Journal des débats 1983-févr-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Treasurer. He will recall that last Friday we discussed in this chamber, perhaps in his absence, the province's staggering unemployment figures for January 1983. There were figures indicating that something in the neighbourhood of 600,000 Ontarians are out of work.

Is the Treasurer aware that in the city of North Bay this morning at 10:30 the president of Jarvis Clark Co. announced that he would be shutting down that plant there at a loss of 205 permanent jobs to the city? I am sure the Treasurer will keep in mind that in 1981 the provincial government gave the Jarvis Clark Co. some $800,000 for an expansion of its operation. At the time, the expansion was promised to increase the overall complement and not, as it did this morning, to cost the city of North Bay some 205 jobs.

Can the Treasurer indicate whether he or his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) was given any notice of the announcement by Jarvis Clark this morning? Could he also indicate whether or not they have initiated an investigation to ensure the employment pattern in this company in the north, specifically in North Bay, will be guaranteed and protected?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question had a preamble that implied there was more unemployment in Ontario last month in actual terms than the month before. I am sure the member knows there were 8,000 more people employed last month than in the month before and 42,000 fewer unemployed. That is something he should keep in mind.

In terms of the specific question, I have been aware of the closing. I have not been aware of it in an official sense; I assume that went to my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade, and I am sure he can spell out any conditions attached to the employment development fund money that apply to the Burlington location.

Mr. Conway: Am I to understand the Treasurer of this province, who has the lead responsibility for job creation and protection, is not aware at this hour of the situation in North Bay? The local media are quoting, very understandably, the outrage of their local representative, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who apparently had no prior notice.

Can the Treasurer indicate whether the conditions of that grant in 1981 were lived up to? We were told at that time that 150 new jobs would be created and the North Bay plant would not be in jeopardy. I understand as well that the Minister of Industry and Trade toured the plant some months ago. Can the Treasurer undertake to find out whether the Minister of Industry and Trade was given any knowledge during that tour that this company, which was in receipt of $800,000 worth of grant funds from the people of Ontario, was not planning to expand by 150 jobs but to shut down 205 jobs in North Bay?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member implies that every company that invested money in expansion in Ontario or anywhere else in the world in the last few years somehow knew there was going to be a dramatic recession such as we had last year.

He should bear in mind it is some time since I have seen the details of this case. However, as I recall, the very first question asked by the Employment Development Board at the time of the application was whether the expansion could take place in North Bay. The answer to that was not only no, but that the real competition was not even Canada.

It is my belief, although this will have to be confirmed by the Minister of Industry and Trade, who handles the flow of cash, that there are terms and conditions in the grant that would require the repayment of that money.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer recall that about a year or so ago when the Sudbury people were trying to put together a mining machinery complex there with Inco, Falconbridge and Jack Clark from the original Jack Clark firm, there was resistance from both the federal member for Nipissing, Jean-Jacques Blais, and from the provincial member for Nipissing? They said if public money went into the Sudbury operation, it would compete against the North Bay operation. They did not want to see a mining machinery complex in Sudbury taking jobs away from North Bay.

Now that this argument has proved to be as silly as we thought at the time, would the Treasurer assure us that if he is unable to convince Jarvis Clark to stay in North Bay, he will continue with the commitment his government originally made to put provincial money into a mining machinery complex in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that Mr. Clark, who was the original founder of the company, was not the operator of the company at the time of the expansion. I believe he went to the United States and created a factory there. He either sold that factory or had plans to move it back to the Sudbury area about the time the member was talking about.

I recall the legitimate concern expressed by members at the time. They said, "Would you bring back a company duplicating the lines of another company in the north?" We wanted to be sure that was not happening, that it was an extra replacement of imports as the member has said so often. We wanted to be sure the two companies that would always compete on some items would not be mirror images of each other.

There has been some discussion on the Sudbury location of late. I do not know what stage that is at, but it is certainly not a dead issue.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I just want to be clear. Will the Treasurer give this House an assurance that those jobs will not be lost to the city of North Bay? Will he assure us the commitment entered into some two years ago for this expansion to take place will not be at the expense of the north generally and North Bay in particular? Moreover, will the Treasurer give an undertaking to this House to scrutinize the conditions of that $800,000 grant very carefully, to ensure that if in any way it has been violated, that company will be held to account so that they do not receive public funds and then fail to live up to their end of the bargain?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On the first part, I would dearly love to guarantee the job of every person in the province. My colleague who is asking the question knows I cannot. On the second part, we will look at the agreement, of course. I believe the member will be quite satisfied to find that most agreements we have entered into have clauses that require performance before the funds are guaranteed.

Mr. Conway: I have a new question, for the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), who is in the precincts but not in his place. While he takes his place --

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet five times in the last five minutes to ask a supplementary on a question that deals with a company in my riding. I probably have more information to shed on it than any other member of the House at this stage. I think I am entitled to a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Having heard you say that, I will listen to your supplementary.

Mr. Martel: He was on his feet.

Mr. Speaker: I did not see him; I am sorry.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary to both questions to the Treasurer in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry and Trade is not here at this time, although I understand he is coming. He may have a few more answers for me at that time.

The federal government through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion programs, and the provincial government through the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, are encouraging secondary industry and manufacturing in northern Ontario and have encouraged it with this company. In view of this and the short notice this company has given to both governments and to the citizens of North Bay about its intentions to move this operation to Burlington, I have called for the minister to do a couple of things which I would ask the Treasurer to support.

We should not worry about the agreements that are there. I have a legal opinion that if the company goes ahead it must repay to the province every nickel it has received from the province -- although the same cannot be said for some of the federal money. But I do not think that is the issue.

However, we have not been given enough time. I have called on the Minister of Industry and Trade to take the initiative in a co-operative way. In view of the interest of both the federal and provincial governments, they should convene a meeting right now with this company. They have not given us enough notice, or the time we are entitled to, for the amount of support we have given this company in the past.

I am calling on the Treasurer to support our Minister of Industry and Trade in taking the lead to convene this meeting with the company and Mr. Lumley, the DREE minister, who is his federal counterpart. We should have the company sit down for a talk with the federal member and myself. As I understand it they will have to repay all the money to the province if they leave. In view of this I think we should be able to sit down with the company to ascertain their long-range plans and perhaps convince them that they would like to stay in North Bay.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to support the member and the Minister of Industry and Trade in doing that and to emphasize to that company its responsibility to the employees of North Bay.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Solicitor General. Might I inquire as to the status of the police investigation into the situation at the Hospital for Sick Children?

I am keeping in mind that it was on May 25, 1982, that his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) said, and I quote: "I do appreciate that the public would probably be dissatisfied with an investigation that dragged on for a large number of months. An investigation that dragged on endlessly probably would not be consistent with maintaining public confidence in law enforcement in this province." I believe the chief of police is also quoted as saying it was important to be expeditious in this sensitive matter.

Can the Solicitor General give this House some indication today as to the status of that police inquiry? Can he say when the Legislature and the community at large can expect to have it in their possession?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on ongoing police investigations, it is always difficult for the Solicitor General to comment on the status of each individual situation as it goes along. The learned member knows it is difficult for me to provide him with answers of that nature. He knows the difficulties of the situation and that there are ongoing investigations that may be disrupted by such answers in this Legislature.

Criminal charges may or may not be laid as a result of the investigations. There are all the other reasons of security, protection of individuals and protection of the evidence. There are many reasons one cannot give the precise status of an ongoing investigation and I cannot give that to the learned member at this time.

I guess the honourable member will not be content, but he will have to settle for the answer that it is ongoing. When the investigation is complete, and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges, that will be done at that time.

Mr. Conway: It is interesting to hear from the Solicitor General about his difficulty in dealing with the time lines. His colleague the Attorney General apparently had no difficulty nine months ago indicating, and I think very properly, the urgency of this inquiry. He suggested, properly, that if it were not proceeded with expeditiously and if the report were not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time there would be some decrease in public confidence.

In view of the Attorney General's wise counsel in May 1982, in view of his sensible suggestion that time lines were important, how is it the Solicitor General eight and a half months later cannot enlighten this House more particularly as to the conclusion of this important and sensitive report?

Is it going to be next month, next quarter, next Christmas, next year? Surely the Solicitor General has this obligation. He must have sufficient information to tighten the time lines and today indicate more precisely to this House when that report is going to be in the public domain.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: If the member is not being facetious in his comments, I will say it will not be next year and it will not be next Christmas.

Coming back to the guidelines I am sure he wants as an answer, this is an important issue to the individuals who, as a result of the investigations, may or may not face criminal charges. It is an important issue for the individuals who have been so wrapped up in this matter in regard to the hospital, the parents and next of kin of the individuals. One must have regard to their feelings and their emotions. Naturally it is not going to be taken lightly.

I do not think the member even desires a precise date. He might be asking for that but I cannot give him a precise date at this time. It is ongoing. It is being investigated thoroughly. When the investigation is complete there will naturally be consultation with the Attorney General about its results and about what will take place as a result of its findings.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, it is now about 10 days since the Solicitor General received from his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) the report of Mr. Justice Dubin and his colleagues with respect to the Hospital for Sick Children.

Since he has now considered that report, will he please advise the House whether it has been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police? Has this been done with a view to an investigation as to whether there is criminal liability of any kind involved for those who are responsible for the supervision and direction of that hospital?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question as to whether it will flow that way, no. But I can inform him the Ontario Provincial Police do have a copy of that document; the Ministry of the Solicitor General has a copy of that document; the coroner's people who are involved have a copy of that document and will be reviewing it to see if any further recommendations or any further actions will flow out of its contents.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I want the Solicitor General to be under no wrong impression about my feelings as to the first order of importance of getting a definite date out of the government for the tabling of that report. It is important to me and to hundreds and thousands of other people in this province. The minister should not be under any wrong impression about my desire for a specific deadline. I, like the Attorney General, want to see it brought forward as soon as possible.

Would the Solicitor General clear a bit of the air on something that appears to be a contradiction between the Hospital for Sick Children and the Attorney General? The hospital not many weeks ago produced an internal investigation that suggested there were possibly valid medical reasons for the deaths of those children. But comments attributed to the Attorney General indicated he did not imagine the police investigation would be going on if there were not a reasonable likelihood of some sort of wrongdoing. Can he clear the air on that contradiction?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: If the honourable member desires a clearing of the air around the comments of the Attorney General, I suggest he direct his questions to the Attorney General.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Mr. Conway: He has already said I could.

Mr. Speaker: No, the minister is the only one who can redirect.

Mr. Conway: Yes, but he did.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not. New question.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have on many occasions indicated my personal amazement and incredulity about that idiotic rule, but it is in our rules. I cannot believe that a reasonable person would not interpret what the Solicitor General did in that last answer as a redirection to his colleague the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: He specifically said, as I recall, that if you wanted an answer to that question you should better ask it of the Attorney General. He did not redirect.

New question: the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. Foulds: Nice try, Sean.

Mr. Martel: You wanted four for the price of three.

Mr. Ruston: Thirty for 22.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps you could name the principal offender.

FACILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister is aware of my interest in his tri-ministry project, which was announced in March 1980. The announcement read, just to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker:

"Beginning with children and young adults" -- and these are young children and adults who are mentally retarded living in homes for special care and nursing homes -- "government teams will assess each resident's needs, taking into account these individual assessments. Mentally retarded residents then will be given the opportunity to participate in specialized developmental training to the extent that each can benefit. These diverse programs will include such areas as formal education, social and recreational activities."

Is the minister aware of Yves Soumelidis, age 21, who had a developmental handicap and was living in the Ark Eden Nursing Home? He died on March 4, 1982, in circumstances that quite frankly are appalling. They were described by the Minister of Health in these words on page S-805 of Hansard on January 26: "Let me finally make it very clear that I've been appalled by the circumstances in this case. The situation is totally intolerable." Again Mr. Grossman says, "it is obviously an intolerable situation."

Is the minister aware that the late Mr. Soumelidis was a client of the tri-ministry project and that he had had an individual assessment and an individual care plan developed by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am; and before the honourable member asks a supplementary, the remarks he made in my colleague's estimates are dead wrong. The plan was filed on site and is being implemented, and I would appreciate it if he would apologize to the ministry.

Mr. McClellan: I was citing the evidence of the inquest in the estimates -- the evidence of the attending doctor and of the director of nursing of Ark Eden Nursing Home. That was their evidence at the inquest, and I made that clear.

I have a report from the project co-ordinator of the tri-ministry project dated January 27, 1982, just prior to the final illness of Mr. Soumelidis precipitated by hypothermia. The report said all 42 clients of the Ark Eden Nursing Home had been assessed and that a service plan was being developed for all of them. Is the minister aware that at the time this report was written, the evidence of the inquest is that the temperature in the nursing home was between 65 and 70 degrees?

Yves, of course, suffered from hypothermia. The residents were being awakened at 6 a.m. and fast fed in order to save money, despite the fact that many of them had medical conditions that led to a hazard of aspiration. Yves died of aspiration pneumonia. Eighteen adult-sized residents were being kept in infant-sized cribs, and on January 1982 there were at least 10 fire-safety violations.

In short, can the minister explain how his ministry did an individual assessment of each of those 42 residents and an individual treatment plan for each of them at a time when they were living in appalling violations of the Nursing Homes Act and the Child Welfare Act? How did the minister manage to miss all those violations at the same time as his staff was doing an individual assessment and individual treatment plan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, as the honourable member knows, the role of this ministry is to provide an individual assessment for program purposes. The conditions of the premises where the people are is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

The member tried to give the impression we were doing a treatment assessment. We were not doing a physical treatment assessment; it was a program assessment. The responsibility for the overall condition of the premises rests with the Ministry of Health. In the remarks the member made earlier, he is only reporting what he heard at the inquest.

It is common knowledge from the inquest, if the member was there, that those plans and the implementation of them were on file in the service co-ordinator's office on the very day the member made his allegations during the estimates of the Minister of Health. They are there today and the member is welcome to go and see them. The member maintains they only existed in a drawer in the ministry and were not on site.

In fairness, the doctor would not be terribly interested in a program plan. He has other interests. However, at least one of the allegations the member has made, the question of the size of the beds, was drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Health by my ministry. If the member wants a full report on the physical conditions at the Ark Eden Nursing Home I suggest it should come from the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). I understand the Minister of Health will have a complete report available this week on that.

I am not particularly favourably disposed towards the continuation of the joint program -- I exclude the Ministry of Education, which really only provides some technical expertise. I am not particularly favourably inclined towards a continuation of the tri- or bi- or joint ministry approach towards the people in homes for special care. In a few weeks I will have something to say about that.

If the member wants to come back to where the complaints go, they go to the inspection services branch of the Ministry of Health, because it is they who license the nursing home; they have the remedial measures. In the case of the beds, we drew it to the attention of the Ministry of Health for some action, and one of the cases that was drawn to the attention of the ministry was of the individual who died.

2:30 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, all the good intentions of the Ministry of Community and Social Services with respect to the tri-ministry project will not bring Mr. Soumelidis back. Nevertheless, if the minister has been in touch with officials who assisted at the coroner's inquest, he knows Mr. Soumelidis is one of two children who suffered institutionalization because of his retarded condition, and Mr. Soumelidis's father had no problems with this nursing home until there was a change of ownership. I am sure if the minister has had a chance to speak with Mr. Soumelidis Sr. he will know it was the change of ownership that was the beginning of the problems that ultimately resulted in the hypothermia reaction of Mr. Soumelidis.

What moral suasion or pressure can the Minister of Community and Social Services bring to bear on the Ministry of Health so the new regulations already promised by the Minister of Health with respect to homes for special care will be brought in so that we do not see another Jimmy Black or another Yves Soumelidis?

Mr. Speaker: Just before the minister answers that question, I ask the co-operation of all honourable members in limiting their private conversations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding, I draw to the attention of the honourable member that Mr. Black was not a client of this ministry. He was entirely, at all relevant times, a client of the Ministry of Health who happened to be developmentally handicapped. I have already consulted with my colleague the Minister of Health. I am in full support, which I think is an understatement, of some of the remedies he is proposing. I understand he has talked about those in general. I am in more than full support of them.

