Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE (CONCLUDED)

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) deferred to the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) before dinner so that his colleague could speak briefly about the problems related to the Young Offenders Act. I would be quite prepared to defer to my friend from Kitchener if he would like to speak now about these matters.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is indeed most kind, Mr. Speaker. I thank my friend from Riverdale for that accommodation.

Mr. Conway: One patrician to another.

Mr. Breithaupt: I suppose part of it is the way one carries it off.

In any event, this evening my brief remarks with respect to the provincial secretary will be entirely on one subject. In case you, Mr. Speaker, he or indeed anyone may be wondering what that subject is, it is of course the matter of freedom of information.

In 1977, members will recall, the Williams commission was established to study and report upon many complex aspects of freedom of information. The Krever commission on confidentiality of health information was struck that same year. In August 1980, the Williams commission submitted its final report to this Legislature, the preparation of which had cost approximately $1.7 million. Ontarians were promised draft legislation by the end of 1980.

Almost a further year elapsed before the minister announced, on September 29, 1981, not legislation but the establishment of a task force to draft a position paper with accompanying legislation at an anticipated cost of $150,000. The people of Ontario were then told that a white paper would be issued by December 15, 1981, and that the minister hoped to hold hearings throughout the winter of 1981-82 with a view to tabling legislation by the spring of 1982. That, of course, is almost a year ago as we now approach the spring of 1983.

The spring of 1982 did arrive. There was no white paper, there were no hearings, and finally, of course, there was no legislation. On April 23 last I questioned the minister in the Legislature about this particular concern and he expressed his regrets that he was unable to "speak more freely about our position because our position has not been reached at this time." That, I suggest, is as prescient a comment as I have ever heard from a minister of the crown.

In view of the government's apparent reluctance to deal with the question of freedom of information, I decided to table a private member's bill with the sincere hope and intention that its introduction would encourage public debate on the issue both in the assembly and across the province and, indeed, with a view as well to giving the people of Ontario the freedom of information legislation that I believe we so richly deserve. The minister will recall that on May 27 this private member's bill was debated in this House during private members' time, and at that point it was defeated by the members of the government party.

I suggest that freedom of speech and of choice tend to be taken for granted as though they are the necessary and normal hallmarks of the democratic system; but equally important, although perhaps less widely recognized, is the principle that a democratic government is a government run not only for the people but by the people. The notion of participatory democracy is generally accepted, yet the practice of many modern governments suggests it is a notion that is all too easily bypassed.

To the extent that governments become entrenched, so also do they become somewhat more closed and secretive. As members know, closed government conflicts with the principles of free democratic government; indeed, it alienates and isolates the people it is intended to serve.

In the bill I put before this House I tried to highlight the major principles of the Williams commission and the proposals that were outlined in volume 1 of that report. Under freedom of information there were three particular themes; first, a general public right of access to government-held information; second, a list of specific exemptions from this general right to protect the legitimate needs of government for confidentiality; and third, an independent review of government decisions to release or withhold information.

Then, with respect to the matter of protection of individual privacy, which is the other side of the freedom of information coin, the proposals dealt with five particular areas: first, to encourage restraint and fairness in the collection of personal data by government; second, to ensure the public is aware of the existence and nature of government information systems that contain personal data; third, to give individuals the right to examine and correct records containing personal information about them -- subject, of course, to certain exceptions; fourth, to allow individuals to participate in decisions about the use and dissemination of personal information about them; and finally, to establish data management standards to protect the integrity and security of personal information held in government records.

I would be the first to admit that Bill 87, as it was, may not have been perfect legislation, but I did attempt to incorporate the most up-to-date knowledge on the important and sensitive issue of freedom of information and on the protection of individual privacy in that bill. That does not mean it is the very last word on that question, but the bill was mailed out to more than 1,000 people who were known to be interested and involved in this particular area, and I was very pleased with the favourable response with which the bill was received.

We were told then that draft freedom of information legislation would be in our hands perhaps by the autumn of 1982. Whenever I hear the word "autumn" it makes me wonder as the year is drawing to an end just when we can expect some things. In fact, that was the name of the tune the band on the Titanic played, was it not, as it slowly sank.

So this legislation appears to be something of a millstone around this minister's neck, if not this government's neck, as we attempt to go forward with this theme. We have been told the government will not accept the recommendation of the Williams commission proposal for an independent review of government denials of access.

8:10 p.m.

On October 9, 1980, as one looks back, the minister's predecessor in that portfolio asked Management Board of Cabinet to review the commission's recommendations concerning the protection of individual privacy. Then we wanted to determine which recommendations about data collection and storage practices of the government could be implemented under the then existing legislation as far as that minister was concerned. The minister at the time said his aim was, and I quote, "to provide even greater protection of personal information collected by government about an individual."

I referred to the matter of the task force on freedom of information and its appointment. We have had tabled as of November 15, 1982, what the costs of that organization were to date, a grand total of $98,161. In addition to the $1.7 million which I referred to as well, we have another situation, a task force on this topic that has no doubt spent by now $100,000 without any particular result.

In the Oshawa Times of September 27, there was an editorial on this subject. The first paragraph might be of interest. This shows there are certain editorial writers as well as many others of us who live in hope, because the following was written: "Slated to be introduced after the Ontario Legislature is recalled for a regular session next month is a freedom of information bill for Ontario. The bill has been drafted and redrafted over a period of time by two cabinet ministers and now is in the hands of Provincial Secretary for Justice Norman Sterling."

That is how it started out. I presume the minister's sticky little hands still have this bill stuck to them, because obviously something has not happened on the road to the Legislature. Perhaps even more interesting than one editorial in an important newspaper in the community is a series of articles and editorials that have appeared in the minister's own area, in no less a paper than the Ottawa Citizen.

Mr. Conway: You are not going to quote Walter Baker.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am going to quote some of the comments that have appeared with respect to the minister's views on this subject. One starts with an editorial that appeared on September 25, approximately the same time as the Oshawa editorial writers were living in hope of legislation. It is a lengthy editorial but I think two brief comments from it will suffice.

The first is: "Freedom of information is rapidly becoming a devalued currency in Ontario. What began as a lofty ideal has been disfigured by the corrupting influences of privilege and power to the point that there is some question whether what remains is worth salvaging."

The editorial writer goes on to say: "Clearly, Sterling has lost the war over freedom of information within cabinet, several members of which view any requirement of accountability as a direct threat."

From that editorial there must have been a particular stimulus with respect to the minister, because here we have what I think is perhaps the highlight of information on this subject. It is an article of November 10 in the Ottawa Citizen. The headline, if the members can believe this, is, "Sterling Fed Up With Freedom of Information Bill Delays."

I was most interested to review the comments of this report. Here are the first two paragraphs of the article, written by Wendy Warburton: "Ontario Justice Secretary Norm Sterling said Tuesday he is fed up and frustrated by lack of interest and delays that have put his freedom of information legislation on the back burner.

"Sterling said in an interview concerns with other legislation such as the government's wage restraint bill have kept this bill off the cabinet agenda, although he still hopes he can introduce it before Christmas."

The Deputy Speaker: Which Christmas?

Mr. Breithaupt: That was the Christmas we already had.

Mr. Bradley: Hansard records the Speaker asking which Christmas.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Speaker asked which Christmas. It was Christmas past. Indeed, it is even the Ukrainian Christmas past, so we have lost two of them since this little article appeared.

The article goes on, and this is an even more interesting part: "The usually placid minister showed his frustration in the Legislature Tuesday after being questioned about when he was going to act to protect individual privacy rights. Banging his desk with his fist and pointing his finger at the opposition, Sterling berated his critics and accused them of lack of interest in the freedom of information and privacy issues."

The minister is quoted as follows: "I have heard no questions or very few questions from the members on this particular subject. I wonder how important it is to them. It is very important to me."

Mr. Bradley: I asked him a question a year and a half ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: This has gone on for some time, I think it is fair to say.

"Later Sterling said lack of public pressure for a more open government has made it tough for him to get cabinet to give the issue priority over other concerns. 'I am glad they were asking questions today. I do not think anybody is interested in it, and if nobody wants it, then we will not have it.'"

We have maintained that interest and a further three months have gone by. A response to that most curious and uncharacteristic outburst from the normally placid Provincial Secretary for Justice was followed by another editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. The headline of that is, "Mr. Sterling, We ARE Concerned."

It goes on to say, among other things: "Ontario Justice Secretary Norm Sterling is having a devil of a time convincing his cabinet colleagues to assign any priority to a freedom of information law because he says, 'Nobody is making a fuss about it.' If it would help persuade a few cabinet Neanderthals, we would be delighted to repeat for the umpteenth time that a freedom of information law is a basic element of any accountable system of government."

Surely that is a situation with which we can all agree. Unfortunately, we have still not seen, as further months have gone by, any approach with respect to legislation. A letter to the editor of the same Ottawa Citizen by Peter Rock, which was published on November 13, is an unfortunate summary of this series of events.

Mr. Rock writes as follows: "The Citizen of November 10 reported that Ontario Justice Secretary Norm Sterling is 'fed up and frustrated by lack of interest and delays that have put freedom of information legislation on the back burner.' He's got to be kidding.

