Journal des débats 1983-févr-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Bradley: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, involves the fact that there are a number of ministers of the crown to whom we would like to direct questions today, and we know they were delayed coming up the steps by a group that was being photographed.

Mr. Nixon: And shortness of breath.

Mr. Bradley: My House leader says "And shortness of breath." I thought you might wish to give them the opportunity to get into the House so that we could direct the specific questions to these ministers. Which minister do you want to question?

Mr. Peterson: Oh, anybody.

Mr. Bradley: Also, Mr. Speaker, we would like to take the opportunity to compliment you on being assigned to the position of Speaker this afternoon.

I think my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) has a legitimate point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: It is a surprise to her.

An hon. member: Here come the heavyweights now.

Mr. Peterson: Could you put out an all-points bulletin, Mr. Speaker, for the ministers?

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Have you thought of one now?

Ms. Copps: I happened to pass by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) in the hallway, and I believe he indicated he was going to be arriving forthwith and was anxious to have an opportunity to be his usual expressive self in question period; so I am sure he will be among those who should be arriving shortly in the event that we might get on with question period.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure you would be interested to know that the government House leader's office has always provided us with a list of cabinet ministers who will be absent on a given day.

Today's list is: Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor).

These are the ministers who are supposed to be absent. I suppose the corollary of this is that the others are supposed to be present, unless I have been terribly misled. Perhaps the government House leader has some knowledge of the secret whereabouts of the missing cabinet ministers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, a few will be away today. The others will be here soon and I suggest my friends question those who are here. They are all eagerly awaiting questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STATUS OF GREYMAC AND SEAWAY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House leader will extend our condolences to the sick ministers and wish them a speedy recovery.

I have a question for the recently arrived Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It relates to what exactly is happening today in Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust. Are those companies functioning? Are they operating in the normal course of business? Are they being wound down? Are they renewing mortgages? Are they not renewing mortgages? Are they taking deposits? Are they honouring deposits when they come due and, if so, up to what amount? What exactly is the minister's intention with regard to those companies? What is happening now? Is the minister negotiating to sell either one of them at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not in any sense want to indicate that I have a lack of understanding of the desire for further information. I can only assure this House that when I have information with respect to recommendations that can only result from a joint consideration and consultation with Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and the registrar, I will present it to the House. Those determinations have not been made.

As I have said before, to the best of my knowledge, depositors are entitled to receive up to the $20,000 insurance limit until such time as that limit has been changed by legislation. The branch offices are responding in that way.

Mr. Peterson: I was asking, and I will ask again, are the companies carrying on business? Are they renewing mortgages? For example, a letter arrived in my office today and I will read it to the minister.

"Having taken what we thought the best advice available -- Gord Walker's office and department of corporate and consumer relations -- my wife and I negotiated terms and subsequently turned over a cheque for mortgage renewal to Greymac Trust Co. in the Crown Trust offices in Toronto on January 14, 1983." That was a week or so after the takeover.

"The following week the cheque was returned in a letter dated January 18, 1983, instructing us to make the renewal cheque payable to Greymac Trust Co., as I had made it payable only to Greymac. This was done and returned by mail the next day.

"On January 24, 1983, we received a notice of registered mail and subsequently picked up the letter the same day. The letter, signed by Ron Lofsky of Greymac Trust and dated, believe it or not, January 18, 1983, stated 'due to circumstances beyond our control' they were unable to negotiate terms of renewal."

I will send the minister a copy of the letter. These people negotiated terms of renewal a week after the takeover, then some days after it the company said it could not renew the mortgage. On the advice of the office of the member for London South (Mr. Walker) -- the former minister, I remind the House -- as well as the minister's own department they were advised they could proceed with that mortgage. What advice does the minister have for these people? They negotiated the terms of financing.

The minister is aware of a number of other cases of hardship, such as Mr. Thorburn, whose case was reported in the Globe and Mail. He had a loan pulled on him by Seaway Trust, and subsequently 40 people went out of work. I am asking the minister for a clear statement of the rights and responsibilities of depositors and creditors. Are those companies in business or are they not? If the minister will just make a clear statement and say they are not, then people will understand, but surely the minister cannot tolerate this kind of uncertainty at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can appreciate there is a fair amount of uncertainty both in the minds of members of this House and in the minds of those who have deposits, guaranteed certificates or mortgages coming up for renewal.

I indicated early on in the discussion relating to this issue that every endeavour would be made to allow the companies to carry on business in as normal a way as possible, consistent with what will be the ultimate proposal with respect to them. I have no information available to me on the instance the member has raised. If he will provide it to me, I will be pleased to respond.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition raises instances such as I am sure many members of the assembly have had. I myself have written on three occasions to the chief executive officer of Greymac and Seaway asking for information. I have sent copies to the registrar and the minister, and have had no reply. These were people on the receiving end; that is, persons who wanted to renew a mortgage or who had received notice to vacate because a mortgage had been foreclosed on the property they were living in. We are not getting any answers from the minister.

Let me go back to the depositors. I refer to the exchange the minister and I had about having the Premier (Mr. Davis) get in touch with the Prime Minister of Canada to change the two to a six under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, so that the depositors will have the benefit of at least $60,000 retroactive to the date the increase was introduced in the House of Commons in Ottawa, rather than telling people they are protected up to only $20,000.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if the member will give me the details of the correspondence that has not been answered, I will endeavour to clear that up for him.

Second, with respect to the member's recommendation, the committee agreed that contact be made with Ottawa with respect to the legislative raising of the deposit insurance. I personally phoned Mr. Paul Cosgrove, indicating the desire of the committee and the government. I have personally phoned and spoken to Mr. Ed Broadbent, the leader of a party whose name escapes me at the moment. What is the name of that party? Anyway, I have personally spoken to Mr. Ed Broadbent --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was a very pleasant conversation, so I hope the member for Oshawa will not spoil the relationship. Life is built around those things. One has to be able to phone and speak to people.

I personally spoke to Mr. Michael Wilson, the federal Progressive Conservative critic. There should be a personal letter to Mr. Cosgrove ready for me to sign today. Similarly, I believe the Premier should have a letter ready for his signature today or tomorrow, indicating our wish and the committee's wish that legislation be introduced and passed expeditiously, giving people that increased insurance.

Mr. Peterson: I gather the minister is not prepared to confirm or deny reports that Seaway may be sold. I also gather he is not prepared to confirm suspicions that are developing, in certain people's minds at least, that the company will be wound down. Indeed, he is not prepared to say anything.

Would the minister come forward now and assure those thousands of depositors of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust, many of whom are phoning me and members of my caucus asking us for the status of their deposits? Would he make a clear, definitive statement that the Ontario government, presumably with the help of the CDIC, is prepared to protect all those depositors so that no one will lose any money regardless of what the minister does, whether he winds them down, sells them or anything else he can think of? Will the minister make that clear statement?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It would be speculative to say that any decisions have been reached with respect to Greymac or Seaway. We hope the final information necessary to make those decisions will be available to us shortly, and since there are discussions involving CDIC, which has been a very important partner in this process, obviously that will follow. When I have information as a result of those discussions, I will reveal it to the House.

Mr. Epp: Why don't you go to the editorial boards first?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member is welcome to go there any time. They have a minute to spend and he has a second with something to say, so it will be all right. There will be no problem.

Mr. Kerrio: That was not very nice.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did not cause the interjection, my friend. The young man there, with a resolution before the House about property rights, in spite of the fact that in November he wanted me to take away property, is interjecting. When he wants to interject, the rules of the game are clear. If he wants to talk in a gentlemanly manner and discuss issues, let us do it, but let us not play this game of, "I can say what I want" from the yak country.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Why do we not both say all we know? The member can take a second and I will take much longer.

The Deputy Speaker: Will you get back to the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, at this time it is impossible for me to discuss the fate of depositors in any reasonable way. Clearly, when I have that information, I will be glad to report it to the House.

STATUS OF UNION LOCAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last week I asked him about the status of Local 1059 of the Laborers' International Union of North America, and he was very much aware of that problem, having had knowledge some eight months ago in his department about the situation. The threatened trusteeship, members will recall, will possibly happen some time before February 15.

Given that the minister has had some negotiations -- indeed, he sent his officials to talk with members of our party -- can he tell this Legislature if he is prepared to bring in legislation to protect Local 1059 in London, Ontario, from the threatened trusteeship by the international union? Is he prepared to make this reviewable by the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to advise what the course of action will be at this time. We are still in the midst of actively -- and I stress the word "actively" -- studying the matter. I have another meeting at 4:15 this afternoon. Earlier this morning I was in touch with Mr. MacKinnon, who is the gentleman from the local in London who first brought the matter to my attention last week. At this time I am not in a position to indicate the action we will be taking.

Mr. Peterson: What is the minister's personal opinion of the principle involved here? What does he think is the fair, just and equitable way to solve a question like that? Does he believe the local should have a right to some self-determination in these matters? Does he believe any threatened trusteeship should be reviewable? Does he see a broad principle here that requires the intervention of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will admit I do see a broad principle. I do not want to go any further at this time because it is a very complex and sensitive issue. We are trying to resolve it in the best interests of everyone involved.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, does the minister see the labour relations board as being the vehicle? Is part of his thinking the suggestion of an amendment to the Labour Relations Act that requires a hearing before the board in the case of a denial of individual rights such as this?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is those very two points that we are actively considering and pursuing at present.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind the conversations we have had with the minister's deputy and his assistant deputy on this matter and some of the suggestions they brought forward and some of the difficulties they perceive that this issue might cause, the minister says he is actively discussing this matter and having meetings. Will he give us a commitment that any action he will proceed with will be brought forward to this House before February 15 so that Local 1059 is not left hanging out to dry in this matter, with the ministry still having consultations that really should have been going on months ago? Will he act before February 15?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly have a statement in this House before February 15. At this time, I am not prepared to speculate on the course of action we are going to take. I did give a commitment in this House last week that I would report back as soon as possible this week and I still intend to do so.

CLOSURE OF AMERICAN CAN MILL

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of industry and Trade (Mr. Walker).

The minister will know that yesterday afternoon American Can Canada at Marathon served notice of termination on 800 employees in the event it did not get a quick sale of its holdings in Marathon. Is the minister aware that as of yesterday afternoon, his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources said:

"I can assure the member that regardless of the outcome of negotiations between American Can and prospective purchasers, we see the provincial government as having a role through its licensing provisions in protecting the employment of that community. We will live up to our obligations to those workers and the community"?

Last evening I got a similar assurance from the Premier saying, "I can assure him this is a matter of very genuine concern to this government and where we have had people and ministers of the crown attempting to find a solution."

2:20 p.m.

I want to find out from the Minister of Northern Affairs what particular initiatives he, along with the rest of his colleagues, is taking in order to ensure that the only industry in the town of Marathon, a major industry responsible for 800 jobs, does not close down as a result of this precipitous action taken by American Can Canada.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier have already stated. We are very concerned about the announcement by American Can and how it affects the 800 employees. That termination notice will become effective July 1 of this year. It went out on Monday last.

I point out to the member that we have been in discussions with American Can. I am sure he is aware they, in turn, are in discussions and in consultation with the James River Corp. of the United States and with a private entrepreneur in the Thunder Bay area to take over the American Can operation in Marathon.

We are following that very closely and we hope it will come to a positive fruition. If not, we will explore every other avenue available to us.

As late as noon, I was informed there are other companies interested in the American Can operation at Marathon, but I am not at liberty to divulge those names at this time.

Mr. Stokes: I want to find out the status of the employment development funds that were negotiated between the federal and provincial governments and American Can. The minister made the announcement with all of us present in Marathon just about a year ago. They amounted to about $7 million. That would have resulted in a capital expenditure of $40 million to improve that operation and to meet certain pollution abatement standards set down by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton).

What is the status of that agreement? Also, the minister referred to another party that seemed to be involved in the negotiations. I take it it is Buchanan Forest Products Ltd. In the light of that, can he assure the 300 woodlands employees it will be business as usual for them, even if Buchanan Forest Products takes over the woodlands portion of American Can operations?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In reference to the EDF grant that was made some time ago, I am pleased the member brought it up, because he was at the ceremony where the presentation was made. I think it is fair to say he was as pleased and as excited as I was that this modernization would go through. He supported it as strongly as I did.

Mr. Stokes: I took them at their word, as the minister did. Where are they now?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He supported it as strongly as I did and as this government has, in the modernization of the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario. It was the right step to take. We took that right step at Marathon. They have not completed their modernization program at this time. We have already implemented steps and agreements have been made whereby they will pay an interest on the portion that has not been spent with regard to the modernization.

The member is correct in saying it will cost about $40 million to modernize that plant and meet the environmental requirements. That is still to be required and that is part of the problem with regard to selling American Can.

I cannot give the member any guarantee that it will be business as usual with respect to the woodlands workers as it relates to the purchase of that plant at this time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this goes back to the heart of the problem in northern Ontario and one-industry towns.

Will the minister, who used to be responsible for everything in northern Ontario, tell his Premier it is time to resurrect, if that is the word, the cabinet committee on one-industry towns in northern Ontario the cabinet committee that never met so we can have policies in place to deal with the Steep Rocks, the Atikokans, the Marathons, etc., so we know where we are?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised the member for Rainy River would ask that question, because he represents a single-industry community that suffered the problem he has referred to: a single-industry community that lost its major industry. What happened in Atikokan?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was all ad hoc. We would like to have something in place.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What happened in Atikokan? It was a lead ministry concept. The Ministry of Northern Affairs went into Atikokan and resolved that problem. While some members on the other side of the House would have rolled up the streets in Atikokan, we had a different attitude. We went in with financial resources and we went in with expertise, and if the member will relate to The Atikokan Story he will see that the single-industry committee that was established in this government did have some results.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It never met.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes it did.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The cabinet committee never met.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That committee met. It made certain recommendations. It recommended that we adopt the lead ministry concept, which we are doing in northern Ontario. My ministry is accepting that and doing it with gusto and with success. Atikokan is one community the member can point to.

Mr. Stokes: Can the minister assure the 800 employees in both the mill and the woodlands operation, stretched from Marathon all the way up to Manitouwadge and Caramat, he will ensure that the necessary programs will be put into effect to see to it a buyer is found for that mill so it will be business as usual for those 800 employees and, in fact, for the town of Marathon?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I might point to the problems in my own riding, Kenora, where we had the very severe problem with the Reed Paper Co. Members across the House will relate to the Dryden mill as a white elephant in the pulp and paper industry.

This government did not look at it from that point of view. We went out and worked very closely with the company and we found a buyer. There were several buyers at that time. Now we have a very stable industry in the town of Dryden. I want to assure the member for Lake Nipigon we will do the same thing for Marathon.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the use of Bombardier sidewalk snowploughs in Ottawa. Is the minister aware there were five Workers' Compensation Board claims in 1981 and four claims in 1982 by workers who had to go to hospital suffering from nausea, dizziness, headaches and weakness, all symptoms of exposure to carbon monoxide?