I draw to the member's attention that on my own behalf, for my clients, who are approximately 35 to 40 per cent of the population in homes for special care, I have some new approaches I would like to take to their domicile, quite independently of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. McClellan: I have to confess I still cannot comprehend -- I mean this quite sincerely -- how it was possible for officials of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to do an individual assessment of each of the 42 residents in that nursing home and ignore the fact that the temperature was below normal and adult-size residents were being kept in infant-size cribs. That is a fairly obvious thing to notice. I fail to understand why that was not reported and why it was not pursued under the conditions of the Child Welfare Act, if satisfaction was not obtained from the Minister of Health.

Is the minister not aware that Mr. Soumelidis first appealed to his ministry in July 1981? Mr. Soumelidis wrote to Les Horne in the child advocacy unit, which I believe was attached to the minister's own office, and appealed to Mr. Horne to look into the situation and to redress his grievances as a parent but no action was taken.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the size of the beds, I point out to the honourable member -- and this is the third time I have had to say it to him -- we drew that to the attention of the people in charge, the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Foulds: And you let it continue.

Mr. Cassidy: So the government is to blame, not just you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In terms of the temperature, in fairness there is no evidence by our people about ever being in there when the temperature was at that level.

In terms of any appeals by Mr. Soumelidis Sr., those were looked into. Indeed, if there were complaints that were normally under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, they were directed to the Ministry of Health; up until that time, that was the normal procedure. I ask the member not to do the Pontius Pilate routine on me. He sat in those estimates and he still has not admitted he was wrong.

Mr. McClellan: That is because I was not wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He made wild allegations in a press release which he now knows were not true.

Mr. McClellan: I don't believe you, sir.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: At all, Frank.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say to my friend, I suppose the only alternative is to take the appropriate legal action.

JOB CREATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, you will be relieved to know I am not going to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

An hon. member: You're afraid to.

Mr. Martel: You're right. He is going to eat us up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Oh, my God. It is for the good of the House, believe me. I will ask a question of the Treasurer.

We are all aware that the welfare figures for Metro Toronto came out recently and showed a 13,000 increase in recipients over the last year. Is the Treasurer aware that in Windsor they have finally broken the 5,000 figure; that in Sault Ste. Marie the year-over-year, January-to-January figures show a 44 per cent increase; that in London there is a 40 per cent increase; that in Hamilton there is a 34 per cent increase; that in Thunder Bay there was a nine-point increase just month over month, from December to January; and that in the Niagara region there was a 49 per cent increase in the number of recipients on welfare?

As the minister knows most of these new people are employable, will he tell us today what he is doing to help those people get work and to help those municipalities pay the bills which are affecting them so severely?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe that while most municipalities are feeling the strain, as are all governments today with the increased costs of helping people who are unemployed, most have so far paid their share royally. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is how to get those people jobs. On that side, I go back to the growing speed with which the new employment expansion and development program and the Canada-Ontario employment development program are starting to approve the projects of municipalities and are starting to produce the 30,000 promised jobs.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If the Treasurer looks at this compilation of the figures, which I would like to send him, he will notice that in the course of just a month or so in some of the municipalities there has been an increase of about 500 people on the rolls. That is more than has been created so far by his make-work programs.

Does the Treasurer not realize this is an issue that affects not only large urban areas but also many smaller communities, such as the town of Prescott which has had an increase of 31 per cent in the last month, and his own district of Muskoka where the increase has been 38 per cent year over year? Not only that, but the costs to his municipality have gone up 108 per cent in the last year.

What do we have to do to make this a matter of urgency to him so he can understand the human tragedy that is going on across this province and act more quickly than he has in the past?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am glad the honourable member mentioned my riding. I sense the people in my riding have been more familiar with this type of cycle than many. I am also pleased to see that at least one town in my riding has already had an approval providing 112 work weeks and eight jobs right away.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the Treasurer's first answer he said the issue was how to get these people jobs. He knows one of the ways we are trying to get people re-employed is through training programs. That is the nature of my supplementary.

Could he have a chat with his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, whose ministry has ruled that municipalities cannot top off the difference between the allowances received by workers who are being retrained and the amount those workers could receive in unemployment insurance or, in the case of this issue, in welfare?

Could the minister have a chat with his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and suggest to him that the failure of his provincial government to offer support for those workers who are trying to be retrained is discouraging them from getting the training they need to get back into the job market?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and I have a lot more than chats and I am quite sure, if he has a point to make or if I have a point to make, we have ways of doing it.

Of the 50 million that Ontario brought out for the three-month period, as I recall, $5 million was specifically for section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) was involved in that. It was aimed at exactly what the member is saying; that is, helping people to retrain.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be aware that my region of Durham has the dubious distinction of having a 10 per cent increase over last month and a 27 per cent increase in general welfare assistance recipients over January 1982. He may also know we have a 16.5 per cent unemployment rate.

What is the minister's response to the request of the region of Durham to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for some short-term assistance to meet the pressure that is being put on that region by the 50 or more applicants who are walking into its social services department every day?

What do the people at the counters say? Do they offer the minister's political answer, that there is some NEED program or whatever? What do the people on those councils say to their constituents and to the applicants who are in desperate need of some assistance right now? What is their response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member represents the only city in Ontario that had a decrease in unemployment over last year. I hope he understands that. It is the only such city largely because General Motors is retooling and rehiring people. In a bad year, that is a pretty good move. I hope the member will understand that --

Mr. Breaugh: No. I do not understand that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is fine. The member does not understand that his city did better than any other city in Ontario?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: There are some things I do understand, and one is that the use of statistics often leads to falsifications. There are lots of things I understand, but I cannot understand how a 16.5 per cent unemployment rate could be taken in any consideration to be good.

CORNWALL CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question previously asked by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on January 31, regarding the Lancaster detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Lancaster detachment of the OPP received a call on October 30, 1982, from the foster father of a 15-year-old girl, and he advised the police that the girl had told him she had been raped two weeks earlier.

Two officers were at the girl's foster home within minutes of the call being received. The girl told the police officers she had been raped 11 days earlier in a shed during a party at her natural mother's residence and she was pregnant as a result. Members of her family and others who attended the party were also interviewed by the police.

At the conclusion of the investigation it was clear to the investigating officer and to one of his superiors with whom he consulted that there was no proper basis on which to lay a charge of rape. There was not even sufficient evidence to justify seeking the advice of the local crown attorney.

In a column last month in the Toronto Star, Michele Landsberg stated flatly that the girl had been raped and suggested the police had not acted properly in failing to cause a charge of rape to be laid. As a result of that column and questions in this Legislature, I asked for a review of the police investigation, and I am now prepared to report on the result of that review to the extent that it is possible for me to comment publicly.

I think anyone commenting on a matter such as this must exercise great care to ensure that the interests of the girl and her family are properly protected. Accordingly, I do not intend to comment in detail on the precise reasons the police arrived at the conclusion that no charges were appropriate, except to say their investigation revealed some evidence that was completely inconsistent with the original complaint.

Detective Sergeant Latham, a senior and very experienced investigator, has reviewed the original investigation. He has consulted with the local crown attorney. They are both satisfied that the original investigation resulted in the appropriate conclusion. The Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. McLeod, and Deputy Commissioner Ferguson have reviewed the conduct of the investigation and are satisfied that it was conducted properly and arrived at the correct result.

The member for Prescott-Russell, quoting from Ms. Landsberg's column, asked in the Legislature during my absence whether a constable who spoke to Ms. Landsberg would be removed from the case if the quotes attributed to him were correct.

The question of whether the constable referred to in Ms. Landsberg's column was accurately quoted is being reviewed by senior OPP personnel. At present, I can only state that the quotations attributed to him do not reflect the attitude and practice of the OPP and other police forces in this province.

Having said that, however, he was not the investigating officer in this case. Rather, he was one of the officers on duty in the detachment when Ms. Landsberg called. The investigating officer was Constable McDonell, who was the closest to the girl's foster home at the time the police were first notified, and he was the most experienced officer on duty at the time.

Ms. Landsberg also reported that the doctor who examined the girl was "convinced" she was raped. The doctor has been interviewed by Detective Sergeant Latham and has stated that he said no such thing to Ms. Landsberg or anyone else.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure this House that the remarks attributed to the police officer, plus the confidential information regarding the past sexual behaviour of that teenager which somehow escaped from the Cornwall Children's Aid Society -- I did not say anybody spread it about -- will not in any way influence the recommendations or decisions made in the OPP investigation of that case? Can he assure us that will not happen?

Two very serious things have happened here that could potentially affect the case: the comments of one of the officers and the leak of very confidential and damaging information to that young lady.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I am not aware of the exact information that, to use the honourable member's word, escaped from the children's aid society. However, since there are no further proceedings being contemplated in this matter which the OPP will be acting upon, other than that which is internal as to the conduct of the officer and which is being investigated by personnel, as I just mentioned in my statement, I cannot foresee the member's problem at this time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary that comes out of the minister's answer to the previous question. I want to be very clear as to what the minister is saying here today, because we obviously do not have copies of the minister's answer.

Was the minister saying the young girl knew she was pregnant before she reported the rape? That is what I inferred from what he said. I would very much like to have that cleared up.

Also, will the minister tell us which doctor examined her? He knows there was more than one doctor. Will he give us the name of the doctor who examined her? That also might be confusing the situation.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not have it in my material at this time, but I can provide the name of the doctor. I will get the name of the doctor referred to in my statement and provide that information to the honourable member.

I cannot comment on the other question he asked, as to the statements made. I do not know whether the member wants to draw an inference from what I have said, but I said there was insufficient evidence turned up by the officers which precluded them from proceeding further or laying any criminal charges.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour concerning a matter that probably has gained national importance, because it is a problem across the country and not just in our province. It concerns job listing agencies.

Luisa D'Amato and Larry Welsh, who are an investigative reporting team from the St. Catharines Standard, visited one of these job agencies, in particular Jobmart, and contacted 74 out of 119 employers who were listed in a list purchased last Thursday. Seventy per cent of those employers said their openings were listed with Canada Manpower or in a local newspaper; only 28 per cent agreed they were listed exclusively with Jobmart; one per cent said there was no opening at all; 35 per cent of the 81 openings listed were actually filled before the list was purchased by the investigators; and 23 per cent of the employers did not even know their positions were listed with Jobmart.

2:50 p.m.

In view of these facts and in view of the situation where these agencies appear to be preying on those who are desperate for jobs in these difficult economic times and giving the impression that if people pay the $50 or whatever sum is asked for they are somehow guaranteed a job, will the minister do as I asked in December, along with the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), and undertake, in conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), a very thorough investigation of these job listing agencies, using what we call ghost clients, if necessary, to ensure they are fulfilling the obligations they have stated in their ads in the newspaper and to the people who come and pay their money to them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try to respond to the honourable member, although I do believe the question more appropriately should be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

At present, the Ministry of Labour registers only those agencies that undertake to locate employment for a client. Job listing agencies such as the member has just described come under the Business Practices Act; therefore, if there is an investigation, I believe it should be done by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In that respect, I wish to advise that the minister just before or after Christmas -- a few weeks ago, in any event -- did send out a bulletin to consumers cautioning them about this type of service and urging them to contact the ministry if they felt there was any misrepresentation so his ministry could investigate the matter.

Mr. Bradley: Looking at it from the point of view of the Minister of Labour, is the minister prepared to comment in this House this afternoon on the morality of taking advantage of very difficult economic times and very high unemployment to set up a business whereby you charge people $50, $75 or even $80 to look at a list of jobs available?

While I recognize that apparently they are not doing anything outside the law, I think an investigation would prove they are not living up to their advertising. But will the minister comment on the morality of doing that to desperate people in these difficult economic times?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have no hesitation in commenting if what the member tells me is correct; and I am not implying for a moment that it is not correct. If such is going on, then I think it is a very questionable practice.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the statement by Doern, Prince and McNaughton for the Royal Commission on Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos, regarding unorganized workers where they quote:

"However, all agree the job of inspector in a small unorganized establishment is made particularly difficult by the tenuous position of the employee. It is almost trite to point out that the internal responsibility system cannot operate effectively where a worker thinks or fears that he jeopardizes his job every time he lodges a complaint. Prohibition of reprisals notwithstanding, an employer can almost always find some excuse to dismiss an obstreperous employee."

Can the minister give us an assurance that he will take every action possible to protect those workers who are most vulnerable in the unorganized plants in the province? And can he assure us that he will take swift action against any employer who is involved in reprisals against employees who are attempting to protect their health?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raised this matter during estimates, and I answered at some length at that time. Obviously his supplementary question is going to give me the name of the employer; so perhaps I will just wait and get that information from him.

Mr. Martel: All right: it is Wilco. My friend the minister is aware that I have raised Wilco regarding lead poisoning in London on a number of occasions.

Is the minister aware of the following facts?

Mr. Mohsir Najjar, a five-year worker in the shipping department at Wilco, was told in January that he would have to do his own job plus drive a forklift in the tube mill. When Mohsir offered medical evidence that his respiratory problems precluded his being exposed to lead, he was laid off the same day.

In the case of Brad Tunks, a young tube mill assistant, he was literally poisoned from overexposure to lead at Wilco, and suffered nerve damage. He was told in July 1982 that his compensation benefits were terminated because his blood lead test showed a reduced level and he could return to work. He did so and was immediately laid off.

In the case of Dan Wood, who had his blood level checked in September 1982, Wilco management would not tell him what his level was. However, he was moved from the tube mill and two weeks later was laid off.

Is the minister aware that a lawyer, Mr. Dan Bangarth, was retained by four of the young men affected, all of whom are between the ages of 18 and 23, and arranged for all of them to be on compensation, and that the second they were fit to resume work all four of them were laid off?

Finally, is the minister aware that Wilco still has not implemented the ventilation program, as it was supposed to do after the minister had shut it down because it failed to do a lead assessment?

Can the minister tell me when he is going to move against this company which, in my opinion, has criminally affected the lives and the health of so many workers in that particular plant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am aware of the circumstances the member has described. The files in respect to the circumstances he has raised in the House today are in our legal branch at present.

CLOSING OF DYLEX PLANT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. It deals with the weaknesses in the Employment Standards Act, especially as typified by the so-called rationalization of the work force at Dylex.

The minister will recall from estimates and other questions that on November 30, Dylex Ltd. closed its Lakeshore Boulevard operation. Two months before that, 42 employees received notice of termination and another 103 were offered alternative employment at the company's Weston Road plant. The minister also knows that among the 42 who were terminated were some employees with the greatest seniority.

The minister will further know that all the workers transferred to the Weston Road plant were placed at the bottom of the seniority list, even though many of them had worked for the company longer than the Weston Road workers.

Finally, he will know that as soon as the workers settled into the new plant, many of them were laid off. In fact, the layoff process with regard to the existing Weston Road workers had begun prior to the December I rationalization.

I am aware the matter has been under investigation by the ministry, but it has now been some two and a half months since the Lakeshore Boulevard plant closed. Will the minister tell us the precise status of the investigation and when he intends to report to the aggrieved workers on this situation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the matter that has been brought forward by the honourable member. Everything he has indicated is known to us. In fact, the member brought a number of those workers to the estimates debate --

Mr. Wrye: They came by themselves.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Whether he brought them or whether they came themselves is really immaterial to the point I was going to make.

I was very much impressed by the manner in which these people conducted themselves. They had every cause to be outraged and bitter and to lash out at the system and the government. They did not do so. They sat through a couple of nights of very dull, lengthy statements by this minister and the members opposite, and they never raised a fuss of any kind. I feel a particular affinity with these workers.

As the member said, the matter is being investigated by the employment standards section. I should have a complete report on it in the very near future.

3 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: I hope the minister will report to the House when he does have that report. If there are no changes coming out of this, then I think it is fair to say that some of those workers will become angry, bitter and frustrated.

In the light of the serious flaws or shortcoming in the Employment Standards Act which the Dylex situation has exposed, will the minister undertake to consider introducing amendments to that act in the spring session? Will he consider such amendments as reducing the requirement that 50 employees be terminated as a condition for qualification for severance pay, an amendment to provide a more precise definition to the term "reasonable alternative employment," keeping in mind what has happened at the Weston Road plant, and finally an amendment to enshrine the protection of the important, hard-won seniority rights in the so-called transfer of employment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Just for the record, I understand 103 employees were offered alternative employment and a total of 23 refused the offer. A further eight are having their cases investigated by the employment standards branch at this very time.

In direct response to the honourable member, I would also advise that there is a task force within our ministry that is studying various aspects of the Employment Standards Act and this is one of the things they are looking at.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- not that I want to interrupt his conversation.

