all the great suggestions that have been made. You could close the door on law research, on the Law Reform Commission, for the next 10 years and probably still have a lot of work ahead of you just catching up with implementing the recommendations that have already been made by a succession of reports and a succession of chairmen of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

I would like to know from the minister what area are they directing themselves to. What areas are we looking at? I don’t like to say this, because I am one who feels the law has got to be vibrant and responsive to the needs of the particular community, but what concerns me is what happens. I have seen it happen, not so much at this level but certainly, at the federal level, where they look at a whole succession of reforms within the law and the first thing that happens is they seem to be in some measure insulated from what the community is prepared to accept.

A succession of recommendations are made which clearly the public is not prepared to accept. The point I am trying to make is that the public mood is changing so quickly. There is a trend now to go back to old values, to solid principles that have been applied for many years and are tried and true. People are less prepared to hazard into a field of major reforms, so we must be careful when we are going into the question of law reform that the people in that field looking at law reform are not being bypassed by the community or by what the community is prepared to accept.

I am suggesting that this has happened to the federal Law Reform Commission, especially in the criminal field. They made all sorts of suggestions as to what should be an offence, what should not be an offence and the type of penalty that should be imposed or not imposed. Frankly, many of their recommendations will never see the light of day because the public is just not prepared to accept those sorts of recommendations.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission has been looking basically at the civil field. Some of their major recommendations have been accepted and certainly have improved the law. There was such a long way to go in the area of civil law as contrasted to the criminal field. In the civil field, we were so far back that there were major changes to be made. Could you tell me what they are looking at now? Do we have any idea what specific things they are looking at now in the field of law?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a fairly extensive list here. I might say, first of all, that the record of the Ontario Law Reform Commission since it came into being, I think about 1964, has been a rather impressive one in relation to the number of recommendations that have been implemented by legislation in this House. This fact is not as widely known as it should be. As a matter of fact, I recall discussing this very issue with the former chairman of the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Justice McRuer, a year or so ago. It was his regret that there was not more known about the success of the Law Reform Commission in having such a large number of its recommendations actually implemented by the legislators who sit in this chamber. As a matter of fact, this is a project that hopefully will result in a little history of the work of the Law Reform Commission. I say this because again this is an area in which I think this province has really provided a lot of leadership.

[9:00]

I’ve had a number of discussions with members of other law reform commissions throughout the Commonwealth. They’re very familiar with the work done by our Law Reform Commission and I think it would be unfair to suggest they are not in tune with what goes on in the public sector.

As you know, the three members of the Law Reform Commission are practising lawyers and we now have a former Chief Justice of Ontario, who has had some 30 years of experience in applying and interpreting the law as a Supreme Court judge as vice-chairman of the Law Reform Commission.

Briefly, on page 12 of the notes on the estimates, there is reference to an activity brief which indicates the work of the Law Reform Commission and what they have pending for the year 1977-78. It’s a pretty extensive program.

The Law Reform Commission was originally handed as well some problems that deal with the professional organizations. There are a kit of issues in relation to jurisdictions between various professions such as the architects and the engineers, the public accountants, chartered accountants and examination of the role of the legal profession. This project was commenced by the Law Reform Commission and then a separate commission was established to continue the work because there was some criticism from the other professions we had a commission made up solely of lawyers making this determination.

We restructured another commission headed up by the former chairman of the Law Reform Commission, now the Deputy Attorney General and added Dr. Stefany Dupré and Dr. Curry, the former dean of the Queen’s Law School. They’re working very hard in relation to a number of these issues.

I’m not sure if I understand specifically the question from the member for Ottawa East insofar as adding anything to the activity brief set out in the notes on the estimates.

Mr. Roy: Maybe I could be more specific here. I apologize; I haven’t seen the items. I wanted to know what area we were getting into now, because I had certain concerns about certain areas that should be looked at.

I’m very pleased to see, for instance, the Law Reform Commission is looking at the law of property. I’ve said this before, I suppose in one of my opening speeches in the House and I’d better make it again before I become a member of the establishment or get my QC or something.

Mr. Nixon: It’s coming up, by the way.

Mr. B. Newman: Be careful or you may not get it.

Mr. Roy: I’d better make the observation again while it’s still fresh and it was so obvious to me. I’m very pleased to see the Law Reform Commission get into that; the law of property.

Maybe I’ve got a natural dislike for property as one of the few subjects I failed in law school, and I always hated real estate but I could never understand in the technological age we have now, why it was necessary, in every property transaction in this province, for somebody to chase down to the registry office and get out all those documents and start looking through them to follow the title. When we can microfilm whole libraries, when we can microfilm a variety of other things, it just struck me that was a system propagated by the lawyers for continued income. And I will probably have two partners who are going to tear my head off when I get back to the office some time later in the week.

But basically, it struck me it just didn’t make sense in 1977, or back in 1971, every time a piece of property was transacted, you had to go down to the registry office and pull out the documents, review them all and go through that title search. Why couldn’t you just press a button to say, “Your title is good,” or “It is not good,” or “Here is a problem,” or whatever?

I appreciate that can only be as good as what you feed into the computer, but I am very pleased the Law Reform Commission is looking at this. I am not sure they are looking at this area, but I would hope they would look at this because it strikes the ordinary lay person that with all our technology it just doesn’t make sense in transacting titles today, we should have to go through this whole process.

They are looking, as well, at the question of enforcement of judgement debts. Of course, that is something that is sorely lacking. We will certainly need same suggestions in there. Sometimes our courts just don’t work in that area and it only works when an approach is taken by way of collection agencies who start making phone calls late at night and start threatening little old ladies and things of this nature. They are the only ones who seem to have any success.

The other thing that is interesting is the question of product liability. So I look forward to some of these recommendations, but I would make this final suggestion to the Law Reform Commission. You talk about them looking at professionals and the relationship of one profession to the next. You know, somebody should be looking at what is going to happen down the way if we keep pouring out the number of lawyers we are doing now. I said in my opening comments and I did not get your response, but I repeat it again, the only thing limiting the number of lawyers -- in Ontario, at least; I don’t know about any other jurisdictions -- is the number of seats in that classroom, in every law school. What is happening, of course, is the law schools are intent on having every seat filled because they are paid so much per student and the more students they have, especially at the post-graduate level, the more money they make. It bothers me when I see some of these people within the profession who have difficulty even getting articling positions now, who have difficulty setting up practice. What happens when these lawyers start, especially when you have that combined with a Legal Aid system where people start hustling certificates?

