Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 202, An Act respecting Occupiers’ Liability.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the other members when they say this bill is long overdue coming before this Legislature. It is unfortunate that it has been left until a few days before the House closes down to be brought in for us to have a look at it.

It is very important to the land owners that they be relieved of the liabilities that are sometimes brought on them when somebody crosses their property and unfortunately has a mishap.

I tend to agree with the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) when he says we have a problem with lawyers. When I listened to the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) condemn the bill for three quarters of an hour, and we then realized the bill was made up by a lawyer, I guess we are in some trouble.

After listening to the member for Lakeshore I can understand why farmers won’t allow people on their property. If he were to deliver that speech to all the land owners on the Niagara Escarpment, that would put a complete end to the Bruce Trail. Those who haven’t turned them out already probably would do so after they see how hard it is to get relief from liability. Who is going to let people on to their land if they’re held responsible?

Under section 1(b)(i) of the bill, where it talks about water, I presume that means farm ponds as well. I built a farm pond a few years ago, and we’ve had a lot of enjoyment out of that pond. I remember at the time that my wife was very opposed to building the pond because of the fear of somebody drowning in it or in case we would be held liable for something that happened. It is very unfortunate that we would not build that pond and deprive ourselves of the enjoyment of the recreation it provided in swimming and fishing because we feared the liability that would be put on us if somebody trespassed on our property and put us in the position that we could be held liable and sued. I don’t think that is proper.

We went ahead and built the pond and often on a summer Sunday afternoon there would be 25 or so neighbours in there swimming.

Mr. Conway: A nice pond it is, I might add.

Mr. McKessock: Yes. The member for Renfrew North also has seen the pond. It provides a lot of entertainment but in no way do I want to be held liable if anybody goes into it and there happens to be an unfortunate accident.

If the land owner is going to be good enough to let a person on his property, surely that person should be there at his own risk. Hunters, trappers and the coon hunters’ association who want to be able to go on property are willing to accept responsibility for any risks they take, and they wouldn’t consider suing a land owner under any circumstances.

When I listened to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) last night, I became afraid that if this goes to committee and comes out, the land owner probably will have to hang a first-aid kit on every other tree and maybe supply orange juice if the trespasser becomes fatigued.

Mr. Riddell: Or apple juice.

Mr. McKessock: Or apple juice. I’m very concerned about this bill passing as soon as possible to take this liability off the land owner. If it isn’t removed, I can see that private property no longer will be available to anybody for recreational purposes of any kind.

I want to speak in favour of the bill, and I hope it proceeds into law as quickly as possible.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these two bills with some reservations which I will bring in towards the last of my remarks.

If I could use myself as an example -- and I realize I’m not here to make cases for myself -- I think my situation may be identical to the position that a great many farmers find themselves in.

I will explain briefly. I live on the edge of the village of Cedar Springs and because of the nature of my farming, which is largely fruit growing, we have a great many trails, field dividers and roads that we keep in fairly good condition to facilitate the movement of goods and people throughout the farm.

We have a very good relationship with the young people of the village, many of whom work during the season at picking various fruit crops. It’s actually a great pleasure to my wife and my family and myself to see the young people making a great deal of use of our roads throughout the summer -- couples out for a walk or on horseback. A number of children in the area have horses. There is every sort of recreational vehicle that one could imagine.

I have people saying to me, “Why do you allow these people on your property?” We have sort of an unwritten agreement between us, I guess, that if they don’t bother me, I won’t bother them. Throughout the years, I can’t think of one instance where these people have done any harm to us. Under the present law, I am putting myself at considerable risk in allowing these people to enjoy the property.

As our villages grow and as our rural population becomes larger -- and it is becoming larger; I think the figure that was put out recently by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was that in the last year or two some 200,000 rural severances have been allowed -- these people are gradually moving out into the countryside and looking to our land for recreation. Also, we have a very mobile population in this country because of the use of the automobile; so city people are coming out to the country.

Unless you can give farmers some protection in this regard, you’re going to see these avenues cut off gradually and, through time, you’ll see fences and signs erected stopping that sort of activity. Because farmers and city people have a good relationship and a great interdependence, and because we have good farm legislation in this province, we want to see that relationship strengthened and continued rather than brought to a matter of two warring parties.

I would like to point out another aspect of this. In answer to the maritime members for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and the very reasoned arguments they made about the historical building up of our common law and the matter of duty of care, that’s one that farmers appreciate. We listened to them very dutifully and attentively, and we were moved by their arguments.

The difference between Canada and Britain, as I have seen it on a couple of visits to Britain, is that all the fields there are enclosed. There are very few rural residents. As a matter of fact, I spent two days with a government official in Britain who was known as the land agent. It was his job to determine whether people could build or separate lots out in the country.

We found that the law in Britain is so restrictive that they won’t let a farmer’s son build a house on the farmer’s property. That farmer’s son has to go to the nearest village to live, and he drives back and forth to the farm. In Canada, we allow farmers’ sons and retiring farmers to sever lots, especially under the encouragement of the present Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson). As I read his statements, he would make this even more open and would allow us to have more severances. But in Britain, a farmer’s son can’t live on the farm; he has to go to the nearest town.

[10:15]

I noticed, particularly in Germany, even the farmer doesn’t live out on the land. They live in villages and travel each day to and from their work. It’s also true in Asia where, of course, land is under such great pressure to produce food. All the people there live in the villages. They walk to and from their fields.

Mr. Riddell: Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there.

Mr. McGuigan: That’s right; it’s the value of land. It is certainly a side lesson to be learned. Changing the subject, to respond to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), we in this party believe in the preservation of farm land and are willing to fight for it.

Mr. Speaker, we see a difference in the historical relationship between people and land in Britain, particularly, and the relationship between people and land in Canada. One of the reasons, as I have already mentioned, is the matter of mobility in this country -- next to the Americans, I guess we are the most mobile people in the world -- which brings the two segments of our society sort of in confrontation with each other.

We, in this party, want to protect farmers and farm land as much as we can but, at the same time, we are not inhuman, as has been suggested. I would join my colleagues who at least are willing to listen to the arguments made by people who have a different view and, therefore, we would be glad to entertain these two bills going to committee.

In closing, I would like to point out another reason we see these two bills before us; it’s one I’ve taken a personal part in as a member of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. I refer to reluctance of judges and police forces to properly enforce the law in the matter of pilferage and theft from farm fields

Too often, a judge has been inclined to say: “When I was a kid, I jumped over a farmer’s fence and stole an apple. It’s a boyish trick and, therefore, we’re going to dismiss this case.” The farmer has gone to a great deal of trouble to bring the person before the court and, after a few attempts of that nature, he decides it isn’t worthwhile. There is no protection in the Petty Trespass Act.

I recall an occasion many years ago when I witnessed a person stealing fruit from our orchard. I phoned the police. They traced the car licence number and it turned out to be a rather prominent person -- a person in a profession. The reply that came back from the police was: “We won’t prosecute this fellow. If you want to prosecute him, that’s fine; but we won’t.”

The police had the evidence; they had gone to his house and they found the apples. He admitted he took the apples and so on, but they wouldn’t prosecute. We were supposed to prosecute when the evidence was all gone.

Mr. Eaton: If he had taken them out of a supermarket, he would have been charged with theft.

Mr. McGuigan: That’s right.

Those are some of the reasons this bill is before us. Farmers, in their frustration about pilferage, have turned in many cases to look at the legislation in Florida, which gives a fine, as I recall, of $5,000 for trespassing in the orange groves. That doesn’t require that you be caught with any goods in your hand. If you stop your car and walk into the orchard -- into the grove, pardon me; they don’t like them being called orchards -- if you walk into the orange grove and charges are laid against you, you face a fine up to $5,000. It’s pretty rigidly enforced because of the great number of tourists in that state.

In spite of all the positive things we see in this bill, the fact is that we’ve been waiting many years for this legislation. I remember being part of the group that brought the case to the then Solicitor General (Mr. Welch). We were asking him to bring to the attention of the judges that they shouldn’t give people a medal when they’re brought in on pilferage charges. This is something the farmers have been working for for many years.

Farmers are human, too. They have children, and when their children go off the farm and go to the city to go to a theatre -- and I think in terms of the tragic accident in the United States in recent weeks in the city of Cincinnati -- or to other places, we want to feel that someone has the duty of care to look after them. We recognize that. Because of our humanity and our interest, we’re at least willing to listen to arguments that are brought up in that connection.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, at least as far as this member is concerned and, I believe, as far as our party is concerned, farmers need not fear the hearings that will be held on this act. We’re behind it, but we are willing to listen to modifications, to make some adjustments and to make these two acts more acceptable to the public at large.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who participated in this debate, although I must admit that I found some comments were somewhat negative and I take some exception to them.

Bill 202 will condense thousands of cases of common law on this confused part of law. Before this debate began, and after having read the legislation and literature, primarily the discussion paper which was produced in May of this year, I was somewhat apprehensive about the bill going through the House at a rapid pace.

I must admit that apprehension was founded on the basis that there were so many profound changes included in such a concise piece of legislation. As a lawyer, I have read so many cases on this particular matter, it’s somewhat hard to believe that law can be contained in such a short piece of legislation. I must admit that during the debate my belief that it should be fully vented by a committee was reinforced by both opposition parties.

Mr. Lawlor: With some hesitation, apparently.

Mr. Sterling: No, I indicated at the outset that, if it was the wish of the House that this bill go to the standing committee, I had no objection to it. I will be asking the Speaker, if this bill is given second reading, to refer it to the standing resources development committee.