Is the minister further aware that tests conducted by the ministry in 1981 indicated the carbon monoxide levels on two of the four machines tested exceeded the threshold limit values, which are 35 parts per million, one having readings of 70 parts per million and the other having readings of 110 parts per million, and that the noise levels were 94 decibels, which also exceeded the limit set by the ministry?

If orders were issued two years ago, can the minister tell me why workers are still being taken to hospital in Ottawa from operating these machines?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned once before in this Legislature, we have initiated a system in the ministry of a complete summary of all current concerns and current issues which comes over my desk each and every day. Some days I get 15 to 20 new cases and I certainly get many dozens over the period of a week, but I must admit to not having received one in respect to the circumstance the honourable member has brought up.

Mr. Martel: While the minister is looking into this, after having nine WCB cases and the testing that went on, will he inquire why, when Dr. Waddell from the occupational health branch did the testing in 1982, a year later, he tested only one machine, which was not one of the machines the workers requested be tested, and why he failed to test machines after they had been in operation for several hours, which is when the carbon monoxide and other fumes build up, thus leaving the test results, which were derived from that one machine, at 10 parts per million? Can the minister find out why he did that?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If the member will provide me with the information he has obviously compiled, I will be happy to look not only into that but into the whole matter.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware -- I guess he is not -- that the results of the tests taken within the last month have not yet been delivered to the union? They apparently indicate that on two of the four machines tested the levels were 40 parts per million plus. While the testing was going on one of the operators had to be removed from the machine, apparently suffering from dizziness. Will the minister look into that? Will he issue orders that will bring this situation to an end? Workers are continuing to work under excess levels of carbon monoxide which are not only dangerous to their health but to their very lives.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be pleased to look into the matter and will do it as expeditiously as possible.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Health is hiding behind the dais. I have a question for him in regard to the prosthetics program that was announced by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) which came into effect in July. Can the minister explain why, of the $10 million budgeted for the program for prosthetic and orthotic devices, wheelchairs, etc., the ministry has so far this year spent only a little under $2 million and has only covered about 3,211 people as of January 7 this year?

What has happened to the approximately 15,000 handicapped children who were supposed to be covered under this program? Can he explain why all the moneys have not been spent? Will he consider expanding the program because he has this fund of money left?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the assistive devices program got off to a well co-ordinated beginning with the several committees that have been set up. They have had to deal with the potential suppliers and the appropriate testing to make sure the right equipment was prepared and available for the right people. As a result the start was deferred due to the time at which some of the devices first became available, and the required procedures were set up and in place to make sure the right applicants got them. It was not for any financial reasons but to allow for the mechanics to be worked out.

If the member spoke to any of the members of the assistive devices committee, he would discover they are enormously pleased with the progress of the program. The members of that committee represent a wide range of people who have spent their entire lives devoted to this kind of problem. It is a totally nonpartisan group representative of the client groups we are trying to help. They are enormously relieved the procedure we followed was to seek their advice and that of the subcommittees to make sure it was brought on stream in the right way at the right time.

As a result, I expect for the first 12 months of the full program we may run over the allocated $10 million, although the first 12 months' full operation of the program will not be from July to July. Until we measure the first 12 months, it will likely be something like November to November.

To clarify that, some of the devices became available in July August and September, but the whole range has not become available until fairly recently when all the procedures were put in place. I understand the member's concern, but I want to assure him that occurred simply as a result of the co-ordination of a complex program. I believe without exception all the members of the committee are satisfied with the procedures and the availability as of today's date.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am informed the advisory committee is somewhat concerned that more people have not come forward and only some 3,000 have been covered out of the 15,000. The minister is aware that five other provinces -- Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Prince Edward Island -- have programs for these devices that cover everyone regardless of age. Considering that some of these devices are a one-time experience, since they can get a wheelchair or whatever that will last some years, will he not consider expanding the program to cover everyone over 18 as well as under 18 so all handicapped people in the province can be covered for these devices?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the member knows, we asked the advisory committee to review both the implementation of this program and to make recommendations to me with regard to the expansion of the program. They have taken almost all of their time in advising us on the implementation of the program. I believe they are satisfied the procedures set up are the appropriate ones and that they have played a major role in devising them.

They indicate they are concerned, too, at the number of children, which is at about the level the member quoted -- about 3,000. That is partially because of problems in getting the information to the potential recipients and because it is taking some time to co-ordinate the supplies to the program, the qualifications and so on. But I do think we will hit our target figure in the next 12 months.

With regard to expansion, as I have indicated, the advisory committee will be recommending to us some expansion in some areas at an appropriate time. At the conclusion of the first 12 months -- that is, July 1983 -- we will be sitting down with the committee to look at the possibility of some expansion.

Mr. McClellan: Why does the minister need to wait on some external group like the advisory committee? Surely he agrees it is not just inappropriate but it is a real shame that a paraplegic adult in Ontario may have to go to the welfare office to obtain a wheelchair in 1983. Does he not think it a shame that the program only covers part of the cost of prosthetic appliances for children, which means a substantial user charge for many parents?

Surely the minister is aware of the need for including all groups in society who need prosthetic devices under the program and that he could expand it right away. Why does he have to wait for the advisory committee? Why does he not just go to his cabinet colleagues and ask for an immediate expansion of the program?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A lot of the issues the member has raised have been debated in this assembly many times before, particularly upon the introduction of the first program. Without reviewing all those arguments again I would say the other provinces that have introduced them have indicated they are somewhat unhappy with the speed with which they introduced them. They now wish they had done things a little differently -- perhaps considered it as carefully as we have.

Now there is the unusual circumstance of the other provinces, to whom we went to find out how they implemented their programs, coming to look at what we have decided to do in light of their experience and in light of our opportunity to do things afresh. They are now looking at returning to some of the mechanisms we have set up.

When the assistive devices program advisory committee has finished reviewing this situation and recommends to us both upon the expansion and upon the application of what they have learned to the expansion, I certainly will be reviewing their recommendations. I will do so with a view to going to my colleagues to see in what areas expansion may be appropriate, both in the numbers of devices and certainly in the age groups -- and, of course, to put it in some perspective.

While it is a crushing problem for some we would have to look at the circumstance. One way or another almost all people are getting coverage, admittedly through volunteer organizations and other vehicles. Of course, 75 per cent of the cost is covered now, which was not the case a year ago. That is a significant change from the previous circumstance.

In any case, to conclude and to make it quite simple, when that committee reports to me, gives me their recommendations both on how to do it and in what area, I will be looking at that very carefully. I agree the need is established but the numbers and the mechanisms are very important.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). He will recall that about two months ago a report was tabled from the federal-provincial task force on the Inco and Falconbridge emission levels. The minister will, I hope, have read the report carefully and will know that report recommended some very specific options that included costs, the emission levels and the number of jobs to be created in any program that might be implemented.

Has the minister yet decided what to do with that report? When can we expect a new draft control order? In keeping with the promise made by his predecessor, can we assume public hearings will be held before any new control order is implemented?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The various options set out in the report, technological and otherwise, present a whole series of complex issues to be examined. At present, the report is being very carefully examined by the staff in my ministry and by our sister ministry at the federal level. Prior to any firm determination as to the most appropriate course of action, a considerable amount of work remains to be done.

I wish it were as simple as the member's mind perceives it to be, but it is not. There are some very important issues to be determined prior to committing ourselves to any firm course of action. The time frame is very difficult to establish. I think it will be a matter of several months yet before we will be in a position to indicate a particular course of action.

Mr. Laughren: I have a supplementary to that most unsatisfactory answer. When will the minister respond to the proposals sent to him by myself and my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), right out of the task force report?

We suggested that for a considerable expenditure of money, emission levels could be reduced from the present allowable level of 1,950 tons a day by Inco alone in the Sudbury area down to about 43 tons a day. That could be accomplished within a 10-year time frame. During that period up to 4,000 person job-years could be created so that we would end up not only with a cleaner environment but also with a much-needed economic and psychological boost to the Sudbury community. When can we expect a response from the Minister of the Environment to our proposals?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member is quite correct in suggesting that proposal would require a very considerable expenditure of money -- in fact, very close to $1 billion.

Mr. Laughren: Come on. Do not exaggerate.

Mr. Martel: Six million.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. If the member had carefully followed the presentation by the task force he would understand its members themselves admitted their cost estimates were very low. They admitted there was the possibility of an error of perhaps $300 million to $400 million in their estimates simply because information was not available to them in the same detail as it would be to the company itself. The member is, therefore, quite correct in suggesting it is a major expenditure of dollars.

As far as the specific target is concerned, it is not simply a matter of taking a report that sets out a variety of options and possible target levels and how they might achieve the estimates of cost. It is also necessary to look at that in the total context of the sulphur emission problem in this province, in this country and in North America, and that is going on concurrently. Any determination of the appropriate target for Inco or Falconbridge really has to be established within the context of overall targets for Canada and for North America.

The scientists and the working committees under the memorandum of intent, both American and Canadian, are examining those very questions at the present time. In fact, their position has changed substantially in the past eight to 10 months in determining what levels of deposition would be appropriate in order to arrest the environmental damage resulting from acid precipitation and dry deposition of acid.

It is only when we have that information that we can fit the role of reductions by Inco, Falconbridge and the whole host of other emitters across this province into an appropriate context, and say that this is the necessary target for reduction. Everybody admits further steps in reduction must be taken -- and there will be. One should not fly off the handle on the basis of a single report and overlook the fact, as the member has, that there is a whole host of information that must be taken into consideration before arriving at a decision with respect to the expenditure of perhaps well over $1 billion across the province.

Mr. Martel: They will all he mined out before the minister gets around to it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This should not be the minister's role. He is supposed to be against pollution.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Okay. I think that information is likely to be available to us within the next few months. Once we have that information we can make a well-informed decision.

Mr. Elston: I recognize it has taken at least a year longer than it was supposed to for the original report to come before the minister. Taking into consideration the fact that members of his ministry were vitally involved in compiling this rather lengthy and technical material, can the minister advise us why the technical studies which form part of the background were not made available some time prior to the release of the finished document? If they had been, Inco and Falconbridge could have been more aware of the types of solutions that were being suggested by the committee he set up.

Second, why has his ministry not made use of the year's delay to go over some of this technical data? If they had done so, he could come to the Legislature now with a program that would describe how he plans to attack the emission problem and determine what level he feels is practical and right for Ontario to allow Inco and Falconbridge to emit.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker that might have been possible if all of the information had been available a year ago and we had had a year in which to digest it. That simply is not the case.

As the member may be aware, a good deal of the technical information considered by the task force was obtained by way of a contract through consultants as opposed to being generated internally within my ministry. In fact the delay that occurred in the presentation of the report was beyond my control and I assume beyond the task force's control as well. Largely, it related to the difficulty in the timing of the presentation of the consultants' reports to the task force. The holdup was not that the committee was sitting there with stacks of reports doing nothing. They were awaiting further consultants' reports as the matter progressed.

In fact I presented the task force with an ultimatum -- if the member does not believe me he can ask the chairman. I said if they did not report by the last date we had agreed upon I would demand they submit an incomplete report, because I was getting absolutely impatient with the delays.

There were also some delays related to the task force's revising the final draft and getting it to a printer to be printed so that it could be available in appropriate numbers for members of the public. These things do involve a fair amount of effort and planning on the part of a task force. It is not something they have been sitting on. We simply have not had that information for the members.

CASE OF ROBERT HIRTLE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. It deals with the case of justice of the peace Robert Hirtle. The Attorney General will be familiar with the case because of the press coverage and the correspondence he has exchanged on this matter. I want to ask him these questions.

He will know this man has been suspended without pay since 1977, that criminal charges against him have been stayed, which is just an expression that is used. In fact they have been withdrawn and not proceeded with. He will know further that the Chief Justice of Ontario, through the Justices of the Peace Review Council, has exonerated this justice of the peace and has said clearly the suspension should be terminated immediately.

In view of all this, may I ask the Attorney General why he is not being restored to his former position? Why is it that the suspension continues and Mr. Hirtle, after a suspension since 1977, has not received any pay? As of today he cannot get his job back as a justice of the peace, when all investigations against Mr. Hirtle have exonerated him.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this matter is at present being litigated so I have to demonstrate some degree of restraint in responding to the honourable member's question. But the Justices of the Peace Review Council did not completely exonerate Mr. Hirtle. It is true the recommendation was that the suspension be terminated but there was an adverse finding made by the JP review council which was of concern to the ministry.

Actually, we had hoped a settlement had been reached with Mr. Hirtle in the spring. It involved a very substantial amount of money, given the fact the criminal charge was not proceeded with -- was stayed -- and that the JP review council, while making an adverse finding, recommended the suspension be terminated. A settlement of more than $100,000 was offered.

Two other justices of the peace were involved in the same unhappy situation. My best recollection is the two others, through their solicitors, entered into a settlement. Although it was our counsel's belief that a settlement had been reached with Mr. Hirtle, apparently it turned out that was not the case. Quite apart from a monetary settlement Mr. Hirtle has said publicly, on a number of occasions, that it is not just a matter of monetary settlement, but that he would like his former job back.

Without going into the details of the case, I have to say this is a matter that has been reviewed by a number of people in the ministry. Given the circumstances there has been some difficulty with respect to the resolution of the matter, but Mr. Hirtle is represented by a very competent legal counsel. As far as I know, his counsel is still negotiating with the ministry, and if the negotiations are terminated this matter will be litigated. For that reason, beyond what I have said of Mr. Hirtle's claim, I do not think it is advisable to debate the merits in public at this time.

Mr. Roy: I have a question for the Attorney General with regard to an individual who apparently has been completely vindicated. Criminal charges have been withdrawn, he has been cleared by the Justices of the Peace Review Council, and I have their decision here. Let me read just a few lines: "Taking into consideration the absence of any agreement to obstruct the course of justice, and finding that there was no improper motive and having regard to the nature of the misbehaviour and/or neglect of duty aforesaid, recommends that their suspension be terminated."

That certainly sounds to me like a pretty clear vindication of any charges of improper conduct by an officer involved in the administration of justice. Given the situation, is it any wonder that the individual is not prepared to accept some form of settlement and just wants his job back? Is that not the rule of law? Considering the Attorney General was a strong supporter of the new Charter of Rights in the new Constitution and given these circumstances, what is wrong with an individual getting his job back once he has been completely vindicated by our judicial system? Surely, he has every reason to litigate if the ministry is not prepared to give him that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Of course he has every right to litigate this matter. I do not have a copy of the report of the JP review council before me, but from my recollection of the report he has read quite accurately from it. What the member has read coincides with my recollection. However, I have to take some modest issue with him when he says the JP review council has found as a fact "misbehaviour and or neglect of duty" and that amounts to a complete exoneration. That is not the way we interpret the matter.

Given that finding, the issue of whether it will be in the public interest for Mr. Hirtle to return to his judicial responsibilities is a difficult one. Because the matter is before the courts I do not think I can say anything more than that at the present time.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I too have been concerned about the three justices of the peace in this matter, particularly about the situation where Mr. Hirtle did not agree to participate in the financial compensation arrangements that were reported in the press last year.