I imagine the minister is aware that the Ministry of Revenue has completed its project and kept it secret for a while on the movement to market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. I imagine he is also aware that in this morning's Globe and Mail the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) was quoted as saying he was prepared to propose it be implemented even if the city of Toronto did not want it.

I am interested in the position of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on imposing a market value assessment scheme on the city of Toronto that without question would amount to the financial rape of the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when cabinet has made a decision in relationship to the request from Metropolitan Toronto, that will be announced publicly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: "Let them eat Bill 127," he said.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not know why everybody over there hates the city of Toronto.

Is the minister prepared to assist the rest of us in taking a look at this secret document by having it tabled in the House? Will he please address himself to the question which was put: whether he thinks it is fair and reasonable for any municipality in a region, like Metro or Durham, to have imposed upon it something which it sees as being evil even though the other members of that particular municipality might like that evil?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I repeat, when cabinet has made a decision in relationship to the request by Metropolitan Toronto, I am sure the minister --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Give Yuri a copy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have certainly got the parrots squawking this afternoon, haven't I? I really have. We will get them a biscuit in a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At the moment, as members know, there is no legislation that allows for a Metro-wide section 63 reassessment position. If that should be entertained by cabinet, obviously there will be discussions relating to what number of municipalities will have to participate or wish to have it brought about in their particular area.

As far as the report in relation to Metropolitan Toronto is concerned, if the member wishes to ask the Minister of Revenue tomorrow, he can be my guest.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 14, An Act to revise the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening at 10:30, I was taking part in the debate on the concurrences of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I said at that time I regretted the minister was not present, because the matter I wanted to deal with pertained to a very personal action he had taken as minister and I wanted to discuss it with him.

I completed about two thirds of my comments, and I do not intend to go back over all of that. Perhaps the minister will have taken time to read something of Hansard from last evening so he will be aware of the comments I made about his action in approving the inclusion of 65 acres of the unique lands of Niagara within the urban development boundaries of Niagara region without holding any hearing, even though the Ontario Municipal Board had set those boundaries after some three years of hearings and deliberation, even though it had said those boundaries should be considered permanent and even though the minister set a precedent in Ontario by calling the action of an organization like the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society frivolous in asking that this matter be referred to the OMB for a hearing.

I pointed out last evening that this same parcel of land had been turned down by the OMB a number of years ago, that the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake had asked that it be deferred from the massive hearings that took place on the urban boundaries with the clear implication that if they wished to proceed with it at some time, it would go to the board.

But the minister decided for his own reasons, about which one can make many conjectures but can offer no explanation, that he would not even have the OMB deal with this. It is of some significance that the costs of the hearings on the urban development boundaries in Niagara of the lands that were in dispute were so serious it cost something like $400 an acre, yet he now can put in 65 acres of land without ever letting it go to the OMB.

The minister gave a number of reasons why he was classing the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society's action as frivolous, none of which would stand up under examination. He put himself in the place of the municipal board in making the decision.

One of the reasons he gave was that the land was not very valuable; it was not very good agricultural land. Any objective analysis would prove it was good agricultural land, unique agricultural land. In fact, PALS hired Mr. J. E. Gillespie, BSA, MSA, a soil research scientist with extensive experience in soil surveys of several counties in Ontario who was commended by the Ontario Municipal Board as an excellent and knowledgeable witness, was under contract with the federal Department of Agriculture to provide soil reports on soils in northern Ontario and was formerly with the University of Guelph.

3:10 p.m.

He made this report for the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society:

"This area is mapped as Haldimand clay loam on the soil map for Lincoln county and rated as class 2W land for agriculture. At a more detailed level of mapping, 20 to 30 per cent could be delineated as moderately poorly drained. These areas can be detected on the aerial photographs as small dark patches, profile description 192, as characteristically resembling a moderately poorly drained soil. The soil profile has developed in lacustrine materials overlying clay texture tillage and has a class 2 capability for agriculture.

"The Iroquois Beach lies directly to the north, providing excellent air drainage, and the drainage channelled to the west offers a good outlet for surface or tile drainage. These soils are suitable for the production of grapes, pears, plums, cherries or general farm crops. The areas surrounded by class I soils are represented by profile description 193."

There is an expert on soils who said this is unique and very important agricultural land. In fact, in the Niagara Peninsula it is probably as important as any agricultural land in Canada and, of course, in northern Ontario. One has to conclude that the minister did not want that kind of evidence to come out at the hearing. That kind of evidence would indicate that the Ontario Municipal Board, after the decision it had made previously, would have turned it down at the OMB hearing. The minister wanted to bypass that.

The minister said the request of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society was frivolous. Of course, he did not mean that. He was trying to find some way he could get around sending this to the OMB, so he had to use the term "frivolous." The Oxford dictionary which is supplied to us here at Queen's Park says it means, "paltry, trumpery, trifling, futile, not serious, silly." He is applying these to PALS, which was commended by the Ontario Municipal Board for taking the lead in the fight to preserve the fruit lands in Niagara. Those are the terms he applies to the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society.

I would like to read the decision of the OMB from the 160-page document in which it determined the boundaries of the Niagara region. I will read from page 160:

"At the close of his argument Mr. Devine submitted to the board that costs in a nominal amount of $2,000" -- Mr. Devine was there for the developers -- "be levied against PALS, Dr. Kruger and Mel Swart. Although this submission was supported to some extent by some of the other solicitors appearing before the board in the final stage of this hearing, the suggested levy is not justified in our opinion.

"There seemed to be some feeling that those three parties alone caused the length of this hearing and put the other parties to considerable expense in presenting their cases. It was pointed out early in this decision that PALS, Dr. Kruger and Mel Swart were responsible for 13 of the 59 referrals of land designations dealt with in this decision."

I should intervene to say we were responsible for only 13 of the 59, but those 13 were referred to substantial parcels of land and represented something more than half of the total amount of 5,000 acres that was in dispute.

"Their referral sought additional reduction, some justified and some not, in the urban areas described in the cabinet's decision in February 1977. There was an onus on them to show that the lands in the 13 referrals should be excluded from the urban areas. However, the remainder of 46 parcels resulted from 50 requests for referral from municipalities, 11 from owners and 39 from developers who were not satisfied with the cabinet's decision of February 1977 and wanted those urban areas increased by additional land, some justified and some not.

"In our opinion, in view of the Food Land Guidelines there was onus on those parties to satisfy the board that their land should be included in the urban area just as much as there was onus on PALS, Dr. Kruger and Mel Swart with respect to their referrals.

"In opposing these requests" -- and this is the important part -- "for addition to the urban areas, it appears to us that PALS was acting in good faith in attempting to carry out what it perceived to be a necessary role as a supporter of cabinet's decision in 1977 and protector of the public interest in respect of preservation of the tender fruit lands since there was no other volunteer to undertake the task.

"The hearing would have been short, of course, if the board had been given a one-sided presentation, but on the other hand, the presence of the opposition propelled the agricultural associations and some members of the public, resulting in a thorough testing of the evidence on both sides and more information than would have been available otherwise. There will be no order for costs."

In this document, we have two things. First, we have the statement by the board of the importance of what PALS did. Second, there is the need to hear both sides of an issue. Now we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) breaking those urban boundaries to include another 65 acres, and, in doing so, calling PALS's request to refer it to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing frivolous and putting that land within those boundaries without the other side being heard. What an injustice.

Is the minister trying to tell us that PALS was frivolous in defending the preservation of that prime agricultural land? If the group was not frivolous then, it is not frivolous now in opposing this matter. There is no precedent in Ontario history -- I challenge the minister to state any precedent -- of any minister not having referred an issue when there was a request by an organization like PALS or an individual who had a vested interest in it.

I wonder what the minister is going to do about the next 200 acres that Niagara-on-the-Lake wants in the urban boundaries. What is the minister going to do when that comes before him and a bylaw is passed? Is he going to include that? If he includes 65 acres, why can he not include another 200 acres without having a hearing? What a farce the boundaries have become, solely because of that minister.

When the minister gets up to reply to all of us who have been speaking on this, I want him to reply to this question: What was the need to include it? Nobody wants to buy that to develop it. There are another 250 acres of vacant land there. What was the need to go through the tremendous step of breaking urban boundaries that were set just two years ago, when there has been no growth in the area since?

There are, within 10 kilometres of this roughly 365-acre parcel of industrial land, 4,000 acres zoned as industrial that have never been developed. Why would he put it in? Why would he break his own law? He knows he broke his own law. He knows the request was not frivolous. He broke his own Planning Act by not referring that matter to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Why was it done without a hearing? I have already mentioned the precedent of the Niagara Peninsula, the most crucial area for the preservation of agricultural land in this whole nation.

Why would he have done it when there was a clear indication at the time of deferral that, if it was going to be proceeded with, it would go to the OMB?

I suggest this is the most flagrant use of political patronage. The person who owns the bulk of this property is a well-known Conservative who tried to get the Tory nomination down there a number of years ago. The minister is quite prepared to break the laws of this province to set a precedent that decimates planning in this province so he can satisfy his political friends in that area.

Mr. Laughren: That is a very serious charge.

Mr. Swart: It is a pretty serious charge, yes.

This is the minister of Cantrakon. How many in this House remember Cantrakon? This is the minister who broke the Niagara Escarpment laws to approve the building of this resort development on the escarpment for his friends.

3:20 p.m.

It had been opposed and turned down by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Even the appeals officer had turned it down. When it went to the minister, he approved it. Of course, we had people who noticed that and who raised it in the House. He was so embarrassed he had to back off.

There is Epping Common, something even more recent, where there was a proposal for a development on the slopes on the beautiful Beaver Valley. The minister funded a study contrary to his own regulations. His ministry funded the study in opposition to the plan for the Niagara Escarpment.

It was the public policy of the government -- we have it in writing -- that it would not fund any studies which would oppose the Niagara Escarpment plan. That was up to the independent groups, but he did that and the plan was presented. All kinds of changes were made in the plan. It was one of the most manipulative measures I have ever seen by any minister in this House, but he did it.

This is the minister of the Tory Goring farm, breaking boundaries, breaking a pact, making a shambles of the whole due planning process, and he does not even want any opposition to be heard. He does not even want to give an opportunity to those who might oppose this inclusion. It has already been done, but I say to this minister it may backfire, because even under present legislation there is a two-way street. If he can do that, organizations and individuals can also make application to have other parcels taken out of those urban development boundaries. That may be the next step in this, or the next step may be to take this matter to the Ombudsman, because the minister himself has flagrantly broken the laws of this province.

I say to him he should have been ashamed of Cantrakon and what he did there. He should have been ashamed of Epping Common and what he did there. Now he should be ashamed of this. He is a disgrace to the government and a disgrace as a minister of this province.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly in winding up the debate on concurrence for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I would ask the minister to give consideration to some program to assist in the development of the unused lots we have in Ontario, particularly in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. We have brought to his attention many times that we have something like 1,100 subdivision lots and lots that have been subdivided in the rural areas which are not being utilized.

I wonder if he would care to continue his program of financial assistance, such as the $5,000 loan. It was a successful program but it could be broadened to include not only the new homes but also first-time homes for people who are renting now. Nothing would stimulate the economy like people owning their own homes and being part of the community rather than having to live in apartments and that type of housing.

I might also like to bring to the attention of the minister that in our area we have 35 homes that belong to the government of Ontario at the old White Oaks facility, and I believe only one or two of those houses are being utilized. They are not new homes but they are good homes. I had a look at them this morning. They are serviced with water and sewers and they are not being utilized. At a time when many people cannot afford or do not have access to a home, it seems such a waste that these homes are sitting there idle and are deteriorating, as any home does when it is not being utilized. It would be useful.

Getting back to the $5,000 program, if there is another one instigated, at the beginning it did not apply in many rural areas; people could not utilize the $5,000 grant to build a farm home because it was not a separate lot. I think that was corrected towards the end of the program, but again many of them were not able to take advantage of it. The farming and agricultural community certainly need that sort of help, just like anyone else in the province, to improve their home and to have the same advantages as people who live in urban areas.

As we look into 1983 and try to get people working, will the minister give special attention to our small municipalities and small builders having access to the program, because they are still the heart of many rural municipalities. The individual builders and individual lumber yards have to be kept alive in order to make our economy and the overall system work.

With those views, perhaps I could close by drawing attention to another area where it would be useful to stimulate employment in the rural areas and that is the downtown development in small municipalities. I know there is a program to beautify the business areas, but many of the downtown areas are getting older and they need modernizing and redevelopment. A program with some leadership from this ministry would certainly be useful to many small communities in Ontario. I will close with those comments.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. My rebuke to the minister will be mild compared with the barn-burning one of my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). My concern is with legislation that is not strong enough. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) is in the environs because it has to do with the stripping of topsoil.

The regional municipality of Sudbury has, in many people's minds, precious little good agricultural land. However, we do have some good class 2 land. As the minister might know, in northern Ontario there are only classes 2, 3, 4 and 5. There is no class I land in all of northern Ontario because of the climatic factor, but we have in Sudbury some of the best class 2 land in northern Ontario.

Last summer, I witnessed what to me was a very sad sight. Some of the best land in the entire basin was stripped of topsoil to be used for a municipal park. I know in this coming year the Sudbury Science Centre, the science centre for northern Ontario, is going to use topsoil as well. I suspect some of it will be from the best farm land in the Sudbury basin.

Here we have a situation where publicly funded institutions are contributing to the stripping of the best farm land in the Sudbury area. When I went to the regional municipality of Sudbury they said, "Yes, we know it is a problem and we are going to pass a bylaw." They got to the second reading of the bylaw and the legal advice from within the region is that they should not pass the bylaw because it could be challenged in the courts and the region would not win. What a lot of nonsense we have here. We have a law that does not have enough teeth to stand up to an appeal.

The region has good intentions and says it wants to protect the topsoil, but it does not have legislation which allows it to do it. I wish the region would proceed with a bylaw with some teeth in it and let it be challenged so that we can then say to the minister, "The legislation is not strong enough."

I would be interested in knowing from the minister whether he really believes the existing legislation is strong enough, because if it is, I would be very pleased to hear it. We could then say to the regional municipality of Sudbury: "Go ahead with the bylaw. Let us stop this topsoil stripping." If the minister feels it is not strong enough, then he should consider making the appropriate amendments so that it is.

3:30 p.m.

I know it is permissive legislation, and I understand why the minister does not want to have all the control here in Queen's Park. The regional municipality should have control over the stripping of its topsoil. I happen to agree with that position. So I do not believe the minister and I think very differently on this matter. It is a question of whether or not the legislation will allow the municipality to enforce its own bylaws, and it would be ludicrous if that were not the case.

Within the region there are many people who have been saying for some time now that we need to be more self-sufficient in the production of food products, and I believe we could do that. We have people in the basin who are interested in doing something like that and are really pushing that whole concept. I believe there is enormous potential in the Sudbury area, more potential now than there has been for 100 years, probably, because the superstack has moved the acid into other areas. It bothers people with their camps in the Muskokas and the Lake Nipissing area, but that is what made it a provincial issue.

Mr. Samis: Timiskaming.

Mr. Laughren: And Timiskaming. As long as pollution was centred on Sudbury people said, "That is a local phenomenon attached to the mining of nickel." Now that it has started affecting all the cottages it has suddenly become acid rain, not pollution, and it became a province-wide, indeed an international, issue.

So we now have the potential to grow better crops in the Sudbury basin. I hope the emission levels will continue to drop, that the Ministry of the Environment will move on a new control order to get them down even further so we can bring back the agricultural land in the Sudbury basin, but if it is stripped, of course we cannot bring it back.

I think it is a very important issue, and my real question to the minister, which I hope he will address in a very serious way, is whether or not he believes the legislation is strong enough. If he does believe that I want to take his response to the region -- I should tell him right now -- and say, "This is the opinion of the minister." Let's have it one way or the other so we can get on with the job of preserving some of the best agricultural land in northern Ontario.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on two matters of interest. One is local and one is provincial.

On the local matter I want to raise the problems of family housing in my municipality. The vacancy rate hovers around one per cent, there is an unemployment rate of over 15 per cent and an income level that I think ranks 98th in Canada out of the top 100 cities. I give the minister credit for the fact they have made considerable progress in housing for senior citizens, but I think the priority in our municipality now is to provide rent-geared-to-income family housing.

The waiting list is growing longer. We have a situation where people who are laid off cannot afford private housing and are desperately in need of lower priced, rent-geared-to-income housing. We just do not have the facilities or the opportunities for those low-income families in the municipality of Cornwall.