One area that was brought up during the debate and was of concern to me surrounded the protection of children. In most circumstances a child is protected under the existing bill as drafted. Only in the case of rural land where the entrant is deemed to assume his own risk will the protection not be there. In all other cases the duty of reasonable care shall be the responsibility of the occupier. Be that as it may, I would be quite willing to listen to suggestions by the members of the Legislature with a view to possibly amending this particular area of the bill during the committee stage.

During the debate there was mention of a law case; I know this is not always of great interest to all members of the House, but it was the Veinot case. In all fairness, in looking back at the case, it is somewhat a confused decision in trying to draw exactly what the results of that case did say. I am told that originally, at the trial level, the court found in favour of Mr. Veinot; the Ontario Court of Appeal found against him, and then the Supreme Court of Canada found for him five to four. In reading those judgements it’s particularly difficult to come out of that decision with a hard conclusion.

Interestingly enough, this very decision was reversed in this Legislature in 1974 by the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. I was interested to see what took place during the debate at that time, especially on the part of the third party, which had expressed so much interest in it. I was able to get a copy of the December 21, 1974, Globe and Mail, and I quote out of it: “At one point in the debate, not a single member of the 20-member New Democratic Party was in the House for a period of five minutes.” There was very little debate at that point in time by the New Democratic Party about the principles of this particular case. I don’t know whether that has just come to the fore or not.

The explanatory note in this bill indicates that it is essentially taken from the Law Reform Commission. That is true, except for section 4, which we have added to their recommendations. We have done that, in our view and, I believe, in the view of many of the members of this Legislature, to keep this co-existence, which has been exhibited in the past between urban and rural residents, continuing on a peaceful basis. It is also to encourage rural residents to provide their private land to urban people to come on their land and to enjoy some of the attributes of rural life. I am convinced that we have taken the right step in putting section 4 in.

The particular section, as basically outlined in the discussion paper of May 1979, has been approved overwhelmingly by both the agricultural community and the recreation associations, the responsible people who are using private land at this time.

[10:30]

Purists in law, academics and legal professors would not like us to put in section 4. But what is pure in law is not necessarily what Ontario is about. I believe, and I think our government believes, that this particular act reflects what Ontario is about. It recognizes urban areas, it recognizes rural areas and it recognizes the undeveloped areas of our province.

Farmers don’t read court decisions and we do little to show them how to protect themselves. This act codifies that protection. It tells people who are coming out to the country what is expected of them.

I would like to indicate that this bill was not dumped on us in its entirety on December 11; the white paper in May substantially carried these sections of the bill The white paper also included, for those who’ve read it, the actual draft of these two pieces of legislation. We received many responses to this discussion paper. We were receiving those responses until October of this year.

It’s interesting to note that one of the changes actually answers one of the concerns of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) regarding his fishing pond. We had changed section 1(b)(i) to include water because of some of the responses to that discussion paper. Those responses have included some very significant, although minor, changes to the act. That’s how vineyards got into this particular act in terms of protection as well as those who are involved in reforestation, Christmas-tree planting and that kind of thing. Also, there was an amendment made to the other act to include school boards to provide them with a better tool to prevent trespassers from going onto their premises.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that all speakers from both opposition parties have indicated they are going to support this legislation on second reading. I would like to reiterate that I do take great exceptions to the remarks made about the Attorney General last evening; I think they were uncalled for. I want to reiterate, also, it was at my request; I asked to bring these bills because of my great interest in this matter.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing resources development committee.

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 203, An Act to protect against Trespass to Property.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say a few words about the bill, directed right on to it. While most remarks last evening gave general coverage and can’t help but cover both pieces of legislation, still this is a departure in a more radical sense than the previous bill which, Lord knows, had its moments and its defects precisely because of its deviations from a now established norm, I thought.

We have no Law Reform Commission report with respect to trespass as such. We have no background studies. This is straight out of Jupiter’s forehead -- end it ain’t Minerva who came out, let me tell my friend. It is a narrow, restrictive, niggling and very punitive type of legislation which I wouldn’t have expected to see forthcoming at this time in history from this government. It is setting up all kinds of weird little fandangoes that we are supposed to dance to; the signs and markings in various colours et cetera, which in order to be legal I suppose have to be within a circle of 10 centimetres. Measure it; take your tape with you the next time you go.

Lo and behold, as has been pointed out to me, the whole legislation could very easily be unconstitutional on the basis of its criminality, on the basis of the kinds of penalties being enforced in this legislation. The government is overweaning the sledgehammer effects et cetera to bring about a simple result.

One example is going on to a shopping mall to, say, protest against a particular activity going on in that mall. What would happen if the owners of the mall, or apparently any number of other individuals with some interest in the mall, ordered you off, and you replied, “No, if you want me to come in to buy your wretched goods, you are going to have to listen to me in the process”? They call the police, and you are taken off -- but subject to what?

First of all, you are subject to a fine of $1,000 -- but that is only the beginning. Second, you are subject to damages, if that ensued, up to $1,000. Finally -- that ain’t the end -- you are subject to the costs that could proceed by way of private prosecution. They hire a lawyer, but not using the crown attorney, and proceed against you. You might have to pay the shot on that particular thing too. That is pretty weighty.

If one wanted to bring a blunderbuss to this, one could. But today we are in the area of more sophisticated weapons, although that’s not what the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) uses. He uses great 17th-century shot and shell directly off Nelson’s flagship. It is unbelievable.

Let’s go one step further on this. What is the government really doing? It is not reposing this responsibility in a regular provincial court judge; that is not the first aspect of it. This particular matter could very well be handled by a justice of the peace under the new provincial legislation, the machinery of which is being oiled up at the present moment and taking time. It comes before a justice of the peace. We would hardly want to repose that kind of responsibility in a justice of the peace.

Second, the Attorney General knows it is a very questionable procedure to mix up criminal proceedings in the midst of civil proceedings. The normal procedure, if there are damages done to him or me in any particular way, is to take the thing to the small claims court or the county court and have a trial on that basis with the rules of law, which are quite different from those which apply to civil cases.

But no, the Attorney General rolls the whole thing into a waxen ball and messes everything up. Judges are appointed because they supposedly have some competence, and I have some doubts about the justices of the peace in this regard, to handle criminal jurisdiction and who perhaps over a period of time have picked up some form of sagacity about these types of cases. They need not necessarily be very well acquainted with civil and tortious law.

As I say, the law of negligence has always been difficult; it is tricky. Increasingly, up until this legislation and the previous bill, it was devolving more upon the individual. Greater and greater discretions were being reposed in judges so they could meet the exigencies of each separate case. That is the direction of British law and our law. Common law all over the world is seeking to accommodate itself to the needs of particular individuals’ unique situation -- and every situation to some degree is unique -- whereas 19th-century law applied the blanket. Everybody was placed in a category. The axe fell; heads got chopped off. They’re supposed to all look the same when they hit the floor.

There is a total change in orientation; a total change in the vision of what law may do. I like that second vision and I will do every damned thing in my power to promote it, because that seems to me to be where justice lies. It lies as between people. When you try to apply these universal rules and lower them on people’s heads et cetera, you get the Procrustean bed: You cut off their toes, you cut off something else -- God help us -- and they’re left a little truncated, bleeding on the bench. That’s the tendency of this government at this time in history, to return to and reaffirm that in terms of its legislation. It is happening in bill after bill. It’s an authoritarian, lofty and dictatorial point of view, somewhat paternalistic when it happens to have an inch of kindness, patting the children of the world on the head -- and the citizens of Ontario.

The citizens of Ontario are sufficiently mature to be able to accept the responsibilities of living with one another. They don’t need the government’s particular form of patting or petting, or whatever the blazes it is that the government does to people by way of twisting their arms when it is pretending it is soothing their pains.

The government has mixed up the civil and the criminal and given it to the same functionary to dispense in one bundle. That’s a retrograde step. That is questionable. It is done very seldom. The only case I know of where it is done at all is in terms of assault, where civil remedies are sometimes given in a criminal court over and above any fine for an assault on a victim et cetera. That’s very rare.

If it’s given by that judge in that kind of court, the individual who has been assaulted cannot take civil proceedings thereafter. I suppose the same thing applies in this particular context.

In most instances, as far as the rural situation is concerned, no notice of any kind is necessary. I’m not going to take too much exception to that. If a place is enclosed or is obviously used as an orchard, then people ought not to be trespassing on it, particularly if their purpose in trespassing is to do any damage or to steal chattels. A farmer is entitled to be protected in these contexts. I suppose there is a fair amount of pilfering these days and a considerable economic loss.

But when the government comes to saying that notices must be given, it sets up a system which is perhaps even ludicrous in its operation. I don’t think it will work; I think it will cause difficulty. If I’m walking along a trail somewhere in the Bruce Peninsula, up in the territory of the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), and I see a yellow marking, I must say to myself, glory be to God, What may I not do here? I’m told the thing I must do is seek out the owner and interrogate him closely as to fishing, walking on my head, sauntering through the bush, perhaps horseback riding -- who knows. But one has to go through this process.

I’m sure the owner will love the presence on the doorstep of numerous individuals saying: “Tell me precisely what I may or may not do on these particular premises.”

How they run smokescreens, camouflage, et cetera. The tone of this discussion paper takes what I suppose Norman Vincent Peale would call “the power of positive thinking.” You know what Adlai Stevenson said about that. He said: “I find St. Paul appealing, but Norman Vincent Peale appalling.” So do I. This is the Norman Vincent Peale syndrome borrowed by the psychiatric association, that little department, that back office connected with the Attorney General’s ministry.

As I say, the government does all the gyrations and posturings; it’s like a gymnastic exercise of just how benevolent it can be. They want to promote and encourage benevolence in the farming communities of this province. They do so by removing the possibilities of suit in an innumerable range of situations et cetera.