I find the Law Society somewhat insensitive on what this does to a profession and the community. Is there not any concern? Maybe some of us who express concern are overly paranoid about this, but I wonder when you get too many people out there and you hear comments now about the hustling going on around the jails and the hustling going around the courthouse and the ambulance chasing that is going to take place.

Mr. Nixon: It is called competition.

Mr. Roy: Sure it is called competition, but it reaches a point where, especially where you have a Legal Aid system it is really open to abuse. It is fine when you have competition and the client can get something done cheaper in one place than in the other, but what about when it is Legal Aid paying and the lawyer can stretch out the proceedings and get more money for proceedings? You know, I just wonder.

Mr. Nixon: We ought to get back to that fee competition.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, I thought we might get back to the question raised in the member’s opening statement. I did not intend to simply ignore that, but I think it is a very difficult problem for the Law Society to limit or reduce the number of lawyers who are being called to the bar or law students who are being called to the bar in any one year. Obviously, the number of places now available in law schools in the province has increased dramatically over the past 10 years in particular. But that notwithstanding, Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is only about one in five applicants gets admitted to a law school. I may not be precisely accurate on that, but it is something like that. It means a very large number of our young people who have university degrees, under the existing system, are prevented from going to law school and at least having the opportunity of competing. Consider the fact of the enormous demand to get into law school, only a relatively few people, although it’s still about 1,000 a year recently, are being called to the bar. It still represents a very small percentage of young citizens of this province who would like to have the opportunity to practise as lawyers.

I certainly wouldn’t recommend any reduction of that number simply because of the fact that it is more difficult now to get a job or to earn a living than it was five years ago. I think we’re into a very sensitive area if we suggest, that in order to keep down the type of competition that may be leading in certain cases to unethical conduct, we reduce the number of people who have been called to the bar. That is one way of attacking the problem.

I would like to think that the more effective way of attacking that problem is by making sure that the Law Society is ever vigilant in relation to maintaining professional ethics. I would hope for the 1,000 people a year who are being called to the bar in this province, if they do not necessarily stay within the legal profession as practising lawyers, there’ll be many other opportunities that will avail themselves.

Certainly this has been a problem of concern to the Law Society of Upper Canada in recent years. At the moment they haven’t come up with any easy solution. But I for one would not support at this point in time any sort of artificial cutback on the number of places presently available in law schools of the province.

Mr. Nixon: I feel constrained on this very item to express a concern that the costs of providing legal services don’t seem to be in any way affected by the number of competent lawyers anxious to do the work. Of course we find this in the teaching profession, in the medical profession, and right across the board. Those of us who believe in the supposed old fashioned rules of supply and demand have certainly had our eyes opened in this regard, because it just does not apply. I don’t know what the Attorney General can do about it, but it does bring to mind something that we have already talked about to some extent and that is the role of the Municipal Board in this very matter.

It comes to mind because I have in my hand the ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the annexation of parts of the townships of Innisfil, Vespra and Oro to the city of Barrie. Without talking about it in detail, I would simply draw the minister’s attention to the very impressive lineup of stellar legal talent that all gathered in the city of Barrie to argue before the Municipal Board.

I think it would just be enlightening if I read this list, when we talk about the cost of legal advice and counsel with respect to some of the actions of the government. The counsel list is on part of two pages and is headed by James F. McCallum, QC, O. J. Rowe, QC, and John G. Chipman for the city of Barrie; John Sopinka, QC, and William Bogart for the township of Innisfil; B. S. Onyschuk and R. R. Arblaster for the township of Vespra; Collin Campbell and David S. White for the township of Oro; Robert Lawrie for the county of Simcoe; J. J. Carthy, QC, and R. K. Webb, QC, for South Simcoe Estates; Robert W. Macaulay -- who never worked for anything less than $75 an hour five years ago, God knows what he charges now -- and R. K. Webb, QC, for Abbey Glen et al; Allan S. Blott and N. J. Pepino for Paramount Development Corporation; Dennis H. Wood for Joyce L. Woods and 70 ratepayers; Douglas K. Laidlaw, QC -- he’s appeared in this building frequently -- for Rice Construction Company Limited; Peter Petropoulos for A. DiPaola, A. White and H. Hicklings; --

[9:15]

Mr. Lewis: At least the clients can afford to pay.

Mr. Nixon: -- David T. A. Hogben for Beau Bar Development Limited; T. C. Marshall for the Treasurer of Ontario; Roger G. Oatley for J. Stollar Construction; Peter H. Howden and Anthony A. Peckham for Emery Miller; David F. Smith for Golden R. Campbell and ratepayers; David R. McGregor for Susan Haddow; D. J. Sugg for Taurus Developments and others; Allan Leibel and E. A. Goodman, QC for Star Bush Holdings and Coventry Group Limited -- I don’t know what his hourly rate is; Edwin J. Myers for E. Hodge; I. M. Reid for the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs -- they had good coverage there; and William J. Leslie for J. Fran Enterprises Ltd. and Wilmore Limited.

I didn’t count them up, but probably it is as impressive a galaxy of legal stars as you could gather this side of Philadelphia, and probably even better than that.

The first paragraph in this report says: “This is an application by the city et cetera; at the outset of the hearing the board was informed that the city would not present any evidence to support the annexation of one portion. I simply draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, it was an application for a large annexation. The first meaningful paragraph says: “The board was advised by letters from the Hon. W. Darcy McKeough that as a result of the report of the Simcoe-Georgian area task force development strategy, Exhibits 4 and 5, it was government policy that the board should order the annexation of an area that would provide for a population of 125,000 by the year 2011.”

While we’re worrying about using up all the legal talent, it seems to me a sort of a futile approach that we establish the Municipal Board to hold supposedly open hearings with the idea that their decision is going to depend on the merits of the case, and then from a person who was well represented by two of these lawyers, they simply say -- I mean it is inherent in their statement -- that they’re going to have to award the annexation anyway. The rest of it is justification for this little piece of land and that little piece of land. It really must be frustrating to anybody concerned, as I find it frustrating here, even to think of the costs of the legal representation, all of those great minds sitting around at these hearings when in actuality the outcome was simply dictated by the chief planner.

We discussed this before. I wasn’t objecting to his making his statement to the Municipal Board, but if we’re going to use the Treasurer as the chief planner of the province, which he is by Act of this Legislature, then why not let him plan and not go through this very misleading and expensive procedure? Has the minister any comments about that or does he feel this procedure is still valid and useful in our society?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the procedure is useful and valid. I don’t wish to comment on that particular decision of the OMB because I have reason to believe it will be before the courts of this province and that legal galaxy, to which you’ve just referred, will be further employed --

Mr. Lewis: Check their per diem.