The proceedings against Mr. Hirtle were stayed at the request of the Attorney General. The one year period elapsed and he chose not to proceed in any way against him. When we take that into account, in my elementary view, it is as if no charges had ever been laid.

Having regard specifically to the decision of the chairman of the Justices of the Peace Review Council, would the Attorney General not say that in this instance each of the three are entitled to be reinstated? I understand two of them have agreed otherwise and one has not. In the case of Mr. Hirtle, should he not be reinstated? Otherwise the process of asking the judges to review these matters has little if any effect on the decision which will ultimately be made by the Attorney General. It gives every appearance of injustice to Mr. Hirtle.

I would ask the Attorney General either to review the matter internally himself with a view to his reinstatement or to refer it to the superior judicial council for review.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the superior judicial council the member for Riverdale refers to would have jurisdiction in the matter. The role of the JP review council is to make recommendations and not to make a decision as far as having the final judgement on the matter is concerned. The member for Ottawa East has already referred to that decision in which the term "misbehaviour and/or neglect of duty" was referred to. I repeat, this does not amount to a complete exoneration.

This matter is under active review by the ministry at the present time. Given that fact and the litigation before the courts there is nothing further I want to say at this time.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to opting out and extra billing. In 1978, the then Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) announced an agreement between himself and the Ontario Medical Association which would guarantee prior notification of a patient by the doctor before any patient was extra-billed by an opted-out doctor.

Since that program turned out to be an utter farce, the present Minister of Health announced his intention to bring in a regulation under the Health Disciplines Act to require prior notification before extra billing. In the newspapers of October 7, he promised it within a couple of weeks. In the standing committee on social development on December 8, 1982, he promised it to me within a few days before Christmas. We are advised today the regulation has still not been promulgated and I assume it still has not been produced.

3 p.m.

I ask the minister, after two years in office, why he has failed so completely to deal even with this limp-wristed attempt to respond to the phenomenon of opting out and extra billing at a time when 50 per cent of anaesthetists have opted out and a majority of surgeons, obstetricians and gynaecologists have opted out. One cannot get an operation in Ontario unless one is prepared to do it without benefit of anaesthesia or give birth in Ontario under the Ontario health insurance plan in most communities. Why has the minister not acted?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me just clear the record. One, I have not been two years in office; it has been one. Second, it certainly has not been limp-wristed. It may have been other things, but not limp-wristed. Third, all those things the honourable member had to add at the end about not being able to get surgery and anaesthesia; we understand those are his customary rhetoric and exaggeration.

The member does not have to get up on a point of personal privilege, I know --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They are all opted out.

Mr. McClellan: The surgeons are out and the anaesthetists are out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right. One cannot get any surgery; I understand. The brother of the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) cannot get his appendix out. I know the whole thing.

Let me simply say we have the regulation. It is ready to go and has been put into process.

Mr. McClellan: It has been in process for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just wait a minute. When the member raised it in the estimates --

Mr. T. P. Reid: The only time the minister moves quickly is when a potential voter comes down the hall.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At least on this side there are lots of them.

The Deputy Speaker: Let him answer the question.

An hon. member: All patients are potential voters.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When the member raised it in the estimates -- I think it was the second week in December -- it caused some of those in the Ontario Medical Association who do read the reports of debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Health -- and I am delighted to know there are still some -- to contact us, and we had yet another conversation with regard to alternatives to the regulation I proposed.

As members know, the medical profession would prefer to see a different way of dealing with this from what we have proposed. Out of courtesy and because I believe they sincerely wish to attempt to solve this problem, I invited them to submit to us within two weeks their alternative to solve this problem. As members will recall, I was bedridden for the last portion of the session in the fall --

Mr. Stokes: The question is when, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wanted to assure the honourable members colleagues that this was not limp-wristed. At the time I was limp-backed, but I was not limp-wristed.

In any case, they got back to us about two weeks ago and I reviewed this with them. I felt they had not been able to satisfy my concerns with regard to an alternative, and, therefore, the regulation is going forward. I think before this session is complete, the regulation will have the effect of law.

The Deputy Speaker: The question period had almost expired when the member for Bellwoods asked his question. It has now expired.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health inadvertently may have misled us in his response to me about the prosthetic devices program in suggesting that he was waiting for a recommendation from his committee on the expansion of the program. I am sure the minister is aware that the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped recommended this in 1976, and it was reiterated in its March 1982 report, which recommended "that no priority for such devices should be based on age, type of disability, cause of disability or level of income." So the minister already has that recommendation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I may further clarify, I indicated we were waiting for advice from the advisory committee on the assistive devices program, which I believe is a different group from the one the honourable member has referred to.

PETITION

AUDIO LIBRARY PROGRAM

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 274 names from Orangeville, Shelburne, Guelph and Hamilton, reading:

"We the undersigned petition you to provide the Trent audio library with the necessary funding on a permanent basis so that this largest supplier of recorded textbooks for print-handicapped students and teachers, mostly in colleges and universities, can continue to provide this vital service.

"We urge you to take note of the fact that it takes many years of hard work to build up a body of skills and dedicated volunteers capable of donating 8,000 hours of time to read these textbooks and that moving the library will necessarily disrupt services and be of detriment to the library users.

"Surely the access of our public educational system, paid for by all taxpayers, is a basic right for all able students, print-handicapped or not. This access will be denied if Trent audio library closes on April 30 as announced."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved third reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Havrot, on behalf of Mr. Williams, moved second reading of Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

3:10 p.m.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on concurrence in the supply that has been voted in committee for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

This afternoon I want to review briefly with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) a number of issues that have had some new developments since we dealt with his estimates, which ended on December 17, or that have not been otherwise attended to.

The items are not in any particular order; so I will not suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, which are the more important on the list and which are the less important. But there are a number of particular issues which, if the Attorney General could enlighten us upon, I think we would all be better off as we look at the continuing saga of the administration of justice in this province.

The first issue I want to raise with the Attorney General is with respect to Judge Reid Scott. My interest is not in any way to intervene unnecessarily in the situation, but I thought it was perhaps now time that the Attorney General informed the House as to what the situation is with Judge Scott at present.

I presume the judge is on leave until his circumstances have been attended to. I also presume the judicial council, in one way or another, may well be involved in the situation. I will appreciate hearing from the Attorney General as to just what is happening and what will be the case with Judge Scott until the completion of any review he may anticipate.

It is most important that Judge Scott be thoroughly rested and able to attend to his duties on the bench with the confidence of the Attorney General before he does return, so that his situation is quite clear and there are no concerns about his ability to continue as a provincial court judge.

The second item I want to raise with the Attorney General is one that has been of some interest to him, although it may be necessary to review briefly the circumstances that have brought us to this point. I refer to the matter of estates and wills and the circumstances concerning estates of those persons who have claims made by presumed beneficiaries from either the Soviet Union or other eastern European countries.

On November 27, 1980, a bill was introduced in this House by the member for London South (Mr. Walker) in the absence of and on behalf of the Attorney General. That was Bill 210, An Act to amend the Devolution of Estates Act. I will quote briefly from the statement the member for London South made that afternoon. He said:

"I am pleased to introduce today a bill to amend the Devolution of Estates Act. Within the past year, certain problems encountered in attempting to deal with the estates of persons dying in Ontario who leave beneficiaries in the Soviet Union have been brought to the attention of the minister.

"It appears that exorbitant charges by the Soviet government, or its agents, and the low exchange rate for conversion of dollars into roubles result in a beneficiary receiving less than the amount he should receive. While it is clear that Ontario legislation cannot completely rectify such problems, we should attempt to prevent such abuses to the extent this is possible."

The member for London South continued with other background information concerning equivalent law, particularly some procedures in New York state.

That bill, which was introduced in the House some 26 months ago, was followed by a bill introduced by my former leader, Dr. Stuart Smith, to amend the succession law legislation following a somewhat more expanded view of the problems that we had at the time. The third step in this chain of events was the introduction of a bill similar to Bill 210, on April 21, 1981.

Members will recall that Bill 1 in any legislative session is the formal involvement of the Legislature to introduce its own business before the House just after the Lieutenant Governor has given the speech from the throne. I suppose it is a rather pleasant fiction, in that it reminds us that we as a representative House for the people of this province deal with our own business before we listen to the demands made on behalf of the monarch, in the British tradition, or on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor.

That, of course, pretends that the Lieutenant Governor wrote the speech and is bringing these matters before us as though they were his wish. We all know that under responsible cabinet government it is the Premier and the members of the executive council who are responsible for preparing the speech. What I have chosen to call a pleasant fiction remains, in that our business comes before we deal with requests made by the representative of the monarch in that instance.

In the presence of a crowded gallery and with the floor crowded with various notables and worthies seated on chairs brought in for that purpose, we had the introduction of Bill 1. It was well received. The Attorney General himself introduced this bill and we had on behalf of my former leader, Dr. Smith, his private member's bill on succession law, which again repeated the complementary approach and referred at that time to the prospect of some $10 million to $20 million being involved in these matters.

This bill was introduced, but nothing was proceeded with by the Attorney General. Therefore, on April 22, 1982, almost a year ago, I introduced Bill 87. As a result, we have had a further attempt to bring this theme before the government of Ontario. It has been well over two years since we first saw the province move by some suggestion in this area. I believe the time has come when further proceedings must be taken.

I refer at this point to a seminar held on February 3 at the University of Toronto under the sponsorship of the political science department of that university. Professor Gleb Zekulin was the introducer and moderator of the seminar. The importance of this estates and wills area was once again stressed.

Those attending that seminar were informed that perhaps 200,000 Canadians are possibly subject to Soviet law because they were born within areas controlled by the present-day Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Under Soviet citizenship law, it is jus soli and not jus sanguinis.

As a result, any person leaving the territory of the Soviet Union after December 15, 1921, is apparently still considered a Soviet citizen for matters of beneficiary claims and other responsibilities; his descendants are as well. As indicated at this seminar, perhaps one and a half million Canadians could be technically involved, supposedly with claims, as some aspect of Soviet citizenship law might apply.

Comments were made at that time as to the amount of money involved in these claims. Once again, the range of $10 million to $20 million seems to be the expectation and the result of these problems.

I understand the Attorney General is going to consider legislation. We may not see it in the dying several days of this session, but I look forward to having a new bill proceeded with in the new session of the Legislature.

I could give him a modest stimulus by suggesting that in the first week of the new session I will reintroduce my bill. I do not know whether that will stimulate him one way or the other. It is certainly my intention to do that. I hope later on in the session I will be able to stand down that bill or withdraw it in the presence of government legislation, but only on one condition, that the government proceed with it.

Its time has come. We have been talking about something now for well over two years from the initial legislation of Bill 210. It is a serious matter. It affects a lot of people and is a concern to them, particularly among the ethnic communities in Metropolitan Toronto. As one who has received much support and consideration from those communities, as has the Attorney General, it is now time to get on with that theme. I look forward to hearing from him on that subject.

3:20 p.m.

As a third point, I was going to raise the matter of Robert Hirtle which was discussed during the question period this afternoon. There was only one other theme I would prefer to go into at this point, and it deals with the options that have been offered to Mr. Hirtle.

From the comments appearing in the media, and indeed from the Attorney General's answer, it appears to be almost a matter of a policy decision that an option otherwise open to Mr. Hirtle -- the return to his job -- is not really available. From the comments the Attorney General made, it seems to be only a matter of dollar settlement.

If the Attorney General is able to comment on that, I look forward to hearing from him. If it is a matter only of dollars and the option of returning to his job is not the case, it may be possible for the Attorney General to say so at this time.

The fourth area deals with the suggestions made under the minister's review of the Family Law Reform Act. On December 14, members will recall an announcement was made in the Legislature that the Family Law Reform Act was going to be reconsidered. Certainly that approach is welcome. It is now some five years or so since the law was placed before us and, as a result of public hearings, lengthy discussions, position papers and a variety of other themes, we have probably the most modern family law relationship within the nation.

There is one concern that I draw to the Attorney General's attention in this regard, and that is the matter of the deadline of March 1 for submissions. It seems, to a number of people who have contacted us, to be somewhat unrealistic.

Can the Attorney General advise whether that deadline is to be extended and whether there will be any announcement made, in the various publications available through the Law Society of Upper Canada or otherwise, that those interested in making submissions will be given some additional time?

There is a recent case in the Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation of section 42 of the act that is certainly of great interest. The case is Stoimenov versus Stoimenov. That decision, which affirmed an earlier ruling, held "that a prima facie right to one half of the family assets is potential only and requires a court order to establish such a right."

In keeping with the commitment made by the Attorney General that the review will be an extensive one and certainly consistent with --

Mr. Piché: You're all alone. You look like a general with no troops behind him.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is all right. The Attorney General has only two members in the front row, and that does not bother me in the slightest.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.

Ms. Fish: I can slip down to the front, Jim.

Mr. Breithaupt: The honourable member can move forward if the Premier (Mr. Davis) will allow it. But, of course, that is something to be discussed perhaps during the break.

Anyway, I am sure that those of us, like my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who are involved particularly in the administration of the law are quite able to deal with these matters without either the help or the hindrance of too many others in the Legislature.

In any event, this matter particularly dealing with the recent case I have referred to the Attorney General is one that I presume will be considered in the review, and I hope that will be attended to.

There are a number of matters I do not want to particularly delay the House with.

I presume the Attorney General may be able to comment on the continuing investigation into the death of children at the Hospital for Sick Children. Certainly the deaths of those 24 babies are of grave concern to the Attorney General and to all of us. If he is able to bring us up to date on the continuing investigation and the consideration of problems there, we will be very happy to hear from him.

We were all interested in reading the statements made by the Chief Justice and by the other senior judges at the opening of the courts during the first week in January. As it often does, that statement brings forward comments, not only in the press but also otherwise, concerning the administration of justice within the province.

Certainly, in the five years or so that Mr. Justice Howland has been Chief Justice of Ontario, we have seen great improvements and many positive changes in the administration of justice. But as the Globe and Mail commented, it becomes "something of a January ritual to speak out against huge case loads that clog the system and to obtain a ritual response from Queen's Park that streamlining measures are afoot or that great strides are being made in the provision of more space."

Frankly, I think there have been some improvements. As one looks to the circumstances within Ottawa, one sees more courtrooms provided and some things about which we can see some headway, but there continues to be a shortage of courtroom space. I do nothing more than suggest to the Attorney General our ongoing interest in the subject and the support we are quite prepared to give him if he finds any difficulty in obtaining through his colleagues the kinds of funds or the kind of clout that is obviously needed to make sure those courtrooms are in place.

There are difficulties, of course. The provision of those courtrooms is quite an expense. These things are not entered into lightly, because they have to be done well and they have to be done in a certain tone that makes sure we are not setting up any ramshackle or makeshift operations. The justice developments with respect to courtrooms, whether they be by taking over and making changes on the main floor of the courthouse on University Avenue or otherwise, are the kinds of things the Attorney General has our full support in doing.