I know the city council has made a specific proposal for a combined project -- family and senior citizen geared-to-income housing. I believe it has received approval at the lower levels. I believe the problem is that it is tied up with approval from the feds and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for financing. I am not sure where the ultimate responsibility lies or where the delay is. However I just want to impress upon the minister the need for that project to proceed because we desperately need low-income family housing in the municipality of Cornwall.

The second issue I want to raise -- I am not sure if my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) raised it or not -- relates to this ministry as well as to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It deals with the drivers in Ontario who are disabled and have applied for, paid for and received those special licence plates that clearly designate them as disabled.

The problem they are having, especially in the Metro Toronto region, is that beyond the plates they have to get special parking permits. I gather if somebody gets a special parking permit in Scarborough and goes out to Etobicoke or Mississauga he may get ticketed even though he has the parking permit plus his licence plate.

With the exception of one municipality -- I think it was in the paper today: Richmond Hill, if I am not mistaken -- virtually none of them are recognizing the jurisdiction or the validity of the others' parking permits, and it leads one to question the value of the licence plate itself.

I think the program introduced by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) was a good one, we supported it; but I think the municipalities are now grossly undermining, if not sabotaging, the whole thing by their rather petty, parochial, picayune position. Their jurisdiction is the only one they will recognize; they will recognize absolutely no one else's.

What is the minister doing to try to get the municipalities into line co-operatively so we can avoid all this petty parochialism? What is he doing to ensure a disabled driver in Ontario gets the recognition and the privileges he deserves under the program brought in by the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

I will leave it at those two points and look forward to the minister's reply.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, two or three members commented on my not attending here yesterday at the initial hearing of the concurrences of the ministry. I had the opportunity to be at the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada conference in Vancouver on Monday and Tuesday. Five other provincial ministers from across Canada and myself met with Mr. LeBlanc to discuss things relating to the housing requirements, not only of this province but of the 10 provinces of Canada. It is the only occasion we have had in any kind of collective forum to meet with Mr. LeBlanc and discuss this with him.

I make no apologies to this House for being in that area. If I have the message right, members on both sides of this Legislature have made it clear that as provincial ministers of housing we should take the opportunity to meet with the federal minister. We should be trying to find some solution to what is a problem, as the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) has just said, not only in his community but all across Ontario in the provision of housing.

While the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) commented on that, I want to draw to his attention that it was not very sunny in the city of Vancouver the last few days. It has been rather dismal, rainy and overcast. When he says I was on the sunny west coast, there was no sun while I was there and I was not enjoying any degree of warmth.

Looking at some of the issues that have been raised, I think we had a fairly long, drawn-out time in our estimates with an opportunity for members on all sides to inquire as to what our programs are and where we are heading. I will try to respond in a collective way to the comments that have been made because I think various members have gone back and forth over some of the same ground. I will eventually get to the remarks made by the member for Welland-Thorold.

When we relate to what is going on in housing in the province, I was proud to report in Vancouver in the last day or two, when speaking to the HUDAC conference, that our renter-buy program has been extremely successful. We had something better than 16,000 units moved because the provincial and federal governments co-operated, along with the industry.

As I said in my press release, they went so far as to put together an advertising program with three bodies, two governments and the private sector. It was never before tried and never before did it succeed, but this program did great things in helping the industry and helping market conditions.

One of the comments made was there was an inventory of units in the marketplace when we brought the program into being. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I, and indeed the industry, were well aware of the units that were in place. The fact is, until those units were moved, the individual developer or contractor was not about to start developing any further units.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) knows very well no one wants to be in the construction business today and be carrying an inventory of completed homes. The carrying cost, strictly from a mortgaging point of view, is far too great. We had an opportunity to try to move that inventory, to try to create employment by the development of new homes, and I think we accomplished it.

I look at Metropolitan Toronto just prior to the conclusion of the year 1982. One of the reasons we extended the move-in date for the renter-buy program was because the people in the foundation-pouring business were beyond their capacity. As a result they could not put the number of foundations in place that would allow the construction industry to complete units and have people occupying them by the end of June.

Realizing the difficulties, and more specifically realizing some of the difficulties even the northern communities would experience to a greater extent than in the Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa areas, we moved the date on to the end of August.

3:40 p.m.

One of the things the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada members were bragging about at the Vancouver national conference was the fact that this program had saved a number of them from a disastrous year in the field of construction. I am pleased the federal and provincial governments have been able to do something that was rewarding not only to industry, but -- and this is probably more important -- to the individual who had the job and the individual who wanted to buy his or her own home. So the program was successful.

I want to mention the Ontario rental construction loan program that we had in the previous year. It also was successful and created a great deal of employment.

Let us look at the overall housing situation. I will separate for the moment the nonprofit, public and private, and the co-op, and speak about the other area in which we as a provincial government have been participating, which is ownership and rental. What does the future hold for it?

There is no doubt there is still a rental shortage in some of our major communities. When I spoke in Vancouver with the minister from Alberta he asked me what our vacancy rate was in the major urban areas of Ontario. I told him our figure was below one per cent. It is interesting that for about 24 months or so, the apartment vacancy rate in Alberta and also in Vancouver was extremely low, just about as low as it is in Toronto. Today they have a vacancy rate in Edmonton and Calgary of about eight per cent.

It is interesting how things change all of a sudden. When I told them we had a one per cent vacancy rate, they said: "My goodness, how lucky you are. We have eight per cent." They are petrified because some of their apartment owners, or investors, are now in a financially disastrous position.

I suppose how green the grass appears depends on where in the field one happens to be standing. While we are not satisfied with the one per cent, if we had an eight per cent vacancy rate in Ontario, realistically, we would be looking at some very difficult if not disastrous economic times for apartment owners. I would, however, like to see the vacancy rate improve somewhat in the metropolitan areas such as Toronto, London, Hamilton and Ottawa, where we have a very low vacancy rate at the moment.

We will continue to work with the federal government to find some kind of co-operative program. I sincerely believe if we are to succeed in answering the problems we have in the field of housing, whether rental accommodation or ownership, it will not be by one government trying to get ahead of the other. The most efficient and effective way of delivering this -- and I think the industry believes this as well -- is through a co-operative program between the federal and provincial governments.

Whether it will be the same program for all provinces, I do not know. Ontario has made it very clear to Mr. LeBlanc, as I did again on Monday night in Vancouver, that we look forward to the opportunity to sit down and make a realistic assessment of the kinds of programs the federal and provincial governments can put together to satisfy the market position in this province.

I doubt if we will hear anything in relationship to a program -- has the member for Etobicoke got pains, or what?

Mr. Philip: Yes. The minister cuts back and expects the federal government to give more and more. That is the only thing that is acceptable to him: to blame everything on the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have not blamed a thing on the federal government. Obviously, the member is not listening. I have said very clearly that I am looking forward to the opportunity to work in a co-operative program with the feds.

Mr. Philip: The minister has reduced his portion.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have not reduced our portion at all. Let me assure this House of that. Let that be known very clearly and distinctly.

Mr. Philip: The minister sure has.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that the member for Etobicoke may be having trouble reading figures.

We have participated with the federal government and will continue to do so. I have asked Mr. LeBlanc to go back to Ottawa with some suggestions that were made, some by other ministers across Canada, to try to find a situation that will bring about more real estate and apartment units in various communities. I have no guarantee from the federal government at this time as to what they are going to introduce, but I am told the federal budget could very well have some encouragement for us. That is about as far as they would go at this point.

I will touch on the matter that seems to be bothering the member for Etobicoke. It relates to the area of nonprofit housing, both public and private, and co-op. That is where it is clearly and distinctly the federal government's responsibility, not only in Ontario but in all provinces. The federal government makes the decision on how many units will be built under those programs in Canada. The allocation is given to the minister reporting for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., who in turn assigns a certain number of that allocation to each of the provinces.

We have, individually and collectively, bargained with Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Cosgrove over the past number of years to increase that allocation, not only to this province but to the whole housing industry in Canada. They have resisted moving the number up. They play with the number. They move it ahead one year and drop it back the next year.

I reminded Mr. LeBlanc Monday night that the agreement we have, not only in Ontario but in the other nine provinces as well, is that the allocation for that type of construction was to be given to the provinces by December 31, 1982. Here we are in the second week of February, and neither I, Ontario nor any of the other provinces have been assigned a definite allocation in relation to the nonprofit, public and private, and co-ops. I cannot tell members when I am going to get that figure but I can assure them we know very well where the number should be assigned once it does come to us.

There are four principal areas in this province that require help under the nonprofit housing, and that is clearly understood by this minister and this ministry. First of all, we know the Metropolitan Toronto area has a very substantial housing requirement, as does the Ottawa- Carleton area and Peel. There is some demand for it in the London and Hamilton areas as well.

Those are the four or five principal areas we have to concentrate on. The Speaker will realize, coming from the community he does, that we cannot assign the whole allocation to those four or five principal areas and ignore the smaller communities that also have a requirement for rent-geared-to-income units.

This ministry will try to assign them as fairly and realistically and logically as possible. I do not have the capacity to try to expand the 2,200 units, or whatever number the feds happen to give to us, into something much larger. I am not about to suggest to the Treasurer that whatever numbers we require over and above the 2,200 assigned, or whatever the figure happens to be from the federal government, Ontario should go it alone. That is far beyond the financial capacity of this province and would set a very bad precedent. The federal government would have the opportunity to bow out of any program in the future if we should ever indicate we are prepared to take on that responsibility 100 per cent. There is no sense kidding ourselves. We do not have the financial capacity to take on 100 per cent of that responsibility.

Let me just go back, if I may, to 1978 when the agreement was signed on the nonprofit, public and private, and co-ops with Mr. Ouellet, who then was the federal minister reporting for CMHC. With the writedown of interest they have in that program from market interest rates of two per cent -- the feds pick up that difference -- they figured it was going to cost them between $100 million and $125 million a year.

In the first year of implementation, because of rising interest rates and other miscalculations by the federal government, it cost them $500 million. Just so we do not lose the whole perspective of that situation, that writedown and interest continues for a 35-year period. It is not sunset tomorrow or the year after. It continues on the maximum sum for a 35-year period, and it has been going on since 1978.

If members start to extrapolate what that means in a national investment program for housing, it is rather substantial. The provincial governments -- this province and others -- are also in the pool for a part of the responsibility of the current operating expenses of those units once they are in the marketplace. That is continuing to rise in Ontario rather substantially as well.

Mr. Laughren: I know, but look at the money the minister is putting into make-work projects that are not doing very much.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member wants to talk about make-work projects, the Ontario rental construction loan program and the Ontario renter-buy program are, indeed, part of the make-work programs. One cannot discount their importance. One can see where the renter-buy program had influence and impact in a multitude of communities across this province, not only in the major areas but right across the province. I supplied each member with a complete list of the areas in which the renter-buy program had an effect.

I have listened to people tell us about our responsibility for public housing and that we have done little or nothing since 1976. I want to correct some of the misunderstandings some people would like to leave in the mind of the public. In 1976, as the taxpayers of this province, we had 71,500 units under Ontario ownership.

3:50 p.m.

At the end of 1982, the figure under our ownership as taxpayers and citizens of Ontario was 84,366. Indeed, through our rent supplement program, the rent-geared-to-income program and the various other programs we have had where we dealt with the private sector in renting some of its units, that figure had gone up to 115,346 units. That is the number we have in this province today under the auspices of the federal and provincial governments, supporting them through the shortfall in financing.

I recognize none of the provinces could do this alone. It requires federal participation. It has done so over the last number of years and without any doubt will continue to do so for the next number of years. We have moved from 1976 when the figure was 87,468 units for ownership, rent-geared-to-income, nonprofits, co-ops and rent supplements in the private sector. On December 1, 1982, that figure was 115,346 units, a rather substantial increase in a period of five or six years.

The other figure we should look at is both the federal and provincial governments in 1976 were covering costs of $219 million in the shortfall. At the end of last year, December 31, the shortfall was $309 million shared on a 50-50 basis with the federal and provincial governments. That is one area in which we will continue to press the federal government for some assistance because we know the responsibility we have and the requirement to provide housing is in the field of nonprofits by municipalities.

I am not aware of the proposal the member for Cornwall speaks of. Obviously it is in the mill and is likely being worked on both from a family and senior citizens' point of view. He is right that they have a maximum unit price they must meet. There must also be an allocation from the federal government to the provincial government that can accommodate it. Finally, they must have the appropriate zoning, planning and so on to accommodate it in their community.

Cornwall is one of the areas I spoke of just a moment ago that has to be considered. We cannot look exclusively at Toronto, Ottawa, London, Windsor, Hamilton and Thunder Bay. There are other communities in this province that require some support in the nonprofit housing program, the same as these other metropolitan areas.

Obviously, there was no minister attending the conference who was not concerned with how we are going to meet the social housing requirement. I reminded Mr. LeBlanc it is fine to say that the maximum is 25,000 units for Canada or 22,000 units for Canada, whatever the figure is he and Mr. Lalonde came up with, but I suggested strongly to him we have a whole different social position today than we had in 1978. I said it was not very rewarding for provinces to hear the federal minister say, "That is the maximum we can provide."

I drew to his attention that we have a welfare problem that is higher than we experienced in 1978. As a result, the need and the pressures in looking for rent supplement units is greater today than it was at that time. The provinces and municipalities alone cannot find the answer. I think it will take a co-operative program to try to bring more into the system.

I made one point to him I would like to raise here today for a moment. The Canada rental supply program was the federal program introduced a year ago for which Mr. Cosgrove, the minister of the day, said he would deliver 10,000 new rental units in Ontario under this program. They did not deliver 10,000 or even much more than a third of that.

I indicated to the minister he should offer some encouragement to the provinces to get back into a program like we had, the Ontario rental construction loan program. I said any units we use in those buildings that we could use under rent supplement should not he taken out of the allocation the province has assigned for its nonprofit and rent supplement units. It should be a bonus because the cost of developing under the Ontario rental construction loan program in 1981 was considerably less per unit to the federal government than under the nonprofit or some of the other schemes that we have in existence. It is one of the areas he has gone back to have a careful look at. He wants to see whether there cannot be some encouragement offered to not only this province but other provinces to initiate their own type of rental construction loan program.

Let me speak to one of the subjects raised by the member for Etobicoke -- I believe it was also raised by the member for Cornwall -- relating to the announcement by the Minister of Transportation and Communications about the new plates for the disabled and its identification.

The member for Cornwall is quite right -- there happens to be some differences of opinion. I am not sure whether in the discussion we have had and will have with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario we will be able to find some common denominator for all municipalities to accept a universal bylaw that will allow for recognition of a disabled plate and sticker, but if the member saw the release issued by the Minister of Transportation and Communications on January 24, 1983, he will see the minister tried to define or refine what he had said previously because there seemed to be some difficulties or some misunderstanding.

It said that "Transportation and Communications Minister James Snow today provided some clarification to a confusing situation arising from the announced availability of new licence plates for the disabled on February 1.

"'While these new plates will provide a means of identification for the vehicles being operated by, or carrying physically disabled persons,' he pointed out, 'they will not automatically entitle these drivers to special parking privileges.'"

Mr. Boudria: They should.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No one is arguing that point. The point he is making is that he has to get some co-operation, as the member for Cornwall has said, from the various municipalities.

"A number of municipalities have bylaws covering these parking privileges and they require a permit which must be prominently displayed when vehicles are using these designated spots.

"'Thus,' Snow noted, 'the plates, to be effective, must be backed up by a permit from the local municipality. The eligibility requirements for these special parking permits are set by the individual municipalities and may vary.

"'As yet,' he continued, 'there are no reciprocal agreements among municipalities which means that permits issued for one area may not be accepted in other municipalities.

"'We are working on this problem,' he concluded, 'and it is sincerely hoped that, in the near future, some agreement can be reached to enable these vehicles to have access to special designated parking spots anywhere in the province.'"

So it is one of the challenges this ministry will have in trying to be the mediator between the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. There again, AMO will also have the responsibility in trying to convince the various municipalities across this province, trying to be the mediator between the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. There again, AMO will also have the responsibility in trying to convince the various municipalities across this province that they should enact a bylaw of a universal type that would accommodate the disabled.

I can only say to members that we will continue to work on it. The spirit of co-operation --

Mr. Swart: We could use a policy statement from your ministry under the Planning Act.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We are not about to get into that. There are certain things the member would say that are responsibilities of municipalities and their freedom to make choices for themselves without them being dictated by Queen's Park.

