The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICY

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a question of the Premier, who I see is just arriving, inasmuch as the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) and his esteemed assistant, who is making remarks on his behalf in Ottawa, are both absent.

I would like to ask the Premier why it is that the government of Ontario feels free to play rather cute politics with the question of energy at a time when the national interest is perhaps a little more important? Why is it that only Premier Lougheed, the government of Ontario, and Mr. Clark in the opposition are now objecting and referring to as dictatorial a bill which is almost identical in wording to a bill to which Ontario took no objection just a few years ago? I refer to Bill C-42 and the remarks that were made by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Energy.

Given the fact that electrical energy cannot be redistributed by the federal government under this bill without the agreement of the province, what is the objection of the province of Ontario suddenly, now, to the allocation of natural gas and oil in the event of a national emergency?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Leader of the Opposition has read the act and assessed it with great care. Of course he has also read the observations made to the committee.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Premier want a copy? We have a copy right here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes, I have a copy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that the distinguished House leader for the Liberal Party has also read it with great care.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate, it’s a question period.

An hon. member: It’s a shouting match.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest --

Mr. Nixon: The Premier’s implication is that we have not read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no, I’m just saying that I’m assuming the member has.

Mr. S. Smith: It happens that we have; so why doesn’t the Premier answer the question for a change?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess after that heroic performance yesterday afternoon on the TTC, the Leader of the Opposition is feeling just a little frustrated this morning. I understand that. I have great sympathy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the question dealt specifically with energy policy and I wish the Premier would confine his remarks to that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make every effort, although you must confess that the Leader of the Opposition’s question was really somewhat provocative. There was some editorial comment suggesting that we were playing politics. I think that was the general suggestion in his question.

Mr. Kerrio: Perish the thought.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just saying that I --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Premier have a response?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister himself will be here sometime within the next half hour or three quarters of an hour and he might like to deal with it in greater detail.

Just as a matter of general principle though, as a government we are concerned about some of the powers contained in that particular bill. I recognize the members opposite perhaps would like to take this issue in defence of the minister in Ottawa and the powers he wishes to obtain through this bill. The brief also pointed out -- and I think it’s really very relevant -- that one of the concerns --

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, it’s one country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you want an answer or do you not want an answer?

Mr. S. Smith: You are only starting to answer the question now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition want a response?

Mr. S. Smith: I certainly do, but I wish he would have directed himself to the answer at the beginning of his reply.

Mr. Speaker: If you would stop interrupting, perhaps we might get a response.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s fair to point out that this is really a little broader than just the bill. The submission made yesterday pointed out the concern of this province with respect to energy policy generally. The submission pointed out that part of the rationale of this province over the past number of years is the fact that the government of Canada, in support of the Liberal policy of Ontario, was moving to world price, that we were looking for the guarantee of supply in this process and that we really haven’t made much progress in this regard. That too, was a part of the brief. We don’t see anything in the bill that really brings this about.

I’m the first one to support, as I have and as I did at the first ministers’ conference, the ability of the government of Canada to act, I think the phrasing in the proposed legislation then was, in “a compelling national interest.” I’m not sure this was the right phraseology; I’m not sure it shouldn’t be done in some better fashion and I’m not going to argue that today. But we do not without any question move away from the fact that in times of national emergency or compelling national interest there should be involvement by the government of Canada. This point of view is contrary to that of the producing provinces, including Saskatchewan, although my guess is that they were prepared to accept, shall we say, that compromise sort of position. Alberta obviously was not.

Ms. Gigantes: Saskatchewan is a co-operative commonwealth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What we’re concerned about is some of the principles contained in the bill and just what they might mean in the long run. I think there is an implication in the bill that would give the government of Canada or the minister powers that really would usurp those normally discharged by the National Energy Board. The Leader of the Opposition may not read that into the bill, but I think the potential for that is there.

I think it’s a very important piece of legislation. It’s one that should be thought out very carefully.

Mr. Peterson: You have got the power to ration gas in the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say with respect that maybe it shouldn’t be rushed through during the dying stages of the administration that may no longer be administering the affairs of this country after the next election.

It does get into the possibility of rationing, although Mr. Gillespie himself has acknowledged that it would take weeks or months to bring any such situation about. Our point of view, and the minister may express this in different terminology, is that the bill is a very important bill. It has serious implications for all of us. It does get into the question of the rights and responsibilities of provincial jurisdictions. I think it would have been unfortunate if we had not made our points of view known.

Hopefully, those brief words will help the Leader of the Opposition. If he hasn’t received it, I will certainly get him a copy of the presentation made by the province. It may be he’ll find a lot in it with which he can agree; there may be some things with which he doesn’t. I understand that.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, would the Premier please explain to the House why a bill is now found dictatorial and objectionable just before a possible federal election when the very same bill, virtually word for word, was found acceptable by Ontario just a few years ago? Does the Premier not agree that in the event that international allocations of oil and gas were required, a national government would have the ability to make those kinds of allocations within this country, notwithstanding the objections of the Premier of Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have always taken the position that, in times of national emergency or compelling national interest, or whatever language one may wish to use, the government of Canada has not only a right, but a responsibility.

There are some provinces which disagree with that point of view. This province does not happen to be one of them. What we are saying is that this bill, put in place on a permanent basis, does raise several matters of principle which we think have to be assessed very carefully.

It is the Leader of the Opposition who is putting this into a political context, who is putting it into the context of our objections prior to a federal election. We have not put it in that context. He may have more knowledge than I have as to when the Prime Minister of Canada intends to issue a writ. I have not put this into a political context; nor did the presentation to the committee in Ottawa put it into a political context. If he wishes to do so, if he wishes to say people are playing politics with this, so be it. We are not.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question: I welcome the position taken by the government in this matter because of the very great concern that we had about the supine attitude of the government with respect to the emergency powers question two years ago and to the Anti-Inflation Board legislation.

My question to the Premier is, will he also provide us with a copy of the brief? And does the Premier, as the spokesman for the government with respect to constitutional change, in fact have background papers and a detailed position paper on the position of this government with respect to the doctrines of national emergency and national concern, which are obviously at the root of this question and led to the position taken by the government in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government has never been supine, as the member for Riverdale suggests.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Comatose, but not supine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly will be delighted to provide him with a copy of the observations made, together with a copy of the bill.

I am trying to think what material we might provide him with as it relates to the position of this province. What I think I can get for him is the documentation that was used for the first ministers’ meeting, which documentation really sets out the areas of consensus as it relates to distribution, particularly as it related to the resource industry. I think I can get that material for him. When I say “consensus”, this was as a result of the meeting of the ministers responsible here in Toronto. I emphasize “consensus”, because Alberta was opposed to the suggested language. Saskatchewan, my recollection is, was less than enthusiastic; it preferred Alberta’s position. I do not think I am being unfair in saying that.

We were prepared to accept, I think, if there had been unanimity by all the other provinces, probably the draft that was considered. Some of us were concerned about the exact phraseology of that draft and whether “compelling national interest” was sufficient to enable the federal government to move in times of difficulty or crisis -- I do not like the word “crisis” -- but it did not get that far. We did not reach any agreement as to whether the word “compelling” or some variation of that would be acceptable at all to Alberta, and as a result the discussions did not go past that point.

I will certainly get whatever material I can for the member. I will also give him an opportunity, perhaps during the throne speech debate or whenever, to discuss this in greater detail, but I will get it for him.

Mr. S. Smith: For the Premier’s information, the phrase is “national emergency”, and not “compelling interest” -- just for his information. He might read the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Where is it? What is the Leader of the Opposition referring to?

Mr. S. Smith: Bill C-42, the bill to which the Premier is taking such serious objection; the words are “national emergency”.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I was referring to was the consensus that was reached. We are talking about two different issues here, if the Leader of the Opposition would listen. We are talking about the possibility of using the phrase “compelling national interest” in relation to the resource section of a new constitution. That is where the phrase “compelling national interest” emerged. That is what the documentation suggests. I did not suggest that the bill contained that phrase. I happen to know it does not.

[10:15]

USE OF HERBICIDE 2,4,5-T

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), but he is not here again, so perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food might be willing to take this question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was here yesterday.

Mr. Bolan: So were you.

Mr. Peterson: And nobody noticed.

Mr. Conway: The Premier is so much more pleasant when his wife is with him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If sometime you did the same thing, then you might be more pleasant.

Mr. S. Smith: I fail to see why the member for Renfrew North would wish to be with the Premier’s wife, charming person that she is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Or more likely, I have to tell you on a matter of privilege, it would be a lot better company than some he keeps in that caucus.

Mr. S. Smith: But to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture: Given that the season for spraying the herbicide 2,4,5-T is almost upon us, or will be in a few weeks, is the Minister of Agriculture and Food planning in consultation with the Minister of the Environment to ban the use of this particular herbicide? In view of the unprecedented action by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, will he issue an emergency ban on the spraying of that particular chemical? Granting that in Ontario this chemical is used basically for bush control rather than on food-growing areas, nonetheless, given the hazard to human health, is the minister prepared to issue a ban for this season until he has some further information?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, 2,4,5-T, better known as brush killer, is licensed by the government of Canada, not by the province of Ontario, and as soon as I heard about it, I instructed my staff to get in touch with the appropriate people in Ottawa to have some discussions on the matter. They will be the ones who will have to do any banning, right out of Ottawa. It’s licensed under Ottawa agreements of course, as the member knows.

Mr. S. Smith: It is indeed. By way of supplementary: the provincial government also has jurisdiction in the use of these pesticides or herbicides in a sense, as the minister knows, and what I would like to know is whether the minister is aware that approximately 220,000 pounds of this substance containing dioxin, which is the single most toxic chemical known to man, were sprayed in Ontario in 1978? Is he aware that students were spraying it this past summer in large amounts under the Ontario Hydro right of way areas? The Ministry of the Environment has allegedly been studying this chemical closely for two years now given the resultant miscarriages in Oregon and so on, does the minister not feel that he has some responsibility to act and not just wait for some licensing arrangement to come through from Ottawa? The spraying is going to start in a few weeks, so doesn’t he think he should be protecting the families and the people who may in other ways be affected by this spraying program?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’ve already pointed out that I have drawn it to the attention of my officials who have talked to Ottawa. The Minister of the Environment, who is not here, is the person the question should be properly put to and I’ve had discussions on it with his people too. We work together as a unit over here and we understand what’s going on --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Then you should be able to answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and we are talking with Ottawa on the matter.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, if he will care to find himself back in the House. I have a question right now for the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is there.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He was there all the time.

Mr. Foulds: He was hiding behind the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle).

Mr. Cassidy: He’s gotten so short.

Mr. Foulds: I didn’t think anybody could hide behind Rene Brunelle, but Larry Grossman can.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the fastest reappearing act we’ve seen for a long time, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition gets cranky and you lose your eyesight, all in one morning.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, I will ask a question beginning with the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that there are very serious problems in key sectors of Ontario industry, like the machinery industry and electrical products, can the minister explain why the government intends to leave it up to individual corporations to determine the province’s industrial priorities on an ad hoc basis in the proposed new incentive scheme that was announced in the throne speech? Can he explain why the province is taking this patchwork approach to industrial planning rather than letting the province provide leadership in developing key sectors of our industry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Firstly, as was indicated the other day, the details of the operation of the fund will be unveiled in the next few weeks and I would suggest to the leader of the third party that perhaps that might be an appropriate time at which to judge whether we are leaving all of this to the industries themselves. Having said that, I think I have gone to great lengths in the last few weeks to indicate that we do have certain priorities. One of those I have indicated has been the electronics industry and, following hard on the heels of the sectoral studies, we will be indicating some further sectors of the economy which on an industry specific basis will be those which will have some priority in terms of applications to the fund.