With respect to legal aid developments, I can also assure the Attorney General of our continuing support. The growth of legal aid demands in communities such as Niagara South, which had a 34 per cent increase during last year, or Middlesex county, which had a 37 per cent increase in requests for legal aid, is enough to remind us of the problems and the values of this system.

The Attorney General did somewhat startle us in his opening comments as we dealt with his estimates in December when he referred to those in the building who perhaps were not as interested in the legal aid program as he would wish they might be. I can assure him that on this side of the House, and as critic for this ministry, he has my full support in the changes and the improvements necessary in legal aid.

I note even within our own area in Waterloo region there is a request now to develop a program and a separate location in Cambridge for the solution of further legal aid problems and matters there. There were some 88 inquiries in November 1982 with respect to these matters, and the Attorney General can be assured of our support as he develops additional programs and funds for the 40 community aid clinics now in place across this province.

Another theme deals with the whole matter of the support and assistance given to victims of crime within the province. I think Ontario can be very pleased with the operations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, but I believe we also have an obligation to extend those programs where it is practical. There is a consistent demand that we make sure the victims of crime are not forgotten. It is not just a matter of the Clifford Olson kind of case that comes to us, but of many others.

I was much taken by the comments of Yves Fortier of the Canadian Bar Association when he outlined the requirements and the serious view that has to be taken by those administering justice in this country as we look at the needs for assistance to many citizens who are harmed by the criminal activities of others. One quote from Mr. Fortier's comments implies that the current efforts to aid victims of crimes, including rape crisis centres and provincial criminal injuries compensation programs, have been somewhat piecemeal and underfunded.

3:30 p.m.

I do not think Ontario is the province he is referring to, because I think we have given some leadership arid guidance in establishing good, solid programs in that area. Certainly during the years when the Attorney General has had the responsibility he can be well pleased with the approach that has been taken, and I hope he will pass on the interest that we in the opposition have to see that it continues.

It is a matter of money well spent. Indeed, when we compare the funds that can be spent in those areas with some of the savings in other areas, we may well have funds, even within the system that is not funded as well as we would hope to deal with some of those problems.

This leads me to my next point, the matter of changes in the divorce law. We read with interest in these last several weeks a number of articles that have dealt with proposals to cut the costs of uncontested divorces. The Attorney General, referred to in a number of articles, has suggested he favours that approach and I can assure members I do as well. Whether we call it a mail-order divorce system or not, it is important that uncontested divorces no longer require the lengthy involvement of court hearings as a routine but rather have those hearings and the involvement of counsel and judges, who might well be doing other things, only where it is required.

Of course, there is a difference between our system and the British system that has been referred to. In our system, the matters of custody and property settlements are dealt with ordinarily at that time and not after the divorce action. But even in the general articles that have appeared there is at least, from the comments made by James Chadwick, a possible saving of almost $2 million. He informs us that up to 70 per cent of the $2.8 million the legal aid plan pays for uncontested divorces annually could well be available for other purposes. If that is the case, we certainly must all get together and ensure that those changes are seriously considered and that the prospects are there.

I recognize this matter has been referred back to the legal aid committee by the law society, and I would of course be the first to remind those who will read Hansard at some point or other of the comments made by Kenneth Jarvis, secretary of the Law Society of Upper Canada. His comments, reported in a letter to the editor on January 28, were that the law society did not reject the report but has sent it back for further consideration.

It is not the law society that changes the variety of divorce proceedings within this province or, indeed, within the country. But if those responsibilities can be changed, then certainly the Attorney General can do so and go forward with the suggestions of responsible change that will make things somewhat more beneficial for us.

A number of areas have been referred to. The Attorney General discussed earlier the proposal by the Carleton County Law Association. If he has anything further to report to us on those changes, we would certainly be prepared to listen to him.

There are a couple of other themes I would like to leave as we look towards concurrence, and I will refer to only three. We all read with interest the reports of the Attorney General's speech at Laval University, when he made some suggestions as to the prospect of certain possible vetoes within our Constitution by Quebec as it dealt with language and cultural matters.

I do not know if the Attorney General was flying a kite or not; certainly the remarks as received by the Premier (Mr. Davis) have not been entirely favourable. But I presume the remarks were made in good faith and certainly in an attempt to counter the approach that has been taken by Premier Lévesque as he viewed the end of the theme of any veto over the Constitution as something that, in his view, was at least a serious blow to the aspirations of Quebec as part of a unified nation.

The Attorney General was a party to a variety and perhaps nearly all of the discussions on the matter of the changes in our Constitution, and he was one of the strongest supporters, along with the former Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Mr. Romanow, of the approach that was taken which allowed us to come to the circumstances we are now in.

I hope the Attorney General will not be as lonely as he listens to my remarks as I am in giving them at this point, although the odds are getting as small for him as they are for me.

Mr. Cassidy: There is one person on your benches.

Mr. Breithaupt: It certainly is a help.

This kind of a theme is certainly something that should not be rejected out of hand in that it is the kind of approach of a positive nature that may well lead to some discussions and attitudes which could be helpful in the future. I do not know whether the Attorney General is going to make any further comments on that theme but certainly to have that kind of suggestion made as a discussion point, has some merit.

If he feels, as one of the very few persons who has been involved throughout this piece in the variety of negotiations, that is the kind of theme that should be considered and where discussion should continue, then I wish him well as he goes ahead with it. It is certainly the sort of thing that may well add to the strengthening of a positive framework within the country, and if that is the case it must be open for discussion and not be rejected out of hand.

There is one other area I would like to refer to in that it troubles me somewhat, and I am sure it troubles the Attorney General as he looks at the clippings and suggestions made resulting from the proposal of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the Ontario Police Commission to apparently develop a procedure for stopping and questioning passersby at random without any particular reason, warrant or suspicion.

We have noticed comments in the media with respect to this theme and I would hope the Attorney General is seriously and thoroughly involved in any such proposal. While the Solicitor General deals with the matter of the police forces, the prospect of interference with citizens who have no reason to be bothered as they go along with their lawful occupations, or presence in the community, is something which must trouble us all.

I know this is a proposal which has been suggested as something which might be brought in over a year or so, after the constables on the beat are given some guidance, training and suggestion as to who might be asked what. For what it is worth, I do not like the idea very much. I hope the Attorney General is going to involve himself, not only as part of the Justice policy field, but with his own particular bias in favour of the law as it now stands that would very seriously look at any such proposal whereby, for a variety of good reasons, it is presumed a police constable would be given the authority to stop anyone at any time.

It is not likely to bother me, and perhaps it is not going to bother anyone in this chamber, because we are not likely to be the persons who are going to be stopped on the street. But for a member of an ethnic minority, or a teenager, or whoever, being stopped at random arid having to give an account of himself or herself it is not a positive step. People will make the comment that the right to do such things as that might be very helpful in the case of the search for the abductor of a child, or any of these other very difficult cases that test the bounds in which our police forces operate. It is very awkward to have to weigh one of those themes against the other.

But I do hope the Attorney General is going to be involved in a policy way, or indeed in making comments in the House, as to how he sees this kind of proposal.

3:40 p.m.

It is a dangerous precedent. It may seem to have a short-term advantage that would be useful to police forces. In the difficult job they have, I realize any particular advantage is sought and grabbed. It is done, in their view, because they must be given the tools to do the difficult job they have.

However, this is one area that does concern me and I hope we can hear from the Attorney General at some point as to how he views this proposal and whether it has been discussed or considered within his ministry or between him and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) so we will have some guidance on this matter.

There are many other issues, but I do not want to delay the concurrence. I trust the Attorney General will be able to respond to some of these themes before we grant concurrence.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a number of matters. Concurrences are always somewhat difficult. It is certainly not the role of the concurrence debate to resume all the matters one attempted to deal with during the course of the estimates, but of necessity one must touch upon them to some degree.

Since we met with the Attorney General, the change of which we were aware in the office of the Deputy Attorney General has taken place. I and my colleagues who are engaged with the Attorney General welcome the appointment of Archie Gray Campbell as the new deputy.

This is also the first occasion in a real sense where fortunately we now have a separate minister dealing with the role of the Attorney General and the role of the Solicitor General. There were a number of matters we tended to mix up with the Attorney General over a period of time related to the police and the area of police investigations. I will reserve that for later on today when we deal with the concurrences of the Solicitor General.

I will also delay until that time any comments of concern I have with respect to the integrity of the police investigation on one hand and the integrity of the nuclear disarmament movement and the anti-cruise missile movement in its various manifestations. I wish to speak to it. I have some positive and real concerns about those, but I believe it is more appropriate to deal with them related to the concurrences of the office of the Solicitor General.

This came to me somewhat by way of rumour and I know the Attorney General is not the responsible minister, but I did want to raise it with him. I have heard a rumour that it is anticipated one of the law schools in Ontario may be closed. Whether the Attorney General is knowledgeable about that matter or not, I hope he will look into it. I think it would be a serious problem in Ontario, particularly having regard to the number of women who are enrolling in law school, let alone all those who look forward to the practice of law, to find there was one fewer law school in Ontario.

I believe there are two law schools in Toronto, one in Ottawa, one in Kingston, one in London and one in Windsor. I believe that completes it. I do not think there is a law school in northern Ontario. I just wanted to register my concern with the Attorney General about that rumour. I do not know the source of it. It came to my attention only in the last while.

I will turn to two or three important matters which come out of the discussions we had in the estimates, almost by way of themes, which are of concern to me.

One of my major concerns has been to try to assess the fundamental attitude of the government, as it is reflected in this ministry as well as in the other Justice portfolio ministries, about the Charter of Rights. I have come to the rather sad conclusion that the basic ultimate philosophy pervading the government, of necessity having its leadership from the Attorney General, is that the Charter of Rights made no change in the law of Ontario. In other words, all the charter has done is to express in language and to put in the Constitution of the country what has always been the practice.

When one considers the reports which are appearing now quite regularly, one sees that any case which has an element of changing the understanding of the law officers of the crown in the various Justice ministries about their understanding of the law of Ontario is automatically appealed. It may well be that in some jurisprudential sense each of the cases should be tested at some higher court level, but I am quite surprised to find that in a number of instances not only is it the intention to appeal but there is latent in the background an intention to find, if possible, a legal answer by way of legislation that would overturn whatever the decision of the courts may be.

I had expected the Attorney General and the law officers of the crown operating in all of the courts under him would have taken a more open-minded rather than a closed-mind approach to the question of the Charter of Rights and its applications; that they would have been prepared to entertain alternative views in their role, particularly in the criminal field where the responsibility is not to convict but to fairly and objectively place the case before the court. I find they are leaving the legal arguments with respect to legal and fundamental rights in particular, but all of the rights under the charter, basically, to the adversary system.

I think this is mirrored in the request I made to the Attorney General that I, along with my colleagues, should have an opportunity to get a copy of the so-called black book; that is, the book available to all the crown law officers across the province which has a distillation of views with respect to the legal implications of provisions of the charter, tentative or otherwise.

This book shows the alternative arguments which can be placed in some of the jurisprudential dissertations about the complexity of some of the questions which are involved in the charter, so that almost as a matter of jurisprudential disclosure, defence counsel and counsel on the other side of cases would have before them some common ground of discussion about matters that are in argument before the court in order that they could be dealt with properly.

The Attorney General stopped me in my tracks by telling me it would probably infringe copyright. I had not expected that reply. Fortunately, however, his colleague the Minister of Justice in Ottawa does not appear to be hampered by those views, even though copyright is a matter of federal law.

I wrote to the Honourable Mark McGuigan, because he had tabled, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, the justice department manual which was part of their version of the discussions which took place among the provincial Attorneys General and the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, over a period of time, about the fundamental bases of it. I asked the Attorney General if he would reconsider making that black book available so as not to be in the position of playing a game of ducks and drakes as to whether a particular counsel in a particular court is able to have at his disposal all of the learning in an esoteric field.

3:50 p.m.

My plea is not for the Attorney General to take either a positive or a negative view of the charter. My plea to the Attorney General is to be open about the matter and to make available and stimulate the kind of debate that will lead to the resolution in the courts of the fundamental questions that, the sooner they are brought before the courts and reviewed and decided, the better it will be for the system of justice as we understand it.

The second major theme that came to me out of the estimates that was quite unsatisfactory, simply because we do not have the statistical information, is the immense overloading of the court system. Of course, it now pervades the justice system in the province in all respects. It pervades the institutions of detention across the province; it pervades the confusion and backlog of cases in the courts; it deals also with the question of the overcrowding of institutions reserved for those who have yet to be sentenced.

But from the Attorney General we have this on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand point of view that, "Oh well, the matter is, as the Chief Justice emphasized, a matter of the overcrowding of the courts simply because they do not have the facilities." Of course, the next day the Attorney General and his information officer issue a release saying, "It is not really the lack of facilities; it is a number of other factors."

I want to say very clearly to the Attorney General that in Peel, York and Durham the capacity of the courts in all of their aspects -- not just the physical facilities but in all of the aspects of the administration of justice -- is rapidly approaching the point at which the system will not be able to deal adequately.

I need not emphasize to the Attorney General that as late as last week or the week before, to re-emphasize what has been said in other cases, one of the judges of the provincial court criminal division, who is a knowledgeable, experienced, longtime judge, Judge Addison, when he went out to Peel in order to assist with the overload of cases, was absolutely astounded to find there was no way he could deal with any case that was coming up for remand because the courts would not be available for upwards of a year for the next appointment. If we go down to Durham we will hear the same discussion.

It is not restricted to the criminal courts; it extends as well to the civil courts. Mr. Justice Edson Haines, who is retired at present but has a role with respect to umpiring or refereeing -- I am not certain of the exact term -- attempting to work out pretrial settlements in civil cases, indicates that the jury system, respected as it is, requires substantial changes, and he emphasizes the role of the pretrial settlements because, he casually said, we have facilities to deal with only about five per cent of the jury cases in any event.

I need not elaborate at any great length. I thought this year the statements of all of the judges at the opening of the courts, which unfortunately I was not able to attend, deserved very serious consideration. Whether one fixes upon the question of actual space in courtrooms is not the point. The whole question is the overloading of the system, and it will not be able to function much longer in those three major areas.

The Attorney General knows the concern my colleagues from the Hamilton-Wentworth area and I have expressed to him, both in this session and in prior sessions, about the lack of a sense of assurance about the criminal law system in the Hamilton area. I simply put it that way. I feel very insecure about what is happening in the Hamilton area with respect to the kind of violence that is reported regularly in the cases that come before the criminal courts in that area.

Again, we have talked about it in terms of facilities, adding more crown attorneys, arranging for the gentle retirement of a particular judge and all sorts of fine-tuning and finessing, but there is something fundamentally wrong in the so-called Golden Horseshoe with respect to the administration of justice.