Mr. Nixon: And here we were worried about using up their time.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- perhaps in an application before the divisional court in relation to the judgement of the Municipal Board in this matter. It would perhaps be inappropriate of me to comment further in respect of that particular judgement.

Mr. Ziemba: I would like to ask the Attorney General when we can expect a reform of our present system of fines, as the Law Reform Commission had suggested so long ago. The Law Reform Commission suggested we could follow the Swedish model and base our fines on ability to pay.

What we’re doing these days is operating debtors’ prisons. A $200 fine to someone on welfare may as well be $2,000 or $20,000, they can’t pay it. I’ve heard of a number of cases of young people winding up in jail and not being able to meet the bail -- the parents are not willing or not able to meet it -- and a young person was abused and brutalized until someone came to his rescue. What I object to is the kind of chequebook justice that exists now.

The Law Reform Commission has suggested that a fine should be based on a day-fine system of one per cent of an individual’s annual wages to be equivalent to each day he would have to serve in jail. In other words, someone who was earning $5,000, if he ended up with 30 days, would pay 30 times five or $150, but someone earning $20,000 would pay 30 times 200 or $600. That seems a lot fairer than the system we have now.

It has been reported that 66 per cent of our native peoples are in prison simply because they can’t pay their fine. Debtors’ prison indeed; I wonder when the Attorney General is going to move in this direction.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, we’re dealing here with some basic judicial discretion. No Attorney General can direct the courts what to do in this respect, but we are moving very much into a fine option system. Certainly community work orders are part of this proposal, and we support the view adopted by the federal Law Reform Commission that people should be given the opportunity of working out a fine rather than being incarcerated. We believe that incarceration for non-payment of fines should be absolutely the last resort and that every other alternative should be explored. Community work orders are one avenue we are pursuing.

All I can say is that I share the general concerns of the member for High Park-Swansea, but there are some other matters dealing with bail as well. Certainly most of the criticism my ministry deals with is in relation to the relatively easy availability of bail since the implementation of the Bail Reform Act. I’m not suggesting that there aren’t people who still are retained in custody because of their inability to raise ball, but I think those cases have diminished somewhat dramatically. Most of the criticism I hear is about the easy availability of bail for allegedly or purportedly dangerous offenders.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to raise with the minister a question I originally asked him on April 9, 1976, in relation to lie detectors. If the minister can recall, at that time there was a problem with some municipal employees in the city of Windsor when several of them had to take lie detector tests. Has the ministry now any set policy on the use of lie detectors? If it has, would he spell it out for us?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’d hoped we might be introducing legislation this fall on the use of lie detectors in employment situations. The matter has been reviewed by the Ministry of Labour and I’m optimistic that legislation will still be developed prior to Christmas. It has not yet reached the stage where it has been considered by cabinet.

There are a number of people in private industry who have indicated their desire to make representations to the government before we pass the legislation. It’s been suggested that the use of lie detectors or the polygraph machine is a necessary adjunct of an effective operation. I personally do not agree, but I will try to advise the member further, again before these estimates are concluded, as to just what stage we are at. Certainly my stated intention in this Legislature, to recommend to my cabinet colleagues that we proceed with some legislation in this area, still stands. I hope that we will hear something further of a concrete nature before Christmas.

Mr. B. Newman: I certainly hoped to hear from the minister, because when I asked the question on April 9, 1976, at that time he replied that he would look into the Windsor situation and report back to me. That was 19 months ago, and there still has been no report forthcoming from his ministry. I hope the minister works a little more expeditiously when it comes to introducing legislation.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: When the question was first asked and answered, my first response was that this was a matter that I was confident would be dealt with in some detail, firstly by the report of Mr. Justice Morand into police practices in Metropolitan Toronto. I think it was some time after that that Mr. Justice Morand released his report and we were awaiting that report, as I have already suggested, because the use of the polygraph machine was a very significant aspect of that public inquiry. But I appreciate the member’s frustration and we’ll try to move along with the matter.

Mr. B. Newman: I thought the minister would have looked into the Windsor situation in particular and then reported back on it, but apparently other things come between that answer.

Mr. Sargent: About a year ago, on November 25, 1976, talking about law reform, the Attorney General was quoted as saying: “New instructions will be given to judges and Crown attorneys that wiretap authorizations not include bugging lawyer-client conversations except in extremely rare circumstances.” What has been done in this regard?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We discussed this a little earlier today when I think the member for Grey-Bruce was absent from the chamber. This was a matter of some discussion between the member for Ottawa East and myself. We were talking about the guidelines that were sent out to all Crown attorneys in the province who had authority to seek wiretap authorizations. They are carefully structured guidelines, a copy of which was provided to the Liberal justice critic, and which were directed to avoid the interception of any solicitor-client communication except in the most relatively rare circumstances. It is something we have directed our attention to.

The instructions were circulated some months ago and I think it was agreed by the Liberal justice critic that they were a good set of guidelines and hopefully will avoid any interception of solicitor-client communication.

Mr. Sargent: That just shows I don’t know much about the legal setup. I thought it was the judges who controlled the wire-tap laws in this province. Is that not true?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The procedure is for an authorized Crown attorney to apply to a superior court judge for an authorization. The judge must be satisfied, according to the criteria that have been set out in the Criminal Code, that it’s a proper case for a wiretap. But included in the judge’s order, at the request of myself and my ministry, the Crown attorneys have been instructed to request that the wording of the authorization will be such as to avoid, wherever practical, the interception of any communication between a solicitor and his client.

[9:30]

Mr. Sargent: In this regard, a bar association was told that judicial control over wiretapping is a joke; that police can choose the judge needed to authorize wiretaps. Does the minister see any way around this?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That allegation was really, I think, somewhat irresponsible. I am aware of the article to which the hon. member refers. We know that Supreme Court judges, for example, have established their own duty roster in this area. The Chief Justice of the High Court has made it quite clear that various judges will be available at any particular time. So a Crown attorney will appear before a particular judge, depending on the rotation. The rotation of judges is, of course, within the control of the judiciary through the Chief Justice of the High Court, so it makes it very difficult to embark on any judge-shopping as suggested by the article to which you referred.

Mr. Sargent: Do you furnish an annual report of the wiretaps? How many were there last year? Have you given that out yet?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Before dinner I said the annual report was about to be published, I didn’t think that it had been published. In the report we set out the number of authorizations that we applied for; the number of authorizations granted; the nature of the offence for which the authorizations were sought; and, as well, the number of charges that have been laid following these authorizations. This is quite a complete report.