As well, we are going to be indicating which types of firms on a firm specific basis will within those sectors and across the board have priority in terms of their applications to the fund. I think this is a marked change for government in terms of indicating where its money can most effectively be used in terms of creating some long-term strength for industry in the province. In simple terms then, while the leader of the third party may, and I expect he will, take exception to certain of the priority areas we indicate both on an industry and firm specific basis, nonetheless, I do want to assure him that we do have priorities.

In fact, we do have certain strategies which we will be indicating in the next few weeks. Finally, I think any determination with regard to which areas should ultimately be the areas to which our strategy is pointed ought to await determination of the GATT negotiations because, obviously, any particular strategy we might announce today could be dramatically affected by tariff and non-tariff changes two or three weeks down the road.

After the GATT negotiations, we will be spelling out in a rather detailed fashion those areas of priority and strategies we have developed for long-term strength in the 1980s.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: If I can take just the city of Hamilton as an example, is the minister aware that employment in the machinery industry in Hamilton has gone down from 5,500 four years ago to 3,600 today and that employment in the electrical industry has gone down from 8,100 four years ago to 5,300 today? Will the government be giving priority to key building block industries, like machinery and electrical products, in order to rebuild our strength in areas that have been allowed to wither away under the Conservative government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that this government had the slightest thing to do with the withering away of those particular sectors.

Mr. di Santo: It’s true.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s not your fault?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These things have a lot larger implication than specific provincial policies. In fact, as we have tried to make clear -- and I understand for political purposes that the leader of the third party would prefer to ignore it -- the fact is that what we are attempting to do in this province is to move into some of the vacuum created by a lack of any co-ordinated federal government strategy of any sort whatsoever over the last few years. As well, we can’t ignore the fact that international circumstances, which have given rise in part to what has happened in the federal government of this country, are creating a bit of a crisis of confidence. All of these things begin to build up over time to create a situation in which Ontario now must respond in specific sectors to help specific sectors out of some of these problems which, let’s face it, have not been created by this government in this province.

It is facetious to argue that, and members opposite would reject any argument made by this government which allowed us to take credit for a similar increase in those sectors in terms of employment, if that had occurred over the past few years. If the leader of the third party is taking the position now that we ought to be only or mainly responsible for that decrease, I trust he will maintain that position, if we see an increase in certain sectors, and allow us to take full credit for any increases that occur over the next year which, by the way, I believe there will be in many sectors.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: While the minister is setting forward the guidelines with respect to the Ontario employment development fund, will he be able to advise the House as to the alternatives that that fund might assist? I am thinking particularly of the Budd situation in Kitchener where retooling or other opportunities for use of those funds might be of assistance, even though the marketing for the product that it so happens that company makes is a somewhat different circumstance, as the minister is well aware. Will there be the opportunity at least to have those alternatives dealt with as possible applications under this fund?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that’s a very relevant question and one that we have been considering, specifically with regard to the Budd situation. To be fair to Budd, they have not asked for, nor indicated yet, any need for that sort of assistance. Their problem is, as you have indicated, a market for whatever product they might find themselves able to produce with or without some additional assistance.

One of the things we really want to take care the public is aware of is that the new fund is not one which is only aimed at, or perhaps even primarily aimed at, incentives to multinationals to locate in this province. In fact, I would expect a great deal of the funds out of that employment development fund would be pointed toward the Budd type of situation, provided that a new long-term market can be developed for a new product or process which will give us some assurance of stability for employment in that given community for a long period of time; not for two or three years, but for a generation or so.

If that company can offer sourcing in Canada, long-term stability, perhaps some export potential and some technological advancement, then that is a typical situation where I would conceive an application to the fund would be warmly received.

I think we now have to begin to develop the manoeuvrability and the mobility within that fund to respond to situations like that in two ways; firstly, to provide adjustment assistance to permit plants to convert into profitable operations and, secondly -- and this is one of the reasons that a board of ministers is being considered and has been developed -- the ability to respond quickly before large layoffs take place and a plant shuts down, which then is more difficult to rescue than operating before the fact. So, in summary, Mr. Speaker, the Budd type of situation is one which I expect would well qualify.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary to the original question: Is the minister aware that the employment in the secondary manufacturing sector in Ontario has been decreasing gradually, year after year, because of lack of a policy of this government and not of the federal government or the GATT negotiations in Geneva? Secondly, what insurance can the government give that this new grant plan of financing selected and winning companies will not produce the same disastrous effect as the past fiscal policy of this government in exempting the machinery-producing companies from sales tax which has not produced one single job in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, I can’t give you a total and complete assurance of the success of this program, or any other program that this or any other government, regardless of strife, is able to put toward. No one has any iron-clad guarantees of success.

What we do believe is that this program will give us some manoeuvrability in order, quite frankly, to avoid layoff situations and situations where governments historically have come in after the fact where we are trying to put the pieces back together again, after an industry has been permitted to operate on its own and finds itself, after many years, in a situation in which its goods or services or products are no longer competitive.

We are trying now to speak to firms which are doing reasonably well, but which we anticipate, through competition, tariff changes or whatever, may find themselves on the critical list in three or four or five years and in this fashion we can avoid coming in after the fact. Instead, we can come in before the fact and perhaps put those firms in a long-term healthier situation than if we had sat back and done nothing and waited until they applied to us as a lender of last resort to bail them out of a death-bed situation. I think in the long term this will provide a lot more job security than the old system which was more of a Band-Aid one.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister assure the House that the assistance given to these various corporations will not be to the detriment of other Ontario and/or Canadian companies at present manufacturing a similar or almost similar product?

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, absolutely. I think, in fact, the selectivity approach will give us the flexibility that, in some cases, we didn’t have earlier to try to look after that sort of situation. In any case, let me say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville in response to his question, we will continue to be as carefully selective as we were last June in the V-6 engine plant.

But quite seriously, the older system, the system which would have us respond only through the traditional ODC mechanism, was one more tied to universality and programs in which if one came within the four corners of the program one got the money. That put us in a position where sometimes we did have situations where a new endeavour, newly financed, would be in a somewhat competitive position. In this way, because we are trying to build up long-term competitive and industrial strength, we would be defeating our purposes if we helped one firm build up while at the same time we allowed another one to fall down as a result.

The answer to the question in simple terms is yes, we will be avoiding those types of situations.

HYDRO LOAD FORECASTS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. In an attempt to get a clear answer, after trying to listen to the Minister of Energy’s (Mr. Auld) response yesterday on questions of Hydro’s future plans -- as I mentioned yesterday, a one per cent error in forecasting of demand growth by Hydro will cost, according to Hydro itself, consumers of Ontario half a billion dollars a year in extra payments for electricity in the 1980s -- I would like to ask the minister:

In view of the contentions by several members of cabinet that the substitution of electricity for uncertain oil and gas supplies is going to raise the total rate of electrical demand growth, is that the government’s position; and in that case, does the minister therefore reject the Ministry of Energy forecast, which indicates very clearly that if oil and gas supplies are uncertain that will, in fact, lower the rate of growth for electricity demand to a rate even lower than the ministry already forecast?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Premier indicated earlier that the Minister of Energy would be here later this morning, and I believe that question should be directed to him.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I will refer it back to the Minister of Energy if the minister insists, but I would like the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development to say whether, as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, he is exercising any oversight over the failure of the Ministry of Energy to exercise any specific --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oversight? There are never oversights over here.

Mr. S. Smith: You overlook a lot of things.

Mr. Cassidy: -- of course there are -- whether the Ministry of Energy is exercising any control at all over Ontario Hydro’s development program, or whether the government has simply decided to leave Hydro with its projections, with all the costs that will entail because of over forecasting for the Ontario consumer?

Mr. Nixon: Rene, tell us what you think; this may be your last chance.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that question is referred to the Minister of Energy.

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour and Manpower in regard to the labour dispute between Boise Cascade and lumber and sawmill unions at Fort Frances and Kenora. Since this legal strike has been on since last September and there doesn’t seem to be much movement on either side, from either the company or the unions, in resolving the owner-operator dispute, can the Minister of Labour and Manpower suggest if there is any new movement in settling this dispute and if he might be ready at this time to table the Joyce-Lewis report and its recommendations in order to bring the parties together and resolve it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I might take the opportunity to thank the member, as well as the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the members for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) and Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), for the excellent rapport there has been during this very difficult dispute. As I am sure the member for Rainy River knows, we have put a great deal of effort into trying to resolve that situation. I am pleased to table not only the original report of the disputes advisory committee, but a follow-up report which I just received yesterday. I will also forward copies of those two reports to the leaders of the opposition party and the third party and to the labour critics.

I think it would be fair if I could read, perhaps, from the final report I received yesterday from the disputes advisory committee -- Mr. Stephen Lewis and Mr. Robert Joyce -- in a selective way: “We still believe that the route of voluntary arbitration can be fair to both parties, especially if the arbitration board were constituted as originally recommended. We remain more than willing to intervene again, or to help in any way if it seems appropriate.”

So, in more direct answer to your question: I have to say that the disputes advisory committee and I remain firm in the belief that both parties should seriously give thought to accepting voluntary binding arbitration as a means of solving an issue which at the present time I frankly find very difficult to see being resolved in any other way. I say that, having met with them personally on many occasions and having resolved every other matter in dispute -- except that one remaining and very fundamental issue.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that there has been great co-operation with the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) in this regard, in that the Solicitor General was good enough to have members of his staff meet with union representatives. Policing arrangements and problems have been ironed out, to my knowledge, very satisfactorily. So I think it has been a good, co-operative effort to try in every way possible to resolve that dispute in as equitable a way as seems reasonable.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, if I may: I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for his co-operation in regard to this.

Mr. Peterson: What’s going on here?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is called “getting along,” David.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: David wouldn’t know what that was.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do I take it, then, from the minister’s answer that he will be formally contacting both Lumber and Saw and Boise Cascade and putting to them formally that they should accept voluntary arbitration, and that perhaps in the meantime, while that process -- which I believe would take about three months -- is going on, they would revert to the status quo? Will he do that formally?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The original disputes advisory committee report recommended that there be a return to work, if the principle of voluntary arbitration was accepted. So that’s in line with what the member has said. I certainly do intend, as a result of the report that I have just received, to write to both parties or to communicate with them I in some other way, indicating our view that voluntary arbitration is something they should give serious consideration to.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Labour and Manpower. Since the previous minister, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), rejected the thrust of an internal ministry report, aimed at the introduction of legislation on equal pay for work of equal value, will the minister give a commitment to review that report, with the positive view of introducing as soon as possible into this Legislature for debate a bill on equal pay for work of equal value?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think the member asked that question knowing full well that I do have a firm commitment to do whatever seems reasonable to try to redress the imbalances that have existed between women in the work force and men such as yourself, I am sure.