Isn’t this a weird way of thinking? They’re going to make people kinder by not penalizing them somehow or other instead of recognizing a natural openhandedness and ability to accommodate on the basis of wishing to do so for its own sake and not being dragooned in to this state. Over and over again in this paper, this is the position they take. They say the farmers of this province will not permit any access to their lands by way of hiking trails or in a dozen different other ways unless this legislation and the penalties are all removed. I have a higher opinion of farmers than that. I think they can reach accommodations and understandings and allow a commerce between the city and the countryside on better terms than what this sets forth and on what is really a very negative stance and putdown so far as co-operation between the two sectors is concerned. They bend over backwards in all directions to get that vote. They would go to any degree or extent.

It seems to me that if democracy is to function at all there must be some limit as to the perfidiousness and the degree of auto-gyration that takes place to summon a vote. If you’re a minority government yearning for the good old days, I suppose it’s understandable; but at least in the House it’s wise to spell out what the blazes is taking place; what this legislation is all about. It’s not a well-framed, balanced, objective seeking to meet the needs of the whole community. It’s not that at all. It’s a highly partisan piece of business.

As I said last night, and I say it again, it ill behooves the station, office, function and responsibilities of the Attorney General of this province. It isn’t his job. He has to learn that he has to overcome that and has to have a wider vision of what is necessary and needed in the province. He is not the Minister of Agriculture and Food. That’s the job of the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson). Let him make the representations in this particular regard, and if he prevails in the matter, so be it. Knowing the member for Lambton, I have no doubt he will prevail; he always does. He uses weight; he’s got the bulk behind him to push these clauses. The barricades come down before his presence. I stand open-mouthed before such persuasiveness in most circumstances.

The legislation does have to be perused. It has never had a real opportunity. So far as we in the opposition are concerned, we have seen very little, one way or the other, to show us the real grounds and rationale of section after section and, particularly, the wording in these sections. One could go on, but I think it’s better to give somebody else a chance.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Lakeshore is concerned about signing private property. Possibly he is colourblind to start with; but, if people use common sense and had the decency to ask for permission, we wouldn’t need any signs.

Under the present legislation, any trespasser is subject to a token fine of about $25 if it can be proved there was trespass, which is next to impossible to do. The farmer or the land owner pays the costs of his legal fees; so there isn’t much point in taking someone to court today.

Mr. Lawlor: How about settling for $500; somewhere between $25 and $1,000?

Mr. J. Johnson: The member for Lakeshore seems more concerned about supermarkets than farmers. It’s unfortunate the member for Grey-Bruce isn’t in attendance today, because he would certainly take exception to the honourable member’s remarks about riding roughshod over his riding. It seems very inconsiderate of the kind and friendly constituents of Grey-Bruce that the honourable member would ride over their property without even asking permission. It might be a nuisance to knock at the door to ask permission, but it certainly wouldn’t be a nuisance to trample over their fields.

In the Sarnia Observer of Tuesday, April 25, 1978, it says: “Rights of farmers need consideration. One can hardly blame farmers for becoming teed-off with self-righteous hunters when they move in for the shoot. Simply by passing legislation which would have them seek permission from the farmer before landing on his property with boots and bullets just seems sensible.

“There was a concern expressed by the Minister of Natural Resources at that time, Mr. Miller, who stated that farmers, who received no co-operation from hunters and so feel that hunting should not be permitted at all, are apt to go to their local councils and ask for prohibition of the right to discharge firearms. That would eliminate the chance for locals to hunt. It’s the old story, that one or two irresponsible hunters can spoil it for the rest. It’s up to the hunters to obey the rules and prevent further infringement on their privileges to hunt. Common sense and consideration of the other guy will guarantee that hunters retain all of their privileges, rights and needs.”

Basically that’s what we’re concerned about with this bill, that it’s the few rogue hunters who create the problems for the majority. The average farmer and land owner in this province is not opposed to hunters or to anyone who wants to use his land for recreational purposes. All he asks is that they have the common decency to seek his permission before doing so. To me, that sounds quite sensible.

In section 8 of the bill it states, “the legislation will set a ceiling of $1,000 for damages caused by a trespasser.” This is an area of concern. I think there’s a misunderstanding, and the parliamentary assistant to the minister should explain this portion. Some people have the idea that, if they’re awarded $1,000 or any amount less, they can’t seek compensation. This is the way I understand it. If they don’t accept any compensation, they do have the right to seek redress through court action for a higher amount. I think there’s a misunderstanding, and this should be clarified.

This past hunting season there was a problem in Simcoe related to the deer season. The land owners and the farmers objected to the open hunting season. We were quite disturbed the season was open. This is an indication of things to come. If we don’t redress the problem that the rural people have, we’re going the create a problem for all hunters. This is one area that I think most of the members could agree upon. Surely there is some centre ground where we could resolve this.

I have one letter that I would like to read into the record. It’s addressed to me and is from a constituent, I believe, of Mr. McKessock.

“We are writing to you in regard to the bill to amend the Petty Trespass Act. We are in full support of your position to second the bill. We live and farm in the 12th concession of West Luther township. We’ve had numerous occasions when uninvited and unwelcome hunters have been on our property and when approached, these people seem to think that we are wrong to object to their presence and feel they are within their rights.

“We feel that this situation is unjust and would appreciate any efforts to see the bill through intact. We are both surprised and disappointed that 18 NDP and two Liberal members voted against what seemed to be a fair-minded and responsible solution to the problem.”

That was the Petty Trespass Act of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), but I think that this present act that we have, Bill 203, is an improvement and with a few minor amendments in committee it will serve the purpose that this party is looking for and, I think, the purpose of the party of the opposition. The third party, of course, will be opposed to it. I would hope that we can pass this in committee.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose most of us who debated these bills last night were out of order because we treated the bills as being companion bills and we made comments pertaining to both bills at the same time. I don’t intend to repeat what I said last night other than to again indicate that there was some concern amongst members of our own caucus -- and I would say these members had better legal minds than some of us -- and they realized this bill affects more than farm land.

It’s quite all well and good for those of us who represent farmers to get up and say it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, but we also have to realize there are some parts of the bill that members such as the members for St. George and Lakeshore are really concerned about. This is one of the reasons we have no objections to the bill going to committee.

If it does go to committee, I know full well that the spokesmen for the farmers are going to make recommendations. I think they are being more human than we give them credit for because I know that as far as the constitutionality of the bill is concerned, where this heavy fine of $1,000 is being imposed -- which would indicate that maybe it does approach criminality or comes under the Criminal Code -- the farmers are saying, “Okay, let’s put a fine of $25 on the first offence and $100 on the second offence.”

They’re being quite considerate. I know the farmers are saying written permission or positive entry, signing, would be the only defence against trespass. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture rejects the proposal that trespass be determined by land status or by the land’s current use. This is a recommendation they’re going to be making if it goes to committee.

As far as colour coding of nonstatus land is concerned, farmers deem that to be impractical. When we’re talking about posting, the OFA recommends that posting not be necessary. If owners wish to do so, it should be permissible. Part of the problem as far as the OFA is concerned is the nonexistence of a code to specify the legal meaning of signs in current use. The recommendation is that no signs be necessary because experience shows they’re too easy to remove.

I alluded to that last night when I was debating the matter. Farmers who in the past have posted their land with “no trespassing” signs have found that these signs have simply been taken down. The OFA also proposed that legal meaning be given to markings in two colours, red and yellow. It is recommending that farmers should not have the responsibility for posting their land. It is further recommending that posting of trails be the responsibility of the organization contracting for trail use, such as a snowmobile club. The fact of the matter is a farmer is not going to go out and start painting his fence posts or some other mark with red or yellow paint. He simply is not going to do it, any more than he is going to post.

[11:00]

Mr. Eaton: He doesn’t have to.

Mr. Riddell: Yes, but all land isn’t cultivated and farmers are concerned about forested lands. They are concerned about their woodlots. In the summer, if trespassers are going to go through, there could well be the danger of fire being set to a woodlot. Not all land is cultivated and I think they even made reference to it when they were looking at the discussion paper the Attorney General sent out.

I might say there has been very little change made to the bills we are debating, Bills 202 and 203, from what appeared in the discussion paper. As a result, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has made a recommendation that the prohibition of entry without notice would apply to forested land. It is recommended that forested land be treated in the same way as cultivated land. There is an excessive danger from fires that could destroy farm woodlots. Posting may be easier, but this should not be a reason for making it mandatory.

These are all recommendations the federation of agriculture is prepared to make if the bill goes to committee. Inasmuch as those of us who are speaking for the farmers have said we would have liked to have seen this legislation introduced much earlier in the year, go to committee and be brought back to the House and passed before the House prorogued, this is now impossible. The farmers are not going to object to having it go to committee so some of their recommendations can be heard, as well as the concerns of our good legal people, the members for Lakeshore and St. George. I am sure they will be most anxious to appear in committee and to make the changes that they feel should be made.

With these remarks, I am pleased to see that all parties are going to vote for the two bills on second reading. We certainly are going to do all we can to see they get down to committee after the Christmas break and then back into the House, so we can deal with them first thing after the new session starts and get them passed.

Mr. Warner: As my good colleague from Lakeshore has pointed out, it is difficult to determine where this bill came from and through what strange process of logic they have arrived at this bill.

Yes, there is a problem. Everyone recognizes that. Farmers have legitimate concerns, urban dwellers who enjoy recreational pursuits have particular concerns. There is a problem and the minister should attempt in a logical, reasonable way to solve the problem. In his feeble attempts to solve it, he has created an additional problem which may be one he didn’t even contemplate. I suspect, by the hastily drafted legislation, this is so.