I do not know how one deals with it, with all the vested interests, reciprocal jealousies of the various branches of the legal profession and the various branches of the judiciary. I am not certain how one deals with it but I can suggest one fundamental thing which can be dealt with. That is the need to have a total and comprehensive statistical survey made of the courts in all aspects, not limited only to the gathering of statistics in their final sense but in the sense that is absolutely essential that in this day and age, with the technology available to us, it should be possible to get a statistical background which would allow a reasoned and intelligent discussion to take place about what needs to be done in the administration of justice.

I am certain there are other parts of the province to which these matters are of equal importance with respect to speedy and fair trials, adequate opportunity to be heard and all the rest of it. I am not for one moment saying there are not aspects of it which touch upon justice in a way which makes it absolutely essential that kind of overview take place. I refer only to the so-called Golden Horseshoe area because the density of the population, and the problems that has created, mirror and reflect, almost in a crisis situation, the problems as they come through to those of us interested in this area.

I believe it cannot be done within any of the Justice portfolios. It cannot be done within the resources of government. I do not think the skills are there to do it. I think guidance has to come from one or two of the major management consultant firms to address that question. That is not the question of touching upon the jealous relationships or the question of touching upon how the courts should be administered and where the responsibility should be laid; that may have to come down the road. I am talking about the lack in the justice system, not only in the Attorney General's ministry but in the overall concept of the justice system which makes me extremely concerned.

Until we have that information in all of its aspects in a complex way, we are not going anywhere. I personally believe it would take the resources of one or two of the major consulting firms to look into the question to provide the objective, nonvalue judgement response on statistical matters. We will be meeting ourselves coming back or we will be in the continuing revolving door about the justice system until that basic information is available to us.

One has to read only one of the judge's statements, to which I may well have to refer in one or two of these concurrence discussions. It is extremely difficult to understand that in this province of 8.5 million people, which in the 1981 census is roughly the population of the province, including children and elderly people, one has found the chief judge of the provincial court criminal jurisdiction stating:

"In Ontario, the majority of those citizens who have contact with the justice system, from an offence against a municipal bylaw to a charge under the Criminal Code, become involved with the provincial court criminal jurisdiction, the provincial offences court or a justice of the peace acting under the authority of the chief judge or a provincial judge designated by him."

4 p.m.

The number of those citizens increased from 3.7 million in 1980-81 to 4.4 million in 1981-82, an increase of approximately 18 per cent. The number of charges received for all matters in 1980-81 was approximately 3.8 million and in 1981-82 approximately 4.5 million, an increase of about 18 per cent.

That gives some indication of the kind of look that needs to be taken at the justice system. Knowing that I am a law-abiding citizen, does it mean that when I look to my right or my left, the other two people are persons who disobey the law? I do not understand it, even allowing for doubling up of offences. Does it mean, asserting how law-abiding I am, that I look at my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and say, "He is the one who is subject to the charge," if it is on a one-for-one basis? Of 8,500,000 people, 4,400,000 are subject to a charge in any one year.

People can say that does not mean anything. I think that very statistic has to be looked at because those are charges. We do not know what happened. There is no way of finding out what happens to those charges. As far as I can tell from looking at the Ontario criminal justice terminology for statistical data and information systems and justice statistics for Ontario, there is no coherent view of what happens to these people. How many of them are in court? How many of them are in the court how long? How long was the charge outstanding? What was the disposition of the charge? Where did they go? How many of them are duplications? How many of the charges should or should not have been laid?

By using that statistic from the chief judge of the provincial court, criminal jurisdiction, I am not suggesting for a moment it is a simple matter. I am simply trying to say we do not have in this age the statistical information dealing with the administration of justice that any well-run organization would have by this time. I think I have laboured that point beyond what is necessary.

One other aspect of that is the legal aid system. I have expressed my view very clearly about the tariff of fees with respect to the legal aid plan. The Attorney General knows that. The 25 per cent deduction from accounts rendered by lawyers for legal aid should be eliminated -- either in one, two or perhaps three steps. I have expressed that as a philosophical point of view and as being a much more appropriate substitute for the increase in fee schedule.

My one point is this: I have not given it much thought. I have as much empathy as anyone about the so-called plight of the lawyers, but I would be extremely concerned if the profession to which we lawyers belong became involved in any withdrawal of services from the courts as a method of bringing about compliance.

Some people may say it is elitist on my part or rather arrogant that we should try to set ourselves apart. I do not happen to think so. From the little time I have given thought to the matter -- it has only come to the surface in the last three or four days -- I consider it should be subject to discipline by the governing body of the law society if lawyers were to withdraw their services from the court. That may sound a strange view coming from me, but that is the way I feel about it. If the Attorney General needs any support on that matter I would like him to know where I stand.

Mr. Roy: Your colleagues in your caucus may isolate you.

Mr. McClellan: Not true.

Mr. Renwick: No. They will embrace me even though I have these errant views from time to time.

My next point is that I welcome the reference to the courts with respect to the status of the judges. I do not happen to see it in such dramatic terms as have perhaps been expressed on some occasions, and I have made my views known about that aspect of it. However, whether or not there is a legal issue involved in the independence of the judge I am looking forward to some very definitive statements about the status of judges and the criteria that would indicate the degree of independence that is essential in our society for judges.

Whether they take the view in a case that the judge has or has not independence is not, in my view, the most important part. Most important is that there is an opportunity to clear up all the fringe areas that have caused the concern among the judges and justices of the peace about their status.

I trust the decision of the Court of Appeal by the five judges sitting on the matter will clarify that issue, because I am the same as everyone else. I do not think anybody who has appeared in a provincial court has ever doubted for one moment the independence of the judge who was sitting there, whether one appeared as a lawyer in the case or as a member of the public.

I understand the last excuse for the government not moving on questions of class action has been decided by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada today in the Firenza case. I forget the name of the plaintiff, strangely enough; I think of it in terms of the automobile. I understand the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly stated that class actions are not available in Ontario and says the inadequacies of rule 75, or whatever the appropriate rule is, have to be dealt with by way of legislative action.

We have the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. My recollection is there are three volumes of that report. I think it is absolutely essential that the bill be brought into the assembly and referred to the standing committee on administration of justice and that consideration be given to that bill at the earliest possible moment. It is most unfortunate in this province that a modern, up-to-date, necessary, equitable remedy should not be available and that the whole question of class actions should be fraught with all the procedural pitfalls and hazards it has been over the years. I trust the Attorney General may deal with this matter.

In the estimates, the then Assistant Deputy Minister, Roderick McLeod, who is now the Deputy Solicitor General for the province and for whom I have great respect, read me somewhat of a lecture. He said I did not quite understand the role of the crown law office with respect to police investigations.

Now that Mr. McLeod has moved to the office of the Solicitor General, I suggest he take with him the role of the law officers of the crown in the office of the Solicitor General with respect to police investigations. I believe there should be a very necessary severance and sense of distance established for employees of the crown in the role they play so that they are not part of the investigative process. I refer to crown attorneys and crown law officers within the ministry as well as agents of the Attorney General across the province.

I have given a lot of thought to this. I did not understand the implications of what Mr. McLeod was saying when he explained to me that, while I had been around quite a long time, I did not understand the real world and my perception of the real world was awry.

4:10 p.m.

It would be extremely important that opportunity now be made to create the severance. There is a felicitous conjunction of the skills of Roderick McLeod in the office of the Solicitor General to assist the police with advice and whatever other assistance is required in police investigations. But it would be well to keep them away from the crown law officers who are going to prosecute the cases.

That is an old fashioned view, but I think it is a matter of principle which has come out clearly in the discussions on a number of occasions which have been of great concern to me. I believe I have at least proposed the thesis which deserves some consideration.

The Attorney General, in the course of his estimates, made a formal statement with respect to his remarks regarding abortion clinics. I am not speaking about the inaccuracy of the opening paragraph and the necessary correction which appeared in the Toronto press about the inaccuracy. I could probably adopt a good portion of it but, so there will be no misunderstanding I want to adopt two paragraphs from it.

I am quoting the Attorney General and he has said it much better than I could have said it: "But my personal feelings on the availability of abortions in Ontario are entirely distinct from my obligation as Ontario's chief law officer of the crown. It is my obligation to ensure that the criminal laws of this country, as established by the Parliament of Canada, are fairly and justly administered. It is not my function, nor would it in any way be appropriate for me, to attempt to thwart the will of Parliament by declaring my unwillingness to prosecute any particular class of criminal offences."

I adopt those words and share that with the Attorney General. I also adopt this paragraph: "Where abortion is concerned, it is crucial to understand that the federal government, exercising its exclusive criminal law authority, has made it a crime to perform an abortion other than in a licensed hospital with the consent of a therapeutic abortion committee.

"That is the law. If individuals feel the law is unjust, then they have every right to work to change it, but they should not expect the chief law officer of the crown to contradict it."

I emphasize I adopt that paragraph as well. I want to relate that to the specific question I raised with the Attorney General in his estimates. It concerns whether a citizen's act, otherwise unlawful, can become lawful if performed in a licensed hospital after consideration by a therapeutic abortion committee. If, as I understand it, about 26 per cent of the licensed hospitals across the province have the therapeutic abortion committees, it becomes a problem of geography -- of access to the facility.

Do the Attorney General and the Minister of Health have the obligation to urge the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees in as many hospitals as possible which are licensed by this government across Ontario?

That is a simple question. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or those of the Attorney General. If an otherwise unlawful act is lawful if performed in a licensed hospital after review by a therapeutic abortion committee -- and only 26 per cent of the hospitals in Ontario are licensed -- is there any obligation on the law officer of the crown charged with the administration of justice -- as well as on the Minister of Health -- to urge the establishment? They used the term "urge" advisedly.

I do not believe one can require a hospital board across the province by some kind of law to have such a committee, but I believe there is some such obligation on the law officer of the crown. To that extent I was somewhat disappointed that my specific question was not answered in the response made by the Attorney General on or about the last day of his estimates.

I am going to skip any comment about the Law Society of Upper Canada. The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) spoke dramatically and eloquently about the perceived problems of the law society in the eyes of the public at present when we were in the estimates. I share those views. I only hope the law society, in its own way, will be able to come to grips with the kinds of questions involved in the perception of the profession.

There has certainly been a downturn in the public perception of the legal profession. I am not talking about it in some kind of an elitist way but as part of the administration of justice system and as part of the responsibility of the Law Society of Upper Canada. It has been drilled into me from the time I first came in contact with the law in Ontario, when I was told I was going to be an officer of the court, that I was responsible as an officer of the court for the administration of justice.

If the organization charged with the governance of persons who are licenced to practice in the courts are officers of the court system, then I think it is time the law society pulled itself together and addressed some very fundamental questions, rather than being seen as a profession that is backward, overly-cautious and engaged in significant aspects of self-interest.

I have some concern about the overlapping relationship of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Attorney General and the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding the numbers of lawyers. I have expressed my concern about a rumour that one of the law schools in the province was going to be closed. This, to my way of thinking, would be a very serious retrograde step.

Some years ago, the Attorney General told us of the instructions he had issued about disclosure of the crowns case to the defence by crown attorneys. This was in order that defence counsel would have full knowledge of all of the circumstances which were going to be brought in a case before the individual for whom one may be acting.

I was interested to note in the comments by the judges at the opening of the courts a reference to that question of disclosure -- about the need for full disclosure by the crown to defence counsel of the case which the citizen was going to be called upon to meet. I cannot find my reference but one of the judges of the provincial court referred to that need for disclosure.

I was disturbed to see a cursory account on November 2 in the Globe and Mail, under the byline of Kirk Makin, of the Ontario court of appeal ordering a new trial for a man convicted of assault because the crown attorney withheld key eyewitness testimony at the trial. After some difficulty I was able to get a copy of the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the matter.

4:20 p.m.

I understand the case was originally heard on June 4, 1981, in Thunder Bay, and the judge presiding in that court was Patrick S. FitzGerald. The appeal was heard on October 19, 1982. The judges of the Court of Appeal were Brooke, Blair and Robins, Justices of Appeal. A single unanimous judgement was given by the court, which simply said this:

"We are all of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. The ground of appeal is that there is fresh evidence which ought to have been before the trial judge. The evidence consisted of one eyewitness to the event in question, a witness that was known to the police and to the prosecution and not to the defence.

"After the conviction the appellant discovered the existence of the witness and the evidence and obtained a certificate from the trial judge. The reasons for judgement of the trial judge make it clear to us that this evidence would have been material to his decision. We are all of the opinion that the witness and the evidence ought to have been disclosed to the defence. In any event we are all of the opinion that the evidence meets the criteria of fresh evidence and so the conviction cannot stand. A new trial is ordered on the charge of assault causing bodily harm."

The bare bones of that judgment, as given in the Globe and Mail, raise in my mind a very serious question about disclosure by crown counsel to defence counsel. I do not intend to quote the whole of the dispatch in the Globe and Mail. In this case Her Majesty the Queen was the respondent and the appellant was Gregory Edward Fedderson:

"After the trial Mr. Fedderson's lawyer was anonymously tipped off that a statement favourable to his client had been made by a US tourist at Constable Lorenz's OPP detachment the night of the assault." The statement described what she had seen. I am not going to read that into the record. "The US tourist went to the OPP that night" -- that is the same day of the offence -- "and made a statement in which she said Constable Lorenz was" and described his actions and so on and so forth. Mr. Fedderson was given a suspended sentence and two years' probation.

I think that is sufficient to raise this matter again. In light of what one of the judges said at the opening of the courts, and the very serious problem which was reported in the press and quite likely will not be reported elsewhere, I think this question of crown disclosure to defence counsel will come up front and centre in the Attorney General's instructions to his agents across the province who prosecute these cases.

I have tried in a summary way to raise matters of concern to me in these concurrence estimates. There are obviously other matters. The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) raised questions with respect to family law. There were the two family law cases that led the Attorney General to indicate that the family law provisions were going to be dealt with by a review of those provisions related to family and nonfamily assets in Leatherdale and Leatherdale and in the Stoimenov case.

I have one further comment and then a question which my colleague, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) asked me to draw to the minister's attention.

I suppose this is the end of the McDonald commission as far as this assembly is concerned. There may be little tag-ends that come up from time to time, but it is a work of supererogation on our part to try to raise any of the matters related to the McDonald commission.

We have an astounding situation in this province. Regardless of what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were engaged in during the time they were under review by the McDonald commission, regardless of any statements made in that report, regardless of any investigations that were made, regardless of the question of stolen property, to give only one instance in the matter and the particular cases are there -- for reasons known only to the law officers of the crown and the Attorney General, not one single solitary charge will be laid about the events covered by the McDonald commission. It is as if that happened only in Quebec and not here in Ontario, despite the cases that were raised.

I do not know whether the so-called inherent contradiction overcame the chief law officer of the crown and made it impossible for him to separate out his specific responsibilities on the administration of justice. I just think it is passing strange, if nothing else, that not one single case has been allowed to go forward into the courts for trial, not only by being laid through the law officers of the crown but by individual citizens who feel they have a right to lay charges and have had the proceedings stayed.