To assist the member for Grey-Bruce I will furnish him this week with a copy of last year’s report while we are awaiting this year’s report, so that he will have an idea about what is included in the report.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister -- and the number of convictions obtained too.

What would the minister think about reform in the wiretap law? For example, where no charge is laid, the party involved has no right to see the data from the wiretap. What kind of justice is this when it is a one-way street?

They can charge a man, they can tap his home or his business, he is not convicted yet he can’t see the information. What kind of a law is that? What kind of justice is that? It is a one-way street.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is a matter that was raised initially by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). We took some time over it.

Mr. Sargent: I am sorry, if it has been dealt with it is okay.

Mr. Roy: I just want to make one comment. I know we discussed the question of wiretapping before, but it is something that could be considered within policy or research or whatever.

I just want to make this comment to the Attorney General in reference to the remarks of my colleague from Grey-Bruce about the question of judge-shopping and that sort of thing.

I don’t know who made that statement. I suspect it was probably some defence counsel here in Toronto and I could just visualize who it might be. I am not considered to be a radical by any stretch of the imagination, but I have expressed this to the Attorney General before. One of the reasons I got so exercised about the Perth situation, about tapping the defence council who was in to see his client on a murder case, was that I was clearly under the impression, and that’s been confirmed, that many of our judges who are supposed to be the safeguard between the citizen and the police requiring the use of that wide-sweeping power, were in fact rubber-stamping these applications, they weren’t really going into it.

I’ve been advised that judges are looking at these applications more closely, but I don’t have any doubts that there is some judge-shopping going on in spite of the fact that there may be a roster. The Crown can tell or will know who’s on the roster on a particular day and will wait, and will not go before one judge or another judge.

The same goes on in county towns where authorizations are obtained from county court judges. There is some judge-shopping going on. How you can avoid that I really don’t know.

For instance, is there any record kept of a refusal by a judge? I suspect there should be. Is there anything stopping you, if you get a refusal from judge A, from going to judge B to obtain a particular authorization? That statement made by my colleague may have been wide-sweeping and may have gone too far, but there is some measure of concern that judge-shopping can take place.

We have to be ever vigilant. I have great faith in the judiciary, but the judiciary, frankly, in this field needs to have the cases of abuse brought out to alert them and bring to their attention that sometimes authorizations are given for one purpose and may end up being used for another purpose. They are our only protection in all of this. They have a very heavy responsibility. If you get a perception out there in the public that the judges are in fact just rubber-stamping these applications, I think the whole administration of justice suffers.

Mr. Sargent: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I gather my colleague wasn’t satisfied with the answer regarding the accused being found not guilty although he was tapped. What is the minister’s answer for that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was going to respond to the member for Ottawa East. I was just consulting with one of our senior Crown law officers here, because it’s been my understanding that we have never gone to another judge after having been turned down by one judge.

What normally happens is a judge may send our agent back for additional information but our recollection is, and we can’t be 100 per cent certain but my source would have a pretty good idea if this had happened, our recollection is that there is no case where we have been turned down by one judge and gone to another. However in that event, the policy would be to advise the second judge we’ve been turned down by the first judge.

Mr. Roy: But you see one of the problems on that point. As I recall looking at the statistics -- that was back last year and I haven’t seen the more recent ones -- less than one per cent of the demands have been turned down, I think, across the country.

I don’t know what your record is, but I appreciate you have very good Crown attorneys and very good personnel within your ministry right across the province. I’ve worked within it, I know something of it, and as much credit as I want to give them, they’re not that good. They’re not 99 per cent. I wouldn’t think they were that good, so as to get just one per cent refusal or maybe less.

That’s why I was concerned to say that it appears to me, just looking at it on the surface, that the judges in fact are just granting these as a matter of course. It may well be that you’re right, the reason you’ve got such a high percentage of authorizations granted is that you may have to go back two or three times for the one authorization. A judge says, look I need this, or I need that; I need more information on that. In fact when he’s sending your fellow away to bring back more information he’s not turning him down, he’s just saying get more information before you’re granted this; I don’t know.

Mr. Sargent: I would like to clarify my position now. This won’t take a minute. A principle is involved to my mind. Could you see my good colleague from Ottawa in the legal fraternity? You all run the biggest crap game in the world. The people are in the middle all the time. Most of this hocus-pocus going on back between you and him is understood but as the lead paragraph in this news item states: “A Guelph man who was told earlier this year that his telephone had been tapped was told by the Supreme Court of Ontario yesterday that he has no right to see the information that led to the wiretap.”

There was no charge laid. Now what right have you, as the Attorney General, to okay this, which you did.

The Attorney General shakes his head; you mean you did not?

Right then, where do we talk about reform. Who do we talk to about reform? What can you do about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If I may be permitted, Mr. Chairman, the answer I gave earlier to the member for Ottawa East is, first of all the legislation of the federal Parliament of Canada absolutely prohibits or precludes me as an Attorney General, or anyone else, from revealing any information with respect to the circumstances related to a wiretap. If a provincial Attorney General gave out this information he could be charged with an offence under the federal legislation.

Now I am concerned, as I indicated earlier, about the problem raised in the case of -- Mr. Zadik, I think it was -- the decision of Mr. Justice Gallighan whereby a citizen suddenly receives a notification he has been the subject of a wiretap and may have no reason, may honestly have no reason, to believe he could possibly be the subject matter of a wiretap authorization.

We are concerned about it. We are in a position to make representations to the federal Minister of Justice, as is any provincial Attorney General. The matter has been drawn to my attention in relatively recent weeks and I think it is a matter of legitimate concern. I have asked my senior law officers to review the matter to ascertain whether we cannot come up with some suggested amendment to the Criminal Code, some proposal I can make to the federal Minister of Justice to alleviate the situation, because I agree it can be a very unhappy situation for somebody who may be totally innocent of any wrongdoing. Particularly, as I said earlier, if his child took this notification outside and it fell into the hands of a neighbour or friend who as a result suspected this person had been involved in some sort of criminal activity just by reason of the fact the authorities were able to make him the subject of a wiretap.

We are concerned about it; we are reviewing it with a view to deciding whether or not we can make any useful suggestions to the federal Minister of Justice.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, thank you. If you cannot do this, if you don’t go to Ottawa and pound the table and say we want this done, it is the end of the road for our free system. If this can happen to a guy it is the end of the road in our system if we cannot do anything about it.

Mr. Foulds: Along the same lines as have been recently raised, I first of all want to thank the Attorney General’s officials for getting me the annual report of 1976. I am curious about the large number of applications for legalized wiretapping occurring in bookkeeping and conspiracy to make book. Is that because that seems to be an activity where there is suspicion organized crime is involved; this happens to be a large area of concern?