I want to tell the member, however, that I also made it clear yesterday in a statement before the Legislature that I would review what was going on in the Ottawa area and in Quebec with regard to equal pay for work of equal value, and that I would continue to have good rapport and discussions with groups that supported that view.

But it is not the only view. As the member knows, this government has taken several initiatives with regard to this problem: first, with the equal pay for equal work legislation, which may well be coming up for review; secondly, with regard to our affirmative action program, and thirdly, as recently as this week the Premier wrote to all ministers reaffirming the need for the ministries to be more actively involved and to help correct the imbalances that may exist within the civil service.

Mr. Warner: It is not good enough. It is not good enough, and you know it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why is there no progress?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If you want the answers, then be quiet. In addition to that, yesterday I advised through a press release and through a statement I made that we felt equal opportunity was an area that deserved particular emphasis at this time. I therefore had appointed a high-level labour-management advisory council on equal employment opportunities. It comprises: Terry Meagher, secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour; Lucy Nicholson, president of the Ontario Division of CUPE; Don MacLeod, president of Savage Shoes; Helen Slater, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity at Ottawa; Kay Sigurjonsson, executive secretary of the federation of women teachers, and Bill Winfield, the vice-president of personnel, Warner-Lambert. I suggest that these are earnest and honest endeavours to try to redress a problem.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: First of all, would the minister table in the Legislature that internal ministry report on equal pay for work of equal value, plus any and all documents associated with it? And since that equal opportunity committee he has just mentioned is only to encourage equal opportunity in the industrial area of the province and within unions and to advise the women’s bureau, and it intends to meet only about three or four times a year, surely the minister must see that is no new legislative thrust whatsoever.

He must see we have no commitment, in the throne speech or from his or anybody in his ministry, to introduce into this House anything like equal pay for work of equal value or what he is talking about in terms of this committee -- contract compliance. Is he going to introduce any new legislation into this Legislature on women’s issues or will this be another year of a big goose egg and nothing for women in terms of any legislative advancements?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, just so that the record clearly shows the concern this minister and this government have about women’s issues, I would like to quote from a speech that I made yesterday to the confectionery manufacturers’ association. I regard this issue as a vital work-place issue, much like several others to which I have given my attention in the past six months. There is no doubt about this government’s interest and concern about women’s issues and I have outlined what I think are positive steps that have been taken and that will continue to be taken.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Labour and Manpower not recognize the fact that women have been studied to death on this issue and they need to have action? There is no point in continuing these studies endlessly; it’s only a matter of stalling on the issue.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the record clearly says that there is no stalling going on. We have been addressing the issues from time to time in a variety of ways. At the present time our ministry is carrying out a survey of some 25 industries to see just what the impact has been of our affirmative action program and then following that to consider and decide what measures should be introduced.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I received several calls from constituents of mine in the Belleville-Trenton area who have applied to the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation for assistance in expanding or setting up new industry. They have been told there are no funds available. Because of this all meetings of the corporation have been cancelled and no new applications, as well as many applications that have been approved, will not be dealt with.

Can the minister explain why, especially at a time when we are looking to expand and open new industry in eastern Ontario, a situation such as this should exist?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes; in fact I welcome this opportunity to clarify the situation.

Beginning about the time of the Ford plant transaction last year, business at the Ontario Development Corporations -- EODC and NODC -- all increased dramatically. As a result, in an attempt to respond to that increase in business, we were faced with a choice of trying to ask ODC to be more difficult in terms of those applications and slow down the mechanism; or suggesting to ODC that, notwithstanding the impacts on this coming year’s budgets, they continue to respond to that unprecedented increase in applications. As a result, it turns out that the ODCs, through their current year’s activity -- that is the 1978-79 fiscal year -- have now used up, or almost used up, all of the previously allocated 1979-80 money.

[10:45]

The honourable member will understand that commitments made in 1978-79 draw down funds which are allocated to us in 1979-80 and, if we have an unprecedented amount of business in 1978-79, that means that by the time we hit the new fiscal year we may have committed funds coming in our 1979-80 budget.

That has created a situation where we wanted the opportunity to sit down with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and analyse just which responsibilities the employment development fund would take over from the Ontario development corporations and which would be left in the Ontario development corporations, perhaps through restructured programs, to carry on.

For example, obviously one of the options that the ODCs will be looking at is whether they should shift more to guarantee programs with perhaps some interest subsidy rather than only the traditional loan programs. In order that there be no misunderstanding, though, let me say that I expect loan programs also to continue through the ODCs.

In any case, what has simply happened is a determination by the Treasurer and myself to sit down and put the two funds together prior to agreeing upon an increased allocation for ODCs next year.

The people who have called the member for Quinte will no doubt all have been in receipt of a letter from the development corporation, indicating not that the corporations have been wound up and not that there would be no moneys coming, but simply that until the end of this fiscal year -- that is, the end of March -- by which time the Treasurer and I will have reached some conclusions on this matter, the applications cannot be finally processed.

In order that any applicant will not suffer any financial harm as a result of this hiatus period, we have also indicated in each of those letters that anyone who has a severe financial problem, who really needs his application processed before that time, will in fact have his application processed immediately by the ODC.

Mr. O’Neil: Is the minister telling us then that, because of some of the larger loans that were put out to large corporations, some of our firms and companies in eastern Ontario will suffer because of this?

Is the minister aware that there are approximately 50 companies that have had loans approved but will not get them until after the first of the year -- and likely not until some later date -- and that there are many other applications on file that cannot be dealt with because he has no money?

We are worried in eastern Ontario. We want these loans to our smaller companies. We want some jobs created. We wonder what the minister is doing about it. We are worried that some of these larger companies will take away from some of our industries in eastern Ontario which need the money.

Mr. S. Smith: You gave it all to Ford; now you’ve got nothing left.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You would have given Ford 50 per cent; remember, Stuart?

Mr. S. Smith: I would not have taken it away from eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Precisely what happened was that each and every dollar committed last year by the grant to Ford was over and above all the ODC money; it was extra money found, as indeed each dollar in the employment development fund is extra money.

I also want to make clear, in case the honourable member did not follow the important, I think, explanation I gave a moment ago, that there has been no reduction whatever in the 1979-80 allocation to the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation; in fact, there will be somewhat of an increase.

What has happened because we have responded to a great number of applications -- more applications than we have ever experienced before -- and given that money out, is that we have committed more money than ever before to eastern Ontario and are in a situation where we have already committed all of the moneys that were approved in the budgeting process and everywhere else for eastern Ontario through 1979-80.

We are analysing the cases that are pending from eastern Ontario and trying to decide which of them should be handled in the new employment development fund and which should be handled through the Ontario development corporations. That will be sorted out in literally a matter of days. The point I want to make, though, is that all of this means that there is substantially more money for eastern Ontario --

Mr. O’Neil: How much more?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That will obviously await the budget, but I can assure the honourable member that there will be substantially more employment for eastern Ontario and northern Ontario through the vehicle of the employment development fund and the Ontario development corporations.

It is because we have committed more than ever before and more than anticipated to eastern Ontario that we are currently in this situation.

BRANTFORD HOSPITAL CLOSURE

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier’s irresponsible restraint program will force the closing of a Catholic hospital in Brantford as an active treatment facility, will the Premier ensure that interim funds are available so that the local health council can re-evaluate their decision and ensure that the hospital is kept operating as an active treatment facility; as is desired by thousands of people living in that area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There’s nothing irresponsible about any program developed by this government.

Mr. Warner: It’s totally irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that it’s not always acceptable to the members of that party, who always believe there is an unlimited supply of money from some source.

Mr. Warner: Unlike you, we support the health care system.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest to the honourable member that he perhaps has not totally understood the situation in the way that he has phrased the question. I’m sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) would be delighted to help in his educational process and explain this in greater detail to him next week. I will certainly alert the minister to be prepared for that particular question.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In the response given by the Premier he has quite clearly taken the question as notice for the attention of the Minister of Health. I fail to see how you could have a supplementary to something where there is a commitment to answer it next week. Why don’t you wait on the response next week and then give your supplementary to him?

Mr. Nixon: Would you permit a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: There’s really nothing out of order. There hasn’t been a formal response --

Mr. Makarchuk: He hasn’t answered the question.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right, he hasn’t; he’s taken it as notice. I’ll hear a new question.

Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing out of order in the question period.

Mr. Nixon: How do you know?

Mr. Kennedy: Because he said so.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing out of order, because you give complete discretion to the Speaker as to how he will run the question period. I will provide ample --

Mr. Nixon: With great respect, we will not challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I will now recognize the member for York Centre.

RAPE CASE

Mr. Stong: In the absence of the Solicitor General and Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice. As a result of the acquittal earlier this week of an accused charged with the rape of a prostitute, and more particularly in light of the succinct summary of your crown attorney who prosecuted the case, and who summarized the verdict as follows: “A prostitute becomes an unrapable person;” will you confer with your colleague and give instructions to the crown attorney’s department to investigate the possibility of appealing this decision, which has all the earmarks of a perverse verdict?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would be very glad to confer with my colleague, but I will step short of that. I will leave it to him, as the chief law officer of the crown, to make up his own mind as to what further action he might take with respect to this matter.

BACK DISABILITY CLAIMS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Labour and Manpower. Since, in the words of Dr. Ferrier of Sault Ste. Marie, the scarfing process at steelworks, “results in the application of tremendous force on the fulcrum of the lower back,” and that scarfers are prone to lumbar sacro disabilities and a well-controlled study of the incidence of back disability among scarfers is long overdue; will the Minister of Labour and Manpower request the Workmen’s Compensation Board to initiate such a study at Algoma Steel?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I haven’t read that report; but I would be glad to review it, and if it is warranted I will make a recommendation to the WCB.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Could the minister also investigate to determine why Dr. Chovil and his colleagues at the Workmen’s Compensation Board would maintain to doctors and union representatives in Sault Ste. Marie that nothing in the literature indicates undue incidence of back disability in scarfers; even though Dr. Dowd of the Workmen’s Compensation Board had carried out a study of this problem at Stelco in 1968 and employees there have been making claims for low-back disability, many of which have been accepted on an individual basis for over 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will certainly be glad to look into that matter for the member and report to him.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are no points of order.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege; I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had a question that was referred by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) when he came into the House. Is it now possible to have that question referred to the Minister of Energy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: On Monday, Michael.

Mr. Kerrio: The member has had all his time-outs.

Mr. Cassidy: On Monday, okay.

Mr. Nixon: How come, Mr. Speaker, you accept points of order from the NDP but not from the Liberals?

Mr. Speaker: It wasn’t a point of order.

Mr. Nixon: I think you’re favouring them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t pay any attention to him.

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. Peterson: You’re really unfair to all of us, Mr. Speaker, so don’t worry.

A question of the Minister of Labour and Manpower, Mr. Speaker: As chief custodian of human rights in this province, would he not agree with me that the Ontario Human Rights Code is being violated by the family benefits legislation in this province in that it does not give an allowance to a single male parent, with dependents, on the same basis as it does, for example, with mothers’ allowance? Does the minister not agree with me that that is a clear case of legislative discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter does not come within the scope of the human rights code. I’d like to refer that question to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) when he’s here.