The camouflage words "inherent contradiction" are readily explainable. Do police officers, in the execution of their duty, have the authority to break the law? Should the executive branch of the government in some strange way be able to say that police officers in the execution of their duties can break the law if it is in pursuit of the elusive topic of something called national security? That is the mystery of mysteries as far as I am concerned.

One can now only read the McDonald commission report. Those who want to study the issue will think it extremely strange as time goes on that nothing whatsoever was done by the RCMP in Ontario that offended the legalities of the rights of people and the protection of property. It all stopped at the Quebec border. I suppose that has been the view of this government on all the questions arising from those years that in some way or other it was peculiarly a Quebec problem and had nothing to do with Ontario.

I do not know whether in years to come I will be able to restrain myself in either estimates or concurrences from commenting again about the McDonald commission. The government has certainly drawn the curtain on the commission and that is the end of it as far as the government is concerned.

The member for Lake Nipigon has raised with me the assault and rape case reported in Thunder Bay which I raised in the estimates of the ministry. I provided the information at that time together with the response of the Attorney General in the estimates. It may not be appropriate or possible today to answer that question, but I know the member for Lake Nipigon would like to have a response, perhaps in writing, about the action the Attorney General took in dealing with the extravagant words which were used in that case and which drew from the Attorney General at the time the same concern we have.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, if I could just clarify one point: To put it in the words of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), it was the extravagant language used by defence counsel in defending somebody against a charge of rape or assault by saying: "Your honour, this was not some young 18-year-old girl or some young virgin. This was a married woman that was the victim. Therefore, there were extenuating circumstances and the court should be much more lenient. After all, this was a 34-year-old married woman who was the victim, which makes a big difference."

I am just wondering what the Attorney General's reaction is. My constituents in northwestern Ontario were furious when they heard defence counsel using that kind of defence to defend somebody accused of rape. The people were infuriated, and I passed that reaction on to my colleague the member for Riverdale, who said the Attorney General would have it looked into and get back to us. That was several weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Just one interjection, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edighoffer): I am sure the Attorney General will reply at the end. I think that is the appropriate time.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There was just one comment from the member for Lake Nipigon. I will pursue that, but I would like to --

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry; the standing orders say the minister has the right to wind up the debate.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is right. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you have followed your usual liberal and objective interpretation of the rules, even though it meant cutting off the Attorney General, the chief law officer. I am sure your doing so was not to reflect any concern towards the matter raised by the honourable member about the wild comments made by defence counsel against the victim in this situation.

I hope the presiding judge had something to say to counsel about those statements. I know it is very difficult to constrain counsel in their defence or in submissions on sentence, but when counsel's comments are out of line or as outrageous as these were, the trial judge has a duty to make some comment.

I know a number of members want to speak briefly in the debate on concurrence of the estimates of the Attorney General; so I will try not to take too much time.

I commend both my colleagues who preceded me, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). In my opinion they have covered very important issues and have brought to the forefront issues that should be answered or dealt with by the Attorney General.

Members will understand there are many issues that could be raised during concurrence, and many of them were raised during the estimates. I just want to deal briefly, without being too repetitious, with a couple of matters that I think require some response on the part of the Attorney General.

In question period today, I raised with the Attorney General the case of justice of the peace Robert Hirtle, and we had some discussion about this issue. I quite understand there has to be some constraint on the part of the Attorney General if a matter is before the courts. But, as I understand it, the only matter before the courts now is the matter of wrongful dismissal. I ask the Attorney General whether that is not the case. Is there not what we call malicious prosecution? I do not know whether that is a cause of action in the civil case. I thought the issue before the courts right now was strictly the matter of wrongful dismissal and not the matter of malicious prosecution. That was my understanding in any event.

I just want to say to the Attorney General, when I review the matter as objectively as I can, and knowing the Attorney General certainly has not shown, in the past at least, any inclination to be an overly vindictive person, I look at this whole process and I say to myself that obviously there is something I do not know or something that went on that nobody wants to talk about, and that is why this gentleman is excluded from his previous occupation.

I will review this briefly, if I may. We have an individual who is a justice of the peace, and at some point in 1977 he is suspended. Criminal charges are laid, and these charges proceed before the courts at some time, I think, in 1981. Two of the three justices of the peace involved, Mr. Spong and Mr. Wax, are found not guilty at a preliminary hearing, as I recall it. I do not know whether it was a trial, but it was before a provincial court judge at that time.

The proceedings against Mr. Robert Hirtle are stayed in February 1981. I understand -- and the Attorney General may be harsh with me if he has to correct me on this issue -- that, generally speaking, when the crown has a good case against an individual, the proceedings are not stayed. When they are stayed, it is usually a cautious way for the crown to say they are not going to withdraw the charges. In a year's time, if they are not proceeded with, as I understand it, the charges fall.

In any event, as far as the criminal charges are concerned, the individual must be deemed to be innocent, because the charges were not proceeded with. If we are to believe in our common-law principle of criminal law that one is deemed innocent unless proved guilty, Mr. Hirtle at that point is deemed to be innocent. Then the matter is looked into, at that point, by the chief judge and by what is called the Justices of the Peace Review Council. Clearly the council, on July 17, 1981, comes to a conclusion, signed by Chief Judge Hayes, recommending that the suspension be terminated. That is what it says about the process. Mr. Hirtle, as far as the criminal charges are concerned, is deemed innocent. As far as any suspension is concerned, the chief judge, through the Justices of the Peace Review Council, says suspension should be terminated.

At some point, monetary discussions take place to compensate these individuals who have been suspended since 1977 without pay, and, as the Attorney General says, a substantial amount of money, I think something like $140,000 each, is offered to the three individuals. Two of the three justices of the peace accept that, but Mr. Hirtle wants his job back. He says: "I am not prepared to accept some monetary recompense or consideration. I want my job back."

It seems to me, given the circumstances here, that is a perfectly sensible and logical conclusion. If one is vindicated, if one is exonerated, why should one not get one's job back? That is what we call natural justice. The rule of law would require that sort of conclusion.

The Attorney General says, "There are some discussions still going on and there are some matters still of concern to us, especially when we talk about misbehaviour or neglect." But I want to say to the Attorney General that a Mr. George McCleary, who I understand is on the North York Board of Education, is an individual who showed great concern about this --

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He is a past chairman of the board. He is no longer on the board.

Mr. Roy: He is no longer on the board. He is a past chairman, the Minister of Education says. I appreciate that clarification. I understand he is still a very good Tory; I understand that status has not changed.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The great majority of the people in this province are Tories.

Mr. Roy: Not quite. In any event, I understand his status has not changed. Anyway, in a letter to Mr. McCleary, the Attorney General states, and I quote from page 4 of his letter:

"Once the matter has been referred to the judicial council, it is in the discretion of the chief judge as to whether or not the justice of the peace in question will be assigned to duty."

On the one hand the Attorney General says to Mr. McCleary: "Look, it is up to the chief judge to decide whether this gentleman gets his job back." That is what he says in the letter to --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is not what I said.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, again I confess to having some limitation in the English language -- in fact, some people would say in both the English and French languages. I confess it, hopelessly. In the English language I may have some problems. Let me try to read this again.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Read the whole letter.

Mr. Roy: I am not going to read the whole letter; I only have 20 minutes in the concurrences.

I promised some of my colleagues they would get their turn on the concurrences. As members know, my word is something that I usually keep.

Let me read this. The member can help me if I have some difficulty with the English language. Let us read this again.

"Once the matter has been referred to the judicial council, it is in the discretion of the chief judge as to whether or not the justice of the peace in question will be assigned to duty."

Does that mean what it says? I have come to the conclusion --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is while it was before the Justices of the Peace Review Council.

Mr. Roy: Yes. So the chief judge, through the Justices of the Peace Review Council, writes back and clearly -- I read it in the question period, and again I admit to limitations in the English language -- says he recommends that their suspension be terminated. That is what he says.

Would members not think that once the chief judge says that, having reviewed the whole thing and the charges having been discontinued or withdrawn against the individual, he should get his job back?

I say to the Attorney General, he cannot have it both ways. On the one hand it is up to the chief judge. He says: "Reinstate him." The Attorney General says: "Oh no, there is a problem." I am saying to the Attorney General that this man, at least on the surface, and unless we get an explanation other than we have here, has not been treated fairly. In my opinion he should be reinstated and should receive the compensation he has lost since 1977.

Because of the time limitation -- and I would like to have a longer discussion on this -- I will move on to another topic that is of great interest to the Attorney General. That is a statement he made in French, au Québec, dans la belle province de Québec. Never have I seen a minister of the crown so cut short in his tracks. I could have told him that about the Premier (Mr. Davis).

When they show such gutsy enthusiasm and start getting out of line on language and culture, the Premier reacts like a tiger. I mean, his paw is out and he will slap them right down. He has done it before, and he has done it to the Attorney General. We can just see it.

The Attorney General, who has a fine reputation in Ontario as being a defender of the minorities, ventures into the lion's den -- Laval University, Québec. He is going to give a speech en français. I give him full marks for that. I am not criticizing the Attorney General. I am with him on this one all the way.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That's what I am afraid of.

Mr. Roy: Talk about gutsiness. He went to Laval in Québec -- I have seen him. He is a bit like de Gaulle; he gets carried away by the occasion, dans le langage de Molière, because of events, circumstances --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: L'ambience de Québec.

Mr. Roy: -- l'ambience, undoubtedly the enthusiasm of the students, the whole bit; it is a whole process. The Attorney General of Ontario said to the students at Laval, "The province of Ontario is sympathetic to your request for veto in the area of culture and language." My God, I am sure the students got carried away. I watched television that evening; Jacques-Yvan Morin was on television, saying, "That's an interesting idea. We'd like to give that matter some consideration."

Et on parlait du procureur général de l'Ontario en disant: « N'est-il pas fantastique. Il a de bonnes idées et il est sympathique. Il est bien plus sympathique que le ministre de l'Éducation. Il est sympathique envers nous. Ce n'est pas tout à fait le message qu'on avait de Davis et de Tom Wells mais on l'aime, lui, on trouve qu'il est gentil. »

It was not quite the same message we were getting from the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who said a few days earlier: "No veto. No, not for any purpose."

But there it was, and it brought the Attorney General headlines. I could not believe it. I said to myself: "I missed out. This is a Friday headline." But because of the storm conditions, as members know, I could not make it down here last Thursday.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: I hear some cynics. I see some smiles on that side. But tell my friends, I had my plane ticket --

Mr. Samis: Where for? Bermuda or Barbados?

The Acting Speaker: Are plane tickets included in these estimates?

Mr. Roy: The atmospheric conditions were such that, try as I might, the plane would not take off. That is a fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are all sure the honourable member is telling us the honest-to-God truth, but will he table those tickets?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I need them to get back.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, could I speak on the point of order?

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry. That was not a point of order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to speak on a new point of order. I want to witness to the fact that the flights were delayed in Ottawa. I myself had to drive that day. I am sure the member for Ottawa East is telling it exactly the way it was.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa East on the subject before the House.

Mr. Roy: Try as I might, I could not make it here. Imagine my disappointment when, opening Le Droit the next day. I read this headline: « McMurtry et le droit de véto du Québec, un appui de l'Ontario. » I darned nearly fell off my chair. It was something I was not expecting from the great province of Ontario, so suddenly, so quickly. I read it over again.

The whole community was buzzing and saying, "How enlightened is the Attorney General. How sensitive he is to the aspirations of the people of Quebec." It is a position many of us can understand. He was saying to Quebec, "Why not have veto rights in the area of language and culture?" Anyone who understands the process will know these are two areas where the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers fully understand they need protection; they want full and absolute jurisdiction over the linguistic and cultural future of the citizens in that province.

It was a very enlightened step on the part of the Attorney General. But the next day, Saturday, February 5, there it was, in black and white in the Globe and Mail: "McMurtry Comment on Veto for Quebec Disavowed by Davis." I saw it right there.

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Your problem is with the Globe and Mail headline writer, not with the Premier.

Mr. Roy: I can sympathize with the Attorney General, because I have seen the Premier when he reacts sort of violently when one gets into the area of language and culture.

I can recall being at a federal-provincial conference when Ontario was talking about entrenching services for francophones in the Constitution. I can remember the red headline in the Toronto Star that morning. The reaction on the part of the Premier was swift and vicious. It was just chop, as though he were an expert in karate. It was just chop, no discussion; that was it.

We saw the reaction of the Premier as well on a bill I put forward in this assembly in 1978. The Speaker will recall this. Everybody in the assembly, even the Attorney General, even the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) -- my God, even the former Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) -- the whole Conservative caucus got up and voted in favour of the legislation I put forward. Do the members remember that? The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) was there as well.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the record. I ask the honourable member to research his facts a little better, because I think he will find I did not support his private member's bill.

Mr. Roy: I challenge the member for Prince Edward-Lennox to produce Hansard with his no vote on that legislation. When my friend produces it, I will withdraw what I have said about his support of that legislation.

In any event, there it was, the whole assembly, led by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) who had spoken in favour of that legislation. We all walked out happy. The members will remember it was a nice evening. Everybody said, "We have risen above the normal partisan politics." There was the Premier out there -- not himself, just his boys handing out statements saying, "This bill will not go any further."

I am sympathetic to what the Attorney General said in Quebec, and I am sympathetic to the sort of backlash. He should have ducked, because the Premier is quick on those things. It was a vicious chop. I want to tell the Attorney General, when he counts people on his side on this issue he can count me in, I am with him on this.

It may well be that if the Premier in future starts considering the federal Tory leadership we may see him vacillate a little on it. He may have some swing to his position in the next while on this. We will be able to tell which way he is going on the leadership depending on his views on that.

I want to say to the Attorney General that his initiative in going to Quebec and speaking in French to the students at Laval is commendable, and I hope he keeps up the good work. We are with him on it.

I want to say one more thing to him. He should get closer, move down a little way, and speak to his colleague the Minister of Education about constitutional guarantees. The Attorney General should enlighten the Minister of Education about the government's commitment to French-language services and French-language education in Ontario pursuant to the Constitution, because that is where it is.

She cannot hide behind local autonomy any more. She cannot expect that in areas like Mattawa, Iroquois Falls, Wawa, Dubreuilville, Chapleau and Thunder Bay, when there is a legitimate request based on that famous phrase "where numbers warrant," when that is available, the Franco-Ontarians will no longer wait seven or 10 years to get French-language education or to get their schools. They are guaranteed services by the Constitution, and the minister's government and her colleagues in their ministries should fulfil that commitment. It is not good enough for us to have Ministry of Education staff hiding behind local autonomy and saying things such as: "Let us have a poll. Let us see who is in favour of this."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not say that.

Mr. Roy: The minister did. In some of the areas she conducted a poll.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: My colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) went into those areas and --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And got run out of town on a rail from Mattawa.

Mr. Roy: That was because some of the minister's colleagues tried to agitate the population.

Mr. Boudria: I did not get run out of town. I stood there and said what I believed, which is more than the minister has done. She has never gone there.

Mr. Roy: Are you saying the Minister of Education has never been in --

Mr. Boudria: No, she has not.