"For 10 years, the public lobbied and argued with government over the principle and mechanics of such legislation. In 1979, the then Conservative federal government approved the principle. In 1981, the Liberal federal government implemented legislation. A cornerstone of the legislation is that no minister act as defendant and judge.

"The Ontario government royal commission was set up in 1977 and reported in 1980 at a cost of some $3 million. The commission recommended independent review. That is, no minister should act as defendant and judge regarding information disputes. The Ontario government disagrees with independent review and to date has no legislation.

"How long does Mr. Sterling expect concerned citizens and public interest groups to lobby? The information legislation idea, whose time had come, matured in 1979. The Ontario government has killed it through delay and an unwillingness to implement the basis of common law, namely, independent review."

That, from the minister's own daily newspaper, is at least a survey of many of the themes with respect to the one area which I believe is the most important of his responsibilities, that is, the ongoing requirement to provide and to have in place in this province proper freedom of information legislation. I suggest one thing to the minister, perhaps the only thing I can do: if he is unable to bring in a bill, then during the first week of the next session I will bring mine in again. Perhaps that will have some benefit or some use from a discussion point of view or as a goad to encourage him and his colleagues in the cabinet to try to proceed with this legislation.

I did not say when that bill was debated that it was the greatest bill in the world. It may not be the state of the art in the year that has gone by, but I think it does set out some of the priorities and principles which should at least be considered as we move towards a proper act to provide for freedom of information and for the protection of individual privacy.

That bill was debated last May 27. Perhaps on May 27, 1983, we will have another debate; who knows? Perhaps by that time we will have government legislation brought in with which we are able to put into place the principles that would not only give further freedom of information but also the concomitant protection of individual privacy that must occur in this circumstance.

8:20 p.m.

There are certain other themes I could refer to, but I think this evening I will end my remarks, again with encouragement to the provincial secretary to finally get on with the job. Here the matter is now before him once again and the sequence in history has been spelled out. We have been through five or six years of detailed involvement, of suggestions and proposals, of task forces and a variety of other themes.

I do not know whether at this point we are finally going to get a position paper with accompanying legislation. We have paid $100,000 more at this point to deal with these subjects and it is about time we got some results. It is certainly an important area, and the minister cannot hide behind the fact that he is not asked about it every single day. He is asked about it when his estimates come forward and he is asked about it at times like this, on concurrence. Certainly the matter is raised at other times and on other occasions when information is sought from the government.

We now have federal legislation in place, which is at least a start. I recognize it is not perfect legislation. He surely now has the opportunity, as the minister, to tell us when we are going to have government legislation. I hope it is not delayed longer than the month of April, when an opportunity in a new session would allow us to have that legislation get some priority so that it might he in place by the end of the usual term of the spring session, let us say around the end of June.

The time certainly has come and I hope the minister in his comments, before we agree to vote him the money he has probably already spent anyway, will take the opportunity once again of telling us where we are on the whole topic of freedom of information.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes on concurrence for the Provincial Secretariat for Justice, because of the growing relative importance of the secretariat in the work of the justice field.

I could not, of course, comment tonight without wishing his new deputy, John David Hilton, the very best in his new role. I know Mr. Hilton may very well be considering retirement within the next seven or eight months. I have known him for a long time and have valued the friendship I have had with him over years, much longer than perhaps the provincial secretary can recall.

At the same time, I want to say I wrote to John David Hilton at the time of his appointment as the deputy in the area, simply to say to him that the field my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) spoke about, the Young Offenders Act, would be an immensely important part of the contribution he could make as he finishes his years as a devoted member of the top rank of the civil service of Ontario. I want to come back to the Young Offenders Act in a few minutes.

I cannot mention John David Hilton without mentioning Mr. Donald Sinclair, the departing Deputy Provincial Secretary for Justice, because he is the first person who has provided any leadership, as far as I am concerned, not only in Ontario but also in Canada, in solving the problem of statistical information in the justice field.

Whether we like it or not -- and I emphasized this earlier this afternoon -- until we have proper statistical information within the justice field in Ontario and in every area of justice, be it corrections, be it the court administration system, be it the field in which the Justice secretariat is interested or be it the field of the Solicitor General, we are not going to be able to make either intelligent judgements or wise decisions. We will continue to go through the revolving door one way or the other and will meet ourselves coming back, because the statistical information is just not available, despite the brilliant work that has been done by the deputy of the Justice secretariat over the last number of years.

Mr. McClellan: Who directed them?

Mr. Renwick: I am not certain. I have a lot of competition from my own caucus tonight in these estimates, which makes it somewhat difficult, particularly when the Provincial Secretary for Justice has also disappeared, to conduct an intelligent debate in the assembly; but I will go on regardless, I will surmount any hurdles or any obstacles that may be in my path, it is quite all right with me.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), I know, will listen intently to your comments.

Mr. Renwick: I am delighted he is here.

I wanted simply to pay tribute to John David Hilton and to Mr. Donald Sinclair for the work they have done in this area.

I know the Provincial Secretary for Justice expressed an interest in a bill I introduced into the assembly some time ago dealing with the profits from crime in relation to publications. The bill stands on the Order Paper as Bill 90, and it is designed to deal with the question of unjust enrichment through the financial exploitation of crime.

The minister was good enough to say he was interested in the topic. There is some misunderstanding. I do not mean it is a matter that is widely considered at the present time, but every now and then questions are raised about unjust enrichment through the financial exploitation of crime.

I want to make a very simple point. The bill is designed to provide a very simple method whereby if a person who has committed a crime -- there is a definition of the word "criminal" in the bill, and I do not intend to elaborate on it; I have done that on other occasions -- endeavours to exploit the crime by publishing in any form information with respect to his crime, whether it be in novel form or through any of the other diverse forms in the media, he would derive no profit from it until such time as those persons who had been victimized had had an opportunity to reach the moneys that would otherwise go to the person designated in the bill as a criminal.

It is a very simple proposition. I think it is a just proposition. I think it deserves consideration in the assembly, and I know because of conversations I have had with the provincial secretary that he has some interest in it. It is very limited in scope. It has been tried elsewhere. The concept is sound, and whether it is done here at the provincial level or at the federal level at some time is of no great concern to me; but that it should be done and should be done soon seems to me to be consistent with what are the fashions of the time with respect to the redress of victims of crime. I think it is extremely important that this province should be seen to take some kind of leadership in that field.

8:30 p.m.

I am not going to say anything more about it. If and when my name comes up in the lottery on the private members' public bill debate then I will deal with it. I have had several inquiries from time to time from the federal government, from other governments, from interested people and sometimes from the media. There have been enough that I wanted to restate tonight the gut provision of the principle of the bill. It is quite simple, and I know the minister agrees with it.

My friend the member for Kitchener and I were quite grateful -- and enjoyed -- the opportunity the Provincial Secretary for Justice provided for us in joining him at two conferences. One was with respect to the problem of regulation in society; and the second, last June in Vancouver, concerned reparations and redress of one kind or another. It was an interesting and valuable experience, apart from the enjoyment of the company of the minister on those occasions.

On March 6 to 11 Vancouver will host the 33rd International Course in Criminology, dealing with the topic of victims of crime. I am quite certain, now that it has come to the minister's attention, that at great inconvenience to myself and the member for Kitchener we would, in the course of duty, be prepared to join him at that conference should occasion require it.

I may also, at this point, tell the Provincial Secretary for Justice there is going to be a conference sponsored mainly by the religious Society of Friends, the Quakers, with respect to the abolition of jails. It is going to be held in May this year at the University of Toronto. It has a fairly grandiose title: The World Conference Set on Prison Abolition.

Would the minister be so good as to inquire of the Society of Friends, particularly the Quaker Committee on Jails and Justice at 60 Lowther Avenue, Toronto, about that conference? Also, would he give very serious consideration to not only lending the name of the secretariat to the sponsorship of that conference, but also, in these times of restraint, give some small element of financial assistance to the work that goes into organizing that kind of conference?

The topic is one that deserves his attention. I would be glad to provide him with any information I have. It is sufficient to say the Quaker Committee on Jails and Justice deserves the support and attention of the provincial secretary. I hope he will accept my suggestion of at least discussing with them whether it would be possible for the minister to support the aims and objects of that conference.

The whole question related to incarceration in our society is going to become a major topic, if it has not already. We cannot go on committing more and more people to some kind of surveillance by the state, be it ultimately incarceration or any other kind of surveillance. I quoted this afternoon the figures of the people who come in contact with the law in Ontario over the course of one year.

The evidence in the statistics given by the chief judge of the provincial courts, criminal division, was that in a province of 8.5 million, including children, more than 4.4 million charges are laid in the course of the year for offences ranging from infractions of municipal bylaws through the whole retinue to the Criminal Code.

There is something strangely wrong in a society that does not look at the overall impact of all the laws and regulations we make. We find that in the provincial courts, criminal division, more than one half the population of the province each year is subject to some kind of a charge in that court, be it minor or major. It is quite ridiculous and it is a matter that falls under the purview of the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

The member for Kitchener is a devotee of the whole question of freedom of information much more than I am. In a committed way about that whole topic he is in the same strain as my colleagues, the former member for York South, Donald MacDonald, and the former member for Lakeshore, Patrick Lawlor. They were both deeply concerned about the question of freedom of information.