Mr. Peterson: Because it’s a clear case of sex discrimination, could I ask the minister to look into that and report back to this House what his point of view is from the point of view of his jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I'd be pleased to review it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: A supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Try it.

Mr. McClellan: Since the issue relates to inadequacies in the code, may I ask the minister whether he intends to bring the code before us for amendments in this session?

Mr. S. Smith: That is clearly not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it remains my clear intention to bring the code before the House for review. At the present time we’re going through final drafts of proposed legislation, which will then go through the regular routine that all legislative matters receive; that is it will be reviewed by cabinet, by caucus, and then by the various policy fields.

Mr. MacDonald: Has the minister got cabinet support? It wasn’t in the Throne Speech, why was it left out?

Hon. Ms. Davis: It was in last year; we don’t like to repeat ourselves.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It remains my intention to introduce legislation with regard to the human rights code to this House.

RESOURCE EQUALIZATION GRANTS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells).

I would like the Minister of Revenue to restate his commitment to the municipalities of this province that $8 million will be transferred to the municipalities that have lost out on resource equalization grants. Could he indicate whether the number of municipalities have been increased and whether that money has been decreased?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, should be directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I made the initial statement that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would examine and provide some funding, but the final amount of funding and the number of municipalities involved certainly come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I suggest the question should be directed to him.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has taken notice of it.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Mr. McGuigan: My question is of the Minister of Labour and Manpower. In his new role as Minister of Labour and Manpower, will he be setting a target for the number of jobs to be created specifically for women in this province as a part of his overall employment strategy?

Mr. Mackenzie: It won’t be worth much anyhow.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this matter was just mentioned in the Speech from the Throne on Tuesday. Next Monday I’ll be commencing some briefings on the various issues related to the eventual incorporation of manpower, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. I’ll be pleased to respond to the member on a later occasion when I have completed that review.

Mr. Mackenzie: It needs another study.

Mr. Cassidy: It has been studied to death.

WOMEN CROWN EMPLOYEES

Ms. Bryden: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker, but it’s also to the Minister of Labour and Manpower.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s your day, Bob.

Ms. Bryden: In view of the fact that the latest report on the status of women crown employees shows that the gap between men and women’s average salaries in the public service of Ontario has been widening and that there has been no major improvement in the occupational distribution of women in the 1977-78 fiscal year, I would like to ask the minister to flesh out his avowal that he is working towards improving the position of women in the public service beyond mere letters from the Premier suggesting that something be done on this, and give the women who will be demonstrating Women’s International Day tomorrow something to celebrate by committing himself to restructuring jobs in the Ontario public service and to more vigorous affirmative action, so that next year’s report will show some progress?

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it’s all very nice to say that we do nothing but send letters, but I must tell the member that the Premier, in his most recent letter to all the ministers, was very firm in his direction. If I may read a portion of that to the member --

Mr. McClellan: Dispense.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why is the gap growing?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: “I want to be assured that we are giving maximum support to the catch-up program for women employees, to which we are committed under the guidelines and directive approved by the Civil Service Commission and Management Board in 1977.”

That’s a very strong commitment and it’s a commitment I give, too. It may be true that we tend to favour affirmative action programs in the hope that business and government, because it’s rationally right to do so, will improve the lot of women in society -- because it should be done. If it becomes necessary at some time to introduce legislation to achieve that, I’ll be happy to look at it. That doesn’t give me any problems.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why is the gap growing?

FARM STORM DAMAGE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In the absence of his colleague, can the minister indicate whether cabinet has had the opportunity to decide upon recommendations in the matter of the Renfrew county disaster relief application; to make the adjustments that were called for by the local county agricultural committee, with respect to making the payments on a shared basis directly from that fund to the aggrieved farmers?

Mr. Ashe: Did you get up late this morning and forget your tie?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, which should go to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: as the member knows, I was very much involved when the disaster first struck in Renfrew county, along with the sitting member up there, Mr. -- he’s not here this morning, but certainly he was in touch with me right away on the matter.

Mr. Riddell: Who is he, by the way?

Mr. Nixon: What is his name?

Hon. W. Newman: Paul Yakabuski -- a very fine person, and don’t forget it.

Mr. Makarchuk: You had to think about it, though.

Mr. Kerrio: I’ve heard Paul say that himself.

Hon. W. Newman: I was involved in contacting Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister, I realize, has received a resolution -- I have also received a copy of it -- asking for a direct 50-50 payment. I think that’s what the member is talking about. I think the minister’s staff up there explained exactly how the emergency fund would work.

I have not had a response from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to the letter the member is talking about, at this point in time.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Would the minister, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, take into consideration the unique circumstances of this particular disaster, as it relates to a farming community scattered across a rather wide area in this instance; and would he make representation to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the cabinet generally that a special provision be made for the future, so that this kind of difficulty does not arise on a future occasion and so that farmers so aggrieved will automatically be able to partake of this kind of assistance?

Hon. W. Newman: I would hesitate to say that’s the best solution. If one goes the disaster area route that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was talking about it is quite possible that the farmers will receive a lot more assistance than they would get by going the route the member is talking about. That’s what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is looking at at this point in time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: For all the farmers.

PETITIONS

TTC FARE INCREASE

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I have some petitions from Scarborough, from more than 3,000 people, collected by Richard Johnston, the NDP candidate in Scarborough West.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s about all he will collect.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Saying, “Get us a better candidate.”

Mr. Warner: These 3,000 people, and many more constituents in Scarborough, object to the Premier’s fare hike which is now destined to take place on Monday.

An hon. member: What a phoney issue.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition signed by 224 transit users in Metro Toronto.

An hon. member: That’s one bus or subway car.

Mr. Grande: This petition, before other members on that side of the House begin to talk about the 224 names --

Mr. Ruston: You can get more than that on one bus.

Mr. Grande: -- is the effort of one and only one individual, by the name of Ms. Janice Crook, of Marley Avenue in Toronto, who became incensed at the stubbornness and uncaring attitude of this government regarding the TTC fare increases.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is she one of your campaign workers?

Mr. Grande: The 224 signatures were collected over a six-day period only.

Mr. Makarchuk: It bothers you a bit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member was loafing.

Mr. Grande: The petition says: “We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reconsider its decision not to turn over $6 million to the TTC so that no box fare increases will take place this year.”

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the member for Oakwood, and all honourable members, that any petition that prays for the expenditure of funds is clearly out of order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved first reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. Newman: I just very briefly point out this is an act to allow the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, which is now holding their levies in trust, to pay them to the Canadian Dairy Commission. It really is a very long and involved legal situation, but all this really does is make it legal for them to send their funds on to the Canadian Dairy Commission.

TREES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved first reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Trees Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The general purpose of this bill is to strengthen the provisions of the Trees Act relating to bylaws passed by counties and other municipalities to prevent the destruction of trees. In order to provide reasonable flexibility, the bill sets out some general exemptions from such bylaws and will authorize the municipalities to make exemptions from the bylaws in specific cases.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was introduced last session and the compendium provided at that time still applies. However, if either party has misplaced theirs, I can get that for them.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ziemba moved first reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ziemba: The purpose of this bill is to provide for a licence issuance suspension period during which the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will cease to issue new liquor licences in Ontario. This would be a five-year period and during the suspension period the board will study the issuance of liquor licences in Ontario and make recommendations concerning the extent to which the issuance of liquor licences is consistent with the goals of public health and welfare.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT

Consideration of Bill 74, an Act to establish a Code of Procedure for Provincial Offences.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before we consider Bill 74, I would just take this opportunity to extend my appreciation to all of the members of the House for the honour they have bestowed upon me in electing me Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House. I realize that this is a position that requires impartiality and a firm hand. I will try to administer it to the best of my ability in keeping with the best traditions of this House.

Mrs. Campbell: Before we start with Bill 74, in view of the fact that some of us have just received the proper copy during the course of these proceedings, could we be assured that everyone entering the debate is debating the same bill?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. Is there anybody who feels he doesn’t have the correct copy of the bill? It’s the one that has on the back of it “March 6, second reading.” Are we all satisfied we have the right bill?

Mrs. Campbell: It is the bill reprinted as amended by the administration of the justice committee.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Right. Are there any comments, questions or amendments in connection with Bill 74?

Mr. Lawlor: I rise, quite facetiously I assure you, Mr. Chairman, to point out that this bill, if you just glance through it -- and you were in the committee -- has been so renovated and so totally changed from anything that previously emerged that we are dealing with a totally new bill.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are you suggesting, Mr. Lawlor --

Mr. Lawlor: Facetiously.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right, because I think all the renovations that you are referring to actually went on in the standing committee.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The bill is certainly well fingered.

Mrs. Campbell: There are some amendments.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I have asked if there are any comments, questions or amendments. I gather the first question is one on section 6. Any comments before section 6?

On section 1:

Mr. Lawlor: I’ve got so many bills now, I can’t -- I have a question arising out of section 1(1)(f). We had before us a representative from the Justices of the Peace Association of Metropolitan Toronto, but then they withdrew and sent a letter. I have a letter in front of me of February 8. The last sentence says: “It is anticipated that such a brief will be submitted by the end of February 1979.” Has that been done and is that available to us?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Can the parliamentary assistant answer that?

Mr. Sterling: We have received the brief from the justices of the peace association. I don’t see any objection to making it available to the opposition critics.

Mr. Lawlor: Is it possible, without prolonging the agony, for the parliamentary assistant to give us a brief encapsulation of what they said? They were very much concerned before us as to the administration, where the whole weight, or a very great weight, is going to fall upon the justice of the peace in this province from here on in.

[11:15]

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a total view of the whole report that was submitted by the justices of the peace association but one of the main concerns related to the role of the justice of the peace under section 6, to which I will be proposing an amendment today. Basically their concern was the duality of their role both as an adjudicator and also as a defence counsel in cross-examining the prosecution or the police officer, which might be required under section 6. That was one of their major concerns in that report.

Mr. Lawlor: They don’t object to the extent of the jurisdiction or number 2 with respect to some kind of guidelines being afforded to them to discriminate between serious and less serious and non-serious -- and I’m not even serious -- the various degrees and permutations of seriousness that go into this legislation?

Mr. Sterling: I’m sorry, I would have to take that particular question under advisement. I am not in a position to comment in relation to that aspect of their report. Perhaps I could give you a copy of the report at this time and then after we had finished with another section of the bill you could return to that topic.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m quite prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman. It’s a matter of very considerable puzzlement to me and always has been and I am sure it is to you and I am sure to the ministry even -- this whole problem of how to sort out where those justices of the peace who are pivotal to the whole works fit in. What is the subject matter? What is the meat that they are going to chew? They are in the dark. I’m in the dark.

We are putting through the legislation. There has been in the committee hearings a certain refinement, a certain understanding reached, because we were given very large folios of a multitude of offences under provincial jurisdiction which I didn’t even suspect existed. It was most enlightening to know there were so many laws governing the most esoteric areas of our lives. But there you are and so it continues. Before I let the legislation go through, I thought this point ought to be pinpointed.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I also might be afforded a copy of the brief. I have discussed some aspects of it with the minister and with the parliamentary assistant but I would like to see the brief itself.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We will return to section 1 later then. Are there any comments in regard to section 2? Anything before section 6? Shall sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 stand as part of the bill?