Mr. Roy: Shameful.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr. Roy: The rights of minorities pursuant to the Constitution should not be contingent on public opinion polls. There is a constitutional guarantee that should be carried out by the government. The minister's colleagues stood up and said, "We are in favour of this." Now they should fulfil that commitment. It is going to be somewhat embarrassing, if that does not happen very quickly, to see a situation where Ontario is going to be dragged into the courts, because the parents will not submit to lengthy delays as they have in the past. They will not be waiting seven or 10 years as has happened in other areas of the province. They will be going to the courts pursuant to the Constitution, and I hazard to think they will probably win.

Those views should be expressed to the colleagues of the Attorney General. In fact, I suggest, if there is a real commitment on the part of the province on that issue, there should be some support and funding for these actions on the part of the government to see to it that the minorities in these areas get what has been promised to them pursuant to the Constitution.

I had intentions of talking about legal aid and briefly expressing the disappointment of the members of the bar about the unfortunately limited increases --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As a practitioner.

Mr. Roy: As a practitioner I would hate to think my future rested on the remuneration that is paid out according to legal aid tariffs; that would be a problem.

I agree with the member for Riverdale that it will be unfortunate if the members of the bar are driven to the point where there is talk of withdrawal of services. I read a statement that there is some initiative for this in Toronto. In fact, I read yesterday in Ottawa that the members of the bar there are not looking kindly on that suggestion. I hope that is not the case.

Frankly. based on those tariffs, legal aid would fall apart if it were not for the fact there are just too many lawyers and some of them have no choice but to try to survive on what is paid by legal aid.

I know the Attorney General had a difficult time on that issue. We should be grateful the budget was not cut, never mind only getting a five or 10 per cent increase. Not long ago, the Attorney General was in Sault Ste. Marie. It was reported in a legal aid letter that "the Attorney General launched a spirited defence of legal aid the other day in Sault Ste. Marie, saying he will block any attempt to cut funds by the province on legal aid." We should be thankful there was no cutback, but when one considers the cost-of-living increases and so on, it has got to the point where the present level of legal aid funding is totally inadequate.

I want to mention a couple of other things that have been mentioned by some of my colleagues. I support what the member for Riverdale has said on the question of the McDonald commission and the rule of law, that there is one law for the police and one law for other individuals. In fact, there has been some initiative taken on that point and some serious criticism by the Canadian Bar Association on that very issue. I think the association makes a good point when it says governments too often confuse the rule of law with the rule of legislation.

5 p.m.

As they say, just because there is a law that permits the police to be able to do it -- there will be a law which allows the police to break the law -- that does not necessarily mean that law is not a breach of the rule of law.

If I can quote, it says: "A law that gives the security agency power without judicial scrutiny to do what civilians cannot do violates the rule of law, in every sense of the phrase. It is possible for the law to be obeyed and for the rule of law to be violated."

That is what is happening; that is what will happen in the future. It is a double standard. I agree with my colleague the member for Riverdale. I do not accept for a minute that if there were breaches of the law they stopped at the border between Quebec and Ontario. It seems to me if there is going to be some credibility re-established in the administration of justice then there has to be a sense of fair play and a sense of equity throughout.

I have one brief point. The Attorney General has promised for some time that he would be bringing forward a new limitations statute. That was two or three years ago and we are still waiting for it. We are patient here. I know it is not something the minister wakes up with every morning and when he is shaving he is thinking he has to bring in a new limitations statute, or if he does not bring it forward the government will fall and he will lose his job.

I appreciate that is not the case, but he must understand it is very important that there be some semblance of logic in the limitation process. If one is suing an undertaker and he does not start an action in six months he has a problem. Perhaps it is three months, I am not sure. But if one is suing a municipality because he fell and slipped on a sidewalk he has to give a 14-day notice. If one is taking on the government, he has to send a six-month notice. If one is suing a doctor, it is one year from the time he knew about the injury. On it goes.

Mr. McClellan: The member should know all of those things.

Mr. Roy: I do, but I do not want to embarrass anybody else. Somebody will think I have been looking at those recently. I do know them but I am sympathetic to the problem. I would like even my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to understand there are various criteria for limitation periods. It is illogical, and in 1983 it should be changed. We need a new statute. The Attorney General has promised it so he should bring it on and we will support it.

My colleagues have talked about the unfortunate black book as far as the interpretation of the Constitution is involved. I would like to hear the comments of the Attorney General as to whether he agrees with the federal Attorney General, who says, "The federal government favours a broad interpretation for the Constitution, whereas the provinces favour a narrow or restrictive interpretation for the Constitution." It is a fundamental difference and can make a lot of difference.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That was a silly, partisan remark, unworthy of a Minister of Justice of this country; a silly, unsubstantiated, partisan remark, and you pass it on.

Mr. Roy: Okay. I trust that got on the record because I think the Attorney General's views on that issue seem to be unequivocal, if that is the proper word.

I want to say it is important that the Attorney General of Ontario, as my colleague from Riverdale has said, produces a little black book so we may see whether we agree that it is restrictive.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Which little black book is the member talking about?

Mr. Roy: No, not that one, not that little black book. There are limits to what the opposition can see.

Mr. Boudria: Invasion of privacy.

Mr. Roy: Yes, especially when we are still waiting for the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling) to bring in the freedom of information legislation. Until we get that, we are not going to ask for the Attorney General's little black book. We just want the black book on the Constitution.

I would hope the Attorney General of Ontario, who stood proudly with his colleagues when this new charter was proclaimed, is not taking a narrow and restricted view of the Constitution. We look forward to seeing what position Ontario takes on that issue in the future.

There are many issues I could raise here. I could talk about the Proverbs case; I am still waiting for some explanation from the Attorney General on that issue. We are still waiting for the result of the investigation on the deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. It seems to me this investigation, which has dragged on for so long and with the results obtained so far, is totally unsatisfactory. I think we, the province and the parents of these children deserve a more thorough and satisfactory explanation than we have obtained so far.

The Attorney General promised some explanation after he read the transcript on Proverbs, but we are still waiting. Perhaps the transcript has not been produced. I do not know.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is before the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Roy: No, the Attorney General's statement -- I will have to get Hansard. Hansard is handy sometimes, is it not? Even though promises are not kept, it is nice to read Hansard to see the promises that were made. At the time, as I recall the statement, the Attorney General said, "I will review the transcript and I will comment then." We are still waiting.

Finally -- and I hope the Attorney General will not cut me off again as curtly as he did in the estimates when I and some of my colleagues referred to the backlog in the courts and I mentioned I felt one solution would be a one-tier court system. I feel we do not need a county and Supreme Court any more, that there should be one Supreme Court for Ontario. The idea of judges from Toronto travelling to the boondocks to dispense justice is an idea which is really passé and is not responsive to 1983 justice in Ontario. I think the Attorney General should give close consideration to that issue.

I suggest that all bar associations, all areas outside of Toronto favour that approach. I think they are going to be unanimous on this issue. I would hope the Attorney General would not react in what I call the Toronto syndrome: "What we do in Toronto is the level you people should continue to meet. That is the criterion for you people out there. It is important that we send our judges to dispense justice in your area so that everybody conforms to what we are doing right in Ontario."

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What does the member mean by "our judges"?

Mr. Roy: Your judges; our Toronto judges, yes.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Supreme Court judges are not exclusively Toronto judges.

Mr. Roy: I say to the Attorney General he is still not quite as open as he should be on that. He still has the Toronto mentality.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member had better not appear before any of those Toronto judges.

Mr. Roy: I appear regularly and they are fine judges. I have no qualms. They are doing a great job.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member is right. He said a few minutes ago it is a good thing we have Hansard. I can hardly wait.

Mr. Roy: The Attorney General could send that to the judges.

I have discussed this issue before with the Supreme Court bench. I do not think the Supreme Court judges will be offended if I say there should be one Supreme Court, we should do away with the county court and there should be regionalization of the courts. I know there is some opposition.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It is not the Supreme Court of Toronto; it is the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: But there is a perception that the present system is not responding adequately. There is that perception. I trust the Attorney General will not deal with it in a cynical, light-hearted manner, because it is a serious issue.

I want to let my colleagues get on to other issues. There are other matters we could talk about. In the last while we have spent a lot of time talking about trust firms and Leonard Rosenberg. We have forgotten about Morley. Morley is still dispensing justice on the Ontario Municipal Board. We know that. The OMB, as some of my colleagues have said, has to be just about the equivalent of the Senate to the federal government. Everybody seems to be getting a job on the OMB. In fact, I read a statement the other day that there was a gentleman from the school board who is now on the Ontario Municipal Board.

5:10 p.m.

Nevertheless, I want to make one quick comment as far as Morley is concerned, just to inquire how he is making out. Is he sitting on a regular basis? We do not know. The Attorney General shrugs his shoulders. We are interested in his welfare. It has been a rough ride to get there. There have been a lot of corners and a lot of U-turns in the process, but there he is on the OMB. I will not take up too much time. I just wanted to inquire about his welfare.

There are many other issues we could raise, but I do hope the Attorney General will give these matters some consideration.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few minutes talking to the Attorney General about the Family Law Reform Act, which will be celebrating -- if "celebrating" is the right word -- its fifth anniversary on March 31, 1983. I know the Attorney General has announced he is conducting an internal review of the act and he has asked for briefs to be presented by March 1, 1983. After those briefs are received his officials will study them, and he has committed himself to bringing in some amendments not later than March 1, 1984.

I am concerned that this means there will not be any amendments for at least a year, that it may take a further year or two for the amendments to get through the House, especially if public hearings are held on them, and that in the meantime a great many people may be disadvantaged by the present loopholes which have shown up in the act through a number of court decisions.

I want to refer particularly to the Leatherdale and Stoimenov cases. In the Leatherdale case, it was held that the wife was not entitled to certain nonfamily assets, namely Bell Telephone shares and a registered retirement savings plan, because she had not contributed to them other than by work in the home. She had in fact contributed some work by having a job during half of her married life, and this was taken into account by the first court's award of $20,000. Then the Court of Appeal removed the award altogether, and the Supreme Court of Canada restored half of it. I think that was the final decision.

In the Stoimenov case, Mrs. Stoimenov had been married since 1970 and found after her marriage breakup in 1980 that her husband had placed three mortgages on the family home and the cottage owned by him, after signing fraudulent affidavits stating that the properties were not a family home and that he had no wife whose consent would be required for the transaction. Under section 42 of the Family Law Reform Act, the wife's consent is required on any transaction involving the matrimonial home.

A decision in the Supreme Court of Ontario by Madam Justice Janet Boland awarded Mrs. Stoimenov exclusive possession and ownership of the two matrimonial homes but said she had no power to set aside the three mortgages since the mortgagees had complied with normal practices of verifying the right of Mr. Stoimenov to take out the mortgages. The mortgagees were, in effect, innocent parties.

The judgement also awarded Mrs. Stoimenov custody of the three children of the marriage and a support order of $25,000, which is unenforceable because Mr. Stoimenov has gone to Yugoslavia. As a result, Mrs. Stoimenov has had to go on welfare and may not be able to keep up the mortgage payments on the matrimonial homes which were awarded to her in the judgement.

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he does not think we need immediate legislation to deal with both the Leatherdale case and the Stoimenov case so other women will not suffer the kind of disadvantages in the next year or two that these two women have suffered.

It seems to me there is a case for legislation this year to recognize a spouse's right to share in nonfamily assets, including pensions, on the basis of her contribution in the home during the marriage and not simply on the basis of her contribution by earnings outside the home while she was married. Also, legislation that would protect a spouse if the matrimonial home is encumbered by mortgages obtained by the other spouse through fraudulent affidavits.

I realize this kind of legislation is not easy to draft, but we do have to provide protection for spouses who are subject to these kind of rulings, which have deprived them of what seems a proper share of both family assets in the one case and nonfamily assets in the other.

I would also like to suggest to the Attorney General the whole question of looking at the inadequacies of family law legislation, as a result of the court decisions over the past five years, should be referred to either a standing committee of the Legislature such as the justice committee, or to a select committee. Initially, we went through a public hearing process and the law was changed through several years of public hearings and draft bills and came out in its final form after a long process.

We need that kind of a process for reform of the act so there can be all-party input, public hearings and clause-by-clause analysis based on information as to how the law is working. The Attorney General's present approach in having the whole thing done in-house, behind closed doors and without public hearings will not produce the kind of reforms that are needed. It will not bring forward possible solutions to the disadvantages many people, particularly wives, have suffered as a result of the interpretation of the present law.

I would like to ask the Attorney General whether he did any advertising of his internal review and of the request for briefs by March 1, 1983. I have not seen any and it seems to me this is a rather short term. The announcement was made just before Christmas, on December 21, so it does not give much time after the Christmas season for people to prepare briefs. I would like to know what sort of advertising has been done.

On the one hand, it may sound as though I am saying he should take time to hear briefs, and on the other that he should get on with some immediate legislation. I would like to make the distinction. I think a thorough review of the act after its five years in effect is needed with public hearings and an all-party committee; but for the immediate relief of the people who may be affected by the Leatherdale and the Stoimenov decisions, we need immediate legislation to prevent the kind of thing that happened to Mrs. Leatherdale and to Mrs. Stoimenov. I would urge the Attorney General to consider coming up with some legislation in this area.

5:20 p.m.

In fact, I ask him whether he would make a commitment to bring in such legislation this spring, so further women in Ontario will not be disadvantaged.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker. I would first like to thank the members opposite, particularly the critics of the Attorney General, for their stimulating, if sometimes modestly provocative, comments with respect to these supplementary estimates.

The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) is not here, so I think as a matter of courtesy, and given my limited time, I will reply to the member for Riverdale. I am sorry, the member for Kitchener is here.

In the matter of Judge Reid Scott, there have been formal concerns communicated to the Ontario judicial council and we are now seized of the matter. Any future assignments involving Judge Reid Scott, as long as this is before the judicial council, will be a matter for the chief judge of the criminal division of the provincial court.

About the estates and wills issue, I thought I explained in the estimates that we had intended to introduce the legislation this fall. However, as it has been on the Order Paper before, as the member for Kitchener quite properly points out, we thought it would be unwise to introduce it again unless we thought we had sufficient time to pass the legislation. Given the other priorities and limited House time, that is why it was not introduced this fall.

In the matter of the Family Law Reform Act, which has been raised by several members, the date of March 1 is flexible. We believe all interested groups are aware of the review. We want to encourage people to make submissions as soon as possible. This is why we announced an early date. That is flexible -- it is not going to be applied in any rigid fashion. The Family Law Reform Act is very important and very positive legislation that has served the citizens of this province very well. Some of the comments about the inadequacy of the legislation -- many of the comments, I am afraid -- are uninformed comments.

The fact that after five years there may have to be some adjustments in order to bring a greater degree of fairness is something we are considering seriously, but some of the strident comments that have been made about the legislation betray almost a complete lack of knowledge as to what the legislation has accomplished.