I tend to be relatively more sceptical about the problem, but I think it is important that the minister gets a bill before the assembly and out for consideration and discussion as quickly as possible. The delay does not lend itself to a total solution within the confines of discussions that may take place in the cabinet, or within the confines of his own ministry or of the ministries involved in justice in the broader sense of that term. I do not know what the answers are, but the bill had better see the light of day and see it very quickly, because the rumour and the gossip surrounding it is immense.

I learned only within the last few hours that the Provincial Secretary for Justice has suggested the government is backing away from the issue. I do not even know where he made the statement. I think it was at the Westin Hotel, but I do not know what the occasion was. It may have been in the bar or before some public group. However I understand he made a statement to indicate the government had backed off from the question. He indicated the final arbiter of whether information would be released was no longer necessarily just the executive branch of the government -- that is, the cabinet. I heard that. I have not seen the statement -- I was hoping to get it -- but that is the kind of rumour going around.

I expressed my scepticism about the conceptual nature of this discussion. I have a sort of general hesitancy about the interface -- about information from the government that should be legitimately available by democratic government without a law being necessary on the one hand, and the protection of the privacy of the individual on the other.

I refer to the concern I have about the position of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and the position Mr. Donald MacAlpine got himself into. Donald MacAlpine would not have had a justified method of releasing that information to the member for Lake Nipigon if its release were delayed too long, if by any chance we were to make the mistake, in a bill dealing with freedom of information, of saying that certainly there will be freedom of information but the process will be of such duration and over such period of time that when the information is available it will be irrelevant to the issue under consideration at the time.

8:40 p.m.

If the information is made available in any way except through the channel authorized by the government, because that is what will happen when the bill is passed, a man such as Donald MacAlpine would be faced with a serious moral dilemma, and there would be serious repercussions with respect to his employment if he were to come out, as he did in good faith and with immense bona fides, and provide my colleague with the information.

The sooner the bill is out in the light of day, the sooner some of these problems will be resolved. I do not know the answer to the question of freedom of information when there is a serious leak from the government about Mr. Justice Dubin's report on the Hospital for Sick Children. This is not just a matter of being an affront to this assembly and not just something to deny a newspaper a scoop. The problem of that kind of release of information is of extreme importance.

The government has gone through all the experiences with other legislation and with the Williams commission dealing with this whole question. The procrastination and delay that has occurred is a shame. With the information, skill, knowledge and ability made available by the member for Kitchener and the concerns expressed by other people in the legislative branch of the assembly, it is high time the minister said to his colleagues in cabinet: "I am going to introduce a bill. Let us get it out there. Let us hear what people have to say. Let us get a vital discussion going about the whole question of freedom of information."

Why procrastinate? Why put it off any longer? Why allow all these rumours to swirl about? Why should the minister subject himself to the problems he has?

I will raise this when the Solicitor General's concurrence is before the assembly later tonight or whenever it may be; this is one item on which I am going to overlap with another ministry. I would appreciate it if the Provincial Secretary for Justice would get his colleagues in the justice field together and express in the strongest terms to the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice of Canada that this assembly objects to the game being played by the Solicitor General of Canada around the question of writs of assistance.

I guess I have raised the question of writs of assistance in this assembly since the late 1960s, as have other of my colleagues. The untrammelled right of search and seizure inherent in a writ of assistance is one that is offensive to everything we stand for. I understand there are now 70 writs of assistance in the hands of officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They permit the officer who holds the writ to go anywhere at any time if he has reasonable cause to believe so and so. He does not have to appear before a justice of the peace nor a judge.

One of the incidents of the American Revolution and the War of Independence in the United States was related to writs of assistance. Unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited in the American Constitution and, finally, in our Constitution. The court says they are no longer valid instruments. Now I hear the Solicitor General of Canada is trying to find some way he can apply to have more of those writs issued.

The members can look in the indexes of Hansard to see I seldom revert to history. That is for other people to write and not for us to talk about here. The important thing to understand is this province should be taking a serious stand with the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada on the question of writs of assistance. They are dictatorial and the symbols of an autocratic government. They have always been justified in history as having some good purpose, but they run totally contrary to our whole concept of a democratic society.

They mean that an officer, subject to having to prove somewhere down the line that he had reasonable cause to believe so and so -- but that very rarely happens -- could tonight break into any home in Ontario. It does not have to be designated what the home is or what the premise is. The minister knows that as well as I do. He knows what the process is and, in my view, he should do everything he can to not permit the perpetuation of that abuse of the democratic process in this country regardless of the length of its tradition in the past.

By agreement with the House leaders and the Provincial Secretary for Justice, I may want to comment briefly about some matters of concern to me in the corrections area. For reasons that have totally escaped me the concurrence of the Ministry of Correctional Services was slipped through in the dark of night one evening around 10:22 p.m. I do not know what the motives of either my colleagues or the minister may have been at that time, but there are a couple of comments I want to make.

I do want to underline what my friend the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said about the question of the Young Offenders Act. I did not deal with it with the Attorney General because I was afraid I would get one of those answers which would mean that the perception of politics is that something is being done when the reality is nothing is being done.

I appreciate what Chief Judge Andrews of the provincial court's family division had to say at the opening of the courts with respect to the steps being taken by the judges of that division to have teach-ins and courses of instruction and discussions about the attitude of the courts when the Young Offenders Act comes into being. I appreciate also that there has at least been a significant amount of concern, if not preparation, in the Ministry of Community and Social Services about the response of that ministry. I am not suggesting it is by any way complete, but it is much more adequate than the other branches of the government have been about the introduction of the Young Offenders Act.

I do not pretend to deal with the impact of the Young Offenders Act on the Ministry of Community and Social Services, nor at this point in time do I particularly need to deal with the philosophy of the bill. However, I think it is important to say the whole philosophy of that bill is totally different from the philosophy of the juvenile offenders act, the act which has been the governing statute for so many years.

After great travail, we have the Young Offenders Act coming before us. Maybe when the estimates of the Justice secretariat come before us in the new session of the assembly, we can talk about the philosophy and the education questions. Perhaps we can then discuss what is required to acquaint the people of the province that this is not a structural change; this is a fundamental change in philosophic attitude about the question of the responsibility of young offenders to the society in which they live and the way in which the justice system is going to deal with them. None of that has touched any of the members of the public.

8:50 p.m.

The law-and-order kick, disguised in one way or another, is involving the community in the enforcement of law. It has taken over the major question which it is the responsibility of this secretariat to perform, the educational function required to indicate to the public that there is a totally new attitude to be taken of the young offender in society in the face of the disasters of the past system.

We can complain that it took too long, we can complain that it does not answer all the questions; but at least it is a new beginning, at least the spirit of it could be dealt with in an adequate way by the government. But that has not been the case. The only aspect the Premier (Mr. Davis) saw fit to deal with when he met with his fellow Premiers had nothing to do with the spirit of the law, nothing to do with the way in which it was going to deal with young offenders; it had solely to do with the cost impact on the province.

The statement he made in Halifax was preceded by that of the Provincial Secretary for Justice about the dire consequences of raising the age from 16 to 18 and transferring the people who might be charged under the Criminal Code and related penal statutes of Canada to the young offender system. The provincial secretary's statement about the cost of implementing the philosophy has frozen the government into a position where it is not responding in any adequate way.

I may have missed it, and if so I stand to be corrected, but I have heard no statement of any kind from this government with respect to the refashioning of the court system in the province to provide for the youth courts. They are an essential ingredient of the mechanism by which the new philosophy about young offenders is to be put into effect.

I know there is some suggestion that it will be an add-on for the provincial court, family division, but nobody in this assembly has said: "Come along with us in this experiment. This is what we have to do. This is what we must do." Nobody has described the way in which young offenders up to and including the age of 18, at whatever date that age limitation comes into force, have got to be dealt with in courts separate and distinct from the adult courts with one, two or three exceptions.

I have heard no minister say that the Young Offenders Act now will deal only with federal offences, criminal or otherwise. I have heard no minister talk about the traditional sort of status crimes that were involved -- truancy and all of the other related questions. No statement has been made about that.

I believe the Provincial Secretariat for Justice has the most important role. It can resolve a great number of these problems. If we simply say it is a shifting around of a few facilities to find a few vacant courtrooms in order that youth courts can be established in the province, if it simply means that a few people can be introduced into the system and nothing really will change, then I think we do a great disservice to this society as a whole. There are some very fundamental questions put forward for consideration, not just carping criticism.

The members for Prescott-Russell and for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) referred to it in the concurrence of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The secretariat has not addressed the questions in the opening parts of the book Youth, Opportunity, Action, which is published by Central Toronto Youth Services and which came out just a week or two ago. I am sure the minister has it available to him, particularly the pages from 32 on.

All those questions are very fundamental and important questions that have not been addressed. I expect the Provincial Secretary for Justice, among all the verbiage that will be included in the electoral platform of the Tory party in the next throne speech, could find a couple of paragraphs to indicate the commitment of the government and of this assembly to that philosophy. I doubt if he will, but at least I issue that challenge to the minister.

We have discussed the impact of this bill in his estimates and elsewhere many times. I guess it goes back to the time when the minister first assumed that portfolio, and before that when the present Ministry of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) had it. There was an interest because it was the focal point for the Young Offenders Act. So far the response of the government, in my mind, is totally and completely inadequate in so far as it relates to the justice field, and that is what we are talking about.