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Sterling: In relation to some of the comments made by the member for Lakeshore, I have had an opportunity briefly to go through the report. It doesn’t appear they address the situation as to the seriousness of the offence or to that distinction between the varying degrees of offence. As such, I don’t know whether it would help in that particular regard. However, I am most pleased to give both the member for St. George and the member for Lakeshore a copy of this report.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that section 6 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“6(1) Where an offence notice is served on a defendant whose address as shown on the certificate of offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court specified in the notice and he wishes to dispute the charge but does not wish to attend or be represented at a trial, he may do so by signifying his intention on the offence notice and delivering the offence notice to the office of the court specified in the notice together with a written dispute setting out with reasonable particularity his dispute and any facts upon which he relies.

“(2) Where an offence notice is delivered under subsection 1, a justice shall, in the absence of the defendant consider the dispute and, (a) where the dispute raises an issue that may constitute a defence, direct a hearing, or (b) where the dispute does not raise an issue that may constitute a defence, convict the defendant and impose the set fine.

“(3) Where the justice directs a hearing under subsection 2, the court shall hold the hearing and shall, in the absence of the defendant, consider the evidence in the light of the issues raised in the dispute and acquit the defendant or convict the defendant and impose the set fine or such lesser fine as he is permitted by law.

“(4) This section applies in such part or parts of Ontario as are prescribed by the regulations.”

Mr. Sterling: Could I add my congratulations to you on your appointment as Deputy Chairman? I think it is most appropriate that one of the first matters that you would be dealing with in your new position would be Bill 74. As members of the committee know, you had a substantial participation in the justice committee when this bill was before it. Further to that, the amendment to section 6 and the retention of section 6 can, I believe, be in a great part due to your participation in the debates I in the justice committee, although there were many other members who supported the retention of this section.

Mr. Lawlor: That is just because you happen to be a Conservative.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am glad the member for Carleton-Grenville said that. Being in the chair, I’ll have to refrain from making comments, but it is only because I am in the chair.

Mr. Sterling: While section 6 was seen as a very innovative step in the whole administration of justice and quite a departure from the normal procedures carried on in the courtroom, it was also seen as an extremely useful tool for those people who were unable to appear in court to, in fact, be able to have a trial.

I think we all recognized in the committee that this section, which allows basically for a defence by a written dispute, will, in fact, allow people who live far away from the jurisdiction where the trial is being held a chance to dispute a minor offence. In the past, I believe that people who had been charged with a minor offence and lived some piece from the courtroom would, in fact, plead guilty when perhaps they did have a legitimate defence, just due to the economics of the whole situation.

This amendment basically takes the application of a written dispute out of the generic sense and restricts the application of the principle to a pilot project stage. First of all, it restricts the application of the section to a person or a defendant who lives outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the offence has occurred. The second main change is in relation to subsection 4 of the section, which basically makes it come in in terms of application by regulation. This will allow us the opportunity to attempt to try this particular section in one jurisdiction within the province so that we can properly monitor the people who will be, in fact, working with this particular section.

I think everyone who was sitting on the justice committee is aware of how important the education of the justice of the peace will be, in relation not only to this section but to the whole act. The monitoring of this particular section will be very critical in that there is a great deal of reluctance on the part of some members to depart from the old concepts of justice in the traditional sense of a trial.

I think that basically points out the two major changes in this section. It also tries to clarify what is meant by the person’s written defence. It refers to it in the amendment as a dispute, and it tries to differentiate between the written word being evidence within the trial -- in other words, it is trying to separate the fact that the plea or the pleadings, as one might want to describe this particular document in lawyers’ terms, is not in fact evidence, but it is a dispute. It also points clearly to how the justice of the peace is to use that particular written document in the procedures that go on.

Those would be my opening comments on this particular amendment. It is an important section of the bill, as I have said before, and I am anxious to hear some of the debate on the matter.

Mrs. Campbell: I first would like to express my appreciation to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), his parliamentary assistant and his staff for their co-operation in meeting with me and assisting me with my very real concerns about this section. I am pleased, because one of the first things that concerned me was what I felt to be the ambiguity as to the status of the statement as it would be presented. I think there has been a very real attempt now to incorporate in this unusual way a pleading. Therefore, I assume that in referring to it as a dispute it now has the status of a pleading in a civil action, so at least it clarifies the situation.

[11:30]

I have to say that I have been concerned about this section right from the start, as I think you, Mr. Chairman, know. One of my concerns is that in a case of this kind if a statement is given in response to a minor traffic matter, and the statement should, really, indicate that a more serious charge should be available. I have discussed that with the persons to whom I have made earlier reference, and they have taken the position -- and they may be quite correct -- that it might be a matter of difficulty from an evidentiary point of view to establish it as some form of confession. It doesn’t, however, entirely allay my concerns about this statement.

Secondly, I have had a concern right from the start about the duality of the role of the justice of the peace; and I expressed it -- it seems to me ad nauseam -- in the committee. Again, I am assured that, save and except in traffic court, there will be a prosecutor in the court. It doesn’t satisfy me completely; it leaves it a little open.

The situation is that here you have someone who is going to adjudicate also possibly entering the arena and cross-examining a crown witness. It just doesn’t appeal to me as a way to proceed and, with the greatest respect, I don’t think it has been addressed in this amendment. I understand that is one of the major concerns of the justices of the peace as well, so I am pleased that I at least have that kind of confirmation of my concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to move against this section. I believe there are a number of people, including the committee itself, who seem to accept the principle of it, but I remain, I’m afraid, personally opposed to this section. I think it is capable of abuse, and I don’t see it as having been that well clarified in the amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, the amendment is welcome and a considerable improvement over the section it is replacing; there’s no doubt about it. It is now reformulated on the basis of a pilot testing procedure to see how it will work.

The complaint has arisen out of this, I suppose, as this may be the most controversial section in the legislation. It is probably the most novel departure from the present operation of those courts in its criminal capacity. We have prated and talked about the decriminalization in this statute, and that is what it is all about.

Part of our difficulty, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, is that despite what we say we are still under some kind of bias or cloud of the criminal. We think in terms of offences; we think in the way of the criminal law and its full panoply. We just have a very difficult time abstracting ourselves from that, standing aside and being able to judge it externally. This is, in the context of these offences not being considered criminal offences, a very worthy and worthwhile move on the part of the government to deal with the issue.

In the brochure that was initially issued by the ministry in explanation of all these sections and the philosophy, tenor and purport of the act itself, it says, “A further alternative to the existing system provides for those who, although convinced that they are not guilty of an offence, pay the fine out of court to avoid the inconvenience of a court appearance. It will permit a defendant to plead not guilty and to deliver to the court a written explanation or submission. This, in turn, will be considered by the justice.”

The complaint arose that this was altogether too cozy, too private and too unexposed and that enormous power was reposed in the discretion of a single justice as to whether or not he would see fit to acknowledge that there was some weight and some real matter in the written submission or not. In the first instance, it was presumed he would exercise his power to call a hearing. If added evidence was necessary in order to back up what was being said in this written statement, then he would call a hearing. If he felt there was a moot point of law involved, he would call a hearing. And -- this is the third step and the tricky one -- if he felt there was no substance in what was being said, he would convict bang on the spot, and that was it. Arising out of that, there were appeal procedures of a fairly flexible kind and with fair ease to rectify any position that might be taken in that particular regard.

It got to the point because of these latter points that I mentioned that the section was to be deleted entirely. Again it was a hangover from a criminal approach. If you don’t take that approach, then it should be retained. So a compromise has been reached, one to which I give full accord, namely, that you are going to restrict it with respect to its territorial operation, namely in the county of York, and to cases that arise extra jurisdictionally, that is, somebody in Red Lake or somebody in Welland who is accused of the offence in Toronto may write in from wherever he happens to be outside the York jurisdiction and submit his case, thus saving a great many people the journey.

Many of us -- I am sure every one of us in this House -- at one time or another have gone ahead and paid the fine because it was too much of a nuisance to do anything else, nevertheless feeling that if we had the time and could sort out the other obligations we have, we would appear in court. On occasion, some of us did, in night court particularly, but when the House is sitting at night, of course that becomes a very difficult thing to do very often too. So you pay the fine and that breeds a disgruntlement, a real sense of grievance, in many people in this population. For a balanced jurisdiction, as we hope to be or are trying to be, that is an unnecessary irritation in the flesh of the Ontario population, and we want to obviate it.

I’ll obviate it by half-measure, if I can’t get whole. We will support the changes presently being placed before us.

Mr. Breithaupt: The comments made by the member for Lakeshore with respect to the historic background of the attitude that we’re at in this section, I shall not repeat.

The section, as it was discussed in the committee, as I recall did bring forward a number of alternatives and suggestions with respect to making this proposal of being able to deal with an alleged offence in a much more convenient way to the public. We have seen some changes which have occurred in section 6. I do welcome the opportunity that this section will have to be applied to various parts of the province. I think that the best result of these proposed changes will be the opportunity to try to see if, as the member for Lakeshore has mentioned, the half-loaf approach is going to work.

I would have been much concerned about attempting to bring in a section like this and have it made applicable to the entire province at once. I think there really would have been a series of difficulties and problems which would have arisen that would have scuttled the benefit a section such as this may well have, once it has matured and is useful to the people of a region. If that region or county has the benefit of dealing this way and the results are beneficial, then I think the move to the entire province is an intelligent one on behalf of this Legislature.

I do share the concerns that the member for St. George has raised with respect to some of the difficulties that may come up in this section. It is not going to entirely answer those objections. However, I do feel that it is perhaps worth a try and we will be very interested when the monitoring has taken place over the next year or two to see whether those objections the member for St. George has made are in fact the ones that are likely to result.

I hope there is the opportunity as this section is applied to come up very quickly with an intelligent summary of the statistics which will be made available to the members of the justice committee on an on-going -- perhaps quarterly -- basis. This would be an opportunity of keeping at least the critics for the respective parties, if nobody else, current with the results and expectations of the section. When changes do come they would then be more readily accepted by the House on the basis of knowledge which those two members particularly, and perhaps others of us, might have.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one other question arising out of the point about the framing of the justices of the peace: have you devised your plan with this alteration of the section in mind? In other words, are county of York justices of the peace alone to be given instruction in this? Because this was the one with the greatest discretion reposed in the judicial officer. Or is it your feeling that you are going to clue in the other justices of the peace of the province in a preliminary way? How do you handle it?

Mr. Sterling: Perhaps I could answer that direct question immediately and then comment in general on the other comments that have been made.

Basically I would imagine there are many other parts of the legislation which will require extensive education of the other justices of the peace in this province. Section 7, for instance, will require that there be some education in regard to it -- on the walk-in guilty plea. Probably because this section has been amended since the committee hearings, which only took place in mid-February, I don’t know whether or not we have addressed the question whether there will be a special section dealing with those courts that will be imposing section 6 alone or whether we would include that in the overall education program.