Mr. Philip: Where is the legislation you said you would bring in?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is a possibility, but I am not committing myself to it at this point. We would like to find some degree of co-operation. That is what the member's party preaches, that the municipality has the right, the autonomy -- that great word "autonomy."

Mr. Philip: One minister is saying you are bringing in a bill and another is saying you aren't. What incompetence. Snow says you are bringing in legislation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, that is not what I said. The member should read Hansard tomorrow so he will understand it.

Mr. Philip: I will get the Hansard and read it into the record.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Good.

4 p.m.

There is one last comment I will make and then I will get into one or two things on the planning situation that one of the members raised. The grant formula to municipalities was raised by one or two of the members in their remarks. Indeed, the grant formula was announced this year with a 4.3 per cent increase. It has had rather wide acceptance in this province.

I compliment the municipalities for realizing, just as well as this government, that there is not an endless supply of money coming from the taxpayers in the economic situation we are experiencing in Ontario, Canada and North America. While we would have liked to have had a higher factor than 4.3, it is not possible.

I accept some of the comments made by various members relating to the grant formula. I said a year ago to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that it would be my desire to try to find a way to make the transfer payments and the formula more understandable to all, including the individual taxpayer.

There is no doubt the six grants we have now and the formula for calculating them could confuse most people, if not all. There are very few people who can follow from A to Z and understand all the things that have been taken into each community's calculation. It is unfair for that type of formula to continue to exist. We should endeavour, in co-operation with AMO, to find some solution to the problem.

We are in the process now of meeting with AMO and its financial committee to review with them a discussion paper that has been drawn together by the ministry. We are trying to extract from them some views, ideas and suggestions as to how we might make the formula or the process of transfer payments better understood and more equitable to all. We want a formula that would give a degree of consistency so that municipalities would have a fair idea from year to year what they could expect in the way of transfers from this government.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I rise to correct the record for the minister. He just indicated the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) did not indicate that changes would be needed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I refer him to page 5277 of Hansard and the November 19 statement by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, where he said, "However, changes are needed in Ontario's municipal acts so that communities also can recognize the provincially issued plates."

If that is not a statement that legislation is needed by that ministry, I do not know what is. I suggest the minister may want to change his remarks and correct himself.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I said that if I had to bring in an amendment, I would do so; I was not about to do it at this time. I said very clearly that I am going to meet with AMO and try to find some understandable position by the municipalities. I do not want to take the attitude: "We will just bring it in. Whether you like it or not, here it is."

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The record will clearly show the minister stated that the Minister of Transportation and Communications did not say that legislation under this minister was needed. I have shown that on November 19 that was precisely what the Minister of Transportation and Communications did say. I cannot be responsible for the fact that one minister who is supposed to be co-operating with another minister does not seem to know what the other is doing. That is their incompetence, not mine. He should withdraw his remark.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my remarks. I said the Minister of Transportation and Communications indicated there would be requirements. I said, "If it has to be it will, but I am not about to bring it in right now." I will do my negotiations and see what I can achieve. If it comes to the point where there has to be legislation, I suppose that is what there will be.

Mr. Philip: It would be nice if you decided on that before introducing the plates.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Minister of Transportation and Communications is saying that there should be universality of the use of the plates by every municipality. That is correct.

Mr. Philip: What are they for otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There are municipalities now, and the member knows it, that have already accepted bylaws and have provisions made. What the member is saying is that if we want to make it universal, it will take an amendment to the act. That is correct.

Mr. Philip: So he introduces his plates without first consulting the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No.

Mr. Philip: Of course; that is why Etobicoke and Scarborough censured him.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Villeneuve): I ask the member for Etobicoke to let the minister speak, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I know exactly what the member for Etobicoke would like us to admit, that we should just come in with compulsory legislation and forget about any discussion because it is not worthy of discussion. I take the other attitude. I will discuss the problem with AMO and try to find some reasonable solution.

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not indicate that. If the minister had been here last night or if he had even read the record correctly, he would have seen that I suggested the boroughs of Etobicoke and Scarborough have expressed resentment that the minister has brought in the plates without first consulting them. I suggested to him that I hoped this minister and the Minister of Transportation and Communications would soon consult with these and other municipalities so that the people who are being played with like footballs -- the disabled -- would not have to wait while one level of government fights with another.

If this minister and the Minister of Transportation and Communications had any kind of consultative process, they would have gone first to the municipalities as well as to the disabled, and we would not have had the kind of mess and confusion we are now experiencing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will not pursue it, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to get us any further; but I suggest that my friend get a copy of the December I letter to the Minister of Transportation and Communications from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as to their position in his correspondence with them.

I will deal in my final remarks with the member from Welland-Thorold, the barnstorming session he had last night and again today, and his comments about a number of things relating to planning and so on.

I am not going to waste a great deal of time on it, but he drags in the Cantrakon Convention Centre. I made a decision on Cantrakon and I stood by it.

Mr. Swart: Yes. You stood with your development friends.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, that is fine. We made a decision on Epping Common, and it is the very member who is now yelling about sending something to the Ontario Municipal Board who was opposed to my sending it back to the OMB. He wanted me to make a decision on it.

Mr. Swart: That has nothing to do with the OMB.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Did I interfere with the member when he was speaking? I paid him the courtesy of not saying a word.

We now deal with Niagara-on-the-Lake and the request for an official plan amendment. I am fully aware of the fact there were long, drawn-out hearings at the time the official plan of that area came forward and that the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society played a rather interesting part, supported by public funds to present their case. I understand and read that the OMB complimented PALS for their rather explicit and detailed presentation. No one was going to take that away from them.

Indeed, I think this government has encouraged and furnished a lot of opportunity for public participation in hearings, whether it be the OMB or in various Niagara Escarpment hearings and so on, and has opened the doors for the public to be heard and to express their views, their concerns and their desires.

But let us not forget that municipalities have councils that are elected, and they have some right to speak on behalf of a very substantial group of people known as taxpayers. Indeed, there is also a regional council, and the member's regional council is a formation where people are elected directly to it.

The issue the member for Welland-Thorold speaks of is one that had acceptance by both the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the regional municipality of Niagara. Indeed, not only did that happen but also, as I said to him in my letter, the letter I sent to Mrs. Gracia Janes of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society clearly indicated --

Mr. Swart: What about the one you never replied to?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is dated December 22, 1982. When the member goes through it, he will see there are seven points I raised in defence of the position I took. Clearly, difference of opinion is what makes the world continue to go around, I hope the member for Welland-Thorold will appreciate.

Mr. Swart: Yes. That's why I wanted to get the OMB to hear both that and other issues.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Good. The letter of December 22, 1982, "Re: Proposed amendment number 37 to the Niagara-on-the-Lake official plan and the corresponding designation in the Niagara region official plan," says:

"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 privileged, based on the following reasons:

"1. The redesignations are supported by the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the regional municipality of Niagara."

Mr. Swart: Nothing ever gets to you unless it is new. That's not new; new bylaws have to be passed in the municipality before they get to you.

The Acting Speaker: Will the member for Welland-Thorold give the minister an opportunity to speak?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would have thought the member with his years of experience would know there are other ways of getting to the minister with a request for an OMB hearing besides through the municipality or the region. He knows that very well. I do not have to explain the whole thing to him.

"2. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food did not object to the redesignation.

"3. The agricultural viability and capability of the site is questionable, since much of the western portion was stripped of topsoil and is currently used for a gravel horse-training track, and the eastern portion apparently has some drainage problems."

Mr. Swart: Much of it is not.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me suggest to the member that if he would just --

Mr. Swart: I know it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not suggesting that I have been down and covered every hectare of the land of which the member speaks, but we have the very competent and capable Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), who happens to come from that jurisdiction. We also have the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), who happens to come from that area. They know very well what the situation happens to be on that 26 hectares.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Balls Falls would not agree with you on that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Is that Balls Falls or bald eagles or where?

Mr. Swart: What a dividing line: a road.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: "(4) The site is isolated from the major areas of the better agriculture in the area to the north and east by Queenston Road residential development and the Six Mile Creek valley.

"(5) The proposal can be seen as the rounding out of the existing industrial area, with Queenston Road and the Six Mile Creek providing a buffer to adjacent agricultural areas.

"(6) The area is one of a few in the region established for prestige industrial purposes with excellent accessibility and visibility from Queen Elizabeth Way.

"(7) The site represents a reduction in the size of the earlier expansion proposed as part of the original secondary plan in official plan amendment number 32."

We spent a great deal of time when the request came forward and we reviewed it with a number of people. I say this in sincerity to the member. It says here about the owner, and I gather this is from today's news release:

"Swart said the majority of the land is owned by Fred Goring, reeve of Niagara township for several years and the Lord Mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake from the time the town was created in 1969 to 1972. Goring also ran for the federal Progressive Conservative nomination for Lincoln riding in 1968."

It goes on to try to say that Goring owns the land. I did not go to the registry office to check it out, but I did speak to some people in the area of municipal responsibility down there and my understanding is that Mr. Goring is not the single owner of the land. The land is owned by Mr. Goring and other people.

I would not know Mr. Goring from a bale of hay, and I would not have known his political background other than what I read here, which was that when the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised the question last night, he said Mr. Goring was a Tory. I see it here in the Hansard of last night.

Mr. Haggerty: He is a good man, though.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He might be a good man. I suggest that Mr. Goring and his fellow land owners in that area, along with the municipality and the region, agree that because of the conditions of the present land, which does not have the capability of growing plums or prunes or anything else, because it is a cinder track for racing and the topsoil has been taken off --

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I read into the record a letter from Mr. Gillespie which says, of course, it is good land for growing plums --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Swart: It needed correction anyway.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is not a point of order; it is a point. The member put his point that Mr. Gillespie had a report. At this point I am not sure whether Mr. Gillespie's report specifically deals with only the 26 hectares of land or whether it deals with something in a much more vast and general way. It likely deals with something in a much more general way for which we accept the fact that the land down there -- not just 26 hectares, but a very substantial portion of land down there -- obviously does have a very high capability to produce the tender fruits that are required in this province and in this country.

Mr. Swart: That report refers only to that parcel.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would find it difficult other than talking about atmospheric conditions and so when there is no topsoil --

Mr. Swart: We are talking about the OMB.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The topsoil has been taken off. It is now a cinder training track and it is pretty difficult to think that even hay or straw could be grown on it, let alone anything else that comes from the byproduct of wheat.

I want to make it very clear that I made this decision. It is my responsibility, as the minister reporting for the Planning Act. Let me correct the member for Welland-Thorold. I am not compelled to send it to the Ontario Municipal Board. There are certain things that say the minister can under certain conditions make a final decision.

It might be shocking to the member to know that anybody in a ministerial capacity has the right to make a final decision and that it should not go through another group of hoops to keep some lawyers who would like to continue to proceed through the various court systems on the payroll --

Mr. Treleaven: Be careful.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If I hurt the legal profession, I am sorry, but we continue to produce enough legislation to give them a full-time pension plan.

We made the decision very carefully and completely and, I believe, on the advice of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr. Swart: Name the precedents where it has been done before.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member for Welland-Thorold. He wants to be very specific. He wants to zero in on an association I might have taken this attitude towards. We do not take it as a blanket situation. There are municipalities that I have said were frivolous. We have other groups that we have said are frivolous. But not --

The Acting Speaker: Ignore the dialogue back and forth. The member for Welland-Thorold has made his presentation, and now the minister is concluding his wrap-up.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He thinks he is back at the estimates committee downstairs where there is an opportunity to banter back and forth.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the minister not to be provocative.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I appreciate your requirement to get things carried on as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. I still have a few minutes, and I will not try to use them all.

The decision made, I believe, is the right decision.

Mr. Stokes: This is a concurrence debate. They are trying to reach a consensus.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) can get a consensus from the member for Welland-Thorold on any issue, he will be doing an outstanding job on behalf of his leader.

Mr. Stokes: I have done that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With difficulty.

The Acting Speaker: Speaking to the concurrence.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The decision I have made is one that I believe is right. It is on behalf of the municipality, the region, the land owners, on the advice of people in the political system in this Legislature and others and, indeed, on the advice of my own chief planner, my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Farrow, whom I think has a tremendous amount of respect from people on all sides of this House.

Mr. Swart: Oho.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Welland-Thorold might say, "Oho." Let me tell him, there are a number of people in his party who have a great respect for Mr. Farrow's ability to understand, interpret and help them out in what the Planning Act means in relation to things. They take his advice on most, if not all, occasions.

When it does not suit the member for Welland-Thorold he is great at throwing a few daggers. I will take Mr. Farrow's advice over that of the member for Welland-Thorold any day in relation to planning and a great number of other issues I have to deal with. I give him that advice today.

Let me conclude, because I think the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked me a question on the issue of land stripping.

Mr. Swart: Name the cases.

Mr. Laughren: Topsoil stripping.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct -- good topsoil stripping.

I am not aware of the difficulty he spoke of in the region of Sudbury. If the member has some correspondence or some background material, I will be pleased to look at it. I have not had expressed to me, before today, that the legislation the member has indicated does not have the teeth -- a municipal bylaw with the backup of the legislation -- to be carried forward into a court of law. If the member wants to submit that information to me, I will be glad to have our people review it and see exactly how his legal counsel came to that conclusion.

I suppose one would have to look and see exactly what it is the municipality wants to do and to what extent. Not knowing that, of course, it is difficult to try to give a personal or positive decision on that site. I invite the member to send to me whatever information he has. I will be glad to have Mr. Farrow and others do a further investigation to see how we can, if necessary, strengthen the legislation. It is my desire, as well as the member's, to prevent the stripping of topsoil on some of the best agricultural lands across Ontario.

Just to make the member for Welland-Thorold feel a little more comfortable, if that is possible -- I am not sure it ever is possible the way he keeps jumping out of his seat; I am afraid it must be a hard seat -- the fact is, if we had had the stripping legislation some years ago, the problem we are facing with the 26 hectares might not have come into being.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, before moving the final resolution, if I can have your indulgence to raise --

The Acting Speaker: No. I am sorry; the resolution has now been passed. Is this a point of order? What is the member's point?

Mr. Lupusella: I stood up before the resolution was passed.

The Acting Speaker: No. I did not see the member standing when I called for the question. What is the member's point?

Mr. Lupusella: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I am asking if this is a point of order.

Mr. Lupusella: No.

The Acting Speaker: Then I am not allowing the member to have the floor. That debate is finished. Concurrence for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been completed.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, concurrence in supply having been moved, I am happy to be able to address the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) about some of our concerns from this side of the House which have arisen both from the estimates, which were concluded not too long ago, and from issues of the moment.

The Solicitor General will appreciate that the points on which I intend to dialogue with him are in no particular order of priority or importance.

4:20 p.m.

The first item is something of a rather parochial nature. However, I am comforted by the advice of the Premier (Mr. Davis) that one need not fear being too parochial. It concerns the recent study of which the Solicitor General will no doubt be aware, the $400,000 Hickling-Johnston study of policing in the Metro area.

We in the westerly part of North York, the area the press commonly refer to as Jane and Finch but which we consider to be North York west, the up-and-coming metropolis, feel somewhat hurt and concerned that the butt-end of this study may have been directed to our area.

Among its many recommendations for policing in Metro, the study makes a recommendation for a more visible and more aggressive type of policing by allowing the police to stop and search, to demand identification and to demand the reasons for anyone's presence at any point and at any time. The first manifestations were seen some time prior to Christmas, when a long police witchhunt took place with a view to busting an alleged drug ring in our area. The activities consisted of seizure and search techniques directed primarily, though not exclusively, to the black and South American youth in our area.

We have very deep concerns that this may become the pattern for urban high-density area policing for the future. I urge the Solicitor General -- although he will recognize, as I do, that this is a matter primarily concerning the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police -- as the chief law enforcement officer of the province, to indicate in no uncertain terms to the authorities in the Metro police force that one cannot begin to condone or to support in the remotest way this possible direction in policing. I raise this simply because I see it as 1984 techniques a year prematurely, and I see it at my front door and at our front step. Certainly I see it as a discouraging trend in policing.

The second area I wish to raise with the Solicitor General came about as a result of certain trials in the Hamilton area, of which the Solicitor General will be aware. It is the old, hoary issue of organized crime and the kind of policing and intelligence techniques that have been developed. The Solicitor General indicated in the estimates that he was in the forefront of the intelligence gathering network whereby criminals, be they members of the Mafia or any other group, are well-known to the police enforcement agencies.