Quite frankly, I don’t know how we are going to repair the bill. I am quite anxious to work in a committee and attempt in some way to salvage this dreadful piece of legislation, but I don’t know how we are going to do it. I think what has been done, inadvertently or otherwise, is the creation of a very serious problem for the trade union movement. It is a very serious problem as well for people who like to express their social conscience on occasion.

Section 4 particularly makes it possible to preclude picketing. It is bad enough that we have a peculiar situation of a private property with public access, such as shopping malls -- public access except that the owner may deny access to some members of the public he’s not terribly fussy about. In other words, for those of us who took part in the grape boycott a couple of years ago, the owners of plazas saw fit not to allow access for those members of the public who were demonstrating in a social cause.

I don’t think the confusion over the private and public aspect of property with regard to malls has been decided in a definitive way. The government intrudes on that problem; it compounds it; it makes it worse. I would take from that section that it would be perfectly in order for the owner of the mall or the tenants to post a sign indicating there’s no picketing allowed. That would stick.

Second, all of us know the serious problems over first-contract disputes in this province. Remember the infamous Fleck Manufacturing Company and the difficulty there in picketing to begin with. This makes it worse. Think of the equally infamous Radio Shack people, that delightful group of Texans who try to make sure the workers will not have the right to a contract and how they could make use of this law to preclude people from their rightful -- I take it to be a right to be able to demonstrate your opinion about the owner.

The minister has created a serious problem. I cannot in good conscience support this bill. I cannot possibly see how we can turn this bill around. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can explain, or can provide some guarantees in the bill. Perhaps he has some magic way of providing guarantees in here so unionized workers on a legal strike or those seeking first-contract settlement or involved in social picketing are protected. But it would seem to me there is some immense confusion between the rights granted in this bill and the rights we assume are there under the Labour Relations Act. I just don’t think we can resurrect it.

My other colleagues have spoken about the signs, all the different markings and so on. This is going to be a fascinating exercise across the province as different-coloured markings and signs are posted here, there and everywhere. It’s going to be terrific fun. On my property I’ll put up a little blue sign that says, “No Tories Allowed.” That’s what that marking will mean.

The next thing the minister will want to do is to start marking the animals. Why doesn’t he paint all the deer pink so people know these are deer coming along?

Mr. Eaton: Some still wouldn’t know.

Mr. Warner: They could probably colour them black.

Mr. Gaunt: Signal lights.

Mr. Warner: Some of the farmers have had to paint c-o-w on the side of some of their animals, so that hunters can distinguish them from the deer.

It’s no wonder that people make fun of it. It’s silly; it really is. That entire section is really quite silly. I am absolutely astounded at how the parliamentary assistant can rush in here a couple of days before prorogation and bring forward a hastily thought-up piece of legislation emanating from who knows where. It certainly didn’t come out of the law reform commission. It came out of somebody’s thoughts somewhere.

And do you know why it is here, Mr. Speaker? The parliamentary assistant certainly doesn’t deserve any kind of attack. He wouldn’t function the way the Attorney General does -- I don’t believe he would. This is here for one reason and one reason only: because our dear Attorney General wants to have a very high profile with the farm community and he would like to get lots of votes, not just for the Tory party, but in a little thing called a leadership contest.

Isn’t that what it is all about? The dear Attorney General would like to garner some very solid support from those Tory constituents who are farmers?

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the bill about a leadership convention.

Mr. Warner: Maybe there should be. Then I could vote against it.

I understand clearly why the bill is here. It is window dressing. The bill is just fatally flawed. It does not solve the perceived problem the member has told us about and it creates worse problems. It is my intention to vote against this bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, perhaps by way of preamble, I do seriously regret the fact the Attorney General is not here. Again, that is no denigration of the member for Carleton-Grenville who has carried almost all of the Attorney General’s bills with a great deal of expertise and he is doing his level best with this one, and I understand it. But I am growing very concerned that we have a bill which is, in essence, a divisive bill, and the Attorney General as a lawyer, must understand that.

The fact that it is proposed the bill go to the resources committee is an indication that this bill has been brought in for only one purpose and that is to try to redress the very real wrongs the farming community has suffered as a result of those who carelessly, wantonly or whatever, trespass upon their lands.

Quite apart from other matters, it is significant in this bill that many of its requirements, many of the signings and so forth provided, are not open to people living in urban municipalities by reason of bylaws which preclude this kind of posting. For example, I believe as firmly as I can there should be legislation to protect the farming community. I am ashamed to think the bill is necessary because of those who are not members of that community, who treat that community with, at least in some instances, thoughtlessness, in others, sheer contempt. I do not support that position.

[11:15]

I have very grave concerns even about the constitutionality of this bill. I would like to be able to debate that kind of thing with the person who is responsible for the bill before us. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that legislation of this kind, important and necessary as it is for the farming community, should be brought forward so late in the session, when very real rights and very real concerns are caught in a catch-22 situation, in order to resolve the problems of the farming community.

I have been concerned that throughout the debate on both bills I have seen what amounts to almost two Ontarios, because those who speak on behalf of the bill from the farming community obviously understand its importance, obviously want to get it through, obviously feel that these are both bills for the farming community as indeed they are, but they should not be so all-embracing that they do affect carelessly other rights.

The old doctrine in criminal law of mens copa or mens rea are really wiped out in this bill, which has its quasi-criminal aspects. I find it very, very difficult and I have stated so before, but because I know of the necessity of it I am prepared to support it at this point with the very real commitment to doing everything I can to try to overcome the flaws in the bill as we discuss it in committee.

Sometimes perhaps people feel there are too many lawyers in the Legislature.

Mr. Lawlor: Jack Johnson does.

Mrs. Campbell: Perhaps that may seem to a great many people to be true today. However, I think those of us who have that training owe a duty to try to bring to these bills whatever we can of our kind of training and our kind of experience.

I look forward to the debate in the committee to see if we can improve this bill to the point where it does protect the farming community without creating very real problems for others. It seems to me that the Attorney General might have addressed the matter in a different fashion so he could have redressed the wrongs of the rural community without, at the same time, creating problems for others in this province who do come under the bill and who are affected by the bill.

I want to make it clear that I think anyone who is trespassing on agricultural land and who refuses to get off should have no protection from me or anyone else. I think perhaps the parliamentary assistant may himself -- because he, too, is a lawyer -- be as torn as I have been in trying to view the matter on two basic issues and from two basic points of view. I would hope that he who was so helpful when we were dealing with the Provincial Offences Act and other pieces of legislation in the continuing absence of the Attorney General would give thought to those concerns which have been expressed here. Perhaps we may all work together to bring in a bill which will be effective, without denying rights to those who are not members of the farming community.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about one particular facet of the bill which is of concern to me and to underline to the parliamentary assistant, in the absence of the Attorney General, the nature and extent of my concern and why, at least in part, my caucus has decided that we should vote against this bill on second reading.

I’m rather pleased with the change in the tone of the debate this morning over what took place last night. I always welcome the contributions made by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, by the member for Carleton-Grenville, by the member for Middlesex and by the member for Huron-Middlesex, because there is a sense now that we are recognizing that it is extremely difficult, in talking about land in Ontario, to distinguish rural land from urban land in any definitive or real sense. I know the problems which are involved in that question, as we had similar problems with respect to the assessment of farm property as distinct from some other kind of property.

I think there is a sense that these bills, while they may have very specific and special application to protect the individual farmer who is farming his property, nevertheless have an overriding general application across the province which is of the utmost importance.

My colleagues, the members for Lakeshore and St. George and others have spoken about some of the very real concerns related to the bill, as to its constitutionality, as to the problems which may be involved in connection with it. I wanted to spend just a few minutes addressing my remarks to the interface which always exists between the rights of property and the liberties of the subject.

In Canada we do not speak very much of civil rights; we speak more of civil liberties, but there is the same connotation. The rights of property and the interface of those rights with the liberties of people are extremely important. I just do not know the answer to it and that’s why we were anxious to have a clarification of it in committee, so that we have an opportunity to discuss those matters. We were also concerned because the bill itself does not appear to recognize the nature of that problem. Therefore, we were perforce required to agree to vote against the bill.

I want to talk about a term which is generally perhaps not known in the farm community in the same sense in which it is known in the urban areas. I want to talk about a term which perhaps has connotations of approval or disapproval, depending on which side of the fence you view it. I want to use it today in a neutral sense. It is the term “boycott.”

I want to couple with the term boycott the political boycott. By political I do not mean partisan political politics; I’m talking about political in the sense of the relationship between people who are concerned about matters in the society in which they live and wish to have an opportunity to persuade others to take a particular course of action.

I’m sure the member for Carleton-Grenville and all the other members will give me credit for saying I am talking about the legitimate persuasion of other people. I’m not talking about coercion. I’m not talking about intimidation. I’m not talking about violence. I’m not talking about any form of illegitimate activity in relation to persuasion. I’m not specifically talking about labour relations, although this bill has very important connotations for the whole question of the right to picket and the right to provide a picket for information in labour disputes.

Maybe in committee, the labour movement will be anxious to make some representations about it, I do not know. But I’m not speaking directly about labour relations, I’m speaking more of what this bill appears to do and that is to delegate to a private owner of property the right to determine whether in those areas of that private property that are otherwise open to the public for general use by invitation such as my colleagues have referred to -- the shopping malls, the shopping plazas, the large conglomerations of property where there are a number of stores and where there is a general invitation to the public to come in and use the common areas and use the individual entrances to the shops and businesses to conduct their business. To the extent that concentration takes place, it becomes extremely important in the exercise of the right of political boycott.