Mr. Chairman: Before you go on with the other comments --

Mr. Sterling: I think probably what will happen is that there will be an overall education program with the justices of the peace dealing with the whole act. Then those who will be implementing this particular section would be taken aside and we would deal with that section in more depth; that would be the approach.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I rise with a bit of trepidation because I believe all the others who have spoken on this are members of the legal profession. However, I will overcome that and make some comments --

Mr. Breithaupt: There is no reticence, surely?

Mr. T. P. Reid: All you need is common sense and that, unfortunately --

Mr. Swart: That’s right. As a matter of fact, I’m glad you raised that. Perhaps that is not confined to the legal profession. I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk might agree with me on that from previous comments he has made.

[11:45]

Section 6 is a section that is the key to the whole bill. It’s a section on which the committee struggled, as everyone here knows, and I think largely on a non-partisan basis. There are genuine concerns about it. Yet there is also the realization that this can provide some greater degree of fairness and perhaps justice in the province.

This amendment has been tabled by the parliamentary assistant and I think there is general agreement with that, but I want to hear some comments on one aspect of it.

What we struggled with was concern, on the one side, that at the present time justice is not being done because of the inconvenience that exists with regard to people charged with minor offences. They in effect just plead guilty when they’re not guilty and pay a small fine, rather than fight for justice, because the cost of fighting for it is greater than by pleading guilty.

On the other side, there is the concern, mentioned by my colleagues, the member for Lakeshore and the member for St. George. That is, there’s danger that justice will not be done by this system when you can’t cross-examine and have the normal court proceedings. In effect, two changes, as I see it, have been made. I don’t have the amendment in front of me, but my understanding is that two changes have been made.

One is going to be a kind of pilot project, starting in one place. Secondly, the ones who will be able to write in are only those people who are outside of that jurisdiction.

I’m in full support -- because of the problems that exist -- with regard to the first; that is, the pilot project. I also think I’m right in saying that by regulation this can therefore be extended, if it works well, to other parts of the province. It could be that within a year or two years it could cover the whole province. I think that is desirable.

But is it not right that you would not be able to extend it, without a change in the act, to provide that people living within a jurisdiction could write in in their defence? Therefore, it seems to me that this is some disadvantage. I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant comment on that. Why could you not allow people -- if you want to start a pilot project -- to write in a defence, even though they lived within the jurisdiction?

I would point out to you -- as you are well aware -- that in some jurisdictions they are very close to the court. It’s not much of a penalty to have to go to court, perhaps. But in other jurisdictions they can be a long, long way from the court. It’s more of a hardship for those people to have to go to court for themselves. They may have to travel 50 miles, or even more, to get to that centre of justice.

In addition, it is not just a case -- as I think we all recognize -- of the inconvenience of travel. It is also a case of the inconvenience of employment and, perhaps, having to take a day off from employment, even though they are close to the court.

I guess my question to the parliamentary assistant is: Why do we need that clause which gives this right only to those outside the jurisdiction? Why could we not have the pilot project within one jurisdiction, but allow anybody to write in their defence? If it works, then we can extend it to the rest of the province. To make that arbitrary division I think has some very real disadvantages.

I would like to hear your comments on it.

Mr. Sterling: Perhaps I can directly respond. Basically, I think we’re dealing in terms of where does a greater inequity lie? I think the greater inequity lies with someone who lives outside the jurisdiction, who has no real opportunity to defend himself at all, with regard to this minor offence. In terms of inequities, it’s much more disastrous for a person in general from outside to come to the jurisdiction to defend himself in a minor matter.

In picking a group of people who would benefit more greatly from the terms of section 6, I think the committee in general felt these were the type of people who would benefit most. I don’t argue with the supposition that the people within the jurisdiction would also greatly benefit, but we’re approaching this whole section and this whole concept with a great deal of caution basically, because it hasn’t been done anywhere else. It’s very innovative and, quite frankly, a lot of the members of the committee and, I think, of this Legislature are sort of caught in the balance.

As you said, this bill, in total I would say, was debated in a non-partisan way. I saw during committee hearings that members from all parties were wondering in terms of what views they took on a particular section. On this particular section I think the Attorney General felt, and I felt, that we were so close to the balance that to approach it cautiously at this point in time, and keep the numbers of these rights in disputes to it somewhat to a minimum so that we could monitor them well, is extremely important on this front end.

The other thing to remember too is that to open this bill, because of that caution that was expressed by many of the members of this Legislature in taking this quite innovative step, I think we basically owe it to those members to come back to this Legislature and amend the bill so that it would, in fact, apply to the people within the jurisdiction. I think we on the government side too often hear that we can regulate things in and regulate them out. With this issue being so touchy, let’s say, in terms of the balance that we’re achieving I think that we owe it to the Legislature to come back when we take that larger step, because I think, in that case, you will be dealing with many more people in the province. I think that this is the right balance at this time.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could breach the rules somewhat by asking some questions that flow from the submissions of the justices of the peace association and which I didn’t have the opportunity of asking before?

I note they are concerned about the statements and that their question is if this is regarded as a pleading, is it permitted to a person to, in fact, submit the statement in any language, or would it necessarily be in either English or French only? I would assume that while it isn’t evidence, in view of the fact that there is provision for evidence to be given with an interpreter, that this would be permitted even though it has the significance of a pleading. I think it’s an interesting point.

I would also ask this and they do pose the question: When a justice makes a determination as to whether a reasonable ground of defence has been set out in writing in this section, is this determination considered an administrative or judicial net and, therefore, should a record be kept? Would the statement become an exhibit?

I would assume that those questions are pretty readily answered, but I would like to have for the record just exactly what answer has been accorded to the justices of the peace association with reference to those matters.

I note they also have expressed other concerns with reference to the set fine and so on. I think those are pretty apparent from the bill itself.

I wonder if I could have an answer on those.

Mr. Sterling: Yes. Basically in relation to how the person could write in the dispute, it would be controlled by the Judicature Act. Therefore, in the designated areas of the province where French was acceptable in terms of dispute, it would be a legal document in those particular areas.

Also, it would be necessary to provide a translation service for a document that came in. We could not reject a dispute on the basis that it was in French and it was an area which wasn’t designated under the Judicature Act. That’s the feeling of the Attorney General on that issue.

Mrs. Campbell: What about other languages? Are they not acceptable?

Mr. Sterling: Whether or not they would be acceptable, there would be a notice of dispute. We would have to deal with that dispute one way or another. In fact, we would be forced to translate that dispute.

Mrs. Campbell: Fine.

Mr. Sterling: The determination is a judicial determination and there would be a record of the proceedings and, also, the letter would be an exhibit.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Chairman, this amendment clears up some of the concerns I expressed in the committee. Phasing in this streamlining process by limiting it to out-of-towners I think is commendable in this respect. I was very supportive of the bill when I first read it, but the more I thought about it, the more concerned I became about the other side; in other words, the police.

Here we have police out trying to make up their quotas every day, ticketing cars. The only check on that quota is the fact they know they’re going to have to spend so many days in court when these summons eventually come to trial. This check, to my mind, was being removed by this streamlining process. In other words, because people would have the right to write in, most people would write in, expectation would be raised and hardly anyone would bother going to court any more. Police would be freed from courtroom duties and I’m sure their quotas would be expanded as a result of that.

Because we’re phasing that in, I don’t see that happening, and for that reason I’m prepared to support it at this time.

I have had an awful lot of complaints from people who have received tickets and they all blame the computer. They’ve received tickets from Hamilton when they work in Toronto, or tickets from all over the province. They don’t know the reason these tickets are issued in error but they haven’t got the time and they’re not going to lose a day’s pay by going to Hamilton. So this is welcome legislation.

Perhaps because we have an Attorney General who is also the Solicitor General and a parliamentary assistant who is perhaps parliamentary assistant to both --

Interjection.

Mr. Ziemba: You’re not? Are you just the assistant to the Attorney General?

[12:00]

Perhaps what they could do -- it could be a blessing in disguise -- we could have all these police officers freed from court duty and assigned to community relations roles, where there is a sad lack of staff. Perhaps that might be a good thing in the long run if we can get some commitment from the Solicitor General that the police wouldn’t be giving out that many more tickets. Tickets are getting darned expensive in this city of Toronto.

Mr. Philip: I know. I just got one yesterday.

Mr. Ziemba: You just got one yesterday? I have one right here which I will be talking about in a few minutes.

Mr. Philip: A five-dollar parking ticket.

Mr. Ziemba: That’s cheap. That’s a good deal, Ed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be speaking on section 19 of the bill, as well.

Mr. Philip: I found the arguments by the parliamentary assistant to be persuasive. I think that this amendment is far preferable to deleting the section, which is another possible alternative. I certainly think we will be able to get some experience with it and closely monitor what is happening to it, then gradually, if it is as successful as we expect it might be, phase it in in other jurisdictions.

I can see a real problem in areas of northern Ontario, for example, where the territorial jurisdiction is very large and where, in fact, someone may have to travel. I am sure the parliamentary assistant and the minister have thought about this. I have thought about it and I have no solution but perhaps he has already commented on it. I had to be at another meeting when the bill started to come under debate. But I am sure that it is something we will be discussing in estimates in the next few years.

I realize that by regulation you can, of course, expand the number of jurisdictions in which this is used, but we may in fact have to come back with an amendment at some future time to deal with the problem of distance within individual jurisdictions.

I would be in support of the government’s amendment.

Mr. Stong: I rise very briefly to voice support of my colleagues with respect to the amendment to the act.

I might say that I am pleased to see, in fact, that this type of approach has been taken by the ministry, in terms of convenience and in terms of backlog and overload in our court system.

However, there is one concern I would express in relation to this section. I suppose it can be ironed out as the section is put into operation and the courts are set up. Again, it is a pilot project, subject to regulations, and can be changed.

The only concern I have is where a justice does in fact determine, after having received written submission, that it warrants a hearing. There is no indication when the hearing should be held; whether it be held immediately or whether a date should be set. Once he finds some validity to a defence or to a submission by a defendant, I would have preferred -- although the committee did not go this route and I just voice this at this time -- that where a justice finds a validity to a submission by a defendant, and he does in fact direct that a hearing be held then, perhaps, in addition to directing that a hearing be held and setting a date or time for that hearing, the defendant should be notified in writing and by mail that the hearing is to take place. This would then give the defendant an option in his own mind, if nothing else. He is not commanded to attend, but he is at least given notice that his submission warrants a hearing -- and nothing more.

I had hoped that section would be covered in this section, although it is not in there. It is just a concern I have about it. Other than that, I think the section ought to be given a fair trial, as the ministry has set out, and I am in favour of it.

Mr. Lawlor: I have a couple of points. We are dwelling on this section because it is new and perhaps we should spend a few moments on it. I notice in the justices of the peace statement that they say: “We are reasonably sure that it will be difficult for a court, after having heard sworn testimony from the witnesses for the crown and just a written statement from the defendant, to come to any other reasonable conclusion in most cases but to accept the evidence as presented by the crown and register a conviction against the defendant.”

I think there’s kind of a fundamental misunderstanding involved in all that. We know -- and this is regrettable from my point of view and I’m sure from many other points of view -- that judges sitting in criminal matters particularly tend to favour the crown. There’s a natural acclivity in those in office and those prepossessed with responsibility to support the other echelons of the system. This is in some instances to the detriment of the citizen.