He went to great lengths to describe the workings of this network between the Ontario Provincial Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Metro police and the type of intelligence gathering abilities that have now been developed.

We then turned to the recent trial in Hamilton, where we saw a noted defence lawyer, Mr. Greenspan, indicating that to introduce such evidence at trial consists of innuendo and smear. He went so far as to say our police force has no more than a Coles notebook on organized crime. When prosecutors attempt to get a higher sentence based on a palpably demonstrated linkage to organized crime, the whole concept of a higher penalty is likely to be rejected.

If we have come such a long way in our evidence gathering procedures, if our lists are as accurate as the expenditures indicate they should be, and if we have become so sophisticated in the tracking and pursuit of organized crime, I suggest to the Solicitor General that a procedure ought to be implemented with the judiciary to deal with situations where an accused person before a court stands accused, in addition to the crimes, of some form of participation in an organized crime syndicate. In such cases there ought to be a procedure whereby the known evidence is brought forward and placed in evidence before the court. Of course, the accused ought to be given the widest latitude to disprove those allegations if he can. There are few times they can do so.

We would then develop a concept which to me seems eminently sensible. The common criminal would receive one treatment for a crime; however, a criminal who draws upon a linkage to a more sophisticated form of crime network would receive a justifiably higher sentence so we can wipe out this scourge which is increasingly plaguing Ontario society.

Before we can get to that stage and mete out a stiffer sentence for individuals who are accused of being and found to be participants in organized crime, I suggest a great deal more work has to be done by the office of the Solicitor General, the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the judiciary so the method of presenting this evidence and the ability for rebuttal will be formalized and so we ultimately achieve punishment that fits the crime and the nature of the criminal.

I want to move on to another question of some moment to this House; that is, the entire issue of police investigations. What is their function? How are they initiated? What are they intended to achieve?

I must criticize the Solicitor General in this area. We have seen time and time again where the Attorney General or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) calls for a police investigation after much prompting. The question that readily comes to mind is, where is the Solicitor General in these trying and important matters of great moment? Is he not the one who should foresee the need and initiate the investigation? Should he not have it ready when the issue hits the front pages of our press?

The trust companies are an example. Only after much prompting and a direct question to the Solicitor General did we have some indication that some nebulous investigation was going on. We all knew the matter of the trust companies had been evolving for some months. One would have thought the police investigation would have been equally evolving and equally ahead of the splash of the newsprint. However, we found there was a minor reference, a minor admission that there was an inquiry going on, but really no positive initiative and leadership or indication by the Solicitor General that he was really ahead of the issue.

4:30 p.m.

We look at the arson that took place in the office of one of the mortgage brokers connected with the trust company fiasco, Mr. Hollend, and we find that even though the matter took place under the most suspicious of circumstances, where records linked to Greymac Credit, to Kilderkin and to the various mortgage financing schemes disappeared in a convenient fire, nowhere do we see leadership and aggressive initiative by the Solicitor General to be in the forefront, to investigate and bring the potential criminals to justice.

So we see a disturbing pattern evolving where police investigations are begun reluctantly, after much pressure from the opposition parties, often at the request of ministries that almost seem to ask the Solicitor General to step in, albeit belatedly, unwillingly and in a very defensive manner, so as to draw heat away from those ministers or ministries.

We see that investigations, instead of being the fact-finding instruments they are intended to be, are becoming a kind of parallel to the main thrust of debate. We see them becoming more in the nature of a sweetheart arrangement whereby the legitimate heat of the opposition in this Legislature is suddenly smothered by the fact there is an investigation going on. At that point we are all supposed to reverently entrust our futures and our fate and the fate of many important things in this province to the hands of the Solicitor General, who in the fullness of time will report the findings of his investigation.

I am saying quite simply that on things like the Hospital for Sick Children, the Proverbs matter, the trust companies' affairs and the arson investigation in this mortgage broker's office we are not seeing the kind of investigative police work this province deserves and that, once again, the budget so amply would lead one to expect.

I do not wish to labour the point except to say I hope that as the Solicitor General gets through his introduction to his ministry -- I think they called it the introduction by fire when the initial derailment took place near his riding -- as he becomes more comfortable, he will seize upon the opportunity to really initiate and conduct investigations that are meaningful and effective.

My next item concerns the entire question of the office of the public complaints commissioner. We have seen that the Solicitor General has seen fit to take a kind of back-seat approach on this issue as well, leaving perhaps the glamour and the desirable abilities for press notice to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

I point out to him the report of the office of the public complaints commissioner indicates that during the initial phase of this new program, well over 95 per cent of the complaints filed were in fact filed in some form of police office and that only about four per cent were filed in the public complaints commissioner's office.

It seems to me, therefore, given this preponderance of preference for reform, it is very much a police issue, it is very much an issue where the Solicitor General ought to have a more direct and daily involvement. So perhaps the office of the public complaints commissioner ought to come more and more under his aegis and the procedures that have been adopted by the public complaints commissioner should be standardized and made a little more accessible.

We have seen in one particular investigation, the one concerning the party in the house in Scarborough where many complaints were laid, a proceeding that was intended to be a summary, fact-finding proceeding dragging on and on with various counsel and transcripts and almost court-like trends developing. This is disturbing when we consider that the entire process was intended to be a speedy process, an informal process and, above all, a resolution promoting process.

We do not wish to draw parallels, but it seems to me there is a preference in this government for creating procedural barriers. We have seen in the proposed course of conduct of the recent Thom commission, which is not connected with the present Solicitor General -- I draw it only as a parallel -- a predilection for setting up procedural roadblocks, for requiring the argument to be filed in quadruplicate, the counsel to be present, the witnesses to be introduced and sworn in, very much a Supreme Court of Ontario manner. It seems to me we are falling into that kind of trap even in the conduct of the affairs of the office of the public complaints commissioner.

Those are some of the issues that concern us and that we enjoyed having the opportunity to raise with the Solicitor General in our continuing dialogue in between estimates. On a personal note, I might add that aside from the obvious differences in matters of interpretation and of policy, the office of the Solicitor General in all other contexts has demonstrated itself to be very open and very supportive of our efforts in our constituency function and in our critic function, and I look forward to that continued relationship.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a number of points, not at any great length, but particularly to highlight two or three matters that are of immense concern to me.

Let me start by referring to an exchange of correspondence my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who is suffering from a broken leg as the minister probably knows, had with the minister with respect to the disproportionate costing methods of the police function in the municipalities in the area served by that member in Algoma. My colleague wrote on October 12, 1982, and the minister responded on October 29.

I would simply like the minister to advise the House when we can expect some kind of report from the interministerial committee that has been reviewing all aspects of the organization and funding of policing in Ontario and is currently developing "alternative courses of action," the words the minister used in response to the member for Algoma. I think it is important that whatever that review is, the process be such that even interim reports from time to time be made to the assembly, because the cost of policing in the province is a matter that has to be dealt with by this assembly in an overall way to make certain it is fair and adequate.

The minister was good enough, as I said, to respond to my colleague, but left basically unanswered the major points my colleague raised, although the minister did express his personal views and discussed what the work of the interministerial committee was supposed to accomplish.

The next matter I would like to ask the minister about is the agreement with the government of Canada, the government of Ontario and the duly recognized Indian associations of Ontario -- namely Grand Council Treaty 3, Grand Council Treaty 9, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians and the Union of Ontario Indians -- which expires on March 31, 1983.

4:40 p.m.

The reason I raise it at this time is that I would be most anxious to receive a copy of the comprehensive review of the Indian council program and the operation of the Indian Commission of Ontario, which was foreshadowed in section 27 of that agreement and which requires that such a comprehensive review be completed before the expiration of the agreement. Perhaps the minister could make a succinct or laconic remark on both those items when he has an opportunity to respond later on this afternoon.

The third matter I want to raise is one on which he and I have exchanged correspondence. It concerns the appearance in Toronto of the Guardian Angels, they having already appeared in Windsor. He has provided me with some information about this organization and he knows the concern which I have.

In this instance, I share the views of such disparate characters as former alderman Allan Sparrow and Mayor Eggleton of the city of Toronto that there is really no place for that kind of organization, whatever one may say about it being merely a collection of people with special training who exercise only the powers of something called "civilian arrest." I much prefer, although I do not pretend for a moment to have thought out all of the aspects or implications of it, the work of what are called the civvy street blues, the auxiliary force of the Metropolitan Toronto police.

It is most unwise for us to have the Guardian Angels here. I would like the minister, either now or by correspondence, to share his further concerns about this matter. I would like the specific answer to the simple question, where does their money come from? I always think that is a key question when one is talking about this kind of organization. I would be interested to know what is the motivation which suggests that something called "a nonprofit organization" can be set up and engage in this kind of activity. Where do the resources come that sustain it, given that insofar as the information I have available -- much of which came to me from the Solicitor General -- indicates they now operate in close to 50 cities in the United States?

The immediate matter I want to raise with the minister is that of a police pursuit which occurred in my riding on August 16, 1981. Apart from endeavouring to get a copy of the report of that police chase, which I could not get until the charges had been disposed of in the court, I have not been able to raise it with the Solicitor General.

Following up the matter after the person was convicted and sentenced in court, I again wrote to the Metropolitan Toronto police and asked for the report. I did not get the report but I got something called "a synoptic statement," which creates immense unease in my mind about police pursuits and the way in which they operate.

The latest directive I have on the subject of police pursuit driving is dated February 23, 1982. It is more appropriate that I raise this in the estimates, but I want to put on record the letter I got from the Metropolitan Toronto police commission on December 13, 1982, with respect to that chase. Perhaps putting the response on the record will raise questions in the minds of anybody who may pay attention to it, if he understands the geography of the inner city of Toronto and what occurred. That is all I will do, simply put the information from the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police on the record.

There is a reference at the beginning to the disposition of the offences, which were finally disposed of in the Supreme Court of Ontario. I have no problem with the disposition by the courts of the charges laid or with the punishment meted out in the case. That is not my concern. It says:

"The circumstances surrounding this arrest and convictions are as follows. On Sunday, August 16, 1981, at about 4 a.m., David Fanning stole a 1976 Chrysler from the parking lot at Number 51 police station, 30 Regent Street, and at about 4:07 a.m. that morning was involved in a collision with another vehicle in the intersection of Gerrard Street and Carlaw Avenue. One of the occupants died as a result of injuries. The other survived.

"The stolen vehicle had been observed by a marked police vehicle just two minutes before the fatal accident. It was westbound on Carlton Street without lights and turned south on Jarvis Street, disobeying the red traffic signal. At Gerrard Street, it proceeded through a red traffic light, turned left and proceeded east on Gerrard Street. The vehicle continued east in the westbound passing lane and the police vehicle's red roof light was activated in anticipation of bringing the vehicle to a stop.

"The vehicle continued through a red traffic signal at Sherbourne Street at about 40 kilometres per hour and then accelerated to 70 kilometres per hour. Keeping pace at a safe distance, the police officer called for assistance and, just east of Broadview Avenue, two police vehicles proceeded in attempts to restrict the stolen vehicle's further progress by boxing it in. The stolen vehicle rammed the lead police vehicle causing it to swerve and, in order to avoid further risk of injury, the police vehicle stopped.

"As they approached Carlaw Avenue, the police officer observed the traffic signal was red and that a vehicle was stopped at the intersection. Travelling at 70 to 80 kilometres per hour, the stolen vehicle moved into the curb lane, passed the stopped vehicle and struck a southbound vehicle. David Fanning's injuries were of a minor nature. I trust this information will be of assistance to you."

Some of the reasons I raise it are obvious. What was the motivation that led to the police pursuing that vehicle -- the particulars of which they must have known since it was taken from the parking lot at the police station in Regent Park -- when they must have understood that by the use of police radio service, at some point that vehicle could have been intercepted at a later time rather than provoking a police chase which resulted in such a tragic accident?

If the information is correct, it states that two minutes elapsed from the time the police began the pursuit until the fatal accident took place.

This again raises serious problems. If the minister would be good enough to read the guidelines with respect to police pursuits, the information contained in that letter, and get for himself the actual police report -- which for reasons unknown to me, I could not have: I could have only that synoptic letter -- and study the matter, I would appreciate in due course his specific comments about it.

If the process is that the driver in the police car is subject to the monitoring of any police chase by the dispatcher, and on top of that there is a supervisor who monitors that chase, it seems to me this was one which should have been called off.

4:50 p.m.

I know stealing an automobile is a serious offence; that is not a problem for me. I believe the driver of the vehicle could have been apprehended if he had not been placed in a situation where that police pursuit took place. It is always a problem being able to deal with these matters only at such a distance from the event because of the intervening criminal charges which are laid, but to me it is as if it occurred yesterday from the point of view of the concern I continue to have about that matter.

I have two, three or four miscellaneous points and then a matter which is of major concern to me. I would appreciate it if the Solicitor General would advise us when the private investigators and security guards legislation is going to come to the assembly.

There are the press reports and the work done by the United Steelworkers of America about the whole question of the role of security guards, let alone the societal implications of an immense growth in the whole security guard industry, more so perhaps than the private investigator branch of the business which provides a high degree of security for those who are not subject to the kinds of depredations other parts of society suffer which do not have the benefit of high-security arrangements.

Some of the information which has come out before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in these matters related to the strike in which the United Steelworkers have been involved merits his close and serious consideration. He has been good enough to communicate to me and, I am sure, to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that the bill will be proceeded with, but I would like to know what timetable he has for that bill.

I am also looking forward to an early processing through the Legislature of the emergency plans legislation which is on the Order Paper but has not been reached. Both aspects, those two bills, to my mind would have and should have a high priority in the next session of this parliament.

There is little I can say about the public complaints commissioner in the city of Toronto. He is, by nature and otherwise, an unbelievably slow man in the way he processes his work. We are going to have to wait a little while to find out whether the administrative trip-ups he will be faced with will prevent him from carrying out his function. I have a significant feeling it is not going to be long before he is completely swamped in the intricacies of trying to move along the so-called complaints system for which he is responsible. I give him the benefit of the doubt. It is too early to tell from the one report I have whether that is so or not.

I would like the Solicitor General to know that my caucus, by arrangement with him, observed the use of the police holster by officers from the Ontario Provincial Police. I can say in complete unanimity our caucus was in full support of the new holster for the police. Once that demonstration had been shown to our whole caucus and to the staff of the caucus who were present at the time, there was not a dissent that it was a necessary and important improvement in police equipment.

Our basic concern is that perhaps the Solicitor General is being too polite in indicating it is to be instituted in the province on a more or less optional basis by police forces. That is my understanding of the arrangements now made. Whether the minister goes, as he can, to the full stage of promulgating a regulation under the Police Act with respect to that equipment to make it obligatory over a period of time, and naturally with respect to the availability of the holsters, or however he goes about it, I would urge him to move as quickly as possible to some mandatory requirement on all police forces in the province to use them.

I cannot believe members of the public, if they had the opportunity to see that display by those two officers, would not come to the same conclusion the members of our caucus and our staff reached as a result of the exhibition we saw. I would like to have the minister's comments about that matter.

Another matter I want to ask him about again, and I am not asking for an answer today, concerns the completion of the Attorney General's (Mr. McMurtry) fiasco with respect to the prosecution of the found-ins in the bathhouse raids that took place in the early part of 1981. The estimates of the Attorney General will show, in the figures that resulted from those prosecutions, the very high number of acquittals or discharges where the case was not proceeded with. He refused to take my suggestion that he exercise, as he did in the Francis Fox case, his prosecutorial discretion about proceeding. He would not do that, but put the public generally to the expense of all those cases.

Now that it is over, will the Solicitor General review the original bathhouse raids, about which the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and a large representation of the elected and other members of the community were concerned? Now that the charges have been dealt with, will that matter be reviewed in a public forum to determine the extent and use of the Metropolitan Toronto police on that occasion, from both the point of view of the integrity of the police force and of the integrity of the community the police force serves?

I think it is essential that the matter not be lost sight of simply because it is now over two years since the event occurred. The answer has been that the police investigations were taking place and until those matters were dealt with the adequacy and the appropriateness of the response of the police to the situation in which they were placed could not be questioned.