As far as the investigation at the Hospital for Sick Children is concerned, we are still waiting for an important report from Atlanta that the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) has been involved in. I hope we will have something relatively comprehensive to say to the Legislature or publicly within the next five or six weeks at the outside.

Obviously, the issue of resources is a matter of pressing concern to us, whether it involves the courts or legal aid. Substantial additional resources have been allocated to the administration of justice in this province during the period of time I have had the privilege to serve in the capacity of Attorney General for Ontario. We will continue to press for those resources.

I agree with what the member for Kitchener had to say about the victims of crime and how new initiatives will be necessary to ensure those important social needs are met. They will not be restricted simply to victims of crime but will be for many people who are at present considerably inconvenienced as witnesses as well as victims by the criminal justice process.

Turning to uncontested divorces, as recently as a week ago this evening the Minister of Justice assured me and some of my colleagues who were in Ottawa that reform of the divorce legislation has been given high priority by him. He said the need to resolve these so-called no-fault or uncontested divorces without the necessity of a formal court appearance is a matter of priority.

The next issue was Laval. I am going to leave that for a moment because I want to come back to it. I am sorry the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is not here but he promised to read Hansard. I have some comments I would like to make.

The comments the member for Kitchener had about the additional police power to stop anybody to question him is a suggestion that gives me grave concern. One understands the enormous frustration that is felt, not just in the police community but in the broader community with respect to the increase in crime. One is always tempted in such troubled times to advocate rather draconian measures, measures based on the theory that the end justifies the means.

I am sure our colleagues do not need reminding that the history of mankind is replete with the disastrous consequences of what occurs when we subscribe to principles such as the end justifies the means. I am not aware of these proposals in any detail but I have no hesitation in saying that my initial response is one of great concern.

I apologize for moving ahead quickly but obviously I am limited. The member for Riverdale mentioned the possibility of closing a law school in Ontario. I do not think there is any substance to that rumour. The Minister of Education said she had heard of no suggestion to that effect. I would oppose such a move.

I think the growth in the number of law schools in the province has been a positive happening in so far as the additional legal resources that are provided are concerned, as well as producing a lot of well educated young lawyers, we have a lot of important work being done in the law schools. Resources are now available for the study of law which were not available in any comparable way when the members for Kitchener and Riverdale and myself were at law school. Then the resources were relatively meagre.

5:30 p.m.

I have to take some issue with our good friend from Riverdale when he suggests the attitude of this government is that the Charter of Rights makes no change to the law. I remind members that with eight of our sister provinces strongly opposing the constitutional initiatives, including the Charter of Rights, Ontario, together with New Brunswick, supported the federal government in a nonpartisan way in the interest of the public of Canada as a whole.

This was notwithstanding the very vociferous opposition, which was joined in very enthusiastically by the member for Riverdale's colleagues in Saskatchewan and some of his friends, who are also friends of mine, in that great social democratic government of Quebec, who obviously played significant leadership roles in opposing the Charter of Rights. I want to say in the strongest terms that we will continue to support not only the terms but the spirit of the Charter of Rights.

I have offered the member for Riverdale an opportunity to review the so-called black book at any time he chooses. Senior officers of the crown who are involved have indicated that some of the contributors to this work have some interest in not having all of it circulated simply because of their own interest in publishing some of the work they have done.

I would urge the member for Riverdale, rather than making these blanket statements, to bring them to me if he feels there are individual cases where any crown attorney in this province has argued in such a way as to diminish the importance of the Charter of Rights. I would be very happy to discuss with him any concerns he might have.

I do not have time to talk about the "immense overloading of the courts" other than to state that in many areas we have increased the resources of the courts very substantially, and we will continue to fight for these resources.

I have a breakdown of the $4.4 million charges of the chief judge of the provincial court, criminal, referred to. Municipal bylaws, mostly parking, account for 50 per cent of those. The Highway Traffic Act cases account for $1.613 million. Time does not permit me to go further.

The issue of class actions will remain a priority. In my view the crown law officers retain a very important sense of detachment from day-to-day investigations, and behave as ministers of justice in this respect.

With regard to the very difficult and complicated issue of abortions, I will simply reply, briefly, that in my view -- we do not have time to debate it tonight -- the Attorney General for Ontario does not have any supervisory or administrative responsibilities with respect to what any hospital does in establishing an abortion clinic.

About the Fedderson case, to which the member for Riverdale referred, my preliminary information is that the crown counsel thought the accused's lawyer was aware of the particular witness.

In so far as the McDonald commission is concerned, there is no reluctance as far as we are concerned to prosecute any police officer who has broken the law. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whether it is a matter of national security or any other area of police activity, are in absolutely no different position to any other police force.

However, we have a simple responsibility and that is not to encourage the laying of charges unless there are reasonable and probable grounds. Law officers of the crown researched this very conscientiously and very thoroughly and simply could not come to the conclusion -- nor, of course, principally could any police officers who were involved in these investigations -- that there were any reasonable and probable grounds.

We have the unhappy task in this ministry of being involved every year in very serious prosecutions of police officers who are charged with breaking the law in this province. While it is obviously not a responsibility we enjoy it is a responsibility we accept. Anybody who wants to use the RCMP or any other case to suggest that there is any reluctance on our part to see that the law is upheld by police officers and anyone else simply, with all due respect, does not know what he is talking about. It grieves me that anyone -- I am not suggesting members of this House, but persons outside -- might want to continue to make the spurious allegation that we are somehow overly protective of police officers. We simply think they have to be given the same rights any other citizen has.

I would just like to finish up the remaining three or four minutes --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Two minutes.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- dealing with my comments at Laval. There is no question that the Premier (Mr. Davis) shares my views on the importance of respecting the duality of this nation. When it comes to indicating to the people of Quebec that we will certainly play a leadership role in protecting the French language and French culture in this country and in Quebec, this is a mandate the Premier and I and my other colleagues share with a great deal of enthusiasm.

While there will continue to be issues on which reasonable people can disagree, the member for Ottawa East and other members opposite would be doing this country a great service if they went into Quebec with their much greater facility in French and told the people of Quebec what we are accomplishing and what we have accomplished in this province for our Franco-Ontarian citizens despite any unresolved issues. The truth is the people of Quebec do not appreciate what has been accomplished, and a great deal of what has been accomplished is by reason of the leadership and enthusiasm of the Premier and his personal commitment to the rights of Franco-Ontarians.

I would like to have the opportunity to say a little more about this issue and to assure the members opposite that the Premier has no difficulty whatsoever with my comments in Quebec. It is true there is not an official position taken with respect to veto, with respect to language or cultural matters in so far as future constitutional amendments are concerned. We do not know precisely what the government of Quebec is proposing with respect to the protection of the French language or culture in so far as any future amendments are concerned.

I gather that I have run out of time. This is a subject on which I certainly welcome any further debate, because obviously it will remain a very high priority as far as I am concerned.

The Acting Speaker: The time allocated for the debate has now expired. It is my responsibility at this time to put the question.

Shall this resolution for supply and supplementaries be concurred in?

Resolution concurred in.

5:40 p.m.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on these concurrences. Before doing so I want to thank my colleague the critic for that area of policy for allowing me to speak before his remarks, since I will be attending a function later on this evening and will not be able to be back here for eight o'clock to speak on these concurrences.

My comments relate to the Young Offenders Act, which was given royal assent on July 7, 1982, for implementation in April 1983. Since then some provinces have applied considerable pressure on the federal government to delay the implementation of that act. Spearheading that opposition and delay was Ontario. The province claimed it was not ready to implement the legislation.

In September 1982, the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Robert Kaplan, agreed to delay the implementation of the Young Offenders Act, part of which will go ahead later this year and the rest, I believe, in 1985.

There are a lot of questions one could ask in relation to this province's participation in the Young Offenders Act, recognizing the act is now passed and I understand received the approval of all parties at the federal level.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: No.

Mr. Boudria: According to a report I have here, it received the approval of all parties. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister will correct me. Nevertheless, it is over and done with now and what remains to be done is to implement the legislation.

The lead ministry for the implementation of this legislation is still not clear to me. I believe it is the role of the Provincial Secretariat for Justice of this province to co-ordinate the activities of the responsible ministries for the implementation of this legislation.

The legislation has quite an effect and is quite a change from some of the philosophy we have had up until now in dealing with young offenders. I understand the present act dealing with juveniles, known as the Juvenile Delinquents Act, has been with us since 1908 and as such speaks to the fact that it needed serious revamping. I recognize it has had a few amendments along the way since 1908, but substantially it has remained the same until this day.

One of the concerns the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) expressed last year during his estimates was the cost of implementing these policies. Several figures have been thrown out as to what the cost of administering this legislation would be. We have costs ranging from $20,000 per year per offender to about $34,000 per year, and some have been much less.

What is the minister's forecast of those costs per juvenile offender? How many of them might there be? Can the minister come up with an estimate as to the number? The reason that estimate could be vastly different depending on who makes it is that we are not yet sure what the province intends to do in so far as the offenders of provincial laws are concerned.

The Young Offenders Act applies only to federal statutes and not to provincial ones. I am not a lawyer; so I would like the Provincial Secretary for Justice to explain the following to me. As I understand this new law, if a 17-year-old is charged with a federal offence -- drinking and driving, for instance --

Hon. Mr. Sterling: That is provincial.

Mr. Boudria: I thought it came under the Criminal Code. I will use another example. If a 17-year-old is charged with a federal offence and convicted under the Young Offenders Act, his record is completely erased and no longer exists after three years or something like that. On the other hand, he might be charged with a lesser offence that is provincial and yet remain with a record that would be there much longer, unless the government intends to change some its own policies regarding infringements of provincial, or even municipal, bylaws.

The government has not yet stated what it intends to do in that area. At least, I have not heard or read anything that either the minister or his colleagues the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) or the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) have said.

That brings out the next point. Who will be responsible for the facilities for young offenders? Are we clear on whether that will still be under the Ministry of Community and Social Services, or is there still the possibility it will be under the Ministry of Correctional Services? I think that area has to be elaborated on as well so we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are some of us who believe some of the facilities for the mentally retarded that are being closed right now are being closed in a rather expeditious way to give the government a facility to house young offenders. The Bluewater Centre has been talked about in this regard. I wonder if the minister could inform the House whether that will be done, whether that is a possibility, whether he has found alternative accommodation for the young offenders or what exactly he intends to do.

The other area of concern is the judiciary. I do not believe that either the minister himself or the Attorney General -- perhaps I should have talked about this during the concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Attorney General -- has explained yet which courts will be taking care of the Young Offenders Act. As I understand it, the family court judges are receiving training, or have taken it upon themselves to acquire training in that regard, assuming they will be responsible for adjudicating in those matters.

Again, I do not believe I have ever seen or read a statement that has been made in the House or anywhere else to ensure that is the line of thought the government intends to follow. In short, we have not seen the kind of leadership there that some of us think should have been exercised already.

I recognize the change in the Young Offenders Act was made at the last minute before it was passed in Ottawa and it surprised, perhaps, some members of the Ontario cabinet. They had not actually anticipated the age change that was incorporated in the act. I think it would be fair to say the minister agrees with the principle of the Young Offenders Act but that age component was brought in at the last minute, and the minister had assumed the government would have the choice of which age would be a qualifying one. In the end, the government discovered it no longer had that choice, because it was going to be a uniform age across the country and Ontario would have to adapt to the new age. I understand Quebec has already adapted to it at present.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think it is important to point out that it was not a matter of discovery. It was a matter of there being a unilateral move by the federal government, after 10 years of negotiation, to make the uniform age 18. The federal government's position changed dramatically at the 11th hour.

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): That may not be a point of privilege, but I suppose it is a point of clarification.

Mr. Boudria: I recognize that. Nevertheless, it was a last-minute change. I was giving the minister credit for having to adapt to a change that was made later than he thought. It does not really change the circumstance.

I have a booklet here that was prepared by Central Toronto Youth Services, and it is called Youth Opportunity Action. I see other honourable members have them on their desks. I think the member for Riverdale had it on his desk earlier today.

This book talks about the fact that, in their view, some of the facilities required would realistically need a five-year planning process for establishment. It is quite obvious the minister does not have five years left.

I wonder, and probably many others do as well, how he is going to be ready for this. Or does he intend to ask the federal government for an even longer delay? That particular area of concern should be clarified as well -- whether it is possible for the minister to meet the deadlines imposed on him now. If it is possible, how is he going to do it? If it is not, is he going to ask for a delay, and if so, how long? I would like an answer to those kinds of questions, if possible.

In reading the same booklet, it states: "There has been no committee or association of criminal division judges formed to examine the question of the new youth court or the Young Offenders Act generally."

It further states: "Nor have they been encouraged by the Attorney General to do so. Some division judges thinking about the act indicate that the transfer out of their court of 16- and 17-year-olds will be welcome. Their courts are sometimes overloaded with the transfers and it will relieve some of the pressures. There is no indication from the judges, however, that resources" -- meaning judges' time and accompanying administration -- "will be freed up for the allocation of the new youth court."

Again, this brings up the question I was raising. Where is the minister going to get the judges for all of this? Where are they going to come from within the system? Is he going to have to add new judges, or will they be transferred from the current system?

There are a few areas of concern that I have here. This booklet refers to the fact that we do not seem to have much of a policy now, not only on the establishment of facilities to house young offenders but also particularly on the establishment of secure facilities.

As we know, not all the young offenders will be housed in facilities that in any way look like jails or incarceration facilities. Some of them will be housed in group homes and such, but some of them will be housed in those secure facilities. As secure facilities, what will they look like and where will they be? Will there be one? Will they be scattered across the province?

I recognize there are a lot of questions there to be answered. I hope the Provincial Secretary for Justice can address some of them.

In trying to find out which ministry is the lead ministry, I was under the impression all along that it was this minister's. This booklet here says the Ministry of Community and Social Services is the lead ministry. I do not believe that is correct. When I read that in this booklet, I was rather surprised, because I had been under the impression all along that the Provincial Secretariat for Justice would be the lead ministry in this case.

We were talking moments ago about the amount it will cost per offender as the program is implemented. I wonder whether the minister would have any idea of what kind of total dollars are required and what kind of indication he has received from the federal government for assistance to the province. I see the minister is making a gesture indicating not much has been promised by the federal government. Perhaps he would indicate to us exactly what has been done there and how far he is in the negotiating process with the federal government in an attempt to secure funding for this purpose.

In January 1983, Mr. Kaplan said, "We have been exploring a variety of methods whereby the government of Canada could provide increased levels of financial assistance to provinces to support the proper implementation and administration of the act."

When the minister was gesturing the sum of zero a while ago, I gather they are prepared to contribute, but perhaps it is just that there has been no agreement yet. Will he elaborate on that? What have they offered, if anything? Why has there not been an agreement? What negotiations are under way right now so we can be sure an agreement is finally reached to provide the necessary facilities for young offenders?

Those are all the questions I have. I hope the minister will be able to respond to some of them.

Again, I wish to thank the member for Kitchener for allowing me to speak before him so I could attend another function tonight.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

8 février 1983