The purpose here is that if you’ve got the written submission, it affords grounds for cross-examination and to check with the police officer, by asking, “Well, what about this?” so that it won’t all go by the board without questioning while the statement made by the officer is taken at face value without more examination. I’m content with that; I don’t think that that’s something one should quarrel with at all. On the contrary, at least it gives a bit more representation than presently exists where the statement is taken carte blanche and nothing goes beyond it. If it’s taken in that particular form, invariably a conviction follows. It just might be that on some blue moon in early December somebody might have justice done in this particular context because he can’t afford the time, trouble or money to come to that court.

The other thing I would mention has to do with what was said with respect to notices going out. I think we brought this up in committee. Under the regulation, I would like some assurance that whatever rights flow from a particular position being taken be communicated to the person who is penalized or is in any way hurt by it and an indication given to that individual of what the remaining mode of redress may be. Again, I am looking at the justices of the peace statement which says: “The next notification the defendant would receive in relation to his case would be a conviction notice. At this time, the defendant will probably wonder if his submissions were considered” -- this is one of the problems with the section -- “or even if the letter was received. In addition, it might be expected that most defendants would close their letters with the point that if any other facts are required that the court should feel free to contact them.”

All I’m saying is that I want to get a spoke in this wheel at the moment. No amendment is necessary in this context. Nevertheless, under the regulation in this particular, where a conviction is registered there should be some notation to the individual involved that he has a right of appeal and this set forth specifically for his attention.

Mr. Sterling: Perhaps we could answer a few direct questions now while they’re still present in everyone’s mind.

First of all, there is the point raised by the justices of the peace in relation to the dispute on the fact that in most cases there would be a conviction because the only evidence that will be presented in trial will be that of the prosecutor. I think that this was presented before. Perhaps they had the amendment to section 6 or they probably had not seen the amendment to subsection 6 as it now stands.

I think the amendment clarifies what the dispute is to be used for. It is to be used to cross-examine that police officer and get on evidence out of the police officer what the facts are in relation to the dispute that’s been written to them.

The other fact is that they will be getting a notice after the dispute has been entered and has had a trial. The notice will say, “Your dispute was considered but does not constitute a defence in law.” They will get that notice indicating that the dispute has been considered, so there will be acknowledgement that the justice of peace has received it and has considered it.

As to the appeal notice, I would hope that the regulation would point out the time limitations in relation to an appeal, and I’m assured by the Attorney General’s staff that there will be a notice on the conviction notice as to the time element required for appeal.

As to the note from the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) about getting a mail notice as to when the dispute would be heard, we did discuss this in committee. I think the member for St. George brought it up. However, a problem comes out of that. What you are doing is putting an extra step in the whole procedure. What you are saying is you get a double chance almost at the whole process, so that you mail in your dispute, they say you have or you have not a defence and then you get a notice about the trial. That’s the only reason you would give a notice of the trial, so that the person could show up at the time that the trial would take place, and so really what you are doing is you are giving them two cracks at the process.

The whole idea of the bill is to streamline and provide this section really for those who feel that they cannot show up in court because of other commitments, where the offence is of a minor nature.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions on the amendment?

Mr. Sterling: Could I make a few general comments in relation to some of the other matters brought up by some of the other members? I think I indicated before that it was a very non-partisan committee and that the chairman, Mr. Philip, indeed contributed a great deal to the way the debate went during the committee and I congratulate him on this particular matter.

As I mentioned before, I think on this whole section it’s a matter of balance and there isn’t actually right or wrong in terms of deleting this section or putting this amendment in, but I think in the total balance it’s probably worth the effort to go ahead, that there are injustices being done now, as the member for Lakeshore pointed out, and that we should proceed with the amendment and then review this from time to time within the estimates of the Attorney General and perhaps bring in an amendment later if it turns out as successful as we surely hope it will be.

Mr. Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?

Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

On section 7:

[12:15]

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, again I am referring to the concerns expressed under this section by the justices of the peace association. They are concerned, and the committee was concerned it seems to me, that “If it is the intent of the proposed legislation to implement the provisions of section 6” -- and that is, of course, prior to its amendment -- “should not the same privilege apply to a defendant under this section, because the penalty portion suggested is the same? It does not” -- and I am reading from this brief -- “It does not appear to be consistent that a defendant can plead not guilty in writing and set out grounds of defence along with submissions to sentence, in the event his defence is not accepted, yet a person who admits his guilt and saves the province the cost of a hearing and wishes only to speak to sentence is required to attend in person.”

It is an interesting question raised, it seems to me, by the justices of the peace, and I think it appropriate that we should note it duly at this time. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would like to comment on it?

Mr. Lawlor: Before he speaks, may I add a word so we can get the whole picture?

It is an interesting thing. On the other hand, I see that one of the reasons for not wanting section 6 was precisely because people would be addressing themselves to penalty and not to the gravamen of the offence itself and they didn’t want that. And why not? Because I am sure everybody in the world would send in a written submission with respect to penalty. And why not? You might save yourself 10 bucks by writing a letter; you have to take your chances.

I suspect that you’d be swamped if it were fully operative; and if that happened then there would be some very considerable undermining of the very purpose, at least of section 6. Therefore, section 7 deals with a totally different situation: namely, one believes he’s guilty but doesn’t believe he’s that guilty, and I can see no harm in him appearing.

I don’t think the points being made here are well founded or well taken. Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: When going through this bill I wondered the same thing as the justices of the peace in relation to section 7. However, if a dispute does outline in some way why the fine should be mitigated, I think that the justice is well within his power to mitigate that fine if he should choose to so do.

Mr. Stong: May I just ask a question of the parliamentary assistant? What mechanism will be in place for the situation that may arise where the defendant has indicated that he intends to plead guilty, but wants to appear to speak to sentence, but in the interim has received some kind of advice that maybe he should appear and defend the charge? Will a date be set over? Will he be bound by his plea, so to speak? What mechanism or plans do you have for dealing with that type of situation where a defendant has indicated previously that he wants to appear to speak only to sentence or extension of time and in the interim changes his mind and wants to defend the charge, even though he has written in that he is going to speak only to the sentence?

Mr. Sterling: I would imagine that it would go through the normal court process. In other words, if in fact the dispute has been considered and there has been a finding and there is a judicial decision on it, then he would have to go through the appeal procedure to defend the charge.

If it was before that, I am sure he could appear before the court and move to have the dispute withdrawn and to proceed the other way. I don’t see any problem in relation to that in terms of any other interlocutory procedure that might take place in the present system.

Mr. Lawlor: I want to argue with the parliamentary assistant. There is no mitigation. In subsection 2 we have made it very clear, with respect, that he should convict the defendant and impose the set fine -- nothing less, that’s it. Of course, in subsection 3, if he holds a hearing, then you have amended the earlier legislation and given him a much wider power. Again, I think that is the way it should be.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I misled you in terms of what I said before. You are correct. If he directs a hearing he can reduce the fine under section 6(3), but he cannot reduce it under section 6(2).

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Lawlor: A word on section 9(b) -- this arises in a number of areas within the bill. The section reads: “Where the certificate of offence is not complete and regular on its face, he shall quash the proceeding.” The question in my own mind after I read that is: May the justice of the peace then take it upon himself to alter an irregularity so as to keep the matter before the court rather than quashing the proceedings? What is the position on that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary assistant prepares his answer, again one might refer to the JP’s association. The justices of the peace seemed concerned as to whether the examination of the certificate in these particular circumstances is to be considered an administrative or a judicial act. One would presume that consequences will flow depending upon which theme it is considered the JP is following at that time. As a result, I am wondering what response the parliamentary assistant might have on that point?

Mr. Sterling: There is really no one at that point in time, as I understand it, who could move to amend the certificate of offence, and the justice of the peace is not given any jurisdiction under that to amend it. He only has the choice of quashing the certificate of offence.

Mr. Lawlor: What about the other point? Surely it is a judicial act?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, it is a judicial act.

Section 9 agreed to.

Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 13:

Mr. Lawlor: This is my old bugbear -- just to bring it up and run away from it. That wording in section 13(1)(b) is: “authorizing the use in any form prescribed under clause (a) of any word or expression to designate an offence.” I still have misgivings about it. I want to put it on the record, the danger continues to be there, in spite of all the assurances in the world. I am sure it will only happen in the most recondite circumstances. Nevertheless, we are all terribly suspicious of government these days. If it didn’t happen to get a particular matter set forth properly in the statute and the circumstance subsequently arose, then it is the easiest thing in the world to pass a regulation. The regulation could define the terms of the offence in such a way as to catch, in the net, what wasn’t expressly done in the statute.

All I can say is that -- Mr. Williams is not here this morning; the member for Oriole is in Baltimore. He’s the chairman of the committee that is supposed to look over these things and pay attention as to whether or not this type of abuse might occur. I trust that they will do so.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Lawlor: I have just one word on that. That’s the business of saying to the municipalities, “You are free, except when you’re not,” which is most of the time. I am not going to raise any amendment or fuss about the thing, particularly; I just point out that as against the earlier section, it now becomes mandatory, within a time limitation of two years, for all municipalities to opt into this legislation, whether they like it or not.

I think it is preferable to have consistency in the application of this particular court and its jurisdiction established universally, rather than to have an isolated municipality proceeding under its own bylaws. It is a good move, but it should be pointed out in this House that this is a change.

Section 15 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park- Swansea indicated that he had an amendment on section 19. Is there anything prior to that?

Mr. Ziemba: I did, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I could ask you to stand it down for a moment. I am getting some copies made of my amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: I will speak on section 19.

Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Lawlor: It is the same objection I had a few moments ago with respect to another section. This has to do with parking infractions: “ ... where the justice is satisfied that the certificate of parking infraction is complete and regular on its face ... ” The very broad powers do give this legislation a tincture of criminality. All borrowed from the Criminal Code of Canada, they repose in the court’s infinite jurisdiction with respect to altering documents, changing words, altering even the offences involved -- adding offences, producing things out of the blue. This whole procedure, I think, goes against the grain of this non-criminal statute.

In any event, the word “regular” bothers me. Can section 35, or any of that multitude of other sections be brought to bear to permit him, right there on the spot, to change something which would remove a defendant’s defence?

Mr. Sterling: In case of a trial under this section, I believe that section 35 can be used.

Mr. Lawlor: Apart from that, where there is no trial or hearing it can’t be used.

[12:30]

Mr. Sterling: That’s correct.

Mr. Ziemba: This is a very important amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ziemba moves that section 19(1) be amended by striking out, in the first line, the word “fifteen” and inserting in lieu thereof “thirty.”

Mr. Ziemba: Parking tickets are getting awfully expensive in Toronto. They’ve jumped the rates. They are a real hardship for people living in the inner-city area where there is nowhere to park on the street and where there are limited spaces, so the parking summons becomes kind of a licence, I suppose, to park. We are getting an awful lot of complaints from the inner-city area about parking violations.

I was assured in the committee, when I moved an amendment somewhere along near the end of this bill -- section 19(3) -- that the Attorney General’s people were not that difficult to deal with. There were days of grace and “not to worry; 14 days is working out fine; it will continue to work out fine.” Well, I found that’s not the case.