I use that term although for the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) and, I assume, the chief whip of the Tory party, it may cause a certain degree of intellectual indigestion to even countenance there is such a thing as the right of political boycott. It is a right of freedom of expression. It is a right of freedom of speech. It is a right not to be exercised in a vacuum but to be addressed to one’s fellow citizen to induce that fellow citizen to participate with you in withholding your trade for a particular reason.

We’re all mature enough to understand that one of the characteristics of our society is the increasing concentration of economic power in the marketplace and that the number of countervailing means available to the individual citizen to bring attention to that concentration of power and to express the view that perhaps that power is being used unwisely or abusively is a very limited right at best and often ineffectual. But the very limited nature of that right and the degree of its efficacy in any situation means that an assembly must be careful to ensure that a bill such as the bill before us will protect that right.

I believe the rights of individuals with respect to their civil liberties, if faced with a confrontation with the right of property, must prevail over the right of property. But I am anxious, as all of us must forever be anxious, to make certain that kind of confrontation does not take place. The moment that takes place, then you have to use repressive measures to preserve order in the society. I am concerned this bill invites that kind of confrontation which makes an almost-immediate and direct requirement of resort to violence and the need to preserve law and order through the exercise of the police power an inevitable consequence of the bill.

I assure those interested in this bill I know of no way we can protect that right. We may have to use some kind of simplistic system of saying if it is a corporate owner of property, the corporate owner must be restricted in the way he can infringe upon civil liberties. Perhaps that would pick up the great bulk of the areas of the shopping malls and the shopping plazas that are concerned.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s discrimination.

Mr. Renwick: I know my friend likes to say “discrimination.” I find it difficult to discriminate against a mythical character known as the corporation which has no existence in law or in substance in our society. It’s a form of insubstantial entity which we have created and which some people think walks, talks, moves and has its being, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t exist except in the --

[11:30]

Mr. Kerrio: There are humans who pay the bills behind you, Jim. That’s the reality of it all.

Mr. Renwick: I suppose that means that all taxes come from the people. We agree with that. We just disagree about the amount that comes from some people as distinct from those who pay the bulk of the taxes.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s your little dream world.

Mr. Renwick: I find it difficult to comprehend. Perhaps the member for Niagara Falls sometime would enlighten me as to why Shell Canada pays no income tax in Canada. Would he like to do that now or later?

Mr. Kerrio: I’m talking about my little corporation, that’s real and producing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Riverdale has the floor. If the member for Niagara Falls wishes to participate at a later time, I’ll allow it.

Mr. Renwick: I enjoy the comments of the member for Niagara Falls so much that I always allow him to divert me from the main purpose of my comments.

Perhaps if I could be relatively elementary about it, a political boycott means that I want to withhold my trade from a particular organization in order to achieve a particular political purpose in a peaceful way. I know that in a democracy a good part of my ability to achieve that goal is in my ability to talk to other people about my concern. I also know that the message is the important part of what the political boycott is about.

The message is conveyed in many ways; we are all familiar with them -- by signs, by picketing, by peaceful demonstration, by handbills, by intercourse with the person you are trying to persuade to adopt your view to effect a particular purpose, usually an economic purpose.

I suppose the classic example in our society was one of the very few successful boycotts that has taken place in our time, that is the grape boycott. Many of us participated in this boycott which in the conscience of people, even though they didn’t perhaps agree with the political boycott, did affect very much the conduct of other people in a situation. The member for Niagara Falls will remember we were talking about the migrant farm workers in California at that time. We were able by the political boycott, each in our own small way, to contribute in some way to remove that particular injustice.

The problem came about that the Petty Trespass Act was used for the purpose of prohibiting that form of activity. It’s that delicate interface that I want to make certain in the committee hearings is dealt with in an effective and intelligent way. Virtually every political boycott includes an effort to induce other persons, by conversation, by handbills, by picketing, to withhold one’s trade for the achievement of a particular objective. The only way you can do that is when you have access to the person at the point at which that person is going to deal. You can say to that person, “We would like you to consider this when you are dealing with this organization or product. We want you to consider this concern which we may have.”

I do not think it is too much to say that there may very well be situations develop in the future, as very nearly occurred in Ontario in the 1960s in which the farm community as such may be as equally anxious and concerned to exercise their right of political boycott as we perhaps in the urban areas are somewhat more prone to do for the purposes of the achievement of a political objective. All of us remember the time when the tractors came across into the city and up into the Queen’s Park area in order to effect their political protest.

Mr. Eaton: On public property.

Mr. Renwick: On public property. There may very well be a time -- I hope it doesn’t come; I hope the reconciliation of interest will always prevent it from coming -- when members of the farm community may want to be able to contact the customer in the shopping plazas in the Metropolitan Toronto area to bring to the attention of the buyers of farm products the problem of the farmer with respect to those products and the way in which they are being marketed or perhaps the way in which the farm community may on occasion feel they have been exploited. They may want to induce their fellow citizens to at least be available to them to understand that there’s a community of interest between the consumer of farm products and the producer.

I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to say that may very well occur at some particular point in time if there is any validity to the way in which both sides of the populace, both the producer and the consumer, is exploited through the supermarket system. We will await the report about that matter.

I just want to close my remarks on this topic to say to the member for Carleton-Grenville that I really am anxious that he understand that there is a civil liberties interface of this bill with the rights of property which requires attention. We want to find a solution to that problem for a number of reasons, but for the principal reason that this bill is silent in its recognition of that problem. There was no recognition of that problem at the time when this bill was introduced. There was little, if any, recognition of that problem at the time when the law reform commission and the predecessors of this bill came into existence. There was very little realization that we cannot allow, by means of signs or otherwise, the owners of private property to exclude from the common areas of places and shopping malls and plazas where the public is invited those people who come there for a legitimate political boycott purpose to induce their fellow citizens to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot leave to the private owner of the property to make that kind of decision as to what kind of communication will take place between those he has invited to come on to his property for his gain and for his profit. You cannot say that at Christmas time Santa Claus is allowed, but a member of the public who wishes to protest about the exploitation of someone in the society, or about the production of some product, will not be allowed. You can’t allow the benign and useful and beneficial public body, such as the Salvation Army or others, to make appeals on the public property and deny the right to go on to public property of people who have an equally humanitarian and deep concern related to a political objective, which can be achieved only by some inducement to withhold their services because of the pressure which can be brought against the congregations of economic power, which are one, if not the major threat to the kind of democracy that we have.

There is much more in common with the concerns that we all, as citizens, be it in the rural or urban community, have to see that this bill and the bill which we debated last night are properly and adequately dealt with, than to divide the people of the province, because there are special considerations which we all recognize as applicable to the farm community and for which exceptions must be made, just as we think there are exceptions that must be made in these bills to protect something called a correlative interest of urban people in the exercise of their rights.

If my colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) were here, he would speak as he has always spoken in this assembly to recognize the concern of the farm community about the legitimate needs in a changing society for protection against damage to property, depredation and the unlicensed and unlawful exercise by people of their supposed rights. Everybody understands that. I cannot express it as forcibly or as knowledgeably as my colleague from York South could.

When we were talking about these bills prior to his absence from the assembly, he clearly brought to the attention of the assembly the fundamental and basic concerns of the farm community as expressed through the Ontario Federation of Agriculture about the importance of these bills. I am glad to see the obvious political advantage, in the funny way in which this assembly operates, which was thought to be achieved by the introduction of these bills in the dying days of this session, will not be achieved. All of those matters fortunately will now subside and we will be able to deal with these two bills in a committee where these legitimate concerns can be reconciled.

In the reconciliation of those concerns, we may have to look at some very fundamental elements of what we are talking about. My colleague from Lakeshore clearly expressed to the House the dangers involved in confusing concepts in bills and mixing them all together into one muddle and posing that muddle to the already overladen courts as a solution, when it will compound the problem in the long run much more than to have left the slow but labourious adjustments of the common law and the courts to this question of reconciliation of property rights with civil liberties.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone on as long as I wish to go on. I have tried to relate only to the one aspect, but I hope no one will think we have but a single-minded concern. The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) was really not trying to confront the farm community against the users of the shopping malls. I recognize in the give-and-take of the debate it may have sounded that way, but we must all now recognize the commonality of our concern about both bills.

I have very real questions about whether or not what may have been a solution 20 years ago is now being put forward to us as a solution at a time of immense change in the full conception of the relative use by varying members of the community of the property within Ontario, be it publicly or privately owned; be it owned by corporations or by individuals; be it owned by the very personalized corporation of my colleague the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) or be it owned by the non-personal amorphous bodies known as the larger corporations which do not have that personal identification that the corporation to which the member for Niagara Falls refers had.

It is absolutely essential that we have and invite the widest possible submissions to the committee to hear these bills. These bills, like so many others, once passed become part of the fabric of the law of the province which is likely to remain unchanged for the same length of time as the Petty Trespass Act has remained unchanged. It behoves us to treat it in that way and not for any partisan, political purpose.

[11:45]

Mr. Kerrio: I shall be just a few moments. Earlier, the Speaker suggested that rather than interject when the member for Riverdale was speaking I should stand in my place and make my position very clear. I will so do.

When honourable members who are learned in the law stand in their place and talk about corporations, it conjures up visions of Exxon, Shell and all kinds of huge corporations that are very impersonal in what they do. The reason I interjected when the member was speaking was I wanted to bring the point to the assembly that for every one of those large corporations there are literally thousands of very small, personal corporations. I happen to be involved in one with my son.

In such cases there is no involvement of a corporate structure that completely protects the individual from any kind of reality. Beyond the corporate structure, there exists for the individual a very personal involvement: a putting on the line, sometimes, of everything he has, even to the extent of personally guaranteeing to the bank the collection of accounts receivable. While on the books such businesses may appear as corporations, in reality there are very many people out there in our society who do not enjoy all the protection of a corporate structure.