I read with a great deal of interest practically anything the minister has to say on the question of the Young Offenders Act. I am surprised at the barrenness of his statements. I am surprised at the inadequacy of his responses. I am particularly concerned that he seems to have gone off on some other tangent. I think it is a tangent dictated by the provincial Conservative Party polls, which indicate a concern about something called public participation in the prevention of crime. We are getting all sorts of things like -- I do not know whether it is called crime week or what it is called -- something to that effect that is going to be held next year at some point.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Part of the bicentennial, is it not?

Mr. Renwick: I believe it has to do with the bicentennial. I do not know what the philosophy of the minister may be. It is sufficient to say that I have all his speeches in this file and I will not take up the time of the assembly to read them back to him.

This makes a good transition point to some comments I want to make about correctional services. Due to the courtesy of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk), I attended the conference in Toronto of the American Correctional Association last summer and listened to a number of very important statements related to the corrections field. I can deal with them at some further time. I thought perhaps he was going to be in the assembly this evening, but he must be detained by something much more important than listening to me talk about the areas in corrections I missed.

I would like to understand why each time the Ministry of Correctional Services has an adverse decision in one of the Supreme Courts of the province, particularly with respect to matters of law, it feels a compulsion to appeal it. Not only does it feel this compulsion, but when it loses the appeal it decides it wants to get legislation to legitimize what the court has felt to be wrong.

The minister knows I am talking about the Casserley case. It has been reported very clearly that the minister is now making the payments the court ordered under the Casserley decision but that he is in consultation with the federal government to get legislation that will legitimize what is otherwise illegitimate. I do not understand what the mentality would be that leads to that kind of conclusion. The minister will be aware of the case, Her Majesty the Queen versus Paul Vincent Casserley. The minister also will be well aware of the Dennis Cadeddu case in which Mr. Justice Potts of the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the question related to the charter.

9 p.m.

What is the first response of the ministry? "We must appeal it." It is not to consider the question of whether the Charter of Rights has made illegitimate something that was formerly justified. The Pavlovian reaction to the new Charter of Rights by the ministry, of all the Justice secretariat, and whatever the ministries may be, is one that I expatiated on with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) this afternoon. He denied it, of course.

My point was not that they supported the charter. My point was that they simply said the charter did not change anything. When it does purport to change anything, the government immediately says, "We must appeal the decision." I find that a most offensive principle of jurisprudence. I am sure my friend the Provincial Secretary for Justice may feel that as well.

I have a specific matter that I was going to raise with the Minister of Correctional Services, but he is not here. Because it is specific to that ministry, perforce I therefore feel that even in the limitations of the rules of this assembly, it is not appropriate to do so.

I want to end my remarks by saying to the provincial secretary that I think the conception of his secretariat, the grasp he has occasionally shown in matters related to the overall justice field, are ones that require his direct, immediate attention and direction. He cannot play around on the periphery of the justice field.

There are too many things wrong with the justice field in Ontario, whether it is the interface between the Justice secretariat and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, as reflected in the Young Offenders Act, or the intransigence of the Attorney General with respect to the way in which he insists on intruding upon police investigations; or whether it is the intransigence of the government with respect to the Charter of Rights, or the incapacity of the government of Ontario to understand that there is a Criminal Code as well as an Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario.

There are circumstances where it would be quite legitimate to consider the laying of criminal charges on the grounds of the indifference and apathy of those responsible. The whole question of criminal negligence does not mean, because we have passed the Occupational Health and Safety Act, that it is to be the sole arbiter of it. Members know, I know and everyone else knows the capacity of statutes of this assembly and that to impose the kind of pressure required on certain elements of society to make certain that justice is done cannot be achieved through those statutes.

There are many instances within the government of Ontario that need the attention of a strong, daring and forceful provincial secretary who quite literally does not care whether his colleagues in the cabinet say to him: "We have always done it this way," or "No, you are being too extravagant. When a workman is killed on an industrial site, we can deal with it under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That is what the statute said. We can fine somebody $1,000 or $2,000."

It is not really a Criminal Code matter, because members know that no employer in Ontario ever intentionally injures anybody. But the minister knows as well as anyone else that it is not simply a question of intention; it is a question of recklessness, indifference, apathy and negligence, and it is a very difficult question.

Those are the kinds of things that concern us in the opposition and could on occasion disturb the apathy of the government in justice matters other than those to which they respond because of the polls they conduct continuously in the public. Those are matters of simple, solitary justice, and I hope this provincial secretary will see fit at some point or other to address himself to some of those injustices that are raised from time to time by my colleagues in various aspects of the society in which we live.

I hope the minister will respond in due course to my comments. I feel strongly about some of those issues. I particularly want his response as to when the government will consider something other than dollars in response to the basic underlying philosophy of the Young Offenders Act and start to deal with the justice aspects of those questions I have referred to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have two short matters I want to raise with the Provincial Secretary for Social -- that is, for Justice -- and both --

Mr. McClellan: It is not social justice.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I started to say "social justice" because I am coming at this from my angle as critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and both of these things impact upon the provincial secretary -- that is a wonderful use of that verb, which I hate, and I have now succumbed by using it myself.

One has to do with the Young Offenders Act and the other has to do with family violence. I will not take a great deal of the time of the House, but I do want to do two things. One is to say that I think the secretariats of the government have been mostly given to the function of calling meetings and convening battles between the various ministers for jurisdictional prowess in their policy areas, and certainly in the social services sector I think the position of the secretariat is a terrible waste of time and is useless.

I have seen, as the member for Riverdale has said, some flashes that perhaps in the field of justice the minister's secretariat may have attained a level of more relevance than the other secretariats have at this time, and for this reason I think it is appropriate to speak of the co-ordination role he can have in pulling together the various ministers under his auspices to try to get some kind of coherence in the way we look at things.

First, I want to say that in my view the Young Offenders Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come down and have its full impact on this jurisdiction in Ontario. It is true that the financial impact on us as a province that, unlike in many of the other provinces, has distinguished between 16- and 18-year-olds, is going to be greater than in many other areas of the country. But I am very upset and disturbed that we have not had more discussion at this level, as there was in Ottawa, of the philosophical underpinnings of why those changes are important and necessary.

I want to ask the provincial secretary to come out with some kind of document that would be like the one put out by the Central Toronto Youth Services, something that would indicate his view of this pending legislation, why it is important and what people have to understand about it. And for those who have been watching from afar the lack of any kind of action and the lack of any co-ordinated action among the ministries involved, he should give us some idea of what he is doing. I think we at this level could really use a white paper at this point, something to tell us how all of them are coming together.

Is the Ministry of Community and Social Services going to be the lead ministry in all of this? Is it going to fall to the Ministry of Correctional Services? Are we going to have youth courts? Or are we just going to extend the family courts to try to save our resources with respect to the court costs? What is going on? What is he thinking about at the moment? I say to him, invite us into the process: a little freedom of information. We would love to assist him in the development of this and to participate in it.

It is not just a matter of seeing an institution like Bluewater in Goderich being closed and a little bit of talk going on in the corridors about the fact that it would be a really nice institution to open up for young offenders. It is a whole hoard of information that we cannot operate without as critics on this side of the House.

We presume that by next fall the government is actually going to be implementing a co-ordinated policy, whether it has to do with the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Ministry of Community and Social Services or with the Ministry of the Attorney General. At the moment we have no idea where he is at and what is going on. I encourage him to give us some idea today of what is happening and to get something out to us so we can look at it and we can then focus our discussions on it.

9:10 p.m.

The second matter is family violence. There has been a report from a committee of this Legislature, particularly in terms of spousal abuse, and we hope the Provincial Secretary for Justice will be coming forward with other information and recommendations to do with child abuse.

First, allow me to praise this minister, who has felt it possible to be able to come out with proposed child abuse protocol. That is a great initiative and an indication at last that there is more to this secretariat than there might be to some of the others. Although that may be useful, and I welcomed that announcement when it was made, surely at the moment there is a great role for the provincial secretary in co-ordination of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and perhaps the Ministry of Education in terms of family violence.

What we need to do is pull together a number of the recommendations that were brought forward by the committee, refine and change them in the areas of research, the ways the courts work, policing and corrections, to see how that all ties in together in this specific case of spousal abuse.

I do not know what the provincial secretary's role is in that area. We have had some suggestions from the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and from the Attorney General that they would take some action, and we have seen some. We have seen some recalcitrance on the part of the Minister of Community and Social Services and a lack of willingness to be very open about what he is thinking about.

I hope the provincial secretary will be able to tell us tonight that he is willing to try to pull together those people under his secretariat, as well as the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), because the education component of this was seen as very important by the committee. I also hope he will give us some idea of how he is going to operate over the next number of months to come through with recommendations which will then be put into effect by these various ministries in terms of family violence. I would appreciate the provincial secretary's comments on that at the end of the comments.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, there are two major issues involved in the debate this afternoon and this evening and several other issues which, although they are not of less importance, were minor in terms of the length of time spent on them in the speeches.

First, I will deal with the issue of the access to information and privacy law. As I have stated on many previous occasions, I have attempted in the past and I am continuing to attempt to bring this matter to a legislative position. I have had a task force working for me to produce several drafts in relation to this very complex matter. I can only report to the Legislature that the matter continues to be under consideration and that I cannot in all consciousness promise a particular date without the approval of everyone in the executive council.