[9:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Bookmaking is an activity which produces very substantial funds into the coffers of organized crime and obviously the nature of the bookmaking industry does require the use of telephone lines to some extent; it’s therefore an area in which I think one would expect the police, assisted by Crown attorneys, to seek a fairly large number of wiretap authorizations.

Mr. Foulds: In 1976 I gather there were 312 applications for legalized wiretaps and, as a result, there were 357 people arrested. Those seem to be the figures that come through in the report. What bothers me is that doesn’t give a good sort of percentage of winnings, so to speak. Does the Attorney General know how many of the individual wiretaps resulted in multiple arrests and how many resulted in no arrests? There’s also a category where intercepted information was used but not adduced, 132; what does that mean?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, the report that we publish annually in the Ontario Gazette is required by statute. The contents of that report are governed by statute, section 178 of the Criminal Code. We are of the view that there could be a better reporting system; that it could be improved on. As a matter of fact, we are working on recommendations to the federal government in order to make the annual report that is published more edifying to those who are interested in this matter.

Mr. Foulds: Perhaps understandable.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And, hopefully, at the same time understandable.

Mr. Foulds: I notice that three of the interceptions occurred in motor vehicles. Were those telephones in motor vehicles?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Not necessarily.

Mr. Foulds: What would they be? How does one intercept a communication in a motor vehicle?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: One could place an intercepting device, commonly known as a bug, in an automobile to overhear the conversation.

Item 4 agreed to.

On item 5, royal commissions:

Mr. Roy: We’re going to spend $1,251,000 on royal commissions. Which ones are going now, just to keep me up to date what’s happening?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect to royal commissions, and in response to something that was said by the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) earlier, the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General in royal commissions is simply to provide some of the mechanical assistance that is necessary.

We do not have any control whatsoever over the conduct of a royal commission. That, as I know is appreciated by the member for Ottawa East, is solely within the control of the commissioner, who in most cases has been a Supreme Court judge, but not necessarily. The role of the Ministry of the Attorney General is to assist the commissions with respect to finding facilities for the conduct of their hearings, including office space, necessary support staff and mechanical resources that may be necessary for them to carry out their responsibilities.

I think it’s important to reiterate that the commissioner, who more often than not is a judge, has the right to appoint his own counsel and the commissioner has the conduct of the inquiry. It was alleged that the government had something to do with the subpoenaing of certain witnesses who were candidates in the last provincial election before a royal commission one day prior to the last provincial election. That matter would be the decision of the judge who is conducting that, together with his counsel. With respect, it is impugning the integrity of our judiciary to suggest that it is not totally independent of the government in conducting these inquiries.

We’ve had a royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto, the Robarts commission. That concluded recently. The Toronto Jail inquiry has still not reported yet. That was Judge Shapiro’s commission. The LaMarsh commission has reported. The commission on Algoma University, I believe, has reported. We know that the North Pickering commission, headed by Mr. Justice Donnelly, hasn’t reported. It’s heard very little evidence to date.

Mr. Roy: That has got to be a fiasco.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have the professional organizations study, headed up by the Deputy Attorney General and Drs. Dupré and Corry.

Mr. Roy: Which one is that last one?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s not a royal commission as such, but it is funded under that item in the budget for royal commissions. The ones I’ve just referred to are all those that are pending. There’s a waste management commission and a commission into pensions, but there’s been no request for funds for these latter commissions I’ve referred to.

Mr. Roy: What about Williston? Doesn’t he have a commission?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: He has a committee but it doesn’t come under royal commissions. It comes out of the general budget of the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy: Whom do you pay? You wouldn’t pay the counsel?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Take Judy LaMarsh; now that’s an interesting commission.

Mr. Foulds: There is not enough in the budget for her alone.

Mr. Roy: Who would pay Judy and the other two people? Of course, Judge Beaulieu was a judge, so he’d be getting his regular salary. Who would pay Judy and Scott Young?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It would come through our ministry. All of these salaries would come through our ministry. We handle the mechanical details, including paying the commissioners who are entitled to a salary. The judges do not receive a salary for serving.

Mr. Roy: Can you help me? For instance, in 1976-77 there seemed to have been a jump there in the estimates for commissions. It’s up to $3 million. This year we’re going back down to $1.2 million, that’s the estimate. Sometimes there’s a difference between the estimate and the actual.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There invariably is.

Mr. Roy: In 1975-76, the estimate was $620,000, that was the estimate that we voted on. You actually ended up paying $2.7 million. You were out by $2 million. I understand that’s not your fault, I’m not being critical, I just find it somewhat strange.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If I may respond, all we can do at best is make a wild guess. That’s the one item which is totally out of our control, because we have no control in the ministry over what commissions are established during the course of the fiscal year.

It’s impossible, obviously, to predict from one year to another what commission may be established by cabinet during the year. At best, we concede we can only make a very rough guess because the establishment of the commissions has nothing to do with the ministry.

Mr. Roy: But they’re paid through your ministry?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, they have to be paid through some ministry. Because of the nature of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and because of the judicial or quasi-judicial role of these commissions, I suppose we’re the appropriate ministry to fund these commissions. But we have no control over the commissions being established, and therefore it’s impossible for our people to predict accurately what the figure will be unless we’re just plain lucky.

Mr. Roy: Then let me ask you this, while I’m on this, if my colleagues will bear with me: Considering you’re the one paying out the money, who is accountable? How am I going to know how much Judy was paid over the last two years out of these funds? It’s coming through your office, I take it I must go through your ministry.

I’ve always wondered about that. How am I going to get, as a representative of the people, to ask certain questions about the moneys that are allocated for certain commissions, and more specifically that commission on violence on television? Are you in a position to give me a breakdown of how much that commission cost; how much Judy was paid; how much Scott Young was paid and that sort of thing? What were the expenses? Give me a breakdown of that one particular commission at least?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: One vehicle where you could obtain this information would be through the standing committee on public accounts from which this information would be available; and during our estimates we should be able to obtain this information as well.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate that you’d get the information if I started being nasty with you about that particular commission; you’re not the one who had anything to do with the policy of establishing it, it just happens that a commission is created by the Premier and you have to follow along and pay out the money as needed after the commission is established. The only other way we can get at it is through public accounts, and that sometimes is not as effective as getting to the minister, for instance yourself, the Attorney General, and really being critical and saying: “What is going on?” You then get back to whoever has established the commission and say: “Look, I got hell from the members about this particular commission here.”