I say that to the member with respect, because he and I exchange on many occasions differences of opinion. But I think in this particular instance it should be clearly on the record that one must make that definitive kind of description when talking about corporations. I wanted to get that on the record because I think it is very important to the future of many small corporations in Ontario.

Mr. Acting Speaker: You were invited to put that on the record, but it has very little to do with the substance of the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: It does in a way, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Your point has been made. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: As one who represents a farm community I just wanted to record my support for this bill and its companion bill, the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

I know during the past number of years a great many rural property owners, especially farmers, have had concerns regarding the free and quiet possession of their property. We have had a lot of trouble in this respect in the farm community. I think the assembly has to understand that and from the tone of the debate, that understanding is pretty widespread.

I realize the difficulties with the bill. When one is talking about competing interests with respect to property rights and civil liberties, as my friend from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) did, there are bound to be concerns in what he called the “interface” between those two aspects. I understand and appreciate that. I don’t have enough legal expertise to determine whether the bill is constitutional or not. I don’t know that; I will have to leave that to my legal friends.

I can understand the concerns of my friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) with respect to picketing. I understand that all picketing doesn’t take place on public property; some of it does take place on private property.

Surely those things can be resolved. We have to understand the problem from the point of view of the rural communities, from the farmers’ point of view. People do trespass; they do destroy property, cut fences, leave gates open, destroy livestock. Surely that has to be addressed. After all, the property owner does have some rights under common law and I think where circumstances point to the abuse of those rights it is up to this Legislature to address those problems. Indeed, if everyone respected the person and property of everyone else, we wouldn’t need this legislation, we wouldn’t need most legislation in this House, but it doesn’t happen. The human being, the type he or she is, means that doesn’t always apply, and so we have to come in with legislation of this nature to try and address a very real problem in what is basically a rural constituency.

I understand the problems -- at least, the distinction between rural property and urban property. I understand the attitudes between urbanites and rural people as it applies to the use of property in the country, but at the same time I think we have to understand that the property owner in the country does have rights and those rights should include the protection from trespass where that trespass is going to interfere with the operation of that property, with the conduct of the business taking place on that property and so on.

I appreciate the tone of conciliation, even sensitivity and understanding, that was exhibited by the member for Riverdale. With that kind of attitude I think these bills can go to committee and we can come up with a better bill, a better bill in both cases, that will take these competing interests into account. I certainly look forward to that. Having said that, I want to underline again that I do support the intent of the bills and it is just a question of coming up with the best possible bill to achieve the purposes which we desire in this respect.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly this morning on one of the aspects of this Bill 203 that has been brought up by the member for Riverdale and that is the question of the secondary boycott. I would like to speak for the farm communities and give their views on the secondary boycott.

First of all, I would certainly stand with the member as to the rights of people to withhold their services, to join labour unions, to have the protection of the Labour Relations Act to withhold their services, to carry on informational picketing and the right to determine whether or not they are going to make certain sacrifices in their income for the gains they hope to achieve in the long run. That is a conscious decision they make and they don’t always win. They make a sacrifice in doing that. I certainly stand with them in their legislative ability and in their courage and in their resolve to do that.

For instance, at a strike that might occur in the auto factories the organizers persuade the workers to withdraw their services, to stop receiving their wages and to stop manufacturing cars. They don’t do it at the point of the auto dealership. They don’t say, “We will produce all these cars, we will get our wages for making the cars and then we will run around to the auto dealership and try to stop them from being sold at that point.”

There is a real difference between strike action and the right of people to organize and withhold their service and the secondary boycott, whereby the product is grown -- and these products are of course, of a seasonal nature; you have only one or two crops a year, perhaps two crops a year in the southern states but even there in the case of grapes it is one crop a year -- people produce that crop, it is shipped across the country and thousands of miles away from the site of the real problem it comes under a secondary boycott. As I understand it a secondary boycott is an illegal act, at least in the United States. I am not sure what legislation there is in Ontario. I simply want to point out there is a difference between withholding one’s labour and taking part in a secondary boycott.

Speaking for the farm communities in Ontario and especially those in the fruit and vegetable sector, in which I am a producer and know some of the problems, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they do not support the secondary boycott. When it comes to passing legislation that will better protect farm labour, we are with the members to our left. We will pass that legislation.

The member for Riverdale will likely be surprised to learn that this member has taken part in a picket line. Quite a number of years ago the tomato growers of this province decided to withhold the contracting of their tomatoes. We did it at the source though. We said to the companies, “We will not plant these tomatoes unless you agree to a certain price per ton.” We won that refusal to contract by going to the growers, telling our story, by picketing the offices where the contracts were being written, but we did it at the source. The farmers involved were prepared to take that gamble as to whether they were going to win or lose and whether to suffer or gain economically. We didn’t sow the crop then run around and say later on that customers hundreds of miles away couldn’t buy that crop.

This is a very fundamental point and when the fight comes as to the ability to carry on a secondary boycott, I would want the members of the third party to not be under any illusions as to where I stand and as to where many of the members of this party would probably decide to stand when they have looked at the issues.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this bill, An Act to protect against Trespass to Property, and I am pleased to see the fine in the bill has been raised to $1,000. In the past a mere $25 fine hasn’t in any way stopped an individual from continuing to trespass. He may be going out of the property carrying that amount of fish or apples or whatever. If he is fined $25 it doesn’t restrict him from turning around and doing it all over again. The $1,000 fine will be more of a deterrent to trespassers on private property. Raising the fine to that amount also shows a little more respect for private property.

I have received concerns from people that they will have to post bush and forest property in order to keep trespassers out or to let them know they aren’t welcome there. On the other hand, I have received concerns from people who feel forest and bush should be free for people to travel in unless posted. These concerns come from hunters and the coon hunting association, who don’t do any damage to the property. They point out the hardship in or the impossibility of getting permission from land owners in certain parts of Ontario where there is much dense bush and ownership of the land is hard to determine.

[12:00]

I’m pleased that farm land has been exempt from the posting of signs. With this bill, a person will have to receive permission from the land owner before being able to go on farm land.

The Attorney General’s parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton-Grenville, did point out to me this morning that farm ponds would be covered under the liability part of this companion bill. The same thing in this bill points to premises as covering water, too. It would be necessary to have farm ponds listed under section 3(1)(a) when they talk about the premises and those exempt from having to be posted in order to restrict trespassers. I hope farm ponds would be added to that list of gardens, fields and other land under cultivation. Then it would be a known fact that it is illegal to trespass on or near a pond without permission.

I can’t see the point of saying that ponds are covered under the description of premises and then leaving it out of section 3(1). I hope the parliamentary assistant will make note of that.

I want to support this bill and again say it is long overdue. I hope it will receive fast passage through committee.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the fact these bills are before us and getting what appears to be unanimous support in principle I believe is to the credit of my colleagues, the members for Huron-Middlesex and for Middlesex. They have really pushed this pretty hard. The reason for it has been the unwillingness of the government to take the initiative in a matter which obviously the farm community felt should be acted upon.

It’s interesting to note the law reform commission recommended the concept of occupier’s liability in 1972. That’s quite a while for that sort of thing to be sitting around, being thought of. The thing that brought it to public attention more than anything else was a well-known case where intruders, disregarding “No Trespassing” signs, were injured on snowmobiles.

Mr. Lawlor: There was no sign.

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, the farm owner was held responsible in the courts because of the injury. I’m very glad to see the principle of the limit to which the farm owner or the property owner must protect people who intrude in that way.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, once again -- and I guess this is only the second time in all these years the member for Lakeshore and I do not see precisely eye to eye -- there has been great delay in bringing this forward. Naturally, I’m always interested in hearing our colleagues learned in the law express their concerns. They will be able to bring forward amendments which will perhaps purify the statute of anything that would transgress or trespass upon that purity of the common law that we hear so much about.

I don’t want to appear in any way to dismiss the importance of those concepts, because all of our legislation is based on that. I feel certain that when we examine these bills in committee, there will be sufficient alternatives so that the democratic process will hold sway.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that once we accept the importance of the supremacy of the justice in the common law members, at their peril, will interfere with the concept and principle of these bills themselves. Any further delay should receive the kind of political punishment we all know about. I’m sure the bills will be approved in principle now and I hope when we resume in the spring the committee will be able to report those refinements which will mean the House can enthusiastically give them third reading and proclamation without undue delay.

Mr. Sterling: First of all, I would like to thank the members who participated in the debate on this bill. I must say I found the debate a little easier to follow this morning than I did last night when I was quite often diverted.

I would like to indicate that, basically, this bill only reinforces existing legislation. It has three basic thrusts in it. First, it takes the provisions of the Petty Trespass Act to property from the trespasser and reinstitutes them in the legislation. Second, it provides higher penalties against a trespasser who is convicted and it also inserts into the criminal proceeding a civil remedy at the same time. Third, it provides a mechanism whereby people who own land in the rural area and in the city know whether they have to sign their property and what kind of signing has legal stature.

Going back to the first point, in talking about the Petty Trespass Act at this time it is my understanding that section 4 does not change the existing law. I would also like to indicate that my understanding of the existing law in relation to picketers was in a case heard in 1976, or decided in 1976 by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was the case of Harrison and Carswell in Manitoba and it was based on that province’s Petty Trespass Act. In that case it was decided that a shopping centre owner could withdraw his consent to people coming on to the public portion of the shopping centre. That is my understanding of what the law is today. Section 4 does nothing to change that particular law. If that law was going to be changed, I suggest it should be changed under the labour law, as such, to deal with the picketing issue.