In terms of the Young Offenders Act, I have had a fairly significant role to deal with in this area. If the members opposite would like to read Hansard reports from both the justice committee of the House of Commons and the standing Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs, they will find some statements within those Hansards which I have made on this matter on behalf of the provincial government. They will also find that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) has made some statements to the House of Commons justice committee.

It is important for the members opposite to understand that when the member for Scarborough Centre and I were appearing before the justice committee in the House of Commons, we stated very clearly the problems flowing from the unilateral decision made by the Solicitor General of this country in February 1982 to move the age from 16 to 18. We indicated to them at that time it would require a significant amount of time in planning and financing such a dramatic change to our system. It is quite clearly on the record where we stood at that time.

We do not object to the changes in the Young Offenders Act. We are glad to see this matter come to a final determination. We have been negotiating for some 10 years with the federal government to have this act come about. It took into account many of the suggestions put forward by all the ministries, including those in the Justice policy field and those of the Minister of Consumer -- the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That was his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: It still is his ministry and will be for some period of time.

The members can imagine the dramatic impact this had on us at a time when the economic situation in our country had a significant impact on our revenues and in terms of the social demands on our system.

We indicated several figures to both the Commons committee and the Senate committee as to the size of the problem. I have seen figures since that time which indicate the amounts of money are significant to put the Young Offenders Act into some reasonable form of implementation in accordance with what the intent of the act is.

We are talking in the area of $50 million to $70 million in capital expenditures. We are talking of something in the nature of $100 million to operate. When one has that kind of impact on one's budget, one is interested in terms of how and when this kind of matter is going to be implemented.

We have had some indication from the federal government that there may be some relief from the implementation date by bringing the age from 16 to 18 beyond the date of April 1, 1985, as appears in the legislation right now.

There are two dates involved. The first date indicated by the Solicitor General was April 1, 1983. That has been postponed until October 1, 1983. That is the lesser part in terms of the implementation problems. That only deals basically' with the juveniles as they are now described. That group of individuals in our society would become young offenders.

On April 1, 1985, the age would rise by two years. That impacts on our system in terms of the number of individuals involved. It increases them by a factor of three. In other words, if one takes the 12- to 15-year-olds, we are dealing with one third of the problem. If we add the 16- and 17-year-olds, we are dealing with another two thirds of the total problem.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How long have these discussions been going on? How many years?

Mr. McClellan: Ten years.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I agree with the member opposite when he says we were dealing with this matter and talking about it for 10 years. We were talking about it for 10 years. but we were talking about it on the basis of 12- to 15-year-olds.

9:20 p.m.

I want to indicate to the members -- they have asked for information, and if they will be kind enough to listen I will try to give them as much as possible -- that the decision as to which ministries would be responsible for young offenders has not been made at this time. That is basically because of the lack of co-operation on the part of the federal government to come to some financial agreement on this matter. We have asked the Solicitor General to meet with us, to talk with us, about how they are going to finance this matter. Members should not forget, this was unilaterally foisted upon us, after 10 years of negotiation, in a very short period of time.

The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) read from the document which indicated it required five years of planning. That is exactly what I told the House of Commons committee -- his Liberal compatriots in Ottawa -- in the spring of 1982. But they did not listen. They did not want to give us time to plan this properly and put it in shape. We told them at that time the only way we could properly plan for implementation of the Young Offenders Act was to have the financing straight so we could put it in place.

It is unfortunate in some ways but, because we have so much to do with the administration of the Young Offenders Act in the final analysis, it must appear to the citizen on the street somewhat ridiculous that there are two powers involved in this matter. It would be great if our political leaders could get together and decide who is going to he involved with what in terms of young offenders, make the law and administer it at the same time. I do not care, quite frankly, whether it is the federal government or the provincial government that deals with it, as long as one government is dealing with the whole issue.

I do agree with the comments of the member for Riverdale in terms of his discretion on this issue in relation to the philosophy of the act. He might find it amusing to read some of the Hansard reports of debates both in the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee and in the Commons justice committee, because there are two almost diametrically opposed philosophies involved with this act. One is that the act is designed to increase the responsibility of a young person coming before the law. The other counterbalancing side is that once he has been convicted or dealt with by the law, he will be dealt with in a more compassionate sense. In some ways they are opposing values.

It is interesting to hear the discussion around them as to one faction trying to be hard and one faction trying to be soft. I would welcome a discussion on it, because in terms of what happens to those young offenders I think it impacts more within our mandate than it does at the federal level.

I want to deal briefly with some of the "minor matters" raised by some of the members. First, in terms of the member for Riverdale bringing forward the ideas of the Quaker conference as to the elimination of jails. I will be most pleased to talk with those individuals about resources for their conference. I have no hesitation in talking to any bona fide group that is interested in reforming our system and looking at brand-new ways of dealing with our system. I think the member knows that.

The member for Riverdale also brought up the matter of unjust enrichment of criminals who publish material about acts they have committed in society. As an individual, I feel as much outrage as he does about such persons profiting from their crimes. I expect this matter will be brought up at a federal-provincial conference relating to various justice matters as between our province and the federal government. The Attorney General has made some statements in regard to this area. The member will realize there is a very delicate balance between the freedom of expression of opinion and the other view which the member indicated to me.

On a personal level, I tend to side with the member for Riverdale in terms of my total disgust when I heard, for instance -- and I was absolutely distraught -- that some of those involved in the murder of Pierre Laporte, the former Minister of Labour of Quebec, were publishing a book about it and perhaps could profit from its sale. It is a question of how one deals with it, and I acknowledge and respect the member's attempt to try to meet that problem.

I want to indicate that my new deputy minister, John Hilton, has been of great assistance to me. I also want to acknowledge Don Sinclair who, as the member mentioned, was very much involved in gathering together statistics, perhaps for the first time in this province and in this country, to enable us to route our paths better in the future. Don Sinclair has been involved not only in that area; both the member for Riverdale and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) know he has been very much involved with the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Justice for Victims of Crime, which I believe is expected to report in May of this year.

I have a great deal of empathy with the position of the member for Riverdale in terms of his concern about the rights of people to search and seize without the use of a warrant. In a number of instances, as Provincial Secretary for Justice in this province, I have raised my concern about that very principle both in cabinet and in a number of cabinet committees. Actually it is quite coincidental that he should mention it at this time, because I can remember not too long ago I went through this very battle in terms of a piece of provincial legislation dealing with this matter. I have a great deal of empathy with his position and will raise it in the cabinet committee on justice in the very near future.

I will pass along to the Minister of Correctional Services the member's remarks on the two cases he brought forward. Unfortunately, the member for Riverdale was not available for the debate on concurrence in the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services. It should be placed on the record that the member for Scarborough West did accede to the passing of those concurrences at that time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What about freedom of information?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Sure, that is the other side.

I wanted to deal with the area the member for Scarborough West brought up in terms of both the child abuse protocol kit or the methodology kit in terms of dealing with this very significant problem and the whole area of family violence.

9:30 p.m.

I want to assure him that in the past, prior to the report of the standing committee on social development, I have made attempts and continue to make attempts to co-ordinate a response and to ensure that ministers in my policy field respond to that report. I have done that in the past as long ago as last summer when the sittings were involved at that time. Although I do not do this in a public way, I want to indicate to him that I continue to express my concern to my fellow ministers in that area of law.

I also want him to know that the Premier of New Brunswick indicated he had called for a provincial-federal conference dealing with this very area of domestic violence. On the day after he had indicated his interest in that, I indicated my support and that of this government in this area.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order. The member for Waterloo North on a point of order.

Mr. Epp: Not a point of order. I just want to speak on the concurrence.

The Acting Speaker: So much the better.

Mr. Epp: I thought that was why we were here.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, it is. Please proceed.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to welcome the parliamentary assistant to the minister. It seems we are back to square one. It is normal with the minister being absent again. There must have been something wrong last week because we had the minister here on two occasions.

lnterjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Waterloo North to ignore the interjections and address himself to the concurrence that he was so keen to remind me he was rising to speak upon.

Mr. Epp: It is difficult to ignore; nevertheless I am going to take your good advice and continue.

I do want to draw members' attention to a speech that the minister made in Vancouver just yesterday. I understand that is where he is, enjoying the sunshine and so forth in Vancouver. Speaking about housing and home ownership, he said he is a strong supporter of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. He has also indicated that he is very much committed to providing housing in Ontario. He says he takes a second seat to no one in assuring adequate housing for our citizens.

That is very good to hear. I am just wondering when he is going to take his own comments seriously because, as we know, there are at least 5,000 or 6,000 people in Metropolitan Toronto alone who are without homes, apartments or adequate housing. Those are the people we hear about who are sleeping in subways, parks and so forth. We are short of this adequate housing that he speaks of.

I do not want to deny the fact that he is the landlord of the second highest number of units in North America. I understand Ontario Housing Corp. has about 93,000 units and is second only to New York City. That still does not deny the fact that there are people in Metropolitan Toronto and other parts of this province who are desperately in need of housing.