In other words, it’s a question of accountability. It becomes difficult to draw the line as to whom we should be questioning about this. So possibly before the estimates are over -- you were looking at a sheet of paper, maybe you’re now in a position to tell me how much that commission has cost and how much Judy has been paid.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The total cost of the commission -- it formed part of three fiscal years -- the total as of September 30, 1977, over these three fiscal periods, was $2,130,688. That may well be in your notes on the estimates. I’m not sure whether it is or not.

Mr. Roy: No.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have any further breakdown than that. We can obtain this for you.

Mr. Roy: Pardon me? I don’t know how much Miss LaMarsh was paid over those three years.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We can provide you with that information, although I can’t at the moment.

Mr. Foulds: I want to proceed with a different commission. Presumably the Hartt commission funding comes under this vote.

[10:00]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is actually one commission that will not be funded through our ministry. I think it may be because of the size of the commission and the length of time during which it will be sitting and making its findings. I would imagine it was thought better to fund it through the Resources Development policy field.

Mr. Foulds: This I find most peculiar. The Hartt commission was set up under the Public Inquiries Act, if I am not mistaken; and since the ministry expended more than $2 million on Judy LaMarsh, why the reluctance to accept the responsibility for the Hartt commission. Was that a cabinet decision?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not reluctant at all, but by reason of the nature of the commission and its broad terms of reference -- I don’t even recall how the decision was arrived at -- and the involvement of the Resources Development policy field and the resources of these various ministries that will be involved, it was obviously thought appropriate, because of the very nature of the Hartt commission, to fund it and administer it through different ministries.

If they had asked us to do it, we would have assisted. Of course we would have. But I think one has to look at the nature of the commission. It was just thought more appropriate to fund it through the Resources Development policy field because, of course, this was the area in which Mr. Justice Hartt was going to be conducting his inquiry in that field. In retrospect I suppose one could have said, for example, that maybe we should have funded the LaMarsh commission through the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Roy: You really had a problem with that one. There was no jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is no obvious formula for this. In the past, given the nature of the commissions and the manner in which they are conducted, normally the commission -- not the LaMarsh commission, but other judicial inquiries -- they sit in one location. In the Ministry of the Attorney General we like to think we have some degree of expertise in helping establishing a commission, which does require the apparatus similar to that that is used in a courtroom and, for convenience, we have taken on that responsibility in the past.

The Hartt commission is rather a unique commission and it didn’t surprise me to learn, actually for the first time, that it was not being funded through our ministry.

Mr. Foulds: May I just follow this up? I find it quite fascinating. It might be unfair to the Attorney General but I assume that this is the first inquiry or the first royal commission that has not been funded through the Attorney General’s office and he just became aware of that tonight.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It’s not the first one. The Porter commission isn’t funded through our ministry either. I think we are dealing with a very lengthy inquiry. Quite frankly, until a few moments ago I never directed my mind as to whether it was funded through our ministry or not, because obviously our ministry had very little if anything, to do with the establishment of the Hartt commission. So whether it would be funded through our ministry or not, quite frankly, at best would be of academic interest to me.

Mr. Foulds: Surely the Attorney General would agree that one of the fundamental questions before the Hartt commission is in fact the legitimacy or the non-legitimacy, for example, of Treaty No. 9, Ontario being a signatory to that document. I would assume that the Attorney General would have more than a passing academic interest.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a great deal of interest in the Hartt commission. As a member of this government, I am totally interested in the Hartt inquiry, but as to which ministry the funds go through to finance it, I have said that matter was really of very little interest to me. The activity of the Hartt commission is of enormous interest to me.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to point out that the Hartt commission is involved not merely in the examination of resource exploitation, but there are some very real and important legal questions that I would assume your ministry would have an interest in that need to be examined by that commission.

I would assume the Hartt commission is going to establish at some point a fairly formal, court-like procedure in which you indicated your ministry had some expertise. Are you telling me that Mr. Justice Hartt has not consulted with your ministry about that, about the kinds of hearings they will have further down the road? Are you telling me that from your memory as a cabinet minister and as the Attorney General you were not consulted before the decision was made by the government that funding would be through some collective agency that you are not presently aware of?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I really don’t know what the hon. member is driving at at all. Whether Mr. Justice Hartt has consulted with me personally or not, if there was any assistance available in the ministry, of course we would provide him with the assistance.

The terms of reference of the inquiry were, of course, of great interest to me as a member of the government. The setting up of the inquiry and the terms of reference were of great interest to all members of the cabinet.

As to whether we actually funded it through ministry A, B, C, D or E, I must admit that has not been of great interest to me at all.

Mr. Sargent: The minister implied that I should respond regarding my statement that the royal commission on Ronto, that they used the courts, he implied that the courts were being impugned. Well I think at this time and place it is fitting that we have a commission investigating a commission.

Mr. Warner: You should be on it.

Mr. Sargent: Royal commissions are nothing but another political slush fund. They have been defined by others much more knowledgeable than me as designed to bail out the government, to pigeon-hole an issue that might be embarrassing to the government. They put it on the back burner for a long time.

We wanted here in the opposition to make a deadline of six or seven months on the Reed Paper scandal, but as the minister says it may last for years. That’s good for the government, it takes the heat off them.

It was a scandalous thing to say the least. Here we had $620,000 a couple of years ago, and now it is $3 million. It could well be $5 million the way the government is stalling certain things that might be embarrassing to the government.

So far as the minister’s statement in regard to the Ronto affair is concerned, he said that I was impugning the courts. There was a $2 million tax exemption promised by the Treasurer to Todgham and the Ronto commission was set up, geared to take the heat off the government, the timing was set so that it wouldn’t hurt the government. Here very briefly are the steps involved.

A promise by the Treasurer, $2 million for a friend. He passes the ball to the bagman, Mr. Goodman, who carries the ball.

Mr. Foulds: Carries it very well, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Sargent: The minister, Mr. Meen, resigns; the reason for giving the exemption was a $10 million profit, which was represented as a “hardship.” That was the reason they gave the grant exemption, because the $10 million was a hardship.

The inquiry was to finalize three days after the election. The Treasurer had hidden from this House the fact he was the guy that set up the whole deal. He did not come forth and tell the House during all those months, that he was involved in it.

That was the blockbuster. That came out three days after the election. It appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 14, five days after the election, the fact that he was the man that set up the deal. All this was revealed after the election. Do you wonder why I say who called the shots for the timing of the commission?

Mr. Deans: How about the subpoenas?

Mr. Sargent: I’m getting to that.

Mr. Deans: You’re getting to that? Okay.