Section 2(1) provides for a person who is not acting under the authority of another law. The other provisions relate to the penalties against a trespasser. If he is authorized by another law, a picketing law or for instance if surveyors are given permission under the Surveyors Act to enter land, then these particular provisions wouldn’t apply to that individual. It’s our feeling that in the case of the picketing law it would be more apropos to deal with that issue under labour legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Let me reiterate. The political boycott is much wider in context than the labour law.

Mr. Sterling: The political boycott which was brought forward by the member for Riverdale perhaps would not be involved in the labour law but it could be dealt with in committee; we could talk about it at that time. I think there may be some very basic differences in philosophies over that issue as to property and civil rights.

I want also to indicate that this law relates not only to rural people. One of the sections which I hope would help solve a problem which many schools in the urban areas have had with both vandalism and trespassers going on to their property relates to those sections I talked about concerning the penalties and damages that can be awarded by a court.

In talking about those penalties I want to make it clear and put on the record that the fine is not necessarily $1,000 as some of the members have indicated. It’s up to $1,000; of course, it’s at the discretion of the judge. The damages that can be awarded are up to $1,000. That limitation is put on there because of our concern about the process it is going through, whether or not a criminal or a quasi-criminal hearing can effectively deal with a very expensive or involved civil litigation hearing.

We do appoint provincial judges to hear cases in the small claims court. I don’t know if that is the thrust of the constitutional argument; but if it is the appointment of those judges, then I cannot follow the constitutionality argument on that basis.

In the past there’s been little justice for an occupier who wants to stop someone from trespassing on his property. It’s been extremely difficult for him to bring that person before the court and seek redress. I think that’s what we have tried to put into the context of this bill, not only in terms of the penalty, but also in terms of being able to seek in one process some redress for a small amount of damage and to obtain the legal costs which he has incurred for bringing that person to court, if he is right.

There hasn’t been very much justice in the past, I believe, in terms of the occupier having the ability to bring that person to court. I think this will meet some of that concern.

In relation to the signing provisions and to those definitions of land which doesn’t need signing, I would say with respect to the member for Huron-Middlesex -- and to two of our members, the members for Middlesex and Wellington-Dufferin-Peel -- the idea that all land need be posted is probably not practical in other areas of the province. It may be practical in southern Ontario, but when you get into eastern and northern Ontario there is a problem because a lot of rural land is vacant or abandoned -- the poorer rural land. Quite frankly, most of the people who own that land are not that concerned with people crossing it. So to exclude that amount of recreation land would maybe in reverse do more harm than providing the other avenue.

[12:15]

I know signing is a problem, but these signing conventions have been proposed to us by the trail associations and we feel these are the best that can be put forward. I think if the members read the legislation closely, they can’t make that much fun of the signs -- if they look at them with some degree of seriousness.

Mr. Bradley: Speaking of signs, do you have your lawn signs ready?

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, in my riding we don’t need lawn signs.

In the past the Petty Trespass Act has been declared constitutional. It’s our view that this particular act does not really go that far away from the Petty Trespass Act and quite frankly I have a great deal of difficulty following the thrust of the allusion to the constitutional arguments that have been thrown up here in the Legislature. I’ll be anxious to hear those in committee.

Both of these bills have a lot of effect on the law of Ontario. They have a lot of effect with regard to property rights. As some of the members here have indicated, there is an extreme amount of interest in property rights.

During the committee hearing -- and I plan to recommend that this bill as well as Bill 202 goes to the standing resources development committee -- I hope that all sides will have an opportunity to vet all of the parts of this legislation to be sure that what comes out of committee will be an improvement to the law, which I believe the legislation as it now stands is.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing committee.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (CONTINUED)

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to cease and desist so we can get on with the matters before us?

I am rising at this time because it seems to me that we are facing a very serious situation in Ontario so far as the Attorney General of this province is concerned. During the debate on the estimates of the Attorney General I produced what I believe it is fair to call a litany indicating that the Attorney General, as I see it and as others see it, is incapable of the kind of objectivity which is required traditionally of an Attorney General under the British tradition.

To add to that, the responsibility for the second ministry, that of Solicitor General, is to me intolerable at this time when our society has changed drastically from the times when it was assumed that one person could handle both roles. Today we see conflicts as we have never seen them before.

During the course of the debate in the estimates I made the statement, and I stand by it, that we see in the administration of justice today what I perceive to be an Americanization of the role of, for example, the crown attorney. I think now we have seen something of the confirmation of that in certain evidence given by a crown recently in a matter before the courts.

There is no question in my mind that the role of the Attorney General in protecting the rights of all citizens is an absolutely imperative role. I referred to the fact that I did not find any evidence, for example, of the Attorney General taking action in environmental matters. I was advised by the former Solicitor General in the committee that he has acted on many occasions. I have asked for the evidence of that and it has not been forthcoming.

If we have an Attorney General who is a political animal and ably so, I must say, this is at odds with the whole function of the Attorney General in our society. As we know, we have had many statements from many of the very fine Attorneys General in Great Britain, indicating quite clearly that the role of the Attorney General is one of a cabinet minister, and therefore he is responsible for legislation introduced into the House. But here the Attorney General plays the political role and the legislative role without understanding the two functions.

As a first step, there must be a separation of these two functions as they exist today, with one minister handling two ministries which themselves have somewhat disparate interests. The crown attorney has a role to play -- a very significant and very important role in our system. That role is to be the person who presents to the courts the best possible case he can present, always having in mind the fact that in presenting the case he has to keep before him the dignity of the individual and the protection of our society. He does not, as in the American system, go in to win; he goes in to present a case.

More and more we have seen -- and I think the Attorney General himself has indicated its necessity, as he sees it -- the crown become more involved in the investigative process as crime becomes more sophisticated. I understand what the Attorney General says, but if he has that approach he ought to recognize there must be some law officer, the chief law officer of this province, to hold the balance; that has not occurred.

We have seen people in this province crying out for rights and for protection. Who in this province is charged with the responsibility of protecting those rights? There is no one other than the Attorney General, save and except, of course, when matters get into the courts. There is no one else but the Attorney General to guard and protect the rights of the citizen. The Attorney General has the overall responsibility -- whether he is acting as Solicitor General or not, he must take the overriding responsibility.

Yet we have seen a bill -- a much-vaunted bill, a needed bill -- introduced with all accompanying fanfare, only to die apparently, on the Order Paper. People have been crying out for protection from what they view -- rightly or wrongly is not the issue at the moment -- as an inimical complaint system. I am not speaking to the merits of the bill at all; I am speaking to the fact that we can’t even debate that important piece of legislation adequately. We can’t bring in a bill which can protect the citizen who sees himself as unable to find justice.

I would like to speak about the matter of justice. Perhaps it is because I am a very simple person, but I happen to believe justice is indivisible. I happen to believe you cannot talk about more even justice or more equal justice. If you do not have justice, you have injustice. And our Attorney General is quite prepared to see that injustice in our province. I cannot do other than address myself at this important time to the matter of concurrence in estimates, the philosophy of which and the philosophy of the minister is one I cannot accept. To a certain degree it is almost a matter, not so much of law or injustice, it is almost a morality that is important to me in my Ontario, because it is my Ontario too.

[12:30]

We understand the minister has stated he has acted in the law of standing in a way in which other previous Attorneys General have not acted. I accept that. I am sure that is so. But in the law of standing there are two opposing camps. There is the one camp that feels the law of standing should not be enlarged, because it can invite frivolous matters in an already clogged-up system -- and there is justification for that point of view. But those people who take that position say the Attorney General is the one who should be acting in the best interests of all citizens of Ontario. You cease to have that argument available if the Attorney General is not acting in other than those areas where, with the greatest respect, he sees some political mileage to be gained from his activities.

I have been deeply disappointed in the Attorney General because he is a person for whom I have a high personal regard. It is quite possible for me to say that in a different context from almost any other person in the House, because I have observed him during a political campaign and came away from that campaign with an even deeper sense of respect for that person. I would like him to understand that.

He seems to believe if we have a difference in principle, it is a partisan difference. In the years I have been in the House, I have never lightly taken a position of this kind against any minister. I am not part of the usual cackle, “Resign,” or any of that sort of thing, because to me that is not my position at all. It is serious; it is important to me the minister understand it. There has to be some way to get through to the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) that to restore confidence he must remove the minister from the two ministries and the two portfolios.

The Attorney General has demonstrated in his role as Solicitor General a very real concern for those matters which properly fall within his domain as Solicitor General. I commend him for the very real dedication he displayed in the Mississauga crisis. I am not one of those who feels he is the author of disaster but rather that disasters lie within his jurisdiction to redress as best he can. I am not in any sense inviting the Attorney General out of ministerial responsibility.

I am aware that in this province we have very many difficulties. The police have difficulties in these times, the citizen has difficulty in these times and I am sure, with the dedication the minister is capable of bringing to those issues, we could seek some very real reform and some very real advancement which would be beneficial both to the police forces and to the citizens. I would like to make that point quite clear in speaking to these concurrences.

I don’t suppose there was ever a time in history, unless it was during the Salem witch trials or something of that nature, when we have seen human problems surfacing as they have done today. I have been speaking with representatives of some of the ethnic communities who I feel certain wanted to see the bill put forward for amendment but did want to see some protection for their particular groups.

The black community had great difficulty with the bill and couldn’t accept it in its present form. Definitely, I am sure that did not mean they would not like to have had the opportunity to make representation because, you know, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General -- and to me it is the Attorney General, notwithstanding the police function -- has believed in bringing this kind of legislation forward that if the police and the enforcement agencies would not accept it it might be unworkable and I believe he has a certain valid argument in that area. However, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, if the public doesn’t accept it, you are in very much the same position. I think the Attorney General is nodding approval.