The minister in the past, as he did last fall, and he mentions it in his speech, has told us how he committed $75 million to home ownership and gave $5,000 each out to 15,000 people so they could use this incentive to buy homes in Ontario to use up a number of surplus homes on the market at that time. I think there were 8,000 or 9,000. They have been used up; they have been purchased; people have acquired ownership of them. They are only a small drop in the bucket, so to speak, in terms of meeting the real needs of the people of this province.

I hope the minister, on his way back from Vancouver, will give serious thought not only to giving additional incentives to home owners but also to the thousands of apartment units that are needed in this city. The federal government has assisted from time to time, and I think it is prepared to give additional assistance, but we need those additional units.

Not only is it important we get the additional units and meet the needs of those people, but also we have a second real benefit that would accrue to the unemployed of Ontario, the 500,000 who are looking for jobs, particularly those in the age group of 16 to 25 who are out eagerly looking for work but are not able to secure jobs, even on a temporary basis. Since housing is very labour-oriented, this would not only create jobs on the construction site but would also create jobs in the furniture factories, in the china shops and in the manufacture of all kinds of accessory products that are required in homes. It would be a twofold program.

I might mention an excellent program my leader brought forward in late December, which has had applause from the private sector as well as the public sector right across the country. I know the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) would support a program of that nature, because he is very concerned about his constituents. His constituents would very much appreciate a program of this nature. In that program, my leader outlines a number of important features.

He indicates, first of all, that by spending $145 million in giving incentives to build these homes, as subsidies for these homes, in the range of $8,000 to $10,500 per unit, the building of these apartment units would make work for 26,000 persons for at least a year. Whatever number of man-hours that would total up to, it is a considerable number. That would make use of a good portion of the people who are unemployed in Ontario right now. In turn, it would generate other jobs across the province.

We know the vacancy rates in many municipalities, including Metropolitan Toronto, are below 0.5 per cent. This could, in many instances, raise those vacancy rates to around three per cent, which is much more acceptable -- maybe not a perfect rate, but much more acceptable than the vacancy rates we have right now.

9:40 p.m.

I also want to draw to the minister's attention, on his return from the southwest, a problem that has been brought to my attention with respect to welfare transfer payments. The great county of Brant sent a letter to the Premier (Mr. Davis) just a few weeks ago with respect to the timing of these welfare transfer payments. As we all know, municipalities pay 20 per cent of the welfare they pay out and the province pays 80 per cent.

During a discussion of this matter at the Brant county council, a resolution was passed. I want to quote two parts of that resolution. One part says, "And whereas one senior provincial civil servant had the very excellent suggestion that if the Brant area continues to 'make noise' over the cash-flow issue, the province may just take over the entire welfare system."

Apparently the civil servants are threatening that if Brant makes any noise about wanting additional assistance in order to pay those many needy recipients of welfare, they may just take over the welfare system completely and pay 100 per cent.

Mr. Conway: Sounds like the Emperor Claudius to me.

Mr. Epp: It may very well be. In this case it was civil servants, but maybe they were reflecting some thoughts the minister had mentioned during meetings with his staff.

To finish up the resolution, they go on to say: "Therefore, the councils of the city of Brantford and the county of Brant hereby require the provincial government to meet their local obligation by providing welfare cost funding to municipalities on the date payments are made."

Not only do they not get a sufficient amount of welfare funds to meet the needs of their constituents in those areas, but those payments are often made late and have to be subsidized by the local councils, which get their money through property taxes.

I also want to draw members' attention to the transfer payments that go to municipalities each year. In a statement released a few days ago, on January 25, 1983, the absent Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in all his glory, stated that he was going to give an increase. He started with an increase of 9.9 per cent over the announced amount of money that went out last year. The municipalities were to receive $2.7 billion in 1983 in the form of transfer payments.

If one took the 9.9 per cent and did not read any further, it sounded pretty good. But if one read the next paragraph, one got down to 5.8 per cent. All of a sudden there was a real decrease. It was not 9.9 per cent but dropped to 5.8 per cent. Then, when one read on still further, one found that the amount of transfer payments going out to municipalities totals $676 million, to be distributed through six major grants -- the general, police, and density per capita grants; and the general, northern support, and resource equalization grants.

This $676 million represents only an additional $28 million over last year, which for percentage purposes is a 4.3 per cent increase over the 1982 payment. This 4.3 per cent is a far cry from what we have experienced in inflation during the last year. The least the ministry could have done was to give the municipalities about 10 per cent or 11 per cent in order to keep up with inflation. Based on an average, for 1983-84 it would have to be somewhere around the 10 per cent mark, I would think.

It is also interesting to note, getting even deeper into the statement on January 25, the minister stated that in 1982 there was a series of mid-year transfer payment increases primarily for welfare. After adjustments are made for these increases the real growth rate in transfer payments for 1983 is 5.8 per cent.

When we speak about real growth in strict economic terms, we use the real growth rate or increase to refer to an increase after discounting for the effect of inflation, so he is misusing terms when he announces these grants. He should have just said what they were getting instead of using the term "real growth rate," because he would have to give the figure after taking the inflation factor into consideration and after taking it out of that increase.

So if we took out inflation of around 10, 11 or 12 per cent and subtracted not 5.8 per cent but the real figure of 4.3 per cent, we are out somewhere in the neighbourhood of six per cent, a deficit of at least six per cent, which is much more accurate.

When we speak about these various grants we look at the per capita grants. We have the general per capita grant, which amounted to something like $96.6 million, and each municipality in that instance gets a $12 per capita grant. This is an improvement over what they used to get, which used to fluctuate, according to the municipality, from $7 to $11. In 1983-84, this was changed to $12 per capita.

We have spoken many times about trying to get some kind of increase in the police per capita grant. At the moment it is $12 for a nonregional municipality and $17 for a regionalized municipality. Again, municipalities such as London, Windsor, Kingston and others that are not regionalized are being penalized for not going to the region, and we have never got a satisfactory answer from either the minister or the parliamentary assistant as to why they continually discriminate against municipalities that do not adopt regional government. Maybe one of these days they will clean up their act and give the nonregional municipalities the kind of police grants they should get.

The density per capita grant for 1983-84 is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5.4 million. The purpose of this grant is to provide urban-quality services in lower-density fringe areas, and it is related to the initial establishment of regional government. So those areas that are regionalized and in the fringe areas of regional government have an opportunity to cash in on $5.4 million in 1983-84.

The second category is the grants that are called levy-based grants. These grants are awarded in general terms as a proportion of the municipal tax base. Again we have a general support grant of $215 million, a northern support grant of $59 million and a resource equalization grant of $186 million.

In looking at these grants we find that the two in which municipalities will be suffering most in 1983-84 are the general grant and the police grant, both of which are per capita grants. In that case all we have from fiscal 1982-83 to fiscal 1983-84 is an increase of $300,000 for each of them, and that is only a pittance compared to the expenses and the amount of increase in the costs that municipalities will obviously have to absorb in the coming fiscal year.

This means that since the money is not coming from the provincial Treasury, where it comes from sales tax and from general taxation and goes into the general revenue fund, these municipalities will have to take it from property taxes. The property tax is a regressive tax. It often means the person who is least able to pay, although he may live in a smaller unit, nevertheless is going to be taxed fairly heavily in those areas.

9:50 p.m.

In the final analysis, it means people are not being taxed as equally as they might be, so those people who do not have the income, may be unemployed and so forth, still have to accept their burden compared with those people who are much better off, are much more affluent and are able to pick up a greater share of the financial load in their municipalities.

In the general and police grants, we have a very modest increase, which is most unfortunate considering --

Mr. Boudria: "Minuscule" is the word.

Mr. Epp: Minuscule, as my colleague said.

The trouble with this is that in areas of high unemployment such as Sudbury and Windsor it means people who do not have jobs or are on welfare and so forth are having difficulty making ends meet in paying for their taxes, paying for their food and paying for other bare necessities. Those people are going to have to pay additional taxes to make up for the shortfall in what the province has given to those municipalities.

The only answer is we need a more sensitive minister for the problems facing the municipalities in Ontario. Despite the fact the minister has had municipal experience and despite the fact his able parliamentary assistant has had municipal experience they do not seem to have the sensitivity which I know other members of this House share with respect to the needs of these poor people.

There are a lot of people out there. They need a government and a minister with this sensitivity to their problems and we do not have that with the present minister. That filters all the way down to the people who work in that ministry. They do not care really to share the resources they have at hand with the needs of constituents across the province, particularly those in the high unemployment areas.

I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. On the return of the minister, since we do not get this kind of appeal from the parliamentary assistant, maybe you as an outstanding individual and as a person who has these sensitivities will take them personally to the minister so we can have the benefit of your expertise in this transferred or communicated to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on his return from the sunny west coast.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a different kind of issue. I am not going to recycle the estimates which, no doubt, the parliamentary assistant has already read and therefore realizes the disagreements I have with his minister and his minister's failure to provide an adequate housing program in this province.

I would like to deal with an interesting point that overlaps the Ministry of Transportation and Communications with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On November 19, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) made a statement in this House concerning licence plates for the disabled. He stated he was pleased to announce the final details of his ministry's initiatives for Ontario's handicapped drivers, "initiatives to assist handicapped drivers throughout the province and, as a side benefit, make the public more aware of the special needs of these drivers and those who transport them."