I got a ticket in front of the Sir Nicholas Restaurant on Roncesvalles on January 14 of this year. It was $20 for “no standing at any time.” So I sent in my $20 on January 28, exactly 14 days after I got the summons. Well, so much for your days of grace, Mr. parliamentary assistant. I got a very snarky letter back from a Mr. D. B. Chard, the administrator for the ministry of the Attorney General:

“Dear Sir or Madam: Your parking tag and payment are returned herewith because they were received late and cannot be accepted. The parking tag states clearly that it must be received” -- underlined -- “by the court office not later than 14 days from date of issue.”

If we’re going to charge people $20 for parking, then surely we can give them 30 days to pay it. It’s a hardship to me. I’m sure it’s a hardship to people who make less money than I do. I think that this relief is really called for at this point in the bill.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the amendment of my colleague from High Park. I think if we look at other forms of dealing with government, of appealing decisions by government, we find that certainly more than 14 days is allowed for an appeal.

Those of us who are dealing with any government body, be it an appeal with the federal government on a decision not to grant citizenship, be it a workmen’s compensation case or be it decisions of the Ministry of Community and Social Services or what have you, all have a fairly lengthy time in which you can appeal a decision. I think, if we are going to be consistent, surely this is the kind of thing that we could extend an extra 15 days. It will in no way affect the processing. It simply means then that you backlog the block of work handled by those people in the courts who are processing it at that particular time.

So we’re not talking about any additional costs to the operation of it. I would think the extra 15 days, considering some of the difficulties that our mail system has had at the present time and considering the way in which other matters dealing with appeals to the government are handled, would be a reasonable change.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this at length in the committee. Basically I think it was shown by the inter-relationship of the various sections within the act that a person after receiving his parking ticket had somewhere between 45 and 60 days, if he extended it to the total extent, that he could take under the existing act as it is now set out. If we add another 15 days, it will be either 60 or 70 days in which the person has to pay that fine.

I point out to the members of the Legislature who were not part of that committee, there are extremely generous sections within the act to have payment delayed for a period of time, just by asking the justice of the peace. There are also provisions whereby a person can pay it in periodic payments over a period of time, it’s just a question of how long do you want the procedure to go on. It makes it more cumbersome administratively; as you lengthen the period out you have that many more people on file.

Some of the members of the committee felt that by lengthening the period extensively, what you do effectively is cause a problem for the person who is paying the fine. Some of us do better when we pay a bill or a fine when it is imposed; if we put it away we seem to forget about it. But that’s notwithstanding what this Legislature might do.

Basically it’s a 45-day minimum now. The member for High Park-Swansea wants to extend that to 60 days. Our position is that 45 days is enough, and if that isn’t enough there are liberal provisions under the act where a person can walk in to a justice of the peace and get that time extended or make arrangements for periodic payments.

Mr. Breithaupt: The matter was discussed rather at length, as the parliamentary assistant has said, at the committee stage of the bill. I am quite content that the time frame he has suggested is a practical balance for the present time, and I would advise the chair that we would not support this amendment.

Mr. Ziemba: Perhaps there is just one point the parliamentary assistant might have missed. I am asking for 30 days for people who want to plead guilty and who do not want to get relief but find 14 days just not enough time to raise $20.

Mr. Sterling: They have that possibility within the terms of that act as it now exists.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 19 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further questions or comments in regard to the bill?

Mr. Ziemba: Yes. Are we going section by section?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, section by section. I want to know what section you next wish to speak to.

Mr. Ziemba: I have an amendment to section 132.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any other members wishing to speak to any section prior to 132?

Mr. Lawlor: With respect to my own colleague, he has an amendment on section 132(2) which is applicable to section 23 of the present bill -- or is it? Could I ask for a clarification on that?

Mr. Breithaupt: May I have a copy of the amendment so that I would know what is proposed?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I guess we all need clarification. Mr. Lawlor has asked a question. Whom are you asking it of? The member for High Park-Swansea? I don’t think the chair is in any position to clarify it.

Mr. Philip: We are going to have a mini-caucus meeting.

Mr. Lawlor: I’ve raised the point in section 23. Perhaps my colleague could explain why not section 23, but rather section 132.

Mr. Ziemba: I felt section 132 was the appropriate place to talk about identification because that’s the section that deals with arrests.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: May I ask in the meantime whether sections 20 to 22 shall carry?

Sections 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: Can we go as far as section 30 and pause there for a moment?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions on any section prior to section 30? Shall sections 23 to 30 carry?

Mr. Warner: No. I would think that as long as there remains some confusion as to what the relationship is between sections 132 and 23, it might be prudent to stand down section 23 for the time being until we can resolve this matter. In looking at both those sections, I can understand that an amendment may be necessary to relate section 23 to section 132. Perhaps we could stand down section 23 and proceed with section 24 and so on.

Mr. Hodgson: You are a professional stander-down, aren’t you?

Mr. Warner: We’ve had a lot of experience.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’ve no objection, other than to say that in my reading of section 23 it only deals with the fact that the provincial offences officer may serve the person with a summons. Identification really doesn’t come up in that light.

It can be stood down, if that’s the wish of the committee. But I presume that the matter of identification as the point at issue would appear to fit into section 132 in the notice of reason for arrest and production of process. I would see no reason to stand down section 23. But if it’s thought that it might have some beneficial effect, it’s fine with me.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are you content with that, Mr. Lawlor?

Mr. Lawlor: I accept the position of my colleague. I don’t think section 23 should be stood down.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. Are we agreed that section 23 has carried?

Section 23 agreed to.

Sections 24 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does anybody have a comment to make on section 30?

Mr. Lawlor: My next reference may be section 42.

Sections 30 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 42:

Mr. Lawlor: You understand we’ve had three periods of evolution. Whether or not we’ve matured, I don’t know. First of all we had a bill. Then before we had second reading we got a new bill with alterations. Then it was subsequently changed for the third time in committee. This section is one of those in which there is the third change.

[12:45]

I’m almost willing to suggest that for the purposes of the House, when the third change comes along, the one made in committee, some mention should be made of it and it be pointed out that this is not on all fours any longer, by any means, with the earlier legislation. Subsection 2 here has to do with the keepers of prisons and conveying prisoners to courts, et cetera.

I’m not sure if it makes a substantive change in the legislation. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would spend a moment explaining that subsection. Why the change?

Mr. Sterling: Are you referring to subsection 2?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I’m referring to subsection 2. The only change has to do with reasonable charges.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Help is coming.

Mr. Sterling: I’m sorry. Could I stand that down in order to give you a reasonable explanation of your query?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed to stand down 42(2)?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps the section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right, that’s better. We’ll stand down the whole of section 42.

Sections 43 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 51:

Mr. Lawlor: Section 51 must be taken in conjunction with section 82. Just let me check with section 82 and see if there has been any change in that with respect to the new bill that came on our desks this morning. No, it’s the same.

It was raised in committee, and I’m still wondering if adequate consideration was given to the position. We were a little jealous of the rights of the defendant with respect to counsel or agent to appear on his behalf. I’m still not satisfied as to the inter-relationship between those two sections. One of them, 82, appears to grant that as a right without any ifs, ands or buts, but 51, the one we’re on, cuts back and gives the court a very considerable discretion as to whether the man will be represented by anyone or not.

If the court finds a person is not competent, that is, surely, a highly subjective judgement, in many instances. Sometimes it’s quite clear that he isn’t competent. Lord, that applies to lawyers too. But what an easy masquerade to exclude what would be a perfectly competent but totally obnoxious human being from the courtroom on the grounds of personal feelings because he didn’t like the colour of his eyes. This is the danger.

Has the parliamentary assistant considered it since our committee? I raised it at that time and I raise it again.

Mr. Sterling: I can only respond in the way I responded in committee, that it was felt it was necessary for the justice of the peace or the provincial court judge to have some control over an irresponsible agent who was acting for a person, and that this was the way we thought would be the most suitable to give the judge control over an agent who wasn’t acting in the best interests of his client.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the parliamentary assistant not agree that a justice dealing with section 51(3) would, in fact, have to act judicially, and that if there were the rejection of a person to act as agent on a mere whim or caprice on the colour of that person’s eyes, surely there are remedies available for review of such a decision that would, in fact, require a serious and judicial interpretation of this section by the person whose responsibility it is?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, I think we discussed that fully. Again, judges and justices of the peace have a lot of discretion and, especially under this particular bill they really are going to have a much greater control placed over their activities because appeals from anything they do within a courtroom, in most cases, will go directly to the provincial court judge who is over that particular justice of the peace. We think there are enough safeguards so that this will not be used unwisely.

Mr. Lawlor: I think subsection 3 is a very novel one. I know of no other area in law in which it is set out in such express terms. Of course I don’t mean “the colour of one’s eyes.” It just tends to be a phrase that happens to be at one’s fingertips. But it’s very easy for a judge to say that the case is not being presented properly, the right questions are not being asked, the mode of approach is wrong. “He should have done it another way. If I were the examining agent I would present it totally differently. And he’s incompetent.” That really bothers me, but I don’t know how to change it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You are not making any amendment then.

Mr. Lawlor: No.

Mr. Ziemba: I would like to speak to that. I believe this section was written with one individual in mind, Mr. Chairman, a Mr. Zoltan Szoboszloi. Mr. Szoboszloi appears in traffic court almost daily and some judges don’t like him. The reason they don’t is because on numerous occasions he has expressed the opinion that he doesn’t recognize the Queen as the head of state. For that reason he was thrown out of court a couple of times. I don’t know whether he still feels that way but I suspect that’s why we see this section before us.

I just wanted to put on record that there has been one case where someone has been, I guess, in the court’s eyes, obnoxious or objectionable --

Mr. Philip: “Traitorous” is the word to some of us who are monarchists.

Mr. Ziemba: -- and they wanted to get rid of him. If the constitution is repatriated that problem won’t arise and Mr. Szoboszloi would be able to continue appearing on behalf of people in night court without having that difficulty.

I agree with my colleague from Lakeshore that while it’s objectionable, I don’t see what we can do about it.

Mr. Breithaupt: To take that particular example, repatriation of the constitution will make us no less a monarchy, so presumably this individual’s dislike of the style of cause of an action might well continue.

Section 51 agreed to.

On section 52:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: How far is the member for Lakeshore going to let us go?

Mr. Lawlor: Somewhere in this mess is an objection that I had with respect to appeal procedures.

At this hour of the day my mind is not clear as to what my objection was or what the appeal procedure might be. Did you meet and accommodate my request, whatever it might have been, within the terms of the amended bill we got this morning?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is it with regard to section 52, Mr Lawlor?

Mr. Lawlor: It could be 152, for all I know. That is why I don’t want it to go much further without hitting it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Well, we’ll carry section 52 and we’ll look to the House leader.

Section 52 agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: Could I comment on section 42 in relation to the amendment? That was the only one that was stood down. You were referring to 42(2)(b), I believe, is that correct?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, to 42(2).

Mr. Sterling: The only reason we amended that particular one was to clarify where the expense of bringing the prisoner to court was going to lie. We were concerned that it not lie with the Correctional Services people. That was the reason for the amendment.

Section 42 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I believe the only section up to section 52, and including 52, that hasn’t been carried is section 1, and we have agreed to go back to that.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 1 p.m.