I am asking that an objective and careful review be made. I trust a public inquiry of short duration into that question will be carried out as promptly as possible. I do not want anyone in the Metropolitan Toronto area, unless it is established objectively and publicly that the police response was the appropriate one, to let it go along on the basis that somehow or other we could be faced again with that kind of massive use of the police force in Metropolitan Toronto.

I move to the last matter that is of basic concern to me, if I could just check my notes on the matter I want to raise. I would like to congratulate the minister on the fortunate choice that was made with respect to the deputy he now has. I expressed my views about the former deputy who is now the deputy to the Provincial Secretary for Justice. I believe the appointment of Mr. Roderick McLeod to that post was very wise.

5 p.m.

I had some comments yesterday in the concurrence in supply of the Attorney General indicating the felicity of the appointment, along with the necessary division which I believe should take place in the roles with respect to police investigations. These were of concern to the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) as coming under the Solicitor General and being removed from the office of the Attorney General, because there had been a confusion of roles. It was partly brought about because the same minister held the two portfolios, but structurally.

I trust the minister will take the trouble to look at the remarks I made in those concurrences because I would like to follow it up at the point, DV, when we enter upon a discussion of the minister's estimates in the next Parliament.

The last matter that I want to raise with the minister is the extreme concern which I have about the processes of the police with respect to the investigations being carried out by the police as a result of the bombing which took place at the Litton Systems plant.

I need not say that I totally object to, and have no interest in, those who use force, for whatever purpose, in this society at this time -- no matter how well motivated or whatever their commitment may be or their particular goals. I do not want any misunderstanding about that matter. Perhaps the minister would respond to these concerns, if there is sufficient time this afternoon.

I raised a question in the assembly on January 21 and of course I have had no answer to it. It went to the House leader in the absence of other appropriate ministers at the time. This question referred to the events on January 20:

"My question relates to the arrest yesterday in the vicinity of Squamish, British Columbia, of five persons in connection with the Litton Systems Canada Ltd. bombing incident. As this matter involves the integrity of the investigation by the Metropolitan Toronto Police as well as the integrity of the peace movement and the nuclear disarmament movement, will the minister ask the appropriate minister, be he the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, to report to this House on Monday on the following question?

"Is there any evidentiary connection in the police investigation between the detention of Mr. Ivan LeCouvie on December 7, the search under warrant of the World Emergency office in Peterborough on December 8, the search under warrant of the Cruise Missile Conversion Project on December 14, the additional searches under warrant on December 15 of the home of Mr. Kenneth Hancock on Dewson Street, of the offices of the Alliance for Non-Violent Action at 730 Bathurst Street and, on the same day, of the homes of Rosemary Cooke and Tom Joyce at 38 Langley Avenue in Toronto, and other circumstances surrounding that investigation?"

The government House leader at that time said he would pass the question on to the appropriate minister. I know that the minister is aware of it.

I, of course, was led to ask that question because of the quite incorrect headline which appeared in the Globe and Mail on that morning, when the newspaper reported that five were charged in BC over the Litton bombing. That false report -- I should not say "false" because that carries the implication it was intentional -- that careless report led me to ask the question.

My understanding is that at this point no charges have been laid against anybody for the Litton raid. That is precisely the concern I now want to express to the minister because I am speaking about the integrity of the peace movement and the integrity of the Metropolitan Toronto police. I was quite disturbed at some of the comments that were quoted in the press as having been made by officers of the Metropolitan Toronto police force.

Apart from the incorrect headline in the Globe and Mail story on the first day that this was a matter of public knowledge, "Sergeant John Pateman of Metro Toronto police said in an interview last night that Staff Sergeant Alan Clark and Sergeant William DeConky, two of the Metro officers involved in the investigation of the Litton bombing, were in Vancouver as part of the arrest team." That also appears to have been somewhat of an overstatement about the involvement of those officers. I understand they did not take any part in the actual arrest process at all.

It then states, "Sergeant Pateman said he had no idea whether those arrested had any connection with the various peace groups in Ontario whose offices had been raided by the investigators amid protests from the groups." I thought Sergeant Pateman made a very proper, cautious, reserved statement when faced with the kind of question he was faced with.

On January 22, however, another story appeared in the Globe and Mail, "Police Plan to Arrest Others Over Litton, BC Bombings," and these are the quotations that give me very real concern about the investigation. They certainly raise questions in my mind about the discretion of the officers who, if they were reported correctly, were involved in these quotations.

"Metro Toronto police say more arrests and charges are coming as a result of evidence gathered in a massive police operation which led to charges against five Vancouver area residents involving a widespread campaign of sabotage.

"'There is no doubt that some or all of those charged will be charged on the bombing -- ' of Litton Systems Canada Ltd's plant in Rexdale, Ontario, on October 14, ' -- and there is no doubt that some persons residing in Ontario will be charged in connection with Litton, said Staff Superintendent Jack Webster of the Metro Toronto police in an interview yesterday."

I think that is a very inappropriate remark for a police officer to be making. Certainly if we were to ask the Solicitor General in this House about a police investigation, he would not make that kind of statement. And if he, in charge of the police in his portfolio as Solicitor General of the province, would not make that kind of remark then I think it is important that other police officers across the province understand the limitations imposed on them.

It then goes on to say, "Staff Superintendent Webster said Toronto police had no part in the arrest, but the two leaders of the 30-member Toronto police squad assembled to track down the Litton bombers were in British Columbia to pool information with police on the west coast." I thought that was a wonderful expression. I would like to see how much they pooled with the officers out there. ''They're there to evaluate the information that comes out," he said, adding they would present the evidence to crown attorneys who would decide who would be charged with what.

"He said he could not say when charges over Litton would be laid because 'so much material was seized and it will have to be gone over minutely.'" Then quoting further on: "Staff Superintendent Webster said Toronto police have talked to scores of people in the Litton investigation, including many involved in the peace movement."

"One Toronto police source said yesterday" -- and this apparently is a different one -- "he stood by an earlier statement that police got what they wanted from raiding the offices of groups such as the Cruise Missile Conversion Project, which has conducted non-violent civil disobedience at the Litton plant. 'We learned a lot. We could have used a little more but whatever we got was fruitful.'"

5:10 p.m.

I think the remarks of those police officers -- I do not include Sergeant John Pateman in this -- are totally inappropriate and irresponsible in the significant investigation in which they are involved when one understands the worldwide concern expressed in the peace movement. The minister can understand the damage that will be done to the peace movement if the police officers investigating the bombing of the Litton plant do not exercise the restraint they should be exercising.

Whatever the minister's views may be about the worldwide concern regarding nuclear dissemination or the testing of cruise missiles in Canada, he cannot deny the police have no right to cast aspersions on the peace movement. If one reads any press anywhere, if one follows the election going on in the West German republic, one can understand the immense unease in all the countries of western Europe -- let alone, I assume, the member countries of the Soviet bloc and even the concern expressed by people in Canada. The police have no right of any kind, no matter what the investigation, to cast reflection upon the integrity of the non-violent, antinuclear peace movement.

I do not pretend to know what the police know. I have no special knowledge but I wanted to express that aspect of my concern.

Mr. Metusiak, the crown attorney in the Etobicoke area, was being consulted by the police with respect to search warrants. I understand Mr. Metusiak is no longer the crown attorney being consulted by the police with respect to this investigation. I would like the minister to confirm that and to advise the House who is the crown attorney now advising the police with respect to the ongoing and continuing police investigation. If it is possible for him to tell me any more about the investigation, I would like the minister to say when he anticipates it will be concluded.

I have a funny hunch from my reading of the press and what little communication I have had with any of the people who have been involved in the matter -- and I could be proved wrong tomorrow -- that the police have been conducting a step-by-step fishing expedition into the anti-nuclear or peace movement in Toronto in the hope of turning something up. I say that with the greatest of concern and discretion in my remarks.

A colleague of mine in research took the opportunity to go down and look at the search warrants. As the minister will recall, there was some question whether they were going to be made public or whether they were going to move to have them sealed. However, they were available. We were not able to make copies of them but I have the basic and fundamental information contained in those search warrants.

The first was with respect to 262 Rubidge Street in Peterborough, the office of World Emergency, Peterborough. The second was identical with respect to 264 Rubidge Street. They were obviously side-by-side addresses and they needed two warrants to enter the two offices. Both were served on December 8, the day following the detention of Mr. Ivan LeCouvie in Peterborough and his transportation to Toronto for questioning.

The search warrant of December 8 states, "Ivan LeCouvie is a principal member of the group which claimed responsibility for the bombing." That is an extremely serious statement that is being made. "In March of this year, LeCouvie ran non-violent Direct Action workshops in Peterborough sponsored by World Emergency, Peterborough. As a result of subsequent investigations, it has been learned that the originals of Communiqué as issued by Direct Action are at this address."

It then went on in the body to say that what they wanted was, "typewriters, typewriter balls and ribbons, photocopy equipment, Letraset transfers, documents and writings in each instance;" and in one or two of the other ones later on in my comments, added the additional specification, "fluorescent spray paint and minutes of meetings of sundry organizations."

Those are very important statements that are made there. There is no indication of who the informant was. The six warrants to which I am referring were issued by Etobicoke Justice of the Peace Boris Kashouba on the basis of information submitted by Metropolitan Toronto Police Sergeant David Luke. After those particular warrants were executed on December 13, further warrants were issued two days later and steps were taken. I wonder just why it is that this step-by-step process is going on by way of search warrant as a substitute for the kind of police investigation that I would have assumed would have been taking place.

On December 13, the warrant for the search of the office of Cruise Missile Conversion Project at 730 Bathurst Street says, "Information has been received from a reliable source that the Cruise Missile Conversion Project office at 730 Bathurst Street has documents and membership lists pertaining to Direct Action." That was one of the warrants which was amended to provide for fluorescent spray paint and minutes of Direct Action and Cruise Missile Conversion Project meetings.

Two days later, on December 15, the warrant for 730 Bathurst Street reads as follows with respect to the office of Alliance for Non-Violent Action:

"It has been learned by the informant that the Alliance for Non-Violent Action office is run by Kenneth Hancock, who is a member of Direct Action. This information was obtained at the office of the Cruise Missile Conversion Project at 730 Bathurst Street. The informant is also in possession of documents that link Kenneth Hancock to Direct Action and a group called the Alliance for Non-Violent Action. The informant has information from two independent reliable sources that documents and writings relating to Direct Action and the Cruise Missile Conversion Project are in the building."

Also on December 15, the warrants were issued for 20 Dewson Street and 38 Langley Avenue, to which I have referred. The information and warrant for 20 Dewson Street was identical to the one to which I have referred for 730 Bathurst Street, the office of Alliance for Non-Violent Action. The warrant served December 15 for 38 Langley Avenue, the home of persons unknown, Thomas Joyce and Rosemary Cooke is as follows:

"Thomas Joyce, Rosemary Cooke and other persons are listed as members of Direct Action. This information was obtained at the offices of the Cruise Missile Conversion Project. Documents and writings relating to Direct Action and the Cruise Missile Conversion Project are in the premises at 38 Langley Avenue."

Then, in the standard form of the search warrant, all of that is to provide the justice of the peace with a basis of reasonable probable grounds for believing that certain things would be found on the premises. It then goes on, "which are being sought as evidence in respect to the commission, suspected commission or intended commission of an offence against the Criminal Code, namely, seeking materials in connection with the possession of explosives, with the intention of causing bodily harm or property damage, contrary to section 79 of the Criminal Code."

5:20 p.m.

My second point in connection with that recitation is to raise with the Solicitor General my very serious concerns as to whether or not this is a fishing expedition. It has not culminated at this point in anything. If I were sitting as a justice of the peace, I believe I would have serious reservations about issuing search warrants with respect to these premises on the basis of the information available, so far as these warrants are concerned.

I have no record of what else was said, but what else was said is not the governing matter. What is important in the issue of the search warrant is the basis of the information which is placed before the justice of the peace and is inscribed in the warrant. That is the purpose of it, and with very rare exceptions it has to be a public document.

I repeat: I want some assurance, at the earliest possible moment, that the police investigation is not substituting a fishing expedition based on little or no information other than the names of organizations that are well known as being an integral part of the peace movement in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The immediate result in the perception of the public is to say that those people who demonstrated in large numbers at the Litton plant on November 11 are somehow or other discredited because of what is an association with an ongoing police investigation with respect to the bombing at Litton, which everybody I know of in the peace movement deplores, resents and objects to just as much as I do.

Those are serious concerns. I hope I have raised them in a way to which the minister can respond.

I very rarely make a comment about the media. I was once told if I wanted to reply to a newspaper, I should buy myself a newspaper. Instead of that, I came into this assembly so I could make my comments there.

I am a little bit concerned with the alacrity with which the connection has been made that the arrests out in British Columbia are related to the Litton bombings. This has created anticipation in the minds of the public, both by the media and by the Metropolitan Toronto police, that somehow or other they were just waiting to lay the charges with respect to the Litton bombings and that obviously there were going to be people in Ontario involved in it.

That casual connection bothers me very much. That is why, when I put my original question to the Solicitor General, I spoke about the integrity of the Metropolitan Toronto police investigation as well as the integrity of the peace movement in the nuclear disarmament movement.

I do not know what else the minister can tell us, but I wanted to express my very serious concerns on two or three of those matters. I deliberately did not raise it with the Attorney General yesterday, because it is a police investigation matter and because, if my understanding is correct, Mr. Matusiak, who made some irresponsible remarks earlier in connection with the so-called Red connection, or the Moscow connection, or whatever the remarks were, is no longer advising the police and will not be engaged in the prosecutions that will take place of those who were arrested for obstructing the police, or whatever the charges were, at the November 11 demonstration. The two are quite separate and distinct.

I trust that the Solicitor General not only will answer my remarks but also in his role as Solicitor General -- and his word carries a thousand times more weight than anything I can say about my concerns -- will indicate some sense of agreeing with or sharing at least some portions of my concerns about the way in which it has come through to the public that these investigations are being carried on.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this concurrence debate with the Solicitor General. I want to say in the beginning that I rather like the Solicitor General as a person. He and I have travelled on committees in the past. I think we went to Quebec City together and to various other areas. We generally converse en français, which I am sure you will be glad to hear, Mr. Speaker.

The minister who is responsible for part of this province that has such towns as Penetanguishene in it is polishing up his French. I am really pleased to see that, and I hope I can continue speaking to him in French as often as I can, recognizing that now he is so very busy with his new position he may not have as much time for those ordinary mortal things we used to do at one time.

Having said that, I want to raise a few issues with the minister. The first one is his statement of this afternoon, his reply to a previously asked question. There are a few things in the statement that really have to be questioned. But before I do that I want to draw to the minister's attention that he made some remarks to the press outside the Legislature, and I just went up to the press gallery and listened to them. The minister stated to the press that the investigation into the rape case was not continued because he had determined the girl was pregnant before the alleged date of the rape.

I listened to his remarks over and over again to ensure that this was in fact what he had said. Further in the interview the minister toned those remarks down somewhat; nevertheless, at least in my view, they were stated exactly that way in the initial part of the interview he had just outside the Legislature.

There are a few things that concern me greatly in this whole case. First, we have a situation where this young lady was pregnant and she states that she was sexually assaulted, that she was raped. She then obtains an abortion without the consent of the children's aid society, although she had obtained all the legal consents with respect to therapeutic abortion committees and so forth.

The children's aid society was visibly upset with this person. I guess it would be clear to everyone that the children's aid was not happy. After all, they are the guardians of this child, they were not listened to and for this reason they were upset. The children's aid society had in their possession. as most parents do, confidential information about this child, and some of that information could have been used to damage the reputation of this child. I think it is fair to say that.

Mr. Stokes: You have already said that.

Mr. Boudria: He is making me lose my train of thought.

5:30 p.m.

The interesting thing in all this is the information that could have been damaging to that person -- and I am referring to a birth control pill prescription of a year ago -- was somehow obtained by the press. I will not say it was given deliberately. I will only say that somehow it was obtained by the press. Furthermore, a police officer of the same small-town detachment that was investigating the alleged rape commented to the press, at or approximately the same time, that any 15-year-old who is pregnant will claim rape.

Subsequent to that, we now find the investigation has concluded there were no reasonable and probable grounds to continue with the rape investigation. I would like to know, as would many members, why there are not sufficient grounds. Could it be there are not sufficient grounds because the investigation was not done thoroughly enough? Could it be that one of the reasons this investigation was not done thoroughly enough was that it was prejudiced from the start because of the leaked information and the potentially damaging statement made by the police officer of the same detachment?