He went on to say, "At the present time some of our municipalities already issue special handicapped placards or permits. However, changes are needed in the Ontario Municipal Act so that communities also can recognize the provincially issued plates as giving their owner the legal right to whatever standing, stopping or parking privileges an individual municipality chooses to extend."

Ten days later -- to be precise, on November 29 -- he wrote to the Mayor of Etobicoke, His Worship Dennis Flynn, and stated: "In order to facilitate the implementation of the new program across the province, I have recently announced the introduction of disabled symbol licence plates, which will be issued on request to physically disabled drivers or to persons who regularly transport physically disabled passengers. In addition, I have requested my colleague the Honourable Claude Bennett, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to amend the Municipal Act so that municipalities may in their bylaws recognize the new plates ... "

In other words, he asked for the co-operation of the municipality, and I imagine he wrote similar letters to all municipalities in dealing with this problem.

The problem though, as the municipalities see it, is that there has been very little consultation with either the Minister of Transportation and Communications or the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs on this issue. Indeed, Scarborough passed a resolution that basically asks the ministry not to proceed until such time as the municipalities have been consulted. In fact, as late as yesterday the borough of Etobicoke passed a resolution that:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has recently announced its intention of issuing a series of disabled symbol licence plates to physically disabled owners of vehicles as well as to persons who transport physically disabled persons on a regular basis, and

"Whereas there has not been sufficient discussion with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the area municipalities on the effect this program may have on the existing handicapped parking program in Metropolitan Toronto,

"Therefore be it resolved that the Minister of Transportation and Communications be requested to delay implementation of this program to permit discussions with Metropolitan Toronto and the area municipalities."

The Minister of Transportation and Communications had said in the House in a response a few days earlier -- on February 3, 1983: "The one thing a number of members have mentioned is the matter regarding the handicapped licence plates. This is of concern to me. I am very disappointed at the lack of co-operation from the municipalities." One must ask where that lack of co-operation on behalf of the municipalities is when in fact he had written only a few days earlier. His letter was dated November 29, 1982, announcing the program.

The opposite is happening. The municipalities are saying: "Hey, here is a new program. We have already tried to implement a system in our municipality, and the ministry, be it the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing or the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, has not consulted us."

In talking to some of the people who are especially concerned, in particular people who are disabled or have relatives who are disabled or who transport the disabled, they point out that they have waited a very long time. They say it is about time this minister got together with the municipalities, that the Minister of Transportation and Communications got together with this minister, and that one stop blaming the other for a program not coming through.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications correctly points out that one of the problems is that if a person has a permit in one municipality it may not be recognized in the other. In this, of course, we have to agree. It is essential that there be a provincial permit and that it can be used across the province.

The other thing I think is essential is that for those people who do not drive vehicles or who are not transported in the same vehicle all the time, there be some of kind of portable pass they can use in the car when they are in a position where they need to occupy that kind of disabled space.

10 p.m.

A good case was pointed out to me of a gentleman who had bone cancer. He had his leg amputated and was having some trouble getting used to the prosthesis. He drove up and parked next to a theatre in a spot that had been reserved for the disabled by that municipality.

It is very degrading for him to have to pull up his pantleg and show some young parking attendant he is disabled, has had cancer, has had his leg amputated and is trying to get used to a prosthesis. I wonder if this minister and the Minister of Transportation and Communications might also consider having a portable kind of disability permit for cases where a person is being transported in a vehicle not normally used. Indeed, he may not own a vehicle and may be transported by friends or a taxicab. This is so they do not have to experience this kind of embarrassment of trying to prove they are disabled when that disability may not be as obvious as if one were in a wheelchair or something like that.

It seems fairly clear to me we are in agreement with what the Minister of Transportation and Communications is trying to do. We would like to know when this consultation is going to take place. We would certainly like to know what amendments the minister sees as necessary for his ministry under the Municipal Act and when we can get on with the job of what is seriously needed.

A person with whom I was speaking a few minutes ago went to her municipality of Halton Hills just north of here and said she was disabled. She had a disabled pass for the city of Toronto or one of the Metro municipalities but she wanted one for her own municipality. That municipality indicated it was not going to proceed with anything like that. It wanted to see what the ministry was going to do.

There is a chicken and egg situation where the minister says: "The municipalities are not co-operating. We want to see what their reactions are." The municipalities such as Etobicoke say: "Hey, wait a minute. You are going too fast because we have already pioneered certain techniques in dealing with this problem. It may be necessary for other municipalities but make sure you do not go ahead without consulting us." The people who are suffering in all this shuffling back and forth are the disabled.

I hope the minister or the parliamentary assistant can bring us up to date on what is being done. It is necessary, as I said, that there be one system where one does not have to go from one municipality to another and get a different permit. We must have one system that is recognized across the province where there is some kind of consistent enforcement for the sake of disabled persons.

I want to leave some time for my colleagues and, therefore, I will not recycle the problem that, as often happens, this minister loves to make great public statements that are never acted upon. It is consistent with this government that it makes housing statements.

In 1975, during an election, the Premier announced a great program to deal with the problem of high interest rates. I believe they were at about 10 or 12 per cent at that time. He said they were too high and there had to be a mortgage relief program. We have not seen that.

Similarly we have had great fanfare about the Renthab and InnoRent programs. We have yet to see any results or any money being poured into them. One must again ask the minister when he is going to keep the promise.

I am strongly tempted to deal with the problem of demolition because of the particular parliamentary assistant to the minister, but I will not. He has heard my pitch before. He disagrees with it. If I am not mistaken, we have even debated it in public before some of his constituents.

I would like to deal with the whole problem of the Ontario Housing Corp. charges and price increases. It seems to me when one is fighting inflation, dealing with the kind of austerity program this government is implementing -- or pretending to implement -- that one should not bring it in on the backs of those least capable of paying. That is what we have done under OHC price increases.

Concerning utility charges: 25,000 units will pay increased utility charges of up to $11 per month from $7 to $18. That is an increase of 157 per cent. Concerning secondary earners: in about 4,000 homes where there are two earners, the secondary earner's contribution rises from $19 a month to $43 a month. That is a 126 per cent increase.

The utility increase is implemented at a time of annual income review for the tenant and after a 90-day notice period. Thus the tenant who currently has an $800 monthly income and would pay $200 monthly rent plus a $7 charge, will pay $218 even if his or her income remains frozen. Seniors are the only exception to this. In case of the secondary income earner, past policy was for OHC to take 25 per cent of the first $75 of a secondary earner's income. Now it will take 25 per cent of the first $175.

Consider the following scenario. A single-parent mother has $800 total monthly income and pays $200 rent. Her 17-year-old son gets a part-time job and earns $200 a month. Until July of this year, the mother would have paid $219 per month. She now will pay $243 per month. She must pay the increase whether or not she is able to collect that money from her son. He may be spending it on something quite legitimate, such as education. She may not receive that, but she pays that increase.

According to OHC officials whom we contacted, 400 families will see their rents rise by more than 25 per cent. The dollar amounts are not overwhelming but for low-income people, or for middle-income people who are in Ontario Housing, this increase can be quite devastating.

I am suggesting to the minister there are extravagances in this government. There are ways of cutting. There are places that need cutting. We in the New Democratic Party have suggested areas where there is waste. As a member of the public accounts committee, I have been trying to get that committee to examine for some time the more than $40 million spent on advertising every year by this government for questionable kinds of objectives and in some cases for unstated objectives.

I suggest the places to cut are not on those people in Ontario Housing, many of whom are trying to save enough so they can improve their standard of living and move into other forms of housing at some point.

I leave the minister with that, and I hope he will have some comments on my remarks.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the minister a special problem that has developed in my own community. I hope the minister will take my remarks into consideration and attempt to relieve or eliminate that problem.

We have a substantial number of units under the control of the Windsor Housing Authority. However, because of economic reverses in the community and because of the fact that we probably have one of the larger percentages of unemployed in the Windsor area, it has meant there has been a greater burden on the municipality because of individuals who are living on welfare attempting to get housing.

In the community, there have been and are a certain number of vacant Windsor Housing Authority units, and individuals on welfare find they cannot get into those units. Some of the units are senior citizens units. I know there are waiting lists of senior citizens and sometimes it is hard to decide whether to give the unit to a senior citizen or to someone other than a senior citizen, but I would like to read a short article so the minister will see just what the situation is in the community.

"The Windsor Housing Authority wants single persons aged 50 to 59 to be allowed admission into senior citizens housing units where they are vacant. A resolution calling for the change was adopted by the Windsor Housing Authority recently and was sent to the Ontario Housing Corp." -- that is the head office in Toronto -- "for approval. The Windsor Housing Authority, the local arm of the Ontario Housing Corp., provides housing for families and single people aged 60 and over." I am talking about people under the age of 60.

"With a waiting list for senior citizens bachelor and one-bedroom apartments at an all-time low in Windsor, the Windsor Housing Authority feels able to make housing available to needy people in the 50 to 59 age group. 'Many single people in that age bracket have less income than people 65 years of age and over who receive old age assistance," said the operations manager, Mr. Alan Rees of the Windsor Housing Authority.

"Among people from 50 to 59 are many on welfare, in poor health, unemployed or without marketable skills. They are in a bind, ineligible for government senior citizens housing and not receiving enough income to get satisfactory housing in the private sector."