Mr. Sargent: Who called the shots for the timing of the Ronto inquiry to come out after the election? Did you ask the opposition did they want it before? No. It certainly wouldn’t be the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) or the leader of the opposition (Mr. Smith)) you asked. Was it the Premier or you? Who asked? Did the judge ask you when you wanted this hearing to go on? Did they tell you when they wanted to finalize it, to have the results come out in the paper the day before the election?

I can tell you if this report came out in the Globe and Mail on June 14 had come out on June 7, the Treasurer would not be in that seat where he is today, and that is a fact. And you say to me I’m impugning the courts.

Mr. Justice Cromarty was the man in charge of the commission. I don’t know where he got his instructions, but certainly the timing was a very important factor in these hearings. We in the opposition were elated. We were not then the official opposition, but we were all elated at the fact that this was going to happen before the election.

Somewhere along the line the judiciary got in bed politically with somebody, and I will not take that back.

Mr. Lewis: No, but anybody else would have to.

Mr. Sargent: I will not take that back, because if I am wrong, you prove me wrong.

Mr. Deans: It is a very serious statement.

Mr. Sargent: Certainly it’s a very serious thing, but this is a serious business when you have the political party in some kind of a quasi-relationship with the courts. That’s why I think I will not go along with the minister that I am impugning the courts.

In fact, if you were doing a very realistic job, you would investigate for us how this could happen, this kind of timing. It certainly was not a coincidence in my mind. I’d like the minister to explain how this can happen in a royal commission.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will be very brief. I regret very much the member opposite would use this Legislature and any immunities and privileges that may be contained therein to lodge a totally irresponsible, unfounded attack on a distinguished member of our judiciary. I say to him it is simply a very cowardly act.

Mr. Deans: Could you tell us why they issued the subpoenas in the last week and announced it? That really did make me wonder, I confess.

Mr. Sargent: I wonder how far the Attorney General thinks he can libel a member of the opposition when he tells the facts that are here, as I’ve told them. I think that’s very cowardly of you to make that response when I ask you to tell me how this thing could happen. You don’t know how to answer my questions and so you call me a coward.

All my life I’ve been in politics and I have never been afraid of anybody else in my whole life. I am not a coward and I’m willing to take the consequence of what I said tonight. As for calling me irresponsible, I am not the man who went about this province saying we should sell marijuana and pot from the liquor stores. I am not the man who said that.

You talk about responsibility. Don’t you call me a coward or call me irresponsible, in view of the fact you haven’t got the guts to stand up and answer what I’ve asked you here.

[10:15]

Mr. Deans: Can I ask one question on this topic? Maybe the Attorney General could advise me of that one point. Why did the commission feel it necessary to issue subpoenas to the opposition members to appear when they would willingly have come had they simply been asked to appear? He must admit that it’s a little much to take, in the middle of an election, to read in the paper that you have been issued with a subpoena to appear before a commission on a land deal where there were some suggestions of impropriety. I was explaining for days afterwards that I had nothing to do with it, that all I was was a member of the committee sitting in for somebody else.

Mr. Lewis: He barely got 55 per cent of the vote.

Mr. Deans: I mean, I only got 60 per cent of the vote as a result of that. I had a big majority looking me right in the face when, all of a sudden, this subpoena was issued. Why would they not just ask us to appear? Maybe the Attorney General doesn’t know the answer, but it struck me as very odd. That’s all.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have the answer to that. A judicial commission is conducted entirely at the discretion of the commissioner and his assistants, with the assistance of legal counsel appointed by the commissioner. As to whether they choose simply to issue an invitation or to issue a subpoena, it is a matter that is totally within their discretion.

I would think that it might well be appropriate simply to invite members of this Legislature to appear at a particular time. But it is not unusual to issue subpoenas. The timing of it, again, is totally within the discretion of the commissioner. I just cannot comment any further than that.

Mr. Deans: I have very little to add to it but, first of all, it struck me as odd that no one from the commission even bothered to contact me in advance. That is the first thing. I would have thought, having sat on a number of inquiries, that it was normal for the counsel to contact people who they thought might have information, to determine first of all whether it was worthwhile dragging them in at all; to see whether they had any information at all.

The second thing is, elections being what they are, they are particularly sensitive and can be swayed by any number of irrelevant and inconsequential things.

Mr. Lewis: Like nationalization, for example. A real red herring.

Mr. Deans: For heaven’s sake, I got a telephone call at 7 o’clock in the morning to talk about this subpoena that I had been issued with. I knew absolutely nothing about it. During the election campaign I showed up down there at the inquiry offices --

Mr. Lewis: When you should have been canvassing.

Mr. Deans: When I should have been canvassing. Right. That’s why I didn’t get 65 per cent. I went in there and I was under oath. They asked me if that was my name. I said, ‘Yes, it is.” They asked if I represented the riding of Wentworth. I said, “Yes, I do.”

“Do you know anything about Ronto?”

“No, I don’t.”

“Oh. Have you anything to add to what has been said?”

“No, I don’t have anything to add.”

“Do you have any direct, personal knowledge of any of the undertakings?”

“No, I haven’t.” And they said, “You are excused.”

Mr. Sargent: You were a big help.

Mr. Deans: And for that they gave me $25, I think.

Mr. Roy: You are lucky. You only get $6 in court.

Mr. Deans: But $25! And, honest to God, it could have cost me my seat in the House. It was ridiculous. It was very badly handled.

I realize the Attorney General cannot do anything about what happened last June, but the next time they do it, it might not be a bad idea just to find out if the people they are subpoenaing in the midst of an election campaign have any information, to begin with, before the public gets the wrong impression of the whole damned thing.

Mr. Lewis: It does sound a little strange.

Mr. Roy: Do you know who the counsel was for that?

Mr. Deans: He was a very kindly old gent who ought to have retired years ago.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Regarding the point made by my colleague from Grey-Bruce and the member for Wentworth about this idea of subpoenas, I find it interesting as well that they should only be issued to opposition members and not the government members, and the timing --

Mr. Deans: They may have been issued them too.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know that that’s so.

Mr. Roy: In being critical of that, surely one can make comment without being critical of the judiciary, and it may well be that it might be a good idea to try to get some explanation from the counsel. It may be the counsel who decided to proceed in that fashion. In the process, surely we are entitled to be critical of that approach because it may have been the counsel who made the decision to proceed in that fashion at that particular time.

One can be critical of a certain procedure taken by a particular counsel in a commission without in any way being critical of the judge who presided with the commission. As often happens, the conduct of the case is left up to counsel. He’s the one who decides how best to proceed with such matters as who should be called, when they should be called and that sort of thing.