What does he do as Attorney General when one has two basic rights, if you like; the police on the one hand, the citizen at large on the other hand? It seems to me one moves to try to bring in legislation which will be equitable for both.

I am so deeply saddened that we have dealt with other legislation and yet we really haven’t had an opportunity to consider that fundamental legislation. The reason I am raising it in the context of a concurrence debate is that it does seem to me that an Attorney General concerned about the rights of citizens and the rights of the police -- they too are citizens -- should have had greater courage to ensure that this House had the ample opportunity to give consideration to that important piece of legislation.

I would like to make a comment too about the fact that I think there has been relatively little legislation lately coming from the Attorney General which he himself has guided. In saying that I want to reiterate that is no denigration of his very able, very responsive parliamentary assistant.

It does seem to me that when we were dealing with provincial offences and we were dealing with two very difficult bills in the last two days, we saw a great conflict between those of us who have some experience in the law and those who were really regarding the bills -- and I think appropriately so -- as agricultural bills. The Attorney General should have been here to assist in that debate and to respond to the very real problems and issues I think were raised, not in a partisan fashion but in a very concerned fashion.

In fairness to the Attorney General his parliamentary assistant advised the House and advised me personally that he had requested the privilege of carrying those two bills. I understand that. I also asked him if he had requested the privilege of carrying the Provincial Offences Act through and I must say, in fairness to him, he did not comment. He certainly didn’t speak in the affirmative on that.

I don’t believe that it is useful for me to continue at any greater length. The Attorney General is a very able person and is I believe, as I have remarked, by reason of the paintings which he does a man of sensitivity. I would implore him to review the conflicts and to advise the Premier that he does understand there are conflicts and that he wishes to be removed from a situation which is one of conflict -- is one which is viewed as one of conflict, which is perhaps even more important -- and that he put all of his very considerable talent, very considerable talent to the task of a Solicitor General in this province.

[12:45]

Mr. Warner: Not long ago I was given the opportunity to be the critic for our party for the Attorney General. Not being a lawyer --

Mr. Peterson: Enjoy it while it lasts.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is going to be Attorney General next.

Mr. Warner: Yes, we’ll have to change that little law that says you have to be a lawyer in order to be an Attorney General.

Not being a lawyer, I have struggled with the law books and with the various pieces of legislation that have come forward. I have listened intently on every occasion to the members for St. George, Lakeshore, Riverdale and others, to try to get a sense about the justice policy, to get a sense about how an Attorney General should conduct the affairs he is responsible for. I read carefully the documents he so kindly sent over. He gave me some documents written by an Attorney General from Great Britain. I read them carefully and I was quite impressed with them. That’s why I am so saddened by the turn of events that has occurred over the last many months.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the Attorney General actually sees a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, I don’t believe, despite the reasoned argument put forward by my colleague from St. George, the arguments put forward by other colleagues of mine and by my own arguments, that he actually believes there is a conflict of interest between the two portfolios he holds. To put it in the vernacular, he is the boss of the courts and the boss of the police. He cannot truly represent all of those interests, especially when they come into conflict as he is now painfully discovering through the process around the bill for citizens’ complaints against police activity.

After the somewhat painful events of yesterday over the legislation, because I, too, felt quite exercised about the fact that Attorney General told us this was important legislation. He was bringing it in at the last minute. It was very important. It had to be dealt with. We had to get it through. We had to get it passed. And despite its great importance and the speed it had to be dealt with he didn’t show up. I returned home last night to find a Christmas card from the same gentleman. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with having received a Christmas card yesterday.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You didn’t tear it up?

Mr. Warner: I didn’t tear it up. It will occupy a place of importance on the mantle by the fireplace for me.

It is with a great deal of regret that I indicate I will not support the concurrence. I don’t know all the little ways in which one is able to do that in this place, but I’m registering positively that I will not support this concurrence for the very basic reason that, unfortunately, there are two very serious flaws in this Attorney General’s ministry. One is the conflict of interest and the other and to be rather blunt about it -- and I don’t often do this and it pains me in a way -- I feel that the Attorney General is putting headlines ahead of duty. That really bothers me.

In my own naive fashion I had some kind of thought that the position of an Attorney General was similar to that of the Speaker of the chamber. I believed there was a certain sense of independence about that position; it was the kind of duty that says, “I will give my opinion even when it’s contrary to government policy or philosophy, because I owe a duty to the people to dispense justice, to ensure and guarantee that justice will prevail for our citizens.” In my own naive way I felt that that’s what the position was all about. I’m not a lawyer and I’m not learned in the law and maybe I’m wrong; maybe I’ve misconstrued the whole history of the Attorney General, but I think that’s what it’s all about.

Quite frankly, despite the tremendous capacity and the ability which the member for Eglinton possesses, I do not believe he is fulfilling that role of being independent and of being truly objective and of being like the Speaker.

I cannot support a concurrence in these estimates.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one thing, very shortly and briefly. I have a question I would like to ask the Attorney General. Having been absent myself I can only respond with mea culpas, I suppose. Nevertheless, not having participated greatly in the estimates -- which is a blessed rest and respite for both of us for a period of time in any event -- we will be back locking horns, I trust, before too long.

What, I’m asking, is going on? What strange machinations possess the Attorney General these days? I’m thinking of a number of bills; the two we just finished and the police bill. There are several factors about these things.

First of all, in each instance they are absolutely vital and have to be pushed through this House with great celerity. I can feel the panting of the breath down the back of the minister’s neck. For some mysterious reason the impetus then goes out of them. The hot air expires and they sit gently and quietly without even roasting on their particular griddle.

That police bill was so critical and so important. Not only must it be put through at a particular time, but it was not to go out to committee. That’s his second edict or mandate, which apparently emanates from some closet he has; this seems to be a general rule these days. That other series of bills came suddenly out of the blue and superseded the all-important police bill; they became even more important and had to be moved through in 48 hours. The whole of the province stood at attention pending the passage of this legislation.

Even as late as last night, against what had been agreed upon by the House leader, the Attorney General’s representative in this chamber was ambivalent as to whether or not these matters were to go to committee. When the government House leader showed up it was directed that that be the case and that that had been an understanding we had reached.

Why this recalcitrance? Why this curious arrogation of bills in a certain direction and with a certain temper, a kind of meanness about it? When the minister first started as Attorney General he was generous, open-handed, reformist and wishing to leave his mark on that office. Suddenly there’s a closing in, there’s a tightening taking place and most tightenings in this life are muscular contractions, et cetera, that may cause death pangs, or at least strangulation of the hernia -- and the Attorney General must be careful, this may be happening to him, even though he goes up on the roof in the dead of winter to run around three times, et cetera.

And while I am thinking of it, the second aspect about it, apart from the performance aspect, is the substance aspect.

What the Attorney General is bringing forward to the House is not in conformity with his office as we see it. As the member for St. George took some time this morning to point out, which I won’t do, somehow -- and I think the Attorney General will agree with this; he has said it himself -- he is above his fellows in the cabinet. He has a wider gamut, a more sovereign view. He is protective of the overall liberties and rights and privileges of the people of this province. He sees it broader.

While the Minister of Agriculture and Food might very well bring in a bill that is framed along the lines of the Trespass to Property Act, I’m saying this is highly sectional -- I used the word “sectarian” but I don’t quite mean that. It’s sectional; it’s partisan; it’s directed to a fairly narrow -- certainly not the overall view of the community.

In the police bill -- as I construe the Attorney General’s bill -- there is the same emphasis, orientation and arrogation on to special interest; that’s not the Attorney General’s function, as I see it and I have an obligation over here to say so to him.

He will transcend that. He has a wider point of view, and that’s why there is some increasing problem. His Rubicon is the police bill, as it comes on for argumentation, as he crosses that particular river between those two portfolios, because the emphasis and quality of that bill gives a particular cognizance and a role to the police -- particularly the chief of police -- which was never dreamed of by Maloney, Morand, by all the civil liberties concepts operative in the world, the States along with them.

Why did the Attorney General go in that direction? What is the gravamen in this particular thing? What’s pushing him these days? We all say, and we say it bluntly, that the Attorney General is blatantly political. Whether he is whistling for high office -- higher than the one he has, there can scarcely be a higher office, in my opinion.

In a sense the Attorney General is above the Premier. He has a wider point of view which is not as tied down to partisan or sectarian causes as he perforce must be; that’s the glory of his position. The Attorney General is a relatively free man but he’s not exercising his freedom. He is not exercising his freedom. He is not exercising the plenary powers he is given and the ambit of his authority. He has just drifted into it recently. Why? I’m not quite sure.

If he doesn’t do that he will bring the office into disrespect and do himself harm in the final analysis. It may be an immediate gain but in the big picture it won’t help. That’s as much as I wish to say.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, time is short and I will be very brief. In response to some of the criticism from the honourable members opposite, I can only say that I appreciate that much of what they say is done, not for partisan political purposes, but simply tongue in cheek. I am comforted by the knowledge that the members opposite are great admirers of the ministries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.

Once again, I’d simply like to conclude by stating that I have enjoyed and, of course, have profited from the contributions of all members during the estimates process. The matters raised today by the honourable members opposite have for the most part, been discussed at some length during the estimates in committee. I don’t think there is anything I can usefully add at this time.

I want to conclude by stating that, so far as all of the members in this Legislature are concerned, my door will continue to remain open all the time for any issues concerning the administration of justice in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The resolution for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Attorney General has already been placed before the House at the beginning of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution be concurred in?

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

The House recessed at 1 p.m.