I recognize it is not the same police officer who was attached to the case, but the minister, coming from small-town Ontario, will recognize we are not talking about a Metropolitan Toronto type of police force. It would be unacceptable in Metropolitan Toronto to have that kind of statement, but in a small town like Lancaster, where every police officer knows every other police officer and where they probably have lunch together every day, in that type of a format those statements could have been far more damaging than in another area.

I would like to know from the minister whether he intends in this case to have another extramural type of investigation: first, to ensure that he is certain there are no grounds to continue investigating the matter of this alleged rape; and second, to investigate the conduct of that police officer. It is important to do those things. If they are not done, there will always be a cloud hanging over this case.

It would be fair to say, regardless of what one thinks of the issue of abortion and so forth, that this case has been a mess from the start. It seems there has been one error after another, one statement after another, one leak after a statement that should not have been made -- all potentially damaging to the child and the parents.

When one remembers all those things were done, one has to scratch one's head when reading some of the minister's statements. For instance: "I think anyone commenting on a matter such as this must exercise great care to ensure that the interests of the girl and her family are properly protected." Was that same great care ensured by the statements made by that police officer? Was that same great care exercised at all times by everyone concerned to ensure that confidential information did not escape from wherever? That question really begs for an answer.

I know some of this does not relate to the minister. A good part of it pertains to the police. Some of it still remains to be answered by the minister's colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

I do not want to speak any longer on this topic. I hope the minister will take a few minutes to elaborate a little further, especially in view of the comments I have listened to on a tape upstairs in the press gallery. I hope he takes a few minutes to elaborate on that.

I want to speak briefly about the report on wife battering prepared by the standing committee on social development. That was an excellent report. Members of all parties participated in a nonpartisan way. The results of the report are excellent, notwithstanding some of the comments made by the Minister of Community and Social Services. His comments are not shared by many other people in this House, to say the least.

There are a few parts of the report that are of concern. One of them has to do with the recommendation that police lay charges in all cases where they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an assault has taken place.

I know we have not yet discussed this report in the Legislature, but some of the recommendations made are so basic that I hope the Solicitor General will not have to wait for that process to occur before implementing these very reasonable suggestions, which include the recommendation that all instances of wife battering be recorded. I wonder whether any of those procedures have been started. If so, I would like to know exactly what has been done.

Recommendation 12 is of special interest to me. It says, in part, "Police recruits and veteran officers should receive more extensive formal training at the Ontario Police College on the nature and extent of wife battering."

I brought this to the attention of the Solicitor General in this House not long after the report was released, and I quoted from the family crisis intervention portion of the Ontario Police College manual, which states that wife assault forms part of the no criminal order maintenance duties, thus illustrating the whole philosophy that wife battering is not necessarily a crime. That is a view our committee does not share. As a matter of fact, it is stated in our report and on the cover of our report: "Wife battering is an intolerable act of criminal violence. Government and society must respond to this serious social problem by changing attitudes so that wife battering is no longer condoned."

Just changing some of the expressions used in the training that is done at the Ontario Police College could go a long way towards achieving that end. It would go a long way towards emphasizing that wife battering is indeed very serious and that police officers should give it all the attention it deserves.

I am not saying this particularly to blame police officers for doing a sloppy job -- that is not what I am trying to state here -- but police officers work according to the directives they are given. The manual does not tell them they have a right to lay charges in all cases where they have reasonable and probable grounds. They are not told wife battering does not form part of noncriminal order maintenance duties. As a matter of fact, they are told it is part of noncriminal order maintenance duty. When that kind of philosophy is explained to the police officers, it is evident that is the kind of work one will get in the end; that should be obvious.

In any case, I would like to hear from the minister as to just what kind of progress has been made in that area. I hope he can give us some news on this topic during his response.

I want to talk a little about a constituency problem I have. It will only take a few moments. It is a problem with the telephone service at the OPP detachment in Rockland.

First of all, I should say that the detachment commander, Sergeant Noble Needham, is very co-operative and well liked in the community. I think he does quite a good job for the OPP Rockland detachment. I want to go on record as stating that, because I believe the man is highly qualified.

The question I want to raise now with the Solicitor General -- as soon as we can get his attention back -- is the issue of telephone service at that detachment. The Ontario Provincial Police at Rockland serves the townships of Cumberland and Clarence and the town of Rockland. The detachment is open only in the daytime. At night it is shut down, and people are supposed to know they are supposed to phone the detachment in Ottawa, mainly because if they phone the detachment in Rockland it will ring forever and nobody will answer. There is not even a recorded telephone message that tells one: "This detachment is closed for the night, folks. Please phone somewhere else."

5:40 p.m.

So if people have an emergency and phone the police at two o'clock in the morning and the police do not answer, they get upset. It is a very dangerous and intolerable situation. I have raised it with the Solicitor General in the past, asking if that service could be improved by providing a direct line between Rockland and the Bells Corners OPP detachment. He stated that Rockland had two telephone lines and to have those two lines plugged in to Ottawa would cost $350 a month per line, or $700 per month.

I recognize that perhaps this is expensive and maybe they just cannot afford it right now. However, I have a telephone answering machine in my constituency office and it costs $12.50 per month. It says, "I am sorry, there is no one here at this time." I am sure the minister could connect one of those to the Rockland number.

I know it says in the phone book, "At night please phone Zenith 50000." I know we are always supposed to think of everything when we are in a crisis, but sometimes the harsh reality is that when something very serious happens or somebody has just been robbed or something like that, we do tend to forget one or two things. When we forget that the detachment is closed at night and the telephone number of the OPP detachment at Rockland is pasted on the telephone, sometimes we may make the mortal mistake of phoning that number. It would be very nice just to hear at the other end: "I am sorry, the detachment is closed. Please dial Zenith 50000." It would be nice if that message were bilingual as well, so everybody could understand it.

I am just offering this suggestion again. I have written to the minister time after time on the subject. I am sure that less effort was made to put a man on the moon than to install a telephone answering machine at the OPP detachment in Rockland. People from Cumberland township, people from the town of Rockland and people from all over the place have written on this issue of telephone answering at the OPP detachment at Rockland, and I hope the minister will take it upon himself to settle this unacceptable situation. Rockland is only a few miles from Ottawa. It is an area where one would think we would have better service than that.

I am not asking the minister for 24-hour policing in Rockland. We would like to have that, of course, but even I recognize that if the minister cannot do that now he could at least put something in to answer the phone. It is 50 cents a day. Maybe we could even start up a collection in Rockland and get 50 people to donate one cent each and every day and give the 50 cents to the minister. Then he could rent the machine to answer the phone. Seriously, I hope the minister settles this.

Moments ago I was discussing the report on wife battering and there is a section in it I had not referred to. This is a very short paragraph, and I will read it very briefly:

"Unilingual francophone victims are frequently confronted with linguistic barriers when seeking assistance. These barriers were described to the committee by francophone witnesses from northern and eastern Ontario. In the Kapuskasing-Hearst region, for instance, 70 per cent of the population is francophone, yet the committee learned that the only counselling for battered women in Hearst was provided by a male social worker who didn't speak French. Several doctors in the region cannot communicate in French."

Here is the important part: "We heard evidence that in the Prescott-Russell area, where 50 per cent of the residents are francophones, there are police officers who speak only English."

I wrote a letter to the minister on August 24 on this topic, bringing to his attention that we had just completed the standing committee on social development hearings on the issue of wife battering. I explained to him in the letter that was identified as being a particular problem.

In my first few months in office, I had complained about that to his predecessor, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who was occupying both positions at that time. I reiterated my concern to the minister, informing him that not only did we have a shortage of bilingual officers in our area, but we were at a point where bilingual management personnel of the OPP at Rockland were being removed and sent to northern Ontario. I am all for northern Ontario getting bilingual personnel, but do not steal them from us, folks. We want them too.

The minister sent me back a letter recognizing some officers had been transferred to northern Ontario, saying:

"Contrairement aux vues exprimées par la délégation des femmes auxquelles vous faites allusion, la majorité des citoyens francophones de votre circonscription est satisfaite de la qualité et des services fournis par la Sûreté provinciale de l'Ontario."

In other words, it was saying, "Contrary to your report, contrary to your witnesses, contrary to you, I am of the opinion the people in your area are satisfied with the number of bilingual OPP officers." Everybody is wrong except the minister. L'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario is wrong and so is everybody else who has ever discussed this topic and called for bilingual OPP officers.

Whereas many services offered to the francophones are nice to have, I would say this service and health services are not just nice to have, they are essential for some residents of this province.

It may come as a great shock to some members here, although it should not, that there are thousands of people in my riding who do not speak a word of English. I do not think they have to if they do not want to. If they do not choose to learn English, I respect that choice. I think the Solicitor General and all others should as well. Some of them have even been here prior to the Constitutional Act of 1791.

There have been francophones in this province, as the minister knows, even in his own riding who have been here since Sainte Marie des Hurons in the 1600s. He knows francophones have been in this province for a long time and will be here for a long time yet.

Having said that, I am sure the members will recall that in addressing the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) in his estimates I talked about my new plan for honouring cabinet ministers who did not provide good enough service to francophones. To the minister who did the worst job for the francophone population, I was going to give a trophy called l'Ordre de la grenouille. I was inspired in this, of course, by Senator William Proxmire, who has the Golden Fleece Award. He gives it to the American government department that does the best job of wasting money or something like that.

I thought it would be appropriate if I were to offer it to the cabinet member responsible for a specific department that shows the least interest in improving services for francophones. I could offer it on a yearly basis. It is a beautiful trophy. It is shaped like a great, big frog. Being a francophone, I can say that and nobody can get upset. I thought this would be an appropriate trophy.

I discussed with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that one of the potential candidates for l'Ordre de la grenouille could possibly be the Solicitor General, pertaining to the service of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Needless to say, on January 28, the Solicitor General wrote me a letter again. He said, "As I have not had the opportunity to respond to the question you raised in the Legislature" -- he had written to me about it before, on September 30; maybe he did not remember -- "I am writing this brief review of the OPP's current position on recruiting bilingual officers.

"The Ontario Provincial Police has 384 bilingual members. Many of them are concentrated in the officially designated French areas of the province." That sounds logical so far. "Though financial constraints have prevented us from being able to completely meet our target numbers of bilingual officers in some areas, we have actually surpassed our objectives in the majority of the regions."

5:50 p.m.

I wonder if the Solicitor General could tell us what were those objectives and where he has not met them. I know we will not be able to conclude this today, so perhaps he could find that information for me.

Further, it says, "You made a particular point of the need for the OPP to place local advertisements to attract French-speaking recruits. However, as the force has already on hand a huge backlog of applications, further advertising at this time would not be realistic." In other words, the minister is telling me he is not going to place advertising to try to augment his bilingual personnel because he already has a lot of people who want to be police officers. He does not recognize that he has to augment the number of bilingual officers versus others. At least, that is what it suggests to me.

"Indeed, such an invitation could foster disappointment among people who respond to it." In other words, if I advertise for bilingual officers, everybody who is not bilingual will be upset. That is what it says to me. "During 1982, the OPP processed over 3,600 written job inquiries. From these, 2,600 actual applications were received and 211 recruits were hired. A check of the most recent 500 applications shows 49 applications by bilingual people." Those are applications, nobody says he has hired them; 49 out of 500 who applied were bilingual. Perhaps none of them is even qualified but 49 of them applied. That illustrates he does not have to have better advertising. That is not the personnel he has, these are applications from bilingual people who may not necessarily be qualified.

There were 21 from Long Sault, eight from Sudbury, four from North Bay, four from Burlington and 12 from the rest of Ontario. The 21 from Long Sault are to cover Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) will recognize, and Prescott-Russell. To cover those five areas, 21 bilingual people applied. Perhaps not one of them qualified, and the minister is of the opinion that he is doing everything he can in this area.

The minister said, "Each year bilingual applicants form 10 per cent of all applications received." He should recognize he needs more. Ten per cent of applicants having that one single criterion is just not good enough in my view. I would encourage the minister to change some of his policies and try to improve that very serious area, not only in Prescott-Russell but in all other parts of Ontario, especially northern Ontario, where there is a serious requirement for bilingual police officers.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to raise two issues, both of which have been touched upon. I appreciate the member for Prescott-Russell raising the question of family violence. It will be interesting to hear the minister's reply on that.

The two areas I would like to make a couple of comments on are, first, on the minister's response today to a question from the member for Prescott-Russell in terms of the children's aid society in Cornwall and the alleged rape incident of the 15-year-old girl and the subsequent abortion, and second, on the matter which was raised by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) in terms of the role of the police and the peace movement. I will try to be as subdued and as reasonable as he was, but quite frankly I am outraged by the role of the police in Ontario in discrediting the peace movement in this province.

First, if I can deal with the Cornwall children's aid matter, I found the minister's answer, when I listened to it being given without a copy of it in hand, a little confusing and that is why I raise the question as to which doctor the minister is referring to as being the doctor who alleged there had been a rape. I tried to make it clear to the minister in private afterwards that in my view there are two family doctors involved. Dr. Chong was involved in November, and Dr. Scott has been involved since then.

This question may seem a little bizarre to others in the House, the statement in paragraph 3 that she was pregnant as a result -- this being on October 30, at the time the police arrived on the scene of the foster parents' home. I would like to know if she knew she was pregnant at that point, and how she knew. Would the minister confirm when she had her first meeting with Dr. Chong in terms of elaborating the possible pregnancy? I recall reading one story that indicated she was not seen to be pregnant after the first test was made. I wonder if the minister could give us the date of that test. The statement that she knew on October 30 confused me quite a bit.

I am very concerned about the way this whole matter has been dealt with, especially by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and his notion of what an investigation is, in contrast to what is warranted by the issues raised in this case. Also, the Solicitor General seems to have accepted with ease the position that "there was no proper basis on which to lay a charge of rape" -- I quote from paragraph 4 -- as indicated by the police at that time.

Has the minister received the information on which the police based their decision, which the minister feels he cannot make public to us in the House? If it is a matter of conflicting testimony, I want to know more about the people who were at that party. It says, "Members of her family and others who attended the party were also interviewed by the police." Were all of them interviewed? Who are the people who were there?

If this girl alleged rape and there is not seen to be sufficient evidence "to justify seeking the advice of the local crown attorney," as the minister says at the bottom of page 1, surely that is mischievous at best and deserves to be dealt with.

If that was the case, why does the minister indicate at the bottom of page 2 that Detective Sergeant Latham did consult with the local crown? First, the minister says there is not even sufficient evidence to justify seeking the advice of the local crown and then, on page 2, he says he has consulted with the crown and they are both satisfied that the original investigation resulted in the appropriate conclusion. I am presuming, therefore, that the initial police investigators did not consult the crown and that the investigating sergeant did.

I find it bizarre, in the light of all the public attention given to this matter, that we are working on such limited and conflicting information. I find it very strange that we can get this kind of report to the House on such a serious concern. This is a 15-year-old who alleges she was raped and who uses that as one of the reasons she wants an abortion.

Abortion moves into another jurisdiction, and the children's aid society decides, in pretty peculiar circumstances, that it does not wish to allow her to have an abortion.

The Solicitor General was called into this, after the story had broken, to investigate the allegation of rape. All we get from him today is an assertion that as far as he is concerned there was not sufficient reason for them to follow up on this. There is no clarification of the situation at all.

Somebody has to investigate this in a meaningful way. Somebody must look at this in terms of a major third-party investigation; not just sending letters and memos and making phone calls from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, not just accepting the report of the --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. Perhaps this might be an appropriate moment for the honourable member to move adjournment of the debate.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And not just in terms of an internal report that says there is information we should not have. We need to know the reasons why there was doubt. We have had enough information to indicate there are so many extenuating circumstances in this that I am not sure I am really ready to take the word of the officers that this case is as clear-cut as they seem to have seen it.

I would like the minister to respond more fully than he has in his remarks to the member for Prescott-Russell.

On motion by Mr. R. F. Johnston, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns, perhaps I could indicate the business for tomorrow.

We have already agreed that we will not have a private members' afternoon. Tomorrow afternoon, we will wind up the budget debate with the remaining three speakers and the vote some time around 5:30 p.m or 5:45 p.m.

In the evening, we will continue with these concurrences, finishing the concurrence for the Solicitor General and then, as on the Order Paper, Health, Citizenship and Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and Industry and Trade. Then at some point the supply bill will be put.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

9 février 1983