Before we get off commissions I did want to make another comment. I said to you, after I’d asked about the LaMarsh commission and the fact that the LaMarsh commission cost $2,130,688 over those three years, that I found it interesting. When you were discussing the Hartt commission, you said you were not particularly surprised. The LaMarsh commission really had no place to go other than your ministry because there was no jurisdiction in any other ministry on the question of communication really. I suppose they had no place to send it but your ministry.

I do want to make this comment about that commission. I hope we’ll never see again, when money is so tight in this province, that, for what I consider to be for political purposes prior to the 1975 election --

Mr. Conway: No, really I don’t believe it.

Mr. Roy: -- the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province would establish a commission of inquiry to look into a subject matter that was beyond the responsibility and control of this province. I think that was absolutely ludicrous. It was just political posturing. That’s all it was.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, no, it wasn’t. We were wrong. It was a good idea.

Mr. Roy: Sure, it was a good idea from the political point of view for the Premier.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Roy: We’ve got enough commissions going around this province, making all sorts of recommendations within the field of the jurisdiction of the provincial government, which are not implemented, without getting into a field of federal jurisdiction which not only will we not implement but we cannot even implement. There’s no way; it’s not within the jurisdiction. I say that the money that was spent for that particular commission, in my opinion, was something that was a waste. I think it was used strictly for political purposes.

I know you had nothing to do with the establishment of the commission and the payment of moneys and everything else.

Mr. Conway: The Tories are trying to whitewash the man from Glad. You know that.

Mr. Roy: When I look at how tight money is, and some of us will be discussing courthouses later on and court facilities and things lacking in the administration of justice, when we see $2,130,000 wasted as it has been here, I’m saying there are other priorities in this province which on the long term would have been much more beneficial than spending it on that.

Mr. Lewis: I want to add a footnote to this. I want to come back to an exchange I had with the Attorney General briefly at the question period. I have a feeling one of the few judicial commissions of inquiry which could really be justified in this province at this time -- and I don’t denigrate Hartt or Porter for a moment; I think they’re both splendid -- would be a judicial inquiry into the activities of the RCMP in the province of Ontario.

I want to put it to you that there are two anxious things about what’s happening now. One is the almost unbelievable attitude of Messrs. Cafik, Fox and Basford -- never mind Pierre Trudeau. I am really beside myself at the wanton indifference they have to the civil libertarian nature of Canadian society. I have always believed as a democratic socialist -- and the party on my immediate right will have to forgive me for this -- that Liberal philosophy is terribly quixotic and expedient when it comes to civil liberties. I have always believed as a democratic socialist that there is a direct philosophic tie between the incarceration of the Japanese-Canadians in the Second World War and the proclamation of the War Measures Act in October 1970, and that it is characteristic of small “l” and large “l” liberal philosophy to engage in those kinds of things.

I want to tell you that even I have been surprised and shocked at the responses of the Foxes and the Basfords and the Cafiks, the rationalization of illegality, for the sake of some security of the state, and I don’t want to overdo it. I don’t even know exactly why I’m speaking on it except that it’s been rising in me all week and all day, particularly after reading the stories on the weekend.

I just don’t believe that the Attorney General has a smidgen of such an outlook in terms of his view of the way this society operates. Surely he must find it offensive that the Solicitor General is saying now, it is reported in tonight’s edition of the Globe and Mail, that the medical records would be used as threats against those who threatened the security of the state; Basford getting a standing ovation in Vancouver for talking about the RCMP and the need to protect it; Norman Cafik, whom I hear on the radio, drawing analogies between a wife who might haemorrhage at 4 o’clock in the morning and her husband driving 80 miles an hour and thereby breaking the law to take her to hospital with what has been revealed over the last number of weeks about what the RCMP has been doing. It is just a shucking abrogation of the civil authority. It drives me wild, this kind of stuff from federal cabinet ministers. Frankly, I would have thought, I say to the Attorney General, that maybe there was a point in the province of Ontario to find out exactly what had been going on among those who headed the security service of the RCMP in this province, because I don’t get any sense of defence on the part of the federal cabinet. I just get a sense that they wash their hands of it completely. It’s as though we were back to the atmosphere of October 1970 all over again.

I guess the other part of it which truly bothers me is, maybe not the complacency, but the passivity and pessimism in the Canadian populace that these things somehow have to go on; that there is a rationale for them; that there is a gang of dangerous subversives always about, about whom we must be eternally vigilant.

Do you know that in this extraordinary democratic country of ours, with the exception of the madness and pathology of that handful of FLQ in 1970, there is not a subversive inheritance in this country? It’s one of the few countries in the western world where there is not a group of dangerous heretics and subversives. We have managed to fashion a political and trade union process through which dissent is normally expressed without the needs to go to the extremes of violence or subversion.

We have our quotient of pathetic Maoist-Marxist-Leninists and right-wing groups as well. Those are pathological things. They are not ideological phenomena. Many of us have dealt with them in our political life. To think that the RCMP will spend its time probing such people and using methods extending from break-ins to the scrutiny of confidential medical records, really makes you wonder. And think of the insidious consequence it has in society.

I was saying to my colleague from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) tonight -- you will forgive me; all of these kinds of ramifications just tumble one after the other as I think about them -- when the member for High Park-Swansea revealed the doctors’ gross billings from OHIP, the medical profession practically went berserk. When it is revealed in the public press that there may be confidentiality of records destroyed by the RCMP in the pursuit of using medical material to threaten or intimidate individuals in Canada, there is not a peep from the medical profession.

All of these things sort of add up in my mind to a kind of insidious complacency and indifference to what is going on.

Do you know what tops it all off, if I may end on this note, Mr. Chairman? I now read in the national newspaper of Canada that Bette Stephenson was investigated by the RCMP. She was questioned by the RCMP because she had a visiting Russian doctor stay at her home. Now, is that paranoia or is that not paranoia? I would never accuse Bette Stephenson of what you might call left-to-centre leanings. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even accuse Bette Stephenson of leaning, let alone in an ideological direction. Yet she says -- and she says, I suppose, with a certain impish delight -- that she’s the only person in her ministry who has ever been cautioned or talked to by the RCMP.

That is the extent of the deterioration of the civil libertarian fabric which we have so excellently developed in this country. I’m just really bothered by it and wanted to get it off my chest and say to the minister that if there are grounds along the way for believing that the McDonald commission inquiry in Ottawa is not doing the job, then it may well be worth looking in Ontario, through our judicial process, at what the devil the RCMP may have been up to all these years, because it is doing enormous damage to the values and the balance of values in Canadian society.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this item or can we carry the item?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Then it will be held over.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, the committee of supply reported progress.

On motion of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, the House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.