If the welfare payments were high enough, the problem would probably not have arisen, but as welfare payments are controlled by the province, this situation has arisen in my community.

I am going to quote the comments of a board member of the Windsor Housing Authority, Donna Gamble. She is a very capable, conscientious, concerned citizen who at one time lived in a Windsor housing unit and, as a result, she knows whereof she speaks. She speaks as a result of having lived in one of those units.

She does not downgrade the units by any stretch of the imagination, and neither do I. They provide needed housing. They are nice, especially the Glengarry Court complex, which is right in the heart of the community. They are very well taken care of. They have a very active citizens' group that runs its own recreation programs and does everything to make the life of the individuals in that complex a little more meaningful.

Donna Gamble says, "I am so tired of hearing women between 50 and 60 crying over the phone about poor housing." They are crying about poor housing not in the Windsor Housing Authority units but in the rental market. As I said earlier, she knows whereof she speaks.

As of December 31 of this past year, there were 66 names on the waiting list for senior citizens housing, 52 singles and 14 couples. This may make a problem in attempting to get certain types of units for the under-60 age category whose welfare is not high enough for them to be able to go into the commercial market and get housing. Surely we should be concerned, interested and attempt to alleviate a problem when we can alleviate the problem.

Fortunately, I have spoken to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and pointed out this problem to him, and I know he will do the best he possibly can. I hope the parliamentary assistant too, if he himself cannot, will at least ask his boss, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), to look into the situation and see if that vacant housing cannot be put to use by individuals in the 50 to 59 age bracket who are desperately in need of housing, cannot afford housing in the commercial market, and whose last resort is a crying attempt on their part to get housing where there is housing available.

When the Windsor Housing Authority has units, I think there is an obligation first to those in the category for whom the housing was originally provided, but when there are vacant units, surely they should be used by others who are in desperate need of that housing.

I beg the parliamentary assistant either to look into it personally or to bring it to the attention of the minister himself, to see if we cannot resolve the problem and accommodate those people who are desperately in need of the housing I mentioned.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the minister would be here tonight on the concurrence. He is never in this place when municipal matters are being discussed. It does not matter where it is; it is the parliamentary assistant who always has to carry the load, but tonight I particularly wanted the minister to be here --

Mr. Rotenberg: He was here for the Planning Act.

Mr. Swart: He was not in the committee for it, ever. The parliamentary assistant knows that; he was not in the committee. The parliamentary assistant carried it all and did all the work. He comes in here for one hour on the final reading of the Planning Act to earn his money.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I wanted the minister to be here tonight because what I wanted to say to him is kind of personal. It is not very nice, but it is true. Perhaps he will read it in Hansard or the parliamentary assistant can inform him of what I have said.

I want to relate an incident that took place this past year, in fact carried on until just recently and perhaps is not finished yet. Last summer the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the regional municipality of Niagara passed bylaws to include some 65 acres of land into Niagara regional boundaries. These are the urban development boundaries of the Niagara region and these were submitted last summer to the minister for his approval. The Preservation of Agricultural Land Society objected and asked that it be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing and decision.

On January 2, the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society received an unbelievable letter from the minister, dated December 22, containing this message: "After careful consideration of your objection to the above-noted matters, I have decided to deny your request for referral on the grounds that it is frivolous, based on the following reasons." Then the minister listed some seven reasons, all of which have no substance.

10:20 p.m.

The lawyer for the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society immediately replied, expressing their outrage at this unprecedented step by the minister, who refused to refer it to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing. They refuted every argument put up by the minister and asked that he reconsider.

I wrote to the Premier (Mr. Davis) with a copy to the minister and to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). I want to read into the record that letter, which is dated January 6, 1983:

"Dear Mr. Davis:

"Earlier today, the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society, based in St. Catharines, released a letter from your Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Claude Bennett, concerning his decision to include a further 65 acres of Niagara's unique food land within the urban development boundaries of the official plan covering Niagara-on-the-Lake, without even holding an OMB hearing.

"That decision is simply preposterous. First, Mr. Bennett's decision is in direct conflict with your own Food Land Guidelines, which state that in an official plan, the highest-priority agricultural lands must be placed in an agricultural designation.

"Second, Mr. Bennett's decision blatantly flouts the 1981 ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board on the Niagara food lands, which was made after a $2-million, three-year hearing. The OMB concluded that its decision provided adequate urban development land, that growth should be shifted to the poor land south of the escarpment and that the established boundaries abutting grape and fruit lands should be permanent.

"Third, Mr. Bennett's decision to not refer the matter to the OMB for a hearing flagrantly violates section 15 of the Planning Act, which states: 'where any person requests the minister to refer any part of the plan to the municipal board, the minister shall refer such part to the municipal board, unless, in his opinion, such request is not made in good faith or is frivolous or it is made only for the purpose of delay.'

"To get around this obligation, the minister has classed PALS's request as frivolous. That classification is absurd. PALS is a nonpartisan, well-known and highly respected organization. It was applauded by the OMB for its role as a major defender of the public interest in the preservation of Niagara's fruit land.

"The issue of breaking the existing urban boundaries, regardless of who opposes it, surely cannot be considered frivolous, when the largest and the costliest hearings in Ontario's history resulted in a decision less than two years ago. That decision, incidentally, was opposed by the cabinet.

"If this matter were to go to the OMB, PALS could readily prove, through Mr. J. E. Gillespie, a soil research scientist, that the land in question is 'suitable for the production of grapes, pears, plums, cherries or general farm crops.' It also has 'excellent climatic conditions.'

"PALS could easily show there are already 300 or so acres in the adjacent industrial area, most of it vacant, as well as thousands of acres of other vacant industrial land within a five- to 10-mile radius.

"It would be shown, also, that there is no proposal of any kind for development on the land in question. Evidence would be presented from such people as Herb Smaltz, president of the Niagara Region Economic Development Association, who stressed the importance of agriculture to the Niagara Peninsula and said as late as December 31, 1982, 'There shouldn't be one acre taken away from agriculture today.'

"Is it frivolous to want these factors presented at an independent hearing of the OMB? One can only draw the conclusion that it is precisely because of these factors and because Mr. Bennett wants it approved that he refuses to refer it to the OMB. There is in fact no precedent for what Mr. Bennett is doing in this history of the present Planning Act of Ontario.

"There is another factor in this issue. The land in question is owned by Mr. Fred Goring, the former reeve of the municipality and a well-known Conservative. He has been lobbying for this redesignation of his property. This may be the most significant factor of all.

"I urge you, as Premier, to intervene and assure there will be an OMB hearing in this matter so that a precedent is not set which will make a mockery of food land preservation in this province."

That letter was signed by myself.

Mr. Bradley: Is Fred Goring a Conservative?

Mr. Swart: He tried to get the Conservative nomination in St. Catharines back in 1968, as the member well knows. He is a well-known Conservative.

Totally disregarding all this -- my letter and the letter from PALS's lawyer -- the minister notified Niagara region and Niagara-on-the-Lake a few days later that he had approved the bylaws and included that 65 acres within the urban boundary.

Today, on February 8, one month and two days after my letter and one month and four days after the letter from the lawyer for PALS, neither he nor I has received replies from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing or from the Premier.

I want to say, advisedly, that this action of the minister is irresponsible, contrary to the Food Land Guidelines and the ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board, which was upheld by the cabinet. On all grounds, it is despicable on his part.

Let me add some further documentation to this. The inclusion of this slightly bigger parcel was first opposed by the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and opposed by the region. When these large hearings came along they asked that the matter be deferred. They asked the minister to defer any decision on that. There was a clear implication that it was to be heard before the OMB if it was proceeded with. They asked that it be deferred.

Once before, by an OMB decision this land had been turned down for inclusion in this industrial area. It is contrary to the OMB ruling. I would like to quote a little part of this OMB ruling, and then I guess we will have to adjourn the debate to resume again tomorrow afternoon. Let me quote from page 56 of the ruling of the Ontario Municipal Board, which is dated February 27, 1981:

"Accordingly, a basic concept underlying the policies in this plan is that the boundaries of urban areas which abut good tender fruit and grape lands should be regarded as permanent" -- the decision of the board -- "and that the boundaries of urban areas which abut good general agricultural lands as defined in this plan should not be changed except for an essential purpose." That was the ruling of the board hack in 1981 with regard to the decision of the urban boundaries on which somewhere between $2 million and $3 million had been spent and three years of time taken up on hearings. There is no need to have this land included within that area for development.

I have here the latest report of the Niagara region with regard to undeveloped land already designated for urban industrial use. It shows that in Niagara Falls, that is, within 10 kilometres of this parcel of land, there are 3,400 acres of land designated for industrial use. It shows that in St. Catharines, within six or seven kilometres of this land, there are another 350 acres. Not only that, but Niagara-on-the-Lake itself has some 350 acres of land of which only between 50 and 100, right in the subdivision, are occupied, built on or developed at the present time.

In addition, there was no request or desire by anybody to develop this land. The land is not sold. Nobody is angling for this land. Nobody has made an offer on this land to put a development on it. It is just adding another 65 acres of unique Niagara land within the urban boundaries.

The Acting Speaker: I draw the honourable member's attention to the clock.

On motion by Mr. Swart, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.